University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Monolingual and biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Monolingual and biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Monolingual and Biliterate Approaches to English Literacy and Language Acquisition in
U.S. Public Schools

Raymond Franz

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 Raymond Franz 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Raymond Franz certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique Datta
Mike Swize
Morgan Polikoff, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Monolingual English literacy approaches to teaching the English language in U.S. public schools
have contributed to the persistent achievement gaps between White students and Hispanic
students across the nation. This includes students classified as second language learners. The
unchecked nature which positions English as the dominant language used solely in education is
an institutionalized process which has been shaped for over a century. The present study focuses
on the use of monolingual English literacy approaches used in secondary high school classrooms.
Teachers using monolingual English literacy approaches inadvertently demonize primary native
languages and have a direct impact on the teaching and learning of English used U.S. public
schools. The research used in this qualitative case study focuses on how teachers perceive
monolingual English literacy approaches in the classroom. I interviewed eight secondary high
school teachers from four comprehensive high schools in southern California through thirty
questions and fifteen follow up questions regarding their perceptions of monolingual English
literacy approaches and their effectiveness for teaching diverse populations of students. Data
gathered from the interview process revealed that monolingual English literacy approaches were
prevalent among the teachers interviewed. Teachers interviewed for this study also viewed
monolingual English literacy approaches as ineffective. Teachers resorted to monolingual
English literacy approaches as a result of limited training for differentiation and a lack of
collaboration to teach to diverse populations of students. The interview data analysis supported
the notion that monolingual English literacy approaches have a definite impact on a teacher’s
ability to provide quality instruction for all students.

v
Dedication
To my wonderful wife and constant cheerleader, Nicole. I could not have done this without your
constant love and inspiration.

vi
Acknowledgements
This process has made me extremely grateful for my family who has given me their one
hundred percent unconditional love and support throughout this journey. My wife Nicole has
been my greatest source of inspiration, laughter, joy and necessary distraction. Without her this
journey would have never come to pass. To my children Tristan, Taylor, and Lyla this is for you.
Dream big and never quit. The three of you lifted me up and kept me going with your constant
hugs and laughter. The wait is over and daddy is finally done. Let’s go out and have some fun.
Thank you to all of my professors who allowed me the opportunity and platform to share
my views on everything discussed in this cohort. By giving us the space to speak our minds, you
have helped shape my views on leadership. Thank you, Dr. Cash, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Datta, Dr.
Riggio, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Roach, and Dr. Kishimoto for the opportunity to engage in thoughtful
discussions. I especially have to thank Dr. Morgan Polikoff for your patience, professionalism,
and your process. This dissertation would not have materialized without your guidance.
To my cohort and my partners in crime I say, thank you. Everything happens for a reason,
and we all got through this together sharing our stories, our laughter, our frustration, and our
friendship. I am thankful for meeting everyone in our cohort, but I would be remiss if I didn’t say
your names. Thank you, Erik, Mike, Stacy, Kelly, Becca, Kamil, and Preeti for always
participating and putting up with my shenanigans.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Autism community. As educational leaders, it is
our job to make sure all children are given every opportunity to excel no matter how different we
are. We are all pieces of the same puzzle.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 4
Definitions of Terms ....................................................................................................... 5
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Monolingual Approaches in U.S. Public Schools ......................................................... 11
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 52
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 56
Teacher Recruitment and Sampling .............................................................................. 57
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 58
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 59
Coding ........................................................................................................................... 62

viii
Open Coding ................................................................................................................. 66
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 69
Interview Data ............................................................................................................... 69
Feelings and Beliefs About Monolingual Approaches .................................................. 74
Revelations From Teacher Experiences ........................................................................ 81
The Impact of Monolingual Approaches on Teachers .................................................. 82
Interpretations of Teachers’ Feelings and Beliefs ......................................................... 96
Facing Moral Dilemmas in Ocotillo Canyon Unified SD .......................................... 101
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 105
Interpretation of Findings ........................................................................................... 107
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 109
Implications of Findings .............................................................................................. 111
Future Directions of Research .................................................................................... 112
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 113
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 116
References .................................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A: Draft Interview Protocol ........................................................................................ 124
Concepts From Conceptual Framework Addressed in the Interview ......................... 124
Participant Introduction .............................................................................................. 125
Setting the Stage ......................................................................................................... 126

ix
Heart of the Interview ................................................................................................. 126
Closing Question ......................................................................................................... 130
Closing Comments ...................................................................................................... 130

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Information ................................................................................................... 61
Table 2: A Priori Code Data by Participant, Code, and Number of Occurrences ......................... 70
Table 3: Responses to Question 3 Regarding Monolingual Approaches ...................................... 73
Table 4: Responses to Question 5 Regarding Monolingual Approaches ...................................... 73
Table 5: Teacher Level of Personal Transformation ................................................................... 102

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1: NAEP Report Card for Eighth Grade ............................................................................ 14
Figure 2: NAEP Student Reading Scores for 12th Grade ............................................................. 15
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 54
Figure 4: A Priori Code Data From Code and Number of Occurrences ....................................... 65
Figure 5: Axial Codes From Interview Data ............................................................................... 100

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Perceptions of monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition have
a had a huge impact on U.S. public education. Significant achievement gaps persist between
White students and historically marginalized minority student groups (Robinson & Dervin,
2019). In particular, Robinson and Dervin (2019) indicate this is especially true for Hispanic
students, students classified as English language learners (ELL), English as a second language
learners (ESL), and students in English language development (ELD).
Gaps in English literacy and language acquisition can be attributed to monolingual
approaches to teaching English in U.S. public schools. Monolingual approaches to teaching
English are characterized by falsehoods created by politically motivated supporters who wish to
continue an unequal balance of power in this country (Hinton, 2016). Proponents of monolingual
approaches argue that learning English leads to economic prosperity, while alternative biliterate
approaches will erode the public school system leading to increased minority rights which pose a
threat to our country (Soto & Kharem, 2006).
The perceptions formed by monolingual approaches to English literacy and language
acquisition continue to shape policy, curriculum, and accountability in U.S. public schooling.
The rise of nationalism across the United States has led to the re-enforcement of English
monolingualism and the disparagement of biliteracy and multilingualism. English continues to be
taught from a colonist position of power as Spanish and other languages are negatively framed in
U.S. public school discourse (Garcia, 2009).
Subtractive schooling practices reducing student competencies are justified by supporters
of a nationalist movement who regard the ability to speak other languages as a display of

2
disloyalty. The consoling argument is that monolinguistic approaches better prepare students for
standardized achievement tests, and later participation in a globalized economy (Hinton, 2016).
In addition to the persistent achievement gaps between White students and Hispanic
students, including students classified as ELL, ESL, or ELD, perceptions of monolingual
approaches continue to influence how teachers, students, families, and policymakers shape
curriculum, assessments, and public education policy regarding English literacy and language
acquisition in the U.S. public school system. Discourses of monolingualism is rooted in the
Americanization movement of the early 19th century yet continue to permeate U.S. public
education. This movement was dedicated to teaching English to foreigners to exact loyalty to the
American way of life. This required English learners of that era to forgo their native language,
culture, and beliefs in exchange for acceptance into American society (Auerbach, 2009).
Perceptions of the ideal student as well as the ideal teacher manifest White colonist ideals
which positions monolingualism as the norm and continues to ostracize biliterate approaches to
English literacy and language acquisition as inferior (Wang, 2016). It is necessary to interrogate
monolingual approaches in the U.S. public school system amidst the backdrop of arguments
calling for increased equity among our historically marginalized populations of students.
The perceptions of teachers need to be scrutinized to understand why educational gaps
continue to exist between White students and populations of Hispanic, ELL, ESL, and ELD
students in English literacy and language acquisition classes to determine the impact of
monolingual as well as biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S.
public schools.

3
Purpose of the Study
Teacher perceptions of monolingual approaches regarding English literacy and language
acquisition have strong influences on learning. The U.S. teacher force is dominated by White,
English-speaking females who adopt a monolingual mindset that is representative of White,
middle-class values, rather than focusing on the diversity of the classroom (Zhang-Wu, 2021).
Research has shown students who are of Hispanic descent, classified as ELL, ELD, and ESL
receive lower grades, test scores, and have lower rates of high school completion and college
enrollment compared to other nationalities (Genesee, 2008). These students also encounter
negative school experiences which include feelings of dissatisfaction, exclusion, and stereotypes
based on ability to perform academically based on ethnicity (Taggart, 2018).
The purpose of this study is to examine monolingual approaches to English literacy and
language acquisition in U.S. public schools. Specifically, this study seeks to examine the
perceptions of teachers regarding these approaches to determine their impact on student learning,
achievement, and post-secondary success. This study seeks to add to the discussion regarding
monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools. This
study also seeks to determine the direct impact of monolingual approaches on learning for
Hispanic, ELL, and ESL students.
Research Questions
The present study was guided by two research questions:
1. What are teachers’ feelings and beliefs about the monolingual English literacy
approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District?
2. What do teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English
literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District?

4

Significance of the Study
There is a need for research regarding the perceptions of teachers concerning
monolingual and biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition. Across the
United States there has been a resurgent call to embrace nationalism in the public education
system. High stakes testing and accountability measures based on monolingual foundations
continue to segregate the most vulnerable populations of students (Ramanthan, 2013).
Hispanic student populations are the fastest growing in U.S. public education but are also
one of the most underperforming (NCES, 2022). Hispanic students and students classified as
ELL, ELD, and or ESL are characterized by their ability to obtain proficiency in English. The
opportunities to obtain proficiency are hindered by the outdated monolingual approaches to
English literacy and language acquisition and the perceptions held by teachers regarding the
effectiveness of these approaches. Students are also limited by their own perceptions regarding
proficiency in English (Kohli, et. al., 2017).
In California graduation rates, achievement scores, and dropout rates for Hispanic
students, students classified as ELL, ELD, and ESL are consistent with the national average.
Even more disturbing is that nearly 50% of all Hispanic students who graduate are unprepared to
enter the labor force based on state accountability tests measuring college and career readiness
(CDE, 2022). A significant amount of research has been devoted toward the investigation of
historically marginalized populations of Hispanic students it is rare that meaningful answers have
been provided (Ladson-Billings, 2006). There is a definite need for research regarding what
teachers’ feelings and beliefs are regarding monolingual approaches to English literacy and
language acquisition.

5
The theoretical framework for this study is based on Mezirow’s (1997) theory of
transformative learning which states educators must make learning meaningful and requires new
information to be incorporated by the learner into an already well-developed symbolic frame of
reference, an active process thought, feelings and disposition.
Additionally, Mezirow (1997) states that an individual must encounter a moral a
disorienting dilemma where a person’s current meaning structure does not match a previous
experience. In order to deal with this dilemma a person must do an internal self-test of their
beliefs and understandings based on past experiences (Mezirow, 1997).
The current achievement gaps suggest teachers of English language at the secondary high
school level are experiencing these moral dilemmas as they try to address the needs of their
diverse populations. White students and Hispanic students particularly in California. This gap
includes those students who are classified as ESL, ELL and ELD.
The research of this study seeks to examine teacher’s feelings and beliefs about the
monolingual English literacy approach used in a Southern California School District known as
Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. The research of this study also seeks to examine what
teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in
Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners.
Definitions of Terms
• Achievement gap: In U.S. public education students are grouped by race, ethnicity,
and gender. An achievement gap occurs when one group outperforms another group
and the difference in average scores for the two groups is statistically significant
(NCES, 2022).

6
• Bilingual: The ability to speak fluently in two languages but may not possess the
ability to read and write fluently in both languages (Armstrong, 2019).
• Biliterate: The ability to read and write proficiently in two languages. Fluency is
present in both languages (Armstrong, 2019).
• Direct method: Teaching English using only English as the means of instruction. This
includes books, texts, and other curricular material (Goldberger, 1920).
• English immersion: Initially known as the sink or swim approach. English immersion
today has various forms but is viewed as joining the culture of the language you are
learning. Instruction is carried out in the target language. The philosophy is children
will learn the target language by using it. In the U.S nearly all classroom instruction is
carried out in the target language English including curriculum materials and teaching
(Department of Education, n.d.).
• English language development (ELD): Instruction created specifically for students
categorized as English language learners to develop their listening, speaking, reading,
and writing skills in English. This type of instruction also refers to English as a
second language (ESL).
• English language learners (ELL): Students who are categorized as unable to
communicate fluently or effectively in English, come from non-English speaking
backgrounds, or English is not spoken at home. Students classified as ELL usually
require specialized or modified instruction in both their academic courses and in the
English language (Department of Education, n.d.).
• Monolingual: Speaking or using only one language. A term used in education defined
as an English only approach to teaching and learning English in U.S. public

7
schooling. This approach situates learning English as the primary focus, to the
detriment of a student’s native or home language (Auerbach, 1993).
• Multilingual: The ability to speak fluently in more than two languages but may not
possess the ability to read and write fluently in more than two languages (Armstrong,
2019).
• Nationalism: The concept that a nation should govern itself free from outside
interference. The nation is a natural ideal source of what is right in the process of a
civil government. The nation itself is the only source of political power. An
individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation state surpasses other individual or
group interests. In education it is the nation that determines what is good for all
students (Britannica, n.d.).
• National literacy panel: A panel funded by the United States Department of
Education and the Institute of Education Sciences comprised of expert researchers
from the fields of reading, language, bilingualism, research methods and education.
The panel was convened to conduct an evidence-based review of the research
literature on the development of literacy among language minority students. The
panel was to produce a report evaluating the research literature to guide educational
practice and inform educational policy (Center for Applied Linguistics, n.d.).
• Perception: A way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something which
leaves an initial impression (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
• Translanguaging: Allowing for the use of multiple languages in the classroom
pedagogical process to access student prior knowledge. It is also a process where

8
bilinguals are allowed to use their linguistic resources to make sense of and interact
with the world around them (Garcia, 2009).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
The sample of this study is made up of teachers from a school district in southern
California. Their experiences and perceptions may be extremely different from teachers and
students in other California school districts, as well as across the nation. Results of this study
may not generalize to other states.
Interviews of English language arts teachers at the secondary level are based on their
perceptions formed through their experiences with monolingual and biliterate approaches to
English literacy and language acquisition. These perceptions may be different from those of their
peers based on individual approaches to English language literacy and acquisition advocated by
their school admiration or district. There may be some awkwardness towards the myself as the
researcher and possible expectations of standardized answers to the questions. Other internal or
external factors may influence responses towards monolingual or biliterate approaches. The data
collected may be incomplete.
I am a teacher with 23 years of classroom experience. I served 14 of those years as an
English language arts teacher at the middle school level for various grades. This includes general
education, interventions, and creative writing for at risk students. I also served on the district
English language arts curriculum and instructional pacing guide team for middle schools. My
experience includes having served on the district’s short cycle and benchmark design team for
middle schools. As a current veteran teacher, I may bring biases related to the formation of
monolingual and biliterate perceptions in English literacy and language acquisition classroom
settings.

9
Because I am a veteran English teacher, I have a wide depth of understanding regarding
monolingual and biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition. I possess a
unique and broad understanding of how local district as well as state curricular policies are
implemented in the classroom.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 is an overview of the study. Chapter
2 is a review of the literature. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology of the study. Chapter 4 gives
the results of the study. Chapter 5 is a discussion of the findings with recommendations for
policy and future study.

10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this study is to examine monolingual approaches to English literacy and
language acquisition in U.S. public schools. Specifically, this study seeks to examine the
perceptions of teachers regarding these approaches to determine their impact on student learning,
achievement, and post-secondary success. This study seeks to add to the discussion regarding
monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools. The
research conducted seeks to determine the direct impact of monolingual approaches on learning
for Hispanic, ELL, and ESL students.
I present a conceptual framework to justify the need for research focusing on how
monolingual approaches to teaching English literacy and language acquisition at the secondary
level significantly impacts learning among populations of Hispanic students, and students
classified as ESL, ELL, and ELD. I explored two questions in this study: What are teachers’
feelings and beliefs about the monolingual English literacy approach used in Ocotillo Canyon
Unified School District? What do teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the
monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon School District for improving English
literacy for diverse learners?
Achievement gaps and literacy rates for Hispanic students and English language learners
will be discussed first to provide historical context of the problem. Next, the origins of
monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition will be presented as a way
to provide context regarding the harmful effects monolingual approaches have on English
literacy. Finally, empirical evidence will be discussed supporting the reasoning behind the need
for continued research of monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition.

11
Monolingual Approaches in U.S. Public Schools
Social cognitive theory has established ideas regarding learning and behaviors related to
literacy and language arts acquisition in U.S. public secondary schools among educational
researchers. These ideas validate among many educators that learning occurs through a series of
repeated dependent and interdependent actions which have led to the narrowing of English
language literacy and language arts acquisition for Hispanic students, students classified as ESL,
ELL, or ELD. Across the nation and in particular California it is essential to research the
approaches to teaching English language literacy and language acquisition and how they shape
educational policy, curriculum, testing, assessment, and accountability. An area of concern
amidst growing widespread nationalism is the unchecked nature of monolingual approaches to
English literacy and language arts acquisition at the secondary level in U.S. public secondary
schools (Hinton, 2006).
A monolingual approach to English literacy and language acquisition emphasizes an
English only approach to learning. These practices disregard an English learner's native
language. Monolingual approaches also disregard the learner’s prior knowledge and abilities. In
essence this goes against cognitive learning principles as students are assessed, tested, or
evaluated prior to entering U.S. public secondary schools in English skills only (Hinton, 2016).
These practices have a direct impact on student learning outcomes. This has become increasingly
evident among Hispanic student populations, students classified as ESL, ELL, or ELD
throughout the nation. In California these students continue to lag behind their White
counterparts in achievement and college career readiness (NCES, 2022).
From a historical perspective a monolingual approach to the teaching of English literacy
and language arts acquisition skills has been the accepted standard for the last century.

12
Researchers as well as sociolinguistics have called attention to the unchecked nature of
monolingualism in both research paradigms and policymaking (Gramling, 2016). Slowly and
methodically monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition used in U.S.
classrooms were used to further segregate White English-speaking students from Hispanic
students and students considered English language learners.
Schools across the U.S. have adopted a culture of teaching to the test by cutting or
reducing instruction of non-tested subjects. However, the validity of state testing needs to be
questioned as they continue to produce persistent learning gaps between White students and
students of color (Robinson & Dervin, 2019). Historically, the cause of these learning gaps has
been attributed to socio-economic factors. Little has been said regarding the methods used to
teach English in public schools which prepares Hispanic students and English language learners
for an assessment of skills rooted in monolingual English literacy approaches.
Alternatively, biliterate approaches served as the norm in teaching English prior to World
War I. After World War I speaking a foreign language was associated with being disloyal to
America as labor unions, and American corporations pushed to Americanize populations of the
immigrant work force. By 1920, sink or swim policies were dominant in teaching English to
populations of school age children English (Crawford, 2016). Biliteracy and approaches to bi-
literate modes of learning continue to remain taboo in the discourses surrounding the teaching of
English to Hispanic students, ESL, and the teaching of English in general in U.S. public
secondary schools. Biliterate approaches have been proven effective despite the criticism lobbied
against them. The benefits of biliteracy must not be overlooked when seeking to improve upon
current literacy rates.

13
Studies of the methodological approach of monolingualism have shown the practice of
teaching in only the second language (English) and the exclusion of a student’s primary language
to be standard acceptable practice in today’s public-school environment (Cummins, 2006). In
California public secondary schools, emphasis is placed on the acquisition of English through
immersion (Lin, 2015), furthering monolingualism as the prevailing ideology as the foundation
of constructive language education to the detriment of a student’s dominant native home
language. Monolingualism also contributes to the formation of deficit perspectives regarding
English language learners as a push for Nationalism in American public schools is on the rise.
Literacy Rates Are Consistently Low for Hispanic, ESL, ELL, and ELD Students
The number of Hispanic students is increasing in U.S. public schools. In the fall of 2018
50.7 million students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. 23.8 million were
Hispanic, 7.7 million students were Black, 2.7 million were Asian, 2.1 million were of two or
more races, 0.5 were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 186,000 were Pacific Islander (NCES,
2018). These demographic data are important to note when looking at achievement scores
nationally. Scores have genuinely remained stagnant, and gaps in performance have barely
closed for historically marginalized populations (NCES, 2022).
It has been reported by the most recent available data that overall average reading scores
are down nationally compared to scores in more recent years (NCES, 2022). At the secondary
level nationally eighth grade scores in 2019 were 3 points lower (263) by comparison from the
previous year. From 1992 through 2019 the average reading score for White eighth graders was
higher than the scores of their Hispanic peers. Although the White and Hispanic student
achievement gap among eighth graders did not change significantly from 2017 to 2019 it is

14
important to note the gap still exists. Overall, the gap has only narrowed over 27 years by 6
points from 26 points to 20 points (NCES, 2022).
As visualized in Figure 1, eighth grade Hispanic students scores were not measurably
different between 2015 and 2017 at 255. White students scored 19 points higher than Hispanic
students in 2017 compared to 20 points in 2015, which is an increase of only 1 point difference
(NCES, 2022). This data shows gaps remain consistent between Hispanic students and White
students nationally.

Figure 1
NAEP Report Card for Eighth Grade

15
As visible in Figure 2, Grade 12 average reading scores for White students (295) and
Hispanic students (276) were measurably different from 2013 and 1992. The achievement gap
between White and Hispanic students in 2015 remained consistent (20 points) and not
measurably different from any previous year. According to NCES (2022), in 2015, the average
reading score for 12th grade ELL students was 49 points lower (240) than the score for non-ELL
peers (289).

Figure 2
NAEP Student Reading Scores 12th Grade

16
California Achievement Scores
Current California state demographics list Hispanic students as the largest enrolled group
in public schools at 55% or 3,320, 300 students, followed by White students at 21% or 1,304,963
(CDE, 2022). 1,062,290 students are identified as English Language Learners (ELL), and
246,714 or 4.1% identify as two or more races. Hispanic students are the fastest growing
population of enrolled students both nationally and within the state of California. This is
significant to note when looking at achievement scores both nationally and locally as scores have
either remained stagnant or have not achieved any consistency in improvement among
historically marginalized populations (NCES, 2022).
California state enrollment totals for only secondary schools in 2022 stand at 1,841,249
for high schools and 1,033,373 for middle schools which total a combined student population of
2,874,622 or 34.8% of California’s total student population enrolled (CDE, 2022). Among
student populations tested in Grade 11 on either the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment or
the California Alternate Assessment all populations of students scored 6 points lower or 6 points
below the basic standard level for English from the previous testing cycle (CDE, 2022).
According to the California State Accountability Dashboard test results indicated for
students in Grade 11 only 29% of all students exceeded the minimum standard for English
Language Arts, while 30% of students just met the standard. Only 21% of all students nearly met
the standard. The remaining 19% of all state 11th grade students did not. Broken down further
this amounts to just over 59% of all California 11th grade students meeting or exceeding the CA
ELA standard on the Smarter Balanced Assessment and just over 41% not meeting the standard
(CDE, 2022).

17
In 2022, results broken down by subgroup show over 50% of all Hispanic students in
Grade 11 meeting or exceeding the standard on Smarter Balanced Assessments. Nearly one fifth
or 19.43% exceeded the standard, while 30.85% just met the standard. Just over a quarter or
25.47% of the students nearly met the standard, while 24.24% of the students did not meet the
standard. Combined the assessment results show just over 50% of all Hispanic students in Grade
11 meet the English Language Arts standard on the Smarter Balanced Assessments, while just
under 50% of all Hispanic students do not (CDE, 2022).
The number of graduates from California high schools who are categorized as
approaching college or career ready worthiness or do not qualify as college or career ready is
staggering. Recent statistics show on a 3-year average from 2017 through 2019 42% of all
graduating seniors are considered unprepared for college or career readiness. Seventeen percent
of all graduating seniors are simply approaching prepared college or career ready status. This
means the combined number of graduating high school students who are considered neither
college nor career ready when they leave high school is 57%. During the same 3-year period the
number of graduating students leaving high school considered college or career ready is only
42% (CDE, 2022). Statistics indicate more than half of all California graduating seniors leaving
high school and not attending college lack the necessary English language and literacy skills
necessary to begin a career successfully.
Given the demographics of California and the expanding diverse student populations
across the nation it is evident problems exist within the public secondary school system.
Enabling students for post-secondary success begins with reevaluating a reliance on a
monolingual paradigm which has largely shaped current mainstream classroom practice.
Monolingual educational policies have limited the learning opportunities for both native and

18
non-native English speakers alike. It has also shaped a cultural bias whereas biliterate
educational opportunities have been limited as a result (Wang, 2015).
Localized Achievement Scores
Locally, students in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District do not read and write at
grade level by the time they reach 12th grade including students with learning disabilities.
Students consistently score below state standard proficiency levels in reading. Based on the
California School Dashboard, state, and local performance indicators Ocotillo Hills Unified
School District has consistently identified English Language Arts as an area needing significant
improvement (2019).
The all-students group reported in the orange performance level for English Language
Arts which is all students Grades 3 through 8 and Grade 11 who are tested annually. Red and
orange are the lowest performance indicators on the accountability dashboard (2022).
In 2022, the all-students group tested 43.1 points below standard with 10,010 students
reported as having been tested in English language proficiency (CDE, 2022). In the subgroups
Hispanic students scored low at 49.5 points below standard and categorized as low proficient.
Meanwhile, White students only scored 1.9 below standard and categorized as medium
proficient. English learners were categorized as very low proficient scoring 71.8 points below
standard. Students with disabilities reported in the red performance level scoring 131.4 points
below standard.
The lack of proficiency in English Language Arts has been a consistent problem for
Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. The student population in the school district is
identified as over 80% Hispanic, 10% White, 5% Black, 4.5% Asian/Asian Pacific Islander.
According to the California School Accountability Dashboard the College Career Indicator for

19
Ocotillo Hills Unified students ranked in the low status at 34% (2019) which is considered well
below the state average. College and Career Readiness scores were not available for 2022, but if
current trends hold true then this category will continue to be an area of concern in the near
future.
Monolingual Approaches
The term monolingual and biliterate related to approaches in English literacy and
language acquisition in U.S. public secondary schools have unique distinctions. Each is
characterized by the perceptions placed on their meanings and how each word is connected to
learning English. The perceptions formed by both the educator and the student have a strong
impact on both learning and teaching. Monolingual and biliterate approaches to English language
literacy and language acquisition have a direct impact on student learning. However, both the
monolingual and biliterate approaches are very different in that one approach (monolingual)
traditionally relies on immersion into one whole language while disregarding a students’ home or
native language. Monolingual approaches also rely on outdated theories of teaching English that
does not allow for translation (Cummins, 2010).
Biliterate approaches rely on the current strengths of the student learner in their native
language building on the knowledge the student already possesses utilizing skills in their native
language to acquire another language. A biliterate approach also carries certain stigmas
characterized by political forces which view language acquisition as a singular process. In much
of present U.S. public schools biliterate programs exist only as a bridge towards attaining
English fluency (Hinton, 2016).
Monolingual means speaking, writing, or communicating in only one language (Lexico,
2022). Bilingual means speaking two languages fluently. It also means writing, or

20
communicating in two languages (Lexico, 2022). The predominant mode for instructing English
language learners in the United States has been through a monolingual mode. Research has
found that most teachers in the United States are monolingual and tend to view bi-multilingual
students’ home languages as obstacles to learning English (Barros et al., 2021).
The views and perceptions of teachers of Hispanic English language learners is important
for two reasons. First, the exclusive use of an English only policy to teach ESL Hispanic students
has come to be regarded as normal or natural in an educational pedagogical sense; therefore, it
goes unchallenged in terms of improving existing policies affecting educational practices.
Second, evidence from research proves current policies reinforcing monolingual modes of
teaching serve to reinforce long standing inequalities on a broader scale. Teachers themselves
live under the limiting construct of the ideal teacher who represents White middle-class values
(Auerbach, 1993).
In U.S. public schools, the promotion of English monolingualism as the only acceptable
social condition results from historical discourse that values uniformity above excellence
(Hinton, 2016). This fact along with the complex structural realities of U.S. public schools,
curricula, instruction, and high stakes assessment coupled with accountability policies
prioritizing English facilitates the cultivation of a monolingual mindset that regards only
knowing English as a societal norm. This cultivation continues to grow amidst the current
nationalist mindset, despite a larger bi/multilingual than monolingual population throughout the
world (Barros et al., 2021).
Tracing the roots of the term monolingual in educational settings dates back as far as the
seventeenth century in renaissance France. Gramling describes the post enlightenment norm of
reading and writing in one universal language to the exclusion of others as part of the mass

21
literacy initiatives which eclipsed Latin in the University and French in the diplomatic sphere
(2016). The monolingual approach to teaching gained universal acceptance more than 100 years
ago and continues to have a strong influence on approaches to teaching English literacy and
language acquisition today.
What Is Known About Monolingual Approaches to Literacy
In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt lobbied to make English the official language of
the United States by proclaiming:
The United States has room for, but one language and that is the English language. The
United States must have but one language. Any force which attempts to retard the
assimilative process is a force hostile to the highest interest of our country. As a nation
we must consider English as the glue that unites the States. (Wang, 2016, p. 34)
Monolingual approaches can be attributed to the resurgence of nativism and the anti-
foreign sentiment in the late 19th century that signaled the decline of bilingual education in
America (Auerbach, 1993). Today’s goals for educating America’s population of immigrant and
English learning students can be traced back to goals implemented through the Americanization
movement. Developing English language proficiency is the primary goal while the overall
academic and social needs of immigrant students is forgotten (Daoud, 2003).
The beginning of World War I brought an increase in immigration from Europe causing
an expansion of roles in the United States for immigrants in the labor movement. This expansion
caused increased hatred and distrust of foreigners as immigrants were blamed for many of the
nation’s economic problems. Politically, foreigners were also blamed for the devasting hardships
suffered because of the war. Increased patriotism and the Americanization movement was
encouraged to combat foreign influences during this time (Auerbach, 1993).

22
The ability to speak good English became associated with patriotism. Perceptions of
being a good American became synonymous with reciting oaths of loyalty to the United States as
demonstrated by citizenship and naturalization tests of the time. It was during this time direct
methods stressing oral English gained popularity over methods allowing for the use of a student’s
native language and a monolingual English only approach became the norm in ESL classes. The
education and Americanization workers including public school teachers promoted the idea
suggesting immigrants lack of English skills would have serious consequences for national
security and economic stability (Dayton-Wood, 2008).
These perceptions regarding the ideal student as well as teachers of English laid the
foundation for monolingual approaches for teaching English literacy and language acquisition in
U.S. public schools for years to come. Perceptions also lead to the establishment of the
classroom teacher serving as an unspoken gatekeeper protecting the integrity of white colonial
power structures in U.S. public education. Teacher behaviors and institutionalized classroom
practices are centered on the use of language. Ideological power is maintained strictly through
teacher control and consent (Barros et al., 2021).
Monolingual and the Single (English) Language Approach
In May of 1919, the United States Bureau of Education and the Department of the
Interior convened the National Conference of Americanization with leading teachers of English
to the foreign born. Three sessions were held specifically to address the issue and from these
sessions a committee was formed. From this committee, Dr. Henry Goldberger was appointed by
the Bureau of Education to address the underlying issues for teaching English to the foreign
born. Dr. Goldberger was commissioned to draft a text that would not necessarily be adopted as a
manual for teaching English to foreigners but offer an outline best suited to meet the needs of

23
foreign students. The text also was suggested to adapt the various literacy capabilities of
individual learners. It was intended for teachers to build upon based on their own individual
strengths (Goldberger, 1920).
Goldberger was a renowned professor of English and taught English courses for
foreigners at Columbia University (Ray, 2013). He also served as Principal for Public School 18
in New York. Prior to his appointment by the Bureau of Education, Goldberger had developed an
approach to teaching English (ESL) to adults which focused on teaching practical English.
Goldberger introduced the direct method in his 1920 book, Teaching English to the Foreign
Born: A Teacher’ s Handbook (p. 14).
Goldberger’s (1920) book and the introduction of the direct method was an important
development in the process of teaching English because the direct method becomes the basis for
monolingual approaches to teaching in public school classrooms still prevalent today. Goldberger
specifically advocates for the teaching of English to be done entirely in English advocating
against translation. Goldberger believed English is best acquired through use. Translation should
not be a consideration because translation forces a student to associate one language form with
another form. Goldberger (1920) also felt that translation for students served to benefit only the
teacher and not the student (p. 4).
Much of what is recommended in Goldberger’s book can be recognized today in
monolingual English only approaches to teaching English to foreign students and English
language learners in U.S. public secondary schools. Goldberger believed in order to learn
English a second language learner must eliminate their primary language use and rid themselves
of any desire for translation. A foreigner must overcome the desire to find the equivalent word in
their own language and learn the new word in English (Goldberger, 1920, p. 4).

24
Goldberger’s text was commissioned in 1920 by the United States Department of
Education. Goldberger speaks of using spiritual inheritance in his text to provide the end view
for producing the Americanization of immigrants (1920, p. 5). Today’s teachers subscribe to the
same monolingual principals and approaches to teaching English literacy and language
acquisition. Most teachers in public education are monolingual and continue to perceive
biliterate or multilingual students’ home language as an obstacle to learning (Barros et al., 2014).
Goldberger’s direct method has exerted significant control over U.S. public school
English language literacy and acquisition courses with the elevation of monolingual approaches
as normal. In the United States, language discourse positions English as the only language worth
studying in. Monolingualism has privilege because it is valued by those who wish to maintain
power. English is viewed as a measure of student success created in the discourse of public
education. A systematic hierarchy and informal educational caste system was created as a result
which values monolingualism as the only socially acceptable result. Adherence to monolingual
approaches continues to advance an ideology that is limiting and destructive (Hinton, 2016).
As a recent historical intervention, sociolinguistics have called attention to the unchecked
nature of monolingualism in research paradigms and policy spheres today. Researchers at a basic
level as well as policymakers continue to disagree on everything from terminology definitions to
the different implementations of programs designed for English language literacy acquisition in
public secondary schools. Specific classifications are used in schools to categorize students into
proficiency groups at a secondary level for classroom placement which works to the detriment of
student learning. This is true for California as well as other states with diverse student
populations (Patel, 2016)

25
Perceptions of Monolingualism and Biliteracy
Given the historical research it is evident that the perceptions of monolingual and
biliterate approaches to English language literacy and language acquisition critically impact the
way teachers teach, and the way students learn. The perception of English dominance transcends
the way media depict Latinos/as and people of color and characterize them as something less
than native. It is important to understand the colonizer constructs a White supremacist culture by
imposing their discourse on subjugated groups. Groups are taught to devalue their own culture
and language. In U.S. public schools English is not just taught from the perspective of learning a
second language. It is taught to replace a student’s first or home language (Diaz Soto & Kharem,
2006).
For example, Huber Perez (2011) conducted a small-scale survey of 20 undocumented
Chicana college students attending one public research university in California. The students
were female and identified as either undocumented or born in the United States. These students
identified Mexico as their country of origin and as coming from a low-income family. Each
participant was interviewed twice for the study and two follow up focus groups were conducted
after the study following the completion of individual interviews.
The research utilized a strategy initially used in Latin American literature known as
Testimonio. Testimonio is a method used to document the experiences of oppressed people
during times of war. For this study, Huber Perez (2011) uses it as a strategy to denounce
injustices experienced by marginalized groups in her studies. Through this method, participants
were allowed a forum of openness to express the feelings associated with what Huber Perez
labels as racist nativist experiences they encountered while attending U.S. public schools.

26
Through experiences with peers, teachers, professors, and the media the participants
learned from a very early age, the social constructions, and negative perceptions of
undocumented Latino/a immigrants in the United States. Examples shared through the
testimonios explain through their lifelong experiences how the internalization of beliefs, values,
and worldviews inherent in White supremacy can potentially result in negative self or racial
group perceptions (Huber Perez, 2011). This also applies to the perceptions of native-born
Latinos/as attending U.S. public schools. From the testimonios, only three of the 20 participants
entered public school with English fluency. As a result, these women experienced feelings of
exclusion, overt discrimination, and differential treatment based on English language proficiency
throughout K-12 education (Huber Perez, 2011).
Excerpts from the testimonios by one participant “Alicia” depicting teacher perceptions
highlight examples of avoidance and insensitivity. Alicia describes how she felt excluded from
class because her teacher would not attempt to communicate with her because she could not
speak English. The teacher went as far as recommending that Alicia should have her ears
checked due to Alicia’s lack of engagement with her preschool class. Huber Perez (2011)
explains that Alicia learns at an early age that there is something wrong with her because she
couldn’t speak English. The behavior of Alicia’s teacher typifies a displayed microaggression
operating under the monolingual lens that all students should communicate in English. The
teacher is also using the same monolingual lens to justify all teaching needs to be in English.
The detailed experiences of the 20 Latino/a college women exemplify just some of the
negative perceptions imposed on Hispanic/Latino/a students when they are forced to navigate a
system dominated by monolinguistic approaches to English language literacy and acquisition.
The testimonios articulate how teachers, peers, professors, and the media perceptions of

27
Latino/as experience a society that teaches them English and White culture is dominant. The
women in the study highlight how Latino/a youth learned and internalized negative racial
stereotypes from an age as early as elementary school. Many of these stereotypes were validated
through public school institutionalization where the principles of learning English are highly
regarded as an example of being a good student (Huber Perez, 2011).
The White monolingual educational model described by the Testimonios of the women
involved in this particular study serves as a reminder of how monolingual English literacy
approaches oppress multilingual American children. White Anglo Protestant roots in the U.S.
public education system continue to uphold a nationalist ideology with exclusive access to how
students continue to be taught English. The research of Huber Perez (2011) demonstrated that
monolingual English literacy approaches in U.S. public schools leads to the marginalization of
biliterate children who struggle with issues of identity and ultimately the acceptance of
inferiority when measured against White students (Diaz Soto & Kharem, 2006).
Teacher Perceptions at a Secondary School
Daoud (2003) speaks of the challenge diverse student populations face when attending
schools which have entrenched institutional values. Schools reflecting traditional Americanized
values make it challenging for students to fit in both academically and socially. Adherence to
institutionalized approaches such as monolingual English literacy approaches make it difficult
for conscientious teachers to support their population of diverse students.
In a study conducted in a western state in a small school district where the Hispanic
population of students is rapidly expanding, researchers wanted to understand why the
population of Hispanic students was not experiencing the same educational success as White
students. The researchers chose to conduct their study through a critical race theory (CRT) lens.

28
Through a CRT lens, racism is understood to be a system of advantages based on race that
privileges Whites, at the same time it disadvantages people of color. Schools which mirror the
diversity, strengths, and the weaknesses of our society, are likewise affected by racial inequality
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Racial inequality reflects one school’s continued reliance and
maintenance of monolingual approaches to maintain control over marginalized population of
students limiting their access to success.
For this study, I wished to center the conversation on Whiteness and race. By purposely
centering the conversation on race the intent was to disrupt instances of colorblindness and its
limitations. Through elicited conversations with four White female educators the researcher also
sought to understand how Whiteness was manifested in the school and affected the population of
Hispanic students in order to address the negative impacts of Whiteness on Hispanic students
(Marx, 2008). The conversation focused specifically on four veteran White female teachers and
their ability to connect with their students on multiple levels. The researcher also sought to
understand the perceptions each of the four veteran female teachers had regarding the diverse
student populations encountered at the high school where they worked.
It is imperative to examine the differences between teachers and students and the use of
monolingual English literacy approaches in the classroom. Teachers are at fault for not
recognizing the diversity reflected in their classrooms. Thus, a White educator’s beliefs about
their student’s abilities coupled with their own perception of Whiteness affects how educators
work with students of color (Marx, 2008). The study itself was conducted in a western California
town outside of a major metropolitan area at a small public high school the researcher sought to
examine four White veteran teachers.

29
The study focused on the perceptions of the four White veteran female teachers and their
ability to relate to their students (Marx, 2008). This study is relevant primarily because the study
itself focuses on the perceptions of veteran teachers regarding the increasing amount of diversity
each teacher was experiencing at the time of the study. Teachers can theoretically address a
limited range of characteristics when given finite resources to address student needs. The
resources included in this conversation are teacher experience, knowledge, and expertise
(Tournaki, 2003).
In this particular study, I sought to understand the ways the four White veteran female
teachers could relate to their students. The research also sought to understand the ways the four
White veteran female teachers couldn’t relate to their students and the ways Whiteness had
affected the ability of the four White veteran teachers to relate to their students. The study
utilized surveys, interviews, and observations to discover the strongest influences the four White
veteran female teachers had on their students. What the research uncovered was the impact each
teacher had on students through the sharing of personal stories (Marx, 2008).
The four White veteran female teacher’s ability to relate and connect to their students
contributed to their student’s feeling of motivation to attend school. However, all four teachers
could not relate to their students regarding some of the more detrimental aspects of student life.
All four teachers could not relate to the gang activity occurring on their school campus. The four
White veteran female teachers could not relate to gang affiliation or the violence that
accompanied such affiliations. All four White veteran female teachers couldn’t relate to
overlapping geographical distance between teachers and students. All four teachers lived an
average distance of 19 miles or more from the school campus (Marx, 2008). This led to a false
perception and expectation of what their students home life experiences were like.

30
Three of the four veteran White female teachers held deficit perspectives regarding their
students of color. Three of the four teachers collectively felt their students of color lacked the
qualities to be successful in education. The most disturbing aspect of the study was two of the
four White veteran female teachers felt that Hispanic students did not value education. Three of
the four teachers felt Hispanic students led a less complex life compared to their own. The same
three White veteran female teachers felt Hispanic students had less respect for them and less
respect for women in general (Marx, 2008). This had a strong impact on how they prepared
lessons and taught their classes of English to their diverse population of students as each teacher
maintained a monolingual bias based on their experiences with Hispanic students.
The life experiences and positionality of the teachers involved in this study have a
definitive impact on the way these four White veteran female teachers see their students. None of
the four interviewed for this study were bilingual nor spoke Spanish. The experiences of these
four White veteran female teachers influence a belief system which has been institutionalized
throughout their careers subjecting students to a particular style of teaching. U.S. public
secondary schools continue to maintain strong foundational hold on monolingual orientations to
English language policy (Menken & Sanchez, 2019) The findings of this study reinforce the use
of the perceptions held by teachers using predominately monolingual English literacy approaches
used with Hispanic students as a method to widen the learning gap rather than lessen it (Marx,
2008).
Preservice Teachers, Monolingual and Biliterate Approaches
Research shows across schools where at least 90% of students were White, nearly all
teachers (97%) were also White. The latest research from NCES shows nearly eight in ten public
school teachers identified as non-Hispanic White during the 2017-2018 school year (Schaeffer,

31
2021). The Department of Education also conducted research collecting data on schools,
principals, and teachers through their National Teacher Survey which is conducted every 2 years.
The survey was sent out to a nationally representative sample of 60,000 public school teachers.
Data collection began in September 2017 and ended in August of 2018. The findings validate
previously collected data estimating the teacher profession disproportionately White at 79.3%
nationally (Schaeffer, 2021).
Other significant findings of the survey reported fewer than half of all teachers (41%)
took a course in teaching English learners before their first-year teaching. Research has shown
many general education teachers are not equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to
meet the needs of English learners (Gandara & Orfield, 2010). White teacher identity studies
have argued for a more detailed understanding of White monolingual teachers’ racial identities
by exploring their perspectives on English language learning experiences. Currently the teaching
force remains overwhelmingly White and monolingual (Shim, 2019).
Current research shows the number of teachers in U.S. public schools lack the
appropriate training to work with English learners in public schools and continuously struggle to
meet their needs (Shim, 2019). Further research shows many White monolingual teachers lack
the patience and disposition required to work productively with English language learners in a
public-school setting. This can be attributed to inadequate training received in teacher
preparation programs as well as preservice programs (Wang, 2015).
Many White teachers become monolingual through the various structures of U.S. public
schools’ curricula, instruction, assessment, and accountability policies prioritizing English.
Monolingual teachers tend to perceive biliterate/multilingual student’s home language as
obstacles. Over time, U.S. teachers become monolingual in their approaches and epistemology.

32
This facilitates an instructional mindset regarding only knowing English as a normal way of life,
regardless of increasing Hispanic biliterate populations much larger than the monolingual
population (Barros et al., 2021)
In a study involving preservice teachers researchers introduced the participants to
translanguaging pedagogy which forces educators to create their own strategies purposefully
encouraging students to mix their known languages together in communication. Translanguaging
allows for varieties of code meshing across various domains including literature and multimedia
to enable students’ various opportunities for making meaning. It also structures a new dynamic of
scaffolding for both the teacher and the student. Because this incorporates students and the
diversities of different languages the teacher can facilitate the action and interplay for students
giving a sense of ownership for success (Barros et al., 2021).
The invitation to participate in this study was sent out to all the students who were
undergraduate preservice teachers covering three sections of the Spring 2017 TESOL
Endorsement Practicum. Initially, five students consented to participate in the study, but one
dropped out before the first interview. It is interesting to note that two of the four participants
identified themselves as monolingual, while two of the four acknowledged having some limited
prior teaching experiences with ESL (Barros et al., 2021). All four participants identified
themselves as White, English dominant females in their early 20s and represent the course’s
overall demographics as well as those of U.S. colleges more broadly.
The researchers found that the participants did not see themselves as translanguaging
agents. Three of the four participants saw the validity for using translanguaging skills in theory,
but when asked how they could use it in a practical setting all four answered with uncertainty.
One participant explained she worried about using translanguaging methods of student grouping

33
by home language because she didn’t want to segregate students from each other. Another
participant was concerned that students would not get the English language input needed to be
successful on assessments. The major concern was receiving pushback from the school, the
district, or the community for allowing the use of another language besides English because tests
are in English (Barros et al., 2020).
Comments from all four participants are indicative of the pervasiveness surrounding
biliterate approaches and the entrenched monolingual approaches to English. All four
participants expressed enthusiasm for incorporating a translanguaging approach to instruction but
offered prevalent concerns validating their monolingual approach. All four shared the same
concern connecting standardized testing to learning English. Their work as a teacher came down
to how successful their students would possibly be on standardized testing (Barros et al., 2020).
The Monolingual Principle
Research into the effectiveness of bilingual or alternative strategies to monolingual
approaches have yielded significant results (Cummins, 2012). In one specific study focusing on
the direct method Cummins (2012) discusses three interrelated assumptions derived from the
Monolingual Principal and how eliminating a reliance on monolingual instructional approaches
opens a wide variety of opportunities for teaching languages by means of instructional strategies
that promote two-way cross language transfer. In other words, students can access and use
linguistic resources from their native first language (Cummins, 2012).
The direct method approach and three assumptions associated with the Monolingual
Principal are named specifically as they emanate from Goldberger’s teachings but lack any
empirical support for educating English or language minority students (Cummins, 2012). The
first assumption states instruction should be carried out exclusively in the target language

34
without recourse or reference to the students' primary language. This is the direct method
assumption. Second, translation between the primary language and the second language has no
place in the teaching of language or literacy. This is called the No Translation Assumption. Third,
within immersion and bilingual programs the two languages should be kept rigidly separate. This
is called the Two Solitudes Assumption.
The monolingual English literacy approach to teaching is important to note for a few
reasons. Primarily, monolingual English literacy approaches to teaching English has devasting
effects on non-native English teachers and students. Monolingual English literacy approaches do
not allow for naturally developed differentiation skills formed in the process of language
development. Monolingual English literacy approaches further inhibit the development of
bilingual and bicultural identities and skills that are actively needed by most learners who are
trying to fit into U.S. public school classrooms (Taggart, 2018).
Research has shown in both foreign and second language contexts highlights the fact
instructional practice involves both the target language (TL) and the student’s first language
(L1). In one study of four ninth grade core French classrooms in Canada, it was found there was
a high variability of student’s first language (L1) use within the classroom. On any given day,
first language use could be between 10% or as much as 100%. Cummins (2012) notes that
students performed much better in classrooms where the target language (TL) was used as
frequently as the first language (L1) by both the student and the teacher, citing no explicit
elimination of the student’s primary language (L1).
Additional research shows the use of a student’s primary language works for efficiency
purposes in the classroom. It is noted it is crucial for teachers to use the target language (TL) as
much as possible especially in contexts in which students spend only short periods of time in

35
class daily and have little interaction with the TL (Cummins, 2012). The current research runs
contradictory to the long-held belief students must be immersed entirely into an environment
where L1 is excluded.
Further research provided by Cummins (2012) focuses on what is termed as the Five
Assumptions derived from Goldberger’s (1920) direct method approach which is the basis of
teaching English on a global context:
1. English is best taught monolingually.
2. The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker.
3. The earlier English is taught the better the results.
4. The more English is taught the better the results.
5. Standards of English will decline if other languages are used for any specific amount
of time.
In another case study of nine model K-12 programs in which English was the primary
language of instruction for minority students in the United States, multiple examples were found
where students primary language (L1) was used in the classroom for instructional purposes.
Primary language use (L1) was the case even when teachers did not speak the languages of their
students. The study continues by documenting the more successful instructional approaches to
teaching English to minority students where the teachers did not know the home languages of
their students (L1). These lessons included: group writing assignments in which students use
their primary language (L1). Students also read or told stories in their primary languages (L1).
Students then translate them in English to tell other students; Students from same language
backgrounds are grouped together so they can support each other. Students who are more fluent
can provide support to the students who are less fluent; Students are encouraged to use

36
translation and bilingual dictionaries as a resource to understand difficult text; Books and other
resources are provided in student’s primary (L1) language and encouraged to read them; Students
are frequently recognized for excellence in languages not commonly studied and awards are
given (Cummins, 2012).
In summary, there is a lack of credibility for the use of the direct method or monolingual
approach for teaching English. Empirical evidence is consistent with extensive interaction in the
target language (TL) and a student’s primary language (L1) both orally and with written work.
There is no empirical justification for any absolute exclusion of a student’s primary language
(L1) from target language instruction (TL). The lack of empirical support for a monolingual
approach to instructing students English in teaching English as a second language in North
America is seen as normal and commonplace. In practice there is very little pedagogical
evidence supporting this singular approach. Monolingual Principle is rooted in a particular
ideological perspective which serves to reinforce inequities in the broader society (Cummins,
2012).
Additional Support for Primary Language Use
Historically, students with little or no primary or native language literacy who receive
monolingual English instruction often suffer severe consequences. They experience loss of self-
esteem as they are characterized as less than adequate both in classification and performance.
Students experience a sense of powerlessness as they are excluded from general populated
classrooms and moved into exclusionary environments. Students are made to feel as if their life
experiences and language resources should be excluded from the mainstream. Later, this results
in consequences such as limited job opportunities and further marginalization (Auerbach, 2010).

37
Auerbach (2010) further reviewed evidence showing primary language and or bilingual
options as not only being effective but necessary for adult English second language literacy
students with limited native primary language literacy or previous schooling. In a study
conducted with ESL students near Vancouver, WA, students were asked to write about their lives
in both their primary language (L1) and in English. The writing was then translated into English
with the help of tutors, teachers, and other students. The learner was provided with support for
overcoming problems of vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure and other writing conventions.
Eventually, the learner is willing to take chances with English. The research validates starting
with the primary language of the student (L1) provides security while validating the learners own
lived experiences. Allowing the student use of their primary language enables the learner to be
freely expressive while attaching meaning to their work. It can be concluded that the use of
students’ linguistic resources can be beneficial at all levels of English language literacy
acquisition (Auerbach, 1993).
The Need for Biliterate Assessments
The reliance on the direct method and monolingual English literacy approach places
increased pressure on teachers to focus on deliberate skills and practices aimed at increasing test
scores. School focus on the use of monolingual English literacy approaches exclude discussions
of extended differentiation of lessons for increased student engagement and learning. Focusing
on monolingual English literacy approaches exclude or limit collaborative discussions among
teachers. It also hinders the ability to build collegial relations towards building efficacy (Liggett,
2010).
Monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public
schools disregard Hispanic students, students classified as ELL, ELD, or ESL particularly when

38
it comes to assessment. English is taught in the United States as if all students are monolingual.
Assessments in English offer an advantage to White students who are acquiring literacy in the
only language they have known. White students are exposed to English more frequently both in
and out of school. Reading programs are developed specifically with the monolingual learner in
mind. English is the language of status, power, and prestige in and out of school (Butvilofsky,
2020).
In a study of assessments, researchers examined how a biliterate writing assessment
might offer a more authentic, valid, and asset-based understanding of an emerging bilingual
learner’s reading development (Butvilofsky, 2020). The researcher’s main contention is that
assessments are created in conjunction with literacy programs that instruct and assess emerging
bilingual learners as if they were monolingual. This approach often ignores the fact that a
bilingual learner is utilizing two languages to process information.
The purpose of the study was conducted to examine how a biliterate writing assessment
offered through a holistic intervention program conducted over an entire school year might offer
improvement beyond traditional monolingual approaches. The study was conducted at four
elementary schools in a Colorado school district starting in 2015. The researchers partnered their
study with the Literacy Squared Project whose sole mission is the advancement of the
development of biliteracy in Spanish English-speaking children attending schools in the United
States.
Some of the most notable findings by the researchers was the use of organization,
structure, and punctuation over time where none had been before in previous samples of student
writing. Sequencing language was also notable over time which was consistent with ongoing
remediation. There was a variety of texts written from fall to spring in written in both languages

39
by students. Students began to use the concept of main idea and the addition of details. The
researchers also noted almost all students in the study had been identified by DIBELS
assessments as needing intensive intervention in their reading development. DIBELS was the set
of procedures and methods used at the school to measure the acquisition of literacy skills among
students.
Through this study researchers examined the alignment between an assessment such as
DIBELS and a formative writing task constructed through the Literacy Squared Project. Scrutiny
was placed on how assessments might play a role in demonstrating emerging bilingual students’
abilities in two languages not just through a single assessment measure. Through their analysis
the researchers were able to uncover the vast amount of knowledge English language learning
students possessed through honest holistic efforts. These were skills not apparent through a
monolingual program-based assessment.
It was also apparent through the research skills most often remediated for in English
language learning students such as phonemic awareness, decoding, or connecting words and
ideas to make meaning are often misidentified. These same students were able to complete these
tasks and show improvement through the writing prompts. Findings from the students biliterate
writing indicate there was no need for the most common forms of remediation given. This
implies many students in this study would have been placed in classrooms where they would not
have received appropriate support. The same can be said for students prior to this research who
should have received placement in higher reading placement classification.
Findings by this study directly question the use of large-scale monolingual assessments.
It also points directly at the use of early literacy programs designed for monolingual English-
speaking students and have been applied without critical examination to students who are

40
simultaneously acquiring two languages. These programs are counterproductive, and the
researchers advocate for further study regarding biliteracy and biliterate approaches to English
literacy and language acquisition (Butvilofsky, 2020).
The Small School Approach
In public schools across the United States, it is imperative to investigate the manifestation
of the subtle colonizing forces used to dominate the cultural, sociological, and psychological
dispositions of the diverse student populations they serve. Ideologies rooted in monolingual
English literacy approaches permeate educational institutions in order to preserve the legacy of
centuries of colonialism (Motha, 2006). Monolingual practices in U.S. public secondary schools
do not account for the complexities involved in English language development among those who
possess literacy skills in another language. Any language approach in the U.S. public schooling
approach be it monolingual or biliterate that does not acknowledge and build on the fluid
language practices and the translanguaging in bilingual communities is more concerned with
controlling language behavior than in educating (Garcia, 2011).
In a study conducted at two small schools where bilingualism was at the center of
educational practices for emergent bilinguals NYC’s Department of Education would not
recognize or classify the programs at these school’s as either transitional bilingual or dual
language. Bilingualism emerged not because of a program, but because of the educators and
students’ negotiations and sense making regarding the material given. In this study the
researchers acknowledge more can and should be done to invest in language ideologies
concerning the importance of bilingualism. Stressing this concern allows students the
opportunity to invest in English literacy development.

41
According to recent studies of U.S. public schools’ academic segregation patterns exist
on public school campuses. School segregation is characterized by racial and achievement gaps
between White and Hispanic students as well as White and Black students. These schools often
have less skilled, less experienced, and less qualified teachers. These same schools tend to have
teachers who focus instructional design based on monolingual English literacy approaches which
have an emphasis on acquiring basic skills. These same literacy approaches lack the
consideration of the diverse populations served by these schools. There is a lack of support to
change the environment for many of these schools due to rates of attrition and funding of basic
needs (Reardon, et, al., 2019).
The researchers provide examples of how teachers and students from a variety of
backgrounds use bilingualism as an important tool in the education of emergent bilinguals at the
secondary level in the new small schools (Garcia, 2011). The teachers and students avoid the
traditional trappings of public schools across the United States who adapt to institutionalized
approaches and avoid using monolingual English literacy approaches. Instead, the teachers and
students embrace bilingualism in order to better serve their diverse population of students. The
study first focuses on Cooperation Academy a secondary school located in the Bronx. It is like
many other schools in the Bronx based on composition and student demographics (Garcia, 2011).
Cooperation Academy developed a theoretical framework supportive of students
integrating their education at different points of the bilingual continuum regardless of linguistic
background. To support the dedication to this framework the school recruited bilingual
English/Spanish teachers whose responsibilities in addition to English language development
was to support home language development where applicable. In addition, the school recruited
and retained two guidance counselors (out of three), a parent coordinator, community liaison,

42
both assistant principals, two school aides, and two of the four content teachers on the ninth and
10th grade English learner team who were all bilingual.
The school adopted a model that included teachers working in collaboration to design
daily lesson plans in English and Spanish. Core content lessons were presented in English first.
Materials were also in English. Newcomer students were allowed to present answers in Spanish.
Advanced ELL students were encouraged to answer in Spanish, but all students had the support
of a bilingual teacher in the classroom. Mastery of the content material was the goal, so oral
translation was available as well as code switching. Lessons and policy were dictated specifically
on the needs of the students. If students needed to make meaning in their native language it was
encouraged and permitted (Garcia, 2011).
This approach to bilingualism in schools allowed for students to take charge of their
education and progress. The successes this school experienced is a prime example of how
utilizing students’ home language can provide for multiple learning opportunities. The
researchers offer the only obstacle to this model is the long-term sustainability of the program.
The researchers also have concerns regarding the lack of support the small school receives as the
school board prioritizes preparation for the state’s Regents Test over the success of English
language learners (Garcia, 2011).
The International High School
The International High School at La Guardia Community College was founded in 1985.
It was the first school in what would become a network of schools implementing a shared
pedagogical approach engaging linguistically diverse groups of learners who are immigrant
newcomers all of whom are classified as ELLs upon admission. The network now includes ten
schools in New York City and two schools in California. Emphasis is placed on working

43
collaboratively on projects. Students work to develop English language proficiency, but students
home languages are used in conjunction through content rich interdisciplinary and collaborative
work. The focus of the school is to support language proficiency in both languages.
The school consists of teachers from the four academic content areas and there are six
interdisciplinary teams. Each team has a group of 70 students that they are responsible for. They
are also assigned a guidance counselor for their group. The group of students remain with their
team for 2 years. Students move daily within their cohort group of students between their core
content classes and subject areas. Every effort is made to keep heterogeneity in each cohort
strand in terms of age, gender, grade level academic preparation and time since arrival in the
United States. Home language considerations are also made in terms of assigning proper support.
Much of the staff are fluent in student home language.
Emphasis is placed on the use of student home language. Local control is given to the
students in terms of guiding instruction and deciding in which language to communicate in.
Teachers do not use a monolingual English only approach to teaching. Instead, teachers
encourage the use of various strategies for things such as translation. Students and teachers also
develop phrases for communication and use strategies such as penciling definitions on
assignments. Students also are encouraged to use their cell phones as a translation tool. The
learning goal is to build effective strategies to communicate in English in addition to strengthen
the use of the home language. The learning goal includes working on projects where the focus is
translation, yet understanding is built through English (Garcia, 2011).
The researchers noted the impact on the students as students renewed a commitment and
appreciation towards their home language. Teachers also learned how to let go of some of the
control exerted over their teaching in favor of allowing students to become more responsible for

44
their learning. The impact of the project also led to a renewed sense of autonomy for the teachers
in learning how to incorporate diverse thinking while developing lessons that catered to student
learning.
The findings of the research support biliteracy and bilingual programs. The practices and
dedication to bilingualism supporting the home language was key to the success of the programs
implemented in each small school. The researchers argue for continued research focusing on
supporting the home language as well as the addition of a new language. Biliteracy and bilingual
programs cannot be viewed as additive and subtractive. The addition of English cannot be gained
at the sacrifice of students’ home language (Garcia, 2011).
The study had profiled two New York City high schools where instead of bilingualism
being enacted top down by administration and teachers, bilingualism is enacted for the students
and teachers’ own bilingual language practices. The researcher argues that if properly carried out
dynamic bilingualism present in two small schools could extend and expand bilingual practices
in education of adolescent language minorities in small school settings (Garcia, 2011).
Residential segregation as well as the expanding populations of Spanish speaking
students continue to make bilingual education programs important. There is also a considerable
need to develop secondary education models that build on the complexities of adolescent
bilingualism. These models need to support and validate the multiple bilingual practices of the
minority population of students. Large secondary schools in urban contexts have failed to serve
poor minority students. To improve education of these students, many large cities such as New
York City, have been dismantling large comprehensive secondary schools and establishing small
high schools (Garcia, 2011).

45
The small school approach in NYC does not fit the traditional definitions of either
English Second Language Learners or bilingual education programs. They give evidence of how
bilingualism is an important resource in the meaningful education of the adolescent students. The
small school approach works because it is a collaboration between teacher, student, and
community. Teachers work in a partnership with students to develop their skills through both
their native language and the target language. The school’s approach is not the elimination or
disregard of a student’s home language. Thus, the skills a student comes to school with can be
further developed (Garcia, 2011).
The small school approach is an important example of how moving away from
institutionalized monolingual English literacy approaches proves to be beneficial to the
communities in which alternative methods are embraced. According to research by social
linguists monolingual English approaches to literacy limits the possibilities in a community of
diverse learners (Ellis, 2008).
Monolingual English literacy approaches limit the possibilities and potential of second
language learners and native English speakers alike in U.S. public schools who cling to
institutional outdated policies. Language study is acknowledged with assisting cognitive
processes as it helps develop intellectual stimulus and includes new ways of thinking and
organizing knowledge. Bilingual students show greater cognitive flexibility and creativity in
problem solving. The small school approach is a prime example of how embracing alternative
methods of teaching English can uplift a school and community (Garcia, 2011).
Changing Monolingual Ideologies
The environment of a school has a huge impact on both student and teacher perceptions.
School culture builds learning every day and recognizing how to create an uplifting school

46
culture where the teachers, students, parents, and the community are made to feel celebrated will
result in huge successes (Fullan, 2018).
In a qualitative study of 23 New York city schools’ researchers looked to the monolingual
linguistic landscapes affecting the culture of the schools. The goal was to remove the idea of
monolingual imagery and signage that was not representative of a school’s demographic
population. Instead, the researchers wanted to focus on developing a multilinguistic landscape
regarding bilingualism as a resource in instruction. The researchers built their work on previous
work regarding linguistic landscapes creating a multilingual pedagogy treating all available
languages as resources (Menken, et al., 2018).
The 23 New York City Schools that took part in the study were previously identified
because monolingual approaches to teaching had been established as the norm (Menken, et al.,
2018). These schools took part in the City University of New York’s New York State Initiative
for Emergent Bilinguals (CUNY-NYSIEB) Project. Participating schools were part of the project
initially for a period of 1.5 years but remained for several years after. The researchers
documented how a focus on the linguistic landscape in schools offers a starting point towards
efforts to disrupt monolingual schooling and hegemony by promoting biliterate and multilingual
education (Menken, et al., 2018).
Study participants included schools leveraging student’s bilingualism as a resource in
education. The leveraging of student bilingualism required the participating schools to
acknowledge the diverse languages and cultures of their student population as well as the diverse
languages within their communities. The acknowledgement of diverse languages and culture
would be reflected in a school’s linguistic landscape. The data sources for the study were

47
interviews, photographs, and previously available data about the participating schools such as
demographic data.
The researcher’s findings began with locally created signage and posters created by staff
members, teachers, parents, students, and other members of the community for the school which
reflected other languages than English. For example, welcome signs at the entrance of one school
were created in Spanish as well as Polish. Other efforts to change the linguistic landscape
included a school generated list of frequently asked questions posed by parents, guardians, and
community members translated into the six languages other than English most widely spoken in
the school community (Menken et al., 2018).
Another example was the creation of multilingual word walls created by the students,
teachers, community members of one school increasing opportunities for languages to be
represented through community engagement. Through these word walls multi-lingual welcoming
packets were created by a team of clerical staff and parent volunteers. Soon, other informational
resources followed. The researchers noted changes began to slowly integrate a deeper
understanding and embrace for multilingual and bilingual approaches causing shifts in the way
the school leaders thought about the education of emergent bilinguals in their schools.
School leaders and teachers at the participating schools noted dramatic improvement in
student participation. Completion of work and understanding of material also were areas of
dramatic improvement as schools increased recognition of home language practices. As student
achievement levels increased so did teaching and learning strategies using student home
languages (Menken et al., 2018).
The researchers noted the linguistic landscape changes and detailed how these changes
connected to shifts in the language ideologies moving away from traditional monolingual

48
approaches. Ultimately, the researchers began to see schools adopting diverse multilingual
approaches to pedagogy. In their work the researchers considered the use of visual language
displays, oral language practices, and linguistic sound scaping to move the discussion towards
inclusive linguistic landscapes that account for all languages spoken in the school environment.
The researchers describe a linguistic landscape as not just the inclusion of words or images
displayed around the school. It is not just what is exposed in public places. The researchers adopt
a broader definition of the various physical representations of languages within school buildings
to include languages in classrooms and languages used during instruction.
Overall, in the research the invitation to make the school scape multilingual rather than
monolingual resulted in a significant disruption of monolingual language practices. This
disruption led to more formalized changes to the language policies of participating schools.
Principals of the participating schools commented on how even the littlest of things had big
impacts on the culture of the schools. Classrooms became reflective of a safe space where
students gained the confidence to practice and take risks in both their native language and
English. Bringing student language into the school scape was significant for recognizing and
supporting student identity within the school. Researchers noted school leaders noticed how
students began to form connections through the various languages. Students began to form their
own support systems through language learning (Menken et al., 2018).
The researchers contend monolingual English only policies and practices typical of U.S.
schooling can only be truly disrupted when bilingual/multilingualism in a school’s language
landscape is encouraged and connects to English literacy and language policies that are reflective
of a bilingual/multilingual school population. Further research is necessary to determine
additional implications when you disrupt monolingual approaches in favor of

49
bilingual/multilingual approaches in favor of bilingual/multilingual approaches to English
literacy and language acquisition.
The Report of the National Literacy Panel
In 2006 the Federal government provided funding for a group of experts to synthesize the
data in the field of English Language Learners and the documented academic underperformance
of this group especially within the domain of literacy. The product of these experts was the
publishing of a book titled Developing Literacy in Second Language Learners. The contents of
this book contained the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children
and Youth which reflected 4 years of research conducted between 2002 and 2006. The researcher
conducted a review of the report and the literature reviewed by the researchers to understand it’s
impact on education polices throughout the United States (Escamilla, 2009).
The report and its impact on learning is concerning because the intended audience of this
report are researchers interested in the development of literacy in language minority students. A
panel of thirteen experts in second language development, cognitive development, curriculum
and instruction, assessment, and methodology selected by the Institute of Education Sciences
staff was assembled to carry out the work of data synthesis. The synthesis of research also
included SRI International and the Center for Applied Linguistics. It is important to understand
this report is published shortly after No Child Left Behind (2000). It was published before any
discernible data gleaned from state accountability assessments were made available. The report
was used to justify recommendations for the large populations of English language learners
enrolled in U.S. public schools.
Sections of the report are relevant to monolingual approaches to literacy development
because the use of the National Literacy Reading Panel’s criteria is organized in such a way that

50
it normalizes monolingualism and monolingual approaches to English language literacy and
literacy acquisition for both native speakers and non-native speakers. From this lens the research
is presented as such for both English and nonnative speakers of English. The research findings
are presented from a theoretical perspective framed in a monolingual English view of language
and literacy development. This view is subsequently discussed throughout the research report as
the conceptual frame for literacy research for developing bilinguals (Escamilla, 2009).
A more troubling aspect of this report is that since monolingualism is framed as the
normal approach to literacy and literacy development then by default language minority students
are defined as not normal. The authors view language minority students as behind right from the
beginning. The authors contend language minority students enter U.S. schools needing to learn
oral language and literacy in a second language (Escamilla, 2009). It is also the authors’ assertion
language minority students must learn with enormous efficiency if they are to catch up with their
monolingual English classmates (Escamilla, 2009). The language used to describe a student’s
need to catch up describes English language learners with a deficit perspective. This description
does not consider what a student is capable of in their native language.
What the researcher describes as troublesome is that the report is compiled of research
from only 107 research studies compared to 450 studies conducted by the National Reading
Panel Report (NRP, 2000). The tone and language of the entire report reflect a deficit orientation
toward language minority students, their strengths, and abilities. The report also reflects an
attempt to privilege monolingualism as the norm from which to understand bilingual
development. The authors also conclude with a discussion of future needs which call for research
and investigation in how to build the English proficiency skills of second language learners
because these skills impede students’ ability to achieve high levels in text skills (NRP, 2000).

51
This conclusion was derived from the review of only seven studies on reading comprehension,
but not a single study was included for writing (Escamilla, 2009).
Monolingualism is still highly valued in the United States public education system as it
continues to advance an ideology that is limiting and destructive. Monolingualism is considered
beneficial by those with power because it positions English as the only language worth studying
in. Reports such as the one issued by the National Reading Panel are significant because they
continue to solidify an ideology that is outdated and oppressive. This research justifies the
continued practices supporting monolingualism while limiting the need for research into
biliterate approaches.
It is important to recognize research is conducted from a position of privilege (Atkins &
Duckworth, 2019). The research regarding English literacy and language acquisition in U.S.
public schools should be giving voice to the interests, concerns, and needs of minority students,
indigenous people, second language learners, and students who continue to be marginalized. This
research should be used in support of groups of students who continue to face political repression
and subversion of their rights (Atkins & Duckworth, 2019).
Impact of the National Literacy Panel Report
Federal, state, and local policy dictate what is worthy of study. The current research
agenda in states such as California are very much influenced by federal as well as state and local
policies. This includes which type of research is funded and the purpose for which the research is
intended. Ultimately this affects the knowledge production in the field of education. The
collective impact of policies using research such as the Report of the National Literacy Panel and
The National Reading Report is immense when you consider the lack of resources dedicated to
researching bilingual and biliterate approaches to English language literacy in the panel’s final

52
report. You cannot conduct research when current policies do not support qualitative research
designs examining literacy development among all learners (Escamilla, 2009).
Bilingual frameworks are basically non-existent in the book and throughout the studies
conducted by the National Literacy Report. Instead, the report acknowledges that the body of
research on explicit literacy instruction for English language learners is much smaller than for
native English speakers and that much more research is needed. However, the authors make
larger inferential leaps and stronger conclusions about the relationship between literacy
development and instruction in a second language. The authors contend in the final section
regarding proficiency testing those accommodations made for testing were done so in English
(native language). This assertion again points to the monolingual lens the entire framework of the
report was based on. Today with Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) and its continuation of state
accountability measures even with accommodations, for the English language learners it proves
once more monolingualism in English literacy is still considered the normal approach.
Accommodations are created from monolingual tests used with students who are considered not
part of the norm (Escamilla, 2009).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study builds on the previous work of Bacon (2020)
and language ideologies representing systems of belief, performed in context, at the intersections
of language and social power structures. Monolingual ideologies function to position
bilingualism and biliterate approaches to learning English as abnormal or freakish. Monolingual
ideologies serve to pathologize bilingualism for students of color contributing to the systemic
marginalization of students who do not conform to certain racialized monolingual norms.

53
Perceptions formed by administrators, teachers, students, and families through English literacy
and language acquisition are done so through the monolingual lens (Bacon, 2020).
This study also utilizes Mezirow’s transformational learning theory as English teachers
face disorienting dilemmas when incorporating monolingual English literacy approaches in their
classrooms. The disorienting dilemmas occur in such examples of low achievement scores, low
literacy rates, and persistent achievement gaps found between White students and Hispanic
students, ELL, ELD, ESL students. Teachers face the expectations of the institutionalized
reinforcement and acceptance of monolingual English literacy approaches used in the classroom.
Teachers must either choose to adapt to socialized acceptance of monolingual English literacy
approaches among their administrators, colleagues, and parents in their communities or
recognize a problem exists (Mezirow, 2002).
The conceptual framework of this study also builds on the work of Daoud (2003) and
cultural transmission. Figure 3 visualizes the relationships between different features of the
conceptual framework. Cultural transmission refers to the process of schools transmitting the
cultural background, knowledge, and skills of the dominant group from one generation to the
next. The policies and practices are familiar to the students from the dominant group. In this
study it is the affirmation of monolingual ideologies through the institutional culture of U.S.
public schools forcing Hispanic students, and students classified as ELD, ELL, or ESL to fit in at
the expense of rejecting their own culture. This rejection of culture includes rejection of their
native Spanish language. Students who do not belong to the dominant group are at a
disadvantage because of the culture and the linguistic practices of the school are unfamiliar to
them (Daoud, 2003).

54
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework

Summary
According to the information presented in this literature review monolingual English
literacy approaches have proven to be ineffective and detrimental to the intellectual development

55
of Hispanic students as well as students who are English language learners. Evidence was also
provided regarding perceptions teachers hold regarding monolingual English literacy approaches
used in U.S. public schools. Many of these perceptions have developed through the
institutionalization of administrators, teachers, and students regarding the use of monolingual
English literacy approaches. The success of alternative approaches highlighted language
differentiation and alternative methods have proven hopeful in adapting more differentiated
efforts in public schools (Garcia, 2011).
This study proposes the perceptions of monolingual English literacy approaches held by
teachers directly impacts how teachers teach and learn. It is the job of the public-school teacher
to be ever vigilant to decolonize the classroom and provide equal access to a free public
education for all students. These perceptions affect the efficacy of teachers in ways which need
to be understood to close literacy gaps, increase student achievement beyond standardized test
scores, and increase opportunities beyond secondary school for Hispanic, ELD, ELL, and ESL
students in U.S. public schools. The research provided in this study adds to the literature
regarding monolingual English literacy approaches and how these approaches are detrimental to
student learning as well as damaging to teacher efficacy.

56
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology used to conduct this study. The first section will
describe the population for this study and their characteristics. A description of the instruments
and procedures used for data collection will follow. Finally, an explanation of the data analysis
process is given.
The two principal research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. What are teachers’ feelings and beliefs about the monolingual English literacy
approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District?
2. What do teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English
literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District for improving English
literacy for diverse learners?
Sample and Population
Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District is situated in Southern California and is one of
23 school districts in the area. OCUSD contains 28 schools. It has a population of 20,834
students, with 961 full time classroom teachers (NCES, 2022). The student demographic reflects
80% Hispanic students (16,644), with 27% of all students (5,512) identified as English learners.
Sixty-seven percent (650) of certificated teachers at OCUSD identify as White, while 19% (184)
identify as Hispanic.
The present study followed a basic qualitative case study approach. Purposeful sampling
was used to select the participants in this study. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016) the
purpose of qualitative research is to create an understanding of how people make sense of their
lives, describe the process of how meaning is constructed and interpret what they experience.
This is applicable to this study as the research seeks to increase understanding of how teacher

57
perceptions of monolingual approaches to English language literacy and language acquisition as
implemented in U.S. public schools impact student and teacher learning experiences.
Teacher Recruitment and Sampling
Participants were individuals who are current secondary teachers in the four local high
schools who teach English language arts. Two teachers from each of the four high schools were
selected to participate in this study for a total of eight teachers. At least one teacher in each of the
four high schools is an English as second language (ESL) or English language development
(ELD) teacher.
The various participants are applicable here as this study is seeking how the participants
construct meaning and interpret what they experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study is
focused on detailing how teachers experience teaching and learning the subject of English in a
U.S. public secondary school. The study is also detailing how perceptions are formed through
these experiences whether they are monolingual or biliterate in nature and if they have an impact
on future academic success.
The first round of interviews began with teachers who have had previous contact with the
researcher either at the same school or the same district in the past. Interviews included teachers
who had contact with the researcher through local teacher union meetings, professional
development, and district leveled meetings and trainings. The use of purposeful sampling was
also utilized as teachers were interviewed.
During the interviews teachers were asked to recommend other secondary education
English language arts teachers to participate in this study. Snowball sampling was utilized by the
researcher in order to increase contact and access to different networks of teachers and possibly
increase the pool of participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).

58
Instrumentation
Interviews were the primary data collection tool to address the research questions. The
goal of this study is to examine the feelings, beliefs, and perceptions of teachers regarding
monolingual approaches to English literacy and language arts acquisition as implemented at the
secondary level in U.S. public schools. Therefore, teachers will be primarily interviewed to
discover the opinions teachers hold regarding the monolingual approach used in Ocotillo Unified
School District.
The interview consisted of a series of questions designed to illicit a deeper understanding
of how perceptions are formed regarding one’s own approach to teaching English literacy and
language acquisition in U.S. public secondary schools. The researcher is seeking to gain further
insight into how an individual’s perceptions of monolingual approaches to teaching English
language literacy and acquisition skills at the secondary level of Ocotillo Canyon Unified School
District impacts both the teacher and the student.
The interview was a series of 30 questions and 15 follow up questions found in Appendix
A. The first ten questions for this set of respondents were related to understanding the
demographics of the respondents such as making the choice to become an educator. Background
and collegial pre-teacher preparation dealing with diverse populations of students was also
interrogated and discussed. Questions dealing with various approaches to teaching English were
also discussed during the interview.
The interview questions directly connect with the conceptual framework of this study, as
they seek to gain insight into how an educator in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District feels
regarding the monolingual approach used by the district. This study also seeks to understand how
an educator uses either a monolingual or a differentiated approach to teaching. The California

59
Standards for the Teaching Profession state that it is a teacher’s understandings of student
development, families and communities are linked to how a teacher plans and implements
instruction. It also leads to how a teacher assesses students (CTC, 2022).
Data Collection
The researcher contacted each perspective participant by email, or phone call to arrange
an appointment to meet for the interview. The researcher and the participant selected from a
predetermined list of locations where to meet for the interview (classroom, meeting space, or
other). Zoom meetings an acceptable alternative in the process as many of the interview
respondents were not available in person. The researcher and interview participants agreed on a
specified date and time for the interview to take place once an appropriate venue had been
chosen. The researcher asked all participants if the interview could be audio recorded prior to
starting the interview.
Each interview conducted for the teacher respondents lasted from 30 to 50 minutes. The
researcher followed a list of interview questions in order along with any follow up questions to
clarify answers or draw out additional information. The researcher provided current contact
information for participants in the event respondents would like to offer additional information or
have additional follow up responses to questions posed in the interview. In this interview process
none of the participants offered any additional follow up information.
Data Analysis
At the beginning of data collection, analysis was immediate and ongoing. I catalogued all
responses confidentially with the use of a remote laptop and secure hard drive. Files were
encrypted and saved on a separate flash drive stored in a secure safe only accessible to the
researcher. The focus of the research is situated on the perceptions of the respondents. Simple

60
coding systems were used to delineate specific areas by impact and relevance (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Immediately following the interview process, I evaluated the data for additional tentative
categories and developed a priori codes for the participant demographics as listed in Table 1.

61
Table 1
Participant Information
Participant Levels taught Teaching experience
(years)
Race/ethnicity Gender
Holly K Grade 10 college prep,
ELD (all grades)

17 Asian F
Denise D Grades 11 and 12
honors AP, college
prep,
Grade 9

19 White F
Margaret N Ed genuity credit
recovery (all grades)
IB English Grade 12

8 Hispanic F
Elizabeth G Composition, college
prep Grade 9

11 White F
Samantha G Honors English,
English II, CP English
Ethnic literature
Grade 12

7 Hispanic F
Nicole B AP language and
composition,
expository writing
Grade 12

9 White F
Valerie C College prep Grade 9,
ELD (9-12)

16 Hispanic F
Frank L CP English II Grades
9-10, honors English
Grade 9, SpEd co-teach
English I
8 White M

Note. All names are pseudonyms to protect participant identity.

62
Table 1 categorizes the basic details of the respondents ranging from number of years
teaching to ethnicity. Demographics help researchers distinguish cultural relevance in assessing
responses from survey participants (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Experience categorizes the
specific classroom experiences of the respondents and how these experiences serve to form
perceptions regarding either monolingual or biliterate approaches to English language literacy
and language acquisition as implemented in U.S. public secondary schools.
Upon conclusion of the interview data collection, I used a deductive process to support
the tentative coding system and utilized additional coding. New pieces of information emerged
creating new themes. Terms, concepts, and themes I saw emerging from the data were
determined. Additional a priori and open codes were created and categorized using tables to yield
additional data based on the frequency of mentions and reference by the interview respondents.
These final tables and categories are listed below as tables two and three.
Coding
Interviews were initially coded deductively into three specific categories: interview
demographics, interview experiences, and interview perceptions. The conceptual framework for
this study is evaluating the feelings and beliefs of teachers regarding the use of monolingual
approaches to English literacy in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. Interview respondents
were also analyzed regarding what teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the
monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Unified School District for improving English
literacy for diverse learners.
Once the interviews commenced, I began to analyze my approach relating and
categorizing information extrapolated from the interview transcripts. I began to include words
and phrases based on my conceptual framework and Mezirow’s (2002) transformative learning

63
theory. According to Mezirow (2002), adults experience a disorienting dilemma that rattles the
current perspective challenging one’s beliefs. People experience the uncomfortable recognition
that their current experience doesn’t match past knowledge. People are left with having to
resolve the conflict (Mezirow, 2002).
I revised my initial codes further expanding them to include words and phrases that were
more descriptive and inclusive of monolingual approaches to English literacy and language
acquisition at the secondary level of U.S. public schools. I based words and phrases on the
dilemmas a teacher faces having to teach to diverse populations of students and using a
monolingual approach to teaching English literacy. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) state the
importance of thinking about the definitions supporting codes and being reflexive in the process.
Descriptive codes were developed by associating words and phrases with monolingual
approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools at the secondary
level and in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District:
• monolingual approaches
• experiences
• influences
• professional development
• support for teachers
• support for students
• fluency
• differentiation
After acquiring transcripts, audio, and video recordings from the Zoom digital platform
where six of the eight interviews took place, I replayed audio recordings while taking notes. I

64
also set up a Word document and enabled the dictation mode simultaneously. The two remaining
interviews were conducted in person. During in person interviews I enabled the V oice Recorder
application on my phone to record the entire interview session for each interview participant. I
also brought along my interview protocol, a legal notepad, and multiple pens for taking notes.
Once in person interviews were complete, I played the interview audio recordings while
reviewing notes taken. I also opened up Microsoft Word documents for each interview audio
recording and enabled the dictation feature on each Word document to capture automated notes
simultaneously. After carefully reviewing the notes taken to reconcile data transcribed through
the Word documents and audio recordings from all eight interviews, I utilized Atlas.ti qualitative
data analysis software to further disseminate data from the transcripts. Transcripts from the
interviews were then uploaded into Atlas.ti.
Codes were labeled using the original words and phrases associated with monolingual
approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in public schools at the secondary level.
Codes were also derived from my conceptual framework and Mezirow’s transformative learning
theory. Codes used for this study reflect how teachers participating in the interview process
experienced a dilemma regarding the effectiveness of monolingual approaches.
A search was conducted through the uploaded interview transcripts using the Atlas ti software
and a search for the predetermined words or synonyms associated with them and their frequency
of use was conducted.
The eight participating teachers represent each of the four comprehensive public high
schools located in Ocotillo Canyon High School. Two English teachers were selected from each
school and represent various levels of English taught, years of teaching experience, and different
ethnicities. These characteristics were outlined and catalogued.

65
Open coding was used to analyze the transcripts generated by these interviews. Using the
Atlas.ti platform the frequencies or mentions of specific terms, words, and phrases relevant to
teacher’s feelings and beliefs regarding monolingual English literacy approaches used in Ocotillo
Canyon Unified School District were catalogued in Figure 4 and will be discussed further in
Chapter 4. In addition, specific terms, words, and phrases relevant to what teachers perceive
regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon
Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners were also catalogued
in Figure 4 and will be discussed in Chapter 4.

Figure 4
A Priori Code Data From Code and Number of Occurrences

66
Open Coding
During each of the six interviews conducted over the Zoom web-based platform, I
utilized the recording feature offered which provided a video copy, an audio copy, and a
transcript for each interview. Each copy was downloaded and stored on my personal Macbook
laptop. The remaining two interviews were conducted in person. For in person interviews I used
my cell phone and the V oice Recorder application. I also used a legal notepad, a copy of my
interview protocol and several pens for notetaking.
Once in person interviews were complete, I played the audio recordings for each
interview while taking updated notes. I also opened up a Microsoft Word document on my laptop
while the audio played and enabled the dictation mode on Word. I reviewed the completed Word
document cross referencing with audio and transcripts provided by Zoom. Open coding was
applied to develop themes emerging from the data gathered during the interview process and the
responses collected through a priori coding.
Limitations
Researcher bias is one area that may cause a threat to internal validity. My positionality
creates a possible conflict due to my title of director of theater arts and my role within the district
which may affect perceptions of the research. It is my responsibility as the researcher to engage
the participants in robust open-ended questions while giving the flexibility of a conversation free
from bias. To achieve bias free participation, I must ensure participants are aware there are no
specific answers sought for this study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Social desirability is another area that may cause a threat to internal validity. Participants
may tell me what they think I want to hear or offer responses that are socially acceptable.
Another threat may be fear of disclosure. Interview respondents may fear their honest responses

67
in this interview may lead to getting in trouble if their responses are disclosed in some way. I, as
the researcher reassured the interview respondents throughout the interview process of
confidentiality and security. It was imperative to remind participants their participation,
responses, and their identities will be kept strictly confidential to sustain validity. It is also
extremely important to remind the participants their opinions, responses, and conversations will
not be shared with other participants to quell any doubts regarding participant privacy
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
As the researcher, I have the sole responsibility to maintain my own reflexivity during the
research process to act as the instrument for collecting the data derived from the interview
process. I need to document my own biases, experiences, and values to clarify my own
assumptions. It is also important I stay vigilant in being an active listener and not a participant in
the interview process. I must maintain the focus of the interview and avoid the trappings of
engaging in the conversation as to avoid bias in the interview process (Merriam & Tisdell 2016).
Ethics involves me as the researcher in this study to act fair, responsibly, and honestly. It
is my responsibility to continually account for the interests, needs, and protection of the research
participants. It is also my responsibility to abide by all ethical norms related to this research case
study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) Informed consent is vital to the research in this study as it
involves the participation of students, teachers, administrators, and parents at Ocotillo Canyon
Unified School District. According to Glesne (2011), informed consent is necessary to ensure the
participants are aware their participation is voluntary, all discussions will be kept confidential,
and they can withdraw at any point.
Transparency is also integral to the research process during the entirety of the case study.
It is an expectation to remain transparent about the research practices and to avoid dishonesty. I

68
as the researcher must abide by all the established ethical standards of my field or research
discipline (Lochmiller & Lester, 2012).

69
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the findings from the study through teacher interviews regarding
monolingual approaches to teaching English literacy and language acquisition. Interviews were
conducted among secondary high school English teachers from the four comprehensive high
schools located in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District.
Interview Data
Twelve teachers were originally recruited to participate in this study. Of the 12 teachers
who volunteered, eight agreed to be interviewed. Table 2 categorizes terms, words, and phrases
the interview respondents associated with their feelings and beliefs regarding the monolingual
English literacy approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District.

70
Table 2
A Priori Code Data by Participant, Code, Number of Occurrences
Participant Holly Denise Margaret Elizabeth Samantha Nicole Valerie Frank
Assigned
curriculum
2 6 4 4 5 4 3 4
Differentiation 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1
English only 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1
Experience 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 5
Fluency 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Influences 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Monolingual
approaches
5 2 2 1 3 2 2 4
Professional
development
3 3 1 4 2 2 0 0
Support for
students
2 2 0 0 1 3 0 5
Support for
teaching
4 2 3 1 1 4 0 9

Based on the prevalence of words and phrases associated with monolingual approaches to
English literacy and language acquisition at the secondary level teachers who participated in this
study revealed specific tendencies. Based on the frequency of responses given to specific
interview questions teachers indicated a tendency to rely on assigned school curriculum having
received 32 mentions among all eight participating teachers. All eight participating teachers
mentioned monolingual approaches associated with using assigned school curriculum with 21

71
total mentions in relation to specific interview questions. Both terms were included in all eight
interviews.
Support for teaching in reference to a need for collaboration, planning, and training was
mentioned 24 times by seven of the eight participating teachers. Professional development in
terms of relevancy and impact on teaching to diverse student populations received fifteen
mentions by six of the eight participating teachers. Providing support for students which included
tutoring was mentioned by five of the eight participating teachers a total of thirteen times.
Experience was categorized as dealing with students and the years of experience working with
students. Experience received fourteen mentions by all eight participants.
The need for differentiation was recognized, but it was not emphasized throughout the
interview process having been mentioned only seven times by three out of eight participants. The
term influences in reference to lesson planning, curriculum design, and teaching to diverse
populations was mentioned by four of the eight participants for a total of five mentions. The term
fluency in reference to a student’s ability to speak, read, write, and communicate in English or
the student’s native language (L1) was mentioned by three of the eight teacher participants and
only received five mentions.
What is of more interest are the terms that garnered little consideration. Fluency,
influences, and the term English only received only five mentions each. These terms were
mentioned specifically in connection with monolingual approaches to English literacy and
language acquisition. These terms are particularly important because they have a direct impact
on teacher efficacy and student learning. Fluency was only mentioned by three out of the eight
participating teachers after direct questioning. Influences was mentioned by four out of eight

72
participating teachers. “English only” was as mentioned by four of the eight participating
teachers.
Based on the following interview questions, I categorized interview respondents’ beliefs,
feelings, and opinions regarding monolingual approaches to English literacy and language
acquisition as positive, fair, or poor on in the following table. Table 3 captures responses to the
question, “Using the definition of monolingual, have you had any experiences with a
monolingual approach to English language literacy acquisition as implemented at your school?”
Table 4 captures responses to the question, “What is your opinion regarding monolingual English
only approaches to English language literacy acquisition at your school?”

73
Table 3
Responses to Question 3 Regarding Monolingual Approaches
Participant Positive response Fair response Poor response
Holly K It’s what is expected of you.
It’s how you are expected
to teach.

Denise D We’re told immersion is the
best way to learn the
language.

Margaret N Monolingual and
teaching in English
only is very difficult
because it’s hard to
create a safe space
for students.

Elizabeth G My experience until
very, very recently
the thought of
translating wouldn’t
be considered.
Samantha G I haven’t really had any
experience with English
only approaches. I’ve
heard of monolingual
approaches.

Nicole B Everything has been
monolingual. I don’t think
I’ve had anything else.

Valerie C My experience has been a
restrictive classroom with
mixed ability levels of
students.

Frank L My experience has been
principally English only. I
haven’t been given any
other direction.

74
Table 4
Responses to Interview Question 5 Regarding Monolingual Approaches
Participant Positive response Fair response Poor response
Holly K Data says it doesn’t work. In my
experience that’s not teaching.

Denise D Students are floundering. I don’t
see how you cannot offer some
translation.

Margaret N It doesn’t work and it doesn’t
work in other subjects.

Elizabeth G It’s limiting and cuts out much
of the depth.

Samantha G Students are not as engaged with
an English only approach.

Nicole B Everything we do is pretty much
monolingual. It’s awful.

Valerie C It’s very restrictive.

Frank L Students need more support if
they are immersed in English.

Feelings and Beliefs About Monolingual Approaches
After analyzing answers from the eight interview respondents and separating them
according to my research questions it was evident there were strong opinions regarding
monolingual approaches used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. The insights provided
through teacher experiences with monolingual approaches to English literacy and language
acquisition painted a clear picture about how each interview respondent felt regarding

75
monolingual approaches. Each had a unique perspective regarding their own personal interaction
with monolingual approaches throughout their careers. The following excerpts provide strong
evidence relating to my research questions and the interview respondents’ feelings and beliefs
regarding monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in Ocotillo
Canyon Unified School District.
Holly K
Holly is in her 17th year teaching English at the secondary level. In her interview
response Holly described monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition
as proven ineffective by data. While speaking about her early experiences as a teacher Holly
shared her frustrations regarding the expectations of her administrators and colleagues regarding
her style of teaching as she explained, “All teachers were expected to teach using only English.”
Holly decided to incorporate alternative methods over time when she realized monolingual
English literacy approaches were not benefitting her students.
Holly’s initial experiences with monolingual English literacy approaches encouraged her
to become an advocate for her students. Holly understands her students are always going to be at
different levels of English. Holly explained how she works hard year after year to incorporate
different methods and strategies in order to communicate with her students through
differentiation. Holly also tries to incorporate culture and respect for other languages in her
lessons.
Holly concluded our conversation by sharing additional thoughts on monolingual English
literacy approaches. After 17 years of teaching English at the secondary level Holly continues to
be frustrated by her administrators and colleagues who advocate for monolingual English literacy
approaches, noting, “It doesn’t support anyone’s growth even for monolingual people. It doesn’t

76
work the brain the same way that having fluency in two languages does.” Holly stands by the
research proving monolingual English literacy approaches can be very damaging to students.
Denise D
Denise is in her nineteenth year as a secondary English teacher. Denise had a difficult
time elaborating on her opinion of monolingual English literacy approaches. Denise’s
understanding of monolingual English literacy approaches was centered on ideas of immersion.
Denise discussed the challenges English learners face when immersing themselves into a new
culture. Denise felt the necessity of learning the practices imbedded into a new culture on top of
learning a new language caused specific challenges among her populations of diverse students.
Denise believed operating under immersive monolingual English literacy practices could
eventually be harmful for students learning English. She felt this was especially true for students
transitioning to mainstream general education classes. “I have kids in regular mainstream classes
who are not prepared at this level.” Denise described how students currently are not doing well
without appropriate scaffolding and differentiation. “I don’t understand how any English teacher
could get by without offering some form of differentiated instruction.” Denise also believed
students should be encouraged to participate more by allowing more opportunities to express
their culture while on campus.
Denise believes without appropriate constant scaffolding students would be confused and
fall behind very quickly. Denise believes one of her main strengths as an educator has been her
embrace of differentiation. Denise shared that even as a seasoned veteran teacher she still does
not receive an appropriate amount of support from the school district.

77
Margaret N
Margaret discussed her previous experiences as an ELD teacher. Margaret is in her 8th
year, and this is her first-year teaching IB (advanced) English classes for 12th grade. Margaret is
no longer teaching ELD, but she does teach an on-line credit recovery course for at risk students
in addition to her other classes. Margaret has been an English teacher for over eight years.
Margaret described how she used monolingual approaches in her first 2 years of teaching
in an English basics class. Margaret spoke of her attempt using monolingual English literacy
approaches. “It was totally immersive, and I was only supposed to use English.” Margaret was
expected to create a classroom environment fostering a safe space where she was supposed to
use English only. Her students were expected to feel comfortable using English only. Margaret
spoke of her frustration and disappointment regarding her lack of success with a monolingual
English literacy approach: “It didn’t work, and I felt like a failure.” Margaret went on to describe
how she repeatedly tried to communicate with students but could not make meaningful
connections in order to complete lessons. Margaret ultimately had to translate for the students
and be creative in using her student’s home language incorporated into her lessons.
Margaret’s experience transitioning from monolingual English literacy approaches
included making connections with her students through the use of their home languages.
Margaret felt it was necessary to provide opportunities for students to draw connections between
English and their native home language. “Why not use their language to help them understand
the concept?” Margaret believes she doesn’t have to translate everything to draw connections
with her students. Margaret believes it is necessary to build a connection with all of her students
in order for students to feel confident.

78
Elizabeth G
Elizabeth has been teaching for over 11 years and describes monolingual approaches to
English literacy and language acquisition as terrible. Elizabeth discussed the shortcomings of
monolingual English literacy approaches in detail. Elizabeth feels monolingual English literacy
approaches remove much of the content and depth of knowledge in exchange for efficiency to
accommodate testing skills, indicating, “With monolingual English approaches, you are basically
telling students you don’t get access.” Elizabeth shared her concerns regarding the lack of
consideration for student ability levels among administrators and colleagues.
Elizabeth describes her current position as a coach and a mentor teacher. Elizabeth offers
advice for younger, less experienced teachers by encouraging them to use various tools and
strategies. Elizabeth feels monolingual English literacy approaches cut students off from
accessing a deeper level of understanding English. “You can’t force students into using only one
language.” Elizabeth also feels monolingual English literacy approaches limit a teacher’s
development.
Samantha G
Samantha has only been teaching for over 7 years. Samantha has not really had any
experience using monolingual approaches in her classroom. In her interview Samantha spoke of
only hearing about monolingual approaches from colleagues and students. During her interview
Samantha shared her concern regarding colleagues who use monolingual English literacy
approaches to the detriment of students.
Samantha described students who are second language learners who have experienced
instances of embarrassment when speaking English in class: “I’ve had students transfer to my
class from other English classes or even other schools who’ll tell me they are afraid to talk in

79
class.” Samantha shared multiple stories of students who were made to feel afraid to be called on
in class. Samantha also recanted stories of students who were made to feel awkward or singled
out because they could not phrase something correctly in English.
Samantha spoke of student experiences regarding monolingual English only
environments. She explained how these students stopped engaging in a classroom because they
are made to feel afraid. Samantha described in detail how students in those settings are afraid to
ask for translation or ask questions in their native language. Samantha decided she would offer
her students the opportunity to use their native language in class. Samantha is a Spanish speaker
and offers translation when possible.
Nicole B
Nicole has been an English teacher for over 9 years. Nicole is a second language learner
herself who speaks German. Nicole feels that monolingual approaches to teaching English have
not been very successful, and the evidence is pretty clear. Nicole cited the number of students
who have been in the local public school system for over 10 years who are still considered
English language learners. Nicole also mentioned the number of current students who are
transitioned out of district language programs but are currently struggling in general education
classrooms.
Nicole described how everything she does is monolingual in nature: “We weren’t given
anything else to build on.” Nicole expressed her frustration with the lack of trainings offered
throughout her years of teaching. Nicole further elaborated on her early years of teaching English
and her experiences with monolingual approaches: “There really was no encouragement to
differentiate much. Everything was pretty much monolingual.” Nicole felt as a first-year teacher
she had to stick to how things were and not change anything.

80
Nicole has always believed a need was there to provide meaningful strategies to help
students. She doesn’t understand why some of the same trainings from 10 years ago are recycled
over and over. Nicole has since revised much of the English curriculum offered to her from
veteran teachers by structuring her lessons to fit the needs of her students. Nicole shared she
currently has reclassified students in a senior IB English course who cannot write at grade level.
In response Nicole created her own short cycle writing assessments and allows students multiple
revisions in order to develop stronger writing skills.
Valerie C
Valerie has been involved in education for most of her life. She describes herself as a
lifelong English teacher because she provided English translation for her grandfather and parents
as a young girl growing up in a Spanish speaking household. As a teacher Valerie has over 16
years of teaching experience. Speaking as a second language learner she provided valuable
insight on monolingual approaches.
Valerie explained how monolingual English literacy approaches can appear effective to
the untrained ear and the unknowing mind. Valerie shared a story that occurred early in her
career experiencing personal success teaching to the CAHSEE. Almost 95% of her newcomer
students passed the high school exit exam, but they were not proficient. They actually scored
basic. Valerie cautions new teachers against monolingual English literacy approaches by sharing
her personal experiences and encouraging multilingual strategies.
Valerie believes monolingual English literacy approaches are not successful because they
do not give students transferrable background knowledge in their own language beforehand.
Valerie also believes schools and school districts do a disservice to all students using
monolingual approaches. “There were no connections to learning English.” Valerie also works

81
with new teachers and cautions them to not use district recommended strategies or materials that
rely on monolingual practices.
Frank L
Frank has over 8 years teaching English at the secondary level. Frank also teaches one
section of theater and often has the same set of students in both sections. Frank provided a
unique perspective by providing details from his experience teaching an English cohort at the
high school level. Frank believed monolingual English literacy approaches can be good when
you place the students who need very specific language supports in a cohort. Frank also believed
students placed in a cohort needed dedicated teachers and literary aids coupled with low student
to teacher ratios.
Frank gave an honest portrayal of a monolingual teaching experience he was a part of
during his teaching tenure. Frank shared his belief that a classroom utilizing monolingual English
literacy approaches could be very effective as long as the students were given the immersive
supports necessary where the English teacher can explain the content and the vocabulary. Frank
also stressed the importance of the cohort model. Frank explained this hypothetical model would
have to be an intersegment of classes and the pacing would have to be slow.
Despite the unique opportunity Frank experienced it was a short lived one. Frank taught
one course like this for 1 year and was unsure of its impact. Frank explained it was gone after 1
year. Frank was unsure if it was practical or actually beneficial to students.
Revelations from Teacher Experiences
All eight interview respondents shared their experiences with monolingual approaches
occurring throughout their career. All eight respondents elaborated on their feelings and beliefs
characterizing monolingual approaches in a negative light. Each respondent shared their feelings

82
and beliefs through these experiences detailing explicitly the ineffectiveness of monolingual
approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School
District.
All respondents provided valuable context regarding their feelings and beliefs supporting
the research hypothesis regarding the impact of monolingual approaches to English literacy and
language acquisition at the secondary level in public schools. Additionally, by analyzing key
terms and phrases the interview respondents mentioned during the interview process I was able
to deduce factors that contributed to their feelings regarding monolingual approaches.
Through the interview responses, a priori coding, and open coding it was determined that
support, collaboration, fluency, curriculum, and differentiation all are contributing factors
towards the interview respondents’ beliefs concerning monolingual English literacy approaches.
These terms and phrases were mentioned with s specific frequency signaling a definitive impact
on the perceptions of the interview respondents. The perceptions contributed to the beliefs and
feelings the interview respondents have regarding monolingual English literacy approaches and
their overall effectiveness for improving English literacy for diverse learners. These perceptions
of monolingual English literacy approaches have made a definite impact on each of the interview
respondents and on their teaching.
The Impact of Monolingual Approaches on Teachers
Based on the frequency of terms and phrases mentioned during the interview process it
was clear how the respondents felt regarding the effectiveness of monolingual approaches to
English literacy used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. The following responses
provide additional supporting information regarding the impact monolingual approaches had on
the teachers in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District.

83
The interview respondents discussed specific factors related or connected to using a
monolingual approach to English literacy and language acquisition. This includes the amount of
support received both as a new and a veteran teacher; the amount of collaboration time allowed
between colleagues to develop effective lessons and strategies; the lack of consistency among
teachers defining fluency for students; the use of a limited curriculum; the lack of encouragement
and training to differentiate teaching; the consideration of English learners. These terms and
phrases were used in relation to monolingual approaches and their overall effectiveness (RQ2).
Support
Support for teachers both new and experienced was a significant term mentioned by all
eight interview respondents. The relevance of this term relates directly to the feelings and beliefs
teachers hold regarding monolingual approaches to teaching English literacy and language
acquisition at the secondary level. The word support was used primarily in connection with
monolingual approaches both as a strategy and the available curriculum used at each
respondent’s school. The interview respondents all expressed that a lack of support directly
contributed to a reliance on monolingual English literacy approaches reflected in their teaching.
During the interview process all eight interview participants were asked about their
experiences as an English teacher at the high school level. The experiences described were in
relation to monolingual approaches. The word support in reference to teacher or student support
had a total of 47 mentions by all eight participants in terms of their early and current experiences
as an English teacher.
Margaret gave an account explaining for both her IB course and ELD courses there was
essentially no curriculum and very little support. Margaret had to develop her own curriculum
using what little resources were made available to her. This drastically affected her teaching style

84
and contributed to a reliance on monolingual approaches. In her ELD classes Margaret shared
how she had to create a safe space where students felt safe enough to speak and practice English.
Her English language learners did not feel comfortable outside of her classroom practicing their
language skills. Margaret explained there was very little connection her students had to the
material or the environment because resources we outdated and not culturally inclusive.
During her first years of teaching Margaret was never given a choice or options on how
to teach. She was never given any explicit training for teaching to diverse populations of
students. Margaret and other first year teachers were chosen to pilot a new program for teachers
who taught English. Without any guidance, Margaret and her colleagues were not given much
choice but to teach in English only. Once in the classroom it was all English.
Margaret’s experience details how even after her first year the expectation was to adopt
and maintain an English only approach in her classroom. Margaret was never given support in
terms of preparation for teaching to diverse populations. There was no additional support for
Margaret or encouragement to cater her lessons towards the needs of her students. Margaret
realized the monolingual English approach was not a realistic expectation for her classes of
diverse students. Margaret began to translate and differentiate for her students completely on her
own after four months.
Holly also elaborated on the lack of support she faced teaching her ELD and College
Prep courses. Holly discussed the quality of trainings offered by the district describing them as
atrocious. She explained that trainings provided by the district did not help teachers expand the
curriculum to reach the level of diverse learner she had in her classroom. Holly also had to create
her own curriculum under the same circumstances that Margaret had to. Holly had to alter her

85
lessons by allowing the students the opportunity to translate although translation was not allowed
at that time.
The lack of alternative teaching strategies and support for teachers at the secondary high
school level at Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District has a definite impact on the way each
interview respondents approached teaching English literacy and language acquisition. The
consensus opinion among the interview respondents is the lack of supports limited their ability to
teach to diverse populations of student English learners at all secondary high school levels. The
absence of available resources for diverse populations also forced teachers into adopting
monolingual approaches. The interview respondents felt monolingual English literacy
approaches were the expectation.
The feelings and beliefs of the teacher respondents regarding the available supports
offered were that they were monolingual in nature. These supports did not provide alternatives
allowing for appropriate translation, alternative methods, or consideration for student capability.
The supports mentioned by all eight respondents were inadequate and definitely impacted the
feelings and beliefs associated with the respondents’ approach to teaching.
Collaboration
Collaboration was mentioned throughout the interview process a total of 17 times by four
out of eight interview respondents. Collaboration is directly related to the larger problem of
adhering to a monolingual English only approach to English literacy and language acquisition.
Collaboration is also connected to teachers’ feelings and beliefs regarding the effectiveness of
monolingual approaches (RQ2).
Nicole has been a secondary English teacher for over 9 years. She has taught Advanced
Placement English for 12th grade as well as Expository Writing for 10th grade. Nicole shared

86
that time is a factor in being able to have productive collaboration meetings with colleagues.
Nicole explained during her interview collaboration does not happen very frequently. The
number one reason for the lack of collaboration among her colleagues is time.
Nicole spoke about program meetings, staff meetings, department meetings and other
miscellaneous meetings being the primary cause for the lack of collaboration time at her school
site. Nicole also expressed the availability of colleagues to actually have productive
collaboration as another obstacle explaining how she and her colleagues teach multiple levels of
students. A choice has to be made regarding which grade level meeting needs to be prioritized.
Nicole described additional internal struggles teaching various English content or
adopting strategies because of seniority. Ultimately, Nicole explained how sometimes newer
teachers have no choice but to use an English only approach because other teachers are doing it.
Nicole believes that monolingual approaches have done nothing but damage her student’s
abilities and narrowed the curriculum among her colleagues. Nicole feels that if she were given
enough collaboration time with colleagues, effective lessons could be created for all students at
the secondary level. By sharing her story Nicole provides an example of how monolingual
approaches are sometimes the only choice a teacher can make in Ocotillo Canyon Unified.
Samantha is an English teacher with over 7 years of experience teaching Honors English,
CP English also known as English II. She also teachers a new course titled Ethnic Literature for
12th Grade. Samantha explained at her school site she has not experienced much collaboration
since before COVID. As a result, there is very little encouragement among her colleagues to
collaborate.
Samantha feels isolated and left on an island when it comes to teaching. Samantha

87
expressed how she feels liberated creating lessons on her own but would like to know what her
colleagues are doing. Samantha believes it is important to collaborate in order to find lessons that
are effective and also to get feedback on her own strategies. She believes her administrators at
her school site could do more in terms of supporting more collaboration time between her and
her colleagues. She also explained how after this interview she planned to reach out to more
colleagues in order find additional support for her teaching strategies that go beyond a
monolingual approach.
Margaret discussed the need for collaboration strictly to show students that there is a
connection between all of their subjects through the use of language. Margaret expressed her
frustration regarding students and teachers. Margaret believes most teachers approach every
subject in isolation. She believes teaching without using feedback or input from other teachers is
unrealistic Students eventually become frustrated. Margaret offered descriptive examples of
classrooms at her school site. She goes on to describe classrooms as silos where most teachers
shut their doors and do not allow anyone else in.
Margaret wishes for more collaboration between subject matters and that students could
see the connections firsthand. Margaret described the current environment on her school’s
campus explaining how teachers are not encouraged to take chances. Margaret also expressed her
frustration at not having any opportunities to work with colleagues to develop lessons and
assessments for her students.
Margaret believes working with colleagues to move away from a test-
centered monolingual approach should be the goal at her school site. Margaret also feels
collaboration is definitely lacking among her colleagues, as they are just not given enough time.

88
This lack of time regulates the teachers at Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District to using
ineffective monolingual approaches.
Denise feels the lack of collaboration has forced most teachers to stick with monolingual
English only approaches because it’s all they know how to do. Denise described the impact on
teachers and their ability to teach to diverse populations in her interview response. Denise
described how at her site the lack of collaboration is evident by the number of participants
meeting by department in various secluded classrooms. Denise also explained she is lucky if she
can meet with a grade level colleague at least once a week after the start of the school year.
The lack of collaboration at the various school sites is representative of the feelings and
beliefs teachers have regarding the effectiveness of monolingual approaches to English literacy
and language acquisition. The interview respondents feel the lack of collaboration has limited
their ability to build efficacy for their profession. The respondents for this interview have stated
the need for active collaboration to design effective lessons serving their populations of diverse
learners. Through effective collaboration the interview respondents have stated they could
identify and utilize effective lessons which deviate from a monolingual English approach to
literacy and language acquisition.
Fluency
Fluency in regard to students’ ability to read, write, speak, and communicate in English
was mentioned 24 times by seven out eight interview participants. Fluency relates to the teacher
interview respondents’ perception of the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy
approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse
learners (RQ2).

89
Fluency was a regular issue of clarification throughout the interview process as the
participants answered the question, “What percentage of your students are fluent in English?”
with varying qualifying answers. Denise asked me to clarify the question in regards to grade
levels. Denise ultimately stated she could not really measure fluency in the three domains of
reading, speaking, and writing. Denise ended up recalling her student testing data from the prior
year to estimate over 50% of her students were fluent in English. She stated that this figure was
attributed to her honor student’s state test scores.
Holly explained the idea of fluency as a district problem. She shared her frustration with
the lack of clarity on the term fluency. Holly believed defining fluency was a concern, explaining
that it was a district problem. Holly believed the school district should not promote relying on
state test scores to assess student ability. She was concerned the district’s use of state assessment
scores are misleading and often mischaracterize a student’s fluency level. Holly estimated that on
average the number of her students she would consider fluent ranged between 25% and 40%.
Holly explained most school districts including hers were still very test centric when it
comes to teaching. She also explained how testing still effects how teachers teach, and fluency is
often misunderstood. Holly characterized this problem as a leading cause for school districts
adopting monolingual English literacy approaches in consideration of preparing students for state
testing. Holly described how teachers will often focus on test results when designing lessons for
the classroom which become one dimensional.
Elizabeth mentioned how fluency is connected to monolingual English only approaches
as an option for teaching because of the differing levels of fluency among students. Elizabeth
explained how fluency levels are so wildly different. Elizabeth described how hard it is not to
rely on English only approaches and try something like Google Translate with students.

90
Elizabeth also shared the difficulties she had experienced over the last 5 years trying to come up
with better ways to teach English.
Elizabeth explained the difficulties with addressing fluency centers on having a lot of
newcomer students. Elizabeth expressed her frustration with her administration and the school
district’s inability to find better ways to assess what second language learning students can do
before having them take any state test. Understanding the implications of fluency is essential for
assessment.
Fluency and its consideration for the purposes of this research study is significant
because the interview respondents all use fluency as a measurement of student capabilities, yet
each have a different opinions and ideas regarding fluency. Fluency in reading means to read
with speed, accuracy, and proper expression (V oyager-Sopris, 2022). Yet, the seven out of eight
respondents who mentioned fluency in their responses spoke negatively about their students’
reading fluency stating at least 50% of their students were well below grade level.
When discussing fluency rates all eight respondents sought clarity on what fluency
actually means in regard to teaching English literacy and language acquisition as all interview
respondents had different interpretations of the meaning. All eight interview respondents
indicated the use of state testing as a way to gauge fluency which also prompted the use of
monolingual English only approaches to prepare their students for testing. The lack of
consistency regarding the term fluency is relative to what teachers perceive regarding the
effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School
District for improving English literacy for diverse learners.
All eight interview respondents indicated that at least 50% of their students or higher
were fluent at speaking English. The monolingual approach stresses the necessity for

91
communicating in only English in order for students to gain a quicker grasp of the language. All
eight respondents agreed there needed to be consensus on the term fluency and the ability to
adapt lessons regarding the idea of what is considered English fluency. The interview
respondents all expressed that a monolingual approach was not adequate to address the fluency
needs of their diverse learners at all stages of English literacy in Ocotillo Canyon Unified.
Curriculum
Interview participants were asked about the assigned school curriculum they were given
to use in conjunction with teaching their classes. The term curriculum was mentioned 63 times in
connection with the terms outdated, lacking cultural richness, and needing improvement. All
eight interview respondents associated the term curriculum with monolingual English literacy
approaches. All eight interview respondents associated curriculum with having a negative impact
on their students or their approach to teaching English.
Frank indicated he uses the district prescribed lessons and curriculum materials in spite of
any reservations about the quality of the material. He explained how he used the district’s
prescribed curriculum because of the expectations placed on him as a first-year teacher. Frank
recalled being told the use of the assigned curriculum was almost sacrosanct. He recalled that
teachers at his school site were told they needed to use the materials provided for teaching
English. The materials included supplemental texts as well as online resources.
Frank and his colleagues were also told there was a richness in the assigned curriculum
for low-level students. Teachers at his school site were strongly encouraged to faithfully
implement the materials they were given to teach English. Very little scaffolding occurred. Frank
was also told consistency and quality were beneficial for students who were considered low level
learners. Frank’s primary concern for his students was the use of lessons and curriculum rooted

92
in monolingual English only approaches. Frank understood these approaches may not be
beneficial later on.
Elizabeth felt obligated to use her school’s curriculum for English when she began her
career as English teacher. Elizabeth expressed her frustration explaining how she and her
colleagues were strongly encouraged to stick to the curriculum. Elizabeth recounted her use of
the curriculum varied over time. She explains how the curriculum was limited because it didn’t
offer much in terms of connecting with students. There was a lack of cultural diversity to it.
Many of her students disengaged and would not participate in classroom activities. Elizabeth
explained many of the lessons connected with district provided materials lacked depth.
Margaret also discussed the frustration she felt using only the district curriculum to teach
English with her students. Margaret explains how the curriculum was inadequate to address the
needs for students at all levels. Margaret explained in detail how the curriculum lacked a level of
quality for students in the later grades. She explained many of her students were uninterested in
the literature provided in the form of stories associated with class lessons. Margaret explained
that by Grade 12 students are using mostly materials from 2010 or 2012. Margaret explained
there was not much in terms of engagement or an effort from her administration to seek out
materials students could connect with.
The sentiments expressed regarding the curriculum used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified
School District by the interview participants relates to the feelings and beliefs regarding
monolingual approaches and their effectiveness. The respondents expressed there is a definite
push to use the district provided curriculum despite the lack of success or confidence using the
curriculum. There is a lack of cultural diversity in the current district curriculum which the

93
respondents noted. The respondents also noted a lack of depth as well as a lack of current
materials contributing to the sense of frustration among teachers and students.
Differentiation
Differentiation means adjusting teaching to fit the needs of the student and meet
individual student needs (Tomlinson, 2000). Differentiation in relation to using alternative
approaches or approaches other than monolingual English literacy approaches was mentioned a
total of seven times by three out of eight interview respondents. The term differentiation directly
reflects what teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English only
approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified school district for improving English learning for diverse
learners.
Samantha discussed specific occasions where she could differentiate her lessons to
accommodate her students. None of these accommodations were recommended by the school
district. Samantha described opportunities allowing for translation. Samantha explained how she
allows student access to translator application or use their phone to translate. Samantha also
welcomes the use of her student’s home language in the classroom. Samantha also shared that
many of her colleagues disagree with some of these accommodations. Samantha explained her
school site does nothing to support her efforts to provide an equitable classroom where second
language use is acceptable.
Samantha believes allowing students to use their home language in the classroom it helps
her to get more comfortable with second language use. Allowing for second language use in her
classroom Samantha believes students can become more comfortable asking questions. She also
believes that if she is able to show her students she is willing to speak like them, then maybe they
will want to speak like her.

94
Denise offered a little more elaboration in explaining her interpretation of differentiating
lessons for students. Denise explains students need an outlier or model to understand what they
are learning. She describes how teachers need to scaffold and provide feedback along the way in
order to be successful. Denise also cautions against using monolingual English literacy
approaches simply because she believes students will never learn what you are trying to teach
them. Denise believes a reliance on monolingual English literacy approaches will result in
students falling behind and becoming very confused.
The lack of clarity on differentiating for student needs from the interview respondents
reflects how teachers perceive the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in
Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners. It
shows the need for some understanding and training on differentiating for all students. It also
validates the need to move beyond the limited practices often aligned with monolingual English
literacy approaches.
English Learners
The term English learner only had four mentions from three of the eight respondents in
terms of differentiation, scaffolding, and planning. In response to the question regarding second
language learners being more prepared, equally prepared, or less prepared for high school
success the interview respondents who elaborated on the question expressed a lack of training
and preparation were the root causes. The responses connect to what teachers perceive regarding
the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified
School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners.
In her experience, Margaret explained how she had different levels of bilingual students
who could speak Spanish, but they couldn’t read or write in it. In her response she went on to

95
explain how her students had some fluency. Students could communicate in Spanish and have
either some writing or reading skills, but they could speak English. Margaret understood she had
students who were labeled as English learners, but felt students were also being underserved by
subjecting them to monolingual English literacy approaches. Margaret felt students were being
mislabeled as English learners by teachers who held negative perceptions of diverse student
populations.
Holly explained how time is a factor when it comes to preparing to teach her population
of diverse learners. In her response Holly explained she is only given three times a semester to
discuss differentiating for English learners. Holly describes teaching to English learners the
elephant in the room in the district. Holly believes the problem is that teachers are not working
together or often enough to help English language learning students. She believes teachers are
not given the space to address the needs of diverse learners.
Valerie explains the difficulty in having conversations regarding English learners and the
need to adapt for their benefit. Thinking about all of the students I have had and the students I
continue to help when they enter my classroom the question becomes subjective because there
are different layers of different levels rather of literacy. Teachers and administrators in our
district forget about or don’t want to think about our students who are not literate when they
enter high school. What are we doing for these students? Many of our EL’s will go work out in
the field after high school unfortunately. These are the students we need to consider. How are we
preparing all students?
A majority of students at the secondary level are not considered often enough by the
administration or the teachers in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. According to the
interview respondents. Time, training, and resources are not being allocated to provide for

96
students beyond monolingual English practices. This relates to what teachers perceive regarding
the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified
School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners.
It is apparent from the interview data teachers do not feel adequately prepared to teach
the diverse populations of students at Ocotillo Canyon High Unified School District. Based on
the eight interview respondents it is clear what teachers perceive about the effectiveness of the
monolingual English literacy approach based on their comments regarding support,
collaboration, fluency, curriculum, differentiation, and English learners. Teachers are not given
the tools or the consideration to be allowed to use the most impactful methods of teaching
English literacy and language acquisition and have to settle for mediocre methods which have
been proven ineffective.
Interpretations of Teachers’ Feelings and Beliefs
Once all interviews were conducted and a priori codes were reviewed I took note of
specific themes that had emerged. I used open coding to further analyze and refine themes that
took shape during the process. After a careful review of these themes, I began to categorize my
results through a process of axial coding. Axial coding allows for the process to draw stronger
connections between codes. Axial coding develops from interpretation and reflection on meaning
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through the process of axial coding three major themes developed
from the data: building consensus, advocacy, building equitable learning environments. These
codes are outlined in Figure 5.
Building Consensus
All eight interview respondents expressed a need for building consensus regarding having
effective training for differentiating lessons and curriculum to teach diverse populations of

97
students. This is connected to what teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of monolingual
English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District for improving English
literacy for diverse learners.
Additionally, three of the five respondents expressed the necessity for consensus
concerning the district’s definition of fluency as it applies to state testing, classroom assessments,
and curriculum. The respondents all expressed the need to move away from trainings aimed at
raising English language test scores. Instead, all three respondents stressed the need for trainings
aimed at differentiated lessons and using texts designed for multiple language learners.
Veronica explained how students with limited fluency skills need to be accounted for whether it
is in English or another language. Listening to teachers and their experiences would be the first
step in building consensus for what works best.
All eight interview respondents spoke of student ability and stressed the need for
translation in the classroom using student cell phones. All eight interview respondents spoke
about the need to address fluency but offered varied assessments of their students’ abilities
through state testing. The impact of differentiation to address student needs also had been
mentioned by all eight respondents but could not specify how to differentiate to fit the needs of
their students beyond monolingual approaches.
All eight interview respondents spoke about the need for teachers coalescing around
higher quality curriculum that is inclusive and culturally representative. The idea of building
consensus is connected to what are teachers’ feelings and beliefs about the monolingual English
literacy approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. The interview respondents of
Ocotillo Canyon Unified expressed shared sentiments reflecting the need to build consensus in
order to facilitate meaningful change that benefits the diverse student population of the district.

98
Advocacy
All eight interview respondents spoke about teaching to all learners and the inadequacy
teachers feel trying to teach to diverse populations or teaching to students at multiple stages of
English language development using limited or outdated resources rooted in monolingual
approaches to English literacy. The respondents spoke candidly regarding what they perceive
regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon
Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners.
Holly shared her insights regarding the need for advocacy by explaining the difference
between veteran teachers and newer teachers. Holly expressed the need for more teachers to be
brave. Holly believes teachers have a fear motivated mentality. Holly strongly feels teachers
don’t want to say anything out of fear of the consequences. Holly believes teachers need to be
able to share opinions now more than ever because students are the ones who suffer.
All eight interview respondents suggested more support from administrators was
necessary, but all respondents felt a unified voice was pivotal. Advocacy also relates to building
a unified consensus to move away from a monolingual emphasis on teaching especially in
accessing the curriculum.
Equitable Learning Environments
During the interview process, all eight teacher participants emphasized how the district
did not go far enough to create equitable learning environments. Teachers who sought to expand
their knowledge had to use personal time to attend additional trainings aimed at teaching to
diverse populations. Teacher participants also expressed frustration at repetitive strategies being
repackaged and presented at trainings offered through their district. Nancy expressed frustration
at a “think, pair, share” training and having to give up a Saturday to attend.

99
Teacher respondents also expressed growing frustration over the limited spaces students
had to seek or receive support. All eight interview respondents suggested the district needed to
facilitate some sort of support for struggling English learning students outside of class. All eight
interview respondents expressed the need to offer more incentives for teachers to offer extended
support for students.
Holly expressed continued frustration regarding how the monolingual English literacy
approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District has created unsupportive
environments on school campuses. Holly shared how she and other teachers at her site will allow
students to speak Spanish or their native languages in class. Holly explained many teachers on
her campus and throughout the district do not allow students to communicate in their native
languages. Holly feels this is a district problem and there is a lack of effort to provide equity for
second language learners while they are on campus.
The need to create equitable learning environments relates to what teachers perceive
regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon
Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners. All eight interview
respondents express how Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District needs to do more in terms of
creating equitable learning environments for all students. All eight respondents spoke of
providing more support for teacher interventions designed for students through tutoring services.
All eight interview respondents also spoke of the need to develop safe spaces for diverse
learners who don’t speak English but may be placed in English only classrooms to their
detriment. All eight respondents spoke of Ocotillo Canyon Unified offering relevant accessible
trainings to address the needs of all students. Expressing the need for equitable learning
environments relates to what the teachers at Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District perceive

100
regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach for improving English
literacy for diverse learners. Figure 5 visualizes axial codes derived from interview data.

Figure 5
Axial Codes From Interview Data

101
Facing Moral Dilemmas in Ocotillo Canyon Unified SD
After hearing the stories and examples of all eight interview respondents I was able to
analyze and categorize their answers using Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning. By
applying the responses from all eight interview respondents through the lens of Mezirow’s ten
phases of transformative learning, I could understand how teachers’ feelings affected their
approach to teaching to a diverse population of students. I could also gauge whether or not their
discussing their feelings about monolingual approaches to teaching English literacy and language
acquisition caused a disorienting dilemma. I could also assess whether or not the interview
respondents would allow themselves to go through a process of self-examination in order to
acquire new knowledge regarding teaching and try new roles for the benefit of students (1997).
The purpose of this study was to investigate how teacher’s feelings, opinions, and
perceptions regarding monolingual approaches impacted student learning at the secondary level.
Specifically, I choose to create a case study because I was interested in analyzing a theory by
actually interviewing teachers to get a sense of these feelings from the respondents. I wanted to
hear directly from secondary high school English teachers regarding their experiences with
monolingual English only approaches to literacy and language acquisition. I also wanted to hear
stories from teachers regarding monolingual English only approaches and the experiences
teaching to diverse populations of students.
Participant areas of concern and phases are visualized on Table 5 based on responses to
interview questions regarding monolingual approaches, analyzation of the a priori coding, open
coding, and individualized responses stemming from the frequency of recognized themes
emerging from the data. Placement on Table 5 signifies what transformative stages the interview
respondents are at presently in their careers as teachers.

102
Table 5
Teacher Level of Personal Transformation
Participants Areas of concern Mezrow phases
Holly K

Teachers need to understand language is difficult
and challenging for students who are native
English speakers. A monolingual approach is
very limiting and depending on the recipient
can be very damaging.

Planning a course of
action; trying new
roles
Denise D

I wouldn’t say education is perfect now, as it is
constantly changing. We’re constantly adapting
for our EL students. I’m going to say my
students usually have a strong grasp of the
language, and I rarely have an ELL 1 in my
class.

Critical assessment;
recognition of shared
experiences
Margaret N

I felt like I was very explicit in that to help my
students English acquisition and I feel like it
was a failure and I especially feel like
monolingual approaches doesn’t work in the
sciences and in the math. Why not let students
use their home language to help them feel
connected and help them understand the
concepts?

Exploring new options;
planning a course of
action
Elizabeth G

OK, monolingual? it's so limiting. You're cutting
out like so much of the depth of your
knowledge because just because the student
doesn't read English doesn't mean that they
don't have literary analysis skills in Spanish or
that they can't write very fluently in Tagalog, so
any English only approaches you are essentially
telling your students like no you don't get to
access. This depth of knowledge like this rich
background and foundation that you have forget
it because we have to force you into this one
language.

Acquisition of
knowledge; trying
new things
Shannon G

I would say our curriculum is fair as well. it was a
lot of vocabulary building which I think is
great but one thing that the previous ELD
teacher did I got to witness for actually doing
e to the was connecting students home languag
vocab that was given in the curriculum. The
Critical assessment;
recognition of shared
experiences

103
Participants Areas of concern Mezrow phases
curriculum didn't offer like any sort of
connection. In that way the teacher did that
herself and so I think yeah for the current ELD
curriculum it would be nice for students to be
of home language able to make some sort
connections
so.

Nicole B

Everything we do is pretty much monolingual.
lessons in another There are absolutely no
ere are ELD lessons. So, language. None. Th
there's supposed to be scaffolding and
supporting students who do not speak English
as a first language, however none of them are
in another language. There are no translations
or anything like
that.

Planning a course of
action
Valerie C

I mean in ELD in and of itself is monolingual
you've got several students several different
languages in an English room right and so that's
the monolingual approach not relying upon any
skills transference or anything like that so it's
restricted I guess that's the only way I could say
that. The curriculum is awful. I put it on a shelf
and let it collect dust.

Acquisition of
knowledge; trying
new things
Frank L

Yes, it has been principally English only at my
school. I have had some ELL students. Well,
there were times I actually did an entire
intercession program in 2017 that was
exclusively ELA level one or two, but I had a
number of aides and bilingual aides with me. I'd
say outside of that it has been principally the
monolingual approach. Because they tend to
cohort the students, we do have a specialized
class with them although it's very small so uh
this approach at least from a teaching standpoint
is monolingual. Have they been successful?
Well, what do the test scores tell you?

Disorienting dilemma;
self-examination

104
The responses teachers provided in their interviews as outlined in Table 5 indicate their
awareness of monolingual approaches and how they feel regarding their effectiveness. Their
responses also allowed for a determination of where they stood on Mezirow’s ten phases of
transformative learning. All participating teacher respondents felt negatively regarding
monolingual approaches and their effectiveness.
All eight interview respondents voiced their frustration regarding the limitations placed
on them professionally. All teacher interview respondents believed there were specific influences
impacting decisions to use monolingual English literacy approaches. Lack of support provided
from administration or school district was a primary example. All interview respondents
discussed the lack of effective curriculum and supplemental materials. All interview respondents
discussed the lack of collaboration time as another influence forcing teachers to use a
monolingual English literacy approach.
The interviews allowed respondents to share their views and feelings regarding
monolingual English only approaches to teaching by sharing their stories in a non-threatening,
non-evaluative format. This format allowed for genuine storytelling and honest expressions of
opinion regarding their profession. In my first round of coding a predetermined a prior code was
used based on teacher experience, predisposition, and demographics. After some reflection
through two rounds of open coding, I could see what other themes emerged from the data. The
themes and findings from the dissemination of this information are further discussed in Chapter
5.

105
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to interrogate the impact of teacher perceptions, feelings,
and opinions of monolingual English only approaches to teaching English literacy and language
acquisition at the secondary level in public schools. This study sought to answer two questions:
1. What are teacher feelings and beliefs about the monolingual English literacy
approach used in Ocotillo Hills Unified School District?
2. What do teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English
only approach in Ocotillo Hills Unified School District for improving English literacy
for diverse learners?
The data obtained to answer these questions yielded some significantly favorable results.
Extracting information from the literature on theoretical frameworks based on Mezirow’s
transformative learning theory; studies on the history of monolingual and English only
approaches to teaching English at the secondary level in U.S. public schools; and Goldberger’s
direct method approaches to teaching English to foreign students in U.S. public schools, I created
a conceptual framework to serve as a guide for this study. The conceptual framework emphasized
the importance of the intersectionality teachers and students face in the classroom when learning
new material. Students and teachers are faced with a moral dilemma when entering a classroom
and must go through a process of critical reflection in order to receive new ideas and
information.
This process of critical reflection is vital for the development of English literacy and
language acquisition. The teacher must decide if what they have learned in the past will benefit a
new group of students in order to achieve success. Students must decide if what they are learning
at the present builds upon what they have already learned in order to form new ideas and

106
concepts leading towards literacy in English. As Mezirow’s theory states teachers as well as
students must engage in a process of critical reflection in order to transform what we should
believe and understand now (2004).
The conceptual framework emphasized the influences on this study which form the moral
dilemmas teachers and students both face in shaping the way English is taught and learned at the
secondary level in public schools. These influences include Hispanic culture; race and racism;
language as a means of subjugation; lack of professional development; and a lack of cultural
inclusion and sensitivity. These influences were discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.
At the center of the conceptual framework is the hypothesis based on relevant theories
and frameworks (TLT and MPT). The stories shared by teachers will provide a larger perspective
on the challenges all students face trying to learn English in today’s public-school environment at
the secondary level. This perspective will then lead to a larger effort towards expanding
differentiated approaches, providing culturally rich, relevant curriculum for all students, and a
focus on actually providing a path towards literacy in the English language. This path should be
one that is scaffolded and developed incorporating diverse perspectives on teaching and learning.
This path should also be developed without minimizing one’s native culture or language.
Through a process of coding which included a priori, open, and axial coding themes were
developed to further analyze the interview respondent’s feelings and beliefs about the
monolingual approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. These themes yielded
positive information supporting the hypothesis regarding what teachers perceive regarding the
effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School
District for improving English literacy for diverse learners.

107
Interpretation of Findings
The most powerful information that came from the eight teacher interviews conducted in
Ocotillo Hills Unified School District was all interview respondents indicated monolingual
approaches impacted student learning. Monolingual approaches significantly narrowed the
curriculum and limited students’ ability to achieve proficiency in English. All eight interview
respondents expressed their level of concern and some frustration regarding the assigned
curriculum and the supporting materials used to teach English at all Grade Levels 9 through 12.
Frank provided an example of how the curriculum at his school site is monolingual.
Although his knowledge is limited regarding what is used beyond his own grade levels of
instruction he speaks to his own feelings and beliefs regarding the monolingual approach used in
Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. In his interview Frank described how resources are not
thoroughly considered before implementing them for student use. This was often the case
speaking with all eight interview respondents. The general feeling was the school district did not
do enough to provide appropriate materials aimed at meeting the needs of diverse student
populations.
All eight interview respondents felt not enough consideration was given to differentiate
for students who are second language learners. Teachers were not given the academic freedom to
collaborate in order to build efficacy for their subject matter. Nor were teachers allowed to feel
empowered to provide support for their students both in and out of the classroom. The interview
respondents believed the use of monolingual English language approaches for literacy among
diverse populations of students was largely ineffective. The interview respondents provided
detailed examples of the repercussions of monolingual English literacy approaches among
students and colleagues.

108
The respondents in this interview shared personal stories which reflect a growing
frustration with a constant effort to institutionalize both student and teacher. The teacher
respondents interviewed for this study clearly rejected their district’s support of monolingual
English literacy practices. The respondents echoed opinions found in current research proving
monolingual English literacy approaches are detrimental to diverse student populations (Chang-
Bacon, 2022). Monolingual English literacy practices also restrict teachers from providing
appropriate differentiation strategies designed to increase comprehension for all students of
English (Chang-Bacon, 2022).
The data collected in response to the research questions was very informative. Through
the interview process, I learned from all eight respondents there was very little support offered to
guide teachers on how to differentiate and structure lessons that cater to the needs of their
students, especially second language learners as well as newcomer students. The sentiments
shared by all eight teacher interviewees reflect definitive feelings and beliefs about the
monolingual English literacy approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. These
feelings and beliefs reflect opinions of dissatisfaction with this approach among the teachers of
English literacy at the secondary high school level. The consensus sentiment among all eight
interview participants is teachers perceive the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo
Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners is ineffective.
The findings from the research reflect that the feelings and beliefs teachers perceive
regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon
Unified School District for improving English literacy for diverse learners has not been
successful. Based on the feelings and beliefs expressed by the participants of this research
monolingual approaches to English literacy do not meet the needs of the diverse population of

109
students found in Ocotillo Unified School District. The curriculum provided does not connect
with the student population culturally. Teachers are not provided with adequate training and
supports to help their population of diverse learners. Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District
does not do enough to create environments that are conducive to learning for all students.
According to six of the eight interview respondents, the district provided curriculum and
limited resources were outdated. The interview respondents also believed Ocotillo Unified
School District did not provide enough resources in another language. In each of the eight
interviews all teachers discussed the need for cultural richness within their curriculums. All eight
interview respondents discussed the need for cultural inclusivity in the available curriculums
provided by the district. They also felt the lack of cultural awareness and an English only
approach to be a contributing factor to the disconnect between students and teachers especially at
the higher grade levels.
All interview respondents recognized monolingual approaches in their own teaching
processes. This response in addition to previously mentioned responses supports the claim that
although teachers regard monolingual approaches to teaching English as ineffective a majority of
teachers still use them. All interview respondents view the ineffectiveness of monolingual
approaches as a moral dilemma yet lack the necessary supports to address the problem.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations and delimitations are an intrinsic part of educational research. This study was
designed to limit or eliminate its limitations by operating within a specified timeline, availability
of respondents, access, and budget. It is important to outline the limitations and delimitations of
this study.

110
Access was a significant part of this study. Initially two student focus groups were part of
the design of this study. However, concerns developed over whether or not enough viable
responses would be yielded from students regarding monolingual teaching approaches. The
major concern was whether or not students would maintain objectivity in a research study
involving teachers including their own.
A significant delimitation of my study was time. In an ideal situation I would have had
the opportunity to schedule multiple observations throughout the course of one semester to
witness the interview respondents teach to their individual English classes. Having the
opportunity to observe teachers utilize the curriculum, model examples of differentiation, and
allow for student interaction would have provided greater saturation across more than one area of
research.
Another limitation of my study was that the original research questions were too vague.
My preliminary focus developing the research questions centered on teacher perceptions of
monolingual research-based curriculums. This proved daunting and very broad when I began
crafting my interview protocol. I began to revise my research questions with focusing on my
main objective which was understanding why students at the secondary level were graduating
from high school with such low literacy rates. In order to find the answers to my research
questions, I needed to understand this was going to be the findings of my study and should be the
goal of my research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
After revising my research questions, I was able to make improvements to my interview
protocol centered more on my research questions. I was able to create questions eliciting details
more reflective and objective.

111
Implications of Findings
The overall findings of this study implicate that teachers in Ocotillo Canyon Unified
School District all face their own moral dilemmas when choosing to teach English literacy and
language acquisition at the secondary level. It is what they do in response to this dilemma as it
impacts the lives of so many students who are native speakers of English and second language
learners. In Chapter 1 of this study, I used a case study approach as the research is based on the
feelings, opinions, and experiences of English language arts teachers regarding monolingual
English only approaches at the secondary high school level. The research sought to determine if
those feelings, opinions, and experiences could have an impact on student learning.
The qualitative coded data from the interview supports the hypothesis that the feelings,
opinions, and experiences of the teachers themselves regarding monolingual English only
approaches affect the way they teach. Through the interview process we have learned there were
few alternatives to monolingual English only approaches. According to the teachers who
participated in this study this was due to a lack of support, opportunities to collaborate, and a
lack of proper training on differentiating the proscribed curriculum for all English learners. It
was also apparent there was a lack of consensus on what fluency means among the interview
participants. These findings all have a definitive impact on student learning.
The format of this case study is not perfect and if given the opportunity to conduct
interviews among another group of eight secondary high school English teachers it is highly
probable the same results would be reached. In fact, it is highly likely that feelings, opinions, and
experiences shared by other groups of teachers may yield a stronger response rejecting
monolingual English only approaches. The interview respondents who participated are part of a
tight knit group of educators within Ocotillo Hills Unified School District and within their

112
worksites respectively. Creating a space for discussions regarding a lack of collaborative time,
rejection of monolingual English only approaches, and incorporating more opportunities for
differentiation can make a powerful immediate impact on student learning.
The conceptual framework for this study included some external influences that are not
much different from other school districts in Southern California. Ocotillo Hills Unified
demographically is over 80% Hispanic. The culture and politics are similar to many other school
districts across Southern California where there is a lot of concern regarding how resources are
allocated to schools highly populated by minorities and second language learners. Issues of race
and racism have persisted with the recent hyper politization of issues like citizenship within the
United States. Ocotillo Hills Unified School District follows the same California State Content
Standards as any other public school district in the state. Its staff of educators could benefit from
additional trainings on race and racism. It would also benefit from additional trainings on
cultural inclusivity and diversity regarding students.
Future Directions of Research
The purpose of this study was to interrogate teacher perceptions, feelings, and opinions
regarding monolingual English only approaches to literacy and language acquisition at the
secondary high school level in public schools. This study sought to determine if there was an
impact on student learning caused by monolingual English only approaches. While there were
limitations and delimitations identified in the ethnographic research the data obtained from the
research interviews indicated there was an impact on student learning regarding the use of
monolingual English only approaches. The interview respondents discussed the lack of training
and collaborative support for utilizing differentiated teaching methods. Interview respondents

113
also discussed their own search for new ideas as many of them had to design their own
curriculums with little or no supports.
Teachers who participated in this interview were very sincere in their responses. The
information contained in this study reflected a sincere lack of knowledge in regard to
differentiated instruction and possible biliterate approaches to teaching English literacy and
language acquisition at the secondary high school level. There was also a definite lack of
consensus regarding the definition of English fluency at the secondary high school level. Follow
up research could be used to better understand why teachers choose to teach using a monolingual
approach even though the majority are aware of its ineffectiveness. A larger sample of secondary
teachers could be observed and interviewed at the middle secondary level. It would also be
beneficial to interview teachers from a neighboring similar school district.
The interview respondents involved in this study each expressed a high level of interest in
supporting their population of students. The seven respondents expressed the need for additional
relevant professional development on the practice of differentiating their curriculums. All eight
respondents expressed the need for greater teacher input on curriculum as well as more teacher
collaboration time. All eight respondents had expressed the need for a district wide collaboration
among the secondary English teachers. It would be curious to investigate if providing the
secondary English teachers at Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District these opportunities would
have an impact on student learning and affect teacher perceptions regarding monolingual
approaches.
Recommendations
Monolingual English literacy approaches and practices have shaped the course of English
literacy curriculums for over a century in U.S. public schools. Monolingual English literacy

114
practices have served to position English as the dominant language among all school aged
children. English in U.S. public institutions has served as the unspoken gatekeeper functioning to
oppress people who are second language learners. Access to opportunity rests specifically with
the ability to master the English language while renouncing one’s own native language, culture,
and beliefs (Cummins, 2007).
Monolingual English literacy practices only serve to reinforce colonist idealism within
the institutions designed to liberate generations of students through a free and public education.
In order to disrupt the process of monolingual English literacy institutionalism it is imperative to
bring attention to the short sightedness of these practices. For years, policymakers and politicians
have demonized the public education system for its shortcomings. It is time to shine a light on
oppressive practices in U.S. education which limit the full potential of our nation of school
children.
The research of this study adds to the literature regarding monolingual English literacy
approaches. The stories shared by the interview respondents provide detailed accounts regarding
the impact of monolingual English literacy approaches used in one southern California school
district. This has led to inadequate support provided to English teachers across the district to
address the needs of diverse student populations. It also has led to the lack of a collaborative
culture among colleagues in order to address the needs of diverse students. The district has not
provided relevant and updated curriculum and materials in English literacy to support efficacy
among the teaching staff at Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District.
Recommendations conceived as a result of this qualitative case study require Ocotillo
Canyon Unified School District to make some immediate changes. To begin with administrators
at the district and school site need to make a solid commitment to address the needs of their

115
diverse populations of students. A commitment to become educational leaders would require the
educational leaders of Ocotillo Unified School District to provide a thorough internal assessment
of the curriculum and literature used for teaching English literacy at all levels from kindergarten
to Grade 12. As Nicole mentioned in her interview response, “Our administrators need to be part
of the conversation to address the needs of our students.” A thorough evaluation would need to
occur regarding the success of the materials according to their effectiveness among English
language learners and all diverse populations of students (Auerbach, 1993).
Once an evaluation of curricular materials is complete some tough decisions would need
to be made in order to provide effective learning materials to all students in the district. This
would require a complete paradigm shift away from monolingual English only approaches. This
shift would require a top-down approach from district leadership embracing ideas centered on
establishing a new culture for learning throughout the district. Margaret expressed, “There is a
need for teachers to take more chances.” The school district must lead with a mindset which puts
student achievement as something more than a test score. This would require the district to
provide trainings and examples embracing alternative methods of assessment.
Alternative methods of assessment could include short cycle comprehension tests
focusing on writing similar to what Samantha created in her classroom. Math assessments could
involve biliterate or multilingual assessments focusing on concepts rather than language.
Additionally, students would be tested on ability prior to entering the district. Students would be
placed accordingly through multiple evaluative assessments rather than just one English only
assessment similar to what Valerie suggested in her interview response: “I do a lot of teacher-
created assessments because there are different levels of literacy.” The most important
recommendation for change would be the end of the institutional segregation process. Ocotillo

116
Canyon Unified School District must stop using students’ English literacy skills to further
marginalize them. Students should be provided the necessary supports to be successful in a
general education classroom through multiple interventions offered by their classroom teacher
(Gandara & Orfield, 2010).
Conclusion
The recommendations offered as a result of this study hinge on providing the necessary
trainings for administrators and teachers. The data collected through the interviews supported the
hypothesis that listening to teacher’s stories and learning about their experiences through the
interview process validated the prevalence of monolingual English only approaches used to teach
English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public secondary schools. Appropriate trainings
include diversity and sensitivity trainings for all professionals serving the population of diverse
learners within Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District.
Monolingual approaches to English literacy and language acquisition only serve to
institutionalize populations of diverse learners into accepting linguistic isolation (Bacon, 2020).
These approaches are used to teach English learners at all levels on a regular basis in districts
such as Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District. Education professionals need to understand
how their perceptions impact their decisions. These decisions ultimately influence the interaction
between administrators, teachers, and students.
Administrators and teachers need to be respectful of the cultures, beliefs, and
backgrounds of their students. Additionally, continued emphasis placed on diversity and
providing trainings for all educational professionals is necessary in order to achieve the kind of
change that will make a lasting difference. Future research could be used to focus on the long-
term implications for students subjected to monolingual English only approaches.

117
References
Acosta, S., Garza, T., Hsu, H.-Y., Goodson, P., Padrón, Y., Goltz, H. H., & Johnston, A. (2019).
The accountability culture: A systematic review of high stakes testing and English
learners in the United States during No Child Left Behind. Educational Psychology
Review, 32(2), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09511-2
Armstrong, L. (2019). What is biliteracy? A guide to understanding biliteracy in education.
Hameray. https://www.hameraypublishing.com/pages/what-is-biliteracy
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27(1), 9-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586949
August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing
literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-
minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432–452.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903340165
Bacon, C. K. (2018). “It’s not really my job”: A mixed methods framework for language
ideologies, monolingualism, and teaching emergent bilingual learners. Journal of
Teacher Education, 71(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783188
Barros, S., Domke, L. M., Symons, C., & Ponzio, C. (2020). Challenging monolingual ways of
looking at multilingualism: Insights for curriculum development in teacher preparation.
Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(4), 239–254.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1753196
Buenrostro, M. (n.d.). California School Boards Association. Retrieved February 11, 2022, from
https://www.csba.org/

118
Butvilofsky, S. A., Escamilla, K., Gumina, D., & Silva Diaz, E. (2021). Beyond monolingual
reading assessments for emerging bilingual learners: Expanding the understanding of
biliteracy assessment through writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 53– 70.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.292
California Department of Education (2022) California school dashboard and system of support.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/aC/cm/
Cummins, J. (2006). Identity texts: The imaginative construction of self through multiliteracies
pedagogy. In O. Garcia, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. E. Torris-Guzman, Imagining
multilingual schools (pp. 51–68). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598968-
003
Daoud, A. M. (2003). “The ESL kids are over there”: Opportunities for social interactions
between immigrant Latino and White high school students. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 2(3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192703002003006
Dayton-Wood, A. (2008). Teaching English for “a better America.” Rhetoric Review, 27(4),
397-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350190802339275
Diaz Soto, L., & Kharem, H. (2006). A post-monolingual education. International Journal of
Educational Policy, Research, & Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 7,
21-34. https://doi.org/1528-3534
ELL, ELD, ESL. Home. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved September 8, 2022,
from https://www.ed.gov/
WEllis, E. M. (2008). Defining and investigating monolingualism. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3),
311–330. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v2i3.311

119
Encyclopædia Britannica (n.d.). Nationalism. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/nationalism
Fullan, M. (2018). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6430628z
Gandara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). A return to the “Mexican Room”: The segregation of
Arizona's English learners. The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7m67q3b9
García, O., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2011). Extending bilingualism in U.S. Secondary Education:
New variations. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.539486
Genesee, F. (2008). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence.
Cambridge University Press.
Goldberger, H. H. (1920). Teaching English to the foreign born: A teacher’ s handbook.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541416.pdf
Gramling, D. (2016). The invention of monolingualism. Bloomsbury.
Hinton, K. A. (2016). Call it what it is: Monolingual education in U.S. schools. Critical Inquiry
in Language Studies, 13(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1124021

120
Huber, L. P. (2011). Discourses of racist nativism in California public education: English
dominance as racist nativist microaggressions. Educational Studies, 47(4), 379–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2011.589301
Kohli, R., Pizarro, M., & Nevárez, A. (2017). The “new racism” of K–12 schools: Centering
critical research on racism. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 182–202.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16686949
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Lanvers, U., Thompson, A. S., East, M., & Zhang-Wu, Q. (2021). Preparing monolingual
teachers of multilingual students: Strategies that work. In Language learning in
Anglophone countries: Challenges, practices, ways Forward (pp. 463–484). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Liggett, T. (2010). ‘A little bit marginalized’: The structural marginalization of English language
teachers in urban and Rural Public Schools. Teaching Education, 21(3), 217–232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476211003695514
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Marx, S. (2008). Popular White teachers of latina/O kids. Urban Education, 43(1), 29–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907306959
Menken, K., Rosario, V . P., & Valerio, L. A. G. (2018). Increasing multilingualism in
schoolscapes: New scenery and language education policies. Linguistic Landscape, 4(2),
101–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ll.17024.men

121
Menken, K., & Sánchez, M. T. (2019). Translanguaging in english‐only schools: From pedagogy
to stance in the disruption of monolingual policies and practices. TESOL Quarterly,
53(3), 741–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.513
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
Mezirow, J. (2002). Transformative learning: From theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), New
directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 5–12). Jossey Bass.
National Center for Education (n.d.). https://nces.ed.gov/
Patel, L. (2015). Educational research as a site of coloniality. In Decolonizing Educational
Research (pp. 11–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658551-2
Pritchard, R. (2011). Monolingual teachers in multilingual settings: Changing attitudes and
practices. The CATESOL Journal, 23(1).
Ramanathan, V ., & Morgan, B. (2007). Tesol and policy enactments: Perspectives from practice.
TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00080.x
Ray, B. (2013). ESL droids: Teacher training and the Americanization movement, 1919–1924.
Composition Studies, 41(2), 15-39.
Reardon, S. F., Weathers, E. S., Fahle, E. M., Jang, H., & Kalogrides, D. (2022). Is separate still
unequal? New evidence on school segregation and racial academic achievement gaps.
CEPA Working Paper No. 19-06. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp19-06-
v082022.pdf
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. ( (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.

122
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson.
Shim, J. M. (2019). Towards a more nuance understanding of white teachers of English learners:
Increasing capacity and capabilities. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1),
1-10. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1001.01
Motha, S. (2006). Decolonizing ESOL: Negotiating linguistic power in U.S. public school
classrooms. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3(2-3), 75-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15427587clis032&3_2
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The nation's report card: NAEP.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Taggart, A. (2018). Latina/O students in K-12 schools: A synthesis of empirical research on
factors influencing academic achievement. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
40(4), 448–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318793810
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443572.pdf
Tournaki, N. (2003). Effect of student characteristics on teachers' predictions of Student Success.
The Journal of Educational Research, 96(5), 310–319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309597643
Wang, D. (2015). From English-only to multilingualism: English in the language policy of the
United States. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijelt.v3n1p32

123
Zhang-Wu, Q. (2021). Preparing monolingual teachers of multilingual students: Strategies that
work. Language Learning in Anglophone Countries, 463–484.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56654-8_23

124
Appendix A: Draft Interview Protocol
The following document reflects the interview protocol for the present study. The study
sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What are teachers’ feelings and beliefs about the monolingual English literacy
approach used in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District?
2. What do teachers perceive regarding the effectiveness of the monolingual English
literacy approach in Ocotillo Canyon Unified School District for improving English
literacy for diverse learners?
Concepts From Conceptual Framework Addressed in the Interview
Based on the historical perspective of both monolingual and biliterate approaches to
literacy and language arts instruction at the secondary level as implemented in U.S. public
schools I think it is important to ask the educational professional respondents (teachers) about
their perceptions. Initially I would like to gauge the respondents' understanding and perspective
over each approach beginning with their own collegial teacher preparation courses in English
literacy and language arts.
Were their perceptions rooted in foundationally training? I would also like to gain an
understanding of the development of their own schema and efficacy through practice. Are their
current practices reflective of a monolingual or biliterate approach?
Student perceptions of a monolingual or biliterate approach are equally important. Student
learning is developed through the interactions and experiences deriving from the classroom
(Tournaki, 2005).

125
Participant Introduction
I would like to sincerely thank you for your participation in my study. Your involvement
plays an important part of the research process. I am extremely grateful for the time you have set
aside to answer my questions. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you when we last
spoke this interview should take about 30–45minutes. Is this agreeable?
I want you to feel comfortable regarding this process and give you every assurance that I
am conducting this interview solely as a researcher today. This means the nature of my questions
are not evaluative. I will not be evaluating your performance or critiquing you as a teacher. My
goal is dedicated strictly to understanding your perspective.
This interview is confidential as stated in the Study Information Sheet provided to you
previously. Your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. I will not
share your name with other teachers, the principal, or the district. The data for this study will be
compiled into a report. While I do plan on using some of what you say as direct quotes none of
this data will be directly attributed to you. A pseudonym will be used to protect your
confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I am more
than willing to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. I will keep all
data in a password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
Do you have any additional questions about the study before we get started? I have
brought a recording device with me today so I can accurately capture what you share with me
today. This recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be
shared with anyone outside the research team. May I please have your permission to record our
conversation?

126
Setting the Stage
Let’s begin with some background information and questions about you. First, let’s talk
about your background in education:
1. What influenced your decision to become an educator
2. Specifically, why did you decide to teach English/Language Arts?
3. Prior to teaching English/Language Arts were there any other subjects you have
experience with? What were those experiences like?
Now, let’s talk about your current position:
1. What levels of English/Language Arts do you teach? IB? Gen Ed? AP? etc.
2. Describe your current role both inside and outside of the classroom?
3. Can you describe your last professional development related to your subject matter?
Heart of the Interview
I’d like to start by asking you a few questions about monolingual approaches to English
language literacy acquisition. A monolingual approach to English language literacy acquisition is
defined as involving, using, or speaking in one language (English) as the only language to
communicate (Gundarina, 2021). The study information sheet you were given contains
information regarding monolingual approaches to teaching English. Monolingual approaches
mean teaching in English only. The following questions are about monolingual approaches:
1. Can you tell me what English only means to you?
2. Using the definition of monolingual have you had any experiences with a
monolingual approach to English language literacy acquisition as implemented in
your school.

127
3. How often do you use your assigned school curriculum and material with your
students per week? Per month?
4. Does your assigned school curriculum provide core lesson material in another
language for students? If yes, which languages?
5. What percentage of your students would you consider fluent in English? What
percentage of your students speak another language? What percentage of your
students speak another language other than Spanish?
6. Have you had any experiences with your assigned school curriculum using a
monolingual approach to English language literacy acquisition as implemented in
your school? If no can you describe your current textbooks and curricula materials
used to teach English at your school?
7. Does your school have access to biliterate, or bilingual materials used to teach
English language literacy acquisition? If no, can you describe the most common
materials used to teach students classified as English learners, or second language
learners?
8. What is your opinion regarding monolingual (English only) approaches to English
language literacy acquisition at your school?
9. Would you name and describe an example lesson that uses a monolingual approach to
English language literacy acquisition at your school?
10. Would you name or describe an example lesson that uses a biliterate approach to
English language literacy acquisition at your school?
11. Can you describe an example lesson that uses an alternative approach (other than
monolingual or biliterate) to English literacy acquisition at your school?

128
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how this approach is perceived at your
school:
1. Tell me about how you have been supported as a teacher using a monolingual,
biliterate, or another alternative approach to teaching English language literacy at
your school.
2. Does the district provide training centered with a monolingual, biliterate, or
alternative approach to English language literacy acquisition?
3. What were some of the memorable details you can recall about these training
sessions?
4. You are asked to design a professional development training program designed to
facilitate teaching to English language learners in your district at the secondary level.
What would be one thing you would want your audience of teachers to know to teach
to this population of students?
5. Do you speak another language fluently? If yes which language(s)?
6. Is it acceptable for students to speak another language while they are in the classroom
or on campus? Do you allow students to speak another language in your classroom?
7. How do you provide support for students whose first language was not English?
8. Do you provide opportunities for students to express themselves culturally in their
work?
9. Every teacher has an idea of what the ideal student in their classroom would be like.
Describe what you think the ideal characteristics of a student in any English class
would be.

129
10. Do you feel students who speak a second language and are not native speakers of
English are less prepared, equally prepared, or more prepared for success in high
school? Why?
11. Do you believe it to be more helpful if the school district provided more trainings for
teaching students who speak another language or classified as English language
learners?
12. Do you find it more difficult to teach to students who speak another language as
opposed to those who only speak one language?
13. Do you provide learning opportunities for students to express themselves culturally?
14. Give me an example of a difficult class you have experienced as an English teacher.
Describe some of the challenges.
15. You have been assigned to attend a professional development on teaching to the
California Common Core Standards in English Language Arts with diverse
populations. What would you expect to be taught as one effective strategy to teach
English language literacy acquisition at this training?
16. Tell me about a time when you attended a professional development where you
learned a new strategy, technique, or activity related to teaching English learners or
second language learners you could apply directly to your classroom.
17. How often are you given training to teach diverse populations of students or second
language learners?
18. Would you describe the most effective professional development you attended?

130
19. You have been chosen to be the English Department Chair for your school. Your
principal has asked you to recommend two professional development training
sessions for the upcoming school year. What would be your suggestions?
20. Have you or your colleagues ever had a professional development training session at
your school site that could be considered biliterate, bilingual, or multilingual?
21. Can you name a strategy you name one strategy you use currently that could be
considered biliterate, bilingual, or multilingual?
22. How often do you and your colleagues in the English department discuss effective
strategies for teaching English? What is the frequency during the week? Month?
23. How often do you and your colleagues discuss effective strategies for teaching
English for students who are ESL? What is the frequency during the week? Month?
Closing Question
In closing, what other insights can you offer regarding monolingual, biliterate, or
alternative approaches to teaching English language literacy acquisition at the secondary level
that I may not have covered?
Closing Comments
Thank you again for your participation. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to share
your thoughts with me. Your insight and knowledge were very valuable to this study. If you have
any additional thoughts or questions, please feel free to contact me. If I find myself in a position
where I may need to ask a follow up question, would it be ok to reach out to you? Would email
be, ok? Thank you again for your participation in this study.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Qualitative study of barriers that impacted school attendance for migrant farmworker students

PDF

The (mis)education of emotionally disturbed/emotional behavior disorder students in exclusionary settings

PDF

The role of student study team members in the special education referral process for English Learners

PDF

Silencing to belonging: the institutionalization of Black girls in public schools

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Functional illiteracy: high stakes learning in the community college environment

PDF

Racial equity and educational excellence: challenges and successes in Twin Cities educational reforms

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

U.S. Mexican adolescent cultural values and prosocial tendencies

PDF

California teacher residency leaders’ understanding and implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency

PDF

Leveraging relationships with Black male students to increase academic success

PDF

Making a case for teaching religious literacy in Ethiopian schools: an innovation study

PDF

Identifying early academic and behavioral indicators predictive of future referral to alternative education in a large K-12 urban school district

PDF

Overrepresentation among students of color in special education programs

PDF

Quiet voices hidden curriculum: evaluating culturally responsive curriculum in secondary English textbooks

PDF

Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

PDF

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

PDF

Increasing environmental literacy, biophilia, and stewardship in Indonesian primary schools through an interactive environmental education program

PDF

The importance of Black and Latino teachers in BIPOC student achievement and the importance of continuous teacher professional development for BIPOC student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Franz, Raymond (author)

Core Title Monolingual and biliterate approaches to English literacy and language acquisition in U.S. public schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/30/2023

Defense Date 04/20/2023

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

Tag English literacy,monolingual,OAI-PMH Harvest,single language

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Polikoff, Morgan (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Swize, Mike (committee member)

Creator Email RayFranz045@outlook.com,rfranz@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113141655

Unique identifier UC113141655

Identifier etd-FranzRaymo-11901.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FranzRaymo-11901

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Franz, Raymond

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230601-usctheses-batch-1050 (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.

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