University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A Case Study of How Principals, Teachers and Parents Contribute to a Quality
Comprehensive K–12 System of Support for ELL Student Academic Success

Gabriela Galvez-Reyna

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Gabriela Galvez-Reyna 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Gabriela Galvez-Reyna certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Janine Ezaki
Christina Kishimoto, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Considering the over 6 decades of national and state efforts around improving English Language
Learner support structures and the population of ELL students in California continuing to rise, all
districts need to focus on building effective ELL systems. Principals need to know how to ensure
that there are no conflicts between federal law, state statute, district policies and collaborative
implementation designs at the site level. The present study is part of a case study trying to
understand the following: How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery
of a comprehensive ELL support system for its students? What are the intentional design
components that make up the system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents to
understand and effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system? What do
administrators, teachers, and parents perceive are the most impactful components of the ELL
system of support design, and what do they perceive is a practice that needs to be replaced or
added to improve the system design for greater student success? Two districts and fourteen of
their principals participated in this study. The study findings show a need for collaboration and
integration of instructional practices across the curriculum as well as accountable practices
guided by ongoing training and data. The lack of alignment between resources, ongoing training,
and implementation of instructional practices that support student learning informed by data
creates serious equity challenges for schools.

v
Dedication
To my family. A mis padre, Isabel y Ignacio Gálvez, que dejaron sus familias y la comodidad de
sus casas para ofrecerme un future mejor. Gracias, por ensenarme el amor a mi cultura y mi
lengua natal. Y a todos los estudiantes y familias que se esfuerzan para navegar este sistema
escolar año tras año.

To my son Isaac Reyna, a special man who embodies the words courage, determination, and
perserverance. Isaac Reyna, you are my daily inspiration.

vi
Acknowledgements
Words are not enough to express my appreciation for the support I received from my
family and friends, My wonderful husband, Raul Reyna. My husband, whom from the beginning
of this journey, stood right by my side, demonstrating his love and dedication to our family with
words of encouragement and belief in me. My four beautiful and amazing children, Adrian,
Mateo, Isaac, and Victoria, for their support and for their unconditional love. My mother, that
when she visited and extended her stay, helped in every way possible.
My husband and my children walked the walk, every step of the way, providing me with
words of encouragement, especially after I suffered a head injury that left me with battle long
post-concussion syndrome for the last months of this dissertation journey. They knew I needed
extra care and words of encouragement to focus on healing and working within my limitations to
accomplish my goal. Together and with their support, and my faith in God, I was able to
continue working on my doctoral program, and I can say, that it is because of them and all those
supporting me that I can present this study. I would also like to thank my mother, Isabel Galvez
for her unconditional dedication, for taking care of me, and for inculcating in me the importance
of working through challenges to achieve our daily goals. My sisters Cecilia and Corina and my
brother Isaac, for being there for me, regardless of their own struggles.
I want to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the professors from University
of Southern California for their guidance along the way. I will be forever thankful to my
dissertation committee, Dr. Christina Kishimoto, Dr. David Cash, Dr. Janine Ezaki, for taking
the time to review my work, and for providing me with valuable suggestions and feedback.
Special thanks to Jarrod Bordi and Michelle Correa for their partnership in this case study,
working alongside them helped me stay the course. Special thanks also to my dissertation chair,

vii
Dr. Kishimoto for her understanding during the difficult time and for her words of
encouragement, and for her continuous support throughout this process. I also want to extend a
very heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all the principals that participated in this study. I want to
thank them for taking their time and for their willingness to share their knowledge and
experience.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 3
Policies and the Role of the Principal .................................................................................. 4
Teacher Preparation and Support ........................................................................................ 6
Parent Engagement .............................................................................................................. 8
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 11
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 12
Limitation and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 12
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 18
Federal and State Laws and Protections for ELLs ............................................................ 19
California Policies and ELLs Protection ........................................................................... 21
Impact of Equity Policies .................................................................................................. 26
Systems of Support for ELL Student Success ................................................................... 30
Values and Perceptions ...................................................................................................... 31
Level of Preparation .......................................................................................................... 33

ix
Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 39
Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework ................................................................ 42
Summary of Literature Conclusion ................................................................................... 47
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 49
Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................ 49
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 50
Selection of the Population ................................................................................................ 50
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 52
Instrumentation and Protocols ........................................................................................... 53
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter Four: Results .................................................................................................................... 60
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 61
Results ............................................................................................................................... 63
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 84
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 85
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 86
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................... 86
Research Question 2 .......................................................................................................... 88
Research Question 3 .......................................................................................................... 91
Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 94
Implications for Practice .................................................................................................... 95
Future Research ................................................................................................................. 96
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 97

x
References ..................................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey .................................. 115
Appendix B: Online Survey for Principal .................................................................................. 117
Professional Development ............................................................................................... 118
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions ............................................................... 119
Appendix C: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed ................................... 121
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Principal ............................................................................ 123
Closing Question ............................................................................................................. 128
Closing Comments .......................................................................................................... 128
Appendix E: Online Survey for Teacher ..................................................................................... 129
Professional Development ............................................................................................... 130
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions ............................................................... 131
Appendix F: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey .................................. 133
Appendix G: Interview Protocol for Teacher .............................................................................. 135
Setting the Stage .............................................................................................................. 136
Closing Question ............................................................................................................. 140
Closing Comments .......................................................................................................... 140
Appendix H: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey .................................. 141
Appendix I: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para la encuesta en línea ................... 143
Appendix J: Online Survey for Parents / Encuesta en línea para los padres ............................... 145
Parent Training/ Entrenamiento de padres ...................................................................... 147
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions / Apoyos para ELL: Conciencia y
percepciones .................................................................................................................... 148

xi
Appendix K: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed ................................... 152
Appendix L: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para ser entrevistado ........................ 154
Appendix M: Parent Interview Protocol ...................................................................................... 156
Setting the Stage .............................................................................................................. 157
Closing Question ............................................................................................................. 160
Closing Comments .......................................................................................................... 160
Appendix N: Protocolo de entrevista con los padres ................................................................... 162
Preparando el escenario ................................................................................................... 163
Pregunta de cierre ............................................................................................................ 166
Comentarios de cierre ...................................................................................................... 167

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Study Participants ............................................................................................................ 61
Table 2: Participants’ School Levels and Districts ........................................................................ 62
Table 3: Interview and Survey Participants ................................................................................... 62
Table 4: Alignment of Interview Questions and Research Questions ........................................... 63

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Responses to Survey Item “I Am Well Versed in the ELL Policies of My District ....... 66
Figure 2: Responses to Survey Item “I Am Highly Knowledgeable About How to Utilize the
Supports Available for ELL Students in My School District” ....................................................... 67
Figure 3: Responses to Survey Item “My School District Has Effective Systems in Place That
Support ELL Students’ Academic Progress” ................................................................................. 68
Figure 4: Responses to Survey Item “My School Site Has Effective Systems in Place That
Support ELL Students’ Academic Progress” ................................................................................. 69
Figure 5: Responses to Survey Item “I Understand How to Work Within the Existing Policy
Structure to Deliver Quality ELL Support to Students” ................................................................ 72
Figure 6: Responses to Survey Item “How Effective Do You Think the Current System of
Parent–Teacher Collaboration Is in Impacting and Supporting Academic Achievement for the
ELL Student?” ............................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 7: Responses to Survey Item “How Impactful Do You Think the Practice of Teacher-
Teacher Collaboration Is in Supporting ELL Students’ Academic Achievement?” ...................... 76
Figure 8: Responses to Survey Item “How Impactful Do You Think the Practice of Principal-
Teacher Collaboration Is in Supporting ELL Students’ Academic Achievement?” ...................... 76
Figure 9: Responses to Survey Item “My School District Offers Yearly Opportunities to Learn
Instructional Strategies That Support ELL Students” ................................................................... 81

1
Chapter One: Introduction
The diverse population of English language learners (ELL) students is the fastest growing
segment of the K–12 student population and is predicted to account for 25% of all public-school
students by 2025 (Riser-Kositsky, 2020). Data from public schools in the United States show that
over 5 million ELLs are currently enrolled in schools (de Brey, 2021). This is an increase of over
50% from the past decade. In the decades since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, policy changes that
support ELL students have led to some policy gains and new resources. These, however, are not
sufficient to address the needs of this growing population. The Department of Education’s
memorandum of May 25, 1970, directs school districts to take action to help ELL students
overcome language barriers and to ensure that they can participate meaningfully in the district’s
educational programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The Supreme Court ruling of Lau
v. Nichols (1974) clearly states that “there is no equality of treatment by providing students with
the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand
English, are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (U.S. Department of
Education, 1999, p. 4). The significant increase of this diverse group of students in the K–12
system demonstrates how, although Lau v. Nichols redefined equity and access and set
precedence for current policy, there are still instructional and system gaps that need to be
addressed.
The education of language-minoritized students has been the focus of many U.S.
educational policy decisions as part of civil rights legislation at the national, state, and local
levels since the 1960s. Policies addressing the position of ELLs are of interest in California,
where this community makes up over half of the student population. ELL achievement appears
to be lagging significantly based on the evaluation of multiple data indicators. Between 2015 and

2
2021, those students reclassified from “English learners” to “English proficient,” described as
Reclassified Fluent English Speakers (RFEP), increased from 42% to 49.8%. Data also reflects
that, during this same period, the percentage of ELLs considered “at risk” significantly increased
from 10.1% to 17.1%. The high school graduation rate also decreased, from 77.1% in 2018 to
73.8% in 2021. A review of data on 4-year college graduation rates in 2020–2021 also reflects a
decrease of 2% in the graduation rates over the last two years. We must meet this data with a
sense of urgency to ensure that the current policies promote equity for ELLs and are effectively
and consistently applied alongside efforts to develop further policies that improve learning
outcomes for ELL students. We cannot lead if we are leaving behind 1.148 million English
learners in our schools (Buenrostro & Maxwell-Jolly, 2022).
The civil rights of ELLs must be better protected. These protections can be accomplished
by strengthening the system of individualized support for each child according to their needs by
means of the appropriate state funding structure. The Equal Educational Opportunity Act
(EEOA) mandates that no state denies equal education opportunities to individuals (Office of
Civil Rights, 2006). The education of all children is a paramount duty, but it is also perhaps a
greater duty to ensure that every child, regardless of background or ability, is provided with the
best possible education.
The Bilingual Education Act, part of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA)
of 1968, provides funding for programs for “children of limited English-speaking ability.” The
state and categorical programs also provide monies to support the ELL populations in each
district and schools. Even though the redesigned policies and funding structure of ESEA were
meant to address achievement disparities, the overall design that defines the roles and

3
relationships between other contributors (principal, teachers, and parents) have not changed
(O’Day & Smith, 2016).
While there is equity-based legislation in place that is specifically directed at ELLs, there
remains a disconnect between student needs, the existing policies, and the implementation
practices of administrators at the district and school levels that should be addressed. According
to Buenrostro and Maxwell-Jolly (2022), “much of what needs to happen within our system is
difficult to effect through legislation alone when what is required is a different mindset and
culture” (p. 82). In addition, as Pink (2011) has noted, “change is tough enough with the right
skills and research-based strategies but when a system operates from its own conjectures,
folklore, and gut instinct, it makes the task nearly impossible” (p. 9). Nonetheless, thoughtful
policy implementation and change can lead to shifts that can help ensure better systems of
support for ELL students. We are defining systems of support to the alignment of services,
school-wide practices and instructional structures that support ELL students with building the
understanding between stakeholder groups to better support student success (Bond et al., 2021).
Therefore, to facilitate the change that is needed, educational leaders must have a deeper
understanding of how to create systems that align civil rights protection, equity policies,
culturally relevant curriculum, culturally competent principals, well-trained teachers, and
empowered parents in a seamless approach that ensures the academic success of each child.
Background of the Problem
English language learners continue to experience many educational barriers because the
program implementations that principal and teachers have designed for them are weak, and
because the role of their parents in their education is not clearly defined (Rueda, 2011). These
barriers have resulted in making ELLs “over-represented in remedial and low-track classes, and

4
under-represented in advanced placement, honors, and other upper-track classes, compared with
their English-proficient peers” (Robinson-Cimpian et al., 2016, p. 4). However, the policies and
laws that address the status of ELLs focus on access, not on their lower-ranked position. There is
thus a need for educationalists and practitioners to discuss and attempt to resolve issues of design
and implementation.
There is, however, another challenge: many school districts across the country continue
to experience a substantial increase in enrollment of students who cannot speak, read, or write
English well enough to participate successfully in educational programs without appropriate
support services (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Therefore, great attention must be paid
to creating appropriate ELL support services designs, especially from the perspective of service
providers, particularly principals and classroom teachers.
Policies and the Role of the Principal
The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of (EEOA) of 1974 established that programs
to educate children with limited proficiency in English should (a) be based on a sound
educational theory; (b) be adequately supported so that the program can have a realistic chance
of success; and (c) be periodically evaluated and revised, if necessary (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2015). These policies have required that school staff and administrators have the
knowledge, skills, and heightened awareness of equity issues to reconfigure and strengthen the
school systems that support the rights of ELLs. However, since the year 2000, three major
federal education policies have forced a recalibration of the role of school administrators: George
W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB; U.S. Department of Education, 2001), Barack Obama’s
Race to the Top and NCLB waivers (2009), and the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) signed by Obama in 2015. A new federal focus on accountability for student

5
achievement and school reform was first outlined in the Improving America’s Schools Act of
1994. The NCLB increased the federal government’s focus on academic standards, student
assessments, teacher quality, school choice, and school restructuring (McGuinn, 2015). Another
major shift came about with Barack Obamas’ Race to the Top, which directed states to adopt
college- and career-ready standards (such as the Common Core), develop a plan to identify and
improve the bottom 15% of schools, and develop teacher and principal evaluation systems that
included student progress over time (Riley, 2012). ESSA decreased some of the overall rigid
requirements for all, including administrators, and emphasized the accountability for
performance of diverse populations, including the unique needs of ELL students (McGuinn,
2015).
The transition from NCLB to ESSA changed the policy context for school leaders in
important ways beyond a central focus on school accountability. Currently, the public school
system has shifted its focus to cultural responsiveness and equity, a policy that requires
nondiscriminatory treatment of all students, the removal of barriers, the provision of resources
and support, and the creation of opportunities with the goal of promoting equitable outcomes
(Mavrogordato & White, 2020). These policies have required that school staff and principal have
the knowledge, skills, and heightened awareness of equity issues to reconfigure and strengthen
the school systems that support the rights of ELLs.
These shifts in policies called for immediate action from school leaders who were under
pressure to better serve students with limited English proficiency, including following the rulings
and protections established by Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that guarantee these students fair
educational opportunities and access. Furthermore, research has indicated that the odds of
success for a school with a large population of marginalized students are substantially increased

6
if it operates in a supportive environment where its internal (school) and external (district, state,
and federal) leadership are all moving in the same direction (O’Day & Smith, 2016). The reason
for this is that both groups are responsible for implementing federal, state, and local policies that
require school-wide support systems for ELLs that align services, quality of instruction, and
prioritize resources for all stakeholders.
Teacher Preparation and Support
Teachers’ instructional practices are paramount to student success. The research is clear
that teacher effectiveness is a predictor of student achievement (Hattie, 2015). Ensuring quality
instruction for ELLs thus requires the involvement of teachers who are experienced in diverse
curricular and instructional strategies. Furthermore, research suggests that teachers who do not
hold a bilingual language certification or English as a second language certification are not well
prepared to meet the needs of these children (Alexander et al., 1999). To work with ELLs,
teachers need to understand the importance of literacy, the role of language proficiency, and the
impact they have on the acquisition of language skills (Samson & Collins, 2012). The instruction
of ELLs requires teaching strategies that support the introduction of vocabulary and academic
language to give students opportunities to learn new words in context through visual, auditory,
and verbal opportunities (Goldenberg, 2008). As Luna (2020) has pointed out,
The task of meeting the needs of ELL students may be a challenge, however academic
success can be a reality if students are provided with the proper instruction, support, and
the belief that they can be academically prepared for college and career readiness.
(p. 24)
Teachers should also be informed about the research on language acquisition and brain
development. For example, Burns (2017) has stated that humans have an equal potential to learn

7
any language at birth and by six months of age they begin to recognize phonemes that are
specific to their native language. Throughout infancy, the speech sounds of their first language
are mapped and saved into the auditory cortex. Moreover, each language has its own unique
phonemes and impacts the amount of exposure and practice humans receive. Teachers should
also be aware of the challenges students face in determining the language components of their
first language (L1) and the components of the targeted language (L2). This awareness can help
teachers ensure that their students’ language transfer from L1 and L2 is a positive one (Sousa,
2011). Additionally, as children grow older, learning a second language becomes more difficult
because the brain needs to build new clusters of neurons, which causes a delay in the
transference between L1 and L2.
Teachers should also be aware of the length and complexity of the acquisition process
(Burns, 2017). For instruction to support this complex process, teachers should expose students
to high levels of speaking, reading, and discussion (Sousa, 2011). Instruction should also
comprise direct and explicit teaching of skills, including modeling and guided practice to support
students as they connect between their two languages.
ELLs who learn in classrooms that take an asset approach to language acquisition and
honor the cultural perspectives and contributions of the learner tend to be highly engaged. In
contrast to such contexts, most schools typically focus on the “lack” of English skills of ELLs
and disregard their academic knowledge of their first languages (Patterson, 2018). However,
research is clear that all students have funds of knowledge that they have acquired from their
personal experiences, family, culture, etc. (Akbari, 2008). Students improve their achievement
when teachers validate and utilize knowledge about their students’ social, cultural, and linguistic
background during their instruction (Banks et al., 2005). Furthermore, as Patterson (2018) points

8
out, students whose first language is not English are not automatically at a disadvantage. We
must believe that every student is already capable of exceptional work. It is our responsibility as
educators to maneuver through the cultural barriers and find roads to spark this genius.
Parent Engagement
As Wei and Zhou (2012) have shown, parental involvement is an effective factor in
improving student learning as there is a positive correlation between the two. Parental
involvement entails the participation of parents in meaningful, two-way communication about
their children’s academic learning, as well as ensuring that parents play an integral and active
role in assisting their children’s learning and are considered partners in their education
(California Department of Education, 2021). From an asset perspective, when parents are
partners in their children’s education there is a clear improvement in student engagement. In
addition, parental involvement and participation in workshops and training has a direct effect on
students’ interest and motivation because they observe their parents taking an active role in
learning and acquiring knowledge (Gonzales-DeHass et al., 2005).
When parents are afforded structured opportunities to build their capacity around content
and support structures, they develop a better understanding of the policies, mandates, and
instructional design that have a positive effect on their children’s academic achievement (Wei &
Zhou, 2012). Al-Mahrooqi et al. (2016) have shed light on factors that influence parents’
participation, such as their willingness to commit their skills, knowledge, time, and energy when
they know that their commitment will benefit their children’s education.
However, research shows that parents of ELLs face various disempowering challenges to
their involvement, including the belief that the educational system misunderstands their cultural
values and creates barriers that impede their full involvement in their children’s schooling (Arias

9
& Morillo-Campbell, 2008). Additionally, a significant hurdle for these parents is the complexity
of state and school policies, which can be difficult to understand. Such policies include the
English language learner identification process, reclassification mandates, the repercussions of
not reclassifying, and other matters that affect their child’s progress. Although these are
important policies that parents should be aware of so that they can advocate for themselves and
their children, many studies have shown that parental access to training and workshops is
dependent on isolated site-based decisions (Gibson, 2002). Schools therefore need to create
opportunities to develop culturally relevant skills for parents and establish open communication
with families (Al-Mahrooqi et al., 2016). In addition, parental empowerment, voice, and
engagement depend on more consistent, high-quality, readily available support, and training
provided by schools (Gibson, 2002).
More thorough research is required to strengthen the quality and cohesiveness of designs
for ELL support services that address three essential actors: principal, teachers, and parents. This
triad design is essential to provide the support that ELLs require. Ensuring that the role of each
of these actors is clear, and that they can work together to coordinate their actions, will enable
students to achieve their full academic potential with systems that will hold these key
stakeholders accountable.
Statement of the Problem
The development of equitable support services in schools requires core processes of
system change (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Principals are the school’s equity system designers who
can create a seamless system of support between leaders, teachers, and parents that can produce
high levels of ELL success. Schools that embrace shared leadership among principal and
teaching staff members are better positioned to eliminate biases and stereotypes of ELLs

10
(Massey et al., 2014). Positive and supportive school culture requires a more inclusive
instructional teaching model for K–12 English language learner students. Coordinated efforts and
partnerships between principal, teachers, staff, and parents can address the difficult task of
offering each child the support they need to receive proper instruction. This cooperation is key to
creating a systemic design that guarantees the children’s rights to quality education.
This study will examine the K–12 systems that support the academic success of ELLs,
with an analytic focus on the perceptions of principals, teachers, and parents that will elucidate
how these stakeholders can better understand and effectively provide a more comprehensive
support system for ELLs. Although it is crucial for school leadership to emphasize equity and
create a collaboration between teachers and parents, initiatives are still lacking. This study will
also address the reasons why developing a safe, positive, and inclusive school climate has been
either poorly or only partially implemented in some schools.
Purpose of the Study
This study will focus on aspects and strategies that should be developed to create a
productive collaboration among teachers, principal, and parents, and examine how this can create
a comprehensive support system to improve the outcomes of ELLs. The study’s theoretical
framework will be based on the community of inquiry (COI), a social constructivist model that
“describes how learning takes place for a group of individual learners through the educational
experience that occurs at the intersection of social, cognitive, and teaching presence” (Garrison
et al., 2001, p. 36).
Furthermore, by utilizing the social presence model, this study will focus on the support
systems currently used in two different districts and schools and examine the ability to develop a
trusting environment by building interpersonal relationships among teachers, principal, and

11
parents by focusing on the design components of their supports. Following COI, this study will
rely on cognitive presence to analyze the ability to construct and confirm meaning through
reflection and discourse, by targeting the leverage, delivery, and perceptions among policies and
components of their systems of support. In addition, the notion of teaching presence will be used
to analyze and reflect on the quality of instruction and the efficacy of knowledge and
professional development that teachers, principal, and parents receive by focusing on the level of
preparation and effective delivery.
Utilizing a thematic research study approach, the study participants will consist of a
group of teachers, principal, and parents identified according to criteria that ensure data
accuracy. Gabriela Galvez-Reyna will focus on obtaining data from principals, Jarrod Bordi will
be focusing on teachers and Michelle Correa will target parents. As a qualitative research study,
the study will include data collected from interviews and surveys conducted at school sites that
have a substantial ELL population, ELL teachers, and parents whose children were classified as
ELLs. This study will also include a pre-interview survey followed by a semi-structured, open-
ended interview that will address issues related to the implementation of district policies, level of
preparation of design components, and the perceptions of principals, teachers, and parents
regarding the components of ELL systems.
Research Questions
The following research questions will be addressed in this study:
1. How does a school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive support system for its ELLs?

12
2. What are the intentional design components that develop the system of preparation
offered to principal, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELLs support system?
3. What do principal, teachers, and parents perceive as the most impactful components
of the design system of support for ELLs, and what practices do they think should be
replaced, or added, to improve the system design that leads to student success?
Significance of the Study
This study will provide insights into how school districts can leverage their policies to
ensure the delivery of a comprehensive K–12 support system for ELLs through a well-defined
service delivery partnership among principals, teachers, and parents. It will also highlight the
most impactful components of an ELL support system and provide schools with ideas to
maximize the academic advancement of their ELL population.
Limitation and Delimitations
Limitations in the study’s design include its geographical setting since it focuses on two
specific school districts: Unified School District 1 and Unified School District 2. This limited
geographical setting may provide a narrow view of the unique needs of other communities with
their own demographics. Cultural and linguistic factors may also limit the study’s data because
the ELL populations in these two districts consist mostly of Latino and Spanish-speaking
families.
This study’s objective is to investigate the community that is directly involved with the
instruction of ELLs: their teachers, principal, and parents. Our research questions, pre-interview
survey questions, and interview questions target specific aspects of ELL support systems such as
policies, preparation, and perceptions. We will investigate the policies that affect individuals

13
with different experiences, the type of preparation these individuals have undergone to address
the needs of ELLs, and their perceptions regarding the quality of ELL instruction.
As for delimitations, this study’s objective is to investigate the community that is directly
involved with the instruction of ELLs: their teachers, principal, and parents. Therefore, this study
purposely excludes students from focusing on the decision-makers who create their support
systems. Our research questions, survey questions, and interview questions target specific
aspects of ELLs support systems, such as policies, preparation, and perceptions. We will
investigate the policies that affect individuals from diverse backgrounds, the preparation they
have undergone to address the needs of ELLs, and their perceptions regarding the quality of ELL
instruction.
Definition of Terms
Bias: A prejudice toward or against something or someone that can be unconscious.
Some biases can be positive or negative (Psychology Today, n.d.).
Community of inquiry: Describes how learning takes place for a group of individual
learners through the educational experience that occurs at the intersection of social, cognitive,
and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2010).
Cognitive presence: Describes the extent to which the participants in any configuration of
a community of inquiry can construct meaning through sustained communication (Garrison et
al., 2010).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA): The national education law
that established the need for a longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.
ESEA authorizes state-run programs for eligible schools and districts that are eager to raise the
academic achievement of struggling learners and address the complex challenges that arise for

14
students who live with disability, mobility problems, learning difficulties, poverty, or transience,
or who need to learn English (Guthier, n.d.).
English Language Learner (ELL): A minority student of national origin who has limited
English proficiency. ELL is often preferred over limited-English-proficient (LEP) (U.S.
Department of Education, 2020).
English language development standards: California Education Code (EC) Section
60811 requires the State Board of Education to approve ELD standards for pupils identified as
English learners. The standards shall be comparable in rigor and specificity to the standards for
English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science (California Department of Education,
2021).
English Language Proficiency Assessments for California: ELPAC is the required state
test for English language proficiency (ELP) that must be given to students whose primary
language is a language other than English. State and federal law require that local educational
agencies administer an ELP state test to eligible students from kindergarten through twelfth
grade (California Department of Education, 2021).
English as a second language program: ESL programs are programs that schools put into
place for ELLs to assist them with academic content and English language proficiency. These
programs can vary depending on their model. One example is ESL pull-out, where an ESL
teacher provides support services outside the general education classroom. Another example is a
co-teaching model where an ESL teacher joins the general education teacher to plan and
implement instruction to meet the needs of both ESL students and native English-speaking
students within the classroom (Perren et al., 2013).

15
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): The legislation that replaced the previous
reauthorization of ESEA, known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which was enacted
in 2002. ESSA became fully operational in the school year 2017–18. ESSA allows some funding
sources to be merged, or “braided,” to support programs that improve student learning (U.S.
Department of Education, 2015eac).
General education teacher: For the purposes of this study, references to general
education teachers will be specific to classroom teachers from kindergarten through fifth grade
who teach any content area (language, arts, math, social studies, or science) (Project IDEAL,
2013).
Language minority students: Language minority students are children who speak a
language other than English in the home, regardless of whether the child has attained English
proficiency. Such children may or may not receive ELL services (August & Hakuta, 1997).
Language proficiency: The term refers to the degree to which a student exhibits control
over the use of language, including measurement of expressive and receptive language skills in
the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics, and including the areas of pragmatics
or language use within various domains or social circumstances (U.S. Department of Education,
2020).
Limited English proficient: Individuals who do not speak English as their primary
language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English can be
described as limited English proficient (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): A landmark act in education reform designed
to improve student achievement and change the culture of America’s schools. President George
W. Bush described this law as the “cornerstone of my administration.” This law recognized that

16
the nation’s children are our future since, as President Bush noted at the time, “too many of our
neediest children are being left behind” (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Office for Civil Rights (OCR): The Office for Civil Rights enforces several federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial
assistance from the Department of Education, such as discrimination on the basis of race, color,
and national origin (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Parental involvement: The term describes many different parental behaviors and
parenting practices such as parental aspirations for their child’s academic achievement, parental
communication with their children about school, parental participation in school activities,
parental communications with teachers about their child, and parental rules at home that are
related to education (Harris & Goodall, 2007).
Reclassification: The process wherein a student is reclassified from English learner (EL)
status to fluent English proficient (RFEP) status. Reclassification can take place at any time
during the academic year and occurs immediately after the student meets all the criteria
(California Department of Education, 2021).
Reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP): A term used for a student who is
reclassified from English learner (EL) to fluent English proficient (RFEP) (California
Department of Education, 2021).
Scaffolds: Temporary and flexible instructional support that helps make rigorous grade-
level curriculum accessible to all students, including ELLs. Scaffolds are dependent upon ELLs’
English-language proficiency level. The instructional support that scaffolds offer enables
learners to engage in a task that they would not have been able to accomplish independently.
This should lead to metacognitive appropriation, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluation of

17
the task. Scaffolds help push the students academically while providing the necessary support for
their success (Maybin, 2020).
The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA): A federal law that mandates that
schools accommodate students regardless of nationality and provide adequate resources for
students who do not speak English (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).
Organization of the Study
This thematic study is a case study conducted by three researchers examining one of the
three stakeholders’ groups, looking at how principals, teachers, and parents contribute to a high-
quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL students’ academic success. The study is
organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study and introduces the
problem statements along with the definitions of terms used in this study. Chapter 2 consists of a
review of literature addressing the following four areas: (a) federal and state laws and protections
for ELLs; (b) the impact of equity policies; (c) systems of support for ELLs success; and (d)
community of inquiry as a theoretical framework. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology.
Chapter 4 identifies and analyzes the research findings. Chapter 5 concludes the study by
providing a summary of its findings and recommendations. As a thematic study, Jarrod Bordi,
Michelle Correa, and Gabriela Galvez-Reyna collaborated on Chapters 1, 2, and 3; and will
independently work on Chapters 4 and 5 based on our stakeholder focus.

18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The objective of this literature review is to synthesize and apply the body of knowledge
and research in systems of support for English language learners (ELL). There is substantial
research on ELLs, with a broad scope of emphases including school funding, policies, and
support. The recent published work particularly focuses on their specific linguistic needs and
disadvantages. English language learners are at a disadvantage in educational institutions
because of the lack of clearly defined accountability and expected service designs. While
previous studies offer valuable insight into the history, deficits, financial models, and
instructional shifts, they are limited by their singular lenses toward this population of students.
There is a limited amount of information on the holistic systems of support for English language
learners that looks at the critical interplay among school administrators, teachers, and parents.
The research tends to examine the role and impact of each of these stakeholder groups
separately. Therefore, in our literature review, we aim to focus on all three to construct systems
view and understanding. Our goal is to utilize the community of inquiry framework to create a
mindset around the potential impact of a triad collaborative stakeholder engagement approach to
build a stronger support system for English language learners.
The first part of this literature review will include a review of federal and state policies,
including equity policies that provide directions to ELL services and system design to ensure
accountability. The second part will review the literature on systems of support, with an
emphasis on research that examines school culture, values, perceptions, and the level of
preparation and engagement of the three stakeholders whom we will examine, namely
administrators, teachers, and parents. Finally, the community of inquiry theoretical framework

19
(CoI) is used to provide deeper understanding through a collaborative constructivist approach by
examining interpersonal relationships, perceptions, and instruction.
Federal and State Laws and Protections for ELLs
United States federal law guarantees English language learners educational rights. The
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) outlines rulings and protections that guarantee students with
limited English proficiency fair educational opportunities and access. Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. In Lau v. Nichols
(1974), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Education's May 25, 1970
memorandum, which directed school districts to take actionable steps to help ELL students
overcome language barriers to ensure their meaningful participation in educational programs.
The Department of Education outlines policies focused on ELL students in three OCR
policy documents: (a) the May 1970 memorandum to school districts entitled “Identification of
Discrimination and Denial of Services based on National Origin,” which clarifies OCR policy
under Title VI regarding the responsibility of school districts to provide equal educational
opportunity to language minority students; (b) the December 3, 1985 guidance document entitled
“The Office for Civil Rights' Title VI Language Minority Compliance Procedures;” and (c) the
September 27, 1991 memorandum entitled “Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward
National Origin Minority Students with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP).” OCR does not
require or advocate a specific program of instruction for ELL students. Under federal law,
programs to educate children with limited proficiency in English must be: (a) based on a sound
educational theory; (b) adequately supported so that the program has a realistic chance of
success; and (c) periodically evaluated and revised, if necessary.

20
In 2015, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights drafted a letter that was disseminated in the educational agency’s “Dear colleague” letter.
This letter summarized and updated the rights of ELLs according to federal law. The letter
described the requirement to identify ELLs and to provide instruction that leads to English
proficiency using a curriculum that does not segregate them from other students. It also
identified the need to recruit teachers who are well prepared to provide this kind of instruction
and to assure ELLs have access to extracurricular opportunities and activities. The letter stressed
that ELLs also must be ensured access to special education identification and related services and
that denial of services is not determined by the lack of English language proficiency. Monitoring
of student progress with the evaluation of the effectiveness of ELL instruction, with
accommodations and adaptations as needed is also required.
The introduction of federal policy for language students began with the Bilingual
Education Act in 1968. The Bilingual Education Act emerged out of the civil rights data that
showed the inequity in school completion among English language learner students, as well as
the struggles of school sites to address the linguistic, cultural, and educational needs of this
rapidly growing student population. Cook-Harvey et al. (2016) have discussed the educational
opportunities that emerged after the authorization from the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015),
which stemmed from the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The
Every Student Succeeds Act outlined the preparation that schools and districts must undertake to
ensure that students are prepared for the 21st century. Opportunities from the study challenged
schools and districts to utilize the influence from the ESSA to provide more equitable teaching
and learning options.

21
The 1974s United States Supreme Court ruling of Lau v. Nichols outlined the need for
states to provide appropriate language accommodations to safeguard the rights of English
Language Learner students. In the 1986 case Castaneda v. Pickard, the plaintiff claimed the
local school district was discriminating against his children because of their Mexican American
ethnicity. The plaintiff believed the instructional classroom in which his children were enrolled
was segregated, as it utilized a grouping system for classes based on certain criteria that he
viewed as discriminating. Outcomes from both cases assert it is the school district’s
responsibility to ensure ELLs do not “incur irreparable academic deficits” (p. 56) because of
inadequate educational programs while they are learning English. The United States Office of
Education drew upon Lau v. Nichols as a guide for bilingual education reform, which required
states to develop plans to offer bilingual education to students without impeding on the civil
rights of English language learner students. Bilingual education became a point of conflict
between federal and state educational agencies.
California Policies and ELLs Protection
Each state interprets federal law differently and designs state policies to fulfill its
requirements. California has more comprehensive and specific guidance on instruction and the
systemic conditions that support effectiveness. The most recent policy is the 2017 ELL
Roadmap, which is grounded in federal civil rights law and court decisions governing equal
opportunity guided by state standards and frameworks and is informed by research. The policy
describes that California schools should affirm, provide a welcoming atmosphere, and respond to
a variety of ranges of ELL students. (California Department of Education, 2017).

22
Legal Mandates and Guidance
The California State Constitution is very clear that public schooling is one of the major
responsibilities of the state and the public school system must provide meaningful access for
ELL learners. This is stated in the Education Code, state standards, guidance through the
curriculum framework, and teacher certification (California State Constitution, n.d.). The
California State Constitution declares:
No person in the state of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic
group identification, religion, age, sex, color disability, be unlawfully denied full and
equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity that is conducted, operated or administered by the state or any state
agency, or receives any financial assistance from the state. (California State Constitution,
Article IX, Sec. 1–16)
In 1970, the California Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to equalize funding
among school districts to satisfy equal protection requirements for all students regardless of their
community’s wealth. California enacted Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013–2014
to ensure differentiation in funding to schools based on student populations served, their
achievement, and needs (Contreras & Fujimoto, 2019). However, some of California’s policies
have limited the support for and access to instruction for ELL students. One of these restrictive
policies, which was in effect for eighteen years, was Proposition 227 of 1998. This policy
significantly changed how ELL students were taught because it restricted school districts’
autonomy to decide how to best serve this population and limited the ability of schools to use
students’ primary language for instruction (California Department of Education, Proposition 227

23
Final Report, n.d.). This policy was repealed by Proposition 58 of 2017, The California
Multilingual Education Act, also known as CA Ed. G.E.
The English Language Development Standards (ELD) were approved and adopted in
2012 by the California Board of Education for all pupils identified as ELL to help them attain
proficiency in English. The ELD standards are not intended to replace the CA CCSS for
ELA/Literacy, nor represent content at a lower level of achievement or rigor. Rather, the
Standards represent expectations of what ELL students should know and be able to do. They are
the basis for Designated ELD, as they assist in building proficiency, refining the academic use of
English, providing student access to content, setting clear developmental benchmarks, and
offering guidance for teachers, parents, and curriculum developers (California Department of
Education, 2014a). To provide additional access to learning for ELL students, in July 2014 the
California State Board of Education approved and adopted a new English Language Arts/English
Development Framework (ELA/ELD). The ELA/ELD repositioned ELD and literacy by
introducing and defining the concept that California’s ELL students should be provided with
comprehensive ELD (California Department of Education, 2014a). ELL students should have
access to Designated ELD, in which targeted instruction addresses ELL proficiency levels and
language needs, as well as Integrated ELD, in which they participate in language development in
an academic disciplinary context related to academic tasks and content. Language integrated in
and through content is a major theme of the new ELA/ELD Framework (Santibañez & Umansky,
2018).
The California State Board of Education approved the California English Learner
Roadmap Policy on July 12, 2017. This policy is intended to provide guidance to local
educational agencies (LEAs) for welcoming, understanding, and educating the diverse

24
population of students who are English learners (California Department of Education, 2017). The
CA Ed. G.E initiative ensures all children in California public schools receive the highest quality
education, master the English language, and access high-quality and research-based language
programs that will prepare them to participate fully in a global economy. The following
California ELL Roadmap principles include the foundational understanding that English learners
are a shared responsibility of all educators, and that the educational system should ensure access
to the over 1.3 million English learners who attend California schools and encourage their
academic achievement. The roadmap has four principles: (a) assets-oriented and needs-
responsive schools; (b) intellectual quality of instruction and meaningful access; (c) system
conditions that support effectiveness; and (d) alignment and articulation within and across
systems (California Department of Education, 2022). According to Olsen (2021), “overall the
ELL Roadmap sets a new vision and mission for the schools and was developed as an
aspirational statement of what should be in place for the state’s 1.2 million English learners” (p.
14).
Student Protections
In the past decade, California has focused on developing specific guidance for research-
based instructional practices and accountability measures that help to protect the rights of ELLs.
One of the important pieces of legislation that secured comprehensive instructional materials for
students was Senate Bill 201 of 2013. This bill authorized the State Board of Education to adopt
ELD/ELA instructional materials aligned with the California Common Core State Standards for
English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
(CA CCSS ELA/Literacy), and the California English Language Development Standards (CA
ELD Standards) for kindergarten through eighth grade (California Department of Education,

25
2021). The purpose of this bill was to target the needs of English learners by requiring alignment
of the materials with the ELD standards. This ensures school districts have access to rigorous
standards-aligned instructional material so educators have options when choosing instructional
materials that meet the needs of all students, including English learners and students with
disabilities, and to ensure that their students can master the academic content standards.
Another critical piece of legislation for students is Proposition 58, known as the CA Ed.
G.E. Initiative. The purpose of the CA Ed. G.E. Initiative is to make sure all students in
California who attend public schools receive the highest quality education, obtain mastery of the
English language, and the ability to access quality programs that are innovative and research-
based (California Department of Education, 2021). This legislation also enables school districts
to develop language acquisition programs for both English and non-English speakers with parent
and community input.
Accountability
California has formulated critical bills, laws, and decisions to ensure ELLs’ protections
and rights are implemented and followed consistently. Clear definition of terms has been part of
this process of accountability. California established definitions for long-term English learners
(LTELs) and students “at risk” in 2012’s Assembly Bill 2193. This bill requires school districts
and schools to identify the number of students classified as LTELs and those at risk of becoming
long-term English learners. The law also requires school districts with ELLs to assess their
language development and identify their level of proficiency for reclassification purposes (AB-
2193, n.d.). In 2015, Senate Bill 750 revised the definitions of “long-term English learner” and
“English learner at risk of becoming a long-term English learner” and encouraged the
Superintendent to revisit the language proficiency scores determined for any test after three and

26
four years of data. This bill also requires the department to post information on their website
regarding the state’s number of long-term English learners and English learners at risk of
becoming long-term English learners (California Department of Education, 2021). Assembly Bill
81, passed in 2017, requires each school district to identify the primary language of a student
when they enroll in school and to give each parent notice of an assessment for English
proficiency within 30 days of the start of the school year (AB-81, 2017). This bill also requires
that such notices include specific information, such as language classification. The development
and revision of these kinds of legislation provides some of the groundwork for ensuring that
ELLs receive necessary support, attention, and guidance.
Impact of Equity Policies
Policy implementation greatly affects ELLs’ access to equitable education. ELL
educational policy long has directed schools to address ELL students’ linguistic and academic
development and requires them to do so without furthering inequity or segregation (Lau v.
Nichols, 1974; Castaneda v. Pickard, 1986). Robinson-Cimpian et al. (2016) have suggested
ELL policies affect access to equitable education for ELL students because they mandate types
of instruction, assessments, language of instruction, and reclassification criteria. For over four
decades, ELL education policies have called for programs that effectively meet students’
linguistic and academic needs, but effective ELL program design and implementation requires a
delicate balance between provision of services and segregation (Thompson, 2013) and between
compliance and equity. Some researchers argue that educational policies may create barriers
because they require certain practices, assessment, and accountability systems for ELL to
achieve access and outcomes that are equitable to those of their non-ELL peers (Mavrogordato &
White, 2020; Robinson-Cimpian et al., 2016; Wang, 2016). In trying to treat everyone the same

27
to achieve fairness, some educational policies at times do not give ELL students what they need
to be successful (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016; Hakuta, 2011; Luna, 2020; Thompson, 2013).
English language learners have guaranteed rights and safeguards to ensure specific access
based on the individual needs of the student (Castaneda v. Pickard, 1986; Lau v. Nichols, 1974.)
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 has acknowledged the need for differentiation
of services as stated by the ELL subgroups. ELL students are immensely diverse, with equally
broad-ranging and diverse educational needs. As Gunderson (2021) has written, “There are
negative consequences for the use of this unidimensional category to label students, because it
does not include other significant diverse features” (p. 432). Despite the diverse needs of ELL
students, federal policy only addresses and differentiates policy approaches for students with
disabilities, newcomers, and long-term ELL students (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA],
2015). The research of Park et al. (2017) highlighted some barriers ELL students face. ELL
students with special needs require timely, effective, and appropriate identification, support
services, and modified reclassification criteria based on students’ unique abilities (Umansky et
al., 2017). The diversity in a newcomer group that has different assets, needs, and experiences
often creates acute challenges, specifically when students face timelines to graduation and may
be pushed out of the system before completion (Potochnick, 2018).
The goals of language classification policies are to distinguish between English proficient
students and non-proficient students and to provide appropriate educational support for all ELL
students. Reyes and Hwang (2021) found reclassification can be beneficial with the correct types
of support but detrimental if the ELL students do not continue to receive the academic support
they need. Reyes and Hwang (2021) stated, “If ELL status limits access to rigorous courses and
high-quality instruction, staying as ELL students negatively affects education and behavior

28
outcomes” (p. 591). Furthermore, “If RFEP status leads to reduction or elimination of specialized
English language development courses when students need the additional language support,
reclassification can negatively affect student outcomes” (p. 592).
English language proficiency assessments are high stakes because administration uses
them to determine students’ ELL classification, progression toward English proficiency, and
eligibility to exit ELL status. ELL students undergo assessment annually in both English
language proficiency and content area standards. However, research shows that content area
assessments can generate highly biased scores among ELL students because they do not
represent their true content knowledge due to the students’ lack of full English proficiency,
which precludes them from being able to demonstrate fully their knowledge in tests administered
in English (Blazar & Pollard, 2017; Pulliam & Terantino, 2020). Blazar and Pollard (2017) also
found that test preparation can dilute instruction; teachers felt that test preparation resulted in
narrowing instruction, which is at odds with students’ pedagogical and linguistic needs and limits
their access to academic standards (Blazar & Pollard, 2017; Polikoff & Porter, 2014).
Current policy, research, and practice all point to the importance of ELL identification
and classification issues. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division
and the United States Department of Education (DE) Office for Civil Rights have published
guidelines that highlight and ensure the adequacy of methods used to identify and classify ELL
students (U.S. DOJ, 2015). English learners require access to appropriate instructional services
that match their strengths and must have equal opportunities to achieve academic standards as
the non-ELL population of students. Umansky and Porter (2020) argued state policy should
support a comprehensive assessment system for ELL students to minimize the extent to which
testing can displace or undermine high-quality, program-aligned instruction. The system begins

29
with the non-mandated and widely used but varying practice of administering a home language
survey to families to identify students as potential ELL students. Then, an English Language
Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) is used to determine English Language
proficiency to help inform proper educational placement and to help determine if a student is
ready to be reclassified to confirm their ELL status and instructional placement.
Reyes and Hwang (2021) found that, although having common language classification
policies across California may seem equitable, it may not lead to better outcomes for language
minority students. Research has found that although a district may require a higher assessment
score than the state requires, exceptions can be made for students because administrators and
teachers still can interpret the results and put policies into practice according to their local
context (Cimpian et al., 2017; Reyes & Hwang, 2021). For example, reclassification can occur
for students who perform lower than state requirements, while reclassifications may not occur for
some students who meet the higher district assessment requirements. Furthermore, according to
the current policies, students must meet the SBAC score and ELPAC score requirement, and
both assessments may require more language intensive skills than the prior assessments, which
may or may not have positive effects on student learning.
Federal law regarding ELL education is framed around two core rights: the right to
equitable and accessible grade-level content, and the right to English language instruction for
English acquisition (Castaneda v. Pickard, 1981; Lau v. Nichols, 1974). Unfortunately, some
researchers have found that ELL programs focus on compliance with federal policy and court
rulings by simply providing linguistic support services rather than focusing on the “spirit of these
policies, equity and academic access” (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016, p. 470). A study Callahan and
Shifrer (2016) conducted highlighted how ELL high school students lagged significantly behind

30
English speakers in the courses they took for graduation, and how the placement of ELL students
in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs “preclude, rather than improves, equity and
access as evidence by college preparatory course taking” (p. 485). Several factors create ELL
access to academic content, including state requirements that mandate ELL students attend
designated English Language Development (ELD) courses that take up two or more class periods
per day (Johnson, 2019). Whether tracked by level, placed into sheltered classes, or withheld
from content classes, ELL tracking places ELL students on trajectories that increasingly
separates them for their peers who have full access to content (Johnson, 2019; Umansky, 2016;
Thompson, 2017).
Systems of Support for ELL Student Success
A system of support for ELL students requires more than policy implementation at the
school site level. School culture plays a vital role at every school site as it compasses values,
perceptions, levels of preparations and engagement of principals, teachers and parents which
affects the support ELL receive. The next section shares a literature review of the importance of
each one of these components.
School Culture
School culture can be defined as the beliefs, expectations, and values that encompass a
school site, from the administration to the instructional staff. According to Voight et al. (2013),
school climate is one of the factors that differentiates schools that succeed from those that do not:
“More experienced and educated teachers and administrators have more capacity for creating an
environment characterized by connectedness, caring, and safety, which in turn fosters success”
(p. 33). School culture and climate can improve learning outcomes for English language learners,
thus narrowing the gap in academic achievement. Voight et. al. (2013) further stated a positive

31
school climate is an asset for all schools, as they consist of diverse communities, students, and
needs. Sanders et al. (2018) highlighted positive associations with achievement for all students at
all levels, not only ELLs. A culture of collaboration needs to be encouraged and cultivated to
promote learning to accelerate improvement and foster innovation (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Values and Perceptions
The school administrators’ beliefs, knowledge, and skills play an important role in the
academic success of English language learners. Theoharis and O’Toole (2011) emphasized how
principals believe in inclusion, asset-based orientation toward language collaboration,
comprehensive school reform, and acting as a driving force for change. Their personal beliefs
that ELL students are an asset to the school community, along with a thorough understanding of
the current realities of their school site and district’s ELL data, allow them to plan and lead the
school community. Conversely, principals who have limited knowledge of second language
programs and instructional practices feel they are not prepared to lead the ELL students at their
site to academic success (Padron & Waxman, 2016; Massey et al., 2014).
Elfers and Stritikus (2013) concluded that principals’ level of understanding of second
language level acquisition helped teachers build confidence, encouraged ongoing learning, and
enabled teachers to do their best in working with ELL students. Principals’ understanding of the
language, terminology, and critical research-based strategies enabled them to have meaningful
discussions with and provide feedback for teachers (Reyes & Gentry, 2019). Furthermore,
principals’ content knowledge of learning and instruction for ELLs helped them provide
resources to encourage research-based teaching practices for ELLs (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Reyes
& Gentry, 2019; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011).

32
English language learners should be part of an intimate learning environment that offers
additional individualized support and attention inside and outside of the classroom. Instruction
within the classroom is essential to student success. Roegman et al. (2019) described the
importance of classroom instructional visits that focus on equity. The focus on instruction with
direct efforts to address systemic inequities offers data collection tools that function as beneficial
resources for aiding instructional conversations. To support English language learners, it is
imperative to provide recommendations for developing policies, initiatives, and practices that
can confront inequities in classrooms, schools, and districts.
Teacher preparation programs are essential to developing instructional strategies and
pedagogies that utilize best practices for supporting multicultural students. Harman and McClure
(2011) conducted a case study that focused on teacher pedagogy in teacher preparation programs.
This study examined critical performative pedagogy, which addresses multicultural education
with a focus on student teachers enrolled in teacher education programs and researched the effect
of the programs on the teachers’ relationships with their students. Manning et al. (2022)
discussed how professional development related to instructional support includes building
vocabulary and first language knowledge, as well as providing resources that are identified as
essential to student achievement. This study included many participants who attended non-
science content professional development classes and applied the strategies they learned in their
science classrooms. The study identified the positive correlation between attending professional
development classes and the application of strategies that support success for English language
learner students.
Parents’ cultural values or beliefs play a role in the education of their children, as they are
a factor that determines the extent of their direct involvement in their children’s schooling. The

33
expectation of U.S. schools for parent involvement includes being fully involved and being an
advocate for one’s children (Vera et al., 2012). This may not be the case for some cultures that
do not share this expectation. Research has highlighted people have different values and
perspectives toward education, teachers, and definitions of student success, especially if they are
immigrant parents (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Ramirez, 2008).
In some cultures, teachers are highly respected, and parents believe they should not
interfere with their children’s education because it is not acceptable to question teachers (De
Gaetano, 2007; Sosa, 1997). Some parents maintain the traditional view that schools house “the
experts,” such as teachers and administrators, which causes reluctance in taking more of an
active role and responsibility with their child’s education (Arias & Morillo-Campbell, 2008).
Arias and Morillo-Campbell (2008) argued many ELL parents perceived their role as be
nurturers, teaching values, instilling good behavior, and value home educational involvement
more than active involvement at schools. Socioeconomic status and sociocultural factors are also
correlated with parental beliefs and knowledge. Parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
reported beliefs and knowledge that were more consistent with scientific evidence. Being
conscious of how an individual’s culture plays a critical role in their involvement enables
teachers and administrators to support, encourage, and develop ways to seek parental
involvement.
Level of Preparation
School Principals are the instructional leaders at their respective campuses; it is therefore
important for administrators who are serving as instructional leaders to understand ELL needs
and the research-based teaching practices and policies designed to support them (Wang, 2016).
Wang (2016) also found that administrators’ level of preparation and their understanding of

34
institutional policies helped them make the success of all students, including ELLs and LTELs, a
priority. Principals who have a vision for effective ELL instruction can create coherent and
aligned instructional goals and invest the resources necessary to accomplish those goals (Luna,
2020; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). Furthermore, principals should develop a vision for
academic success that includes all students by providing teachers with instructional support as
well as opportunities for professional development (Luna, 2020).
Theoharis and O’Toole (2011) have shown that leaders with research-based knowledge
of ELL programs, as well as personal beliefs that ELL students are an asset to the school
community, are able to influence services that benefit ELLs and their peers. Reyes and Gentry
(2019) defined a principal as the instructional leader at their respective campus; therefore, it is
important for administrators who are serving as instructional leaders to understand ELL needs
and research-based teaching practices. Administrators’ awareness of ELLs’ curriculum must
align with the instructional strategies needed for an increasingly diverse population.
Administrators’ understanding of language, terminology, and critical research-based strategies
has the potential to support meaningful discussions and feedback with teachers. Administrators’
content knowledge of learning and instruction for ELLs will help provide resources to encourage
research-based instructional practices (Luna, 2020).
Principals report teachers and staff who are prepared together to work with ELL students
share language and understanding that contribute to a coherent and collaborative program
(Echevarria, 2006). Mavrogordato and White (2020) examined the role that school leaders play
in implementing a policy that determines the process of exiting students from ELL to RFEP. The
article is a qualitative study of eight schools and discusses school leaders who play an important
role in enacting policies designed to increase equity for historically marginalized communities.

35
School leaders must ensure equitable, excellent, and inclusive educational experiences for ELLs
by influencing the meaningful long-term success of ELL programs. School leaders may not be
aware of how policy implementation fosters social justice in schools.
School leaders are central to building strong communication systems that prepare
parents/families to understand school expectations, their rights, and the various options for
language programs that are available to their children. Further, strong communication systems
deconstruct social stereotypes and foster respect for diversity. Mavrogordato and White (2020)
underscored how school leaders play an important role in enacting policies designed to expand
equity for historically marginalized communities. Wang (2016) suggested school leaders
meaningfully influence the long-term success of programs for ELL students by fostering a
diverse and inclusive community, raising consciousness of privilege, and striving to better
understand their needs and differences. School leaders may not be aware of policy
implementation but can still foster social justice in schools (Mavrogordato & White, 2020).
Parsons and Shim (2019) suggested administrators should create opportunities for parents of
ELLs’ engagement and involvement through extra-curricular activities. They should develop
partnerships that continue beyond the school walls, so they are not seen as “experts” but rather as
“partners” within education. Administrators should recognize and support ELLs’ differences to
establish relationships with them that do not reproduce what the media and society portray. They
should be proactive and ensure teachers are culturally sensitive to the needs of all students and
their families.
Principals constantly need to diagnose the needs of staff, students, and parents, as well as
the demands of policies, context, and the communities they serve, while also having a clear set of
educational beliefs and values that support their communities. Day et al. (2016) found that

36
successful principals have a high cognitive emotional understanding of the needs of individual
staff, students, national government, and local community. Such understanding aids
administrators in promoting trust and trustworthiness. Ishimaru (2013) explained school leaders
should build relationships with parents and promote shared leadership practices to help them
build the social and intellectual capital that enables them to better navigate school systems,
engage in collective action, and support their children’s success. School leaders should “realize
the potential for parent and community members to become powerful partners in improving
schools and enabling student success.” (Ishimaru, 2013, p. 43) This includes encouraging parents
to be leaders by building relationships and creating leadership opportunities. Principals should
also be aware of the collaborative approaches that meaningfully engage parents and
communities.
Leithwood (2021) explained principals must build productive trusting relationships with
parents and community members, particularly since parents believe the school serves the best
interest of students. Research further stated principals should clearly communicate their high
expectations for educational goals and their expectations to improve equity in their schools. They
should be a model of the school’s values and practices to the school itself and to parents and
local communities. “Authentic collaboration and leadership distribution depends on strong
beliefs about the value of collaboration and leadership distribution on the part of leaders along
with open communication with staff, students, and parents” (Leithwood, 2021, p. 14).
Advocating for the rights of diverse students and their families, Angelides et al. (2010) detailed
how leaders should get teachers involved and distribute their power. They should nurture the
development of a collaborative culture-concern with learning and the participation of students

37
and parents. They should encourage and model ethics of care and acceptance of all children and
get parents and the community involved.
Common equitable instructional practice in English language development (ELD)
classrooms is paramount to student success. The research speaks to several key practices that
include teacher instructional leadership. Russell and Von Esch (2018) discussed teacher
leadership that supports English language learners. Teachers are struggling to meet the needs of
English language learners, whose unique needs require culturally and linguistically responsive
practices in the classroom to support best practices of instruction.
Pettit (2011) offered an in-depth review of the literature that discusses teacher
professional development and existing beliefs. The author examined the connection between
classroom beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of ELLs, while also exploring the
predictors of teachers’ beliefs. Hattie (2015) valued a collaborative approach to instruction and
defined eight steps to achieve a long-term, system-wide focus on student learning that they
named a “model of collaborative expertise.” The article addressed the effect of the variation on
learning that occurs in classrooms, as well as the main cause of the variables in teacher
effectiveness. A shift of the narrative to collaborative expertise and student progression is
essential to student success. Teachers must have expertise in diagnosis, interventions, and
evaluation of student progress.
Gill et al. (2014) described a framework for data-driven decision-making (DDDM) to
inform decisions in education at all levels. DDDM is a conceptual framework that should be used
as a design research method. Harman and McClure (2011) conducted research on pedagogy in
urban teacher education systems. Their case study introduces the critical performative pedagogy
(CPP) as an approach in the context of multicultural education. This process was developed to

38
enhance strategies of resistance and examine power. This type of pedagogy identifies student-
teachers who are enrolled in education programs and examines the effects of these programs on
student-to-teacher relationships with their students.
Parents’ involvement in schools is a function of how much training, exposure to
strategies, and knowledge is provided by the school and the school district. The responsibility
falls on the school to share the procedures and expectations with ELL families so they can be
successful (Miller, 2022). Al-Mahrooqi et al. (2016) argued that schools should focus on factors
that influence parents’ willingness to be involved, such as their skills, knowledge, time, energy,
and knowing how their participation will benefit their children. It is important to provide parents
with information about classroom learning and activities as they help their child learn at home
(Gonzales-DeHass et al., 2005). This is crucial because some parents may not know how they
should be supporting their children’s education at home.
Téllez and Waxman (2010) claimed families displaced from their traditional culture can
feel overwhelmed and confused in the new cultural setting. We cannot assume the American
method of schooling is shared and understood universally (How to Empower Immigrant Parents,
2022). In some cases, language creates a barrier for parents who may feel they cannot support
their child’s language acquisition process and school achievement. Parents need to be aware they
can contribute to their child's education regardless of their language, education, or literacy level.
The key to empowering immigrant parents is simply to consider what they do not know and to
support them. Schools need opportunities to develop culturally relevant skills like inviting
parents, hosting parent workshops to provide resources, sharing educational activities, and
demonstrating techniques that parents can use at home with their children (Gonzales-DeHass et

39
al., 2005). Inviting parents and welcoming their participation can develop a positive school
climate (Al-Mahrooqi et al., 2016).
Many studies have demonstrated parents engaging in training and workshops depends on
what the district and school sites offer, which may or not be a priority. The variety of topics,
relevance of content, language, location of event, and coordination based on parent schedules
will determine the level of parent engagement (Gibson, 2002). According to Gibson (2002), if
the school provides a low level of support and training for encouraging greater parent
engagement, this will limit the access to content knowledge that parents need to better support
their child. Parent involvement is related closely to students’ perseverance in learning, and their
perception of parental involvement is connected to their perceived academic self-competence
(Gonzales-DeHass et al., 2005).
Engagement
Principals must know how to cultivate caring relationships and a collaborative culture if
they are to engage fully teachers and parents of ELLs in meaningful conversations that can guide
the necessary educational support and changes. As instructional leaders, administrators who are
serving ELL students should understand the needs and research-based teaching practices that are
aligned with the curriculum (Reyes & Gentry, 2019). Furthermore, when administrators
understand the relevant language, terminology, and critical research-based strategies, they can
have meaningful discussions with and give feedback to teachers, as well as help allocate funds
for the resources needed (Villegas &Lucas, 2002; Padron & Waxman, 2016; Reyes & Gentry,
2019). Villegas & Lucas (2002) offers the following six priorities for principals to facilitate the
transition of ELLs into, throughout, and beyond secondary school: (a) encouraging and
supporting teachers and others to learn about students and their communities; (b) cultivating

40
caring, engaged relationships with students and their families; (c) providing information about
the educational system and the larger U.S. society; (d) building collaborative relationships with
other agencies and institutions that serve ELLs and their communities; (e) supporting
professional development to build knowledge, skills, and dispositions for teaching ELLs; and, (f)
facilitating and participating in collaboration to bring about educational change. A caring and
collaborative culture for ELL students exists when all six priorities are put into practice.
Teacher-student engagement is essential for creating opportunities in school for English
language learners. Appleton et al. (2006) measured the cognitive and psychological engagement
of students. Their research addressed how to construct an engagement instrument consisting of
five factors that underlay cognitive and psychological engagement: (a) teacher-student
relationships; (b) control and relevance of schoolwork; (c) peer support for learning; (d) future
aspirations and goals; and (e) family support for learning.
Kemple and Snipes’ (2000) research focused on engagement with career academies in
high school. Student support includes the focused attention they receive from their teachers, their
teachers’ expectations, their classmates’ level of engagement in school, and their opportunities to
collaborate with their peers on thematic projects in the classroom. This study examined the need
for increasing engagement with career academies. The study also reflected on impacts of
students’ transition to post-secondary education and beyond.
Oseguera et al. (2011) described culture and social capital. Their study supported student-
to-peer relationships, or social support development of social networks that result in the
development of social capital. Social capital consists of the resources gained through social
relationships, which can influence educational outcomes positively. Peer networks add value to
student persistence and increased engagement in school.

41
Parent engagement is a strong indicator of student achievement, school support, and
teacher collaboration. Shim (2018) has discussed the correlation between parental involvement
and students’ academic achievements as seen in the interactions between parents and teachers.
Reciprocal engagement between parents and school is needed to develop a partnership that
strives for the best interests of students (Yaafouri, 2019). Parental involvement in school
activities alone will not increase student achievement, but the quality of interactions and
communication between teachers and parents can have a significant impact (Padgett, 2006).
The research is clear that schools that successfully support ELL parents in navigating
school matters ensure two-way communication and guidance for positive home support.
Panferov (2010) stated there are misperceptions of parental support. Some perceive ELL parents
as lacking the experience and education to support home educational experiences for their
children and believe low parental participation is evidence of lack of parental interest (Shim,
2018). Such bias must be acknowledged for school staff to create positive interactions with, and
perceptions of, students’ parents. Yaafouri (2019) argued schools can foster a welcoming and
inclusive environment by having families see reflections of themselves in the form of school-
related resources and information in the families’ primary language and by including bilingual
staff. In addition, fostering awareness of the barriers that prevent parental involvement, including
language, cultural differences, work schedules, and lack of transportation, can help with creating
accommodations for parents (Shim, 2018).
Communication is essential for successful parent engagement. All exchanges with
parents should be regular and clear and use different mediums of communication (Graham-Clay,
2005). Other strategies to increase parent engagement include offering more direct education to
parents about the ways in which they can help their children and asking parents to volunteer in

42
classes or at school events to promote knowledge about their home language (Panferov, 2010).
Yaafouri (2019) emphasized the importance of giving parents opportunities to provide input,
feedback, and cultural sharing, and utilizing parent feedback to inform decision-making at the
classroom, school, and district levels.
Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework
A community of inquiry is a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in
purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual
understanding. The community of inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework is a process of creating
deep and meaningful (collaborative-constructivist) learning experiences through the development
of three interdependent elements: social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2010).
This framework provides a means to look at different components and strategies that are needed
to build a comprehensive support system to improve the outcomes of ELLs by prioritizing the
collaboration among teachers, principal, and parents.
Social Presence
Garrison et al. (2010) defined three dimensions of social presence: participants
identifying with the community, communicating purposefully in a trusting environment, and
developing interpersonal relationships. Social presence helps individual learners to feel they are
part of a supportive learning community because they can connect and identify with each other
in a trusting environment. Social presence is critical for principals, teachers, and parents when
striving to support the English Language Learner students’ needs. The collaboration among these
individuals fosters opportunities to interact and form a sense of community while developing and
maintaining strong academic, instructional, and social systems for ELLs. Annand (2011) argued

43
without group-based interaction, individuals cannot create the common values, goals, and
language necessary for effective learning to occur.
Social presence has three categories: (a) emotional expression, through which students
share personal experiences and values; (b) open communication, through which students develop
mutual awareness and recognition; and (c) group cohesion, which develops and maintains a
sense of group commitment (Garrison, 2001). Social presence is essential for English language
learners because it encourages students to be themselves, which in turn builds a sense of
community and belonging. Annand (2011) argued that “social presence is the feeling that others
are jointly involved in communicative interaction” (p. 53). In a study Yildiz (2009) conducted,
participants who were English language learners indicated they felt more comfortable and more
competent in English when communicating with people they knew better. Positive and
supportive social interactions create a learning environment because, by decreasing their
affective filter, it increases ELLs’ self-esteem and willingness to participate (Yildiz, 2009).
As previously mentioned, the power of building relationships by engaging staff and
parents affects the academic achievement of ELL students. Positive relationships among all
members of the learning community increase a sense of belonging, motivation, and student
achievement. Wubbels et al. (2012) argued relationships among students, teachers, parents, and
principals contribute to student learning. Developing a positive relationship with students is the
foundation for the success of the teaching-learning process in the classroom (Varga, 2017).
Teachers need to create a positive classroom environment that supports the needs of all learners,
especially ELLs. Holly (2015) stresses that teaching should validate, affirm, inspire, and
motivate. “Culturally and Linguistically responsive teaching is the validation and affirmation of
the home culture and home language for the purposes of building and bridging the student to

44
success in the culture of academia and mainstream society” (Holly, 2015, p. 23). A sense of
belonging contributes to creating and nurturing positive relationships within the classroom that
are crucial for student learning (Varga, 2017).
Cognitive Presence
Strong teacher-student relationships create an emotional link that supports cognition and
learning. Allen et al. (2013) claimed an emotional link makes students feel comfortable about
sharing information with teachers and peers, resulting in successful teaching, and learning in the
classroom. Garrison et al. (2001) defined cognitive presence as the extent to which a learner can
construct and confirm meaning through discourse in a critical community of inquiry. Cognitive
presence is essential for learning as students demonstrate their ability to communicate and work
collaboratively to construct meaning, apply critical thinking skills, and engage with other
students and staff (Allen et al., 2013; Almasi & Zhu, 2020). The collaborative process of
thinking and learning in meaningful ways includes collaborative examination and evaluation,
with an emphasis on personal and mutual understanding that supports critical discourse (Almasi
& Zhu, 2020). Critical discourse is a process in which thinking, listening, and expressing
thoughts are connected. For ELL students, cognitive presence can support language acquisition
via the four domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As Lee and Jeong (2013) noted,
“Language is best learned when it is the medium of instruction and not solely the object of
learning” (p. 91). In other words, giving students the opportunity to engage in meaningful
conversation fosters cognitive presence and supports language-domain strategies.
The opportunities for students to engage in critical discourse though, is impacted by
student perception of self and teacher perception of students. Perceptions of cultural and
linguistic competency among ELLs plays a critical role in educational services and support. The

45
research of Lumbrears and Rupley (2019), Rizzuto (2017), and LeClair et al. (2009) all
demonstrated how individuals’ beliefs are often good indicators of the decisions they make, and
how educators’ beliefs directly influence their educational practices and behaviors in the
classrooms. According to Rizzuto (2017), public school teachers across the United States largely
have developed negative theories about ELL students’ ability to learn. This explains LeClair et
al.’s (2009) finding that many ELL students disengage with school, as these negative perceptions
negatively impact the students’ self-esteem. Researchers also have concluded students’
perceptions of their own academic capabilities influence their self-esteem (Lumbrears & Rupley,
2019). Students need to be supported by their classroom environment to thrive academically
(LeClair et al., 2009). Teachers’ beliefs influence their instruction and, consequently, their
practices influence student outcomes (Rizzuto, 2017).
Teaching Presence
Supporting cognitive and social processes requires the teacher to design and facilitate
impactful educational learning outcomes that create conditions for successful learning
environments. Garrison et al. (2010) discussed how, in being an invisible and inactive actor, the
instructor plays a vital and multi-faceted role through facilitation. This means regularly
monitoring and commenting on students’ work to maintain their interest, motivation, and
engagement in the course. “Guiding on the side,” rather than being the “sage on the stage,” offers
greater content knowledge to confirm understanding, helps students correct misconceptions, and
provides resources. The faculty play a vital role in learning, both in the upfront planning of well-
aligned learning experiences and in the support of learning processes through ongoing
communication. Instructional settings characterized by frequent and meaningful instructor-

46
student interactions consistently have been found to support student achievement and learning
satisfaction.
Lynch (2016) discussed the importance of teaching presence. Teaching presence begins
prior to any interactions with students through the design and organization of a course.
Instructors play a critical role in facilitating discourse among course participants. Learning
outcomes improve when students actively participate in collaborative dialogues with other
participants through discussions. Productive discourse should be promoted by means of class
discussions and moderating student participation. Effective direct instruction should be the most
frequently used mode of delivering content, with coherent content presentations that are
embedded with resources, as well as checking for understanding evaluative activities.
It is crucial to ensure high-quality instruction happens in the classroom each day for all
students. Russell and Von Esch (2018) described best practices for teacher leadership to support
English language learners. Teachers should be willing to use new strategies in the classroom
during instruction. Teachers must be aware of the role of culture as it is displayed within the
classroom during instruction. However, teachers are struggling to meet the needs of English
language learners. These needs include culturally and linguistically responsive practices within
the classroom that can best support English language learners in the school.
Harman and McClure (2011) detailed urban teacher pedagogy. The authors presented a
cultural-ecological theory of school performance. Their identification of glaring factors that
contribute to minority student engagement with the school system illustrate beliefs and
perceptions regarding school. The authors explained their construct of the “cultural-ecological
theory, as consisting of two parts, (a) how minorities are treated or mistreated in education in
terms of educational policies, pedagogy, and (b) how minorities perceive and respond to

47
schooling as a consequence of their treatment” (p. 158). They focus on how education reflects
the treatment of minorities in the wider society. Three findings of this study revealed how
minority status affects school adjustment and students’ performance. The first is overall
educational policies and practices toward minority students. The second is how minority students
are treated in schools and classrooms. The third are the minimal positive affirmations that society
gives to minorities for their school qualifications, a fact that is evidenced in minorities’
employment and wages.
Summary of Literature Conclusion
This literature review emphasized how the school administrator plays a key role in
establishing a school culture that promotes a system of support for ELL students. The level of
preparation along with values and perceptions of the administrator are essential for developing
an effective collaborative system. The role of a school administrator in terms of supporting ELL
students is pivotal in promoting a collaborative culture that ensures equitable access to
instructional practices. The literature also addressed the gap between current ELL policy and the
implementation of such. Therefore, this study seeks to understand how school administrators use
policy to develop their systems of support for ELL students.
The research also reflects how teachers must continue to develop systems and encourage
adaptive and generative learning, while providing opportunities for our English language learner
students to access curriculum in classrooms. Developing instructional school-wide English
language learner strategies will provide a wider scope of focus to illicit equitable change within
schools. The current vision is to move toward a more inclusive instructional teaching model for
our English language learner students. Teachers must embrace every student as their own and be

48
responsible for their instruction. This study will seek to understand policy teachers use to
develop their systems of support for ELL students.
Researchers have focused on the importance of parent involvement in a child’s education
to promote and secure academic success. The topics covered in the literature review emphasized
how school culture administrators and teachers develop will promote parent engagement and
participation by motivating or discouraging their involvement. The literature also demonstrated
the significant role parents’ values, cultural backgrounds, and experiences play in their decision
to seek educational involvement. However, there is no known research that has examined why
school administrators and teachers are responsible for shifting and shaping the parent deficit
model to empower them and work together to strive for academic success together. This study is
an opportunity to fill the knowledge gap that exists today regarding the collaboration among
administrators, teachers, and parents. The goal of this study was to utilize the community inquiry
framework to help develop the systems of support for ELL students as guided by current policy.

49
Chapter Three: Methodology
English language learners (ELL) have experienced educational barriers that have resulted
in the need for proper implementation of policies. There is a need for principals and teachers to
address equity and access to break down these barriers and implement systematic change
effectively in a way that parents also support. The development of school-wide support services
that can affect equitable change in schools requires change from the core processes of the system
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Principals are equity system designers at school sites and can create a
seamless system of support that involves leaders, teachers, and parents to produce high levels of
ELLs’ success. Schools that embrace shared leadership between administrators and teaching staff
are better positioned to eliminate biases and stereotypes of English language learners (Massey et
al., 2014). Additionally, a positive and supportive school culture requires a move toward a more
inclusive instructional teaching model for K–12 English language learners. Also key to the
system design is the engagement of parents of ELLs during their children’s K–12 years. It is
important that principals, teachers, school staff, and parents work as partners to foster each
child’s success by coordinating instruction, language acquisition, and wraparound support that
focus on the child and their family so they can create a systemic design that reflects that child’s
rights to quality education.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insight into the comprehensive systems of support
necessary for ELL student academic success, as principals, teachers, and parents collaboratively
deliver. We have selected to focus on these three stakeholder groups to better understand their
knowledge about state and school policies, the current ELL support systems, and their
perceptions about system effectiveness. Utilizing a thematic research study approach, each of us

50
targeted a specific subgroup: principals, teachers, and parents. Gabriela Galvez-Reyna focused
on obtaining data from principals, Jarrod Bordi focused on teachers, and Michelle Correa studied
parents. We focused our research on the collaboration between principals, teachers, and parents
in providing a comprehensive system of support to ELL students. Examining how these elements
work together through the social, cognitive, and teaching lenses allowed us to analyze the current
conditions for ELL support (Garrison et al., 2001).
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
2. What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation
for administrators (principals), teachers, and parents to understand and effectively
deliver a comprehensive ELL support system?
3. What do administrators (principals), teachers, and parents perceive are the most
impactful components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they
perceive is a practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design
for greater student success?
Selection of the Population
The participants in our study were principals, teachers, and parents from two districts in
California that this study identified by the following pseudonyms: District 1 and District 2. After
we selected and interviewed the participants, we evaluated their data and findings to identify the
perceptions of the effectiveness of current ELL systems and examined their knowledge of and

51
experiences with English language learner policies to determine the quality of the current ELL
systems utilized in their school district and school site.
This study used a purposeful sampling to identify 18 principals, 54 parents and 54
teachers. One researcher surveyed and interviewed three elementary, three middle, and three
high school principals from each school district. Another researcher surveyed and interviewed
nine elementary, nine middle, and nine high school teachers from each school district. As for
parents, the third researcher collected data from nine elementary schools, nine middle schools,
and nine high schools from each school district.
This sampling produced a cross-district and cross grade-level comparison that helped
identify the trends in their responses following Lochmiller and Lester (2017), who stated the
ideal sample size in qualitative research enables researchers to make sound interpretations of the
data and to have sufficient data to ground and produce an in-depth report of their findings.
This study utilized a purposeful sampling technique, which is a form of non-probability.
This selection was based on our motivation to discover, understand, and gain a deeper insight
into the research problem. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a clear criterion directly
correlates with the study's purpose. Therefore, we selected the participants by ensuring they met
the study’s criteria—that is, they should have students or be parents of students who are
classified as ELLs or LTELS and who attend one of the two districts this study investigated. We
recruited participants by working collaboratively with principals, coaches, and coordinators who
support ELL students.

52
Design Summary
Methodology
This methodology of this study was qualitative and based on data from a pre-interview
survey and open-ended interviews with principals, teachers, and parents of ELLs across the two
districts selected. The pre-interview survey required participants to provide demographic
information, report on their experiences, and answer a series of Likert scale perception questions
that took participants approximately 15 minutes to complete (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
We offered the parent pre-interview survey in both English and Spanish. The answers to the pre-
interview survey informed follow-up questions that we asked in the primary interview to elicit
more thorough answers. This study utilized semi-structured interview protocols that provided
flexibility to ask follow-up questions based on the interviewees’ answers (Merriam, 2009). We
offered the parent interview questions in English and Spanish. The semi-structured interview
took each participant about 45 minutes to complete and focused on knowledge of and experience
with ELL policies, learning opportunities available to ELLs, and the support they have received.
Qualitative research encompasses a variety of interpretative and inductive approaches to
address our daily experiences (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This research employed a qualitative
lens that provided a positive paradigm to uncover the truth, rather than construct truth through
data interpretation. We analyzed the interviews by identifying priority questions and coding
responses to support identified trends in the data. We used data from pre-interview surveys and
interviews for coding interview transcripts, identifying priority codes for questions, and
organizing the codes into higher-level categories. This organizational process supported the
identification of abstract concepts that enabled the triangulation of data (Garces & Cogburn,

53
2015). Utilizing trends and themes from the responses shed light on the strengths and deficits of
the systems of support for ELLs.
Instrumentation and Protocols
Qualitative Instrument
Qualitative data was collected through a 4-point Likert scale with response categories of
1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), and 4 (strongly agree). Six items were assessed on
a rating scale in which 1 is least impactful and 5 is very impactful. We distributed the online
survey through Google Forms, a free online survey software questionnaire tool (see Appendices
B, E, and J). The interview protocols consisted of 16 questions each and included sub-questions
that were specific to the role group. The interviews consisted of guided questions and follow-up
questions that required our targeted planning as well as collaboration with the interviewees
(Tracy, 2013). The interview protocol focused the discussion on the site principal’s, teachers’,
and parents’ understanding of the resources, training, and policies that support ELL students in
their district (see Appendices D, G, M, and N). We conducted the interviews face-to-face,
virtually, or by phone to allow flexibility for the participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Further, we used a clearly defined protocol and procedural method to establish trust. With the
permission of each participant, we recorded the interviews to ensure the collection of quality
data, which they reviewed and used to identify themes (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Data Collection
Research for this study followed the data collection steps Creswell (2009) and Merriam
(2009) described, which include: (a) locating the individual and/or site; (b) following steps to
gain access and create a relationship with participants; (c) purposefully sampling; (d) collecting
data and recording information; (e) solving any field issues that may occur; and (f) storing the

54
data. We collected qualitative data from a pre-survey and open-ended interview answers
obtained from principals, teachers, and parents of ELLs from District 1 and District 2 to address
this study’s three research questions. The pre-interview survey and interview included protocol
explaining the purpose of the study to the participants, informing them of the approximate time
the study would take, and explaining the interview questions we used to address the three
research questions.
As stated above, we collected qualitative data from the pre-interview surveys and
interviews with nine site principals, 54 teachers, and 54 parents that represent each of the two
school districts from the three educational levels: elementary school, middle school, and high
school. Gabriela Galvez-Reyna surveyed and interviewed three elementary, three middle school,
and three high school principals from each of the aforementioned school districts. Jarrod Bordi
interviewed nine elementary teachers, nine middle school teachers and nine high school teachers
from the two case study districts. Michelle Correa surveyed and interviewed nine parents from
elementary, nine from middle school, and nine from high school. We used purposeful sampling
to ensure the participants meet the selection criteria. According to Maxwell (2013), selecting
individuals who provided the researcher with the information needed to answer the research
question “is the most important consideration in qualitative selection decisions.” We obtained
prior consent from each participant, and they informed participants in writing that their
individual responses were confidential (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Principals, teachers, and parents who participated in the pre-interview survey and
interviews received the opportunity to choose a date, time, and modality of in person and virtual
appointments. According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), it is important that interviewees feel
comfortable and supported during the interview process. We also notified the participants that

55
the interviews were recorded and ensured they felt comfortable with the process. Each interview
took approximately 45 minutes to complete, but participants could have been asked if they could
be contacted by phone later if there was a need to clarify information (Patton, 2002). We
transcribed and reviewed the interviews.
Data Analysis
We conducted surveys and interviews to analyze the qualitative data throughout the
collection process by utilizing an iterative approach to make the necessary adjustments.
Analyzing qualitative data is a type of cooperative and reflective process that begins when the
data is collected (Stake, 1994). This research study used a qualitative approach to analyze text
and audio. We used NVivo software to assist with the coding of text data. This software
supported us in the organization and identification of patterns of codes within the data to better
analyze trends. This study used Boeije’s (2002) constant comparative model to analyze and
review research data. The constant comparative model helps with “traceability of verification of
the analyses” (Boeije, 2002, p. 391), and it helped in answering our research questions. This
model employed a step-by-step method for coding, labeling, and comparing information from the
data sources. This process aligns with Creswell’s recommendations because it supports a process
for outlining the data-gathering process (Creswell, 2009, p. 187).
Creswell (2009) recommended researchers select an approach to data gathering that
focuses on developing information collected from study participants by using predetermined
codes or a combination of predetermined and developing codes. We used a combination of
predetermined and developing codes we intended to obtain from the interview and survey
questions. This approach provided data that aligns with the answers from the research questions.
We intended to limit the scope of the codes and responses from surveys and interviews so that

56
we could identify multiple themes that could provide and organize responses to our research
questions.
We reviewed the interviews and surveys to synthesize the findings. The interviews and
survey responses were coded separately (Saldaña, 2016). The coding process allowed us to
triangulate the qualitative data from the research findings with the stakeholder group, the policies
examined, and the review of the literature to identify how they intersect. Social cognitive theory
guided the analysis of how these three components intersect and allowed us to evaluate the
current conditions of support for ELLs (Garrison et al., 2001).
Validity and Reliability
This study established strong validity and reliability by following Maxwell (2013) and
Salkind (2017). There were two validity threats in this study, namely research bias and reactivity.
Research bias was considered to secure validity, which is the selection of data that fits the goal of
the research. Reactivity refers to how the researchers can influence data collection and thus
affect the validity of the inferences drawn from the interviews.
All researchers ensured to conduct field tests using both pre-survey and interview
questions to ensure validity with our instruments. According to Salkind (2013), researchers can
assure reliability by using explicit instructions and guidance during interviews. The pre-interview
survey and 16-interview questions provided reliable and robust data that addressed our research
questions. This study provided interview questions in difficulty order, starting with personal
questions before moving to content-based questions.

57
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach to gain insights into the comprehensive systems of
support for ELLs’ academic success, which depend on and result from the collaboration of
principals, teachers, and parents in the elementary, middle, and high school settings. We
collected qualitative data from interviews as well as the review of the English language master
plans from the two school districts, pseudonym District 1 and District 2. They conducted data
analysis in alignment with the study’s three research questions:
1. How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
2. What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation
for principals, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELL support system?
3. What do principals, teachers, and parents perceive to be the most impactful
components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a
practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater
student success?
We conducted the selection of the participants in alignment with the overall criteria of the
study. We detailed the process for data analysis and identified limitations of this study. One
potential limitation of the study was the small sample size of participants. Another potential
limitation was the experience of the teachers, principals, and parents with the ELD program.
Interviews and surveys also represented a snapshot of the day and time. Lastly, the individual
positionalities as researchers were considered as a possible limitation.

58
I am a woman of color and serve as a principal and an educator. My primary language is
Spanish; I am a first-generation college student of Mexican descent. Both of my parents are
monolingual. I am also the first born and first in my family to learn English and learned how to
navigate the school system. As a current elementary principal serving and guiding teachers and
parents of ELL students in Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District, I am aware of my own
biases based on her role and experiences.
Michelle Correa identifies herself as a woman of color who is an educator. She is a first-
generation college student of Ecuadorian descent, Spanish-speaking, brown complexion and
identifies as a Latina. Her parents are both immigrant monolinguals; she personally observed
them navigate the school system and the adversities they endured due to their culture, language,
and lack of knowledge. Michelle’s professional goal as an educator was to create authentic
connections with all her students' parents by empowering them to break barriers and provide
them with the necessary tools to be successful. As a current Multi-System Support Advisor for
Los Angeles Unified School District, she continues to offer her support and services to students
and families.
Jarrod Bordi identifies as a man of color. He is a first-generation college student of
Mexican and Italian descent. His grandparents immigrated to the United States from Mexico and
Italy. His grandparents shared stories of educational inequities and their experiences attending
segregated schools in El Centro, California. He has been a high school principal for the last 10
years. Thirty percent of the student population at this high school are designated as English
language learners and ninety percent of the student population qualify as socioeconomically
disadvantaged.

59
The limitations did not prohibit a deep qualitative dive into the review of the research
questions and data because the variety of data provided was robust. These limitations may differ
between the two districts due to differing processes of classification level and resignation with
ELD placement.
In Chapter 4, we present the findings of the study, followed by the discussion of the
findings in Chapter 5. For related research findings see Bordi (2023) for teacher perceptions and
Correa (2023) for parent perceptions.

60
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this thematic study was to provide insight into the comprehensive systems
of support necessary for ELL students’ academic success, as school administrators, teachers, and
parents collaboratively deliver them. This thematic study was a case study by three researchers
conducted by looking at how three stakeholder groups—principals, teachers, and parents—
contribute to a high-quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL students’ academic
success. Each researcher examined one of the three stakeholder groups. I focused on school
principals’ knowledge of district and school policies, existing ELL support systems, and
perceptions of system effectiveness. The findings I report in this chapter highlight the existing
systems of support identified by principals from two school districts in California in which more
than 20% of the student populations were ELLs. I collected data via individual interviews and
surveys of 14 participants. Three research questions regarding each school district guided the
study:
1. How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
2. What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation
for administrators, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELL support system?
3. What do administrators, teachers, and parents perceive are the most impactful
components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a
practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater
student success?

61
Participants
I sent invitations (Appendix A) to participate in the study to 18 principals from two
public school districts in California that served many ELLs. Fourteen of the principals invited
agreed to complete a survey and participate in the interview process (Table 1). Invitations were
sent via email to six high school, six middle school, and six elementary school principals. Table
2 indicates the total number of participants from each school district and from each educational
level along with the percentages of ELL students they served. Table 3 provides characteristics of
the participants. This chapter uses pseudonyms to refer to both the participants and their school
districts.

Table 1
Study Participants
District Invited to participate Participated to completion % of ELLs in student population
Overall 18 14
CA District 1 9 5 21.4
CA District 2 9 9 21.1

Note. CA = California; ELL = English language learner.

62
Table 2
Participants’ School Levels and Districts
School level CA District 1 CA District 2 Total
Elementary 2 3 5
Middle 1 3 4
High 2 3 5

Note. CA = California.

Table 3
Interview and Survey Participants
Participant District School level Years as
principal
Principal A CA District 1 Middle 2
Principal B CA District 2 High 4
Principal C CA District 2 Middle 13
Principal D CA District 2 Elementary 7
Principal E CA District 2 Elementary 2
Principal F CA District 2 Elementary 6
Principal G CA District 1 High 2
Principal H CA District 2 Middle 3
Principal I CA District 2 Middle 2
Principal J CA District 1 Elementary 1
Principal K CA District 1 Elementary 1
Principal L CA District 1 High 3
Principal M CA District 2 High 9
Principal N CA District 2 High 1

Note. Participants and districts are labeled with pseudonyms. CA = California.

63
Results
In this section, I present the results organized by research question. The subsection for
each research question includes results regarding two themes. Each subsection concludes with a
summary of the results. The chapter ends with an overall summary of the results. Table 4
indicates the alignment between the research questions and interview questions.

Table 4
Alignment of Interview Questions and Research Questions
Interview question Research question
1 2 3
2 x
3 x
4 x
5 x
6 x
7 x x
8 x x x
9 x
10 x
11 x
12 x
13 x
14 x x
15 x
16 x

64
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was as follows: How does the school district leverage its policies to
ensure the delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system for its students? The focus of this
question is on how school administrators implement a school district’s policies to develop a
comprehensive system of support for ELL students. The data used to answer this research
question derived from participants’ responses to Interview Questions 4, 8, 10–13, and 15. The
following two themes emerged as evidence for the findings:
1. Principals emphasized that district policies helped guide administrators’ allocation of
specific resources to help support systems for ELL students.
2. Principals agreed that existing training for principals, teachers, and parents was
guided by district policies to meet the needs of ELL students.
Principals Emphasized That District Policies Helped Guide Administrators’ Allocation of
Specific Resources to Help Support Systems for ELL Students
Researchers have found school districts that give priority to offering effective services to
ELL students invest in the resources necessary to do so (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Reyes & Gentry,
2019; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). Manning (2021) emphasized in the research findings that
administrators who focused on resources allocation for ELL students were crucial in allowing
teachers to focus on the student learning. Theoharis and O’Toole (2011) found school districts
that prioritize effective services for ELL students invested in the necessary resources. Overall,
prior research has found providing resources was essential to student achievement. The
responses from the participating principals concurred with these existing findings. In their
interview and survey responses, the principals identified how the resources their school districts

65
provided (along with those funded by their schools) aided the development of comprehensive
systems of support for ELL students.
In support of this theme, nine out of 14 principals mentioned during their interviews how
they implemented their ELL support systems. Each mentioned that their district used its policies
to help schools with staffing support in the form of specialized teachers, coordinators, or tutors.
Principal A supported this theme: “I feel that it is a priority to have a full-time teacher to truly
address the needs of ELL students.” The principal further explained, “ELL students at my site
benefit from this specialized instruction that is also supported by a bilingual tutor” (Principal A).
Some participants also mentioned how district policy guided them to specifically allocate Title 1
funding to hire extra support. For example, Principal L shared part of his ELL system was
supported by allocating extra funding for staffing: “We have a budget set aside to hire after-
school tutors to work specifically with our ELL students.” Others mentioned using such funding
for specific instructional resources, such as computerized programs that offered individualized
instruction. The words of Principal D sum up the belief most principals had regarding support:
It is important for our system of support to have specific curriculum resources within our
current adoption that supports both designated and integrated ELD time. The curriculum
resources need to include lesson ideas and sentence frames and support. We also have
personnel resources that include personnel from the district level. We have a designated
teacher on special assignment that supports principals and teachers with specific training
around instructional strategies that help with access to instruction for ELL students across
the district.
In their interviews, the principals emphasized district policies helped guide
administrators’ allocation of specific resources to help support systems for ELL students.

66
However, the survey data indicated although principals were knowledgeable of district ELL
policies (see Figure 1), 6 out of the 14 did not feel confident about their level of knowledge
regarding how to use the supports available (see Figure 2). Furthermore, seven of the participants
agreed their districts had effective systems in place to support ELL students’ academic progress,
but seven did not (see Figure 3). Interestingly, similar results emerged when participants were
asked about the effectiveness of the systems in their own schools (see Figure 4).

Figure 1
Responses to Survey Item “I Am Well Versed in the ELL Policies of My District

Note. The figure is based on the number of principals that agreed or disagreed with the
statement. ELL = English language learner.

67
Figure 2
Responses to Survey Item “I Am Highly Knowledgeable About How to Utilize the Supports
Available for ELL Students in My School District.”

Note. The figure is based on the number of principals that agreed or disagreed with the
statement. ELL = English language learner.

68
Figure 3
Responses to Survey Item “My School District Has Effective Systems in Place That Support ELL
Students’ Academic Progress”

Note. The figure is based on the number of principals that agreed or disagreed with the
statement. ELL = English language learner

69
Figure 4
Responses to Survey Item “My School Site Has Effective Systems in Place That Support ELL
Students’ Academic Progress”

Note. The figure is based on the number of principals that agreed or disagreed with the statement.
ELL = English language learner

Principals Agreed That Existing Training for Principals, Teachers, and Parents Was Guided
by District Policies With the Intent of Meeting the Needs of ELL Students
Researchers investigating the promotion of equity and access among ELL students have
identified the importance of district-level support, including opportunities for training principals,
teachers, and parents (Luna, 2020). Manning (2021) found a strong correlation between teachers
who had received training on strategies that support ELL students and student success.
Furthermore, teachers felt supported when their principals attended training with them. Existing
research has found parent involvement within schools depends on the amount of training,
exposure to strategies, knowledge, and clear expectations the school and district provides (Al-
Mahrooqui et.al, 2016; Gibson, 2002; Téllez & Waxman, 2010). Existing research has also found

70
administrators’ level of preparation and understanding of instructional practices and policies help
set as a priority the success of ELL students (Luna, 2020; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011).
All 14 principals mentioned the support they received from their districts, including
training for parents of ELL students through their district English language advisory committees,
as guided by district policy. Each district committee reported back to the English language
advisory committees at the schools. Based on the input the district received, the district
developed and offered workshops for parents on different topics, including the resources
available to them at the district level and how to support their students’ academic and social-
emotional well-being. Principal L emphasized the importance of these groups and how the
resulting interconnectedness created a system of support for ELL students:
Our ELAC [English Language Advisory Committee] group, which is an extraordinarily
strong group, that advocates for specific school resources that families wish for and that
they know that their students need. And then they see the needs across the whole district
coming from school to school so they can help offer that support.
Principal H also explained how ELL students benefited from the support their parents received:
Well, we have ELAC [English Language Advisory Committee] at our school, which is on
the committee for parents to learn more about ways to help their students at home. And
aside from that, I know that our administrative team conducts a series of workshops for
parents to learn about different resources that they have and that we have available to
them to stay connected with their students’ academic progress.
Principals also agreed district policies guided training for principals to meet the needs of
ELL students. Most principals said their districts required them to attend annual meetings with
other principals to review their current ELPAC data and reclassification criteria. However, most

71
could not recall training that helped them guide instructional practices for ELL students.
Principal B captured what most principals expressed: “I am thinking about recent principal
meetings and having time to dig in and review what the data are showing. But as far as
techniques or strategies. That will go back several years.” Although many principals agreed they
had not received continuous training as school site administrators, during the interviews they
mentioned how district policy allowed them to access some level of training every year regarding
reclassification criteria.
District policy also guided teacher training. Principals said that, according to district
policy, school sites had to offer at least one staff development each year regarding ELL students
to all members of the teaching staff. During this staff development, each principal reviewed the
reclassification process and requirements and current ELPAC data for the school. Many
mentioned their districts had provided limited access to training regarding instructional strategies
addressing the needs of ELL students alone. Regarding training for teachers specifically,
principals echoed the sentiment of Principal N: “I think we could do a better job of that. The
intention is well meaning, but I think the same way we put a big focus on math and LA
[language arts] and strategies, etcetera. We can put more spotlight on training to support ELL
needs.”
In their interviews, principals emphasized district policies helped guide training for
principals, teachers, and parents, but survey data indicated a significant need for principals to
learn how to work within existing policy. When principals were asked to respond to the
statement “I understand how to work within the existing policy structures to deliver quality
support to students,” eight agreed, but seven disagreed (see Figure 5).

72
Figure 5
Responses to Survey Item “I Understand How to Work Within the Existing Policy Structure to
Deliver Quality ELL Support to Students”

Note. The figure is based on the number of principals that agreed or disagreed with the statement.
ELL = English language learner

Discussion of Research Question 1
Although the aim of Research Question 1 was to identify how school districts leveraged
their policies to ensure delivery of comprehensive ELL support systems for students, the key
themes emerging from the interviews of the principals related to use of resources and training.
The survey data indicated a lack of knowledge in almost half of the participants regarding how to
use the support available for ELL students. Therefore, the principals discussed resources in terms
of staffing and curriculum to explain how districts leveraged their policies. Participants also
focused in their interviews on the training that districts offered to principals, teachers, and
parents, because discussion of this occurred annually. In terms of comprehensive ELL support
systems, the survey data indicated half of the participants agreed their districts and school sites
had effective systems. The responses to the interview questions focused explicitly on the

73
resources provided and the need for greater alignment between resources and training to increase
support available to ELL students.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was as follows: What are the intentional design components that
make up the system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents to understand and
effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system? The following two themes emerged as
evidence for the findings:
1. Principals agreed there is a need to increase the opportunities to collaborate and align
resources among district, principals, and teachers so support will better meet ELL
students’ needs.
2. Principals stressed the importance of integrating instructional practices that best meet
the needs of ELL students across all content areas.
Principal Agreed There Is a Need to Increase the Opportunities to Collaborate and Align
Resources Among District, Principals, and Teachers So Support Will Better Meet ELL
Students’ Needs.
Researchers have found principals constantly need to diagnose the needs of staff,
students, and parents and the demands of policies, context, and the communities they serve (Day
et al., 2016; Hattie, 2015). Collaboration among these individuals fosters opportunities to interact
and form a sense of community while developing and maintaining strong academic,
instructional, and social systems for ELLs. Annand (2011) argued without group-based
interaction, individuals cannot create the common values, goals, and language necessary for
effective teaching and learning to occur. Awareness of ELL needs can assist with aligning
instructional strategies and resources for the increasing diverse population (Hitt & Tucker, 2016;

74
Reyes & Gentry, 2019). Through collaborative opportunities, a collective understanding of needs
can lead to better alignment of resources (Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). Fullan and Quinn (2016)
argued effective systems of support strive for coherence and alignment through structures that
support collaboration. The research findings suggest there is a need to increase collaboration to
meet ELL students' needs.
Participating principals agreed supporting ELL students requires increasing collaboration
opportunities. They said policies in place guided training and support, but those policies were not
enough on their own to support a system in which ELL students can thrive. Principal M
passionately emphasized the importance of having collaborative opportunities to discuss the
resources, curriculum, and training provided based on the needs of students: “Our collaborative
conversations help guide the training and support our teachers at the site who facilitate learning.”
Principals said there is a need for intentional collaboration with district offices and those
leading at school sites. Most principals mentioned the need for, and importance of, collaboration.
Principal I said, “It is important that the district office aligns their supports and resources based
on the needs of ELL students and work in tandem with principals, counselors, and teachers
through a process of collaboration.” The collaboration must involve the key players who guide
students. Some of the principals mentioned the efforts they made to ensure their systems
supported teacher-teacher collaboration opportunities. Principal D said, “Our goal is to have
opportunities built into the school year to have deep conversations guided by data with the
classroom teachers, so we provide timely support.” Others said collaborative efforts must also
involve other teacher experts. Principal H said, “We make sure we continuously seek support
from our curriculum and instruction department to help us align training based on the needs.”

75
In their interviews, most principals mentioned collaboration as an important design
component for aligning policy with resources to better understand the needs of ever-changing
ELL populations. The survey gauged participants’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of their
existing systems of collaboration with respect to impacting and supporting academic
achievement for ELL students. Existing research is clear about the importance of parent-teacher,
teacher-teacher, and teacher-principal collaboration. Leithwood (2021) found that principals are
responsible for building productive trusting environments in which parents can collaborate with
teachers and advocate for the rights of diverse students. Hattie (2015) argued teacher self-
efficacy is supported through teachers collaborating and sharing best practices to ensure
academic success for their students. The results of this study indicate principals agree
collaboration is an effective component that is impacting and supporting academic achievement
for the ELL students (see Figures 6–8).

Figure 6
Responses to Survey Item “How Effective Do You Think the Current System of Parent–Teacher
Collaboration Is in Impacting and Supporting Academic Achievement for the ELL Student?”

Note. Measured with a scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very impactful). ELL = English
language learner.

76
Figure 7
Responses to Survey Item “How Impactful Do You Think the Practice of Teacher–Teacher
Collaboration Is in Supporting ELL Students’ Academic Achievement?”

Note. Measured with a scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very impactful). ELL = English
language learner.

Figure 8
Responses to Survey Item “How Impactful Do You Think the Practice of Principal–Teacher
Collaboration Is in Supporting ELL Students’ Academic Achievement?”

Note. Measured with a scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very impactful). ELL = English
language learner.

77
Principals Stressed the Importance of Integrating Instructional Practices That Best Meet the
Needs of ELL Students Across All Content Areas
Russell and Von Esch (2018) concluded common equitable classroom instructional
practices for ELL students effectively can help meet those students’ needs. Research by Garrison
(2017) concluded students learn content best when engaged in cognitive processes that include
thinking, listening, and expressing thought in critical discourse. Furthermore, existing research
(Hattie, 2015; Pettit, 2011; Rizzuto, 2017) supports empowering teachers with instructional
strategies and addressing their beliefs and perceptions of ELL students. Teachers’ beliefs
influence their instruction and, consequently, their practices influence student outcomes
(Rizzuto, 2017). Students’ perceptions of lack of support in their learning environment could be
sufficient to disengage from learning the content (LeClair et al., 2009). In this study, a recurring
idea principals mentioned during their interviews was the need for integration of instructional
strategies throughout all content areas. To ensure equity and access for ELL students, principals
stated, every educator needs to be well informed of the strategies that help students access the
content they teach. Principal M described how there is a gap in knowledge between his ELD
teacher and others who taught only content:
My English teachers were struggling with supporting some ELL students in their class.
To help address this gap, his ELD teacher had begun using one of her teaching periods to
help other teachers understand the best practices for helping students.
Principal M argued teacher guidance cannot be left to experts stationed at the district level.
Principal N stated not thinking about training all teachers in all content areas denies
student’s equitable access. Principal D further stated paying attention to current needs,
specifically of ELL students, must occur “so it is not equal, but it is equitable. I really feel like

78
that support needs to be someone who can provide coaching to all teachers in the form of side-
by-side coaching is highly needed.” This principal, along with others, highlighted the importance
of integrated ELD in all content areas and emphasized the lack of training teachers have
received. Principal F summarizes several sentiments shared by principals in their statement:
Even with these policies and structures in place as I shared, I do feel like they kind of can
fall to the wayside. We need to ensure strategies are implemented that support our ELL
students and streamline our instructional focus to better support our ELLs.
Discussion of Research Question 2
Collaboration and integration of instructional strategies across all content areas are
important themes that emerged in connection with the intentional design components of the
system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents. Although survey responses
indicated districts and school sites offered annual training to principals, teachers, and parents, a
recurring theme was the need for training in instructional strategies that give students access to
curriculum throughout the instructional day. The participants’ responses indicated a strong focus
on collaboration is key to the intentional design of a systemic approach. Participants expressed
the need to structure opportunities for discussion of the needs and support of ELL students
among principals, teachers, and parents. Giving students equitable access requires intentional
design structured within a collaborative system approach.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was as follows: What do administrators, teachers, and parents perceive
are the most impactful components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they
perceive is a practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater
student success? The following two themes emerged as evidence for the findings:

79
1. Principals believed an impactful component needed to increase ELL students’ success
was continuous training for principals and teachers to help build capacity around best
practices.
2. Principals perceived accountability and alignment with data were needed to improve
the system design for greater student success.
Principals Believed an Impactful Component Needed to Increase ELL Students’ Success Was
Continuous Training for Principals and Teachers to Help Build Capacity Around Best
Practices
All participants said their districts and school sites offered annual training for principals,
teachers, and parents. However, the training received was not continuous, and the principals
perceived it as not building the capacity needed to increase ELL students’ academic success.
Reyes and Gentry (2019) concluded that the principal is the instructional leader at their site;
therefore, it is important for administrators serving as instructional leaders to understand ELL
needs and research-based teaching practices. Furthermore, principals overall mentioned how they
needed to better understand how to support their teachers to meet the needs of ELLs.
Community of inquiry theory calls for cognitive presence throughout learning (Garrison
et al., 2010). Capacity building thus can occur only through continuous opportunities to gather
and learn. Researchers also have found when teachers have a good understanding of the type of
support they need, this helps them build confidence, encourages ongoing learning, and enables
them to do their best in their work with ELL students (Elfers & Stritikus, 2013). Building
capacity through continuous training thus can build a better system of support for ELL students.
The findings from this study align well with existing research that indicates the
importance of continuous ongoing training to support the learning process (Manning, 2021).

80
When principals were asked about the elements, they would include in developing a school-wide
system of support for ELL students, 11 of the 14 leaders mentioned the need for continuous
training. Principal C was emphatic about the clear continuous training needed across principals,
teachers, and parents: “ELD training needs to be seen as a continuum so that we can support our
teachers when we observe instruction with appropriate feedback.” Four principals described the
need for ongoing professional development that starts with training principals and trickles down
to teachers. Three principals described the need for specific training with a focus on how ELLs
can best access and develop literacy skills and critical thinking skills. Principal A said:
I think starting with principals having training and then our teacher leaders who lead a lot
of the content instruction and then our teachers need training, even my bilingual tutor
benefits from continuous training. The training will also support our family engagement.
I really feel like that should be ongoing, right? When our families are more connected
with school and involvement, that helps with students also being more engaged, right?
Most principals indicated in the survey their districts were offering annual training (see
Figure 9). However, based on the principal interviews, annual training was not perceived as
sufficient to support students. Principal M said, “I do not think we offer enough emphasis. It is
just little tidbits here and there. We need to provide more structured staff training, complete
teacher training for servicing English learners.”
Principal E also suggested ongoing staff development that supports a principal and their
teachers: “I believe our system needs ongoing PD [professional development]. Our professional
development needs to be delivered throughout the year to support our teachers. That is not just a
one-time thing.”

81
Figure 9
Responses to Survey Item “My School District Offers Yearly Opportunities to Learn
Instructional Strategies That Support ELL Students”

Note. The figure is based on the number of principals that agreed or disagreed with the statement.
ELL = English language learner.

Principal L captured the importance of continuous training and the way it can support
students directly through instruction of teachers and guidance of principals in their statement,
“But I have to be honest. Most of this training needs to focus on building that capital within the
teachers to support and help students. They are the ones with the eye on the ground. And it is my
job to help you build that capital within my school site.”
Principals Perceived Accountability and Alignment With Data Were Needed to Improve the
System Design for Greater Student Success
Principals felt although policies were written to support ELL students, implementation of
such policies lacked accountability and alignment with data. Principal D said, “But I also do
believe that the implementation is not as strong due to lack of accountability.” Principals shared
their frustration with the implementation of instruction, which is the most important part of a

82
system of support for ELL students. Principals said when they walked into their classrooms, they
did not see the implementation of instructional practices supporting language development.
Principal L said, “I do walkthroughs of my classrooms, and I do not see students talking so
much. To learn a language, they need to speak, you know.”
The best way to secure accountability is from the inside out (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Participating principals said one way to promote accountability is by asking questions that lead
to reflection regarding the supports ELL students need. For example, Principal A said, “We all
have ELLs in our classes. So how do we really serve our students? How are we really supporting
them? How are we really communicating what is working and not working with other peers,
students, and parents?” The principals agreed a system of accountability can lead to better
alignment of instruction and support for ELL students. Principal F stated using data, alignment,
and accountability are important and are what California has been expecting teachers and leaders
to implement:
Well, I would say that when we look at the California standards for the teaching
profession, there it highlights that we are ensuring that we are using data-driven practices
to meet the needs of our students. So, if we have students who are English learners, then
we are held accountable to make sure that we are giving them those instructional minutes
and utilizing resources and outreach techniques and partnering with parents.
During their interviews, principals often expressed frustration with the lack of data
analysis used to guide instruction and said using data can help support an effective system for
ELL students. Rueda (2011) discussed the “big three” failures of school systems: (a)
fragmentation of approaches, (b) misalignment of approaches and goals, and (c) failure to match
solutions to problems. Most principals at all levels—high, middle, and elementary school—said

83
they had specific data that helped them monitor the progress and needs of the ELL students.
Gathering data was not an issue. The challenge they had was delivery of instruction that helped
address students’ needs based on the data. Principal D shared the true reality of this struggle:
I have to say, [this is] my seventh year. This is the first year that we are really looking at
data like looking at where our kids are. We are looking at what levels our students are.
Who is moving, who is not, who is a lifer? What kinds of intentional things that we can
do that can support our ELLs.
Discussion of Research Question 3
Overall, principals perceived the existing systems of support were missing important
components that could improve ELL students’ success, such as the sufficiency of training.
Although the survey results indicated school districts and schools offered annual training, the
training was not continuous. Principals perceived having exposure to the training before or along
with their teachers can help with providing timely support. Although participants acknowledged
parent training and involvement is a lever for change, their answers focused on building principal
and teacher capacity. Participants also perceived accountability and alignment as impactful
practices that needed improvement. These findings follow some of the principles the California
Department of Education (2017) espoused. Overall, principals called for system conditions
supporting effectiveness, alignment, and articulation within and across systems. Principals
believed there was a lack of deep knowledge of the existing ELL policy in California. Such lack
of knowledge could lead to a lack of access to information and thus breakdowns in
implementation.

84
Summary
This chapter reported the research findings from the qualitative interviews and surveys
completed by 14 school leaders from two school districts in California. The findings addressed
three research questions. Research Question 1 focused on the participants’ knowledge of district
leveraging of policy to support ELL students. Research Question 2 focused on the participants’
understanding of the intentional design components making up systems of preparation for
administrators, teachers, and parents to deliver comprehensive ELL support systems effectively.
Research Question 3 focused on the participants’ perceptions of the most impactful components
of ELL systems of support and the practices in need of replacement or adoption to improve
system design for greater student success. The findings indicated the research participants had
knowledge of district ELL policies, and the resources and training they received aligned with
existing policy but were insufficient. Research participants also noted collaboration and
strategies supporting ELL students needed to be integrated in all content areas. Participants
perceived accountability and continuous training as necessary additions to improve and
effectively deliver comprehensive ELL support systems. These findings overall show a need for
a better aligned systemic approach beginning with the definition of a collaborative partnership
system of parents, teacher, and principals, to a systemic design for capacity building across all
three partners that delivers high quality instructional designs and supports for ELL students, to
an accountability system that more clearly defines roles and responsibilities of the triad
collaborative of parents, teachers, and principals.

85
Chapter Five: Discussion
In Chapter 5, I summarized findings that can help better guide district and school
administrators to serve ELL students successfully. I attempted to provide thoughtful insight to
ensure policymakers and district and school administrators will be able to use these findings as a
resource to further advocate for effective educational systems that support ELL students and
contribute to equitable access to instruction.
This study is part of a case study that examined the K–12 systems that support the
academic success of ELLs, with an analytic focus on the perceptions of principals, teachers, and
parents that revealed how these stakeholders can better understand and effectively provide a
more comprehensive support system for ELLs. This study focused on the perspectives of
principals and explored to what extent school districts leverage their policies to ensure the
delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system for students. It also shed light on the
intentional design components that make up the preparation for administrators, teachers, and
parents to understand and effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system. Finally, this
study highlights what principals perceive as the most impactful components of the ELL support
system and what practices need to be added or improved. For related research findings, see Bordi
(2023) on teachers’ perceptions and Correa (2023) for parents’ perceptions. The following
questions guided this study:
1. How does a school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive support system for its ELLs?
2. What are the intentional design components that develop the system of preparation
offered to principals, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELLs support system?

86
3. What do principals, teachers, and parents perceive as the most impactful components
of the design system of support for ELLs, and what practices do they think should be
replaced, or added, to improve the system design that leads to student success?
Findings
The findings from this research suggest accountability, collaboration, and continuous
training are simultaneously necessary to improve and effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL
support system. Principals also emphasized the importance of integrating strategies that support
ELL students in all content areas. Findings additionally suggested knowledge of ELL policies
helps guide resources and yearly training that guide current ELL systems of support at the school
sites. Six themes emerged related to the study’s three research questions. In this section, I present
a summary and discussion of the study’s findings and relationship to current practice and
existing research. I include recommendations for future research.
Research Question 1
RQ1: How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
Triangulation of principal interview and survey findings produced two key findings.
Principals emphasized district policies help guide administrators with the allocation of specific
resources to help create systems for ELL students. Additionally, principals agreed district
policies guide current training for principals and teachers with the intent to create capacity to
meet the needs of the ELL students.
The first finding in relation to RQ1 was the importance of district policies in providing
guidance on effective resources that ensure the delivery of a comprehensive system of support
for ELL students. Principals emphasized district policies help guide administrators with the

87
allocation of specific resources to help design support systems for ELL students. The support
system includes a look at capacity, instructional materials, and training, such as extra support
staff, materials that support instruction, and the yearly training offered to administrators,
teachers, and parents. Findings showed principals rely on the guidance of district policy to
allocate funds for resources that can support their ELL system at their school sites.
This finding aligns with research by Elfers and Stritikus (2013), which stated leadership
at the central office played a prominent role in how districts organized support for ELL students.
It also aligned with Yaafouri (2019), who argued for the importance of resources in helping
principals and teachers with instruction for ELL students and support for their parents. ELL
education policies have called for programs that meet students’ linguistic and academic needs,
but effective ELL program design and implementation requires a delicate balance between
provision of services and segregation (Thompson, 2013). In other words, targeted resources
designed for ELL support should not be conflated with a delivery model of supports that
segregates ELLs. The effective allocation and access to resources provided to ELL students can
help bring equitable solutions that go beyond compliance and ensures ELLs are a welcomed part
of the learning community.
The second finding about RQ1 was the importance of district policy in guiding training
for principals and teachers to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive system of support for ELL
students. Principals agreed district policies guide current training for principals and teachers to
meet the needs of the ELL students. Of the 14 principals, 11 agreed their school district offers
yearly opportunities to learn strategies to support ELL students. Those same 11 agreed this
training is offered yearly at their school sites. The interviews highlighted the importance of
having a policy that guides the training for principals, teachers, and parents. This finding aligns

88
with existing research that have found when administrators understand the relevant language,
terminology, and critical research-based strategies, they can have meaningful discussions with
and give feedback to teachers, as well as help allocate funds for the resources needed (Lucas,
2002; Padron & Waxman, 2016; Reyes & Gentry, 2019). Other researchers found principals who
have a vision for effective ELL instruction can create coherent and aligned instructional goals
and invest the resources necessary to accomplish those goals (Luna, 2020; Theoharis & O’Toole,
2011). Principals can develop a vision for academic success that includes all students by
providing teachers with instructional support as well as opportunities for professional
development (Luna, 2020). However, as I will discuss later in this chapter, principals also
pointed to the need for more on-going and consistent training throughout the year.
Research Question 2
RQ2: What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation
for administrators, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a comprehensive
ELL support system?
The second research question's main purpose is to have principals identify the intentional
design components that make up the system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and
parents to understand the needs of ELL students. The data used for analyzing RQ2 was based on
interview and survey responses. Principals agreed that increasing the opportunities to collaborate
and align resources amongst district administrators, principals, and teachers would provide better
support that meets the needs of the ELL students. Principals stressed the importance of
integrating instructional practices across the curriculum to ensure equity of access to instruction.
The first finding about RQ2 was the importance of collaborative opportunities to discuss
needs and best instructional practices for ELL students. Principals agreed collaboration is a vital

89
component that makes up a system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents.
During the interview process, all 14 participants mentioned the importance of engaging in
collaborative opportunities to guide the training needed for principals, teachers, and parents.
Principals noted through collaboration between the district and principals, principals and
teachers, and teachers and parents, there would be improved alignment of resources to meet the
needs of ELL students. Principals expressed the coordination of collaborative opportunities
helped with meeting the preparation needs for different school sites and the alignment of
resources needed to meet the specific, but always changing, needs of the ELL students, as well as
for the teachers, support staff, and parents who help guide them.
The finding is consistent with Fullan and Quinn (2016), who emphasized how a culture
of collaboration needs to be encouraged and cultivated to promote learning and accelerate
improvement. Theoharis and O’Toole (2011) found collaboration is a key factor in
comprehensive school reform, as it is a driving force for change: “Authentic collaboration and
leadership distribution depends on strong beliefs about the value of collaboration and leadership
distribution on the part of leaders along with open communication with staff, students, and
parents” (p. 14). Advocating for the rights of diverse students and their families, Angelides et al.
(2010) detailed how leaders should get teachers involved and distribute their power. They should
nurture the development of a collaborative culture that is concerned with learning and the
participation of students and parents. Principals must know how to cultivate caring relationships
and a collaborative culture to engage fully teachers and parents of ELLs in meaningful
conversations that can guide the necessary educational support and changes (Reyes & Gentry,
2019). Thus, a shift of the narrative to collaborative expertise and student progression is a key
component to ensure effective systems of support for our ELL students.

90
The second finding in relationship to RQ2 was the importance of integration of
instructional practices across all content areas. Principals stressed the integration of instructional
practices that support ELL students in all content areas as a critical design component of a
systemic approach that aligns administrators, teachers, and parents. Through collaborative
practices, all content area teachers can ensure they are supporting the learning of their ELL
students. Principals spoke about how essential it is for all ELL students to have access to the
same curriculum as their peers with the proper support via instructional strategies that support
learning. The principals also mentioned the importance of seeking ways to engage the students in
the learning process to prevent learning gaps in reading, writing, and math. Furthermore, the
principals mentioned that a strong support system requires administrators, teachers, and parents
to be clear on the instructional practices that benefit each student.
This finding is consistent with current California State Policy. According to the English
Language Arts/English Development Framework (ELA/ELD) adopted in July 2014, ELL
students should have access to Designated ELD, in which targeted instruction addresses ELL
proficiency levels and language needs, as well as Integrated ELD, in which they participate in
language development in an academic disciplinary context related to academic tasks and content.
Designated ELD assists in building language proficiency, refining the academic use of English,
providing student access to content, setting clear developmental benchmarks, and offering
guidance on specific strategies and supports for teachers, parents, and curriculum developers
(California Department of Education, 2014a). Overall, the main goal of the ELA/ELD
Framework is to ensure there is language integrated into and through all academic content to
support access to instruction for ELL students (Santibañez & Umansky, 2018).

91
The importance of integration of instructional practices across all content areas is also
consistent with other research findings that support how ELL students benefit from engaging in
rigorous content with appropriate support (Lumbrears & Rupley, 2019). Developing instructional
school-wide English language learner strategies will provide a wider scope of focus to elicit
equitable change within schools. This finding aligns with the teaching presence component of the
Community of Inquiry theoretical framework. Supporting cognitive and social processes requires
teachers to design, facilitate, and create conditions for a successful learning environment
(Garrison et al., 2010). To support student learning for all students, instructional settings need to
provide meaningful student interactions based on student needs. John Dewey once said, “The
belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all
experiences are genuinely or equally educative” (Levine & Dewey, 2008, p. 11). Just because
educators provide ELL students with the experience of an American education, it does not mean
that educators provide them with an educational experience.
Research Question 3
RQ3: What do administrators, teachers, and parents perceive are the most impactful
components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a practice that
needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater student success?
Triangulation of principal interview and survey findings produced two key findings
related to RQ3. Principals believe a continuous training design that helps build principal, teacher,
and parent capacity is an impactful component that needs to be established to increase ELL
student success. They also recommend accountability and alignment to data is needed to improve
the system designed for greater student success.

92
The first finding in relation to RQ3 was the need to include continuous training to better
provide an effective system of support for ELL students. Principals believe continuous training
that helps build principal, teacher, and parent capacity is an impactful component that needs to
be established to increase ELL student success. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, principals
mentioned teachers and principals have yearly training, but it is not continuous. Principals from
both school districts at the three levels of the K–12 system overwhelmingly communicated the
need for ongoing training to ensure clarity in the process of educating ELL students and their
ever-changing needs. They believe having principals and teachers attend similar training can
ensure common understanding and will better help principals offer the supports needed. This
finding was consistent with the work of Lucas (2002), Padron and Waxman (2016), and Reyes
and Gentry (2019), which found when administrators understand the relevant language,
terminology, and critical research-based strategies, they can have meaningful discussions with
and give feedback to teachers, as well as help allocate funds for the resources needed.
The principals said ongoing training can be accomplished within each school but the need
for alignment in training across the district will improve the system design and lead to greater
student success. They perceived ELL students can best be supported if they can receive
continuity of support as they move through the K–12 educational system. Students can best
access instruction when the delivery of instructions and resources are consistent and aligned with
their needs. California’s Assembly Bill 2193 and 2012 Assembly Bill 2193 both focused on
ELL’s protection and rights citing the need for consistency in implementation to decrease the
number of students “at risk” (California State Constitution, n.d.). For over four decades, ELL
education policies have called for programs that meet students’ linguistic and academic needs,

93
but effective ELL program design and implementation have fallen short of delivering on this
equity measure.
The second finding in relation to RQ3 is the need to implement accountability and
alignment to data to improve the system design for greater student success. In the past decade,
California has focused on developing specific guidance for research-based instructional practice
and accountability measures, but outcomes have not been consistent. Principals perceive the
needed accountability and alignment to data is unfortunately missing from the current system
design in their districts and school sites. Principals mentioned that, currently, ELPAC data and
statewide data is reviewed at the beginning of the school year and before those tests are
administered. Principals shared district leadership reviews this data with them, and they take that
information to share with their teachers. The ELPAC and local district-wide data is used to help
with school plans, but it is not reviewed often and consistently enough to help guide and monitor
instruction and the effectiveness of the resources provided to support ELL students. Although
they review data points a few times a year regarding academic performance, there is a need to
hold principals and teachers accountable for aligning instructional practices to the data that is
being collected.
The principals in both school districts believed leveraging data is a key tool to bring the
needs of ELL students away from the margins. This finding aligns with Gill et al. (2014) and
Fullan and Quinn (2016), who described a framework for data-driven decision-making to inform
decisions at all educational levels and to examine the effectiveness of instructional practices of
system implementation. Principals expressed the need to engage in cycles of data-driven decision
making that can help guide daily instruction. Principals agreed current ELL policy guided them
toward yearly data analysis to identify the strengths and needs of the ELL subgroup of students

94
but felt it is not enough. ELL students’ data needs to be collected and reviewed continuously to
better address their needs. In trying to treat everyone the same to achieve fairness, some
educational policies at times do not give ELL students what they need to be successful (Callahan
& Shifrer, 2016; Hakuta, 2011; Luna, 2020; Thompson, 2013). Thus, leveraging current data to
guide support for students will help guide students’ needs.
Relative to accountability measures, 10 out of 14 principals discussed the importance of
accountability for an effective system. This finding is in keeping with Ferreras (2021), who
found school-wide attention to the needs of all students was a key component of a successful
school. By having an organizational focus on accountability and following through on the needs
of all students, leaders will be able to identify students’ needs better and, in turn, target and
address underlying issues better to help ELL students access instruction. Having an intentional
organizational focus on the needs of ELL students will allow district administrators and
principals to better allocate resources and staff development that can support teachers and
parents of ELL students.
Limitations
As with all research, this study has limitations. First, we conducted this study in two
school districts with a high percentage of ELL students. We selected this distinctive
characteristic intentionally to provide optimal information regarding policy and systems of
support for ELL students. Second, some internal validity impacted this study’s findings, given
the reliance on self-reported data in surveys and interviews. Interviews and surveys represented a
snapshot of perspectives at a certain time of the year. I preserved the original protocols for the
interviews and surveys, and I used triangulation of survey and interview responses to decrease
respondent validity. Another potential limitation is the experience and knowledge of principals

95
with the ELD policies and systems of support. Most of the principal participants had between 1–
7 years of principalship experience in their current sites. However, they all had extensive
experience in their former roles working with ELL students.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study offer valuable information that can be used to guide district-
wide and schoolwide systems of support for ELL students. ELL students have specific needs that
need to be addressed systematically in the K–12 system. Many principals expressed they
currently are not implementing an effective system in their schools that helps address the
comprehensive needs of ELL students. Principals could benefit from explicit assistance and
guidance from their school districts’ ELL policies to help them implement effective systems.
This study provides the following three recommendations:
1. An effective system of support for ELL students requires continuous collaboration
among district leadership, principals, teachers, and parents to help understand the
current needs of and align support for the ELL students.
2. An effective system of support for ELL students requires the integration of
instructional practices across the curriculum that support the specific learning needs
of ELL students.
3. An effective system of support for ELL students requires the implementation of
accountable practices that ongoing training and data guide.
The first implication that was highlighted among the principals was that, if district
administrators, principals, and teachers hold one another accountable for the comprehensive
systems for ELLs such as continuously analyzing different data sources throughout the school
year, then there will be consistent monitoring of student progress. By prioritizing a system

96
focused on accountability, principals will be able to identify students’ needs better and, in turn,
be able to target and address underlying issues better to help students access instruction across all
content areas. Having an organizational focus on ongoing training, supported by accountability
and data analysis, allows principals to develop, support, and maintain effective systems of
support for ELL students.
Another implication from the findings is school district leadership, along with principals,
need to implement a system with a clear alignment between resources and student needs. The
needs of the students need to be informed by data collection that helps align instructional
practices that help meet those needs. The fragmentation of the system must be resolved by
ensuring content area instructors align their instructional practices to support ELL learners.
Developing a systemic design where administrators, teachers, and parents consistently
collaborate can help bring shared practices that can help eliminate fragmentation of resources,
training, and accountability. Moreover, to support effective systems for ELL students, it is
imperative to provide recommendations for developing policies, initiatives, and practices that
confront inequities in classrooms, schools, and districts.
Future Research
Principals expressed they are knowledgeable about their district’s ELL policies but need
more guidance on how to work within the existing policy structure to deliver quality support to
ELL students. More research is needed to understand the impediments or conflicts between
current state and district policy guides and the implemented system. A longer-term historical
look at policy to implementation impediments is necessary, considering the over six decades of
national and state efforts around improving ELL support structures.

97
Conclusions
The population of ELL students in California continues to rise, so all districts need to
focus on building effective ELL systems. Principals need to know how to ensure there are no
conflicts among federal law, state statute, district policies, and collaborative implementation
designs at the site level. The study findings show a need for collaboration and integration of
instructional practices across the curriculum as well as accountable practices ongoing training
and data guide. The lack of alignment among resources, ongoing training, and implementation of
instructional practices that support student learning informed by data creates serious equity
challenges for schools.

98
References
AB-81, English Learners: Identification: Notice. (Cal. 2017).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB81
AB-2193, Long Term English Language Learners. (Cal. n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2022, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2193
Akbari, R. (2008). Transforming lives: Introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT
Journal, 62(3), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn025
Al-Mahrooqi, R., Denman, C., Al-Maamari, F. (2016). Omani parents’ involvement in their
children’s English education. SAGE Open Journal, 6(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/10.1177/2158244016629190
Alexander, D., Heaviside, S., & Farris, E. (1999). Status of education reform in public
elementary and secondary schools: teachers’ perspectives. National Center for Education
Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999045.pdf
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of
effective teacher student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system secondary. School
Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98.
Almasi, M., & Zhu, C. (2020). Investigating students’ perceptions of cognitive presence in
relation to learner performance in blended learning courses: A mixed-methods approach.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), 324–336.
https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.005

99
Angelides, P., Antoniou, E., & Charalambous, C. (2010). Making sense of inclusion for
leadership and schooling: A case study from Cyprus. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 13(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120902759539
Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 38–54.
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/924/1855
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Campbell, M. (2008). Promising ELL parental involvement: Challenges
in contested times. http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Ar ias_ELL.pdf
August, D. and Hakuta, K., Eds. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A
research agenda. National Academy Press.
Banks, J. A., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K. M., LePage, P., Darling-
Hammond, L., Duffy, H., & McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L.
Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232–274), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Blazar, D., & Pollard, C. (2017). Does test preparation mean low-quality instruction?
Educational Researcher, 46(8), 420–433. v46 n8 p420-433 Nov 2017
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of
qualitative interview. Quarterly and Quantity, 36, 391–409.

100
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Publisher.
Bond, M.A., Tamim, S. R., Blevins, S. J., & Sockman, B. R. (2021). Systems Thinking for
Instructional Designers: Catalyzing Organizational Change. Taylor & Francis Group.
Bordi, J. (2023). A case study of how principals, teachers, and parents contribute to a quality
comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Buenrostro, M., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2022, January 31). Renewing our promise research and
recommendations to support California’s long-term English learners. Californians
Together Championing the Success of English Learners.
http://www.californianstogether.org
Burns, A. (2017). Research and the teaching of speaking in the second language classroom. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. (vol III,
pp. 242–256). Routledge.
California Department of Education. (2017). California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (2014a, July 9). ELA/ELD framework.
http://cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/introductionbeadopted.pdf
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Data Reporting Office (2020–2021)
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/longtermel/Elas.aspx?cds=1964733&agglevel=district&y
ear=2020-21
California Department of Education. (2022). English Learner Roadmap. https://bit.ly/2XfQ4Kq-
Resources. This site was last reviewed in 2022.

101
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Proposition 227 Final Report – Resources. Retrieved
April 2, 2022, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/prop227summary.asp
California Department of Education. (2021). Reclassification.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/#:~:text=Reclassification%20is%20the%20process%20
whereby,student%20meeting%20all%20the%20criteria
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Senate Bill 201 - Instructional Materials - English
Language Arts. Retrieved April 2, 2022, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/im
California State Constitution. (n.d.). California Legislative Information: Article IX Education
[Section 1–Section 16]. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&divisi
on=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=IX
Callahan, R. M., & Shifrer, D. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students:
Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 52(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16648190
Castaneda v. Pickard, 781 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1986) English Language Arts/English Language
Development Framework.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). Title VII, Equal Employment
Opportunities. Assembly Bill 81 English Learners Notification and Identification.
Contreras, F., & Fujimoto, M. O. (2019). College readiness for English language learners (ELLs)
in California: Assessing equity for ELLs under the local control funding formula.
Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 209–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1598121

102
Cook-Harvey, C. M., Darling-Hammond, L., Lam, L., Mercer, C., & Roc, M. (2016). Equity and
ESSA: Leveraging educational opportunity through The Every Student Succeeds Act.
Learning Policy Institute.
Correa, M. (2023). A case study of how principals, teachers, and parents contribute to a quality
comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x15616863
de Brey, C. (2021, February). The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many
education questions (National Center for Education Statistics). National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=96
de Gaetano, X. (2007). The Role of Culture in Engaging Latino Parents’ Involvement in
School. Urban Education, 42(2), 145–162.
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s Radical Love Got to Do with It: Navigating
Identity, Pedagogy, and Positionality in Pre-Service Education. International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 6(1).
Echevarria, X. (2006). School engagement: Testing the factorial validity, measurement,
structural and latent means invariance between African American and White
students (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).

103
Elfers, A. M., & Stritikus, T. (2013). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’
work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 305–
344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13492797
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved April 27, 2022, from https://www.ed.gov/essa
Ferreras, Manuel, "Building Support Systems for High School English Language Learners: A
Developmental Program Evaluation" (2021). Dissertations. 615.
https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/615
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Garces, L. M., & Cogburn, C. D. (2015). Beyond declines in student body diversity: How
campus-level administrators understand a prohibition on race-conscious postsecondary
admissions policies. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 828–860.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215594878
Garrison, D. R. (2017). Cognitive presence and critical thinking. The Community of Inquiry.
http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial5
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education,
15, 7-23
Gibson, M. A. (2002). The new Latino diaspora and educational policy: Education in the new
Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity. Ablex.

104
Gill, B., Borden, B., & Hallgren, K. (2014). A conceptual framework for data-driven decision
making. Mathematica Policy Research.
Goldenberg, C. (2008) Teaching English language learners: What the research does-and does
not-say. https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf
Gonzales-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005). Examining the relationship
between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review,
17(2), 99–123
Graham-Clay, S. (2005). Communicating with Parents: Strategies for Teachers. The School
Community Journal, 15(1), 117–129.
Gunderson, L. (2021). The consequences of English learner as a category in teaching, learning,
and research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(4), 431–439.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1116
Guthier, D. (n.d.). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 1965. Washington Office
of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved April 27, 2022, from
https://www.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/grants-grant-management/every-student-succeeds-
act-essa-implementation/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-esea
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating Language Minority Students and Affirming Their Equal Rights:
Research and Practical Perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–
174. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11404943
Harman, R., & McClure, G. (2011). All the school’s a stage: Critical performative pedagogy in
urban teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(3), 379–402.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning,
Educational Research, 50(3), 277–289.

105
Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson.
Hitt, D., & Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework.
Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban
school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12448250
Johnson, A. (2019). A matter of time: Variations in high school course-taking by years-as-el
subgroup. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 461–482.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719867087
Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of
Immigrant Youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 1–19.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44072586
Kemple, J., & Snipes, J. (2000). Career academies: Impacts on students’ engagement and
performance in high school. MDRC.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
LeClair, Doll, B., Osborn, A., & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-English
language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the
Schools, 46(6), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20398
Lee, J. S., & Jeong, E. (2013). Korean–English dual language immersion: Perspectives of
students, parents and teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 89–107.
Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education
Sciences, 11(8), 377–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377

106
Lochmiller, C., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lucas, T. (2000). Facilitating the transitions of secondary English language learners:
Priorities for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(619), 2-16.

Lumbrears, R., & Rupley, W. H. (2019). Educational experiences of ELL educators: Searching
for instructional insights to promote ELL students’ learning. Educational Research for
Policy and Practice, 18(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-017-9225-z
Luna, C. V. (2020). Promoting equity and access for California’s long term English language
learners. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 10(1), 21–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2019.1653054
Lynch, J. (2016). Teaching presence. Higher education services. Course design, development,
and academic research. Pearson Education
Mac Iver, M. A., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2010). Beyond the indicators: An integrated school-level
approach to dropout prevention. The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center, The George
Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education
Manning, Orozco Sahi, I., Juelke, L., & Monterrey, S. (2022). Creating a Sense of Belonging for
Immigrant and Refugee Students: Strategies for K–12 Educators. Taylor & Francis
Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177333
Massey, K. J., Warrington, A. S., & Holmes, K. A. (2014). An overview on urban education: A
brief history and contemporary issues, Journal Title, 2(2), 173–183.
Mavrogordato, X., & White, R. S. (2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice:
How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English
learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 3–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364

107
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Maybin, J. (2020). Teaching writing. Teaching English, 186–194.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003071396-26

McGuinn, P. (2015). Schooling the state: ESEA and the evolution of the US Department of
Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–
94.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Chapter 1. Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M., (2022, February 22). Re: How to Empower Immigrant Parents to Help ELL Students.
(2022). Continental Educational Publisher.
https://www.continentalpress.com/blog/empowering-immigrant-parents/
O’Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (2016). Quality and equality in American education: Systemic
problems, systemic solutions. In I. Kirsch & H. Braun (Eds.), The dynamics of
opportunity in America (pp. 297–358). Educational Testing Service.
Office of Civil Rights. (1970). Identification of discrimination and denial of services on the basis
of national origin. U.S Department of Education
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/nationaloriginmemo.html
Office of Civil Rights. (2006). U.S Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/annrpt2006/report_pg4.html

108
Oseguera, L., & Conchas, G., & Mosqueda, E. (2011). Beyond family and ethnic culture:
Understanding the preconditions for the potential realization of social capital. Youth &
Society, 43, PP–PP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382030.
Padgett, R. (2006). Best ways to involve parents. The Education Digest, 72(3), 44-45.
Padron, Y., & Waxman, H. (2016). Investigating principals’ knowledge and perceptions of
second language programs for English language learners. International Journal of
Educational Leadership and Management, 4(2), 127.
https://doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2016.1706
Panferov, S. (2010). Increasing ELL parental involvement in our schools. Theory into Practice,
49, 106–112.
Park, S., Martinez, M., & Chou, F. (2017). CSSCO English learners with disabilities guide.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Parsons, M. W., & Shim, J. M. (2019). Increasing ELL parental involvement and engagement:
Exploration of K–12 administrators in a rural state. English Language Teaching, 12(10),
29. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n10p29
Patterson, X. (2018). 1 in 4 students is an English language learner: Are we leaving them
behind? https://counseling.steinhardt.nyu.edu/blog/english-language-learners/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 1(3), 261–
283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Perren, J., Grove, N., & Thornton, J. (2013). Three empowering curricular innovations for
service-learning in ESL programs. TESOL Journal, 4(3), 463–486.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.9

109
Pettit, S. (2011). Teachers' beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom:
A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123–147,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594357
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Polikoff, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416
Potochnick. (2018). The Academic Adaptation of Immigrant Students with Interrupted
Schooling. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 859–892.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218761026
Project IDEAL. (2013). Specific roles of general educators in serving students with disabilities
and their parents. Retrieved February 19, 2022, from
http://www.projectidealonline.org/v/specific-roles-general-educators
Psychology Today (n.d.). Bias. Psychology Today. Retrieved February 14, 2022, from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bias
Pulliam, J., & Terantino, J. (2020). Foundations for teaching English language learners:
Research, theory, policy, and Practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(5), 705–
711. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1841473
Ramirez, A. Y. F. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino
immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35 (2): 93-110.
Reyes, J., & Gentry, J. (2019). Pre-service administrators’ experiences with effective research-
based learning strategies for English language learners. Education Leadership Review,
20(1), 23–38.

110
Reyes, J., & Hwang, N. (2021). Middle school language classification effects on high school
achievement and behavioral outcomes. Educational Policy (Los Altos, Calif.), 35(4),
590–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823747
Riley, B. (2012). Waive to the top: The dangers of legislating education policy from the
executive branch. Education Outlook, 1, 1–6.
Riser-Kositsky, M. (2020). Education statistics: Facts about American schools. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/education-statistics/index.html?cmp=SOC-
SHR-FB
Rizzuto, K. C. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL students: Do their attitudes shape their
instruction? The Teacher Educator, 52(3), 182–202. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1146228
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., Thompson, K. D., & Umansky, I. M. (2016). Research and policy
considerations for English learner equity. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215623553
Roegman, R., Allen, D., Leverett, L., Thompson, S., & Hatch, T. (2019). Equity visits a new
approach to supporting equity - focused school and district leadership. Corwin.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed., pp. 85–92). SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Russell, F. A., & Von Esch, K. S. (2018). Teacher leadership to support English language
learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718767862
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

111
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Chapter 6: Just the truth. In Statistics for people who (think they) hate
statistics: Using Microsoft Excel 2016 (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Samson, X., & Collins, X. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language
leaners. American Progress.
Sanders, X., Durbin, J. M., Anderson, B. G., Fogarty, L. M., Giraldo-Garcia, R. J., & Voight, A.
(2018). Does a rising school climate lift all boats? Differential associations of perceived
climate and achievement for students with disabilities and limited English proficiency.
School Psychology International, 39(6), 646–662.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318810319
Santibañez, L., & Umansky, I. (2018). English learners: Charting their experiences and
mapping their futures in California schools. Policy Analysis for California Education.
PACE.
Shim, J. M. (2018). Involving the parents of English language learners in a rural area: Focus on
the dynamics of teacher-parent interactions. The Rural Educator.
Sosa, A. S. (1997). Involving Hispanic parents in educational activities through collaborative
relationships. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2), 1–8.
Sousa, D. (2011). How the ELL brain learns. Corwin.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies: Handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty years later. New Focus,
Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 6
Téllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2010). A review of research on effective community programs for
English language learners. The School Community Journal, 20(1), 103–119.

112
Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive ell. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 47(4), 646–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x11401616
Thompson K. D. (2013). Is separate always unequal? A philosophical examination of ideas of
equality in key cases regarding racial and linguistic minorities in education. American
Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1249–1278.
Thompson, K. D. (2017). What blocks the gate? Exploring current and former English learners’
math course-taking in secondary school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4),
757–798.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell.
Umansky, I. (2016). To be or not to be EL: An examination of the impact of classifying students
as English Language Learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 714-
737. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237371666480
Umansky, I. M., & Porter, L. (2020). State English learner education policy: A conceptual
framework to guide comprehensive policy action. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
28(17), n17.
Umansky, I. M., Thompson, K. D., & Díaz, G. (2017). Using an Ever–English Learner
framework to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children,
84(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917707470
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Developing ELL Programs: Glossary. U.S Department of
Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from:
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

113
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. Office for Civil Rights. (1999). Programs for English language
learners. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt99/edlite-how.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2000). The Provision of an Equal
Education Opportunity to Limited-English Proficient Students.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/eeolep/index.html
U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Types of educational opportunities discrimination.
Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-
discrimination
Varga, M. (2017). The effect of teacher-student relationships on the academic engagement of
students. Goucher College.
Vera, E. M., Israel, M. S., Coyle, L., Cross, J., Knight-Lynn, L., Moallem, I., Bartucci, G., &
Goldberger, N. (2012). Exploring the educational involvement of parents of English
learners.
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Villegas Lucas, X. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Suny
Press.
Voight, A., Austin, G., & Hanson, T. (2013). A climate for academic success: How school
climate distinguishes schools that are beating the achievement odds. WestEd.
Wei, M., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Effects of language minority family’s activities in early second
language writing development. Tesol Journal, 3(2), 181–209.

114
Wang, X. (2016). From redistribution to recognition: How school principals perceive social
justice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(3), 323–342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1044539
Wubbels, X., den Brok, P., van Tartwijk, J., & Levy, J. (2012). Interpersonal relationships in
education: An overview of contemporary research. Birkhäuser Boston.
Yaafouri, L. E. (2019, November 25). 6 tips for engaging the families of English language
learners. Edutopia.
Yildiz. (2009). Social Presence in the Web-Based Classroom: Implications for Intercultural
Communication. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(1), 46–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308317654
Yu, S. (2010, August 10). Enrollment by English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) and
grade.
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest//longtermel/ELAS.aspx?cds=00&agglevel=State&year
=2020-21

115
Appendix A: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey
University of Southern University California

RECRUITMENT/AGREEMENT OF CONSENT FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
A case study of how principal, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive
K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success.
Investigators: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Galvez-Reyna

You have been invited to participate in this research study. Before you agree to participate,
It is important that you read and understand the following information. Participation is
completely voluntary. My name is Gabriela Galvez-Reyna and I am a doctoral student working
on my dissertation at the University of Southern California and I can be reached before or after
this survey at galvezre@usc.edu if you have further questions, please ask questions about
anything you do not understand before deciding whether or not to participate.

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study is to investigate how principals, teachers and parents
contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for the academic success of
English Language Learners (ELL). To do so, for this case study we will examine the
implementation of district policies, ELL program design components, and the principal teachers,
and parent’s perceptions of the components of the ELL system. This study aims to provide
insights into how school districts can leverage their policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive K–12 support system for ELLs and highlight the most impactful components to
maximize the academic advancement of their ELL population.

Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey which takes 15
minutes. Surveys will be requested from parents, teachers, and principals.

The survey link will be provided at the end of the consent form.

Risks: Risks associated with participation will be minimal. Pseudonyms will be used in all
written reports and no school or district names will be used. Every effort will be made to
maintain the confidentiality of all participants.

Benefits: Benefits associated with participation include the opportunity to express perceptions of
the school district and school site, the most impactful components that support ELL students. In
addition, the knowledge resulting from the study will be used to improve the system design that
leads to student success.

116
Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. No district or school names will be reported.

Costs/Payment: There are no payments provided for participating in the study.

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

Right to Refuse or Withdraw: Although your participation is important to the study, it is
completely voluntary. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time.

Principal Investigators Disclosure of Personal and Financial Interests in the Research
Study Sponsor: The researcher has no financial interest in the study.

Questions: If you have any questions about this research project or if you think you may have
been injured as a result of your participation or have any questions regarding your rights and
participation as a research subject, please contact the Office for the Protection Research Subjects
at (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

University of Southern California
Human Subjects Committee Office of Research
3720 S. Flower Street, Suite 325
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. CHECKING THE BOX BELOW WILL
INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT
IN THE STUDY DESCRIBED ABOVE. YOU CAN PRINT A COPY OF THIS FORM TO
KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS.

● I understand the intent of this survey and give my consent.
SURVEY HERE

117
Appendix B: Online Survey for Principal
1. How many years have you served as a school principal?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
2. How many years at your current school?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
3. Please select the school level you work with.
● elementary
● middle school
● high school
4. What is the percentage of the population of ELL students at your school site?
● 5% to 10%
● 11% to 15%
● 16% to 20%
● 21% to 25%
● 26% to 30%

118
● 31% to 35%
● 35% or more
5. Please select all the programs that are available at your school site for ELL students.
● two-way/dual language
● sheltered content instruction,
● newcomer program
● structured emergent
● ESL
● other
6. What statement best describes the college-level coursework you have taken related to
teaching English Language Learners (ELL)
● I have taken no college coursework related to ELL.
● The needs of ELL ‘s was discussed in coursework, although the coursework
was not specifically on the topic of multilingual education.
● I have taken 1 to 2 college level courses specifically related to teaching ELL
students.
● I have taken 3 or more college level courses specifically related to teaching
ELL students.
Professional Development
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
1. My school site offers yearly training on strategies that help support ELL students.

119
2. My school district offers yearly opportunities to learn instructional strategies that
support ELL students.
3. My school district offers opportunities for principals to learn a variety of
nonacademic strategies that can support ELL students.
4. My school site offers staff development on nonacademic strategies that can support
ELL students.
5. District and school training are raising the capacity of my staff and improving ELL
student outcomes year over year.
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
1. I am highly knowledgeable about how to utilize the supports available for ELL
students in my school district.
2. My school district has effective systems in place that support ELL students' academic
progress.
3. My school site has effective systems in place that support ELL students’ academic
progress.
4. I periodically and systematically collect data from students about their perceptions of
the effectiveness of ELL support services in their academic progress
5. I believe I have site-based authority to change practices in my school that do not
support ELL students.
6. I am well versed in the ELL policies of my district.

120
7. I understand how to work within the existing policy structure to deliver quality ELL
support to students.
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very
impactful).
5. How effective do you think the current system of parent- teacher collaboration is in
impacting and supporting academic achievement for the ELL student
6. How impactful do you think the practice of Teacher–Teacher collaboration is in
supporting ELL students’ academic achievement
7. How impactful do you think the practice of Principal–Teacher collaboration
is in supporting ELL students’ academic achievement.
8. How impactful do you think school culture is in supporting ELL students’ academic
achievement
9. How impactful do you think using ELL levels criteria to determine student placement
in classes is in supporting ELL students’ academic achievement
Thank you for your feedback. We truly value the information you have provided. Your
responses will contribute to our analysis of systems of support for English Language Learners in
different school districts and future guide districts in implementing supports.

121
Appendix C: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed
University of Southern University California

RECRUITMENT/AGREEMENT OF CONSENT FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

A case study of how administrators, teachers and parents contribute to a quality
comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success.
Investigators: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Galvez-Reyna

You have been invited to participate in this research study. Before you agree to participate,
It is important that you read and understand the following information. Participation is
completely voluntary. My name is Gabriela Galvez-Reyna and I am a doctoral student working
on my dissertation at the University of Southern California and I can be reached after this
interview at galvezre@usc.edu if you have further questions. Please ask questions about anything
you do not understand before deciding whether to participate.

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study is to investigate how principals, teachers and parents
contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for the academic success of
English Language Learners (ELL). To do so, for this case study we will examine the
implementation of district policies, level of preparation of design components, and the
administrators, teachers, and parent’s perceptions of the components of the ELLs systems. This
study aims to provide insights into how school districts can leverage their policies to ensure the
delivery of a comprehensive K–12 support system for ELLs and highlight the most impactful
components to maximize the academic advancement of their ELLs population.

Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to be interviewed individually, which
will take around 45 minutes. Individual interviews will be requested from parents, teachers, and
administrators of ELL students.

Risks: Risks associated with participation will be minimal. Pseudonyms will be used in all
written reports and no school or district names will be used. Every effort will be made to
maintain the confidentiality of all participants.

Benefits: Benefits associated with participation include the opportunity to express perceptions of
the school district and school site, the most impactful components that support ELL students. In
addition, the knowledge resulting from the study will be used to improve the system design that
leads to student success.

122
Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. The data will be kept in a password protected computer and all data will be
destroyed after 3 years. No district or school names will be reported.

Costs/Payment: There are no payments provided for participating in the study.

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

Right to Refuse or Withdraw: Although your participation is important to the study, it is
completely voluntary. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time.

Principal Investigators Disclosure of Personal and Financial Interests in the Research
Study Sponsor: The researcher has no financial interest in the study.

Questions: If you have any questions about this research project or if you think you may have
been injured as a result of your participation or have any questions regarding your rights and
participation as a research subject, please contact the Office for the Protection Research Subjects
at (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

University of Southern California
Human Subjects Committee Office of Research
3720 S. Flower Street, Suite 325
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW
WILL INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AS A RESEARCH
SUBJECT IN THE STUDY DESCRIBED ABOVE. YOU CAN BE GIVEN A SIGNED
AND DATED COPY OF THIS FORM TO KEEP UPON REQUEST.
_______________________________________________ _______________
Participant’s Signature Date
_______________________________________________
Participant’s Name

123
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Principal
I want to thank you for taking the time and agreeing to participate in my study. As we
discussed last time we spoke, the interview will not take more than an hour, does this time frame
still work for you?
First, I want to remind you of the purpose of this study and give you a short overview that
is stated in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions about your participation in this
interview. I am a doctoral candidate at USC and am conducting a study about systems that
support English language learners. I am talking to multiple principals to learn and get some
insights about this.
Today, I am wearing the hat of researcher only and therefore the nature of my questions
is not at all evaluative. Please be assured that I will not be making any judgments on your
performance as a principal. My main goal as the researcher today is to understand your
perspective on practices and schoolwide systems that support learning for English language
learners.
The Study Information sheet has all the details that include the confidential nature of this
interview. Since this is all confidential, your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. This information will not be shared with other teachers, the principal, or the
district. All the information obtained for this interview and all the answers provided will be
entered into a report. I will be adding and sharing some of what you say in direct quotes, but
your name will not be cited. To keep the confidential nature as I quote responses, explain results,
and keep your confidentiality I will use a pseudonym. Upon completion, I will be able to provide
you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.

124
The Study Information sheet also informs you that the data will be kept in a password
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
Before we get started, what questions, if any, do you have about the study?
To ensure I capture all the information and details about what you share with me, may I
record this zoom session? The purpose of the recording is to best capture your perspectives and it
will not be shared with anyone outside the research team. May I have your permission to record
our conversation?
Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. How long have you been a principal?
• How long have you been at your current site?
• Have you always served a school with an ELL population?
• Why do you choose to work in a school that teaches ELL students?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the resources available in your district and
school site to support your school, teachers, and parents of Ell student.
2. Describe the resources made available to the school sites that support ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• How do these resources support your teachers?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
3. Describe the process for allocating the resources for the ELL students. Probing
questions:
• Is there an annual assessment of student needs that determines resource

125
decisions?
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
4. Tell me about the resources designated to support the parents of ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• How do these resources support your parents?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the training and support available for
administrators, teachers, and parents of ELL students.
5. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in supporting ELL students at your
school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What made this a success?
• What did you do?
• What did others do?
6. Tell me about a time when you did not feel successful in supporting ELL students at
your school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What led to the lack of success?
7. Describe the training and support available at your school to prepare teachers of ELL
students? How do you measure the effectiveness of the training and support? Probing
questions?

126
• Do you see improved student outcomes?
• How are teachers aware of the support available?
• Who is involved in offering the training?
• Who is involved in offering the support?
• How is implementation monitored?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
• Are you seeing teacher growth as a result?
• Do you see improved student outcomes?
8. Describe the training and support that you as the principal has received in the past
few years that specifically addressed the needs of ELL students. What is mandated
and what are additional resources? Probing questions:
• How have you implemented them?
• What are the outcomes?
• Is there more training and support that you need?
• What data is used to measure implementation
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
9. Describe the training and support available at your school site for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?

127
10. Describe the training and support available at your school district for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
Now we are going to switch gears and talk about the policies that guide the support for
ELL students.
11. Tell me about the district level policies that guide the levels of support for your ELL
students in your district. Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
12. Tell me about the district level policies that help guide the parents of ELL students
Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
13. Tell me about the district level policies that help guide the teachers of ELL students.
Probing questions:

128
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all are you held accountable for implementing the policy?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the policy?
14. In your opinion, are there school wide practices that need to be eliminated that hinder
the achievement of ELL students?
15. Some educators say that the ELL policies are sufficiently designed to support ELL
students, but implementation falls short of meeting student needs. How would you
respond to that statement?
16. If district leadership were to ask for your input in developing a strategic plan for
developing a school wide system of support for ELL students, what questions might
you have and what elements would you include in that plan?
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the resources,
training and policies that support ELL students today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for taking this time to share your thoughts with me today! I really
appreciate not only your time and willingness to share, but also your service in what you do.
Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I find myself with a follow-up
question, can I contact you, and if so, is email, ok? Again, thank you for participating in my
study. As a thank you, please accept this small token of my appreciation $5 coffee gift card.

129
Appendix E: Online Survey for Teacher
1. How many years have you served as a K–12 Teacher?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
2. How many years at your current school?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
3. Please select the school level you work with.
● elementary
● middle school
● high school
4. What is the percent of the population of ELL students at your school site?
● 5% to 10%
● 11% to 15%
● 16% to 20%
● 21% to 25%
● 26% to 30%

130
● 31% to 35%
● 35% or more
5. Please select all the programs that are available at your school site for ELL students.
● ESL classes
● two-way/dual language
● sheltered content instruction,
● newcomer program
● structured emergent
● bilingual education
● other
6. What statement best describes the college-level coursework you have taken related to
teaching English Language Learners (ELL)
● I have taken no college coursework related to ELL
● The needs of ELL ‘s was discussed in coursework, although the coursework
was not specifically on the topic of multilingual education.
● I have taken one to two college level courses specifically related to teaching
ELL students.
● I have taken three or more college level courses specifically related to
teaching ELL students.
Professional Development
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).

131
1. My school site offers yearly training on strategies that help support ELL students.
2. My school district offers yearly opportunities to learn instructional strategies that
support ELL students.
3. My school district offers opportunities for administrators to learn a variety of
nonacademic strategies that can support ELL students.
4. My school site offers staff development on nonacademic strategies that can support
ELL students.
5. District and school trainings are raising the capacity of my department and improving
ELL student outcomes year over year.
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
1. I am highly knowledgeable about how to utilize the supports available in my school
district to support my ELL students
2. My school district has effective systems in place that support ELL students' academic
progress.
3. My school site has effective systems in place that support ELL students’ academic
progress.
4. I periodically and systematically collect data from students about their perceptions of
the effectiveness of ELL support services in their academic progress.
5. I believe I have classroom-based authority to change practices in my school that do
not support ELL students.

132
6. I am well versed in the ELL policies of my district.
7. I understand how to work within the existing policy structure to deliver quality ELL
support to students.
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very
impactful).
1. How effective do you think the current system of parent- teacher collaboration is in
impacting and supporting academic achievement for the ELL student
2. How effective is the practice of Teacher -Teacher collaboration in supporting ELL
students’ academic achievement
3. How effective is the practice of Principal-Teacher collaboration in supporting ELL
students’ academic achievement
4. How effective is the school culture in supporting ELL students’ academic
achievement
5. How effective is the use of ELL levels criteria to determine correct student placement
in classes to support their academic achievement?
6. How effective are teachers at discussing college and career readiness with ELL
students in support of their academic achievement
Thank you for your feedback. We truly value the information you have provided. Your
responses will contribute to our analysis of systems of support for English Language Learners in
different school districts and future guide districts in implementing supports.

133
Appendix F: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey
University of Southern University California

RECRUITMENT/AGREEMENT OF CONSENT FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive
K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success.
Investigators: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Galvez-Reyna

You have been invited to participate in this research study. Before you agree to participate,
It is important that you read and understand the following information. Participation is
completely voluntary. My name is Jarrod Bordi and I am a doctoral student working on my
dissertation at the University of Southern California and I can be reached before or after this
survey at bordi@usc.edu if you have further questions. Please ask questions about anything you
do not understand before deciding whether or not to participate.

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study is to investigate how principal, teachers and parents
contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for the academic success of
English Language Learners (ELL). To do so, for this case study we will examine the
implementation of district policies, ELL program design components, and the principal, teachers,
and parent’s perceptions of the components of the ELL system. This study aims to provide
insights into how school districts can leverage their policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive K–12 support system for ELLs and highlight the most impactful components to
maximize the academic advancement of their ELL population.

Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey which takes 15
minutes. Surveys will be requested from parents, teachers, and principals.

Risks: Risks associated with participation will be minimal. Pseudonyms will be used in all
written reports and no school or district names will be used. Every effort will be made to
maintain the confidentiality of all participants.

Benefits: Benefits associated with participation include the opportunity to express perceptions of
the school district and school site, the most impactful components that support ELL students. In
addition, the knowledge resulting from the study will be used to improve the system design that
leads to student success.

Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. No district or school names will be reported.

Costs/Payment: There are no payments provided for participating in the study.

134

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

Right to Refuse or Withdraw: Although your participation is important to the study, it is
completely voluntary. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time.

Principal Investigators Disclosure of Personal and Financial Interests in the Research
Study Sponsor: The researcher has no financial interest in the study.

Questions: If you have any questions about this research project or if you think you may have
been injured as a result of your participation or have any questions regarding your rights and
participation as a research subject, please contact the Office for the Protection Research Subjects
at (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

University of Southern California
Human Subjects Committee Office of Research
Los Angeles California, 90089

PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. CHECKING THE BOX BELOW WILL
INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT
IN THE STUDY DESCRIBED ABOVE. YOU CAN PRINT A COPY OF THIS FORM TO
KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS.

● I understand the intent of this survey and give my consent.

Survey link below:
https://forms.gle/SzM8KNYPpPrhBDQS6

PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. YOUR SIGNATURE
BELOW WILL INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AS
A RESEARCH SUBJECT IN THE STUDY DESCRIBED ABOVE. YOU CAN BE
GIVEN A SIGNED AND DATED COPY OF THIS FORM TO KEEP UPON
REQUEST.
_______________________________________________ _______________
Participant’s Signature Date
_______________________________________________
Participant’s Name

135
Appendix G: Interview Protocol for Teacher
I want to thank you for taking the time and agreeing to participate in my study. My name
is Jarrod Bordi and as we discussed last time we spoke, the interview will not take more than an
hour, does this time frame still work for you?
First, I want to remind you of the purpose of this study and give you a short overview that
is stated in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions about your participation in this
interview. I am a doctoral candidate at USC and am conducting a study about systems that
support English language learners. I am talking to multiple teachers to learn and get some
insights about this topic.
Today, I am wearing the hat of researcher only and therefore the nature of my questions
is not at all evaluative. Please be assured that I will not be making any judgments on your
performance as a teacher. My main goal as the researcher today is to understand your perspective
on practices and schoolwide systems that support learning for English language learners.
The Study Information Sheet has all the details that include the confidential nature of this
interview. Since this is all confidential, your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. This information will not be shared with other teachers, the principal, or the
district. All the information obtained for this interview and all the answers provided will be
entered into a report. I will be adding and sharing some of what you say in direct quotes, but
your name will not be cited. To keep the confidential nature as I quote responses, explain results,
and keep your confidentiality, I will use a pseudonym. Upon completion, I will be able to
provide you with a copy of my final paper, if you are interested.
The Study Information Sheet also informs you that the data will be kept in a password
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.

136
Before we get started, what questions, if any, do you have about the study?
To ensure I capture all the information and details about what you share with me, I have brought
a recorder. The purpose of the recording is to best capture your perspectives and it will not be
shared with anyone outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our
conversation?
Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking you some background questions.
1. How long have you been a teacher?
• How long have you been at your current site?
• Have you always served a school with an ELL population?
• Why do you choose to work in a school with a significant ELL population?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the resources available in your district and
school site to support your school, teachers and parents of ELL students.
2. Describe the resources made available to your school that support ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• How do these resources support your classroom and students?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
3. Describe the process for allocating the resources for the ELL students. Probing
questions:
• Is there an annual assessment of student needs that determines resource
decisions?
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?

137
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
4. Tell me about the resources designated to support the parents of ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• Do parents have an opportunity to tell you what resources their child needs?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the training and support available for
principals, teachers, and parents of ELL students.
5. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in supporting ELL students at your
school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What made this a success?
• What did you do?
• What did others do?
6. Tell me about a time when you did not feel successful in supporting ELL students at
your school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What led to the lack of success?
• Did you feel empowered to make a change or seek support?
7. Describe the training and support available at your school to prepare teachers of ELL
students? How do you measure the effectiveness of the training and support you
received? Probing questions:
• Do you see improved student outcomes?

138
• If not, why are student outcomes not at the level you would like and expect
them to be?
• How are teachers aware of the support available?
• Who is involved in offering the training?
• Who is involved in offering the support?
• How is implementation monitored?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
• Are you seeing teacher growth as a result?
8. Describe the training and support that you have received in the past few years that
specifically addressed the needs of ELL students based on data reviews. What is
mandated from the district and what are additional resources? Probing questions:
• How have you implemented them?
• What are the outcomes?
• Is there more training and support that you need? If so, in what areas?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
9. Describe the training and support available at your school site for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?

139
10. Describe the training and support available at your school district for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
Now we are going to switch gears and talk about the policies that guide the support for
ELL students.
11. Tell me about the school policies that guide the support for your ELL students at your
school. Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
• “Have there been any changes to ELL related policies in the past two years?”
12. Tell me about the school policies that help support parents of ELL students? Probing
questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
13. Tell me about the school policies that help guide the teachers of ELL students.

140
Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all are you held accountable for implementing the policy?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the policy?
14. In your opinion, are there school wide practices that need to be eliminated that hinder
the achievement of ELL students?
15. Some educators say that the ELL policies are sufficiently designed to support ELL
students, but implementation falls short of meeting student needs. How would you
respond to that statement?
16. If district administration were to ask for your input in developing a strategic plan for
developing or improving a school wide system of support for ELL students, what
questions might you have and what elements would you include in that plan?
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the resources,
training and policies that support ELL students today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for taking this time to share your thoughts with me today! I really
appreciate not only your time and willingness to share, but also your service in what you do.
Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I find myself with a follow-up
question, can I contact you, and if so, is email, ok? Again, thank you for participating in my
study. As a thank you, please accept this $5 Starbucks gift card as a small token of my
appreciation.

141
Appendix H: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey
University of Southern University California

RECRUITMENT/AGREEMENT OF CONSENT FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
A case study of how principal, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive
K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success.
Investigators: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Galvez-Reyna

Consent Form

You have been invited to participate in this research study. Before you agree to participate,
It is important that you read and understand the following information. Participation is
completely voluntary. My name is Michelle Correa and I am a doctoral student working on my
dissertation at the University of Southern California and I can be reached before or after this
survey at mcorrea@usc.edu if you have further questions. Please ask questions about anything
you do not understand before deciding whether or not to participate.

The survey link is provided at the end of this consent form
Please complete the survey by [INSERT DATE]

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study is to investigate how principal, teachers and parents
contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for the academic success of
English Language Learners (ELL). To do so, for this case study we will examine the
implementation of district policies, ELL program design components, and the principal, teachers,
and parent’s perceptions of the components of the ELL system. This study aims to provide
insights into how school districts can leverage their policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive K–12 support system for ELLs and highlight the most impactful components to
maximize the academic advancement of their ELL population.

Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey which takes 15
minutes. Surveys will be requested from parents, teachers, and principals.

Risks: Risks associated with participation will be minimal. Pseudonyms will be used in all
written reports and no school or district names will be used. Every effort will be made to
maintain the confidentiality of all participants.

Benefits: Benefits associated with participation include the opportunity to express perceptions of
the school district and school site, the most impactful components that support ELL students. In
addition, the knowledge resulting from the study will be used to improve the system design that
leads to student success.

142

Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. No district or school names will be reported.

Costs/Payment: There are no payments provided for participating in the study.

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

Right to Refuse or Withdraw: Although your participation is important to the study, it is
completely voluntary. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time.

Principal Investigators Disclosure of Personal and Financial Interests in the Research
Study Sponsor: The researcher has no financial interest in the study.

Questions: If you have any questions about this research project or if you think you may have
been injured because of your participation or have any questions regarding your rights and
participation as a research subject, please contact the Office for the Protection Research Subjects
at (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

University of Southern California
Human Subjects Committee Office of Research
3720 S. Flower Street, Suite 325
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. CHECKING THE BOX BELOW WILL
INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT
IN THE STUDY DESCRIBED ABOVE. YOU CAN PRINT A COPY OF THIS FORM TO
KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS.

● I understand the intent of this survey and give my consent.

● Survey Link:
https://forms.gle/nUXujjmQVKnoPyMQA

143
Appendix I: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para la encuesta en línea
Universidad de la Universidad del Sur de California

RECLUTAMIENTO Y CONSENTIMIENTO PARA PARTICIPANTES EN INVESTIGACIÓN
Un estudio de caso de cómo los administradores, maestros y padres contribuyen a un
sistema integral de calidad de K–12 de apoyo para el éxito académico de los estudiantes
ELL.
Investigadores: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Gálvez-Reyna

Usted ha sido invitado a participar en este estudio de investigación. Antes de aceptar participar,
Es importante que lea y comprenda la siguiente información. La participación es completamente
voluntaria. Mi nombre es Michelle Correa y soy estudiante de doctorado trabajando en mi
disertación en la Universidad del Sur de California y pueden contactarme antes o después de esta
encuesta en mcorrea@usc.edu si tiene más preguntas Por favor haga preguntas sobre cualquier
cosa que no tenga entender antes de decidir si participar o no.

El enlace de la encuesta se proporciona al final de este formulario de consentimiento.
Complete la encuesta antes del [INSERTAR FECHA]

Propósito: El propósito principal del estudio es investigar cómo los administradores, maestros y
padres contribuyen a un sistema de apoyo integral de calidad K–12 para el éxito académico de
los estudiantes del idioma inglés (ELL). Para hacerlo, para este estudio de caso examinaremos la
implementación de las políticas del distrito, los componentes del diseño del programa ELL y las
percepciones de los administradores, maestros y padres sobre los componentes del sistema ELL.
Este estudio tiene como objetivo proporcionar información sobre cómo los distritos escolares
pueden aprovechar sus políticas para garantizar la entrega de un sistema de apoyo integral K–12
para ELL y resaltar los componentes más impactantes para maximizar el avance académico de su
población ELL.

Procedimientos: Si decide participar, se le pedirá que complete una encuesta que dura 15
minutos. Se solicitarán encuestas a los padres, maestros y directores.

Riesgos: Los riesgos asociados con la participación serán mínimos. Se usarán seudónimos en
todos los informes escritos y no se usarán nombres de escuelas o distritos. Se hará todo lo posible
para mantener la confidencialidad de todos los participantes.

Beneficios: Los beneficios asociados con la participación incluyen la oportunidad de expresar las
percepciones del distrito escolar y los componentes más impactantes del sitio escolar que apoyan
a los estudiantes ELL. Además, el conocimiento resultante del estudio se utilizará para mejorar el
diseño del sistema que conduce al éxito de los estudiantes.

144

Confidencialidad: Su nombre no se incluirá en ningún informe escrito. Solo se incluirán datos
agregados. No se informarán los nombres de distritos o escuelas.

Costos/Pago: No se prevén pagos por participar en el estudio.

Atención de emergencia y tratamiento de lesiones: N/A

Derecho a rechazar o retirarse: Aunque su participación es importante para el estudio, es
completamente voluntaria. También puede retirar su consentimiento para participar en cualquier
momento.

Investigadores principales Divulgación de intereses personales y financieros en el estudio
de investigación Patrocinador: El investigador no tiene ningún interés financiero en el estudio.

Preguntas: Preguntas: si tiene alguna pregunta sobre este proyecto de investigación o si cree que
puede haber resultado lesionado como resultado de su participación o si tiene alguna pregunta
sobre sus derechos y participación como sujeto de investigación, comuníquese con la Oficina
para la Protección de Sujetos de Investigación al (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

Universidad del Sur de California
Comité de Sujetos Humanos Oficina de Investigación
Los Ángeles California, 90089

LA PARTICIPACIÓN EN LA INVESTIGACIÓN ES VOLUNTARIA. MARCAR LA
CASILLA A CONTINUACIÓN INDICARÁ QUE USTED HA DECIDIDO PARTICIPAR
COMO SUJETO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN EL ESTUDIO DESCRITO ANTERIORMENTE.
PUEDE IMPRIMIR UNA COPIA DE ESTE FORMULARIO PARA CONSERVARLA EN
SUS REGISTROS.

● Entiendo la intención de esta encuesta y doy mi consentimiento.
● ENLACE DE LA ENCUESTA AQUÍ:
https://forms.gle/nUXujjmQVKnoPyMQA

145
Appendix J: Online Survey for Parents / Encuesta en línea para los padres
Please select the option that best describes your answer. / Seleccione la opción que mejor
describa su respuesta.
1. How many students do you have attending K–12 schools in this district? ¿Cuántos
estudiantes tiene usted asistiendo a las escuelas K–12 en este distrito?
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7 or more
2. Please select all the grade levels your child/children are enrolled in during this school
year? Seleccione todos los niveles de grado(s) en los que su hijo/a(s) está(n)
matriculado(s) durante este año escolar.
• TK
• K
• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th
• 5th
• 6th

146
• 7th
• 8th
• 9th
• 10th
• 11th
• 12th
3. Please select the number of years your child/children have been part of the current school
district. / Seleccione el número de años que su hijo/a(s) ha(n) sido parte de este distrito
escolar.
• 1–2
• 3–4
• 5–6
• 7–8
• 9–10
• 11–12
• 12 or more
4. Please select all of the programs that are available at your school site for ELL students. /
Seleccione todos los programas que están disponibles en su escuela para aprendices del
idioma inglés.
• ELD classes / Clases de desarollo de inglés (ELD)
• Two-way/dual language Bidireccional /Lenguaje dual
• Sheltered content instruction / Instrucción de contenido protegido
• Newcomer program / Programa para recién llegados

147
• Structured emergent / Emergente estructurada
• Bilingual education / Educación bilingue
• Other / Otro
• I am not sure / No estoy seguro
Parent Training/ Entrenamiento de padres
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). / Por favor, lea cada una de las siguientes declaraciones. Elija la respuesta que
mejor describa su opinión sobre la declaración utilizando una escala Likert de 4 puntos de 1
(totalmente en desacuerdo) a 4 (totalmente de acuerdo).
5. My school site offers training for parents of ELL students. / El sitio de mi escuela ofrece
capacitación para padres de estudiantes del idioma inglés
6. My school district offers me opportunities to learn ways I can help support my ELL
students' academic progress. / Mi distrito escolar me ofrece oportunidades para aprender
formas en que puedo ayudar a apoyar el progreso académico de mis estudiantes del
idioma inglés
7. My school district offers a variety of workshops for parents to learn different strategies
that can support ELL students. / Mi distrito escolar ofrece una variedad de talleres para
que los padres aprendan diferentes estrategias que pueden ayudar a los estudiantes del
idioma inglés
8. My school site does not offer training for parents related to ELL services. / El sitio de mi
escuela no ofrece capacitación para padres relacionada con los servicios para estudiantes
del idioma inglés.

148
9. District and school training are raising my capacity as a parent to support my
child/children's academic outcomes year after year. / Las capacitaciones del distrito y de
la escuela están aumentando mi capacidad como padre para apoyar los resultados
académicos de mi hijo(s) año tras año.
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions / Apoyos para ELL: Conciencia y
percepciones
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). / Por favor, lea cada una de las siguientes declaraciones. Elija la respuesta que
mejor describa su opinión sobre la declaración utilizando una escala Likert de 4 puntos de 1
(totalmente en desacuerdo) a 4 (totalmente de acuerdo).
1. I know how to seek/obtain the support available for my children in my school district. Sé
cómo buscar/obtener el apoyo disponible para mis hijos en mi distrito escolar.
2. I know how to seek/obtain the supports available for my children at their current school. /
Sé cómo buscar/obtener los apoyos disponibles para mis hijos en su escuela actual.
3. My school district has effective systems in place that support ELL students' academic
progress. / Mi distrito escolar cuenta con sistemas efectivos que apoyan el progreso
académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés.
4. My school site has effective systems in place that support ELL students’ academic
progress. / Mi escuela cuenta con sistemas efectivos que apoyan el progreso académico
de los estudiantes del idioma inglés.

149
5. I have the opportunity to give input to change practices in my school that do not support
my children. / Tengo la oportunidad de dar mi opinión para cambiar las prácticas en mi
escuela que no apoyan a mis hijos.
6. I believe my input is heard and valued by my school administrator. / Creo que mi opinión
es escuchada y valorada por el administrador de mi escuela.
7. I understand the existing policy structure that helps deliver quality ELL support to
students. / Entiendo la estructura de política existente que ayuda a brindar apoyo de
calidad a los estudiantes del idioma inglés
8. My child's school values the multiple languages students bring to learning. / La escuela
de mi hijo valora los múltiples idiomas que los estudiantes aportan al aprendizaje.
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (least effective to 4 (very
effective. / Por favor, lea cada una de las siguientes declaraciones. Elija la respuesta que mejor
describa su opinión sobre la declaración utilizando una escala Likert de 4 puntos de 1 (totalmente
en desacuerdo) a 4 (totalmente de acuerdo).
1. How effective do you think the current system of parent- teacher collaboration is in
impacting and supporting academic achievement for ELL student? / En una escala de 1 a
5 donde 1 es menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan efectivo cree que es el sistema
actual de colaboración entre padres y maestros’ para impactar y apoyar el rendimiento
académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés?
2. How impactful do you think the practice of parent -school collaboration is in supporting
ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es menos
impactante y 5 es muy impactante. ¿Qué impacto cree que tiene la práctica de la

150
colaboración entre padres y escuela en apoyar el rendimiento académico de los
estudiantes del idioma inglés?
3. How effective do you think the practice of parent -principal collaboration is in supporting
ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es menos efectivo
y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan efectiva cree usted que es la práctica de la colaboración
entre padres y director en apoyar el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes del idioma
inglés?
4. How impactful do you think the practice of parent -district collaboration is in supporting
ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es menos efectivo
y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan impactante cree que es la práctica de la colaboración entre
padres y distritos en apoyar el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes del idioma
inglés?
5. How impactful do you think school culture is in supporting ELL students’ academic
achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es menos efectivo y 5 es muy
efectivo.¿Qué impacto cree que tiene la cultura escolar en el apoyo al rendimiento
académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés?
6. How effective do you think using ELL levels to determine student placement for classes
is in supporting ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1
es menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan efectivo cree que es usar los niveles de
estudiantes del idioma inglés para determinar la colocación de los estudiantes en las
clases para apoyar el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés?
7. Do you believe teachers discussing college and career readiness with ELL students has a
positive impact on ELL students’ academic achievement / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1

151
es menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Cree que los maestros’ que informan acerca de la
preparación universitaria y profesional a los estudiantes del idioma inglés tiene un
impacto positivo en el rendimiento académico?
Thank you for your feedback. We truly value the information you have provided. Your
responses will contribute to our analysis of systems of support for English Language Learners in
different school districts and guide future districts in implementing supports.
Gracias por tus comentarios. Realmente valoramos la información que ha
proporcionado. Sus respuestas contribuirán a nuestro análisis de sistemas de apoyo para
estudiantes del idioma inglés en diferentes distritos escolares y guiarán a futuros distritos en la
implementación de apoyos.

152
Appendix K: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed
University of Southern University California

RECRUITMENT AND AGREEMENT OF CONSENT FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
A case study of how principal, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive
K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success.
Investigators: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Galvez-Reyna

You have been invited to participate in this research study. Before you agree to participate,
It is important that you read and understand the following information. Participation is
completely voluntary. My name is Michelle Correa, and I am a doctoral student working on my
dissertation at the University of Southern California and I can be reached after this interview at
mcorrea@usc.edu if you have further questions. Please ask questions about anything you do not
understand before deciding whether to participate.

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study is to investigate how principal, teachers and parents
contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for the academic success of
English Language Learners (ELL). To do so, for this case study we will examine the
implementation of district policies, level of preparation of design components, and the principals,
teachers, and parent’s perceptions of the components of the ELLs systems. This study aims to
provide insights into how school districts can leverage their policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive K–12 support system for ELLs and highlight the most impactful components to
maximize the academic advancement of their ELLs population.

Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to be interviewed individually, which
will take around 45 minutes. Individual interviews will be requested from parents, teachers, and
principal of ELL students.

Risks: Risks associated with participation will be minimal. Pseudonyms will be used in all
written reports and no school or district names will be used. Every effort will be made to
maintain the confidentiality of all participants.

Benefits: Benefits associated with participation include the opportunity to express perceptions of
the school district and school site, the most impactful components that support ELL students. n
addition, the knowledge resulting from the study will be used to improve the system design that
leads to student success.

153
Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. The data will be kept in a password protected computer and all data will be
destroyed after 3 years. No district or school names will be reported.

Costs/Payment: There are no payments provided for participating in the study.

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

Right to Refuse or Withdraw: Although your participation is important to the study, it is
completely voluntary. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time.

Principal Investigators Disclosure of Personal and Financial Interests in the Research
Study Sponsor: The researcher has no financial interest in the study.

Questions: If you have any questions about this research project or if you think you may have
been injured as a result of your participation or have any questions regarding your rights and
participation as a research subject, please contact the Office for the Protection Research Subjects
at (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

University of Southern California
Human Subjects Committee Office of Research
Los Angeles California, 90089

PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IS VOLUNTARY. YOUR SIGNATURE
BELOW WILL INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AS
A RESEARCH SUBJECT IN THE STUDY DESCRIBED ABOVE. YOU CAN BE
GIVEN A SIGNED AND DATED COPY OF THIS FORM TO KEEP UPON
REQUEST.
_______________________________________________ _______________
Participant’s Signature Date
_______________________________________________
Participant’s Name

154
Appendix L: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para ser entrevistado
Universidad de la Universidad del Sur de California
RECLUTAMIENTO Y ACUERDO DE CONSENTIMIENTO PARA PARTICIPANTES EN
INVESTIGACIÓN
Un estudio de caso de cómo los administradores, maestros y padres contribuyen a un
sistema integral de calidad de K–12 de apoyo para el éxito académico de los estudiantes
ELL.
Investigadores: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Gálvez-Reyna

Usted ha sido invitado a participar en este estudio de investigación. Antes de aceptar participar,
Es importante que lea y comprenda la siguiente información. La participación es completamente
voluntaria. Mi nombre es Michelle Correa y soy estudiante de doctorado trabajando en mi
disertación en la Universidad del Sur de California y pueden comunicarse conmigo después de
esta entrevista en mcorrea@usc.edu si tienen más preguntas. Haga preguntas sobre cualquier
cosa que no entienda antes de decidir si desea participar.

Propósito: El propósito principal del estudio es investigar cómo los administradores, maestros y
padres contribuyen a un sistema integral de calidad de apoyo K–12 para el éxito académico de
los estudiantes del idioma inglés (ELL). Para hacerlo, para este estudio de caso examinaremos la
implementación de las políticas del distrito, el nivel de preparación de los componentes del
diseño y las percepciones de los administradores, maestros y padres sobre los componentes de
los sistemas ELL. Este estudio tiene como objetivo proporcionar información sobre cómo los
distritos escolares pueden aprovechar sus políticas para garantizar la entrega de un sistema de
apoyo integral K–12 para–ELL y resaltar los componentes más impactantes para maximizar el
avance académico de su población de ELL.

Procedimientos: Si decide participar, se le pedirá que sea entrevistado individualmente, lo que
tomará alrededor de 45 minutos. Se solicitarán entrevistas individuales a los padres, maestros y
administradores de los estudiantes ELL.

Riesgos: Los riesgos asociados con la participación serán mínimos. Se usarán seudónimos en
todos los informes escritos y no se usarán nombres de escuelas o distritos. Se hará todo lo posible
para mantener la confidencialidad de todos los participantes.

Beneficios: Los beneficios asociados con la participación incluyen la oportunidad de expresar las
percepciones del distrito escolar y los componentes más impactantes del sitio escolar que apoyan
a los estudiantes ELL. Además, el conocimiento resultante del estudio se utilizará para mejorar el
diseño del sistema que conduce al éxito de los estudiantes.

155
Confidencialidad: Su nombre no se incluirá en ningún informe escrito. Solo se incluirán datos
agregados. Los datos se mantendrán en una computadora protegida con contraseña y todos los
datos serán destruidos después de 3 años. No se informarán los nombres de distritos o escuelas.

Costos/Pago: No se prevén pagos por participar en el estudio.

Atención de emergencia y tratamiento de lesiones: N/A

Derecho a rechazar o retirarse: aunque su participación es importante para el estudio, es
completamente voluntaria. También puede retirar su consentimiento para participar en
cualquier momento.

Investigadores principales Divulgación de intereses personales y financieros en el estudio
de investigación Patrocinador: El investigador no tiene ningún interés financiero en el estudio.

Preguntas: Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre este proyecto de investigación o si cree que puede
haber resultado lesionado como resultado de su participación o si tiene alguna pregunta sobre sus
derechos y participación como sujeto de investigación, comuníquese con la Oficina para la
Protección de Sujetos de Investigación al (213) 821-1154, oprs@usc.edu.

Universidad del Sur de California
Comité de Sujetos Humanos Oficina de Investigación
Los Ángeles California, 90089

LA PARTICIPACIÓN EN LA INVESTIGACIÓN ES VOLUNTARIA. SU FIRMA
A CONTINUACIÓN INDICARÁ QUE USTED HA DECIDIDO PARTICIPAR
COMO SUJETO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN EL ESTUDIO DESCRITO
ANTERIORMENTE. SE LE PUEDE ENTREGAR UNA COPIA FIRMADA Y
FECHADA DE ESTE FORMULARIO PARA QUE LA CONSERVE A
SOLICITUD.
_______________________________________________ _______________
Firma del participante Fecha
_______________________________________________
Nombre del participante

156
Appendix M: Parent Interview Protocol
Good afternoon, my name is Michelle Correa, and I am a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California. I want to thank you for taking the time and agreeing to
participate in my study. As we discussed last time we spoke, the interview will not take more
than an hour, does this time frame still work for you?
First, I want to remind you of the purpose of this study and give you a short overview that
is stated in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions about your participation in this
interview. Again, I am a doctoral candidate at USC and am conducting a study about systems
that support English language learners. I am talking to multiple parents to learn and get some
insights about this topic.
Today, I am wearing the hat of researcher only and therefore the nature of my questions
is not at all evaluative. Please be assured that I will not be making any judgments on your
performance as a parent. My main goal as the researcher today is to understand your perspective
on practices and schoolwide systems that support learning for English language learners.
The study information sheet has all the details that include the confidential nature of this
interview. Since this is all confidential, your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. This information will not be shared with other teachers, the principal, or the
district. All the information obtained for this interview and all the answers provided will be
entered into a report. I will be adding and sharing some of what you say in direct quotes but your
name will not be cited. To keep the confidential nature as I quote responses and explain results,I
will use a pseudonym. Upon completion, I will be able to provide you with a copy of my final
paper, if you are interested.

157
The Study Information Sheet also informs you that the data will be kept in a password
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years. Before we get started, what
questions, if any, do you have about the study?
To ensure I capture all the information and details about what you share with me, I have
brought a recorder. The purpose of the recording is to best capture your perspectives and it will
not be shared with anyone outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our
conversation?
Setting the Stage
I am going to start with asking you some background questions about yourself:
1. How long have you had children enrolled in this district?
a. How many children do you have in this district?
b. How long has your child attended their current school?
c. Can you tell me the highest level of education you have completed?
d. What language(s) are spoken at home?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the resources available in your district and
school site to support your school, teachers, and parents of ELL students
2. Describe the resources that are available to your school that support ELL students.
a. Probing Questions:
i. How do these resources support your child?
ii. Has any data been shared to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
resources?
3. Describe how decisions are made about ELL resources.
a. Probing Questions:

158
i. Have you ever been asked to complete a survey about the effectiveness
of the resources and support that your child is receiving?
ii. Are resource decisions made by the school or district?
4. Can you describe the collaboration between you, your child's teacher(s) and the school
Principal to ensure your child's success?
a. Probing Questions:
i. What if any of these resources were provided?
ii. How did these resources support you and your child?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the training and support available for
parents of students who receive ELL services.
5. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in supporting your child at home with
their academic progress.
a. Probing Questions
i. What was the situation?
ii. What made this a success?
iii. What did you do?
iv. What did others do?
6. Tell me about a time when you did not feel successful in supporting your child with
their academic progress.
a. Probing Questions
i. What happened?
ii. What led to the lack of success?
iii. Did you seek support from the school? If so, what type of support?

159
iv. How was your request received?
7. Describe the support that you have received from your child’s teacher to promote
academic progress.
a. Probing Questions?
i. How did the teacher offer you or your child support?
ii. Did you see progress in your child’s academic work?
iii. How often were such supports provided?
iv. What additional resources or supports, if any, would you have wanted
from your child’s teacher to better support your child’s success in
school?
8. Describe the training and support that you have received in the past few years that
specifically address supporting the needs of ELL students.
a. Probing Questions
i. How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
ii. Who was involved in offering the support or training?
iii. What topics or strategies were provided?
iv. What other parents’ training/workshops have been offered for parents
of ELLs?
v. How, if at all, were these workshops beneficial in providing
information about content knowledge around English Language
Learner supports?
vi. What is your opinion regarding the current ELL program, parent
resources, parent training, etc. at this school site?

160
vii. Are there any additional training, resources, or information, if any, you
would like to be offered?
Now we are going to switch gears and talk about the policies that guide the support for
ELL students.
9. Share what you know about the policies related to English Language Learners.
a. Probing Questions:
i. What are the goals of the policy?
ii. Who is held accountable for implementing such policies?
iii. How do you know if such policies are being implemented?
iv. Are there limitations of the policy?
10. If you were asked to develop a plan for a school wide system of support for ELL
students, what questions might you have and what would you include in that plan?
a. Probing Questions:
i. What additional information about policies would you like to obtain?
ii. Are there changes you feel that are needed by the school or staff to
better support the academic achievement of your child?
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the resources,
training and policies that support ELL students today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for taking this time to share your thoughts with me today! I really
appreciate and value parent input. Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I
find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, is email, ok? Again, thank

161
you for participating in my study. As a thank you, please accept this small token of my
appreciation for a $5 coffee gift card.

162
Appendix N: Protocolo de entrevista con los padres
Buenas tardes mi nombre es Michelle Correa y soy estudiante de doctorado en la
Universidad del Sur de California. Quiero agradecerle por tomarse el tiempo y aceptar participar
en mi estudio. Como discutimos la última vez que hablamos, la entrevista no tomará más de una
hora, ¿este marco de tiempo todavía funciona para usted?
En primer lugar, quiero recordarle el propósito de este estudio y darle una breve
descripción general que se indica en la Hoja de información del estudio, y responder cualquier
pregunta sobre su participación en esta entrevista. Una vez más, soy candidato a doctorado en la
USC y estoy realizando un estudio sobre los sistemas que apoyan a los estudiantes del idioma
inglés. Estoy hablando con varios padres para aprender y obtener algunas ideas sobre este tema.
Hoy, solo uso el sombrero de investigador y, por lo tanto, la naturaleza de mis preguntas
no es en absoluto evaluativa. Tenga la seguridad de que no haré ningún juicio sobre su
desempeño como padre. Mi objetivo principal como investigador hoy es comprender su
perspectiva sobre las prácticas y los sistemas escolares que apoyan el aprendizaje de los
estudiantes del idioma inglés.
La hoja de información del estudio tiene todos los detalles que incluyen el carácter
confidencial de esta entrevista. Dado que todo esto es confidencial, su nombre no se compartirá
con nadie fuera del equipo de investigación. Esta información no se compartirá con otros
maestros, el director o el distrito. Toda la información obtenida para esta entrevista y todas las
respuestas proporcionadas se ingresarán en un informe. Agregaré y compartiré algo de lo que
dice entre comillas directas, pero su nombre no será citado. Para mantener la confidencialidad al
citar las respuestas y explicar los resultados, utilizaré un seudónimo. Al finalizar, podré
proporcionarle una copia de mi trabajo final, si está interesado.

163
La Hoja de información del estudio también le informa que los datos se guardarán en una
computadora protegida con contraseña y todos los datos serán destruidos después de 3 años.
Antes de comenzar, ¿qué preguntas, si las hay, tiene sobre el estudio?
Para asegurarme de capturar toda la información y detalles sobre lo que compartes
conmigo, he traído una grabadora. El propósito de la grabación es capturar mejor sus
perspectivas y no se compartirá con nadie fuera del equipo de investigación. ¿Puedo tener su
permiso para grabar nuestra conversación?
Preparando el escenario
Voy a comenzar haciéndole algunas preguntas de fondo sobre usted.
1. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha tenido niños matriculados en este distrito?
a. ¿Cuántos niños tiene en este distrito?
b. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha asistido su hijo a su escuela actual?
c. ¿Puede decirme el nivel más alto de educación que ha completado?
d. ¿Qué idioma(s) se habla(n) en casa?
Ahora me gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre los recursos disponibles en su distrito
y sitio escolar para apoyar a su escuela, maestros y padres de estudiantes ELL.
2. Describa los recursos disponibles en su escuela que apoyan a los estudiantes ELL.
e. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Cómo apoyan estos recursos a su hijo?
ii. ¿Se ha compartido algún dato para demostrar la eficacia de los
recursos?
3. 3. Describir cómo se toman las decisiones sobre los recursos de ELL.
a. Preguntas de sondeo:

164
i. ¿Alguna vez le han pedido que complete una encuesta sobre la eficacia
de los recursos y el apoyo que recibe su hijo?
ii. ¿Las decisiones de recursos son tomadas por la escuela o el distrito?
4. ¿Puede describir la colaboración entre usted, los maestros de su hijo y el director de la
escuela para asegurar el éxito de su hijo?
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Qué pasaría si se proporciona alguno de estos recursos?
ii. ¿Cómo estos recursos los apoyaron a usted y a su hijo?
Ahora me gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre la capacitación y el apoyo disponible
para los padres de estudiantes que reciben servicios de ELL.
5. Hábleme de un momento en que se sintió exitoso al apoyar a su hijo en casa con su
progreso académico.
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Cuál era la situación?
ii. ¿Qué hizo que esto fuera un éxito?
iii. ¿Qué hiciste?
iv. ¿Qué hicieron los demás?
6. Hábleme de un momento en el que no se sintió exitoso al apoyar a su hijo con su
progreso académico.
a. Preguntas de sondeo
i. ¿Qué sucedió?
ii. ¿Qué llevó a la falta de éxito?
iii. ¿Buscó apoyo en la escuela? Si es así, ¿qué tipo de apoyo?

165
iv. ¿Cómo fue recibida su solicitud?
7. Describa el apoyo que ha recibido del maestro de su hijo para promover el progreso
académico.
a. ¿Preguntas de sondeo?
i. ¿Cómo le ofreció el maestro a usted oa su hijo la manutención?
ii. ¿Vio progreso en el trabajo académico de su hijo?
iii. ¿Con qué frecuencia se proporcionaron dichos apoyos?
iv. ¿Qué recursos o apoyos adicionales, si los hubiere, hubiera querido del
maestro de su hijo para apoyar mejor el éxito de su hijo en la escuela?
8. Describa la capacitación y el apoyo que ha recibido en los últimos años que abordan
específicamente el apoyo a las necesidades de los estudiantes ELL.
a. Preguntas de sondeo
i. ¿Cómo se les informa a los padres sobre el apoyo y la capacitación
disponibles?
ii. ¿Quién estuvo involucrado en ofrecer el apoyo o la capacitación?
iii. ¿Qué temas o estrategias se proporcionaron?
iv. ¿Qué otras capacitaciones/talleres para padres se han ofrecido para
padres de ELL?
v. ¿De qué manera, en todo caso, fueron estos talleres beneficiosos para
proporcionar información sobre el conocimiento del contenido en
torno a los apoyos para estudiantes del idioma inglés?
vi. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre el programa ELL actual, los recursos para
padres, la capacitación para padres, etc. en esta escuela?

166
vii. ¿Hay alguna capacitación, recursos o información adicionales, si los
hubiere, que le gustaría que se le ofreciera?
Ahora vamos a cambiar de marcha y hablar sobre las políticas que guían el apoyo a los
estudiantes ELL.
9. Comparta lo que sabe sobre las políticas relacionadas con los estudiantes del idioma
inglés.
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Cuáles son los objetivos de la política?
ii. ¿Quién es responsable de implementar tales políticas?
iii. ¿Cómo saber si tales políticas se están implementando?
iv. ¿Hay limitaciones de la póliza?
10. Si le pidieran que desarrollara un plan para un sistema de apoyo para estudiantes ELL
en toda la escuela, ¿qué preguntas podría tener y qué incluiría en ese plan?
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Qué información adicional sobre las pólizas le gustaría obtener?
ii. ¿Hay cambios que cree que la escuela o el personal necesitan para
apoyar mejor el rendimiento académico de su hijo?
Pregunta de cierre
¿Qué otro punto de vista le gustaría compartir sobre nuestra conversación sobre los
recursos, la capacitación y las políticas que apoyan a los estudiantes ELL en la actualidad que yo
no haya cubierto, si corresponde?

167
Comentarios de cierre
¡Muchas gracias por tomarse este tiempo para compartir sus pensamientos conmigo hoy!
Realmente aprecio y valoro la opinión de los padres. Todo lo que has compartido es útil para mi
estudio. Si me encuentro con una pregunta de seguimiento, ¿puedo comunicarme con usted y, de
ser así, está bien el correo electrónico? Una vez más, gracias por participar en mi estudio. Como
agradecimiento, acepte esta pequeña muestra de mi agradecimiento por una tarjeta de regalo de
café de $5.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Considering the over 6 decades of national and state efforts around improving English Language Learner support structures and the population of ELL students in California continuing to rise, all districts need to focus on building effective ELL systems. Principals need to know how to ensure that there are no conflicts between federal law, state statute, district policies and collaborative implementation designs at the site level. The present study is part of a case study trying to understand the following: How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system for its students? What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system? What do administrators, teachers, and parents perceive are the most impactful components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater student success? Two districts and fourteen of their principals participated in this study. The study findings show a need for collaboration and integration of instructional practices across the curriculum as well as accountable practices guided by ongoing training and data. The lack of alignment between resources, ongoing training, and implementation of instructional practices that support student learning informed by data creates serious equity challenges for schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

Leading the new generation: principal leadership practices that promote retention of millennial teachers

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

Latinx principal belonging and mattering

PDF

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

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in middle schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in high schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Culturally responsive principal leadership and its influence on teachers in urban settings.

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

Why can’t I see myself in my school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

The policy of privilege: a case study on the role of policy on segregated enrollment patterns in Washington state's highly rated public magnet schools

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Galvez-Reyna, Gabriela (author)

Core Title A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/20/2023

Defense Date 03/27/2023

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

Tag access,education,English language learners,equity,K-12 systems,multilingualism,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy,principals

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kishimoto, Christina (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Ezaki, Janine (committee member)

Creator Email galvezre@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113057182

Unique identifier UC113057182

Identifier etd-GalvezReyn-11675.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GalvezReyn-11675

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Galvez-Reyna, Gabriela

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230421-usctheses-batch-1027 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu