University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT:
BRIDGING THE LATINO ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

by

Shannon Powers

________________________________________________________________________

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 Shannon Powers

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who collaborated with me on this
project: Ashley Benjamin and Eric Medrano. Collectively, we wrote sections 2B
Methodology, 2C Findings, 3A Solutions Literature Review, and 3B Proposed Solutions.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
Background of the Problem....................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................... 10
Importance of the Problem ........................................................................ 12
Purpose of the Project................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER TWO: ANALYZING ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM ............................ 14
2A Literature Review ................................................................................ 14
2B Methodology........................................................................................ 29
2C Findings ............................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ...................................................... 67
3A Solutions Literature Review ................................................................ 67
3B Proposed Solutions .............................................................................. 96

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 104
APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 115
Appendix A: Scanning Interview ............................................................. 115
Appendix B: One-Month Interview.......................................................... 116
Appendix C: Innovation Configuration Chart.......................................... 117
Appendix D: Stages of Concern Interview............................................... 121
Appendix E: Executive Summary of Findings......................................... 122
Appendix F: Solutions PowerPoint Presentation ..................................... 131

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Project Timeline .......................................................................................... 39

Table 2: English Language Development Publishers................................................. 84

Table 3: Supplementary Instructional Materials for English Learners....................... 85

v

ABSTRACT

As accountability continues to increase with the federal act of No Child Left
Behind, public school districts across the nation are asking themselves what can be done
to ensure that all students receive an equitable education and achieve academically. This
Alternative Capstone Project: Bridging the Latino English Language Learner Academic
Achievement Gap in Elementary School used the gap analysis model to examine an area
of concern in Glendale Unified School District. After the district identified a problem, a
team of three USC doctoral students analyzed the district to determine root causes and
identify potential solutions for implementation.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
Accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has led the American educational system
into an era of accountability. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the
NCLB Act with overwhelming congressional support (Spellings, 2007). The NCLB Act
extended what many states had begun in the 1980s following the publication of “A
Nation at Risk” which revealed America’s educational shortcomings (United States
Department of Education, 1983). 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, schools, and districts accountable for student
learning.
The goal of NCLB is to ensure that all students reach academic proficiency in
language arts, mathematics, history-social science, and science 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. The federal government monitors performance of schools
through their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores. AYP scores look not only at
schools and districts as a whole, but also at specific groups of students delineated as
socio-economically disadvantaged, English Learners, race or ethnic groups, and with
disability (Abedi, 2004). Test scores are then tabulated to see if the target rate of
proficiency has been met. If any one group fails to make AYP the entire school is

2

designated as failing. Schools that fail to make AYP, face significant sanctions. In an
effort to improve student achievement, there has been an increased focus on standardized
measures of assessment, improved curriculum, hiring highly qualified teachers, and
related reform efforts.
State Accountability
Since the implementation of NCLB, public schools across the nation are held
accountable for the scores students receive on states’ testing. This federal accountability
is applying pressure from the top down. In order to meet NCLB, states are applying
pressure on the districts, which in turn applies pressure to the schools and teachers.
While the federal government instated accountability in NCLB, individual states have the
authority to determine the depth of the standards and testing. Each state measures its
yearly progress based on their own criteria, which usually differs between states.
California Department of Education (CDE) uses the Base and Growth Academic
Performance Index (API) as its measurement of academic performance and progress of
individual schools in California.
The API is calculated annually, primarily based on the California Standards Tests
(CSTs) and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) tests (California
Department of Education [CDE], 2010). API scores range from 200 to 1000. According
to the CDE (2010), “Under state requirements, a school must increase its API score by 5
percent of the difference between the school’s API and 800, or maintain a score of 800 or
above.

3

Achievement Gaps
In the past decade, NCLB has increased the accountability of schools and the
achievement of students, yet there are persistent and major achievement gaps for K-12
students who are English Language Learners (ELLs), Socio-Economically Disadvantaged
(SED), and/or minorities. For example, Latino students, on average, score much lower on
achievement tests than Caucasian students of similar age. This racial gap exists
regardless of how it is measured, including both achievement (e.g., test score) and
attainment (e.g., graduation rate) measures (Johnson, 2002). The achievement gap
among students of different income levels is equally severe. Impoverished students (a
group here defined as those eligible for federally subsidized free lunches) are roughly two
years behind the average, middle-income student of the same age (McKinsey &
Company, 2009). The poverty gap appears early and persists over the lifetime of a
student. At the school-wide level, schools comprised mostly of low-income students
perform much worse than schools with fewer low-income students (McKinsey &
Company, 2009). Important performance gaps exist at every level in American
education: among states, among districts within states, among schools within districts,
and among classrooms within schools.
Historical Perspective
After the American Civil War, the United States government attempted to provide
protection for the civil rights of the newly freed people (Kauper, 1954); however,
southern states began passing Jim Crow laws prohibiting blacks from using the same
public accommodations as whites. In 1896, the case of Plessy versus Ferguson legalized
the movement towards segregation practices. The United States Supreme Court upheld

4

the constitutionality of racial segregation, thus beginning the “separate but equal”
mentality. Plessy versus Ferguson guaranteed states the right to implement racially
separate institutions requiring them only to be “equal.”
In 1954, Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme
Court declared unconstitutional separate public schools for black and white students and
denying black children equal educational opportunities. It was felt that separate
educational facilities were considered to be inherently unequal. Many believed that with
racial separation, inferior educational opportunities were provided, placing black
children’s psychological and social being at a disadvantage (Ethridge, 1979). This case
questioned whether the doctrine separate but equal was constitutional. This decision
overturned the 1896 rulings from Plessy versus Ferguson.
Ten years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, outlawing “unequal
application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the
workplace and facilities that served the general public” (U.S. Department of Justice,
2010). Although the initial enforcement of this act was not fully implemented, it had
tremendous effects and long-term impact on the nation. The Civil Rights Act nullified the
Jim Crow laws and made it illegal to segregate in schools, housing, or hiring.
Cultural Proficiency
While teacher quality play a large part in student success, it was initially believed
that dedicated, motivated, and hard-working teachers would be able to reach and create
high achieving students (Lindsey, Robins, & Terrell, 2003). However as student
demographics in the United States changed and reflected a rapidly growing diverse
population of students, it soon became evident that good teaching was not enough to

5

reach all students. Despite all the legal rulings, public policy, reforms, and political
movements the needs of the country’s minorities were not being met.
Educators throughout the country needed to focus on ways to meet the needs of
these diverse students. Over time, cultural proficiency, an approach to diversity, began to
form. Lindsey, Robins, and Terrell (2003) define cultural proficiency as “the policies and
practices of a school or the values and behaviors of an individual that enable the person
or school to interact effectively in a culturally diverse environment” (p. xx). Cultural
proficiency is an approach that assists educators in making transformational changes
needed to address the behaviors and attitudes that arise in educators regarding diversity.
It allows educators to effectively interact with various stakeholders who differ from them
in language, culture, race, or ethnicity (Lindsey et al., 2003).
With the cultural proficiency approach, there arose discussion over the correct
terminology to use for ethnic minority groups: Hispanics, Latinos, Hispanos, Spanish
People, or Americanos (Comas-Diaz, 2001). Terminology, depending on how used,
designated identity based off of race, ethnicity, or national origin (Trevino, 1987).
Hispanics, a term designated by the federal government to designate people of Spanish
origin, provides no reflection regarding the race (Comas-Diaz, 2001; Trevino, 1987).
Termed by the United States Bureau of the Census, Hispanics, often refers to all Spanish
speakers and is used and referenced specifically in regards to federal and state
information (Comas-Diaz, 2001). Latino is the term often used to denote people
affiliated to Latin America and is often preferred because of its focus on ethnicity and
national origin.

6

Latino Students
Currently Latinos student perform well below their peers and are considered the
least educated of all minority groups (Gandara, 2010). In 2000, the Latino dropout rate
of 30% was double that of African Americans and triple that of Caucasian students
(Brown, Santiago, & Lopez, 2003). Even the Latino recipients of college degrees have
remained flat, while other ethnicities continue to increase. The academic achievement
gap between Caucasian and Latino students in elementary schools continues to widen.
On the 2006 California Standards Test, Caucasians scored well over 50% proficiency on
Language Arts and Math, while Latinos scored 27.4% in Language Arts and 29.8% in
Math (California Department of Education, 2007). Johnson (2002) reaffirmed, “At
second and third grades, Latinos are scoring much lower than their white counterparts”
(p. 4). Between the years 1997 and 2004, the achievement gaps between Latino students
and Caucasian students continued to widen (Spellings, 2007). While there have been
achievement gains for Latinos since the implementation of NCLB, the data still indicates
the need for drastic improvement by schools in order to close the gap.
The Latino population is the fastest growing minority group in the United States
(Gandara, 2010). Between the years 1987 and 2007, the National Center for Education
Statistics reported that the Latino population nearly doubled from 11 to 21 percent of all
United States students (2009). Not only is the Latino population increasing dramatically
in the educational system, it is also increasing in numbers in the work force. “As they
become an even larger presence in the population, the social well-being of the nation as a
whole will be increasingly tied to that of the Latinos” (Gandara, 2005).

7

As the end goal of NCLB, all students reaching proficiency, draws nearer,
districts and schools are focusing on what can be done to help close any achievement
gaps, especially with Latino population. While the education system tries to assist
students who are socio-economically disadvantaged, it is known that Latino children are
more than twice as likely as Caucasian students to be poor (Gandara, 2010). This level of
poverty results, not only in hunger, but also in a lack of health insurance, doctors,
dentists, and optometrists. Latino students coming from poverty, often come from homes
where the education and English language levels of parents are low. Aside from focusing
on improving teacher quality, school facilities and resources, and a rich curriculum,
educators must face and focus on these additional aspects for many Latino students if
they are to make state and federal accountability goals.
English Language Learners
Within the last two decades, the demographics of K-12 schools have changed
dramatically. In 2000, the U.S. Census stated that 20% of students were ELLs
(Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). The National Center for Education Statistics
Schools and Staffing Survey reported that 4 million students were ELLs in the 2003-2004
school year (Leaks & Stonehill, 2008). One year later, the number jumped to 5 million.
During this time, while the total enrollment grew less than three percent, the total
enrollment for ELLs grew 61 percent.
To gain an understanding of student representation in the United States, an
analysis was conducted to determine how well ELLs were achieving academically. In
California, ELLs who were not English proficient perform worse than English proficient
students on standardized testing (Echevarria et al., 2006). On the reading portion of the

8

tests, 48% of all students scored above the 50
th
percentile, compared to only 11% of
ELLs. The drop out rate of ELL students was another major category analyzed.
Cummins (1986) stated that, “the dropout rate among Mexican-American and mainland
Puerto Ricans remains between 40-50% compared to 14% for whites and 25% for
blacks” (p. 18). Not only do ELLs have a higher dropout rate, they are more frequently
placed in lower ability classes.
With the high stakes of accountability, schools have inferred from this data that
ELLs are not closing the achievement gap or reaching their academic potential
(Roessingh, 2004). As a result, Roessingh (2004) stated that educators have made
“significant changes in the design, focus, and overall level programmatic support for
ELLs, including the delivery or implementation of ELL support” (p. 616). It is up to
schools and districts to determine how to effectively engage their students, as well as
hold them accountable for reaching proficiency in not only the English language, but also
in reading and mathematics (Leaks & Stonehill, 2008).
As accountability for academic achievement continues to climb, underperforming
schools are struggling to meet current passing criteria. Although many research-based
programs tout the effectiveness of their products, schools are uncertain as to what
practices need to be in place in order for academic success to occur for all students,
regardless of culture. Since the age of accountability began, educators in the United
States have implemented reforms such as bilingual education, hiring additional school
personnel, and various educational programs aimed at reversing the pattern of school
failure among minority students and closing the achievement gap (Cummins, 1986).
Educators are funneling their focus of school reform on the underachievement of ELLs as

9

districts and schools across the nation are falling into program improvement and given
strict sanctions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In order to transform school
environments, educators can no longer place blame on ELLs by stating the “cause of
students’ educational difficulty is the switch between the language of the home and the
language of the school” (Cummins, 1986, p. 19). To reform a school, more than just
curriculum and instructional knowledge will be required: the school’s culture must
change (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Aside from looking at the school district as a whole, schools need also to focus
their efforts on the individual students. When considering the academic achievement of
ELLs, schools and educators “should understand that all students who are learning
English as an additional language are not alike” (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006, p.
197). Students enter into the educational system having various levels of educational
backgrounds and proficiency in their native language. Depending on their experiences,
students may need to adapt to the expectations of the schools in the United States.
Within a short time frame, ELLs need to “develop the English language proficiency so
that they may access, participate in, and benefit from their school experiences”
(Roessingh, 2004, p. 617). It is the expectation that ELLs listen, speak, read, and write in
a second language, meet the grade level standards, and learn academic concepts, skills
and discourse (Echevarria et al., 2006). For ELLs to succeed in school, they must master
English both socially and academically in all subject areas.
In order to increase academic achievement, schools will need to move towards
equity for all students, “particularly ethnic minorities and the economically
disadvantaged” (Bennett, 2001, p. 183). Improving academic achievement and closing

10

the achievement gap with ELLs will require the entire school community, teachers,
students, administrators, staff, parents and the community, to evolve. As Ladson-Billing
(1995) stated, “Schools will need to insert education into culture, instead of culture into
education, which is what has been done traditionally” (p. 162). In order to increase
minority students’ success, educators must not just look at their class as a whole, but at
individual students and the communities in which they live. However, with many
underperforming schools, it is apparent educators have been unsuccessful at increasing
the academic achievement for ELLs, for previously taught practices used for instruction
have not worked, thus the achievement gap.
Statement of the Problem
There has been much research written on closing the achievement gap. This term
generally refers to the various efforts being implemented in hopes of lessening the
disparity between minority students and the Anglo counterparts. In recent years,
academic achievement for all students has become the priority for many educational
agencies. Schools across the nation are viewing current research and contemplating
various reforms and programs designed to increase student achievement, especially
among Latino ELLs. As Gandara (2005) stated, “The average Latino student achieves at
considerably lower levels than his or her White or Asian American peers” (p. 6). NCLB
attempts to narrow the racial academic gaps by having states create common academic
content standards and having educational agencies allocate their funding and resources to
focus on the needs and achievement of English learners and minority students (Spellings,
2007). Yet, it is debatable whether or not the achievement gap is narrowing and equal
access for diverse students is occurring.

11

Throughout the past century, the education system has undergone continuous
changes in the laws and policies intended to provide equitable educational access to meet
the needs of diverse students, leaving many educational establishments uncertain about
the implementation of new policies, procedures, and programs. Society is becoming
more global every day, and Latino students leaving the school system need to be able to
compete with their counterparts. Yet, over the last three decades, while other ethnic
groups have increased their number of college degrees, Latinos have made very little
progress (Gandara, 2010). This issue of providing an equitable education has become
crucial because ethnically diverse students are becoming a larger presence in the school
systems.
Currently the state of California is in an educational crisis. Educational agencies
across the states are being impacted with decreased funding, reduced employees, higher
accountability, declining enrollment, and are lapsing into program improvement status.
Despite employee reduction and limited funding, Glendale Unified School District
(GUSD) is a high performing school district with 23 California Distinguished Schools
and 9 National Blue Ribbon Schools (M. Escalante, personal communication, November
30, 2009). While GUSD has an Academic Performance Index of above 800, there is
concern regarding certain sub-groups, specifically the Latino ELLs (Glendale Unified
School District, 2009). As of the 2007-08 school year, the district had an overall
proficient and advanced rate of 59% in Language Arts, with only a 28% proficiency rate
for English Learners and 43% proficiency rate with Hispanic/Latino students. In Math,
the district’s overall proficient and advanced rate was 58%, while English learners had a
42% proficiency rate and a 41% proficiency rate among Hispanic/Latino students. While

12

GUSD is “committed to the highest quality instructional and support programs”
(Glendale Unified School District, 2009), it is clear that there is an achievement gap with
their Latino ELLs that must be addressed.
Importance of the Problem
Since the educational act NCLB was mandated, K-12 schools across the nation
have been trying to ensure educational equality, where all students are able to achieve
proficiency in both language arts and mathematics. Brown, Santiago, and Lopez (2003)
state “that many Latino youth are segregated in schools with poor academics and physical
resources” (p. 43), again reinforcing the need to close the achievement gap. Research
also states that students with a low socioeconomic status, including Latinos, tend to
perform lower than students with a higher socioeconomic status, causing students to
either drop out or take less strenuous classes (Ed Source, 2002). Gandara (2005) asserts:
There are many reasons why the gap in average academic attainment between
Latinos and all others is important. Higher education is known to increase civic
involvement and voting, and to decrease the chances of finding oneself
incarcerated or on public assistance. It reduces unemployment and significantly
enhances people’s earnings. It is also good for the general economy. (p. 8).

This project looked at the district, uncovered causes of the gap, and proposed solutions to
help serve their diverse population and narrow the disparity in academic achievement.
This project not only benefited GUSD, but other districts that continue to struggle
closing an achievement gap, especially districts with a large Latino and English learner
population. Schools with a high concentration of minority students and English learners
can benefit from the proposed solutions. Schools need to know the research, strategies,
and reforms to address their population and increase student achievement. Districts could

13

use this Gap Analysis Model to perform their own inquiry on any of their district’s goals
to determine causes and possible solutions.
GUSD received the most benefits from this project since it was specifically
designed based on a goal from their district urgency statement. Upon completion of the
gap analysis, causes were analyzed and possible solution provided. The solutions were
based on current literature and research that has been proven to increase student
achievement for ELLs. This allowed for GUSD to continue its commitment of providing
a quality education to all students.
The importance of the gap analysis model was to examine a program’s global,
intermediate, and specific goals, to determine the gap between the program’s desired
goals and the actual outcome (Clark & Estes, 2002). From there, roots and causes were
diagnosed in three areas: knowledge/skill, motivation, and organization. Finally,
solutions were identified through research with the intent of implementation.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to assist GUSD analyze the district and
participating elementary schools, using the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model in
order to assist in closing the Latino, English Language Learner achievement gap. This
Gap Analysis framework was used to focus on GUSD’s specific goals of closing this
achievement gap, to ascertain if and where gaps occurred, to define and examine the gaps
by identifying roots and causes, and then finally, to determine potential solutions.

14

CHAPTER TWO: ANALYZING ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM

2A Literature Review

As accountability for academic achievement continues to climb, underperforming
schools are struggling to meet current passing criteria. Although many research-based
programs are touting their products and effectiveness, schools are uncertain as to what
practices need to be in place for academic success to occur for all students, no matter
their culture. Since the age of accountability began, educators in the United States have
implemented such reforms as bilingual education, hiring additional school personnel, and
various educational programs aimed at reversing the pattern of school failure among
minority students (Cummins, 1986). Educators are funneling their focus on school reform
on the underachievement of ELLs as districts and schools across the nation are falling
into program improvement and given strict sanctions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In
order to transform school environments, educators can no longer place blame on the
ELLs by stating the “cause of students’ educational difficulty is the switch between the
language of the home and the language of the school” (Cummins, 1986, p. 19). In order
to reform a school, more than just curriculum and instruction knowledge will be required;
the school’s culture must change (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Policy
In 1968, Congress passed Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, otherwise known as the Bilingual Education Act (Baker & Hakuta, 1997). This act
provided federal financial incentives for districts implementing bilingual education.
However, this act was seen as largely symbolic for it provided limited amounts of

15

funding. Title VII stated that students had the right not only to learn English but to learn
the content as well.
While federal legislature supported bilingual education programs, courts had no
preference of educational techniques for providing English instruction. In 1974, in Lau v.
Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled, “attempting to teach students in a language they
cannot understand is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act” (Schmidt, 1990, p. 232).
Schools must provide ELLs with a plan to achieve proficiency in English. In another
major court case, Castaneda v. Pickard, the court ruled that language programs for
minority children must be based on educational theory, be implemented effectively, and
be evaluated as effective in overcoming language barriers (Baker & Hakuta, 1997).
In 1976, California mandated bilingual education as a right for ELLs by passing
the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act. It “required schools to offer
bilingual education when ten or more limited English proficient children of the same
language background were enrolled in the same grade” (Baker & Hakuta, 1997, p. 3).
California educators were beginning to recognize that traditional English instruction to
non-English speaking students was not working. This law established the state’s
mandatory bilingual education programs, which were in place for over ten years, when
Governor Deukmejian allowed this act to sunset (Schmidt, 1990). While the
requirements of the law technically stayed in effect, with little support from the state, this
mandate was greatly weakened.
In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, which banned illegal
immigrants from public services and all forms of public education including higher
education (Lively, 1995). While historically, language policy had always evoked strong

16

feelings and emotions, the passing of Proposition 187 worsened the political arena in
regards to native language instruction (Baker & Hakuta, 1997). Opponents claimed that
this proposition supported racism, while supporters stated that illegal immigrants strained
California’s tax dollars.
Four years later, California passed Proposition 227. For the first time, the public
voted on how to educate California’s ELLs (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, Garcia, Asato,
Gutierrez, Stritikus, & Curry, 2000). Proponents of Proposition 227 claimed that
bilingual education was failing students.
Achievement Gap
While there has been plenty of research done on best education practices for
ELLs, gaps continue to exist when translating the research into practice. “There has been
a failure to operationalize and particularize theoretical principles to offer concrete
guidance programs” (Roessingh, 2004, p. 614). Roessingh (2004) continued to state that
due to time limits, there is only so much energy and effort educators can put forth in
reality.
If no child is to be left behind, there is a great deal of change that still needs to be
done in the instruction of ELLs (Leaks & Stonehill, 2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) stated that, “An enduring problem is the isolation of researchers working on the
minority achievement gap from those focused on school improvement” (p. 46).
Researchers need to continue repeating these studies and expanding their studies to
include a broader scope of participants: different languages, districts, ethnicities, grade
levels, primary language knowledge, etc. (Ladson-Billings, 1995). While, at the same
time, teachers need to dedicate the time and begin the process of transforming their

17

teaching to meet the diverse needs of the ELLs. As Tomlinson et al. (2003) stated,
“There is no simple route to this complex destination” (p. 135).
Factors Contributing to the Achievement Gap
The gap analysis framework was used to identify literature that focused on the
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture causes of the ELL Latino
elementary school achievement gap. This literature helped the researcher comprehend
the potential causes of the achievement gap. Then, literature that described effective
strategies and reforms to close the achievement gap was identified. This literature was
used to determine which potential strategies would be most effective in solving the
problem in a local school district. An initial review of the literature in each of these areas
is described below.
Instructional Causes of the Gap
As the accountability for academic achievement continues to climb, the
knowledge and skill of educators are being scrutinized as causes for the ELL
achievement gap. While knowledge and skill are not necessarily evaluated in most public
school systems, they are ways to analyze and determine performance and what
professional development is needed. Clark and Estes (2002) stated,
First, they are required when people do not know how to accomplish their
performance goals, and second, when you anticipate further challenges will
require novel problem solving. The first condition usually indicates a need for
information, job aids, or training. The second condition suggests a need for
continuing or advanced education. (p. 58)

Either one of these conditions or lack of teacher efficacy can cause an achievement gap in
the school system. One of the largest impediments to closing the ELL achievement gap
may be educators’ overconfidence in their instructional knowledge and ability to

18

implement their skills into the classroom (Trend in International Math & Science Study,
2007; Clark & Estes, 2002).
One reason for this instructional gap could be the poor ELD preparation that
teacher programs provide to educators in teaching the strategies and best practices for
English learners such as student engagement, modeling, cooperative learning, checks for
understanding, and connections to prior knowledge (Gibbons, 2002). Teacher credential
programs often focus on the broad aspect of teaching and not on specific subjects or the
“how” to teach. Upon completion of either their single or multiple credentials, beginning
teachers are often hired and assigned to schools with large numbers of ELL and minority
students, whether or not they are prepared (Elmore, 2002). A few states, such as
California, have tried to prevent this lack of preparation for teaching ELLs by requiring
courses in cross-cultural, language, and academic development. As Elmore states (2002):
Giving teachers new skills and knowledge enhance the capacity of teachers to
teach more effectively. But, if it consists only of that, it is likely to have a
modest-to-negative effect because the teacher usually returns to a classroom and
school in which the condition of instruction and the condition of work are exactly
the same. (p. 24)

Eventually, educators fall back into their pattern of teaching students by what feels right.
In order to close the ELL achievement gap, educators must incorporate best
practice, instruction, and strategies by receiving and implementing specific and effective
professional development. “Professional development for teachers focuses on student
learning, with attention given to tailoring curriculum and instruction to students’ needs,
all of which is compatible with current research” (CDE, 1999, p. 16). There are several
ways for professional development to occur within a district: hire an outside consultant,
provide district specialists who offer trainings, allow teachers to participate in the

19

planning of their school’s action plan and provide the professional development to their
staff. Either way, professional developments should include ELD strategies that assist
educators with implementation in their classrooms. They should focus on student
engagement, while at the same time; include a focus on curriculum and instruction. In
order to be most effective, research states educators should be stakeholders and assist
with the development and planning of their own professional development (CDE, 1999).
Professional development should be on going, in-depth, and research-based.
Closing the ELL achievement gap is a priority in many districts across the nation.
In order for English learners to be successful and achieve, quality instruction in language
development must be received. To benefit, Goldenberg (2006) states that English
learners must receive:
Clear goals and learning objectives; well-designed and clearly structured
instructional routines; active engagement and participation; plenty of
opportunities to practice new learning; feedback on correct and incorrect
responses; opportunities to apply new learning and transfer it to new situations;
periodic review and practice; opportunities to interact with other students in
motivating contexts; frequent assessments to gauge progress, with re-teaching as
needed. (p. 3)

In order to contribute to the success of ELLs and help them become proficient in English,
teachers must apply key factors. Among these factors are: strong basic oral English
proficiency, basic reading ability, interaction with Standard English Speakers (SES),
input through written text, effective instruction, and attention to form (Scarcella, 2003).
English learners must be provided significant support such as preteaching essential
vocabulary, building background knowledge, and teaching language patterns to be
successful in the English Language (CDE, 1999).

20

Not only must educators be able to clarify and implement these instructional
strategies, in order to close the achievement gap, they must have a clear understanding of
and be able to delineate between English Language Development (ELD) and Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). Echevarria and Short (1999) found
the following:
Teachers need specific preparation in working with English Language Learners.
They need to know who the students are and what their prior education
experiences were like. Moreover, teachers need to know how to teach content to
English language learners in strategic ways that make the concepts
comprehensible while promoting the students’ academic English language
development. (p. 12)

As districts, schools, and educators begin to address their English learners, a focus
on effective strategies and best teaching practices must occur for students to increase
their English Language Development. The purpose of ELD is to develop proficiency in
English through concepts and skills. It is necessary for an emphasis to be placed on
instructional reading and writing; as well as instruction of academic vocabulary and the
phonological, morphological, and syntactical structure of English (CDE, 1999). As the
CDE (2002) stated, “The ELD standards are written as pathways to, or benchmarks of,
the English-language arts standards” (p. 12). In order for English learners to become
proficient in English, educators need to know the listening, speaking, reading, and writing
levels of students in English and from there differentiate their instruction to meet the
needs of those learners.
While ELD focuses primarily on English instruction, with a secondary focus on
content, Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) emphasizes
academic content while the secondary focus is on English acquisition. SDAIE provides

21

quality instructional methods but adds specific strategies targeted to the English learners
(Echevarria et al., 2006). There are four critical components of SDAIE that most
strategies fall under: connections, comprehensibility, meta-cognitive thinking, and
interaction. Prior knowledge, background information, and connections are what allow
students to become engaged and have a deeper understanding of what they are learning
(Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). Making connections can be done many ways: connecting to
information the students already know about, making a connection to the students’ lives,
or developing new experiences. This does not require a lot of instruction or planning,
however when incorporated into a teacher’s lesson, allows English learners to tap into
their experiences, background knowledge, and personal understanding as a foundation for
what they will learn. An important key factor for English learners is the ability to
comprehend both written text and oral language. SDAIE focuses on presenting concepts
in a variety of ways by providing plenty of clues for understanding, as well as various
checks for comprehension (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002).
Another cause for the achievement gap is the lack of understanding and meaning
educators have in regards to culturally relevant and responsive education. Often
educators teaching Latino ELLs are from a different culture. These educators often do
not understand the cultural needs and connections that must be made for students to
understand the learning. As Gibbons (2008) stated, “Some children, particularly those
whose first experience of learning to read is in their second language, may need particular
kinds of support in learning literacy” (p. 82). This lack of understanding often leaves
educators assuming that students from a variety of cultures understand the various

22

cultural aspects in stories and do not build upon their students’ background knowledge
allowing for a better connection to the text.
At times, in education, there is a lack of cultural consciousness in instruction.
Teachers do not know how to achieve sociopolitical competence, never asking questions
regarding cultural norms, values, and social injustices. It is only through this process that
“students learn more content and develop a real ability to ask and answer critical
questions” (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 24). It is through this rigorous instruction; that all
students, including ELLs, reach a higher level of thinking. Although often outside
teachers’ cultural norms, it is important for teachers to see and understand that acquiring
English must be proactive and preplanned, and include a variety of cultural perspectives
and strategies.
Since the increase in accountability, educators have become more adept at using
data to guide instruction. Yet when it comes to the data on ELLs, there is controversy not
only with the data, but also with the assessment as well (California Student Achievement,
2002). In the state of California, ELLs take the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) in September and October from which proficiency levels are
determined. The results of these scores, in listening, speaking, reading, and writing are
not completed until January. As a result of this delay, educators begin the school year
looking at scores of tests that were taken by students a year earlier. Aside from the
timelines of these scores, there have been debates regarding the cost and reliability of this
test, as well as its alignment with California’s ELD standards. Another concern that
arises when analyzing the data of English learners is the data received from the California

23

Standards Test (CST). It has been questioned how teachers are to interpret data to drive
instruction on a test taken in English by students who are still learning the language.
Upon employing a highly qualified and effective teacher, it is often difficult to
retain them at the neediest schools that have a high population of ELLs (Gandara, 2010).
Class sizes are often large, and extra time and collaboration are needed to address the
varying needs of these students. It is this high degree of commitment of teachers and
sometimes-stilted growth of students that often burn out the highly effective teachers. As
Cummins states, “The teachers of ELL students see very clearly that high-stakes testing
can give a highly misleading picture of both student progress and the quality of
instruction in schools that have a significant number of ELL students” (Gibbons, 2002, p.
vi), thus leading to the lack of teachers’ self-efficacy.
Motivational Causes of the Gap
Motivation is such a large factor within education, affecting students, teachers,
parents, district employees, and community. Clark and Estes (2002) stated that
motivation incorporates three aspects, “First, choosing to work towards a goal; second,
persisting at it until it is achieved; and third, how much mental effort we invest to get the
job done” (p. 44). However, the pressures and stresses of the education system can be so
overwhelming for various stakeholders; the original motivation begins to wane, causing
an achievement gap.
Researchers propose that lack of student motivation can cause an achievement
gap. While it is the school’s responsibility to ensure that all students achieve, a great deal
of motivation on the students’ part is required, particularly among students acquiring a
second language. If students are to increase their academic achievement, schools need to

24

keep students motivated and actively engaged in instructional programs and teaching
practices. Verdugo (2006) stated that participants of the Hispanic Education Summit felt
a need for “curriculum changes for education of Hispanic students to be relevant and
sensitive to the backgrounds of Hispanic students” (p. 30). It is important to examine
different cultural values and learning styles and take these differences into consideration
(Clark & Estes, 2002).
Often, in the classroom, students are either “empowered or disabled” from the
interactions with teachers. An achievement gap can occur when students become
“disabled” or disengaged. Whether consciously or unconsciously, teachers’ beliefs affect
student achievement (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Unintentionally, teachers will perceive
ELLs as incapable of grade level material or they will assume the work is too difficult
and water the material down, wanting ELLs to have fun learning while at the same time,
never providing the scaffolds needed to reach grade level. Teachers must hold high
expectations for all their students, believing that all their students can learn and will learn
(Roessingh, 2004). Educators must view their teachings as adding to the students’ native
language and culture, not replacing it (Cummins, 1986). Educators need to know that
ELLs come in with a wealth of knowledge and it is up to them to tap into it, make the
connections, incorporate it into their classroom, and provide the necessary scaffolds.
Through this form of teaching, the instruction promotes intrinsic motivation by allowing
students to better relate to it, increasing their success, thus increasing the teachers’
motivation (Cummins, 1986).
In order for ELLs to benefit inside the classroom, educators must have some
understanding of the various cultural cues that their students follow, “verbal and

25

nonverbal communication, participation modes, time and space orientations, social
values, types of knowledge most valued, and preferred modes of learning” (Bennett,
2001, p. 188). Depending on the culture, not knowing one of these aspects has the
potential for disengaging the student in learning. For example, often teachers will ask that
students look them in the eye when speaking one-on-one. Yet in many cultures this is a
sign of disrespect, therefore students will not look a teacher in the eyes. Multicultural
teachers who spend time in the community where they work, not only learn their
students’ culture, but they can apply what they learned into the classroom (Ladson-
Billings, 1994). Once educators start embracing cultural values, their teaching will better
benefit the ELLs. Bennett (2001) concluded by stating, “Students who identify and
maintain connections with their traditional culture are more academically successful in
schools that implement an assimilationist curriculum and are vocationally centered than
students who are not secure in their traditional culture” (p. 190).
In addition to the lack of social relationships with their teachers, ELLs lack an
attachment or sense of belonging to their school (Gandara, 2010). Often English
Learners attend hyper-segregated schools with limited access to their middle-class peers.
This provides them “limited access to mainstream which inhibits their understanding of
the norms, standards, and expectation of the broader society” (Gandara, 2010, p. 26).
Hispanic English Learners are less likely to engage in activities outside the school day
due to family demands, transportation, and financial reasons. This lack of school
attachment and belonging is one cause for the achievement gap.
Aside from educators, schools have a commitment to the communities in which
they teach. Research states that a belief exists that schools are so overwhelmed with

26

social problems outside their area of expertise, that these social problems are contributing
to poor school performance and the achievement gap (Verdugo, 2006). Unfortunately,
the cultural model and setting of the school and community has the potential to
“predispose children to school failure even before they come to school” (Cummins, 1986,
p. 22). Parents of ELLs may not have the economic resources, lack an educational
background, speak a different language, or be ambivalent to their new culture (Cummins,
1986). Often Hispanic ELLs come from homes where English is barely spoken, if at all,
and educational levels are low. Gandara (2010) mentioned that 40% of Hispanic mothers
lack a high school diploma, while only 10% of Hispanic mothers have a college degree”
(p. 26). Parents who had trouble with the school system as a student may subconsciously
mirror these attitudes with their children, thus causing their children to distance
themselves from the dominate culture and retain language behaviors that are predominant
to their culture (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). Since some parents have limited education
and resources, without the proper information this barrier of human and social capital
may continue to stay with the minorities within the community increasing the
achievement gap.
Organizational Causes of the Gap
No matter what organization one belongs to, there are “formal and informal
organizational policies, processes, or resource levels that prevent the closing of a gap”
(Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 105). In the educational field this can translate to incomplete
instructional materials, inadequate funding, weak leadership, or unclear vision all fall
within organizational causes. These are just a few of the causes that can arise and create
an achievement gap.

27

While limited funding and resources is always an issue with educational
organizations, research indicates a lack of funding and resources with Hispanic English
learners. As Verdugo (2006) confirmed, “Historically, Hispanic schools or schools in
which a significant proportion of the student body was Hispanic have been seriously
underfunded in comparison to Anglo schools” (p. 35). It is either the administrator’s job
or the district office’s role to reallocate internal resources to students with high need,
ELLs and Latino students (Roessingh, 2004).
Aside from funding, another cause for the organizational gap is lack of strong
leadership. “Improving instructional practice at a school site requires a change in beliefs,
norms, and values about what is possible to achieve as well as in the actual practices that
are designed to bring achievement” (Elmore, 2002, p. 19). In order to be a change agent,
school leaders must articulate clear goals and expectations in regard to student success
and have an internal accountability; which holds teachers accountable to these
expectations. Effective implementation at the school site will require “buy in” from
participants and require a commitment to eliminate the barriers to closing the gap for
students (Brown, Santiago, & Lopez, 2003).
Before change can occur at the school site, it must begin at the district level.
Districts unable to create a clear goal or vision to close the Hispanic ELL achievement
gap will often not succeed. Districts need to create a strategy “aggressively confronting
the low expectations that many school personnel have for Hispanic ELL students”
(Brown, Santiago, & Lopez, 2003, p. 45). Along with addressing low expectations,
school districts need to educate employees about the challenges facing this population of

28

students while providing professional development on best teaching practices and proven
strategies for helping Hispanic ELLs achieve.

29

2B 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 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, more than 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) reaffirmed this
when he stated, “at second and third grades, Latinos are scoring much lower than their
white counterparts” (p. 4). This gap has continued to widen and particularly increased
between the years 1997 and 2004 (Spellings, 2007). Additionally, the past three decades
has shown little increase in Latino students’ college graduation rates (Gandara, 2010).

30

While there have been achievement gains among Latino students since the
implementation of NCLB, 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
A gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to helping 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.
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

31

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 levels
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
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

32

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
Several potential theories and theoretical frameworks 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.
In this project, cognitive theory impacted the analysis of teacher’s knowledge of
instructional strategies as well as their perception of the problem. 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).
Motivational theory was also utilized 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). Motivational 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 in this project is the incentive theory of motivation. The incentive theory of
motivation examines how rewards given after a behavior, with the intent to cause that

33

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.
The final framework through which the local school district was examined was
that of the organizational culture. Particular attention was paid to 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 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.

34

Conceptual Framework
The following concepts, situated within the gap analysis framework, 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) defined 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 organization’s culture: environment, individuals, and
groups of individuals. First, environment refers to the context in which individuals are a
part. Groups of individuals are people who are united by a common focus, belief, or
effort. These groups of individuals can influence decisions being made and processes
within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2002). In this project the environment was the
district and school site. Individuals were the members who made up the environment,
among them teachers, secretaries, and administrators. Each individual had his/her own
unique thoughts, beliefs, feelings, experiences, perceptions and behaviors.
There are several characteristics one can examine when looking at an
organization’s culture, one being 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, who, how, and what is happening are

35

relevant pieces to examine when addressing organizational culture. Another aspect of an
organization’s culture deals with material and resources. This, refers 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,
facilities, and personnel. Also part of organizational culture are value chains and value
streams, which look at the process and steps used in order to create a product. “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 comprised of the basic elements
individuals must know in order to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems.
Procedural knowledge, also known as imperative knowledge, is the knowledge exercised
in the performance of some task. Procedural knowledge refers to the process, or how one
does something and completes a task. Procedural knowledge is often thought of 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, rather is learned through
thoughtful, reflective thinking. Conceptual knowledge is the kind of knowledge that
may be transferred between situations.

36

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 types of
metacognitive 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
different strategies in different situations and settings. Lastly, self knowledge includes
knowledge of one's strengths and weaknesses (Pintrich, 2002).
Motivation
Various aspects of motivation were 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 refers to 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

37

(Graham, Bellmore, Nishina, & Juvonen, 2009). In this project interviewees were asked
what they thought attributed to the problem (the achievement gap). 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 refers to the internal factors that affect one’s 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. The final
aspects of motivation that were looked at were mental effort 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 faced in their
school district and proposed certain topics to be evaluated. In December 2009, a final
topic was selected for the project team’s focus: the ELL Latino achievement gap in the
district’s elementary schools. An initial collection of background literature on the
educational context of the problem and district data and background information began.
The team was also assigned a district liaison; this district level administrator addressed
any concerns and questions the team had throughout the project process, and arranged

38

initial meetings with district level administrators.
In February 2010 the team, with the assistance of the district liaison, arranged to
interview seven 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
team’s next contact should be. The team received approval of their “purpose of the
project” statement. Contact information for the project team was also given. During this
time the team also selected the three school sites on which the project would focus and,
with help from the district contact, arranged and conducted scanning interviews with the
selected school site principals.
On February 23, 2010, the project team participated in and passed the qualifying
exam of the project where the committee evaluated the team’s progress, purpose, and
project.
Following passage of the qualifying exam, the team conducted Round II of its
data collection. The researchers conducted “One Month Interviews” with approximately
10 teachers at the selected school sites. The school site principals helped 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 utilized in the
classroom. An Innovation Configuration Chart (see Appendix C) 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.

39

In the summer of 2010, a final analysis and report of the roots of the problem was
completed. 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 drafted.
In the fall of 2010 the team examined literature in order to determine solutions to
the problem in the district. The team then completed Chapter III, the solutions and the
executive summary of the solutions. The team 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.
Following the presentation to the district, the team 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
• Presentation of comprehensive
report of findings and
recommendations to district
• Finished Capstone Project
Spring 2011
• Defended Capstone Project and
Graduation

40

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: The Introduction and
section 2A: The Literature Review were individually completed.
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 give the researchers an understanding of the insider’s
viewpoint and experience. An interview protocol that included questions based on the
project questions, the problem, and the literature was employed. This semi-structured
interview format with an interview-guide approach, allowed the project team to decide
the sequence and wording of the questions to be asked during the interview thus keeping
the interview 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.
A Scanning Interview (See Appendix A) was conducted with all district and
administrative personnel. This general broad based format had 5 open-ended questions

41

that allowed the interviewee to share his/her perspectives on the problem, its history,
roots, and the solutions being used. Five broad questions were selected because the team
determined that amount would allow them to gain a deep enough understanding of the
perceptions within a reasonable time frame of thirty minutes to one hour.
A One Month Interview (See Appendix B) was conducted with teachers to
determine the goals and instructional practices 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 during a one-month period.
The team felt that the three questions, in correspondence with an Innovation
Configuration Chart (See Appendix C), would sufficiently allow the project team, within
a 30 minutes to one-hour interview time frame, to gain an understanding of typical
teacher instructional practices. Overall, the questions focused on experience, behavior,
opinion, value, feeling, knowledge, and background.
An Innovation Configuration Chart was used during this interview process to help
the interviewers determine how successfully the teachers were implementing effective
instructional strategies during a one-month period. 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 successful, moderately successful, or just getting started in
regards to their level of strategy implementation.
Similarly, brief 1-2 minutes Stages of Concern (See Appendix D) informal
interviews occurred throughout the site visits to determine what stage of instructional
strategy implementation the teachers were in and what concerns they may have had about

42

the problem. The possible stages of concern were 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
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 Latino ELL 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 during the
initial scanning interviews of district personnel. These interviews helped the project team
gain a focused understanding of the problem, determine district personal perceptions, and
establish which schools and school-based individuals would be interviewed.

43

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 five teachers at each school site, the team expected to gain a
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 that revealed a gap in achievement when
compared with their white peers. The first elementary school that had an identified ELL
Latino achievement gap was Horace Mann Elementary. Eighty-eight percent of the
students at this Title 1 school received a Free/Reduced priced lunch. With a total of 428
students, 229 were Hispanic, which equaled 54% of the student population. Sixty percent
of the students attending the school were ELLs, and 33% were Spanish speaking. The
school’s overall API was 803, whereas the Hispanic API score was 771. This resulted in
a gap of 32 points in API.
The second elementary school that was examined was Thomas Edison Elementary
School. This school had 211 Hispanic students out of 398 total students, forming 53% of
the student population. The overall API for the school was 807 compared to the
Hispanic’s 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 priced lunch.

44

The final elementary school studied in this project was John Muir Elementary
School. This school had 145 Latino students out of 475 total students. Latino students
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; 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 priced lunch.
The district representatives that were interviewed for 30 minutes to one hour
were: the Director of 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 three 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

45

Structure Focused, since the team analyzed units (schools) within an organization
(GUSD).
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 (GUSD) 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 project team 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 and overarching project questions
were noted.
Based on these preliminary reflections, as well as themes and concepts from the
literature and gap analysis, a list of codes was generated 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.
Additional codes were created using the “open” coding techniques (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). When relevant themes became apparent, they were labeled with words or

46

phrases that reflected and/or defined the concept or theme that related to the project
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 project questions were noted as
significant. The project team then collaborated to discuss and determine which codes
revealed patterns. 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 so as to determine
which strategies and solutions would be most effective in this school district.
Limitations to the Project
There were several limitations to this project. First, it was difficult to generalize
the results of this project. As consultants, the focus of our 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 our 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).
Due to time constraints and resource limitations, only three schools and 11
teachers were examined. Because the three selected schools were representative of
typical elementary schools in the district, and because in-depth data was gathered at each

47

of these schools, the team determined that the collected data was sufficient 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 considered
comprehensive.
Another limitation of this project was the absence of data from students and
parents. The intent of this project was to assist a local school district with a self-
identified problem, not to conduct a typical research study; thus, the project team did not
go through typical Institutional Review Board procedures. Therefore, the project team
was not permitted to interview children or parents; however, information about those
groups was gained through the perceptions of teacher and district personnel. The team
recognized that the educator’s second-hand perceptions of parent and student beliefs and
motivation could be biased and flawed. In fact, 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 project 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 seemed to be
uncomfortable with the presence of the project team, possibly due to a perception that the
team would judge their flaws or report negative findings to the district office, thus putting
the principal and school at risk of 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 best to allow the principals to coordinate the teacher
interviews so that they could maintain a feeling of comfort and control. Consequently, it

48

is possible that the views of the interviewed teachers were more positive and
representative of the principals desired views rather than their own. However, the
varying teacher responses, general openness of the participating teachers, and extensive
data collected revealed consistent themes that were both positive and negative.
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,

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.

49

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:
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)

50

2C 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 appeared
to be a priority in the district. The schools visited by the research team were clean,
spacious, and had visually appealing architecture. Student work was displayed
throughout, and most walls and classrooms were colorful and cheerful. Student data, test
results, and goals were also posted with positive reinforcement throughout the hallways.
Overall, the atmosphere of the school sites appeared to be very friendly, safe, and
positive.
With regard to individual staff members, the team found the culture to be equally
as positive. Teachers seemed happy, energetic, and motivated. Also, most of the staff we
interviewed seemed fond of one another and appeared to have mutual respect. A shared
philosophy that all students could learn and achieve was evident amongst most district
personnel. Secretaries and staff were welcoming and friendly to parents and visitors as
they entered the school, and students happily and cheerfully walked through the halls.
A positive group culture was also present at each site. This was particularly
evident through the high level of both mandatory and voluntary collaboration that
occurred throughout the district. Teachers collaborated during monthly mandatory
daylong meetings, and many teachers cited that they worked with their grade level
colleagues during lunch each day. The team deduced that a strong collegial atmosphere

51

existed, as teachers were motivated to collaborate and learn from one another and shared
a common goal to help all students learn and succeed.
Process: Policy and Procedures
In this school district, the reform Focus on Results (FOR) was utilized. Focus on
Results had seven areas or phases. First in Phase 1, a school-wide instructional focus
based on an assessment of students needs was created. In this district each school had
chosen its own instructional focus, such as 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 was implemented.
In phase 3, there was a unity of purpose across the district as a clear instructional focus
drove all decision-making. This district office selected an overarching instructional focus
of “achievement” and had specified areas of weakness in the format of an “urgency
statement”; one urgency statement was the Latino ELL achievement gap. The final four
phases were situated within building a targeted professional development plan and
included: 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) (http://www.focusonresults.net/).
Focus on Results led district staff to place a large emphasis on data and data
analysis. Charts and graphic organizers, which depicted student achievement scores,
growth, and goals, were displayed throughout the district office, school hallways, and

52

classrooms. Every teacher was aware of their school’s API and AYP, and their goal
score to reach by the end of the year. Data was the main focus of both district level and
school staff meetings as educators analyzed achievement scores and examined patterns.
According to several principals, data was also used to identify struggling teachers in
order to provide them with more support, or to determine who needed 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 were possible. Principals also shared that, by
showing the lowest scoring classrooms without teacher names, weaker teachers, who
already knew their status, were identified discreetly, which motivated them to improve.
Grade levels also worked in teams during this time to determine areas of strength and
weakness and patterns revealed by the data. Overall, it was clear that this was a data-
driven district.
The district’s data-driven mindset and intense emphasis on Focus on Results
seemed to take away from discussion about instructional practices. This lack of focus on
instruction may have perpetuated the Latino achievement gap. 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 response was often simply
“good teaching.” It was apparent to the researchers that while data was being used to
identify gaps and problem areas in instruction, discussion was not being taken to the next
level. A deeper reflection and analysis of next steps, specifically relating to effective

53

ELD instructional strategies, were not a significant part of the discussion within the
Focus on Results process. In summary, the emphasis was more on data and process and
less about direct classroom instructional strategies.
At the school sites, there were no independent reform processes being used in an
effort to close the gap. However, each school site had 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 were expected to be
situated within the FOR framework, there appeared to be little connection between the
individual school focuses and the FOR reform and district goals/urgency statement. This
disconnect created a separation between the schools and district office. Another issue
with the schools instructional focuses was that the selected focuses did 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
but appears to have been chosen because it would be useful learning for all students.
The strategy of the district to close the achievement gap, within the Focus on
Results Framework, was to first use data to identify gaps. The district’s director of
assessment and instruction, whose job was to analyze and prepare data for the district
using Data Director, explained that prior to NCLB there was no data that demonstrated
student progress. Since the implementation of FOR, they were able to determine which
students were successful and which were not and identify those that needed extra support.
The director and others credit this basic identification of achievement levels as a crucial
and influential step.

54

Another key element stressed by the district was the importance of staff
development and collaboration opportunities to discuss data and goals. School site
principals were encouraged to provide relevant literature to staff to read and discuss.
Another recent strategy that the district hoped to use to close the gap was 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 have budgetary responsibilities and be
responsible for developing parent involvement and staff development activities.
The school sites used a number of strategies to close the achievement gap, some
of which are noted here. First, within the format of FOR, principals facilitated
Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs) composed of teachers across various grade levels,
school administrators, and sometimes, visiting district administrators. The ILT met after
school monthly to discuss data, review literature, and discuss intervention strategies.
Another strategy observed at school sites was 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 was that these TAs were not credentialed or trained and were
typically giving basic support to ELLs doing simplistic academic tasks rather than
providing relevant individualized instruction using ELL strategies. Also, at several
schools there were Intervention Teachers who pulled out classes of ELD students to work
with them in small groups; however, when asked what these intervention teachers were
doing with the students, the teachers interviewed did not know. Lastly, one school pulled
out the ELL students for “computer lab” during which the students practiced reading

55

comprehension skills using a computer software program. There was no mention of the
use of Coordinators, Coaches, or Resource Specialists by teachers at any of the sites.
Materials and Resources
A materials and resources issue in the district was that there was no clear,
consistent, and organized ELD program. The district had not adopted any separate ELD
program, and had not mandated that a separate time block be reserved for ELD
instruction. Therefore, ELD students were not receiving any kind of individualized
instruction to meet their needs. Most of the school sites did use the program “Making
Meaning,” a supplementary Language Arts program that has a story, picture/word cards,
and asks students to make connections. While teachers believed it was developing
student vocabulary, it was a program used with all the students, and there was little data
to show whether or not it had an effect on ELLs.
Perception that FLAG Program Closes the Gap
The district was very proud of its Foreign Language Academies of Glendale
Program (FLAG). The FLAG program existed at four of the elementary schools in the
district and was a dual language program. Spanish was 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 was that all participating children would
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 were 90/10 dual
immersion programs, and the FLAG Korean was a 50/50 dual immersion program. Fully
credentialed bilingual teachers taught the classes. In the Spanish classes the children
could speak or respond in either language, but the teacher would speak only Spanish

56

during 90% of the day. Language was taught largely through the content studied, not as a
separate subject. At all times there was strict division of languages and teachers never
mixed or translated during instruction. Starting in kindergarten, students received 30
minutes of oral instruction in English at a designated time. Annually a greater percentage
of English is added, until, by 5th grade, instruction was evenly divided between the two
languages. Formal literacy instruction in English generally began in third grade, although
students were exposed to oral and print English from the beginning
(http://www.gusd.net/).
Most members of the district had the perception that the FLAG program was 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, data showed that this
perception that the FLAG program was closing the gap was inaccurate. First, a very
small percentage of ELL Latinos participated in this program, so it was 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 had one FLAG class. The criteria stated
that half of the class must be English speaking which resulted in no more than 10-15 ELL
Latinos per class. This was a very small percentage of the total number of Latinos in the
school.
Another issue with the perception that the FLAG program was closing the
achievement gap was that the students who participated in the FLAG program were not
the students who would usually struggle; the students who participated often came from

57

families who had socio-cultural knowledge and whose parents were able to access the
resources needed to enroll their child in this program before Kindergarten. Such families,
who had knowledge and resources, often had children who were more prepared to enter
school, and had the resources and support available should they struggle with learning.
These children also came from higher socioeconomic families as evidenced by the fact
that the SES status of FLAG schools had been increasing with the increasing enrollment.
The FLAG schools were expecting to lose Title I funds in the upcoming years. It can be
inferred then, that these FLAG students were likely to have been successful in school,
regardless of their participation in the FLAG program and were not representative of the
students who fall into the academic gap.
District personnel stated during 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 that
educated, upper/middle class parents would be interested in having their children 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 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
crucial to maintain funding to support the schools, especially when many students are
leaving the district. The current primary FLAG school was, at one time, at risk of closure
due to rapidly declining enrollment. Due to out of district transfers into the FLAG
classes at the school greatly increased its numbers thus saving it from closure. To the

58

research team, it appeared that the purpose of the FLAG program was not to close the
achievement gap but to raise enrollment and ADA to bring in funding. Although 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 achievement gap numerous times in interviews. This misconception and
confusion over the purpose and effect of the FLAG program was consistent throughout
the district, which created a problem.
Knowledge/Skill
Factual Knowledge
The teachers in the district possessed factual knowledge about research-based
instructional strategies that could help their students learn. Some strategies that were
referred to most often in interviews were making connections across the curriculum,
think-pair-shares, and the use of Thinking Maps©. Most teachers also stated the
importance of oral language; many described how they often do read-alouds to model
correct reading. In addition, teachers frequently used think-pair-shares to develop
vocabulary, check for understanding, and to engage students. This factual knowledge
came from teachers’ educational backgrounds, teaching experience, and through
professional development and Instructional Leadership Team meetings where current
research articles were provided and discussed.
District employees also had ample factual knowledge about student achievement
data. Student achievement data was readily accessible and continuously referred to
throughout the district. Teachers were knowledgeable about their school’s and
classroom’s CST scores, API/AYP scores, and summative/formative assessment scores.

59

They were easily able to identify which students were scoring at a low, middle, and high
level. 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. Factual information about
students’ achievement scores and the Latino ELL achievement gap seemed to be clearly
understood and accepted by the district staff. This factual data drove most of the decision
making in the district.
An area of factual knowledge that was lacking was that most of the teachers were
unaware of what strategies specifically helped ELLs. The teachers were able to cite
general instructional strategies such as Thinking Maps©, but when asked to describe
specific strategies they used in their classrooms for ELLs, they often had no response.
For example, the majority of teachers did not use cooperative learning; they merely
pulled out “low” students to work with in small groups.
Another area of factual knowledge that was lacking involved the educators’
perception of potential roots of the problem. The educators often perceived that the low
socioeconomic level of the students, lack of “value” placed on education at home, and
low educational background of parents were the roots of the problem. This perception
could be the result of a lack of knowledge about their Latino student’s lives and culture,
as well as knowledge of proven strategies that work to help students. A lack of
knowledge about what research and literature state as the causes of the achievement gap
might have also be a contributor.

60

Conceptual Knowledge
Not only did many teachers lack the factual knowledge about what instructional
strategies apply specifically to ELL Latinos, they lacked the conceptual knowledge that
Latino ELLs need these specific instructional strategies. Most of those 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 when employed, they did so with all students and not
with the specific intention of supporting ELLs. 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 was
lacking.
Procedural Knowledge
Teachers also lacked the procedural knowledge needed to know how to
implement effective strategies, nor did they have any clear plan or objective for how to
implement instructional strategies to ELLs. Without an ELD program or set ELD time
period, teachers had little idea of how to individualize and differentiate instruction for
ELLs. Any strategies the teachers did use were applied to all their students.
While teachers knew that their ELLs lacked vocabulary, they did not know how to
implement, a systematic, consistent, and thoughtful plan for how to teach vocabulary.
While some teachers did use the new “Making Meaning” language arts program, this was

61

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 do so.
Metacognitive Knowledge
There appeared 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 volunteered
their time and met on a weekly or monthly basis to discuss their urgency statement, goals,
and the process of achieving their goals. However, much of the knowledge developed
through this process was factual, procedural, and sometimes conceptual; it was rarely
metacognitive despite intentions. Specifically, the participants did not reflect on their
own cognition and thinking, or on that of their students. Self-reflection was not an
emphasis within the FOR process which may have limited teachers’ personal growth as
educators.
Similarly, there appeared to be a lack of instruction that would help students to
develop their own 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). The teachers rarely mentioned that they taught
students general strategies for learning and thinking. For example, there was little
discussion with regard to teaching comprehension strategies such as how to read a
textbook or how to check comprehension during reading. Based on teacher interviews, it
appeared that most teachers assumed that students were being taught general strategies
for learning and problem solving; however, the research team found no evidence that this

62

was occurring consistently of that was a priority. Additionally, there was little mention
of the teaching of contextual and conditional knowledge, which would help learners to
activate the relevant situational or conditional knowledge for problem solving 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.
The researchers saw little evidence of critical thinking or higher-level thinking
skills being taught to Latino ELLs. They observed the higher level thinking skills
defined by Blooms Taxonomy such as analyze, evaluate, and create, targeted towards the
higher-level successful students but not toward the struggling low-level ELLs. At one
school, the 5
th
grade language arts classes were divided according to 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
seemed to be that the struggling Latino ELL students needed basic simplified instruction
in learning words, and that they would not be able to participate in higher level thinking
activities until they gained these skills. This inaccurate perception caused these students
to miss out on opportunities to develop skills that would help them to learn and succeed.

63

Motivation
Self-Efficacy
Overall, teachers in the district exhibited high self-efficacy in that they felt
capable and able to achieve their goals. Many teachers described their instructional
abilities as 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 used in
the classroom such as Thinking Maps© and small group instruction as further evidence
of their strength as teachers.
The teachers often cited that their ELL Latino students lacked self-esteem,
motivation, and self-efficacy. According to teachers, these students seemed less willing
to try, were not as confident in their abilities, and displayed a lack of caring. Teachers
stated that Latino ELLs demonstrated a lack of effort on assignments and a sad
demeanor.
This low level of student self-efficacy was possibly the result of ability grouping.
Designated groups could cause students to feel identified and singled out, as, low
performing and “not smart.” For example, names of low, middle, and high student groups
were posted in rooms, and those groups of students were pulled out to work with the
teacher as needed. One school also separated low, middle, and 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
believe that they are unable to learn and achieve.

64

Task Value
Task value is the level of importance or value assigned to a task. With regard to
this project, the team presented the “task” as being “educating Latino ELLs” and “closing
the achievement gap.” When questioning teachers, administrators, and district personnel
about how important they felt this task was, the majority responded that these tasks were
very important. Most interviewees agreed that these tasks were a priority for the district
and for 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 those interviewed believed
that one of the main causes of the achievement gap was students’ belief that the value of
education was low due to their parents’ lack of seeing the value of education. To
illustrate this, one principal described how the priority of the Latino families, whom she
stated were often low-income, was to raise money in order to feed their families. She felt
that the parents simply wanted their children to work and earn money and did not
understand the value of education. In addition, several principals and other interviewees
felt that the parents’ own low educational attainment impacted their value of education.
Attributions
As previously mentioned, educators and leaders throughout the district perceived
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 were attributing the
problem to others and to factors outside themselves. Seeing this mind-set at a higher
level caused teachers to lack motivation because they felt that the cause of ELLs’ low
achievement was the result of things beyond their control. They felt helpless about the

65

situation, and felt themselves struggling against huge challenges. These perceptions and
feelings conflicted with previous statements that showed high expectations for their
Latino ELLs and a belief that all children could learn and succeed.
Interest
These perceptions of the problem in turn have affected the Latino ELL students’
interest in learning. It is possible that the educators’ perceptions with regard to students
and parents lack of value placed on learning, low SES status, and low educational
attainment were not actually the cause of the problem. Inaccurate perceptions and lack of
teacher knowledge may have caused 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 was not valued. For
instance, most teachers cited that speaking Spanish in class was generally not
encouraged.
Goal Orientation
District, school site administration, and teacher goals were not aligned. The
district’s main goal centered on Focus on Results and the district urgency statement.
Whereas school site principals had goals specific to their sites, such as a focus on writing,
or reading comprehension. While these goals were situated somewhat in the foundation
of Focus on Results, it seemed that principals, who were able to state the district goals,
didn’t actually think about them much, as they focused more specifically on their own
school goals.
Goals among teachers varied enormously from teacher to teacher. While teachers
were aware of their school’s focus, each had various individual, classroom, and student

66

goals. 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 lacked a clear objective connected to
instructional standards that could be easily assessed.

67

CHAPTER THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
3A Solutions Literature Review
Problem Area 1
While the current Focus on Results Reform had many strengths, its emphasis
on process and data often resulted 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 had individual instructional focuses; some of them seem
disconnected from the district’s urgency statement/goal to close the ELL gap
and did 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 emphasized assessment and
instructional data use and analysis. This appeared 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 Stringfield (2006)

68

described how data-driven decision making is likely to increase student academic
achievement by targeting instruction to students’ needs 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 described 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 continue to support the expectation that data is used to guide instruction
(Young, 2006). It is important, however, for district leaders to 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 among all district
staff as to what constitutes 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
that teachers often find it difficult to analyze and interpret data, and lack knowledge of

69

what to do as a result of data (Feldman & Tung, 2001; Ingram et al., 2004; Herman &
Gribbons, 2001; Mason, 2002). Thus, the district and school sites should facilitate
professional development and training to ensure teachers can effectively analyze,
interpret, and use data (Ingram et al., 2004).
One place where data-driven decision-making can be improved upon in GUSD 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. The research team deemed this to be an issue
because schools were selecting instructional focuses without considering data specifically
related to the Latino ELL achievement gap. Interestingly, this situation is common
across the nation; research shows that despite the fact that most comprehensive school
reform 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 et al. (2002) described how limited English proficient (LEP) students are one
such group whose needs are often ignored. Menken (2000) emphasized this when he said
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 reform
may not be directly meeting the needs of ELL Latinos. Therefore, when selecting an
instructional focus, sites should consider data directly related to the ELL Latino
achievement gap and students.

70

Goal Setting and Orientation
Goal setting of effectively formulated goals is also important in order to close the
achievement gap. Goal setting refers to setting a standard or objective to serve as the aim
of one's actions (Schrunk, 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 (Schrunk, 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 et al., 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)
described, “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

71

should be aligned, cascading, and relevant. Similarly, these goals should be understood
and supported by everyone in the organization.
In the classroom, teacher goals for students should also be mastery based rather
than 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 in order to earn 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). Teachers who set 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 recommended 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 specifically
related to the achievement gap and Latino ELLs to guide their selection of school
instructional focuses.

72

Also, the group recommended 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. A suggestion could be for the district’s urgency
statement regarding closing the Latino ELL achievement gap to 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. 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 were aware of generally effective
instructional strategies for all students, there was 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 were unsure of ELD and ELL instructional strategies, and
specifically how and when to implement them.
o There was currently no clear, consistent, or unified ELD program, or
time block for ELD instruction, in place in the district.
o Many of the interviewed teachers were not teaching higher level thinking
skills or critical thinking skills to the Latino ELLs; they were focusing on
basic simplified instruction with those students.

73

o Teachers did not know of or how to implement a systematic, thoughtful
plan for how to teach language and vocabulary to ELLs. There was a
supplementary language arts program called “Making Meaning” being
used at some schools, but it was applied to all students and did not utilize
ELD instructional strategies.
o Developing students metacognitive knowledge did 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.
Solution Summary Statement for Problem Area 2
An increased use of and focus on English Language Development 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
specifically helps ELLs by allowing them to move through the levels and stages of

74

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 in the content areas such as social studies and science understandable to
English learners. With SDAIE, teachers use the core curriculum, but provide English
learners with scaffolds and strategies that make the understanding and learning of the
content accessible. Specifically, SDAIE strategies help students to build their prior
knowledge and background information, and help them to make connections; this allows
students to become engaged and have a deeper understanding of 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
of unnecessary verbiage, and (4) comprehension checks to see how well the lesson was
taught as well as judging the understanding of the students (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002).

75

Another component for the success of Latino English learners the development of
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 into 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 as 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) supported this when they stated “the rigor of courses taken…is the most powerful
predictor of academic achievement, high school graduation, and enrollment in
postsecondary education” (p. 8).
Giving ELLs the opportunity to practice and develop their oral language through
interaction is crucial. Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) supported this when they described
how, in order for students to acquire skills and concepts, they must practice, 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) described how cooperative
learning techniques, in which students work in small groups and receive rewards or

76

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.
Latino ELL student achievement will improve when clear, concrete, relevant and
immediate feedback is provided to students. Diaz-Rico & Weed, (2002) supported this
when they described 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. Feedback should encourage and motivate students to learn, rather than
discourage 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).
Scaffolding is another best practice and effective strategy for English learners. As
Diaz-Rico and Weed (2002) defined, “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

77

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 the use of visual aids and graphic organizers such as Thinking
Maps© to help students construct knowledge. This assists English learners to construct a
schema, from what is unknown to the known 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 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 years, 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 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 primary focus is on 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

78

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, ELD 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 instruction so that it is comprehensible 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
different ways of 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 through the use of media, realia,
manipulatives, and other modalities (Gibbons, 2002).
Appropriate levels of questioning is another strategy that helps assist in ELD.
Teachers often use questioning to gain an idea of students’ levels of understanding.
Some questions and answers indicate a surface level of understanding, while other
questions can prompt higher level thinking discussions and responses. At times,
educators are uncomfortable asking higher-level questions to ELLs out of fear that the

79

students will not understand. They often only asked ELLs basic factual questions or do
not ask a question at all. Consequently, ELLs are not being held accountable to the
content matter (Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007). The California ELD standards can assist
teachers by providing them with information about students’ knowledge and abilities at
different ELD levels. This knowledge will help teachers 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) stated, “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, such as 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
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 &
Goudis, 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”

80

(CDE, 1999, p. 16). As Butler (1992) stated, “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 described the desired outcome of staff development to be
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
described 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
up, ensure implementation, and allocate time for educators to refine their practice (CDE,
1999).
Teachers also 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) described PLCs as being
“Collaborative teams whose members work interdependently to achieve common goals

81

linked to the purpose of learning for all” (p. 3). PLCs allow teachers to work together to
improve student achievement.
The National College for School Leadership (2005) also suggested that schools
have mentors and coaches to help teachers become more effective. 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 allows teachers to take on a greater leadership role
while struggling teachers are provided with more effective support.
One model 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 first part of staff development,
teachers are provided with the instructional strategies, the theory and research that
support the model, and the curriculum design that brings these all together within 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 (http://www.projectglad.com/).

82

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,
as well as promotes collaboration and peer coaching. The results for students have been
continued gains on standardized tests as well as renewed involvement in a classroom that
is, not only student-centered, but fosters a sense of identity and voice
(http://www.projectglad.com/).
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, 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 (http://www.projectglad.com/).
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) stated 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, Vogt, & Short, 2004). This protocol
provides extensive criteria for effective planning and instruction, and emphasizes clear

83

content and language objectives, building background knowledge, promoting interaction,
practice, application, and assessment (Slavit & Ernst-Slavit, 2007). SIOP is a model
designed for flexibility that has been tested in a wide range of classroom situations.
Results of studies conducted on SIOP indicated 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 solve some of the greatest challenges and problems facing
ELLs in education.
Application and Implementation of ELD and ELD Strategies
One way to ensure that ELLs are receiving ELD instruction through the use of
these strategies is to mandate an ELD time block. A separate block of time dedicated to
English Language Development allows for focused and organized instruction to increase
the effectiveness of ELD (Goldenberg, 2008). A separate ELD block that targets
language acquisition has proven 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 ELD (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 for teachers to implement
while using these strategies and in teaching language arts skills to ELLs during ELD time

84

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 in the teacher’s edition instructional
materials that provided differentiated instruction for English learners. The first chart
below lists currently 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
chart indicates supplementary ELD programs and materials adopted by the CDE and used
by many districts. The district should be aware that these programs are often lacking in
English language development, 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

85

Table 3: Supplementary Instructional Materials for English Learners

Summary and Group Recommendations
In summary, the group recommended 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 suggested
that teachers learn these strategies, and how to successfully apply them in their
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 recommended that the district mandate an ELD time block to
ensure that teachers are providing ELD instruction. Similarly, we suggested 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,
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

86

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 were lacking
self-efficacy, self-esteem, and motivation.
o Students’ low self-efficacy may have been 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 have caused students to identify themselves as
struggling, ineffective learners.
o District staff attributed the cause of the gap to outside factors 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 have caused Latino students to feel that their culture
and lives were misunderstood, thus lowering their interest in learning.
o Generally, interviewed teachers did not permit or encourage the Latino
ELLs to speak Spanish in the classroom. This could have caused students to
feel that their culture and language were not valued, thus lowering their self-
esteem and interest.

87

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 address 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
about his/her capabilities to complete a task (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs
determine student behavior and are vital for their academic success (Pajares, 2003). The
behavior of students is connected to their feelings of self and what they believe 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 (Pajares, 2003). Also, teachers who help students to become
more confident and to believe in themselves, create students who have greater persistence
and effort in assignments. These students carry less anxiety and fear of failure (Bandura,
1997).
General student motivation increases when teachers develop students’ value
toward a task and build their confidence that they can accomplish it. According to the
expectancy-value theory, students’ value of a task and their confidence will predict
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

88

task value for ELLs by pointing out the relevance of the subject matter and how it will
positively affect their lives. This is especially important in areas where students hold
little value and are not motivated.
Similarly, it is also important for teachers to increase students’ interest in subject
matter. Students are motivated to study and work hard on topics in which they have a
particular interest. These topics hold value since they are challenging, interesting, and
have meaningful outcomes (Eccles & Roeser, 2008). By understanding student interest
and their prior knowledge, teachers can create a curriculum that is valued and
intrinsically motivating for the all students, but especially important for ELLs who are
often challenged when trying to comprehend and learn in English. 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).
An important step in the process of increasing students’ interest is to make 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, 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 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

89

and races 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.
Teachers should be cautious when grouping students by ability, as it can decrease
students’ self-efficacy. Students are often very perceptive about where they are placed
and may 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 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).
Instead of ability grouping, teachers can employ 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 ELLs to work together thus
increasing motivation, decreasing competition, and developing language skills. When
working in a group, students cooperate toward a common objective, which decreases
competition (Vaughan, 2002).

90

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 ELLs and students with disabilities that
require modified instruction. Teachers should assess students to understand their
background and prior knowledge in order to set instruction at the appropriate level, keep
groupings and instruction flexible, and maintain ongoing assessment. ELLs require
differentiated 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.
Teachers can motivate students by promoting intrinsic, rather than extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic are the types of motivation that guide students desire
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) stressed that
teachers should 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

91

self-efficacy, high depression and anxiety, and poor relationships with peers (Duriez,
Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & De Witte, 2004).
When teachers set high expectations for their students, the students 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 better 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).
Achievement Goal Theory
Students that have performance-approach-oriented goals do not wish to master the
subject matter rather their focus is on 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, 2008).
Similarly, students with performance-avoidance mindsets complete tasks to avoid
being looked down on by 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

92

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).
To combat this negative outlook, students should engage in mastery-orientated
goals and approaches to tasks. Research shows that ELLs that engage in mastery-
oriented goals have higher goal-oriented motivation that allow them to develop reasons to
see the value while they pursue a task. Students who develop mastery-oriented
approaches seek to develop competence in the topic as well as further their 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 & Berliner, 2003). Students who possess 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, 2008). 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 reaching specific academic goals. Students that have
high self-efficacy carry elevated levels of persistence and effort and a desire 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).

93

Teachers who set 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 achieve. Students will develop positive
self-efficacy and identify their own mastery goals when they can relate to the
teacher/classroom’s 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
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 led to motivation among students (Eccles & Roeser, 2008).
Teacher Attribution (Self-Efficacy)
It is important for teachers to believe 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 classrooms 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

94

mastery while indirectly meeting performance-oriented goals through rewards and
positive reinforcement (Caprara, et al., 2006).
Research has shown 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 and 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 handled tasks, obligations, and challenges to 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. 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 & Davis, 2006).
It is important, however, that teachers be aware of their actual abilities and goals,
and seek out support and resources in order to improve as instructional leaders.
According to the Trend in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 report,
teachers in the United States reported 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

95

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 recommended that teachers use cooperative learning
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. This can be accomplished by
helping students set personal learning goals, and by stating the standard and learning
objective for each lesson. By helping Latino ELLs to value the process and experience of
learning, rather than work for extrinsic rewards (such as grades or tangible rewards),
these students can be more intrinsically motivated and successful learners.

96

3B Proposed Solutions
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to use the gap analysis model to help the GUSD
with a self-identified problem: 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, 2009). It helps
organizations to identify and clarify goals, and to analyze gaps between the desired and
actual levels of achievement. The process also helps organizational leaders 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 compared to the desired standard of
performance
• Investigate the causes of the gap – the roots of the gap may be knowledge/skill,
motivational, or organizational related

97

• 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
his/her perspective on the problem, the history of the problem, the solutions
currently being used, and the perceived roots of the problem
• One Month Interview (30-60 minutes)
o Three questions were asked of teachers in order to gain a better understanding
of what goals and instructional practices were being used in the classroom
with ELL Latino students during the previous 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
• 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

98

The Sample
• 7 district level personnel
• The principal from each of the three school sites
• 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) seemed to have increased a
district-wide emphasis and awareness of student achievement/assessment data and
data-driven decision making to guide instruction.
• The district demonstrated a positive environmental, individual, and group culture.
School sites were clean, safe, and displayed student work; the staff was positive, got
along with one another, and collaborated often.
• Some district strategies to close the gap were: used data to identify gaps, emphasized
staff development and collaboration to discuss data, provided literature to staff, and
hired teacher specialists.
• Some school site strategies to close the gap were: used teacher aides, intervention
coordinators, and computer lab time to pull out ELLs for individual instruction.
• Many of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed possessed
knowledge about general effective instructional strategies such as Thinking Maps©,
think-pair-shares, and read-alouds. Most also seemed to possess knowledge about the
importance of developing oral language for ELLs.

99

• Most of the teachers, principals, and district staff who were interviewed possessed
knowledge about their students’ achievement and assessment data.
• Most of the interviewed teachers seemed to have high self-efficacy and felt 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 had many strengths, its emphasis on process and
data often resulted 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.
• School sites had individual instructional focuses; some of them seem disconnected
from the district’s urgency statement/goal to close the ELL gap and did 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.

100

Solution Summary for Problem Area 1
The group recommended:
• 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 should 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.
• School site administrators can also emphasize the need for teachers’ goals for
Latino ELLs to be mastery based, clear, concrete, current, and focused (SMART
Goals).
Problem Area 2
• While most of the district personnel were aware of generally effective instructional
strategies for all students, there was 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.

101

• Teachers were unsure of ELD and ELL instructional strategies, specifically how and
when to implement them.
• There was no clear, consistent, or unified ELD program, or time block for ELD
instruction in place in the district.
• Many of the interviewed teachers did not seem to feel that teaching metacognitive
knowledge was a priority, and were 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 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 recommended:
• The district focus their efforts on the two most important effective instructional
strategies, SDAIE and differentiation, which would ensure that instruction is
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.

102

• The district should 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.
• Over time, as teachers become more comfortable with the leveled content of the
ELD curriculum, schools could 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 were lacking self-
efficacy, self-esteem, and motivation.
• This may have been the result of teachers’ consistent use of ability grouping by
pulling out lower 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 to outside factors and felt the achievement
gap was a result of parents’ low SES level, lack of “value” of education, and low
educational background. These misperceptions about the causes of the gap may have
caused Latino students to feel that their culture and lives were 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 have caused students to feel that their
culture and language are not valued, thus lowering their self-esteem and interest.

103

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 recommended:
• Teachers use cooperative learning as an alternative to ability grouping, which
would allow students to learn from one another while increasing their language
skills and self-esteem.
• 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, so these students
will become intrinsically motivated, successful learners.

104

REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners:
Assessment and accountability issues. American Educational Research
Association, 33, 4-14. Retrieved January 18, 2010, from JSTOR.

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, S5–S10.
Baker, S., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Bilingual education and Latino civil rights. Retrieved
April 1, 2007, from
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/latino97/hakuta.pdf

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

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

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

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), 183-191.

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 January 18, 2010, from
http://stills.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/

105

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.

Brown, S., Santiago, D., & Lopez, E. (2003). Latinos in education: Today and tomorrow.
Change, 35(2), 40-46.

Butler, J. (2002). Staff development. School Improvement Research Series.
Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html

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

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. (2007). Achievement Gap Fact Sheet. Retrieved
February 15, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/afactsheet.asp

California Department of Education. (2010). Overview of California’s 2009-10
accountability progress reporting system. Retrieved February 15, 2010,
from http://www.cde.gov

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (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.

Cawthon, S. 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 (Doctoral
dissertation, University of La Verne, 2005). Retrieved August 19, 2010, from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3184780).

Charles, W. L. H., & Gareth R. J. (2001). Strategic Management. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.

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

106

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

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, 46(1), 10-16.

Comas-Diaz, L. (2001). Hispanics, Latinos, or Americanos: The evolution of identity.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 115-120.

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.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.

Creasey, J., & Pattern, F. (2005). Leading coaching in schools. London: National College
for School Leadership.

Diaz-Rico, L., & Weed, K. (2002). The crosscultural, language, and academic
development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. Boston, MS: Allyn &
Bacon.

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

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

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

107

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based
education: A model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational
Research, 99(4), 195-210.

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

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

Ed Source. (2002). California student achievement: Multiple views of K-12 progress. Ed
Source, 1-20.

Education Trust. (2005). The power to change: High schools that help all students to
achieve. Washington, D. C.

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

Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Retrieved
April 24, 2006, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html

Ethridge, S. (1979). Impact of the 1954 Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision
on black educators. Negro Educational Review, 30(4), 217-232.

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, WA.

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.

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

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

108

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Stritkus, T., & Curry,
J. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English
learners. UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute, 4, 3-10.

Gandara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high achievers.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Gandara, P. (2010). Education crisis: The Latino. Educational Leadership, 2, 24-30.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: 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 February 22,
2010, from http://www.gusd.net/gusd/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=75

Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English learners: What the research
tells us. Education Week, 25(43), 34-36.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does and
does not say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44.

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, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights
from TIMMS 2007: Mathematics and Science achievement of U.S. fourth and
eight 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.

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. Research into Practice.

109

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., and 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.
Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.

Hess, F. M., and Rotherham, A. J. (2007). NCLB and the competitiveness
agenda: Happy collaboration or a collision course? Phi Delta Kappan,
88(5). Retrieved January 18, 2010, from JSTOR.

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.

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.

Kauper, P. (1954). Segregation in public education: The decline of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Michigan Law Review, 52(8), 1137.

110

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.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural education research.
Educational Leadership, 51(8), 22-26.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-65.

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.

Leaks, R., & Stonehill, R. (2008). Serving recent immigrant students through school-
community partnerships. Center for Comprehensive School Reform and
Improvement, 1-5.

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.

Lindsey, R., Robins, K., & Terrell, R. (2003). Cultural proficiency: A manual for school
leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lively, K. (1995). Confront ‘Prop. 187’. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 41(24),
A29-A30.

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

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.

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

111

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

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

Mason, S. (2002). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public
schools. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

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. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

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, 1-23.

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 August 25,
2010, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/tasynthesis/ framing/4models.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Trend in International Math and Science
Study Report. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

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

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.

112

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

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.

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

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 metacognitve knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-
regulated learning. In G. Schraw, & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement
of metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.

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.

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. JAI Press.

Roessingh, H. (2004). Effective high school ESL programs: A synthesis and meta-
analysis. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(5), 611-638.

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. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Education.

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

113

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, R. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English language
learner. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University of California.

Schmidt, R. (1990). Uniformity or diversity? Recent language policy in California public
education. California History, 68(4), 230-239.

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

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.

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

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

Servage, L. (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.

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.

Spellings, M. (2007). Commentary on “Building on Results: A Blueprint for
Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act.” Retrieved February 1, 2010,
from http://www.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/07023.html

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

114

The National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2008). Leading Learning
Communities. VA: Collaborative Communication Group.

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

Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K.,
Conover, L., & 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.

Trevino, F. (1987). Standardized terminology for Hispanic populations. American
Journal of Public Health, 77(1), 69-71.

U.S. Depart of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2010). Overview of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from
http://www/justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/titlevi.php

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.

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

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.

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.

115

Appendix A: 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?

116

Appendix B: 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?

117

Appendix C: 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
ELLs 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.

118

Student
discussion and
oral language
practice
(Think-Pair-
Share, 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 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.

119

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 resources and literature
in the classroom.
The teacher sticks mostly to the
teacher's guides and the
literature and resources provided
by the school curriculum.
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/
interactions
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.

120

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.
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.

121

Appendix D: Stages of Concern Interview

Are you currently aware of the ELL Latino achievement gap?

Are you currently using instructional strategies with your ELL Latinos?

What are your feelings and/or concerns about your ELL Latino students?

122

Appendix E: Executive Summary of Findings
Introduction
Closing the achievement gap for the Hispanic ELLs 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 to close the 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
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational roots of the problem. Similarly, the Gap

123

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
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
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

124

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 interviews to “gather descriptive data in the
subjects’ own words so that the project team 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 included questions based on the project questions, the
problem, and the literature. Participants were allowed to respond to the questions freely,
with probing questions asked as needed to gain a more in-depth understanding of certain
topics.
Additionally, a Scanning Interview (See Appendix A) was conducted with district
and administrative personnel. This general broad based format had 5 open-ended

125

questions that allowed the interviewee to share his/her perspective on the problem, the
history of the problem, roots of the problem, and the solutions being used. 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 during
a specified time period. Three questions were selected to gain a better understanding of
what the teacher had been doing in his/her class over the previous 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 during a one-month period. 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
comprised of a high number of Latino ELLs and demonstrated an achievement gap
between this subgroup and their white peers. The team interviewed seven district level
personnel, the three school site principals, and 11 teachers of varying experience and
grade levels for 30 minutes to one hour each.
Findings
Organizational Culture – the organization’s understanding of what they are, what they
value, and what they do as an organization (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 107)

126

• Culture –
o The district demonstrated a positive environmental, individual, and group
culture. School sites were clean, safe, and display student work; the staff was
positive, got along with one another, and collaborated often.
• Process: Policy and Procedures –
o The district focused on the seven phases of the Focus on Results reform; the
district’s emphasis on Focus on Results (FOR) caused a focus on data and
process rather than on instructional strategies.
o Schools sites had individual instructional focuses; these focuses lacked a
connection to FOR and the district urgency statement, and may not have had a
relation or impact on the achievement gap.
o Some district strategies to close the gap were: 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 were: use teacher aides, intervention
coordinators, and computer lab time to pull out ELLs for individual
instruction.
• Materials and Resources –
o There was no clear, consistent, or organized ELD program in place in the
district.
o There was a supplementary language arts program called “Making Meaning”
being used at some schools, but it applied to all students and did not utilize
ELD instructional strategies.

127

• FLAG-
o There was a misconception that the Foreign Language Academies of Glendale
Program (FLAG) was closing the achievement gap, when the purpose of the
program was in fact to increase enrollment, ADA, and funding in the district
by bringing in out-of-district students and families.
o The FLAG program affected a very small percentage of Latino ELLs,
therefore was not impacting the gap.
o The Latinos participating in the FLAG program were not necessarily ELLs or
struggling students, and did not represent 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 possessed knowledge about general effective instructional strategies
such as Thinking Maps©, think-pair-shares, and read-alouds.
o Teachers possessed knowledge about the importance of developing oral
language for ELLs.
o District personnel possessed knowledge about their students’ achievement and
assessment data.
Weaknesses –

o Teachers were unaware of what instructional strategies specifically help

ELLs.

128

o Educators’ lacked knowledge about the roots of the ELL Latino achievement
gap and perceived the problem to be a result of parents’ low socioeconomic
status, low value of education, and low educational attainment levels.
• Conceptual Knowledge -
o Teachers believed “good teaching is good teaching” and lacked the conceptual
knowledge that Latino ELLs need specific instructional strategies that apply to
their needs.
• Procedural Knowledge –
o Teachers did not know how and when to implement effective instructional
strategies for ELLs.
o Teachers did not know 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 did not appear to encourage teachers’ deeper
reflection on their own cognition or thinking.
o Teachers were not teaching students in a way that would allow them to
develop their own metacognitive knowledge. Teachers were not teaching
students thinking strategies, contextual/conditional knowledge for solving a
problem in a certain context, or self-knowledge of their strengths and
weaknesses.
o Teachers were not teaching higher level thinking skills or critical thinking
skills to the Latino ELLs, but, instead focus on basic simplified instruction.

129

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 had 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.
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.

130

• Interest –
o Teachers’ misperceptions about the causes of the gap may have caused Latino
students to feel that their culture and lives are misunderstood, thus lowering
their interest in learning.
o Speaking Spanish was not encouraged in the classroom, possible lowering
students’ self-efficacy.
• 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.

131

Appendix F: Solutions PowerPoint Presentation
Glendale Unified School District 
Assistance Project
GUSD|USC Partnership Inquiry Team
November 1, 2010

PROJECT DESIGN
1
Introduction

132

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

133

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

134

135

136

137

138

139

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap

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

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 schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Powers, Shannon Tien (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/30/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag Academic Achievement,achievement gap,English language learner,gap analysis,Latino,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Glendale Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email shanpowers@sbcglobal.net,stpowers@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3814

Unique identifier UC1483074

Identifier etd-Powers-4371 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-462644 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3814 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Powers-4371.pdf

Dmrecord 462644

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Powers, Shannon Tien

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