University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
1

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTION
AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR STANDARD ENGLISH LEARNERS (SELS):
A CASE STUDY
by

Deborah Albin

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

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Deborah Albin
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
2

Acknowledgements
Through the support and encouragement of many, I have been able to complete this
amazing journey. First, I must thank my husband Olivier, who helped me keep my focus on the
importance of my studies. I cannot thank you enough for giving me room to flex my wings
while also providing comfort and encouragement during the toughest times! Second, I thank my
children, Xavier and Cassandra, who inspired me to continue in my studies. Additional thanks
for my siblings Rebecca and Adam. Merçi à Jose et Michel pour vos encouragements de l’autre
côté de l’atlantique.
Thanks to my closest friends for the pep talks bringing humor along with encouragement
all rolled into one. Without hesitation, these confidants led me through moments of fear,
discouragement, exhaustion, and desperation. Thanks to Barbara who always helped me see the
light at the end of the tunnel; the Turner family, for their willingness to support me no matter
what; and to Dr. Jonathan H. Turner, for his scholarly insight and writing support. More thanks
to a team of phenomenal educators, Carol, Dorothy and Margaret, all of whom conferenced with
me regularly while I wrote. To friends old and new who have supported me and carried me
through completing this dissertation. There is no doubt in my mind; everyone’s continued
support and counsel aided my completion of this process.
My appreciation goes to my chair, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, who worked tirelessly to push
me ahead. To my committee members, Dr. Ott and Dr. Robles, your thoughtful comments and
suggestions were invaluable. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students for their
support and suggestions throughout this process. To everyone who has joined me on this journey,
in part or in whole, I simply say “Thank you ALL for being there for me”.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 10
Statement of the Problem 14
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations 20
Study Delimitations 20
Assumptions 21
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 21
Definition of Terms 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 26
Exploring Cultural and Linguistic Diversity 27
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity 28
English Learners in California 29
The Hidden SEL 32
The Attributes of SELs. 34
African American and Latino SELs. 35
English Language Variation in Schools 36
The Academic Achievement Gap 37
Factors Leading to Achievement Gaps for Students of Color 38
NCLB and Achievement 41
Assessment of CLD Students 45
Critical Race Theory 46
Sociopolitical Theory and CLD Students 48
Language Cases and Policies: National and in the State of California 50
Accountability and Funding Policies 53
Language Development and Education 54
Sociocultural Theory and the Importance of Early Oral Language 55
Oral Language Development 57
Academic Language and Standard English 59
SEL Instruction and Support in Schools 61
High Expectations in the Culturally Responsive Classroom 62
Explicit Language and Literacy Instruction 63
Leadership Knowledge and the Practice of Quick Fixes 65
Critical Literacy Practices 66
Intervention as Primary Instruction 68
Connecting Common Core State Standards and CLD Achievement 69
The Role of Knowledge and Perceptions in Administrative Leadership 72
School Leader Knowledge of SEL Learners 74
School Leader Perceptions of SEL Learners 75
Principal Leadership in Developing a School Culture of Value 76
Beyond School Culture: Practices of Successful Principals 78
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
4

The Importance of Transformational Leadership in CLD Student Achievement 80
Summary 81
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 83
Research Questions 85
Research Design 86
Instrumentation 86
Artifacts/Documents 87
Interviews 87
Surveys 88
Triangulation 89
Sample and Population 89
Site Selection 90
Participant Selection 90
Data Analysis 91
Ethical Consideration 92
Validity and Reliability 92
Limitations 93
Delimitations 93
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 95
Research Questions 96
Instruments 97
Background Information and School Profile on Regent Elementary School 97
AEMP and MELD 100
Research Methodology 103
Research Question #1 104
Principal SEL and Home Language Knowledge 105
The Influence of Principal Knowledge on Achievement 108
Leading with Language Knowledge 111
Principal Perception of Ethnicity 114
The Principal’s Perception of Home Language Use 115
Summary 119
Research Question #2 120
Multiple Leadership Styles to Address Many Leadership Roles 124
Leadership Role #1: Change Agent. 125
Professional development for change 127
Locally designed training 127
Off-site training 130
Resource management for change 131
Leadership Role #2: Ideals and Beliefs 133
Value of shared ideals 133
Modeling leadership 134
Summary 135
Research Question #3 137
Teacher Perception of Principal Traits 138
Balanced Leadership for Balanced Support 142
Teacher and Principal Approach to the Teaching of SELs 145
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
5

The ELD Master Plan 149
Curriculum and Instruction 154
MELD instruction 156
Regent use of MELD instruction 158
Monitoring and Assessment 159
Data for evidence-based decision making 161
SEL assessment: LAS Links 162
Summary 165
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 168
Introduction 168
Research Questions 169
Findings 169
Conclusions 174
Recommendations for the Principal’s Role in Supporting Instruction for SELs 175
Implications Changing the Social Constructs of Language 176
Recommendations for Future Research 177
The Practices of Principals in Engaging Standard English Learners (SEL) in the Acquisition
of Standardized Academic English (SAE) 177
Teacher Perception of the Principals role in Language Acquisition 177
The Effectiveness of ELD Programs, Strategies and Methodology for the SAE Acquisition
of SELs 178
References 179
Appendix A: Participant Profile Form 195
Appendix B: English Language Variety Perception Questionnaire (ELVPQ) 196
Appendix C: Interview Administration Protocol 198
Appendix D: Principal Interview Questions 199
Appendix E: Teacher Interview Questions 201
Appendix F: Artifact Analysis Sheet 203
Appendix G: Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research 205
Appendix H: Ranked Responsibilities for First-Order and Second-Order Change 207

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
6

List of Tables
Table 1: Bilingual Education Typologies and Program Characteristics 31
Table 2: Alta Mesa School District, Local Area Elementary, and Regent Elementary
Enrollment by Ethnicity 98
Table 3: Alta Mesa School District, Local Area Elementary, and Regent Elementary by
Language Status 99
Table 4: Summary of Participant Background 104
Table 5: Regent Elementary School CST Data by Year Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced 109
Table 6: Strong Responses from Principal Casianio on ELVPQ Statements 117
Table 7: Regent Elementary Student Demographics: 2013-2014 146

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
7

List of Figures
Figure 1: NAEP Reading 4
th
Grade 40
Figure 2: NAEP Reading 8
th
Grade 41
Figure 3: NAEP Black, Hispanic and White Reading Scores, 4
th
Grade 42
Figure 4: NAEP Black, Hispanic and White Reading Scores, 8
th
Grade 43
Figure 5: NAEP Reading Scale Scores by Ethnicity and ELL Status 44
Figure 6: Conteptual Framework Model 50
Figure 7: Four Stages of Analysis by Glassier and Strauss 84
Figure 8: AEMP Stakeholder Agreement Responsibilities 102
Figure 9: Comparative Result of the Top Ten Perceived Attributes of Superior Leaders 139
Figure 10: Guiding Principles for Educating English Language Learners 150
Figure 11: Leverage Components and Elements, Supervision of Instruction 154

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
8

Abstract
In most urban communities English speaking African American and Latino students are
not achieving at levels commensurate with other racial groups. These Standard English Learners
(SELs) are a group of largely unidentified students struggling to attain academic proficiency.
SELs are particularly challenged in areas of literacy and English Language Arts. Not enough is
known about how the knowledge and perception of elementary school principals intersect around
SEL student achievement. A qualitative case study, methodology included purposeful sampling,
identifying a principal participant of an elementary school comprised of probable high SEL
population to examine knowledge, perception and leadership practice. Through the combined
lenses of cultural race theory, sociopolitical theory, and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978),
principal knowledge and perception of SELs was examined as related to school leadership and
SEL learning. The study also examines the role of principals in guiding instruction and teacher
quality to ensure SELs have equitable access to learning opportunities. A final element
determines ways teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support to assisting
SELs acquire Standard Academic English (SAE) proficiency.
Findings from this study indicate principals who are knowledgeable about and perceive
the needs of SELs as important are likely to develop structures that support SEL acquisition of
Standard Academic English (SAE). Principals with strong knowledge in curriculum and
instruction, assessment and teacher development are capable of supporting SELs. However false
assumptions about SELs can be formed if principals do not hold specific knowledge about SELs.
One of these errors is the exclusive use of the English Language Development (ELD) program
for English Language Learners (ELLs) to support SELs. This approach is not consistent with the
literature and may not be adequate for ensuring SEL achievement. In the face of competing
demands, successful principals, strive to meet the needs of all students. Learning about their
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
9

student subpopulations assists principals as they work to balance the status quo against rising
language and literacy demands of the new Common Core Standards (CCSS).

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
A Nation at Risk (Gardner, 1983), a report highly critical of the public education system
in America, provides fuel for an increasing tendency to blame educators for the low academic
achievement of K-12 students (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2004). General consensus in
the early 1980s intimated public education was in deep trouble. To this end, “legislation was
required to control and monitor the work of educators” (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon,
2004, p. 31). Legislation included the adoption of state mandated curriculum and high-stakes
achievement tests. The conceptualization of a “rising tide of mediocrity” in the report (Ravitch,
2013, pp 38) generated unprecedented levels of controversy and criticism about public school
capacity to teach all students (Hoff, 2013). Central to the argument in A Nation at Risk was the
acknowledgement of an achievement gap based on ethnicity.
Closing the racial achievement gap has been a major policy goal of education policy
makers since the time of Gardener’s report (Harris & Harrington, 2006). Following the adoption
of legislated policies and practices, annual data from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) has shown student achievement increases across the years, and across
ethnicities. However, despite an upward progression of scores, the achievement gap remains
large. In 2002, NAEP data revealed a score gap between African American and white students
of 27 points (Ravitch, 2013). In 2013, the gap remained nearly stable at 26 points. Latino
students have fared somewhat better with the 2002 gap of 26 points dropping to a 2013 gap of 21
points (NAEP, 2013). Modest achievement score changes indicates the pervasive problem
separating student achievement among ethnic subpopulations is not only real, but it also shows
mandated changes emerging from legislation following A Nation at Risk, have done little to
impact the gap. Accountability alone has been proven to be an inadequate means for providing
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
11

all students equitable learning opportunities in American schools (Madrid, 2011; Harris &
Herrington, 2006; Ravitch, 2013).
The ethnicity achievement gap begins long before children begin their first day in
kindergarten (Ravitch, 2013). With disproportionately more African Americans and Latino
children living in poverty than their white counterparts, issues of racism and societal oppression
are often cited as contributing factors to the academic achievement gap (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent,
Osher, & Ortiz, 2010; Stibers, 2008; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Although these factors are
significant and directly tied to student access, participation and engagement, they are not the only
reasons linked to disparate educational opportunities between culturally and linguistically diverse
(CLD) children and white children. In fact, evidence is surfacing which supports language
factors are highly impactful in student learning (Solorzano, 2013). For speakers of other
languages, language may have a more profound impact on student achievement than other
variables, including family income and parent education (Solorzano, 2013).
English Language Learners (ELLs) are officially recognized as a distinct subgroup in
standardized testing results (NAEP, 2013). Despite estimates indicating a majority of US born
African American and Latino students speak varieties of various forms English language
fluctuating significantly from the Standard English (Hollie, 2001; Le Moine, 1999; Okoye-
Johnson, 2011), they are not considered ELLs. Therefore ELLs are not eligible to receive formal
Standardized Academic English (SAE) acquisition support in schools. Literature refers to
English varieties of English forms spoken by many African American and Latino students as
vernacular English language (Fought, 2010). For the purposes of this study, forms of English
spoken by African American and Latino students are identified by the term “home language” or
as “varieties of language other than SAE.” Still, one is urged to remember, students whom speak
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
12

varieties of English are not officially recognized in educational policy; thus, these students are
difficult to identify or recognize in schools today. However, research from LeMoine (1999) and
Hollie (2011) has identified elements of commonality among groups of home language speakers.
Commonalities among home language speakers support the need for SAE language learning.
Furthermore literature, and some educational settings, students speaking varieties of English are
referred to collectively as Standard English Learners (SELs).
Home languages parallel Standard English language as both are based on rules, patterns
and codes unique to SAE language variations (Fought, 2010). Home languages may share some
common vocabulary with Standard English; however, the syntax and phonology are notably
different from those of Standard English (LeMoine, 1999; Terry, Connor, Thomas-Tate & Love,
2010). Home languages are the languages of home and childhood; they are the first language
spoken and learned by young children in homes where English varieties are spoken. Vygotsky’s
(1979) sociocultural theory describes learning as a social process, and the origination of human
intelligence in society or culture. Language is primarily a socially constructed tool embedded
within the home environment.
Home language is the child’s first language and the basis for interpersonal
communication and expression (Gee, 2006; Gutierrez, 1995; Ricento, 2013). Language as
developed within the sociocultural environment is an active component of cultural and personal
identity development (Gee, 2006; Gutierrez, 1995, Vygotsky, 1978). The inherent
interconnection between culture and language is at the core of language differences. Traditional
deficit perspectives of differences in culture and language historically positioned some students
and their home language as insufficient (Stockman, 2010). Similarly, many educators view
children arriving to the educational environment speaking home languages are “viewed as a
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
13

problem that needed to be fixed” (Stockman, 2010, p. 25) by educators. Deficit perspectives
have led many students speaking varieties of home language to being identified for special
education and being placed in remedial education classes for issues related to language (Becker,
2012; Samson & Lesaux, 2009; Stockman, 2010). The majority of SEL students do not have
language deficits requiring remediation. Rather, students are speaking a form of primary
language than different from what is expected in school. In this instance, students require
appropriate instruction. Home language speakers are most likely to experience success if they
are instructed in SAE instead of remediated toward school and academic language proficiency
(Stockman, 2010).
Understanding the pivotal role language difference plays in academic achievement may
lie at the heart of addressing the achievement gap between students of color and white students.
Behind the academic achievement gap lays perhaps a problem in learning inextricably linked to
the use of home language structures in an inflexible academic setting. Mismatch between home
and school language expectations often expressed through poor achievement scores in all areas,
but are most obvious in the area of English Language Arts. What may be missing for many
SELs is linguistic proficiency with the Standardized Academic English necessary to both fluently
comprehend instruction taught in SAE as well as to express the knowledge learned from the
curriculum in ways valued by teachers and society at large (Schleppegrell, 2012).
Principals as instructional leaders, play an essential role in supporting SAE proficiency
for SEL students. For principals to fully understand the process of developing schools proficient
in meeting the needs of a diverse population, they should both sustain knowledge of students
they serve, an understanding of how their own perceptions about diversity impact leadership
efforts. When principals hold knowledge about SEL students and the process of language
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
14

acquisition, they are better equipped to understand how the use of home language relates to
student learning and achievement. Linguistic knowledge influences decisions made by school
principals in designing appropriate learning environments useful in supporting SEL learners.
Absent of this knowledge, principals may arrive at incomplete conclusions and take actions
which may not lead toward improved SEL student learning. Another key piece in supporting
SEL learning is the perception principals’ carry of SEL students and their language. Principals
who are aware of their own “taken-for-granted frames of reference” (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-
Gordon, 2004, p. 64) including the perceptions and habits of mind which factor into decision
making for SEL learning, hold valuable insight which forms the basis for sound decision making.
Aware principals are better prepared to “generate beliefs and opinions which prove ‘more-true’
or justified to guide action” (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2004, p. 64). Thus, principal
knowledge and perception directly relate to how school site decisions of instruction and
remediation are made. These decisions may either support, or conversely undermine, SAE
acquisition for SELs.
Statement of the Problem
Over the past three decades, federal and state governments have developed a number of
mandates, policies and programs in an effort to respond to the needs of an increasing number of
linguistically diverse learners (Schleppergrell, 2012). Recently, these efforts include a focus on
providing access and support to students with primary language backgrounds, which differ from
Standard/Standardized Academic English (SAE). One of the largest and most heavily funded
language support programs is the English Language Development (ELD) program for English
Language Learners (ELLs). However, language policy leaves varieties of English language
speakers out of the ELD program and policy process. Therefore, Standard English Learners
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
15

(SELs) who may benefit from directed language instruction are excluded from ELD programs, as
these programs are reserved for students identified as speaking a language other than English.
Standardized English Learners (SELs), under current policy, have not been granted the universal
right to participate in structured language programs that would bring them to SAE proficiency.
Acquiring proficiency in Standardized Academic English is an essential element in
student achievement. SAE proficiency impacts student achievement in schools, as it is the
foundational language upon which the American educational system is based. SAE is both the
language with which children are expected to access knowledge as well as to navigate the daily
routines and rituals of school life and beyond. Children respond in different ways to the literacy
tasks of schooling. “Some children’s ways of responding to such tasks mesh[ing] more
effortlessly with the ways of their teachers than do those of other children” (Schleppergrell,
2012, p. 410). The closer students’ language of origin resembles SAE, effort students must exert
in meeting language demands of the classroom. Exerting less effort into language demands frees
each learner to focus on content rather than communication. Greater SAE proficiency, which is
valued by many educators, can lead to higher expectations and a greater chance for academic
success for speakers of SAE (Schleppergrell, 2012).
Acknowledgement of the vital role SAE plays in academic achievement is expressed in the
Common Core Standards (CCS). These new standards are no longer restricted to skill sets solely
focused on traditional academic domains. The CCS now includes elements specifically
attending to the role of language in all academic areas. For example, kindergarten through grade
five standards “include expectations for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language
applicable to a range of subjects, including but not limited to ELA” (CDE, CA.gov, n.d., p. 3).
With the inclusion of speaking, listening, and language standards, the need for SAE proficiency
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
16

is intensified. The Common Core Standards for ELA and literacy in language requires students
gain control over Standard English conventions to convey meaning in the context of school. “To
build a foundation for college and career readiness in language, students must gain control over
many conventions of Standard English grammar, usage, and mechanics as well as learn other
ways to use language to convey meaning effectively” (CDE, CA.gov, n.d., p. 31). Common
Core Standards sentiment assertion clearly link the importance of student mastery of SAE to
school success, particularly in ELA and literacy. The CCS standards recognize the role SAE
plays in academic proficiency. However, the standards are only a framework for outlining the
elements of student proficiency. The methods schools use to move students toward SAE
proficiency requirements are largely set by educational policies and practices set outside of the
school itself. These policies and practices sometimes limit principals’ ability to act as
instructional leaders in ways that support the learning and outcomes for SEL students.
Efforts directed at affecting changes to SEL achievement have primarily focused on
teachers and teaching practices. The use of sound, research based language instruction for SEL
students is an essential element of teaching for SEL students (Hollie, 2011). However, focusing
on teaching alone does not fully address the gap in SEL achievement. Narrowing the focus to
only teaching practice fails to address institutional policy and practices perpetuating inequity in
educational access (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Principals are tasked with ensuring local policies
and practices of the school sites ensure that quality education is attainable for all students in their
schools. The increasing diversity of culture and linguistic backgrounds of students make this
task more and more challenging for school administrators. As schools become more diverse,
they are faced with challenges and expectations to meet the needs of a broader range of students.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
17

The problem for school principals is that current language policies and structures severely
limit their ability to organize schools with an emphasis on SAE for all students. SEL student
access to academic language is for the most part, absent from the discussion about school policy
and program implementation. This lack of SEL consideration limits principals’ ability to meet
their charge of creating an environment in which all students can achieve. With the explicit
acknowledgement in the CCS of the vital role language plays in ELA and literacy, principals,
under current policies are challenged in meeting their charge to assume responsibility for
supporting SAE instruction for all students, including SELs.
The modern principal, as the organizational leader, is expected to manage the school
environment with an organizational culture directed toward student achievement and improved
student outcomes. Systematic limitation of principal access to structural supports and programs
designed to improve SAE acquisition for SELs increases barriers to student learning
(Schleppergrell, 2012). The omission of SEL languages from current language policy excludes
SEL students from participating in existing programs designed to build proficiency in SAE. This
exclusion means principals have access to few resources and find few programs designed to
improve the SAE of SEL students. Without these tools at their disposal, many school principals
are left with reinforcing negative views and potentially lowering expectations of students who
speak a variety of English other than Standard English.
In most urban communities, English speaking African American and Latino students are
not achieving at levels commensurate with other racial groups. Few schools or school districts
have come to recognize the SELs among this group of underperformers. A body of research
literature has identified a population of African American and Latino students as SELs (Hollie,
2001; LeMoine, 1999) and has attributed their low academic performance to their use of home
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
18

languages which differ significantly from the SAE required in American classrooms (Barron &
San Ramon, n.d.; Hollie, 2001, Okoye-Johnson, 2011). However, schools may not be providing
learning opportunities which encourage encourages SAE development. SAE development is
strengthened while building on the use of students’ first (home) language. The use of both
language registers is necessary for students to meet educational standards of literacy
(Schleppegrell, 2012). To date, a research gap exists as related to discerning the knowledge base
and perception of elementary school principals in relation to SEL student achievement and
school program design.
The study's primary purpose is to examine the knowledge and perceptions held by
California elementary school principals surrounding students who use a form of English different
from SAE in schools. Three research questions guide this study:
1) In what ways does principal knowledge and perception of home language used by SELs
relate to leadership decisions about the teaching and learning of SELs?
2) What role do principals play in guiding instruction and teacher quality to ensure that
SELs have equitable access to appropriate learning opportunities in ELA curriculum and
literary activities?
3) In what ways do teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support that
enables them to implement instruction that assists SELs in acquiring Standardized
Academic English (SAE) proficiency?
Significance of the Study
Using a language variety other than Standardized Academic English (SAE) can
influence the academic achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in
American schools. However, the connection between a learner’s use of language variety and
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
19

academic achievement is not well understood. SEL data are not widely tracked in many states,
and SELs are not a required reporting category for student achievement accountability in the
United States. Studies directly addressing the relationship between SEL primary language and
academic achievement are limited (Wilkinson, Miciak, Alexander, Reyes, Grown & Giani,
2011).
Compounding matters, most SEL students are also CLD students, meaning that many
CLD students struggling with the English Language Arts and with school literacy development
may in fact be SELs struggling with issues of language acquisition (LeMoine, 1999). Despite
policy development and school efforts to enact systems to combat this academic disparity, SEL
students remain behind their white peers in academic achievement. In light of the limited
success of policy driven, top-down mandates, the school becomes vital in supporting the range of
CLD and SEL students in American schools. The ability to recognize the needs of students and
develop local programs is essential in meeting this goal. In order to recognize the needs of SEL
students, administrator knowledge is vital. Knowledge alone is not enough to meet student needs
as the perceptions of individual leaders may affect their expectations for student achievement
and the instruction practices within a school (Troike, 1984). Therefore, more research is needed
required toward understanding what administrators know about SEL students, and how
administrators perceive students’ home language.
Understanding how these factors relate to administrative leadership practices could
initiate progress when it comes to educating SEL students. Studies such as this one will, it is
hoped, substantiate the administrators to learn more about the connection between the language
and learning of SEL students in elementary schools. This study will benefit elementary school
principals in developing appropriate supports that target academic and linguistic instruction of
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
20

SEL students. This study could also benefit district office personnel as they seek to develop
district programs for schools with large SEL populations. In addition, this study could also
benefit policy makers in understanding the additional complexity that home language plays in
teaching English Language Arts and in academic literacy development.
Limitations
This study is confined to one school. The data analysis and results of this study are
limited by the following: (a) time constraints; (b) accessibility to artifacts and stakeholders; and
(c) trust among members at the school site. Limited time inevitably affects the number of
artifacts, surveys, and interviews collected for analysis. A second limitation was the number of
schools meeting the criteria for site selection. A final limitation was finding a principal willing to
participate and invite teachers to join in the study. Identifying limitations is important, as they
might be factors in the quality of extrapolation of the qualitative data gathered in this study.
Study Delimitations
A delimitation of this study is the lack of official federal or state designation of Standard
English Learner as a student subpopulation in schools. Unlike other English learner (EL) groups
who are identified as students needing to acquire English, such as English Language Learners
(ELLs), Standard English Learners (SELs) are largely unidentified as students requiring
language instruction in public schools. In addition, just as with ELLs who come from a variety
of cultures and linguistic backgrounds, the SEL label encompasses a range of students from
different cultures, ethnicities and language backgrounds. This study faces limitations of defining
SEL students within the larger English speaking population. In order to address this limitation,
the researcher has created a definition by using proxy identifiers of ethnicity and student
achievement for SELs.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
21

The sample size was limited to a one school site due to the large data collection from in-
depth interview and the case study format of this research. The time, money and resources
needed for a larger sample size were not available for this study. Still, purposeful sampling
design ensures school site study focuses on a principal with a SEL population at the school to
obtain rich data necessary to answering the research questions. The advantage to a limited and
purposeful sampling is the researcher is able to focus on obtaining richly descriptive data
(Merriam, 2009).
Assumptions
One assumption undergirding this study is that participants were familiar with the idea of
Standard English Learners (SELs) and had some understanding SELs speak a language other
than Standard Academic English (SAE). Language variety is defined as “the result of mixing of a
heritage language and English to form new language which has its own syntax, phonology and
vocabulary” and is included on the English Language Variety Perception Questionnaire
(ELVPQ) survey to contextualize use for participants of varied perceptions. In addition, a brief
example of some phrases in SAE, two common home language English varieties spoken by
African American and Mexican American students are provided to substantiate information from
which participants can draw knowledge. A second assumption postulates participants will
respond honestly to questions asked both in the survey and in some of the interview questions.
The controversial nature of questions about language differences among ethnic subpopulations
could impact participant responses.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the issue of principal
knowledge and perception in relation to quality of instruction and academic success of SEL
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
22

students in English Language Arts. Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature, which seeks to
identify the oft-overlooked group of students known as SELs. In addition, Chapter 2 presents
various sociocultural perspectives on the importance of language development and cognitive
development (Vygotsky, 1978) as related to student learning an achievement. Moreover, an
exploration of the roles social and political actions have on quality and focus of educational
opportunities provided to American SEL students is a primary focus.
Chapter 3 describes methodology applied to investigate internal beliefs and values of
educators. Questionnaires, are used to support actions and operations of the school; artifacts are
utilized to analyze the relationship of administrators and teachers in the problem solving process
for SEL students. This chapter also provides detailed information about various instruments to
be used in collecting data from the participants. Furthermore a description of the data analysis
process is provided. Chapter 4 presents findings from the study by analyzing and organizing the
data collected. Chapter 5 provides conclusions and establishes the generalizability of the
findings. This chapter also summarizes recommendations and related educational implications.
Finally, direction for further research is explained.
Definition of Terms
Terms are defined according to relevance and alignment with research questions. While
there terms on the list appearing to be synonymous, one term may be used instead of another,
depending on the context.
Administrator (Principal). The person who leads a school.
African American Vernacular English. A dialect used by some African Americans in
the United States which consists of linguistic codes and patterns with a unique grammatical base
(LeMoine, 1999).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
23

Black. Refers to American students of African descent.
Code-switching. Ability to intentionally choose the appropriate language, dialect, or
style of the same language depending on the needs (time, place, audience, communicative
purpose) of the setting (Wheeler, 2008).
Culture. Any group of people who share a common history and set of relatively
common behaviors and/or communication patterns.
Dialect. Variations of language marked by certain ways of pronouncing words,
vocabulary choices, and variations of syntax.
Ebonics. Language of West and Niger-Congo African, Caribbean, and United States
slave descendants of Niger-Congo African origin (Green, 2002).
English Learner (EL). ELs are a highly heterogeneous and complex group of students,
with diverse, educational needs, backgrounds, languages, and goals. Some EL students come
from homes in which no English is spoken, while some come from homes where only English is
spoken; others have been exposed to or use multiple languages (NCATE, 2008).
English Language Learner (ELL). Those students working to acquire full proficiency
in English and attain parity with native speakers of English.
Home Language. The language (or the variety of a language) that is most commonly
spoken by the members of a family for everyday interactions at home and language learned as a
child at home (usually from their parents).
Latino/Hispanic. These two terms may refer to different groups at times in the
literature, for purposes of this paper, they are used interchangeably. Different data sources use
one of these two labels report data for the same group of students. For purposes of this paper,
these are primarily students of Mexican and Central American descent.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
24

Literacy. Relationship between spoken and written language, conventions of print,
fluency, knowledge of letters, sounds, words, and comprehension (Brock, Boyd & Moore, 2003).
Multicultural. Equal educational opportunities for students from diverse racial, ethnic,
social-class, and cultural backgrounds (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Mexican American English (MAE). Also known as Chicano English. A variety of
English which is spoken primarily by U.S.-born speakers which shows the influence of Spanish,
especially in the sound system (Fought, 2010).
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A nationally representative
assessment of academic performance of American students in the areas of mathematics, reading,
science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history (NCES, 2014).
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Primary federal entity for collecting
and analyzing data related to education (NCES, 2014).
Opportunity Gap. Society-wide hurdles that limit the opportunities for academic
success for students from diverse cultural groups who have been historically excluded from or
received limited access to education (Hudley & Mallinson, 2011).
Perception. The process of thinking that is formed by the assumptions and beliefs
established on core values, central beliefs and goals (Otara, 2011).
Standard/Standardized English (SE). The academic language that has been socially
constructed, imposed, and determined to be more prestigious and socially acceptable by the
predominant middle-class (Fought, 2010).
Standard/Standardized Academic English (SAE). The form of standardized English
language which is used for communication, display of knowledge, teaching and learning in
American schools and middle-class communication (Fought, 2010).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
25

Standardized English Learner (SEL). The ethnic native speakers of English whose
mastery of the Standardized Academic English language is limited due to their use of ethnic
specific nonstandard dialect (LeMoine, 1999).

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
26

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review provides background for complex issues surrounding learning
opportunities within public education provided for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)
students. Additional emphasis focuses on the unique educational and linguistic needs of smaller
subgroups of Standardized English Learners (SELs). Initially, an exploration of literature as it
defines CLD is followed by a description of SELs as a hidden subpopulation (Okoye-Johnson,
2011). Particular attention is given to the two largest groups of California SEL speakers, African
American and Latino students. Finally, importance of the present and pervasive achievement
gap between ethnic groups is examined.
Critical race and sociopolitical theories are introduced as guiding frameworks for
understanding how ethnicity and institutional bias and racism are related to the continuing gap
for African American and Latino students. These frameworks also set the stage for examining
how policy attempts to close the achievement gap have focused on factors related to student
achievement while missing the impact of the role that language difference plays in attaining
academic achievement. Federal and state language policies are examined to provide a brief
history explaining why most SEL students do not currently receive language support to attain
Standardized American English proficiency in U.S. schools.
Next, a study of early language and cognitive development are reviewed through
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. This theory provides a framework for understanding the
important role of language in cognitive and academic development. Subsequently, a discussion
about how language differences of many young CLD students, including speakers of “home
language” English language varieties, may relate to gaps in academic achievement will follow.
Following, the review presents the importance of vocabulary development in both students’ first
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
27

language as well as Standardized American English (SAE) is highlighted because of its
important role in learning academic content.
The final section explores perspectives educators, including school administrators, may
hold relative to CLD and SEL achievement in American schools. Included is an examination of
current perspectives and practices regarding teaching and learning for SEL students. The section
begins with an examination of operational use of deficit perspective in CLD instruction and its
current use in decision-making process of intervention and remediation of academic gaps in
student achievement. Following, the section includes a discussion of concerns raised related to
SEL language differences and new language expectations of recent Common Core State
Standards. Chapter five takes a brief look at current literature related to educator perceptions of
SEL learners. The section concludes with a discussion about the role of school leadership as it
relates to teaching a diverse population, including SEL learners.

Exploring Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
This section examines literature on linguistic diversity among students in schools today.
In the field of education, poor understanding exists about differences in the linguistic background
and culture of students may lead to assumptions about students different from mainstream
culture and language (Gutierrez, 1995). These assumptions produce teaching and learning
experiences for CLD students that may produce gaps in CLD student opportunities for learning
(Ortiz, 2001). One group in particular, SELs, are an often overlooked minority in public
education. Thus, examining various aspects of linguistic diversity and diversity’s connection to
the achievement gap for minority students.
A great deal of research has focused on the academic performance of two ethnic groups
of students who consistently underperform on tests of standards-based achievement as compared
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
28

to other groups, and these two groups are of African American and Latino students (Braun,
Chapman & Vezzu, 2010; Harris & Herrington, 2006; Ravitch, 2013). Many African American
and Latino students are considered culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students (Terry &
Irving, 2010). CLD is a broad term used to loosely define students who are distinguished from
the white-Anglo middle-class culture by ethnic or linguistic difference. These students may also
come from low-income households (Hoff, 2013; Terry & Irving, 2010). This term CLD is
designed to recognize the changes in ethnic and cultural demographics in American schools that
have occurred within the past 50 years. However, the breadth of the term leads to confusion and
a need to clarify what it means in context of the diversity of students in American schools.

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
The term of CLD has emerged in relation to multi-cultural education to guide much of
the focus on the achievement gap among student groups. Multi-cultural education challenges the
prejudices and stereotypes that can lead to discrimination and unequal opportunities in school
(Gargiulo, 2011). Topics related to educational achievement, culture and multi-culturalism, have
been contexts for CLD studies for the past twenty years (Artiles, et al., 2010). Considerable
research exists on the many faceted effects of a pluralistic society and the effects of multi-
culturalism in American schools (Nieto, 2011). A multi-cultural approach provides educators a
means of reflecting on the sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts that flow between students
and schools as they play out in the realities of educational inequality and oppression (Nieto,
2011). Language plays an important role in the sociocultural and sociopolitical contests of
schooling (McKay & Rubdy, 2011).
Multi-cultural education focuses on issues of difference, power, and privilege in school
(Nieto, 2011). These systemic issues are deep-rooted and subject to many societal and political
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
29

forces and may be at the very foundation of the continued injustices that occur in American
schools (Nieto, 2011). Focusing on only the cultural aspects of CLD neglects the important
element of language, which is not only a means of communication, but also an expression of
culture (Gee, 2001). Linguistic diversity, as such, can play an important role in integrating
student culture into the teaching and learning within schools.
The United States society is an amalgamation of many different cultures, ethnicities and
languages, and this diversity is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Estimates are that by the
year 2050, the US population is projected to be approximately 45 % White, 31 % Latino, 12 %
Black, 8 % Asian and 1 % Native American (Gargiulo, 2011). These groups are represented in
the five classification schemes that the federal government uses for reporting statistics. These
are broad classifications and can camouflage cultural variability within each group. These five
subpopulation groups, by nature of the variety of the population they represent, can obscure the
distinct values, norms and behaviors of the individuals within the group (Gargiulo, 2011).

English Learners in California
One broadly recognized group of CLD students is the English Language Learner (ELL).
ELLs are a significant portion of California public school students. The California Department
of Education (2014) reports that in the 2012–13 school year, there were approximately 1.346
million English learners in California public schools, and about 43.1 % of the state’s public
school enrollment. The ELL is a learner whose language is recognized to have a national origin.
The ELL population in California is highly diverse. The California Department of Education
(2014) defines English learners as those students who speak language other than English in their
homes. The state identifies and tracks data for 59 identified languages plus one category of
“Other non-English languages”. Although ELL data are collected for 59 language groups, 95 %
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
30

speak one of the top ten languages in the state. Spanish far surpasses other languages with a
majority representation at 84.67 %. The majority of English learners (72 %) are enrolled in the
elementary grades, kindergarten through grade six. The rest (28 %) are enrolled in the secondary
grades, seven through twelve, and in the ungraded category. The majority of California’s young
ELLs are native-born and more than 180,000 or 13% of those ELLs are kindergarteners (Hill,
2012). However, California does not keep specific data on speakers of English language variety
languages, speakers of regional dialects, nor speakers of indigenous Native American Languages
(California Department of Education, 2014). These are students who comprise a significant
portion of the CLD population in California schools.
Attempts in schools to address issues of cultural and linguistic diversity have led to a
variety of approaches of instruction. ELLs are served through programs of language assistance
(e.g., English as a Second Language, High Intensity Language Training, and bilingual education)
as mandated by the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). One of
the most prominent approaches is bilingual education. Bilingual education focuses on the nearly
20% of the population who speak a language other than English (Gargiulo, 2011). Bilingual
education is a field shrouded in much debate, as its purpose and goals shift over time based on
educational, political, and societal pressures. One perspective in bilingual education is that
students should receive language assistance to function effectively in both their native language
and English (Gargiulo, 2011).
For students who are non-English speaking, bilingual education has shown to be most
successful in increasing academic gains and improving English language skills (Gargiulo, 2011).
The term bilingual education refers to an organized and planned program that uses two (or more)
languages of instruction (Cummins, 2009). Central to bilingual design is instructional practice of
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
31

teaching in both the student’s native, or home language, as well as in the newly acquired second
language. Bilingual instruction teaches focuses on teaching subject matter content through
multiple languages rather than just teaching the languages themselves (Cummins, 2009). The
goals of bilingual programs vary widely across contexts that lead to distinctive differences in the
organizational structures of bilingual programs. The chart below summarizes seven of the most
frequently used bilingual program designs:
Table 1
Bilingual Education Typologies and Program Characteristics
Typology Program Characteristics
Enrichment/two-way
immersion programs
Aim to enrich students' educational experience by strongly promoting
bilingualism and bi-literacy. Involves both majority and minority
language students
Remedial programs Remediate or compensate for presumed linguistic deficits
Maintenance programs Aim to help language minority students maintain and develop their
proficiency in their home language
Transitional programs Designed as a temporary bridge to instruction exclusively through the
dominant language of the school and society
Late-exit/Early-exit
programs
Distinguishes transitional bilingual programs according to the grade level
at which students’ transition from the bilingual program into mainstream
monolingual classes.
Assumes students will benefit by transitioning from the bilingual program
into the mainstream program as rapidly as possible
Immersion programs Immerses students in a second-language instructional environment for
between 50 and 100 % of instructional time with the goal of developing
fluency and literacy in both languages. Students may be either from the
dominant linguistic group or members of an ethno-cultural or indigenous
community whose heritage language is one of the languages of instruction
Submersion programs Provides 100 % of instruction through the dominant language (students'
L2); teachers typically do not understand students' L1, and few
instructional supports are available to help students understand instruction
or express themselves through either L1 or L2. These programs are also
termed sink-or-swim programs.
(Cummins, 2009)
The table above reflects a wide variety of language instruction program styles used in the
United States today. However, the most commonly used program is structured immersion
(Cummins, 2009). This program is an English instructional programs which is designed provide
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
32

comprehension supports, including very limited use of students' primary language (Cummins,
2009). Use of the students’ home language enables ELLs to understand instruction. The most
successful bilingual programs are those aiming to develop bilingualism and bi-literacy
(Cummins, 2009). The relative hidden nature of SELs in the population, combined with a
prevalent negative attitude among educators in the United States (Champion, Cobb-Roberts &
Bland-Stewart, 2012), place SELs at particular risk for educational failure.
The Hidden SEL
The term “linguistic” in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD), is not solely
focused on language in the context of speakers of another national language such as ELLs.
Rather linguistic diversity covers a broad range of languages and ways of using language
(Bunch, 2014) and includes a broader range of language users than those whose first language
originates from an officially recognized national or indigenous origin (Fought, 2010; Green,
2002: Hollie, 2001; LeMoine, 1999). The preponderance of bilingual research and existing
language policy may color educator and policy maker’s understanding of linguistic difference
causing it to be interpreted as relating only to the population classified as ELLs. A group often
overlooked in the category of linguistic diversity in policy and practices are Standardized
English Learners (SELs).
SELs include students for whom English is their first and often only language spoken in
the home. However, SELs may be classified as limited English proficient, bilingual, language-
minority students, heritage speakers and nonmainstream dialect speakers dependent on their
ethnic background (Hollie, 2001; Bateman & Wilkinson, 2010). One thing all SELs have in
common is they learn in American schools with a primary language “other than the middle class,
mainstream English used in schools” (Terry & Irving, 2010, p. 111.) SELs have no formal
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
33

knowledge of a separate national language (Bateman & Wilkinson, 2010). One factor
distinguishing SELs from ELLs is, despite speaking a form of language that does not conform to
standards of conventional Standard English, their spoken language is not officially recognized.
The language spoken by SELs typically use a process which mixes Standardized English
vocabulary into an independent, systematic and rule-governed language which differs from SAE
(Barron & San Roman, n.d.). The language of SELs is governed by a different set of
phonological, grammatical and syntactical rules than those common to SAE (Gee, 2001; Hollie,
2001; Green, 2002). This linguistic difference is the heart of this study; it may be a hidden factor
in at the heart of the academic achievement gap.
Research on SELs has evolved through periods of academic interest and periods of
decline (Baron, 1999). During the 1980s, significant research was conducted with African
American students who were identified as SELs in an effort to determine the impact of language-
variety use in student achievement (Green, 2002). The locus of research was centered a large
urban areas where SELs struggled toward academic achievement (Baron, 1999; Green, 2002).
Researchers at the time posited language might have been an underlying factor in the gap of
achievement. However, political and social forces pushed this line of reasoning to the
backburner larger social problems of inequity of wealth and opportunity came to the forefront
(Ladd, 2012). At the same time, an unprecedented influx of immigration to the United States
affected the significance of SEL research; and immigration led to decreased attention on the
significance of SEL research (Ogbu, 1995). With the focus on second language acquisition,
SELs in most areas of the nation remained hidden within the larger category of the English
speaking population, and their language needs went unaddressed.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
34

The Attributes of SELs. SELs are a diverse population, encompassing a number of
different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. A SEL student is an “ethnic native speaker English
mastery of the Standardized English (SE) language used in the curriculum is limited due to their
use of ethnic specific nonstandard dialect” (Okoye-Johnson, 2011, p. 1). Language variation
varies by culture, region and by ethnicity (Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Language variations are not
simple differences in how words are said, but instead, they are system of communication and
cultural identity developed in groups socially isolated from mainstream society (Stockman,
2010). Because of their minority status, speakers of English language varieties, of both
immigrant and indigenous origins, have experienced little opportunity to transition into using
Standardized American English in the same way other non-minority immigrant groups have done
been able to do (Stockman, 2010). Speakers of varieties of English other than SAE took to
overlaying informally learned American English into the existing rules of the native ethnic
languages (Green, 2002). The over lain American English vocabulary placed on to native
language structures has promoted an inaccurate modern perception. Many believe home
language varieties are bad or poorly learned copies of SAE (LeMoine, 1999; Stockman, 2010).
Early schooling policies, such as the “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws (1876-1965)
denied schooling to many African Americans and other non-white ethnic groups (Okoye-
Johnson, 2011), excluding generations of English variety speakers from the formal education
required to acquire the standardized forms of English language. These policies of veiled
discrimination limited opportunities for some ethnic groups to learn SAE. Although not limited
to this list, the most prevalent SEL groups studied in the literature are African American,
Mexican American, Hawaiian American, Southern American and Native American students.
SEL languages stand on their own semantics and have features not directly attributable to either
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
35

the student’s heritage languages or SAE (Barron & San Roman, n.d.). Regardless of origin,
modern English variety speakers are using distinctly different rule governed language varieties
found in their home communities and are also bringing that language into the mainstream of the
SAE speaking classroom (Barron & San Roman, n.d.).
African American and Latino SELs. In the current era of globalization, students are
expected to interact with new methods and ways of learning in schools. Learning today places
emphasis on increased social interchange across cultural and linguistic boundaries (Cummins,
2009). This practice means a child’s ability to communicate within different linguistic
environments affects their chances of being able to navigate the educational environment. A
student’s facility with complex communication in the academic environment relates directly to
their academic success (Cummins, 2008). Therefore, their ability to understand and express both
oral and written ideas relevant to school success (Cummins, 2009) is likewise impacted.
Many African American and Latino children who are also U S natives often speak
English in the home, yet they may speak a language variety considered a non-standard form of
English (Hollie, 2001). People of African descent who are proficient speaking some aspect of
African American Vernacular English (AAVE) are estimated at 80% to 90 % in the United
States (Hollie, 2001). The prevalence of Latino home language speakers is more difficult to
determine because of the prevalence of Latino Spanish speakers in the country. Many Latino
SELs are identified early in their educational career as ELLs even when English is the primary
language spoken in the home (Barron & San Ramon, n.d.).
SEL research contradicts the assumption that all English-Only (EO) students’ first
language is Standardized American English (Hollie, 2001). AAVE is a language variety that uses
set systems of phonological sounds, word structure, sentence structures, meaning development,
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
36

and organization of vocabulary patterns that differ from SAE (Green, 2002). Mexican American
Language (MxAL), also referred to as Chicano English, is recognized as having core differences
in phonology, syntax, and semantics from both standardized Spanish and American English
languages (Barron & San Roman, n.d.). Students of parallel English languages are not identified
as ELLs, rather they are categorized as EO, and hence are not eligible to receive the language
support of ELL programs in California schools.
African American and Latino student groups, especially in dense urban areas, continue to
show patterns of underachievement that may be related to language use (Champion, Cobb-
Roberts & Bland-Stewart, 2012; Rubin, 2014). As speakers of a variety of English which differs
from Standardized American English, SELs may be judged as inferior by SAE speakers and
experience linguistic discrimination (Champion, Cobb-Roberts & Bland-Stewart, 2012). There
are a considerable number of distinctions in the English language proficiency of SEL learners as
compared to students raised in homes where SAE is spoken when they enter school (Halbach,
2012). These distinctions are not only related to grammar or phonetic features, but also in ways
of narrating or explaining ideas and thoughts (Halbach, 2012).

English Language Variation in Schools
Sometimes the linguistic differences of children who speak English language variations,
can be significant, leading some teachers to falsely view their language-use as deficient or
defective (Stockman, 2010; Champion, Cobb-Roberts & Bland-Stewart, 2012). Educators may
perceive the need to listen more closely to SELs in order to extrapolate meaning as compared to
children who speak varieties of English which closer resemble SAE (Halbach, 2012). Results of
this perception possibly contribute to African American and Latino SEL students to encountering
low teacher expectations and negative attitudes from educators about the language they bring to
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
37

school (Champion, Cobb-Roberts & Bland-Stewart, 2012). Misinterpreting language differences
among SELs can lead to potential consequences of schools reacting to language differences with
programs and interventions that do not directly address their linguistic needs. Rather, standard
remedial efforts are made through existing pathways for intervention, which may result in
referral for special education. Because linguistic differences may not be well understood,
students simply languish academically for years without additional academic support (Ortiz,
2011).
Existing SEL research appears to focus on an implicit rather than explicit link between
ethnicity, achievement and home language. When biological traits are used as a proxy for
language problems arise (Wilkinson, et al., 2011), and the extent to which the home language of
SELs impacts student achievement becomes difficult to quantify. In addition, the prevalence of
speakers using the full range of English language varieties remain, for the most part,
unaccounted for and absent in collected student data. However, it is clear there is a historical
and persistent achievement gap for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in
American schools (Braun, Chapman & Vezzu, 2010; Harris & Herrington, 2006; Ravitch, 2013),
and many CLD students may also be SELs. Connecting the gap between cultural use of
language and the expectations of standardized academic language of instruction may be at the
core of differences in academic achievement behind the different subpopulations of students.

The Academic Achievement Gap
A great deal of attention in research and the media has focused on the persistent
achievement gap in academic performance between groups of students over the past forty years.
Spurred by the seminal 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, many school districts across the nation
refocused efforts on equalizing the educational playing field for students of color (primarily
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
38

African-American and Latino students). These efforts were not universal. In some places, even
today, programs and efforts to close the gap may be poorly executed or overlooked all together
(Ravitch, 2013). Continued inequalities are behind a sizable opportunity gap that has created
long standing barriers for CLD students who may also speak English language varieties at home
(Rodriguez, 2008). This opportunity gap represents reduced opportunities for learning as
compared to opportunities for non- SEL students caused by both factors unique to CLD as well
as historical factors which continue to serve as perpetual barriers to the learning environment
(Blanchett, Klingner, & Harry, 2009).
Factors Leading to Achievement Gaps for Students of Color
A Nation at Risk (Gardner, 1983) exposed a concern for American people relatively
unknown prior to the report. Gardner’s report compared the achievement of American students
to the achievement of students in other nations. Lower student achievement (particularly that of
CLD students) was compared to students in other nations. The comparison led to a number of
policies and programs designed to respond to the growing “crisis” of low student achievement
(Harris & Herrinton, 2006; Ravitch, 2013). One of the most prominent policies was instituted
nearly two decades after the report. The landmark No Child Left Behind (No Child Left Behind
[NCLB], 2002) legislation of 2001, was designed to place emphasis on the need for accountable
academic reporting on the proficiency of all students. The policy’s intent was to establish
empirical data to use in monitoring and influencing changes in reporting, practice, and
curriculum for all students (Ravitch, 2013).
One effect of the policy was, for the first time, all students - including those who had
been historically excluded from existing testing systems - would participate in standardized
educational testing (Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). NCLB was the start of a wave of subsequent
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
39

efforts for educational reform. These reforms included teacher evaluation systems linked to
student achievement by test scores, the promotion of expanded parental choice in schooling
including the charter movement, and the development of competition in education (Ladd, 2012).
Reforms were primarily focused on the achievement gap and in trying to equalize opportunity for
students of color. The effectiveness of these far reaching accountability policies in improving
the outcomes for students of color remains debated. On the one hand, NCLB data collection
provides evidence that all students, regardless of ethnicity, perform better on tests of academic
achievement today than they did twenty years ago (Ravitch, 2013). Achievement for all students,
including students of color, has increased when measured by assessment tied to academic
standards (Hill, 2012).
However, the same NCLB data also demonstrate that the achievement gap persists today,
just as it did in the 1980s (Harris & Herrington, 2006; Ravitch, 2013). To demonstrate the
continued gap over time, Figures 1 and 2 below provide longitudinal NAEP reading scale scores
for 4
th
and 8
th
grade students in the area of reading from 2002-2013.
Figure 1 shows longitudinal data on reading assessments for 4
th
grade students by
ethnicity. The data shows students of African descent and Latino students have performed below
the levels of white, Asian/Pacific, and 4
th
grade students as a whole, in all years from 2002-2013.
Figure 2 shows that 8
th
Grade students experienced similar increased score across the 2002-2013
years.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
40

Figure 1: NAEP Reading 4
th
Grade

Figure X. NAEP reading 4
th
grade. Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP); Digest 2013, Table 221.10 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest
/d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp. Adapted with permission.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
41

What these figures demonstrate is that if the achievement of Black and Latino students
had increased, and White achievement had stood still, the gap would have narrowed considerably
(Ravitch, 2013). However, white achievement increased along with Black and Latino
achievement, meaning that the gap was only minimally closed (Braun, Chapman & Vezzu, 2010;
Madrid, 2011).
NCLB and Achievement. The 2002-2013 data serve only to highlight the continuation
of this gap over time (Ravitch, 2013). A major reason for the passage of NCLB was the
expectation that the policy would greatly narrow, and even possibly close the well- documented
achievement gaps among ethnic subpopulations (Harris & Harrington, 2006). Longitudinal data
provided under NCLB has revealed that although at times the gap has been narrowed to some
Figure 2: NAEP Reading 8
th
Grade

Figure X. NAEP Reading 8
th
grade. Adapted from U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Digest 2013, Table 221.10
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest /d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp. Adapted with
permission.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
42

extent, the gap has not come close to closing, and students of color continue to perform at
substantially lower levels than other students (Braun, Chapman & Vezzu, 2010; Hoff, 2013;
Ladd, 2012).
The NAEP reading scale score gap between white students and the scores of African
American and Latino students for 4
th
grade and 8
th
grade is examined in Figures 3 and 4 below.
Figure 3: NAEP Black, Hispanic and White Reading Scores, 4
th
Grade

Figure X. NAEP Black, Hispanic and White reading scores. Adapted from U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Digest
2013, Table 221.10 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest /d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp.
Adapted with permission.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
43

Examination of data in figures three and four above shows little progress has been made
toward closing the reading achievement gap between the top performing and lowest performing
ethnic subpopulations in both primary and secondary education over the past decade and a half.
The persistent reading gap shown in the NAEP data in both 4th grade and the 8th grade for
Latino and Black students shows something is impeding their reading development in school.
Examining the relationship between grade levels provides evidence that early gaps in
achievement lead to continued gaps in later education (Hoff, 2013) as the change in performance
between the grades was limited. The exact reasons behind these gaps are not currently unclear.
Reported data sets with the NAEP do not currently take into account differences in
student language variations. The United Sates does not have a process in place to systematically
disaggregate data for purposes of identifying, monitoring and supporting SEL students (LeMoine
Figure 4: NAEP Black, Hispanic and White Reading Scores, 8
th
Grade

Figure X: NAEP Black, Hispanic, and White Reading Scores, 8
th
Grade. Adapted from U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Digest 2013, Table 221.10
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest /d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp. Adapted with permission.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
44

& Hollie, 2007). Currently, only English Language Learner (ELL) and non-ELL status are the
only reported measures in which language differences are considered. Figure 5 below, NAEP
reading data of 4
th
Grade students by ethnicity is shown alongside NAEP reading data of students
by ELL status. This table demonstrates how students of different ethnic backgrounds compare
by language classification.
The figure above shows that for each year of NAEP data collection in the years between
2007 and 2013, ELLs have consistently lower scores than Non-ELLs. However, these data do
not speak to the academic performance of students who are also speakers of English language
varieties. Both African American and Latino groups incorporate the majority of home language
speakers, looking at longitudinal data may provide some insight into the effect of SEL
Figure 5: NAEP reading scale scores by ethnicity and ELL status

Figure X: NAEP reading scale scores, by ethnicity and ELL status: Selected years 2007-
2013Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Digest
2013, Table 221.10 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest /d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp. Adapted
with permission.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
45

performance on NAEP scoring. Both African American and Latino groups in 4
th
grade score
consistently below white and Asian/Pacific Islander over the four-year period. The ELL
category only identifies those students who have received formal language assessment, excluding
disaggregated data reflecting SELs’ performance.
Assessment of CLD Students. Growing in the field of ELL research is a concern about
the validity and reliability for assessment of students who speak other languages (Abedi, Bailey,
Butler, Castellon-Wellington, Leon & Mirocha, 2005). The performance of ELL students on
multiple-choice style assessments (such as the standardized assessments of NCLB) has been
shown to lag behind that of non-ELL students (Abedi, et al, 2005; Abedi, 2010). In a study
attempting to address the validity of administering large-scale content assessments to ELLs,
conducted by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing
(CRESST) in 2005, researchers found that the language demand of standardized achievement
tests could have a direct relationship with academic English proficiency. The researchers found
the level of academic language proficiency could become a barrier to comprehension (Abedi, et
al, 2005).
Testing variables unrelated to the measurement construct, including unnecessary
linguistic complexity, cultural, and social biases in the construction of the items, affects student
access to comprehending and motivation in responding to question items (Abedi, 2010). Efforts
to create standardized assessments, which are more accessible for ELLs, have not been entirely
successful. Many standardized assessments designed to evaluate student learning continue to
hold a high linguistic processing load. The linguistic processing load, or the cognitive effort
required to understand assessment language creates a barrier when it comes to test item
comprehension. Since more effort is placed on understanding academic language than on the
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
46

construct being measured (Abedi, 2010), research indicates there may be a relationship between
language variations spoken by SELs and the academic language load of standardized
assessments.
Critical Race Theory
One framework providing background for the devaluation of student language is Critical
Race Theory (CRT). When examining the achievement gap of CLD and students, one must look
beyond the data alone. CRT helps identify and explore those individual and systematic values
framing the broader educational community in which the achievement gap exists (Taylor, 2010).
CRT is useful for grounding the achievement gap in the history of ethnic struggles and
prejudices held against people of color.
CRT is a theory, which can break through some oversimplification of ethnic grouping
and attitudes about languages belonging to specific ethnicity groups. CRT investigates the role
of power in influencing the relative social positioning of different groups of individuals (Ricento,
2013). The theory takes into consideration micro-cultural factors such as social class and smaller
group characteristics can influence how different ethnic groups fare within the macro-culture
(Ricento, 2013). CRT helps explain why languages associated with some ethnic groups are
viewed as inferior while others are not (Green, 2002). All languages are of fundamental equality
in the world of research and practice of linguists (Greene, 2011). Every language, dialect and
variation has the ability for speakers to express thoughts and make themselves understood
(Greene, 2011). CRT provides a framework to examine the educational experience of CLD
students, and in speakers of NSL, linking issues of ethnicity and language to deep prejudices and
power (Green, 2002; Greene, 2011).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
47

Understanding perspectives on linguistic and ethnic membership can help identify the
role language plays in factors of privilege and supremacy (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Identifying
these practices and perspectives sheds light on structural racism which has developed around
language, and which through implicit acceptance over time, has had a hand in molding the
formation and operation of many social institutions regarding language and linguistic difference.
Implicit racism based on linguistic differences has denied large numbers students of color access
to classroom discourses based on the language or form of language they speak (Sullivan &
Artiles, 2011).
Although ethnicity can provide useful measurement in determining a broad sense of
student group proficiency, using ethnicity alone as a means of student classification may
potentially obscure or misrepresent the significance of subpopulation groups within the larger
ethnic population. The hidden nature of differences in linguistic heritage, regional linguistic
differences, and individual academic language proficiency levels makes comparison, even within
ethnic grouping, difficult (de Jong & Harper, 2007).
Linguistic diversity data are largely is missing from current data collection methods and
as such, serves to maintain the hidden SEL. The impact of maintaining this hidden subgroup is
that it marginalizes SEL students and diminishes their political interest and representation when
it comes to issues of policy and legislation. When a subgroup of students is invisible, the
students in that subgroup may be unintentionally marginalized, leaving their needs unattended.
Investigating the role of power in influencing the status of language in society and associated
language policies can help provide a framework for understanding the struggles of SEL students
today.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
48

Sociopolitical Theory and CLD Students
A second framework, Sociopolitical Theory, provides a lens for understanding how
historical oppression, created through social power differentials, has directly contributed to the
institutionalization of oppression. The sociopolitical framework can help in understanding how
language differences are tied to social class and how perceptions of these differences can affect
teaching and learning in schools. Applying this theory to learning environments and
opportunities of CLD students (including SELs), serves to address asymmetries in factors that
have a strong hand in the continued marginalization of students with non-majority cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. Frerie (1970, 1993) provided an understanding of how marginalization
leads to the maintenance of oppression through both overt and covert institutionalized structural
systems. Those in positions of dominance maintain oppression through structures supporting
prejudices and sometimes leading to the exclusion of marginalized groups (Siebers, 2008).
Similarly, sociopolitical frameworks provide understanding of effects arising from denying the
legitimacy of non-mainstream systems of communication. Power dynamics are highlighted by
use of non-legitimized language within the greater society (Green, 2002).
For ethnic minorities, defined in terms of “race”, language has historically played a role
in the process of segregation and oppression (Greene, 2011). Throughout American history,
minority groups that learned the standard form of English were seen as successfully integrated;
those who did not largely remained victims of racism and poverty (Greene, 2011). Languages
most valued in society and schools are those aligned to middle class values and culture (Troike,
1984). Children entering school speaking standardized English in schools are typically
advantaged with both more socioeconomic resources at home and higher status in school than
those who do not (Burchinal, McCartney, Steinberg, Crosnoe, Friedman, McLoyd, Pianta, &
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2011). As a relationship between valued language
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
49

use and social acceptance exists (Greene, 2011), educators may push students toward linguistic
assimilation, which can lead to a devaluation of the culture and language children bring with
them from their homes (de Jong & Harper, 2007). Students who enter school using non-
dominant languages and language forms come to see their own languages of less value. Thus,
student validity is position in tandem with dominant language assimilation (Troike, 1984).
Language devaluation has an impact. Children who do not believe their language is
valued may reject the school environment - middle-class academic orientation - and opt out of
the learning environment all-together (Troike, 1984). A sociopolitical lens supports
understanding of how schools construct perpetual academic failure among subordinated groups
(Cummins, 2008). Schools can inadvertently, through a misunderstanding of social and political
interactions construct academic failure among subordinated groups through policies, which may
limit or restrict educational access (Ricento, 2013).
Figure 6: Conceptual Framework Model

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
50

Figure six above provides a model of the framework used for this research and
demonstrates how the theoretical framework, along with principal leadership practices, provide
the background for the study as intersection of historical, societal, educational and linguistic
influences are examined to better understand how these factors related to SEL learning and
achievement.
Language Cases and Policies: National and in the State of California
Language polices embody values and beliefs of the legislators and policy makers who
craft and lobby for the policies. Many policies are designed with the traditional view of the
attainment of the “American Dream” in mind. On the federal level, language policy remains
rather absent, despite the belief by many that English is the “official” language. (Citrin,
Reingold, Walters & Green, 1990). Although some individual states list English as their official
language, there is no requirement to do so from the federal level, and many do not identify an
official language (Citrin, Reingold, Walters & Green, 1990). In 1988, California, under pressure
from the English-Only movement, amended the state constitution with Proposition 63 to declare
English as the official language of the state (Dyste, 1989). Although some states have
designated English as the official language of the state, the United States remains one of the most
linguistically heterogeneous countries in the world (Madrid, 2011).
The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1968 (BEA) and subsequent amendments to that Act in the 1970s and 1980s, provided federal
legislation that recognized the needs of limited English proficiency (LEP) students. Along with
the BEA, came prohibition of discrimination on the basis of a student’s limited English ability
(Jepsen & Alth, 2005). The BEA, following litigation in the early 1970s, was amended to
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
51

require school districts to have special programs for LEP students regardless of federal or state
funding (Zacarian, 2012).
Another outcome of the Civil Rights Movement included public recognition of students
who were intentionally segregated by ethnicity and language in American schools. In 1973,
Keyes v. Denver was the first de facto segregation case heard in the U.S. The case argued Latino
and African American students were largely separated from their peers. As a result, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled schools must desegregate their students (Zacarian, 2012). De-segregation
was an important outcome because it meant English learners could not be segregated from their
English fluent peers (Zacarian, 2012).
A pivotal case in addressing language differences in schools was Lau vs. Nichols, a 1974
Supreme Court case, which required districts ensure access to standard curriculum for English
learners (Jepsen & Alth, 2005). Also, 1978, Castañeda v. Pickard argued the local district was
segregating students based on ethnicity and proved the district failed to implement a successful
bilingual education program in which children would learn English (Zacarian, 2012). Overall,
these cases were important several important reasons. First, legal proceedings acknowledged
separation by language was akin to ethnic segregation. Secondly, they concluded, purposeful
separation of students on the basis of language denies equal access to teaching and learning
(Zacarian, 2012). Third, a legal relationship between language and access to teaching/learning
was solidified.
In the 1979 landmark case, Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children v.
Ann Arbor School District Board, African American parents claimed the school neither
acknowledged language differences nor provided students with the education necessary to learn
and function in society. The case focused on the overrepresentation of students experiencing
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
52

academic difficulty being placed into programs for the emotionally disturbed, learning disabled
and speech impaired (Green, 2002). The courts conceded students were using a systematic
language variety, and the courts also recognized a learning barrier was established because the
school did not consider implications of students’ using their home language in school (Green,
2002).
Case findings grant language was an issue of exclusion from equitable opportunities to
learn and thus districts had an obligation to correct the problem. Opposing voices countered by
saying students spoke a dialect, not separate language because the case did not rule on the matter
of language typology distinction (Harris & Schroeder, 2013). Instead, the court ruled under 974
Equal Education Opportunity Act. 974 explains students were denied “equal opportunity to an
individual” by failure of the district to take “appropriate steps to overcome linguistic barriers that
impeded equal participation by its students in instructional program” (Harris & Schroder, 2013,
p. 200). As a result, states were mandated to develop procedures and protocols to identify
AAVE speakers & provide in-service training to teachers to increase knowledge and features of
AAVE (Harris & Schroder, 2013).
In 1996, the Oakland California school board passed a controversial resolution
recognizing the legitimacy of "Ebonics", also referred to in the literature as African-American
Vernacular English (AAVE), as a language. Similar to the Ann Arbor case, Oakland School
Board resolved to recognize AAVE as being a unique and substantially different primary
language from mainstream American English (Green, 2002). The resolution was openly
criticized by the media and ignited a hotly discussed national debate around language legitimacy.
The U.S. Department of Education in reaction to the debate, immediately reaffirmed the position
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
53

it took that AAVE was a dialect of English, not a distinct language and thus not-eligible for
bilingual education funds (Baron, 1999).
In 1998, California followed the Ebonics debate by passing another controversial policy,
Proposition 227. This proposition was enacted to limit access to bilingual education by
requiring ELLs be taught for the shortest time possible in sheltered/structured English
immersion programs before being released to main-stream English language classrooms (Jepsen
& Alth, 2005). Legislation similar to Proposition 227 was passed in other states, with a similar
goal to provide instruction “overwhelmingly” in English (Jepsen & Alth, 2005). In all cases of
these “English only” policies, the gaps between English learner (including speakers of variations
of English) and English speaker achievement are large and are not abating (Gandara & Orfield,
2012).
Accountability and Funding Policies
One of the most significant of educational policies to pass in recent years is the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. NCLB authorized several educational programs administered
by the states, and focused on closing student achievement gaps. One goal includes ELLs
attaining “proficiency” in reading and mathematics. In order to achieve these program goals, the
states receive Title 1 funding for designated for disadvantaged students and students of limited
English proficiency. Additional funding for LEP students is provided through Title III (Jespen &
Alth, 2005), but these funds are for LEP designated students alone. Schools with large
populations of ethnic minority students may also have large populations of unidentified SELs.
As such, they may also have difficulty meeting established NCLB achievement goals,
(particularly in ELA) due to of reasons of language (Okoye-Johnson, 2011).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
54

Reasons for the gaps in achievement for CLD students in American schools have proved
to be very complex, with language representing one of a number of interplaying factors
contributing to the continued underperformance of certain ethnic groups (Terry, Connor,
Thomas-Tate & Love 2010). Other problems such as poverty, institutionalized racism, language
discrimination, devaluing of home culture, and the inability to acknowledge deep-rooted
prejudices play into the puzzle of different student group achievement outcomes (Winn &
Behizadeh, 2011). In the United States, there is a long history of racism, language
discrimination, and cultural biases which permeate our social structure and institutions
(Blanchett, Klinger & Harry, 2009). American history continues today to institute policies and
laws that impact cultural perspectives of ethnicity, social class, cultural value, and cultural belief.
In addition, research is beginning to highlight the role of linguistic biases on student academic
achievement (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010)
Language Development and Education
Many language policies have had the unintended consequences of further contributing to
the achievement gap, rather than providing the means for leveling the linguistic playing field as
was intended by design (Gandera, 2012). What we know about language and learning is that a
strong foundation in one’s first language provides the essential foundation for success in
acquiring and learning in a second language (Cummins, 1985, 2008). However, what is seen in
policy and legislation are practices which often run counter to the sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978)
view of the role of language in learning and academic achievement. The following section will,
through a sociocultural lens, provide a background on language and learning theory. The
purpose is to provide an understanding of the importance of students’ first language when
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
55

educational policy may not necessarily support that language in the context of the educational
system.
Sociocultural Theory and the Importance of Early Oral Language
Sociocultural theory is based on Vygotsky’s (1979) work that seeks to explain the
sociocultural roots of cognition (Harris & Schroeder, 2013). A child’s learning is a mediated
social activity in which other individuals have a substantial role in the process that is mediated
through language. This theory addresses the relationship between a child’s primary experiences
of socialization (including language) and the child’s cognitive development. Vygotsky argues a
child's cognitive development cannot be explained by looking only within the child, isolated
from the environment, because the developmental processes which influence cognition take
place within the context of the external social world (Harris & Schroeder, 2013). According to
the theory, children gain cognitive ability through social interactions with other more
knowledgeable people. When participating in activities that require both cognitive and
communicative functions, Vygotsky’s theory explains children require scaffolded support from
an adult or more knowledgeable other, in order to receive the necessary nurturing necessary to
engage in the learning process (Greene, 2011).
Through a child’s interaction with people in the environment, a variety of internal
developmental processes occur, which lead to development of the learning processes (Vygotsky,
1978). As such, a child’s intellectual development is stimulated to a greater degree within a
social environment than through isolated learning tasks. An essential element behind the
development of meaning, which comes from these social interactions, is the use of primary
language (Cummins, 1985; Gee, 2001). Most children arrive in school, regardless of the
language spoken in the home, with a strong sense of primary language (Schleppegrell, 2012).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
56

This early language, developed within the context of the home and community, is focused
primarily on oral language structures and function.
Oral language is used by children in order to communicate, negotiate and narrate their
everyday lives (Halbach, 2012). CLD students may face difficulty with communication with
teachers and diverse peers upon arriving in public education because school requires language to
be used in new ways in order to learn and display knowledge (Schleppegrell, 2012). Children
begin school using the socially and culturally determined language from the home, and through
teacher led instruction in school; they gain the formal academic registers of school language
(Halbach, 2012). The home or primary language becomes the scaffold for learning the new
academic language of school.
All students arrive in school with different types of language exposure and differing
literacy experiences that translate into different understandings of academic content (Bunch,
2014). Early reading activities, conversations with parents, exposure to the signs and symbols of
community and home are different between families and communities (Gee, 2001). Students
from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds may be exposed to literacy experiences that
greatly differ from those students whose home language closely resembles SAE in their homes
(Hollie, 2001; Greene, 2011). SEL speakers also utilize a distinctly different communication
system than those who use SAE to communicate about those experiences.
The differences in experiences surrounding the use of different languages and the
expected knowledge and use of standardized American English can create gaps in students’
opportunities to achieve (Gee, 2001). Awareness of this difference is beginning to push
educators and researchers to examine in greater depth evidence which suggests language
background has a role in the academic achievement gap (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz,
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
57

2010). SAE is the language in which learning and literacy take place in American schools.
ELLs receive structured support in acquiring the language of the classroom (Cummins, 1985).
The extent to which SELs currently also receive structured language support in the classroom is
largely absent in the literature.
Oral Language Development
Early oral language development is essential in the learning of both first and second
languages. Oral language development both shapes and is shaped by a child’s primary
experiences of socialization and cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978). The developmental
processes that expand cognition, according to Vygotsky’s Socio-Cognitive theory, take place
within the context of the external social world and are mediated by the language within that
environment (Harris & Schroeder, 2013). Oral language is thus a tool essential in the process of
developing and gaining access to knowledge needed to understand and participate in the world of
a developing child (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, early oral language development and cognitive
development are intertwined by the culturally mediated space in which meaningful interaction
between child and adult takes place.
Oral language development is the basis for the child’s first language acquisition. First
language, along with signs and symbols associated with that language, are taught through
interaction with adults or other more knowledgeable peers (Vygotsky, 1978). Learning and
language instruction takes place amidst the day-to-day activities of life and language mediates
the learning (Gee, 2001, Gutierrez, 1995). Language learned is rooted in the culture of the home
(Gee, 2001). Children learn language as a means of interacting and communicating about the
culture and experiences in which they live (Greene, 2011). Oral language teaches children the
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
58

culturally relevant words to use in the discourses of their lives to talk about and describe their
experiences. Home is where first language oral skills are developed (Becker, 2012).
In some homes, the first language developed is a close match to the language of
instruction in school. In this instance, academic advantage is conveyed, for the child is able to
more readily able to use language required to convey and learn academic concepts (Greene,
2011; Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). This advantage is found to increase over the course of the
child’s schooling career (Ricento, 2013). All children, regardless of the first language learned at
home, by nature of being raised in a social environment, enter school with incredible language
abilities and learning potentials (Gee, 2001). However, the more closely the home learning
matches the school learning, the more likely the child will be able to participate in oral and
written activities relevant to school success (Cummins, 2008).
Explicit emphasis on academic oral language instruction is an essential element of
instruction for children beginning formal education in order to reach higher levels of cognition
(Samson & Lesaux, 2009). For many CLD students, including SEL speakers, explicit oral
language instruction in the academic environment is an essential element of instruction in order
to move toward academic proficiency expectations (Gee, 2001). This explicit instruction serves
as the foundation for modeling the uses of and the expectations surrounding the newly acquired
academic language. A large part of this explicit language instruction with focus on academic
vocabulary development combined with the standardized grammatical and structural features of
academic American language is essential in moving CLD students toward academic proficiency
(Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
59

Academic Language and Standard English
Academic language is loosely defined as the language used in school to help students
acquire and use knowledge (Schleppergrell, 2012). Academic English closely approximates
Standardized English and is functional and used chiefly for getting things done at school.
American Academic English encompasses the vocabulary, grammar and discourse of the
American institution of education (Abedi, et al, 2005). It is the language of educators and of the
educated class. It is can be content or domain specific, including vocabulary and terminology to
a specific topic such as mathematics. It is also the everyday informal register of speech that
students acquire outside of the classroom environment (Abedi, et al, 2005). Academic language
is taught, practiced and valued as the register students are expected to know and use in order to
construct new knowledge as well as display the knowledge they have learned in a way that is
valued (Schleppergrell, 2012).
One challenge for CLD students is discrete skills and registers that they already control
may not mirror those used or valued in school (Schleppegrell, 2012). Academic registers are
vocabulary and ways of speaking utilized in schools. Parents who demonstrate control over
academic registers socialize their children into ways of language use valued by school
(Schleppegrell, 2012). Conversely, parents who do not exhibit control may only utilize a home
based social register with their children (Cummins, 2008). Those children who enter school with
mastery of the academic register hold an advantage to those whom do not (Abedi, et al, 2005;
Schleppegrell, 2012; Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
Advantages of mastering the standard academic register, in addition to mastery of one’s home
register, include broadened chances for success in school. Thus, broadening these chances can
lead to increased employment and educational potential later in life (Christian, 1997).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
60

The form of English represented by “Standard/Standardized English” is essentially
expression of knowledge gained through experiences typical of the middle class and dominant
majority in American society (Troike, 1984). In similar words, for SEL students’ to experience
value in the academic environment, they are expected to articulate their contributions through
proficiency, performance on Standardized Academic English proficiency (Duff, 2010; Greene,
2011). The teaching of Standardized American English (SAE) to mastery is an area of some
controversy in education (Christian, 1997). Some people believe teaching a standard dialect
should be required while others consider such a requirement as discriminatory (Christian, 1997;
Green, 2002). In light of this conflict, some are beginning to question whether teaching SAE
should be a responsibility of the educational system. Most schools include SAE instruction as a
goal of instruction for all students (Christian, 1997), providing supplemental instruction designed
for rapid SAE acquisition for ELLs (Abedi, 2005). At the heart of this debate are SELs and the
registers they bring to standardized academic environment.
Many SELs students, whose primary language is a variation of English may use a non-
standard form of the language outside of school (Terry, Connor, Thomas-Tate & Love, 2010);
and these forms may vary significantly from the Standardized Academic English encountered in
school (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). The mismatch between language of the home and
language of academic institution may contribute to a well-established struggle many students of
color experience in English Language Arts (Terry, Connor, Thomas-Tate & Love, 2010) and
other classes. With instruction and exposure, SELs may learn SAE at school over time, but
lacking those academic experiences, a language gap between the settings may occur.
The differences in home and school language use may be relatively unrecognized by
school personnel (Harris & Schroeder, 2013) and overlooked in the decision making process for
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
61

struggling students. Many educators have not received training in different NSE languages or
how those differences can be used to promote student learning (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
Ensuring that educators are aware language differences do not represent cognitive deficiencies is
essential to an effective educational program (Christian, 1997). This means teaching students
SAE, while still proving a space and value for their home language variation at school, is central
in ensuring students learn both the language of instruction while maintaining the norms of
language use of the community (Christian, 1997).
SEL Instruction and Support in Schools
While it is important to understand SEL achievement patterns, it is of equal or even more
importance to understand how those achievement patterns can be improved (Wilkinson, et al,
2011). Framing the importance of early oral language development in a framework of
Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory demonstrates the importance of home language
development within its social context. The theory also provides insight into the importance of
explicit instruction of academic language in schools, for not all students arrive with similar
language backgrounds and experiences, even if all are speaking the same overarching language.
When students are assumed to already have a basis in academic language, but actually hold a
language that resembles, but does not align to, that language, gaps between expectations and
actual academic performance can occur. Perceived linguistic ability can affect teacher
expectations of student ability and achievement (Hollie, 2001; Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
This section will discuss current practices designed to support both CLD students and SEL
learners alike.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
62

High Expectations in the Culturally Responsive Classroom
The relatively hidden existence of the SEL population may make it difficult for educators
to easily identify the reasons for the underachievement of some CLD students. Teachers may not
be aware of the extent to which many children must learn new registers when they encounter
school (Schleppegrell, 2012). They may also be unaware these normalized registers carry higher
expectations as students move through the grades (Schleppegrell, 2012). Registers allow
students to access literacy and learning activities in the classroom. Students need more than
cursory familiarity with academic registers if they are expected to access the knowledge and
instruction taught through its use. However, if students or their home language have no value in
the academic environment, apathy toward new academic learning may develop (Greene, 2011).
Having knowledge language usage has an impact on students’ learning requires educators
to design approaches toward developing culturally responsive classrooms A culturally responsive
classroom is one designed specifically to acknowledge the presence of culturally different
students and uses of varied cultural frames to construct an academic environment in which
students may readily or find connections among themselves, with the subject matter and
instructional tasks that enable them to mastery master (Montgomery, 2001). In a culturally
responsive classroom, students are taught with culturally relevant texts that provide a scaffold
between instruction and the student’s language and culture (Hollie, 2001). In this type of
classroom, diversity in culture, background and language variety are valued. Additionally,
differences brought by students to the classroom are viewed as a foundation for learning rather
than as areas of deficit (Stockman, 2010).
In an environment of high expectations and respect for cultural differences, student
differences are not seen from a deficit perspective (Stockman, 2010). When teachers provide
respectful teaching and support students in gap areas, students believe they hold skills and
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
63

experiences that are valued, and are more likely to meet higher expectations (Gutierrez, 1995).
In a culturally responsive classroom, high expectations pull from existing cultural and linguistic
knowledge, and build on student values and assets to support development of an academic
register. (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). Developing an academic register is necessary for
student comprehension of instruction and for producing work in ways that are expected by
teachers (Schleppergrell, 2012).
Important in SEL instruction is the practice of communicating high expectations for
students (Gee, 2001; Greene, 2011; Hill, 2012; Hollie, 2001; Leeman, Rabin & Roman-
Mendoza, 2011) while also providing instruction geared toward the active development of
academic registers. Simply setting high expectations or teaching academic language alone does
not ensure student success. Rather educators might hone their attention to the active
implementation of best culturally responsive practices in teaching (Champion, Cobb-Roberts &
Bland-Stewart, 2012). These practices include taking into consideration the specific cultural and
language heritages of SELs when designing instruction (Okoye-Johnson, 2011) and providing
adequate language support to ensure content is accessible to learners.
Explicit Language and Literacy Instruction
One way identified in the literature to maximize SEL acquisition of academic language is
through instructional practices similar to those used in the instruction second language
acquisition (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Okoye-Johnson, 2011). Using Cummins
(1985) framework of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP), educators can better understand the relationship between primary
language knowledge and second language acquisition. BICS is an assessment of how well one
uses every day or social language for inter-personal communication (Cummins, 1985). In
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
64

contrast, CALP is an assessment designed to glean one’s proficiency in learning formal academic
language skills including: listening, speaking, reading and writing about subject area content
material using Standard Academic English. CALP development is essential for students to
succeed in school, as students must know academic language to access academic content and to
produce valued academic work. The process of CALP development includes essential academic
skills of comparing, classifying, synthesizing and inferring (Cummins, 1985), all essential skills
to mastering ELA content matter.
Early instruction of discrete language strategies and academic skills is essential for
student success later in school (Wixson & Lipson, 2012). For those acquiring another language
or register, the earlier students have access to these strategies, the faster they are able to acquire
those CALP skills necessary for academic success (Cummins, 1985). According to Stuart (1999)
acquiring the foundational skills of reading and writing abilities early in schooling give students
long-term advantages in school. In reading, the core skills necessary for academic success
include rapid phoneme segmentation, blending, and grapheme-phoneme correspondence (Stuart,
1999), all of which rely on the sounds and structures of the variety of language used in
instruction.
The explicit instruction of academic language and reading skill need not always be
teacher directed. Research conducted by Meltzer & Hamann (2004) found integrating EL
students into mainstream learning situations supports improved literacy development. Through
increased classroom dialogue with more knowledgeable peers, ELs engaged in higher-level
literacy engagement, and more rapidly acquired academic English and reading skills. The
practice of mixing the novice learner with the more knowledgeable “other” is a central tenant of
sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978). However, teachers must be strategic about how
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
65

student groupings are made and use intentional learning strategies when the goal is for peer
development of academic language (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
Explicit and strategic instruction of language and reading skill is at the foundation of
increasing student literacy achievement. Instruction begins with foundational reading skills and
which is then practiced through oral language activities in inclusive instructional environments
translates into rich literacy experiences that improve student achievement. These strategies and
skill and practices are the hallmark of well-designed second language methodology (Hollie,
2001). Secondly, language instructional practices that ensure students are provided with oral
communication models of SAE and allow students to interact and engage with literacy
experiences promotes learning for students in the process of acquiring another language (Abedi,
2010).
Another strategy addressing language instruction of SELs is the practice of contrastive
analysis. Contrastive analysis uses explicit instruction of the different forms of language through
a process of constant comparison (James, 1980). With this method of language instruction, the
primary or first language of a student is used to build meaning and discuss the differences and
similarities in both oral and written language. As one language form is compared to another,
teachers build upon the background knowledge of students, and help them to learn to use the new
form of language while retaining the first (James, 1980). Contrastive analysis builds shared
literacy experiences through meaningful content rich conversations with the use of literature and
spoken word (Hollie, 2001).
Leadership Knowledge and the Practice of Quick Fixes
This next section will explore the importance of critical literacy practice, pedagogy and
the current failure to meet the needs of diverse students as it relates to learning practice. This is
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
66

followed by a discussion about the institutional use of intervention as a proxy for primary
language support. This section also provides a rationale for differentiating between the
achievement gap and the opportunity gap will also be presented. A final point in this section is
geared at looking toward the future of education. A look into the new Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and what they might mean for achievement of CLD students is discussed.
Critical Literacy Practices
Academic literacy experience can no longer be conceptualized as the bare ability to read
and write (Winn & Bahizadeh, 2011). It is now recognized as a complex skill that requires
critical reading skills, learning to analyze and synthesize materials, and most importantly to
make meaning from what is read (Winn & Bahizadeh, 2011). Critical literacy practices engage
students in using their own creative and cultural literacy practices to access and engage with the
complex skills required for academic literacy (Winn & Bahizadeh, 2011). Student achievement
gaps may relate in some cases to the failure of schools to acknowledge that different students
have different needs based on their cultural and linguistic heritages (Winn & Bahizadeh, 2011).
The learning gaps may also persist because, even if schools do recognize the importance home
languages may play in literacy development, they may fail to provide the learning opportunities
needed to help students acquire SAE proficiency (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
A growing body of literature highlights the important implications language diversity
have on learning literacy skills for today (Terry, Connor, Thomas-Tate & Love, 2010). The
result of the lack of acknowledgement is a curriculum and literature that carries limited meaning
for the students it is intended to teach (Gutierrez, 1995). The psychosocial and linguistic
consequences of a culturally and linguistically mis-aligned curriculum may lead to a
disenfranchisement of students from the educational system. This means that not all students
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
67

will choose to conform to the singular notion of literacy presented by the school and may act out
or shut down in response to their frustration (Poplin & Wright, 1983). Although this breakdown
is most obvious in the observable behavior of older minority students, evidence of alienation of
students can be observed when students are young and in the primary grades, although it is
harder to detect (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher & Ortiz, 2010). While educators have grappled
with the low achievement associated with these behaviors surrounding literacy, the majority of
states in the nation have moved to a new set of educational standards. These standards, the
Common Core Standards (CCSS), place higher linguistic expectations upon students. Although
these standards are not accompanied by an explicit national curriculum, there is an implicit push
toward a more unified expectation of SAE knowledge and use for student achievement. In
adopting these standards, states are perhaps once again creating a barrier of culturally and
linguistically mis-aligned curriculum and student language. Without explicit SAE instruction for
SELs, this mis-alignment may continue to be linked to SEL disenfranchisement, but only time
will tell.
School leaders are charged with supporting the achievement of all students in schools
today. Laws and legislation were developed over time to protect and ensure that all student
groups receive adequate and equitable access to public education (Madrid, 2011). These same
laws put tremendous pressure on schools and educators to change the educational outcomes for
traditionally underperforming student groups. Both educational leaders and lawmakers lack a
comprehensive understanding of the issues behind the cause for the underachievement and often
turn to policies and programs designed to provide quick fixes to a highly complex problem
(Madrid, 2011; Harris & Herrington, 2006; Ravitch, 2013). The lack of understanding and clear
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
68

knowledge on how language diversity impacts student learning by lawmakers may be at the heart
of the problem.
Intervention as Primary Instruction
In the face of continuing achievement gaps, and in the absence of better alternatives,
educational leaders often to turn to existing systems of structural support designed to help
support learning for a wide range student need (Ravitch, 2013). The problem with this approach
is there is not convincing empirical evidence to confirm these supports as having any major
impact for CLD student achievement (Valencia, 1997). Continued use of ineffective supports
may be the best indicator school leaders may not fully understand the problems as they are
presented. Similarly, an over reliance on deficit thinking may narrow the scope of understanding
as related to multi-layered issues CLD carry with them when they begin school (Klinger,
Artiles, & Barletta, 2006).
Many educational leaders are using a broad intervention approach for learning gaps of
CLD students. Rather than focusing on the assets, as well as needs, of the individuals presumed
to be lagging, general interventions and programs are used which do not always meet either the
short-term and/or the long-term goals of the intervention. The CLD achievement gap has led
some in education to reach for short-term strategies and solutions in an effort to provide a quick
fix what is a deep and complex problem because achievement results are mandated by law and
highly desired by politicians (Ravitch, 2013).
Policy makers and school leaders have repeatedly invested in strategies that are often
misdirected and ineffectual because they do not necessarily target student needs. With
uncertainty of the cause behind the learning gap and in the absence of better alternatives,
educators have turned to existing systems of structural support designed to help support learning
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
69

needs of a wide range students (Poplin & Wright, 1985; Echevarria, 1996). The recycling of old
programs often occurs when considerable money and energy have been expended and the costs
become too great to ignore even if a change may lead to better results. In addition, vested
interests, both economic and political, promote the status quo when reform is necessary to shift
in the current practices in education (Ravitch, 2013).
The gap created by SEL language variation is therefore not only an achievement gap, but
also a learning opportunity gap. With language variation as a missing piece of the instructional
puzzle, the question of weather access to instruction improve if SEL academic language if SELs
were eligible to participate in programs designed for language support, such as ELD students.
SEL students do not currently have access to the supports provided to ELLs, but certainly might
benefit from the language supports provided through the program (Okoye-Johnson, 2011).
Guaranteed language supports as a part of the regular instructional program for SELs can
increase access to primary instruction and improve achievement outcomes for SELs (Hollie,
2001). The importance of language in education is increasing with the latest standards based
reform, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Although academic language skills are now
a part of student proficiency standards, how those standards will be met is unclear.
Connecting Common Core State Standards and CLD Achievement
One area of growing concern is directed toward gaps in knowledge surrounding the
newly implemented Common Core State Standards (CCSS) relative to ELs (Wiley & Rolstad,
2014). At the time of writing, the introduction to the CCSS indicates that identifying the
supports needed to help ELLs is “beyond the scope of the standards” (Coleman & Goldenberg,
2012). An additional document on the CCSS website gives general guidelines for applying the
standards to diverse learners (www.commoncorestandards.org, n.d.). These guidelines are
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
70

general and require school leaders and teachers to choose or develop the curriculum needed to
meet these standards. Little is known about the type of curriculum and instructional will enable
ELLs and SELs to fully participate in grade level course work under the CCSS standards at this
time (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012).
The new standards substantially raise the bar on what students are expected to know at
every level of K-12 schooling (Wixson & Lipson, 2012). The standards focus on higher-order
thinking skills, increased context knowledge, and enhanced ability to engage with complex texts
(Wixson & Lipton, 2012). These new standards are redefining what knowledge and skills are
necessary for college and career readiness (Wixson & Lipton, 2012). With this change a change
in instructional focus to skills necessary in comprehending complex texts and analyzing sources
in writing. Presentation of knowledge will also change to reporting in a variety of methods,
including oral reports, and multi-media display (Wixon & Lipton, 2012).
With these changes in the complexity in reading, language, and literacy skills required by
CCSS there are many unanswered questions and concerns about how this new curriculum will
address issues of language diversity. A primary concern is that the CCSS were initially
developed with an inherent assumption that students have already mastered high levels of SAE
language attainment and have acquired commensurate skills in academic literacy (de Jong &
Harper, 2007). Without these base skills, concern is raised about student ability to access
curriculum and be table to equally participate in classroom discussions (de Jong & Harper,
2007). These concerns, raised early in adoption of the CCSS, led to the subsequent release of
“English language proficiency development” (ELDP) framework to assist states with aligning
ELD with CCSS (Wiley & Rolstad, 2014). The CCSS places greater emphasis on the connection
between language and curriculum. What is missing is any consideration for the language
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
71

differences represented among America’s diverse population of students. A better understanding
of how home language, language diversity, and SAE language proficiency intersects in the
academic environment could provide much needed understanding for practitioners in supporting
a CLD student population, with particular focus on SELs, in the new curriculum.
At present, an implicit perspective of literacy acquisition steers one to believe that
through meaningful, albeit “imperfect” language participation in high level academic discourse
and social interaction, students will acquire academic content and literacy skills (Wiley &
Rolstad, 2014). This perspective relies on student willingness to participate and engage with
literacy activities, even when their language does not match the language of instruction (Harry &
Klinger, 2014). The CCSS are built on an underlying assumption students will be able to learn
through reading texts and participating in literacy activities. Additionally, the continuum of
language arts standards in the CCSS provides a scaffold for fostering proficiency in SAE.
Accompanying instructional pedagogy is missing in most schools and school districts. However,
the research on CLD and language diversity points in a very different direction. The
preponderance of data on low-SES language minority students shows from the time these
students begin school, they remain behind throughout their education (Taylor, 2010). Students
who are perceived to be starting behind often have limited academic vocabulary knowledge,
have less experience with complex SAE syntax, and also have gaps in academic background
knowledge (Taylor, 2010). These early gaps in literacy skills make it difficult, if not impossible,
for these students to catch up to their peers with greater amounts of early exposure to SAE.
With the gap between language and academic achievement established in the research,
another question becomes apparent. How or should educators be held to the demanding
expectations of providing CCSS language intensive instruction to students who already struggle
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
72

with language and literacy activities in the current system? The lack of formal supports for
already struggling CLD students may have the intended effect of widening the achievement gap.
CCSS place a strong emphasis on the development of Academic English, but little has been done
to define what this means in terms of instructional practice (Wiley & Rolstad, 2014). The CCSS
have acknowledged the import role of language development and the role teachers play in
promoting linguistic growth by including listening, speaking, and language standards
(www.commoncorestatestandards.org). Despite pointing out the importance of these skills, the
standards are developed in a way that go against decades of language and literacy scholarship
(Wiley & Rolstad, 2014). CCSS does not promote bilingualism or bidialectism as it promotes
use of a single academic English as the only means of demonstrating academic worth (Wiley &
Rolstad, 2014). By raising the literacy bar without actively considering the language needs of
both ELLs and those who speech deviates from Standard English, students are being placed at a
considerable disadvantage in the new CCSS learning framework.
The Role of Knowledge and Perceptions in Administrative Leadership
Critical Race Theory, Sociopolitical Theory and Sociocultural theory provide a
comprehensive framework for connecting limited academic achievement to the linguistic and
cultural differences embodied within the SEL population. These theories emphasize how innate
developmental processes occur through experiences in the home can, due to cultural and
linguistic biases, become barriers to academic achievement within the structures and systems of
the educational system (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). Many CLD students are likely to speak
languages, or varieties of languages not fully accepted in Standard English based academic
classroom common in schools today (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
73

Perceptions and knowledge of school-leaders toward language differences and variations
guide decisions made by educational leaders about school-site practices related to SAE
acquisition in school (Hollie, 2001). School-leader perceptions toward language variations can
lead to educational policies and teaching practices in which home language is viewed as either an
asset to learning or conversely as a deficit in learning (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). Positive
perceptions tend to support the development of practices in which SAE becomes a second
language of the student rather than a replacement language (LeMoine, 1999). Instructional
practices are constructed from historical expectations of linguistic and social competence
(Gutierrez, 1995), with some of the practices made explicit and a part of official school policy
while others are implicit. According to Corson, 1998, every school has an implicit language
policy, or the unwritten set of practices teachers and administrations use to steer the school’s
policy for learning. These policies can either support skill proficiency or create barriers the
experiences necessary for literacy development (Corson, 1998).
As school leaders, a principal’s understanding and perception of language difference can
greatly affect the underlying philosophy and approach used instruction in culturally and
linguistically diverse schools. Leaders who hold a positive view of language difference can
develop policies and practices that have the power to encourage students to grow. These
students are encouraged to build upon the cognitive and linguistic foundation established and
reinforced in their homes and communities (Corson, 1998). Conversely, leaders who hold
negative language perceptions can develop practices which can repress, dominate and dis-
empower students (Corson, 1998). This final section will explore how administrator knowledge,
and personal values and beliefs related to language, can impact decisions integral to shaping the
instructional culture and practices in culturally and linguistically diverse public schools today.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
74

School Leader Knowledge of SEL Learners
Little exists in the literature related to the knowledge of school leaders relative to NSE
language and SEL students. Research for these student groups are focused primarily on
instructional practices in the classroom rather than on the institutional decisions and leadership
practices. This lack of research on effective leadership of SELs is of interest because the
literature shows that schools which implement programs designed to meet the needs of SELs
may have an advantage in working toward closing the achievement gap (Hollie, 2001; Soto-
Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). Logic dictates that principals who lack knowledge of the students they
serve are at a leadership disadvantage. Following the hierarchal steps of knowledge as defined
by Anderson and Krathwol, 2001, concrete factual knowledge is a precursor to increasingly
abstract forms of knowledge. This means that school leaders require solid background
knowledge of their students in order to develop the procedures and strategic plans for teaching
and learning of those same students.
According to Jackson, 2010, one strategy school leaders can adopt is to “start where your
students are” (Jackson, 2010, p. 6). This practice involves understanding the currencies, or the
knowledge and past experiences which students bring to the classroom, which can be used to
acquire the knowledge and skill important to school. In order for educators to evaluate these
currencies, educators to have considerable knowledge of and about their students, both in and
outside of school (Jackson, 2010). Jackson explains when educators do not understand student
currencies, they may attempt to errantly mitigate classroom and learning problems with
ineffective strategies. Developing school systems founded on values which differ significantly
from those of students may lead to a school culture which does not push students to do their very
best.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
75

The relatively hidden significance of SEL students as a subgroup, even within the larger
ethnic group of the school, highlights the importance of school leaders having knowledge of this
group. Little is currently known about the effectiveness of instruction, interventions and
strategies for SEL students. Data shows, as a whole, SEL students lag in all academic areas as
compared to other student groups (Hollie, 2001). School principals are often required to
implement mandated reforms with little understanding of the effect of these reforms on various
populations. The generalized lack of knowledge about SEL students may be related to some of
the difficulties with SEL student achievement (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
School Leader Perceptions of SEL Learners
Perception, or the process by which individuals mentally organize sensory information in
their environment to give it meaning, can help us understand why school leaders make certain
decisions over others (Terry, Connor, Thomas-Tate & Love, 2010). Research shows that many
educators bring explicit and implicit biases about students into the classroom (Cummins, 2000).
As such, perceptions of school leaders and the values they hold about English language
variations can shape the way school leaders design systems of instruction for students
(Champion, Cobb-Roberts & Bland-Stewart, 2012). Positive perceptions may develop systems
in which SEL language is valued and used to learn in school, whereas negative perceptions may
lead to the development of potentially harmful systems. School leaders with negative
perceptions may also work toward maintaining the status quo because of the biases they hold.
The body of research paints the picture of educators generally holding more negative
perceptions than positive perceptions of speakers of English language variations if they have not
received adequate training in the different home languages (Abedi, et al, 2005; Hollie, 2011;
Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). Educators in urban schools often do not share the same cultural
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
76

and linguistic background of their students (Corson, 1998), and thus may not fully understand the
role that language differences play in the learning of their students. The lack of shared cultural
and community experience leaves educators to develop perceptions based solely on their
perception of the students rather than from the reality of their lives within the greater community
(Corson, 1998). These perceptions of students, taken out of the context of the community in
which they live, leave educators to grapple with the actual differences in student performance as
compared to the expectations of policy makers.
The push for schools to ensure students meet performance standards can lead them to
implement ideas and develop expectations which have the effect of creating implicit or even
explicit barriers to learning (Hollie, 2001). For speakers of English language variations, implicit
language bias leads to barriers within policies and programs that do not support SEL
achievement (Terry, Connor, Thomas-Tate & Love, 2010). School leaders may assume that gaps
in student achievement are due to “within child” learning problems rather than problems of
institutional and policy and community factors (Corson, 1998). One consequence of focusing on
students as the locus of performance gaps is the reduction of expectations (Abedi, et al, 2005;
Blanchett, Klinger & Harry, 2009). Conversely, educators who overtly identify the language that
these students bring to school as “bad language” (Hollie, 2001) may engage in teaching
behaviors that bring up negative feelings for students about their language (Greene, 2011).
Educators who carry language biases may continually pressure students to have their first
language “corrected”, regardless of official school policy (Corson, 1998; Hollie, 2001).
Principal Leadership in Developing a School Culture of Value
School administrators as educational leaders can have profound impact on the overall
performance of a school and its diverse learners (Jackson, 2010). A primary responsibility of the
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
77

school principal is to develop a collective school-wide vision, which incorporates instructional
goals while setting the cultural values and climate of the school (Alvy & Robbins, 1998).
Principals communicate the core values of schooling in their everyday work and teachers
reinforce those values through their actions and words with students (Peterson & Deal, 1998).
The vision statement exhibits the values and goals the school aims to promote regarding teaching
and learning (Alby & Robbins, 1998) and the school’s culture has an influence on the motivation
of the individuals in the organization to achieve those goals (Gruenert & Whitaker, 2015).
Although the school’s culture is not the only factor behind motivation, the literature says that
school culture does play a substantial role in employee motivation, especially when leaders seek
to change the status quo (Fullan, 2001). If schools are to become more effective, administrative
leaders are responsible for creating an organizational culture and values central to the schools
mission, vision and/or philosophy statements, in order to capitalize on those values and practices
which support student success and to reject those limiting student access to learning
opportunities.
School leaders are instrumental in creating and defining the culture and climate of a
school. The leader’s words, actions, nonverbal messages, and accomplishments all have a hand
in developing the shape and context for the culture of the school. Peterson and Deal (1998)
highlight a series of actions of effective school leaders in creating positive school cultures.
School leaders first read the existing culture by looking into the school’s history and current
condition. They evaluate what already exists in order to make changes. Next, leaders uncover
and articulate core values, identifying and defining practices that are best for students. Finally,
they fashion a positive context, which reinforces defined cultural elements that are positive,
while they work on modifying those elements considered negative or dysfunctional.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
78

When school leaders develop strong positive cultures, all stakeholders (students,
teachers, parents and others) feel a shared sense of what is important and a shared commitment
to helping students learn (Gruenert & Whitaker, 2015). Leaders at high achieving schools build
school cultures focused on student learning, fostering a professional learning community, and
engaged teachers focused on continuous improvement (DuFour & Mattos, 2013). Underlying
the organizational structures and routines of the school are the values espoused by the principal
(Riehl, 2000). The importance of school culture lies in the direct influence the established
culture has on teachers, which in turn influences student engagement in learning (Marzano,
Wlters & McNulty, 2005).
Beyond School Culture: Practices of Successful Principals
Institutional culture is one area in which leadership by principals plays an important
factor in achieving school change and success in schools with diverse student populations. Just
as knowledge and perception play a role in the vision and culture a principal establishes at a
school, they also are integral to the practices principals establish, and to the instruction which
student receive. Low tolerance for certain groups within the school can translate into
discriminatory practices that work against particular students (Gilliland, 2010). Conversely,
when principals establish systems and take actions that support and value all students, the overall
effect is improved student achievement (Aleman, Johnson, Jr. and Perez, 2009).
Aleman, Johnson, Jr. and Perez, 2009, examined four schools with high ELL populations
for elements that produce high achievement for students at these schools. What the researchers
found four elements important to the success of high-achieving urban schools. These four most
notable elements at the studied sites are high expectations, a focus on conceptual understanding,
a culture of appreciation, and strong principal leadership. High expectations mean that students
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
79

have frequent opportunities to explain, analyze compare and construct information. The schools
used benchmark assessment systems to ensure students meet essential academic standards while
providing time for teacher collaboration to evaluate the rigor of the curriculum. The schools also
encourage leaders to share data in ways that reinforce successes and celebrate improvement.
In these schools, curriculum focuses on conceptual understanding through the use of
academic vocabulary strategies. Language is an essential element of instruction in these schools.
Students are required to explain, discuss and write to demonstrate levels of understandings.
Culture, is also an important element in creating high achievement. In these schools, cultural and
linguistic diversity shared through bulletin boards, banners, assemblies and in curricular
assignments. Teachers and students benefit from an inclusive environment in which teachers
feel a sense of respect and support from their principals.
The final element of importance is leadership. Leaders at these high achieving schools set
goals and revisit them with staff frequently throughout the year. At these schools, principals
enlist the support of leadership groups including teachers, other professionals, parents, and even
the students themselves in defining important elements of the school culture. At these sites,
teachers are given a major role in making decisions regarding curriculum, instruction, and school
site organization. The research of Aleman, Johnson, Jr. and Perez highlights the importance of
the principal’s actions in setting the stage for student success in urban schools.
DuFour and Mattos, 2013, explore the strategy of creating a collaborative culture through
professional learning communities (PLC). They highlight five steps that are designed to support
principals in creating effective PLCs. The five steps are: (a) embrace the fundamental purpose of
the school as a place for all students to learn at high levels, (b) organize staff into meaningful
collaborative teams with accountability, (c) call on teams to establish curriculum for each unit,
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
80

agree on pacing plans, and develop common formative assessments, (d) use evidence of student
learning to support the learning needs of students and the professional development of teachers
and (e) develop a coordinated intervention plan for struggling students. DuFour and Mattos’
steps are designed to develop a culture of collective responsibility. Collective responsibility
from shared leadership is developed through ensuring that teacher have a voice in decision
making. Along with participation also comes the accountability of publically sharing
incremental achievement made through the shared decision making process.
These studies emphasize the important role of leadership in developing school practices
and school cultures successful in promoting high expectations for students and cultivating a
belief that all students can achieve. Highlighted in these studies is the crucial role principals play
in establishing and maintaining a school culture which values student diversity. In addition,
principal emphasis on collaborative instructional leadership and decision-making is identified as
a key element in creating environments that promote achievement within schools with diverse
populations. Finally, the importance of purposefully designing the learning environment in a
manner that builds bridges between home and school, both culturally and linguistically, is
identified as a critical element of principal leadership in these studies.
The Importance of Transformational Leadership in CLD Student Achievement
The relational path between leadership and student achievement is clear. Effective
leaders directly influence teachers, which in turn, influence students and their academic
achievement (Marzano, Walters & McNulty, 2005). Schools with diverse populations require
school principals to hold a wide range of essential leadership skills and abilities. These abilities
include being team-oriented, strong communicators, team players, problem solvers, change-
makers and being transformational leaders (Balyer, 2012). Transformational leadership is
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
81

essentially a leader’s ability to get people to want to change, improve, and be led (Northouse,
2001). In a school, this involves assessing stakeholder motives, satisfying all stakeholder needs,
and ensuring that all stakeholders are valued.
The transformational leadership model assists school principals frame their attitudes to
move their schools forward (Balyer, 2012). The transformational leadership approach focuses on
collaborative emphasis and student-centered learning provide principals with a framework for
creating inclusive and culturally relevant learning environments (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2005). Principals who lay the foundation for a positive culture, in which teachers and students
feel respected, valued and appreciated, are setting the groundwork for schools that support the
learning of all people. Transformational leadership practices set the stage for school leaders in
working with staff and students through goals designed to better understand language and
cultural differences while also celebrating similarities (Gilliland, 2010).
Summary
A review of the literature examined how a lack of clarity on definition and identification
of SEL students within the larger CLD population creates barriers for this relatively hidden
group. Barriers, born from historical bias, misplaced policies and practices, and a general
misunderstanding of NSE languages lead to continued achievement gaps in SEL student literacy
(Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). An underlying thread throughout the review was the importance
of the role perception, formed through individual values and beliefs, plays in the educational
experience for students (Cummins, 2000). The particular focus of this review was the SEL
learner. The literature provided evidence that SEL students are an often-overlooked minority in
public education today. In many cases, educators see as a defect rather than as a primary
language of a cultural group the language of SELs.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
82

The literature also showed through an examination of achievement data, the CLD
achievement gap, has deep roots formed on the perspectives and biases of policy makers and
school systems. United States and California language policy development and implementation
has a long history that has not served to support SEL students in learning and achievement. The
literature also, through a sociocultural lens, provides background on the importance of first
language in academic achievement as it relates to cognitive development through language
experiences. The future of SEL achievement within the framework of the new Common Core
State Standards (CCSS), particularly related to language arts and literacy, has yet to be seen.
The review concluded with a discussion on the importance of school leadership, and the
power of transformational leadership in supporting in schools with diverse populations today.
Principal knowledge and perception are key as they relate to the establishment of a school
culture which supports and values SEL students. Next, an examination of leadership practices in
culturally diverse schools highlights the practices and ideals embodied in the transformational
leadership practices, which serve to support CLD and SEL achievement.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
83

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a discussion of the specific steps used in the literature review and
collection of data for the study. This section describes the methodology used in this study,
including the research questions, design, methods used for data collection and sources of data.
Chapter Three also includes the sample and population. The study’s primary purpose was to
examine knowledge and perceptions held by one California elementary school principal about
students who use a form of English different from Standardized American English and the
associated impact of perception on learning opportunities afforded these students in English
Language Arts.
Not enough is known about how a principal’s knowledge and perception of SELs
influences school wide practices, which in turn encourage SEL achievement. Although there is
some suggestion in the literature as to which instructional methods and support strategies can
impact SAE in the classroom, there is scant research addressing which leadership practices of
principals support the adoption of these methods.
The purpose of this study was to closely examine underlying knowledge and perceptions
which guide beliefs and practices of one principal in an urban high SEL population school to
understand how or whether administrator knowledge and perception of SELs relates to the
overall implementation of school wide practices. Through an examination of the principal’s
knowledge and perception, school practices of the school, can be evaluated for relationships
between these elements.
First, this study examined the background knowledge and perceptions held by one
elementary school principal. Second, it examined the practices of the school designed to support
academic achievement for students. Third, it investigated the implementation of leadership
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
84

practices that supported implementation of instruction and strategies designed to support SELs.
Fourth, the study was designed to understand how a school with a high SEL population supports
the academic achievement of SEL students.
Use of grounded theory or the use of multiple stages of data collection, is an effort to
refine the interrelationship of information with and within the categories (Maxwell, 2012).
Grounded theory is a complex iterative process used in qualitative research designed to develop
theory about phenomena of interest (Saldana, 2012). In this process, generative questions raise
to help guide the research, as the researcher gathers data, allow for the identification of a core
theoretical concept (Saldana, 2012). This process, focused on the use of coding for categorizing
qualitative data as well as for describing the implications and details of these categories
(Saldana, 2012). The grounded theory analysis process is conducted in four distinct stages that
are described in Figure 7 below.
The use of grounded theory helps to maximize the similarities and differences of
information (Creswell, 2009). In addition, a strategy of phenomenological research will be used.
Phenomenology, also a qualitative method of inquiry, offers the researcher the ability to examine
the different perspectives of participants of lengthy experiences (Creswell, 2009). This method
Figure 7: Four Stages of Analysis by Glassier and Strauss
Stage Process
Codes Identifying anchors categories that allow the key points of the data to be
gathered.
Concepts Collections of codes or similar content that allows the data to be grouped.
Categories Broad groups of similar concepts used to generate a theory.
Theory Collection of categories that detail the subject of research.
Figure X. Four stages of analysis by Glassier and Strauss. Reprinted from: Saldana, J.
(2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications: Reprinted
with permission.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
85

is often employed in order to “identify the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as
described by participants” (Creswell, 2009, p. 13). Phenomenology is used when a study of a
smaller number of subjects is used, and through prolonged engagement with these participants,
patterns and relationships of meaning are revealed (Creswell, 2009).
Multiple sources of data are used, including surveys, interviews, and both school site and
district artifacts. The use of multiple sources allows for the organization of data organization
into categories and themes across data sources (Creswell, 2009). These data sources will go
through inductive data analysis, which allows for the development of categories for concept
development and coding. Patterns, categories and themes are built from the bottom up through
inductive analysis (Creswell, 2009) and allows for the establishment of a comprehensive set of
themes from the data (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2012). In addition, this study will be guided
through the theoretical lenses of critical race and sociopolitical theories in order to better
understand the context of the problem.
Research Questions
This study was designed to examine the following research questions:
1) In what ways does principal knowledge and perception of home language used by SELs
relate to leadership decisions about the teaching and learning of SELs?
2) What role do principals play in guiding instruction and teacher quality to ensure that
SELs have equitable access to appropriate learning opportunities in ELA curriculum and
literary activities?
3) In what ways do teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support that
enables them to implement instruction that assists SELs in acquiring Standardized
Academic English (SAE) proficiency?
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
86

Research Design
A qualitative research case study design was used because it offers a holistic account of
what is happening at the school site. Yin's (2003) approach to case study research provides a
basic framework for the design and methods of the present study. Case study is the preferred
method for researchers who want a rich understanding of the what, how and why of social
phenomena (Yin, 2003). Case study interviews are open-ended, allowing the researcher to
explore the perceptions and insights of study participants in greater depth.
This study utilized qualitative research methods of data collection through survey,
interview and document analysis. The use of qualitative methods allow for critical issues to be
examined, paying close attention to detail, including the context and the quality of
implementation (Patton, 2002). The case study method allows the researcher to evaluate the
bounded system of a principal operating in a specific school. The researcher has a greater
opportunity to understand the what, how and why Standard English Learners are (or are not)
acquiring Academic English proficiency (Creswell, 2007). This also provides opportunities to
gain in-depth insight into the why, how and what related to SELs’ academic performance. This
study includes multiple strands of data collection, and using a strategy of triangulation, combines
multiple methods and data sources to gain richer information and provide strength in content
validity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2012).
Instrumentation
This section describes instruments used in this study. This study includes the analysis of
written artifacts from the school, district and on-line sources. The study also used interviews
conducted with the use of interview protocol. Also used are two surveys described below. The
instrumentation from these data sources allow for triangulation of data.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
87

Artifacts/Documents
Patton (2002) states records, documents, artifacts and archives can provide a rich source
of information about many organizations and programs. Examining these artifacts and
documents can allow the researcher insight into “things that cannot be observed” (p. 293).
Documents are an effective way to gather information about the school’s position on SEL
instruction. Documents can provide evidence to identify both effective and ineffective practices
in the school’s organization and culture, which may either support SEL learning or create
potential obstacles to success.
Artifacts collected for this study provided evidence of professional development, and
staff agendas. In addition, artifacts related to that program and Mainstream English Language
Development (MELD) instruction were examined. These artifacts supported the inquiry process
by stimulating ideas for new questions and patterns for analysis. Information gained through
artifact analysis helped with triangulation by allowing comparison between public documents,
what participants report and the interactions and actions of stakeholders (Patton, 2002). Artifacts
in this study help to provide information about policies and procedures at the school site, and
within the district, about SEL instruction. The researcher asked the principal to make available
those documents (listed above), which are not public information.
Interviews
The purpose of interviews is to allow the researcher to gain insight into another person’s
perspective through a process of inquiry and questioning (Patton, 2002). Interviews can inform
researchers about events, feelings and perspectives which cannot be observed. Interview
questions are designed to learn the interviewee’s knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about principal
leadership and SELs. A semi-structured interview format was chosen because of its flexibility
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
88

and open-ended structure, which allows for a structured, yet adaptable means of asking
participants questions which lead to rich data (Merriam, 2009). This flexible and open-ended
interview format is important to the study because clarifying questions can be asked and the
interview can be adapted to the part included questions adapted from Ulven’s (2006)
Administrator Interview, Wilson’s (2012) Teacher Interview Protocol, and the LAUSD School
Leadership Framework v.2 (2014). Interview protocols focused on principal knowledge,
principal perception, information about school organization, and principal leadership. Although
the version for the principal and the teachers differ, many of the questions overlap and ask about
the same subject from the perspective of the career title of the person interviewed. In utilizing
overlapping questions, in both interview forms, allows for analysis of consistencies and
inconsistencies between the principal and teachers’ responses.
Surveys
Surveys are often used in educational research because information can be conducted
with a smaller population and generalized to a larger population (McMillan & Schumacher,
2014). Using a survey protocol that asks the same question in multiple ways can help to develop
a better sense of the unobservable values and beliefs that define the participant’s perceptions.
Two surveys were used with the school principal. The first survey is adapted from the
McClendon’s (2010) Principal Profile Form, and is designed for collecting general demographic
and background data about the principals and schools.
The second survey, English Language Variety Perception Questionnaire (ELVPQ), is
adapted from items on Champion, Cobb-Roberts and Bland Steward (2012) Appendix A; Kozel’s
(2004) Spanglish and Language Usage Questionnaire and Smitherman and Villanueva’s (2000)
CCC/NCTE Language Survey. The original survey forms included reference to either “AAVE”
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
89

or “Spanglish” as individual language varieties. This language unit of study in this research
however is not specific to these two language varieties, and therefore these language identifiers
were changed to “Non-Standardized English language variety”. The survey contains thirty items
with equal numbers of positive and negative items related to the underlying values and beliefs
non-standardized language varieties. The purpose of this survey was for data collection
regarding the emergence of themes surrounding public elementary school principal perceptions
and understanding about SEL languages. To preserve content validity and reliability in the
survey, the researcher included sample language that elicits credible responses.
Triangulation
The use of multiple primary sources of data, including: survey, artifacts and interviews,
support triangulation in this study. Triangulation involves “using different methods as a check
on one another, seeing if methods with different strength and limitations all support a single
conclusion” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 102). This strategy is used as a way to deal with validity threats.
Triangulation reduces the risk that conclusions will reflect the biases of one particular method is
the use of multiple data sources (Maxwell, 2012).

Sample and Population
The study focused on the principal of one school that is identified as holding a high
probable SEL population as defined in the delimitations section of this chapter. Participants in
this study were one elementary school principal in the Alta Mesa School District (pseudonym)
and three teachers in the same school selected by that principal. The unit of analysis in this study
is the elementary school principal.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
90

Site Selection
Purposeful sampling is a strategy used to deliberately select subjects in order to discover,
understand, and gain insight from subjects who have the greatest knowledge of data connected to
the problem (Maxwell, 2012). The selection of the pilot and case study schools was based on
four site selection criteria. The K-5 public elementary school is located within the greater
Southern California region. Second, the school has a high SEL population as defined in the
delimitations section of this chapter. Third, the school selected for the case study is in a school
district that facilitates the access needed to conduct the study.
Regent Elementary (pseudonym) met the criteria for site selection. This elementary case
study school, containing grades preschool through fifth grade, located in the Alta Mesa School
District. Second, the elementary school has a population of approximately 490 students between
the years 2013 and 2014. Third, the elementary school is located in Southern California. Finally
permission to conduct the study and gain access was granted by the Research Department of the
district.
Participant Selection
Purposeful sampling is an appropriate sampling strategy to ensure that the school selected
includes a large population of SEL students. Identifying a site with SEL students ensured that
participants in this study have had exposure to students who are SELs so that their responses will
provide rich data necessary for answering the research questions. The site was selected based on
the criteria listed in the delimitations section of this chapter. As a part of the process of
selection, the administrator of AEMP program for Alta Mesa School District was contacted
regarding site selection. The researcher provided the administrator of schools that met the
criteria of a “High SEL Population” as outlined in the delimitations section. The administrator
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
91

made initial contact with one of the schools in order to facilitate the access needed to conduct the
study.
The school principal in this case study is the principal at the Regent Elementary. The
teacher participants are three teachers, identified by the principal as knowledgeable about SELs,
SEL instruction, and willing to participate. These teachers were contacted by the researcher via
e-mail and provided an information/facts sheet (Appendix G) explaining the study and
participation involvement. Participants selected the time and dates within the researcher’s study
time frame for interview in order to avoid pressuring them and creating a negative attitude about
their participation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Data Analysis
The research questions, collected data and conceptual framework were constructed from
the literature review and supported the analysis of the data. As recommended by Corbin and
Strauss (2008), analysis of data occurred as soon as the first piece of data was collected. The
most prominent or important themes were identified as they emerged from the data. The data
analysis process involved an inductive process allowing for the categorization of data to emerge
after data collection and analysis, rather than imposing or projecting themes before this process
(Patton, 2002) was complete. The isolated themes were used for coding.
The data collected were analyzed through coding all document analysis, survey response
and transcribed interviews. Data were consolidated, reduced, and grouped together to allow for
the identification of patterns and themes to emerge around each research question. A
comparative analysis gleaned from, findings, artifacts, surveys and interviews was set against the
conceptual framework. Throughout the analysis process, data were examined to identify
relationships between interview responses, survey responses and information held in provided
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
92

documents.
Ethical Consideration
Throughout the course of the study, including data collection and analysis, ethical guide
lines were followed as outlined in the guidelines and procedures for ethical conduct in research
set forth by the University of Southern California and Alta Mesa School District. An
information sheet was provided to the school principal and teacher participants prior to gaining
consent for participation. Participants were assured this was a voluntary study and they have
both the right to not-participate and to cease participation in the study at any time.
Confidentiality of all participants is of great importance, and as such, all participant data
has names disassociated from responses during coding and recoding processes (Creswell, 2009).
In addition, aliases or pseudonyms for individuals and places are used to protect identities
(Creswell, 2009). All data used in the final dissertation uses mock names for individuals and
organizations involved. All data collected was kept confidential and protected from outside
contamination. Hard copy artifacts and data are kept in a secure container. Electronic data were
kept on a secure computer with a restricted access passcode.
Validity and Reliability
Validity refers to the credibility of the study (Maxwell, 2012). The most obvious internal
threat to validity is that the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis of
interpretations of reality (Merriam, 2009). The human element of qualitative research means
that, there is a possibility of researcher bias and that the conclusions drawn fit existing theory,
goals, or preconceptions (Maxwell, 2012). Additionally, seeking confirmation of participant
response with respondent validation during interviews helps to rule out the possibility of
misinterpreting the meaning of participants’ responses and perspectives (Maxwell, 2012).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
93

The triangulation method of collecting data helps present an unbiased interpretation of
the data and the research process. The various types of data (multiple surveys, multiple
participant interview and document analysis) allows for triangulation of the data which increases
the validity of the findings. Using multiple methods of accessing data makes the study less more
vulnerable to errors linked to the use of only one particular method (Patton, 2002) “Triangulation
is ideal” and leads to “cross-data validity checks” (Patton, 2002, p. 247).
Limitations
This case study was conducted during a limited length of time. The effect of this limited
time is that the research could only be conducted with a small number of participants. The
research was conducted in an urban elementary school that contained a small but significant
population of English Language Learner (ELL) students. The high-density urban area of
Southern California, and the diversity of English language varieties used by SEL students, may
be factors that might impact the transferability of the qualitative data findings gathered through
this research.
Delimitations
Tracking and reporting of SEL students is not specifically mandated for monitoring at a
federal or state level in California. Therefore, in order to conduct research on issues related to
SEL students, a combination of proxy identifiers is used to identify and describe this population.
For purposes of this study, SEL proxy characteristics used are ethnicity (African American and
Latino), school identification as English Only (EO) and below basic performance on standards
based assessment for three or more years in the area of English Language Arts. Schools with
“high SEL” populations are defined by the following criterion: 1.) the school must have a
majority of either separately or combined African American or Latino/Hispanic student groups
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
94

equaling over 50% of the student population at the school; 2.) the school must have a relatively
low ELL population, below 35% within these two groups; 3.) all of the targeted groups identified
above (African American, Latino/Hispanic and EO), has average scores of each group which fall
below the level of basic proficiency on statewide assessment for 3 of the past 4 years. Although
not a specific requirement, a school with a larger African American population is preferred over
one with a smaller African Americans population as existing SEL research focuses on African
American students. In addition, a larger African American population supports the identifier of
EO, as a majority of African American students are identified as EO (Okoye-Johnson, 2011).

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
95

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Chapter 4 reports the findings from a case study of a school principal who has worked to
improve academic achievement the school’s ethnic minority non-standardized English speakers.
The research set out to closely examine how the actions of a school principal are guided by both
the individual’s knowledge and perception of Standard English Learners (SELs). The school
principal in this case study was identified by the district’s Multilingual and Multicultural
Education Department (MMED) as being a particularly effective instructional leader for SEL
students. The case study examined how the principal’s knowledge and perception of SELs
related to the leadership practices which guided instruction and student learning.
This research was guided by three research questions and supported by a conceptual
framework informed by three theoretical frameworks and draws from elements of a
sociopolitical theory, in which complex and multi-dimensional variables are examined across the
range of political, social and cultural experiences. Within this framework, intersection of school-
level factors (often determined and guided by the school principal), teacher-level factors
(instruction and curriculum), and student-level factors (home environment and background
knowledge) contribute to the learning environment as a whole. The importance of school culture
lies in the direct influence the established culture has on teachers, which in turn influences
student engagement in learning (Marzano, Wlters & McNulty, 2005).
Critical Race Theory (CRT) provides some clarity about sociopolitical factors operating
in schools, given major issues around race that affecting American schools. CRT examines how
human beliefs and values have led to past discrimination (i.e. race, sex, class, national origin, and
sexual orientation) and points of oppression in various settings. CRT also serves as an iterative
methodology for helping investigators remain attentive to equity while carrying out research,
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
96

scholarship, and practice (Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010). The third element in this conceptual
framework is sociocultural theory of learning, emphasizing Vygotsky’s (1979) sociocultural
themes and highlighting the role social interaction plays in cognitive development. A central
tenant to Vygotsky’s theory is the importance of the role social language plays in developing
cognition and the acknowledgement that all languages build cognition equally. Under
Vygotsky’s theory, when a child’s home language is valued and linked with classroom learning,
students experience more academic success. The research questions used to guide the collection
of data also guided the analysis of data.
Research Questions
1) In what ways does principal knowledge and perception of home language used by SELs
relate to leadership decisions about the teaching and learning of SELs?
2) What role do principals play in guiding instruction and teacher quality to ensure that
SELs have equitable access to appropriate learning opportunities in ELA curriculum and
literary activities?
3) In what ways do teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support that
enables them to implement instruction that assists SELs in acquiring Standardized
Academic English (SAE) proficiency?

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
97

Instruments
Instruments were developed for this study to collect data relevant to the research
questions are:
• Participant Profile Form (Appendix A)
• English Language Variety Perception Questionnaire (ELVPQ) (Appendix B)
• Interview Administration Protocol (Appendix C)
• Principal Interview Questions (Appendix D)
• Teacher Interview Questions (Appendix E)
• Artifact Analysis Sheet (Appendix F),
• Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research (Appendix G)
After a description of the case study school and community, the findings are according to each
research question, followed by a summary. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the salient
points and the relationship of leadership to student achievement in a high SEL school.
Background Information and School Profile on Regent Elementary School
Regent Elementary is one of more than 100 traditional elementary schools in the district.
Information from the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) show approximately 380
students in grades K-5 for the 2013-2014 school year. The student population is comprised of
65.2% African American, 32.7% Latino, 1.1% American Indian, 0.5% Pacific Islander, 0.5%
White, and no Asian or Filipino students.
The data in Table 2 represent the enrollment of students by ethnicity. The Numbers
reveal a disproportionate number of African American to Latino students when compared to both
local area schools as well as the overall district elementary enrollment. The percentage of
African American students is 65% at Regent while the Educational Service Center (a cluster of
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
98

elementary schools in the surrounding area) African American population is 10% and the district
is at 9%. Data reveals, while the rest of the district enrolls predominantly Latino students,
Regent enrolls primarily African American students.
Table 2
Alta Mesa School District, Local Area Elementary, and Regent Elementary Enrollment
by Ethnicity
Ethnicity Regent Elementary
School
Percent of Total
Educational Service
Center
Percent of Total
All District
Elementary
Percent of Total
American Indian 1% 0% 0%
Asian 0% 2% 5%
Pacific Islander 1% 1% 0%
Filipino 0% 2% 2%
Latino 33% 83% 73%
African American 65% 10% 9%
White (not Latino) 1% 3% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note. Adapted from “Alta Mesa School District, School Report Card,” Copyright 2013-2014
Table 3 shows the breakdown of students by languages in Alta Mesa School District, the
surrounding area elementary schools, and Regent Elementary enrollment by language status. A
minority of students are identified as English Language Learners (ELL) at 16% and 3% of the
ELLs were reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP) in the school year during which these
data were collected. The population of ELLs is 21% less at Regent Elementary than in both the
local area and in the District as a whole. The majority of students are identified as students who
speak English (English Only) as their language of communication.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
99

Table 3
Alta Mesa School District, Local Area Elementary, and Regent Elementary by
Language Status
Regent Elementary
School
Percent of Total
Educational Service
Center
Percent of Total
All District
Elementary
Percent of Total
English Only 84% 63% 63%
English Language
Learners (ELL)
16% 37% 37%

Reclassified fluent
English proficient
(RFEP)
3% 13% 12%
Note. Adapted from “Alta Mesa School District, School Report Card,” Copyright 2013-2014
The school is located in a high-poverty neighborhood of greater Los Angeles area and is
a Title-1 school with 88% of the school’s students considered as economically disadvantaged
(School Report Card, 2013-2014). The school is identified by the Alta Mesa School District as
predominantly Hispanic, Black, Asian, or other Non-Anglo (PHABO) school. According to
Information from the Student Integration Service website, PHBAO schools are entitled to
participate in programs designed to 1) reduce class size, 2) provide priority in hiring and
maintaining qualified staffing, and are required to 3) schedule parent conferences in addition
those required for non-PHABAO schools at defined times. In addition, PHABO schools are
eligible to participate in the School Readiness Language Development Program (SRLDP) which
is designed to provide learning opportunities for pre-kindergarten ELL and SEL students to
develop oral language skills that enhance self-esteem and support the acquisition of Standard
Academic English.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
100

AEMP and MELD
Document analysis reveals an important feature to the educational program at Regent
Elementary School is the school’s participation in the Alta Mesa Academic English Master
Program (AEMP). The AEMP program is administered in approximately 10% of elementary
schools, with 49 schools currently participating district wide. A majority of participating schools
are located in the southern area of the greater Alta Mesa area. As a branch of the Multilingual
and Multicultural Education Department (MMED) in the Alta Mesa School District, AEMP is
described as:
…a comprehensive, research-based program designed to address the language needs of
African American, Mexican American, Hawaiian American, and Native American
students for whom Standard English is not native. The program incorporates into the
curriculum instructional strategies that facilitate the acquisition of standard and academic
English in classroom environments that validate, value, and build upon the language and
culture of students (AEMP Stakeholder Agreement).
The AEMP program, started by Dr. Norma LeMoine over 25 years ago, is integral to the
school district’s plan to implement a research-based program designed to address the language
acquisition and learning needs of Standard English Learner (SEL) populations
(http://www.lemoineandassociates.com, n.d.). A recent emphasis is to address and support the
English language proficiency of all English Learner (EL) students as instruction shifts to the
academic language-rich Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In order to achieve this goal,
the AEMP office provides participating schools with resources and curriculum geared toward the
use of culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy to participant schools. Schools’
participation in AEMP is voluntary, and participant schools are required to agree to meet a list of
responsibilities a requirement for participation. In exchange, schools receive professional
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
101

development, instructional resources and lesson plans and funding designed to support in the
teaching and learning of SELs.
As a core component of instructional support, participant schools are responsible for
using “MELD” or Mainstream English Language Development strategies, which refers to
instructional accommodations that support SELs with the development of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing in SAE. Although school selection criteria did not specify participation in
this program as a part of the selection criteria, nor did the selection criteria identify any specific
type of instruction to be used with SELs students, the participation of Regent Elementary in these
District programs assured that the staff would have familiarity with the concept of SEL students.
An additional factor important to Regent Elementary School is their status participants in
the district’s Academic English Master Program (AEMP). AEMP, falls under the jurisdiction of
MMED, is a “comprehensive research-based program designed to address the language, literacy
and learning needs of a SELs Support Network School”. According to the AEMP Stakeholder
Agreement, as an AEMP Support Network School, the school is “provided with funds to send
teachers to AEMP professional development, receive AEMP instructional resources, receive
targeted support, and potentially receive additional parent representative funding.” In exchange,
the school is to implement AEMP program with integrity. The data in Figure 8 is a summary of
stakeholder responsibilities for school personnel enrolled in the AEMP program. The data in
Figure 8 is a summary of stakeholder responsibilities for school personnel enrolled in the AEMP
program.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
102

Figure 8: AEMP Stakeholder Agreement Responsibilities
Principal Cadre MELD Teachers SEL Data Coordinator
Maintain a cadre of at least 6
MELD teachers at the site.
Engage students in
systematic contrastive
analysis with listening,
speaking, reading and
writing activities.
Perfect attendance at all AEMP
meetings.
Schedule time for AEMP
Semesterly PD.
Attend ongoing AEMP PD,
and Annual CLR (spell it
out. Reader won’t know
what it is.) Institutes.
Delivering consistent exemplary
MELD instruction.
Develop the knowledge base of all
stakeholders around culturally and
linguistically responsive (CLR)
teaching and learning.
Implement daily CLR and
MELD instruction (45-60
minutes daily).
Serve as the communication hub
between AEMP, District and the
school site.
Integrate g MELD Connections
during ELA and other core
curricular areas for SELs.
Use authentic cultural
literature to balance literacy
acquisition.
Serve as the facilitator for
AEMP school site demonstration
workshops.
Ensure appropriate allocation and
utilization of resources to support
CLR pedagogy.
Infuse CLR strategies and
materials into instruction
Serve as the point person for
SEL assessment.
Ensure that AEMP is a part of the
assessment and evaluation of the
school’s instructional program.
Use formative assessment
tools.
Monitor attendance at school-
wide AEMP activities
Utilize data-based instruction for
academic achievement.
Evidence student progress
through student writing,
videotaped role-playing, oral
language activities, class
projects and academic
English language
assessments.
Set-Up and maintain a centrally
located AEMP bulletin board.
Monitor and support
implementation of CLR for SELs.
Incorporate CLR classroom
libraries, centers and cultural
reality into the classroom.
Compile an AEMP
Implementation Portfolio.
Provide leadership and support to
all stakeholders in implementing
AEMP.

Oversee the operation and
function of parent and community
engagement.

Source: Alta Mesa School District AEMP Stakeholder Agreement
The role and responsibilities of the principal to support SELs in an AEMP school are
clearly stated in this document.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
103

Research Methodology
Data were collected to determine whether a relationship exists between a principal’s
knowledge and perception of English language variations and student access to learning in a high
SEL population school. The goal was to examine how this relationship, if it did in fact exist,
influences site decisions related to student achievement. To understand systems and structures
which support or do not support the academic performance of SEL students, an urban elementary
school was selected to be used as the focus of this case study. Data were collected over three
days. The first step of data collection was to administer the English Language Variety
Perception Questionnaire (ELVPQ), a 30-minute survey designed to develop an overall picture
of the principal’s perceptions related to SEL students and English language varieties.
The principal provided the researcher access to the names of a pool of four teachers for
interview. The researcher randomly selected three of the four the teacher names for interview
from the pool. Three of the four were contacted via e-mail, two teachers agreed to participate,
and a third declined participation. The researcher e-mailed the fourth teacher of the list provided
who also agreed to participate. Interview questions were administered to the school principal
(appendix D and teachers (appendix E). The principal and teachers were interviewed for
approximately 45 minutes each. Table 4 is a summary of the background information about each
interview participant.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
104

Table 4
Summary of Participant Background
Interviewee Title
Years of Experience
in Education
Assignment (s) Fully Credentialed
Principal 25 Administrator X
Teacher A 26+
Preschool Teacher &
SEL Data
Coordinator
X
Teacher B 14 5
th
Grade Teacher X
Teacher C 20
Intervention &
Restorative Justice
Coordinator (out of
class teacher)
X
Additionally, the researcher examined artifacts related to language policy and instruction
retrieved from the district website. These artifacts included guides and presentations used for
professional development, implementation guides for policies and procedures, tools used in
teacher and program evaluation, district memos, board meeting resolution documents, general
information sheets, resource guides, and school/district report card data. Although the researcher
requested site-specific artifacts from the school principal, artifacts were not provided, so site-
specific artifacts used were those artifacts available to the public.
Research Question #1
Research Question #1
In what ways does principal knowledge and perception of home language use by SELs
relate to leadership decisions about the teaching and learning of SELs?
Principal knowledge and perceptions impacting student achievement are identified in this
section. Analysis pulls heavily from principal and teacher interviews as well as from the
perception survey administered to the principal.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
105

Principal SEL and Home Language Knowledge
When asked about his knowledge of SELs, Principal Casiano prefaced his response by
clarifying his previous experience in education. He shared he was an experienced educator and
had spent the majority of his career up to this assignment in schools of primarily Latino student
populations and located in the southeastern region of the district. “I’ve been with this district 25
years and I spent about 20 of them in the southeast”. He shared his previous assignments were
primarily “with a focus on English Language Learners”. He continued to reveal facts of
professional history. Mr. Casiano admitted, upon arrival at Regent, he had little knowledge about
cultural and linguistic needs of African American students. He reflected during the interview,
before he began his assignment at Regent, he held certain perceptions and knowledge about SEL
students at the school (who are predominately African American), but over time he has gained
knowledge and his perceptions have changed. I don’t think you have to insert citations when
they come from interviews conducted in the study.
Principal Casiano was not able to demonstrate a deep knowledge about SELs. When
asked, “What do you know about SELs?” his response included a great deal of information
which revealed that he held minimal knowledge of SELs.
I came from the southeast. With a focus of the school was English Language Learners.
You know, Huntington Park, that area of the city. Um, when I came here, I had never
heard of AEMP. And they say you are an AEMP school, and I'm like, what's that? You
know over the past four years I've been working with Grace [from the district’s AEMP
office]. Um, my first year, I mean I was overwhelmed, completely overwhelmed. It
wasn't until my second year that it was like, oh I better go to those AEMP meetings to see
what they're about. You know? I think Grace and her people are very helpful.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
106

Now when it comes down to Standard English Learners, I heard a little about it before I
came here because I worked at 215th [School], and there were some teachers who would
do ELD and some kids would do MELD. So then my understanding was that English
Language Learners went to ELD, the Standard English Learners, who were still…just
because they spoke English it didn't mean that they spoke Standard English, and they
needed some, they needed assistance, they needed help, they needed a combination of
things I think.
I think they need to be aware that the way they speak is OK. It’s a part of their culture,
but they also need to be aware of what the mainstream is, and what they're expected to
do. They have to know, to be, the two differences. Um, and MELD is not just for African
American students because you also have other groups who can form that category, you
know. I have a small population of Pacific Islanders, you know, even though I'm 65/70%
African American, I have a small population of Belizeans.
Principal Casiano’s shows he may hold some basic understanding of the differences
among variations on Standard English languages. He also demonstrated he knows SELs,
although primarily African American, can also be from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
His lack of clarity in describing SELs underlines his lack of knowledge about distinctions
between speakers of languages other than English and those students who speak varieties of
English. Having a strong knowledge base about the language needs of different student groups is
important as this knowledge can inform the decisions made by the principal about the
methodology of primary instruction and interventions that might be provided to students with
different linguistic backgrounds.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
107

Evident throughout principal and teacher interviews was Principal Casiano’s considerable
experience in working with populations of ELL students. He shared during his interview, he was
himself an ELL student and a number of the teachers he brought over to Regent to teach ELLs
were also identified as ELLs at one point in their education. “A lot of my teachers, like myself,
are English Language Learners themselves”. The principal’s knowledge, gained in part, through
his experience with ELLs, both personal and professional, revealed that his approach to EL
learning is based in ELD teaching theory.
The principal’s responses to interview questions demonstrate the principals considerable
ELL experience is not commiserate with experience he requires to push all students toward
academic excellence. He does not appear to have a similar level of experience or knowledge
about SELs. For example, in his response to the interview question “What do you know about
SELs?”, he recited elements of the Academic English Mastery Program (AEMP). According to
literature from the AEMP website, the program is a district program designed to “improve
academic achievement and enhance school success for Standard English Learner (SEL) students
with differential language backgrounds” (AEMP website, n.d.). During the interview, he spoke
frequently of the supports provided by the AEMP office and spoke about his success with ELLs,
but spoke very little about the instruction for or the characteristics of SELs.
This lack of precision in defining SELs may indicate that he continues to have gaps in his
knowledge about SELs. When describing his experience of working with SELs prior to working
at Regent he shared:
I heard a little about it before I came because I had worked at 215th and there were some
teachers who would do ELD and some kids would do MELD. The SELs, who spoke
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
108

English (although that didn’t mean that they spoke Standard English), what they needed
was some assistance. They needed some help.
The district’s Elementary Mainstream English Language Development (MELD)
Instructional Guide, describes MELD as the “instructional accommodations that support SELs
with the development of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in Standard English and
academic English”. Whereas Principal Casiano thought he was describing SELs, he was actually
providing information about the district’s SEL language support program. Misunderstanding the
definitions between the two groups further supports the principal’s gap in knowledge specifically
about SELs.
The Influence of Principal Knowledge on Achievement
Principal Casiano shared understanding the need of all of the students was challenging in
his first year; he had not specifically focused on the needs of SELs. According to the principal,
participation in the district’s AEMP program is voluntary, and he was not able to attend training
due to the intense leadership needs at the school. “Um, my first year, I mean I was
overwhelmed, completely overwhelmed. It wasn’t until my second year it was like, ‘oh I better
go to those AEMP meetings to see what they’re about.” The pressures for leadership came
primarily from the district’s focus on improving the school’s API. Referring to the school’s API,
he shared “When I first got here we were 650.” In addition, he also shared the importance
turning around the school because of the school’s continuous Program Improvement status “They
were going to, if they didn’t like our plan, they were going to take the school away from us.”
According to both Principal Casiano and the teachers interviewed, the school was in dire
need of a change in leadership. The school’s California Standards Test (CST) data showed a
trend of poor student performance in years prior to 2010-2011 when Principal Casiano was
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
109

assigned to the school CST data shows that the year prior to arrival (See Table 5 below), not even
a third of either African American or Latino students were achieving at advanced or proficiency.
During the interview, the teachers who had all served at the school prior to the arrival of
Principal Casiano, reported the school had become stagnant and was stuck in a spiral of declining
student achievement. Student achievement data in Table 5 supports this claim showing that in
the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, not even a third of the African American students at
the school scored proficient or advanced on the CST in ELA. During the same time period, ELLs
at the school were performing at levels behind both the African American students, as well as
students with disabilities (SWD). Table 5 below shows data over a five-year period of the
school’s major student sub-groups broken down by year and the principal at the time.
Table 5
Regent Elementary School CST Data by Year Percentage of Students Proficient and Advanced

Student
Demographic
Principal
Jones
2008-2009
Principal
Parrish
2009-2010
Principal
Casiano
2010-2011
Principal
Casiano
2011-2012
Principal
Casiano
2012-2013
African
American
26.0% 26.0% 28.7% 30.0% 37.0%
Latinos 27.7% 23.5% 19.7% 30.5% 39.5%
English
Language
Learner
(ELL)
14.3% 3.0% 6.5% 27.5% 16.7%
Students with
Disabilities
(SWD)
15.8% 7.7% 20.0% No data No data
Source: Regent Elementary Performance Meter-Data Summary Sheet (2012-2013)
Examining the data shows proficiency for both Latino and African American student
groups increased, from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2012-2013 school year. These increases
contributed to the overall increase in API and their AYP. This data also reveal that the increase
over the three tested years was less substantial for African Americans (who have the highest
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
110

percentage of SELs) than for Latinos. Data from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2012-2013
school year show Latino students benefited from an overall 16% increase, and African American
students showed an 11% increase. When asked what he did to support teachers in supporting
students to achieve this growth, the principal shared that he focused on the English Language
Learners by implementing the district’s ELD program and making sure students had access to
primary language supports. Interview responses confirm one major step Casiano took in support
of ELLs when he reported, “When I first came here, there were only three people [staff
members] who spoke Spanish in the whole school”. Under Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural
theory of learning, and in alignment with Cummins’ (2008) theories of language acquisition,
providing appropriate linguistic models is an important element in the development of cognition.
In addition, these new staff members had proved their ability to work collaboratively with him at
previous sites where he was an administrator.
Although the data from the 2012-2013 Performance Meter-Data Summary Sheet
demonstrate that Latino students consistently improved in ELA in greater percentages than
African American, both groups saw similar increases in 2012-2013, the last tested year of the
California Standards Test. Principal Casiano revealed that the directive of the Director who
oversaw his placement at the school site was to improve the achievement of ELLs and Latino
students. Latino students did gain more overall on assessment than African American student by
5%, however both groups in 2012-2013 were showing at least a third of the students were
proficient or advanced in ELA. Principal Casiano’s limited knowledge of African American
students in general and specifically the impact of home language use on student achievement
may be related to the lower student achievement in the 2010-2011 school year. His lack of
knowledge may have contributed to leadership decisions that affected the overall quality of
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
111

instruction that students received that year. The increase in African American students’
performance in Principal Casio’s second and third years may be attributable to his growing
knowledge of SELs, who are heavily represented by African Americans.
Leading with Language Knowledge
During the interview, Principal Casiano admitted he did not actively enforce the use of
MELD in the school his first year as he was not deeply familiar with the program. When he
arrived at the school site, he was faced with the task of sorting through all of the elements
important to new leaders in running a school. He quickly acquired knowledge about the school,
which, as supported by the research is an essential step for new principals in making decisions
designed improve student achievement (Blank, 1987; Fullan, 2001; Wang, Walters & Thum,
2013). The interview revealed that he initially spent time learning about the school operations,
identifying who the key players were in the staff, and learning about the surrounding community.
Effective new principals begin their principalship by taking the time to understand the values that
are already prevalent in the school culture and how these values relate to teaching and learning
practices at the school (Peterson & Deal, 1998, Hallinger, 2011). During his first year, while
making strides in developing the instructional program for ELL students, he allowed the teachers
of English Only (EO) students to continue teaching as they had before.
He adopted an incremental approach of “Slow Knowing” (Fullan, 2001, p. 122), which is
designed to allow leaders to adopt a more patient mode of knowledge acquisition. Slow knowing
is “particularly suited to making sense of situations that are intricate” (Claxton & Vincer, 1997,
p. 3 cited by Fullan, 2001, p. 122) which may support understanding the linguistic complexities
existing between and ELD and AEMP programs. After becoming oriented toward SEL students
through the AEMP program, he changed his approach and decided to attend AEMP sessions to
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
112

learn more about addressing the needs of SELs. His interview indicated, as he learned more, he
became more comfortable with the AEMP methodology and teaching,
Now I have a notion of what I would do, but I was never a teacher at a MELD school.
There are some trainings I have gone to. I have visited some rooms at other schools
where I’ve seen it.
He also discussed a process for visiting classrooms at Regent as he observed whether teachers
are implementing AEMP methodology and MELD practices in the classroom.
Interview data reveal both teachers and the principal perceive helping SELs attain SAE
proficiency is an important goal in education. Principal Casiano’s considerable experience in
schools with high ELD populations has influenced his leadership at Regent, but as he has learned
more about AEMP and SEL students, he has also started to adopt practices that are designed to
support SELs in learning and achievement. Principal Casiano perceives SELs as being capable
learners in need of interventions and supports, and as a result he has developed school systems
he believes will meet the needs of these students. This system, including pre-literacy skill
interventions for struggling kindergarten and first grade students, does not pull from the MELD
framework of instruction. He appears to believe that the intervention needs are related only to
academic skill development as opposed to the larger needs of cultural and linguistic awareness
that is an integral element of the MELD program.
The system Principal Casiano has chosen to use to support the intervention needs of both
ELLs and SELs is a clustered ELD and AEMP model of instruction for SELs. He shared the
decision to use this approach is driven by the relatively large number of possible SELs at the
school and the relatively low number of ELLs. “I’m one of the few schools that has a low ELL
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
113

population, so it’s just clusters, especially by 4th grade because a lot of the ELLs are
reclassified.” As a result, he shared, he places smaller ELL clusters into classes with probable
SELs whenever possible. He shared that this practice is essential because of the district’s Master
Plan that mandates separating students by ELD levels. By combining the two student groups, he
takes a universal approach which blends the instructional strategies developed for ELLs and
SELs. This process is not inconsistent with AEMP principles. Two early leaders of the AEMP
program state that one way identified in the literature to maximize SEL acquisition of academic
language is through instructional practices similar to those used in the instruction second
language acquisition (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007; Okoye-Johnson, 2011). However,
the SEL students will still lack access to instruction that specifically scaffolds SELs into
acquiring proficiency in SAE. Principal Casiano did not clearly indicate whether the students in
these blended classes receive ELD or MELD instruction.
Describing this situation, Principal Casiano said, “ELLs and SELs alike is what I try to
emphasize.” He also revealed that trying to create combined classrooms would provide better
linguistic models and a more ethnically mixed learning environment, “but it’s’ really hard is
when the district creates mandates with the new master plan and pacing. I did not want to create
a kindergarten class of all Hispanic children and a class of only African American students”, a
structure, which he shared that he felt, was “not good for students”. Research suggests what is
most important in SELs acquiring SAE is that they have the benefit from scaffolds and
interventions appropriate to second language acquisition (LeMoine & Hollie, 2007). Principal
Casiano’s decision to integrate ELD clusters into classes with high probable SEL populations
may ensure that in the absence of AEMP participation, SEL students may potentially have access
to those scaffolds and supports appropriate to language acquisition on a regular basis if they are
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
114

utilized in the classroom. This strategy on the part of the principal also indicates his awareness
of the sociocultural aspect of learning. One of his objectives in integrating the classes was to
avoid segregating African American and Latino students from one another.
Principal Casiano appears to be motivated to improve his knowledge about SELs. By
clustering ELLs into SEL classes, the principal shared that he has an opportunity to examine the
difference between classes which do have and do not have ELL clusters and the associated the
ELD instruction for those student groups. Through this type of examination, his knowledge
about best practices for SEL instruction at his school can be further developed and student
achievement may be positively impacted.
Principal Perception of Ethnicity
When asked what his perceptions about students were before he came to the school, he
responded, “I think before I came was perhaps that the behaviors of African Americans would be
a lot worse than those of the Latino kids”. This acknowledgement that he had little experience
working with African American students reveals that this perception may have been based in
cultural bias rather than fact. Perceptions of ethnicity, which at the foundation in maintaining
educational stratification (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011), may exist at some level at Regent
Elementary as interview responses of all three teachers provide evidence that there may be a
deep-seated institutional perceptions which attribute student learning to the home and
background of students. Research shows that negatively biased perceptions can lead to
discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping
which disadvantage minority students (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Principal Casiano, as a relative
newcomer to the site, although his interview revealed that he carries his own biases, does not
have knowledge of the same institutional history as the existing staff. This has allowed him time
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
115

to develop his own ideas about Regent, which are both different from those of the teachers at the
school, and are also different from when he first began as the school’s principal. As the principal
increases his own knowledge and changes his own perceptions about the students and their
backgrounds he has a responsibility to develop strong positive culture that all of the people in the
school (students, teachers, parents and others) feel a shared sense of what is important and a
shared commitment to helping students learn (Gruenert & Whitaker, 2015).
The Principal’s Perception of Home Language Use
Principal Casino shared that initially he perceived Latino students as likely to struggle with
academics due to their language needs. He attributed this perception to his years of experience
working in schools with high Latino and ELL populations and to his own personal experience,
“A lot of my teachers, like myself, are English Language Learners themselves. The language
background definitely makes a difference.” When asked the interview question, “How do you
perceive the relationship between the use of home language of SELs relates and their school
achievement?” He responded, “It does impact, definitely, because for many of them they think
that’s the norm, because that’s what they hear from everyone.” The principal’s choice of words
in this response indicates that although he perceives the language difference as having some
relationship to student achievement, he does not respect the home language of all his students as
essential to their learning in the school setting nor as a base from which students can learn
Standardized English.
This section will demonstrate that, although he holds an overall appreciation of student
cultural differences the school, he does not extend this appreciation as broadly to language. He
believes that home language is appropriate to the home and community, but that home language
is not a language of the school environment, and therefore should not be used regularly in school.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
116

Principal Casiano lacks the knowledge that the home or primary language becomes the scaffold
for learning the new academic language of school. Neither does he reflect an understanding that
all children, regardless of the first language learned at home, by nature of being raised in a social
environment, enter school with incredible language abilities and learning potentials (Gee, 2001).
Educators’ negative beliefs or perceptions of language variations, including the use of
home language, can affect relationships with students and affect instruction (Terry, Connor,
Thomas-Tate & Love, 2010). In order to provide a means of revealing internally held
perceptions regarding home language use, the researcher administered, the English Language
Variety Perception Questionnaire (ELVPQ) (Appendix B) survey to the principal. The ELVPQ
provided the principal with statements, both positive and negative, in order to help determine the
underlying perceptions of the principal toward home language use when it differed from
Standardized Academic English.
Results derived from the ELVPQ were analyzed and found to relate specifically to the
first research question for this study RQ#1: In what ways does principal knowledge and
perception of home language used by SELs related to leadership decisions about teaching and
learning of SELs? Of the 30 statements on the survey, half (15/30) statements were designed to
gather information about the beliefs and values the principal holds about home language use.
The other half (15/30) of the statements were designed to elicit responses related to the
principal’s perception of instruction for speakers of home languages. The principal was given
the ELVPQ survey and questions were answered 100%. A few statements elicited strong
responses, which are listed in Table 6 table below.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
117

Table 6
Strong Responses from Principal Casiano on ELVPQ Statements

ELVPQ Statement Number and Response

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

# 1 - The scholastic level of a school will fall if teachers allow non-
standardized American English language to be spoken.

X

#9 - Non-standardized American English language is an inferior
language system.
X
# 11 - Non-standardized American English languages should be
considered a bad influence on American culture and civilization.
X
# 16 - When teachers reject the native language of students, they do
great harm.
X
# 30 - Students should learn Standard English grammar rules to
improve their ability to understand and communicate concepts and
information.
X

These statements indicate Principal Casiano holds perceptions of language which align to
the support of home language use by students; however interview analysis shows his perception
and his belief are qualified by another perception which asserts home language should be used at
home and in the community only. Based on these responses he has a strong belief home
language systems are valid and are not inferior to SAE. Although he strongly disagrees school
academic levels will fall if teachers permit students to utilize non-standardized English, he also
believes students should learn SE grammar rules to improve their capacity for higher order
cognitive processing, and students should only use Standardized Academic English in the
classroom.
Principal Casiano reveals although he does not believe home language use, in and of
itself is a reason for students not achieving ELA proficiency, the fact they do not have adequate
skills in SAE may affect their ability to communicate concepts and information, thus impacting
student achievement, especially in ELA where SAE language is used extensively. The principal’s
overall perception of home language use can be summed up with his statement about student
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
118

language variations, with “need to be corrected, but not in a punitive way, of saying “that’s the
wrong way to do it”.
The perceptions a principal holds at the school are mirrored in the perceptions reported
by the interviewed teachers. Teacher interviews expose a view that language variations are
differences, not deficits, but they do not see students’ home languages that differ from Standard
Academic English as an area of strength to be capitalized upon within an academic environment.
Teacher B expressed how home language differences are a valid form of communication. She
stated:
I validate the language because it’s a way to communicate. It may not be academically
acceptable in a middle class school type environment, but out on the street I’m not going
to worry about these kids speaking academic language. They grow up and they need to
be able to be normal in their community and if other kids are out there talking with street
language, then they are going to have that street tongue too. It is a valuable [tool] to
communicate, so I validate each language. I don’t tell them it’s wrong. I just say you
need to understand the differences between academic and street language.
This teacher’s statement indicates, that just as the principal, he claims to see the home
language of students as valid; however he also shows a lack of understanding about the rule-
governed nature of heritage languages. The teacher perceives the language as slang or street
language, rather than as a true language. This statement shows a similarity in perspective
between principal and teacher of home language being a language of the ‘home’ and not of the
school. However, it is not possible for students to leave their language at home. Vygotsky’s
(1978) work makes a strong link between language and learning, and that the most impactful
learning, especially for young children, is through their primary language. The perception that
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
119

home language must be left at the door is not supported by second language acquisition research
(Hollie, 2001). There clearly exists some confusion about the benefits of home language in the
process of learning by both the principal and the teacher.
During the interview the principal referred three times to the need for students to be able
to code-switch. Code-switching is in essence the ability to intentionally choose the appropriate
language, dialect, or style of the same language depending on the needs of the setting (Wheeler,
2008). He perceives code-switching as a useful tool at home and in the community for
communication and as the foundation for learning SAE at school. There is some controversy in
the literature about the term “code switch.” (Young, Barrett, & Lovejoy, 2013). Some experts
call this the intentional use of another form of a dominant language, while others refer to it as the
acquisition and use of two distinct languages (Gee, 2006; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007). Most
researchers give preference to the instructional tool of contrastive analysis as an instructional
strategy that leads students to acquire proficiency in SAE.
Summary
Principal Casiano’s perception of SELs has changed as he has acquired more knowledge
about SELs. Interview data reveal that although student behavior and parent engagement remain
a general concern, the principal has worked to implement strategies related to specific school
practices designed to improve student achievement. In line with existing research, student
achievement is more closely related to the implementation of specific school practices than to the
demographics of the student population (Wang, Walters & Thum, 2013). Principal Casiano’s
decisions about how to implement these practices, including purposeful language based
clustering, appear to be influenced by his imperfect knowledge of ELLs and SELs.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
120

This research demonstrates that the principal’s limited knowledge in the beginning of his
principalship at Regent led him to have goals for incremental growth as he acquired needed
knowledge to support SELs. In summary, Principal Casiano appears to be growing in his
knowledge of instruction that assists SELs in acquiring Standard English. The principal’s
perceptions of the students are becoming more positive as he learns more, but the
misunderstanding remains that he does not see the home language of SELs as an asset.
Research Question #2
What role does a principal play in guiding instruction and teacher quality to ensure SELs
have equitable access to appropriate learning opportunities and are able to participate in ELA
curriculum and literacy activities?
This section addresses the role of principal leadership at Regent Elementary. Through
use of existing leadership frameworks of instructional and transformational leadership, practices
that guide access to learning opportunities and curricular participation will be explored. Finally,
an examination of different approaches used by the principal to provide SELs opportunities to
participate in ELA and literacy are revealed. Some of the data for Research Question #2 overlap
with findings related to Research Question #1.
Principal Casiano was asked to relate his perception of his role as the school leader. He
responded, “That’s when you become, I call it, the big teacher in the school. That’s when I have
to learn, just like when I was in the classroom”. Research has shown principals who create and
sustain a focus on learning, organize instruction across the school, and align school lessons to
standards have had a direct influence on teacher and student performance (Heck, Larsen &
Marcoulides, 1990; Wang, Walters & Thum, 2013). As a practiced teacher of many years,
Principal Casiano holds direct and recent experience of classroom teaching. His teachers share
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
121

that he has a strong pulse on what works in teaching and learning and is always ready to share
this with staff. According to teachers at the school, Principal Casiano holds a number of
leadership qualities that identify him as both an instructional leader and as a transformational
leader.
The definition of an “instructional leader” remains somewhat ill defined by the literature.
However, a traditional definition paints the picture of a teacher leader. A successful teacher
leader is one engaged with issues of curriculum and instruction, is unafraid to work directly with
teachers, and is highly visible in classrooms (Horng & Loeb, 2010; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb,
2010). The literature is critical of leaders who use short-term strategies and solutions. Principal
Casiano does not seem to be focused on short solutions.
Teacher A shared the principal is active in encouraging teachers to support the needs of
SEL learners. She stated, “You know, I do think that he is trying to get on board, promoting and
trying to help the SELs and ELLs.” The principal purposefully sets up opportunities for teachers
to work on issues and of curriculum and instruction in order to meet the needs of SELs through
regular grade level meetings and banked Tuesday staff development. Teacher B revealed, “We
discuss how we can bring up the African American population with the EL students so that we
can give them the same kind of instruction so that they all get the same basic writing or written
communication instruction, so there is no confusion.” Teacher statements reflect their perception
of the principal’s focus on their involvement in the important discussions of student language
development. Another action related to the role of an instructional leader is the observation of
instruction as a basis of providing feedback to teachers (Horng & Loeb, 2010). The principal
shared he often goes into classrooms to observe and examine how well intervention and
instruction is implemented. As evidence, Teacher A reported, “He pops in a couple of times a
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
122

week, but informally. He isn’t scripting anything down.” Frequent observations of instruction
are consistent with the research literature, which describes effective behaviors of principals who
function as effective leaders (Whitaker, 1997). These principals frequently walk the halls,
classrooms and yard and are highly visible by staff. They gain a complete and intimate sense of
the school (Whitaker, 1997). This description supports that Principal Casiano is addressing
many of the school’s needs when examined through a lens of traditional instructional leadership.
Schools with leaders who practice these elements of instructional leadership have been shown to
have positive effects on student learning and achievement (Valentine & Prater, 2011).
However, interview data show that Principal Casiano engages in more aspects of
leadership than those elements highlighted under traditional instructional leadership. With the
multitude of demands placed on principals today, their leadership must also include a much
broader view of the responsibilities and roles which instructional leaders have in working to
ensure all students have access to learning opportunities in school (Horng & Lob, 2010).
Organizational Management style is a progressive view of instructional leadership; it calls on
principals to spend less time running day-to-day operations of the school to focus on
management of the organization (Horng & Loeb, 2010). Principals who style their leadership in
this fashion are focused keenly on influencing teacher motivation and working conditions as a
means of improving student learning. This approach aligns with transformational leadership.
Organizational Management style of instructional leadership focuses on the decision-
making process of each principal to identify suit able new hires, make appropriate classroom
assignments, retain effective teachers and identify opportunities for teachers to grow and
improve. Principal Casiano provided evidence of his engagement in these practices throughout
the interview. For example, he shared his purposeful decision for hiring teachers familiar with
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
123

ELD practices. By hiring and assigning these teachers to teach ELD clusters within larger SEL
groups he believes he ensured that both SELs and ELLs receive regular access to the language
strategies which are a part of the ELD instructional plan. He also supports and creates
opportunities for teachers to improve their knowledge of supporting students in acquiring SAE.
He supports teachers, encouraging them to participate in trainings offered through the AEMP
office. He shared that teachers who participated were often given priority in class assignment at
the end of the year. He also provides locally centered and delivered professional development
focused on ELA. He shared, “the AEMP office gave us money two years in a row, and we had
to write a grant. It was about closing the achievement gap.” Based on the principal’s description
of the program, it seemed the focus was on language as a means of closing the achievement gap.
Ravitch (2013) and Soto-Hinman and Hetzel (2009) both assert that eliminating
opportunity gaps in education is necessary for closing the persistent achievement gap. One
research proven method supports using a teaching model designed to assist teachers in bridging
the gaps between ELs and text, teachers and their peers. This model is the Literacy Gaps Model
of Soto-Hinman and Hetzel (2009). This model focuses on the gap between student and text,
including addressing areas of decoding and comprehension, as well as the gap between teacher
and student, focusing on teacher perceptions, expectations and cultural differences. Principal
Casiano employs a multi-tiered approach to improve the professional capacity of teachers at the
school. His interviews, as well as those of the teachers, indicate that he invests school resources
in the professional development of teachers in the core literacy areas of reading and writing.
Teacher C shared money received from the AEMP grant was useful in contracting with Growing
Educator. Growing Educator is an outside professional development service, which comes on
campus to provide training on writing and literacy. The principal shared, teachers who attended
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
124

training received an extra stipend for their participation as a means of encouraging buy-in.
According to Principal Casiano, teachers have also received training in “Words their Way”,
which is a commercial intervention program designed to instruct struggling students in phonics,
vocabulary, and spelling. These opportunities for improving teacher capacity demonstrate
professional growth is a core value in his school leadership practices.
Multiple Leadership Styles to Address Many Leadership Roles
Principal Casiano’s interview revealed he does not align his practices specifically to one
model or the other of instructional leadership. Rather he strikes a balance between the different,
and sometimes opposing views, in which school-level demands are weighed against the larger
organizational needs coming from district mandates. Although he did not explicitly discuss
leadership style or specific frameworks in the interview, his interview responses and those of the
teachers, indicate his overall approach to school leadership is a balanced approach. The focus is
on student achievement. Principal Casiano’s leadership responsibilities appear to dictate
leadership roles practiced at the site. Although he does not describe it explicitly, the principal
and teacher interview show the principal sees instructional leadership as an important part of his
job. The principal interview discloses his feelings undergirding the desire to be a strong
instructional leader, although he is conflicted by attempts to align his vision of instructional
leadership with the operational mandates from the district.
The principal followed a combination of leadership practices. On the one hand, Principal
Casiano engages in practices of transactional leadership, which align with a more managerial
form of leadership. Transactional leadership focuses on the role of supervision, organization,
and group performance leaving little decision-making in the hands of the organization’s
followers (Bass, 2008). However, in other respects, the principal’s efforts to increase teacher
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
125

knowledge bear characteristics of transformational leadership practices. Transformational
leadership is often defined by the leader’s ability to enact change through the actions of the
organization’s followers (Burns, 1978; Bass & Avolio, 1994). The goal of transformational
leadership is to move the organization ahead toward the goals and ideals set out by the leader, by
allowing others to take on leadership roles as welcome.
Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of research literature
and identified 21 leadership responsibilities that align to a balanced approach of educational
leadership [see appendix H]. Within these 21 responsibilities, the team further identified seven
leadership attributes essential in guiding schools through change. They are: (a) change agent, (b)
knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment, (c) flexibility, (d) ideals and beliefs, (e)
monitors, (f) evaluated and (g) intellectual stimulation. Although practices of all seven attributes
are revealed throughout teacher and principal interviews, data analysis concludes three
descriptors relate to Principal Casiano’s role as instructional leader: a) change agent, b) ideals
and beliefs and c) knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Although interview
and artifact analysis revealed practices addressing attributes of the remaining four domains occur
at the school site, analysis of study data reveals that three responsibilities above referenced are at
the heart of Principal Casiano’s leadership practice.
Leadership Role #1: Change Agent.
Principal Casiano has taken on his role of leadership as an agent of change. A change
agent is, as defined by Waters and Cameron (2007) is a person from either inside or outside an
organization or school who helps with organizational transformation by focusing on matters of
organizational effectiveness, improvement, and development and empowering others to take
charge of the work. Principal Casiano was assigned as principal of the school with the district
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
126

directive to improve student achievement, which meant that change was necessary, even if it not
all staff were ready to accept those changes. This direction is sometimes in conflict with the
mandate of the district. District policy expects the principal to improve student achievement in
the short term.
Teacher A revealed, although some teachers were happy to have a new principal with
new ideas, others were resistant. Teacher C shared some staff were resistant because they
thought he would change everything that worked, while others were resistant because he was an
outsider. Teacher A also brought to light Principal Casiano’s arrival created some controversy in
the school and community. Principal Casiano was a Latino principal in a school traditionally
managed by an African American principal. In addition, the faculty was primarily African
American. Initially, according to Teacher B, some parents in the community were upset a Latino
principal was going to head the school as it had a tradition of African American principals’ who
reflected an ethnic composite of the community. Teacher A’s interview disclosed his
appointment was perceived as a threat by some teachers, “Some people try to put the race card in
it, because he’s Latino.” She shared her belief he has proven himself as an effective leader, yet
he still has to work to gain the trust of some staff. Deep change is not a quick process.
Principal Casiano shared he was assigned to the school with the goal of improving
student achievement “When I first got here, we were 650 [API], we were a Public School of
Choice school. If they [the district] didn’t like our plan, they were going to take the school away
from us.” He also shared “There was a huge need with the ELLs. On the CSTs, they scored 15
to 20 points below special education students at the school”. Interviewed teachers acknowledged
the school was doing a relatively poor job with ELLs, which they attributed to a lack of training
in ELD methodology, a lack of primary language support at the school for Spanish speakers, and
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
127

being forced to focus on the unique needs of African American students. Interviews established
teachers were very familiar with SEL pedagogy; they did not have practice using ELD pedagogy
and principles when Principal Casiano began at the school.
Principal Casiano realized early on many practices at the school would need to be
changed in order to incorporate the needs of the growing ELL population. “Their needs were
just something the school wasn’t used to.” As a result, he reported the necessity of instituting
changes some of the teachers may not “buy-into” immediately. Both Teacher A and Teacher C,
two of the teachers with the longest tenure at the school, reported teacher buy-in could be
challenging at the school. Conversely, research indicates for a leader to substantially affect
changes at a school, buy-in is necessary because the principal’s leadership is mediated by the
culture and the work of the people in the school (Valentine & Prater, 2011). Under this
principle, one way or another, he gaining the buy-in is necessary at the school to make efforts
needed to change the instruction of students around language.
Professional development for change. An area where Principal Casiano states buy-in is
especially important is in teacher willingness to participate in activities expanding professional
practice. Interviews of both principal and teachers indicate he views his role as a facilitator of
professional development and also as a conduit for seeking resources necessary for transferring
knowledge to teachers.
Locally designed training. At Regent, interview and artifact analysis show l the
principal provides opportunities for locally designed professional development. Professional
development agendas of locally designed trainings are intended to address general instruction
and intervention, primarily in the skills necessary for student attainment of academic literacy.
An examination of memos from the trainings indicates they contain elements designed to support
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
128

all students in acquiring SAE. Memos reveal focus on SAE language development is not
specifically targeted for SELs, although the majority of the students are African Americans.
African American students are most likely SELs based on school data descriptions of their
language use. In the principal’s mind, he is addressing the needs of all SAE learners through a
blended model approach to meeting the needs of all language learners. The most recent locally
designed professional development was focused on the academic task of writing. The content
area was chosen by a team of school teacher-leaders, parents and the principal and was based on
data that both ELLs and African American students at the school were showing difficulty with
written work.
Principal Casiano shared in the interview that he employed Growing Educators, a district
approved contractor for professional development in English Language Arts, to come to the
school on non-teaching days in order to train the staff in teaching writing. He offered teachers
extra pay to attend the out-of-school-hours professional development. Both teachers B and C
shared that they felt that the training was applicable to the needs of SEL students. Principal
Casiano shared that he chose to target writing because data show that it is an area of significant
need for all students at the school. Learning formal academic language skills, including
listening, speaking, reading and writing about subject area content material with academic
English are essential for students to succeed in school (Cummins, 1985). Although the principal
emphasizes writing, neither the interviews with the principal nor the teachers indicated an equal
emphasis on reading, listening, and speaking.
Banked Tuesday meeting agendas from the school indicate regular professional
development on district-prioritized items occurs weekly. These trainings often focus on policies
and procedures that employees are expected to implement in the course of the instructional day.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
129

A review of the agendas shows that the majority of the banked training time last year was spent
on “training modules” from the ELD Master Plan. Principal Casiano shared that although the
district trainings support the overall objectives and goals of the district, they do not always meet
the local needs of the school; so in addition to the district mandated professional development, he
also provides locally designed professional development.
Professional development agendas indicate he participates in the professional
development organization and ensures the training aligns to his overall vision for student
achievement. Data shows Principal Casiano has clearly articulated his vision for literacy
development as the need essential to reading and writing skills. According to Teacher C,
Over the summer, he gave all grade levels the opportunity to come into school the last
week we got out, to come in and to write out three different writing assignments based on
the different genres of writing. All grade levels participated and were represented, and
we sat down and tried to develop three different writing assignments. That enabled us to
just get started right away. That was a sign to me and everyone else that writing was
important.
This statement reveals the principal’s beliefs and values about the importance of writing
were clearly conveyed to the staff. Teacher C continued,
I know what I felt was expected of me… was that I was to help the students to learn to
write clearly, succinctly and in Standard English. That’s what I got from all of the
different trainings he provided and the money he put into the trainings for us and the
amount of time he gave us to work on laying out our writing assignments for the entire
year. He was saying, ‘writing is important to me, and I want it to be important t to you
and I want you to be able to do a good job of teaching it to the students.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
130

Off-site training. The principal reported in order for teachers to gain knowledge about
SEL students, he has encouraged teachers at Regent to sign up for some of the many professional
development opportunities provided through the district’s AEMP office; however he
acknowledges there is some resistance from some teachers at the school to attend these trainings.
One teacher reported having participated in the trainings for a number of years and does not see
the value in more training about SELs. This teacher’s statement might be interpreted as the need
for a differentiated professional development rather than a rejection of professional development
all together. Another teacher indicated that off-site training has built-in barriers possibly limiting
teacher participation.
In discussing district provided trainings, and specifically AEMP training, Teacher C
shared, “There would be trainings and they would have to go to the trainings like every Thursday
after work around 3:30 or so”, which lies outside of teacher contract hours. Teacher C indicated
that in years prior, people would come to the school from the AEMP office and provide the
training on-site. She continued that in recent years the trainings have become primarily
voluntary and the employee must go independently to the district office to participate in the
trainings. Teacher A reported that there are many fewer participants at the AEMP trainings than
in years past. These findings from these teacher interviews are that although the district provides
training, barriers exist to motivation to participate in off-site training which may prevent teachers
from going to the trainings.
The voluntary nature of teacher participation in these trainings may interrupt effective
dissemination of information important to the specific learning needs of SELs In other words,
information may not be shared with teachers uniformly, meaning some teachers will develop
extensive knowledge, and other teachers may have little to no knowledge about SELs. Principal
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
131

Casiano shared his belief participation in AEMP should be mandatory, despite challenges posed
by participation, because “we owe it to the kids”.
Resource management for change. A final theme emerging across all data sources is
the power of ongoing professional development as a means of affecting change. The interviews
suggest Principal Casiano seeks out and invests in resources which allow for on-going training
which often spans multiple years. For example, he wrote a proposal to receive the AEMP grant.
Receiving the grant meant Regent teachers would receive on-going professional development for
a two-year year period. In addition, his decision to participate in the AEMP program ensured
teachers’ access to quality training offered by the district, even if they did not choose to access
that training.
Principal Casiano explained one of his primary roles is mediating external demands
placed on teachers from the district and other sources. He feels it is his responsibility to manage,
and sometimes “protect” teachers from, district obligations that may affect the quality of
instructional time teachers time have in front of students. He shared, “it’s sometimes hard on
teachers to teach when they have so many demands.” Principal Casiano provided details to
support both he and teachers sometimes struggle with the multitude of demands from the district:
It is challenging because the teachers and I have a hard time differentiating [prioritizing]
between what the districts is asking us to do and what we need to do here. My director
tells me one thing, so a lot of my decision-making at my school is teacher focused. I
remember what it was like as a classroom teacher, you know, and I try to protect my
staff.
This statement is further confirmation that he is conflicted between what he believes he
needs to do for the school and what the district is demanding.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
132

His articulation of competing needs is framed through his role as mediator in which he
makes purposeful decisions over what obligations teacher must fulfill and which can be
delayed or dismissed. “I try not to bring the politics of the district into the school. I try.
Some things are mandated, like I can’t tell my teachers ‘No, don’t do DIBELS’. There
are some things we have to do. But there are some things we are going to do that we
think are valuable for students instead of other things.
The role as a mediator is central to those responsibilities and an essential element in his
role as instructional leader. By managing these responsibilities, he organizes and prioritizes time
allowing his staff to focus on what he considers important. “I want teachers to teach and
students to learn.” By managing demands, he is also building trust which is an essential element
of change. Transformational change cannot occur through principal leadership alone, it requires
the involvement of the many stakeholders within a school (Onorato, 2013). Principal Casiano,
on one hand, says training should be mandatory, so teachers can participate in school change; on
the other hand, he is engaged in managing demands for teachers, so they may define what their
priorities should be. These two contradictions in leadership practices provide evidence he may
employ a combination of transactional and transformational leadership styles to guide Regent
Elementary. The two styles may sometimes conflict with each other.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
133

Leadership Role #2: Ideals and Beliefs
School leadership practices can communicate to stakeholders the ideals and beliefs of the
principal. Principal Casiano expounds on his ideals linked to instructional leadership; he believes
it is extremely important to model behaviors he would like to see exemplified by his staff. He
believes modeling in leadership is important because, “How I behave and what I expect and how
I support them, is how much they will support me.” There are several ways he demonstrates he
is working toward this goal. Ideals and beliefs are exhibited with each weekly bulletin sent to
the staff. In fact, artifact analysis shows each week, a caption is included in the bulletin which is
focused on goals of student achievement and learning.”
Value of shared ideals. Although Principal Casiano holds a substantial role in building
a culture supportive of cultural and linguistic diversity at the school, the role is not his alone. He
supports practices which allow teachers to have an active role in the process of decision making,
including selecting supplemental materials for instruction, selection of intervention instructional
materials, and participating in school budgeting decisions. This practice is reflective of
transformational leadership. Interviews with the principal and the teacher reveal he actively
engages in the practice of including teachers in decision-making. In seeking their participation,
the principal shared he hopes to improve their buy-in and motivation in using teacher supported
curriculum, “I think we learn together, and I think the way I would get buy-in is the teachers
seeing the success, the purpose for it.” He does not offer teachers free reign in their
participation, as he shared that “It is very important to give them choices, it’s like the kids, but
they are choices I am willing to live with.” This statement provides further evidence to support
wavering between transactional and transformational leadership. Further, he shared encouraging
teachers to participate in the decision-making, they are also learning leadership skills themselves.
“It has become increasingly clear leadership at all levels of the system is the key lever for
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
134

reform” (Fullan, 2001, p. 21). Research supports leadership as an organization-wide
phenomenon, with shared responsibility in setting and achieving the school’s activities, as a
means of affecting school performance (Pounder, Ogawa & Adams, 1995).
Principal Casiano elucidated, building a culturally responsive teaching environment
prompts him to think often of ways to differentiate learning experiences for SELs and ELLs. He
engages in self-reflection asking, “How do we meet the needs of the kids and the different
groups at the school based on their language they bring and their language needs?” One role he
undertakes is to facilitate an environment where, as Teacher A stated, “what kids bring from
home” is valued. Yet, he does not extend this principle to using students’ home language as a
tool for learning and acquiring SAE. These discussions are built into the regular collaborative
planning time that teachers have each week. His actions are indicative of the belief that teacher
participation is important to student achievement at the school. The fact that he attends some of
these meetings to share both advice and his instructional knowledge is an example of his
emphasis on visibility in his leadership.
Modeling leadership. The school leader provides a visible and accessible model of
active instructional leadership for the teachers. Collaborative planning meetings are focused on
instructional planning and promoting student achievement. However, Principal Casiano does not
only focus on communication for the purpose of work, as he also shared, “I try to go their
meetings and informal conversations they are having. I try to incorporate what we have to do at
the school and then have informal conversations about their daily lives. I’m not saying I’m their
friend, but I try to be approachable.” Through these meaningful conversations, the principal is
able to build relationships, which can then support staff in working toward the principal’s
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
135

mission. Both principal and teacher interviews reveal that Principal Casiano values his
relationship with teachers at the school.
Summary
One theme emerging from the data suggests principals who aspire to enact change within
established systems must utilize a number of different leadership styles to make this change
occur. Consistent with research literature, strong instructional leadership is important for school
success and principals must play many roles as instructional leaders (Horng & Loeb, 2010).
Data reveal although maintaining a primary role as an instructional leader in the traditional sense
of leadership, he incorporates elements of organizational management akin to transformational
leadership in his practice. The intersection of these two styles of leadership serves to guide his
approach toward making decisions about systems and practices of instruction at the school.
Data analysis, identified three primary functions of transformational change leadership
exhibited by Principal Casiano are: (a) change agent, (b) ideals and beliefs, and (c) knowledge of
curriculum, instruction and assessment. Within these responsibilities, seven roles related to
guiding instruction and teacher quality were revealed as: (a) mediator of external demands, (b)
model of leadership, (c) facilitator in the development of school culture and environment, (d)
guide of intervention and support, (e) supervisor of curriculum, instruction and assessment, (f)
facilitator of collaborative work, and (g) leader of evidence-based decision making.
Although of these roles align to principal decision making for the entire school, data
show that they also support the goal of ensuring SELs have equitable access and appropriate
learning activities in ELA. Notably absent however in this analysis is the absence of a focus on
speaking and listening of students. Although one teacher shared during an interview her use of
discussion to help students identify differences in home and school languages, this does not seem
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
136

to be a practice of focus at the school. This is in contrast with the research which supports the
need for building on a child’s first language as one of the most effective ways to help students
learn and acquire a second language (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine, 1999).
It is possible the responsibilities Principal Casiano tries to meet and the roles he holds as
an instructional leader do not place importance on the idea SELs are acquiring a second
language, a second variety of language, as expressed in the research literature (LeMoine, 1999).
The structures that the principal creates at the school are important in student ability to access
literacy activities at the school. Those structures can level the playing field by making the
content and language accessible to all students (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). “Providing
focused instruction in the target language(s) while also providing an asset model for all heritage
languages” (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009, p. 225) support student access to grade-level content
standards. By focusing the scope of the supports for SELs to intervention within the ELD
framework, the principal is utilizing an intervention model rather than asset model, which is not
supported by the research literature.
The principal invests in teacher quality through locally developed professional
development. He also encourages teachers to further their knowledge and skills in teaching
SELs through participation in AEMP trainings and programs. However, the voluntary nature of
teacher participation in these training opportunities has led to an uneven understanding of
language acquisition and language use amongst teachers.
Principal Casiano’s interview showed that some of the newer teachers are trained in the
instruction of the ELD program. Other teachers, especially those teachers who have been at the
school for many years, are trained extensively in AEMP. These two distinct groups do not share
a common knowledge base on language acquisition. These discrepancies may result in inequities
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
137

in learning opportunities for students at the site based on student language background.
Although both groups are able to participate in the ELA curriculum, it is questionable whether
SELs are afforded equitable access to ELLs when teachers do not equally implement SEL
instructional strategies and curriculum in a school with a high SEL population.

Research Question #3
Research Question #3:
In what ways do teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support that
enables them to implement instruction that assists SELs in acquiring Standardized Academic
English (SAE) proficiency?
Principals are leaders of organizations entrusted with employees they must work with in
order to realize organizational objectives. Onorato (2013) points out, school leadership is
instrumental in attaining organizational objectives and is critical to school improvement. The
paramount objective of a school principal is to ensure that all students have equitable
opportunities to learn in a rigorous and meaningful curriculum. The principal is a leader at a
school, just as a manager or supervisor is leader of a business. Each is tasked with the important
task of making decisions that affect the business or school. In business, managerial decisions
affect the performance of employees, which in turn, impact the quality and quantity of product or
service out-put. In schools, research also confirms that principal decisions do in-fact have a
relationship with student achievement (Leithwood, Seashore, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom,
2004).
Little research exists about teacher perception of principal leadership; however in one
mixed methods study conducted by Hauserman, Ivankova, and Stick, 2013, qualitative data from
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
138

the study revealed that teachers who perceived their principals were engaged in highly
transformational leadership behaviors were more enthusiastic about their jobs. The researchers
concluded that the principal leadership practices were linked in a positive connection to teacher
enthusiasm. This section explores teacher perception about principal traits are related to teacher
motivation in the teaching learning of SELs.
Teacher Perception of Principal Traits
One study examined teacher perceptions of traits and skills of principals. Richardson,
Lane and Flanigan (1996) examined the ranking of principal leadership traits as compared to
those reported by employees of business managers. In their study, they asked, “What are the
characteristics of principals that make them leaders?” To answer this question, they provided
teachers in four states a list of twenty attributes that business managers thought leaders should
possess. Their findings revealed both business managers and teachers as identifying the top
attributes as the same. The top four attributes in order of importance for both business leaders
and teachers were:
1) Honest
2) Competent
3) Forward-looking
4) Inspirational
As demonstrated in Figure 9 below, both managers and teachers included the attributes
of intelligent and straightforward in their top picks as well; however not in the same order. In
addition, teachers added two attributes to their top picks, which managers listed as less important
and not within their top ten attributes; the teachers were caring and support.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
139

This research gives some insight into the overall perceptions of qualities teachers hold
about their principals and it also provides a framework for understanding the description of
perceived support revealed by teachers at Regent Elementary. Although each interviewed
teacher was asked to elaborate on the interview statement, “Describe the support you believe
your principal provides you in the teaching and learning of SELs”, all three teachers responded
with statements that were more reflective of principal traits or general practices rather than
identifying specific types of support. Perhaps, they felt these traits and general practices
supported them in their instructional role with SELs. Using the top ten traits from the twenty
attributes studied by Richardson, Lane and Flanigan (1996), teachers’ interview responses reveal
that they perceive Principal Casiano as most often showing traits of forward-thinking, caring,
cooperation and straightforwardness.
Teacher A reported that Principal Casiano is a very caring principal, “I think he supports
all students. When he comes in the room, and he hugs my little black kids, he hugs my
Figure 9: Comparative Result of the Top Ten Perceived Attributes of Superior
Leaders

Attributes of Superior Business
Managers as Perceived by
Managers
Attributes of Superior Principals
as
Perceived by Teachers
1 Honest Honest
2 Competent Competent
3 Forward-Looking Forward-Looking
4 Inspiring Inspiring
5 Intelligent Caring
6 Fair-Minded Supportive
7 Broad-Minded Intelligent
8 Straightforward Fair-Minded
9 Imaginative Cooperative
10 Dependable Straightforward
Figure X. Reprinted Richardson, Lane and Flanigan (1996)
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
140

little Latino kids, what’s the difference?” Teacher B shared that Principal Casiano’s
ability to think-forward about student needs is an important trait. He shared “that the
open-mindedness to allow teachers to do what is working in the classroom for students to
grow is his strongest point.”
He referred to the principal’s decision to use an “open curriculum’ as an example of that open-
mindedness, which appears to be an additional trait, and not one of the traits were identified by
Richardson, Lane and Flanigan (1996).
He allows us to teach the curriculum, but we supplement in a lot of ways. He allows us.
He tells us to use what’s going to be successful with our students. He leaves it more up to
use; there’s more autonomy in the school that way because we are allowed to set up
things we know work in the classroom. He provides advice and ideas.
In addition, Teacher A expressed that “maturity and calmness”, are traits held by Principal
Casiano which are essential to success of the principal’s leadership. Finally, he shared that he
believes that an effective principal is one who shows care to all students so that “they feel loved
and that they are in a comfortable place.”
Teacher C shared that straightforwardness is valued. “When he comes into our
classrooms, he always looks at our boards to see [how] the writing is going, makes suggestions
and things like that.” In addition, she stated that his straightforwardness helped her to focus on
expectations for student achievement,
I know I felt what was expected of me was that I was to help student to learn to write
clearly, succinctly in Standard English. That’s what I got from all of the different
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
141

trainings he provided, and the money he put into the trainings for us. He also gave us the
time to work on laying out our whole writing assignments for the year.
The teacher evidently interpreted straightforwardness the same as forward thinking. She
shared that the principal’s forward-thinking approach is seen in the “opportunity to come into
school the last week we got out [of school] to come and to write out three different writing
assignments based on the different genres of writing. That enabled us to get started right away.”
This statement demonstrates the teacher’s perception of the importance of the principal providing
teachers with opportunities to plan and prepare ahead of time. “Training and time for teachers on
how to reach students who don’t speak Standard English in school is important and these writing
trainings help.”
Additionally, she shared that caring for teachers is a very important principal trait. She
stated, “The principal needs to look at everyone and try to find a way to reach the teachers as
well, because if you don’t reach the teachers, the children won’t be reached either.” Her
statement suggested that she felt the principal had not demonstrated this attribute sufficiently,
and perhaps an area that he may need to develop more in his leadership. Finally, she emphasized
his focus on cooperation by stating “He will come to your psycho-motor [time when grade level
teachers meet while students are engaged in psycho-motor activities] and share information with
the grade level and we all will work on it together.” She added, “at grade level, during psycho-
motor each week, we are given time to sit and discuss issues and different things we’re focused
on to work.” In order for the teachers to have this time during students’ psychomotor instruction,
principals have to use resources to pay for an instructor for the students. The principal is
demonstrating in this manner that he is willing to invest resources in teacher development and
planning for effective instruction to students.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
142

Teachers’ perceptions of Principal Casino reveal that the traits they selected are traits that
are an important aspect of the framework he articulated in the interview as to how he leads the
school. Principal Casiano spoke care for teachers and students. One way he shows care for his
teachers is through his decision to involve teachers in decision-making practices about
curriculum,
So I said, I’m going to buy you core literature, I don’t know where I’ll find it, but the
teacher’s loved it. So I have them find the books and I met with them and said, ‘we
aren’t only using Treasures, what will that look like in your room?’ We talked about it
and the teachers seem to be a lot happier not having to only follow Treasures. They are
more excited about teaching when they have a choice, when they have a say.
Teacher interviews reveal an indirect relationship between some of the identified
attributes of superior leaders in the literature and Principal Casiano’s leadership at Regent
Elementary School. The implication is that, the more the teachers’ expectations are aligned with
the principal’s attributes, the better the teachers and the principal can work together for student
achievement (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1996).
Balanced Leadership for Balanced Support
When asked the interview question “How does your principal support you in the teaching
and learning of SELs”, the teachers had difficulty responding directly to the question. Teacher A
simply responded “My view of him is he supports me and he supports the program {referring to
AEMP}. Maybe not as wholeheartedly as some other people may think…but I think he does the
best he knows how to do.” She provided no elaboration other than sharing that the principal
attended some AEMP trainings, but she did not interpret this as direct support. The teacher
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
143

articulates some reservations about the principal’s leadership to support SELs specifically,
although she expresses approval of his overall leadership.
In general terms, the teachers were able to describe some practices that they believe
provided them with support. Teacher C reported that the principal tries to balance decisions on
what works well for students and teachers equally. Teacher B described how the principal gives
staff choices, and that those choices bring balance by making staff feel comfortable with his
decisions. Teacher A shared that although she feels that the principal is sometimes perceived as a
“softie”, he is at the same time making hard decisions, and moving the school toward better
teaching for all student sub-groups. She added that she believes he has, based on the expressed
needs of the community, chosen to focus on test scores and student emotional balance more than
pushing for the “college and career readiness” espoused by the district by its adoption of the
Common Core Standards.
I think he’s more concerned about whether they are happy or content than ‘you got to get
this high school degree or this college degree’. I don’t see him being gung-ho with
higher learning. He is more focused on emotional balance. I see a lot of things he
does…and this is elementary school…so he has to take care of the children and their
families. He doesn’t worry about what will happen later. He worries about what happens
now. He worries about what makes students happy and want to learn.
This teacher’s comments suggest she believes the principal does not communicate high
expectations for all students. In addition, the principal revealed when making decisions, although
he considers teacher needs, in the end the final say and decisions are guided by “what is best for
students”. Of course, the sentiment “what is best for students” is based on district needs for the
sake of test scores instead of what is instructionally best for students. Teacher A shared, “I think
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
144

he knows it’s important to have education to be successful. I feel he wants the children to do
well. However, I think they [the District] and he are more concerned about test scores.” This
statement demonstrates teachers know he is pushed to meet district test score targets and
sometimes his support for teachers may be limited by these demands. At other times, he elicits
teacher support to meet demands, as he did in buying supplemental reading materials, and other
times he makes unilateral decisions. Teacher A stated, “He knows how to run a school, he is
focused on getting us what we need to teach, but he also knows his students.” This statement
points to teachers’ awareness of the conflict the principals faces between what he believes is best
for the school and the students as opposed to what the district demands.
Teacher B summarized his support as empowering and closed with, “One of the strongest
characteristics is the motivation and the output [of the] work that he puts out for ideas in the
classroom as far as education is concerned.” As teacher C shared, “He lets us try new things in
class. He wants us to bring in new ideas to help students learn academic English. He wants all
the kids to be successful.” One element Principal Casiano highlighted as an important aspect of
supporting his staff is trust; however as he pointed out, “It takes time and trust. And I think you
get trust as teachers see success from the kids. Not just because I say so.” This statement reveals
that the principal is willing to take risks and allows the time needed for teachers to build the
competencies they need as a step in building teacher leadership. In this manner, he demonstrates
some of the attributes of a transformational leader.
Research on teacher perception has found teacher opportunity to make decisions to be
empowering and professionally enriching (Short, Rinehart & Eckley, 1999). Therefore,
principals who provide the necessary leadership and structure for teachers to make decisions
about improving student are likely to see more motivation from teachers to follow through on
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
145

those decisions. Data analysis from teacher interview reveals Principal Casiano supports his
teachers by encouraging them to engage in making decisions about their instruction that will
support student achievement. Inferences isolated from teacher comments show teachers perceive
the principal’s ability balance day-to-day needs as well as support their decisions and ideas as
important support for student achievement.
Teacher and Principal Approach to the Teaching of SELs
A common theme emerging from teacher and principal interviews, suggests although
SELs and ELLs are not the same in language needs, the strategies for instruction are similar
enough to be taught to both groups of students through school-wide instructional design and
purposeful clustering. In this, the principal’s role is to provide guidance for student intervention
and support for learning. Principal Casiano has selected to use school-wide interventions that
target the needs of all students (who are mainly presumed SELs) performing below grade level.
Principal Casiano does not differentiate between the academic and linguistic needs of
SELs as compared to other students when identifying students for intervention. Although not
clear in from the interview, the lack of distinction may come from a demographic makeup of
students at Regent Elementary that differs significantly from the rest of the district. Table 7
below shows that there is a substantial population difference at Regent as compared to both other
surrounding elementary schools and the district as a whole.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
146

Table 7
Regent Elementary School Student Demographics:2013-2014
Elementary
School
African
American
American
Indian
Asian Filipino Latino Pacific
Islander
White English
Learners
District All
Elementary
9% 0% 5% 2% 73% 0% 11% 37%
Surrounding
Schools
Elementary
10% 0% 2% 2% 83% 1% 3% 37%
Regent
Elementary
65% 1% 0% 0% 33% 1% 1% 16%
Source: Alta Mesa School District Elementary School Report Card, 2013-2014

Alta Mesa School District is a district of predominantly Latino (73%) students and the
schools in the community surrounding Regent are also of Latino majority (83%). Over a third
(37%) of the students is classified as English Learners (ELLs) districtwide. Regent on the other
hand, has a majority population of African American students (65%). Principal Casiano’s
previous educational experience was in schools which much more closely reflect the
demographics of the larger district. This experience provided him the knowledge and the basis
for the perceptions he holds regarding the linguistic needs of elementary school students.
Understanding his familiarity with large Latino and ELL populations helps to understand the
choices he makes as a leader at Regent Elementary School.
The school currently utilizes teacher-designed intervention for students identified as
struggling to develop basic literacy skills in kindergarten and first grade. Principal interview and
examination of the intervention data indicate that there may be disproportionate representation in
the interventions with more probable SEL student participating in early intervention than ELLs.
Whether this disproportionate representation is a school practice of waiting for ELL language
acquisition to occur before referral or because the majority of students at the school are primarily
English speakers is unknown.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
147

One intervention used is teacher-developed intervention focused on skills of phonemic
awareness, letter sound relationships and early phonics skills for reading. Although student
receive primary instruction in these skills, students identified through “Words Their Way”
assessment as struggling with these skill areas, receive extra instruction after the end of the
school day. The focus of the intervention is on the research based discrete skills necessary for
reading success (Haager & Windmueller, 2001) and in alignment with the practices of Response
to Intervention (RtI), in which students receive intervention instruction in order to fill gaps in
learning (Haager & Windmueller, 2001). According to the principal, intervention is focused on
“English Language Arts and this is has been an area of need.”
A second school-wide intervention is the use of Second Step. The program is, according
to Teacher C, a behavior program “focused on positive reinforcement and not punitive to
students”. The goal of the program as reported by Teacher C is to improve student behavior so
that they attend school more often and do not miss instructional due to problem behaviors.
Although this program does not specifically address ELA curriculum, it clearly has a connection
to providing learning opportunities to students who might otherwise be unable to participate in
curriculum due to absence. This program does not target the individual linguistic needs of
different student groups. Rather it meets the needs of the students as a whole.
A pattern of over-reliance on intervention “programs” may be the principal’s go-to
response for addressing a range of student learning needs. The emphasis on intervention
indicates that the principal believes that a certain group of students, in spite of instruction, will
require extra intensive support. These students are presumed to have deficits to their learning.
The principal’s missing knowledge about SELs and his preconceived nations about their
behavior may be the reason that he relies on the intervention approach. His lack of knowledge in
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
148

the evidence-based instruction and research-based pedagogy for SELs may lead him to see
academic deficits in children who are simply going through the process of acquiring a second
language variety. Further, he may not understand the connection between language development
and students’ ability to regulate their own behavior (Vygotsky, 1976)
Principal Casiano perceives much of the instructional needs of ELLs and SEL as he
reveals with the statement “none of the studies say we only have to focus on SELs or ELLs, but
we have to focus on all learners.” This view of similar needs was evident throughout interview,
for example when asked specifically about how to support the needs of SELs, he responded,
“Supporting English Language Learners and Standard English Learners alike is what I try to
emphasize”. He also shared he perceives SEL language instruction as “just good teaching”.
It’s just sound teaching. You give the kids what they need. I think the AEMP program
brought it [SEL instruction] to the forefront and put emphasis on it. They gave materials
and suggestions on how to meet the kids’ needs, but it’s just good sound teaching. If they
need grammar, give them grammar. Correct English usage…they need a lot of literature,
so read them books. That’s good teaching.
This statement highlights a misconception and a gap in his knowledge for the literature is
specific on what constitutes “good teaching” for SELs (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine & Hollie, 2007).
This belief of “just good teaching” indicates that the principal does not have a full grasp of
second language acquisition. Principal Casiano, although he utilizes a variety of interventions
designed to support the discrete skills of literacy and behavior development, does not appear to
have a strong concept of effective research based and evidence based instruction for SELs.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
149

In his role as intervention administrator, Principal Casiano focuses on processes to meet
school-level needs rather than the needs of smaller sub-populations. His guides the school to
focus on school-wide intervention that addresses underlying academic skills of literacy through
teacher designed intervention. Data reveals his practices are more in alignment with intervention
principles rather than those of language acquisition. His belief that student needs can be
addressed through school-wide intervention is shared by his teaching staff as represented by the
teachers who were interviewed for this study.
The ELD Master Plan
Principal Casiano’s interview responses appear he holds in-depth knowledge about the
beliefs and principles that are behind the district’s ELD Master Plan. The English Learner
Master Plan (2012), referred to by interviewees as the “ELD Master Plan” is founded on the
belief that ELs have a double curricular load-they. This means they must become proficient in
academic English, while at the same time, they must master all of the academic content required
of all students in California. This foundational belief is that “ELs require additional services to
ensure that they acquire English and have access to the full curriculum in a way that makes
instruction comprehensible and meaningful” (p. 1). The ELD Master Plan emphasizes the
importance of students’ access to research- and evidence-based first teaching in the core content
and services integrated with core instruction to ensure that their linguistic needs are met.
Principal Casiano, through his extensive work with ELLs appears to have strong
foundational knowledge of the principles guiding the district’s ELD Master Plan. The six
principles are listed in Figure 10 below.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
150

Figure 10: Guiding Principles for Educating English Language Learners
PRINCIPLE 1
English learners are held to the same high expectations of learning established for all
students. We hold the same standards for all students. Our work in meeting student
needs can draw upon work in the fields of bilingual education and second language
acquisition. Recognizing that the education of an EL student is multi-faceted, we are
to work towards not just supporting second language acquisition but all educational
subjects and needs.
PRINCIPLE 2
English learners develop full receptive and productive proficiencies in English in the
domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, consistent with expectations for
all students. Alta Mesa School District recognizes that while informal social
language usually develops quickly, the academic use of language can take from 4-7
years, depending on the individual.
PRINCIPLE 3
English learners are taught challenging academic content that enables them to meet
performance standards in all content areas, including reading and language arts,
mathematics, social studies, science, the fine arts, health, and physical education,
consistent with those for all students. Alta Mesa School District further recognizes
that students who participate in an alternative program are provided the same
challenging content in all academic areas. The dual language instructional programs
have the added expectation that students will develop bilingualism and biliteracy in
English and the target language.
PRINCIPLE 4
English learners receive instruction that builds on their previous education and
cognitive abilities and that reflects their language proficiency levels. Alta Mesa
School District recognizes that ongoing assessment using multiple measures is
crucial to determine progress and to drive instruction that focuses on language
acquisition and academic content. Alta Mesa School district further recognizes the
need to provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and all school
staff to help support the learning of ELs in our schools.
PRINCIPLE 5
English learners are evaluated with appropriate and valid assessments that are
aligned to state and local standards and that take into account the language
development stages and cultural backgrounds of the students.
PRINCIPLE 6
The academic success of English learners is a responsibility shared by all educators,
the family, and the community. Alta Mesa School District, in partnership with the
families and community, must take interest and responsibility for the education of EL
students. The English Learner Master Plan strives to promote the family’s role in the
education of ELs and to promote open communication and avenues for involvement.
Figure X. Alta Mesa School District, English Learner Master Plan, 2012, p. 1-2.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
151

Although Principal Casiano appears to know and understand these principals, he does not
seem to apply them at the same levels to SELs as he does to ELLs. He may hold the perception
these principles relate strongly to students going through what he considers recognized second
language acquisition, but he applies these principles with less consistency to students speaking
different varieties of English. There was a clear lack of recognition by the principal related to
those students whom initially spoke a language other than English. Furthermore those
progressing through the process of ELD reclassification to become reclassified as proficient
English speakers (RFEP), still required and were entitled to the supports held within the ELD
Master Plan. Although he stated SELs came from different linguistic backgrounds, in practice he
equates SELs primarily to African American students, and does not view them as needing
supports under the same principles as students receiving ELD. The teachers in the school, based
on the interviews with teachers, hold similar opinions.
Principal Casiano’s interview reveals despite gaps he currently holds in his knowledge
about ELs, he is actively working to develop knowledge of the relatively unknown student group
of SELs. He recognizes the importance of learning about SELs as the leader of Regent
Elementary by his voluntary participation in the AEMP program. His interview responses reveal
that whereas he had essentially no knowledge of SELs before participating in the AEMP
program, his participation has helped him to gain some of the knowledge he needs to support
teachers of SEL learners. Despite this increased knowledge, it is apparent there remain gaps in
his knowledge and these gaps affect his leadership decisions for the school. Whether these
decisions have an impact specifically on the SAE proficiency is SELs is unclear. Although
growth over time was apparent in ELA on the CSTs since Principal Casiano began at Regent
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
152

Elementary. It is not clear how much more growth probable SELs might have make under a
principal who was more knowledgeable about SELs is unknown.
Principal Casiano said before he had the opportunity to learn about SELs, he had not
realized that a relationship could exist between the English based home language of SELs and
their academic performance. When asked if his perception had changed, and if home language
could impact student achievement, he responded, “Yes it does.” Research shows educators who
understand the importance language plays in learning are primed for optimizing opportunities
toward addressing language needs (Blanchett, Klingner, & Harry, 2009; LeMoine & Hollie,
2007, Troike, 1984). Knowledge and perception appear to have guided both the leadership
approach and the decisions made about SEL support at Regent by Principal Casiano. He agreed
to the additional duties and responsibilities of participating in the district’s AEMP program
because, as he stated, “it’s good for kids”. He perceives all students as capable learners and
believes they must receive the best instruction and supports the school can provide. Educational
institutions are designed to build success. According to teacher and principal interviews, the use
of evidence-based instructional decision-making is a practice used extensively at the school, yet
current teachers, who were interviewed, also stated the implementation of these decisions is
uneven at best. The use of instructional data, according to the principal, allows teachers to
objectively see students “where they are at” and design their instruction around what they need
to learn.
Adoption of a mindset, which stipulates that all students are capable of learning and
achieving, is particularly important at Regent Elementary because some negative perceptions
may exist about the use of home language by SELs at the school. Negative perceptions, whether
born through prejudice, a lack of knowledge or flawed perceptions may be related to poor school
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
153

performance at Regent in the past. The principal shares his belief the school is responsible for
teaching all students by stating, “If you have the right structure, the right teacher and the right set
up, any kid will flourish, regardless of the race of the student.” Building a culture that values
student differences and places the impetus for student achievement on the teachers and school is
an important aspect of leading a culturally and linguistically diverse setting (Browne II, 2014).
What is evident is that Principal Casiano, within the scope of what he knows and what he
perceives, is actively trying to improve the learning environment for all students at Regent.
Principal Leadership According to the District’s Instructional Leadership Framework
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction (C&I) and Assessment is an important aspect of
instructional leadership in the Alta Mesa School District. Evidence for this exists in the Alta
Mesa School Leadership Framework. Listed in Figure 11 below are the Framework’s Leverage
Components and Elements, for Standard II, Supervision of Instruction.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
154

Supervision of Instruction is one of the six standards outlined in the Alta Mesa School
Leadership Framework. This standard, which focuses on the role of the principal in supervising
classroom instruction, uses a variety of data sources to evaluate the instructional program and
evaluate the performance of the teaching staff. In order for a principal to demonstrate the
behaviors described in this section of the framework, the leader has to hold a solid knowledge of
curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Curriculum and Instruction
All three teachers and the principal shared that a key practice at the school is school-wide
and grade-level specific curriculum building. Curriculum building gives school teams an
opportunity to both align school lessons with the standards and to organize instruction across the
school. Teacher B reported, “Since we are moving to the CCSS….we’re doing more curriculum
Figure 11: Leverage Components and Elements, Supervision of Instruction

II. Supervision of Instruction - Supervision of instruction involves ongoing, coherent
guidance for implementation and continuous improvement of teaching and learning. It
facilitates the development of school-wide commitment to multiple measures of student
learning to guide teaching and learning
(a) Supervises classroom instruction (curriculum, content, and pedagogy)
• Identifies strategies and resources to implement District initiatives and reach
instructional objectives
(b) Utilizes multiple data sources to inform teaching and learning and to evaluate
instructional program outcomes using the Alta Mesa School District Teaching and Learning
Framework
• Leads the analysis of student learning data
• Uses multiple data sources to evaluate the instructional program and to drive
continuous improvement
(c) Manages performance of all instructional staff through effective evaluations that use the
Alta Mesa School District Teaching and Learning Framework
• Conducts frequent and structured observations (Formal and Informal)
• Provides actionable feedback
• Completes rigorous evaluations of instructional staff
Figure X. Leverage Components and Elements, Supervision of Instruction. Reprinted from
Alta Mesa School Leadership Framework. Reprinted with permission.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
155

building this year than we’ve ever done before.” The principal pulls the teachers together during
grade level meetings and supports in the planning of curriculum. According to the teachers, SAE
proficiency for both ELLs and SELs is a consideration when planning and considering the type
of supplemental materials that will be used. Teacher B reported lessons developed by the
instructional teams are designed with embedded supports to address the needs of all ELs.
Embedding general language supports aligns with Principal Casiano’s approach of generalized
instructional support for language acquisition. This approach indicates, in his mind, ELLs and
SELs are essentially the same when it comes to language acquisition. This perception reveals a
major gap in his knowledge.
A major role he has in the development of curriculum and instruction is his decision
making over the types of materials and curriculum. One decision he made was to supplement the
core curriculum with supplemental core literature reading materials upon the recommendation of
his teachers. These materials, chosen by both the teachers and principal, provide teachers with
reading materials, which are selected to address the cultural and linguistic needs of the students
at the school. Principal Casiano shared books are chosen to be highly motivating, are often
related to academic areas of social studies or science, and contain vocabulary geared toward
increasing academic language. This decision is reflective of his knowledge of the sociocultural
aspects of learning. During interview he shared:
I’m not a strong believer in anthologies. I don’t think anthologies build the level of
reading, and that’s from my own experience as a classroom teacher. Using a core
literature book is more meaningful to kids and it help build their vocabulary.
Using high interest supplemental reading materials allows students to tap into their prior
knowledge and more easily make meaning of what they read (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
156

Teachers who were interviewed showed considerable buy-in into the use of supplemental
literature, particularly in the upper-grades, where students are focused more on reading for
learning instead of learning to read.
MELD instruction. Underlying the standards for supervision of instruction is the
assumption school leaders have adequate knowledge of curriculum, content, and pedagogy to
fulfill the role of identifying strategies and resources necessary for supervision. As discussed in
this section, Principal Casiano’s background as a teacher has helped him as a school leader in
supervising curriculum, content, and pedagogy. However, as discussed in Research Question #1,
he continues to lack knowledge important to the implementation of curriculum, content, and
pedagogy specifically for SELs. This lack of knowledge may be one of the factors behind
teacher inconsistency in implementing the strategies and instructional methods of the AEMP
program.
Teacher B revealed the school uses “MELD curriculum”, which he defines as lessons and
strategies designed to help SELs acquire Standard English. According to the Elementary
Mainstream English Language Development Instructional Guide, Alta Mesa, (n.d.),
MELD or Mainstream English Language Development refers to instructional
accommodations that support SELs with the development of listening, speaking, reading,
and writing in Standard English and academic English. MELD instruction is based on
linguistic and second language methodology research, which speaks loudly to the most
effective practices for the academic achievement of SELs (p. 3).
MELD instruction is effective for SELs of different language variety backgrounds.
Interview reveals that he may view SELs primarily as African Americans and all Latino students
as ELLs – even the reclassified students. He does not appear to see ELLs who have reclassified
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
157

through the ELD program as then becoming SELs. The transition from basic language learners
to academic language learners is substantiated by the research of Cummins (2009) Principal
Casiano is not specifically differentiating the language development needs for SELs and ELLs at
different SAE levels.
The district’s leadership guide includes four units designed to build students' knowledge
of diverse languages and cultures. The units cover topics of linguistic and cultural diversity;
phonological, grammatical, and syntactical features of characteristics home languages through
contrastive analysis; linguistic validity and strategies designed to instruct students in the use of
Academic English in oral and written language. Contrary to the MELD implementation
guidelines provided, teacher interview revealed teachers shared that they do not necessarily use
the lessons in the structured manner provided by AEMP. Teacher B shared:
I don’t necessarily follow a certain MELD curriculum as much as I plan what the kids
need to learn per week. What I give them is a daily language sheet where they get a
couple of street language oriented sentences, and they have to fix them to academic
language.
These statements indicate this teacher holds major misunderstandings about different
English language forms including confusing of street language with forms of African American
Vernacular or Chicano English. Interview data reveals the principal does not appear to
understand how to help teachers with these misconceptions except through programs and
interventions. He also does not appear to understand if he does not rectify these erroneous
perceptions and focus on SEL second language acquisition, growth in student achievement will
remain dependent on intervention.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
158

Teacher C shared she implements it by “I would show the home language way to say
something, then we talk about how to say it in Standard English.” These statements show two
different teachers focus on elements of SAE acquisition. Teacher B focuses on the grammatical
functions through written analysis (sentence lifting), where Teacher C engages students in
discussion about language, and the differences between languages (contrastive analysis).
Another finding is the term MELD is used as a verb when describing the instructional strategies
of sentence lifting and contrastive analysis. Teacher B reported, “They start MELDing sentences
trying to identify parts of speech of words, and also looking for complexity in subject and
predicate in sentences.” Teacher C also used the term as a verb, “…and when I see they need
this kind of instruction, that’s when I MELD that.” The use of MELD as a verb indicates it is a
strong part of the language of the environment.
The inconsistent use of MELD strategies and lesson plans across classrooms may indicate
the principal has not chosen to focus on MELD instruction for SAE acquisition as a means of
primary instruction. Instead, he appears to place focus on the strategies and instructional
programming for general English language development. ELD, and the movement of non-
English speaking students through distinct levels of English acquisition, is a district focus.
Principal Casiano’s decision to use ELD teaching methods in classes where the majority of
students are African American ensures students receive extra language support; however by
design of ELD, the support is focused on basic language acquisition rather than academic
language development.
Regent use of MELD instruction. What is not clear from the data analysis is the role
that the principal plays in ensuring that the teachers are either regularly or effectively
implementing instruction designed to support SEL student achievement. Instead, he appears to
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
159

view his role from a structural perspective, and spends his energy on bringing both professional
development and curriculum to the school that is designed to support the needs of all learners.
Although this appears to be a weak area of the school, the increases in the CST achievement for
both Latinos and African Americans in ELA, point to this practice as having some, but limited
merit in providing SELs access to effective learning activities. Despite the evidence that student
achievement increased what is unknown is if the results may have been even higher, especially
for African American students, if the principal’s knowledge about SELs were deeper. Principal
Casiano is growing as an instructional leader but he continues to need to grow more as a leader
in language development overall in order to bring about more improvement in student learning
and achievement. Although Principal Casiano is not actively supervising specific activities
related to SEL instruction, he has several processes in place to supervise intervention and general
instruction, but not necessarily for SEL language development.
Monitoring and Assessment
In order to ensure teachers are reaching all student groups, including SEL students,
Principal Casiano demands regular accountability. Accountability comes from a variety of
sources and is used to sustain a focus on learning. He expects teachers to regularly turn in
student achievement data for trend analysis and identification of student needs. He shared
although many teachers are turning in formative assessment data regularly, some are not doing
so regularly, so “it is something we could do better.” He also reported he visits classrooms
regularly, however he did not reveal the purpose of these visits, and the pattern of classroom
visits is unclear. He reported he observes classrooms during the teaching intervention; however,
he did not state that he visits during other times. A central element of effective instructional
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
160

leadership, and transformational leadership, is reflective principal dialogue with teachers about
ways to improve instruction (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001).
Although, the principal indicates this is a priority, Teacher A reported “he pops in a
couple of times a week, but informally, he isn’t scripting anything down”. The practice of
informal observation as the main form of observation is not consistent with research stating
purposeful classroom observation is effective in improving student achievement (Marzano,
Waters & McNulty, 2005). Inconsistent with the research is Principal Casiano’s expectation to
hear only Academic English used in the classroom. This expectation reflects a lack of
knowledge about the principles of second language acquisition. SELs instruction is founded in
the pedagogy of language maintenance programs in which the children’s home language and
SAE are both used extensively in the classroom. The purpose of a language maintenance
program is to:
1. Maintain and develop the home language
2. Help children to acquire and develop English proficiency (Cummins, 2009)
This means in a classroom with culturally and linguistically diverse students, SAE should
not be expected to be only variety spoken, especially in classrooms with young students.
Requiring students speak only Academic English prevents them from being able to participate in
classroom discourses where knowledge is constructed. Over correcting or interruption of
students only shuts them down further. Rather, teachers should note the language deviations
from Academic English and teach explicit lessons about the use of Academic English. Through
these lessons, students learn to use contrastive analysis as a tool and gain greater proficiency in
SAE.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
161

Data for evidence-based decision making. Evidence-based decision making, is the
recognition that student assessment data is a valued component of educational decision-making
process. The intent of data use in evidence-based decision making is not that data will replace
professional experience or judgment, but provides another source of information which is
meaningful in the decision-making process (Becker, 2012). The Alta Mesa School District
Leadership Framework calls upon the use of use of multiple data sources to inform teaching and
learning decisions. The use of data in decision-making is a common school practice as reported
by the principal and all three teachers. The principal reports he uses a combination of both
district assessment and local assessments to determine areas of curricular focus and identify
students for intervention support. He shared that he does not currently have a direct way to
monitor the academic and linguistic needs of SELs as a subgroup, but he uses a variety of data
sources to provide meaningful information about SEL ELA performance. He also shared he
views his role is to model the use of evidence-based decision making with the staff. He
demonstrates this by creating opportunities for teachers to review and evaluate formative
assessment data. Both teacher B and the principal explained during interview that “banked
time”, district-wide time set aside for training and professional dialogue, is often used to go over
student test data.
Teacher B shared the school focus on data study is on EL achievement, “When we get
test scores back, everything is broken down by sub-groups. We discuss, like our African
American population has struggled a little bit in the past with writing. We are so focused on
English Learner students.” He views his role as a data “guide”, and he supports his teachers in
making evidence-based decisions which support the needs of all their students. Teacher C also
shared the data from formative district assessments, such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
162

Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), (a series of short tests that assess early childhood (K-6)
literacy); the California English Language Development Test (CELDT); school based formative
assessments referred to as TASK exams, and the soon to be implemented summative Smarter
Balanced Assessment (SBA). He says he and teachers also uses classroom assessments as
sources of data used for decision-making in curriculum and instruction. These assessments
provide the principal and leadership team with guidance in determining “what professional
developments will be on Tuesdays”.
The use of informal data sources has become the focus of the school’s data analysis as the
types of data available to schools from outside sources has changed. The all too familiar, and
sometimes bemoaned, California Standards Test (CST) data is no longer produced as the state
changes to new assessments geared to measure student performance on CCSS. This shift in the
school’s ability to examine locally derived assessment data provides Principal Casiano the
opportunity to lead the school toward the targeted needs of the students he serves. One element
that is largely missing from student assessment is knowledge of how to assess and assess and
alter instruction for specific language differences expressed by SELs.
SEL assessment: LAS Links. During interview, Principal Casiano and the teachers
referred to a new district assessment designed to inform instructional decisions specifically for
SEL students. The assessment is new, only started this past December, and Principal Casiano
reported that he has not received data back from the district about the assessment results at the
time of interview. This assessment, explored through document analysis, is the SEL Linguistic
Screener. The SEL Linguistic Screener that includes a fact sheet, which provides background on
the screener, reads, “The SEL Linguistic Screener is an informal teacher observation tool that is
used by the Academic English Mastery Program to identify the use of home language by
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
163

students”. Teacher A, who identified herself during the interview as the SEL testing coordinator,
shared the SEL Screener is the first step in a more comprehensive process being implemented
this year in the district in an attempt to identify SELs for remediation and intervention. In a
district memo titled Implementation of the LAS Links 2
nd
Edition for English Learners (ELs) and
Standard English Learners (SELs) at Selected Schools, MEM-6383.0 the process for the new EL
assessment is outlined in detail. The introductory paragraph of the memo reports,
In alignment with Federal and State guidelines and the 2012 Alta Mesa English Learner
Master Plan, all English Learners (ELs) must be regularly monitored to determine their
progress in learning English and attaining grade-level subject matter content proficiency.
In addition, in November 2012, California adopted new English Language Development
(ELD) standards aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and in the 2014
Alta Mesa Board of Education resolved to support Standard English Learners (SEL)
through a Board Resolution. (p. 1)
In response to these new demands placed on monitoring and evaluating ELs, the district
rolled-out the new “LAS Links” language assessment. According to the memo, this assessment
is designed to “measure the acquisition of English language and meets the demands of the CCSS
by creating an assessment framework focused on communicative and contextualized language
within and across academic content areas, language knowledge and functions, and cognitive
complexity” (p. 1). Administered on-line, the research-based diagnostic assessment is designed
to assess students in grades kindergarten through 12, and (depending on grade level) includes
speaking, listening, reading and writing tests. The assessment is in the first year of a two-year
roll-out; therefore only certain schools were selected to participate in the assessment, and Regent
being an AEMP participant school participated in administering the LAS Links.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
164

Teacher A stated implementation the LAS links was burdensome on the school. The
testing, conducted in early December, required that schools first administer the SEL screener to
suspected SELs, and those students who were determined by the screener to be probable SELs
were then administered the LAS Links. Teacher A revealed that the school did not fully
administer the assessment to all suspected SELs. She discussed the school’s capacity to
administer this assessment was not adequate. Principal Casiano in his interview reported the
same, “We just couldn’t do everyone, it was just impossible, and I told them we are going to
identify seven or eight per class. We just didn’t have the manpower to do the whole school.”
Much like the CELDT, each child is administered the test individually; however; unlike some
other assessments, each student’s speaking and language portion must be manually transcribed
from audio recording. Teacher A commented that the extensive time required to administer the
assessment, in addition to other required assessments and winter school events, meant that not all
probable SELs were administered the LAS Links.
A major concern in education today of both teachers and school leaders is the perceived
over use of testing (Ravitch, 2012). The LAS Links is an example of, as Teacher A stated, “one
more thing on my plate I gotta’ take care of.” The interview of Teacher A shows the potential
for error in the implementation of the assessment district-wide. Principal Casiano shared that
AEMP participant schools received extra money from the AEMP office in order to conduct the
assessment. “AEMP was very generous and gave us money for the assessment so I could pay
teachers; three teachers to do all the scoring”. The principal did not reveal if that money would
be provided in subsequent years or if it is going to be provided to all schools next year when the
assessment is rolled out district-wide. The inconsistency between intent of the assessment and
the school’s actual ability to implement assessment indicates there may be some flaws in the
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
165

testing process which may need to be addressed at the school site. Despite potential design and
implementation problems with the SEL Screener and the LAS Links assessment, these
assessments provide evidence both the district and the school are committed to SEL
achievement, and are willing to use data from the assessments to make evidence-based decisions
about ways to support the instruction of SEL students.
Summary
The focus of ELD, especially in the early primary grades is on English vocabulary
acquisition and basic sentence development, in order to help students to acquire a basic
interpersonal communication in English (Cummins, 2009). The principal’s statement that he
visits classes to see if students are using SAE demonstrates that he does not fully understand the
literature of language acquisition. Although the use of employing ELD strategies, which are
primarily for basic communication development, may be helpful for SELs, the effectiveness of
this practice is unknown. Literature on second language acquisition says that teachers need to
use additive practices of language development that builds a second language (L2) onto the base
of a child’s primary language (L1) (Troike, 1984). Research on SAE acquisition, similar to
research on second language acquisition says that teachers need to build on students’ home
language as a means for helping them acquire SAE (Hollie, 2001).
SELs differ from ELLs since they already hold a rich complex English vocabulary
whereas ELLs in the early stages are learning the basic vocabulary and syntax of the English
language (Hill, 2011). The varieties of English used by SELs differ from SAE primarily by the
differences in syntax, especially in the more complex sentence structures that are prevalent in
academic writing and literary works (LeMoine, 1999). Students need access to rich models of
written language and spoken language in order to acquire SAE (Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
166

Principal Casiano’s emphasis on writing as his chief means of helping students acquire SAE has
merit, but he places less emphasis on the importance of listening, speaking and reading as an
intentional instructional decision in helping SELs acquire SAE proficiency. By contrast the
CCSS are stressing listening and speaking in addition to reading and writing.
In response to the research question, In what ways do teachers perceive their principals as
providing meaningful support that enables them to implement instruction that assists SELs in
acquiring Standardized Academic English (SAE) proficiency?, the answers remain unclear.
Interviewed teacher identified some of the ways the principal provided support. Although the
teachers shared comments that helped build a picture of general leadership traits and leadership
practices of Principal Casiano, the comments did not reveal substantial findings about the
teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the principal’s support through these traits and
practices. The teacher interview did however reveal evidence that the principal actively engages
in practices which are designed to empower teacher leadership. Principal Casiano’s approach of
empowering teacher leadership is in line with research that supports the importance of teachers
becoming instructional leaders in their own right. Just as principals are expected to be the
wearers of many hats, teachers must also be able to meet an increasingly wide range of student
needs and instructional mandates (Fay, 1992).
Interviewed teachers at Regent all held leadership roles in one capacity or another.
Teacher A identified herself as the SEL coordinator, which was a position granted for increased
teacher training through the AEMP program. Teacher B indicated that he was in in class teacher,
but had served many years as a grade level chair, and worked with the principal as a teacher
representative on school site decisions. Teacher C also shared she participated in many different
leadership roles in the school (some in class and some out-of-class) with the most recent being an
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
167

out-of-class appointment as the school’s intervention and “restorative justice” coordinator. All of
these leadership positions provide opportunities for teachers to impact the curriculum and
instruction of SELs at Regent Elementary through higher levels of teacher motivation and
investment in the school’s outcomes. Teacher leadership, and the power of teacher
empowerment are at the heart of transformational leadership (Marzano, Waters & McNulty,
2005), which Principal Casiano is beginning to utilize through caring and supportive leadership
practices.
Principal Casiano’s traits of caring and supportive leadership help build inter-personal
trust and develop buy-in for principals with stakeholders which helps to create an environment
primed for student learning (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1996). In addition, his forward-
thinking and his open-mindedness may be traits which help him to project student need and see
different ways of approaching student learning. However, the fundamental gaps in his
knowledge and misconceptions about SELs and ELLs affect his decisions when it comes to
students acquiring SAE. With more knowledge he might better understand the importance of
focusing on the practices of SAE acquisition that are supported by the research. The process of
SAE acquisition for SELs, according to research, requires strategies that differ from the standard
ELD program (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine, 1999; Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009).

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
168

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to identify how principal knowledge and perception of
home language used by Standard English Learners (SELs) relate to leadership decisions about
the teaching and learning on behalf of SELs. Identifying the relationship between what a
principal knows, what they believe and the decisions made at a school relative to language has
the potential of assisting schools promote academic achievement with high probable SEL
populations and their districts. This study puts a specific emphasis on Standard English Learners
who are students of color in high poverty schools with high concentrations of students who have
traditionally scored below basic levels of academic proficiency on standardized measures of
English Language Arts.
Extensive research literature on language variation and literacy reveals a limited body of
literature that identifies acquisition of Standard Academic English (SAE) as an important factor
in SEL literacy development (Hollie, 2001, LeMoine, 1999; Soto-Hinman & Hetzel, 2009). This
case study examined the knowledge and perceptions of one principal at a district-identified high
poverty school making academic progress within a large urban school district with a large
concentration of probable SELs.
The study contributes to the limited body of knowledge about the role of principal
leadership in developing the systems and structures grounded in sociocultural theory that are
working on behalf of students of color who come to school speaking a variety of English that
differs from the SAE used in the school setting.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
169

Research Questions
Through a questionnaire administered to the principal, followed by an in-depth interview,
the researcher learned about the principal’s perceptions and knowledge of SELs, as well as his
decisions in support of teachers to ensure effective instruction on behalf of SELs. Interviews
with three teachers in the school provided insights about how the teachers perceived the
principal’s leadership and support to teachers of SELs. These research questions guided the
collection and analysis of the data.
1) In what ways does principal knowledge and perception of home language used by SELs
relate to leadership decisions about the teaching and learning of SELs?
2) What role do principals play in guiding instruction and teacher quality to ensure that
SELs have equitable access to appropriate learning opportunities in ELA curriculum and
literary activities?
3) In what ways do teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support that
enables them to implement instruction that assists SELs in acquiring Standardized
Academic English (SAE) proficiency?
Findings
Major Findings for Research Question 1: In what ways does principal knowledge and
perception of home language use by SELs relate to school site leadership decisions about
teaching and learning?
Regent Elementary School’s academic growth is aligned with the findings from
numerous other studies that demonstrate students of color are capable of performing at higher
levels under appropriate conditions. The school has established a trend of continuous growth on
state standardized test performance among the Latino, African American and EL students since
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
170

Principal Casiano became principal of the school four years ago. Despite gains for all three
student groups, the rate of growth for African American students has not been as substantial as it
has been for Latino and English Language Learner (ELL) groups. Large numbers of the African
American students meet the criteria for identification as Standard English Learners.
1) Although the principal brought to the school his past accomplishments in raising the
achievement of Latino ELLs at other schools, he had little knowledge of or experience in
working with Standard English Learners (SELs); however, he has made attempts to
become more familiar with SEL pedagogy through voluntary participation in the
district’s Academic English Mastery Program (AEMP).
2) Despite the principal’s increasing knowledge about SELs and instruction for SELs, he
continues to hold gaps in his knowledge about support for SELs. For example, he does
not seem to be aware of Latino SELs as he refers almost exclusively to SELs as African
American. These gaps may have influenced decisions that do not fully support AEMP
methodology supporting SELs uniformly across the school. The principal still considers
himself an ELL although he has acquired Standard Academic English. The principal’s
decision to cluster ELs and SELs for language instruction is guided by his overarching
perception that the needs of ELLs and SELs are similar and that by clustering the two
groups, ELD methodology will generally address the language acquisition needs of SELs.
3) The principal does not appear to fully understand the role of language in learning.
Through a focus on intervention and writing development, the principal appears to
minimize the importance of language use as a means of developing cognition and
academic proficiency. Although there some limited support for SELs benefiting from
strategies that support ELs in learning English, this strategy does not fully align with the
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
171

literature which supports the use of specific methods and strategies for the SELs
acquisition of SAE (Hollie, 2001; LeMoine, 1999).
4) In spite of training in specialized learning programs for SELs and professional
development about SELs, much of the ability to develop a strong learning environment
designed to promote SEL achievement, rests on principal knowledge and perceptions
about organizing for learning.
Major Findings for Research Question 2: What role do principals play in guiding instruction
and teacher quality to ensure that SELs have access and are able to participate in ELA
curriculum and literary activities?
1) Principal Casiano views himself as an instructional leader. His perception of a school
leader is described as a “big teacher in the school” and characterizes the relationship he is
building between teachers and principal as demonstrated by both the principal and the
teacher’s perceptions of the importance of this role. What was also revealed was that no
single style of leadership is adequate for providing SELs with equitable opportunities to
learn.
2) The principal practices elements from transactional leadership, combined with elements
of transformational leadership to support instruction while also attempting to meet district
mandates that sometimes conflict with the transactional leadership model he wishes to
build to teacher leadership and decision-making. The highly bureaucratized nature of the
large district organization interferes with the principal’s ability to organize the school for
learning.
3) Gaps in the principal’s increasing knowledge about appropriate instruction for SELs may
account for the limited implementation of Mainstream English Language Development
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
172

(MELD) across classrooms. Faithful implementation is dependent primarily on the
knowledge and interests of individual teachers who have a history of participating in
AEMP professional development, rather than the principal’s leadership for
implementation. The principal does not discuss accountability and monitoring for teacher
implementation of MELD instruction.
4) The principal has committed resources and time to the district’s new LAS Links
assessment that is intended to identify SEL students at the school. The principal’s heavy
emphasis on academic intervention, rather than primary language instruction for SELs, is
contradictory to the research (Hollie, 2001) and may also limit SEL’s access the richness
of the full ELA curriculum and the accompanying literary activities of that curriculum.
This preference may be related to the principal’s deficit view of home languages that
differ from the Academic English of the classroom. The principal does not view such
students’ home language as an asset that helps them participate in classroom discourse
and acquire proficiency in Academic English
Major Findings for Research Question 3: How do teachers perceive their principals as
providing meaningful support that enables them to implement instruction that enables SELs to
acquire proficiency in Standardized Academic English?
Interviewing teachers, in addition to interviewing the school principal, allowed for the
collection of various perspectives on support provided by the principal’s leadership practices.
This research is important because currently there is very limited research on teacher perceptions
of principal support in general and no research was found specifically on principal support for
teachers of SEL learners. Teacher perception of principal support is important as it is indicative
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
173

of the principal’s willingness to empower teachers moving them toward success in both
instruction and leading change at the school (Horng & Loeb, 2010).
1) The one area in which teachers were able to cite the principal’s support that enables
them to implement instruction that enables SELS to acquire proficiency in
Standardized Academic English. Teachers stated that it was clear that the principal
expected to see academic language used by teachers and students and student writing
when visiting classes. He provided time for them to collaboratively plan lessons
related to writing. However, they did not express that they felt equal emphasis from
the principal on other specific areas, i.e., reading, speaking, and listening. Teachers
did not indicate that they are held responsible for implementing MELD instruction in
the classroom.
2) Teachers interviewed at Regent Elementary had difficulty identifying the specific
ways the principal provided support for explicit instruction that enables SELs to
acquire proficiency in SAE other than writing; however they clearly articulated
general leadership traits that they found to be supportive for instruction in general.
Principal traits of caring and open-mindedness topped the list of the traits revealed by
the interviewed teachers. These two traits, identified by the teachers and the principal,
are important to promoting teacher buy-in and motivation for supporting the
leadership decisions of their principal. Teachers also identified the principal’s
ongoing focus on professional development, especially in the area of writing, as an
important support for helping student acquire SAE proficiency (Cummins, 2009; Gee,
2006; Hollie, 2001).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
174

3) Teachers supported the principal’s decision to cluster ELL students into classes with
probable SELs to be taught by teachers trained in ELD instruction. Both the teachers
and the principal felt that clustering the ELLs and the SELs was a way to maximize
resources and ensure continuous delivery of language instruction to SELs. The
teachers supported the principal in not wanting African American and Latino students
to be segregated from one another. The use of teachers trained in ELD for SEL
instruction does not appear to ensure that teachers who are AEMP trained are
necessarily teaching SEL students.
Conclusions
Urban schools face the challenge of making progress toward academic proficiency for
students who are often face substantial barriers that prevent their movement toward achievement
and academic success. These barriers are often based on ethnicity, income, cultural differences,
potential learning disabilities, and language differences. Although these barriers are student
oriented, many systematic barriers at the school, district and state levels. Bureaucratic and
political barriers interfere with the principal’s ability to organize the school for learning.
Therefore, it is imperative that school leaders know about the students they serve. School
principals must be aware of the existence of English language variations and understand the
positive qualities associated with these languages so that language variation is not yet another
barrier. Important in the progress of language acquisition for speakers of verities of English
other than Standard Academic English (SAE) is an understanding of how schools teach speakers
of these languages. Educators need to understand how the systems and strategies which are
critical to SAE acquisition for Standard English Learners (SELs). Identifying the knowledge and
perceptions held by school leaders about language variation and language acquisition is an
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
175

important step in identifying how students have, or do not have, access to the instruction
necessary for them to become proficient in the language of the school standard academic English
(SAE).
The significance of the study lies in the dire consequences of the continued failure to
adequately educate students of color. This failure has implications for major impacts that include
the persistently low socioeconomic status of people of color and limitations to the quality of life
for persons of color. Bridging the gap between home language and SAE is important for the
literacy development of SELs (Hollie, 2001). The study’s findings about principal knowledge
and perception of SELs may benefit those engaged in closing existing achievement and
opportunity gaps.
Recommendations for the Principal’s Role in Supporting Instruction for SELs
The following recommendations are derived from the researcher’s major findings at Regent
Elementary School that have the potential of assisting principals in leading schools that meet the
needs of students with language differences that serve as barriers to their access to curriculum
and classroom discourses:
• Principals need to commit to professional development in order to develop a strong
knowledge base that enables them to support SEL students in alignment with research-
and evidence-based best practices for SELs.
• Principals need tools to use in the interview process to assess prospective teachers’
knowledge and perceptions about variations of Standard English as well as their
pedagogical knowledge.
• Knowledgeable principals must allocate resources to provide ongoing differentiated
professional development based on teacher knowledge and need.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
176

• School principals need to develop an action plan to clearly outline how MELD
instruction will be used throughout the school, including walkthroughs or learning walks
in which the principal and teachers visit classrooms on a regular basis to learn from one
another.
• Principal development of a clear method of monitoring and assessment of the use of
MELD instruction for SELs needs to be included in evaluating teacher quality.
• School principals need to develop, implement, and sustain professional development on
second language (SAE) acquisition for all students.
• School principals need to formulate and clearly articulate goals designed to assist SEL
access to curriculum and to acquire SAE.
• Principals, as the organization’s primary leaders, need to provide a clear message that
highlights the importance of SELs (including those students who have been reclassified
through the ELD program) receiving instruction designed to promote SAE acquisition.
• Principals need to utilize leadership practices that develop systems and supports for the
instruction of SELs in language acquisition, ELA and literacy.
Implications Changing the Social Constructs of Language
School organizations need to address the role of language variation in the development of
policies and practices by:
• Identifying SELs as is done for ELLs is an important step in ensuring that traditionally
marginalized language minority students receive equitable access to learning
opportunities in the public school system.
• Setting policy that supports research based additive instruction of SAE as a second
language.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
177

• Setting policy that ensures SEL students will be provided the necessary cognitive and
culturally responsive learning experiences currently missing in the push toward higher
student achievement.
• Development of systems of measures for student performance and achievement that
consider of the variety of forms of English languages spoken by SELs.
• Framing student achievement of SELs through a lens of linguistic difference rather than
deficit in order to potentially reduce inappropriate referrals for special education
identification and supports.
Recommendations for Future Research
The Practices of Principals in Engaging Standard English Learners (SEL) in the
Acquisition of Standardized Academic English (SAE)
A principal has the potential of fostering or hindering the success of SEL acquisition of
SAE based on the policies and practices implanted at a school site. Future research can add to the
body of knowledge by studying effective practices and policies of principals that either foster
successful SEL acquisition or make it more difficult for SELs.
Teacher Perception of the Principals role in Language Acquisition
Teacher may see the principal’s role in terms of the teacher’s own needs and expect the
principal to address their needs as a school priority. Future research can help school leaders
understand if a gap exists between the teacher’s view of the importance of language acquisition
needs of speakers of other languages, including speakers of home languages, and principal views
of the same.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
178

The Effectiveness of ELD Programs, Strategies and Methodology for the SAE Acquisition
of SELs
Principals, districts and policy makers may not fully understand how language
acquisition programs are similar or dissimilar. Future research on the use of ELD programs and
ELD like programs on the SAE acquisition of different language groups can provide information
which can assist in the creation of programs designed to meet broader linguistic needs of various
groups of students.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
179

References
Abedi, J. (2010). Performance assessments for English language learners. Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from: http://scale.stanford.
edu/system/files/performance-assessments-english-languagelearners.pdf.
Abedi, J., Bailey, A., Butler, F., Castellon-Wellington, M., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2005). The
Validity of Administering Large-Scale Content Assessments to English Language
Learners: An Investigation from Three Perspectives. CSE Report 663. National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Alernan, D., Johnson Jr, J. F., & Perez, L. (2009). Winning schools for ELLs. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 66-69.
Alvy, H. B., & Robbins, P. (1998). If I only knew...: Success strategies for navigating the
principalship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and
explaining disproportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture.
Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279-299.
Baron, D. (1999). Hooked on Ebonics. Article appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Jan. 24, 1997, B4-B5. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/
americanvarieties/AAVE/hooked/.
Barron, C.C. & San Roman, J. (n.d.). Teachers guide to supporting Mexican American Standard
English learners. Understanding the characteristic linguistic features of Mexican
American language as contrasted with Standard English. Los Angeles Unified School
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
180

District, Instructional Support Services, Academic English Mastery/Closing the
Achievement Gap Branch.
Bateman, B. E., & Wilkinson, S. L. (2010). Spanish for heritage speakers: A statewide survey of
secondary school teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 324-353.
Becker, G. I. (2012). Factors affecting the identification of Hispanic English language learners
in special education. Northcentral University.
Blanchett, W. J., Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2009). The intersection of race, culture, language,
and disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44(4), 389-409.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson A & B.
Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The black-white achievement gap revisited.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21), 1-99.
Browne II, J. R. (2012). Walking the Equity Talk: A Guide for Culturally Courageous Leadership
in School Communities. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Bunch, G. C. 2014. The language of ideas and the language of display: Reconceptualizing
“academic language” in linguistically diverse classrooms. International Multilingual
Research Journal, 8(1). 70-86. DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2014.852431
Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Steinberg, L., Crosnoe, R., Friedman, S. L., McLoyd, V ., Pianta,
R. and NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2011), Examining the black–white
achievement gap among low-income children using the NICHD study of early child care
and youth development. Child Development, 82, 1404–1420. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2011.01620.x
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
181

California Department of Education (2014). Language group data – Statewide for 2012 – 13.
Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/lc/StateLC-alphabetical.aspx?
Level=State&cYear=2012-13
Champion, T.B., Cobb-Roberts, D. & Bland-Stewart, L. (2012). Future educators’ perceptions of
African American vernacular English (AA VE). Online Journal of Education Research.
1(5), 80-89.
Christian, D. (1997). Vernacular dialects in U.S. schools. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC. ERIC Publication (ED 406846).
Citrin, J., Reingold, B., Walters, E., & Green, D. P. (1990). The “Official English” movement
and the symbolic politics of language in the United States. Western Political Quarterly,
43(3), 535–559.
Claxton, G., & Vincer, C. (1997). Hare brain, tortoise mind: Why intelligence increases when
you think less. London: Fourth Estate.
Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2012). The common core challenge for ELLs. Principal
Leadership, 12(5), 46-51.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Corestandards.org (n.d.). English Language Arts Standards: Introduction: Key Design
Consideration. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
182

Cummins, J. (1985). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Cummins, J. (2000) Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.4135/9781412939584.n241
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In
Encyclopedia of language and education (487-499). Springer US.
Cummins, J. (2009). Bilingual and Immersion Programs. The Handbook of Language Teaching.
Long, Michael H. and Catherine J. Doughty (eds). Blackwell Publishing: Blackwell
Reference Online.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2007). ESL is good teaching ‘plus’: Preparing standard
curriculum teachers for all learners. In Brisk, M. E. (Ed.). Language, culture, and
community in teacher education. Routledge. 127-148.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of second language acquisition
(V ol. 27). John Wiley & Sons.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 169-192.
DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools? Educational
Leadership, 70(7), 34-40.
Dyste, C. (1989). Proposition 63: the California English language amendment. Applied
linguistics, 10(3), 313-330.
Echevarria, J. (1996). The effects of instructional conversations on the language and concept
development of Latino students with learning disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal,
20(2), 339-363.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
183

Ford, C. L., & Airhihenbuwa, C. O. (2010). The public health critical race methodology: praxis
for antiracism research. Social Science & Medicine, 71(8), 1390-1398.
Fought, C. (2010). Language as a representation of Mexican American identity. English Today,
26(3), 44-48.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 1970. New York: Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal, and political
contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and US linguistic hegemony. Language
Policy, 11(1), 7-19.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, US Department of Education.
Gargiulo, R. M. (2011). Special Education in Contemporary Society--Media Edition: An
Introduction to Exceptionality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.
Gee, J. P. (2006). Oral Discourse in a World of Literacy. Research in the Teaching of English,
41(2), 153–159.
Green, L.J. (2002). African American English a linguistic introduction. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Greene, R.L. (2011). You are what you speak: grammar grouches, language laws, and the
politics of identity. New York: Random House, Inc.
Gilliland, D. (2010). Elementary principals' perceptions of the most effective use of academic
assessments to improve English learner literacy in California. (Order No. 3404482,
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
184

Pepperdine University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 131. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/516263649?accountid=14749. (516263649).
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman
Publishing.
Gruenert, S., & Whitaker, T. (2015). School Culture Rewired: How to Define, Assess, and
Transform It. ASCD. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/
115004.aspx.
Gutierrez, K. (1995). Unpacking academic discourse. Discourse Processes. 19(1), 21-37.
Haager, D. & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language
learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 235-250.
Halbach, A. (2012). Questions about basic interpersonal communication skills and cognitive
language proficiency. Applied Linguistics. 33(5). 608-613. Doi:10.1093/applin/ams058.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-‐1995. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Harris, D. N., & Herrington, C. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing
achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education,
112(2), 209-238.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
185

Harris, Y .R. & Schroeder, V .M. (2013). Language deficits or differences: What we know about
African American vernacular English in the 21
st
century. International Education Studies
6(4). 194-204.
Harry, B. & Klinger, J. (2007). Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 16-
21.
Hauserman, C., Ivankova, N. V ., & Stick, S. L. (2013). Teacher perceptions of principals'
leadership qualities: A mixed methods study. Journal of School Leadership, 23(1).
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2),
94-125.
Hill, L. E. (2012). California’ s English Learner Students. Public Policy Institute of California.
Retrieved from: ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp.
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and
language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental
Psychology, 49(1), 4-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027238
Hollie, S. (2001). Acknowledging the language of African American students: Instructional
strategies. English Journal, 90(4). 54-59.
Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(3), 66-69.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness.
American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-523.
Hudley, A. H. C., & Mallinson, C. (2011). Understanding English language variation in US
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
186

Jackson, R. R. (2010). Start where your students are. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 6.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis: Applied linguistics and language study. Harlow, Essex:
Longman.
Jepsen, C., & De Alth, S. (2005). English learners in California schools. Public Policy Institute
of California.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Mendez Barletta, L. M. (2006). English Language Learners Who
Struggle With Reading: Language Acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(2), 108-128.
Kozel, Wolf (2004). Preservice teacher attitudes towards Spanglish. Dissertation: University of
Arkansas.
Ladd, H. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 31(2), 203-227.
Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Román-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language
education. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 481-495. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2011.01237.x
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning: A review of research from the learning from leading project.
New York: The Wallace Foundation.
LeMoine, N. (n.d.) http://www.lemoineandassociates.com/
LeMoine, N. (1999). English for your success: A handbook of successful strategies for
educators.
Maywood, NJ: Peoples Pub Group.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
187

LeMoine, N. & Hollie, S. (2007). Developing academic English for Standard English Learners.
Chapter in H. Alim & J. Baugh (Eds.), Talking black: language, education, and social
change (pp. 43-55). Teachers College Press
Lopez, G.R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) English learner master plan.
Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School Support
(2014). Implementation of the LAS Links 2
nd
edition for English learners (ELs) and
Standard English learners (SELs) at selected schools Policy Document MEM-6383.0.
Luke, A., & Dooley, K. T. (2011). Critical literacy and second language learning. In Hinkel, E.
(Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (V ol. 2).
Routledge.
Madrid, E. M. (2011). The Latino achievement gap. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 7-12.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/926978300?accountid=14749
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, V A: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, V A: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McClendon, G. O. (2010). Illinois secondary principals' perceptions and expectations
concerning students who use African American vernacular English in an academic
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
188

setting. (Order No. 3404164, Loyola University Chicago). ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses, 431. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/502038636?
accountid=14749. (502038636).
McKay, S. L. & Rubdy, R. (2011). The social and sociolinguistic contexts of language learning
and teaching. In Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.). The handbook of language
teaching (V ol. 63). MA: Wiley Blackwell
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014).Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. New
York: Pearson Higher Ed.
Meltzer, J. & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English
language learners. Part two: Focus on classroom teaching and learning strategies. .
Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research. A guide to design and implementation (Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 4-9.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2013). http://www.nationsreportcard.gov
/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
National Center for Education Statistics (N.D.). http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf
Nieto, S. (2011). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education
Author: Sonia Nieto, Patty Bode.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
189

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theories and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ogbu, J. U. (1995). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and
consequences—Part one: Theoretical background. The Urban Review, 27(3), 189-205.
Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Intangible heritage of standard English learners: The "invisible"
subgroup in the united states of America? Implications for closing the achievement gap.
SAGE Open, 1(1) doi:10.1177/2158244011408441
Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: an empirical
study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33.
Ortiz, S. O. (2011). Separating cultural and linguistic differences (CLD) from specific learning
disability (SLD) in the evaluation of diverse students: Difference or disorder? In D. P.
Flanagan & V . C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification
(pp. 299–325). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Otara, A. (2011). Perception: A Guide for Managers and Leaders. Journal of Management and
Strategy, 2(3), p21.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. Qualitative research and evaluation
methods, 3
rd
Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational
Leadership, 56(1), 28-31.
Poplin, M. S., & Wright, P. (1983). The concept of cultural pluralism: Issues in special education.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(4), 367-371.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
190

Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., & Adams, E. A. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide
phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly,
31(4), 564-588.
Ravitch, Diane. Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to
America's Public Schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational
administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
Ricento, T. (2013). Critiques of Language Policy and Planning. The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0288
Richardson, M. D., Lane, K. E., & Flanigan, J. L. (1996). Teachers' perceptions of principals'
attributes. The Clearing House, 69(5), 290-292.
Rodriguez, J. M. (2008). Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction:
Lessons from high performing, high poverty urban schools. (Order No. 3337282,
University of Southern California). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 193-n/a.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/287992767?accountid=14749.
(287992767).
Rubin, D. I. (2014). Engaging Latino/a students in the secondary English classroom: A step
toward breaking the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13(3),
222-230.
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
191

Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education rates
and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148-
162.
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning: Introduction to the
special issue. The Elementary School Journal 112(3). pg. 409-418.
Short, P. M., Rinehart, J. S., & Eckley, M. (1999). The relationship of teacher empowerment and
principal leadership orientation. Educational Research Quarterly, 22(4), 45.
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V . (2000). Language knowledge and awareness survey: Final
research report. Urbana, IL: Conference on College Composition and Communication/
National Council of Teachers of English
Solórzano, R. W. (2013). English-‐Language Learners and Subject Area Tests. The Encyclopedia
of Applied Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0628
Soto-Hinman, I. & Hetzel, J. (2009). The literacy gaps: Building bridges for ELLs and SELs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stockman, I. J. (2010). A review of developmental and applied language research on African
American children: From a deficit to difference perspective on dialect differences.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(1), 23.
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching
improves reading and spelling in inner-‐city second language learners. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69(4), 587-605.
Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education applying
structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46(6), 1526-1552.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
192

Sullivan, A. L. & Bal, A. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual
and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475-494.
Taylor, R. W. (2010). The role of teacher education programs in creating culturally competent
teachers: A moral imperative for ensuring the academic success of diverse student
populations. Multicultural Education, 17(3), 24-28.
Terry, N. P., & Irving, M. A. (2010). Cultural and linguistic diversity: Issues in education. In R.
P. Colarusso & C. M. O’Rourke (Eds.), Special Education for all teachers (5th ed.) (pp.
110–132). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Terry, N. P., Connor, C. M., Thomas-Tate, S., & Love, M. (2010). Examining relationships
among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade. Journal of
Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(1), 126.
Troike, R. C. (1984). SCALP: Social and cultural aspects of language proficiency. In C. Rivera
(Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 44-54). Avon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Ulven, R. A. (2006). Perceptions of administrators regarding English language learner needs in
schools in North Dakota (Order No. 3233970). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305300100). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305300100?accountid=14749
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Digest 2013, Table
221.10 Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest /d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp
Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New
York: Routledge.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
193

Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership
and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin,
0192636511404062.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard
University Press.
Wang, A. H., Walters, A. M., & Thum, Y . M. (2013). Identifying highly effective urban schools:
comparing two measures of school success. International Journal of Educational
Management, 27(5), 517-540.
Wagner, T. (1994). How schools change: Lessons from three communities. Boston: Beacon.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The Balanced Leadership Framework: Connecting Vision
with Action. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544245.pdf.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement, a working paper.
Retrieved from McREL (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning) Web
site:http://www.hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/11589
Wheeler, R. S. (2008). Becoming adept at code-switching. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 54-58.
Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. The Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 70(3), 155-156.
Wiley, T. G., & Rolstad, K. (2014). The common core state standards and the great divide.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(1), 38-55.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
194

Wilkinson, C., Miciak, J., Alexander, C., Reyes, P., Brown, J & Giani, M. (2011). Recommended
educational practices for Standard English learners. The University of Texas: Texas
Education Research Center. Retrieved from www.utaustinERC.org.
Wilson, N. L. (2012). The principal's role in developing the classroom management skills of the
novice elementary teacher. PhD diss., University of Tennessee. Retrieved from
http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1572.
Winn, M. T., & Behizadeh, N. (2011). The right to be literate: Literacy, education, and the
school-to-prison pipeline. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 147-173.
Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y . (2012). Relations between the CCSS and RTI in literacy and
language. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 387-391.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case studies research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Young, V . A., Barrett, R., & Lovejoy, K. B. (2013). Other people's English: Code-meshing, code-
switching, and African American literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zacarian, D. (2012). Serving English learners: Laws, policies, and regulations. WETA,
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/policy/ELL-
Policy-Guide.pdf.
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
195

Appendix A
Participant Profile Form

Please complete the form by circling your selected response or by filling in the blanks provided.
My Background:
My gender: Female Male
I am between the ages: 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Above 70
My race/ethnicity:
(Please circle all that
apply, or other list
below):
American Indian or Alaskan
Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino/Latina
White
Other:
My Language Heritage:
I was raised in a home/community where: (Circle one):
Standard English
was mainly spoken
A language other than English
was mainly spoken
More than one languages
were spoken equally
A Non-Standard English variety
was mainly spoken
List non-standard English variety language or other languages spoken:

I grew up in a place that would be
considered:
Rural Urban Suburban
Years in Education 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26+
Highest Level of Academic Degree Attained (ie: BA,
MA, PhD):
Number of years as an
Administrator (if applicable):

List educational credentials (ie: multiple subjects, pupil services, special education, etc.

Adapted from McClendon, G.A. (2010)

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
196

Appendix B
English Language Variety Perception Questionnaire (ELVPQ)

Please list current job title: ______________________________________________________
Note: English language varieties are the result of mixing of a heritage languages and English
to form new languages which have their own syntax, phonology and vocabulary.

English language variety examples:
AAVE Standard English
He been married. He has been married.
I ain't seen him. I haven't seen him.
MxAE Standard English SPANISH
Parquear el carro To park the car Aparcar el coche
Poner un ticket To give a fine Poner una multa

Pease read the following statements and circle the extent of your agreement or not:
SD= Strongly
Disagree
D = Disagree U = Undecided A = Agree SA = Strongly
Agree

1. The scholastic level of a school will fall if teachers
allow English variety languages to be spoken.
SD D U A SA
2. English variety languages are the misuse of English.
3. Attempts to eliminate English variety languages to be
spoken in school can result in a situation which is
psychologically damaging to students.

4. Continued use of English variety languages would
accomplish nothing worthwhile in society.

5. English variety languages sound as good as Standard
English.

6. Teacher should allow students to use English variety
languages in the classroom.

7. English variety languages should be discouraged.
8. Non-standardized American English variety languages
must be accepted if pride is to develop in the speakers
of those languages.

9. English variety languages is an inferior language
system.

10. English variety languages is cool.
11. English variety languages should be considered a bad
influence on American culture and civilization.

12. English variety languages sounds sloppy.
13. If the use of English variety languages were
encouraged, speakers of those languages would be
motivated to achieve academically.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
197

14. English variety languages are a clear, thoughtful and
expressive languages.

15. English variety languages have faulty grammar
systems.

16. When teacher reject the native language of students,
they do great harm.

17. Teachers should correct student use of Non-
standardized American English.

18. In a predominately African American school, AA VE as
well as Standard English should be taught.

19. In a predominately Latino school, Spanglish as well as
standard English should be taught.

20. Widespread acceptance of English variety languages is
imperative.

21. The sooner we eliminate nonstandard varieties of
English, the better.

22. Acceptance of non-standardized varieties of English by
teachers will lead to a lowering of standards in school.

23. English variety languages should be accepted socially.
24. English variety languages is as effective for
communication as Standard English.

25. One of the goals of the American school system should
be the standardization of the English language.

26. One successful method for improving the learning
capacity of speakers of English variety languages
would be to replace their language variety with
Standard English.

27. Students need to master Standard American English for
upward mobility.

28. Students who use English variety languages should be
taught only in Standard English.

29. There are valid reasons for using languages and
language varieties other than English in school.

30. Students should learn Standard English grammar rules
to improve their ability to understand and communicate
concepts and information.

Any comments about this survey or issues brought up (you may use the back of this form)?
Thank you for your participation and your time.

Adapted from: Champion, Cobb-Roberts & Bland Steward (2012) and Kozel, W. (2004).
Additional items adapted from Smitherman & Vallanueva (2000).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
198

Appendix C
Interview Administration Protocol

Qualitative Research Purpose: To understand knowledge and perceptions held by public
elementary school administrators concerning the use of English language varieties by students in
an academic setting.
1. Thank you for taking the time to visit with me today.
2. I am a student at the University of Southern California conducting research for my
dissertation.
3. I want to assure you that this interview is strictly confidential. Information is reported in
aggregated form only. Districts, schools and individuals are not identified.
4. I have an Informed Consent form outlining your rights as a research participant. Your
rights include the right to freely decide not to participate in this study or to withdraw
from this study at any time. I have a copy for you to sign and one for you to keep for
your use.
5. It is important that you are a willing participant. As such you are free to decide to
participate or withdraw from any time.
a. This interview is expected to take approximately 30-40 minutes.
b. Are you willing to participate in this interview?
6. I will be transcribing this interview so that I will have accurate information from this
interview.
7. Please feel free to discuss your views openly. I may have additional questions to further
understand a concept you have shared.

Let’s begin. Please state your name, school, and district. Then please give verbal permission to
record this interview by repeating this statement “I (your name) at (school/district) willingly give
my permission to record this interview”.

Adapted from (Isernhagen & Florendo, 2013).

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
199

Appendix D
Principal Interview Questions

1. Please tell me about the demographics your school/district.
2. Please tell me about you see your role as an instructional leader at your school site.
3. Describe your philosophy of leadership and what this looks like at your school.
a. What would you consider your leadership style?
b. How do you feel your style of leadership supports instruction at your school site?
c. What role do you believe leadership has in developing school culture?
d. Of these characteristics, which would be the most important and why?
e. How do these characteristics guide your leadership style at your school site?
4. Describe what you know about Standard English Learners?
a. Where did you learn this information?
5. Describe your experiences in working with Standard English Learners.
a. Have you ever taught SELs?
b. Do you know students who are SEL speakers?
c. How do you recognize SEL speakers?
6. What do you believe are the leadership characteristics that are most important in
supporting schools with significant SEL populations?
a. How are these characteristics woven into your leadership stance at your school
site?
7. What are the expectations do you hold for your instructional staff relative to SEL
instruction?
a. How do you evaluate to see if these expectations are met?
8. How has your district educated SEL students in the past?
a. Class size, language assistance programs, professional development, teacher
support, special materials, coaches?
2. What do you see might be obstacles in implementing a comprehensive SEL language
program in your school/district?
a. Factors inside the system? (school budget, teacher training in teaching,
researched SEL learning and strategies)
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
200

b. Factors outside the system (parent participation, social forces, family life
situations)
3. In what ways does your school welcome SEL students and embrace their culture?
a. What kind of activities?
i. Linking home to school? (celebrations, special sessions with parents,
outreach)
ii. Pedagogy and resources? (multi-cultural education, curricular materials,
CLD pedagogy)
iii. How do you show that you value of student home language?
4. What information do you feel your staff most needs to help understand and educate
SELs?
a. What type of professional development would be most beneficial?
i. Language development/registers
b. How would you help them gain this information?
5. How do you and your staff differentiate between difficulties in student learning and
difficulties stemming from language difference with SEL students?
a. What kinds of assessment instruments are used?
b. Are the instruments culturally sensitive?
c. How does language variation play in considering the difference of literacy
attainment of different students?
i. If it does: describe
ii. If it does not: why not?
6. Do you have any stories or anecdotes to tell about in your role as principal in working
with SEL students?

Adapted from Ulven, R. (2006)
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
201

Appendix E
Teacher Interview Questions

1. Please tell me about the demographics your school/district.
2. Please tell me about your present role at your school site.
a. How long have you been in this position?
3. Describe what you know about Standard English Learners?
a. Where did you learn this information?
4. Describe your experiences in working with Standard English Learners.
a. Have you ever taught SELs?
b. Do you know students who are SEL speakers?
c. How do you recognize SEL speakers?
5. What do you believe are the leadership characteristics your principal has that are most
important in supporting SEL students at your school?
a. Describe what these characteristics look like at your school site?
6. In your opinion, what role does you principal play in SEL instruction at your school?
a. Are there any specific methods of support provided by the principal which focus
on the language instruction of SEL students?
b. Professional development that is focused on language instruction for SELs.
c. Time and resources set aside to observe someone (in person or by video) of
someone who is delivering effective instruction for SELs.
d. Time set aside to collaborate with peers, school team members, or administration
on issues of language for SEL students.
7. What do you feel your principal’s expectations are of you relative to SEL instruction?
a. How does your principal evaluate you to see if these expectations are met?
8. In what ways does your school welcome SEL students and embrace their culture?
a. What kind of activities?
b. Linking home to school? (celebrations, special sessions with parents, outreach)
c. Pedagogy and resources? (multi-cultural education, curricular materials, CLD
pedagogy)
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
202

d. How do you show that you value of student home language?
9. In what ways can your principal help provide information to help you better understand
and educate SELs?
a. What type of professional development would be most beneficial?
10. Have you developed any specific skills/strategies in working with SELs since you began
teaching at this school?
a. If so, what role did you principal have in your learning these skills?
11. Do you think language variation plays a role in literacy attainment of students who speak
non-standardized forms of English?
12. Thinking of SEL students, how do you differentiate between difficulties in student
learning and learning gaps stemming from language difference?
a. What kinds of assessment instruments do you use to differentiate?
13. Tell me a success story of a SEL student you have taught.
14. Tell me about a time when you had difficulty teaching a SEL student.
a. What type of support did you seek from your principal? What type of support did
you receive from your principal?
15. In what ways does your school principal welcome SEL students and embrace their
culture?
16. Is there anything else you would like to add or say that I did not ask?

Adapted from Appendix D, Teacher Interview Protocol from Wilson (2012).
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
203

Appendix F
Artifact Analysis Sheet

Artifact number or letter Source of artifact (where did the artifact come from?)

Title of Document (if present) Author of Artifact

Date of Artifact (if present) URL of artifact (if applicable)
Circle one:
Primary Source / Secondary
Source

Possible Author Bias
Important facts drawn
from this artifact:

What is the primary purpose of the
document?
a) Announce/clarify a policy
b) Provide information
c) Address a problem
d) Inspire effective teaching
e) Provide instructions
Emerging themes from artifact:

Who is the intended audience of
the document?
Is the document one in a series of
related documents?
Context in which the document
was written and distributed?

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
204

Does the document
provide instructions for
how to do something
related to instruction
for SELs? How?
Does the document address SELs.
Specifically? How?

What is the tone of the
document?
a) urgent
b) inspiring
c) instructive
d) authoritarian
e) authoritative
f) supportive
g) other
_____________________
_
What is the main
concept / main idea of
the document?

What information does the
document convey about
instructional approaches to
language learning?
How does this artifact support
my research?
Other:

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
205

Appendix G

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
1150 S Olive St, Los Angeles, CA 9001
(213) 740-0224

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Examining the Relationship Between Knowledge, Perception and Principal Leadership for
Standard English Learners (SELs): A Case Study

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study's primary purpose is, through qualitative case study, to examine the knowledge and
perceptions held by one elementary school principal around issues related to SEL achievement.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 10 minute survey and
a 40 minute audio-taped interview. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to;
if you don’t want to be taped, you cannot participate in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive $5 gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all of the questions in
order to receive the card. The card will be given to you when you return the questionnaire.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.

The data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for five years
after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
206

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Deborah Albin via email at dalbin@usc.edu or phone at XXXX or Faculty
Advisor Sylvia Rousseau at sroussea@usc.edu or phone at XXXX.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
PRINCIPAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF SELs
207

Appendix H
Ranked Responsibilities for First-Order and Second-Order Change

The 21 Responsibilities of
Leadership Important to First-Order
Change
The 7 Responsibilities of
Leadership Important to Second-Order
Change
Incremental, top-down,
technical, and ameliorative responses
Requires people to learn new approaches,
or it conflicts with prevailing
values and norms
1 Mentoring/Evaluating 1 Knowledge of Curriculum, Assessment and
Instruction
2 Culture 2 Optimizer
3 Ideals/Beliefs 3 Intellectual Stimulation
4 Knowledge of Curriculum, Assessment
and Instruction
4 Change Agent
5 Involvement in Curriculum, Assessment
and Instruction
5 Mentoring/Evaluating
6 Focus 6 Flexibility
7 Order 7 Ideals/Beliefs
8/9 Affirmation & Intellectual Stimulation
10 Communication
11 Input
12 Relationships
13 Optimizer
14 Flexibility
15 Resources
16 Contingent Rewards
17 Situational Awareness
18 Outreach
19 Visibility
20 Discipline
21 Change Agent
Source: Marzano, Watters & McNulty, 2005

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In most urban communities English speaking African American and Latino students are not achieving at levels commensurate with other racial groups. These Standard English Learners (SELs) are a group of largely unidentified students struggling to attain academic proficiency. SELs are particularly challenged in areas of literacy and English Language Arts. Not enough is known about how the knowledge and perception of elementary school principals intersect around SEL student achievement. A qualitative case study, methodology included purposeful sampling, identifying a principal participant of an elementary school comprised of probable high SEL population to examine knowledge, perception and leadership practice. Through the combined lenses of cultural race theory, sociopolitical theory, and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), principal knowledge and perception of SELs was examined as related to school leadership and SEL learning. The study also examines the role of principals in guiding instruction and teacher quality to ensure SELs have equitable access to learning opportunities. A final element determines ways teachers perceive their principals as providing meaningful support to assisting SELs acquire Standard Academic English (SAE) proficiency. ❧ Findings from this study indicate principals who are knowledgeable about and perceive the needs of SELs as important are likely to develop structures that support SEL acquisition of Standard Academic English (SAE). Principals with strong knowledge in curriculum and instruction, assessment and teacher development are capable of supporting SELs. However false assumptions about SELs can be formed if principals do not hold specific knowledge about SELs. One of these errors is the exclusive use of the English Language Development (ELD) program for English Language Learners (ELLs) to support SELs. This approach is not consistent with the literature and may not be adequate for ensuring SEL achievement. In the face of competing demands, successful principals, strive to meet the needs of all students. Learning about their student subpopulations assists principals as they work to balance the status quo against rising language and literacy demands of the new Common Core Standards (CCSS).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

First and second grade teachers' knowledge and perceptions about African American language speakers

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics

PDF

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

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners

PDF

The influence of language and culture in the literacy development of speakers of African American English

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Albin, Deborah (author)

Core Title Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/14/2015

Defense Date 04/23/2015

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

Tag academic language,achievement gap,administrator,African American,common core,culturally and linguistically diverse,dialect,English language arts,English Language Development,Knowledge,Language,Latino,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,perception,principal leadership,school principal,standard English learners,student achievement,vernacular

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Ott, Maria G. (committee member), Robles, Darline P. (committee member)

Creator Email dalbin@usc.edu,deborahalbinla@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-593263

Unique identifier UC11298534

Identifier etd-AlbinDebor-3596.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-593263 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlbinDebor-3596.pdf

Dmrecord 593263

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Albin, Deborah

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