University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

(USC Thesis Other)

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT:

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP FOR LATINO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

by

Ashley Benjamin

________________________________________________________________________

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 2011

Copyright 2011 Ashley Benjamin

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my colleagues who collaborated with me on this project:
Shannon Powers and Eric Medrano. The three of us were co-authors for Chapter Three:
Methodology, Chapter 4: Findings, Chapter 5: Proposed Literature Based Solutions, and
Chapter 6: Proposed Solutions Executive Summary. Chapter I: Introduction, and Chapter
Two: Literature Review, were written independently.
I would also like to thank my committee chairs who helped to support and guide
me through this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 13

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 35

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER FIVE: PROPOSED LITERATURE BASED SOLUTIONS .................... 74

CHAPTER SIX: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................. 104

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 113
APPENDIX A: SCANNING INTERVIEW ................................................................. 128

APPENDIX B: ONE MONTH INTERVIEW .............................................................. 129

APPENDIX C: INNOVATION CONFIGURATION CHART................................... 130

APPENDIX D: STAGES OF CONCERN INTERVIEW ............................................ 134

APPENDIX E: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................... 135

APPENDIX F: SOLUTIONS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ............................. 144

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Project Timeline ............................................................................................... 46

Table 2: English Language Development Publishers ................................................... 92

Table 3: Supplementary Instructional Materials for English Learners ........................ 92

v

ABSTRACT

An Alternative Capstone Project: Closing the Achievement Gap for Latino
English Language Learners in Elementary School is a collaborative project between three
USC dissertation students and a local school district. A local school district identified a
problem, the Latino ELL achievement gap, and the three person team used the gap
analysis framework to determine knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational root
causes of the problem. The team then used research-based literature to identify possible
solutions.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
Latinos in Education
Latinos are currently the largest minority group in the United States and the
fastest growing segment of its school-age population (Gandara, 2010). The Latino public
school population nearly doubled between 1987 and 2007, increasing from 11% to 21%
of all U.S. students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009b). The U.S. Census
predicts that by 2021, one of four U.S. students will be Latino. In states such as Texas
and California, the Latino school-age population is already approaching one-half of all
students (Gandara, 2010).
Some general background information about the nation‟s Latino student
population is that Latino students often lack access to preschool, more so than any other
racial or ethnic group (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009a). Berliner (2009)
also describes how young Latino children are twice as likely to be more poor than White
students; at least one-third of Latino families lack health insurance, rarely see a doctor,
dentist, or optometrist, and go to school hungry. This means that Latino students may
come to school unprepared and with various health problems that could affect their
learning. Latino students also often have parents who speak little English, and have low
educational attainment and resources. For example, Gandara (2010) states that more than
40% of Latina mothers have not graduated from High School compared to 6% of White
mothers, and 10% graduate from college compared to one-third of White mothers.

2

ELLs in Education
The English Language Learner (ELL) population is another group that has
drastically grown over the last several decades. The ELL population has grown from two
to five million since 1990, a 150% increase during a period when the overall school
population had increased by only 20%. The states with the highest growth rates between
1993-94 and 2003-04 are South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Indiana;
each saw an increase in the ELL population of at least 400% (Goldenberg, 2006).
Another way of describing this dramatic increase in ELLs is that in 1990, one in twenty
public school students in grades K-12 was an English Language Learner, while today the
figure is one in nine; demographers estimate that in twenty years it might be one in four
(Goldenberg, 2008). California has one of the largest concentrations of ELLs in the
nation, 1.6 million, most of whom are of Latino descent (Artiles, Rueda, Higareda, &
Salazer, 2005).
Some general background about this subgroup is that most English Learners
enroll in kindergarten or Grade one. Some students speak only a non-English language
while others have been exposed to English as well as the home language since birth.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, one in nine public school students in K-
12 come from a home where a language other than English is spoken. In 1990 the figure
was only one in twenty. By 2025, it will be one in four (Goldenberg, 2006). About 85%
of all English Learners in California speak Spanish, while 88% of ELLs in the nation
speak Spanish (Gold, 2006; Goldenberg, 2008). It is often the case that younger siblings

3

develop some proficiency in English before they enter school, due to the influences of
older children, television and other media (Gold, 2006).
Most ELL K-12 students were born in the United States. Among elementary age
ELLs, 76% were born in the U.S., and among middle and high school students 56 % were
born in this country. However, about 80% of ELL's parents were born outside of the
United States. Spanish speakers in the U.S. tend to come from lower economic and
educational backgrounds than either the general population or other immigrants and
language minority populations. For example, nearly 24 % of immigrants from Mexico
and Central America are below the poverty level, compared to 9%-14% of immigrants
from other regions of the world. Fewer than 40% of immigrants from Mexico and
Central America have the equivalent of a high school diploma, in contrast to 80%-90% of
other immigrants, and 87.5% of U.S.-born residents. Consequently, “most ELLs are at
risk for poor school outcomes not only because of language, but also because of
socioeconomic factors” (Goldenberg, 2008, p. 10).
In regards to instruction, about 60% of ELLs are in all-English instruction classes.
About 12% of ELLs receive no services or support at all related to their limited English
proficiency. The next 50% of all ELLs receive all-English instruction, but with some
amount of “LEP services.” “LEP services” can include aides or resource teachers
assigned specifically for ELLs, instruction in English as a second language (ESL), and/or
content instruction specially designed for students with limited English proficiency. The
remaining 40% of ELLs are in programs that make some use of their home language in a
variety of ways (Goldenberg, 2008).

4

The Latino ELL and White Achievement Gap
Researchers agree that there is a gap between Latino and White student
achievement. On average, Latino students are roughly two to three years of learning
behind White students of the same age in both test score achievement and graduation
attainment (McKinsey & Company, 2009). Gandara (2010) supports this when he says,
“from their first day of kindergarten to their last day of school, Latinos, on average,
perform far below most of their peers” (p. 24). 43% of Latinos score Below Basic on
state tests, while only 17% of whites score Below Basic, and this gap exists in every state
and is more pronounced in most large urban school districts (McKinsey & Company,
2009). Only one-half as many Latino children as White children fall into the highest
quartile of math and reading skills at the beginning of kindergarten, and more than twice
as many fall into the lowest quartile (Karoly et al., 1998). Also, over the past 30 years
there has been little growth in Latino students college graduation rates (Gandara, 2010).
It is also important to note that while independent racial and income gaps exist, African
American and Latino students underperform White students at each income level
(McKinsey & Company, 2009).
Similarly the ELL subgroup, like the Latino subgroup, consistently underperforms
in comparison to their English speaking peers on state and national tests (Goldenberg,
2006). On the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report, fourth-
grade ELLs scored 36 points below non-ELLs in reading and 25 points below non-ELLs
in math. The gaps among eighth-graders were even larger, 42 points in reading and 37
points in math. These gaps are so large that the gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs are 3

5

to 18 points larger than the gaps between students who are and are not eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (Goldenberg, 2008).
NCLB
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the educational context in which this
gap takes place. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act with overwhelming congressional support (Spellings, 2007). The
No Child Left Behind Act extended what many states had begun in the 1980s after A
Nation at Risk was published and revealed America‟s educational shortcomings. Control
of public schools shifted from local communities to the state and federal levels as NCLB
introduced standardized testing and accountability as a means to hold teachers
accountable for student learning.
The goal of NCLB is to ensure that all students reach academic proficiency in
language arts and mathematics (grades 2-12), and science (grades 5-12) by the year 2014.
With the accountability of NCLB, schools and districts need to provide the necessary
resources, support, and opportunities for all students to reach proficiency (Spellings,
2007). Every school year, schools must not only assess students, they must make public
the aggregated test scores. There are two indicators of performance for schools,
Academic Performance Indicator (API) scores in California, and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) scores. The Academic Performance Index (API) is a measurement of
academic performance and progress of individual schools in California and is calculated
annually by the California Department of Education, primarily based on California
Standards Test (CST) and California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) tests

6

(California Department of Education, 2007). API scores range from 200 to 1000. AYP
scores look at specific groups of students delineated by socio-economics, limited English
proficiency, race and ethnic group, and disability (Abedi, 2004). The test scores for each
group are then compared to the state's testing requirements to determine whether the
group is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). If any one group fails to make AYP,
the entire school is designated as failing. Schools that fail to make AYP face significant
sanctions (California Department of Education, 2007). In an effort to improve student
achievement, there has been an increased focus on standardized measures of assessment,
improved curriculum instruction, hiring highly qualified teachers, and related reform
efforts.
NCLB has had a positive impact on Latinos and ELLs in education in some ways.
For example, it has mandated accountability and therefore caused educators to be held
more responsible for all of their students‟ achievement. No longer can certain students be
left behind or ignored, as NCLB has shined a light on how many students, like Latino
ELLs are failing. This recognition of different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic group
achievement has become particularly evident because of the NCLB requirement that
schools disaggregate their data by subgroup. By using data to identify schools strengths
and weaknesses, and by holding schools and teachers accountable for student
achievement, many more students are potentially getting a better opportunity to learn.
However, NCLB does have various negative aspects for Latino ELLs. For
instance, many people argue that NCLB has resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum, as
the pressure on teachers and schools to achieve high test scores causes instruction to be

7

focused on test preparation. Similarly, due to NCLB‟s emphasis on math and reading
achievement, and the fact that those are the only subjects being tested and which affect a
school‟s API/AYP scores (and the resulting potential sanctions and incentives), math and
reading have become the focus and priority of instruction, leaving many other subjects at
the wayside. Miller (2007) states that, “these measures can no longer reflect just basic
skills and memorization…rather, they must reflect critical thinking skills and the ability
to apply knowledge to new and challenging contexts; these are the skills that today‟s
students will need to meet the complex demands of the American economy and society in
a globalized world” (p. 5). Also, NCLB promotes the teaching of “bubble kids,” students
who are close to reaching the next level, since they are the ones whose test scores matter.
As Rothstein (2007) describes, “explicit school policies now demand that teachers ignore
already-proficient children to focus only on bubble kids…and the law guarantees that
more disadvantaged children will be left further behind” (p. 3). In order to resolve this
issue, researchers feel that NCLB should move from an aggregate student performance
model, to an individual student growth model in order to hold schools accountable. The
current whole-school AYP model states that all students must reach “proficient” status by
2014, and this may be unachievable and unrealistic.
Statement of the Problem
The Latino achievement gap is a prominent and current issue in the United States.
As the student population in America becomes increasingly racially and ethnically
diverse, it is important that all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, race,

8

ethnicity, or background, are successfully educated if the nation is to create and establish
a society of equality and not discrimination.
Also, it is important to successfully educate all students because it will help better
the economy. Students who are educated have higher paying jobs and more likely to
become productive members of society (Hess & Rotherham, 2007). Hanushek &
Lindseth (2009) support this when they describe how “quality of education, as generally
measured by test scores, is strongly related to individual earnings, productivity, and
economic growth” (p. 13). McKinsey and Company (2009) also state, “the persistence of
these educational achievement gaps imposes on the United States the economic
equivalent of a permanent national recession” (p. 5).
Also, in a time of globalization, the nation needs to be economically competitive
as a country. If America is to participate in the integration of national economies into the
international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, and the
spread of technology, then students need to be effectively educated, particularly in
science and mathematics. Yet the TIMSS study indicates that students struggle in these
areas, and our country is ranked far below that of other countries (Gonzalez, 2009).
This achievement gap is a problem for school districts in the U.S. for several
reasons. First, if districts don‟t improve their Latino students‟ achievement and ensure
that all their students reach proficiency on the California Standards Test (CST) by 2014,
they are at risk for various NCLB consequences. These consequences include but are not
limited to takeover of schools and removal of school and district leaders. Also, students
at schools with low API scores are permitted to transfer to other schools with higher test

9

scores. This is a problem for many schools because when their students transfer, the
declining enrollment means a loss in funds from the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of
students. In a time of budget crisis, ADA funds are crucial in maintaining services and
resources for students.
Also, if the achievement gap is not closed, the students are put at-risk of various
future struggles. McKinsey and Company (2009) describe some of these possible
consequences when they say, “avoidable shortfalls in academic achievement impose
heavy and often tragic consequences, via lower earnings, poorer health, and higher rates
of incarceration…for many students lagging achievement evidenced as early as fourth
grade appears to be a powerful predictor of rates of high school and college graduation,
as well as lifetime earnings” (p. 5).
The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is one school district that is
striving to increase student achievement. Despite the current challenges presented by the
federal and state budget cuts, many of GUSD schools have been successfully raising
student test scores. Currently GUSD has a district API of 830, with 23 out of their 31
schools designated as California Distinguished Schools (Glendale Unified School
District, 2009). One reason for this district‟s success has been the result of their
successful implementation and use of the reform Focus on Results.
Despite GUSD‟s many strengths and successes, they continue to struggle with
closing the Latino Achievement gap. Currently, 57% of their Hispanic students are not
reaching grade-level proficiency in Language Arts, while 61% are not proficient in Math

10

(Glendale, 2009). GUSD has named this problem as being one of their top concerns and
has labeled it an urgent issue to target their resources and energy.
The Importance of the Project
This project is important because it has the potential to benefit the participating
school district. For example, this project will identify possible root causes of the Latino
achievement gap and potential effective solutions; the district could utilize these findings
to improve their student achievement. As a result, increased test scores will raise the
district‟s API and AYP so that they are no longer at risk of NCLB consequences and can
maintain their ADA funding. Also, the findings of this project may allow school district
leaders to more effectively target spending and resources to close the achievement gap,
which is crucial during this budget crisis. Overall, this project has the potential to help
the district achieve their mission to more effectively meet the needs of their Latino ELLs
and could help the district to raise student achievement.
This project may also benefit other similar urban school districts. With many
school districts struggling to close the Latino ELL achievement gap, districts may be able
to analyze the findings in this project and compare them to their own district, and modify
the possible solutions to meet their school district‟s needs. Also, the school districts
could benefit from learning about the Gap Analysis framework since they could conduct
a gap analysis to identify root causes and possible solutions to a problem in their own
schools. Lastly, this project could help other districts learn about the gap analysis
model‟s strengths and weaknesses, and how the gap model is helpful or needs
improvement.

11

Also, the elementary schools in the participating school district could benefit from
this project. School sites could reflect upon the findings presented in this project, and
apply some of the school-site focused suggested solutions. This could help to raise
student achievement, test scores, and school API/AYP scores. The school site educators
and leaders could also benefit from gaining knowledge about the gap analysis framework,
since they could use it to identify other root causes of problems and possible solutions.
Teachers at the school sites could also directly benefit from this project. Teachers
could utilize some of the suggested effective instructional practices and strategies to
improve their classroom instruction. This would not only benefit students learning, but
may increase teacher motivation and self-esteem.
In addition, students themselves could benefit from this project. If the suggested
solutions in this project are implemented, students may receive improved instruction that
meets their needs. Thus students could learn more, be more motivated to learn, have
higher self-esteem, and be more academically successful. The implemented strategies
could also have many future benefits for students like helping them get into and be more
prepared for college, or to get a higher paying job in the future.
Lastly, parents could similarly benefit from this project. Parents would get to feel
more confident in the education provided to their children and feel happy that their
children are more motivated and successful in school. Parents could also feel relief and
security that their children are more likely to be successful in the future.

12

Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to use the gap analysis framework to assist a local
school district in solving their presented problem: the Latino ELL vs. White student
achievement gap in elementary schools. Specifically, the group used the gap analysis
model to identify possible organizational, motivation, and knowledge/skill root causes of
the Latino ELL achievement gap in the district. The group then used research-based
literature to identify and suggest possible solutions to close the achievement gap.

13

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The Term Latino vs. Hispanic
There is much scholarly debate over whether or not to use the term “Hispanic” or
“Latino” to describe those of Latin American descent. Some feel that the term Hispanic
is offensive and racist, while others feel that Latino is too generalized and lumps
individuals from many different backgrounds into one category (Stein, 1987). In the
education world, much of the assessment data, like API, AYP, and CST data, still refer to
this subgroup as Hispanic. As the often referenced Trevino (1986) describes, “most of
the statistics for our population are collected by federal and state agencies or under
federal grants…these efforts will continue to operate according to the race and ethnicity
classifications mandated under Directive Number 15 as reported in the Federal
Register… federal, and probably state, agencies will continue to use the term Hispanic in
their data collection and publication activities” (p. 1.). Despite this, the more politically-
correct term Latino has begun to be used more often in public settings (Calderon, 1992).
Therefore, the authors of this paper decided to use the term Latino to refer to the target
student population out of respect and cultural awareness.
Defining Latino and ELL
It is important to recognize that an individual who is Latino has blood ancestry
from anywhere in Latin America. In California, many automatically assume that Latinos
were born in Mexico, which is not always the case. Latino‟s can be descended from
Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, or any other part of Latin America. As Excelenica in
Education (2008) describes, in the U.S. Census Bureau of 2006 “62% of Hispanics were

14

of Mexican descent, 9% were Puerto Rican, 5% were of Cuban descent, 9% were Central
American, 7% were South American, and 8% of Hispanics had other places of origin” (p.
2). Similarly, Latino students may be of mixed races, or have ancestors from a variety of
origins. Also, not all Latino‟s are immigrants; the vast majority of Latino students were
born in the United States, 86%, and are full American citizens (Hussar & Bailey, 2008).
In addition, one should not assume that all Latinos have low socioeconomic status or
struggle in education; while research indicates that Latinos are struggling in education
and an achievement gap exists, it is important to not generalize this problem to all Latinos
(Gandara, 2010).
Similarly, while this project refers to English Language Learners as Spanish
speaking students learning the English language, not all ELLs speak Spanish. An ELL is
defined as someone who first language is anything other than English and whose native
language is spoken mostly at home (Abedi, 2004). For example, in the Glendale Unified
School District, they have a large population of Armenian and Korean speaking students,
as well as Italian, German, and Japanese ELLs (www.gusd.net, 2010). In addition, one
must not assume that because a student is not Caucasian they are an English Language
Learner. For instance, not all Latinos are ELLs, and many speak English at home
(Excelenica in Education, 2008).
Policies
Various policies have impacted Latino ELL students. The first policy occurred in
1976, when California passed the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act
that required schools to take the necessary measures to give ELLs access to the standard

15

curriculum. The law also required schools to develop students‟ English proficiency as
effectively as possible (Artiles, Rueda, Higareda, & Salazer, 2005). One way school‟s
attempted to do this was through bilingual education classes in which the curriculum was
taught in the Spanish language. This law was revolutionary in its recognition of and
desire to support the minority group of Latino ELLs.
In 1998 however that support changed, and may people felt that bilingual
education programs were ineffective. Only about one-third of the ELL population was
placed in bilingual education programs and taught by certified bilingual teachers; there
was also a wide variation in the quality and implementation of the programs (Rumberger
& Gandara, 2000). As a result, the second impactful reform, Proposition 227, was placed
on the 1998 ballot and passed. Prop 227 drastically reduced bilingual education
programs and primary language support for ELLs. English-only classes began within one
year of its passing and there was limited language support for ELLs (Artiles, Rueda,
Higareda, & Salazer, 2005). Prop 227 also allowed for parents to request a waiver of this
policy, and teachers could be sued if they didn‟t implement the policy. Summarily,
“California law allows schools to provide bilingual education, but only when parents
have requested and been granted a waiver of programs that are otherwise to be provided
only or nearly all in English” (Gold, 2006, p 6).
PROP 187 was another proposition in which a negative sentiment towards Latino
students was demonstrated. This proposition, also known as the “Save our State (SOS)
Initiative,” was passed in 1994 in order to create a state-run citizenship screening system
that would prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other

16

social services in California (Martin, 1995). However, this law was later found
unconstitutional in federal court. Proposition 187 ignited the discussion about the
ongoing issue of illegal immigration into the United States and brought to light the large
number of Latinos in California. The law was viewed by opponents as based largely on
xenophobia toward immigrants of Hispanic origin, and supporters generally insisted that
their concerns were economic. This proposition was relevant to education because it
could have prevented numerous Latino students from receiving an education and could
have created an enormous achievement/learning gap between Latino students and
students of other races; in effect it could have legalized discrimination of students‟ right
to receive an education (Johnson & Walsh, 1995). The initial passage of this proposition,
and the sentiment it represented, demonstrated how the current gap may be the result of
covert and institutionalized racism towards Latino students (Garcia, 1995).
Bilingual Education
Since the passage of Prop 227 bilingual education remains in practice today and
also remains an area of controversy. While many research studies claim that students in
such programs learn better than or as well as students in English Only programs, others
argue that there is no measurable effect or impact on students (Gold, 2006). In 2005, 7.6
% of the total ELL population in California was enrolled in an alternative course of study
like bilingual programs; Los Angeles County enrolled 5.6 % of ELLs, San Diego County
had 17.8%, and Ventura County had 22.9% (Gold, 2006). Currently 93% of schools
providing bilingual education are elementary schools, and 98% of all state bilingual
instruction has been in Spanish (Gold, 2006).

17

There are three main types of bilingual education programs that vary in their
amount and emphasis on the primary language, the number of years that the primary
language is used for instruction, and participant eligibility. They are Transitional
Bilingual Education (TBE), Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE), or Dual
Language Immersion (DLI) (Baker, 2001; Linquanti, 1999; Merickel et al., 2003). The
main difference between these is that most Transitional and Developmental Bilingual
Education programs enroll only English learners, while Dual Language Immersion
programs enroll both English learners and native English speakers.
Instructional Causes of the Gap
Many scholars identify lack of teacher efficacy as being the most influential
knowledge/skill cause of the ELL achievement gap. Darling-Hammond (2007) supports
this when she says, “[the gap] is substantially an educational problem associated with
inadequate access to the kinds of teachers and other resources that could enable young
people to gain the skills [they need]” (p. 318). Wenglinsky (2004) also agrees that
effective teaching is crucial to closing the achievement gap when he states, “some
instructional practices can indeed help close the gap, suggesting that middle schools can
make a difference by reforming what goes on in the classroom” (p. 2).
Echevarria and Short (2006) feel that the current lack of teacher efficacy is due to
poor professional development: “Many ELLs receive much of their instruction from
content area teachers or paraeducators who have not had appropriate preparation or
professional development to address their second language development needs or to
make content instruction comprehensible” (p. 196). Professional development is

18

necessary to develop the knowledge and skills of teachers, and promotes their continual
growth as educators. Therefore, teachers who lack the necessary knowledge and skills in
both the content and in effective teaching strategies are impacting the current ELL
achievement gap. Elmore (2002) describes how effective professional development must
be continuous, involve teacher practice with feedback, and should be connected to the
students learning goals. Butler (2002) also states, “sustained improvements in schools
will not occur without changes in the quality of learning experiences on the part of those
who run the schools” (p. 4). He describes how the desired outcome of staff development
is information transfer, skill acquisition, or behavior change. Content of staff
development should “reflect clear program goals and operational objectives defining
what participants will learn and how they will be able to use the new learning” (Butler,
2002, p. 5). If such a professional development program was implemented, teachers
could gain procedural knowledge through a supportive training program.
Another reason for lack of teacher efficacy is poor teacher preparation programs.
Many credential programs advertise being short in length (some one year or less) in order
to attract students, increase their enrollment, and gain more tuition money. Many
scholars are concerned that such programs are not thorough enough to prepare teachers to
be effective educators. Specifically, these teachers lack strong classroom management
skills and therefore struggle in their first years of teaching. The Teaching Commission
(2006) describes this issue when they say, “there is overwhelming evidence that today, in
far too many cases, teachers are not equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to
excel” (p. 37). Also, alternative non-university credential programs that attempt to attract

19

experts from other academic fields into the teaching world, place inexperienced and
untrained teachers in the most difficult hard-to-place schools in the United States.
Johnson et. al. (2005) speak about the flaws of such alternative teacher preparation
programs when they say, “these alternative certification programs may have opened the
profession to new candidates, but they struggled to provide sufficient preparation and to
serve as gatekeepers of quality in the process” (p. 32). These teachers typically only
teach for about 3 years, and then leave the profession. This combination of inexperienced
teachers and lack of teacher retention greatly impacts student achievement and learning
(Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2007).
Similarly, teacher retention as a whole is a problem. Most teachers leave the field
within the first 5 years as a teacher and about 30% of beginning teachers do not teach
beyond 2 years (Coldarci, 1992; Perez, Swain, & Hartsough, 1997). Researchers suggest
this is either due to the fact that teachers are not prepared due to poor credential
programs, or because of the lack of support teachers receive while teaching (Ingersoll &
Smith, 2003). While many new teachers participate in programs such as Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA), some scholars argue that such programs are
lacking and simply load more stress onto an already overwhelmed teacher. Also, some
feel that by the time teachers participate in BTSA it is already too late, and that the
teacher is already struggling to keep their head above water. Darling-Hammond et al.
(1999) described how this “sink-or-swim” situation new teachers find themselves in has
improved nationally over the past decade, with more than half of new public school
teachers reporting they had experienced some sort of induction program, but “these

20

induction programs tend to offer only the minimum in support to new teachers, and do
not distinguish well among the various needs of new teacher graduates, more experienced
teachers new to a system, and the various grade levels and subject areas of new teachers”
(Farley & Iver, 2003, p. 10).
In addition, scholars feel that there is a lack of collaboration within the
educational setting that can impact the achievement gap. Since classrooms run fairly
independently, teachers can isolate themselves within their rooms. This lack of
collaboration between teachers can cause teachers to feel alone, unsupported, and
overwhelmed (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). This isolation is one of the possible factors
impacting the low 5 year teacher retention rate. A lack of collaboration also prevents the
instructional growth and improvement of teachers as opportunities to learn and reflect on
instructional strategies is missed. When teachers are not developing and modifying their
teaching skills, their students are not receiving the best possible instruction.
“Collaboration is viewed as the critical element to improving teachers‟ instruction…
instructional practice is not private, rather, it is a shared enterprise with a specific goal: to
improve student learning” (The Education Trust, 2005, p. 32).
Another instructional issue is that the most highly qualified successful teachers
seem to be employed in the most successful schools. Researchers believe that the best
teachers leave schools with struggling, low-income, minority students to work in the
more ideal schools (Certo & Fox, 2002). It can be challenging for teachers to work in
schools that lack resources and whose students need specialized instruction (Ingersoll,

21

2001). This is why some districts have implemented monetary incentive plans to entice
the most successful teachers to work in the most hard-to-staff schools.
One of the most impactful instructional issues influencing the Latino ELL
achievement gap is that teachers are not using effective instructional strategies when
teaching. For instance, many teachers lack knowledge about, or don‟t implement
strategies such as SDAIE strategies. SDAIE stands for Specifically Designed Academic
English Instruction and typically consists of the use of visual aids, regalia, manipulatives,
graphic organizers, gestures, facial expressions, and activating prior knowledge.
Similarly, many teachers are not using ELD or ELL instructional strategies or
accommodations to meet the specific subgroups needs. Some ELD strategies include
scaffolding and making connections. Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, and Tharp (2003) describe
the importance of scaffolding when they say, “for learning to occur, relevant prior
knowledge in long-term memory must be activated and the new information must
undergo some form of processing; the richer the associations made between the new and
the known, the more likely the new material will be retained and recalled” (p. 4). A
focused and varied use of these accommodations is crucial in helping ELL Latino
students to learn.
Many scholars also suggest that teachers are not systematically teaching
vocabulary. Carlo et al. (2004) describes how teachers who teach about the structure of
words, and help students to gain a thorough understanding of the context of words, are
able to promote student achievement and close the gap. Lee (2005) agrees with this, but
emphasizes how it is important that teachers have the knowledge and skill needed to

22

teach vocabulary in all subjects, such as science, to develop content area literacy:
“teachers should address the educational needs of students who are in the process of
acquiring the language and culture of the U.S. mainstream while also learning the norms,
content, and processes of academic disciplines” (p. 491). ELLs benefit from instruction
in discriminating and manipulating the sounds of the language (phonemic awareness),
decoding words (phonics), and instruction designed to enhance vocabulary, reading
fluency, and comprehension. “Phonological skills and understandings, including
phonological awareness and decoding, are foundational to successful reading; with good,
structured, explicit teaching, ELLs can make progress that is comparable to non ELLs in
the early stages of learning to read” (Goldenberg, 2006, p. 4).
Similarly, ELL students need opportunities to develop their oral language skills,
and this is often lacking in schools. Oral language is best taught through explicit, direct
instruction, and interactive approaches (Genesee et al., 2006). Explicit teaching and
plentiful opportunities for meaningful and authentic communication are crucial for ELL
success in learning (Ellis, 2005; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). First, students need to be
taught conversational and expressive language so that they can answer questions and
participate in discussions (Spada & Lightbown, 2008). However, developing academic
language, not just conversational or expressive language, is crucial to ELL students
success. Instruction should develop students‟ content area language so that they can
conduct academic tasks. Academic language tends to be more abstract and cognitively
demanding and is necessary for increased levels of academic achievement (Scarcella,
2003; Bailey, 2007).

23

One way of improving students‟ oral language development is through specific
English Language Development (ELD) instruction. Researchers like Goldenberg (2006)
emphasize the importance of providing English Language Development (ELD)
instruction to ELLs. As Goldenberg (2006) states, “it is essential for students to make
rapid progress in their oral English skills if they are to enter the educational mainstream
and derive maximum benefit from classroom instruction delivered in English” (p. 4). A
separate time block of ELD to allow for focused and organized instruction may increase
the effectiveness of ELD (Goldenberg, 2008). A separate ELD block that targets
language acquisition appears to be more effective than relying on integrating ELD with
other parts of the curriculum. Research suggests that a separate ELD period or block
makes a distinct contribution to English Language development (Coleman & Goldenberg,
2009). Daily oral English language instruction that targets language acquisition is
recommended for about 45 minutes per day (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009).
Also, using familiar and relevant reading material and resources during this time
period may help ELLs learn. This Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education
(CRRE) may make material more engaging and meaningful to students. Doherty,
Hilberg, Pinal, and Tharp (2003) describe this when they state, “contextualization makes
new information more meaningful and, by activating students‟ prior knowledge,
facilitates the firming of associations between the new and the known” (p. 5). However,
many districts and schools lack the resources, time, knowledge, and/or funding to be able
to implement such a program.

24

Another aspect of oral language development that is lacking in schools involves
student interaction. With an emphasis on direct instruction and lecture, many teachers do
not provide structured opportunities for students to practice speaking. Specifically, there
is a lack of cooperative learning, in which students are allowed to interact, discuss, and
reflect on a given topic. Slavin (1980) describes how cooperative learning techniques, in
which students work in small groups and receive rewards or recognition based on their
group performance has had positive effects on students: “The pattern of research findings
supports the utility of cooperative learning methods in general for increasing student
achievement, positive race relations in desegregated schools, mutual concern among
students, student self-esteem, and other positive outcomes” (p. 315). Think-pair-shares
are another oral language development strategy in which students pair up with a partner
to speak about a given topic in a structured way. These kind of organized opportunities
to speak are often missing in the traditional classroom where direct instruction and
lecture is the norm. The utilization of these instructional strategies can often be difficult
for teachers with weak classroom management skills and who do not have the procedural
or conceptual knowledge of how to implement such strategies.
Another instructional issue for ELLs is that ELL students are often not receiving
instruction in their primary language, in this case Spanish. Research has shown that
instruction in the primary language helps English learners achieve (Goldenberg, 2006). If
at all possible, academic instruction in the primary language should be a part of the
educational program of ELLs. Teaching academic skills such as reading in the first
language is more effective in terms of second language achievement than simply

25

immersing children in English instruction. “If feasible, children should be taught reading
in their primary language; primary language reading instruction a) develops first
language skills, b) promotes reading in English, and c) can be carried out as children are
also learning to read, and learning other academic content, in English” (Goldenberg,
2008, p. 11). Primary language instruction can boost student achievement, in the second
language, by about 12-15 percentile points (Goldenberg, 2006, p. 2). It is believed that
primary language instruction promotes achievement in a second language because
researchers suggest that literacy and other skills and knowledge transfer across languages.
“If you learn something in one language--such as decoding, comprehension skills, or a
concept such as democracy--you either know it or can more easily learn it in a second
language” (Goldenberg, 2006, p. 3). Primary language instruction is often difficult to
implement because there are few qualified staff, students at a school come from
numerous language backgrounds, and because of political decisions that have been made
(Goldenberg, 2006).
An additional instructional issue is that many students are not receiving rigorous,
challenging instruction to develop their higher level thinking skills. Bloom‟s revised
taxonomy states that skills such the ability to analyze, evaluate, and create are crucial
critical thinking skills. The development of such skills promotes the conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge development of students, and allows them to be more
successful learners. Specifically, it allows students to be able to transfer knowledge
across subject matter, and to be able to use knowledge situationally to solve unique
thinking challenges. Martinez and Klopott (2005) support this when they state that “the

26

rigor of courses taken…is the most powerful predictor of academic achievement, high
school graduation, and enrollment in postsecondary education” (p. 8).
Another potential instructional cause of the gap is that some teachers are not
connecting instruction to the state standards. Marzano (2003) describes how school
leaders need to ensure that teachers address the essential content, with the “essential
content” being the instruction based on state standards. The state standards are the
specific skills and knowledge that each student in each grade level is expected to know
by the end of the year. Researchers agree that instruction is the most effective when it
has a clearly defined objective and purpose linked to the standards, and when that
objective is carried out and assessed in a variety of ways. “Teachers use standards to
monitor their teaching; in courses that have no external standards, teachers may create
them to ensure that students are getting the instruction they need” (The Education Trust,
2005, p. 31) Rubrics are one way effective teachers show the standard being targeted in
that lesson and the expected skills to learned and demonstrated.
Lastly, teachers who use data to guide their instruction are the most successful.
Johnson (2002) states that “the central purpose for all of the data activities is to improve
learning opportunities and outcomes for students” (p. 72). While the current emphasis on
accountability through NCLB has reduced this issue, there are still many teachers who
are aware of the student achievement data, but who do not use it to modify their
instruction to meet the needs of their students (The Education Trust, 2005). Some
teachers lack the conceptual and procedural knowledge of how to use the information
provided by multiple formal and informal assessments. Many teachers view assessments

27

as simply summative documents showing the students‟ final knowledge; they are not
using data as indicators of students needs to define lesson development. Similarly, this
lack of data analysis can prevent teachers from giving concrete, relevant, and immediate
feedback to students that would help them to reflect and learn. Datnow, Park, and
Wohlstetter (2007) describe this importance of using data: “In addition to building
capacity and creating structures to foster data-driven decision making, school system
leaders developed tools and processes to help principals, teachers, and other staff
members to act on data…. the gathering and examining of data is merely a starting point
to developing a culture and system of continuous improvement that places student
learning at the heart of its efforts” (p. 8).
Motivation Causes of the Gap
There are also several potential motivation causes of the ELL achievement gap.
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) describe how motivation influences choice, persistence, and
performance. Considering this context, scholars suggest that one possible cause of the
achievement gap is a lack of student motivation. Students who lack motivation have less
interest in school, and assign less value to tasks. Thus, students are less motivated to
learn.
Schmid (2001) suggests that ELL students lack motivation to learn as a result of
cultural norms and a lack of choice in curriculum. The curriculum in schools is one that
often focuses on Caucasian norms, historical figures, and events. Unless additional
resources are added to the curriculum, little aspects of Latino culture and history are
discussed. This can prevent Latino students from making connections to the learning,

28

and not only inhibits their understanding of concepts, but also can lower their interest.
Similarly, the lack of Latino representation in the curriculum can impact students‟ self-
efficacy since students don‟t see successful Latino role models in the textbooks. Bennett
(2001) defines ethnic identity as “the degree to which a person feels connected with a
racial or cultural group, one‟s familial ethnic group while growing up; it is a complex
cluster of factors such as self-labeling, feelings of belonging or feeling set apart, and a
desire to participate in activities associated with the group” (p. 192). Considering this,
the current curriculum is preventing students from developing their ethnic identity, and
potentially lowering their self-efficacy.
Other scholars such as Wentzel (2002) and Matsumara, Slater, and Croson (2008)
argue that ELL students are not motivated to learn because of a lack of social
relationships with teachers. Matsumara, Slater, and Croson (2008) describe this when
they state, “the quality of the classroom climate and teacher-student relationships may be
especially critical during students‟ transition to and through middle school… research has
indicated that the affective quality of the classroom plays an important role in student
learning, suggesting that the ideal learning environment would balance a positive
classroom climate with academic demand” (p. 295). A positive, safe classroom climate
in which students have a meaningful relationship with teachers allows them to be more
successful learners.
Wentzel (2002) also describes how a lack of parent involvement can impede
students‟ persistence and performance: “Adolescents‟ social interactions and
relationships with parents have been related consistently to various aspects of school

29

adjustment, including academic accomplishments” (p. 287). When students lack the
support and involvement of parents, whether it is their parents attending parent-teacher
conferences or helping them with their homework after school, students are less likely to
be motivated to try hard in school.
Also, research shows that many students are lacking the intrinsic motivation
needed to promote high-quality learning, and instead perform extrinsically motivated
actions with resentment, resistance, and disinterest (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example,
students perform tasks in order to receive good grades or verbal praise rather than
because it makes them feel good or because they have the desire to learn. Senko and
Miles (2008) expand on this concept when they describe that many ELL students are
more focused on performance goals, which is when students evaluate their performance
with normative standards, as opposed to mastery goals when students evaluate their
performance with self-referential standards focusing on how much they feel they have
„„learned” or developed a skill.
Another possible motivation cause of the achievement gap is teachers‟ low
expectations. Research has shown that teachers who have high expectations for all their
students, and have the philosophy that all students can learn and succeed, have students
with higher achievement and attitudes (Cotton, 1989). Teachers with low expectations
have lower motivation to teach, and often teach more basic subject matter and do not
challenge their students by promoting critical thinking skills. This low level instruction
can cause students to have low self-efficacy, and to absorb the teachers‟ perceptions that
they can‟t learn and succeed. Cotton (1989) also describes how students needed

30

individualized, yet high, expectations: “much of the literature on teacher expectations
calls attention to the fact that students do in fact have different ability levels and require
different instructional approaches, materials, and rates…none of the authors whose work
was reviewed for this report suggest that teachers should hold the same expectations for
all students, nor that they should deliver identical instruction to them all” (p. 7).
Teachers can also promote students low self-efficacy through ability grouping.
By identifying students as being in a low, middle, or high achievement group at a young
age, students start to take on the identity and perception that they are not smart or are
struggling learners. While some teachers try to name their groups casual names like
“ravens” or the “blue group” in order to prevent this identification, the students are often
very perceptive about what students are placed in what groups. Therefore, students begin
to define themselves as struggling learners and develop low self-efficacy. Brattesani,
Weinstein, and Marshall, (1984), Cooper and Good (1983), Good (1987) and others have
conducted research on this student awareness of differential treatment and have found
that students are generally very much aware of it in classrooms where it is pronounced.
Similarly, these researchers have also found that student attitudes are more positive in
classrooms where differential treatment is low. “In his 1983 review of the teacher
expectations research, Brophy estimated that five to ten percent of the variance in student
performance is attributable to differential treatment accorded them based on their
teachers' differential expectations of them; various other researchers have accepted and
quoted this estimate” (Cotton, 1989).

31

Another motivation issue is that Latino students may lack the human and social
capital needed to succeed. Cultural capital refers to “having the knowledge and
experience that results in behaviors and practices aligned to the values of those who are
in a position to legitimize them” (Rueda, Monzo, & Arzubiaga, 2003, p. 2) In effect
cultural capital is what is learned and developed. Social capital refers to the networks of
people who can provide other forms of capital such as friends, family, and other contacts
who can gain access to information, assistance, or other resources. (Rueda, Monzo, &
Arzubiaga, 2003). Human capital refers to the knowledge or expertise that particular
individuals have developed that allows them to gain greater levels of other capital; for
example language fluency and skills that could be marketed toward employment (Rueda,
Monzo, & Arzubiaga, 2003). ELL Latino families have little knowledge of our
educational system and the knowledge and behavior rewards in schools, thus they lack
human capital. Latino children who lack motivation also lack the social capital necessary
to gain the cultural capital to succeed in schools. They will enter school without being
aware of teachers and school expectations and therefore will be perceived as not having
much interest in school. This in turn will lower their self-efficacy and overall interest and
motivation (Schmid, 2001).
Also, there is a motivation issue related to teacher‟s overconfidence about their
teaching skills. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2007) Trend in
International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 report, teachers in the United States
report that they feel confident about their knowledge of instructional strategies and their
ability to implement them. However, the United States continues to rank low compared

32

to the achievement and success of other countries (Gonzalez et. al., 2009). This
overconfidence combined with low mental effort and persistence inhibits teachers from
being motivated to develop their skills through collaboration and professional
development opportunities. Thus, students are not getting the best instruction possible.
Organizational Culture Causes of the Gap
Organizational culture issues also impact the ELL achievement gap. Many
scholars argue that institutionalized racism and discrimination against minorities such as
ELL Latino students plays a large role in causing the achievement gap. Specifically,
literature identifies a lack of resources and funding directed towards schools with
minority students. For example, Schmid (2001) suggests that ELL‟s lack social capital in
schools, which is defined as “social relationships from which an individual is potentially
able to derive various types of institutional resources and support” (p. 72). Darling-
Hammond (2007) adds to this by saying “not only do funding systems and other policies
create a situation in which urban districts receive fewer resources than their suburban
neighbors, but schools with high concentrations of minority students receive fewer
resources than other schools within these districts…and tracking systems exacerbate
these inequalities by segregating many minority students within schools, allocating still
fewer educational opportunities to them at the classroom level” (p. 321).
Also, the district office can be a factor in the achievement gap. First, districts that
lack a clear vision that unifies the district often struggle. Farley and MacIver (2003)
believe that their needs to be a district vision that is focused on emphasizing student
achievement. Specifically, an emphasis on curriculum and instruction to improve

33

achievement helps large urban school districts to achieve. Farley and Iver (2003)
describe how a climate of urgency regarding improved achievement for all students, and a
sense that achievement is the primary responsibility of every staff member in the district are
needed. When the district does not develop and promote a unifying vision for the district
as a whole, the district does not have the foundation necessary to be able to provide
support and information about curriculum and instructional issues.
In addition, a hierarchal, centralized district in which a small number of
individuals make most of the decisions and have most of the power, can cause a gap.
Currently, many districts are moving to a more decentralized power structure in order to
ensure that all stakeholders are involved in decision making (Bjork & Blase, 2009). By
involving parents, teachers, and the community, everyone is more likely to buy-in to
reforms and policies being implemented (Eskeland & Filmer, 2007). Decentralization
also ensures that different voices are being heard, and that minority group‟s needs are
being discussed and considered.
Scholars also site a lack of leadership impacting the achievement gap. Districts
with strong leaders have had higher API and AYP scores, and have had more success in
implementing new reforms. Yet challenges with management, budget, and other
functions can overwhelm leaders can reduce their effectiveness. Bredeson and Kose
(2007) describe how challenging it can be for superintendents to be strong leaders when
they say, “the general message from our data is that superintendents are interested in
curriculum and instruction and believe these are important tasks, but the daily realities of
their work often subvert even the most committed professional” (p. 16). Similarly, the

34

study of 12 instructionally effective school districts in California found that strong
instructional leadership from the superintendent, and strong leadership with an active
administrative team, were crucial factors impacting the success of a district (Murphy &
Hallinger, 1988). The Education Trust (2005) also emphasizes how the most effective
low-income, minority student populated school sites have principals with strong
leadership skills. Overall, effective schools literature has established a general consensus
about the importance of having instructional leaders and linked such instructional
leadership to higher student achievement (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000).
Also, districts who don‟t facilitate professional development struggle. As Butler
(2002) states, “sustained improvements in schools will not occur without changes in the
quality of learning experiences on the part of those who run the schools” (p. 4). He
describes how the desired outcome of staff development is information transfer, skill
acquisition, or behavior change. Content of staff development should “reflect clear
program goals and operational objectives defining what participants will learn and how
they will be able to use the new learning” (Butler, 2002, p. 5).
Similarly, districts who have a poor teacher evaluation process struggle to close
the achievement gap. Chenoweth (2005) describes how a comprehensive system of
observations and recommendations for improvement is crucial to improving teachers‟
instruction. Teachers who are given clear, consistent, and relevant feedback about their
instruction are able to improve their teaching skills and become more effective teachers.

35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to use the gap analysis model to help a local
school district close their ELL Latino/White student achievement gap in their elementary
schools. The Gap Analysis framework was used to examine the roots of the problem and
the causes of why ELL Latino students in a local school district‟s Elementary schools
were struggling. The Gap Analysis process helped to identify the potential
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap
Analysis, when used in conjunction with relevant literature, helped to identify possible
solutions to close the achievement gap in a local school district.
The Latino and ELL Achievement Gap
There is an achievement gap between Latino students and their Caucasian peers,
especially in urban school districts. Generally, Latino students are about two to three
years of learning behind White students of the same age in both test score achievement
and graduation attainment (McKinsey & Company, 2009). On state assessments almost
half of Latinos score Below Basic compared to only 17% of White students (McKinsey &
Company, 2009). On the 2006 California Standards Test, over 50% of Caucasians scored
proficient or above in Language Arts and Mathematics compared to only 28% of Latinos
(California Department of Education, 2007). Johnson (2002) reaffirms this when he
states, “at second and third grades, Latinos are scoring much lower than their white
counterparts” (p.4). Also, this gap is continuing to widen, and has particularly increased
between the years 1997 and 2004 (Spellings, 2007). Also, over the past three decades

36

there has been little increase in Latino students college graduation rates (Gandara, 2010).
While there have been achievement gains since the implementation of NCLB for Latinos,
the data still indicates the need for drastic improvement by schools in order to close the
gap.
Similarly the ELL subgroup, like the Latino subgroup, consistently underperforms
in comparison to their English speaking peers on state and national tests (Goldenberg,
2006). On the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report, fourth-
grade ELLs scored 36 points below non-ELLs in reading and 25 points below non-ELLs
in math. The gaps among eighth-graders were even larger, 42 points in reading and 37
points in math. These gaps are so large that the gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs are 3
to 18 points larger than the gaps between students who are and are not eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch (Goldenberg, 2008).
The Gap Analysis Process
The gap analysis model devised by Clark and Estes (2002) was the framework of
analysis employed by our inquiry team. A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving
approach to helping improve performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark &
Estes, 2002). A gap analysis helps organizations to identify and clarify goals, and to
analyze gaps between desired level of achievement and actual levels of achievement. A
gap analysis also helps organizational leaders to identify the root causes of the gap so that
effective resources and solutions can be identified and implemented. Similar to a
consultant model, a gap analysis focuses on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific
problem.

37

There are 5 steps in the gap analysis process. First, an organization must define
and set goals. Goals are tiered in a 3 level structure: day to day goals, intermediate goals,
and long term goals. In order to ensure the acceptance and impact of the goals, they must
be concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable), challenging (doable but very
difficult), and current (short-term daily or weekly goals are more motivating than longer-
term monthly or annual goals) (Clark & Estes, 2009, p. 26). All goals should be aligned,
cascading, and relevant. Therefore, an important part of gap analysis is determining
whether goals are clear, measurable, and understood and supported by everyone in the
organization.
The second step involves determining gaps. Current goals and performance level
are compared to the desired standard of performance. In order to determine the gap in
performance, this process typically involves collecting benchmark data from a similar but
“ideal” organization that has higher performance. One would compute the gap between
these two organizations by subtracting one‟s own organizational achievement from the
industry leader‟s achievement. The space between the current and desired level of
achievement is identified as the gap.
The third step is to investigate the causes of the gap. The roots of the gap may be
knowledge/skill, motivational, or organizational related, and all three areas should be
examined closely. Organization participants‟ knowledge should be examined in regards
to information, job aids, training, and education. Some areas of motivation that should be
examined involve active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Organizational gaps that

38

should be considered involve alignment, culture, and change. Focus groups, interviews,
surveys, and observations are some ways to examine these causes.
As possible causes of the gap are proposed, eliminated, and refined, solutions to
the problem can be identified. In step four, research-based solutions that directly target
the learning, motivational, or organizational roots to the problem are defined and
implemented. Solutions can be retrieved from scholarly literature of research-based
practices, or from solutions being implemented at similar and successful organizations.
The final and crucial step is to evaluate the outcomes of the proposed solutions.
There are four levels of evaluation: reactions, impact during the program, transfer, and
the bottom line. Surveys, interviews, and discussion groups are some ways of receiving
participant feedback. If needed, solutions will be modified until the goals are met.
Theoretical Frameworks
There are several potential theories and theoretical frameworks that were used to
provide a lens and ground the analysis of the problem. All theories stemmed from the
structure of the gap analysis process. Specifically, they were situated within the themes
of knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture.
First, considering the theme of knowledge and skill, cognitive theory impacted the
analysis. Cognitive theory is concerned with the development of a person's thought
processes. It also looks at how thought processes influence one‟s understanding and
interaction with the world (Mayer, 2008). In this project cognitive theory impacted the
analysis of teacher‟s knowledge of instructional strategies as well as their perceptions of
the problem.

39

Next, motivational theory was used to guide the analysis of motivational roots and
solutions to the problem. Motivation is defined as an internal drive that activates
behavior and gives it direction (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Motivation theory is
concerned with the processes that describe why and how human behavior is activated and
directed (Bong, 2004). A specific motivational theory that guided the analysis of the
problem is the incentive theory of motivation. The incentive theory of motivation
examines how rewards given after a behavior, with the intent to cause that behavior
again, impact the occurrence of the behavior (Finnigan & Gross, 2007). This theory
guided the analysis of the intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) motivations in place
at a local school district (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Some motivational constructs that guided
the analysis were self-efficacy, task value, interest, attributions, and goal orientation,
which will be defined in the following section.
Lastly, when the organizational culture of a local school district was examined, it
was looked at it through a lens of conflict theory and critical race theory. Conflict theory
is a social theory which emphasizes a person's or group's ability to exercise influence and
control over others. Conflict theory states that the society or organization functions so
that each individual and its group struggles to maximize their benefits, which inevitably
contributes to social change such as changes in politics and revolutions (Thomas, 1992).
With conflict theory there is a continual struggle between all different aspects of a
particular society, and the struggle that occurs does not always have to involve physical
violence; it can pertain to an underlying struggle for each group or individual within a
society to maximize its own benefits (Maynard, 1985). Similarly, critical race theory is

40

concerned with racism, racial subordination and discrimination. Maxwell and Shammas
(2007) define this theory as “a method for understanding the organizational structure that
leads to covert discrimination” (p. 347). Summarily, these two theories allowed the team
to determine whether racism and inequality were factors in this district‟s Latino/White
achievement gap.
Conceptual Framework
The following are concepts, situated within the gap analysis framework, which
guided the team throughout every aspect of this project. Various components of
organizational culture, knowledge/skill, and motivation are defined in this section.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is comprised of the assumptions, values, norms and
tangible signs (artifacts) of organization members and their behaviors. Charles and
Gareth (2001) define it as, “the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by
people and groups in an organization that control the way they interact with each other
and with stakeholders outside the organization.” Generally, one can determine the
culture of an organization through the mood and tone present within the environment.
Three elements make up an organizations culture: environment, individuals, and
groups of individuals. First, environment refers to the context in which individuals are a
part of. In this project the environment is the district and school sites. Individuals are the
members who make up the environment, like teachers, secretaries, and administrators.
Each individual has his/her own unique thoughts, beliefs, feelings, experiences,
perceptions and behaviors. Groups of Individuals are people who are united by a

41

common focus, belief, or effort. These groups of individuals can influence decisions
being made and processes within an organization. (Clark & Estes, 2002).
There are also several characteristics one can examine when looking at an
organization‟s culture. The first aspect of organizational culture involves work process.
Work processes “specify how people, equipment, and materials must link and interact
over time to produce some desired result” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 104). Specifically, the
aspects of an organizations process, such as who, how, and what is happening are
relevant. Materials and resources are another aspect of an organizations culture, and refer
to tangible supplies and equipment being used in an organization, typically to achieve
their goal(s). In schools, some examples of materials and resources could be textbooks,
curriculum, resource specialists, teachers‟ assistants etc. Value chains and value streams,
which look at the process and steps used in order to create a product, are also part of
organizational culture. “Value streams are a form of analysis that describes how an
organization‟s departments and divisions interact and what processes they
implement…while value chains use the information from streams to identify the way that
divisional or team processes achieve goals for internal and external customers” (Clark &
Estes, 2002, p. 105).
Knowledge/Skill
There are four types of knowledge: Factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive (Pickard, 2007). Factual knowledge is the basic elements individuals must
know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it. Procedural knowledge,
also known as imperative knowledge, is the knowledge exercised in the performance of

42

some task. Procedural knowledge refers to the process, or how one does something and
completes a task. Procedural knowledge is often thought about as certain skills we
possess, tasks we can complete, or processes we are able to follow. Conceptual
knowledge refers to a person‟s representation of the major concepts in a system.
Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of relationships and complex concepts and
cannot be learned by rote memorization, but is learned through thoughtful, reflective
thinking. Conceptual knowledge is the kind of knowledge that may be transferred
between situations.
Metacognitive knowledge involves knowledge about cognition in general, as well
as awareness of and knowledge about one's own cognition. Metacognitive knowledge
includes knowledge of general strategies that might be used for different tasks,
knowledge of the conditions under which these strategies might be used, knowledge of
the extent to which the strategies are effective, and knowledge of self (Flavell, 1979;
Pintrich et al., 2000; Schneider & Pressley, 1997). Specifically these three types of
metagognitive knowledge are known as strategic knowledge, contextual/conditional
knowledge, and self knowledge. Strategic knowledge is knowledge of general strategies
for learning, thinking, and problem solving. Contextual/conditional knowledge involves
an individual‟s knowledge about specific cognitive tasks as well as when and why to use
these different strategies in different situations and settings. Lastly, self knowledge
includes knowledge of one's strengths and weaknesses (Pintrich, 2002).

43

Motivation
Various aspects of motivation are relevant in this project: self-efficacy, task-
value, interest, attributions, goal-orientation, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, mental effort,
and persistence. Self-efficacy refers to how individuals feel about their ability to do
something (Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman, 2000). In this project teacher and student levels
of self-efficacy were examined. Task value describes the level of importance someone
attributes to a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For example, how important a student
feels an assignment or test is. Interest is how interesting a task is to someone (Renninger,
Bachrach, & Posey, 2008). In this project the group examined student levels of interest,
and how meaningful they found instruction and curriculum. Attributions are how
individuals attribute causes to events such as location, stability, and controllability
(Graham, Bellmore, Nishina, & Juvonen, 2009). In this project interviewees were asked
what they attributed the problem (the achievement gap) to. Goal orientation refers to
how someone defines their success in relation to goals. Specifically, one can either have
mastery goals which focus on mastering a task, or performance goals which focus on
external indicators of success such as grades (Gonida, Voulala, & Kiosseoglou, 2009).
Another aspect of motivation is intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is
the internal factors that affect ones motivation to accomplish a task. For example, doing
something because it makes one feel happy is an intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic
motivation refers to external factors of motivation (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005).
Grades and monetary rewards are examples of extrinsic motivators. Lastly, mental effort

44

refers to how hard one tries in order to accomplish a task, and persistence refers to how
long a person continues to try to accomplish a task despite challenges or difficulty.
Timeline
An initial orientation was held in November 2009 during which the project team
met the superintendent and assistant superintendents of the school district to be
examined. The superintendents elaborated on concerns and problems they faced in their
school district and proposed certain topics to be evaluated. In December 2009, a final
topic was selected for the research team to focus on, the ELL Latino achievement gap in
elementary schools. An initial collection of background literature on the educational
context of the problem, and district data and background information began. The group
was also assigned a district contact; this district level administrator would address any
concerns and questions the team had throughout the project process, and would arrange
initial meetings with district level administrators.
In February 2010 the group, with the assistance of the district contact, arranged to
interview 7 district level administrators. The team then conducted general “scanning
interviews” with these key informants in order to gain a basic understanding of the school
district‟s goals and perceptions of the problem. There was also discussion as to who the
group‟s next contact should be, and the group received approval of their “purpose of the
project” statement. Contact information for the research team was also given. During
this time the group also selected the three school sites the project would focus on and,
with help from the district contact, arranged and conducted scanning interviews with the
school site principals.

45

On February 23
rd
the research team participated in and passed the qualifying exam
of the dissertation where the group‟s progress, purpose, and project were evaluated by the
committee.
Following passage of the qualifying exam, the group conducted Round II of their
data collection. They conducted “One Month Interviews” of about 10 teachers at the
selected school sites. The school site principals helped to coordinate the interviewee
selection and interview days and times. These interviews were used to gain a better
understanding of the kinds of instructional strategies being used in the classroom. An
Innovation Configuration Chart was used during each of these interviews to rank how
successful teachers were in implementing various instructional strategies. All interview
data was transcribed, charted, coded and discussed following each interview. Initial
patterns and themes were also discussed at this time.
In the summer of 2010, a final analysis and write up of the roots of the problem
occurred. The collected data was analyzed in order to ensure that all possible roots of the
problem were identified, eliminated, and refined. Chapter I the background of the
problem, Chapter II the methodology and literature review, and Chapter II the report of
the findings, were all completed during the summer.
In the fall of 2010 the group examined literature in order to determine solutions to
the problem in the district. The group then completed Chapter III the solutions and the
executive summary of the solutions. The group prepared and presented the
recommendations of the project to the school district. A comprehensive report of the
findings and recommendations were made available to the district and also to the public.

46

Following the presentation to the district, the group reflected on the dissertation process
and the presentation experience.
Table 1: Project Timeline
Fall 2009
Topic defined as ELL Latino
achievement gap
Data Collection on context of
problem
Background and information on
district

Spring 2010
Interviews of key district personnel
Qualifying Exams
Draft of Chapter 1 and defined possible
causes of the gap
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer 2010
More in-depth data collection at
school sites
Chapter II completed
Explored reforms for district to
close the achievement gap

Fall 2010
District presentation of comprehensive
report of findings and
recommendations
Finished Capstone Project
Spring 2011
Defended Capstone Project and
Graduation

Sections of the Dissertation
This alternative capstone project was unique in several ways. Unlike a typical
dissertation, a team of three individuals with various areas of expertise, experience, and
backgrounds, worked together collaboratively. The team collected data, interacted with
the district, identified findings and solutions, and defended their dissertations together.
Similarly, sections 2B: The Methodology, 2C: The Findings, 3A: The Solutions Based
Literature Review, and 3B: the Solutions Summary, are all common text across the team.
This has been noted in the heading of these sections. Chapter 1 and section 2A: The
Literature Review were completed independently by each individual.

47

Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
“Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont Report
2

“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis [and] permit
conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal protocol that sets
forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that objective.”
“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined practice
activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g., routine outbreak
investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal management purposes
such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality improvement, fiscal or program
audits, marketing studies or contracted-for services. It generally does not include
journalism or political polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute
research in circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable
knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)
Further clarification is provided in the following section:

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to populations
or situations beyond that studied.

2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human subjects
research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

48

“Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless there is a
clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data derived from the
project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of an institutional
practice.” (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4)
Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods included informal interviews. The purpose of the
interviews was to “gather descriptive data in the subjects‟ own words so that the
researcher can develop insights on how participants interpret some piece of the world”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 96). Following a phenomenological perspective, the
interviews were intended to gain an understanding of the insider‟s viewpoint and
experience. An interview protocol was used that had questions based on the research
questions, the problem, and the literature. This semi-structured interview format with
such an interview-guide approach, allowed for the research team to decide the sequence
and wording of the questions during the interview with the interview remaining relatively
conversational and situational (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Participants were
allowed to respond to the questions freely, and probing questions were asked as needed to
gain a more in-depth understanding of certain topics.
Specifically, a Scanning Interview (See Appendix A) was done of all district and
administrative personnel. This general broad based format had 5 open-ended questions
that allowed the interviewee to share their perspective on the problem, the history of the
problem, the solutions being used, and the roots of the problem. The team selected 5
broad questions because the group felt that number would allow them to gain a deep
enough understanding of the perceptions within a reasonable time frame of thirty minutes
to one hour.

49

A One Month Interview (See Appendix B) was used with teachers to determine
what goals and instructional practices were being used in the classroom with ELL Latino
students over a specified time frame. Three questions were selected to better understand
what the teacher had been doing in his/her class over one month. The group felt the three
questions, in correspondence with an Innovation Configuration Chart, would sufficiently
allow the researchers to gain an understanding of typical teacher instructional practices
within a 30 minutes to 1 hour interview time frame. Overall, the questions were
experience, behavior, opinion, value, feeling, knowledge, and background questions.
An Innovation Configuration Chart (See Appendix C) was used during this
interview process to help the interviewers determine how successfully the teachers were
implementing effective instructional strategies over one month. The categories of the
Innovation Configuration Chart were selected based on effective ELL instructional
strategies identified in the literature. Based on teachers interview responses the team was
able to categorize teachers into either being successful, moderately successful, or just
getting started in regards to their level of strategy implementation.
Similarly, a brief 1-2 minutes Stages of Concern (See Appendix D) informal
interview occurred throughout the site visits to determine what stage of instructional
strategy implementation the teachers were in and what concerns they may have about the
problem. The possible stages of concern are based on the Hall and Loucks (1979)
Concerns-Based Adoption Model: awareness, informational, personal, management,
consequence, collaboration, and refocusing. Individuals at the refocusing level are
concerned with advanced use of the innovation, and have ideas for how to improve the

50

implementation. Teachers with collaboration concerns are concerned with relations with
others. Teachers at the consequence level are concerned with how the innovation is
affecting their students. Management concerns are time related issues, personal concerns
are related to the individual personally, and people with informational concerns need
more information about the innovation. People with awareness concerns are typically not
concerned with the innovation. (Hall & Loucks, 1979).
Sampling Strategies
Various sampling strategies were utilized during this project: intensity sampling,
homogeneous sampling, and typical case sampling. Intensity sampling is defined as
“information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon intensely but not extremely”
(Patton, 2002, p. 243). Therefore, intensity sampling was used to select the focus schools
in this project. The three elementary schools were strategically chosen because they
provided information-rich data on the ELL White achievement gap in the district.
Homogeneous sampling is defined as sampling that has focus, reduces variation,
and simplifies analysis (Patton, 2002). This method of sampling was used when the
initial scanning interviews of district personnel was done. These interviews helped the
research team to gain a better focused understanding of the problem, to determine district
personal perceptions, and to determine which schools and school-based individuals
needed to be interviewed.
Typical case sampling was done at schools with teachers. Typical case sampling
is used to “illustrate or highlight what is typical, normal or average” (Patton, 2002, p.
243). By randomly selecting 5 teachers at each school site, the team hoped to gain a

51

better understanding of the typical instructional strategies being used at that site. This
information helped the team to later determine potential root causes of the problem and
possible solutions.
The Sample
Three elementary schools were selected for this project because they were
composed of a high number of Latino ELLs and demonstrated an achievement gap
between this subgroup and their white peers. The first elementary school that had an
ELL Latino achievement gap identified was Horace Mann Elementary. This school had
229 Hispanic students out of 428 total students, therefore Hispanic students made up 54%
of the student population. 60% of the entire school was ELLs and 33% were Spanish
speaking. The API for the school was 803, whereas the Hispanic API score was 771.
Therefore there was a gap of 32 points in API. 88% of the students were on Free and
Reduced price lunch and the school was a Title I school.
The next elementary school that was examined was Thomas Edison Elementary
School. This school had 211 Hispanic students out of 398 total students, making
Hispanic students 53% of the student population. The API for the school was 807
compared to the Hispanic subgroup API of 759, a gap of 48 points in student
achievement. ELLs made up 52% of the population, with 32% of those being Spanish
Speaking. The school was a Title I school with 76% of the students on Free/Reduced
Price lunch.
The final elementary school examined in this project was John Muir Elementary
School. This school had 145 Latino students out of 475 total students. Latino students

52

made up 31% of the student population. Despite having a smaller number of Latino
students, the school had the largest achievement gap between subgroups. The Hispanic
population had an API of 755, whereas the rest of the student population had an API of
815. This was a gap of 60 points. The school had 42% ELLs, 13% of whom speak
Spanish. The school was a Title I school with 75% on Free/Reduced Price lunch.
The district representatives that were interviewed for 30 minutes to one hour
were: the Director Student Support Services, the Director of Instructional Support
Services, the Director of Special Projects and Intercultural Education and Professional
Development, the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, the
Administrator of Assessment and Evaluation, the Director of Early Education &
Extended Learning Programs, and the district Public Relations Officer. The team also
interviewed the principals of each school.
The team interviewed 3 teachers from Edison Elementary, two 1
st
grade teachers
and one 4/5 teacher. Five teachers were interviewed at Muir Elementary, one 1
st
, 2
nd
, and
3
rd
teacher, and two 5
th
grade teachers. Three teachers were interviewed at Horace Mann,
a 1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
grade teacher.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis was Structure Focused which is defined as a, “comparison or
case study of analysis that focuses on a project, program, organization, or units in an
organization” (Patton, 2000, p. 223). Therefore, the unit of analysis for this project was
Structure Focused, since the team analyzed units (schools) within an organization
(Glendale Unified School District).

53

Similarly, this was an action-orientated, problem-solving project. An action-
orientated, problem-solving project is one whose purpose is to, “solve problems in a
program, organization, or community” (Patton, 2002, p. 224). In this case, the
organization (the district) identified a problem (the gap within elementary schools) to be
investigated.
Data Analysis
Initial data analysis occurred following each interview. The audio-tape of the
interview was transcribed using a word processor. Once all interview recordings were
transcribed, the data was organized by interviewee and question. Charting the interview
responses by questions allowed the researchers to graphically view patterns and themes.
Initial reflections of apparent themes and patterns were discussed and recorded at that
time as a narrative description or summary of preliminary impressions. Any responses
that appeared to respond to the gap analysis framework were noted.
Based on these preliminary reflections, as well as themes and concepts from the
literature and gap analysis, a list of codes was divulged using the “closed” coding
technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For example, some of the primary “closed” codes
used were: knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. Segments of the data
were then labeled using these codes.
Then, using the “open” coding technique, additional codes were created (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). When relevant themes became apparent, they were labeled with words
or phrases that reflected and/or defined the concept or theme that related to the research

54

questions. For example, some of the “open” codes were: Perception of the problem,
goals, and self-efficacy.
All of the codes and their corresponding data segments were then grouped into
categories based on similar themes. Codes that were repeated multiple times were
determined to be patterns and those that responded to the research questions were noted
as significant. The group than collaborated to discuss and determine which codes
revealed patterns, and emerging roots of the problem were identified and agreed upon in
order to complete the findings section of the dissertation. The literature was then
analyzed in relation to the gap analysis framework and data collected in order to
determine which strategies and solutions would be most effective in this school district.
Limitations to the Project
There are several limitations to this project. First, the results of this project can
not necessarily be generalized. As consultants, the focus of the alternative capstone
project was to become “part of the change process by engaging the people in the program
or organization in studying their own problems in order to solve those problems” (Whyte,
1989, cited in Patton, 2002, p. 221). The results derived from the capstone project, like
those of action research, cannot necessarily be generalized to all organizations for it is
“quite specific to the problem, people, and organization for which the research is
undertaken” (Patton, 2002, p. 221).
Also, due to time constraints and resource limitations, only three schools and 11
teachers were examined. Because the three schools selected were representative of
typical elementary schools in the district, and because in-depth data was gathered at each

55

of these schools, the team determined that the collected data was sufficient enough to
identify possible roots of the problem in the district. Therefore, the data gathered at the
three schools is representative of the district as a whole, but cannot be completely
generalized.
Another limitation of this project is that students and parents were not
interviewed. The intention of this project was to help a local school district with a
problem they identified, not to conduct a typical research study, thus the group did not go
through typical Institutional Review Board procedures. Therefore, the group members
were not permitted to interview children or parents, and information about those
populations was gained through teacher and district personnel perceptions. The team
understood that the educator‟s second-hand perceptions of parent and student beliefs and
motivation could be biased and flawed, yet these perceptions in themselves revealed
various problems and issues relevant to this project.
An additional limitation was that the project team did not select the teachers to be
interviewed. While the team did select the district administration to be interviewed, as
well as the school sites to be examined, the teachers to be interviewed at the school sites
were selected by the school site principals. The principals initially seemed to be
uncomfortable with the presence of the project team, possibly as a result of the perception
that the team would judge their flaws, or worry that the team would report negative
findings to the district office, thus putting the principal and school at risk of various
administrative consequences. In order to maintain access to the school sites, as well as a
positive relationship with the administrators, the project team decided that it would be

56

best to allow the principals to coordinate the teacher interviews so that they could
maintain a feeling of comfort and control. Therefore it is possible that the views of the
interviewed teachers are representative of the principals‟ desired views, and are more
positive than what the typical teacher may say. However, the varying teacher responses,
general openness of the participating teachers, and extensive data collected revealed
consistent themes that were both positive and negative.

57

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Organizational Culture
Culture
Some of the positives about the district are its environmental, individual, and
group cultures. First, in regards to environment, school maintenance and safety appears
to be a priority in the district. For instance, the schools are clean, spacious, and have
visually appealing architecture. Student work is displayed throughout the school, and
generally the walls and classrooms are very colorful and cheerful. Student data, test
results, and goals are also posted with positive reinforcement throughout the hallways.
Overall, the atmosphere of the school sites feel and appear to be very friendly, safe, and
positive.
The culture in regards to individual members of the staff is equally as positive.
Teachers seem happy, energetic, and motivated. Also, most of the staff seem fond of one
another and appear to get along with each other. Almost every district staff member has
the philosophy that all students can learn and achieve. Students also seem happy and
cheerful as they walk through the halls. Secretaries and staff are welcoming and friendly
to parents and visitors as they enter the school.
Individual group culture is also positive. This is particularly evident through the
high level of both mandatory and voluntary collaboration occurring throughout the
district. Teachers collaborate during monthly mandatory day long meetings, and many
teachers sited that they work with their grade level colleagues during lunch each day.

58

Therefore, teachers seem to be motivated to collaborate and learn from one another, and
are more motivated to help their students learn and succeed.
Process: Policy and Procedures
In this school district, the reform Focus on Results (FOR) is being used. Focus on
Results has seven areas or phases. First in Phase 1, a school wide instructional focus
based on an assessment of students needs is created. In this district each school has
chosen its own instructional focus, like writing or science. Each focus was chosen
because it was thought to be an area that would improve students overall achievement,
the subject/topic was shown to be a low scoring area in the school‟s CST scores, or
because the selected focus would support the growth of a low scoring area on the
school‟s CST scores. In phase 2, the school wide instructional focus that meets students‟
needs is implemented. In phase 3, there is a unity of purpose across the district as a clear
instructional focus drives all decision making. This district office selected an
overarching instructional focus of “achievement” and has specified areas of weakness in
the format of an “urgency statement”; one urgency statement is the Latino ELL
achievement gap. The next four phases are situated within building a targeted
professional development plan. The final four phases are: build expertise (help people
know what to do), change practice (hold individuals accountable), monitor student
performance (chart the impact of the instructional focus on importance), and
communicate relentlessly (always talk about what is going on) (Focusonresults.net,
2010).

59

Currently Focus on Results is leading district staff to place a large emphasis on
data and data analysis. Charts and graphic organizers depicting student achievement
scores, growth, and goals are displayed throughout the district office, school hallways,
and classrooms. Every teacher is aware of their school‟s API and AYP, and their goal
score to reach by the end of the year. Data is the main focus of both district level
meetings and school staff meetings as staff examines achievement scores, and looks at
patterns. According to several principals data is also used to indentify struggling teachers
in order to be able to provide them with more support, or to determine who needs to be
put on an improvement plan. In addition, principals described how displaying individual
classroom API scores in initial school year professional development motivated teachers
by showing them that high scores and success are possible. Also, by showing the lowest
score without a name, they feel that this identifies weaker teachers in a discreet way since
teachers often already know who they are, and it motivates them to improve. Grade
levels also work in teams during this time to determine patterns revealed by the data, and
areas of strength and weaknesses. Overall, it is clear that this is a data-driven district.
One of the issues with Focus on Results and this data-driven mindset that may be
perpetuating the Latino achievement gap is that the district‟s intense emphasis on Focus
on Results seems to take away from discussion about instructional practices. For
example, during the interviews when individuals were asked about Focus on Results, they
were quickly able to recite the district and school instructional focus, the “Urgency
Statement,” and scores and data points. However, when asked what specific strategies
were being used, or what things were being done to achieve the instructional focus, the

60

response was often simply “good teaching.” Therefore, it was evident that while data is
being used to identify gaps and problem areas in instruction, discussion is not being taken
to the next level. A deeper reflection on what needs to happen as a result of the data and
specifically what effective ELD instructional strategies should be used, were not a
significant part of the discussion occurring within the Focus on Results process.
Summarily, the emphasis was more on data and process and less about direct classroom
instructional strategies.
At the school sites, there are no independent reform processes being used in an
effort to close the gap. However, each school site has chosen an instructional focus such
as reading comprehension or writing to guide discussions during staff development and to
be the overarching theme of all instruction. While these themes are expected to be
situated within the FOR framework, there appears to be little connection between the
individual school focuses and the FOR reform and district goals/urgency statement. Thus
there is a separation and disconnect between the schools and district office. Another
issue with the schools instructional focuses is that the selected focuses do not necessarily
relate to the achievement gap. For example, a focus on writing in all subjects does not
appear to have been chosen with the intention of benefiting ELLs or with closing the gap,
it appears to have been chosen because it would be useful learning for all students.
The role of the district strategy to close the achievement gap, within the Focus on
Results Framework, is to first use data to identify gaps. The district‟s director of
assessment and instruction whose job it is to analyze and prepare data for the district
using Data Director explained how before NCLB there was no data to real how kids were

61

doing, and now they can really see who is succeeding and who is not and needs more
help. She and others felt that this basic identification of achievement levels is a crucial
and influential step. The district also stresses the importance of staff development and
collaboration opportunities to discuss data and goals. The district encourages school site
principals to provide relevant literature to staff to read and discuss. Another recent
strategy that the district hopes to use to close the gap is the hiring of Teacher Specialists
to be assigned to each school. The specialists would focus on the planning and
implementation of categorically funded, ELL, and or compensatory education programs.
These specialists would be responsible for developing parent involvement, staff
development activities, and budgetary responsibilities.
Some strategies to close the achievement gap being used at the school site are as
follows. First, within the format of FOR, principals facilitate Instructional Leadership
Teams (ILTs) composed of teachers of various grade levels, school administrators, and
sometimes visiting district administrators. The ILT meets after school monthly to discuss
data, review literature, and discuss intervention strategies. Another strategy school sites
use is that most of the classrooms had a Teacher‟s Assistant/Aid, typically a college
student, to work with ELLs individually or in small groups. An issue with this is that
these TAs were not credentialed or trained, and were typically giving basic support to
ELLs doing simplistic academic tasks; they were not providing relevant individualized
instruction using ELL strategies. Also, at several school‟s there were Intervention
Teachers who pulled out classes ELD students to work with them in small groups;
however when asked what these ITs were doing with the students, the teachers did not

62

know. Lastly, one school pulled out the ELL students for “computer lab” during which
the students practiced reading comprehension skills using a computer software program.
There was no mention of the use of Coordinators, Coaches, or Resource Specialists by
teachers.
Materials and Resources
A materials and resources issue in the district is that there is no clear, consistent,
and organized ELD program. The district has not adopted any separate ELD program,
and has not mandated that a separate time block be reserved for ELD instruction.
Therefore, ELD students are not receiving any kind of individualized instruction to meet
their needs. Most of the school sites do use the program “Making Meaning,” which is a
supplementary Language Arts program that has a story, picture/word cards, and asks
students to make connections. While teachers believe it is developing student
vocabulary, it is a program used for all the students, and there is little data to show
whether or not it is having an effect on ELLs.
Perception that FLAG Program Closes the Gap
The district is very proud of its Foreign Language Academies of Glendale
Program (FLAG). The FLAG program exists at four of the elementary schools in the
district and is a dual language program. Spanish is offered at one school, Korean at the
second school, Italian, German, and Spanish at the third school, and Armenian at the
fourth school. The goal of the FLAG program is that all participating children will be
bilingual and biliterate in both the class language and in English by the end of elementary
school. The FLAG Spanish, German, and Italian classes are 90/10 dual immersion

63

programs, and the FLAG Korean is a 50/50 dual immersion program. The classes are
taught by fully credentialed bilingual teachers. In the Spanish classes the children may
speak or respond in either language, but the teacher will speak only Spanish during 90%
of the day. Language is taught largely through the content studied, not as a separate
subject. At all times there is strict division of languages and teachers never mix or
translate during instruction. Starting in kindergarten, students receive 30 minutes of oral
instruction in English at a designated time. Annually a greater percentage of English is
added, until, by 5th grade, instruction is evenly divided between the two languages.
Formal literacy instruction in English generally begins in third grade, although students
are exposed to oral and print English from the beginning (www.gusd.net, 2010).
Most members of the district have the perception that the FLAG program is very
successful in closing the Latino ELL achievement gap. For example, an Assistant
Superintendent stated, “we are able to provide those students with primary language
support…this has made a huge difference, and the Latino students who are in that
program are now outscoring their counterparts”. However, this perception that the FLAG
program is closing the gap appears to be inaccurate for several reasons. First, a very
small percentage of ELL Latinos participate in this program, so it is not affecting enough
students to be effective in closing the gap. For example, each grade level at the two
schools offering the Spanish FLAG class has one FLAG class, and half of the class must
be English speaking, so that equals no more than 10-15 ELL Latinos per class. This is a
very small percentage of the total number of Latinos in the school.

64

Another issue with the perception that the FLAG program is closing the
achievement gap is that the students who participate in the FLAG program may not the
students who would usually struggle; the students who participate often come from
families who have sociocultural knowledge and whose parents are able to access the
resources needed to enroll their child in this program before Kindergarten. Such families,
who have knowledge and resources, often have children who are more prepared to enter
school, and have the resources and support available should they struggle with learning.
These children also come from higher socioeconomic families as evidenced by the fact
that the SES status of FLAG schools has been increasing with the increasing enrollment,
and the FLAG schools are expecting to lose Title I funds in the upcoming years.
Therefore, these FLAG students are likely to have been successful in school, whether or
not they had participated in the FLAG program and are not representative of the typical
gap students.
Also, the district personnel stated in initial scanning interviews that the purpose of
the FLAG program was to bring in out-of-district students. The higher level district
administrative team specifically and clearly stated this during the first meeting when they
described the problems in the district. The district administration described how
educated upper/middle class parents would be interested in having their child become
bilingual, and therefore would apply for an out-of-district transfer waiver in order to
attend a FLAG school. This increased enrollment of new students has raised the Average
Daily Attendance (ADA) of the FLAG schools and of the district, thus bringing in more
per pupil funding. The district personnel described how in a time of economic crisis, it is

65

crucial to maintain funding to support the schools, especially when many students are
leaving the district. The current main FLAG school was even at risk of closing down
because of its rapidly declining enrollment, but the out of district transfers into the FLAG
classes at the school have greatly increased the schools numbers thus saving it from
closing down. Thus, the purpose of the FLAG program is not to close the achievement
gap, it is to raise enrollment and ADA to bring in funding. Even though the district
administration stated this intended purpose of the FLAG program they, as well school site
administration and teachers, referenced the FLAG program as being a factor in closing
the gap numerous times in interviews. This misconception and confusion over the
purpose and effect of the FLAG program was consistent throughout the district, and this
is a problem because focus and effort could be better spent on effective interventions.
Knowledge/Skill
Factual Knowledge
The teachers in the district possess factual knowledge about research-based
instructional strategies that can help students learn. Some strategies that were referred to
most often in interviews were making connections across the curriculum, think-pair-
shares, and thinking maps. Most of the teachers also stated how important oral language
is; many described how they often do read-alouds to model correct reading. In addition,
teachers use think-pair-shares a lot to develop vocabulary, check for understanding, and
to engage students. This factual knowledge seems to come from teachers‟ educational
background, teaching experience, and current research articles being provided to teachers

66

by administrators during professional development and Instructional Leadership Team
meetings.
District employees also have ample factual knowledge about student achievement
data. Student achievement data is readily accessible and continuously referred to in the
district. Teachers were knowledgeable about their school and classrooms CST scores,
API/AYP scores, and summative/formative assessment scores. They were easily able to
identify which students were lower level scoring, which were in the middle, and which
were high. This was evident by the grouping of students‟ names on the board or on
posters. The majority of interviewees were also aware that a Latino ELL achievement
gap existed, and had seen the API subgroup data as evidence of this. Therefore, the
factual information about students‟ achievement scores and the Latino ELL achievement
gap seem to be clearly understood and accepted by the district staff. This factual data
drives most of the decision making in the district.
One area of factual knowledge that is lacking is that most of the teachers are
unaware of what strategies specifically help ELLs. The teachers were able to site general
instructional strategies like thinking maps, but when asked to describe specific strategies
they use for ELLs they often had no response. For example, the majority of teachers did
not use cooperative learning; they only pulled out “low” students to work in small groups
with the teacher for help.
Another area of factual knowledge that is lacking involves the educators‟
perception of the problem. The educators often perceive that parent low socioeconomic
level, lack of “value” of education, and low educational background are the roots of the

67

problem. This perception could be the result of a lack of knowledge about their Latino
student‟s lives, culture, and what strategies really work to help these students. This could
also be a lack of knowledge about what research and literature state the causes of the
achievement gap are.
Conceptual Knowledge
Not only do the teachers lack the factual knowledge about what instructional
strategies apply specifically to ELL Latinos, they lack the conceptual knowledge that
Latino ELLs need specific instructional strategies that apply to their needs. Most of the
people interviewed believed in the idea that “good teaching is good teaching” and that
one good instructional strategy applies to all. This issue was particularly evident when
teachers were asked if they used SDAIE, ELD, or learning strategies; most teachers
responded that they used them sparingly when teaching, and if they did the strategies
were being taught to all students and not used with the specific intention of supporting
ELLs. This is opposite of the idea of differentiation and individualization. Only one
district personnel disagreed with the general consensus when he stated, “we need to be
more laser like in what we‟re offering to fit the need of those students…it‟s looking at
equity, trying to give every kid what they need not trying to give everyone the same
thing.” This conceptual knowledge that Latino ELLs need specific individualized
strategies tailored to meet their needs is lacking.
Procedural Knowledge
Not only do teachers lack the factual and conceptual knowledge about what
strategies work for Latino ELLs and why, but they also lack the procedural knowledge

68

needed to know how to implement effective strategies. The teachers did not have any
clear plan or objective for how implement instructional strategies to ELLs. Especially
without an ELD program or set ELD time period, teachers had little idea of how to
individualize and differentiate instruction for ELLs. Therefore, the strategies the teachers
did use, they applied to all their students.
Similarly, teachers knew that their ELLs lacked vocabulary, but they did not
know of, or how to implement, a systematic, consistent, and thoughtful plan for how to
teach it. While some teachers did use the new “Making Meaning” language arts program,
this was once again applied to all students and not specifically considered for the use of
ELLs. The teachers recognized the importance of developing the ELL‟s oral language,
but lacked knowledge about the process of how to teach it.
Metacognitive Knowledge
There appears to be an attempt at developing educators‟ metacognitive knowledge
through the Focus on Results process. School site instructional leadership teams
composed of administrators, district representatives, and teachers volunteering their time
meet on a weekly or monthly basis to discuss their urgency statement, their goals, and the
process of achieving their goals. However, much of the knowledge developed through
this process is factual, procedural, and sometimes conceptual; it is rarely metacognitive
despite the possible intentions. Specifically, the participants were not reflecting on their
own cognition and thinking, or on their students‟ cognition and thinking. Self-reflection
is not an emphasis within the FOR process, and this could be limiting teachers personal
growth as educators.

69

Similarly, there appears to be a lack of teaching students in a way that would help
them to develop their metacognitive knowledge. Research has shown that when students
are more knowledgeable about cognition, they act on this awareness and tend to learn
better (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). For example, the teachers rarely mentioned
teaching students general strategies for learning and thinking. For example, there was
little discussion of teaching students knowledge about strategies of how to read a text
book or strategies for how to check their comprehension while they read. Overall, it was
assumed that such teaching of strategic knowledge of general strategies for learning,
thinking, and problem solving was occurring sporadically, but the fact that it was rarely
mentioned by teachers demonstrates that it is not a priority being done consistently.
Similarly, there was little mention of the teaching of contextual and conditional
knowledge. Such knowledge would help learners to activate the relevant situational or
conditional knowledge for solving a problem in a certain context. For example, when
taking a test, students may know multiple-choice tests require only recognition of the
correct answers, not actual recall of the information, as required in essay tests. This type
of metacognitive knowledge might influence how students subsequently prepare for an
examination. Lastly, there was little discussion of the development of self-knowledge.
Self-knowledge includes knowledge of one's strengths and weaknesses. If students were
to better understand their own learning characteristics and traits, they could be more
successful in learning.
There also generally appears to be little critical thinking or higher-level thinking
skills being taught to Latino ELLs. For example, the higher level thinking skills defined

70

by Blooms Taxonomy such as analyze, evaluate, and create, are being targeted towards
the higher level successful students and not toward the struggling low-level ELLs. For
instance, at one school, the 5
th
grade language arts classes were divided up by
achievement level; the low level classes received basic instruction whereas the higher
level classes received challenging thoughtful projects and assignments. Overall, the
perception from teachers seems to be that the struggling Latino ELL students need basic
simplified instruction in learning words, and that they would not be able to participate in
higher level thinking activities until they gain these skills. This perception is inaccurate,
and these students are missing out on opportunities to develop skills that would help them
to learn and succeed.
Motivation
Self-Efficacy
Overall, teachers in the district seem to have high self-efficacy in that they feel
capable and feel they can achieve their goals. Many teachers described their instructional
abilities as being strong, and were confident that they were effective teachers. They often
referenced the number of years they had been teaching, on average over 5 years, as
evidence of this fact. They also proudly described instructional strategies they use in the
classroom such as thinking maps, and small group instruction as evidence of their being
strong teachers.
However, the teachers often sited that their ELL Latino students lacked self-
esteem, motivation, and self-efficacy. Specifically, according to teachers these students
seemed not to try as hard, were not as confident in their abilities, and displayed a lack of

71

caring. The Latino ELLs demonstrated these feelings to teachers through a lack of effort
on assignments and a sad demeanor.
This low level of student self-efficacy is possibly the result of the fact that most
teachers use ability grouping. This could cause students to feel identified as, and singled
out as, low performing and “not smart.” For example, names of low, middle, high student
groups are posted in room and those groups of students are pulled out to work with the
teacher as needed. One school also separates low, middle, high students for language arts
class in 5
th
grade, making the separation of students even more apparent. This ability
grouping could be causing Latino ELLs to have low self-efficacy, and to feel that they are
unable to learn and achieve.
Task Value
Task value is the level of importance or value assigned to a task. In regards to
this project, we presented the “task” as being “educating Latino ELLs” and “closing the
achievement gap.” When questioning teachers, administrators, and district personal
about how important they felt this task was, the majority of responders felt that these
tasks were very important. Most interviewees agreed that these tasks were a priority for
the district and themselves as individuals.
Another value theme that became apparent during the interview process involved
the perceptions of the roots of the problem. The majority of interviewees believed that
one of the main causes of the achievement gap was students‟ low value of education, as a
result of their parents‟ lack of value of education. For example, one principal described
how the priority of Latino families, who she stated were often low-income, was to raise

72

money in order to feed their family. Therefore, she felt that the parents simply wanted
their children to work and earn money, and she felt they did not understand the value of
education. In addition, the principals and other interviewees felt that the parents‟ low
educational attainment impacted their value of education.
Attributions
As previously mentioned, educators and leaders throughout the district perceive
the achievement gap to be the result of parents low SES level, lack of value of education,
and low educational attainment level. Thus, district educators are attributing the problem
to others and to factors outside themselves. This perception causes teachers to lack
motivation because they feel that the cause of ELLs low achievement is the result of
things they can‟t control. Therefore teachers feel helpless about the situation, and feel
that they are struggling against huge challenges. These perceptions and feelings seemed
to conflict with interviewees‟ statement that they had high expectations for their Latino
ELLs and believed all children could learn and succeed.
Interest
These perceptions of the problem could in turn be affecting the Latino ELL
students‟ interest in learning. It is possible that the educators perceptions that the
students and their parents don‟t value learning, their low SES status, and lack of
educational attainment are not actually the cause of the problem; this inaccurate
perception and lack of teacher knowledge may be causing these students to feel less
understood, thus perpetuating the problem. Similarly, the students‟ lack of self esteem
and seeming lack of interest could also be the result of feelings that their culture is not

73

valued. For instance, most teachers sited that students speaking Spanish in class is
generally not encouraged or thought about.
Goal Orientation
District, school site administration, and teacher goals are not aligned. For
example, the district‟s main goal centers around “Focus on Results” and the district
urgency statement. The school site principals however have goals specific to their school
site such as a focus on writing, or reading comprehension. While these goals are situated
somewhat in the foundation of Focus on Results it seems that principals, who are able to
state the district goals, don‟t think about the district goal much, and focus more
specifically on their school goal.
Also, teachers‟ goals vary enormously from teacher to teacher; while teachers are
aware of their school‟s “focus” the teachers have various individual classroom and
student goals. Similarly, many teachers‟ goals were unclear, not concrete, not current,
and lacked clarity and focus. For instance, a few teachers stated that their objective and
goal was for students to “grow.” This is not a “SMART” goal that is specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. It also lacks a clear objective connected to
instructional standards which can be easily assessed.

74

CHAPTER FIVE: PROPOSED LITERATURE BASED SOLUTIONS
Problem Area 1
While the current Focus on Results reform has many strengths, its emphasis
on process and data often seemed to result in a lack of attention and discussion on
instructional strategies.
o District, school site administrator, and teacher goals lacked alignment.
o Interviewed teacher goals for their Latino ELLs often varied enormously and
were unclear, not concrete, not current, and lacked clarity and focus.
o Schools sites have individual instructional focuses; some of them seem
disconnected from the district’s urgency statement/goal to close the ELL gap
and do not address effective instructional strategies for ELLs.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 1
The district should continue its focus on data-driven decision making, while
emphasizing the importance of connecting goals and school instructional focuses to
the ELL Latino achievement gap.
Data-Driven Decision Making
Through the Focus on Results Reform, the district currently emphasizes
assessment and instructional data use and analysis. This appears to have impacted
positive gains in teacher instructional effectiveness and student achievement. Research
supports this growth and indicates that in the current high-stakes accountability
environment, it is important for educators to systematically collect and use data to inform
instructional decisions (Kerr et al, 2006; Coburn & Talbert, 2006). Wayman and

75

Stringfield (2006) describe how data-driven decision making is likely to increase student
academic achievement by targeting instruction to students‟ needs describe when they say,
“as educators at all levels gain experience with these new ways of examining and using
data, it is logical to posit gains in educational productivity” (p. 464). Archer (2005) also
describes the importance of data-driven decision making when he stated that in a national
survey of superintendents, the vast majority of superintendents indicated that the use of
data to guide decisions was the most important strategy for improving student
achievement.
The district can continue to support teachers‟ use of assessment data to guide
instruction in various ways. First, district leaders should convey to teachers which data
matters, and the expectation that they use data to guide instruction (Young, 2006).
However, district leaders must be careful that the messages they send are not downplayed
or altered by school site administrators (Young, 2006). The district should also ensure
that there is a unified concept across all district staff, of what is research-based, high-
quality evidence; this can be done through productive dialogue and discourse led by
central office administrators (Kerr et al, 2006).
Also, the district should continue to support teachers and administrators analysis
and interpretation of instructional/test data. Research indicates that there are several
factors that impact effective data use. Some factors are: accessibility to data, ability to
access data in a timely manner, user perceptions of data validity, user training, support
for teachers in regards to data analysis and interpretation, and the alignment of data
strategies with other instructional initiatives (Kerr et al, 2006). Current research shows

76

that teachers often find it difficult to analyze and interpret data, and lack knowledge of
what to do as a result of data (Feldman & Tung, 2001; Ingram & Schroeder, 2004;
Herman & Gribbons, 2001; Mason, 2002). Thus, the district and school sites should
facilitate professional development and training to ensure teacher‟s can effectively
analyze, interpret, and use data (Ingram et al, 2004).
One area of data-driven decision making that can be improved upon in Glendale
Unified is at the school sites. Currently, Glendale elementary schools choose an
Instructional Focus, situated within the Focus on Results framework, to guide their
instruction, discussion, and data-analysis. For example, reading comprehension and
writing were the instructional focuses of two schools. Our interviews indicated that this
was an issue because schools were selecting instructional focuses without considering
data related to the Latino ELL achievement gap. Interestingly, this situation is common
across the nation; research shows that despite the fact that most CSR models (such as
Focus on Results) declare the need to respect diverse cultures, the majority are not
developed specifically for minority students needs (Meneken, 2000). Hamann, Zuliani,
and Hudak (2002) describe how LEP students are one such group whose needs are often
ignored. Menken (2000) emphasizes this when he says that because the number of ELL
students is growing, "it is therefore important that the needs of these students be
addressed through comprehensive school reform" (Menken, 2000, p. 1). Summarily,
school sites need to recognize that the Focus on Results may not be directly meeting the
needs of ELL Latinos, and therefore should consider data on the ELL Latino achievement
gap and students when selecting an instructional focus.

77

Goal Setting and Orientation
Goal setting of effectively formulated goals is also important in closing the
achievement gap. Goal setting refers to setting a standard or objective to serve as the aim
of one's actions (Schunk, 1984). Goals provide standards against which people compare
their present performance level (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990). When an
individual or organization adopts a goal, they may experience a sense of efficacy for
attaining it, which then motivates them to engage in goal related activities, attend to
instruction, persist, and expend effort (Schunk, 1996).
There are several aspects that define an effective goal. First, it is important that
goals have specificity, high difficulty level, and proximity (Bandura, 1977; Latham &
Yukl, 1975; Locke, 1968; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Also, goals that
incorporate specific performance standards lead to higher performance than no goals or
general goals such as "Do your best" (Locke, 1968; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981;
Rosswork, 1977). Goals should be tiered in a 3 level structure: day to day goals,
intermediate goals, and long term goals. In order to ensure the acceptance and impact of
the goals, they must be concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable),
challenging (doable but very difficult), and current (short-term daily or weekly goals are
more motivating than longer-term monthly or annual goals) (Clark & Estes, 2009, p. 26).
It is also crucial that goals be aligned across all district levels. As Kelleher (2003)
describes, “teacher and departmental goals must be closely nested within the goals of the
building and the district” (p. 1). In this case, teacher goals specifically should be related
to the Focus on Results urgency statement. As Clark and Estes (2009) describe, all goals

78

should be aligned, cascading, and relevant. Similarly, these goals should be understood
and supported by everyone in the organization.
Also, teacher goals for students in the classroom should also be mastery based,
not performance based. A mastery or learning goal refers to the knowledge and skills the
student is to acquire, and a performance goal relates to the task the student is to complete
like grades or extrinsic rewards (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Schunk (1996) reviewed
various studies on motivation, and found that teachers who used learning goals led to
students with higher motivation and achievement levels than did teachers who used
performance goals. Specifically, learning goals focus students' attention on processes and
strategies that help them acquire capabilities and improve their skills (Ames, 1992).
Also, teachers who have mastery goals typically focus more on learning as an active
process, have higher expectations for students, and encourage student interaction and
learning (Patrick et al, 2001).
Summary and Group Recommendations
The group recommends that the district continue to collect, analyze, and discuss
assessment and instructional data regarding ELL Latino students and the achievement
gap. The Focus on Results reform appears to successfully emphasize data-driven
decision making, and district and school leaders should continue to encourage teachers to
use data to guide their instruction. However, the district can improve in the area of data-
driven decision making by encouraging school site administrators to use data on the
achievement gap and Latino ELLs to guide their selection of school instructional focuses.

79

Also, the group recommends that the district make efforts to ensure that district,
school, and teacher goals are not only situated within the Focus on Results framework,
but are aligned, cascading, and relevant. For instance, the district‟s urgency statement
regarding closing the Latino ELL achievement gap should trickle down across all levels
and be evident in administrator and teachers goals. School site administrators can also
emphasize that teachers‟ goals for Latino ELLs be mastery based, clear, concrete, current,
and focused. For example, teachers should have SMART goals for their students that are
specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely.
Problem Area 2
While most of the district personnel are aware of generally effective
instructional strategies for all students, there is a lack of knowledge about effective
instructional strategies that apply to ELL Latino students and their needs.
o Most of the individuals interviewed shared the philosophy that “good
teaching is good teaching” and lacked the conceptual knowledge that Latino
ELLs need specific instructional strategies that apply to their needs.
o Teachers are unsure of ELD and ELL instructional strategies, and
specifically how and when to implement them.
o There is currently no clear, consistent, or unified ELD program, or time
block for ELD instruction, in place in the district.
o Teachers do not know of or how to implement a systematic, thoughtful plan
for how to teach language and vocabulary to ELLs. There is a
supplementary language arts program called “Making Meaning” being used

80

at some schools, but it is applied to all students and does not utilize ELD
instructional strategies.
o Developing students metacognitive knowledge does not seem to be a priority
in the district; many interviewed teachers did not mention teaching thinking
strategies, contextual/conditional knowledge for solving a problem in a
certain context, or developing students self knowledge of their strengths and
weaknesses.
o Many of the interviewed teachers are not teaching higher level thinking skills
or critical thinking skills to the Latino ELLs; they are focusing on basic
simplified instruction with those students.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 2
An increased use of and focus on English Language Development (ELD) and
effective instructional strategies that meet the needs of Latino ELLs will help to
close the achievement gap.
Effective Instructional Strategies and Processes
In order to close the Latino ELL versus White achievement gap, Latino ELLs
need individualized and differentiated instruction that targets their specific needs
(Santamaria, 2009). Differentiated Instruction (DI) is defined by Tomlinson et al. (2003)
as “an approach to teaching in which teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching
methods, resources, learning activities, and students‟ products to address the diverse
needs of individual students and small groups of students to maximize the learning
opportunity for each student in the classroom” (p. 121). The implementation of DI

81

specifically helps ELLs by allowing them to move through the levels and stages of
language development as quickly as possible in order to reach grade level proficiency in
English (CDE, 1999). Overall, DI promotes teachers use of effective instructional
strategies that specifically benefit specific students and student subgroups such as Latino
ELLs.
One effective form of instruction that helps ELLS is Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), also known as Sheltered Instruction. SDAIE
strategies address the issue of teaching academic content to English learners while they
are still learning the English language (Echevarria et al., 2006). The purpose of SDAIE is
to make learning content areas such as social studies and science understandable to
English learners. During SDAIE, teachers will use the core curriculum, but provide
English learners with scaffolds and strategies making the understanding and learning of
the content assessable. Specifically, SDAIE strategies help student to build their prior
knowledge and background information, and helps them to make connections; this allows
students to become engaged and have a deeper understanding to what they are learning
(Gibbons, 2002). Also, SDAIE focuses on presenting concepts in a variety of ways by
incorporating plenty of clues for understanding, various checks for comprehension, and
providing feedback (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Some SDAIE strategies that
focus on comprehensibility are (1) contextualization or the use of manipulatives and
visuals to organize and communicate ideas, (2) modeling, hands-on experiments, and
show-and-tell explanations, (3) speech adjustment with a focus on reducing the amount

82

of unnecessary verbiage, and (4) comprehension checks to see how well the lesson taught
as well as judging the understanding of the students (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002).
Another component for the success of Latino English learners is developing
students‟ metacognitive knowledge. With metacognitive knowledge, the emphasis is “on
helping students become more knowledgeable of and responsible for their own cognition
and thinking” (Pintrich, 2002). Once students understand and are aware of their learning,
thinking, planning, monitoring, and problem solving they tend to learn better. Teachers
who incorporate metacognitive thinking in their classrooms believe in their English
learners and set goals for their students that are cognitively demanding (Scarcella, 2003).
Similarly, students should receive rigorous, challenging instruction to develop
their higher level thinking skills. Bloom‟s revised taxonomy states that skills such the
ability to analyze, evaluate, and create are crucial critical thinking skills. The
development of such skills promotes the conceptual and metacognitive knowledge
development of students, and allows them to be more successful learners. Specifically, it
allows students to be able to transfer knowledge across subject matter, and to be able to
use knowledge situationally to solve unique thinking challenges. Martinez and Klopott
(2005) support this when they state that “the rigor of courses taken…is the most powerful
predictor of academic achievement, high school graduation, and enrollment in
postsecondary education” (p. 8).
In addition, giving ELLs the opportunity to practice and develop their oral
language through interaction is crucial. Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) support this when
they describe how in order for students to acquire skills and concepts they must practice,

83

be able to communicate the task to others, participate in discussions, and listen to others.
One way of doing this is through cooperative learning. Slavin (1980) describes how
cooperative learning techniques, in which students work in small groups and receive
rewards or recognition based on their group performance has had positive effects on
students: “The pattern of research findings supports the utility of cooperative learning
methods in general for increasing student achievement, positive race relations in
desegregated schools, mutual concern among students, student self-esteem, and other
positive outcomes” (p. 315). Think-pair-shares are another oral language development
strategy in which students pair up with a partner to speak about a given topic in a
structured way.
Another strategy to improve Latino ELL student achievement is to provide clear,
concrete, relevant and immediate feedback to students. Diaz-Rico & Weed, (2002)
support this when they describe how students often make mistakes and errors while
learning, and that teaching ELLs to analyze their mistakes is essential for their academic
growth. Feedback should be structured to meet the needs of the students and their levels,
yet teachers should not focus too much on every error at the risk of overwhelming the
student. Therefore, feedback should encourage and motivate students to learn, rather
than discouraging them. Overall, according to Scarcella (2003), instructional feedback
should have the following characteristics: clear, consistent, conveys the message
accurately, students attend to the feedback, useful and timely, supplemented with
instruction, instructional, provides students with their strengths and weaknesses, and
encourages, not discourages (p. 132).

84

Scaffolding is another best practice and effective strategy for English learners. As
Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) define, “ a scaffold is a temporary support, provided by a
more capable person, for new concepts and skills that students are not able to perform
unassisted” (p. 84). There are a variety of ways teachers can scaffold student learning
and instruction: they can naturally scaffold for the needs of their class, without
consciously acknowledging the scaffolds, or they can gradually release responsibility of
the task from teacher modeling to the class and/or groups practicing once students are
ready. Another scaffold is using visual aids and graphic organizers such as thinking
maps to help students construct knowledge; this assists English learners with constructing
a schema, from what is known to the unknown or new learning and helps them to make
various connections (Gibbons, 2002). Another way for educators to scaffold is to provide
hints for students trying to carry out a task rather than just providing students with the
answers; this makes the students work cognitively for the answer (Rothenberg & Fisher,
2007).
English Language Development Strategies
Latino ELLs can also greatly benefit from English Language Development (ELD)
instruction. For many years, there has been an assumption that English learners can learn
English on their own without explicit or systematic teaching (Scarcella, 2003). It was
assumed that good teaching was good teaching for all students. However in recent year,
the research has indicated that in order for English learners to achieve that “ELD must
occur daily; is specifically identified within the curriculum of the school district and the

85

school; and is supported by high-quality instructional materials, a sufficient amount of
time, and professional development for teachers” (CDE, 1999, p.236).
In an ELD classroom, the focus is on primarily the acquisition of the language,
while content becomes secondary (CDE, 2002). It should no longer be assumed that
English learners will acquire both social and academic English through casual instruction.
In order for English learners to acquire English, there must be instruction and practice
provided with new vocabulary and understanding of various language forms so that they
can comprehend and participate in language arts and content areas. While focusing on
ELD, English learners will “benefit from instruction in discriminating and manipulating
the sounds of the language, decoding words, and instruction designed to enhance
vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension” (Goldenberg, 2006, p. 4). Depending
on the levels of the students, as well as the district, school and classroom, English
Language Development can occur as a whole class or in small groups.
One specific instructional strategy that is effective during ELD instruction is the
use of comprehensible input. Regardless of English levels, it is the responsibility of the
teacher to provide their instruction so that it is comprehendible to the students
(Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007). There are four ways in which teachers can increase
students comprehensible input (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). The first is language
contextualization, where teachers embed language within a meaningful context. The
second is language modification which can occur in the form of elaboration, precise
pronunciation, basic vocabulary, longer pauses, exaggerated intonation, or slower rate of
speech. The third mean of comprehensible input is repetition and paraphrase, providing

86

different ways or reiterating what was seen or read without repeating it verbatim.
Teachers can also preview an objective, teach the objective, and then review the objective
in various ways. The last mean, which is often used, is the use of media, regalia,
manipulatives, and other modalities (Gibbons, 2002).
Appropriate use of levels of questioning is another strategy that helps assist in
ELD. Teachers often use questioning to gain an idea of students‟ level of understanding.
Some questions and answers indicate a surface level of understanding, while other
questions can prompt higher level thinking discussions and responses. However,
educators are often uncomfortable asking higher level questions to ELLs out of fear that
the students will not understand. Therefore, ELLs are often only asked basic factual
questions or not asked a question at all, not being held accountable to the content matter
(Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007). The California ELD standards can help teachers with this
issue by providing them with information about students‟ knowledge and abilities at
different ELD levels so that teachers can know which questions are appropriate for
students at different language development levels (CDE, 2002). Overall, when
questioning ELLs educators need to consider the way questions are framed and ensure
that they match the students language level (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002).
Another ELD strategy is clarification checks or checking for understanding. As
Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) state, “clarification checks at intervals give the teacher a
sense of the students‟ ability to understand (p. 107). This can be done in a simplistic
manner, like having student put their thumbs up if they agree and thumbs down if they
disagree. Another way to check for understanding is to have students work out the

87

answer on mini-white boards, or to have students write a mini-summary on what they
learned on a ticket as they leave the classroom (Gibbons, 2002). Such clarification
checks allow students to be accountable and engaged in their learning by showing their
understanding, while also allowing teachers to gauge students‟ understanding (Harvey &
Goudvis, 2000).
Application and Implementation of Effective Instructional Strategies
In order for educators to incorporate best practices, instruction, and strategies for
their English learners, specific and effective professional development must be provided.
“The preparation of teachers and ongoing support for their continuing professional
development are critical to the quality of school and increases in student achievement”
(CDE, 1999, p. 16). As Butler (2002) states, “sustained improvements in schools will not
occur without changes in the quality of learning experiences on the part of those who run
the schools” (p. 4). He describes how the desired outcome of staff development is
information transfer, skill acquisition, or behavior change. Content of staff development
should “reflect clear program goals and operational objectives defining what participants
will learn and how they will be able to use the new learning” (p. 5). Elmore (2002) also
describes how effective professional development must be continuous, involve teacher
practice with feedback, and should be connected to the students learning goals. If such
a professional development program was implemented, teachers could gain procedural
knowledge through a supportive training program. Both prior to and after professional
development, the administration must make a commitment to provide support and follow

88

up, ensure implementation, and allocate time for educators to refine their practice (CDE,
1999).
Similarly, teachers need to be provided with opportunities to reflect on their new
knowledge by collaborating with one another. “Collaboration is viewed as the critical
element to improving teachers‟ instruction… instructional practice is not private, rather,
it is a shared enterprise with a specific goal: to improve student learning” (The Education
Trust, 2005, p. 32). One way of increasing teacher collaboration is through Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs). Servage (2009), the National Association of Elementary
School Principals (2008), and DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) all agree that
professional learning communities are an effective way of helping teachers to become
more effective educators. DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) describe PLCs as being
“collaborative teams who members work interdependently to achieve common goals
linked to the purpose of learning for all” (p. 3). PLCs would allow teachers to work
together to improve student achievement.
Similarly, The National College for School Leadership (2005) also suggests that
schools have mentors and coaches to help teachers become more effective teachers. The
“focus of coaching is the in-depth development of specific knowledge, skills, and
strategies…coaching is usually informed by evidence…and a mentor is usually a more
experienced colleague” (The National College for School Leadership, 2005, p. 9). A
culture of coaching and of mentors would allow teachers to take on a greater leadership
role, and struggling teachers would be provided with more effective support.

89

One program that uses such methods of professional development, collaboration,
and mentoring in order to prepare teachers to successfully use effective instructional
strategies like SDAIE in the classroom is called the Guided Language Acquisition Design
(GLAD). GLAD is a model of professional development in the area of language
acquisition and literacy (Slavit & Ernst-Slavit, 2007). Tied to standards, the model trains
teachers to provide access to core curriculum using local district guidelines and
curriculum (Cawthon, 2005). Specifically, during the staff development, teachers are
provided with the instructional strategies, the theory and research that support the model,
and the curriculum model that brings these all together in the context of district and state
frameworks and standards. The second part of the training is a demonstration session in
the classroom where the model is demonstrated with students. Overall, the goal of the
GLAD model is to promote English language acquisition, academic achievement, and
cross-cultural skills (www.projectglad.com, 2010).
GLAD training results in teachers‟ renewed commitment to high expectations and
high standards for all students because it values teacher‟s time, viewpoints, and expertise
of the teachers, as well as promoting collaboration and peer coaching. The results for
students have been continued gains in standardized test scores as well as renewed
involvement in a classroom that is, not only student-centered, but fosters a sense of
identity and voice (www.projectglad.com, 2010).
GLAD was developed and field tested for nine years in the Fountain Valley
School District and is based on years of experience with integrated approaches for
teaching language. GLAD is a United States Department of Education, OBEMLA,

90

Project of Academic Excellence; a California Department of Education Exemplary
Program, a model reform program for the Comprehensive School Reform Design, and
training model for five Achieving Schools Award Winners. It was the recommended K-8
project by the California State Superintendent of Schools for teachers of English learners.
It is also highlighted as a California Department of Education “Best Practices” program
for Title III professional development funding (www.projectglad.com, 2010).
Another effective model for training teachers to apply instructional strategies in
the classroom is The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model.
Echevarria, Vogt, & Short (2004) state that, “SIOP allows for lesson planning and
implementation that provides English learners with access to grade-level content
standards” (p. xi). The model provides a framework for selecting and organizing
techniques and strategies and facilitates the integration of district or state level standards
for ESL and for specific content areas (Echevarria & Short, 1999). Also, the protocol
provides extensive criteria for effective planning and instruction, and emphasizes clear
content and language objectives, building background knowledge, promoting interaction,
practice, application, and assessment (Slavit & Ernst-Slavit, 2007). SIOP is a model
designed for flexibility and has been tested in a wide range of classroom situations.
Results of studies conducted on SIOP indicate that students whose teachers
implemented the SIOP model improved significantly in all areas of writing (Echevarria,
Vogt, & Short, 2004). Batt (2008) also emphasized how a professional development
model like SIOP could help to solve some of the greatest challenges and problems facing
ELLs in education.

91

Application and Implementation of ELD and ELD strategies
One way to ensure that ELLs are receiving such instructional strategies and ELD
instruction is to mandate an ELD time block. A separate time block of ELD allows for
focused and organized instruction to increase the effectiveness of ELD (Goldenberg,
2008). A separate ELD block that targets language acquisition appears to be more
effective than relying on integrating ELD with other parts of the curriculum. Research
suggests that a separate ELD period or block makes a distinct contribution to English
Language development (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009). Daily oral English language
instruction that targets language acquisition is recommended for about 45 minutes per
day (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009). Also, “more districts and schools are providing
students who need extra help to learn English with additional instruction – before school,
after school, during lunch, and in an extended school year” (Scarcella, 2003, p. 2).
Many districts have adopted published ELD programs to assist teachers in using
these strategies and in teaching language arts skills to ELLs during ELD time blocks. To
learn English and achieve proficiency in English, students must be explicitly and
systematically taught with instruction that combines both language arts skills and
concepts (CDE, 1999). In recent years, in order to be considered as a Language Arts
program within California, publishers incorporated instructional materials within their
teacher‟s edition that provided differentiated instruction for English learners. The first
chart below lists current used programs/publishers of Reading Language Arts programs
that contain an ELD component adopted by the CDE. They provide leveled language
instruction in the four domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The second

92

chart indicates supplementary ELD programs and materials by many districts and
adopted by the CDE. The district should be aware that these programs are often lacking,
and that additional resources, along with the effective instructional strategies, should be
used to support the selected program.
Table 2: English-Language Development Publishers

Publisher Program Grade Level
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
School Publishers
CA Excursions K-6
MacMillan/McGraw-Hill
School Division
California Treasures
English Language
Development
K-6
Pearson Scott Foresman and
Prentice Hall
Pearson CA Language
Central
K-8
SRA/McGraw-Hill Imagine It! English
Language Development
K-6

Table 3: Supplementary Instructional Materials for English Learners

Summary and Group Recommendations
In summary, the group recommends that the district focus their efforts on what we
believe to be the two most important effective instructional strategies: SDAIE and
differentiation. These two strategies will ensure that instruction is targeted to meet the
needs of ELL Latino students and that content is made comprehensible. We suggest that
teachers learn about these strategies, and how to successfully apply them in their
Publisher Program Grade Level
Alloy Interactive, Inc. ESL Reading Smart* 4-12
Ballart & Tighe Carousel of IDEAS* K-5
Digital Education
Productions
Easy English Academic
Success for You
4-12
Harcourt Achieve Imprints On Our Way to English K-5
Harcourt School Publishers Moving into English K-6
LitConn English Now K-6
Portico Books Hands-On English 3-12

93

classrooms, via comprehensive professional development programs such as GLAD or
SIOP.
In addition, while the district does currently use an ELA reading program with an
ELD component, our interviews indicated that ELD was typically not occurring in the
classroom. Therefore, we recommend that the district mandate an ELD time block to
ensure that teachers are providing ELD instruction. Similarly, we suggest that the district
select a published ELD program, or supplementary instructional material for ELLs, so
that teachers can more easily begin to incorporate effective ELD instructional strategies
into the ELD content and curriculum. Four research based ELD program publishers
recommended by the CDE are: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill
School Division, Pearson Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, and SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Over time, as teachers become more comfortable with the leveled content of the ELD
curriculum, schools can move away from the structured program and provide more
flexible in-depth ELD with the guidance and support of the school‟s ELL Specialists.
Problem Area 3
According to the interviewed teachers, the Latino ELL students are lacking
self-efficacy, self-esteem, and motivation.
o Students’ low self-efficacy may be the result of teachers’ consistent use of
ability grouping within the classroom by pulling out small groups to work
with, and by separating students within the grade level into ability-grouped
classes. This may be causing students to identify themselves as struggling,
ineffective learners.

94

o District staff attributed the cause of the gap outside of themselves and felt the
achievement gap was a result of parent’s low SES level, lack of “value” of
education, and low educational background. These misperceptions about the
causes of the gap may cause Latino students to feel that their culture and
lives are misunderstood, thus lowering their interest in learning.
o Generally, interviewed teachers would not permit or encourage the Latino
ELLs to speak Spanish in the classroom. This could be causing students to
feel that their culture and language are not valued, thus lowering their self-
esteem and interest.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 3
Increasing students’ self-esteem, self-efficacy, interest, value, and overall
motivation through various methods such as cooperative learning and culturally
relevant education, will help to close the achievement gap.
Increasing Student Self-Efficacy, Value/Interest, and Motivation
One way teachers can solve this problem is by developing students‟ self-efficacy.
All students hold beliefs about their capabilities while at school. These thoughts and
feelings can be described as self-efficacy, which is the belief one carries that they are able
to complete a task (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy determines student behavior and
beliefs and is vital for their academic success (Pajares, 2003). The behavior of students is
connected to their feelings of self and what they are capable of achieving (Bandura,
1997). Therefore, when teachers help students to have positive academic experiences and
develop confidence, students will continue to succeed when faced with adversity

95

(Pajares, 2003). Also, teachers who help students to become more confident and to
believe in themselves, students will have greater persistence and effort in assignments. In
addition, these students carry less anxiety and fear of failure (Bandura, 1997).
Another way to improve student motivation is for teachers to develop students‟
value toward a task and increase their confidence that they can accomplish it. According
to the expectancy-value theory, student value of a task and their confidence will predict
student behaviors and academic outcomes, which influence goals they make for
themselves (Pajares, 2003). Students who are confident that they will succeed hold
strong values toward subject matter studied (Kaplan & Maehr, 2002). Teachers can
increase academic task value for ELL‟s by pointing out the relevance of the subject
matter and how it will positively affect their lives. This is especially important in the
areas that students hold little value toward and are not motivated to complete.
Similarly, it is also important for teachers to increase students‟ interest in subject
matter. Students are motivated to study and work hard on topics that they have a
particular interest in, specifically those that are at current skill level. These topics hold
value since they are challenging, interesting, and have meaningful outcomes once
completed (Eccles & Roeser, 2005). By understanding student interest and their prior
knowledge, teachers can create a curriculum that is valued and intrinsically motivated for
the ELL. When students are engaged in a lesson that they care about, they will develop a
high level of competence based on their perception of the task. This will lead to the
pursuit of mastery-oriented learning, persistence through difficult periods, and deep level
understanding of the lesson (Liem et al., 2008).

96

Another way of increasing students‟ interest is by making subject matter
culturally relevant and meaningful to Latino ELLs. Considering the fact that Latino
ELLs are a unique subgroup of students, teachers who gain background knowledge about
these students‟ cultures, language, and home life, and use this information when teaching,
can help to increase their students‟ motivation, self-efficacy, and interest in learning.
Such instruction is defined as Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education or
Culturally Relevant Teaching (CRRE or CRT). It is beneficial because teachers can
create intrinsic value for each student when they are aware of what cultures and
experiences are brought into the classroom. Teachers that reflect on the different cultures
and race in their classroom will develop effective teaching strategies, strengthen student
relationships, and expand English language pedagogy (Caldwell, 2003). CRT will help
students to feel that their lives, language, and culture are more understood by teachers,
and therefore will feel more connected to school and have more interest in learning.
Also, teachers should not use ability grouping, as it can decrease students‟ self-
efficacy. Students are often very perceptive about what students are placed in what
group, and students start to take on the identity and perception that they are not smart or
are struggling learners. Brattesani, et al. (1984), Cooper and Good (1983), Good (1987)
and others have conducted research on this student awareness of differential treatment
and have found that students are generally very much aware of it in classrooms where it
is pronounced. Similarly, these researchers have also found that student attitudes are
more positive in classrooms where differential treatment is low. “In his 1983 review of
the teacher expectations research, Brophy estimated that five to ten percent of the

97

variance in student performance is attributable to differential treatment accorded them
based on their teachers' differential expectations of them; various other researchers have
accepted and quoted this estimate” (Cotton, 1989).
Therefore, instead of ability grouping, teachers can use cooperative learning
groups and productive student interaction to increase students learning and motivation.
Research shows that students receive academic and social gains from cooperative and
small group learning (Gillies, 2002). Cooperative learning engages ELL‟s to work
together increasing motivation, decreasing competition, and develop language skills.
When working in a group, students cooperate toward a common objective, which
decreases competition (Vaughan, 2002).
In addition, differentiated instruction and the use of effective instructional
strategies can help to raise struggling students‟ achievement in a way that does not
decrease their motivation or self-efficacy. As mentioned in the previous section,
differentiated instruction is instruction tailored to individual differences (Hall, 2008). A
diverse classroom can have a population of ELL‟s and students with disabilities that
require modified instruction that is flexible with ongoing assessment. For example,
teachers can assess students to understand their background and prior knowledge in order
to set instruction at the appropriate level. ELL‟s require differential instruction that
matches their levels of proficiency (Toohey, 2000). This will determine the readiness
and learning style of the ELL while developing motivation toward mastery of concepts.
Also, teachers can motivate students by promoting intrinsic, rather than extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic are the types of motivation that guide students desire

98

to learn a particular subject. Students that are intrinsically motivated hold a true interest
of the topic and want to learn based on their enjoyment. Extrinsically motivated students
participate in an activity with hopes of gaining something outside of the learning
objective (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci (2006) stress the
importance that teachers focus on intrinsic rather than extrinsic goals for students as they
will gain long-term outcomes such as personal growth, meaningful relationships, and
understand academic material leading to competent demonstration of knowledge. In
order for teachers to implement intrinsic goal practices they must be creative and
innovative with instruction. Although extrinsic goals are worthy, they can result in
students having lower self-efficacy, high depression and anxiety, and poor relationships
with peers (Duriez, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & De Witte, 2004).
Also, it is important that teachers have high expectations for their students in
order for students to feel motivated to do a task. Research has shown that teachers who
have high expectations for all their students and believe that all their students can learn,
have students with higher achievement and attitudes (Cotton, 1989). Teachers with low
expectations have lower motivation to teach and evoke this sentiment to students. Also,
these teachers often resort to teaching simplistically, rather than challenging students with
rigorous instruction that promotes critical thinking skills. This low level instruction can
cause students to have low self-efficacy, and to absorb the teachers‟ perceptions that they
can‟t learn and succeed (Caprara et al., 2006).

99

Achievement Goal Theory
Students that have performance-approach-oriented goals do not wish to master the
subject matter; rather it is important to them how they will be perceived when they show
competence to others, resulting in the lack of critical thinking and positively associated
with surface level thinking (Liem et al., 2008). Performance-approach goals often lower
student‟s self-efficacy, value, goal setting, and learning outcomes. These students are
also less likely to feel that their teacher cares for them and want them to succeed (Eccles
& Roeser, 2005).
Similarly, students with performance-avoidance complete tasks to avoid being
looked down on from their peers (Harackiewicz et al., 2000). Studies show that
performance-avoidance goal-oriented students become disengaged and lack persistence
when faced with adversity on assignments. The performance-avoidance student will also
set limited goals that are disengaged due to the lack of value that is connected with the
outcome (Liem et al., 2008). The performance-avoidance goal has negative roots such as
fear of failure and rejection (Schunk et al., 2008).
Therefore, students should engage in mastery-orientated goals and approaches to
tasks. Research shows that ELL‟s that engage in mastery-oriented goals have higher
goal-oriented motivation that allows them to develop reasons to value and pursue a task.
Students who develop mastery-oriented approaches seek to develop competence in the
topic. Students who use mastery-oriented goals develop critical thinking and deeper
learning skills (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The use of such deep level thinking helps
students to go beyond the surface level information and gain critical thoughts (Amerin &

100

Berliner, 2003). Students who have a mastery-oriented goal structure carry a high sense
of well-being and have less misconduct than students who have a performance-oriented
goal structure (Eccles & Roeser, 2005). Overall, mastery goals are positively associated
with deep learning and improved self-efficacy (Liem et al., 2008).
Mastery goals are also positively related to a student‟s persistence and effort when
engaging in an academic activity. Persistence is related to student self-efficacy that
allows continued motivation toward specific academic goals. Students that have high
self-efficacy carry elevated levels of persistence and effort and desires to learn new skills
(Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2006). This effort regulation and management is a student‟s
continued investment when encountering adversity in the academic setting. Students
need to have persistence and consistent effort at school if they are to accomplish their set
goals (Liem et al., 2008).
Similarly, teachers who use mastery-oriented goals and approaches to instruction
create an environment where all students are recognized and encouraged from a mastery-
oriented standpoint. When students observe positive goals from teachers in the
classroom, it carries over to personal goals that they wish to master. Students will
develop positive self-efficacy and identify their own mastery goals when they can relate
this to the teacher/classrooms mastery goals. Also, mastery-oriented approaches not only
benefit teachers who use them to guide their instruction, but can improve their relations
with colleagues and students thus increasing student motivation (Roeser, 2004).
Research shows that elementary teachers who developed performance-oriented
instructional practices had beliefs that there was negative competition amongst staff and

101

administration leading to inequitable treatment between the two. However, mastery
oriented teachers believed that student success was due to the collaboration of
administrators and staff that lead to motivation to students while attending that particular
school (Eccles & Roeser, 2005).
Teacher Attribution (Self-Efficacy)
It is important for teachers to have feelings and beliefs that they are capable of
improving student academic outcomes. With the growing demands of NCLB, new
responsibilities, and limited external rewards, teachers need to have intrinsic motivation
to be successful instructors (Fishman, et al., 2003). Teacher self-efficacy is connected to
career satisfaction and ability to succeed. Teachers who have a strong sense of self-
efficacy will appreciate colleagues and events outside of their classroom while in the
school setting. They are more committed to their profession than those that carry beliefs
that they are inadequate instructors. This belief will continue to motivate teachers to be
as effective as possible since it directly meets the needs of their intrinsic goals of
competence and mastery while indirectly meeting performance-oriented goals through
rewards and positive reinforcement (Caprara, et al., 2006).
Also, research indicates that when teachers‟ have higher self-efficacy, their
students learn better. A positive reciprocal effect on teacher‟s perceived self-efficacy and
student achievement is the result of encouraging beliefs. Those that carry a high self-
efficacy will carry personal responsibilities as well as influence students in a positive
manner. A study by Caprara et. al (2006) found that perceived self-efficacy of teachers
was linked to how well teachers effectively handle tasks, obligations, and challenges to

102

ensure that students have academic success. Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy
are able to affect student achievement by creating appropriate classroom environments
that motivate students through motivation. Students can benefit from increased teacher
self-efficacy by being more engaged in tasks, having increased self-esteem and
motivation, and feeling more included in classroom activities (Woolfolk-Hoy & Davis,
2006).
However, it is important that teachers be aware of their actual abilities and goals,
and seek out support and resources in order to improve as instructional leaders. For
instance, according to The National Center for Education Statistics (2007) Trend in
International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 report, teachers in the United States
report that they feel confident about their knowledge of instructional strategies and their
ability to implement them. However, the United States continues to rank low compared
to the achievement and success of other countries (Gonzalez et. al., 2009). This
overconfidence combined with low mental effort and persistence inhibits teachers from
being motivated to develop their skills through collaboration and professional
development opportunities. Thus, teachers must utilize the professional growth
opportunities suggested in the previous section such as professional development,
collaboration, and mentoring.
Summary and Group Recommendations
In order to close the achievement gap, Latino ELLs need to have high levels of
motivation, self esteem, and self-efficacy, and they need to be interested in school, and
value learning. Therefore, the group recommends that teachers use cooperative learning

103

and Culturally Relevant Education (CRT) to motivate students in the classroom. CRT
will help to ensure that instruction is differentiated to meet the needs of Latino ELLs and
that content is meaningful, engaging, and comprehensible. Cooperative learning can be
used as an alternative to ability grouping, and will allow students to learn from one
another while increasing their language skills and self esteem.
Lastly, teachers should encourage and develop students‟ intrinsic motivation
through the use of mastery-oriented goals and tasks. For example, teachers can help
students set personal learning goals, and can state the standard and learning objective for
each lesson. By helping Latino ELLs to value the process and experience of learning,
rather than the extrinsic rewards gained from learning (such as grades or tangible
rewards), these students can be more intrinsically motivated and successful learners.

104

CHAPTER SIX: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to use the gap analysis model to help the Glendale
Unified School District with a problem they identified: closing the ELL Latino/White
student achievement gap in the elementary schools. The Gap Analysis framework was
used to identify, eliminate, and refine the potential knowledge/skill, motivation, and
organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap Analysis process, combined with
scholarly literature, helped to identify possible research-based solutions to help close the
achievement gap.
The Gap Analysis
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to help improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). It helps
organizations to identify and clarify goals, and to analyze gaps between the desired level
of achievement and actual levels of achievement. The process also helps organizational
leaders to identify the root causes of the gap so that effective resources and solutions can
be identified and implemented. Similar to a consultant model, a gap analysis focuses on
identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem.
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
Define and set goals – day to day, intermediate goals, and long term goals that are
clear, consistent, concrete, and current
Determine gaps – current performance level will be compared to the desired standard
of performance

105

Investigate the causes of the gap – the roots of the gap may be knowledge/skill,
motivational, or organizational related
Define and implement the research – research based solutions that target the roots
of the problem are selected and implemented
Evaluate the outcomes of the proposed solutions – reactions, impact during the
program, transfer, and the bottom line are assessed and solutions are modified as
needed
Methodology
Scanning Interview (30-60 minutes)
o This general broad-based interview was used with district personnel and
leaders; it had 5 open-ended questions that allowed the interviewee to share
their perspective on the problem, the history of the problem, the solutions
being used, and the roots of the problem
One Month Interview (30-60 minutes)
o Three questions were asked of teachers to gain a better understanding of what
goals and instructional practices were being used in the classroom with ELL
Latino students over the past month
Innovation Configuration Chart
o A rubric of effective instructional strategies was used during the interview
process with teachers to help the interviewers determine how successfully the
teachers were implementing effective instructional strategies in the classroom
over one month

106

Stages of Concern Interview (1-2 minutes)
o A brief probing question was used to determine the concerns and attitudes of
individuals implementing effective instructional strategies.
The Sample
7 district level personnel
The principal from each school site
11 teachers of varying experience and grade levels
Three elementary schools were selected for this project because they were composed
of a high number of Latino ELLs and demonstrated an achievement gap between this
subgroup and their white peers.
District Strengths
The district reform strategy Focus on Results (FOR) seems to have increased a
district-wide emphasis and awareness of student achievement/assessment data and
data-driven decision making to guide instruction.
The district demonstrates positive environmental, individual, and group culture.
School sites are clean, safe, and display student work; the staff is positive, get along
with one another, and collaborate often.
Some district strategies to close the gap are: use data to identify gaps, emphasize staff
development and collaboration to discuss data, provide literature to staff, and hire
teacher specialists.
Some school site strategies to close the gap are: use teacher aides, intervention
coordinators, and computer lab time to pull out ELLs for individual instruction.

107

Many of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed possess
knowledge about general effective instructional strategies such as thinking maps,
think-pair-shares, and read-alouds. Most also seem to possess knowledge about the
importance of developing oral language for ELLs.
Most of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed possess
knowledge about their students‟ achievement and assessment data.
Most of the interviewed teachers seem to have high self-efficacy and feel they were
capable of achieving their goals. Similarly, they stated that they had high
expectations for their students and believed all students could learn.
Most of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed felt that
educating Latino ELLs and closing the achievement gap were very important.
Problem Area 1
While the Focus on Results reform has many strengths, its emphasis on process and
data often seemed to result in a lack of attention and discussion on instructional
strategies.
District, school site administrator, and teacher goals lacked alignment.
Interviewed teacher goals for their Latino ELLs often varied and were unclear, not
concrete, and not current.
Schools sites have individual instructional focuses; some of them seem disconnected
from the district‟s urgency statement/goal to close the ELL gap and do not address
effective instructional strategies for ELLs.

108

Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 1
The district should continue its focus on data-driven decision making, while
emphasizing the importance of connecting goals and school instructional focuses to the
ELL Latino achievement gap.
Solution Summary for Problem Area 1
The group recommends:
The district continues to collect, analyze, and discuss assessment and instructional
data regarding ELL Latino students and the achievement gap via Focus on
Results.
District and school leaders should continue to encourage teachers to use data to
guide their instruction.
The district should encourage school site administrators to use data on the
achievement gap and Latino ELLs to guide their selection of school instructional
focuses.
The district makes efforts to ensure that district, school, and teacher goals are not
only situated within the Focus on Results framework, but are aligned, cascading,
and relevant.
School site administrators can also emphasize that teachers‟ goals for Latino
ELLs be mastery based, clear, concrete, current, and focused (SMART Goals).

109

Problem Area 2
While most of the district personnel are aware of generally effective instructional
strategies for all students, there is a lack of knowledge about effective instructional
strategies that apply to ELL Latino students and their needs.
Most of the individuals interviewed shared the philosophy that “good teaching is
good teaching” and lacked the conceptual knowledge that Latino ELLs need specific
instructional strategies that apply to their needs.
Teachers are unsure of ELD and ELL instructional strategies, and specifically how
and when to implement them.
There is currently no clear, consistent, or unified ELD program, or time block for
ELD instruction, in place in the district.
Many of the interviewed teachers do not seem to feel that teaching metacognitive
knowledge is a priority, and are not teaching higher level thinking skills or critical
thinking skills to the Latino ELLs.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 2
An increased use of and focus on English Language Development (ELD) and
effective instructional strategies that meet the needs of Latino ELLs will help to close the
achievement gap.
Solution Summary for Problem Area 2
The group recommends:
The district focus their efforts on the two most important effective instructional
strategies, SDAIE and differentiation, which will ensure that instruction is

110

targeted to meet the needs of ELL Latino students and that content is made
comprehensible.
Teachers can learn about these strategies, and how to successfully apply them in
their classrooms, via comprehensive professional development programs such as
GLAD or SIOP.
Because ELD is typically not occurring in the classroom, the district should
mandate an ELD time block to ensure that teachers are providing ELD
instruction.
The district select a published ELD program, or supplementary instructional
material for ELLs, so that teachers can more easily begin to incorporate effective
ELD instructional strategies into the ELD content and curriculum.
Four research based ELD program publishers recommended by the CDE are:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill School Division, Pearson
Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall, and SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Over time, as teachers become more comfortable with the leveled content of the
ELD curriculum, schools can move away from the structured program and
provide more flexible in-depth ELD with the guidance and support of the school‟s
ELL Specialists.
Problem Area 3
According to the interviewed teachers, the Latino ELL students are lacking self-
efficacy, self-esteem, and motivation.

111

This may be the result of teachers‟ consistent use of ability grouping by pulling out
low level small groups to work with, and by separating students within the grade level
into ability-grouped classes.
District staff attributed the cause of the gap outside of themselves and felt the
achievement gap was a result of parent‟s low SES level, lack of “value” of education,
and low educational background. These misperceptions about the causes of the gap
may cause Latino students to feel that their culture and lives are misunderstood, thus
lowering their interest in learning.
Generally, interviewed teachers would not permit or encourage the Latino ELLs to
speak Spanish in the classroom. This could be causing students to feel that their
culture and language are not valued, thus lowering their self-esteem and interest.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 3
Increasing students‟ self-esteem, self-efficacy, interest, value, and overall
motivation through various methods such as cooperative learning and culturally relevant
education, will help to close the achievement gap.
Solution Summary for Problem Area 3
The group recommends:
Teachers use cooperative learning as an alternative to ability grouping, which will
allow students to learn from one another while increasing their language skills and
self-esteem.

112

Teachers use Culturally Relevant Education (CRT) to motivate students and to
ensure that instruction is differentiated to meet the needs of Latino ELLs and that
content is meaningful, engaging, and comprehensible.
Teachers should encourage and develop students‟ intrinsic motivation through the
use of mastery-oriented goals and tasks; for example, teachers can help students
set personal learning goals, and can state the standard and learning objective for
each lesson.
Teachers should help Latino ELLs to value the process and experience of
learning, rather than the extrinsic rewards gained from learning (such as grades or
tangible rewards), so these students can be more intrinsically motivated and
successful learners.

113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abedi, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and English language learners:
assessment and accountability issues. American Educational Research
Association, 33, 4-14.

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H.
Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-
348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on
student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-38.

Archer, J. (2005). Guiding hand. Education Week, September 14, S5–S10.

Artiles, A., Rueda, R., Salazer, J. J., Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban
school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3).

Bailey, A. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the
test. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3
rd
ed.).
Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychology, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers‟ perceptions of ell education: Potential solutions to
overcome the greatest challenges. Multicultural Education 5(3), 39-43.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 1–44.

Berliner, D. (2009). Poverty and potential: Out of school factors and school success.
Boulder, CO and Temple, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center.

114

Bjork, L., G., & Blase, J., (2009). The micropolitics of school district decentralization.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 195-208.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Sage.

Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task-value, achievement goal
orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research,
97(6), 287-297.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Retrieved from http://stills.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/

Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of
differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 236-247.

Bredeson P. V, & Kose B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A
study of school superintendents‟ instructional leadership. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 15(5).

Butler, J. (2002). Staff development. School Improvement Research Series, 12.

Calderon, J. (1992). "Hispanic" and "Latino": The viability of categories for panethnic
unity. Latin American Perspectives, 19(4), 37-44.

Caldwell, B. (2003). A theory of learning in the self-managing school. In Volansky, A.
and Friedman, I. A. (Eds) (2003). School based management: an international
perspective. Israel: Ministry of Education.

California Department of Education (2009). Academic Performance Index: Information
Guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.aspe.ca.gov/ta/
ac/ap/index.asp

California Department of Education (2007). Achievement Gap Fact Sheet. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/afactsheet.asp

California Department of Education (2002). English-language development standards
for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento,
California: California Department of education.

California Department of Education (1999). Reading/language arts framework for
California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento,
California: California Department of Education.

115

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers‟ self
efficacy beliefs as determinants of jobs satisfaction and students‟ academic
achievement: a study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473-
490.

Carlo et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-
language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.

Cawthon, Sally E. (2005). Guided language acquisition design (GLAD) training and
strategies that enable teachers to successfully help Hispanic English learners
accelerate language acquisition and improve academic achievement. Ed.D.
dissertation, University of La Verne, United States -- California. Publication No.
AAT 3184780).

Certo, J. L., & Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. The High School Journal
86(1), 57-75.

Charles W. L. H., & Gareth R. J., (2001). Strategic management. Houghton Mifflin.

Chenoweth, K. (2005). The power to change things. Retrieved from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/012DC865-97CA-4C2F-8A04
9924E2F392F0/0/The PowerToChange.pdf

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Coburn C. E., & Talbert J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts:
Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469-495.

Coldarci, T. (1992). Teachers‟ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education.

Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What does research say about effective
practices for English learners? Introduction and part I: Oral language
proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(1), 10-16.

Cooper, H., & Good, T. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation
communication process. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. Portland, Oregon: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.

116

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America‟s
commitment to equity will determine our future . Educational Researcher, 36(6),
318–334.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B. T., Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1999). Teacher
recruitment, selection, and induction: Policy influences on the supply and quality
of the teachers. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 183-232). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Datnow, A., Borman G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., Castellano, M. (2003).
Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts:
Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143-170.

Datnow, A., Park,V. & Wohlsetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data; how high performing
school systems use data to improve instruction with elementary students. New
Schools Venture Fund. Center on Educational Governance, USC.

Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2002). The cross-cultural, language, and academic
development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. Boston,
Massachusetts: A Pearson Education Company.

Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., Tharp, R. G. (2003). Five standards and student
achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1).

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. and Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree, IN.

Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2004). Evidence for the
social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with
right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance, and prejudice. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2005). School and community influences on human
development. In M. H. Bornstein and M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental Science:
An advanced textbook (5th ed, pp. 513–555). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

117

Echevarria, J. & Short, D., (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research 99(4),
195.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E. & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for
English language learners: The SIOP model (2
nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A
tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. ERIC
Digest EDO-FL-99.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System Ed. 33(2), 209-24.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html

Eskeland, G., & Filmer, D. (2007). Autonomy, participation and learning: Findings from
Argentine schools, and implications for decentralization. Education Economic,
15 (1), 103-127.

Excelenica in Education (2008). Factbook: The conditions of Latinos in education 2008.
Excelencia in Education, Publications, Washington, DC

Farley, E. & MacIver, M. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report No. 65).
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk,
Johns Hopkins University.

Feldman, J, & Tung, R. (2001). Whole school reform: How schools use the data-based
inquiry and decision making process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle.

Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher
motivation? Lessons from Chicago‟s low-performing schools. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594-629.

Fishman, J., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning
to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 643-658.

118

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Gandara, P. (2010). Education crisis: The Latino. Educational Leadership, (2).

Garcia, R. J. (1995). Critical race theory and Proposition 187: The racial politics of
immigration law. Chicano-Latino.

Genesee, F., K., Lindholm-Leary, W., Saunders, M., and Christian, D., (2006). Educating
English language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, New
Hampshire: Heinemann.

Gillies, R. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative learning experiences: A two-year
follow-up. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15-20.

Glendale Unified School District (2009). Our district directory. Retrieved, from
http://www.gusd.net/gusd/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=75

Gold, N. (2006). Successful bilingual schools: Six effective programs in California. San
Diego: San Diego County Office of Education.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does and
does not say. American Educator, 32 (2).

Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from 2
research reviews. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/12918

Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the
role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence.
Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 53-60.

Gonzalez, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2009).
Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S.
fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context. National Center for
Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education.

Good, T. L., (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and
future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 32-47.

119

Graham, S., Bellmore, A., Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2009). “It must be me”: Ethnic
diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle school. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 38(4), 487-499.
Hall, B. (2009). Differentiated instruction: Reaching all students. Pearson Education.
Retrieved from http://wilsonsd.org/77032081816511420/lib/770320818 165 11 42
0/DI_Reaching_All_Students.pdf

Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based
approach. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas.

Hamann, E., Zuliani, I., & Hudak, M. (2002). English language learners,
comprehensive school reforms, and state departments of education: An un-
bridged dichotomy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America‟s public
schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000).
Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest
and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Herman, J, & Gribbons, B. (2001). Lessons learned in using data to support school
inquiry and continuous improvement: final report to the Stuart Foundation.
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los
Angeles.

Hess, F. M. & Rotherham, A. J. (2007). NCLB and the competitiveness agenda: Happy
collaboration or a collision course? The Phi Delta Kappan, 88(5).

Hough, D. (2004). The link between instructional practice and the racial gap in middle
schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 28, 1.

Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2008). Projections of Education Statistics to 2017 (NCES
2008-078). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

120

Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?
NASSP Bulletin.

Ingersoll, R. M, & Smith, T. M (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.
Educational Leadership. 60(8), 30-33.

Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher
decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers
College Record, 106(6), 1258–87.

Johnson, R. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap. Thousand Oaks, Ca:
Corwin Press, Inc.

Johnson, S. M., Birke, S. E., & Peske, H. G. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and
quality control in alternative certification programs. Project on the Next
Generation of Teachers, Massachusetts: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Johnson, K. R., & Wash L. R. (1995). An essay on immigration politics, popular
democracy, and California's Proposition 187: The political relevance and legal
irrelevance of Race. Washington Law Review, 70(629).

Kane, T. J. Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2007). Photo finish: Certification doesn‟t
guarantee a winner. Education Next. 7(1), 60-67.

Kaplan, A. & Maehr, M. (2002). Adolescents‟ achievement goals: Situating motivation in
socio-cultural contexts. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and
education: Vol. 2. Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 125–167). Greenwich
CT: Information Age.

Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell,
C. P., & Sanders M. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and
don‟t know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.

Kelleher, J. (2003). Professional development that works: A model for assessment-driven
professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84.

Kerr, K. A., Marsh J. A., Ikemoto G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to
promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons
from three urban districts. American Journal of Education 112, 496-520.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal
setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845.

121

Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and
research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530.

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196.

Liem, A., Lau, S. & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and
achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer
relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33, 486-512.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada. N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Linquanti, R. (1999). Fostering academic success for English language learners: What
do we know? San Francisco: WestEd. Retrieved from www.wested.org/
policy/pubs/fostering/

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Martin, P. (1995). Proposition 187 in California. International Migration Review, 29(1),
259.

Martinez, M., and Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college
access and success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC:
American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research –based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

122

Mason, S. (2002). Turning Data into Knowledge: Lessons from Six Milwaukee Public
Schools. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Matsumara, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Croson, A., (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous
instruction and curriculum, and students‟ interactions in urban middle schools.
The Elementary School Journal 108,(4).
Maxwell, W. & Shammas, D. (2007). Research on race and ethnic relations among
community college students. Community College Review, 34, 344-361.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2
nd
.ed..) Pearson: Upper Saddle River:
NJ.

Maynard, D. W. (1985). On the functions of social conflict among children. American
Sociological Review, 50, 207–223.

McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America‟s schools. Social Sector Office.

McMillan, J. H, & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based
inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Menken, K. (2000). Do the models fit? Towards comprehensive school reform for
English language learners. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education, Center for the study of language and education. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/tasynthesis/ framing/4models.htm

Merickel, A., Linquanti, R., Parrish, T. B., Perez, M., Eaton, M., & Esra, P. (2003)
Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English
language learners, K-12 Year 3. Report, Palo Alto and San Francisco: AIR and
WestEd, October 29. Retrieved from www.air.og/publications/documents
/Yr%203%20finalrpt.pdf

Miller, G. (2007). Chairman Miller remarks on the future of NCLB education law.
Press Release. Washington D.C.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school
districts. Journal of Education Research, 81(3), 175-181.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009a). The condition of education.
Washington, DC: U.S. department of Education.

123

National Center for Education (2009b). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools.
Indicator 7. In The Condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Trend in international math and science
study report. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

National College for School Leadership (2005). Leading coaching in schools. London,
U.K.

Nietfeld, J., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises
and feedback on performance and monitoring accuracy. Metacognition and
Learning, 1(2), 159-179.

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of Southern
California.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H. Ryan, A. M. Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers'
communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 35-58.

Pajares F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review
of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly,19(2),139–158.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. USA: Sage
Publications.

Perez, K., Swain, C., & Hartsough, C. S., (1997). An analysis of practices used to support
new teachers. Teacher education quarterly, 24(2), 41-52.

Pickard, M. J. (2007). The new Bloom‟s Taxonomy: An overview for family and
consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25(1),
45-55.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.

Renninger, K. A., Bachrach, J. E., & Posey, S. K. E. (2008). Learner interest and
achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 15. Social Psychological
Perspectives (pp. 461–491). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

124

Roeser , R. W. ( 2004 ). Competing schools of thought in achievement goal theory? In M.
L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol.
13: Motivating students.

Rosswork, S. G. (1977). Goal setting: The effects on an academic task with varying
magnitudes of incentive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 710-715.

Rothenberg, C., & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching English language learners: A
differentiated approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education,
Inc.

Rothstein, R. (2007). Leaving “No Child Left Behind” Behind. The American Prospect.
Retrieved from http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=leaving_nclb_behind

Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003). Academic instrumental knowledge:
Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic intervention approaches.
Current Issues in Education, 6(14). Retrieved from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/
number14/

Rumberger, R., & Gandara, P. (2000). The schooling of English learners. In G. Hayward
and E. Burr, Conditions of education 2000. Berkeley, CA: UC policy Analysis
for California Education

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L., (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67.

Santamaria, L. J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing
gaps between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers
College Record, 111(1), 214-247.

Scarcella, Robin C. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English
learner. Oakland, California: Regents of the University of California.

Schmid, C. (2001) Educational achievement, language-minority students, and the new
second generation. Sociology of Education, 74, 71-87.

Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive
skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.

125

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and
goals: motivational and informational effects. The Journal of Educational
Research, 78(1), 29-34 .

Shunk, D. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Senko, C., & Miles, K. M. (2008). Pursuing their own learning agenda: How mastery-
oriented students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 33, 561–583.

Servage (2009), Who is the “professional” in a professional learning community? An
exploration of teacher professionalism in collaborative professional
development settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1) 149 ‑171.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2) 315-
342.

Slavit, D. & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2007). Educational reform, mathematics, and
English language learners: Meeting the needs of all students. Multicultural
Education, 14(4), 20-27.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Interaction research in second/foreign language
classrooms. In C. Polio & A. Mackey (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction.
New York: Taylor and Francis.

Spellings, M. (2007). Commentary on “building on results: A blueprint for
strengthening the no child left behind act.” Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/070423.html

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stein, G. (1987). Hispanic/Latino- What‟s in a name?. American Journal of Public
Health, 77(1), 15-17.

Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness
research. New York: Falmer Press.

Tharp, R. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for
practice. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence

126

The Education Trust (2005). The power to change: high Schools that help all students to
achieve.

The National Association of Elementary School Principals (2008). Leading learning
communities. Collaborative Communication Group Inc., VA

The Teaching Commission (2006). Teaching at risk: Progress and potholes. Retrieved
from http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/ttc_teachingatrisk_200712020
70755.pdf

Thomas, K. W., (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin,
K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in
response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically
diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted. 27(2-3), 119-145.

Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Treviro, F. M. (1987). Standardized terminology for Hispanic populations. American
Journal of Public Health, 77(1), 69-72.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal-
contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic
motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19–31.

Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among
students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 359-366.

Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire
faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement.
American Journal of Education 112, 549–71.

Wenglinsky, H. (2004), The link between instructional practice and the racial gap in
middle schools. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 28 (1).

Wentzel, K. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and
student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000) Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

127

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Davis, H. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the
achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy of
adolescents (pp. 117−137). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

www.Focusonresults.net (2010).

www.gusd.net (2010).

www.projectglad.com (2010).

Young, M. V. (2006) Teacher‟s use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team
norms. American Journal of Education 112, 521-550.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

128

APPENDIX A: SCANNING INTERVIEW

Scanning Interview

Is it okay if I record our interview today?
I want to assure you that your comments are confidential and we will not quote or
attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic students in Elementary School, and
your thoughts on this topic would be helpful.

1. What are your general thoughts about ELL Hispanic students in Elementary Schools
in Glendale? (Is this a problem/overview)
- What is the current situation?
-What is being done about it?
-Is the situation a „problem‟- in what sense?

2. Now, I‟d like to get some historical perspective on this situation. (general history)
- Over the past 5-10 years, what has the district done to address ELL Hispanic
Elementary students?
-Were these efforts successful?
-Do they continue to this day? If no, what happened?
- Has anything in regards to this topic changed over time?

3. Regarding ELL Hispanic Elementary students, are there any formal or informal goals
for what you or the district are trying to accomplish? (goals)
- What is the goal of this effort?
-What is the time frame?
-How will you/the district know if you are successful?
-Do role groups have different goals for this effort?
-How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire to be?

4.Let‟s talk some more about the gap between where you are now, and perfect success on
this topic. I‟d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district from achieving
perfect success in this topic? (causes/roots of the problem)
-Is this problem linked to many role groups or 1?
- Is this problem one of lack of knowledge skill, of motivation, of culture, or of politics?

5. Are there any suggestions you have for how our team could better understand this
topic in the district?

129

APPENDIX B: ONE MONTH INTERVIEW

One Month Interview

Is it okay if I record our interview today?
I want to assure you that your comments are confidential and we will not quote or
attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic students in Elementary School, and
your thoughts on this topic would be helpful.
We‟d like to know what things you have done in your class over the past month to help
your ELL Latino students learn.

1. What were your goals for your Latino ELL students?

2. What were your strategies to help your students achieve these goals?
What/When/How? What kinds of things did you do in the classroom to help your ELL
Latino students learn?

3. To what extent were you successful?

130

APPENDIX C: INNOVATION CONFIGURATION CHART

Innovation Configuration Chart

Successful Moderately Successful
Just Getting
Started
Lesson Purpose
Teacher and students know the
purpose, objectives, and goals of
the lesson and specific activities.
The lesson is clearly linked to state
standards
Teacher and students show some
understanding of the purpose,
objectives, and goals of the
lesson and specific activities.
The lesson is somewhat linked
to state standards
Teacher and students
carry out activities with
little connection to the
overall purpose of the
lesson.
SDAIE Strategies
The teacher knows and uses the
SDAIE strategies on an ongoing
basis such as emphasis on
academic language, tapping into
prior knowledge, cooperative
learning, etc.
The teacher somewhat knows
about SDAIE strategies and uses
them some of the time.
The teacher knows little
about SDAIE strategies
and does not use them
purposefully.
ELD Strategies
The teacher recognizes that ELL
have specific needs and
instructional strategies. The
teacher uses visuals, gestures, and
attempts to lower student anxiety
levels.
The teacher somewhat
recognizes that ELL students
have certain needs, and applies
some ELD strategies.
The teacher focuses
instruction on all the
students without using
many specific ELD
strategies targeted to
ELLs
Learning Styles-
Auditory, Visual,
and Kinesthetic
The teacher often taps into students
learning styles in the same lesson;
the teacher uses auditory
techniques involving speaking and
listening, visual aids and pictures,
and movement and touch to help all
students learn.
The teacher somewhat taps into
students learning styles in the
same lesson; the teacher
sometimes uses auditory
techniques involving speaking
and listening, visual aids and
pictures, and movement and
touch to help all students learn.
The teacher rarely taps
into learning styles, or
typically uses only one
of the styles when
teaching.
Differentiated
Instruction
The teacher recognizes that
students learn in different ways and
have different needs; the teacher
often varies instruction, and
differentiates student
practice/assessment to
accommodate students.
The teacher somewhat
recognizes that students learn in
different ways and have different
needs; the teacher sometimes
varies instruction, and
differentiates student
practice/assessment to
accommodate students.
The teacher rarely
differentiates instruction
and typically teaches
things in one way that
he/she feels is the most
effective.
Cooperative
Learning
The teacher recognizes that
students can learn socially and
learn from each other. The teacher
allows students to work in both
assigned and randomized small
groups while ensuring all students
are speaking and participating. The
teacher has goal-directed
instructional conversations with the
group.
The teacher somewhat
recognizes that students can
learn socially and learn from
each other. The teacher
sometimes allows students to
work in both assigned and
randomized small groups while
ensuring all students are
speaking and participating.
The teacher typically
uses direct instruction
and lecture, and rarely
has students work in
groups.
Thinking Maps
and Graphic
Organizers
The teacher often uses thinking
maps and graphic organize to allow
students to organize their thoughts;
for example circle maps, tree maps,
flow maps, or charts are often used
across the curriculum.
The teacher sometimes uses
thinking maps and graphic
organize to allow students to
organize their thoughts; for
example circle maps, tree maps,
flow maps, or charts are often
used across the curriculum.
The teacher rarely uses
thinking maps or
graphic organizers.

131

Student
discussion and
oral language
practice (Think-
Pair-Shares etc)
The teacher provides many
opportunities for the students to
practice oral language; for
example, oral presentations, think
pair shares, and in group work.
The students have opportunities to
share and are actively engaged and
participating.
The teacher provides some
opportunities for the students to
practice oral language; for
example, oral presentations,
think pair shares, and in group
work.
The teacher mostly does
direct instruction and
lecture while students
listen attentively.
Scaffolding,
build upon prior
knowledge, make
connections
The teacher often builds lessons
upon students‟ prior knowledge
(knowledge from previous years or
lessons, or experiential
knowledge). The teacher allows
and encourages students to make
text-text, text-self, and text-world
connections and connections to
their culture and communities.
The teacher sometimes builds
lessons upon students‟ prior
knowledge (knowledge from
previous years or lessons, or
experiential knowledge). The
teacher sometimes has students
make text-text, text-self, and
text-world connections
The teacher focuses on
teaching new
knowledge with little
scaffolding or
connection-making.
Modeling
The teacher clearly, and with
purpose, models difficult and new
tasks/concepts for students in an
organized and step by step way.
For example, guided reading.
The teacher sometimes models
difficult and new tasks/concepts
for students in an organized and
step by step way. For example,
guided reading.
The teacher rarely
models and typically
focuses on lecture.
Instruction is
meaningful and
engaging to
students
The teacher connects instruction to
students‟ interests, and makes
instruction meaningful and
engaging to students in a variety of
creative ways. Students are given
many opportunities to be involved
and participate.
The teacher sometimes makes
instruction meaningful and
engaging to students.
The teacher rarely
makes instruction
engaging, and typically
follows the teacher
scripts in the teacher
manuals word for word.
Concrete,
relevant, and
immediate
feedback to
students
The teacher provides concrete,
relevant, and immediate
individualized feedback to students
throughout lessons and throughout
the day both formally and
informally.
The teacher sometimes provides
concrete, relevant, and
immediate individualized
feedback to students throughout
lessons and throughout the day
both formally and informally.
The teacher rarely
provides feedback to
students, or feedback is
mostly given for larger
projects in a simple
formal manner.
Evaluation and
Assessment
Ongoing review of student
engagement, inquiry process, and
student learning. Use of multiple
sources of assessment (formal and
informal).
Some review of student
engagement, inquiry process,
and student learning. Use of
some sources of assessment
(formal and informal).
Little to no review of
student engagement,
inquiry process, and
student learning. Use of
little to no sources of
assessment (formal and
informal).
Uses data to
guide instruction
Assessment and Evaluation data is
used to modify and guide
instruction. The teacher determines
individual students‟ needs based on
the data, and then provides
feedback and targeted instruction as
needed.
Assessment and Evaluation data
is sometimes used to modify and
guide instruction. The teacher
sometimes determines individual
students‟ needs based on the
data, and then provides feedback
and targeted instruction as
needed.
The teacher rarely uses
data to modify or guide
and instruction, and
mostly uses data as a
basic progress report.
Collaboration
with other
teachers
The teacher often collaborates with
other teachers about instructional
strategies, lessons, and data. The
teachers share knowledge and
modify or expand upon instruction
based on gained ideas.
The teacher sometimes
collaborates and shares ideas.
The teacher sometimes uses
ideas gained from this
collaboration.
The teacher mostly
keeps to him/herself and
rarely seeks advice,
support, or ideas from
peers.
Culturally
Relevant and
Responsive
Education and
Literature
(CRRE)
Students‟ different cultures,
race/ethnicities, backgrounds, and
experiences are recognized and
valued. The teacher seeks out
CRRE resources and literature to
connect to instruction and to
engage students.
The teacher sometimes uses
CRRE resource and literature in
the classroom.
The teacher sticks
mostly to the teacher's
guides and the literature
and resources provided
by the school
curriculum.

132

Systematic
vocabulary
development, and
teaching of
phonemic
awareness and
fluency skills
The teacher recognizes that ELLs
need targeted and comprehensive
vocabulary development and
instruction. The teacher often
focuses on developing phonemic
awareness and fluency skills. The
teacher explicitly teaches English
(syntax, grammar, vocab,
pronunciation etc.)
The teacher sometimes
recognizes that ELLs need
targeted and comprehensive
vocabulary development and
instruction. The teacher
sometimes focuses on
developing phonemic awareness
and fluency skills.
The teacher rarely
recognizes that ELLs
need targeted and
comprehensive
vocabulary development
and instruction. The
teacher rarely focuses
on developing phonemic
awareness and fluency
skills.
A targeted
intervention
strategy/method
is used for
failing/struggling
students
After analyzing the data and
determining students‟ needs, the
teacher targets instructional
strategies and provides
interventions to failing students.
For example, IWT, pre-teaching,
tutoring, modified practice etc.
The teacher sometimes provides
interventions to struggling
students.
The teacher mostly
teaches to the whole
class, and rarely
provides individualized
targeted interventions.
Uses
supplementary
resources
The teacher goes beyond the given
resources and lesson plans and
seeks outside resources such as
materials, artifacts, videos,
pictures, etc. to make instruction
more differentiated and
meaningful.
The teacher sometimes goes
beyond the given resources and
lesson plans and seeks outside
resources such as materials,
artifacts, videos, pictures, etc. to
make instruction more
differentiated and meaningful.
The teacher mostly uses
the program and school
provided resources for
instruction.
Allows students
to work in their
primary language
The teacher recognizes that
sometimes ELLs lack vocabulary
and can express themselves better
in their native language. The
teacher encourages the use of their
home language and promotes their
pride of their language and culture.
The teacher also often explains
things in the students‟ native
language when they don't
understand.
The teacher sometimes allows
students to speak in their native
language, and sometimes
explains things in their home
language.
The teacher rarely
allows students to speak
in their native language,
and rarely explains
things in their home
language. The teacher
feels that learning and
speaking English is the
priority.
Teachers have
meaningful
relationships/inte
ractions with
students
The teacher goes above and beyond
the daily typical teacher/student
interactions and seeks to be an
advocate for students. The teacher
meets with students individually on
a regular basis to determine
students needs in and out of the
classroom and seeks to support
them.
The teacher sometimes meets
with students. The teacher
sometimes has in-depth
interactions with students in
class about student concerns and
needs.
The teacher mostly
lectures and focuses on
instruction. The teacher
rarely interacts with
students one on one and
rarely has in-depth
discussions with
students.
High
Expectations for
students and
belief that all
students can learn
The teacher has high expectations
for all students and has the
educational philosophy that all
students can learn and succeed.
The teacher sometimes has high
expectations for all students and
has the educational philosophy
that most students can learn and
succeed.
The teacher believes
that certain students can
learn and succeed. The
teacher has different
expectations depending
on the student.
Positive
classroom
environment with
clear classroom
management plan
The teacher's classroom
environment is open and
welcoming. Students feel
comfortable and safe, and feel
comfortable asking questions and
seeking out help. There is a clear
and consistent classroom
management plan that the teacher
and students know.
The classroom environment is
sometimes open and welcoming.
Students sometimes feel
comfortable asking for help.
There is a classroom
management plan that is
sometimes used, but not very
consistently.
The teacher maintains a
closed-door policy.
Students rarely ask for
help, and there is not a
clear classroom
management plan.

133

Opportunities for
Complex
Thinking and
Critical Thinking
Skills
The teacher has high expectations
for students, and has rigorous and
challenging lessons that promote
the development of complex
thinking skills. Promotes higher
ordered thinking skills.
The teacher has moderately high
expectations for students, and
has some rigorous and
challenging lessons that promote
the development of complex
thinking skills.
The teacher has low
expectations for
students, and has few
rigorous and
challenging lessons that
promote the
development of
complex thinking skills.
A curriculum rich
with content
The teacher teaches all subjects and
connects them across the
curriculum (art, social studies,
history etc.) making instruction
more meaningful and complex,
allowing students to make
connections and develop
vocabulary.
The teacher teaches most
subjects and connects them
across the curriculum (art, social
studies, history etc.) making
instruction more meaningful and
complex, allowing students to
make connections and develop
vocabulary.
The teacher focuses on
the main core subjects.
Mastery Learning
is used
The teacher uses precise
behavioral objectives
permitting students to reach a
"mastery" criterion before
moving to new learning.
The teacher uses some
precise behavioral objectives
permitting students to reach
a "mastery" criterion before
moving to new learning.
The teacher uses little
precise behavioral
objectives permitting
students to reach a
"mastery" criterion
before moving to
new learning.

134

APPENDIX D: STAGES OF CONCERN INTERVIEW

Stages of Concern Interview

Are you currently aware of the ELL Latino achievement gap?

Are you currently using instructional strategies with you ELL Latinos?

What are your feelings and/or concerns about these?

135

APPENDIX E: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Introduction
Closing the achievement gap for the Hispanic English language learners (ELL)
has become a priority for many school districts across the nation. Yet despite additional
funding, research, and professional development for educators, schools continue to
struggle closing this achievement gap. The executive summary discusses the purpose of
the project, provides an explanation and usage of the Gap Analysis problem-solving
approach, the sample and method of data collection, and the findings. At this point in the
findings, the focus will be on the gaps of the districts and schools, not on their strengths.
Solutions to problems will be discussed in another section.
Purpose of the Project
The Latino achievement gap is a concern in the field of education. As the United
States becomes more racially and ethnically diverse every day, it is urgent that
educational agencies are successfully able to educate all children. This gap is a relevant
problem for urban school districts because if they do not improve their Latino students‟
achievement and ensure that all students reach proficiency by 2014, they are at risk for
various NCLB consequences.
The purpose of this project is to use the gap analysis model to help a local school
district close their Latino/White student achievement gap in the elementary schools. The
Gap Analysis framework will be used to examine the roots of the problem and the causes
of why ELL Latino students in a local school district‟s elementary schools are struggling.
The Gap Analysis process will help to identify, eliminate, and refine the potential

136

knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap
Analysis will help to identify possible solutions to close the achievement gap in a local
school district.
The Gap Analysis
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to help improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2009). A gap analysis
helps organizations to identify and clarify goals, and to analyze gaps between the desired
level of achievement and actual levels of achievement. A gap analysis also helps
organizational leaders to identify the root causes of the gap so that effective resources and
solutions can be identified and implemented. Similar to a consultant model, a gap
analysis focuses on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem.
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
1. Define and set goals – day to day, intermediate goals, and long term goals
that are clear, consistent, concrete, and current
2. Determine gaps – current performance level will be compared to the desired
standard of performance
3. Investigate the causes of the gap – the roots of the gap may be
knowledge/skill, motivational, or organizational related
4. Define and implement the research – research based solutions that target the
roots of the problem are selected and implemented

137

5. Evaluate the outcomes of the proposed solutions – reactions, impact during
the program, transfer, and the bottom line are assessed and solutions are
modified as needed
Methodology
Project Timeline
Fall 2009
Topic defined as ELL Latino
achievement gap
Data Collection on context of
problem
Background and information on
district

Spring 2010
Interviews of key district personnel
Qualifying Exams
Draft of Chapter 1 and defined
possible causes of the gap
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer 2010
More in-depth data collection at
school sites
Chapter II completed
Explored reforms for district to
close the achievement gap

Fall 2010
District presentation of
comprehensive report of findings
and recommendations
Finished Capstone Project
Spring 2011
Defended Capstone Project and
Graduation

Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods included informal interviews. The purpose of the
interviews was to “gather descriptive data in the subjects‟ own words so that the
researcher can develop insights on how participants interpret some piece of the world
(Bogdan &Biklen, 1992, p.96). The interviews were intended to gain in understanding of
the insider‟s viewpoint and experience. An interview protocol was used that had
questions based on the research questions, the problem, and the literature. Participants

138

were allowed to respond to the questions freely, and probing questions were asked as
needed to gain a more in-depth understanding of certain topics. Specifically, a Scanning
Interview (See Appendix A) was done of all district and administrative personnel. This
general broad based format had 5 open-ended questions that allowed the interviewee to
share their perspective on the problem, the history of the problem, the solutions being
used, and the roots of the problem. A One Month Interview (See Appendix B) was used
with teachers to determine what goals and instructional practices were being used in the
classroom with ELL Latino students over a specified period. Three questions were
selected to gain a better understanding of what the teacher had been doing in his/her class
over the past month. An Innovation Configuration Chart (See Appendix C) was used
during the interview process to help the interviewers determine how successfully the
teachers were implementing effective instructional strategies over one month. Lastly a
Stages of Concern (See Appendix D) was used to determine the concerns and attitudes of
individuals implementing effective instructional strategies.
The Sample
Three elementary schools were selected for this project because they were
composed of a high number of Latino ELLs and demonstrated an achievement gap
between this subgroup and their white peers. The team interviewed 7 district level
personnel, the 3 principals from each of the school sites, and 11 teachers of varying
experience and grade level for 30 minutes to one hour each.

139

Findings
Organizational Culture – the culture‟s understanding of what they are, what they value,
and what they do as an organization (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.107)
Culture –
o the district demonstrates positive environmental, individual, and group culture.
School sites are clean, safe, and display student work; the staff are positive, get
along with one another, and collaborate often.
Process: Policy and Procedures –
o The district currently focuses on the seven phases of the Focus on Results reform;
the district‟s emphasis on Focus on Results causes a focus on data and process
rather than on instructional strategies.
o Schools sites have individual instructional focuses; these focuses lack a
connection to FOR and the district urgency statement, and may not have a relation
or impact on the achievement gap.
o Some district strategies to close the gap are: use data to identify gaps, emphasize
staff development and collaboration to discuss data, provide literature to staff, and
hire teacher specialists.
o School site strategies to close the gap are: use teacher aides, intervention
coordinators, and computer lab time to pull out ELLs for individual instruction.
Materials and Resources –
o There is currently no clear, consistent, or organized ELD program in place in the
district.

140

o There is a supplementary language arts program called “Making Meaning” being
used at some schools, but it is applied to all students and does not utilize ELD
instructional strategies.
FLAG-
o There is a misconception that the Foreign Language Academies of Glendale
Program (FLAG) is closing the achievement gap, when the purpose of the
program is in fact to increase enrollment, ADA, and funding in the district by
bringing in out-of-district students and families.
o The FLAG program affects a very small percentage of Latino ELLs, therefore
not impacting the gap.
o The Latino‟s participating in the FLAG program are not necessarily ELLs or
struggling students, thus not representing the demographics of the students
impacting the achievement gap.
Knowledge/Skill – the necessity of determining whether people know how to achieve
their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 44)
Factual Knowledge –
Strengths –
o teachers possess knowledge about general effective instructional strategies
such as thinking maps, think-pair-shares, and read-alouds
o teachers possess knowledge about the importance of developing oral language
for ELLs
o District personnel possess knowledge about their students‟ achievement and
assessment data

141

Weaknesses –
o Teachers are unaware of what instructional strategies specifically help ELLs

o educators‟ lack knowledge about the roots of the ELL Latino achievement gap
and perceive the problem to be parents‟ low socioeconomic status, low value
of education, and low educational attainment levels.
Conceptual Knowledge -
o Teachers currently believe “good teaching is good teaching” and lack the
conceptual knowledge that Latino ELLs need specific instructional strategies
that apply to their needs.
Procedural Knowledge –
o Teachers do not know how and when to implement effective instructional
strategies for ELLs.
o Teachers do not know of or how to implement a systematic, thoughtful, plan
for how to teach oral language and vocabulary to ELLs.
Metacognitive Knowledge –
o The Focus on Results process does not appear to encourage teachers‟ deeper
reflection on their own cognition or thinking.
o Teachers are not teaching students in a way that would allow them to develop
their metacognitive knowledge. Teachers are not teaching students thinking
strategies, contextual/conditional knowledge for solving a problem in a certain
context, or self knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses.

142

o Teachers are not teaching higher level thinking skills or critical thinking skills
to the Latino ELLs; they are focusing on basic simplified instruction with
those students.
Motivation – the internal process that keeps a group going, keeps them moving, and tells
them how much effort to spend on work tasks (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 80)
Self-efficacy –
o Teachers have high self-efficacy and felt they were capable of achieving their
goals.
o Teachers‟ felt their Latino ELLs lacked self-efficacy, self-esteem, and
motivation.
o Students‟ low self-efficacy may be the result of teachers‟ consistent use of
ability grouping; students may be identifying themselves as struggling,
ineffective learners.
Task Value –
o Teachers felt that educating Latino ELLs and closing the achievement gap
were very important.
o District personnel felt that students‟ low value of education because of
parents‟ low value of education was a main cause of the achievement gap.
Attribution –
o District staff attributed the cause of the gap outside of themselves and felt the
achievement gap was a result of parents‟ low SES level, lack of “value” of
education, and low educational background.

143

o These attributions caused teachers to feel helpless about the situation.
o These attributions and feelings conflicted with teachers‟ statements that they
had high expectations for their Latino ELLs and believed all students could
learn.
Interest
o Teachers‟ misperceptions about the causes of the gap may cause Latino students
to feel that their culture and lives are misunderstood, thus lowering their interest
in learning.
o Speaking Spanish is not encouraged in the classroom, possibly lowering students
in
Goal Orientation –
o District, school site administrators, and teacher goals are not aligned.
o Teacher goals vary enormously and were unclear, not concrete, not current,
and lack clarity and focus.

144

APPENDIX F: SOLUTIONS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Glendale Unified School District
Assistance Project
GUSD|USC Partnership Inquiry Team
November 1, 2010

PROJECT DESIGN
1
Introduction

145

2
Gap
Analysis
Process
(Clark & Estes, 2002)
Systematic,
problem-solving
framework
(six steps)
Organizations can
“dig deep” into the
root causes of the
performance gaps
Performance gaps
are identified,
quantified, and
classified
Sound solutions
are developed
from a deep
understanding of
the problems
How to examine root causes:
motivation knowledge/skill
organizational culture
All goals are aligned
& can be measured

PHASE III
“one-month” interviews
Follow up on unique
issues
PHASE II
Stages of Concern
(SoC)Innovation
Configurations
Inquiry Methods
3
PHASE I
District Context
Scanning Interviews
Document Analysis

146

Project Timeline
Overview
4
Fall
2009
Inquiry Team Formation, Context of Need,
Understanding District Priorities,
Narrowing Inquiry Focus
Spring
2010
Exploring the Roots
Data Collection
Summer
2010
Data Analysis, Identification of Performance Gaps
& their Root Causes, Development of Findings
Fall
2010
Presentation of Findings & Recommendations/
Considerations to District groups

Closing the
Latino ELL Achievement Gap
in Elementary Schools
Ashley Benjamin
Eric Medrano
Shannon Powers
16

147

District Strengths
17
Focus on Results- District-wide awareness/emphasis on
student test data
Positive environmental, individual, and group cultures
Staff knowledgeable about students’ achievement
data and use it to guide instruction
Staff has high self-esteem and believe all students can
learn
Staff feels educating Latino ELLs and closing the
gap is important

Issues Uncovered: Knowledge/Skill
18
What instructional
strategies best meet the
needs of Latino ELLs?
How and when can I
implement them?
Do Latino ELLs need
specific instructional
strategies? I feel like
good teaching is
simply good teaching.

148

Recommendation: Target Latino ELL Needs with Effective
Instructional Strategies
19
Differentiation SDAIE
Project GLAD or SIOP

Recommendation: ELD
20
CA Excursions CA Treasures ELD
Pearson CA Language
Central
Imagine It! ELD
CDE Recommended Research-Based
ELD Programs
Have an ELD Time Block
and a district-wide ELD Program

149

Issues Uncovered: School Instructional Practices
that may Hinder Student Motivation
21
Ability Grouping
Students feeling
their culture or lives
are misunderstood

Recommendation: Increase students self-esteem, self-
efficacy, interest in learning, and intrinsic motivation through:
Mastery-oriented goals and tasks
22
Cooperative Learning
Culturally Relevant Education (CRT or CRRE)

150

Issues Uncovered: Organizational Culture
23
Effective Instructional
Strategies
Focus on Results emphasis on data
sometimes resulted in a lack of
attention and discussion on effective
instructional strategies
School Instructional
Focuses
Some school Instructional Focuses
may not be directly connected to data
on the Latino ELL gap or effective
instructional strategies.
Teacher Goals
Teacher goals for Latino ELLs seemed
to vary, and were not clear, concrete,
or current.

Recommendation: Build upon your strong data-driven
decision making by refining data use even more
24
Instruction
School Instructional
Focuses
Test Score Data
Data on Latino ELL Gap
Data on Effective Instructional
Strategies

151

Recommendation : Aligned, Cascading, Relevant Goals
25
Teacher
Goals
•SMART Goals
Admin
Goals
District
Goals
Mastery Based Goals

DISCUSSION / QUESTIONS
Closing the ELL Latino Achievement Gap in Elementary Schools
26

152

Special Thanks
GUSD
Dr. Richard Sheehan
Dr. Michael Escalante
GUSD District Leadership Team
GUSD site administrators
& staff
USC
Dr. David Marsh
Dr. Robert Rueda
Dr. Rob Arias
Marsh/Rueda 2010
Dissertation Group
38

Feedback
Inquiry Team Presentation
• Questions to come
from Dr. Marsh
39

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high school: a focus on teaching strategies and placement options

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students

Asset Metadata

Creator Benjamin, Ashley Ygraine (author)

Core Title An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/02/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag achievement gap,Education,elementary school,English language learner,Hispanic,Latino,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), school districts: Glendale Unified School District (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email abenjami@usc.edu,AshleyBenjamin@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3675

Unique identifier UC1116079

Identifier etd-Benjamin-4271 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-416395 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3675 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Benjamin-4271.pdf

Dmrecord 416395

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Benjamin, Ashley Ygraine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu