University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS

1

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

by
Evelyn Jimenez

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 Evelyn Jimenez

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 2
Dedication

Dedicated to my family: to my parents, Daniel and Juana, and my brothers, Danny and
Ivan. You all have taught me the importance of education, the value of hard work, and the love
of family. Thank you for standing by my side throughout the entire journey.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 3
Acknowledgements

This dissertation is the culmination of an effort that could not have been possible without
the support of many individuals. I would like to thank my inquiry teammates, Michael Kurland
and Brent Morris, who shared their expertise with me. For his guidance, patience and critical
counsel, I thank my dissertation advisor Dr. Robert Rueda. Thank you to my dissertation
committee, Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Kenneth Yates for all the time and dedicated advice that
they provided me as co-advisors. Finally, I thank my colleagues at Loyola High School for their
support and encouragement, especially, Dr. Ann Holmquist, Matthew Schaeffer, and F. Douglas
Brown.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 4
Table of Contents

List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 11
The Problem at the National Level 11
The Problem in the State of California 14
Importance of the Problem 16
Nationally 16
State of California 17
Statement of the Problem 17
THS 18
Purpose of Analysis 19
Conclusion 20
Chapter 2: Review of Literature on ELL Students 21
English Language Learner Population 21
Heterogeneity of Population 22
Types of English Language Learners 22
Socioeconomic Status 24
Parents’ Education Level 24
Education Reform for English Language Learners 25
Theoretical Models Explaining Differences in Academic Achievement 29
Cultural Deficit Model 29
Cultural Difference Model 30
Cultural Ecology Model 30
Major Educational Considerations 32
Tracking of English Language Learners 33
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient 35
Access to Four-Year Universities 37
Latinos and Four-Year Universities 38
Cultural Capital 38
Linguistic Capital 39
Standardized Testing 40
Summary 41
Conclusion 42
Chapter 3: Information Gathering Steps 43
Methodology 43
An Overview of the Community, District, and School 46
An Overview of the Community 46
An Overview of the District 46
An Overview of the School 48
Student Performance 50
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient 51
Problem Areas 52
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 5
Underachievement of English Language Learners 52
Low Rates of Redesignation to Fluent English Proficient 53
Gaps and Global Goal 53
Procedures 55
Institutional Review Board (IRB) 56
Timeline 56
Data Collection Tools 56
Interviews 57
Scanning Interviews 57
In-depth Interviews 60
Surveys 60
Student Survey 60
Parent Survey 61
Focus Group 62
Achievement Records 63
Academic Transcript 63
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives 64
Culminating Presentations 65
Root Causes Group Presentation 65
Solutions 65
Executive Summary 66
Chapter 4: Findings and Patterns 67
Overview of Possible Causes 67
Findings 68
Assets 68
Positive Educational Environment 68
Teachers Were Open to Change 68
Committed Vision to Fostering a College-going Culture 69
Safe Learning Environment 69
ELLs Making Annual Progress in Learning English 70
ELLs Attaining the English Proficient Level on the CELDT 70
Areas of Growth 72
Lack of Shared Vision 72
Frustration Over Communication 72
Compartmentalized Responsibility for ELLs 73
Inadequate Counseling Resources 74
ELL Students Do Not Expect to Get Into a Four-Year University 74
Lack of Perceived University Affordability 75
Parent Frustration Over Perceived Lack of Communication 75
Parent Frustration Over the Language Redesignation Process 77
Low Academic Achievement in Coursework 77
Low Proficiency in Grade Level Standards 78
Identification of Root Causes 78
Achievement Goals Communicated in General Form 79
Lack of Enhanced Parent-Involvement Initiatives 80
Lack of Enhanced Coordination of School Support for ELLs 81
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 6
Inadequate Access to School Counseling Resources 81
Lack of Perceived University Affordability 82
ELL Student Achievement Not Consistent with Expectations 82
Conclusion 83
Chapter 5: Literature Review on Possible Solutions 84
School Support for English Language Learners 85
Effective Schools 85
Effective Schools for English Language Learners 87
Shared Responsibility for English Language Learners 88
Professional Learning Community 90
School Culture That Values Diversity 92
School Culture and Latino Students 94
Creating Partnerships with Parents of ELLs 96
Inadequate Access to School Counseling Resources 98
Latinos and the ASCA National Model 101
Summary 102
Conclusion 104
Chapter 6: Proposed Solutions 105
Recommendations 105
Recommendation One: Develop Intermediate and Performance Goals 106
Recommendation Two: Become More Structured for Collaboration 108
Recommendation Three: Adopt an “Assets-based” Perspective 110
Recommendation 4: Create a Partnership with Parents 111
Recommendation 5: Establish Clear and High Expectations 112
Evaluation 115
Cautions and Limitations 117
Conclusion 117
References 118
Appendices:
Appendix A: Inquiry Project Timeline – Gap Analysis Activity Log 130
Appendix B: Gap Analysis Presentation to the Administrators 131
Appendix C: Scanning Interview Questions 134
Appendix D: In-depth Teacher Interview Questions 138
Appendix E: Student Survey Questions 139
Appendix F: Parent Survey Questions (English) 142
Appendix G: Parent Survey Questions (Spanish) 143
Appendix H: Presentation to the Principal 144
Appendix I: Achievement Records 148
Appendix J: Student Survey Results 151
Appendix K: Parent Survey Results 153

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: A-G Requirements 36
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational 59
Table 3: Strengths of THS 72
Table 4: Validated Root Causes for ELL College Readiness Gap 79

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: ELL Students’ Gaps in Achievement on the API, CAHSEE,
CST (ELA), GPA, and A-G Requirements 54
Figure 2: Stakeholder Goals for Trojan High School 55
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 9
Abstract

This capstone project applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to identify
performance gaps, develop perceived root causes, validate the causes, and formulate research-
based solutions to present to Trojan High School.
1
The purpose was to examine ways to increase
the academic achievement of ELL students, specifically Latinos, by determining the gap that lies
between the school’s desired results and its current performance. This project was carried out
with an inquiry team of three doctoral students, and looked at the underachievement of ELL
students as measured by the lack of students meeting eligibility to a four-year university. After
looking at the goals of the school related to this population, and determining performance gaps,
the inquiry team developed a list of possible causes. The team examined the list of possible
causes through a review of data from interviews, surveys, a parent focus group, and achievement
records. After analyzing the data, six primary causes were identified and validated: (a)
achievement goals for ELLs were communicated in general form, (b) lack of enhanced parent-
involvement initiatives, (c) lack of enhanced coordination of school support for ELLs, (d)
inadequate access to school counseling resources, (e) lack of perceived university affordability,
and (f) ELL student achievement was not consistent with their expectations. While the three
dissertations (see Morris, 2013, and Kurland, 2013) of the inquiry team collectively offer
solutions to the six causes identified, this dissertation focuses on solutions for two causes. The
first set of solutions aims to build school wide support for ELLs and focuses on providing
adequate school counseling resources to ELL students.

1
In order to maintain confidentiality of participants, this dissertation uses pseudonyms to refer to the school.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 10
Chapter 1: Introduction
Authors: Evelyn Jimenez, Michael Kurland, Brent Morris
2

The Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC)
developed the capstone project as part of the thematic dissertation process. In this specific
project, the focus was the implementation of a problem-solving model, gap analysis, in which
students served as consultants to a school to help address performance gaps. The inquiry team
worked together throughout the entire dissertation process to develop the tools of inquiry, to
conduct the inquiry, to code and analyze data, to develop findings, and to suggest research-based
solutions to present as recommendations to the school. Based upon the description of this project
as a problem solving effort, 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.
The names of the school, district, and all stakeholders have been withheld to maintain
confidentiality.
In this capstone project, a team of three doctorate students: Evelyn Jimenez, Michael
Kurland, and Brent Morris from the USC Rossier School of Education conducted the gap
analysis at Trojan High School (THS). Initially the school instructed the inquiry team to focus on
the overall academic achievement of Latino ELL students. As the project progressed, THS
focused their interest on college readiness for their Latino English language learner student
population. The remainder of the document describes some background on the general problem
under consideration, a description of the gap analysis model and its implementation in this
specific setting, and the solutions generated as a result of the analysis. Before describing the
school, the chapter presents a picture of this issue at the national and state level.

2
This chapter is a revised version of a document originally created jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team
approach to this project. While this document is still based on that earlier document, it has been modified by the first
author.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 11
Background of the Problem
3

The Problem at the National Level
The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Motivating factors that have
brought immigrants to the U.S. include a lack of resources and opportunities in their home
countries, abuses of their government, extreme poverty, and in some cases, the search for an
adventure (Garni, 2010). While the reasons for leaving may vary for each individual, the
commonality lies in the belief of the “American Dream.” The “American Dream” is being able to
achieve success and prosperity through such qualities as determination, hard work, and courage
(Hill & Torres, 2010). In essence, the idea that through hard work and perseverance they can
achieve better lives for themselves and their families here than in their home countries. Public
schools in the U.S. have historically been seen as a doorway to achieve the “American Dream.”
As the nation’s population becomes increasingly diverse due to immigration so does the
student population in public schools. Immigrants in the U.S. consist of both those who are
foreign born and those who are U.S. born. Data from the Pew Hispanic Center (2006) indicated
that of the last 100 million inhabitants the United States has gained, over half are immigrants or
the children of immigrants. Immigrants whether they come here or are native born bring with
them their cultures, values, and languages, and one setting where these play out is in public
schools.
The growth in racial and ethnic diversity in public schools has increased the number of
students who come from households where languages other than English are spoken at home.
The number of school-aged children (children ages 5-17) who speak a language other than
English in their homes has increased to 11.2 million (Aud et al., 2010). These students enter U.S.

3
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 12
schools because of immigration with differing degrees of English proficiency. The most
commonly used terms to describe language abilities limited in English are limited-English
proficient (LEP), English learner (EL), or English language learner (ELL). For the purpose of
this project, the term English language learner is used. ELL refers to a person who speaks a
primary language other than English and for whom English is not yet a fluent language for
conversational and academic purposes (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Schools in the
U.S. face the challenge of how to meet the needs of the growing number of language minority
students.
Over the past years, the ELL population across the nation has grown significantly. From
the 1997-1998 school year to the 2008-2009 school year, the number of ELLs enrolled in public
schools increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million (National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition [NCELA], 2011). Statistics show that the ELL population will continue to grow in
the next few years. Projections for the future estimate that by 2020 the population of school age
children will grow by 4.8 million, and Latino children, many of whom are ELLs, will account for
98% of that increase (Fry, 2006). The U.S. school system has not been able to successfully meet
the needs of the growing Latino population.
A greater part of Latino students struggle academically and lag behind their peers.
4

Latinos demonstrate significant achievement gaps on national assessments compared to their
White and Asian peers (Gándara, 2010; Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, 2009). On the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "the Nation's Report Card," a
nationally representative sample of fourth and eighth grade Latino youth scored lower than
Whites and Asians. On the 2011 reading assessment, 37% of Latino eighth grade students scored

4
The terms Latino and Hispanic are used interchangeably, as individuals from a variety of regions tend to self-
identify using either classification. This review will use the term Latino to encompass individuals whose heritage is
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South American (Grieco & Cassidy, 2001).
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 13
below basic and only 18% scored at or above proficient, whereas, 41% of White and 46% of
Asian/Pacific Islander students scored at or above proficient (National Center for Educational
Statistics [NCES], 2011a). Similarly, in math 40% of Latino eighth grade students scored below
basic and 20% scored at or above proficient, whereas, 43% of White and 55% of Asian/Pacific
Islander students scored at or above proficient (NCES, 2011b). Researchers suggest that the
persistent gap among the Latino population has to do with the language barrier among this group
(Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). A substantial number of Latinos in the
U.S. are ELLs.
An overwhelming proportion of Latinos in the U.S. are ELLs, and ELLs are among the
lowest achieving students. A recent NAEP study examined the score differences between Latino
and White students from 1990 to 2009, and the report compared NAEP reading and math scores
for fourth and eighth

graders. Although the report focused on the achievement of the entire
Latino group, it also showed a large difference between ELL Latino students and Latino students
proficient in English. The discrepancy between eighth grade ELL Latino students and non-ELL
Latino students was 39 points in reading and 34 points in mathematics, roughly, four grade levels
(Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). Acquisition of English is one of the pressing issues among
Latinos especially with the growing number not achieving.
Unfortunately, poor achievement leads students to low levels of school completion rates.
At the national level, Latino students have the lowest graduation rates of all students (Ruiz-de-
Velasco & Fix, 2000). Of every 100 Latino students, many of whom are ELLs, only 61 will
graduate high school. Thirty-one of those who graduate will complete some postsecondary
education and 10 will graduate with a bachelor’s degree (Venezia, Callan, Finney, Kirst, &
Usdan, 2005). The education of students, specifically Latino ELLs has become a challenge for
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 14
the U.S. educational system. The education crisis at the national level is a reality at the school
level in the state of California.
The Problem in the State of California
The education crisis confronts schools in California with the need to effectively educate
ELL students. During the 2009-2010 school year, approximately 1.4 million ELLs attended
California public schools, which equaled 23.2% of the total enrollment. Thirty-seven percent of
the total enrollment of students in public schools in California spoke a second language at home.
Seventy-one percent of the ELLs enrolled in California public schools enrolled in elementary
grades (K-6), while 29% enrolled in grades 7 through 12. Eighty-two percent of the ELLs in
California public schools spoke Spanish (California Department of Education [CDE], 2012a).
Consequently, Latinos constitute the largest group of ELLs in the state of California. Projections
suggest that the number of Latino ELLs in California public schools will increase as new
immigrants arrive and the U.S. born children of immigrants begin school.
English language learners, of whom the majority are Latinos, are among the most
underperforming subgroup in California. In the quest to promote equality in education, No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) delineated federal requirements for the education of all
children, and specifically for minority and underrepresented students. NCLB measures the
academic success of all students in California by how well students perform on standardized
tests. The goal of NCLB is that all students reach academic proficiency by 2014 (NCLB, 2002).
In the state of California, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward the 2014 proficiency goal is
based on two measures: California Standards Test (CST) and the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE).
Patterns of ELL students’ underperformance are becoming increasingly evident in
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 15
California. English language learners do not score well on the CST, which is the standards-based
test administered to all students every year in California. The CSTs are part of the Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment program and measures students’ achievement of
California’s academic content standards. The State Board of Education set five benchmarks to
indicate a student’s proficiency on the CST. These levels are: far below basic, below basic, basic,
proficient, and advanced. Students are expected to score proficient or above on the test. In 2012,
25% of ELL students scored proficient or above on the ELA portion, compared to 64% of
English-only students. In mathematics, 37% scored proficient or above, compared to 55% of
English-only students (CDE, 2012b). Data from the CST indicate that an achievement gap
between ELL and English speaking students exists in California.
The second measure for federal accountability is the CAHSEE. The CAHSEE is a high-
stakes test that every high school student in California must pass to earn a high school diploma.
For the class of 2012, 81.7% of ELL students met the CAHSEE requirement by passing both the
English-language arts and mathematics portions of the exam (CDE, 2012c). For the class of
2012, this means that 18.3% of the ELL population did not meet one of the requirements to
obtain a high school diploma. Achievement data based on the CAHSEE results for the class of
2012 suggests that ELLs have a lower CAHSEE pass rate and consequently lower graduation
rates.
Additionally, a large number of ELLs in California, despite their many years in school,
are not English proficient and have difficulty making progress towards redesignation. These
students are referred to as Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) because they have been in the
U.S. schools for more than five years and have made little to no progress toward achieving
proficiency in English (Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2002). Long-Term English Learner
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 16
students make up more than half of the students identified as ELL in California. The number of
students referred to as LTEL varies by grade level, with about 69% of elementary school (grades
3-5) ELLs and about 31% of secondary school (grades 6-12) ELL students (Olsen, 2010). Long-
Term English Learners have not demonstrated mastery of academic English, subsequently,
influencing their school experiences. These students have limited access to higher-level college
preparatory courses and higher education opportunities. Academic achievement is necessary for
students to be able to succeed in K-12 schools, as well as, in college.
Importance of the Problem
5

Nationally
There is an inherent obligation to offer all students equal opportunities for access to higher
education. The implementation of NCLB has placed a demand on states, school districts,
schools, and stakeholders including administrators and teachers to educate all students to
proficient levels. NCLB provisions for assessment and accountability are designed to focus on
increased levels of achievement by requiring states to develop assessments in basic skills to be
given to students in particular grades and subgroups of students including: students with
disabilities, students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and students with limited English
proficiency. Each subgroup must show growth on the annual standardized assessment (NCLB,
2002).
The disaggregation of data by subgroup reveals disparities between the achievement of
native English speakers and ELL students. The lack of English language proficiency is a barrier
that prevents ELL students from competing in the job market and earning competitive salaries.
McManus, Gould, and Welch (1983) report that employees with an English language deficiency,

5
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 17
12 years of school experience, and 20 years of work experience will make an average of 35%
less than employees who are English proficient. Given the current high unemployment rate and
competitiveness for jobs, those who lack English language proficiency are at a disadvantage
when it comes to employment. President Obama underscored the importance of college
attainment when he told the National Urban League that 8 out of 10 new jobs would be filled by
those with higher education degrees (Obama, 2010).
State of California
The academic achievement of ELL students is important because they represent an
increasing percentage of the state of California’s school age population. Despite the efforts that
many people have made, California secondary schools are failing to educate most of the ELLs in
the state (Goldenberg, 2008). A likely consequence of this pattern is that ELL students, of which
the majority are Latinos will not be well prepared for college level academic work, resulting in a
significant percentage of California’s future labor force unable to meet the demand for skilled
workers. As more ELLs enroll in California public schools, their continual academic
underperformance, if it remains unaddressed, carries potentially harmful effects for the nation.
Statement of the Problem
6

The growth in racial and ethnic minority students in public schools has produced a
significant increase in the number of ELLs in public schools, both nationally and in California.
Despite educational reforms such as NCLB that have focused on ELLs, there remains a
significant achievement gap between native English speakers and ELLs, the majority of which
are Latinos. Latinos are the fastest growing student population and account for 82% of the ELLs
in California. The achievement gap for Latino ELLs is a serious problem that prevents them from

6
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 18
competing in the job market and earning competitive salaries. Despite being the fastest growing
student population, Latino students are the most underrepresented group in higher education.
Given the long-standing nature of the problem, and the seriousness of the issue for public
education, the current project focused on the ELL achievement gap at THS. THS found itself
struggling to effectively and consistently promote high levels of student achievement amongst
their ELL population, of which the majority are Latino. Latino ELLs at THS have consistently
experienced challenges in meeting national and state educational targets.
THS
THS despite being a suburban high school has experienced the same issues with their
ELL population as many other schools at the national and state level, specifically, low
achievement on standardized tests and a lack of college readiness. Based on the mission
statement, THS strives to provide every student with opportunities to succeed while enhancing
each student’s ability to become productive contributors to a global society. However, upon
taking a closer look at the ELL population, the data suggest that an achievement gap is present.
English language learners make up 15.2% of Trojan High students with the vast majority
speaking Spanish (CDE, 2012d). The ELL subgroup at THS is not living up to the mission
statement.
The achievement gap at THS exists between the achievement of ELLs and the overall
performance of the school. In 2010-2011, the ELL population at THS earned an Academic
Performance Index (API) of 740, compared to the school API of 809. The ELL subgroup had a
decline in performance of 22 points from the previous year. In the ELL subgroup 15% scored
proficient or advanced in ELA, 11% in mathematics, 31% in science, and 22% in history. Grade
ten results of the CAHSEE are also used to compute AYP designations required by NCLB.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 19
Disaggregating the CAHSEE data by the performance of each significant subgroup and their
proficiency, a telling gap in the data indicated that only 11% of the ELL subgroup was proficient
in ELA and 41% was proficient in mathematics (CDE, 2011b). The data from the CSTs and
CAHSEE show that ELLs at THS are struggling to acquire the basic knowledge and are at a
disadvantage when considering postsecondary options. The administrators at THS showed
investment in addressing the challenges that hinder progress for their ELL population.
Purpose of Analysis
7

The purpose of this analysis was to examine ways to increase the academic achievement
of ELL students, specifically Latinos at THS, by determining the gap that lies between the
school’s desired results and its current performance. The gap analysis framework by Clark and
Estes (2008) provides a comprehensive evaluation grounded in a research-based theoretical
model. The gap analysis framework was ideal for this specific inquiry because it assisted the
team in identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes underlying the
persistent levels of underperformance contributing to THS’ achievement gap (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). To this end, this project addressed the question: What are the root causes
that create the persistent achievement gap resulting in the lack of college readiness amongst
Latino ELLs at THS? The ultimate goal was to help THS increase the academic performance of
their Latino ELL population. In order to address the question, the gap analysis framework helped
the inquiry team identify gaps, identify assumed causes, validate these causes, and identify
research-based solutions. Thus, the information gathered here provided the THS community, as
well as the district, a means to discuss and implement at greater efficiency.

7
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 20
Conclusion
8

The following chapter provides a background on the ELL population including the major
educational issues seen for this population that may be related to the issues present at THS. The
chapter looks at both a national and a local perspective of the current literature that affects ELLs.
In addition, the literature review examines theoretical models, which explain differences in
academic achievement between the ELL population and other students.

8
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 21
Chapter 2: Review of Literature on ELL Students
Authors: Evelyn Jimenez, Michael Kurland, Brent Morris
9

This chapter begins with an introduction of the ELL population focused on the
heterogeneity of the group. Next, it provides an overview of the major legislative considerations
regarding the ELL population. To explain the differences in the achievement of ethnic minorities
the cultural deficit model, the cultural difference model, and the cultural ecology model are
presented. Finally, this chapter covers the major educational considerations including: tracking
of ELLs, redesignation to fluent English proficient, and access to four-year universities.
English Language Learner Population
10

The number of ELLs has grown consistently over the last twenty years. English language
learners represent the fastest growing segment of the school age population. This growth
represents an increase in school enrollments in every part of the country, including states that
have rarely seen growth in the past. California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois account
for 60% of ELLs (Perkins-Gough, 2007). In recent years, other states have begun to see a rapid
growth in the number of their ELLs. Between the years 1995-2005, states such as Alabama,
Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee have experienced a 300%
growth in their ELL population (NCELA, 2011). Projections suggest that by 2030 ELLs will
comprise 40% of elementary and secondary students (Thomas & Collier, 2001). With the
majority of ELLs in elementary grades, the bulk of education research for ELLs focuses at the
primary level. English language learners represent a highly diverse group and subsequently
present challenges for educators who work with them. Schools classify ELL students as a single

9
This chapter is a revised version of a document originally created jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team
approach to this project. While this document is still based on that earlier document, it has been modified by the first
author.
10
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 22
subgroup, but differing characteristics of students within this group pose specific instructional
issues and challenges with regard to student achievement.
Heterogeneity of Population
Schools often misplace or inadequately serve ELLs because there is an assumption that
they are a homogenous group. Students classified as ELL come to school with a range of
differences including cultural and economic backgrounds, skills, and experiences. They vary in
languages spoken but also in countries of origin, immigrant-generational status (Reardon &
Galindo, 2009), level of English proficiency (Solano-Flores, 2008), and dialect of native
language spoken (Solano-Flores & Li, 2006). Although the majority of California’s ELL students
are Spanish speaking, the homogeneity of primary language masks variations in family make-up,
economic and social resources, proficiency in primary language, and academic readiness
(Freeman et al., 2002). English language learners are a heterogeneous group of students with
diverse experiences, backgrounds, languages, and educational needs.
Types of English language learners. The diverse educational experience of ELLs
provides insight into their instructional needs. Specifically, the instructional need of ELLs varies
with the type of schooling experiences that students bring to the classroom. Freeman, et al.
(2002) noted that any successful educational program for ELLs must address the variety of
experiences that ELLs bring with them. They identified differing characteristics of ELLs by
classifying them in three groups: newly arrived with limited formal schooling, newly arrived
with adequate schooling, and Long-Term English Learners. Each group possesses specific
characteristics and instructional challenges. They found that a student’s level of schooling in the
primary language was a strong predictor of academic achievement in the target language.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 23
Freeman et al. (2002) describe the newly arrived with limited formal schooling ELL as a
student who has been in the U.S. for less than five years and has had limited formal schooling
experiences in their native country. This student often has limited, or no, literacy skills in the
primary language and is often below the grade level expectation in math as well. Additionally,
this student is likely to struggle academically because the student does not yet understand the
concepts being studied, even in the primary language, and cannot yet fully understand instruction
delivered in the target language, English, to develop a better understanding. Unlike the learners
who enter school literate in their primary language, these learners struggle with reading and
writing in the target language of English and may struggle in the primary language. They may
not have learned academic concepts in the primary language and, therefore, may have neither the
content nor the vocabulary background to support understanding and learning of the content in
the target language (Freeman et al., 2002).
The second type of ELL is newly arrived with adequate schooling. This ELL is educated
in the primary language and has already developed knowledge of academic concepts and
academic vocabulary in the primary language. Students with adequate schooling may have
studied English in their native countries, but this is often limited to learning vocabulary while
they have not had the opportunity to develop conversational English skills. These English
learners tend to be more successful with class assignments, yet they often continue to struggle
with standardized tests. This may be due, in part, to limited academic language fluency in
English making it difficult for these students to identify key points in both challenging distracters
and actual correct answers (Freeman et al., 2002).
The third type of ELL is the LTEL. This ELL has been in the U.S. for five or more years
and is below grade level in reading, writing, and, possibly, math. This group includes transitional
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 24
students who have moved back and forth between the U.S. and their families’ country of origin,
subsequently attending school in both countries, as well as, students who have received
inconsistent schooling in the U.S. because they have moved in and out of English as a second
language and mainstream programs. Due to inconsistent attendance patterns, these students may
not have experienced regular participation in coherent English language development instruction.
English language learners in this category often sound fluent in English because they have
conversational English skills, but these students do not have the academic language proficiency
required to fully participate in instruction or to demonstrate understanding on tests (Freeman et
al., 2002). In addition to these three types of ELLs, socioeconomic status and parents’ education
level places a significant factor in the lives of many ELLs.
Socioeconomic Status
A disproportionate number of ELL students are raised in poverty. Over the past 30 years,
from 1980 to 2010, the socioeconomic condition of ELL students has remained persistently low.
ELL students are more likely to live in a low-income household. In 2007, 66% of ELLs had a
family income below 200% of the federal poverty level, compared to 37% of non-ELL youths
(Lee, 2002). Poverty has a varying degree of negative influence on student’s academic
achievement. A study conducted by Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) concluded that the
negative effects of poverty are more pronounced for children who persistently live in poverty,
who experience poverty during the early childhood years, and who live in the deepest poverty.
In terms of cognitive abilities, children living below the poverty threshold are more than 1.3
times as likely as non-poor children to experience learning disabilities and developmental delays
(Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).
Parents’ education level. English language learners are also more likely to have parents
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 25
with limited formal education. Half of ELLs in elementary school have parents with less than a
high-school education, and one in four have parents with less than a ninth grade education
(Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005). Data indicates that 22% of ELLs had a
parent with a postsecondary degree, compared to 44% of students from English-speaking
households (Lee, 2002). Schools with ELL students face the challenge of providing them with
opportunities to maximize their learning. For years, the ELL achievement gap has been of great
concern to policymakers and educational leaders in the U.S.
Education Reform for English Language Learners
11

Since the 1960s, federal and state legislation has attempted to reform the educational
system to meet the needs of all students. Education for ELL students has vastly changed over the
last 50 years starting with the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 up to the most recent law of No
Child Left Behind and Horne v. Flores U.S. Supreme Court decision. The two major sides to the
debate is whether or not children who do not speak English should assimilate completely to
English, or be taught in their native language and slowly build the English into their vocabulary
(Gold & Maxwell-Jolly, 2006).
As more non-native English speaking students began to appear in America’s public
schools, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was written into law as an amendment to Title VII
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This Act provided school districts with
federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative bilingual educational
programs for students with limited English proficiency, but was not specific about requirements
for any school. The lack of specifics pushed civil rights activists to claim language minority
students were having their rights violated (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). Thus in 1974, two

11
Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland wrote this section. Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 26
significant events helped clarify the intent and design for English language learner programs, the
landmark case of Lau v.Nichols and the passage of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act
(EEOA).
In Lau v. Nichols (1974), a class action lawsuit was filed for over 1,800 Chinese-speaking
students against the San Francisco Unified School District superintendent. The U.S. Supreme
Court over turned the lower court’s decision and found that the district failed to meet the
language needs of these students denying them equal access to education, which is a violation of
their civil rights (Gándara, Moran, & Garcia, 2004). At the same time, Congress passed the
EEOA, which effectively extended the Lau ruling to all students and school districts, ensuring
that all federally-funded agencies addressed the needs of those limited in English proficiency
(Gándara, 2000; Gándara et al., 2004). Lau v. Nichols and the EEOA contented that students
should not be discriminated because of their language, however, they did not prescribe how
schools should meet the needs of ELLs (Gándara, 2000).
The next major legislation to affect ELLs was Proposition 187 in California (1994),
which was introduced to deny undocumented immigrants healthcare, social services, and public
education. California voters approved it and became law, however, the U.S. district court
overruled it declaring the law unconstitutional. However, Proposition 187 paved the way for
Proposition 227. Proposition 227 affected a students access to bilingual education programs
(Gold & Maxwell-Jolly, 2006). This proposition, effectively ended most bilingual education
programs and replaced them with courses taught in overwhelmingly English, creating the
structured English immersion models ((Parrish et al., 2006; Stritikus, 2003). Structured English
immersion programs use English adapted to the students’ level of comprehension to provide
content area instruction (Parrish et al., 2006). Proposition 227 was a landmark decision as it was
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 27
the first state proposition to dictate pedagogical strategies for instructing students (Gándara,
2000; Parrish et al., 2006; Torrez, 2001).
Proposition 227 made provisions for parents to request a waiver to allow their children to
continue to receive bilingual instruction, however, it did so under specific conditions. The
specific conditions included: that the child know English as measured by standardized tests, the
child be over ten years of age and that the school staff agree that another approach is in the best
interest of the student, or that the child has special needs that warrant an alternate program
(Parrish et al., 2006). Only when parents have requested and been granted a waiver can a child be
moved out of an all-English instruction program.
In 2001, the Bush administration reauthorized ESEA into NCLB. This new version of
ESEA sought to push education for all students through four pillars: Stronger Accountability for
Results, More Freedom for States and Communities, Proven Education Methods, and More
Choices for Parents (Thomas & Brady, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). NCLB
requires that all government-run schools receiving federal funding administer statewide-
standardized tests annually to all their students. Schools assess students annually to chart their
academic growth. The student groups and school’s growth should increase each year to the
expected AYP criteria set by the U.S. Department of Education. If a school or district that
receives Title I funding fails to meet their AYP criteria for two consecutive years, they are
labeled “in need of improvement” and are required to create a two year plan of improvement and
must allow students the option to transfer to another school, as well as other sanctions (CDE,
2011a). Although many parts of NCLB, such as improper funding, support, accountability, and
punishment issues have been controversial, NCLB has increased greater accountability for all
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 28
students as it forced schools to disaggregate their data into individual subgroup populations such
as English language learners (Lindholm-Leary & Hernandez, 2011).
Most recently, in 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court decision for Horne v. Flores, allowed
states to determine their own requirements with regards to ELL instruction concerning state
funding support for EEOA compliance. This new ruling allowed the state to determine its own
requirements with regards to English language learner instruction, programs and funding, with
the 5-4 majority opinion stating that evaluation of the state actions should focus on student
outcomes rather than on spending and inputs to schools (Robinson, 2011). Thus, the focus is on
what the school accomplishes rather than how they accomplish these outcomes or providing the
funding required for programming.
State and federal mandates such as Proposition 227 and NCLB, are mandates that affect
ELLs. In California, this means that ELLs are receiving instruction related to standards and that
instruction is in English. At the national level, Lau v. Nichols and the EEOA contented that ELLs
should not be discriminated because of their language. Although legislation on the federal level
calls education systems of states to educate all students, there is a significant gap in achievement
across subgroups of students. Despite these state and federal mandates, more than 60% of ELL
students are stuck at the intermediate level of language acquisition, consequently, struggling
academically (Clark, 2009). After years of implementing policies to create educational reform
that focus on the needs of ELLs, data continue to show that a significant achievement gap exists
between native English speakers and ELLs. Test scores, grades, and drop-out rates show that
White, English language proficient, middle to upper class and non-disabled students tend to
outperform all other groups (National High School Center, 2009). The achievement gap shows
that there is a difference in the educational needs of ELLs and native English speakers. The
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 29
persistent disparity between the performances of students has become a focal point. Researchers
have suggested a variety of explanations for understanding the achievement gap of ethnic
minorities.
Theoretical Models Explaining Differences in Academic Achievement
12

The achievement gap in education is a lived reality. In this era of accountability, public
awareness of the disparities in student achievement has increased. There are multiple
perspectives offered for understanding the gap in academic achievement. According to Academic
Models: Explaining Achievement (AMEA), 2007, three perspectives to explain the differences in
the achievement gap of ethnic minorities are: cultural deficit theory, cultural difference theory,
and cultural ecological theory.
Cultural Deficit Model
The first theoretical model, cultural deficit theory, explains poor performance of ethnic
minority students as the result of an impoverished and restricted home life as well as other
factors seen to be inherent in individuals, families, and/or communities. The underlying theory
behind the deficit model is that students do not achieve because they lack a cognitively
stimulating environment (AMEA, 2007). The lack of a cognitively stimulating environment
includes: the lack of parent support, low value placed on education, and a language poor
environment. According to this perspective, ethnic minority students and poor students enter
school with a lack of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu (1986) defines cultural capital
as the accumulation of specific forms of knowledge, skills, and abilities that privileged groups in
society value. Subsequently, suggesting that capital associated with the dominant group has the
most status in society. As a result, ethnic minorities in this model are seen as second rate when

12
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 30
compared to the majority group. Other variations on a deficit approach focus on additional
presumed deficits such as intelligence, motivation and related factors.
Cultural Difference Model
The second theoretical model, cultural difference theory, points to the differences in
values, expectations, languages, and communication patterns between teachers and students or
schools and families as a source of difficulty for ethnic minority students. The underlying theory,
is that the social organization, learning formats and expectations, communication patterns, and
sociolinguistic environment of schools are incongruent with the cultural patterns of different
ethnic groups, therefore, limiting the opportunity for student success (AMEA, 2007). The poor
academic performance is a result of the mismatch between group values and school norms.
Cultural Ecology Model
The third theoretical model, cultural ecology theory, attributes social, economic, and
political forces as factors that interact in complex and dynamic ways with individual and group
characteristics that in turn affect the achievement of ethnic minorities (AMEA, 2007). One
example of an approach from this perspective is Ogbu’s cultural ecological view (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). The underlying theory behind Ogbu’s cultural ecological view is that there are
uneven power relationships between groups in society. Ogbu and Simons (1998) explain two
primary forces that contribute to the academic success or underachievement of minority students
in the United States by focusing on two types of minorities: voluntary and involuntary.
Ogbu and Simons (1998) define voluntary minorities as those that voluntarily moved to
the U.S. because they believed this would result in economic well-being and better opportunities.
Examples of voluntary minorities in the U.S. are immigrants from Africa, China, India, Japan,
and Korea. The positive expectations they bring with them influence their perceptions of society
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 31
and schools. Voluntary minorities are generally more optimistic about the future and their
children usually do not experience persistent problems in social adjustment and academic
achievement (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). In these communities, social, peer, and psychological
pressures encourage them to have academic performance better than average. Since they chose to
come to the U.S., they think of hardship as a temporary problem. Voluntary minorities tend to
believe that they will be able to overcome these problems through education and hard work
without losing their minority group identity.
Ogbu and Simons (1998) describe involuntary minorities as those groups that are a part
of U.S. society due to slavery or colonization rather than by choice. For example, these groups
include African Americans (brought to the U.S. as slaves), Mexican Americans, and Native
Americans. Contrary to voluntary minorities, involuntary minorities do not have another
homeland perspective to compare to, they compare their chances of success with the dominant
White group and conclude that they are worse off. They often attribute their difficulties to
“institutionalized discrimination” which cannot be eliminated by hard work and education alone
(Ogbu & Simons, 1998, p. 172). Involuntary minorities tend to distrust schools and believe that
crossing cultural and language barriers will result in a loss of their social identity.
Involuntary minorities see their cultural and language barriers in school as a group
identity to be maintained and therefore avoid change. Individuals from minority groups have
different socialization experiences that have an impact on their academic motivation to achieve
academically. This theory emphasizes that it is important for teachers to know how students’
backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicity affect their learning. As evidence for this perspective, Ogbu
has noted that high-achieving immigrant groups in the U.S. often perform significantly less well
in other sociocultural contexts. An example would be Koreans in the United States versus in
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 32
Japan. While Ogbu’s perspective has been criticized for “blaming the victim” and for putting
groups into homogenous categories that ignore the heterogeneity in the populations, it does
illustrate the complex sociocultural factors, which contribute to student achievement outcomes
(Ogbu & Simons, 1998).
Although different, these theories highlight the notion that the achievement gap for ethnic
minorities is real and poses a significant challenge to schools. Public schools are called to meet
the challenge of providing appropriate instruction to students from diverse linguistic and cultural
backgrounds. English language learners are no exception to this challenge because they must
have equitable access to appropriate school supports to ensure that they can meet their potential.
Major Educational Considerations
13

Access to academic skills and knowledge to succeed in school, progress towards high
school, and attend college is dependent on instruction. Upon enrollment in California schools, a
family must fill out the Home Language Survey (HLS). All students whose primary language on
the survey is not English must take the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT). These students are tested for listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities. Based
on the assessment outcome, the student falls in one of five overall proficiency levels: Beginning,
Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced. The overall proficiency level
of an ELL determines their placement in language programs. Language programs have sought to
narrow the achievement gap between native English speakers and ELL students. For ELLs at the
secondary level, placement in less challenging courses has an effect on their post-secondary
options.

13
The authors reflecting the team approach to this project jointly wrote this section.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 33
Tracking of English Language Learners
14

Various models exist for the practical instructional program design for the education of
ELL students. There are beneficial and harmful implications for students enrolled in various ELL
programs. In theory providing, ELLs with support will provide them with the support needed to
raise their literacy skills in English. However, in practice, research has indicated low-track
placement based on language proficiency frequently results in exposure to less rigorous content,
fewer learning opportunities, and a significant negative influence on performance beyond that of
poverty than those students placed in higher tracks (Abedi & Herman, 2010). At the high school
level, instruction depends on track placement, which represents the ELL students’ opportunity to
learn. Programs and policies related to the education of ELL students are often based on the
belief that fluency in English is the primary requirement for academic success (Callahan, 2005).
In most cases, schools respond to the learning needs of ELL students around their
language needs, subsequently placing them in remedial, low-level classes instead of college-
preparatory courses. A study by Harklau (1994) investigated the track placement of four Chinese
students in a U.S. high school. Originally, the school placed all four students, according to their
demonstrated academic ability, in low-tracked classes. Two of the students were able to change
their track placement. The two students who changed their track placement discovered how the
ability tracking system operated and used that knowledge to renegotiate their place within it.
Harklau (1994) argues that it is critically important for teachers to teach the inequities of the
tracking system to ELL students so that they might have some power in overcoming low track
placement due to English proficiency. The English language learners who negotiated entry into
high-track courses developed higher literacy levels, while those who remained in low-track

14
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 34
courses continued to repeat and respond to low-level questions. Assigned to lower level classes,
ELLs exhibited limited academic proficiency because of weak instruction (Harklau, 1994).
In the same way, Callahan (2005) examined whether track placement or English
proficiency was a stronger predictor of the academic achievement of high school ELL students.
The study divided English language learners into three cohorts: LTELs, recent immigrants with
high amounts of previous schooling, and recent immigrants with minimal amounts of previous
schooling. Callahan (2005) found that track placement itself has a greater effect on high school
ELLs grades and math test scores than level of English proficiency. In addition, Callahan (2005)
concluded that the time in American schools correlated negatively with entering high track
academic programs. As such, ELL students who had arrived recently to the U.S. had a better
chance of entering high track academic programs than those who had attended U.S. schools
longer. ELL students who had been in the U.S. for several years had a lower chance of entering
the high academic track. Also, Callahan (2005) found that 98% of ELLs she surveyed did not
apply for a four-year state college or university because of the lack of qualified teachers, low
expectations, and use of tracking for ELL students.
Another problem with low track placement is that many ELL students remain in these low
track classes after several years in the U.S. public school system. Assessment policies have
inadvertently created a class of ELLs unable to exit English learner programs. Educational
policies in some states require only oral proficiency in English, others such as California require
that students demonstrate academic proficiency through standardized achievement test results.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 35
Redesignated Fluent English Proficient
15

English language learner students exit language support programs through the process of
redesignation. The California Education Code § 313 (2011) requires the use of multiple criteria
to determine if a district should redesignate a student from ELL to redesignated fluent English
proficient (RFEP), though the district has final discretion. When an ELL student is judged to
have attained fluency in English and meets all requirements their status changes to RFEP. Upon
redesignation, generally there is a reduction or elimination of the extra services and support
previously provided. This change in support and instructional setting may adversely affect the
newly redesignated student depending on whether or not the English development services and
support were still helpful (Gándara, 2005; Robinson, 2011). Robinson (2011) suggests that the
only way to know if the services and support were or are currently helpful is to create a binding
score for all standardized tests and compare them for students who are currently in English
immersion programs versus students who have recently redesignated and been moved to
nonsupport programs. Robinson (2011) found that existing redesignation policy is currently
harming some students in high school, in that students who were redesignated are not necessarily
doing better on their future tests.
Flores, Painter, Harlow-Nash & Pachon (2009) found that in general, redesignation is on
average beneficial to the students learning and thus students should be redesignated as soon as
they can. Following that logic, Gándara and Rumberger (2009) found that ELLs in secondary
schools are often tracked into a dead end path, subsequently never completing the A-G
requirements. The A-G requirements are a sequence of 15 year long courses that students must
complete with a grade of C or better needed to meet eligibility for admission to the University of

15
Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland wrote this section. Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 36
California (UC) or the California State University (CSU) system. A student must complete
eleven of the fifteen A-G courses by the end of their junior year. Table 1 summarizes the A-G
requirements.
Table 1
A-G Requirements
Subject Years Details
A History/
Social Science
2 Two years of history/social science, including one year of
world history, cultures and geography and one year of U.S.
history or one-half year of U.S. history and one-half year of
civics or American government
B English 4 Four years of college-preparatory English that include
frequent and regular writing, and reading of classic and
modern literature. No more than one year of ESL-type
courses can be used to meet this requirement
C Mathematics 3 Three years of college-preparatory mathematics that
includes the topics covered in elementary and advanced
algebra and two-and three dimensional geometry.
Approved integrated math courses may be used to fulfill
part or this entire requirement, as may math courses taken
in the seventh and eight grades that your high school
accepts as equivalent to its own math courses
D Laboratory
Science
2 Two years of laboratory science providing fundamental
knowledge in at least two of these three foundational
subjects: biology, chemistry, and physics. Advanced
laboratory science classes that have biology, chemistry, or
physics as prerequisites and offer substantial additional
material may be used to fulfill this requirement, as may the
final two years of an approved three-year integrated
science program that provides rigorous coverage of at least
two of the three foundational subjects
E Language Other
than English
2 Two years of the same language other than English.
Course in languages other than English taken in the
seventh and eighth grades may be used to fulfill part of this
requirement if your high school accepts them as equivalent
to its own courses
F Visual &
Performing Arts
2 A single year-long approved arts course from a single
Visual & Performing Arts discipline: dance, drama/theatre,
music or visual art
G College
Preparatory
Elective
1 One year (two semesters), in addition to those required in
"a-f" above, chosen from the following areas: visual and
performing arts (non-introductory level courses), history,
social science, English, advanced mathematics, laboratory
science and language other than English (a third year in the
language used for the "e" requirement or two years of
another language
* Source: http://www.ucop.edu/agguide/a-g-requirements/index.html
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 37
Gándara and Rumberger (2009) reported that many ELL students begin their elementary
years in English immersion and never exit, with the highest performing ELLs redesignating as
RFEP and the lowest performing students becoming concentrated in the English immersion
classes. The schedules for ELL students were primarily place fillers that contained little college
preparatory requirements. Creating learning environments that give ELLs the opportunity to
access and learn rigorous content is crucial for them to gain entry to post-secondary institutions
such as the UC and CSU system.
Access to Four-Year Universities
16

English language learners face a compound challenge gaining entrance to four-year
universities. ELLs face an increased challenge to meet college preparatory requirements when
schools structure course placement to support their language development. These courses do not
contain the academic content to meet the four-year eligibility requirements (Callahan, 2005;
Callahan, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2010). Student transcripts that include Advanced Placement
(AP) or Honors level coursework significantly influence university admission decisions. Geiser
and Santelices (2004) argue that underrepresented students, particularly from poorer schools,
have a distinct disadvantage gaining access to AP courses. Within the same school
underrepresented students are frequently tracked into non-college preparatory courses and
therefore do not enroll in as many AP courses as their White counterparts. Large schools serving
higher proportions of minority students do not offer as many AP courses as those serving White
students (Zarate & Burciaga, 2010). ELLs many of whom are Latino must also contend with the
burden of competing for college access with students proficient in English.

16
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 38
Latinos and four-year universities. The literature reveals a pattern of obstacles for
Latinos in general, including: parent education levels, access to AP courses, disparate income,
and performance on standardized examinations (Contreras, 2005). According to
universitybusiness.com, 80.8 % of Latino adults, ages 25-34 did not have a college degree as of
2009. Other national trends illustrate the lack of equity for college-bound Latinos. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau only 12.7% of Latino adults earned a bachelor’s degree as of 2007
compared to 30% of their white counterparts (Zarate & Burciaga, 2010). A closer examination of
the inputs that play a significant role in Latino college attainment follows.
Cultural capital. Research relating to the gap in Latino access to four-year universities
frequently cites cultural capital and socioeconomic status. Perez and McDonough (2008)
interviewed 106 Latino college-bound high school students in southern California and found that
family members, including cousins, aunts and uncles, are a primary source of information about
colleges. Friends are also cited frequently as influential to Latino college bound students. The
interviews revealed a strong desire to stay close to family and friends, which sway Latino high
school students towards community colleges and public universities. The Latino students
interviewed in this study were influenced by the reduced costs for remaining near home at
community colleges.
Older friends and family members who have gone to college are also influential sources
of information. The literature shows that Latino students rely so heavily on family sources for
college admission information. Tierney and Auerbach (2004) suggest that colleges and
communities should target entire Latino families and friendship networks with admission and
financial aid information so that students get quality advice and the opportunity to develop
cultural capital. Ong, Phinney, and Dennis (2006) examined the parental influence of 123 Latino
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 39
college students and found that among socioeconomic disadvantaged students, academic
achievement was linked to individual and family-level influences. The study also revealed that
Latino students who reported higher levels of family support and ethnic identity experienced
higher academic achievement.
The research may create a perception that all underrepresented students, including
Latinos and ELLs, face the same obstacles and have the same beliefs, fears and goals towards
college admission. Tierney (2009) interacted with three 17-year-old Latino seniors as they
prepared to go to college. The students were from low-income high schools in the Los Angeles
area with grade point averages exceeding 3.0. Tierney (2009) concluded that each student’s
experience was unique, yet none of the students had accumulated the cultural or social capital
that their White middle class counterparts did throughout adolescence. Applying to college
begins long before a student’s senior year in high school and underrepresented students must
develop social and cultural capital well before their senior year if the college admission gap is to
be closed.
Linguistic capital. Collins (1999) explains that linguistic capital is a form of gate-
keeping that uses writing composition courses at major universities to segregate students by
perceived writing ability. Collins (1999) describes a system where students who come from
middle class, suburban, non-minority backgrounds are frequently placed into a regular
composition class because of their experience with essayist writing. Students in regular
composition classes receive full college credit and are usually tracked toward classes that fulfill
degree requirements. Students who come from minority backgrounds and whose style of spoken
English carry over to their writing are more likely to be placed into basic composition classes
that do not earn college credit and impede student progress towards degrees. Collins compares
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 40
linguistic capital to Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of reproduction where higher education institutions
distribute social capital to maintain the economic power of the majority. Social capital and
linguistic capital are frequently barriers for college bound Latinos to navigate.
Standardized testing. Standardized testing for ability and intelligence is another input
that places Latinos and ELLs at a disadvantage for college admission. Although the SAT and
ACT tests have generally been accepted as valid, Kaufman (2010) argues that the tests measure
something different from what was intended to be measured for certain ethnic groups and
therefore reflects differential validity. In other words, Kaufman (2010) argues that different
constructs may not be measured across ethnic groups by the same test. The example is given that
a test may measure verbal ability for Caucasians, but may be measuring exposure to American
culture for Latinos. Kaufman (2010) contends that testing for creativity could add a more
objective measurement to the college admission process.
Walpole et al. (2005) studied the perceptions of 227 urban African American and Latino
high school students and found that students’ believed that standardized tests are obstacles that
prevent them from applying to and being admitted to college. The study revealed that African
American and Latino high school students needed more information about test preparation
strategies. Students from a lower socioeconomic status lack the resources to pay for college
admission tests, and preparation courses and materials. The students in this study were aware of
the important role standardized tests play in college admission decisions, however, their lack of
cultural capital created anxiety and a belief that the tests are unfair generating an internalized
stereotype and lower test scores (Walpole et al., 2005). Latino students face substantial obstacles
to access a four-year university. The lack of cultural and linguistic capital greatly influences
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 41
these students and their post-secondary opportunities–at least the kind that is valued in most
school settings.
Summary
17

This review of the literature examined several issues related to the achievement of
English language learners. The achievement gap continues to be a major obstacle to ensuring a
level of achievement that guarantees ELL students the necessary tools and skills. Based upon a
review of the literature there are eight major points that summarize this chapter:
1. With the majority of ELLs in elementary grades the bulk of education research for
ELLs is focused at the primary level.
2. Schools classify ELLs as a single subgroup, but they represent a highly diverse group
posing instructional issues and challenges with regard to student achievement.
3. Many ELLs live in poverty and their parents have a low level of education.
4. Federal and state legislation has attempted to reform the educational system to meet
the needs of all students including ELLs.
5. Schools frequently track ELLs into coursework that does not qualify them to
complete A-G eligibility requirements to attend a four-year university.
6. The use of tracking has been associated with unequal outcomes, growth and
achievement for ELLs.
7. Although schools strive to make all ELLs proficient in English, students redesignated
as RFEP face elimination of extra services, monitoring, and support that can lead to
adverse effects on academic achievement and access to a four-year university.

17
The authors reflecting the team approach to this project jointly wrote this section.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 42
8. Latino ELLs face substantial obstacles and may lack the cultural and linguistic capital
necessary to allow them access to a four-year university.
Conclusion
18

Based upon a review of the literature and the concerns expressed by the administration of
THS, this gap analysis focused on the academic achievement of ELLs and their readiness to
attend a four-year university. In order to address the concerns of the administration at THS, the
team used the gap analysis framework to confirm the nature and the scope of the problem,
investigate potential causes, and solutions. Patterns can vary widely, depending upon the local
context, but they do provide a useful lens with which to approach the current project. The
following chapter provides an overview of the gap analysis process and an in-depth discussion of
THS.

18
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contributions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 43
Chapter 3: Information Gathering Steps
Authors: Evelyn Jimenez, Michael Kurland, Brent Morris
19

Using the gap analysis process as a framework to study the root causes of the ELL four-
year college readiness gap at THS, the inquiry team assumed the role of consultants for the
administrative team. In contrast to basic researchers who seek to generalize findings, this project
is limited specifically to THS and their ELL population. The purpose was not to create
generalizable knowledge, but to validate possible causes in this specific context. The team
generated possible causes based upon an initial review of the literature, relevant educational
theories, and a variety of data collection tools. The intent was to rule out and validate the root
causes for the problem, which then served as the basis for solutions.
Methodology
20

The purpose of a gap analysis is to help schools and other organizations solve problems
and make sound decisions about products, professional development, and other performance
improvement strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis provides a straightforward,
systematic method to clarify goals and identify gaps from current achievement levels. Rueda
(2011) describes the gap analysis process as a “systematic problem-solving approach to improve
performance and achieve organizational goals” (p. 73). It is a particularly useful tool to
investigate actual causes for the gaps so that organizations do not squander resources and
solutions on assumed causes (Rueda, 2011). The gap analysis model has five steps to ensure a
systematic application of the model.

19
This chapter is a revised version of a document originally created jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team
approach to this project. While this document is still based on that earlier document, it has been modified by the first
author.
20
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are listed
alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 44
The first step in the gap analysis model is defining clear and measurable goals. Although
the global goal provides a framework for the organization, short-term and long-term goals
provide guideposts for people within the organization to reach the desired results. Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that goals should be concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
). They also
suggest that short-term goals (weekly and monthly) are more effective for individuals as opposed
to long-term goals (quarterly and annually). Goals are important for schools, not only to set
directions, but to alert administrators to the need for course corrections and change (Rueda,
2011). Not identifying problem areas in goals, or if the goals are too vague or not measurable,
then finding effective solutions will be very difficult.
The second step is to determine the gap, which is a comparison of current achievement
minus the standard the organization has set as a goal. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that gaps
stem from knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that inhibit organizations from
meeting desired results. Once the gaps are determined, hypothesizing the root causes for the
existence and persistence of gaps should follow. The organization should assess the potential
knowledge, motivation, and/or organizational factors causing the gap. The third step is to
determine causes. Rueda (2011) suggests that the organization needs to validate and prioritize the
causes for the gaps. Traditional qualitative methods such as interviews, surveys, and focus
groups are helpful tools to investigate the assumed causes.
The final step in the gap analysis process is to determine solutions. Solutions should be
researched-based and targeted at the causes and need to be considered by cause type: knowledge,
motivation, and/or organizational. For example, solutions related to organizational causes must
address areas including, organizational culture, organizational behavior, work process, resources
and change management (Clark & Estes, 2008). Once the organization identifies the causes,
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 45
research-based solutions must be aligned to address the causes using the three categories of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. According to Rueda (2011), real world
problems are complex and usually include elements of all three categories of cause but it is more
effective to consider the categories independently to ensure that solutions will match the cause
targeted. For causes related to knowledge and motivation, Rueda (2011) offers a toolkit based on
learning theories and the research literature on how some causes might be addressed. Existing
programs and policies in other schools may be useful in crafting solutions for THS. It is
important to remember that solutions for one school may not be effective in all contexts,
therefore, the solution must be evaluated for suitability by THS.
Effective solutions align culture, process and resources, recognizing the importance of
developing implementation and change strategies. When using research to evaluate solutions for
education, McEwan and McEwan (2003) recommend asking five basic questions:
1. The casual question: Does it work?
2. The process question: How does it work?
3. The cost question: Is it worthwhile?
4. The usability question: Will it work for me?
5. The evaluation question: Is it working for me?
After developing research-based solutions, the next step is to evaluate outcomes (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda 2011). It is imperative that the organization determine whether the
implementation of the solutions have assisted in closing the gap. In chapter six, the inquiry team
provides THS an evaluation model based on the work of Kirkpatrick (1998).
The principal at THS and his administration team were aware that the performance of
ELL students was of concern. The administrative team at THS asked the inquiry team to
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 46
investigate how the school could raise the achievement of Latino ELL students to achieve four-
year university eligibility. Using the gap analysis framework, the inquiry team assisted THS to
examine the problem and recommended research-based solutions to resolve the ELL college
readiness gap. The next section presents a detailed picture of the community and the district in
which THS exists, followed by a description of THS.
Overview of the Community, District, and School
21

An Overview of the Community
22

Situated in a suburban community, THS is located in Southwest Los Angeles County in a
region known as the South Bay. The South Bay is home to several industries including, oil
refining, aerospace, and automotive manufacturers. Both Toyota and Honda maintain their North
American headquarters in the community, and Toyota has donated and collaborated with THS in
the past. The total population of the city is 145,438. The community is primarily White (51.1%)
and Asian (34.5%), with the Latino population (16.1%) at third. More than half of people living
in the city own their own home (57.3%) and less than 6.5% of people live in poverty (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2011). The school district represents the diversity of the city.
An Overview of the District
23

The district consists of seventeen elementary schools, eight middle schools, four high
schools, one continuation high school, one alternative high school, and two adult school
campuses. The district’s jurisdiction includes approximately twenty-one square miles. The
district borders the Palos Verdes Peninsula on the south, cities of Redondo Beach and Gardena to
the west and north, and city of Carson on the East. The district’s 2010-11 API score of 857

21
The authors reflecting the team approach to this project jointly wrote this section.
22
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
23
Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland wrote this section. Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 47
exceeds the performance of the county (762) and the state (778). However, the district is
currently in year one of Program Improvement (PI) since not all subgroups are meeting
proficiency. The district has approximately 24,370 students, the student population is comprised
of 35.2% Asian, 31.3% White, 21.4% Latino, 4% African American, 0.7% Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.6% American Indian/Alaska Native, and 4.8% of two or more races,
and 2.1% unreported. Of the student population, 3,334 (13.7%) are designated ELL (CDE,
2011b).
Given the significant percentage of ELL students, the district offers ELL students a
program. The major goals of the program are to develop English language proficiency and to
provide ELL students access to the core curriculum. The district’s program for Level 1 ELLs is a
Structured English Immersion (SEI). Level 1 classrooms are taught in overwhelmingly English.
These students receive English Language Development (ELD) and academic content through
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). These students may also receive
primary language support from the teacher and/or bilingual instructional assistant. Students stay
in SEI until they have acquired reasonable fluency in English.
Once the student has reached proficiency Levels 2-5, the district considers the student to
have reasonable fluency in English, subsequently placing the student in English Language
Mainstream (ELM). These classrooms are taught in English. The students receive appropriate
ELD and grade level academic content through SDAIE. Some primary language support is
available from the teacher or and/or bilingual instructional assistant. Students stay in ELM until
they are redesignated fluent English proficient.
An alternative program using a Dual Language Immersion model is available with a
parent waiver. Parents have the right to request an alternative instructional program for their
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 48
children in their primary language. The law requires that the district provide an alternate
instructional program if there are 20 or more students at a grade level at a school for whom
parents have made such a request. A Dual Language Immersion model provides integrated
instruction for native English speakers and native speakers of another language, with the goal of
providing high academic achievement, as well as first and second language fluency, and cross-
cultural understanding. Language learning occurs through English instruction. English
instruction increases gradually over the years within the program, with the first two years
consisting of only 10% of the instruction day taught in English. While parents may request to
have their student withdrawn from the program at anytime, to achieve academic proficiency in
both languages the design of the program is intended for a period of at least six years.
An Overview of the School
24

THS is one of four comprehensive high schools in the district. The school has a total
enrollment of approximately 2,201 students, predominately Asian (33.2%), Latino (29.2%),
White (21.8%), African American (7.4%), and the remainder American Indian/Alaska Native,
Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander, or declined to state. From the total population 35.5% of the
students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, 7% are students with disabilities and 15.2% are
ELLs, which is slightly higher than the districts 13.8% average (CDE, 2012d). Sixteen percent of
the school’s students are on the free or reduced lunch program. Although THS is not a Title I
school, it is important to note that one elementary school and one middle school that feed into
THS are Title I schools.
Besides English, there are 27 different primary languages spoken by Trojan High
students. Trojan High is dedicated to helping ELL students succeed in school. Students identified

24
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 49
as ELL enroll in core content courses designed to support their language needs. These Model
English Language Development (MELD) courses (English, Physical Science of the Earth,
Biology, World History, U.S. History) maintain the state content standards, therefore, they are
not noted as “ELD” on student transcripts. In addition to enrollment in an English class, ELL
students may be enrolled in an elective class that supports the development of English language
proficiency. The MELD program is designed to help each ELL have an individualized plan.
Through the MELD program, ELL students are placed in reading and writing workshops, SDAIE
classes, and mainstreamed into regular classes. MELD teachers meet twice monthly to discuss
students and issues of concern. For ELLs to be redesignated out of the program, students must
have a minimum C average, over 36% on CST scores, teacher recommendations, and a district
evaluation.
Trojan High has 88 teachers, two assistant principals, a site supervisor, and a principal.
Support personnel include a student activities director, five campus security aides, three
counselors, one dean, one librarian, two part-time health assistants, one part-time psychologist,
one part-time speech and language pathologist, and six special education assistants (CDE,
2012d). Trojan High offers 21 AP courses and 6.2% of the school population are enrolled in such
courses. For 2010, the graduation rate for THS was 98.3% with less than 1% of a dropout rate,
which has been similar for the past 3 years (CDE, 2012d).
California ranks schools according to two ranking systems: statewide API rank and the
similar school API rank. The statewide API rank ranges from 1 to 10. A statewide rank of 1
means that the school has an API score in the lowest ten percent of all schools in the state, while
a statewide rank of 10 means that the school has an API score in the highest ten percent of all
schools. The similar schools API rank reflects how a school compares to 100 statistically
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 50
matched “similar schools.” A similar schools rank of 1 means that the school’s academic
performance is comparable to the lowest performing ten schools of the 100 similar schools,
while a similar schools rank of 10 means that the school’s academic performance is better than at
least 90 of the 100 schools. The API assessed by the CDE currently measures THS as an 8
school and a 5 compared to schools with similar demographics (CDE, 2012d).
API is an annual measure of state academic performance and progress of schools in
California. API scores range from 200 to 1,000 with a statewide target of 800. School wide, the
API for THS went up three points to 809 in 2011. All student groups at THS had an API of 700
or above except for the students with disabilities group who were currently at 593. The only two
student groups that met their growth target in 2011 were the Asian and Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander populations. All other student groups dropped slightly in 2011, with the two
biggest changes occurring with the African American subgroup, dropping 26 points to 701, and
ELL subgroup, dropping 22 points to 740 (CDE, 2012d). Although THS is a high-performing
school, not all subgroups, including ELLs are meeting AYP. If subgroups fail to meet AYP for
two consecutive years, THS may be subject to federal sanctions (NCLB, 2002).
Student performance. Disaggregated data by subgroup and proficiency levels for each
core subject area showed varied student performance. The most significant gaps were in the
Latino and ELL subgroups. In the Latino subgroup, 51% scored proficient or advanced in ELA,
17% in mathematics, 57% in science, and 55% in history. In the ELL subgroup, 15% scored
proficient or advanced in ELA, 11% in mathematics, 31% in science, and 22% in history. The
ELL subgroup showed a significant gap when compared to the overall school performance. Of
all students, 61% scored proficient or advanced in ELA, 29% in mathematics, 68% in science,
and 60% in history (CDE, 2012d). The goal is for every student to meet or exceed the standard.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 51
There is a significant gap in the performance of the Latino and ELL subgroups. This is a call to
action for THS to make sure that every student is adequately served and has the opportunity to
succeed in future endeavors.
Also, to compute AYP designations required by NCLB, tenth graders’ results of the
CAHSEE establish the percentages of students at three proficiency levels (not proficient,
proficient, or advanced) in ELA and mathematics to compute AYP designations required by
NCLB. Trojan High CAHSEE grade ten results for 2009-2010 showed that 66% of the school
population was passing the ELA exam and 68% were passing the mathematics portion.
Disaggregating data by the performance of each significant subgroup and their proficiency, a
telling gap appeared indicating that only 11% of the ELL subgroup was proficient in ELA and
41% was proficient in mathematics (CDE, 2012d). Improved education for ELL students is key
to narrowing the achievement gap and improving ELL performance.
Redesignated fluent English proficient. Trojan High follows the district’s master plan
for ELL redesignation. This plan dictates that ELL students should meet redesignation to fluent
English proficient in no more than 5 years and that all ELL students must complete the A-G
requirements before they graduate from high school. According to the master plan, ELLs may
take a fifth year in high school in order to help them complete the A-G requirements and
CAHSEE. The district’s redesignation process requires students to meet the following criteria:
1. A student to receive a score of proficient or higher on the CST-ELA.
2. Receive an overall score of early advanced or higher on the CELDT with all subtests of
intermediate or higher.
3. Score a four or better in 4 out of 5 areas of the Student Oral Language Observation
Matrix (SOLOM).
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 52
4. Achieve a GPA of 2.0 or better in academic classes with no grades below a “C” or
equivalent.
5. Be recommended for redesignation by the redesignation team comprised of a parent,
administrator, teacher, ELD coordinator, ELD program specialist, and the ELL student.
Also, the plan describes an alternative method for high school students who have passed the
CAHSEE and have strong recommendations to redesignate even though they have not scored
proficient. In 2011, THS redesignated 50% of ELLs, which is much higher than the current
California state average of 10% of ELLs redesignated each year (CDE, 2011b).
Problem Areas
From multiple meetings, THS principal and the administrative team identified two
problem areas in regards to ELLs, specifically the Latino population. They include:
underachievement of ELL students as measured by standardized tests and grades, as well as, low
rates of redesignation to fluent English proficient. The section below describes each problem
area in detail. Upon further clarification, THS administrators did not want to have graduation
rates or retention rates looked since they were in the 98 and higher percentage.
Underachievement of English language learners. The first problem area identified by
the principal and his administrative team was the low academic achievement of ELLs. English
language learners constitute a significant portion of the school population at THS and the
administrative team recognized that they were falling behind in their academic performance. As
evidenced by the 2010-2011 CST results, only a small percentage of ELLs were scoring at
proficient or above. In the ELL subgroup, 15% scored proficient or advanced in ELA, 11% in
mathematics, 31% in science, and 22% in history (CDE, 2012d). Similarly, Trojan High
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 53
CAHSEE grade ten results for 2009-2010 indicated that only 11% of the ELL subgroup scored
proficient in ELA and 41% scored proficient in mathematics (CDE, 2012d).
Additionally, when data was disaggregated by grades, ELLs specifically Latinos were
having a difficult time achieving grades of C or better in their coursework. The data showed that
75% of the Latino ELL students were receiving a GPA below 3.0. A minimum GPA of 3.0 is
required for admissions to a four-year university. Their goals in this area included: achievement
improvement on the CST by moving all students to proficient or advanced in every category,
100% of ELL students passing the CAHSEE in grade ten by scoring proficient in ELA and
mathematics, and for all students to obtain a minimum grade of C or better for all A-G courses.
Low rates of redesignation to fluent English proficient. The second problem area
identified by THS is the low rates of redesignation to fluent English proficient. Although THS’
reclassification rate is higher than the state, 50% of ELL students are not meeting the goal. Not
meeting redesignation affected students’ post secondary opportunities, specifically meeting the
eligibility requirements to a four-year university. Their goal in this area included: 100% of ELL
students redesignated to fluent English proficient before they graduate by passing the CELDT,
scoring proficient or above on their CST, and earning a minimum grade of C or better for all
required courses.
Gaps and Global Goal
25

An organization’s global goal often derives from its mission statement. The mission
statement of THS is as follows:
All members of the Trojan High School community are committed to providing a safe
and orderly, and supportive environment where students learn to become effective
communicators, responsible citizens and creative, complex thinkers.

25
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 54
Although the mission statement strives to meet the needs of all students at THS, the data from
the API, CST, CAHSEE, and Grade Point Average (GPA) paint a grim picture for ELL students.
Figure 1 illustrates the achievement gap for ELLs, specifically for Latinos since they make up
half of the subgroup.

Figure 1. ELL students’ gaps in achievement on the API, CAHSEE, CST (ELA)
GPA, and A-G requirements.
The inquiry team was challenged by the complexity of selecting the best gap to measure
college readiness. While the API and standardized tests, such as the CST and CAHSEE, may be
viewed as intermediate steps or goals leading to college readiness, they do not align themselves
closely enough with California four-year university admissions requirements to be a useful
measure for the global goal of making all Latino ELLs college ready by graduation from high
school. Consequently, the inquiry team selected the GPA gap as the best measure available to
gauge college readiness for the purposes of this gap analysis project.
Achievement is an integral part of college readiness by virtue of the admission standards
requiring students to complete A-G courses, obtain a GPA of 3.0 or above in these courses, and
obtain passing scores on standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT. The global goal as defined
by the administration team was for 100% of ELL students to meet the eligibility requirements to
API
Schoolwide
809
ELLs
740
Gap
69
CAHSEE
ELA (Proficient)
10th Grade
91%
ELLs
50%
Gap
41%
CST
ELA (Proficient)
All Students
61%
ELLs
15%
Gap
46%
A-G
All Students
Schoolwide
54%
ELLs
Unknown
Gap
Unknown
GPA
Goal - ELLs
100% - 3.0
ELLs 3.0
25%
Gap
75%
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 55
attend a four-year university. Figure 2 illustrates the stakeholder goals for THS. The project
addresses root causes and solutions for each stakeholder group.
Mission
All members of the Trojan High School community are committed to providing a safe, orderly
and supportive environment where students learn to become effective communicators,
responsible citizens and creative, complex thinkers.
Organization’s Goal
All ELL students will meet four-year college admission requirements upon graduation from
high school.
Students Teachers Administrators Counselors Parents
All ELL
students will
achieve a 3.0
GPA
All teachers will
meet with ELL
parents once per
semester to
provide
feedback on
progress
All
administrators
will provide
support and
coordination for
ELL programs
All counselors
will meet with
ELL students
once per
semester
All parents will
engage in at least
one form of
involvement with
the school each
semester

Figure 2. Stakeholder goals for Trojan High School.
To guide the gap analysis that addressed the knowledge, motivation, and/or organizational causes
the team sought to answer the following question: What are the root causes that create the
persistent achievement gap resulting in the lack of college readiness amongst Latino ELLs at
THS?
Procedures
26

The purpose of this section is to describe the procedures used by the inquiry team to
perform the gap analysis at THS. To maintain confidentiality, the names of all stakeholders have
been withheld.

26
The authors reflecting the team approach to this project jointly wrote this section.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 56
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
27

The purpose of this capstone project was to provide assistance to a specific school. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional dissertation,
but rather to provide consultation to THS. Based upon the description of this project as a
problem solving effort for THS, the USC University Park Institutional Review Board (IRB)
concluded that this project did not qualify as Human Subjects Research and was not subject to
further review.
Timeline
The inquiry team’s university advisor, Dr. Rueda facilitated entry to THS. The principal
at THS agreed to the capstone inquiry project. The inquiry team began the project in February
2012 and concluded in the October 2012 (see Appendix A for project timeline). Dr. Rueda
facilitated the initial meeting with the school. The capstone project commenced with a
presentation by the inquiry team to the THS administration team. At this meeting, the inquiry
team met with the principal and the administrative team to explain the gap analysis framework
and process (see Appendix B for the powerpoint presentation slides). In addition, the team
received specific information from the administration team about the areas of inquiry,
specifically the Latino ELL achievement gap. In the spring of 2012, the inquiry team began the
initial phase of the gap analysis by conducting interviews with stakeholders at THS.
Data Collection Tools
28

As the gap analysis process unfolded at THS, the inquiry team used a variety of data
collection tools to clarify goals, narrow the definition of the problem, and search for causes.

27
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
28
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 57
Given the nature of this project, the team used data collection tools such as, interviews, surveys,
a parent focus group, and achievement records. The purpose of data collection was to initially
develop assumed causes and then later to validate these causes and not to produce generalizable
knowledge as in a traditional study.
Interviews.
29
The inquiry team used interviews to understand the context and perceptions
of school administrators, teachers, and language specialists. Interviews are most advantageous
for collecting data on an individual’s perspective and experience. For the purpose of this project,
the team used interviews as the primary source of data collection. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), overconfidence is a real obstacle to finding the causes of gaps. Investigators must
carefully listen to all stakeholders and resist the temptation to jump to solutions based on
misconceptions of the problem or their own experiences. The interviews employed purposeful
sampling strategies that allowed for “selecting information-rich cases for study in depth” to be
chosen “strategically and purposefully” (Patton, 2002, p. 243). The purpose in doing so was to
select influential people, also known as key stakeholders, who could provide insight and disclose
important information into the research question. The team conducted the interviews in two
phases: scanning interviews and in-depth interviews. At the high school, the principal was the
team’s key informant. The principal scheduled all of interviews, meetings, and provided data to
the team.
Scanning interviews. A scanning interview is a method for gathering information from
the environment. For scanning interviews, the team focused on selecting individuals positioned
to give perspective into the ELL achievement gap. As such, the team did not rely on random
probability sampling since the purpose of using scanning interviews was to learn more about the

29
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 58
causes affecting the achievement of Latino ELL students. Random probability sampling is a
method that utilizes some form of random selection to ensure that the different units in the
population have equal probabilities of being chosen (Patton, 2002). Instead, the team used
snowball/chain sampling to identify key stakeholders to interview based on their position at the
school, years of experience, but most importantly close proximity to ELL students at THS.
According to Patton (2002), snowball chain sampling allows for the “identification of cases of
interest from sampling people who know people, who know what cases are information rich, that
is, good examples for study, good interview participants” (p. 243).
By utilizing snowball chain sampling, the team was able to interview stakeholders that
were familiar with the Latino ELL student population. Stakeholders included the ELD
coordinator, guidance counselors, and teachers involved with the ELL student population. The
approach used to conduct the scanning interviews is closest to Patton’s (2002) Interview Guide.
The guide allowed the interviewer to change the sequence of questions or explore certain areas in
more depth, but still maintain focus and a consistent framework for all interviews. The team
developed a scanning interview protocol divided into three general areas of focus: Background
(environment), Goals, and Perceptions of the Problem (see Appendix C). In the guide, the
questions moved from broad (background) to narrow (perceptions of the problem).
The scanning interviews provided the inquiry team with an in-depth understanding of the
various causes affecting the ELL population at THS. The inquiry team analyzed the data from
the scanning interviews along with the review of the literature, educational theories, as well as,
personal knowledge and created a list of possible causes contributing to the lack of college
readiness. Table 2 illustrates the summary of assumed causes separated by type of cause.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 59
Table 2
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Type of Cause
Knowledge* Motivation* Organizational*
ELLs do not know university
admissions
process/requirements. (L)
ELL students lack confidence
because of low prior
achievement (T)
Parents lack access to electronic
academic resources (L)
Teachers don’t know their
expectations are influenced by a
deficit perception (L)
Teachers and counselors have
low expectations of ELLs -
deficit perception (L)
Policies reinforce cultural deficit
perceptions of ELLs (L)
Teachers don’t know how to
differentiate instruction (P)
Teachers don’t see value in
differentiated Instruction (P)
Teachers lack support for
differentiated instruction (P)
Teachers don’t know how to
use strategies and goals (P)
Teachers don’t see value in
strategies and goal use (P)
Teachers lack support for
strategies and goal use (P)
School staff does not know how
to effectively support ELLs (L)
School staff has excessive
workload and doesn’t see value
in ELL support (P)
School organization
compartmentalizes support for
ELLs (P)
School staff do not fully
understand or share goals (P)
School staff lack commitment to
goals that are unclear or not
shared (L)
The school has not established
the clarity or importance of goals
(P)
Teachers and counselors don’t
know how to manage time
effectively (P)
School does not provide enough
professional development (L)
ELLs do not know effective
learning strategies/skills (L)
ELLs lack access to AP or A-G
courses (L)
ELLs have low linguistic
capital (L)
Insufficient interaction with
parents (L)
Staff has heavy workload that
prevents ELL support (P)
ELL families have low SES (lack
of financial resources) (L)
ELL families have minimal
social/cultural capital (L)
ELLs and their families lack
access to school counseling
resources (L)
Note. *Indicates whether source is Personal Knowledge (P), Literature (L), or Learning and Motivation
Theories (T).

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 60
In-depth interviews. After conducting scanning interviews, the team interviewed a small
number of ELL teachers that had direct contact with the Latino ELL subgroup to gain further
insight. In-depth interviewing is a technique that involves conducting individual interviews with
a small number of respondents to explore their perspective (Patton, 2002). As with the scanning
interviews, the team used a general interview guide approach and developed a series of seven
questions to pose to the interviewees (see Appendix D). The team conducted in-depth interviews
with stakeholders at THS to gain detailed information about their thoughts and experiences
working with the Latino ELL subgroup. In-depth interviews provided a more complete picture
for the team to further investigate the assumed causes. The team transcribed the interviews and
coded for themes.
Surveys.
30
The team created individual survey items, after reviewing data from
interviews with school stakeholders and previously listed assumed causes. The purpose was to
assess student’s knowledge, motivation, and environmental factors that affected their plans for
four-year university attainment. Initially the team created a list of 15 demographic questions and
55 descriptive questions. The final list of survey questions provided to students included 10
demographic questions and 31 descriptive questions broken into three categories: knowledge,
motivation, and organizational. The team selected the final list of survey questions to provide
more information for assumed causes implied through the initial interviews.
Student survey. The student survey, collected by THS, was a self-reported anonymous
device for measuring the extent to which students understand the eligibility requirements to
apply to a four-year university, the amount of motivation the students had to go to a four-year
university, and the organizational factors that influenced the student’s application. The survey

30
Michael Kurland wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 61
asked takers to circle their demographic information and then to circle yes or no to each of the
descriptive questions. This survey forced responders to concrete agreement or disagreement for
each statement. The survey did not allow for an undecided answer, however, some students
created their own. These answers along with blank answers were not included in the survey
results. To show all answers equally, the team assigned a percentage score for every descriptive
answer to show the percentage of students that answered, “Yes” for each category.
The team asked the principal and ELD coordinator at THS to review the survey before
students took it. After making all changes, the school made 200 copies and passed one to every
student designated as a Latino ELL (see Appendix E). The principal of THS called all students
with a language code who were available into his conference room over a two-day period, 10-12
students at a time. The principal explained that the survey intended to improve services to ELL
students and each student completed the survey before returning to class. Trojan High provided
the surveys in English only. Of 191 Latino ELL students, 113 were completed and returned to
the inquiry team. Thirty-five of the students were 9
th
graders, 30 were 10
th
graders, 29 were 11
th

graders, 15 were 12
th
graders, and four did not state. Only 15 of these students were born outside
of the United States. The students self-reported their home language on the survey, 36 reported
English, 39 reported English and Spanish, 37 reported Spanish only, and 1 did not state. Also,
the inquiry team took into account school language levels and parent education but none of the
demographic categories had a strong correlation to the descriptive questions.
Parent survey. The team generated individual survey items, after reviewing data from
interviews with school stakeholders. The team filtered through an initial list of 30 items and
reduced the list to 10. The team excluded items based upon redundancy, relevance or clarity
issues. The parent survey is a self-report device for measuring the extent to which parents were
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 62
aware of opportunities to participate in activities designed to involve them in their children’s
education. The statements reflected the acquisition of awareness, access, and expectations.
Survey takers circled a number on a six point Likert scale that most closely corresponded
to their view of parent involvement opportunities. To score the survey, the team assigned weights
of 1-6 for each survey item. Favorable statements are weighted 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 respectively. The
survey forced responders to demonstrate agreement or disagreement by not including an
undecided category. The total score is the sum of all scores on all items with the higher score
reflecting a more favorable evaluation of the acquisition of awareness, access and expectations
related to their child’s academic progress.
The principal of THS called all ELL students receiving language services (191) into his
conference room, 10-12 students at a time, explained that the survey was intended to improve
services, and asked the students to provide the survey to their parents and return completed
surveys to the principal’s secretary. The principal provided surveys in English and Spanish (see
Appendices F & G).
Focus Group.
31
Focus groups are optimal to collect data in a natural setting in which
behaviors occur in their usual contexts. Focus groups allow variables to be looked at in the
natural setting in which they are found and more in-depth information to be gathered (Patton,
2002). According to Patton (2002), focus groups consist of 6-10 subjects with similar
backgrounds who participate in an interview for 1-2 hours. Focus groups allow participants to
hear each other’s responses and can moderate false or extreme viewpoints. Focus groups allow
interviewers the ability to assess consistencies, shared views, or diversity of views.

31
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 63
In the case of THS, the focus group intended to enhance the teams’ understanding of
parent viewpoints gathered from surveys and interviews with THS staff. The team held the focus
group at THS on September 12, 2012 from 5:30 – 6:50 in the evening. The principal provided
the team the list of 191 ELL Latino students with parent contact information. From this list
Evelyn, who is a native English and Spanish speaker, randomly called parents. Upon calling,
Evelyn explained the purpose of the focus group and invited them to take part in the focus group.
The team provided Subway sandwiches to supplement parent’s dinners and to help as an
enticement. Although a focus group was set-up with six parents there were two parents in
attendance.
Achievement records.
32
To assist the team search for causes the principal provided
achievement records from THS. The principal provided academic transcripts and data from
annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAO) for Latino ELL students.
Academic transcript. An academic transcript is a record of all the education coursework,
grades, and credits a student earns in four years of high school. The principal provided an
academic transcript for all Latino ELL students enrolled at THS during the spring 2012 semester.
Students’ final grades recorded on their academic transcript at the end of each semester are
perceived to be indicative of the quality of work a student has completed in a certain course.
Grades have a significant impact on the types of courses students enroll in throughout their four
years of high school and the types of course teachers recommend students take. In addition,
colleges and universities consider grades to be an important part of the admissions process. In
such cases, colleges and universities consider the cumulative grade point average. A cumulative
GPA reflects all courses taken and is calculated using a weighted system.

32
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 64
At THS grades are based on multiple factors including but not limited to tests, quizzes,
class work, and homework. Teachers at THS are required to keep an ongoing and current record
of their student’s grades through the district’s Zangle information system. Teachers report grades
for all students eight times per year: four times per quarter grade reports and four times for
progress reports. THS has also established a rubric for evaluating achievement based on grades.
In general, an A or B grade indicates that a student has demonstrated the capability to do college
work. A student who earns a C grade achieves sufficient subject matter mastery to enable
him/her to proceed to advanced high school work in the subject. A student who earns a D grade
is one whose work is unsatisfactory. A student who earns an F grade infrequently completes
assignments. THS designed these explanatory statements to aid teachers in the development of
the evaluative criteria in their classes. However, THS does not have a standard grading scale in
place. The principal at THS requires that grades should be updated every two weeks. The
principal encourages teachers to use the Parent/Student Connect as a communication tool to
update the progress of students for students themselves, parents, and teachers.
Annual measurable achievement objectives. The principal provided the inquiry team
with data to measure Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) for ELL students.
Title III of NCLB requires districts to define AMAOs to measure and report on progress toward
the attainment of English proficiency and academic achievement standards. Under NCLB, each
state must put in place three specific AMAOs. Each state must define two AMAOs for increasing
the percentage of ELL students making progress in learning English and attaining English
proficiency. Also, states must include a third AMAO related to meeting AYP for the ELL
subgroup (CDE, 2011a). When a school does not meet one or more of the AMAOs, the district
must notify the parents of ELLs. Expectations of AMAOs require schools to work towards
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 65
meeting two targets for ELL students: grade level proficiency in academic core subjects and the
development of English language proficiency within five years. The data for THS’ AMAOs is
reported in chapter four.
Culminating Presentations
33

Root Causes Group Presentation
A preliminary meeting to present the team’s initial draft of validated causes was held
with Dr. Rueda, our dissertation advisor, after all data was collected and analyzed. The inquiry
team agreed that the best way to communicate the progress to the leadership team at THS was to
provide them with a group presentation. The three-member team created a joint presentation for
the common initial findings from the data (see Appendix H). The PowerPoint presentation
contained a quick explanation of the gap analysis process, the method and timeline used to
collect and analyze the data, the positive assets THS already has and can be built upon, the
assumed initial causes, and finally the six validated causes that were researched for solutions in
the literature. Each team member focused on his or her unique root causes. The purpose of the
meeting was to make sure the team was on the right track and did not miss anything during the
investigation.
Solutions Presentation
Once all the research-based solutions were complied and assessed for prioritized causes,
the team presented the solutions to THS. This presentation displayed possible ways to close the
college readiness gap for ELL Latino students at THS. The team drew solutions based upon a
careful review of research and analysis. Each member of the team presented the main slides

33
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 66
pertaining to their work. The team offered THS the Kirkpatrick (1998) evaluation plan for their
consideration when evaluating the solutions.
Executive Summary
Once the team had completed the dissertation, the inquiry team decided that the best way
to communicate the findings with the leadership team at THS was to provide them with an
executive summary. The executive summary provided a brief background of the problem,
discussed the purpose of analysis, summarized the literature review on ELL students, discussed
the methodology reported the finding, and identified the six root causes, and summarized the
solutions. The inquiry team created individual executive summaries for their areas of focus.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 67
Chapter 4: Findings and Patterns
Authors: Evelyn Jimenez, Michael Kurland, Brent Morris
34

Educators who use evidence-based decision making to address problems and identify
solutions generally focus more on identifying assumed problems and finding creative solutions
rather than systematically searching for root causes and ensuring that solutions are properly
aligned with the problems they are expected to address. According to Rueda (2011), institutional
practices that reward action rather than results encourage solutions to be implemented based
upon assumed causes without a closer examination of the root causes. The result can be a
mismatch, where solutions do not correspond with true problems. The gap analysis framework
allowed the inquiry team to use the principles of problem solving to assist THS understand the
nature of the problem in order to intervene, increase effectiveness, and achieve their goal of
college readiness for all Latino ELL students. This chapter reports the findings from the data
collected by the inquiry team.
Overview of Possible Causes
35

The gap analysis framework coupled with the review of the literature, as well as,
educational theories, and the initial scanning interview of THS administrators and faculty
members enabled the inquiry team to uncover possible causes for students’ underperformance at
THS. The inquiry team then organized these possible causes into a spreadsheet, categorizing
them by stakeholder and type of cause. Once the team categorized causes by type, the team
conducted a series of data collection activities that assisted the team in examining the school and
the major stakeholder groups. For this project, the team investigated the causes using: interviews,

34
This chapter is a revised version of a document originally created jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team
approach to this project. While this document is still based on that earlier document, it has been modified by the first
author.
35
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 68
a student survey, a parent survey, a parent focus group, and reviewing achievement records. The
information acquired through these methods assisted the team in eliminating possible causes to
determine a list of six primary possible root causes.
Findings
36

Patterns emerged as the team reviewed scanning interviews, in-depth interviews, the
student survey, the parent survey, the parent focus group, and achievement records. The data
showed assets and areas of growth for THS.
Assets
Positive educational environment. The interviews, informal conversations, and
observations on behalf of the team revealed a positive educational environment. Stakeholders
interviewed seemed genuinely happy to be at THS and committed to student learning. They
described the school as having a “family-like” environment that embraces the diversity
represented amongst faculty and students. The vast majority of those interviewed had been at
THS for over five years, including one that has been there for 28 years. The school has seen low
turnover on behalf of the staff with the exception of faculty laid off due to budget constraints.
Stakeholders interviewed expressed dedication to providing a high quality education for their
students. One person interviewed captured this by saying, “often teachers put extra time during
lunch and after school to help students and other teachers.” Stakeholders want to be at THS and
see their students succeed.
Teachers were open to change. Faculty at THS is aware that not all subgroups are
performing at an adequate level. The faculty understood the need to improve academic
opportunities for their ELL population. The faculty interviewed recognized THS is not

36
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 69
adequately serving their ELL population because these students are “falling through the crack.”
Throughout the interviews, teachers expressed an interest in improving student achievement for
their ELL students. On multiple interviews teachers expressed being “open to change” and “open
to new ideas.”
Committed vision to fostering a college-going culture. The principal’s primary focus
has been improving the academic achievement of students at THS. The principal at THS is
passionate about ensuring that all students, including ELLs graduate college ready. One of his
goals is to build a college going culture for all students. THS has an entire month dedicated to
promoting college awareness, including a college night in the month of October that included
parent breakout sessions in Korean and Spanish. Teachers in the foreign language department
conducted these breakout sessions. In addition, each week of the month of October had a
different theme focused on college attainment and prizes for involvement. Students in all grade
levels participated in college night. Also, the fee for all sophomores to take the PSAT was paid
for by THS.
Additionally, two years ago THS adopted “Naviance Connection” a web based software
program to assist with college and career readiness. The Naviance portal provides students and
their families with a variety of tools designed to create personalized learning goals, including
college and career plans.
Safe learning environment. Teachers interviewed believe that THS provides a safe
learning environment. Stakeholders interviewed expressed feeling safe and secure. Also, based
on informal observation, the team noted that the campus is maintained well. All visitors to the
campus are required to check in with campus security in the office and obtain a visitor’s pass.
The security personnel are visible, engaged, and friendly. In addition to the security personnel
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 70
THS has a Torrance Police Department Officer who is the Student Resource Officer (SRO)
assigned to the campus. THS provides a safe environment for all students and faculty.
ELLs making annual progress in learning English. As discussed previously, the
principal provided the team with achievement records. By looking at AMAO 1 the team
discovered that ELLs at THS made annual progress in learning English. AMAO 1 Progress
measures the percentage of ELLs in an LEA who met the annual growth target on the CELDT.
To calculate AMAO 1 two data elements are needed: One, the number of annual CELDT takers
who took the CELDT during the annual assessment (AA) window. It does not include initial test
takers. Two, the number of ELLs with required prior CELDT scores. To determine the
percentage of ELLs making annual progress in AMAO 1 the team used the following formula:
Number meeting annual growth target
Number with required prior CELDT scores

Using the above formula, AMAO 1 was calculated for students to measure the percentage of
students at THS making annual progress in learning English (see Appendix I). Table I1 (see
Appendix I) shows that for AMAO 1 there were 164 CELDT takers at THS, of those CELDT
takers 80 students are of Latino descent. Of these 80 only 61 students (76.2%) were meeting
proficiency for AMAO 1. The required percentage of ELLs making annual progress in learning
English is 56.0%. This is significant because the majority of Latino ELL students are making
progress in learning English.
ELLs attaining the English proficient level on the CELDT. Similarly, the team
discovered that ELLs at THS attained the English proficient level on the CELDT. AMAO 2
Attainment measures the percentage of ELLs who attained the English proficient level on the
CELDT. Two cohorts are established for AMAO 2 to determine the percentage of ELLs
attaining English proficient level on the CELDT. First, the less than five years cohort contains all
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 71
ELLs who have been in language educational programs for less than five years. Second, the five
years cohort or more contains all ELLs who have been in language instruction educational
programs for five years or more. The time in a language instruction educational program is
determined by subtracting the date first enrolled in a U.S. school from the date CELDT testing
was completed. To determine the percentage of ELLs in each cohort who attained the English
proficient level on the CELDT during the AA window, the inquiry team used the following
formula:
Number in cohort attaining English proficient level
Number of ELLs in cohort

Using the above formula, AMAO 2 was calculated for ELLs who have been in English language
instruction for less than five years and for ELLs who have been in English language instruction
educational programs for five years or more (see Appendix I).
Table I2 (see Appendix I) shows that for AMAO 2 (cohort one) 52 students had been in
English language instruction educational programs for less than five years, of those, 11 students
were of Latino descent. Of these 11 only 3 students (27.3%) met the required attainment
percentage. The required percentage for this cohort is 20.1% as set by the state. This is
significant because Latino ELLs at THS who have been in English language instruction
programs for less than five years are meeting the attainment percentage. Table I3 shows that for
AMAO 2 (cohort two) there were 122 students at THS who had been in English language
instruction educational programs for five years or more, of those, 74 were of Latino descent. Of
these 74 students, 54 (73%) were meeting the required attainment percentage. The required
percentage for this cohort is 45.1% as set by the state. This is significant because Latino ELLs at
THS who had been in English language instruction programs for five years or more were
exceeding the attainment percentage.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 72
Overall, the inquiry team found many assets at THS during the data collection process.
Table 3 summarizes the assets that THS possesses.
Table 3
Strengths of THS
Knowledge Motivation Organization
98% graduation rate Teachers seek to improve
instruction
Positive educational environment
High standardized test scores
(overall)
Faculty was open to new ideas Safe learning environment
Faculty understood the need to
improve the academic
achievement of ELL population

Principal was committed to
fostering a college-going culture
Well maintained campus
ELLs were making progress in
learning English (as measured
by AMAO 1)

ELLs were attaining the English
proficient level on the CELDT
(as measured by AMAO 2)

Areas of Growth
Lack of shared vision. A consistent finding from the interviews reflected the lack of
shared vision within the organization. All of the interviews echoed a clear understanding for the
global goal of encouraging a “college-going culture,” but no consistent definitions were offered
by those interviewed, and there was no sense of how to produce the “college-going culture,” or
what type of intermediate steps could be taken to achieve the global goal. There was an
organizational goal but no intermediate or performance goals that were aligned.
Frustration over communication. There was a strong sense of frustration over
communication uncovered in the interviews. Although hesitant to say anything that could
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 73
jeopardize their working relationships, there was surprising candidness about frustration with the
manner in which the administrative staff communicated and implemented policies. Several staff
members spoke about a policy requiring teachers to write learning objectives on the blackboard
for each lesson. They criticized the effort because no one explained the reason or the benefits of
the procedure, and no one followed up to see whether or not the policy was followed or whether
it was succeeding.
The interviews produced a common opinion that THS passes policies from the district or
administration without providing them with the opportunity to participate in the process. One
stakeholder expressed the sentiment of “a growing divide between teachers and administration.”
During an informal event, the team heard several faculty members lamenting that certain policies
would never be implemented because the principal would be moving on to other leadership
opportunities. There was a palpable sense that the teachers and counselors considered themselves
the permanent “dedicated” staff, while higher level administrators move from one site or
opportunity to another leaving the permanent staff to contend with issues that previous initiatives
failed to solve.
Compartmentalized responsibility for ELLs. The interviews with THS administrators,
counselors, and teachers revealed a consistent pattern of compartmentalized responsibility for
ELLs. Throughout the interviews, the pattern emerged that stakeholders delegated nearly all
responsibility for ELL issues to the ELD coordinator, including the scheduling of ELL students’
coursework. While the interviews reflected high praise on the ELD coordinator, it was clear that
most THS staff do not feel a sense of ownership or identification with ELLs and their challenges.
This sentiment echoed through comments such as, “There is less time and resources available for
ELLs,” “Jenna is the contact for ELLs.” In fact, some stakeholders even blamed ELL families for
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 74
their lack of academic achievement. Comments repeated included, “ELL parents are minimally
involved” and “Families don’t have a college mindset they just want them to learn English.”
Some stakeholders at THS do not share responsibility for ELL students.
Inadequate counseling resources. The data showed that the school counseling program
in place at THS is inadequate in offering support for ELL students and their families. The budget
constraints at the state level affected THS resulting in the loss of two counselors including an
Intervention counselor. As a result, the counselor to student ratio increased and stakeholders felt
“frustrated” with the increase of students on their caseloads. Caseloads at THS currently average
740 students per counselor. The result was that counselors referred ELL students to the ELD
coordinator due to “lack of time.” The ELD coordinator is not a trained school counselor,
however, stakeholders refer students to her. She meets with students, parents, and provides
course schedules for this population.
Similarly, the knowledge questions on the student survey focused on ELL students
perceived understanding of the eligibility requirements to apply to a four-year university (see
Table J1, Appendix J). First, the survey asked if they knew all the requirements for applying to a
four-year university, and then it asked if they knew about each individual requirement. Almost
90% of the students said they did know all the requirements to apply, less than 70% knew what
A-G requirements meant, and 55% did not know what the ACT is. ELL students do not
understand the requirements needed to meet eligibility to a four-year university. Also, grades
play a significant factor in meeting eligibility to a four-year university. The data indicated that
75% of the Latino ELL students are receiving a GPA below 3.0 (see Table I6, Appendix I).
ELL students do not expect to get into a four-year university. The motivation
questions on the student survey allowed the inquiry team to gain a sense of student’s
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 75
expectations to attend a four-year university (see Table J2, Appendix J). The students had high
expectations to earn good grades, pass the CAHSEE, do well on the SATs, and graduate.
However, the results indicated that 80% of the students surveyed had a drop in their expectancy
to attend a four-year university. The data also revealed that 70% did not think they had a fair
chance at getting into a four-year university. The data showed that the majority of Latino ELL
students want to attend a four-year university but expected not to be able to do so.
Lack of perceived university affordability. The final group of questions on the student
survey focused on the expectations they felt from friends, family and teachers, as well as how
supported and amount of access they felt they had to attend a four-year university. The data
revealed that the students seemed to think their parents wanted them to go to university, followed
by teachers, and lastly by friends (see Table J3, Appendix J). In general, the students surveyed
expressed that they were supported to attend a four-year university by their teachers, staff and
THS as a whole, as well as, their parents. The data showed that the majority of the students
thought their families wanted them to stay close to home (60%) and their friends expected them
to stay nearby (50%) after they student graduated. Finally, the largest perceived obstacle from
the survey was the idea that they could not afford a four-year university because money was an
issue to attending a four-year university. Approximately, 40% of the students surveyed thought
that money was not an issue and they could afford to attend a four-year university.
Parent frustration over perceived lack of communication. Out of six parents that
accepted our telephonic invitation to the parent-focus group, two attended. Both attendees were
mothers of THS students (1-10
th
grader and 1-11
th
grader) and appeared very interested and
engaged in their children’s academic progress. When asked if they had been given the
opportunity to participate in the parent-survey, one parent indicated she had not been given the
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 76
survey (which had been sent home with students), the other parent indicated that she was
offended by the survey because it appeared to her that only Latinos were being asked about
parent involvement. Apparently, the briefing and instructions given to students by the THS
principal were relayed either inaccurately or not at all. The team learned from both parents that a
formal letter from the school explaining the purpose of the survey would have made them both
feel more supportive of the survey and the school’s efforts to improve services for ELLs.
The parent-focus group revealed frustration over a perceived lack of communication from
THS. Both parents agreed that there is either no communication or minimal communication
between teachers, counselors, and parents. The inquiry team heard frustration voiced over a
counselor who refused to make an appointment, and would only accept email communication.
Since the parent could not communicate through written English, she was not able to speak with
the counselor.
Although both parents indicated that they have Internet access and regularly check the
school websites, they expressed frustration that all of the online resources were English only (It
is important to note that this may not be the case for many other parents who did not show up).
Both parents were aware of the English Language Multi-Cultural Advancement Committee
(ELMAC) meetings, however their only communication about the meetings came through a
letter from the school district providing dates, but the parents received no communication
directly from THS. This sentiment was also expressed in the survey provided to parents.
Appendix K lists the parent survey findings. Only 13 surveys were returned out of 170. The
principal indicated that he had not distributed the survey until a few days before the end of the
school year and did not have a chance to follow up with students and remind them to return the
surveys. The two most consistent findings from the survey were that parents indicated they had
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 77
not been invited to meet with THS officials concerning their son’s or daughter’s progress with
school work, and that within the past six months they have not met with THS officials
concerning their son’s or daughter’s progress with schoolwork.
Parent frustration over the language redesignation process. The parent focus group
also revealed frustration over the language reclassification process. One parent became quite
emotional, and began to cry when she related her experience of trying to get her daughter
redesignated. Both parents experienced similar obstacles trying to convince THS counselors that
their children were born in the U.S. and speak English fluently. The parents felt that every year
their children were forced to study for English Tests and when they passed, were still not
redesignated, apparently due to poor grades and lack of a teacher recommendation. Both students
received no services other than a study skills class, and could not gain access to A-G classes. For
the last 5 years both students had a classification of L5. The parents interviewed believed the
yearly frustration over reclassification has produced a sense of learned helplessness and a lack of
motivation in their children.
Low academic achievement in coursework. The principal provided the team transcripts
for 191 Latino students at THS. The team obtained a student’s collective GPA for coursework
completed from the transcript. The data indicated that the majority of Latino ELL students at
THS were not performing at a GPA of 3.0 or above (see Appendix I). Of the 191 students, 48
students (25%) were meeting a GPA of 3.0 or above. The remaining 143 (75%) Latino ELL
students fell in the 2.9 or below GPA range. Of these students, 71 (37%) were receiving a GPA
of 2.0 or below. This number is significant because a GPA of 2.0 or better in academic classes
with no grades below a “C” or equivalent are needed for an ELL student to meet one of the
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 78
redesignation criteria. In addition, four-year universities require a minimum GPA of 3.0 to meet
eligibility.
Low proficiency in grade level standards. Upon looking at the achievement records,
the team discovered that ELLs had low proficiency in grade level standards. AMAO 3 AYP
measures the percent of ELLs that must be proficient or above in ELA and mathematics. The
2011-2012 AMAO 3 requirements are the 2012 AYP requirements for participation rate (95%)
and percent proficient (77.8% in ELA and 77.4% in mathematics) for the ELL student subgroup
only. In order to meet AMAO 3 both AYP participation and percent proficient targets in ELA
and mathematics for the ELL subgroup must be met. The ELL student subgroup for AYP
includes RFEP students until they score proficient or above three times on the CST. For AMAO
3 the data indicated that the Latino ELL subgroup population at THS was not meeting AYP
proficiency in ELA and mathematics (see Appendix I). Table I4 shows that for ELA, there were
16 ELL Latino students and only 2 (13%) met the criteria for scoring proficient or above. Table
I5 shows that for mathematics, there were 16 ELL Latino students and only 3 (19%) met the
criteria for scoring proficient or above. These percentages reflect that Latino ELL students at
THS are struggling to meet the academic content and achievement standards.
Identification of Root Causes
37

Following a thorough review of the literature, surveys, the parent focus group, and school
records, the inquiry team compiled a list of assumed causes for the college readiness gap among
Latino ELLs at THS. The process of eliminating some causes and validating others occurred
once the team had disaggregated the data. Through the data analysis process, the inquiry team
grouped similar causes together, subsequently, developing a list of six primary root causes

37
The authors reflecting the team approach to this project jointly wrote this section.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 79
contributing to the lack of college readiness for the Latino ELL population at THS as illustrated
in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Validated Root Causes for ELL College Readiness Gap
Cause Knowledge (K)
Motivation (M)
Organizational (O)
How Assessed/
Validated?
1. Achievement goals for ELLs
communicated without benefit of
intermediate or performance goals

(K) & (O) Interviews
Records
2. Lack of enhanced parent-involvement
initiatives
(K) & (O) Interviews
Focus Group
Survey

3. Lack of enhanced coordination of school
support for ELLs

(O) Interviews
Focus Group
4. Inadequate access to school counseling
resources
(O) Interviews
Focus Group
Survey

5. Lack of perceived university
affordability

(K) & (O) Survey
6. ELL student achievement is not
consistent with expectations
(K) & (M) Survey

Achievement goals communicated in general form
38

The first root cause showed that achievement goals for ELLs at THS were communicated
in general form without the benefit of performance or intermediate goals to guide progress.
Performance goals are specific tasks to be completed within structured criteria and deadlines.
The most effective performance goals are aligned, and compliment the global goals of the
organization. Based upon the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008), this cause is an

38
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 80
organizational and knowledge based issue. The lack of performance goals can be viewed as
knowledge based because those responsible for communicating goals are unaware of the need
for, or the process to construct performance goals. The lack of performance goals may also be
related to organizational barriers. For example, the workload at the school may preclude
administrators from investing the time to develop performance goals. Creating a college-going
culture is the vision or global for THS and the District, but the team could find no evidence of
clearly understood performance goals that would help guide progress towards the global goal.
Lack of enhanced parent-involvement initiatives
39

The second root cause illustrated lack of enhanced parent-involvement initiatives on
behalf of THS. Faculty at THS recognizes the value of parental involvement. THS has made an
effort to encourage involvement with limited success. There is no doubt that the leadership at
THS understands the important role parent’s play in developing a college-going culture. Tierney
(2009) points out the importance of family and counseling networks that support plans for
college years before the actual application process begins. At THS, some parents of ELL
students are frustrated at what they perceive to be a lack of direct communication with them.
Based upon the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008), this cause is an
organizational and knowledge based issue. THS administrators may be unaware of how to
effectively reach-out to the parents of ELL students, pointing to knowledge based cause.
Organizational barriers, such as a lack of bi-lingual resources, may also contribute to the
ineffective parent-involvement initiatives.

39
Brent Morris wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Michael Kurland made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 81
Lack of enhanced coordination of school support for ELLs
40

The third root cause pointed to the lack of enhanced coordination of school support for
ELLs. Ensuring success of ELL students requires the commitment of all stakeholders in a school.
The interviews revealed that the responsibility for ELLs at THS is compartmentalized. Based
upon the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008), this cause is an organizational issue.
Faculty members do not feel a sense of ownership in regards to their ELL subgroup, as such, the
responsibility of ELLs is deferred to the ELD coordinator. There is a need to need to foster an
inclusive culture of ELLs in order for all stakeholders to take responsibility of this subgroup.
Inadequate access to school counseling resources
41

The fourth root cause demonstrated that Latino ELL students had inadequate access to
school counseling resources at THS. The current school counseling program at THS did not
adequately serve ELL students and their families. THS felt the result of the state educational
budget crisis resulting in the loss of two counselors, increasing their caseloads. The outcome was
that ELL students were receiving inadequate advisement, lack of availability, and lack of
individual counseling and attention. Based upon the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes
(2008), this cause is an organizational issue. ELL students and their families at THS need access
to a trained school counselor that can provide them with information and resources to learn about
options for their future. Survey results highlighted the fact that the majority of these students did
not know the requirements needed to attend a four-year university and perceived university
affordability as an obstacle. Creating a college-going culture remains a challenge without access
to school counselors.

40
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
41
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 82
Lack of perceived university affordability
42

The fifth root cause showed the lack of perceived university affordability on behalf of
students and their families. Both the student survey and the parent survey highlighted the fact
that money was an issue for attending a university. The student survey showed that only about
40% of students believed they could afford to attend a four-university and less than 70%
believed they could even afford to apply. Also, interviews with THS counselors revealed that
several students in the past had mentioned this concern to them. It appeared that only students
who expressed these concerns were informed about fee waivers and financial aid. Based upon
the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008), this cause is an organizational and
knowledge based issue.
ELL student achievement was not consistent with expectations
43

The sixth root cause demonstrated that current ELL student achievement is not consistent
with their expectations. Grades play a significant factor for students to gain admission into a
four-year university. On average, the grade point average requirement to be admitted to a
California four-year university is 3.0 or higher. Of the students surveyed, 90% of ELL students
expressed that obtaining a B or higher was important to them and they expected to earn such
grades. However, the data from their academic transcripts revealed a disconnect to this
expectation. Approximately 25% of these students were achieving a 3.0 or higher and 37% of the
students were actually getting below a 2.0 GPA. There is a lack of motivation to achieve high
grades on behalf of Latino ELL students. Based upon the gap analysis framework by Clark and
Estes (2008), this cause is a knowledge and motivation based issue.

42
Michael Kurland wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
43
Michael Kurland wrote this section. Evelyn Jimenez and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 83
Conclusion
44

This chapter presented the findings that validated the six primary root causes for the
college readiness gap that exists among Latino ELLs at THS. First, a brief description of how the
inquiry team reached the possible causes was described. Next, the inquiry team reported the
assets and areas of growth for THS. Lastly, a detailed account of the six primary root causes was
discussed. The next chapter provides a second review of the literature for solutions for two of the
six root causes: lack of enhanced coordination of school support for ELLs and inadequate access
to school counseling resources. The dissertations of Kurland (2013) and Morris (2013) discuss
solutions on the remaining four root causes.

44
Evelyn Jimenez wrote this section. Michael Kurland and Brent Morris made contributions; these authors are
listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 84
Chapter 5: Literature Review on Possible Solutions
Author: Evelyn Jimenez
The purpose of this inquiry project was to look at potential root causes contributing to the
achievement gap that negatively affected the Latino ELL student population at THS. By using
the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, the inquiry project team identified
knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers, which prevented the academic advancement
of the Latino ELL subgroup. The gap analysis was a joint effort. The team focused on and
validated several root causes, including: (a) achievement goals for ELLs were communicated in
general form, (b) lack of enhanced parent-involvement initiatives, (c) lack of enhanced
coordination of school support for ELLs, (d) inadequate access to school counseling resources,
(e) lack of perceived university affordability, and (f) ELL student achievement was not
consistent with their expectations. As part of the gap analysis approach, the team divided the
solutions by areas of interest and specialization of the other team members. While the complete
gap analysis needs to consider all of the root causes jointly, this chapter and the following
chapter, therefore, focus more narrowly on: (a) lack of enhanced coordination of school support
for ELLs and (b) inadequate access to school counseling resources, which is my area of
specialization.
The purpose of this chapter is to review current literature and theory concentrated on
solutions to this focus in order to provide guidance to the school in solving the outstanding issues
related to its goals. The literature review begins with an examination of the characteristics that
make schools serving poor and minority students successful, followed by a review of the
literature of effective schools serving English language learners. Lastly, the literature review
focuses on the importance of ELL students accessing school counseling resources.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 85
School Support for English Language Learners
Most schools employ a one-size-fits all approach to education without considering the
different needs that each student requires and the strengths that each student brings. Classrooms
in public schools continue to function as they traditionally have, based on mainstream White,
Anglo-Saxon culture (Moyer & Clymer, 2009). In order to have successful schools for ELL
students, schools must be willing to adjust. For schools to change and evolve to meet the needs
of students who are ELLs, schools must examine their organizational make-up and determine
how to address changing demographics, as well as, students’ academic and social needs (Alston,
2004). The school environment contributes to fostering how students view themselves and how
others treat them.
Effective Schools
The influential Coleman Report (1966) indicated that significant gaps existed between
white and minority social classes, and these gaps appeared to widen as students progressed
through high school. The Coleman Report (1966) concluded that schools did not make a
difference in impacting student achievement. Instead, the report claimed that family factors such
as poverty or a parent’s lack of education prevented children from learning. This notion sparked
educational researchers to conduct further studies putting into motion the effective schools
movement. The researchers that took part in this movement developed a body of research that
did not discount the impact of family on student achievement but supported the premise that “all
children can learn and that the school controls enough of the factors necessary to assure student
mastery of the core curriculum” (Lezotte, 2009, p. 3).
These researchers identified schools that were successful in educating students from
minority and poverty backgrounds. According to Lezotte (2009), Edmonds was the first to
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 86
formally identify the original correlates of effective schools through his research. The correlates
of effective schools are the characteristics and processes common to schools where all children,
regardless of family background, are learning. Other researchers have reaffirmed Edmonds’
correlates of effective schools. Most recently, Marzano (2003) investigated factors most
significant to school effectiveness and student achievement. His research indicates that of the
three factors (school-level, teacher-level, and student-level) school-level has the most influential
impact on school effectiveness and student achievement (Marzano, 2003). He further explains
that on the school-level the important criteria are: a guaranteed and viable curriculum,
challenging goals and effective feedback including high expectations, parent and community
involvement, a safe and orderly environment, collegiality and professionalism (Marzano, 2003).
Marzano’s definition of effective schools is inclusive of the basic principles of the effective
school movement. However, he argues that parent and community involvement are also
necessary in the building of an effective school.
Although some researchers have added components to their definition of effective
schools, the basic tenets supported by Edmonds are relevant today (Lezotte, 2009). Through time
the correlates have been modified to focus on the mastery of basic skills but to also to increase
problem solving and analytical skills (Lezotte, 2009). According to Lezotte (2009), the correlates
have been refined to the following:
1. Clear and focused mission: In the effective school, there is a clearly articulated
mission of the school through which the staff shares an understanding and commitment
of the school’s goals, priorities, assessment procedures and accountability.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 87
2. Safe and orderly environment: In the effective school, there is an orderly, purposeful,
business-like atmosphere, which is free of physical harm. The school climate is not
oppressive and conducive to teaching and learning.
3. Climate of high expectations: In the effective school, there is a climate of expectation
in which the staff believes and demonstrates that all students can attain mastery of the
essential skills. Also, the staff believes that they have the capability to help all students
achieve mastery.
4. Instructional leadership: In the effective school, the principal acts as an instructional
leader and effectively communicates the mission to staff, parents, and students.
5. Opportunity to learn and time on task: In the effective school, teachers allocate a
significant amount of time to instruction in the essential curricular areas. Each of the
teachers in the school has a clear understanding of what the essential learner objectives
are, grade-by-grade, and subject-by-subject. Teachers provide students time to learn it.
6. Positive home-school relations: In the effective school, parents understand and support
the basic mission of the school and are provided with opportunities to play an important
role in helping the school to achieve its mission.
The correlates are not independent of one another, but are interdependent. The extent to which
they are in place in a school has a positive effect on student achievement (Lezotte, 2009).
All children can learn and the environment of the school is critical in determining the quality of
education. The correlates of effective schools emulate those found in effective schools for ELLs.
Effective Schools for English Language Learners
Schools that are able to effectively meet the needs of ELL students took a different
approach to addressing students’ needs. A review of the literature shows that a positive,
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 88
supportive learning environment for ELLs includes: shared responsibility for ELLs, a school
culture that values diversity, and schools that create partnerships with ELL parents. A detailed
description of each follows.
Shared Responsibility for English Language Learners. Creating an inclusive school
environment for ELLs is a school-wide responsibility requiring the commitment of all
stakeholders in a school. Given the complexity of schools and the demands placed on principals,
it is now erroneous to consider that school principals can single-handedly lead schools to
greatness (Spillane, 2005). To strengthen the educational opportunities for ELLs, principals must
engage in systemic-whole campus reform efforts. Effective schools for ELLs are led by
transformational leaders who value and foster collaboration, empowerment, and ownership.
Over the last few decades, a principal’s role has shifted from being responsible for
managing aspects of school operations to being accountable for student outcomes and
achievement. School leaders today are called to improve teaching and learning, enforce student
discipline, maintain accountability for statewide testing, monitor teacher performance, establish a
collaborative environment and positive school culture, and be accountable to various
stakeholders (Lyons & Algozzine, 2006). Schools with larger numbers of ELLs are in the most
need for collaboration and support, as isolation and lack of communication between the principal
and teachers can negatively affect the education of ELL students (Rance-Ronay, 2009).
Schools that experience success with ELL students are schools where principals are not
alone in helping their students. Successful and effective schools with ELLs have an environment
where all stakeholders assume shared responsibility for ELLs (Rance-Ronay, 2009). Conzemius
and O’Neill (2002) explain shared responsibility as a phenomenon where individuals see
themselves as part of a larger system that works toward a common goal. They describe the
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 89
framework for shared responsibility as a way to create an environment where leadership
becomes a matter of shared leadership. According to the framework, shared responsibility occurs
through a common focus, reflection on instructional practices among school staff, and
collaboration.
The first tenet in the framework for shared responsibility is focus. Focus creates clarity of
thought, direction, and purpose. It leads the school through the process of creating shared vision,
mission, and core values, along with clear standards and expectations. Two questions to help
create focus are: What is our purpose? What do we want to become? The second tenet in the
framework is reflection. Reflection helps people learn from what they have done in the past and
identify better ways of accomplishing their goals. It involves taking the time to evaluate current
performance, using data. Additionally, it requires a willingness to change because of what the
data reveal. Three questions to assist in this phase are: Where are we now? How well are we
doing compared to what we want to accomplish? and What are we learning?
The final tenet in the framework is collaboration. Collaboration brings people together to
share ideas and knowledge. Conzemius and O’Neill (2002) state that collaboration represents the
compassionate and wise heart of school improvement and that without collaboration our
knowledge and data will go unused. It is the process of developing interdependent relationships
where all are focused on a common purpose and set of goals. Collaboration involves people
relying on each other to achieve these goals. It involves creating an environment through
structures, systems, processes, and policies where everyone contributes skills, knowledge, and
experience to improve student learning.
Successful schools help promote shared responsibility for all students in order to make
transformational changes in education that benefit ELLs and move them towards a path of
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 90
success. School leaders must influence school structures to support a positive learning
environment for ELL students. Collaboration between teachers and principals is an important
aspect in providing ELL students with a quality program. A professional learning community
(PLC) is one way to foster an organizational structure to allow for collaboration to occur
between ELL teachers and general education teachers in order to provide ELL students with a
quality program.
Professional learning community. Successful school leadership involves all stakeholders
to help ELL students attain success. A professional learning community is one way to look at the
collaboration and collegiality of teachers in a school. In a PLC, collaboration encompasses a
systematic process in which teachers and administrators work together to impact student
achievement (DuFour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). Teams collaborate on matters related to
learning and hold each other accountable for the kind of results needed to sustain continual
improvement. According to Dufour et al. (2006), the work of professional learning communities
is guided by four fundamental questions:
1. What knowledge and skills should every student acquire?
2. How will we know when each student has acquired the essential knowledge and skills?
3. How will we respond when some students do not learn?
4. How will we respond when some students have clearly achieved the intended outcomes?
A professional learning community must establish clear parameters and priorities that guide the
work of the teams toward the goal of student learning.
Dufour & Eaker (1998), define the six characteristics of professional learning communities
as follows:
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 91
1. Shared mission, vision, and values: Shared understanding, common values, and a
collective commitment to guiding principles, that articulate what the people in the
school believe and what they seek to create
2. Collective inquiry: The method of improvement, growth, and renewal.
3. Collaborative teams: A group of collaborative teams that share a common
purpose.
4. Action orientation and experimentation: Members of a PLC turn aspirations into
action and visions into reality.
5. Continuous improvement: A constant search for a better way.
6. Results orientation: A PLC takes action and focus on continuous improvement
assessed on the basis of results. (pp. 25-29)
They believe that these characteristics, when embedded within a PLC lead to cultural change
within schools.
Similarly, Darling-Hammond and Friedlaender (2008) studied five high schools in
California to see how these schools had beaten the odds in supporting the success of low-income
students of color. In their study, results showed that well implemented PLCs proved to be
successful in improving student performance. The five high schools in the study allocated
considerable time for teachers to collaborate. During this time, teachers were able to design
curriculum and instruction while learning from one another. The faculty in these schools set up
time to organize summer learning opportunities and retreats in order to look at evidence of
student learning and to plan and organize instruction. In addition, the schools allocated 7-15 days
to shared professional learning time throughout a school year. The five schools in the study also
used and modeled decision making and engaged in different leadership roles to include:
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 92
mentoring teachers, leading professional development, running the performance-based
assessments, developing advisory curriculum, conducting data analyses, determining a school
wide instructional focus, and helping to manage the day-to-day logistics of running a schools
(Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008). For teachers, participating in a PLC means having a
community to help face complex problems. Instead of working in isolation, teachers have a
collaborative community to turn to for support.
Schools that experience success with ELLs are those where ELL teachers are not alone in
helping students, but are part of a school-wide team. School leaders help to shape the culture of
the school through the beliefs they hold and the actions they take. A strong leader promotes the
success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture conducive to
maintaining a positive learning environment. Successful and effective schools with ELLs have a
culture where students experience success because they feel welcomed in the school.
School culture that values diversity. If learning is to take place for ELLs, a school must
provide an atmosphere conducive to sustaining and maintaining a positive learning environment.
Schools need to move away from labeling students in manners that emphasize the deficiencies
while ignoring their individual strengths. Deficit thinking blames the child‘s social, cultural, or
economic environment as the root cause for the child‘s underachievement in school (Solórzano
& Yosso, 2001). Deficit thinking allows teachers to blame the students and their parents for the
failures and lessens the teacher‘s and school‘s accountability for ELL students (Bruton &
Robles-Piña, 2009). School leaders need to help stakeholders reframe their thinking about
students from deficit to assets-based orientation and see each child as having an endearing
quality to be identified, validated, shared, and used in the educational process.
School culture plays an important role in the lives of students and the outcomes of their
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 93
overall school experience. All stakeholders in a school including students, parents, teachers, staff
members, administrators, volunteers, and community supporters experience school culture.
There are various ways to define school culture and many of these definitions share common
characteristics. Barth (2002) explains school culture as the complex pattern of norms, attitudes,
beliefs, behaviors, values, ceremonies, traditions, and myths that are deeply ingrained in the core
of the organization. Northouse (2007) defines culture as the learned beliefs, values, rules, norms,
symbols, and traditions that are common to a group of people. School culture is the deeply
embedded behavior patterns that are transmitted through shared beliefs, values and practices of
the people who make up an organization.
School culture can be unhealthy or healthy depending on the norms that have been set by
the people within the school. A positive school culture requires the presence of a set of norms
and values that focuses all stakeholders on what is important and motivates them to work
towards that common purpose. Deal and Peterson (1999) point out that a school with a positive
school culture is a place with a “shared sense of what is important, a shared ethos of caring and
concern, a shared commitment to helping students learn” (p. 29). A positive culture promotes
caring, support, cohesiveness, staff empowerment, and promotes rituals and traditions that
support and illuminate the values and accomplishments of everyone.
There are also negative, toxic cultures in schools. These toxic cultures can hinder growth
and learning. Schools that have negative, toxic cultures might find themselves with false
collegiality, which can be described as collegiality that is controlled by administrators. Usually,
there is a predetermined set of formal bureaucratic procedures that focus work place interaction
on working together (Deal & Peterson 1999). These toxic cultures usually include various groups
or subcultures that compete for power within the school. Each group has a recognized culture of
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 94
their own and the groups do not interact with each other. Finally, a fragmented culture according
to Deal and Peterson (1999) is characterized by teacher isolation and autonomy. True
collaboration is nonexistent, and staff members are content with the status quo. Schools with
toxic cultures are those that lack a clear sense of purpose, have norms that reinforce inertia,
blame students for lack of progress, discourage collaboration, and often have hostile relations
among staff (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
Every school has its own unique culture that is embedded in the ritual and traditions of
the school’s history and of its practice. The culture of a school can have a positive influence on
student achievement or inhibit the functioning of a school. Being aware of culture helps school
leaders better understand their school’s own unwritten rules, traditions, norms, and expectations.
The effect of school culture on student achievement cannot be understated.
School culture and Latino students. School culture permeates everything within a
school: the way people act, how they dress, what they talk about or avoid talking about, whether
they seek out colleagues for help or don’t, and how teachers feel about their work and their
students. A supportive learning environment serving ELL students consists of a school culture
that is inclusive of language minority students. An inclusive education provides each ELL
student a place in the school where differences in language ability are not seen as a deficit.
The way cultural differences are perceived and interpreted in U.S. schools is often based
on a deficit perspective through which variations from the mainstream are seen as problematic.
Effective schools place value on students’ languages and cultures. Lucas, Henze, and Donato
(1990) conducted an exploratory study of six high schools in California and Arizona that were
providing an effective high school for Latino language-minority students. Blends of qualitative
and quantitative methods were used including: audiotapes and notes from structured interviews,
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 95
student questionnaires, classroom observations, school-wide observations, and a review of
various school records (Lucas et al., 1990). In these schools, language minority students received
the message that their languages and cultures were valued and respected.
The schools communicated this sense of value by learning about students’ cultures,
learning students’ languages, hiring bilingual staff with similar cultural backgrounds to the
students. They also encouraged students to develop their primary language skills, allowing
students to speak their primary languages except when English development was the focus of
instruction or interactions. The schools offered advanced and lower division content courses in
the students’ primary languages, and instituting extracurricular activities that attracted language
minority students (Lucas et al., 1990).
Similarly, Gold and Maxwell-Jolly (2006) conducted a case study describing six
successful elementary schools that adopted bilingual education programs in California. The case
study was prepared over a two-year period and information was gathered from telephone
interviews with principals and brief site visits. This study considered a school successful when
evidence showed the ELLs achieved proficiency in English and that ELLs and Latinos met
grade-level standards in language arts and mathematics in proportions similar to or greater than
state averages. According to the study, one of the most important characteristics of all six
schools was the clear school mission of biliteracy and multicultural acceptance. In these schools,
the staff displayed overall support for language and cultural diversity by using a students’ home
language, in addition to English for instruction.
The most important factor in the success or failure of student achievement in any school
is the culture. Promoting a supportive learning environment for ELLs involves building a school
culture that moves away from the deficit-model perspective to one that embraces the qualities
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 96
that ELL students bring with them. The concept of funds of knowledge takes into account that a
students’ social context provides them with active learning opportunities (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzales, 1992). Schools should capitalize on language and culture rather than view these as
disadvantages. Teachers can capitalize on students’ prior knowledge, languages, and culture and
systematically incorporate them into curriculum and classroom activities. Moll et al. (1992)
suggest that teachers can use their students’ backgrounds to make meaningful connections
between funds of knowledge and the new content. In addition, schools that emphasized active
efforts to involve parents were more successful with their ELL population
Creating partnerships with parents of ELLs. Research shows that parental
involvement is crucial to the academic achievement of ELLs. According to August and Hakuta
(1997), schools that support meaningful parent involvement have higher levels of student
achievement, improved school attendance, and higher graduation rates. However, immigration in
the last few years has brought up multiple issues related to parent participation in schools.
Latino immigrant parents and ELL students come to schools with an array of issues besides the
need to improve in English. In some cases an issue between home and school emerges when
Latino parents are unaware of practices of the American school system and the expectations that
schools have of parents. For families whose language and culture are different from typical
families in American schools there are disadvantages that may build up over time (Lee &
Bowen, 2006).
Perceptions of school personnel about Latino parents based on stereotypes lead to
conclusions that the low academic achievement of Latino students is due to parents’ lack of
participation or an uncaring attitude. Quiocho and Daoud’s (2006) research on Latino parent
participation emphasized that parents do care about their child’s education and want to be active
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 97
in their children’s schooling. They conducted a qualitative study at two underperforming
elementary schools in California. They collected data through interviews and observations with
Latino parent of children at both schools, as well as, teachers, administrators, and classified staff
members. The results showed that parents wanted their children to succeed and wanted them to
learn English. However, the teachers in Quiocho and Daoud’s (2006) study did not perceive
parents in this light. Evidence from this study showed that teachers and administrators believed
that Latino parents were unreliable and unprofessional, did not enforce the school’s policies, did
not want to volunteer in the classroom, and speaking Spanish was a barrier in helping their
children academically. Quiocho and Daoud (2006) confirmed that Latino parents wanted more
communication from the staff; wanted their children to be treated with respect; wanted their
children to receive content instruction like their English-speaking peers. Parents included in the
study felt strongly that a community liaison should be hired by schools to work with them so that
concerns could be clearly communicated. The researchers also concluded that school staff
members should take more time to listen to the voices of Latino ELL parents, routinely translate
written communication into Spanish, select meeting locations to accommodate the majority of
parents, and view their varied cultural traits as strengths and gifts that can be shared at school
(Quiocho & Daoud 2006).
Similarly, Carreon, Drake, and Barton’s (2005) research found involvement to be a
challenge for immigrant parents. Their research focused on the stories of working-class Latino
immigrant parents and their efforts to participate in their children’s educational. A total of 17
parents participated in three rounds of conversation groups. All conversations took place in
Spanish and were translated. To ensure accuracy the bilingual and immigrant project staff
members assessed parents. Of the 17 participants, three were highlighted to show the different
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 98
ways in which immigrant parents engage in their children’s education. In all three cases, the
parents wanted to remain involved in their children’s education. Even though they had high
levels of engagement they felt that the school did not respect them or value their presence due to
problems communicating with staff. Some parents felt like second-class parents because
translators were not available. Furthermore, they sensed that they were unable to help with
decision-making, to voice their concerns, or to affect change. Sometimes the schools even felt
unwelcoming to the parents. Due to all of these feelings, many parents lessened their amount of
participation (Carreon et al., 2005).
Parent-school collaboration involves families and educators working together as partners
sharing responsibility for the learning success of ELL students. Carreon et al. (2005) stated,
“Parental engagement represents a process for both the parent and child, one of gaining crucial
access to and understanding of the host culture. It is also a product, leading to new status within
the school community, greater opportunities for their children in the school system, and,
optimally, improved success at school” (Carreon et al., 2005, p. 94). As schools encounter failure
in attempts to engage Latino parents, a deficit-thinking model is developed (Garcia & Guerra,
2004). Instead of pointing fingers at the families, stakeholders at the school level need to
establish a strong system of communication with parents of ELLs. The partnership between
schools and Latino parents is crucial.
Inadequate Access to School Counseling Resources
Just like native English speaking students, ELL students need full access to all school
resources including school counselors. School counselors like teachers play a crucial role in
students’ academic success. The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) National
Model is a framework that school counselors use to help students via guidance curriculum,
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 99
individual planning, responsive services, and system support (ASCA, 2005). However, high
counselor case loads have been associated with less than desired school counselor services,
resulting in a large number of students’ academic and social needs being overlooked. As a result
of limited accessibility to school counselors, low-income and minority students often experience
few opportunities to participate in activities that support their pursuit of post-secondary options
(Kimura-Walsh, Yamamura, Griffin, & Allen, 2008).
The limited accessibility to school counselors for low-income and minority students is
detrimental and has a profound impact on their post-secondary options. Kimura-Walsh et al.
(2008) interviewed 16 Latina students who attended a large urban high school in California
where 31% of students were identified as ELLs. They found the students experienced limited
opportunities to learn and received little information from teachers and counselors in regard to
college access. The participants reported a lack of individualized attention from teachers and
counselors, while high-achieving student tended to receive the educational resources necessary to
access higher education. The participants described their family and parents as a strong
foundation of support, however, due to their parents’ lack of experience with higher education
they did not receive the appropriate information in preparation for higher education. The authors
recommended that the school use existing resources to better distribute counseling services by
assigning counselors to specialize in working with students.
Academic course placement is another important area that school counselors are involved
with. Often ELL students are tracked into remedial classes that have low expectations. If students
aspire to attend a four-year university, the single best predictor of college success will be the
quality and intensity of their high school curriculum (Barth & Haycock, 2004). The literature
highlights that the most effective curriculum for ELL students is one in which they have access
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 100
to the same core curriculum that all students receive, aligned with district and state standards and
frameworks. However, the curriculum must be modified and adapted to ELL students’ range of
knowledge, skills, and needs. Aleman, Johnson, & Perez (2009) conducted a longitudinal study
and looked at four award winning schools with similar resources and challenges to see how they
produced high achievement for every group of students served, including ELLs. In these high
performing schools ELLs learned more because they were given more to learn. Students were
provided with lessons everyday that required them to explain, analyze, compare, graph, dissect,
and construct information. ELLs were required to master the same grade-level concepts as other
students. Second, all four schools focused on ensuring deep levels of understanding rather than
just covering pages in the textbook. Teachers required students to explain, discuss, and write to
demonstrate their levels of understanding. Student voices were heard more than teacher voices.
Teachers provided feedback when necessary and are ready to give alternate examples and hands-
on activities (Aleman et al., 2009).
Similarly, Conchas (2001) conducted a study in high schools with a large racial-minority
group. Data were collected from 26 Latino high schools in grades 10
th
through 12
th
. The majority
of the students in the study enrolled in a college preparatory program, only a third did not.
Conchas (2001) found that from students’ perspectives, institutional mechanisms had an impact
on Latino school engagement. Students enrolled in the college preparatory program perceived
they had stronger racial/ethnic relationships and were more motivated. For students enrolled in
the regular program two findings emerged: their sense of alienation translated into a lack of
motivation and the absence of an adult to guide them made students feel marginalized. In this
study Latinos were able to access social capital available at a school only if they were enrolled in
a special program. For those not enrolled in a special program, the feelings of alienation and
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 101
marginalization created by the institutional mechanisms led to the deepening of the gap between
students’ potential and their ability to succeed (Conchas, 2001). Although Conchas (2001)
eliminated Latino ELL students, the study still has implications by showing that students who are
placed in higher level track classes are more likely to develop higher level thinking skills,
analytical skills, and positive attitudes and students in lower tracks are not exposed to rigorous,
meaningful learning opportunities. School counselors are in a position to advocate for students in
order to remove institutional barriers by ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources.
Latinos and the ASCA National Model
School counselors are in a position to provide Latino students with information and
preparation to access higher education. Villalba, Akos, Keeter, and Ames (2007) looked at
Latino student achievement as it pertains to the American School Counselors Association
National Model. Their study pointed out many challenges that Latino students face in school.
Among these are the language barrier, acculturation difficulties, racism, and economic pressures,
however, they found that despite these challenges school counselors can use the ASCA National
Model to provide guidance to Latino students using four elements: guidance curricula, individual
student planning, responsive services, and systems support.
The ASCA National Model is a framework that school counselors can use to help Latino
students via guidance curricula, individual student planning, responsive services, and systems
support. First, guidance curriculum school counselors can organize parent workshops for Latino
families in which they share school and community resources, student transition information
(form elementary to middle school or middle school to high school), and post-high school
options, including career and college opportunities. Also, school counselors can organize
classroom guidance lessons for students on coping with discrimination, expanding post-
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 102
graduation options, or coping with difficulty acquiring a new language. School counselors can
use classroom/large group guidance to provide educational and career planning to Latino
students (Villalba et al., 2007).
Second, individual student planning that includes advisement, assessment, and follow-up
could be implemented on a one-to-one or group basis. School counselors can encourage Latino
students to pursue higher education and provide opportunities to enroll in challenging
coursework. Third, responsive services via individual counseling are beneficial for Latino
students. In most cases, Latino students and families are likely to be unfamiliar with counseling,
professional school counselors must inform and educate Latino students about the role of and
services provided by the school counselor, including but not limited to an explanation about the
nature of counseling, resources available through the school counseling office, student and
counselor expectations, and confidentiality.
Lastly, school counselors can provide systems support. School counselors can provide
professional development via workshops, conferences, and collaborating with other professionals
to bring services to Latino students. Since many Latinos are ELLs school counselors can talk to
their teachers to facilitate the teachers’ learning about this student population (Villalba et al.,
2007). School counselors should seek to connect with Latino students through introduction in the
classroom, consulting with teachers, promoting available services from the counseling
department to Latino students and their families.
Summary
Schools do matter and school effects are evident in student achievement.
According to the literature, effective schools for ELLs are inclusive and create school
environments where all students are welcomed, valued, and encouraged to meet high
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 103
expectations that are established. Latino ELL students have the same desire to be successful as
other students and parents want their children to succeed. The literature reflects that there is no
clear one-size-fits all approach for providing a supportive learning environment for Latino ELL
students. However, the literature suggests that there are characteristics of effective schools that
result in creating successful environments to increase college readiness for ELLs. The
characteristics that make schools serving ELL students successful are consistent with the
effective schools literature. According to the literature, effective schools for ELLs contain:
shared responsibility for ELLs, a school culture that values diversity, and partnerships with ELL
parents are created. Also, the literature suggests that ELLs need full access to all resources
offered by a school, including school counselors. The literature recommends that ELLs are most
successful when:
1. School leaders, administrators, and educators recognize that educating ELLs is the
responsibility of the entire school staff.
2. Educators recognize that ELLs are a heterogeneous group who differ in respect to
linguistic, cultural, social, familial, and personal backgrounds.
3. Students’ languages and cultures are utilized as a resource for further learning.
4. There are strong links connecting home, school, and community.
5. ELLs are afforded equitable access to school resources and programs.
6. There are high expectations of all ELL students.
All students including ELLs can learn, given the appropriate supports. The school environment
plays a crucial role in the development of their success. In order to create an environment that
promotes a supportive and collaborative environment schools must take responsibility for their
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 104
ELL population. Despite the challenges that ELLs bring, a foundational belief that ELLs can
succeed is essential in promoting successful environments.
Conclusion
This chapter provided the foundation for the solutions based on the literature to address
two of the six validated causes for the college readiness gap at THS. The following chapter
illustrates specific methods for implementing the recommendations at THS. It also discusses the
evaluation phase suggested to THS.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 105
Chapter 6: Proposed Solutions

Author: Evelyn Jimenez

According to the literature, effective schools for ELLs are inclusive and create school
environments where all students are welcomed, valued, and encouraged to meet high
expectations that are established. Latino ELL students have the same desire to be successful as
other students and parents want their children to succeed. The literature reflects that there is no
clear one-size-fits all approach for providing a supportive learning environment for Latino ELL
students. However, the literature suggests that there are characteristics of effective schools that
result in creating successful environments to increase college readiness for ELLs. It is necessary
to build a learning environment at THS that provides ELLs opportunities to access post-
secondary options.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered to THS for their consideration as solutions to
the college readiness gap for Latino ELLs. These research-based recommendations target the
root causes of the college readiness gap for Latino ELL students at THS. While other root causes
will be addressed in separate chapters by other team members, the root causes addressed in this
chapter include: (a) lack of enhanced coordination of school support for ELLs and (b) inadequate
access to school counseling resources. The recommendations listed below have implications for
stakeholders at THS including administrators, teachers, and support staff who seek to improve
the learning environment for Latino ELL students. The recommendations imply that all
stakeholders at THS share responsibility to foster an environment promoting college readiness
for Latino ELLs.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 106
Recommendation One: Develop Intermediate and Performance Goals
Recommendation one is for THS to develop intermediate and performance goals aligned to
support the global goal of all stakeholders taking responsibility for ELL students. It is essential
that THS accept the responsibility of the ELL population as a school-wide responsibility. English
language learners are not the sole responsibility of those working in close proximity to them. At
THS there is a lack of shared responsibility for the learning and achievement of ELLs. The
underperformance of ELLs affects the entire school because these students are falling behind.
THS benefits from using Conzemius and O’Neill’s (2002) shared responsibility framework to
create an environment that encompasses shared responsibility.
The first step is for the principal and faculty to build a collective focus on shared
responsibility for student learning. A clear focus for ELL students would lead THS through the
process of creating shared vision, mission, and core values, along with clear standards and
expectations. Conzemius and O’Neill (2002) advise schools to begin with an examination of
their core values, and then move from these into the development of a shared vision. A core
value is a deeply held commitment that drives the conduct of an organization. School leaders rely
on core values to guide their decision, priorities, and actions. Core values drive the vision and
mission, as well as, are observable. For example, “Our students graduate knowing how to ask
good questions and find their answers” (p. 22). Core values express how people within a school
will know if they are following through (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002).
A mission statement allows members of a school community to determine what is
important to them. A mission statement briefly describes what purpose the school serves, who it
serves, and how it delivers those services. It moves beyond all children can learn and describes
what exactly students are expected to learn. For example, “We believe all students can
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 107
learn…and we will establish high standards of learning that we expect all students to achieve”
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002, p. 24). Conzemius and O’Neill (2002) explain that in this mission
statement the teachers create an environment in their classrooms that engages students in
academic work that results in high levels of achievement.
The third element in creating focus is developing shared vision. Shared vision provides
guidance to stakeholders because it offers a picture of the future by focusing on what is possible
within a school. In order to facilitate the visioning process, Conzemius and O’Neill (2002)
recommend including people in a position to lead or influence others, those who bring a new
perspective, and those highly regarded by peers. They suggest involving stakeholders that
include: parent/families, community members, board members, principals, central office
administrators, teachers, students, including graduates. However, they caution that writing a
vision statement is not what creates successful schools. A vision statement is successful when it
is kept alive by the way people in the community frame every conversation (Conzemius &
O’Neill, 2002). Once the global goal, or in this case mission and vision are established, it is
important for THS to develop intermediate and performance goals that are clear, concrete, and
measurable (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The second step calls for reflection on instructional practices among school staff.
Reflection helps people learn from what they have done in the past and identify better ways of
accomplishing their goals. It involves taking the time to evaluate current performance, using
data. Data is more than test scores, it is used as the basis for collaborative inquiry. Conzemius
and O’Neill (2002) stated that in this phase data is used a learning tool, not as an incentive or
decentive for change.
Lastly, shared responsibility requires collaboration. Collaboration allows peers to learn
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 108
from each other as they share knowledge. Collaboration is an effective tool because it allows
teachers to learn from each other by sharing what they know and by learning from others what
they need to know. According to Conzemius and O’Neill (2002), collaboration can occur within
departments, cross-curricular teams, grade-level teams, or throughout an entire school. Shared
responsibility requires that leaders and teachers at THS work collaboratively as a team to
accomplish the school’s goal of enhancing students’ learning and achievement.
Recommendation Two: Become More Structured for Further Collaboration
Recommendation two entails the school organization at THS to become structured for
further collaboration and planning among all stakeholders including teachers and administrators.
The literature suggests that schools can provide a better educational opportunity for ELLs by
promoting collective action among the school staff (Rance-Ronay, 2009). Schools where the
teachers and staff participate in ongoing learning, and consider it as important as the learning
their students do, are part of a professional learning community. PLC’s are a way of providing
ongoing professional development while reducing cost because the PLC concept consists of
individuals sharing their ideas and successes in collaboration with each other with and without
the direct intervention of the school administration (Dufour et al., 2006). The principal of the
school is guiding and directing by allowing decisions about student performance to be made by
the teachers.
The PLC process creates a collaborative culture as a way to encourage regular meetings
to discuss data and student work. Further enhancement of the professional learning community in
place at THS can provide the peer collaboration needed to foster a different approach to meeting
the need of ELLs. The faculty at THS possesses vast knowledge and experience working with
their ELL subgroup. The PLCs at THS need to further capitalize on the skills, strengths, and
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 109
backgrounds of school leaders working with ELL students. Doing so would allow school leaders
to provide regular, detailed feedback to teachers to help them continually grow and improve their
professional practice with ELL students.
The continued implementation of frequent, structured opportunities for ELL teachers to
dialogue with each other, collaborate, look at student work, and observe peers on their school site
are elements that benefit students (DuFour et al., 2006). THS must continue to build in time into
the school day and year for teachers to talk about teaching and learning, make the purpose of
collaboration explicit, and all stakeholders must accept responsibility to work together (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2008). It is also important for THS to revisit their PLC and make sure that the
following elements are present:
1. Shared mission, vision, and values: Shared understanding, common values, and a
collective commitment to guiding principles, that articulate what the people in the
school believe and what they seek to create.
2. Collective inquiry: The method of improvement, growth, and renewal.
3. Collaborative teams: A group of collaborative teams that share a common
purpose.
4. Action orientation and experimentation: Members of a PLC turn aspirations into
action and visions into reality.
5. Continuous improvement: A constant search for a better way.
6. Results orientation: A PLC takes action and focus on continuous improvement
assessed on the basis of results. (Dufour & Eaker, 1998, pp. 25-29)
Also, school leaders at THS can implement topics for PLC meetings based on the
literature review of effective practices for ELLs. This professional development might include
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 110
training in strategies for overcoming language barriers for English language learners, engaging
parents, and equipping teachers with a better understanding of the home backgrounds of their
Latino ELL students. The best way to get stakeholders at THS to work more effectively with
ELL students is through the continued support of the PLC in which collaboration and best
practices drive teaching and learning.
Recommendation Three: Adopt an “Assets-based” Perspective
Recommendation three is THS must adopt an “assets-based” perspective on ELL students.
Faculty members and administrators at THS must build a school culture based on the notion that
a student’s bicultural experience is an asset for the school to build on. Effective schools for ELLs
value the culture of students and make it a featured part of the academic environment. THS must
look beyond the label “English language learner” to understand the different needs of these
students. Building an environment that treats all students in an equitable manner is crucial. It is
difficult to learn when students feel they do not belong. The literature points out that schools are
most successful when they show respect for students’ home cultures and use students’ language
and prior knowledge as resources to build on (Lucas et al., 1990; Moll et al., 1992). It is simply
not enough to celebrate a holiday but rather affirm customs and values in deeper ways.
First, an inclusive school culture of ELLs at THS must start with a good understanding of
who their population is. Stakeholders at THS make a conscious, sustained effort to learn about
their students and to honor the diversity they represent. Students should not be expected to leave
their cultural heritage behind when they engage in an academic task. It is beneficial for THS to
reframe approaches to be asset based rather than deficit-based. Instead of considering Latino
ELLs language barriers as a shortcoming, stakeholders should be encouraged to capitalize on
their language skills and cultural perspectives (Lucas et al., 1990; Moll et al, 1992). This entails
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 111
looking at the language needs of ELLs as temporary rather than permanent conditions affecting
their potential to access higher education opportunities. The funds of knowledge approach
advocates that students have knowledge from home that may be used to connect classroom
learning.
Funds of knowledge builds on the premise that people are competent, have knowledge, and
that their life experiences have contributed to that knowledge. Funds of knowledge are described
as “the essential cultural practices and bodies of knowledge and information
that houses [people] use to survive, to get ahead, or to thrive” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 21). The
funds of knowledge framework views households as containing ample cultural and cognitive
resources with potential for classroom instruction. Moll, Amanti, and Gonzalez (2005) contended
that by tapping into students’ familiarity with educationally based knowledge from home such as
hobbies, parental careers, and cooking, teachers are better able to effectively engage them in
learning. The education process at THS can be enhanced when teachers learn about and
understand the lives of their students. For example, a family with rural origins may have
developed knowledge about plants and animals. All families have accumulated knowledge
through their life experiences. According to Moll et al. (1992) teachers need to assume the role
of learner and incorporate their awareness about students’ funds of knowledge as instructional
resources for academic purposes. Acknowledging, accepting, and valuing a student’s cultural
identity is vital for a supportive school culture at THS.
Recommendation 4: Create a Partnership with Parents
Latino parents are usually perceived by school personnel to participate less in their
children’s education than their White counterparts (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). The positive or
negative attitudes of school personnel can have an impact on the frequency of parental
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 112
involvement. According to the research, problems preventing parents from being involved in
their children’s school can be addressed with honest collaboration between the school and
parents. Language barriers, school staffs’ lack of familiarity with culturally and linguistically
diverse families, and parents’ unfamiliarity with schools are the most common factors that
impede parent-school collaboration (Carreon et al., 2005; Quiocho & Daoud, 2006).
The research emphasized the importance of involving the families of ELL students and
the need to provide the resources including translations, interpretation services, regular
communication, and holding meetings at different times of the day (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006).
The ELL population at THS would benefit greatly by continuing to offer bilingual translators to
ELL students and their families. Bilingual staff members would decrease communication issues
among Latino ELL students and parents at THS. The presence of Spanish translators would
enable Latino students and parents to understand information that is communicated in person.
When important school events occur, offering a Spanish translator or providing a separate
session that is offered in Spanish would be beneficial (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). Translators
could assist presenters at school informational events to assist Latino parents understand the
content being presented, and help establish bonds with Latino families so that they feel welcome,
understood, and connected with THS. Spanish translators would also ensure that all school letters
are translated for the parents. It is imperative that THS provide an information sheet in Spanish
so that parents know who to reach in regard to any concern at the school. Consistent
communication from THS to the Latino ELL population would demonstrate a welcoming
atmosphere and help connect Latino ELL parents to the school.
Recommendation 5: Establish Clear and High Expectations
Academic expectations for ELLs should be the same as those for native English speakers.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 113
ELLs are capable of achieving the same goals as native English speakers if proper supports are
put in place for them. The academic culture at THS must reflect that all students can learn, have
the potential to succeed in challenging courses, and can attend a four-year university. To
cultivate a college-going culture there must be organizational support for ELL students that
allow them the opportunity to enroll in a college preparatory curriculum. The key to success is
not holding different expectation for ELLs than other students. ELLs should be expected to work
at the same level as all of the other students at the school. In developing such an environment,
THS needs to implement an adequate school counseling program for Latino ELLs. A
comprehensive school-counseling program at THS would provide Latino ELL students and their
families’ access to resources in promoting their academic achievement.
College preparation is particularly important for ELLs who may not be familiar with the
college admission process in the U.S. or may have parents who are unfamiliar with the education
system. School counselors at THS are agents that can ensure students receive information about
their options for college and careers, can increase student motivation, raise graduation rates, and
promote college enrollment. First, school counselors at THS have the ability to remove barriers
to higher education for ELLs. Counselors at THS should practice individual counseling with
Latino ELL students to explain to them the process of applying to college and discuss the
benefits and costs of going away to a four-year institution with both them and their parents. They
should also encourage students to take rigorous courses, so that they can gain admittance to
college and help students to obtain financial aid. The literature shows that students often get
placed in lower level, remedial courses (Barth & Haycock, 2004; Callahan, 2005). School
counselors at THS can provide guidance for students to exit ELL programs. Also, they can serve
as an advocate on behalf of students and collaborate with teachers to place students in honors and
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 114
AP classes. In essence, provide counseling assistance to enroll students in rigorous courses and
provide guidance to meet such a challenge.
Second, counselors should seek out Latino students for counseling appointments as
opposed to waiting for them to come to their office because most Latino students will not see a
school counselor on their own. The research shows that when school counselors provide direct
services to students they can provide information to help sustain aspirations that are connected to
college plans (Kimura-Walsh et al., 2008). THS counselors play an integral role in providing
Latino ELLs with access to college information. ELL students need to be informed of college
entrance requirements, be enrolled in a college preparatory curriculum, be engaged in
extracurricular activities, and learn ways about financing a college education. School counselors
at THS can help in this regard by informing students, helping them apply to college, and teaching
them how to fill out scholarship and financial aid forms.
Third, it would allow school counselors the opportunity to take on a leadership role
through facilitating collaboration with parents, as well as, stakeholders at THS including teachers
and administrators. Students and parents need to know what to expect in college. Counselors
should not assume that immigrant parents or Latino parents are not interested in their child’s
educational attainment. Rather, they should collaborate with these families and recognize their
strengths. Counselors should also try to meet with Latino parents to explain to them the process
of applying to college and what their child needs to do to prepare for college. Organizing
workshops for parents and students to discuss career and educational opportunities starting in the
ninth grade are beneficial. Clear and concise communication via monthly newsletters meetings,
or phone calls from the school to the parents is crucial. Information to consider discussing are the
A-G requirements, information about standardized tests, and deadlines to apply. Reaching out to
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 115
parents and involving them in students’ academic planning is integral.
A long-term approach to Latino ELL success at THS is needed and must ensure that these
students receive extra assistance in learning about the college application, selection, and goal-
setting processes, in order to build their knowledge about college. An interpreter should be
present if needed for discussions with both students and parents.
Evaluation
THS needs a system to study the implementation of the suggested solutions in order to
provide continuous improvement. The purpose of the evaluation is to examine whether the
solutions resolved the problems identified through the gap analysis and to assess for any
unintended consequences (Rueda, 2011). Based upon the work by Kirkpatrick (1998) the inquiry
team proposes that THS use the four levels of evaluation: reactions, learning, transfer, and
results.
The first level is reactionary. At this level, the evaluation measures the opinions,
attitudes, or feeling of the participants. Are the participants motivated by the program? Do they
value it? These questions can be asked before the solutions are implemented to measure
expectations during implementation, and after the solutions have been in place for a set period of
time. The purpose of these questions is to gauge the motivation of participants through their
values and emotional reactions. Responses do not tell us whether participants gained useful
information or will continue to use the teams’ recommendations. The responses are only an
indication that participants are motivated to invest effort implementing the recommendations.
To assess participants’ reactions, surveys are recommended in this step. Surveys should have
open-ended questions that allow the participants the opportunity to explain and close-ended
questions.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 116
In the second level, assessments of whether or not learning occurred are conducted.
Assessments at this level determine if knowledge has been acquired or if attitudes have changed.
Level two measures the impact during the program: Is the system effective while it is being
implemented? Clark and Estes (2008) caution us not to simply ask memory related questions, but
assess whether participants can apply what they have learned and know why they are doing it.
The goal at this level is to determine if there has been some positive change through a
measurable characteristic. Based on the recommendations above, different assessments are
needed for different stakeholders. For example, using the school counseling solution, the
assessment for a student would not be the same as for the parent.
The third level of Kirkpatrick’s (1998) model is to measure the transfer of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes to the workplace. It seeks to answer the question: Does the program continue
to be effective after it is implemented? Level three evaluates whether improvements made during
the implementation persist. To support transfer of knowledge and skills after training or learning
new strategies, participants must be encouraged to apply what they have learned as soon as
possible. Administrators should clearly communicate the expectations that teachers and staff will
apply the adopted solutions and demonstrate their support by closely monitoring progress and
asking staff how the program is progressing. Similarly to level two, different assessments are
needed for different stakeholders. It may be beneficial to conduct interviews with students and
send home a survey to assess parents’ knowledge.
Kirkpatrick’s (1998) fourth level is that of results. At this level, has the transfer
contributed to the achievement of organizational goals? The bottom line for THS is to determine
whether the college readiness gap for Latino ELLs narrowed. THS can review academic
transcripts (grades, GPA), data from standardized tests (CST, CELDT, CAHSEE), redesignation
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 117
rates, and overall college admission numbers. It is necessary to evaluate implementation of
suggested solutions at all four levels in order for a complete evaluation to take place.
Cautions and Limitations
As with all problem solving approaches, this inquiry project has several limitations.
First, the inquiry team used the gap analysis model by Clark & Estes (2008). If this project used
other problem solving models besides the gap analysis such as community action research,
positive deviance, benchmarking, program theory evaluation, policy analysis, and data driven
decision making the findings would have been different (Malloy, 2011). Second, the inquiry
team conducted this project in a short period of time. The inquiry project took place from
February 2012 and concluded October 2012. Third, there were possible issues related to
sampling limitations because the team was not able to interview students or observe instruction.
Conclusion
The team used a problem-solving model to address the college readiness gap at THS. The
findings are limited to the Latino ELL population at THS. Based on a careful review of the
literature, the recommendations presented in this chapter focus on two areas, (a) lack of
enhanced coordination of school support for ELLs and (b) inadequate access to school
counseling resources. The recommendations call all stakeholders at THS including
administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents to be a part of the solution to close the Latino
ELL college readiness gap.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 118
References
Abedi, J., & Herman, J. L. (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn
mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teacher’s College Record 112(3), 723–746.
Academic Models: Explaining Achievement. (2007). In The Praeger Handbook of Latino
Education in the U.S. Retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry.abclatinoed/academic_models_explaining_
achievement
Aleman, D., Johnson, J. F., & Perez, L. (2009). Winning schools for English language
learners. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 66-69.
Alston, J. A. (2004). Informed commentary: The many faces of American schooling: Effective
schools research and border-crossing in the 21st century. American Secondary Education,
32(2), 79-93.
American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA National Model: A framework for
school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Frohlich, … Drake, L. (2010). The
Condition of Education 2010 (NCES Publication 2010-028).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf
August, D. E., & Hakuta, K. E. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Barth, P., & Haycock, K. (2004). A core curriculum for all students. In R. Kazis, J. Vargas, & N.
Hoffman (Eds.), Double the numbers: Increasing postsecondary credentials for
underrepresented youth (pp. 35-45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 119
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7(2), 55-71.
Bruton, A., & Robles-Piña, R. (2009). Deficit thinking and Hispanic student achievement:
Scientific information resources. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 15, 41-48.
Cal. Ed. Code § 313 (2011). CELDT Regulations. Retrieved from
http://law.onecle.com/california/education/index.html
California Department of Education. (2011a). 2011 adequate yearly progress report:
Information guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp
California Department of Education. (2010b). DataQuest: Dropouts by ethnic designation
by grade: State of California for the year 2008-09. Retrieved from California Department
of Education website: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DropoutReporting/GradeEth.aspx?c
California Department of Education. (2012a). Facts about English learners in California.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp?print=yes
California Department of Education. (2012b). 2012 standardized testing and reporting
(STAR) program: Summary of results. Retrieved from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2012/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2012&lstTestTyp
e=C&lstCounty=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=&lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160
California Department of Education. (2012c). California High School Exit Exam results show
continued growth. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr12/yr12rel77.asp
California Department of Education. (2012d). Student accountability report card. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 120
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
Callahan, R.M., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking
among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 84-117.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Urban Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf
Carreon, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence:
Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research
Journal, 42(3), 465-498.
Clark, K. (2009). The case for structured English immersion. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 42-46.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman) Study (EEOS). Retrieved
from webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/06389.xml
Collins, J. (1999). The culture wars and shifts in linguistic capital: For combining political
economy and cultural analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
12(3), 269-286.
Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in
Latino student engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 475-504.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 121
Contreras, F. E. (2005). Access, achievement and social capital: Standardized exams and the
Latino college-bound population. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 197-214.
Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2002). Building shared responsibility for student learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools.
Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21.
Deal, T. E., and Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Flores, E., Painter, G., Harlow-Nash, Z., & Pachon, H. (2009) Que pasa? Are English language
learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? ATomas Rivera Policy
Institute Policy Brief. Los Angeles, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Freeman,Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to reach
limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fry, R. (2006). The changing landscape of American public education: New students,
new schools. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/72.pdf
Gándara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual
Research Journal, 24(1-2), 1-13.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 122
Gándara, P. (2005). Addressing educational inequities for Latino students: The politics of
"forgetting". Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 295-313.
Gándara, P. (2010). Meeting students where they are: The Latino education crisis. Harvard
Educational Leadership, 67(5), 24-30.
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. W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does
language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750-782.
Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to
create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150-
168.
Garni, A. (2010). Mechanisms of migration: Poverty and social instability in the postwar
expansion of Central American migration to the United States. Journal of Immigrant &
Refugee Studies, 8(3), 316.
Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). Role of Advanced Placement and Honors courses in college
admissions. UC Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher education, 4(4), 1-29.
Gold, N., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2006). The high schools English learners need. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6h72r068
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does- and
does not-say. American Educator, Summer, 8-44.
Grieco E. M. & Cassidy R. C. (2001). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000, U.S.
Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR/01-1. Retrieved from
www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 123
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning
environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272.
Hemphill, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students
in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NCES 2011-459). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Hill, N. E, & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations
and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and
schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 95-112.
Kaufman, J. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of
General Psychology, 14(3), 189-203.
Kimura-Walsh, E., Yamamura, E. K., Griffin, K. A., & Allen, W. R. (2009). Achieving the
college dream?: Examining disparities in access to college information among high-
achieving and non high-achieving Latinas. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(3),
298-315.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA.
Barrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kurland, M. (2013). A capstone gap analysis project of English learners’ achievement at a
suburban high school: A focus on college affordability and student grades (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity?
Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 124
among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193-215.
Lezotte, L. W. (2009). Effective schools: Past, present, and future. Retrieved from
http://www.effectiveschools.com.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino
students in dual language programs: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous
ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(6),
531-545.
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language-minority
students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3),
315-340.
Lyons, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Perceptions of the impact of accountability on the role
of principals. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(16), 1-16.
Malloy, C. L. (2011). Ten steps to effective practitioner-led inquiry. Edge, 6(4), 6-16.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Virginia:
Association for supervision and curriculum development.
McEwan, P., & McEwan, J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's not, and how
to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
McManus, W., Gould, W., & Welch, F. (1983). Earnings of Hispanic men: The role of English
language proficiency. Journal of Labor Economics, 1(2), 101-130.
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.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 125
households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moyer, M., & Clymer, J. (2009). What does it mean to be culturally proficient? Principal, 89(2),
14-18.
Morris, B. (2013). A capstone gap analysis project of English learners’ achievement at a
suburban high school: A focus on Goals and Parent Involvement (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
National High School Center. (2009). Educating English-language learners at the high school
level: A coherent approach to district-and-school-level-support. Retrieved from
http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/EducatingELLsattheHSLevel_042209.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011a). The nation’s report card. Reading 2011:
National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2012-457).
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011b). The nation’s report card. Mathematics 2011:
National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8 (NCES 2012-458).
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational
Programs (NCELA). (2011). The growing numbers of Limited English proficient students.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 126
Obama, B. (2010). Remarks by the President on education reform at the National Urban League.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07
Ogbu, J. & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
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 http://www.californiastogether.org
Ong, A., Phinney, J., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective
influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students. Journal of
Adolescence, 29, 961-979.
Padilla, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S. born Mexican
heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual English language
instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 727-742.
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 http://www.air.org/files/227Report.pdf
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Perez, P. A., McDonough, P. M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college choice: A
social capital and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(3),
249-265.
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 127
Pew Hispanic Center (2006). From 200 million to 300 million: The numbers behind
population growth. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf
Quiocho, A. M. L., & Daoud, A. M. (2006). Dispelling myths about Latino parent participation
in schools. Educational Forum, 70, 255-267.
Rance-Ronay, J. (2009). Best practices for adolescent ELLS. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 32-
37.
Reardon, S. F., & C. Galindo. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading
in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853-891.
Robinson, J. P. (2011). Evaluating criteria for English learner reclassification: A causal-effects
approach using a binding-score regression discontinuity design with instrumental
variables. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 267-292.
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
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310022
Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? The
need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English language learners.
Educational Researcher, 37(4), 189-199.
Solano-Flores, G., & Li, M. (2006). The use of generalizabiity (G) theory in the testing of
linguistic minorities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 13-22.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 128
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 143-150.
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Stritikus, T.T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a
teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(1),
29-52.
Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2009). Educating Latino immigrant students in the
twenty-first century: Principles for the Obama administration. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(2), 327-340.
Tierney, W. (2009). Applying to college. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 79-95.
Tierney, W. G., & Auerbach, S. (2004). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of
families in college preparation. In W. J. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.),
Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
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.
Torrez, N. M. (2001). Incoherent English immersion and California Proposition 227. The Urban
Review, 33(3), 207-220.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 129
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). 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. (2012) Ed data express: definitions. Retrieved from
http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/definitions.cfm
Venezia, A., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2005). Betraying the
college dream: How disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine
student aspirations. CA: Stanford Institute for Higher Education.
Villalba, J. A., Akos, P., Keeter, K., & Ames, A. (2007). Promoting Latino student achievement
and development through the ASCA national model. Professional School Counseling, 10,
464-474.
Walpole, M., McDonough, P., Bauer, C., Gibson, C., Kanyi, K., & Toliver, R. (2005). This test
is unfair: Urban African American and Latino high school students' perceptions of
standardized college admission tests. Urban Education, 40(3), 321-349.
Zarate, E., & Burciaga, R. (2010). Latinos and college access: Trends and future directions.
Journal of College Admission, Fall, 25-29.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 130
Appendix A

Inquiry Project Timeline – Gap Analysis Activity Log

Date Activity Location
2/1/12 Interview – THS Leadership THS
4/5/12 Interviews THS
4/19/12 Interviews THS
4/23/12 Observation – AC* Meeting THS
5/1/12 Interviews THS
5/25/12 Interviews THS
6/4/12 – 6/14/12 Surveys – Students THS
6/11/12 – 6/14/12 Surveys – Parents THS
8/16/12 Interview – Principal THS
9/12/12 Focus Group – Parents THS
10/19/12 Root Cause Brief – Principal USC
*Note: Abbreviation: AC = Administrative Chairs.

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 131
Appendix B
Gap Analysis Presentation to the Administrators

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 132
Appendix B (continued)

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 133
Appendix B (continued)

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 134
Appendix C
Scanning Interview Questions
We are doctoral students looking to help the school. We are here to listen to opinions and
concerns. Anyone who wants to be heard will be. This is an opportunity to be heard. Make it
conversational. Use these questions as guideposts. Generally, interview for about 15-20 minutes,
on their time.
Background
What it is like to be at the school?
I. Who are the stakeholders? Who are the influential people?

II. Who are the informal leaders? Who gets listen to and who doesn’t?

III. What formal committees exist?

IV. What are the informal and formal structures of the school/organization?

A. Does the current structure get accomplished what it wants to get done?

B. How long has this structure been in place?

C. What changes in the organization have taken place here?

1. What is the evolution of the structure?

V. How are policies made?

A. Implemented?

VI. How receptive/open is the school to change/input?

VII. Who are the ones that implement/create change?

VIII. What is the current school climate?

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 135
Appendix C (continued)

IX. What is the relationship between the school and the community?

X. What are your perceptions of the neighborhood?

How do your students live?

XI. Tell me about the ELL population here?

A. Who are your ELL students?
Goals
I. What are the missions or goals of the school?
A. What are your views of the missions/goals?
B. Are they important? Are they important to everyone?
C. How do you implement them?
D. Do these goals get completed?
II. What are the formal goals with respect to ELLs?
III. What are the informal goals?
IV. What gets rewarded or punished?
V. What are the schools goals for improving ELL four-year college attainment and academic
achievement?
VI. Give them the goals that the school thinks they have:
A. How important are they?
B. Are these the right goals? (missing/additions?)
C. Practical?
D. How do they impact you?
E. How do they impact the day to day/teaching and learning?
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 136
Appendix C (continued)
F. How are the goals communicated to everyone?
Perceptions of the Problem
I. Our interest is in English language learners, what issues do you see?
II. The school has identified ELL achievement, redesignation, and four-year college
attainment as a priority,
A. What do you think about them?
B. What problems/issues do you see?
C. Is this an important issue to focus on?
III. Outside of the problems the leadership identified, are there other issues that need to be
addressed?
IV. Do you feel you are reaching these goals?
A. How so?
V. How would you rank these issues for importance?
VI. What has been done to solve these issues?
A. What (not) worked and why?
VII. What do you think should be done to solve these issues?
VIII. Are you aware of any organizational barriers that would prevent you from addressing the
problems?
IX. How do you view the role of the X (parents, teachers, community, students,
administrators) for this issue?
A. Parents
B. Teachers
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 137
Appendix C (continued)
C. Community
D. Students
E. Admin
X. What do you think perpetuates the problem? (contributing factors)
XI. What do you think about us coming in to help tackle this issue?
XII. Do you have any other comments or ideas?

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 138
Appendix D
In-Depth Teacher Interview Questions
Client’s Name:
Position:
Date:
Interviewer:

1. Tell us about yourself.
2. What is it like to be a teacher at THS?
3. Do you receive support from administration?
4. How receptive is the school to change?
5. Have there been changes with the ELL population?
6. What is your understanding of goals in regards to ELLs?
7. What are your perceptions of why Latino ELLs are not performing?
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 139
Appendix E
Student Survey Questions
Circle your ethnicity (Circle all that apply): White Latino Asian

African American/Black Native American

Other: Please specify _____________________

Circle your grade level: 9 10 11 12
What is your country of birth? __________________________
What is your spoken home language? ________________________
What middle school did you attend? _________________________
Circle your current English language learner (ELL) level?
1 2 3 4 5
Circle your parent’s level of education:
Father: No formal schooling, some schooling, graduated high school, some college,
graduated college, graduate degree, don’t know.
Mother: No formal schooling, some schooling, graduated high school, some college,
graduated college, graduate degree, don’t know.
What is your cumulative GPA? _____
What is your grade in English class? _____
Do you know about the following:
Requirements to get into a four-year university? YES NO
SATs? YES NO
ACTs? YES NO
A-G courses? YES NO
California High School Exit Exam? YES NO
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 140
Appendix E (continued)
Do you expect the following:
To get B’s or better in your classes: YES NO
To pass the California High School Exit Exam: YES NO
To graduate from Trojan High School: YES NO
To do well on your SATs: YES NO
To attend a four-year university: YES NO
I have a fair shot at getting into a four-year university: YES NO
My friends expect me to attend a four-year university after high school YES NO
My family expects me to attend a four-year university after high school YES NO
My teachers expect me to attend a four-year university after high school YES NO
Getting B’s or higher in my classes is important to me: YES NO
Passing the California High School Exit Exam is important to me: YES NO
Graduating from high school is important to me: YES NO
Doing well on the SATs is important to me: YES NO
Attending a four-year university is important to me: YES NO
My teachers support me to be successful in my classes: YES NO
My teachers provide me enough feedback and help: YES NO
Trojan High School has provided me the support I need
to get into a four-year university: YES NO
My counselor has informed me of the requirements
to get into a four-year university: YES NO
I feel the system will allow me to go to a four-year university: YES NO
I feel money is not an obstacle for me to go to a four-year university: YES NO

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 141
Appendix E (continued)
If I want to go to a four-year university my family encourages
me to pursue it: YES NO
I can afford to apply to a four-year university: YES NO
I can afford to attend a four-year university: YES NO
I have access to enroll in AP courses if I want to: YES NO
My family expects me to stay close to home after I graduate: YES NO
My friends expect me to stay close to home after I graduate: YES NO
(Finished, please return to surveyor.)
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 142
Appendix F
Parent Survey Questions (English)
Circle the number that best
reflects your view of your
son’s/daughter’s progress at
Trojan High School
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Somewhat
Disagree
4
Somewhat
Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
1. Trojan High School keeps
me well informed about my
son’s/daughter’s progress
with schoolwork
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I use the internet to access
either the “Naviance” or
“Parent Connect” program(s)
at Trojan High School
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I have been invited to meet
with Trojan High School
officials to discuss my
son’s/daughter’s progress
with schoolwork
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Within the last six months I
have met with Trojan High
School officials to discuss
my son’s/daughter’s
progress with schoolwork
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I am familiar with English
Language Multi-Cultural
Advancement Committee
meetings (ELMAC)
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I want my son/daughter to
become a skilled
professional
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I want my son/daughter to
get a college degree
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I expect my son/daughter to
go to college upon
graduation from Trojan High
School
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I expect my son/daughter to
get a job upon graduation
from Trojan high School
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Money will be a problem for
my son/daughter attending
college
1 2 3 4 5 6
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 143
Appendix G
Parent Survey Questions (Spanish)
Encierre el número que mejor refleje
su impresión acerca del progreso de
su hijo(a) en Trojan High School
1
En total
desacuer
do
2
En
desacuer
do
3
En
desacuer
do con
reservas
4
De
acuerdo,
con
reservas
5
De
acuerdo
6
Total-
mente de
acuerdo
1. Trojan High School me
mantiene bien informado acerca
del progreso escolar de mi
hijo(a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Uso la Internet para tener
acceso a los programas
“Naviance” o a “Parent
Connect” en Trojan High
School
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Me han invitado a reunirme con
oficiales de Trojan High School
para conversar acerca del
progreso escolar de mi hijo(a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. En los últimos seis meses me he
reunido con oficiales de Trojan
High School para conversar
acerca del progreso escolar de
mi hijo(a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Estoy familiarizado con las
reuniones de English Language
Multi-Cultural Advancement
(ELMAC)
1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Quiero que mi hijo(a) llegue a
ser un profesional competente
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Quiero que mi hijo(a) obtenga
un título universitario
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Espero que mi hijo(a) vaya a la
universidad una vez que se
gradúe de Trojan High School
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Espero que mi hijo(a) obtenga
un empleo una vez que se
gradúe de Trojan High School

1 2 3 4 5 6
10. El dinero va a ser un problema
para que mi hijo(a) vaya a la
universidad
1 2 3 4 5 6

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 144
Appendix H
Presentation to the Principal

Appendix H (continued)
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 145

Appendix H (continued)

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 146

Appendix H (continued)

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 147

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 148
Appendix I

Achievement Records
Table I1
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 1)

Table I2
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 2 for Cohort 1)
2011-2012
Ethnicity - Language
# of CELDT
Takers
# of
Students
Meeting
AMAO 1
% Target
%
Meeting
AMAO
1
Met
Target
for
AMAO
1
Schoolwide
164 122 56.0% 74.8%
Chinese - Cantonese,
Mandarin, Taiwanese
5 5 56.0% 100.0%
Latino - Spanish
80 61 56.0% 76.2%
Japanese - Japanese
12 7 56.0% 58.3%
Korean - Korean
13 10 56.0% 83.3%
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
6 5 56.0% 83.3%

Less than 5 Years Cohort

2011-2012
Ethnicity - Language
# of
Students
in Cohort
# of Students
Meeting
AMAO 2
% Target
%
Meeting
AMAO 2
Met
Target
for
AMAO
2
Schoolwide
52 17 20.1% 32.7%
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin,
Taiwanese
5 1 20.1% 20.0% X
Latino - Spanish
11 3 20.1% 27.3%
Japanese - Japanese
5 1 20.1% 20.0% X
Korean - Korean
7 4 20.1% 57.1%
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
4 1 20.1% 25.0%
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 149
APPENDIX I (continued)
Table I3
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO for Cohort 2)

5 Years or More Cohort

2011-2012
Ethnicity - Language
# of
Students in
Cohort
# of Students
Meeting
AMAO 2
% Target
% Meeting
AMAO 2
Met
Target for
AMAO 2
Schoolwide 122 90 45.1% 73.8%
Chinese - Cantonese,
Mandarin, Taiwanese
2 2 45.1% 100.0%
Hispanic - Spanish 74 54 45.1% 73.0%
Japanese - Japanese 7 5 45.1% 71.4%
Korean - Korean 6 6 45.1% 100.0%
Vietnamese - Vietnamese 3 2 45.1% 66.7%

Table I4
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 3 in English Language Arts – ELA)
English - Language Arts 2011

# of EL
Students
# Proficient
or Above
%
Proficient
or Above
Ethnicity – Language
Schoolwide
36 4 11%
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin, Taiwanese
1 1 100%
Hispanic - Spanish
16 2 13%
Japanese - Japanese
6 0 0%
Korean - Korean
6 0 0%
Vietnamese - Vietnamese
1 1 100%

GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 150
APPENDIX I (continued)

Table I5
Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO 3 in Mathematics)
Mathematics (Grade Level Test) 2011

# of EL
Students
#
Proficient
or Above
%
Proficient
or Above
Ethnicity – Language
Schoolwide
36 16 44%
Chinese - Cantonese, Mandarin, Taiwanese 1 1 100%
Hispanic - Spanish 16 3 19%
Japanese - Japanese 6 3 50%
Korean - Korean 6 6 100%

Vietnamese - Vietnamese 1 1 100%

Table I6
THS Latino ELL Students’ Grade Distribution

Latino Students’ Grade Distribution
Grade Level
GPA of 2.0 or
below
GPA between
2.1 and 2.9
GPA of 3.0 or above
9
19 19 14
10
27 8 11
11
13 19 14
12
12 26 9
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 151
Appendix J
Student Survey Results

Figure J1: THS Latino ELL student survey results for the “knowledge” domain.

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Know
requirements
to get into 4
year:
Know SATs: Know ACTs: Know A-G
Courses:
Know CAHSEE:
Knowledge
% Yes
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 152
APPENDIX J (continued)

Figure J2. THS Latino ELL student survey results for the “motivation” domain.

Figure J3. THS Latino ELL student survey results for the “organization” domain.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Motivation
% Yes
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Organization
% Yes
GAP ANALYSIS COLLEGE READINESS 153
Appendix K
Parent Survey Results
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree

Agree
Strongly
Agree
Mean
(Weighted)
Trojan High School
keeps me well informed
of my son’s/daughter’s
progress with school
work
0 0 0 2 6 5 5.2
I use the internet to
access either the
“Naviance” or “Parent
Connect” program(s) at
Trojan High School
2 0 0 1 5 5 4.6
I have been invited to
meet with Trojan High
School officials to
discuss my
son’s/daughter’s
progress with school
work
2 2 1 2 3 3 3.6
Within the past six
months I have met with
Trojan High School
officials to discuss my
son’s/daughter’s
progress with school
work
3 3 1 1 3 2 3.3
I am familiar with
English Language
Multi-Cultural
Advancement
Committee meetings
(ELMAC)
1 1 1 5 2 3 4.1
I want my son/daughter
to become a skilled
professional
0 0 0 0 2 11 5.8
I want my son/daughter
to get a college degree
0 0 0 0 0 13 6
I expect my
son/daughter to go to
college upon graduation
from Trojan High
School
0 0 0 0 0 13 6
I expect my
son/daughter to get a job
upon graduation from
Trojan High School
2 1 2 2 2 4 4
Money will be a
problem for my
son/daughter attending
college
1 0 1 4 6 1 4.3

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This capstone project applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to identify performance gaps, develop perceived root causes, validate the causes, and formulate research-based solutions to present to Trojan High School. The purpose was to examine ways to increase the academic achievement of ELL students, specifically Latinos, by determining the gap that lies between the school’s desired results and its current performance. This project was carried out with an inquiry team of three doctoral students, and looked at the underachievement of ELL students as measured by the lack of students meeting eligibility to a four-year university. After looking at the goals of the school related to this population, and determining performance gaps, the inquiry team developed a list of possible causes. The team examined the list of possible causes through a review of data from interviews, surveys, a parent focus group, and achievement records. After analyzing the data, six primary causes were identified and validated: (a) achievement goals for ELLs were communicated in general form, (b) lack of enhanced parent-involvement initiatives, (c) lack of enhanced coordination of school support for ELLs, (d) inadequate access to school counseling resources, (e) lack of perceived university affordability, and (f) ELL student achievement was not consistent with their expectations. While the three dissertations (see Morris, 2013, and Kurland, 2013) of the inquiry team collectively offer solutions to the six causes identified, this dissertation focuses on solutions for two causes. The first set of solutions aims to build school wide support for ELLs and focuses on providing adequate school counseling resources to ELL students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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 learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Jimenez, Evelyn (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/22/2013

Defense Date 01/24/2013

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

Tag Capstone project,college readiness,English language learners,gap analysis model,OAI-PMH Harvest,School Counseling,school support

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), Stowe, Kathy (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email evelynjmnz35@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-241295

Unique identifier UC11294726

Identifier etd-JimenezEve-1572.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-241295 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JimenezEve-1572.pdf

Dmrecord 241295

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jimenez, Evelyn

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