University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 1

A CAPSTONE GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT AT
A SUBURBAN HIGH SCHOOL: A FOCUS ON TEACHING STRATEGIES AND
PLACEMENT OPTIONS

by

Julie Arvind Shah

______________________________________________________________________________

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 2013

Copyright 2013 Julie Arvind Shah
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 2

Dedication
To my husband, Jinesh, who gave up everything he knew in India to be with me in the
United States. I know the sacrifices you have had to make. Thank you for the compromises, the
adjustments, and the support. I appreciate you, and I love you.
To my parents, Arvind and Bharati, who have been my rock. You know what challenges
I have faced in life. You have cried with me, held me, and picked me back up. I am the luckiest
daughter to be blessed with parents like you. This achievement is as much mine as it is yours.
To my brother, Ameet, who always told me that I could do it. You have been my voice
of reason, my steady hand, and my comic relief. Thank you for reminding me that balance is
important and that I could still have fun while earning my degree.
To my best friends, Angela and Kelly, who have given me their unconditional friendship.
Thank you for listening when I needed to vent, going out with me when I needed to relax, and
making me laugh when I was ready to cry. Every girl needs friends like you.
To my favorite little lady, Sanam, who has always been my natural de-stressor. You have
been so patient and understanding when Julie Masi couldn’t come over to hang out. Thank you
for being my #1 cheerleader. I love you.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 3

Acknowledgments
No major feat in life is accomplished alone, and earning a doctorate has been my greatest
feat thus far. For their unwavering support and encouragement, I thank my husband, Jinesh; my
parents, Arvind and Bharati; my brother, Ameet; my cousin, Anita; my in-laws; and my friends.
I am grateful to my team at USC, Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín (a.k.a., Team Rigor),
for making this process as smooth as possible. I could not have asked for better teammates.
For his faith in me, I must thank Dr. Robert Rueda. I appreciate him for being receptive
to my concerns and fears, for his constant guidance and support, and for providing feedback even
during his “vacation.” He devoted long hours to me so that I could achieve my goals. I thank
him for being an amazing dissertation chair.
I would like to thank the rest of my dissertation committee, Dr. Kenneth Yates and Dr.
Darline Robles. I thank them for volunteering their time and providing valuable feedback so that
I could successfully submit my dissertation.
To the principal and staff at RHS, I appreciate them graciously opening themselves up to
the inquiry team. I thank them for being honest about their needs and concerns, for being
receptive to our recommendations, and for caring about our kids.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 4

Table of Contents

Dedication 2

Acknowledgments 3

List of Tables 7

Abstract 8

Preface 9

Chapter 1: Introduction 10
The Problem 10
Importance of the Problem 11
Purpose 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
English Learner Population 13
Major Educational Considerations 15
English learner academic achievement 15
Classification: A California perspective 19
Redesignated to fluent English proficient 19
Long-term English learners 20
Newcomers 22
Quality teaching 23
Historical Framework and Legislation 27

Chapter 3: Methodology 32
An Overview of the Gap Analysis 32
Goals and Gaps 37
Measures and Procedures 37
Initial meeting with the leadership team 38
School data analysis 39
Scanning interviews and data analysis 40
Validating interviews and data analysis 42

Chapter 4: Findings 44
An Overview of the Community, District, and School 44
Community 44
District 45
School 46
Assets of RHS 49
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 5

Student achievement 49
Administrative team 49
Teaching staff 50
School environment 50
Students 50
The Six Primary Causes for LTEL Underachievement at RHS 51
Goal alignment 52
Teacher collaboration 54
Teaching strategies 55
Placement options 57
Systemic support for LTELs 58
Perspectives on cultural differences 60
Conclusion 62

Chapter 5: Recommended Research-Based Solutions 63
Teaching Strategies 63
Vocabulary development 64
Cognate transfer 65
Using meaningful and varying contexts 66
Review and practice 67
Capitalizing on prior knowledge and cultural backgrounds 68
Schema theory and language comprehension 68
Students’ funds of knowledge 69
Implications of building on prior knowledge and students’
backgrounds 70
Structured cooperative learning groups 71
Mainstreaming as a Solution to Problems with Student Placement 72
Effects of low-track placement 72
Benefits of mainstreaming 73
Conclusion 75

Chapter 6: Implementation of Recommended Solutions 76
Teaching Strategies 76
Vocabulary development 76
Accessing and utilizing prior knowledge and cultural backgrounds 79
Accessing students’ funds of knowledge 79
Utilizing students’ background knowledge— strategies
illustrated 81
Structured cooperative learning groups 82
Sentence frames as a scaffold 83
Example cooperative activity—Jigsaw 83
Example cooperative activity—Socratic seminar with
pilots/co-pilots 84
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 6

Parameters and Guidelines for Successfully Mainstreaming LTELS at RHS 85
Evaluation of the Implemented Plan 87
Cautions and Limitations 89
Conclusion 91

References 93

Appendices 106
Appendix A: Project Timeline 106
Appendix B: Exhaustive List of Possible Causes 108
Appendix C: Prioritized Causes Organized by Stakeholder 110
Appendix D: Possible Causes Organized by Theme 112
Appendix E: Second-Round Interview Questions 113
Appendix F: Presentation to the Principal of Prioritized Causes and Other
Findings 115
Appendix G: Rigor High School (RHS) Bell Schedule 121
Appendix H: Teaching Strategies 122

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 7

List of Tables

Table 1: Annual Expectations for ELs 21

Table 2: Alignment of the Methods to the Gap Analysis Process 38

Table 3: Sample Goals of the Stakeholders at RHS 53

Table 4: Findings Related to Goal Alignment 53

Table 5: Findings Related to Teacher Collaboration 55

Table 6: Findings Related to Teaching Strategies 57

Table 7: Findings Related to Placement Options 58

Table 8: Findings Related to Systemic Support for LTELs 60

Table 9: Findings Related to Perspectives on Cultural Differences 61

Table 10: Summary of Teaching Strategies 85

Table 11: Summary of Guidelines for Mainstreaming LTELs 87

Table 12: Four Levels of Evaluation 87

Table 13: Sample Inquiry Frameworks 90

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 8

Abstract
Long-term English learners (LTEL) have been in U.S. schools for 6+ years, but schools
have failed to get these children to academic proficiency. The LTELs of Rigor High School
(RHS), although attending a high-performing school, have been outperformed by their English-
only and redesignated counterparts. To close this achievement gap, a modified gap analysis
framework was used to identify the causes of LTEL underachievement at RHS and recommend
research-based solutions.
First, the inquiry team considered the goals of RHS and identified gaps. Next, the team
reviewed relevant literature, analyzed school data, and conducted interviews of school personnel.
The team then hypothesized knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes for the gaps. The
following six primary causes were identified: 1) need for improved goal alignment, 2) need for
increased teacher collaboration, 3) lack of varied teaching strategies targeting LTELs, 4)
placement options not meeting the needs of LTELs, 5) need for systemic support for LTELs, and
6) need to increase cultural capital. These causes were validated through second interviews.
While the dissertations of the entire inquiry team collectively offer solutions to the six
causes identified, this dissertation focuses on solutions for only two causes. The first set of
solutions offers a variety of teaching strategies targeting the needs of LTELs, including
vocabulary development, building on prior knowledge and cultural background, and leading
structured cooperative learning groups. The second set of solutions focuses on mainstreaming
LTELs to resolve current problems arising from placing this student population in the same
classes as beginning-level English learners.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 9

Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral candidates,
Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín. We three doctoral students met with Rigor High School (RHS)
with the aim of helping the school resolve a genuine problem. However, the process for
dissecting and resolving the problem was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively address the needs of RHS (see Avila,
2013; Bugarín, 2013).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 10

Chapter 1
Introduction
Authors: Julie Shah, Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín
1

The Problem
Rigor High School
2
(RHS) is a high-achieving school, but it continues to face the
problem of English Learner (EL) underachievement. The issue of EL underachievement is not
unique to RHS but is a systemic and long-term educational problem at the national level. EL
students represent 10.5% of the total student population enrolled in U.S. public schools, and 34%
of California’s students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2010). The graduation rate
for this significant subgroup in California is 56%, considerably below the state’s overall
graduation rate of 74% (CDE, 2011a). Despite representing one-third of the student population
in California, the educational system has failed to meet the academic needs of ELs as they
consistently trail behind their non-EL counterparts in achievement. The issue of EL
underachievement is also prevalent at RHS. For example, ELs at RHS have a graduation rate of
83%, compared to 90% schoolwide. In 2010-2011, the EL population achieved an Academic
Performance Index (API) of 710, compared with the school API of 827, and was the only
subgroup that experienced a significant decline in its API. The obvious achievement gap
between the EL and the total school populations at RHS deserves investigation.

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. This chapter
was predominantly written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
2
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 11

In spite of the disparity between the achievement of ELs and the overall school
performance, RHS upholds a mission to serve all of its students. The mission of RHS is as
follows:
We are committed to the development of all students as thinkers, communicators, and
contributors, which will be accomplished through instructional practices and curriculum
marked by rigor, relevance and relationships. Our students will be supported as they
engage in the high school experience, graduate, and become responsible members of
society.

In order to reach its mission of serving all students, the goal of RHS is to increase its ELs’
achievement.
Importance of the Problem
The problem of EL underachievement is important at the national level because the
number of ELs in the United States continues to grow. In 1999, about 3.5 million ELs were
enrolled in grades pre-K through 12 in the United States (National Clearinghouse for Language
Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs [NCELA], 2011). By 2009, the
number of ELs reached over 5.3 million students, demonstrating an increase of 51% while the
total school population increased by only 7.2% in the same timeframe (NCELA, 2011). About
61% of ELs are concentrated specifically in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and
Arizona (Payán & Nettles, 2008). In California, there are about 1.6 million ELs enrolled in K-
12, more than any other state (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2010; Payán & Nettles,
2008). However, ELs are also migrating to suburban and rural regions of the United States at a
rapid rate (Payán & Nettles, 2008). As ELs have become a significant part of the U.S. student
population, schools can no longer ignore the needs of this subgroup.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 12

In the nation’s best interest, it is the responsibility of schools to ensure that all segments
of the population are literate and contribute positively to society. Accordingly, RHS has a desire
and a responsibility to develop students who will become productive members of their
community. No Child Left Behind requires schools to report the achievement of all significant
subgroups. ELs represent 26% of the student population at RHS. As a significant subgroup,
their progress is instrumental to the overall performance of the school.
Purpose
A gap analysis framework was used to investigate specific causes that could be addressed
by appropriate targeted interventions. The two questions that directed the focus of this capstone
project are as follows:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that are
barriers to achieving the stakeholder’s goal?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
barriers?
This gap analysis focused on helping RHS understand the goal-setting process, identify gaps,
hypothesize causes, validate those causes, and identify research-based solutions. Specifically,
this project focused on investigating possible causes for the underperformance problem related to
long-term English learner achievement and recommend research-based solutions. The following
chapter provides a background on the population of interest as well as the major educational
issues related to this study from both a national and local perspective.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 13

Chapter 2
Literature Review
Authors: Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
3

English Learner Population
4

In this section, EL demographics are described at the national and state levels. These
data highlight the vastness and heterogeneity of the EL population in the United States.
Considering the complexity of this significant subgroup, implications for the educational system
are also discussed.
The face of our nation is changing. The ethnic diversity of the U.S. population has
dramatically increased in the 21
st
century. According to the 2010 Census, the Latino and Asian
segments of the population grew most rapidly during the last decade. Latinos experienced a
growth of 43% and account for 50.5 million people in the United States, 13% of the total
population (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). The Asian population also grew by 43%, from
10.2 million to 14.7 million, during the same 10-year period. The 2010 Census also indicates
that one of every three people reported their race ethnicity to be something other than non-Latino
white alone. The shift in demographics has impacted schools across the United States. The EL
student population increased 51% in 1999 to 2009, from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, while the
overall student population grew only by 7.2% to 49.5 million during the same period (National
Clearinghouse for Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs, 2011).

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
4
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 14

The substantial increase of language minority students requires educators to evaluate their
instructional practices to meet the needs of the changing student body (Calderón, Slavin, &
Sanchez, 2011; Nelson-Barber, 1999).
ELs attend public schools all across the nation. The seven states with the greatest number
of ELs are California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Arizona, and Colorado (Payán &
Nettles, 2008). Recently there has been an influx of ELs in other states, with 22 states showing a
growth of over 100% in the decade between 1995 to 2005 (Payán & Nettles, 2008). The
substantial increase of ELs in states like South Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky brings new
challenges to education. These newly impacted areas often lack bilingual teachers prepared with
culturally responsive pedagogy and appropriate resources to meet the needs of language minority
students. Many schools are not prepared to serve the changing student population and are
anxiously trying to find solutions. Addressing the complex needs of ELs requires the
participation of all stakeholders (Calderón et al., 2011; Garcia, Jensen, & Scribner, 2009).
ELs are a heterogeneous group with diverse needs. Over 450 different home languages
are present in schools across the nation (Payán & Nettles, 2008). Spanish, the dominant
language, is spoken by 77% of EL students, followed by Chinese (1.8%), Vietnamese (1.4%),
Hmong (1.0%), and Arabic (1.0%). All other languages represent less than 1% of the EL
population. However, the multitude of languages is only one factor contributing to the diversity
of ELs. Students vary in language proficiency, prior schooling, socioeconomic status, culture,
race, and ethnicity (Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2011; Garcia et al., 2009). Students with limited
formal education may be placed in the same classroom as newcomers with high literacy skills in
their native language. Although both are classified as ELs, their educational needs are very
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 15

different. It is essential for teachers to have a good understanding of the different backgrounds
of their students in order to help them achieve academic success.
California educates the largest number of ELs in the nation, 1.6 million students or one-
third of the total U.S. EL population. One of every three students enrolled in California is an EL
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2010). In addition, 85% of the language minority
students are economically disadvantaged. The primary language of 85% of California’s ELs is
Spanish. Various Asian languages follow: Vietnamese is spoken by 2.8%, Cantonese by 1.7%,
Tagalog by 1.6%, Hmong by 1.3 %, Mandarin by 1.0%, and Korean by 1.0%. All other
languages account for less than 1.0% of the EL population in California. Improving the
academic performance of diverse students in California is critical for the socioeconomic
development of the state (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).
Major Educational Considerations
English learner academic achievement.
5
ELs trail behind their non-EL counterparts in
academic achievement measured by standardized testing and graduation rates. In elementary
schools, ELs have scored lower on state and national exams on both reading and mathematics
assessments, and the achievement gap widens once these students reach high school (Castro-
Olivo, Preciado, Sanford, & Perry, 2011). According to Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Chinn, and
Ratleff (2011), in 2009 only 3% of ELs in 8
th
grade scored proficient or advanced on the 2009
National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), compared to 34% of non-ELs. For 12
th

graders, Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, and Murry (2010) found that ELs scored 50% below grade

5
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 16

level on the NAEP. Further, the Academic Performance Index (API) for all students in the state
of California is 778 while the API for ELs is only 707 (CDE, 2011a).
At the high-school level, many states have implemented a basic skills test that students
must pass to receive a diploma. For example, California administers the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). ELs have achieved only a 50% pass rate on the mathematics portion of
the CAHSEE and a 39% pass rate on the English Language Arts (ELA) portion, compared to
their English-only counterparts who maintain a 77% pass rate on each section (CDE, 2011a).
The low test scores resemble the low graduation rates of ELs. ELs who have some fluency are
three times as likely to drop out as their English-only peers, and ELs with very limited English
are five times as likely to drop out (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010). The graduation rate for ELs in
California is only 56%, significantly below the state average of 74% (CDE, 2011a).
Instructional and systemic factors contribute to the augmentation of the achievement gap
for ELs as they continue through the educational system. Most ELs have the difficult task of
learning not only a different language, but they also have to master the content in their subject
areas. Having a dual responsibility in their learning slows their language acquisition and delays
learning new content (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Echevarria et al., 2011). Another problem
that ELs encounter is that most states only provide language development support in the
elementary levels. Limited instructional and support time stifles students’ academic growth as
they already have the dual responsibility of language acquisition and content mastery (Bowman-
Perrott et al., 2010; Faltis & Arias, 1993). Moreover, the supports that they receive tend to come
from teachers who are under qualified to meet their educational needs, as these teachers are
usually inexperienced or lack appropriate training regarding the learning needs of EL students
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 17

(Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Even without the experience or
training, effective professional development can supplement the teachers’ gaps in knowledge and
skill, but this is usually unavailable (Gándara et al., 2003; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Last,
teachers lack the appropriate curriculum, materials, and resources to adequately teach and
prepare students (Gándara et al., 2003).
As ELs trudge along in the education system mired with ineffective teachers and lack of
resources, they are often funneled into systems or tracks that determine their academic success.
Often placed together in classes, ELs are limited by weak curriculum that also stymies their
academic and language development. Naturally, the tracking and grouping of these students
segregates them at their schools. Olsen (2010) describes this predicament as “socially segregated
or linguistically isolated” (p. 19). Their isolation stifles their language development because ELs
need access to proficient English speakers in order to improve their oral language skills
(Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Faltis & Arias, 1993; Gándara et al., 2003). Immersion into the
English-speaking world would facilitate their language development and acquisition. Instead,
students are limited to mix within their groups where very little English is spoken and where they
receive insufficient feedback from appropriate peer models (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Faltis
& Arias, 1993; Gándara et al., 2003).
ELs struggle to advance and improve their skills in an education system that fails to
adequately support them. Because EL students fail to improve, they are often misdiagnosed and
placed into special education programs. ELs are more likely to be diagnosed with special needs
and are given a special education program (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2010; Castro-Olivo et al.,
2011; Echevarria et al., 2011). They are often diagnosed because of their low reading skills and
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 18

oral communication skills. Special education programs can be viewed as another form of
tracking when a large group is disproportionately represented in the program (Bowman-Perrott et
al., 2010; Gándara et al., 2003). Like the EL classification, a special education classification can
function as a gatekeeper; once students are diagnosed, it is highly unlikely that they can ever exit
the program. Students in special education are less likely to access adequate curriculum and
graduate, thus limiting their chances to complete high school and go to college (Bowman-Perrott
et al., 2010; Castro-Olivo et al., 2011; Echevarria et al., 2011).
Castro-Olivo et al. (2011) argue that as EL students are historically misdiagnosed with
special needs, their social and emotional development also often go ignored. The low social and
emotional development of EL students also impedes their academic progress and language
acquisition. EL students struggle while learning a new culture, acquiring a new language, and
making new friends in school. The Castro-Olivo et al. study examined the social and emotional
problems of ELs and found a strong correlation between time classified as EL and social and
emotional development. The self-efficacy and self-esteem of a student is vital for academic
success, but Castro-Olivo et al. found that for ELs, issues of self-worth and motivation worsen as
they continue in the EL program. Thus, as ELs need support for their language acquisition, they
also need social and emotional support to achieve academic success (Castro-Olivo et al., 2011).
Despite the challenges that ELs encounter, they are expected to pass the CAHSEE in
order to graduate. The CAHSEE assesses students’ basic skills in reading, writing, and
mathematics. Because of their limited English skills and other issues described previously, ELs
often fail to pass the exam before their graduation date. Students first take the CAHSEE during
their 10
th
-grade year and have up to eight attempts to pass it by the end of their 12
th
-grade year,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 19

although students who maintain enrollment in an adult education program may continue to take
the CAHSEE until they pass it. There are numerous examples of EL students who have passed
the necessary coursework that qualifies them for a diploma but fail to pass the CAHSEE,
prohibiting them from earning a high school diploma (Gándara et al., 2003). ELs are enrolled
into the system that functions as a gatekeeper to academic achievement and high school
graduation. Tracking and enrollment into EL programs have restricted ELs from opportunities to
succeed and have delayed the language development of students (Castro-Olivo et al., 2011;
Echevarria et al., 2011). It puts them on the path to lower wages and continued poverty.
Classification: A California perspective.
6
The EL population represents a
heterogeneous group with diverse needs. This section provides an overview of three types of
ELs—redesignated to fluent English proficient (R-FEP), long-term English learners (LTEL), and
newcomers. While the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) is the primary
assessment used to classify ELs in California, students within each classification share other
commonalities.
Redesignated to fluent English proficient. In order to reclassify a student as R-FEP,
districts must use several measures, such as results from the CELDT and the California
Standards Test (CST), teacher evaluation, and parent opinion (Cal. Ed. Code § 313). The use of
multiple criteria protects the EL population from being reclassified too quickly and losing
support before students are ready. However, districts are allowed to determine their own
reclassification criteria, creating nationwide inconsistencies in classification (Abedi, 2004;

6
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 20

Abedi, 2008; Parrish et al., 2006). At Rigor High School
7
(RHS), in order for students to begin
the reclassification process, they must achieve the following: 335+ (high basic) on the ELA and
300+ (low basic) on the Mathematics CST; an overall CELDT score of Early Advanced or better,
with no subtest score below Intermediate; and grades of C or better in all core subjects, although
options are available if a student has low grades but obtains teacher recommendation for
reclassification.
R-FEP students have closed the achievement gap by outperforming their English-only
counterparts (Parrish et al., 2006). Although this observation is pleonastic in that most districts
require high academic achievement in order to be reclassified, it highlights that the most
advanced ELs are ultimately moved out of the EL subgroup, making it more challenging for
districts to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and API targets for their EL population
(Abedi, 2004; Parrish et al., 2006). Currently in California, 9-11% of ELs are reclassified each
year (CDE, 2011a). For RHS, 12.5% of ELs were redesignated in 2010-2011.
Long-term English learners. Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000) concluded that it takes
ELs 3 to 5 years to develop oral proficiency, and 4 to 7 years to attain academic English
proficiency. However, Parrish et al. (2006) found that after 10 years of instruction, less than 40
percent of California’s EL population was redesignated. This led to the development of a new
classification of ELs called long-term English learners (LTEL). LTEL refers to an EL who has
been in U.S. schools for 6 or more years, struggles academically, and has reached a plateau in
progress toward English language proficiency (Olsen, 2010). Olsen (2013) describes the annual

7
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 21

progress that ELs are expected to make, getting them to proficiency within six years (see Table
1). As a result, ELs taking longer than six years are deemed LTELs. In California, 59% of ELs
in grades 6-12 are LTELs (Olsen, 2010). At RHS, 62% of ELs are considered LTELs, of which
65% are Latino and 28% are Asian.
Table 1
Annual Expectations for ELs
Years in
US
1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years
CELDT Beginning Early
Intermediate
Intermediate Intermediate Early
Advanced
Advanced
CST ELA Far Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic Below Basic
or better
Basic or
better
Proficient
or better
CST
MATH
Far Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic Basic or
better
Proficient
or better
Proficient
or better
Adapted from Olsen, L. (2013, January). Programs, policies and practices for meeting the
needs of long-term English learners in an era of the Common Core Standards. Presentation at
the Long-Term English Learner Institute Conference, Riverside, CA.

Although the LTEL population is numerically significant, these students often go
unnoticed by educators as they are high functioning in social situations and have basic oral
proficiency comparable to native speakers (Menken & Kleyn, 2010). However, LTELs struggle
to perform academically, often falling several grade levels behind in ELA and mathematics
(Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Olsen, 2010). Olsen calls the issue of schools producing LTELs a civil
rights issue of this era (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). She argues that these ELs came
into the U.S. school system with their home language and, in the process of their schooling, do
not reach English language proficiency and also lose proficiency in their home language (Olsen,
2010).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 22

In order to rectify this loss of language and academic underperformance, many schools
will place LTELs in double blocks of ELA and mathematics. However, these students then have
reduced access to the A-G courses needed for admissions into four-year universities (Parrish et
al., 2006). Further, LTELs are often enrolled into courses that are not designed to meet their
specific learning needs. Instead, they are placed in mainstream courses with no EL support or in
English Language Development courses intended for newly immigrated ELs (Olsen, 2010).
Schools should educate LTELs separately from new immigrants, as their needs are different. For
LTELs, the focus needs to be on literacy development (Menken & Kleyn, 2009).
Newcomers. No single definition exists to describe ELs who are recent immigrants or
newcomers (Short & Boyson, 2012). For the purposes of this gap analysis, newcomers refer to
immigrant students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for less than 12 months (CDE,
2011b; Wright & Li, 2008). Forty-three percent of adolescent ELs are foreign-born, although the
data is unclear as to what percent of these students are newcomers and what percent arrived in
early childhood but maintained EL status (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). Seven percent of the
ELs at RHS are newcomers.
The newcomer population represents a heterogeneous group. Some newcomers come to
the United States with strong content-area knowledge in their native language and generally only
need to gain English language proficiency in order to transfer these academic skills (Boyson &
Short, 2003; Callahan, 2005a). Nonetheless, a significant portion of ELs immigrates to U.S. high
schools after having missed two or more years of schooling (Boyson & Short, 2003; Ruiz-de-
Velasco & Fix, 2000). These students face the challenging task of learning English and filling
their content-area gaps in the limited time they have left before graduation. Consequently, newly
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 23

immigrated high school students are at an increased risk of dropping out compared to their U.S.-
born counterparts (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Short & Boyson, 2012).
In order to meet the specific needs of newcomers, several school districts throughout the
United States have established newcomer programs, which are “specialized academic
environments that serve newly arrived, immigrant English language learners for a limited period
of time” (Short & Boyson, 2012, p. V). These transitional programs aim to provide foundational
English skills, fill some gaps in core content areas, assist students in the acculturation process,
and improve native language literacy (Short & Boyson, 2012). Supporting newcomers in these
four areas will likely reduce their risk for dropping out of high school (Short & Boyson, 2012).
Quality teaching.
8
Access to quality teaching has a positive impact on student
achievement and in closing the achievement gap. Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) indicate
that quality instruction can offset the gap minority students experience due to poverty, parents’
educational levels, language proficiency, and other issues. Quality teachers are a valuable
resource needed in classrooms across the nation.
Unfortunately, underprepared teachers often abound in schools serving disadvantaged
students (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Peske and Haycock
(2006) report on how poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality, and they
show the mal-distribution of teachers across the nation’s schools. A secondary student in a high-
poverty, high-minority school has a one in three chance of being taught by an out-of-field
teacher, whereas secondary students in more affluent schools have only about a one in five

8
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 24

chance of having a teacher out of field (Jerald & Ingersoll, 2002). Although years of experience
and deep content knowledge do not assure quality teaching, the research indicates that these
qualities do enhance teacher performance (Jerald & Ingersoll, 2002). Schools with high
populations of ELs are known to have the most inexperienced teachers.
A study conducted by the Educational Foundation in Tennessee revealed that teacher
effects are cumulative (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Students receiving instruction from highly
effective teachers for three consecutive years outscored their peers who had less effective
teachers by more than 50 percentile points. Students with comparable initial scores can
experience different learning outcomes based on teacher effectiveness (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
Teacher quality is determined by multiple measures rather than using a single indicator in
isolation (Peske & Haycock, 2006). Measures include years of experience, pedagogical skills,
subject matter competence, and teaching credentials earned. In addition, No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) specifies that a “highly qualified teacher” must hold at least a bachelor’s degree,
appropriate state licensure, and demonstrate subject matter competency (CDE, 2011c). Further,
the U.S. Department of Education requires states to develop “equity plans” to prevent
disadvantaged students from being taught overwhelmingly by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-
of-field teachers (Peske & Haycock, 2006). All students should have an equal opportunity to a
quality education.
Another issue with teacher quality is the lack of prepared educators to meet the needs to
ELs. According to Harper and de Jong (2004), there is the misconception that simply modifying
instruction designed for native English speakers will suffice to meet the needs of ELs.
Professional development for mainstream content teachers reinforces this concept because EL
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 25

strategies are presented with no reference to theoretical foundations. Teachers believe that
strategies for ELs are just “good teaching” (Harper & de Jong, 2004). However, “good teaching”
in one context does not necessarily transfer to another (Nelson-Barber, 1999).
Good teaching strategies are important, but teachers must also know how to address the
language demands of their lessons (Harper & de Jong, 2004). ELs in mainstream content
classrooms cannot master the complex subject matter without students possessing the language
skills to perform the challenging grade-level tasks. Teachers are most comfortable with selecting
target vocabulary, using visuals, and simplifying language during instruction, but they lack the
knowledge on how to address students at different levels of language proficiency and literacy
skills. Along with aiding students with their language acquisition, teachers must learn strategies
to help ELs acquire deep content knowledge (Calderón & Minaya-Rowe, 2011; Harper & de
Jong, 2004).
Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) conducted a study of 5,300 educators,
which were representative of the teachers in California. The study consisted of gathering
information through a survey and four focus groups. The majority of teachers’ feedback
revealed that “they were eager to help their English learner students and were sincerely interested
in obtaining the tools to do so” (Gándara et al., 2005, p. 6). However, many challenges were
cited as well. The most significant challenge expressed by secondary teachers was the language
and cultural barriers, followed by difficulty in motivating students. Other concerns included
students’ ability to meet graduation requirements, the diverse needs of multiple levels of EL and
English-only students grouped in the same classrooms, and the need for quality professional
development that focuses on instructional strategies to teach academic subjects. In addition,
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 26

several teachers in the study expressed a preference for ongoing professional development that
provides opportunities to collaborate, time to plan effective instruction, and cultural insights.
The study concluded that teacher preparation is essential to offer a quality education that meets
the needs of ELs (Gándara et al., 2005).
ELs benefit from teachers that have an understanding of the linguistic, ethnic, and racial
diversity of their students since they are more likely to create learning environments that reflect
students’ experiences and values. They also facilitate students’ ability to make connections
between content knowledge and their personal experiences. Culturally responsive teachers tend
to be more knowledgeable and reflective about their practice (Gándara et al., 2003; Nelson-
Barber, 1999).
Teacher preparation programs need strengthening so they can equip teachers to
effectively work with diverse learners and become culturally responsive teachers. Many
educators instructing teachers have minimal first-hand experiences in working in diverse
settings. This is problematic because teachers lack the skills to successfully interact and
communicate with individuals from other racial, ethnic, or cultural groups, but are expected to do
this with their students. Most teachers are well intentioned, which does not solely result in
effective pedagogical practices with ELs (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; Gándara et al.,
2003; Nelson-Barber, 1999). It is the responsibility of teacher education programs and the
schools to harness their good intentions and transform them into effective culturally responsive
pedagogical practices.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 27

Historical Framework and Legislation
9

As NCLB places a spotlight on the performance of ELs, it is important to understand the
historical framework of bilingual education and other policies that have impacted the education
of ELs. This section provides an overview of major policies that have shaped the context in
which ELs learn.
Historically significant events during the mid-twentieth century, such as the influx of
refugees from Cuba and the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (1965), transformed
the United States to an increasingly diverse nation (Lyons, 1990; Suarez-Orozco, 2001;
Waldinger, 1989). The composition of American classrooms changed dramatically. To meet the
needs of ELs, the Bilingual Education Act (1968) was written into law as Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; Lyons, 1990). This Act also initiated the
controversy behind whether bilingual education should serve a culturally pluralistic or
assimilationist purpose (Lyons, 1990; Secada, 1990). Those in favor of the culturally pluralistic
perspective argued that “bilingual children should develop equal competence in their native
language and in English and that they should understand and appreciate their own cultures and
those of others” (Secada, 1990, p. 87). Supporters of the assimilationist perspective purported
that the culturally pluralistic model would result in the segregation of ELs and that the goal
should be to transition them into mainstream English-only classrooms as quickly as possible
(Secada, 1990).

9
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 28

In 1974, the landmark case of Lau v. Nichols followed by the enactment of the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) established educational rights for ELs. In Lau v. Nichols
(1974), the families of over 1800 Chinese-speaking students filed suit against the San Francisco
Unified School District. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the District failed to meet the
language needs of these students and, therefore, denied them equal access to education, a
violation of their civil rights (Gándara, Moran, & Garcia, 2004; Lyons, 1990). Subsequently,
Congress passed the EEOA to ensure that all federally funded agencies address the needs of
those limited in English proficiency (Gándara et al., 2004). Neither the case of Lau v. Nichols
(1974) nor the EEOA addressed the process in which the needs of ELs were to be met; they only
expressed that agencies’ actions should not result in discrimination based on language (Gándara
et al., 2004; Secada, 1990). This vagueness allowed schools flexibility in how to meet the needs
of ELs, further perpetuating the bilingual education debate (Secada, 1990).
In 1994, Californian voters passed Proposition 187 with 59% in favor of the anti-
immigrant legislation (Martin, 1995). The initiative argued that undocumented immigrants were
an economic burden and should be denied access to any publicly funded services, including
public education (Martin, 1995). In their study, Alvarez and Butterfield (2000) found that the
primary reason voters supported Proposition 187 was their belief that undocumented immigrants
were to blame for the poor economic conditions in California. In addition to denying services,
Proposition 187 required any organization receiving public funding to first verify the legal status
of its beneficiaries (Martin, 1995). This included that all public schools first verify the legal
status of their students and students’ parents. Opponents of Proposition 187 argued that denying
children education would force them to the streets and increase gang violence, which would
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 29

prove more expensive to society in the long run (Johnson, 1995; Martin, 1995). Although the
U.S. District Court overturned Proposition 187 in 1997, the xenophobic climate in California
remained evident, and immigrants’ mistrust of social service agencies lingered (Bosniak, 1996).
The push for anti-immigrant legislation continued after the courts denounced Proposition
187. The bilingual education debate that originated with the Bilingual Education Act of 1968
came to a virtual standstill for Californians in 1998 when Proposition 227 passed (Ellern, 1999).
According to the initiative, instruction needed to be “overwhelmingly” in English with the goal
of transitioning ELs from sheltered classrooms to mainstream English-only classrooms within
one year (Parrish et al., 2006; Torrez, 2001). Bilingual education using primary language
instruction dropped from 30% to 8% of ELs (Parrish et al., 2006). Valeria v. Wilson (1998) was
filed to challenge Proposition 227, however the court held that presenting “curriculum in
English, but at a level appropriate for students who are still learning English . . . to be a policy
issue with legitimate differences of academic opinion and therefore not a legal question” (Ellern,
1999, p. 2). Although the incentive behind Proposition 227 is debatable, some contend that the
initiative was California’s response to the underachievement of ELs and presumed failure of
bilingual education (Ellern, 1999; Santosuosso, 1999).
In 2002, ESEA was reauthorized as NCLB, which campaigned for the academic success
of all children regardless of their background (Thomas & Brady, 2005). This legislation rests on
four basic principles, known as the four pillars—increased accountability, flexibility in spending,
a focus on research-based practices, and parental choice (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Students are assessed annually for academic growth, and schools are expected to meet the AYP
criteria. If a school or district fails to meet AYP for two consecutive years, they are considered
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 30

in need of program improvement and subject to corrective actions or other sanctions (CDE,
2011d). Although the accountability component of the legislation has aroused much
controversy, even opponents of NCLB agreed that one positive element of the law was that it
brought new attention to the plight of EL underachievement (Gándara & Baca, 2008). NCLB
forced schools, even successful ones, to disaggregate their data and account for the achievement
of the EL subgroup; schools could no longer ignore the performance of their EL population.
The historical and legislative background discussed in this section provided a context for
RHS, since over a quarter of its student population is EL. State and federal legislation, such as
Proposition 227 and NCLB, shape the educational policies implemented at the school level. For
example, Proposition 227 deters students’ access to bilingual education programs, but
researchers have found that the development of primary and secondary languages in tandem is
most effective for developing English language proficiency (Cummins, 1981; Menken & Kleyn,
2010). Because of Proposition 227, RHS will have to develop another strategy for leading its
students to language proficiency. Moreover, NCLB legislation also directly impacts RHS as it
holds the school accountable for the academic achievement of its ELs. Although RHS is a high-
performing school, it has failed to meet AYP for its EL subgroup in 2010-2011. If ELs fail to
meet AYP for two consecutive years, they may be subject to federal sanctions (Kim &
Sunderman, 2005). Understanding legislation and its impact on RHS facilitates identifying
possible causes and solutions to RHS’s problem of EL academic underachievement.
This chapter reviewed literature on ELs and the academic achievement gap that persists
at RHS. First, demographic information on ELs at the national and state levels were presented,
as well as the complexities that such a significant subgroup can create within the educational
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 31

system. Second, major educational considerations for ELs were discussed, specifically academic
achievement, classification of ELs in California, and access to quality teaching. Lastly,
implications of historically significant events were explored regarding ELs.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 32

Chapter 3
Methodology
Authors: Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
10

An Overview of the Gap Analysis
11

This project applied the gap analysis process to help Rigor High School
12
(RHS) improve
its instruction and program for English Learners (EL). Rueda (2011) describes the gap analysis
as “a systematic problem-solving approach to improve performance and achieve organizational
goals” (p. 73). By identifying the specific goals of the organization, this problem-solving
approach helps determine the gaps that lie between the school’s desired results and its current
performance. More importantly, it helps organizations discover the causes of the gaps, which are
rooted in one or a combination of knowledge or skill-based, motivation, or organizational factors
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis model requires organizations to look at research-based
solutions to help close the gaps and reach their desired results.
The gap analysis is a five-step cyclical process (see Figure 1). The first step in the gap
analysis model is defining clear measurable goals that reflect the vision of the organization.
Often times the mission statement or global goals can be large, overarching, and immeasurable.
Although the global goal or mission statement provides a framework or vision for the
organization, short-term and long-term measurable goals for groups, departments, and

10
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
11
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
12
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 33

individuals are critical guideposts that allow everyone in the organization to reach the desired
results. In other words, goals give individuals and organizations a roadmap to reach their
mission. For RHS, goals developed by the school should cascade from its mission statement.

Figure 1. Summary of the gap analysis process. Adapted from Rueda, R.
(2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the
right solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.

Measurable goals allow organizations to determine if they are making progress and
evaluate whether changes need to occur. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that goals should be
concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
). Concrete goals refer to goals that are “clear, easily
understandable, and measurable” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p.26). Goals should also be challenging
enough to focus and motivate individuals, but reachable so that they do not discourage workers.
1. Define/Clarify Goals
2. Determine Gaps
3. Hypothesize,
Validate, and Prioritize
Causes (K-M-O)
4. Identify and
Implement Research-
Based Solutions
5. Evaluate
Implemented Solutions
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 34

Goals should be current so workers view them as more applicable. Weekly and monthly short-
term goals are more effective and current for individuals as opposed to quarterly or annual long-
term goals. Clark and Estes (2008) promote short-term weekly goals because it requires
individuals to focus on their work for that week. However, the authors caution that too many
goals can cause cognitive overload for individuals. They state, “Current evidence suggests
people can think about approximately three to five new chunks or items at once, and that number
decreases as stress increases” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 27). For maximum impact, individuals
and groups should only focus on a few short-term goals that are aligned with the global goal.
Determining the performance gaps is the next step; it specifically quantifies gaps between
desired goals and current performance. Once the gaps are determined, hypothesizing the root
causes for the existence and persistence of the gaps should follow. The organization should
distinguish whether the causes are from knowledge or skill-based, motivation, or organizational
barriers. An organization may have one or more barriers that are contributing to the gaps, and it
is critical that organizations delve into understanding the root causes.
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that gaps stem from knowledge or skill-based, motivation,
and organizational factors that inhibit organizations from meeting desired results. Knowledge
factors refer to people’s skills or ability, which they may lack in order to reach desired results.
Motivation refers to an individual’s or a group’s enthusiasm to achieve the goal. Organizational
barriers refer to tangible or intangible structures that inhibit individuals from reaching their
goals. For example, tangible structures can be the lack of computers at a school and intangible
structures can be the policies that restrict schools from receiving funding. As specific causes are
ruled out and the list is narrowed, the organization can determine the problem areas for what is
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 35

likely causing the performance gaps; solutions can be targeted specifically to address these root
causes (Rueda, 2011).
Next, the organization needs to validate and prioritize the causes for the gaps (Rueda,
2011). Organizations should investigate the hypothesized causes and narrow it down to only a
few. There are many ways to investigate and analyze the hypothesized causes, and traditional
qualitative methods can accommodate the process. Interviews, surveys, focus groups, informal
conversations, and observations are helpful tools, but only if the methods are replicable, reliable,
and valid. The organization should narrow the list to a few that are the root causes, but also
focus on the few that are pragmatic and fixable (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Identifying and implementing research-based solutions for the root causes is the next
step. Organizations should investigate research-based solutions that directly address the
validated and prioritized causes. Organizations should turn to research studies found in peer-
reviewed journals. Before making a selection on the solutions, organizations should consider
four aspects—affordability, adoptability, acceptability, and substitutability (Rueda, 2011, p. 84).
Affordability refers to whether the solution is affordable and cost effective. Adoptability is
whether an organization is capable of using the solution. Acceptability refers to whether the
individuals in the organization will agree to use it. Last, substitutability is the program that the
new solution would replace in order to devote new energy. Once the organization has selected
the solutions that meet the aforementioned criteria, the organization should create incremental
C
3
-goals concurrent with the selected solutions; this will help close the gap and reach the global
goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 36

Finally, the organization would evaluate the solutions implemented (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). Critical to the gap analysis is determining whether the solutions derived and
implemented have worked in closing the gaps. There are four levels of evaluation: reaction,
impact, transfer, and bottom-line results. Reaction refers to the stakeholders’ motivation to
implement the solutions and program. It focuses on measuring the enthusiasm and satisfaction
of the participants while implementing the solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Impact
concerns the effectiveness of the program during implementation on knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational gaps. Specifically, it assesses whether there were changes made
in those particular areas identified as root causes (Rueda, 2011). Next, transfer alludes to the
program’s effectiveness after implementation. At this level of evaluation, assessing the
sustainability after the initial implementation can help determine the effectiveness of the
solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Last, bottom-line results relates to the solution’s
or program’s contribution to the achievement of the overall global goal. Evaluation at this level
determines whether the solutions failed to affect the overall goals. At any rate, Rueda (2011)
notes that assessing a solution’s impact may vary in time because of the complexity of “global
goals with the variety of cascading goals and range of validated causes in all three areas” (Rueda,
2011, p. 89). He cautions, “If the target of the solution is a long-standing and well-entrenched
belief, attitude, or practice, impacting the goal may take more time than other targets, which
might show progress more rapidly” (Rueda, 2011, p. 89).

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 37

Goals and Gaps
13

An organization’s global goal often derives from its mission statement. The mission
statement of RHS is as follows:
We are committed to the development of all students as thinkers, communicators, and
contributors, which will be accomplished through instructional practices and curriculum
marked by rigor, relevance and relationships. Our students will be supported as they
engage in the high school experience, graduate, and become responsible members of
society.

Although the mission statement seeks to meet the needs of all students, a significant gap exists
between the academic performance of EL students and the rest of the RHS student population.
When the inquiry team met with the RHS leadership team, we discussed that the beginning and
early-intermediate levels of ELs were showing consistent progress. However, the intermediate
and early advanced ELs demonstrated stagnation; in other words, the long-term English learners
(LTEL) were keeping the EL subgroup from making significant gains. Since LTELs make up
the majority of the EL subgroup and are the portion of the population making the least amount of
positive movement, the inquiry and RHS leadership teams decided that focusing on the LTEL
population would help close the gap. Currently, the EL subgroup has an Academic Performance
Index (API) of 710 while the schoolwide API is 827, resulting in a gap of 117 points.
Measures and Procedures
14

The purpose of this section is to describe the measures and procedures used to perform a
gap analysis at RHS. Table 2 illustrates how the methods of this inquiry aligned to the gap

13
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
14
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 38

analysis framework. Based upon the description of this project as a problem-solving effort
intended primarily for RHS, the USC University Park Institutional Review Board concluded that
this project did not qualify as Human Subjects Research and was not subject to further review.
Table 2
Alignment of the Methods to the Gap Analysis Process
Gap Analysis Inquiry Team’s Methods Date
Define/Clarify Goals  Initial meetings with the principal
and leadership team
 November 2011 and
January 2012
Determine Gaps  Initial meetings with principal and
leadership team
 Analysis of school data
 November 2011 and
January 2012
 Data Analysis –
December 2011 through
March 2012
Hypothesize Causes
(K-M-O)
 Scanning Interviews  April 2012
Validate and Prioritize
Causes (K-M-O)
 Validating Interviews  May 2012
Identify Research-
Based Solutions
 Researched solutions that address
the 6 validated causes
 June 2012 through
January 2013
Implement Solutions  School’s discretion  Ongoing by school
Evaluate Implemented
Solutions
 School’s discretion  Ongoing by school

Initial meeting with the leadership team. The purpose of the initial meeting with the
leadership team was to introduce the inquiry team and establish trust, to explain the gap analysis
model, and to gain a better understanding of the needs of the school. Members of the leadership
team provided an overview of the school and their personal insights into the problems. The
inquiry team needed two sessions to accomplish the purpose of the initial meeting, and these
meetings helped the inquiry team with the direction of the project.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 39

The first meeting was on November 29, 2011 (see Appendix A for the project timeline).
The inquiry team and Dr. Rueda, the dissertation chair for the inquiry team, met at RHS with the
principal. The principal gave an overview of the school, sharing its strengths and weaknesses.
The principal identified four problem areas regarding ELs—the general academic achievement
of ELs; the academic achievement of LTELs; ELs’ access to AP and Honors courses; and the
general sense that the faculty and staff ignored the EL population, considering EL
underachievement an issue isolated to the English Language Development Department.
The second meeting involved the inquiry team and the entire leadership team on January
30, 2012. The meeting focused on presenting an overview of the gap analysis, the goal of the
study, and the role of the inquiry team. The meeting also focused on narrowing the scope of the
study. The team shared the four areas that the principal presented in the initial meeting. After a
discussion of each area, the leadership team recommended that the inquiry team focus on
studying the academic achievement of LTELs.
School data analysis. The purpose of the school data analysis was to understand the
academic performance of ELs on standardized tests and to determine the gaps that exist between
ELs’ and the overall school’s results. By analyzing the data from standardized tests, the team
clearly saw the gaps and determined the areas of need.
From November 2011 to January 2012, the inquiry team reviewed achievement data from
the California Department of Education website and RHS’s School Accountability Report Card.
The team primarily focused on the school’s API scores, performance on the California Standards
Test, data from the California English Language Development Test, and results on the California
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 40

High School Exit Exam. The data analysis revealed that ELs, particularly the LTELs,
consistently and significantly underperformed on all three measures of achievement.
Scanning interviews and data analysis. The purpose of the scanning interviews was to
investigate the knowledge and skill-based, motivation, and organizational barriers to LTEL
achievement. The scanning interviews provided the inquiry team with a broad but in-depth
understanding of the various causes affecting LTEL achievement. By analyzing the interview
notes and disaggregating the data, the team narrowed the scope of causes to the few that seemed
highly problematic and needed further investigation.
In March 2012, the team compiled a list of teachers to interview by reviewing the
teaching assignments on the school’s website. The team provided the principal with a list of
teachers they wished to interview, to which he added counselors and administrators. To explore
the possible knowledge and skill-based, motivation, and organizational barriers to LTEL
achievement, the inquiry team developed the following five open-ended questions:
1. Can you tell me about your EL students and your EL classroom?
2. Does the school have formal goals in place for improving EL achievement?
3. What does RHS do particularly well for EL students?
4. What are the barriers to EL achievement, specifically LTEL achievement, and what
perpetuates these barriers?
5. Is there anything that I missed that you would like to add?
The first question addressed the participants’ knowledge of ELs in their classrooms. The second
question helped the team understand whether stakeholders were aware of the goals for ELs and
to check for consistency in their responses. The third question assisted the team in learning the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 41

assets of the school, but also helped create a level of comfort and confidence while participants
shared. The fourth question helped the team gain understanding of the knowledge, motivation,
or organizational barriers to LTEL achievement. The last question allowed the participants to
reflect and share other areas that may not have surfaced during the interview.
In April 2012, the inquiry team conducted informal interviews with 17 staff members at
RHS. The interviews were an average of 30 minutes long. The team used a combined approach
of conversational strategy and interview guide to encourage a natural and comfortable setting
that enabled the participants to share freely; however, the team used an interview guide to ensure
that each topic was addressed. Moreover, this type of interview approach allowed greater
flexibility to probe with follow-up questions. To promote a natural, free-flowing, and
comfortable conversation, the team did not audio record the interviews; instead, the team took
notes on the participants’ responses. We later typed the notes and discussed our thoughts and
observations with one another.
Through the end of April, the inquiry team analyzed the data from the interviews. The
team created a comprehensive list of possible causes (see Appendix B). The causes were
organized into an Excel spreadsheet by stakeholders and type of barrier (knowledge, motivation,
or organizational), and color-coded based on priority (see Appendix C). Priority was determined
by the frequency in the responses, emphasis, and feasibility. Frequency refers to the number of
times an issue was referred to or discussed. Rueda (2011) explains feasibility by stating,
“Causes should be prioritized based on cost and how central the gap is to the problem” (p. 79).
Emphasis refers to how strongly participants communicated that factor as a primary cause and
the depth of the participant’s discussion.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 42

Through the data analysis, six high-priority themes appeared. It is important to note that
while the traditional gap analysis model maintains a lens of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers to identify causes, this gap analysis deviated from the traditional model
because of the themes that emerged. In this investigation, the assumed causes were originally
categorized by the type of barrier; however, data analysis revealed six high-priority themes that
shared an overlap of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (see Appendix D). These
themes were further investigated through new interview questions (see Appendix E). Based on
the participants’ responses and their role at the school, the team determined which personnel to
interview a second time.
Validating interviews and data analysis. The purpose of the validating interviews was
to further investigate and affirm the prioritized causes. While the scanning interviews served to
gauge all of the possible causes inhibiting LTEL achievement, the validating interviews served to
further explore the prioritized causes and affirm whether they were the most feasible to address
and would have the most impact on LTEL achievement.
In late May 2012, nine staff members participated in the second round of interviews. At
the end of every interview, the team showed the participants the six themes that emerged from
the scanning interviews, asked if they agreed that the six themes were central to the
underachievement of LTELs, and asked them to prioritize the themes. Each participant affirmed
that the six themes were the major deterrents of academic achievement for LTELs at RHS. The
findings were presented to the principal, who reaffirmed the six root causes (see Appendix F).
The interview notes were analyzed to check for validation. Validation was determined by
frequency and emphasis. Thus, based on the participants’ responses and the data analysis, the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 43

team determined that the six themes were the main causes. In June, the inquiry team divided the
themes, and each team member began investigating the literature for research-based solutions
(see Appendix A).

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 44

Chapter 4
Findings
Authors: Carlos Avila, Merle Bugarín, Julie Shah
15

The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings from the data collected at Rigor High
School
16
(RHS) in relation to the underachievement of long-term English learners (LTEL). The
intent of the data collection and analysis was to rule out or validate the root causes for LTEL
underachievement at RHS, which then served as the basis for solutions. In this chapter, the
inquiry team first describes the RHS community, district, and school. Next, we describe the
assets of RHS. We also discuss the broad list of possible causes for LTEL underachievement
generated from the literature, interviews, and data analysis; the process for narrowing this broad
list; and the six root causes that resulted from the analysis.
An Overview of the Community, District, and School
17

This section presents a detailed picture of RHS, beginning with a description of the
community and district in which it exists.
Community. Rigor Hills is a suburban community in Los Angeles County. Originally,
the city was largely comprised of animal farms and orange groves until the development of the
nearby freeway, which stimulated its development. Predominantly a Latino community, in the

15
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
16
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
17
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 45

1990s, Rigor Hills experienced a significant growth with an influx of a large Asian community.
Today, the Asian population is highly represented within the city leadership and governance.
The total population of Rigor Hills is approximately 50,000. Fifty-nine percent of the
total population is Asian, while Latino and Whites represent 27% and 23%, respectively. A large
portion of the population is foreign-born (55%) and 77% of its residents speak a language other
than English in their home. Eighty-five percent of Rigor Hill’s residents are high school
graduates and 34% have a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to the state’s 80% high-school
graduates and 30% college graduates. Rigor Hills is primarily a commuter community where the
average resident’s drive to work is 33 minutes, longer than both Los Angeles County and the
state’s average (29 and 27 minutes, respectively). Sixty-three percent of all owned firms are
Asian and the most common businesses and industries are manufacturing (14%), retail trade
(13%), and wholesale trade (11%).
District. Rigor Unified School District (RUSD) is a distinguished PK-12 district that
serves multiple cities within Los Angeles County. Its many achievements include four National
Blue Ribbon Schools and sixteen California State Distinguished Schools; it leads other districts
in the region with State Golden Bell awards. With approximately 16,000 students, the diverse
student population is comprised of 60% Latino, 20% Asian, 8% Filipino, 5% White, and 7%
other. An estimated 4,900 or 30.9% of the students are designated as English learners (EL). At
the secondary level, there are 1,067 ELs and 2,327 redesignated fluent English proficient
students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2011a).
The District’s 2010-11 Academic Performance Index (API) of 792 exceeds the
performance of the county (762) and the state (778). However, RUSD is currently in year three
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 46

of Program Improvement (PI). Title I schools that fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress for two
consecutive years in the same area are identified as PI schools. The required percent of students
proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics should continue to increase
annually, with the expectation that 100% of the students are proficient by the year 2014. For
RUSD, the subgroups that have not met the annual measurable objectives (AMO) are EL, Latino,
African American, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities (CDE,
2011c). The achievement gap among low socioeconomic, minority students at RUSD is
representative of the majority of districts across the state (Garcia, Jensen, & Scribner, 2009;
Johnston & Viadero, 2000; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2009).
School. RHS is one of two comprehensive high schools in RUSD. The school currently
operates on a 180-day school year from August to June and has 55-minute classes during the
school day. The school has a late start at 8:45 a.m. on Mondays to allow for faculty meetings
(see Appendix G). The school has seven class periods with the first period starting at 7:10 a.m.
and the last period ending at 3:03 p.m. This extended day allows students to take extra classes
and to participate in programs such as Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate,
Advancement via Individual Determination, Career Certification, Regional Occupational
Program, the performing arts, and athletics. Twenty-four AP courses are offered at the school
and 6% of the school population is enrolled in such courses. In recent years, RHS has been
recognized twice as a California Distinguished School and has been awarded the National Blue
Ribbon.
The school currently employs 184 people—5 administrators, 87 teachers, 12 certificated
staff, 28 classified staff, 47 part-time classified staff, and 40 walk-on coaches. Ninety-one
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 47

percent of the faculty is fully credentialed and 100% of the faculty is No-Child-Left-Behind
compliant. The faculty and staff currently serve approximately 2,400 students with an ethnic
breakdown of 44% Asian, 36% Latino, 9% Filipino, 6% White, and 2.3% African-American.
There has been a gradual increase in the Asian student population along with a gradual decrease
of White students for the last eight years. Half of the school’s population is classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged, 26% as EL, and 8% as students with disabilities.
California ranks schools according to two rankings systems. The first compares all
California schools on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest; the second compares schools
with similar demographics on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest. The CDE currently
ranks RHS as an 8 school based on API and an 8 compared to schools with similar
demographics. In the 2010-2011 academic year, RHS scored an API of 827, with the Asian
population scoring 896 and the Latino population scoring 748. Students considered
socioeconomically disadvantage scored 786 and ELs scored 710. All subgroups met their target
growth area with the exception of the Asian population, which dropped by one point, and the EL
population, which dropped 11 points (CDE, 2011a).
Student performance varied when the data was disaggregated by subgroup and
proficiency levels for each core subject area on the California Standards Test (CST). The most
significant gaps were in the Latino subgroup, scoring only 17% proficient or higher in
mathematics, and the EL subgroup, scoring only 15% proficient or higher in both the ELA and
science portions of the CST. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results for RHS
have 87% of the school population passing the ELA exam and 90% passing the mathematics
portion. Seventy-one percent of the student population scored proficient on both the ELA and
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 48

Mathematics CAHSEE. When the data is disaggregated by the performance of each significant
subgroup and their proficiency rates, a telling gap in the data indicates that only 16% of the EL
subgroup was proficient (CDE, 2011a).
RHS currently enrolls 391 ELs and 1,240 fluent English proficient students, which means
that English is a second language for 68.2% of RHS students. In addition, 243 students are
considered LTELs. The EL subgroup failed to meet the AMO targets during the 2010-11 school
year in both ELA and mathematics. During the same period, ELs did not meet the API
performance goal of 726 as they achieved a score of 710.
The graduation rate of RHS is 90%, compared to the district rate of 82% and the overall
state rate of 74% in 2011. Asians graduated at the highest rate (96%); Latinos and ELs had a
graduation rate of 83%. The graduation rate of RHS is higher when compared to the state’s
average, especially when focusing on the EL student population. Only 56% of the EL population
in the state graduate. Although the graduation rate at RHS is higher than the state average, the
gap between Asian students and Latino and EL students is considerable (CDE, 2011a).
The data of the community, district, and school indicate that Rigor Hills and RHS are
culturally, ethnically, and linguistically rich. The data reveal an achievement gap for ELs,
specifically for Latino students when compared to their Asian peers. Using the gap analysis, the
inquiry team helped RHS examine the problems and solutions to help resolve the EL
achievement gap.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 49

Assets of RHS
18

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the problem of LTEL
underachievement at RHS. However, the inquiry team found many assets at RHS during the
data collection process. Before discussing the root causes in depth, this section outlines a few of
the several strengths RHS has to celebrate.
Student achievement. To begin, RHS is a high-performing school that has consistently
increased its API since 2007, growing from 769 in 2007 to 824 by 2011. Further, the percent of
tenth-grade students scoring proficient or advanced on the CAHSEE has increased steadily since
2008. In 2007-2008, 63.4% of students scored at least proficient in ELA and 66.6% in
mathematics; by 2011, 71% of students scored at least proficient in ELA and mathematics.
Administrative team. In order to continue moving the school forward, RHS is led by a
highly motivated principal who is knowledgeable about the school’s data, the school site, and the
community. The principal is receptive to new ideas, intelligent, patient, and well respected by
his staff and the school community. These qualities were apparent to the inquiry team and
mentioned by the staff members during interviews. The principal is supported by an equally
talented and receptive administrative team. The administrative team also intentionally creates
opportunities for its teaching staff to grow professionally. For example, the administrative team
pulled out several teachers to walkthrough classrooms so that they could witness tangible
strategies, which teachers could in turn apply in their own classrooms.

18
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 50

Teaching staff. The teaching staff at RHS is predominantly composed of caring
professionals who seek to improve their instruction and students’ achievement. They are self-
motivated to write grants, which the administrative team shows support for, and many teachers
participated in Communities of Practice (COP). In the COPs, teachers select a classroom-
relevant topic, read and discuss current research on that topic, and develop strategies to improve
student learning. For example, one COP was related to LTELs attending RUSD schools.
Teachers looked at their students’ cumulative files to identify LTELs and to learn about their
history. They also interviewed their students and tracked their progress during the school year.
Ultimately, the teachers participating in the COP created and implemented an action plan to
improve the achievement of their LTELs.
School environment. RHS offers students a safe, clean, productive learning
environment. Walking through campus, the inquiry team found virtually no trash or graffiti.
Several posters were taped up throughout the school to promote school events and involvement.
Moreover, in spite of the current budget crisis, RHS still maintains many career technical options
for students, including culinary arts, child development, and automotive technology. RHS also
creates many opportunities for parent involvement and pays special attention to language needs
by offering bilingual headsets and translators during meetings.
Students. During the interviews, participants consistently stated that RHS is fortunate to
have such a respectful and involved student population. The inquiry team observed a
predominantly integrated student body during nutrition and lunch breaks. Minimal discipline
issues were seen during the inquiry team’s visits to RHS. They observed no bullying, minimal
profanity, and minimal dress code violations. Only a few students were seen using their
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 51

electronic devices. These finding were confirmed by the staff during second-round interviews.
Although every school has its share of behavioral misconduct, one asset of RHS is that it can
focus on students’ achievement because it is not overwhelmed with student discipline issues.
Members of the administrative team stated that RHS has done much to promote school
spirit and involvement. For example, RHS students currently develop a weekly Raider Report
video production, which is presented throughout the school most Fridays. The production is a
visually engaging way to inform students of opportunities for school involvement and other
announcements.
The Six Primary Causes for LTEL Underachievement at RHS
The inquiry team first generated an extensive list of possible causes for the
underachievement of LTELs at RHS (Appendix B). This list of 40 possible causes was based on
an initial review of the literature, relevant educational theories, the inquiry team’s educational
and professional experiences, existing RHS data, and an initial scanning interview of 17 key
RHS staff members. The inquiry team then organized these possible causes into a spreadsheet,
categorizing them by stakeholder and type of cause (i.e., knowledge, motivation, organizational;
see Appendix C).
Through the data analysis and prioritization process, the team grouped similar causes
together, ultimately developing a list of six primary possible root causes for LTEL
underachievement at RHS. These six causes were validated by key staff members at the school
site. The purpose of this section is to discuss the data that led to the identification of each root
cause.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 52

Goal alignment.
19
Not having clear, defined, and communicated goals for ELs led to
LTEL underachievement at RHS. Because goal development is such an integral aspect of the
gap analysis model, the team asked a question regarding goals for ELs. Teachers and
administrators gave a variety of responses, demonstrating that EL goals were not effectively
communicated to the entire staff, they were unaware of the goals, or that they failed to create
goals. For example, the principal and one teacher were the only ones who referenced the
school’s version of the gap analysis as the goal system used at RHS. Both individuals accessed
the website that included the gap analysis at RHS and shared it with the inquiry team. Although
the gap analysis revealed that all teachers participated in goal development, the fact that only one
teacher mentioned it demonstrates the lack of accountability and knowledge of how to
implement the goal system. It seemed that teachers only completed the goals because of the
requirement established by the administration; however, they did not apply it to guide their daily
practice, suggesting a lack of motivation and teacher buy-in.
A closer examination of the RHS version of the gap analysis revealed problems in their
goal system. The global goal was clearly stated, but missing were the cascading goals critical in
detailing the ways that RHS could reach its global goal. Despite skipping the organization goal,
their gap analysis did have intermediate goals and performance goals for some stakeholders (see
Table 3). However, the performance goals lacked consistency and alignment to the overarching
global goal and department goal. Last, the performance goals needed to be concrete and current.
Most of the goals were lengthy, wordy, and not measurable. For example, the performance goal

19
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 53

for ELs was 177 words long with no quantifiable objective. The goals were also based on yearly
benchmarks, which forced the departments and staff to revisit their goals only once a year,
resulting in a lack of accountability and follow through. Table 4 displays a summary of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers related to goal alignment.
Table 3
Sample Goals of the Stakeholders at RHS
Mission
We are committed to the development of all students as thinkers, communicators, and
contributors, which will be accomplished through instructional practices and curriculum
marked by rigor, relevance and relationships. Our students will be supported as they engage in
the high school experience, graduate, and become responsible members of society
Organization Goal
None provided
Intermediate Goal For ELD Department
From August to June, the number of 9th, 10th and 11th graders in the identified subgroups will
increase the number of proficient students by 5% in English Language Arts in the area of
vocabulary development.
Students
None
Provided
Teachers
The ELD teachers employ
strategies that focus on
literacy to develop reading
and ELD. Reading teachers
apply strategies to maximize
student learning potential at
the levels necessary for
understanding and accessing
the core curriculum.
Administrators
Continue to
enhance a system
that allows for
more teacher
choice and is
relevant to teacher
and student needs.
Counselors
None
Provided
Parents
None
Provided

Table 4
Findings Related to Goal Alignment
Knowledge  School personnel were unaware of the goals
Motivation  Teachers did not buy into the goal-setting process
Organizational  RHS goals lacked alignment among various goal levels
 RHS lacked accountability with goals currently in place
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 54

Teacher collaboration.
20
Limited opportunities for teacher collaboration emerged as a
concern during the scanning interviews. More information was gathered during follow-up
interviews to validate how infrequent teacher collaboration affects the performance of LTELs at
RHS. The inquiry team found that several factors affected teacher collaboration.
First, while RHS had structured collaboration time allotted, content departments would
meet only once a month. Participants mentioned that the allocated time was insufficient for in-
depth conversations or meaningful dialogue. Teachers did not have enough time to discuss
curriculum alignment and planning, learn of new teaching strategies from peers, and analyze
student data.
Second, teachers’ vertical and horizontal articulation seldom occurred and only in
isolated situations. Some teachers took the initiative to communicate with teachers of other
departments, but no formal time was set aside for this articulation. Teachers stated that cross-
departmental collaboration was challenging because some teachers lacked the desire to meet and
collaborate with Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) and English
Language Development (ELD) teachers. Consequently, SDAIE and ELD teachers felt ignored
and isolated from the rest of the staff. In fact, a teacher commented that ELD is frequently
viewed as a “stepchild” by the District. Teachers in other departments demonstrated minimal
desire to collaborate, a motivation issue resulting from lack of value. Some teachers expressed
their belief that little could be done to make a difference for LTELs, especially since this
population maintains a reputation of being apathetic toward school.

20
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 55

Third, RUSD supported professional learning communities, the COPs, one of which
focused on LTELs. Unfortunately, COPs were discontinued due to lack of funding. Many of the
positive outcomes that came from the LTEL COP faded as the opportunity for collaboration
ended. For example, during the COP, teachers became grounded on current LTEL research.
Teachers felt the collaborative experience gave them a space to research, dialogue, reflect, and
learn on issues related to LTELs. Without the support of the COP, teachers found it difficult to
sustain their work. Many teachers expressed that they would like the opportunity to collaborate
with their peers in a structured setting such as the COP. Table 5 illustrates the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers related to teacher collaboration.
Table 5
Findings Related to Teacher Collaboration
Knowledge  Teachers did not know how to effectively collaborate
(especially with teachers unwilling to collaborate)
Motivation  Few teachers took the initiative to collaborate vertically
and horizontally
 SDAIE and ELD teachers felt that mainstream teachers did
not want to collaborate with them
 Some teachers did not value collaboration
Organizational  Teachers felt that RHS has not provided sufficient
opportunities for collaboration
 Lack of funding resulted in the cessation of COPs

Teaching strategies.
21
During the interviews, teachers described instructional strategies
they use to address the needs of their LTELs. Such strategies included using visuals to facilitate
instruction, slowing down the pace, and using Thinking Maps (graphic organizers) to organize

21
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 56

and scaffold instruction. Three teachers mentioned the use of sentence frames and frontloading
academic vocabulary to support students with speaking and writing. Regardless, most teachers
stated that they did not know what strategies they could employ to reach their LTELs. With this
lack of knowledge, many teachers also stated that they had a low sense of self-efficacy in
meeting the needs of LTELs.
A primary concern revealed through the interview was that teachers felt unprepared to
differentiate instruction for a large class of ELs with abilities ranging from beginning to
advanced. In such a setting, LTELs often became a disruptive element by monopolizing the
classroom conversations and discounting beginning-level ELs. However, these classroom
conversations lacked academic vocabulary, and LTELs’ grades and test scores highlighted that
they had not achieved academic proficiency, therefore, preventing them from exiting the SDAIE
support classes. Again, teachers conveyed a need for strategies they could use to differentiate
instruction for various levels of ELs, specifically LTELs.
Moreover, the teaching staff highlighted the need for instructional models. Teachers
expressed that they need a demonstration of practical strategies that they could immediately
begin implementing in the classroom. For example, instead of being told to develop students’
“BICS and CALP,” teachers wanted to know how to improve students’ social and academic
language.
In summary, teachers at RHS feel they have insufficient tools to work effectively with the
LTEL population. They need sustained, on-going professional development of strategies
specifically geared toward increasing LTEL achievement. Table 6 outlines the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors related to teaching strategies.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 57

Table 6
Findings Related to Teaching Strategies
Knowledge  Teachers did not know a variety of teaching strategies that would
meet the needs of LTELs
 Teachers did not know how to differentiate instruction for five levels
of ELs in one classroom
Motivation  Teachers expressed a low sense of self-efficacy in teaching LTELs
Organizational  Teacher felt they needed instructional models to demonstrate
effective teaching strategies

Placement options.
22
As mentioned in the previous section regarding teaching
strategies, RHS placed students of all EL levels into the same class for every content area except
ELA. For ELA, beginning and early intermediate students took ELD courses, while
intermediate, early advanced, and advanced ELs took ELA courses. Through the interviews,
RHS staff members discussed several concerns they had about current student placement
methods for ELs.
First, by placing five levels of ELs into class sizes of up to 36 students for content
courses, SDAIE teachers faced a new challenge of differentiating instruction enough to meet the
diverse needs of their students. Second, by tracking intermediate, early advanced, and advanced
students in SDAIE courses, RHS was limiting students’ access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses.
Teachers described SDAIE classes as watered-down versions of A-G courses; they feared that
LTELs were not being exposed to the rigorous coursework that their English-only counterparts
received. Finally, keeping students in SDAIE classes together and hindering their access to other
courses limited the integration of the student body as a whole. By being tracked in SDAIE

22
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 58

courses, LTELs lacked English-only peer models. They were denied examples of native-
speaking, high-performing students. Table 7 highlights the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers related to placement options.
Table 7
Findings Related to Placement Options
Knowledge  Teachers did not know how to differentiate instruction for five levels
of ELs in one classroom
 Administration unaware of better placement options for LTELs
Motivation  Teachers believed that LTELs were not motivated to leave SDAIE
courses
Organizational  LTELs in SDAIE courses lacked access to A-G curriculum
 Current placement led to large class sizes (up to 36 students) of high-
need students

Systemic support for LTELs.
23
RHS has limited systems in place to help LTELs
achieve academic success. For example, although LTELs and newcomers have significantly
distinct needs, the school does not differentiate between the various types of ELs. This causes
many LTELs to disengage or lose interest in school. In many instances, LTELs become
disruptive and have disciplinary problems. Further, LTELs do not possess the self-regulation
skills or learning skills necessary to stay motivated to excel in school.
Another systemic support LTELs need is to understand the importance of the California
English Language Development Test (CELDT). Some students have taken the CELDT since
early elementary school but they demonstrate stagnate or declining scores. The CELDT is
mostly administered during the summer by the EL coordinator and some of the ELD teachers.

23
This section was written by Carlos Avila. Contributions were made by Merle Bugarín and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 59

Most of the staff is unfamiliar with the content of the CELDT or the standards that are tested.
The lack of knowledge and narrow involvement of the staff make it difficult to communicate to
students the importance of showing yearly progress on the CELDT or the degree of elaboration
needed to be successful on the test.
Studies show that one common characteristic of LTELs is that they struggle academically
(Olsen, 2010). This is also the case at RHS, where many LTELs earn low or failing grades.
Although RHS offers a mandatory lunchtime program, called Opportunity, to help failing
students, some teachers stated that students view participation as punitive. In the six-week
Opportunity Program, students experience study skill workshops and tutoring. Unfortunately,
there is a lack of follow through with content area teachers, and little change takes place from
student participation in the program.
The school does not have a system in place to monitor LTELs. In fact, teachers
interviewed could not identify which of their current students were LTELs and, therefore, could
not monitor the progress of these students. Previously, the district had a COP that addressed the
needs of LTELs. Teachers who participated in the COP went through students’ cumulative
records to identify LTELs and evaluated their performance on a regular basis. The COP no
longer exists due to a lack of funding, and the practices developed during the LTEL COP also
ceased. Changes in district priorities made it difficult to sustain the focus on LTELs. Table 8
displays a summary of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes related to lack of
systemic support for LTELs.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 60

Table 8
Findings Related to Systemic Support for LTELs
Knowledge  Teachers believed that students do not have the self-regulation skills
to be successful in school
 Students did not know the importance of the CELDT or the degree
of elaboration needed for success
 Teachers did not know who their LTELs were
Motivation  Teachers were not motivated to continue the LTEL COP without
funding
Organizational  RHS did not have a system in place to monitor LTELs
 LTEL COP ended due to a lack of funding

Perspectives on cultural differences.
24
Another root cause for LTEL underachievement
stems from the teachers’ and administrators’ cultural deficit perspective. In the initial scanning
interview, we asked teachers and administrators if they could identify barriers that perpetuated
the underachievement of ELs, specifically LTELs. Both stakeholders were quick to blame
students, parents, and family life. Some of the reasons cited by the participants for the lack of
progress included the following: low student motivation, low parent involvement, parents’ lack
of knowledge and tangible skills to assist their children, parents’ language skills, and students’
low socioeconomic status. One participant explained that she believed that Latino LTELs were
“cognitively deficient.” Many compared the Latino LTEL population with the progress made by
Asian students at the school and pointed to the differences in cultural values. Few alluded to
causes within the education system and structures at the school site as causes of the problem.
Even fewer participants self-reflected on how their own practices and beliefs perpetuated the
problem of LTEL underachievement.

24
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 61

As the inquiry team analyzed the results of the initial interviews, a theme of cultural
deficit perspective emerged. In the second interview, the team wanted to validate that theme by
developing a question that addressed the possibility of RHS staff members harboring a cultural
deficit perspective. When RHS staff was asked the question about what assets their LTELs
offered, teachers and administrators struggled to name any. One participant clearly stated that
LTELs did not have any assets. Only a few participants listed bilingualism, their cultures, and
their stories as assets. At the end of each interview, the team presented the six causes of LTEL
underachievement, with cultural deficit perspective listed as a “need to increase cultural capital.”
All participants agreed that RHS staff members needed to recognize that LTELs have something
to contribute to their school community. Table 9 outlines the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors related to perspectives on cultural differences.
Table 9
Findings Related to Perspectives on Cultural Differences
Knowledge  Teachers did not know how their instructional practices may have
contributed to LTEL underachievement
 Teachers did not know what assets or contributions their LTELs
could make
Motivation  Teachers were quick to blame parents and students for low student
achievement
Organizational  RHS and RUHSD offer inconsistent trainings to increase cultural
capital

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 62

Conclusion
25

In conclusion, this chapter presented the findings that validated the primary six root
causes for the LTEL achievement gap at RHS. First, the context of RHS, including the
community and district, was described. Next, the inquiry team reported the school’s strengths
that emerged during the investigation. Finally, the six primary causes for LTEL
underachievement at RHS were discussed. The next chapter will provide a second review of the
literature for solutions for two of the six root causes—the need for varied teaching strategies and
the need for placement options that better meet the needs of LTELs. The dissertations of Avila
(2013) and Bugarín (2013) discuss solutions on the remaining four of the six root causes.

25
This section was written by Julie Shah. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Merle Bugarín; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 63

Chapter 5
Recommended Research-Based Solutions
Author: Julie Shah
In the previous chapter, the inquiry team identified six validated root causes for the
underachievement of long-term English learners (LTEL) at Rigor High School
26
(RHS). In this
chapter, solutions for two of the six primary causes are presented. (For solutions on goal
alignment and systemic support for LTELs, see Avila, 2013; for solutions on teacher
collaboration and increasing cultural capital, see Burgarín, 2013.) The first set of solutions is
focused on teaching strategies to meet the needs of LTELs at RHS, including several research-
based strategies. The second set of solutions is focused on reshaping the school experience to
better meet the needs of LTELs. During its investigation, the inquiry team found that RHS was
grouping LTELs with the rest of its English learner (EL) population, such as placing them into
the same courses, but the needs of LTELs are unique from those of beginning ELs. As a result,
research on mainstreaming is presented as a viable solution.
Teaching Strategies
There is research that suggests that in effective schools, language instruction and
development is not the job of solely English Language Arts and English as a Second Language
teachers; rather, all educators, across all content areas, need to take onus of literacy instruction to
increase the achievement of ELs (Calderón, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011; Olsen, 2010; Short &
Fitzsimmons, 2007). However, the teachers of RHS contended that they do not know a variety

26
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 64

of teaching strategies that would meet the needs of their LTELs. To close the knowledge gap for
teachers, this section discusses three key instructional strategies that teachers of any content area
can apply to increase the academic achievement of LTELs. These strategies are based on the
consistent research findings of several studies (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Calderón
et al., 2011; Dutro & Moran, 2003; Echevarria & Vogt, 2010; Gersten & Baker, 2000).
Moreover, through her extensive investigation of LTEL underachievement in 40 California
districts, Olsen (2010) identifies all three of these strategies as necessary means for closing the
achievement gap for LTELs. First, teachers of all content areas need to focus on vocabulary
development. Second, educators must capitalize on their students’ prior knowledge to facilitate
learning. Lastly, creating structured cooperative learning groups benefits the education of all
students.
Vocabulary development. Carlo et al. (2004) has demonstrated through intervention
research that vocabulary is the foundation for academic success for all students, especially ELs.
Without knowledge of the vocabulary used in lectures, discourse, or text, students do not have
full access to the content. This limits their opportunities to achieve. To illustrate, proficient
readers can comprehend text even when a few of the words are unknown; however, when too
many words are unknown, vocabulary interferes with reading comprehension (August, 2002;
August et al., 2005). Lutkus, Grigg, and Donahue (2007) found a significant gap in reading
comprehension between English only and EL students in grades 4 and 8. Without intervention,
this gap will continue to widen as students move through high school. Moreover, a limited
vocabulary interrupts students’ ability to acquire knowledge through reading, furthering LTELs’
academic underachievement.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 65

Increasing vocabulary knowledge goes deeper than knowing a word’s definition; it also
includes knowing the word’s connotations, morphological forms, polysemous interpretations
(i.e., the word play in “to play cards,” “to watch a play,” “a play on words,” or “to play a trick”),
synonyms, antonyms, and so on (August et al., 2005). In order to improve the word knowledge
of ELs, instruction for this population needs to have a strong vocabulary development
component. Three instructional practices that center on vocabulary development for ELs include
cognate transfer, the use of meaningful and varying texts, and opportunities for intentional
review and practice of target words.
Cognate transfer. Cognates are “words with obvious orthographic similarity and closely
related meanings” (Nagy, Garcia, Durgunoglu, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993, p. 242). Teachers can
take advantage of students’ first language if the language shares cognates with English (August
et al., 2005). Since Spanish and English have many Latin derivatives, these languages share
many cognates, which can facilitate vocabulary acquisition (Cunningham & Graham, 2000;
Nagy et al., 1993).
Students must receive direct instruction and reinforcement in how to apply the cognate
transfer strategy, as these students are more successful using the skill than students who are not
explicitly taught the skill (Carlo et al., 2004; Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2009; Nagy et al., 1993).
For example, if a student comes across the word “amiable” while reading English literature, this
is similar to its Spanish cognate amable, meaning friendly. Students taught and reinforced the
skill of cognate transfer could recognize the orthographic similarity and infer that “amiable”
means “friendly.” The same transferability is true for students who learn to recognize patterns
between English and Spanish suffixes. August et al. (2005) and Hayes et al. (2009) illustrate this
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 66

with English suffixes such as -ity (-idad), -ing (-ando, -endo, -iendo), -ly (-mente), and -tion
(-ción). Also important is the discussion of false cognates, such as asistir, which means “to
attend” but could be misconstrued as “to assist” (Calderón et al., 2011). Expository texts are rich
with Latin-based words and better serve as the foundation for teaching cognate transfer than
narrative texts, which are heavy in Germanic-based words (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2012).
Utilizing cognates in the classroom and demonstrating their usefulness have added
benefits beyond vocabulary development; it highlights for students that schools value their home
language and that biliteracy is an asset (Brooks & Karathanos, 2009). One limitation of the
cognate transfer strategy is that students must have some level of Spanish-English biliteracy
(Nagy et al., 1993). Unfortunately, in addition to lacking English proficiency, many LTELs do
not maintain any Spanish literacy skills (Olsen, 2010). Teachers must explore their students’
Spanish knowledge to determine their level of biliteracy. For example, a student who claims not
to know how to speak Spanish may still hear Spanish in the home. This allows the student to
make some cognate connections once the skill is taught through explicit instruction and reviewed
through practice.
Using meaningful and varying contexts. Carlo et al. (2004) implemented a 15-week
instructional intervention, necessitating 30-45 instructional minutes four days a week, on nine
fifth-grade classrooms. Each class focused on 12-14 target words each week. Students
completed a variety of activities, such as previewing the text in Spanish, making predictions,
completing cloze sentences, interpreting different meanings of polysemous words, and
identifying cognates. The activities were typically completed in small heterogeneous groups.
Carlo et al. found that new vocabulary explicitly taught within meaningful and varying contexts
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 67

increased students’ breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. In other words, clearly
discussing vocabulary in one context (i.e., the primary text of the lesson) and then utilizing the
words in other contexts, such as reading a different story or completing a cloze activity, increases
students’ vocabulary knowledge.
A limitation of this study as it applies to RHS is that the researchers sampled upper-
elementary students in mixed EL and English-only classrooms. Currently, RHS does not
mainstream its ELs, and an intervention of 30-45 minutes is the majority of a single class period,
impractical for a high school on 7-period schedule to implement with fidelity. Further, the
effects on LTELs in Carlo et al.’s (2004) study are unclear. Regardless, the strategies assessed in
the investigation are based on theoretical frameworks and strategies previously shown to be
effective (i.e., Beck, McKeown, & Omanson, 1987; Nation, 2001). This suggests that the
strategies will likely have positive outcomes for LTELs when utilized by RHS teachers.
Review and practice. The goal of vocabulary development is to move students past the
initial phase of being passive learners who recognize and recall vocabulary. Assertive learners
can apply vocabulary in different scenarios; they are able to demonstrate mastery of the
vocabulary by retrieving and producing those words with some automaticity. In order to achieve
this, students have to interact multiple times (and in varying contexts) with the new words (Carlo
et al., 2004). Interactions can begin with activities like reading and highlighting the vocabulary
in different stories, listening for new vocabulary in read-alouds, drawing a picture that depicts
the words, or playing charades to act out the words. However, students should ultimately be able
to apply new vocabulary in a writing task or engage in structured small-group activities that
require students to use the target words in their discussion. Students need opportunities to
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 68

repeatedly practice utilizing a new word in a variety of activities, moving them from initial
knowledge of a word to proficient ownership of the word (August, 2002).
Capitalizing on prior knowledge and cultural backgrounds. This strategy is based on
two theoretical frameworks—schema theory and sociocultural theory. Schema theory suggests
that new concepts and skills are better learned when they are connected to concepts and skills
already known (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). Funds of knowledge, which draws from
sociocultural theory, refers to “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of
knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (Moll,
Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992, p. 133). In this section, schema theory is explained in relation
to language. Next, a funds-of-knowledge approach is discussed as it relates to home-school
connections. Finally, the implications of teachers building on students’ existing schema are
discussed.
Schema theory and language comprehension. Letters, words, or phrases in isolation
have no significant meaning within a story (Adams & Collins, 1977; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983).
Rather, it is the compilation of those letters, words, and phrases connected in a larger context
and, more importantly, the reader’s interpretation that give meaning to anything a person reads.
Adams and Collins (1977) explain that “the goal of schema theory is to specify the interface
between the reader and the text—to specify how the reader’s knowledge interacts and shapes the
information on the page and to specify how that knowledge must be organized to support the
interaction” (p. 5). For example, when one reads a story set in a restaurant, the way the reader
interprets the setting is based on restaurants the reader has already seen (i.e., the reader’s existing
schema). The reader’s interpretation may be slightly modified by how the author describes the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 69

restaurant, but most of the description details are filled in by the reader’s existing schema.
Without building on existing schema, learning a new skill or concept becomes a greater
cognitive task than necessary (Brooks & Karathanos, 2009).
Students’ funds of knowledge. The concept of funds of knowledge takes into account
that students, even those labeled as “at risk” or “deprived,” come from families and communities
that provide them with rich, meaningful interactions, even though these may not map well on to
traditional academic expectations. Moll et al. (1992) explain, for example, that a student may
learn carpentry from an uncle, who also attends family get-togethers, babysits occasionally, and
goes fishing with the student’s father. This uncle not only teaches the student a skill, but also
knows the child as a whole person. In the classroom, teachers’ relationships with their students
and their knowledge of students’ home lives is often characterized by less depth than those
provided by families and communities. Further, Moll et al. highlight the families’ mutual
reliance on the student, creating a sense of value and trust between the student and his social
context. The family may depend on the student for babysitting other children in the family, to
contribute to household earnings, or to translate between the family and outside agencies.
Students’ social contexts provide them with active learning opportunities, developing the funds
of knowledge they bring to the classroom; these opportunities are in contrast to students’ passive
learning experiences in most classrooms. Additional examples of these skills include managing
household budgets or family business accounts, automobile repair, soil and irrigation systems,
first aid procedures, and so on (Moll et al., 1992). Importantly, the work of Moll et al. shows
that teachers can investigate these funds of knowledge and appropriate them as instructional
resources for academic purposes.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 70

Implications of building on prior knowledge and students’ backgrounds. “[Teachers]
often expect students to adapt to an English-only classroom environment that reflects White,
middle class, native English speaking curricula,” completely negating the rich linguistic and
cultural backgrounds of ELs (Brooks & Karathanos, 2009, p. 47). Instead, teachers should
capitalize on the prior knowledge, languages, and cultural contexts that students bring with them.
In fact, when RHS staff members were asked what assets their LTELs bring with them, many
recognized that these students bring their language, their experiences, “their stories.” However,
simply recognizing and accepting them is insufficient to promote academic goals. These must be
intentionally and systematically used in developing curriculum and activities. Teachers can use
their students’ backgrounds to make meaningful connections between existing schema and
specific funds of knowledge and the new content and skills they have yet to teach (Brooks &
Karathanos, 2009; Moll et al., 1992).
This instructional strategy has two implications. First, by activating prior knowledge,
teachers are expanding on existing schemata, which facilitates cognitive processes such as
learning, memorizing, and analyzing (Adams & Collins, 1977). Second, when teachers seek to
build on prior knowledge, the instructional focus undergoes a paradigm shift from valuing the
content to be learned to valuing the learner. Gutierrez, Rymes, and Larson (1995) refer to
students and teachers interacting in the “third space,” the practice of using students’ culture,
history, language, and personal experiences to drive instruction. In traditional classroom
interactions, teachers maintain power while students observe. In the “third space,” teachers’
content knowledge and students’ backgrounds are both essential for contributing to the total
learning experience. The “third space” is an intersection of the world of the teacher with the
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 71

world of the students and community. Further, valuing students’ home culture and personal
experiences (i.e., by solving math problems regarding animal husbandry for students living in a
farming community, by having students write about a personal experience that is similar to that
of the protagonist) establishes positive relationships, which “is a critical factor for raising
achievement” (Echevarria & Vogt, 2010, p. 12).
Structured cooperative learning groups. Working in cooperative learning groups
benefits students’ interpersonal relations and academic achievement (Logan, 1986; Murphy,
Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Slavin, 1991). They provide students with the
opportunity to use academic discourse, increase higher-order thinking, and interact with peers of
diverse backgrounds. Further, when students learn new skills, they need opportunities to practice
the newly acquired skill or vocabulary term; the skills need to be reviewed and reinforced
(August, 2002; August et al., 2005; Townsend & Collins, 2008). Small cooperative learning
groups with students of mixed ability provide a safe and comfortable setting for students to
further process and practice newly learned instructional material (Calderón et al., 2011). Also
important, these interactions with peers (and with teachers) engage ELs and increase their sense
of belonging, allowing them to have more positive relationships and experiences at school
(Echevarria & Vogt, 2010).
When students work cooperatively, opportunities for group learning should be well
planned and structured, and expectations need to be explicitly stated (Echevarria & Vogt, 2010;
Logan, 1986). In addition to clearly explaining the task, expectations of how students are to
work in the group also need to be discussed. Such interactions may include discussing shared
responsibility for the task, team members’ roles, equitable speaking time, propriety for
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 72

disagreeing respectfully, and collaborative decision-making. Teachers need to model what
expected cooperative interactions should look like.
Further, in creating heterogeneous student groupings, teachers should include a model
student (i.e., a proficient EL or native-English speaker) paired with an LTEL (Echevarria &
Vogt, 2010). The model student should be trained in how to provide support and instructed not
to overtake the conversation or activity. Moreover, teachers should be cognizant of students who
are high achievers but lack the patience and tact to work with LTELs (Logan, 1986). Other
potential consequences of cooperative learning that teachers should be aware of include social
loafing or the free-rider problem, where the motivation and effort of group members decrease as
individual accountability decreases (Karau & Williams, 1993; Joyce, 1999).
Mainstreaming as a Solution to Problems with Student Placement
In the previous chapter, the inquiry team discussed the concerns of RHS in regards to
how LTELs are placed into courses and whether current placement practices best meet the needs
of this student population. Concerns include challenges with differentiating instruction for five
proficiency levels of ELs in one classroom, limited access for LTELs to rigorous coursework,
limited access for LTELs to English-only peer models, and a lack of integration of the student
body. This section presents research-based evidence as to why mainstreaming LTELs at RHS
would be the most viable solution. First, this section highlights the effects of low-track
placement. Second, the benefits of mainstreaming are discussed.
Effects of low-track placement. The idea behind tracking is to allow low-performing
students the remediation and support they need to achieve the same level of academic
achievement as their high-performing counterparts (Callahan, 2005a, 2005b). Callahan (2005a)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 73

states that, in actuality, “low-track placement frequently results in exposure to less rigorous
content and fewer learning opportunities than high-track placement,” resulting in
underperforming students falling further behind (p. 307). In other words, low-track placement,
such as the placement of LTELs in SDAIE courses that do not meet A-G guidelines, contributes
to the widening of the achievement gap. Further, Callahan (2005b) highlights that a factor that
prevents LTELs from reclassifying is low academic achievement, but low-track placement of
these students perpetuates their underachievement. Therefore, to improve the achievement of
LTELs, they must have access to rigorous, grade-level courses.
In addition, Callahan’s (2005b) research findings suggest that LTELs would obtain the
same benefits from challenging coursework that their mainstream, English-only peers do—
access to A-G curriculum and quality instruction that demands higher-order thinking. While the
fear of placing LTELs in A-G courses may be that they lack the linguistic proficiency to be
successful in these courses, research-based evidence demonstrates that poor academic
preparation has a greater impact on achievement than language proficiency (Callahan, 2005b).
In her study, Callahan found that as years of schooling in the United States increased,
achievement decreased as measured by GPA, credits earned, and four state standardized
assessments. In fact, LTELs earned lower GPAs, fewer credits, and lower CAHSEE
Mathematics scores than did their recent-immigrant counterparts. Consequently, to increase the
achievement of LTELs at RHS, these students must be taken out of the low-track placement of
SDAIE courses and gain access to rigorous coursework.
Benefits of mainstreaming. Mainstreaming gives LTELs access to three primary
benefits—rigorous college preparatory courses, native English-speaking models, and high-
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 74

achieving academic models. First, LTELs generally do not receive the full curriculum; their
courses are “watered-down” versions of grade-level standards (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-
Jolly, & Callahan, 2003; Olsen, 2010). By entering college preparatory courses, LTELs gain
access to the same rigorous curriculum as their English-only peers. The courses provide them
with the higher-order thinking skills necessary for success beyond high school (Callahan, 2005b;
Gándara et al., 2003). Placement into challenging courses provides LTELs with greater
opportunities to learn and achieve.
A second benefit to mainstreaming is LTELs’ access to native English speakers who can
serve as language models (Olsen, 2010). LTELs need to hear and interact with native English
speakers; they need opportunities to have rich, authentic discourse. Native English-speaking
students can demonstrate how to ask questions, initiate conversations, and transition
appropriately between topics. They also model intonation, syntax, and word choice.
Finally, an additional advantage of having heterogeneous classrooms is that students with
academic proficiency can serve as academic models. Since LTELs lack academic success, as
well as have limited language proficiency, these students need to see behaviors of successful
students. In their study, Hanushek, Kain, Markman, and Rivkin (2003) found that the high
achievement of students in a class has residual positive effects on their peers. In other words,
students surrounded by high-achieving peers are positively influenced in their own achievement.
Unfortunately, the same is true for negative behaviors. The low academic achievement and
disruptive behaviors of peers influences students’ own achievement (Hurd, 2004). This
highlights why the current placement practices of LTELs at RHS perpetuate their
underachievement, and why RHS should change its strategy to mainstreaming its LTELs.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 75

Conclusion
This chapter recommended solutions to address two of the six validated causes for LTEL
underperformance at RHS. (For solutions on goal alignment and systemic support for LTELs,
see Avila, 2013; for solutions on teacher collaboration and increasing cultural capital, see
Burgarín, 2013.) First, several teaching strategies were presented to address teachers’ need for
specific, implementable techniques. The research-based recommendations revolved around
vocabulary development, utilizing students’ funds of knowledge, and creating structured
cooperative learning opportunities. Second, the option of mainstreaming was discussed as a
means of diversifying the school experience to meet the unique needs of LTELs and increase
their achievement. In particular, mainstreaming would provide LTELs with access to A-G
curriculum, native English-speaking models, and academic models. While executing these
recommendations should facilitate the closing of the achievement gap for LTELs at RHS, the
effects of implementation need to be evaluated for unintended outcomes. The following chapter
illustrates specific methods for executing the aforementioned recommendations at RHS. It also
discusses the evaluation phase within the gap analysis process.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 76

Chapter 6
Implementation of Recommended Solutions
Author: Julie Shah
While Chapter 5 focused on presenting research-based solutions to close the achievement
gap of long-term English learners (LTEL) at Rigor High School
27
(RHS), this chapter will
demonstrate specific methods for implementation. In this chapter, the teaching strategies
recommended in Chapter 5 are illustrated through detailed examples. In addition, guidelines for
effectively mainstreaming LTELs at RHS are outlined. To conclude, evaluation of the
implemented solutions, which is the last step in the cyclical gap analysis process, is explained, as
well as the cautions and limitation of this study.
Teaching Strategies
The research-based solutions emphasized in the previous chapter include developing
students’ academic vocabulary, accessing students’ funds of knowledge, and using cooperative
learning. Since one of the causes for LTEL underachievement at RHS as identified through the
gap analysis process was teachers’ lack of knowledge of specific teaching strategies, this section
illustrates specific examples of how teachers can apply each strategy (see Appendix H for a
quick reference guide).
Vocabulary development. To develop students’ academic vocabulary, strategies such as
cognate transfer, using varying and meaningful contexts, and review and practice are
recommended. Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2010) describe a variety of vocabulary activities

27
In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school,
district, and community.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 77

that provide meaningful contexts for newly learned words, such as Word Sort, Cloze Sentences,
and Concept Definition Map. These activities can be done individually, in small groups, or as a
class. In a Word Sort, students categorize several recently learned words and phrases. For
example, students may be given the following vocabulary in a math class: less, increased by,
twice, half, tripled, decreased by, more, and split evenly. Students can then sort the words by
operation—add, subtract, multiply, or divide.
Cloze Sentences are descriptive sentences with the vocabulary word omitted. The
contextual clues provided in the sentence guide students in completing the cloze activity
correctly. The following are examples of cloze sentences:
 The Earth _(rotates)_ on its axis, and it _(revolves)_ around the sun.
 When an object has _(buoyancy)_, it means that it can float in water. A person who
is happy and cheerful is also thought to be full of _(buoyancy)_.
 We had to put the historical events in _(chronological order)_ so that they were listed
from earliest in time to the most recent.
For students needing greater support, teachers can provide a word bank for students to choose
from. To enrich the activity, students can also suggest synonyms as replacement words.
A Concept Definition Map is used to describe broad, complex concepts. To illustrate,
students are given a word, like “revolution” in a social studies class. Students divide a sheet of
paper or poster into four quadrants. In the center, students draw an oval and write the word
“revolution” in it. In the upper left quadrant, students define the term in their own words. In the
upper right quadrant, students use adjectives or word phrases to describe what a revolution is
like. Students list examples of historical revolutions in the lower left quadrant. In the last
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 78

quadrant, students draw a picture depicting their interpretation of “revolution.” To add to the
Concept Definition Map, teachers can also have students discuss the Spanish cognate of
“revolution” (revolución), other contexts the word “revolution” might be used (i.e., an object
orbiting around another object is called a revolution), word variations (i.e., revolve, revolt,
revolver, revolutionary), or synonyms (i.e., rebellion).
Regardless of the activities used, students need opportunities to review and practice the
vocabulary in context. For example, students can begin by reading a short article on a topic that
emphasizes vocabulary terms they have already learned, like “revolution” as discussed
previously. Students then discuss the article in small heterogeneous groups. In their groups of 8
to 10, students form an inner and outer circle. Students in the inner circle discuss the article
while utilizing key vocabulary. Students in the outer circle listen for how the vocabulary is used
and make notes on their paper; notes can include students tracking for how many times the
vocabulary terms are spoken or which variations of the vocabulary terms are used. After a few
minutes, each student in the inner circle exchanges seats and roles with a student in the outer
circle. After every student has had an opportunity to participate in the discussion, students take a
few minutes to write a summary of the discussion and their own concluding thoughts. Teachers
should make clear that students are expected to utilize key vocabulary in their write up. By the
end of the activity, every student has had an opportunity to read, listen for, speak, and write
about the key vocabulary. Teachers should emphasize use of expository texts, as opposed to
narratives, as the basis for discussion. Expository texts, such as articles or sections from a
textbook, are rich with Latin derivatives and can develop students’ academic vocabulary (Hayes,
Rueda, & Chilton, 2012).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 79

Accessing and utilizing prior knowledge and cultural backgrounds. The first purpose
of this section is to outline specific steps that RHS could take to access its students’ funds of
knowledge, as described by Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992). Second, this section will
illustrate teaching strategies content-area teachers can use to tap into students’ backgrounds and
prior knowledge.
Accessing students’ funds of knowledge. The most effective way to tap into students’
funds of knowledge is for teachers to take the time to learn about their students, including their
culture, linguistic backgrounds, and experiences outside of school, and to learn from their
students’ families (Moll et al., 1992). Students’ diverse backgrounds are not a deficit, but rather
an asset that can contribute to a rich learning environment for all students. For RHS teachers to
know what funds of knowledge their students bring and how they can use those funds to guide
their instruction, teachers should learn more about the families and communities and think of
ways to bring that into the classroom.
One way for teachers of RHS to learn about their students and families is to follow the
same protocol as presented by Moll et al. (1992). In their investigation of how to use students’
funds of knowledge to connect homes and classrooms, Moll et al. focused on “the ethnographic
analysis of household dynamics, the examination of classroom practices, and the development of
after-school study groups with teachers” (p. 132). First, with the support of RHS administration
and the permission of its students and families, teachers could make multiple visits to the homes
of their students. Each teacher should choose three of their LTELs to visit. The purpose of the
visits would be for the teacher to enter their students’ homes as a learner and observer. They
should come prepared with a translator, if necessary, open-ended interview questions, and an
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 80

open mind. The first visit to the home should focus on establishing rapport with the family and
explaining the objective of the visits. Before tape recording, teachers should request permission
from each participant interviewed. As the interviews progress, questions should focus on
understanding the families’ social and historical contexts, as well as, activities and interests.
In their research, Moll et al. (1992) describe the funds of knowledge Amanti (the teacher)
learned of her student (Carlos) possessing. Carlos’ funds of knowledge stemmed from summers
he spent in Mexico and his rich experiences there, such as playing in a pharmacy, horseback
riding, working on a ranch, and playing with a bow and arrow. Amanti gained insight into
Carlos’ valuable experiences of mitigating between two cultures. Through her interviews, the
teacher also learned about Carlos’ parents’ child-rearing philosophy and family values.
Ultimately, this method of utilizing funds of knowledge highlights for teachers and parents that
educating students is a joint venture between the home and school.
After interviewing the families and reflecting on that experience, teachers need the
opportunity to work with each other to discuss how they can bridge their students’ existing funds
of knowledge with what they have yet to learn. For example, Carlos’ experiences in the
pharmacy can lead to a math lesson, his days on a ranch can be the foundation of a science unit,
or his cross-cultural knowledge can be the basis of an essay in English Language Arts (ELA) or
social studies. At RHS, students come to school with skills similar to those of Carlos. They may
have acquired skills of negotiating or bartering in places like swap meets, measuring and
following procedures by cooking for their family, or plot development and presentation skills by
telling stories to younger siblings. Critical to this process, the administration at RHS must allow
teachers to meet after their fieldwork so that they can brainstorm ideas and assist each other in
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 81

developing a unit founded on their students’ existing funds of knowledge. Teachers need
designated time to meet with their colleagues to voice their ideas and develop them into
meaningful lessons.
Utilizing students’ background knowledge—strategies illustrated. This section
illustrates examples of how teachers can capitalize on students’ backgrounds to facilitate
instruction. Risko and Walker-Dalhouse (2007) name specific steps teachers may take in order
to develop a lesson based on students’ backgrounds. First, teachers select the topic to be taught,
such as the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Second, teachers identify problems or tasks
within the topic that require higher-level thinking from the students, like imaging how their lives
would be if the Civil Rights Movement never took place. Third, teachers decide which content
skills they want their students to learn from the lesson. For example, the goal of the lesson may
be for students to use metaphors, to compare and contrast, or to persuade their audience. The
fourth step, as discussed by Risko and Walker-Dalhouse, is to identify how the lesson can be
connected to students’ prior knowledge, such as having students elaborate on an experience in
which they felt discriminated against and explicitly relating that experience to the discrimination
faced by minority groups during the 1960s. Finally, teachers should supplement the existing
school curriculum with additional cultural texts with which the students can relate. Such texts
may include poetry, video clips, or artwork.
As another example of a teaching strategy, before reading a new literary work, an ELA
teacher can have students respond to a quickwrite that connects the theme of the story to that of
the students’ own experiences. The teacher can permit students to write in any language they
feel comfortable, taking the focus of the quickwrite off grammar and shifting it to making
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 82

connections (Brooks & Karathanos, 2009). The purpose of the quickwrite activity is to generate
a flow of ideas, allowing students to begin understanding and connecting to the story through
their own experiences. As students read the literary work, they fill in a graphic organizer such as
a Venn diagram or a Double Bubble Map. In the region where the circles intersect or bubbles
connect, students fill in how their experiences are similar to those of the protagonist; in the
unconnected regions, they fill in how their experiences are different. As a culminating
assignment for the unit, students write an essay that compares and contrasts their own
experiences to that of the protagonist’s experiences. The focus of the essay will be on grammar,
syntax, and content; however, the assignment places value on students’ backgrounds.
Connections to students’ prior knowledge do not all have to relate to the students’
cultural or linguistic background. For example, in math, before being introduced to the axis of
symmetry of a parabola, students can begin by reviewing the word symmetry. First, the class
could discuss what it means for something to have symmetry or to be symmetrical. Next,
students can work with a partner to name and draw items that have symmetry (i.e., a heart, a
face, certain logos). Finally, the teacher can connect this discourse on symmetry to how the
graph of a quadratic function forms a parabola, which has symmetry. This example connects to
students’ prior knowledge of symmetry, but it does not necessarily have to do with students’
cultural context.
Structured cooperative learning groups. Three strategies are described to help
teachers of RHS use cooperative learning as a means to increase interpersonal relations and
academic achievement for LTELs. First, examples of sentences frames are provided to help
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 83

teachers scaffold student interactions. Next, Jigsaw and Socratic Seminar are explained as
specific student-lead cooperative activities teachers may organize in their classrooms.
Sentence frames as a scaffold. LTELs may refrain from participating in discourse
because they struggle to frame their thoughts. To facilitate conversations, the teacher may
provide scaffolds, such as sentence frames. For example, when a teacher asks students to explain
which character or characters are integral to the story, the following are possible sentence frames
used to provide support:
 “______ is integral (important) to the story because he/she _____.”
 “______ are integral (important) to the story because they _____.”
Teachers can also provide sentence frames to elicit discussion or to guide students in asking for
clarification. Example sentence frames are as follows:
 Discussion: “I agree/disagree with ______ because ______.”
 Discussion: “I would like to add to ______’s point. I also believe that ______ is
right/wrong because ______.”
 Clarification: “I understand ______, but I am confused about ______.”
Example cooperative activity—Jigsaw. There are two variations of how the Jigsaw
method might be carried out (Slavin, 1991). In the first method, the teacher divides the class into
teams to work on one section of a chapter or other assigned text. Every member of the team
becomes an “expert” on that one section. The team reads, discusses, and answers each other’s
questions regarding the text. They may take notes or use graphic organizers to process the
information. Next, teams break up to meet in new groups, each group having one expert from
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 84

each section of the text. As experts, group members teach each other about their respective
section. Ultimately, all students will know the entire text by learning from each other.
The second variation of the Jigsaw method still has students meet in teams, but requires
all students to read the entire text. Each student within the team is then assigned a topic (i.e.,
examples of personification in the narrative) and meets with students of other teams that have the
same topic. In the new groups, students become experts about their common topic. Students
then return to their original team and teach their teammates about their topic. By the end of the
activity, all students have become experts of the text on multiple levels, and all students have had
the opportunity to engage in academic discourse while being supported by their peers.
Example cooperative activity—Socratic seminar with pilots/co-pilots. A Socratic
seminar is a structured dialogue in which students respond to a thoughtful question (Koellner-
Clark, Stallings, & Hoover, 2002; Tredway, 1995). The purpose of Socratic seminars is to
develop students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
To hold this collaborative dialogue, teachers should first have students read a common
article or other text. Students will then meet in a small groups (about 3-4 students) to discuss the
text. The class then regroups so that one member of each group unites to form an inner circle,
and their remaining group members sit behind them to form an outer circle. The students in the
inner circle are the “pilots,” and their group members in the outer circle are “co-pilots.”
The teacher then presents the students with an open-ended, thought-provoking question.
Students in the inner circle initiate a dialogue around the question. The co-pilots lend their
support to the pilot, as needed. The teacher facilitates the discussion and can have pilots and co-
pilots rotate roles. (See Table 10 for a summary of the strategies described in this section.)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 85

Table 10
Summary of Teaching Strategies
Instructional Strategies Teaching Strategies
Vocabulary Development  Cognate transfer
 Word sort
 Concept definition map
 Expository text
 Using varying and meaningful contexts
 Word sort
 Cloze sentences
 Concept definition map
 Expository text
 Review and practice
 Cloze sentences
 Inner-outer circle observation and discussion
Capitalizing on Prior Knowledge and
Cultural Backgrounds
 Students’ funds of knowledge
 Interview students’ families
 Creating a “third space”
 Students’ prior knowledge
 Use of primary language during quickwrites
 Venn Diagram or Double-Bubble Map to
compare and contrast student’s personal
experiences to character’s experiences
Structured Cooperative Learning
Groups
 Sentence frames as a scaffold to solicit and guide
discussion
 Jigsaw activities
 Socratic seminar with pilots and co-pilots

Parameters and Guidelines for Successfully Mainstreaming LTELs at RHS
While no study specifically investigates which mainstreaming parameters are ideal for
LTELs, the findings of several studies allow conclusions to be drawn on how this population
should be mainstreamed. First, LTELs should comprise of no more than one-third of the class
(Olsen, 2010). This allows their high-achieving peers to maintain a pervasive role as model
students (Hanushek, Kain, Markman, & Rivkin, 2003; Hurd, 2004). This means that in a class of
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 86

36 students, no more than 12 of those students should be identified as LTELs. Ideally, the other
24 students should demonstrate proficiency in the English language and in the content area; in
other words, the remaining two-thirds of the class should not be students in need of intervention
themselves. Moreover, as mentioned in the previous chapter, model students need to be
instructed in how to guide their EL peers without being overpowering (Echevarria & Vogt,
2010). The teacher needs to tell the model students explicitly of their role.
Second, LTELs of similar linguistic backgrounds should intentionally be placed in the
same class (Olsen, 2010). This allows students to rely on each other as a resource when their
native language is used for scaffolding. However, teachers should still maintain heterogeneous,
mixed-ability groups within the classroom (Calderón, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). For example,
when students are teamed into groups of five students, two may be LTELs, one a lower-
performing student, one a proficient student, and one an advanced student.
Finally, while placement of LTELs into mainstream classrooms gives them physical
access to challenging coursework, full access requires educators to scaffold the content
(Callahan, 2005b; Olsen, 2010). Therefore, in order to mainstream LTELs at RHS successfully,
teachers still need to support these students by implementing a variety of strategies, such as those
discussed earlier this chapter. (See Table 11 for a summary of the guidelines for mainstreaming
LTELs discussed in this section.)

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 87

Table 11
Summary of Guidelines for Mainstreaming LTELs
 No more than one-third of the class is comprised of LTELs
 Non-LTEL peers demonstrate language and academic proficiency
 Model students are told explicitly of their roles
 LTELs of similar linguistic backgrounds are intentionally placed in the same class
 Teachers utilize a variety of teaching strategies that support LTELs

Evaluation of the Implemented Plan
Kirkpatrick (2001) identifies four sequential levels of evaluation for any training, but
these levels of evaluation can also be applied to the solutions implemented through the gap
analysis process (Rueda, 2011). The purpose of evaluation is to examine whether the solutions
resolved the problems identified through the gap analysis and to assess for any unintended
consequences (Rueda, 2011). The four levels of evaluation are reactions, learning, transfer, and
results (Kirkpatrick, 2001; see Table 12).
Table 12
Four Levels of Evaluation
Level 1
Reactions
How do people feel about the solution?
Level 2
Impact
Did the solution result in changes in the learning (knowledge and
skill), motivation, and organizational gaps identified earlier?
Level 3
Transfer
Did the solution continue to be implemented and be effective
after the solution was first introduced?
Level 4
Bottom-Line Results
Did the solution contribute to meeting the overall global goal?
Adapted from Kirkpatrick, D. (2001). The four-level evaluation process. In L. L. Ukens (Ed.),
What smart trainers know: The secrets of success from the world’s foremost experts (pp.122-
132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

At Level 1, RHS is observing its stakeholders’ reactions to the implemented solutions.
RHS should look for buy in and motivation; if stakeholders do not buy into the solutions, they
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 88

cannot be executed effectively. For example, one of the proposed solutions was allowing
opportunities for structured cooperative learning in classrooms. However, if teachers do not
believe this strategy to be effective, they may not carry out the activities as described in the
proposed solution. In turn, the solution will not be as effective as expected, and the teaching
staff may attribute the persistent achievement gap to inadequate proposed solutions when, in fact,
the problem was with how the solution was executed. To gauge reaction, RHS may use
questionnaires, interviews, or surveys to collect data from teachers (Champion, 2002). Sample
survey questions may include, “How satisfied were you with your students’ level of participation
in the structured cooperative learning groups?” or “How effective do you feel Jigsaw activities
will be for student learning?” RHS may also choose to record the number of times teachers use
particular strategies or collect data from its students to gauge their reactions regarding
participating in cooperative learning groups.
To measure teachers’ efficacy in implementing the solutions (Level 2), RHS can ask
teachers about whether they feel prepared to try new strategies in their classrooms. Teachers
may complete a survey that asks about their level of preparedness or knowledge around a newly
learned strategy. A sample survey question may be, “After this training, how prepared do you
feel in facilitating a Socratic seminar?”
Level 3 of evaluation, transfer, refers to the teacher’s ability to transfer learning across
settings (i.e., from the training room to the classroom), as well as, the persistence of
implementation over time (Rueda, 2011). The evaluator is checking whether the solutions
continue to be implemented effectively after they were first introduced. Kirkpatrick (2001)
suggests this level to be the most pragmatic measure of a program’s effectiveness.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 89

The final level of evaluation is looking at the results of the solutions. The purpose of this
gap analysis was to close the achievement gap for LTELs at RHS. Even if the proposed
solutions are carried out with fidelity but they do not resolve the initially identified problem, then
they are the wrong solutions. At Level 4, RHS is assessing whether the global goal was met as a
result of the solutions. RHS can analyze student assessment data, such as CAHSEE scores, CST
scores, and GPA. An increase in academic achievement should be reflected through increased
scores and GPA. RHS should also identify any unintended consequences ensuing from the
implemented solutions.
Cautions and Limitations
28
This project was based on a modified version of the gap analysis model developed by
Clark and Estes (2008). As with all problem-solving approaches, this investigation had several
limitations. First, if this study used a different framework, it may have yielded different results.
Other possible frameworks include community action research, positive deviance,
benchmarking, program theory evaluation, policy analysis, and data-driven decision making
(Malloy, 2011; see Table 13). Another limitation is that the study was conducted in a relatively
short period, from December 2011 through June 2012. During that time, the primary mode of
data collection included interviews and an examination of school documents and data reports.
The emphasis was placed on interviewing school personnel, such as administrators, counselors,
and teachers. These primary stakeholders will be responsible for implementing any solutions
recommended to support the academic growth of LTELs. Input was gathered predominantly

28
This section was written by Merle Bugarín. Contributions were made by Carlos Avila and Julie Shah; these
authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 90

from teachers serving ELs. Most of the interviewees were ELA and ELD teachers; limited
interviews were conducted with content-area teachers.
Table 13
Sample Inquiry Frameworks
INQUIRY
FRAMEWORK
REFERENCE DESCRIPTION
Gap Analysis Clark & Estes, 2002 An inquiry process that identifies the
causes of performance gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and
organizational processes. The model
provides strategies for implementing the
appropriate solutions.
Community Action
Research
Stringer, 1999 A framework for including community
members in a highly collaborative
process of gathering data, analyzing and
interpreting data, and planning,
implementing, and evaluating solutions.
Positive Deviance Pascale, Sternin, &
Sternin, 2010
As asset-based, problem-solving, and
community-driven inquiry approach that
enables a community to discover the
successful behaviors and strategies of
“positive deviants.”
Benchmarking Tucker, 1996 A team-based inquiry approach to
studying and transferring exemplary
practices, measures, and processes from
one organization to another.
Program Theory
Evaluation
Weiss, 1997; Wholey,
1994
An approach to identifying and
collecting data to examine the inputs or
resources of a program, program
activities, intended outputs of the
program, and intended outcomes.
Policy Analysis Bardach, 2005 An eight-step process for determining
and evaluating potential policy options.
Data-Driven
Decision Making
McEwan & McEwan,
2003
A framework for using research to make
key decisions about adopting new or
sustaining existing programs, policies,
and interventions.
Adapted from Malloy, C. L. (2011). Ten steps to effective practitioner-led inquiry. Edge,
6(4), 6-16.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 91

It is important to note that students were not interviewed or formally observed.
Information gathered on students consisted primarily of public knowledge data disaggregated by
grade level or subgroups reported for state accountability purposes. The inquiry team informally
observed parents and had informal conversations with several parents one evening during a
Hispanic Parent Meeting. Although the process was limited to one meeting, the information
received confirmed previous findings.
The patterns identified during the inquiry project reflect the perspective of individuals at
the school site. The inquiry team had considered interviewing the District’s Bilingual
Coordinator to gain a broader perspective of the issues. Unfortunately, during the time of the
investigation, the position became vacant. Regardless, since the participants overwhelmingly
agreed on the six prioritized causes that emerged during the investigation process, the next step
was to develop research-based solutions to assist the school team in closing the achievement gap
of LTELs.
Conclusion
To close the achievement gap for its LTELs, this chapter highlighted specific steps RHS
could take to apply the research-based solutions recommended in Chapter 5. It described
specific teaching strategies educators need to use in order to develop academic vocabulary, build
on prior knowledge and student background, and structure cooperative learning groups. This
chapter also outlined parameters for mainstreaming LTELs to ensure their success. Levels of
evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the solutions after implementation were also defined,
and cautions and limitations of this study were discussed.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 92

As a final point, it is important to note that the solutions discussed in Chapters 5 and 6
only address two of the six factors contributing to the achievement gap of LTELs at RHS. In
order to achieve the global goal, RHS must look at the dissertations of the entire inquiry team as
a whole (see Avila, 2013; Bugarín, 2013). While RHS may choose to implement the
recommended solutions in phases due to limited resources, it is the opinion of the inquiry team
that all of the identified causes contribute to the underperformance of LTELs and all solutions
should ultimately be applied.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 93

References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and
accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and
recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31.
Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1977). A schema-theoretic view of reading (Report No. 32).
Cambridge, MA: Center for the Study of Reading.
Alvarez, R. M., & Butterfield, T. L. (2000). The resurgence of nativism in California?: The case
of Proposition 187 and illegal immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 167-179.
August, D. (2002). Transitional programs for English language learners: Contextual factors and
effective programming (Report No. 58). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
20(1), 50-57.
Avila, C. (2013). A capstone gap analysis project of English learners’ achievement at a suburban
high school: A focus on goal setting and systemic support (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse
vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The
nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bilingual Education Act, Pub. L. No. 90-247, 81 Stat. 816 (1968).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 94

Bosniak, L. S. (1996). Opposing Prop. 187: Undocumented immigrants and the national
imagination. Connecticut Law Review, 28(3), 555-619.
Bowman-Perrott, L. J., Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2010). Reading difficulties and grade retention:
What’s the connection for English language learners? Reading & Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 26(1), 91-107.
Boyson, B. A., & Short, D. J. (2003). Secondary school newcomer programs in the United States
(Report No. 12). University of California, Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education,
Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics website:
http://www.cal.org/
Brooks, K., & Karathanos, K. (2009). Building on the cultural and linguistic capital of English
learner students. Multicultural Education, 16(4), 47-51.
Bugarín, M. A. (2013). A capstone gap analysis project of English learners’ achievement at a
suburban high school: A focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.
Calderón, M., & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-term ELs: Transforming schools to
meet core standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English learners.
Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2011a). DataQuest [Online database]. Sacramento, CA:
Author.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 95

California Department of Education. (2011b, May). 2010-11 academic performance index
reports: Information guide. Retrieved from California Department of Education website:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education. (2011c). Improving teacher & principal quality.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from the CDE website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb
/sr/tq/index.asp
California Department of Education. (2011d, August). 2011 adequate yearly progress report:
Information guide. Retrieved from California Department of Education website:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp
Callahan, R. M. (2005a). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
Callahan, R. M. (2005b). English language proficiency and track placement: Variable effects on
academic achievement. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 429-451).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Carlo, M., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., . . . White, C.
(2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in
bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 96

Castro-Olivo, S. M., Preciado, J. A., Sanford, A. K., & Perry, V. (2011). The academic and
social-emotional needs of secondary Latino English learners: Implications for screening,
identification, and instructional planning. Exceptionality, 10(3), 160-174.
Champion, R. (2002). Taking measure: Choose the right data for the job. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(3), 78-79.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education
(Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49).
Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and
Assessment Center.
Cunningham, T. H., & Graham, C. R. (2000). Increasing native English vocabulary recognition
through Spanish immersion: Cognate transfer from foreign to first language. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(1), 37-49. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.37
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33).
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 97

Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural
approach. In G. G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English
literacy (pp. 227-258). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V. P., & Ratleff, P. A. (2011). Did they get it? The
role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
54(6), 425-434.
Echevarria, J., & Vogt, M. E. (2010). Using the SIOP Model to improve literacy for English
learners. New England Reading Association Journal, 46(1), 8-15.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for secondary
English learners: The SIOP Model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
Ellern, L. (1999). Proposition 227: The difficulty of insuring English language learners’ rights.
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 33(1), 1-31.
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380, 88 Stat. 514 (1974).
Faltis, C. J., & Arias, B. (1993). Speakers of languages other than English in the secondary
school: Accomplishments and struggles. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(1), 6-29.
Gándara, P., & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect
storm. Language Policy, 7, 201-216. doi:10.1007/s10993-008-9097-4
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Retrieved from www.cftl.org
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 98

Gándara, P., Moran, R., & Garcia, E. (2004). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the
United States. Review of Research in Education, 28, 27-46.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B. T., & Scribner, K. (2009). The demographic imperative. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 8-13.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for
English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470.
Gutierrez, K., Rhymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the
classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational
Review, 65(3), 445-471.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? (Policy Report No. 2000-1). University of California, Berkeley: University
of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved from http://escholarship
.org/uc/item/13w7m06g
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect
student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527-544. doi:10.1002/jae.741
Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 99

Hayes, K., Rueda, R., & Chilton, S. (2009). Scaffolding language, literacy, and academic content
in English and Spanish: The linguistic highway from Mesoamerica to Southern
California. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 137-166.
Hayes, K., Rueda, R., & Chilton, S. (2012). Home grown professional development for pedagogy
supporting academic English development through bi-lingual instruction. Paper
presented at the 62
nd
Annual Conference of the Literacy Research Association, San
Diego, CA.
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin:
2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Hurd, C. A. (2004). “Acting out” and being a “schoolboy”: Performance in an ELD classroom.
In M. A. Gibson, P. C. Gándara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S.
Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 63-86). New York: Teachers College.
Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
Jerald, C. D., & Ingersoll, R. (2002). All talk no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from the Education Trust website:
www.edtrust.org
Johnson, K. R. (1995). Public benefits and immigration: The intersection of immigration status,
ethnicity, gender, and class. UCLA Law Review, 42, 1509-1575.
Johnston, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000, March). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement.
The achievement gap. Education Week, 19(27), 18-21.
Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for
Business, 74(5), 271-274.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 100

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child
Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-
13.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2001). The four-level evaluation process. In L. L. Ukens (Ed.), What smart
trainers know: The secrets of success from the world’s foremost experts (pp.122-132).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Koellner-Clark, K., Stallings, L. L., & Hoover, S. A. (2002). Socratic seminars for mathematics.
The Mathematics Teacher, 95(9), 682-687.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Logan, T. F. (1986). Cooperative learning: A view from the inside. Social Studies, 77(3), 123-
126.
Lutkus, A., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Trial Urban District
Assessment Reading 2007 (NCES 2008-455). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 66-80.
Malloy, C. L. (2011). Ten steps to effective practitioner-led inquiry. Edge, 6(4), 6-16.
Martin, P. (1995). Proposition 187 in California. International Migration Review, 29(1), 255-
263.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 101

Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2009). The difficult road for long-term English learners. Educational
Leadership, 66(7).
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the
educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399-417.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132-141.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009).
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764.
doi:10.1037/a0015576
Nagy, W. E., Garcia, G. E., Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English
bilingual students’ use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior,
25(3), 241-259. doi:10.1080/10862969009547816
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational
Programs. (2011, February). The growing number of English learner students: 1998/99 –
2008/09. Retrieved from the NCELA website: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9
/growingLEP _0809.pdf
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 102

Nelson-Barber, S. (1999). A better education for every child: The dilemma for teachers of
culturally and linguistically diverse students. In N. Simms & A. Peralez (Eds.), Including
culturally and linguistically diverse students in standards-based reform: A report on
McREL’s diversity roundtable 1 (pp. 3-21). Retrieved from www.mcrel.org
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2010, July). California: Rate of EL growth 1997/1998
– 2007/2008. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads /20/California_G_
0708.pdf
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
Retrieved from Californians Together website: http://www.californianstogether.org/
Olsen, L. (2013, January). Programs, policies and practices for meeting the needs of long-term
English learners in an era of the Common Core Standards. Presentation at the Long-
Term English Learner Institute Conference, Riverside, CA.
Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., . . . Delancey, D.
(2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English
learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website:
http://www.air.org/files/227Report.pdf
Payán, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2008). Current state of English-language learners in the US K-
12 student population. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 103

Educational Testing Service website: http://www.ets.org/Media /Conferences_and_
Events/pdf/ELLsymposium/ELL_factsheet.pdf
Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are
shortchanged on teacher quality: A report and recommendations by the Education Trust.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from the Education Trust website:
www.edtrust.org
Proposition 187, Cal. Educ. Code § 48215 (1995). Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com
/california/education/index.html
Proposition 227, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 300-340 (1998). Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com
/california/education/index.html
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Sumner, R., Cook, J. C., & Apfel, N. (2009,
September). Improving minority academic performance: How a values-affirmation
intervention works. Columbia University, NY: Teachers College Record. Retrieved from
Teachers College website: http://www.tcrecord.org/
Risko, V. J., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2007). Reading research into the classroom: Tapping
students’ cultural funds of knowledge to address the achievement gap. The Reading
Teacher, 61(1), 98-100. doi:10.1598/RT.61.1.12
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S.
secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from Urban Institute
website: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310022
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 104

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added
Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved from http://beteronderwijsnederland.net
Santosuosso, J. A. (1999). When in California . . . In defense of the abolishment of bilingual
education. New England Law Review, 33(3), 837-879.
Secada, W. G. (1990). Research, politics, and bilingual education. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 81-106.
Short, D. J., & Boyson, B. A. (2012). Helping newcomer students succeed in secondary schools
and beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from Center for
Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from Alliance for Excellent Education
website: www.all4ed.org
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership,
48(5), 71-82.
Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Globalization, immigration, and education: The research agenda.
Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 345-365.
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:
Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 29, 51-67.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 105

Torrez, N. M. (2001). Incoherent English immersion and California Proposition 227. The Urban
Review, 33(3), 207-220.
Townsend, D., & Collins, P. (2008). Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners:
An intervention study. Reading and Writing, 22, 993-1019. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-
9141-y
Tredway, L. (1995). Socratic seminars: Engaging students in intellectual discourse. Educational
Leadership, 53(1), 26-29.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July). Overview: Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education website: http://ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro /4pillars.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011, December 9). English learners [Ustream video]. Retrieved
from http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19031471
Valeria v. Wilson, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
Waldinger, R. (1989). Immigration and urban change. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 211-232.
Wright, W. E., & Li, X. (2008). High-stakes math tests: How No Child Left Behind leaves
newcomer English language learners behind. Language Policy, 7, 237-266. doi:10.1007
/s10993-008-9099-2

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 106

Appendix A: Project Timeline
 Summer 2011 – Dr. Rueda made arrangements with Rigor High School (RHS) to be the
subject of the gap analysis
 November 29, 2011 – Initial meeting at RHS with the principal, Dr. Rueda, and Team
Rigor
 Principal provided an overview of RHS and discussed his top concerns
 Fall 2011 – Team Rigor reviewed achievement data from the California Department of
Education website, RHS School Accountability Report Card, and other school reports
from the principal created through the school’s database
 Preliminary data analysis showed that the significantly underperforming group at
RHS was the Latino EL population, more specifically LTELs
 January 30, 2012 – Team met at RHS with the principal and the Leadership Team
 Presented the first problems that the principal brought up during the initial
meeting on November 29
 Discussed inquiry team’s role
 Discussed how to narrow down the scope of EL achievement
 Narrowed even further to LTELs
 February 7, 2012 – Principal emailed Team Rigor RHS’s Gap Analysis 2011-2012
 March 26, 2012 – Team Rigor had its Qualifying Exam at USC
 Committee members recommended narrowing the scope of the dissertation
further
 Committee members recommended that each team member choose an area of
expertise
 Spring 2012 – Team Rigor produced a list of teachers to interview
 Teachers of EL students (SDAIE, ELD, English Chair, EL Coordinator, 2
Administrators, 2 Counselors)
 April 6, 2012 – Team Rigor met with the principal at RHS
 Discussed how committee members recommended narrowing the scope further
 Agreed to focus on Latino LTELs
 Principal gave a tour of the campus to Team Rigor
 Interviewed the principal
 Gave the principal a list of staff members the team needed to interview
 The principal contacted these teachers and established a schedule
 April 11-13, 2012 – Team Rigor interviewed 16 personnel at RHS
 Team Rigor established six open-ended questions for the scanning interviews
 April 2012 – Data Analysis
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 107

 Data from interview notes was organized into an Excel spreadsheet and color-
coded based on priority
 Analysis revealed 6 high-priority themes
 Based on data from the scanning interviews, staff members were selected for a
second round of interviews
 The principal created a schedule of interviews
 May 24-25, 2012
 Team Rigor met with 10 staff members (including the principal) for second
interviews to validate the six high-priority themes
 All staff members affirmed the themes
 June 10, 2012 – Team Rigor meet and decided on which theme each member would
focus on
 Goal Alignment – Carlos
 Placement Options – Julie
 Collaboration – Merle
 Teaching Strategies – Julie
 Need to Increase Cultural Capital – Merle
 Lack of Systemic Support for LTELs – Carlos
 Summer and Fall 2012 – Team members researched solutions

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 108

Appendix B: Exhaustive List of Possible Causes

K – Knowledge/Skill Barrier
M – Motivation Barrier
O – Organizational Barrier

 Lack of aligned goals (K-M-O)
 Low self-efficacy of teachers (M)
 Large class size with multiple levels within each class (differentiated instruction) (O)
 Low collaboration among students (opportunities to engage) (K-M)
 Students do not value learning English or content (one teacher said that her student asked
her, “Why do I even need to learn English?”) (K-M)
 Students lack of self-efficacy (M)
 Stereotyping of students (Asians vs. Latinos) by teachers, parents, students,
administration, district office (K)
 Parents’ expectations of the school and their students (K)
 Parents’ lack of access to resources (K-O)
 Parents’ lack of a support system (K-O)
 Lack of teacher buy-in to (and understanding of) District initiatives (K-M)
 Teachers do not have the tools to work effectively with the LTEL population (K)
 Lack of sustained, on-going professional development (O)
 Teachers and administration blaming parents and home (K-M)
 Students’ lack of access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses (K-O)
 Lack of academic language (K)
 Investigate why L1 and L2 students are not speaking (i.e., lack of opportunities; lack of
linguistic patterns, sentence frames, frontloading vocabulary; cooperative structures
between high and low) (K-M)
 Contradiction from teachers—some say that administration does not allow enough
opportunities/time for collaboration but others say administration does allow enough time
(O)
 Teachers do not know the levels of their EL students (K-O)
 Teachers do not know how long a student has been at a particular EL level (K-M-O)
 EL coach more theoretical than practical (teachers want practical) (K)
 Some teachers believe that Asian students learn faster and do not need as much support
(K-M?)
 Staff claims that Asian parents are “too pushy” (K)
 Staff claims Latino families are not as academically focused (K)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 109

 Some teachers are patient with students while others become frustrated (teachers feel that
content teachers have to teach content and English while English teachers only have to
teach English) (motivation gap, also knowledge gap of what English teacher do) (K-M)
 Discipline issues among LTELs (K-M)
 ELD teachers feel ELD is ignored (O)
 Perhaps LTEL and Latino EL students feel like second-class citizens (M-O)
 ELD meets in isolation from other groups (O)
 Teachers feel a lack of group cohesion between ELD and content teachers (M-O)
 Tension between Asian and Latino students (K-M)
 Perception that parents are uneducated, too busy, and do not have tangible knowledge to
help their kids (K)
 Some Asian children are “parachute kids” (O)
 LTEL children have opportunities to speak in English at school but not at home (K)
 Ratio of class time to class size is too low (O)
 Level 5 students are still in SDAIE (O)
 Students resort to the survival technique of copying without learning content (M)
 Students form “cliques” and do not want to interact with students of different EL levels
(M)
 LTELs have experienced inconsistent programming—attended different schools,
different programs, so they remain stagnant in their learning and language development
(O)
 Systematically, nothing is in place at RHS for LTELs (K-O)
 Counselors place students in classes based on prior schooling and year born (K-O)

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 110

Appendix C: Prioritized Causes Organized by Stakeholder

Students Parents Teachers Counselors Admin
District
Office
Assumed
Causes –
Knowledge
Study Skills Resources Goals Goals Goals

Prior
Knowledge
Parents’ lack
of a support
system
Strategies

Importance of
CELDT
Speak English
at school,
Spanish at
home
Lack of
Effective
Tools

How long a
student at a
particular EL
level

How long a
student at a
particular EL
level

Patience

Buy-in to DO
initiatives

Assumed
Causes –
Motivation
Speak
English at
school,
Spanish at
home
Self-Efficacy

Identity as an
EL versus
English
Proficient
Patience

Behavioral
issues
Collaboration

Latino
LTEL/ELs
second-class
citizens

Buy-in to DO
initiatives

Student
copying

Student
cliques

Students do
not want to
leave SDAIE

Students do
not value
learning
English

Students lack
self-efficacy

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 111

Students Parents Teachers Counselors Admin
District
Office
Assumed
Causes –
Organization
Behavioral
issues

Large class
size
Scheduling Scheduling Scheduling

Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception
Cultural
Deficit
Perception

Parents’ lack
of a support
system

Collaboration

Student
cliques

Student
cliques

Inconsistent
student
programming
for LTELs
Inconsistent
student
programming
for LTELs

Students do
not want to
leave SDAIE

Lack of
systemic
LTEL support
Lack of
systemic
LTEL support

CELDT
Administra-
tion

Note: Green denotes top priority causes; blue denotes causes that were embedded within other,
previously noted causes; yellow denotes causes that needed further investigation but were
outside the scope of this dissertation; red denotes causes that were categorized as low priority.

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 112

Appendix D: Possible Causes Organized by Theme

-Goals (Teachers, Counselors, Admin, DO) (K-M-O)
-Placement Options
-Content areas mix EL levels 1-5 (K-O)
-Separate classes for LTELs and L1/L2 (away from RFEP and EO) in SDAIE & ELD (O)
-Large class size (O)
-Ratio of class time to class size is too low (O)
-Students’ lack of access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses (K-O)
-Level 5 students are still in SDAIE (O)
-Counselor places students based on schooling and year born (newcomers) (K-O)
-Strategies (Teachers)
-Lack of known strategies (i.e., sentence frames, discourse, grouping) (K)
-Teachers are using slowing down the pace (K)
-Differentiating instruction for large classes with L1-L5 (K)
-Lack of academic language (K)
-Investigate why L1 and L2 students are not speaking (i.e., lack of opportunities; lack of
linguistic patterns, sentence frames, frontloading vocabulary; cooperative structures
between high and low) (K-M)
-EL coach more theoretical than practical (teachers want practical) (K)
-Collaboration
-Lack of desire to meet with and collaborate with other SDAIE or EL teachers (M)
-Lack of vertical and horizontal articulation (EL-->SDAIE-->AP) (Teachers need to set
EL students up for success so that, at some point, EL students have access to the AP
courses) (M-O)
-ELD teachers feel ELD is ignored (ELD meets in isolation from other groups) (O)
-Teachers feel a lack of group cohesion between ELD and content teachers (M-O)
-Cultural deficit perceptions (increase cultural capital)
-Quick to blame students and parents for lack of students’ progress (K-M)
-One administrator said that LTELs are cognitively deficient (K)
-Latino students are not motivated enough (external attribution) (Latino vs. Asian
stereotypes) (K)
-Asian parents “too pushy” and Latino parents not “pushy” enough (K)
-Latino parents lack skills, language, and time to help their children (K)
-Some teachers believe that Asians learn faster and do not need as much support (K-M?)
-Parents lack a support system (K-O)
-Few teachers said LTELs are comfortable in SDAIE and do not want to move up (M)
-Students’ lack of access to Honors, AP, and A-G courses (K-O)
-LTEL children have opportunities to speak in English at school but not at home (K-M?)
-Student lack of self-efficacy (Teachers said this about students—Cultural deficit?) (K-
M)
-Systemic Support for LTELs
-Lack of systemic LTEL support (K-O)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 113

Appendix E: Second-Round Interview Questions

Goals: (Teachers, Counselors, Admin, DO) – Sufficient data collected during scanning
interviews; no further investigation necessary.

Scheduling:
1. Ask admin why have they chosen to schedule classes with L1 through L5 in content
courses? Have they considered other models (i.e., mainstreaming)?
2. Ask admin why SDAIE classes are so large?
3. Ask admin what is the priority in master scheduling? Who/what gets placed first, second,
third, . . . ?
4. Ask counselors what is the priority in master scheduling? Who/what gets placed first,
second, third, . . . ?
5. Ask counselors how they place L3 students?
6. Ask content teachers, since L1 through L5 are in the same class, what do you do to
differentiate?
7. Ask teachers about what a typical class period looks like (how much time for each
activity)?
8. Ask teachers about the pacing guide (do they feel pressured to cover the content in the
allotted time for benchmarks and CSTs)?
9. Ask all what can be done to improve scheduling (i.e., minutes, placement, instructional
days)?
Strategies:
1. Ask teachers what are the main instructional strategies that you use in the classroom to
address the needs of your LTELs? (SDAIE . . . please be more specific).
2. Ask teachers how do you check for understanding?
3. Ask teachers how do you create opportunities for your students to talk (i.e., use
academic language)?
4. Ask teachers do you know who your LTELs are? How do you differentiate for them?
5. Ask teachers what supports would you like to receive (from EL coach, admin,
counselors, each other)?
6. Ask admin what strategies are emphasized during professional developments?
7. Ask admin what strategies do you look for (do you see and do you hope to see) when
you walk into an EL/SDAIE classroom?
Collaboration:
1. Ask teachers how often do you collaborate and with whom do you collaborate?
2. Ask teachers what does collaboration look like? What should it look like?
3. Ask teachers if they want to collaborate.
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 114

4. Ask admin what opportunities are teachers given for collaboration?
5. Ask admin what does collaboration at RHS look like and what should it look like?
6. Ask counselors if they do collaborate, would they like to collaborate, and with whom?
7. Ask counselors how much communication do you have with teachers? With admin?

Increase cultural capital:
1. Ask all what do you think are the views that your colleagues have of LTELs?
a. Why are LTELs not academically successfully?
b. What should be done to improve the academic achievement of LTELs?
2. Ask all what do you do to learn about your students? (i.e., their culture, their home life,
prior schooling)?
a. Is it important to you? Why?
b. Ask teachers how does it inform and guide your curriculum and instruction?
3. Ask all what assets do LTELs bring?
Systemic Support for LTELs:
1. Ask all does the school do anything systemically to support LTELs?
2. Ask all are there any schoolwide goals to address the needs of LTELs?
a. What should the goals be?
These are the six themes that emerged from the data collection and the literature review: goal
alignment, scheduling, collaboration, teaching strategies, need to increase cultural capital, lack of
systemic support for LTELs. Do you agree that these are the main themes that contribute to the
gap of LTEL academic achievement? Is there anything that you would add or remove from the
list? How would you prioritize the list?

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 115

Appendix F: Presentation to the Principal of Prioritized Causes and Other Findings

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 116

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 117

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 118

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 119

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 120

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 121

Appendix G: Rigor High School (RHS) Bell Schedule
Monday Late Start Schedule
Start Time End Time Length
Period 1 8:45 a.m. 9:27 a.m. 42 minutes
Period 2 9:33 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 42 minutes
Period 3 10:21 a.m. 11:05 a.m. 44 minutes
Period 4 11:11 a.m. 11:53 a.m. 42 minutes
Period 5 11:59 a.m. 12:41 p.m. 42 minutes
Lunch 12:41 p.m. 1:21 p.m. 40 minutes
Period 6 1:27 p.m. 2:09 p.m. 42 minutes
Period 7 2:15 p.m. 2:57 p.m. 42 minutes

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday Schedule
Start Time End Time Length
Period 1 7:10 a.m. 8:05 a.m. 55 minutes
Period 2 8:11 a.m. 9:06 a.m. 55 minutes
Period 3 9:12 a.m. 10:12 a.m. 60 minutes
Nutrition 10:12 a.m. 10:22 a.m. 10 minutes
Period 4 10:28 a.m. 11:23 a.m. 55 minutes
Period 5 11:29 a.m. 12:24 p.m. 55 minutes
Lunch 12:24 p.m. 1:01 p.m. 37 minutes
Period 6 1:07 p.m. 2:02 p.m. 55 minutes
Period 7 2:08 p.m. 3:03 p.m. 55 minutes

GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 122

Appendix H: Teaching Strategies

Instructional
Strategies
Teaching Strategies References
Vocabulary
Development

 Cognate transfer
 Word sort
 Concept definition map
 Expository text
 August, Carlo, Dressler, &
Snow (2005)
 Carlo et al. (2004)
 Echevarria & Vogt (2010)
 Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton
(2009)
 Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton
(2012)
 Using varying and
meaningful contexts
 Word sort
 Cloze sentences
 Concept definition map
 Expository text
 Carlo et al. (2004)
 Echevarria & Vogt (2010)
 Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton
(2012)
 Review and practice
 Cloze sentences
 Inner-outer circle
observation and
discussion
 Carlo et al. (2004)
 Echevarria & Vogt (2010)
Capitalizing on Prior
Knowledge and
Cultural
Backgrounds

 Students’ funds of
knowledge
 Interview students’
families
 Creating a “third space”
 Gutierrez , Rymes, & Larson
(1995)
 Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez (1992)
 Students’ prior knowledge
 Use of primary language
during quickwrites
 Venn Diagram or Double-
Bubble Map to compare
and contrast student’s
personal experiences to
character’s experiences
 Brooks & Karathanos (2009)
 Echevarria & Vogt (2010)
 Risko & Walker-Dalhouse
(2007)
GAP ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT 123

Instructional
Strategies
Teaching Strategies References
Structured
Cooperative
Learning Groups

 Sentence frames as a scaffold
to solicit and guide
discussion
 Echevarria & Vogt (2010)
 Jigsaw activities  Slavin (1991)
 Socratic seminar with pilots
and co-pilots
 Koellner-Clark, Stallings, &
Hoover (2002)
 Tredway (1995)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Long-term English learners (LTEL) have been in U.S. schools for 6+ years, but schools have failed to get these children to academic proficiency. The LTELs of Rigor High School (RHS), although attending a high-performing school, have been outperformed by their English-only and redesignated counterparts. To close this achievement gap, a modified gap analysis framework was used to identify the causes of LTEL underachievement at RHS and recommend research-based solutions. ❧ First, the inquiry team considered the goals of RHS and identified gaps. Next, the team reviewed relevant literature, analyzed school data, and conducted interviews of school personnel. The team then hypothesized knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes for the gaps. The following six primary causes were identified: 1) need for improved goal alignment, 2) need for increased teacher collaboration, 3) lack of varied teaching strategies targeting LTELs, 4) placement options not meeting the needs of LTELs, 5) need for systemic support for LTELs, and 6) need to increase cultural capital. These causes were validated through second interviews. ❧ While the dissertations of the entire inquiry team collectively offer solutions to the six causes identified, this dissertation focuses on solutions for only two causes. The first set of solutions offers a variety of teaching strategies targeting the needs of LTELs, including vocabulary development, building on prior knowledge and cultural background, and leading structured cooperative learning groups. The second set of solutions focuses on mainstreaming LTELs to resolve current problems arising from placing this student population in the same classes as beginning-level English learners.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School 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: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

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

PDF

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

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Shah, Julie Arvind (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/29/2013

Defense Date 02/05/2013

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

Tag English language learners,gap analysis,long-term English learners,mainstreaming,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching strategies

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), Robles, Darline P. (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email julshah@hotmail.com,teachingstarfish@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-227884

Unique identifier UC11295278

Identifier usctheses-c3-227884 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ShahJulieA-1488.pdf

Dmrecord 227884

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Shah, Julie Arvind

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA