University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

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

Jarrod Bordi

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 Jarrod Bordi 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jarrod Bordi certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Jason Murphy
Christina Kishimoto, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

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

v
Dedication
To my family: Cindy, Ethan and Caden. Thank you for having patience and pushing me to
complete this dissertation.

To my Grandfather Juan Gallardo. Thank you for sharing your stories with me during your life
and fueling my passion for educational equity.

vi
Acknowledgements
I can’t express the gratitude and support I have had during this journey. Thank you to my
wife Cindy Bordi. Your unconditional love, support, and understanding helped me stay
motivated and on task during a new job, long hours and with our young children. You have
always supported me, believed in me, and helped me fulfill my dreams. Your dedication to our
family has been unwavering.
My two sons, Ethan and Caden, for unconditional love and understanding. My parents
Diana and Ron, for instilling my work ethic and helping me in every possible way. My mother-
in-Law Chris Savas, for the unwavering help coordinating my travels when I flew to class. My
grandmother Agnus Gallardo and Juan Gallardo, for my culture and desire to help all Spanish
speaking families.
I would also like to thank Dr. Dennis Byas, for his dedication to the Trojan Network and
fueling my excitement to enroll and complete this program. You are always willing to help and
provide me guidance.
I want to express my appreciation to the professors from University of Southern
California for their guidance and support during this journey. A special thanks to Dr. Stefanie
Phillips, for her knowledge, understanding, guidance and support during my time at USC. Thank
you for recognizing my talent.
I am thankful to my dissertation committee, Dr. Christina Kishimoto, Dr. David Cash and
Dr. Jason Murphy for taking the time to provide clarity and feedback. Special thanks to Gabriela
Galvez-Reyna and Michelle Correa for their partnership in this case study and helping to
cultivate an idea that was transformed into our dissertation. Special thanks to my dissertation
chair Dr. Kishimoto, for her encouragement, support and assistance developing our case study

vii
throughout this process. I also want to extend my appreciation to all the teachers that participated
in this study. I want to thank the participants for their willingness to be open and honest and the
time they committed to this case study.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Policies and the Role of the Principal ................................................................................. 4
Teacher Preparation and Support ........................................................................................ 6
Parent Engagement ............................................................................................................. 8
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 11
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 12
Limitation and Delimitations ............................................................................................ 12
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 18
Federal and State Laws and Protections for ELLs ............................................................ 19
Court Cases That Expanded ELLs Rights ........................................................................ 21
California Policies and ELLs Protection........................................................................... 21
Legal Mandates and Guidance .......................................................................................... 22
Accountability ................................................................................................................... 25
Impact of Equity Policies .................................................................................................. 26

ix
Systems of Support for ELL Student Success .................................................................. 30
Values and Perceptions ..................................................................................................... 31
Engagement....................................................................................................................... 39
Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework ................................................................ 42
Social Presence ................................................................................................................. 42
Cognitive Presence............................................................................................................ 44
Teaching Presence ............................................................................................................ 45
Summary of Literature Conclusion ................................................................................... 47
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 49
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 49
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 50
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 50
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 52
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 53
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 55
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 56
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 60
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 61
Results ............................................................................................................................... 64
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 65
Results Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 73
Results Research Question 3 ............................................................................................. 78
Discussion Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 83
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 84

x
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 85
Findings............................................................................................................................. 86
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 86
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 88
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 91
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 93
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 94
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 95
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 96
References ..................................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix A: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey ................................. 114
Appendix B: Online Survey for Principal ................................................................................... 116
Appendix C: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed .................................. 120
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Principal ............................................................................ 122
Appendix E: Online Survey for Teacher .................................................................................... 128
Appendix F: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey .................................. 132
Appendix G: Interview Protocol for Teacher ............................................................................. 134
Appendix H: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey ................................. 140
Appendix J: Online Survey for Parents/Encuesta en línea para los padres ................................ 144
Appendix K: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed .................................. 151
Appendix L: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para ser entrevistado ....................... 153
Appendix M: Parent Interview Protocol ..................................................................................... 155
Appendix N: Protocolo de entrevista con los padres .................................................................. 161

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants of Study ....................................................................................................... 61
Table 2: Participants School Level and District ............................................................................ 62
Table 3: Interview and Survey Participants (n = 47) .................................................................... 62
Table 4: Interview Questions Aligned to Research Question ....................................................... 65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7
phonemes and impacts the amount of exposure and practice humans receive. Teachers should
also be aware of the challenges students face in determining the language components of their
first language (L1) and the components of the targeted language (L2). This awareness can help
teachers ensure that their students’ language transfer from L1 and L2 is a positive one (Sousa,
2011). Additionally, as children grow older, learning a second language becomes more difficult
because the brain needs to build new clusters of neurons, which causes a delay in the
transference between L1 and L2.
Teachers should also be aware of the length and complexity of the acquisition process
(Burns, 2017). For instruction to support this complex process, teachers should expose students
to high levels of speaking, reading, and discussion (Sousa, 2011). Instruction should also
comprise direct and explicit teaching of skills, including modeling and guided practice to support
students as they connect between their two languages.
ELLs who learn in classrooms that take an asset approach to language acquisition and
honor the cultural perspectives and contributions of the learner tend to be highly engaged. In
contrast to such contexts, most schools typically focus on the “lack” of English skills of ELLs
and disregard their academic knowledge of their first languages (Patterson, 2018). However,
research is clear that all students have funds of knowledge that they have acquired from their
personal experiences, family, culture, etc. (Akbari, 2008). Students improve their achievement
when teachers validate and utilize knowledge about their students’ social, cultural, and linguistic
background during their instruction (Banks et al., 2005). Furthermore, as Patterson (2018) points
out, students whose first language is not English are not automatically at a disadvantage. We
must believe that every student is already capable of exceptional work. It is our responsibility as
educators to maneuver through the cultural barriers and find roads to spark this genius.

8
Parent Engagement
As Wei and Zhou (2012) have shown, parental involvement is an effective factor in
improving student learning as there is a positive correlation between the two. Parental
involvement entails the participation of parents in meaningful, two-way communication about
their children’s academic learning, as well as ensuring that parents play an integral and active
role in assisting their children’s learning and are considered partners in their education
(California Department of Education, 2021). From an asset perspective, when parents are
partners in their children’s education there is a clear improvement in student engagement. In
addition, parental involvement and participation in workshops and training has a direct effect on
students’ interest and motivation because they observe their parents taking an active role in
learning and acquiring knowledge (Gonzales-DeHass et al., 2005).
When parents are afforded structured opportunities to build their capacity around content
and support structures, they develop a better understanding of the policies, mandates, and
instructional design that have a positive effect on their children’s academic achievement (Wei &
Zhou, 2012). Al-Mahrooqi et al. (2016) have shed light on factors that influence parents’
participation, such as their willingness to commit their skills, knowledge, time, and energy when
they know that their commitment will benefit their children’s education.
However, research shows that parents of ELLs face various disempowering challenges to
their involvement, including the belief that the educational system misunderstands their cultural
values and creates barriers that impede their full involvement in their children’s schooling (Arias
& Morillo-Campbell, 2008). Additionally, a significant hurdle for these parents is the complexity
of state and school policies, which can be difficult to understand. Such policies include the
English language learner identification process, reclassification mandates, the repercussions of

9
not reclassifying, and other matters that affect their child’s progress. Although these are
important policies that parents should be aware of so that they can advocate for themselves and
their children, many studies have shown that parental access to training and workshops is
dependent on isolated site-based decisions (Gibson, 2002). Schools therefore need to create
opportunities to develop culturally relevant skills for parents and establish open communication
with families (Al-Mahrooqi et al., 2016). In addition, parental empowerment, voice, and
engagement depend on more consistent, high-quality, readily available support, and training
provided by schools (Gibson, 2002).
More thorough research is required to strengthen the quality and cohesiveness of designs
for ELL support services that address three essential actors: principal, teachers, and parents. This
triad design is essential to provide the support that ELLs require. Ensuring that the role of each
of these actors is clear, and that they can work together to coordinate their actions, will enable
students to achieve their full academic potential with systems that will hold these key
stakeholders accountable.
Statement of the Problem
The development of equitable support services in schools requires core processes of
system change (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Principals are the school’s equity system designers who
can create a seamless system of support between leaders, teachers, and parents that can produce
high levels of ELL success. Schools that embrace shared leadership among principal and
teaching staff members are better positioned to eliminate biases and stereotypes of ELLs
(Massey et al., 2014). Positive and supportive school culture requires a more inclusive
instructional teaching model for K–12 English language learner students. Coordinated efforts and
partnerships between principal, teachers, staff, and parents can address the difficult task of

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

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

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

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

14
English Language Learner (ELL): A minority student of national origin who has limited
English proficiency. ELL is often preferred over limited-English-proficient (LEP) (U.S.
Department of Education, 2020).
English language development standards: California Education Code (EC) Section
60811 requires the State Board of Education to approve ELD standards for pupils identified as
English learners. The standards shall be comparable in rigor and specificity to the standards for
English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science (California Department of Education,
2021).
English Language Proficiency Assessments for California: ELPAC is the required state
test for English language proficiency (ELP) that must be given to students whose primary
language is a language other than English. State and federal law require that local educational
agencies administer an ELP state test to eligible students from kindergarten through twelfth
grade (California Department of Education, 2021).
English as a second language program: ESL programs are programs that schools put into
place for ELLs to assist them with academic content and English language proficiency. These
programs can vary depending on their model. One example is ESL pull-out, where an ESL
teacher provides support services outside the general education classroom. Another example is a
co-teaching model where an ESL teacher joins the general education teacher to plan and
implement instruction to meet the needs of both ESL students and native English-speaking
students within the classroom (Perren et al., 2013).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): The legislation that replaced the previous
reauthorization of ESEA, known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which was enacted
in 2002. ESSA became fully operational in the school year 2017–18. ESSA allows some funding

15
sources to be merged, or “braided,” to support programs that improve student learning (U.S.
Department of Education, 2015eac).
General education teacher: For the purposes of this study, references to general
education teachers will be specific to classroom teachers from kindergarten through fifth grade
who teach any content area (language, arts, math, social studies, or science) (Project IDEAL,
2013).
Language minority students: Language minority students are children who speak a
language other than English in the home, regardless of whether the child has attained English
proficiency. Such children may or may not receive ELL services (August & Hakuta, 1997).
Language proficiency: The term refers to the degree to which a student exhibits control
over the use of language, including measurement of expressive and receptive language skills in
the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics, and including the areas of pragmatics
or language use within various domains or social circumstances (U.S. Department of Education,
2020).
Limited English proficient: Individuals who do not speak English as their primary
language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English can be
described as limited English proficient (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): A landmark act in education reform designed
to improve student achievement and change the culture of America’s schools. President George
W. Bush described this law as the “cornerstone of my administration.” This law recognized that
the nation’s children are our future since, as President Bush noted at the time, “too many of our
neediest children are being left behind” (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).

16
Office for Civil Rights (OCR): The Office for Civil Rights enforces several federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial
assistance from the Department of Education, such as discrimination on the basis of race, color,
and national origin (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Parental involvement: The term describes many different parental behaviors and
parenting practices such as parental aspirations for their child’s academic achievement, parental
communication with their children about school, parental participation in school activities,
parental communications with teachers about their child, and parental rules at home that are
related to education (Harris & Goodall, 2007).
Reclassification: The process wherein a student is reclassified from English learner (EL)
status to fluent English proficient (RFEP) status. Reclassification can take place at any time
during the academic year and occurs immediately after the student meets all the criteria
(California Department of Education, 2021).
Reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP): A term used for a student who is
reclassified from English learner (EL) to fluent English proficient (RFEP) (California
Department of Education, 2021).
Scaffolds: Temporary and flexible instructional support that helps make rigorous grade-
level curriculum accessible to all students, including ELLs. Scaffolds are dependent upon ELLs’
English-language proficiency level. The instructional support that scaffolds offer enables
learners to engage in a task that they would not have been able to accomplish independently.
This should lead to metacognitive appropriation, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluation of
the task. Scaffolds help push the students academically while providing the necessary support for
their success (Maybin, 2020).

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

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

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

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

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

22
Legal Mandates and Guidance
The California State Constitution is very clear that public schooling is one of the major
responsibilities of the state and the public school system must provide meaningful access for
ELL learners. This is stated in the Education Code, state standards, guidance through the
curriculum framework, and teacher certification (California State Constitution, n.d.). The
California State Constitution declares:
No person in the state of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic
group identification, religion, age, sex, color disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal
access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity that is conducted, operated or administered by the state or any state agency, or receives
any financial assistance from the state. (California State Constitution, Article IX, Sec. 1–16)
In 1970, the California Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to equalize funding
among school districts to satisfy equal protection requirements for all students regardless of their
community’s wealth. California enacted Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013–2014
to ensure differentiation in funding to schools based on student populations served, their
achievement, and needs (Contreras & Fujimoto, 2019). However, some of California’s policies
have limited the support for and access to instruction for ELL students. One of these restrictive
policies, which was in effect for eighteen years, was Proposition 227 of 1998. This policy
significantly changed how ELL students were taught because it restricted school districts’
autonomy to decide how to best serve this population and limited the ability of schools to use
students’ primary language for instruction (California Department of Education, Proposition 227
Final Report, n.d.). This policy was repealed by Proposition 58 of 2017, The California
Multilingual Education Act, also known as CA Ed. G.E.

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

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

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

26
81, passed in 2017, requires each school district to identify the primary language of a student
when they enroll in school and to give each parent notice of an assessment for English
proficiency within 30 days of the start of the school year (AB-81, 2017). This bill also requires
that such notices include specific information, such as language classification. The development
and revision of these kinds of legislation provides some of the groundwork for ensuring that
ELLs receive necessary support, attention, and guidance.
Impact of Equity Policies
Policy implementation affects ELLs’ access to equitable education. ELL educational
policy long has directed schools to address ELL students’ linguistic and academic development
and requires them to do so without furthering inequity or segregation (Lau v. Nichols, 1974;
Castaneda v. Pickard, 1986). Robinson-Cimpian et al. (2016) have suggested ELL policies affect
access to equitable education for ELL students because they mandate types of instruction,
assessments, language of instruction, and reclassification criteria. For over four decades, ELL
education policies have called for programs that effectively meet students’ linguistic and
academic needs, but effective ELL program design and implementation requires a delicate
balance between provision of services and segregation (Thompson, 2013) and between
compliance and equity. Some researchers argue that educational policies may create barriers
because they require certain practices, assessment, and accountability systems for ELL to
achieve access and outcomes that are equitable to those of their non-ELL peers (Mavrogordato &
White, 2020; Robinson-Cimpian et al., 2016; Wang, 2016). In trying to treat everyone the same
to achieve fairness, some educational policies at times do not give ELL students what they need
to be successful (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016; Hakuta, 2011; Luna, 2020; Thompson, 2013).

27
English language learners have guaranteed rights and safeguards to ensure specific access
based on the individual needs of the student (Castaneda v. Pickard, 1986; Lau v. Nichols, 1974.)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 has acknowledged the need for differentiation of
services as stated by the ELL subgroups. ELL students are immensely diverse, with equally
broad-ranging and diverse educational needs. As Gunderson (2021) has written, “There are
negative consequences for the use of this unidimensional category to label students, because it
does not include other significant diverse features” (p. 432). Despite the diverse needs of ELL
students, federal policy only addresses and differentiates policy approaches for students with
disabilities, newcomers, and long-term ELL students (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA],
2015). The research of Park et al. (2017) highlighted some barriers ELL students face. ELL
students with special needs require timely, effective, and appropriate identification, support
services, and modified reclassification criteria based on students’ unique abilities (Umansky et
al., 2017). The diversity in a newcomer group that has different assets, needs, and experiences
often creates acute challenges, specifically when students face timelines to graduation and may
be pushed out of the system before completion (Potochnick, 2018).
The goals of language classification policies are to distinguish between English proficient
students and non-proficient students and to provide appropriate educational support for all ELL
students. Reyes and Hwang (2021) found reclassification can be beneficial with the correct types
of support but detrimental if the ELL students do not continue to receive the academic support
they need. Reyes and Hwang (2021) stated, “If ELL status limits access to rigorous courses and
high-quality instruction, staying as ELL students negatively affects education and behavior
outcomes” (p. 591). Furthermore, “If RFEP status leads to reduction or elimination of specialized

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

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

30
in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs “preclude, rather than improves, equity and
access as evidence by college preparatory course taking” (p. 485). Several factors create ELL
access to academic content, including state requirements that mandate ELL students attend
designated English Language Development (ELD) courses that take up two or more class periods
per day (Johnson, 2019). Whether tracked by level, placed into sheltered classes, or withheld
from content classes, ELL tracking places ELL students on trajectories that increasingly
separates them for their peers who have full access to content (Johnson, 2019; Umansky, 2016;
Thompson, 2017).
Systems of Support for ELL Student Success
A system of support for ELL students requires more than policy implementation at the
school site level. School culture plays a vital role at every school site as it compasses values,
perceptions, levels of preparations and engagement of principals, teachers and parents which
affects the support ELL receive. The next section shares a literature review of the importance of
each one of these components.
School culture can be defined as the beliefs, expectations, and values that encompass a
school site, from the administration to the instructional staff. According to Voight et al. (2013),
school climate is one of the factors that differentiates schools that succeed from those that do not:
“More experienced and educated teachers and administrators have more capacity for creating an
environment characterized by connectedness, caring, and safety, which in turn fosters success”
(p. 33). School culture and climate can improve learning outcomes for English language learners,
thus narrowing the gap in academic achievement. Voight et. al. (2013) further stated a positive
school climate is an asset for all schools, as they consist of diverse communities, students, and
needs. Sanders et al. (2018) highlighted positive associations with achievement for all students at

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

32
importance of classroom instructional visits that focus on equity. The focus on instruction with
direct efforts to address systemic inequities offers data collection tools that function as beneficial
resources for aiding instructional conversations. To support English language learners, it is
imperative to provide recommendations for developing policies, initiatives, and practices that
can confront inequities in classrooms, schools, and districts.
Teacher preparation programs are essential to developing instructional strategies and
pedagogies that utilize best practices for supporting multicultural students. Harman and McClure
(2011) conducted a case study that focused on teacher pedagogy in teacher preparation programs.
This study examined critical performative pedagogy, which addresses multicultural education
with a focus on student teachers enrolled in teacher education programs and researched the effect
of the programs on the teachers’ relationships with their students. Manning et al. (2022)
discussed how professional development related to instructional support includes building
vocabulary and first language knowledge, as well as providing resources that are identified as
essential to student achievement. This study included many participants who attended non-
science content professional development classes and applied the strategies they learned in their
science classrooms. The study identified the positive correlation between attending professional
development classes and the application of strategies that support success for English language
learner students.
Parents’ cultural values or beliefs play a role in the education of their children, as they are
a factor that determines the extent of their direct involvement in their children’s schooling. The
expectation of U.S. schools for parent involvement includes being fully involved and being an
advocate for one’s children (Vera et al., 2012). This may not be the case for some cultures that
do not share this expectation. Research has highlighted people have different values and

33
perspectives toward education, teachers, and definitions of student success, especially if they are
immigrant parents (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Ramirez, 2008).
In some cultures, teachers are highly respected, and parents believe they should not
interfere with their children’s education because it is not acceptable to question teachers (De
Gaetano, 2007; Sosa, 1997). Some parents maintain the traditional view that schools house “the
experts,” such as teachers and administrators, which causes reluctance in taking more of an
active role and responsibility with their child’s education (Arias & Morillo-Campbell, 2008).
Arias and Morillo-Campbell (2008) argued many ELL parents perceived their role as be
nurturers, teaching values, instilling good behavior, and value home educational involvement
more than active involvement at schools. Socioeconomic status and sociocultural factors are also
correlated with parental beliefs and knowledge. Parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
reported beliefs and knowledge that were more consistent with scientific evidence. Being
conscious of how an individual’s culture plays a critical role in their involvement enables
teachers and administrators to support, encourage, and develop ways to seek parental
involvement.
School Principals are the instructional leaders at their respective campuses; it is therefore
important for administrators who are serving as instructional leaders to understand ELL needs
and the research-based teaching practices and policies designed to support them (Wang, 2016).
Wang (2016) also found that administrators’ level of preparation and their understanding of
institutional policies helped them make the success of all students, including ELLs and LTELs, a
priority. Principals who have a vision for effective ELL instruction can create coherent and
aligned instructional goals and invest the resources necessary to accomplish those goals (Luna,
2020; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). Furthermore, principals should develop a vision for

34
academic success that includes all students by providing teachers with instructional support as
well as opportunities for professional development (Luna, 2020).
Theoharis and O’Toole (2011) have shown that leaders with research-based knowledge
of ELL programs, as well as personal beliefs that ELL students are an asset to the school
community, are able to influence services that benefit ELLs and their peers. Reyes and Gentry
(2019) defined a principal as the instructional leader at their respective campus; therefore, it is
important for administrators who are serving as instructional leaders to understand ELL needs
and research-based teaching practices. Administrators’ awareness of ELLs’ curriculum must
align with the instructional strategies needed for an increasingly diverse population.
Administrators’ understanding of language, terminology, and critical research-based strategies
has the potential to support meaningful discussions and feedback with teachers. Administrators’
content knowledge of learning and instruction for ELLs will help provide resources to encourage
research-based instructional practices (Luna, 2020).
Principals report teachers and staff who are prepared together to work with ELL students
share language and understanding that contribute to a coherent and collaborative program
(Echevarria, 2006). Mavrogordato and White (2020) examined the role that school leaders play
in implementing a policy that determines the process of exiting students from ELL to RFEP. The
article is a qualitative study of eight schools and discusses school leaders who play an important
role in enacting policies designed to increase equity for historically marginalized communities.
School leaders must ensure equitable, excellent, and inclusive educational experiences for ELLs
by influencing the meaningful long-term success of ELL programs. School leaders may not be
aware of how policy implementation fosters social justice in schools.

35
School leaders are central to building strong communication systems that prepare
parents/families to understand school expectations, their rights, and the various options for
language programs that are available to their children. Further, strong communication systems
deconstruct social stereotypes and foster respect for diversity. Mavrogordato and White (2020)
underscored how school leaders play an important role in enacting policies designed to expand
equity for historically marginalized communities. Wang (2016) suggested school leaders
meaningfully influence the long-term success of programs for ELL students by fostering a
diverse and inclusive community, raising consciousness of privilege, and striving to better
understand their needs and differences. School leaders may not be aware of policy
implementation but can still foster social justice in schools (Mavrogordato & White, 2020).
Parsons and Shim (2019) suggested administrators should create opportunities for parents of
ELLs’ engagement and involvement through extra-curricular activities. They should develop
partnerships that continue beyond the school walls, so they are not seen as “experts” but rather as
“partners” within education. Administrators should recognize and support ELLs’ differences to
establish relationships with them that do not reproduce what the media and society portray. They
should be proactive and ensure teachers are culturally sensitive to the needs of all students and
their families.
Principals constantly need to diagnose the needs of staff, students, and parents, as well as
the demands of policies, context, and the communities they serve, while also having a clear set of
educational beliefs and values that support their communities. Day et al. (2016) found that
successful principals have a high cognitive emotional understanding of the needs of individual
staff, students, national government, and local community. Such understanding aids
administrators in promoting trust and trustworthiness. Ishimaru (2013) explained school leaders

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

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

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

39
relevance of content, language, location of event, and coordination based on parent schedules
will determine the level of parent engagement (Gibson, 2002). According to Gibson (2002), if
the school provides a low level of support and training for encouraging greater parent
engagement, this will limit the access to content knowledge that parents need to better support
their child. Parent involvement is related closely to students’ perseverance in learning, and their
perception of parental involvement is connected to their perceived academic self-competence
(Gonzales-DeHass et al., 2005).
Engagement
Principals must know how to cultivate caring relationships and a collaborative culture if
they are to engage fully teachers and parents of ELLs in meaningful conversations that can guide
the necessary educational support and changes. As instructional leaders, administrators who are
serving ELL students should understand the needs and research-based teaching practices that are
aligned with the curriculum (Reyes & Gentry, 2019). Furthermore, when administrators
understand the relevant language, terminology, and critical research-based strategies, they can
have meaningful discussions with and give feedback to teachers, as well as help allocate funds
for the resources needed (Villegas &Lucas, 2002; Padron & Waxman, 2016; Reyes & Gentry,
2019). Villegas & Lucas (2002) offers the following six priorities for principals to facilitate the
transition of ELLs into, throughout, and beyond secondary school: a) encouraging and
supporting teachers and others to learn about students and their communities; b) cultivating
caring, engaged relationships with students and their families; c) providing information about the
educational system and the larger U.S. society; d) building collaborative relationships with other
agencies and institutions that serve ELLs and their communities; e) supporting professional
development to build knowledge, skills, and dispositions for teaching ELLs; and, f) facilitating

40
and participating in collaboration to bring about educational change. A caring and collaborative
culture for ELL students exists when all six priorities are put into practice.
Teacher-student engagement is essential for creating opportunities in school for English
language learners. Appleton et al. (2006) measured the cognitive and psychological engagement
of students. Their research addressed how to construct an engagement instrument consisting of
five factors that underlay cognitive and psychological engagement: (a) teacher-student
relationships; (b) control and relevance of schoolwork; (c) peer support for learning; (d) future
aspirations and goals; and (e) family support for learning.
Kemple and Snipes’ (2000) research focused on engagement with career academies in
high school. Student support includes the focused attention they receive from their teachers, their
teachers’ expectations, their classmates’ level of engagement in school, and their opportunities to
collaborate with their peers on thematic projects in the classroom. This study examined the need
for increasing engagement with career academies. The study also reflected on impacts of
students’ transition to post-secondary education and beyond.
Oseguera et al. (2011) described culture and social capital. Their study supported student-
to-peer relationships, or social support development of social networks that result in the
development of social capital. Social capital consists of the resources gained through social
relationships, which can influence educational outcomes positively. Peer networks add value to
student persistence and increased engagement in school.
Parent engagement is a strong indicator of student achievement, school support, and
teacher collaboration. Shim (2018) has discussed the correlation between parental involvement
and students’ academic achievements as seen in the interactions between parents and teachers.
Reciprocal engagement between parents and school is needed to develop a partnership that

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

42
Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework
A community of inquiry is a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in
purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual
understanding. The community of inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework is a process of creating
deep and meaningful (collaborative-constructivist) learning experiences through the development
of three interdependent elements: social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2010).
This framework provides a means to look at different components and strategies that are needed
to build a comprehensive support system to improve the outcomes of ELLs by prioritizing the
collaboration among teachers, principal, and parents.
Social Presence
Garrison et al. (2010) defined three dimensions of social presence: participants
identifying with the community, communicating purposefully in a trusting environment, and
developing interpersonal relationships. Social presence helps individual learners to feel they are
part of a supportive learning community because they can connect and identify with each other
in a trusting environment. Social presence is critical for principals, teachers, and parents when
striving to support the English Language Learner students’ needs. The collaboration among these
individuals fosters opportunities to interact and form a sense of community while developing and
maintaining strong academic, instructional, and social systems for ELLs. Annand (2011) argued
without group-based interaction, individuals cannot create the common values, goals, and
language necessary for effective learning to occur.
Social presence has three categories: (a) emotional expression, through which students
share personal experiences and values; (b) open communication, through which students develop
mutual awareness and recognition; and (c) group cohesion, which develops and maintains a

43
sense of group commitment (Garrison, 2001). Social presence is essential for English language
learners because it encourages students to be themselves, which in turn builds a sense of
community and belonging. Annand (2011) argued that “social presence is the feeling that others
are jointly involved in communicative interaction” (p. 53). In a study Yildiz (2009) conducted,
participants who were English language learners indicated they felt more comfortable and more
competent in English when communicating with people they knew better. Positive and
supportive social interactions create a learning environment because, by decreasing their
affective filter, it increases ELLs’ self-esteem and willingness to participate (Yildiz, 2009).
As previously mentioned, the power of building relationships by engaging staff and
parents affects the academic achievement of ELL students. Positive relationships among all
members of the learning community increase a sense of belonging, motivation, and student
achievement. Wubbels et al. (2012) argued relationships among students, teachers, parents, and
principals contribute to student learning. Developing a positive relationship with students is the
foundation for the success of the teaching-learning process in the classroom (Varga, 2017).
Teachers need to create a positive classroom environment that supports the needs of all learners,
especially ELLs. Holly (2015) stresses that teaching should validate, affirm, inspire, and
motivate. “Culturally and Linguistically responsive teaching is the validation and affirmation of
the home culture and home language for the purposes of building and bridging the student to
success in the culture of academia and mainstream society” (Holly, 2015, p. 23). A sense of
belonging contributes to creating and nurturing positive relationships within the classroom that
are crucial for student learning (Varga, 2017).

44
Cognitive Presence
Strong teacher-student relationships create an emotional link that supports cognition and
learning. Allen et al. (2013) claimed an emotional link makes students feel comfortable about
sharing information with teachers and peers, resulting in successful teaching, and learning in the
classroom. Garrison et al. (2001) defined cognitive presence as the extent to which a learner can
construct and confirm meaning through discourse in a critical community of inquiry. Cognitive
presence is essential for learning as students demonstrate their ability to communicate and work
collaboratively to construct meaning, apply critical thinking skills, and engage with other
students and staff (Allen et al., 2013; Almasi & Zhu, 2020). The collaborative process of
thinking and learning in meaningful ways includes collaborative examination and evaluation,
with an emphasis on personal and mutual understanding that supports critical discourse (Almasi
& Zhu, 2020). Critical discourse is a process in which thinking, listening, and expressing
thoughts are connected. For ELL students, cognitive presence can support language acquisition
via the four domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As Lee and Jeong (2013) noted,
“Language is best learned when it is the medium of instruction and not solely the object of
learning” (p. 91). In other words, giving students the opportunity to engage in meaningful
conversation fosters cognitive presence and supports language-domain strategies.
The opportunities for students to engage in critical discourse though, is impacted by
student perception of self and teacher perception of students. Perceptions of cultural and
linguistic competency among ELLs plays a critical role in educational services and support. The
research of Lumbrears and Rupley (2019), Rizzuto (2017), and LeClair et al. (2009) all
demonstrated how individuals’ beliefs are often good indicators of the decisions they make, and
how educators’ beliefs directly influence their educational practices and behaviors in the

45
classrooms. According to Rizzuto (2017), public school teachers across the United States largely
have developed negative theories about ELL students’ ability to learn. This explains LeClair et
al.’s (2009) finding that many ELL students disengage with school, as these negative perceptions
negatively impact the students’ self-esteem. Researchers also have concluded students’
perceptions of their own academic capabilities influence their self-esteem (Lumbrears & Rupley,
2019). Students need to be supported by their classroom environment to thrive academically
(LeClair et al., 2009). Teachers’ beliefs influence their instruction and, consequently, their
practices influence student outcomes (Rizzuto, 2017).
Teaching Presence
Supporting cognitive and social processes requires the teacher to design and facilitate
impactful educational learning outcomes that create conditions for successful learning
environments. Garrison et al. (2010) discussed how, in being an invisible and inactive actor, the
instructor plays a vital and multi-faceted role through facilitation. This means regularly
monitoring and commenting on students’ work to maintain their interest, motivation, and
engagement in the course. “Guiding on the side,” rather than being the “sage on the stage,” offers
greater content knowledge to confirm understanding, helps students correct misconceptions, and
provides resources. The faculty play a vital role in learning, both in the upfront planning of well-
aligned learning experiences and in the support of learning processes through ongoing
communication. Instructional settings characterized by frequent and meaningful instructor-
student interactions consistently have been found to support student achievement and learning
satisfaction.
Lynch (2016) discussed the importance of teaching presence. Teaching presence begins
prior to any interactions with students through the design and organization of a course.

46
Instructors play a critical role in facilitating discourse among course participants. Learning
outcomes improve when students actively participate in collaborative dialogues with other
participants through discussions. Productive discourse should be promoted by means of class
discussions and moderating student participation. Effective direct instruction should be the most
frequently used mode of delivering content, with coherent content presentations that are
embedded with resources, as well as checking for understanding evaluative activities.
It is crucial to ensure high-quality instruction happens in the classroom each day for all
students. Russell and Von Esch (2018) described best practices for teacher leadership to support
English language learners. Teachers should be willing to use new strategies in the classroom
during instruction. Teachers must be aware of the role of culture as it is displayed within the
classroom during instruction. However, teachers are struggling to meet the needs of English
language learners. These needs include culturally and linguistically responsive practices within
the classroom that can best support English language learners in the school.
Harman and McClure (2011) detailed urban teacher pedagogy. The authors presented a
cultural-ecological theory of school performance. Their identification of glaring factors that
contribute to minority student engagement with the school system illustrate beliefs and
perceptions regarding school. The authors explained their construct of the “cultural-ecological
theory, as consisting of two parts, (a) how minorities are treated or mistreated in education in
terms of educational policies, pedagogy, and (b) how minorities perceive and respond to
schooling as a consequence of their treatment” (p. 158). They focus on how education reflects
the treatment of minorities in the wider society. Three findings of this study revealed how
minority status affects school adjustment and students’ performance. The first is overall
educational policies and practices toward minority students. The second is how minority students

47
are treated in schools and classrooms. The third are the minimal positive affirmations that society
gives to minorities for their school qualifications, a fact that is evidenced in minorities’
employment and wages.
Summary of Literature Conclusion
This literature review emphasized how the school administrator plays a key role in
establishing a school culture that promotes a system of support for ELL students. The level of
preparation along with values and perceptions of the administrator are essential for developing
an effective collaborative system. The role of a school administrator in terms of supporting ELL
students is pivotal in promoting a collaborative culture that ensures equitable access to
instructional practices. The literature also addressed the gap between current ELL policy and the
implementation of such. Therefore, this study seeks to understand how school administrators use
policy to develop their systems of support for ELL students.
The research also reflects how teachers must continue to develop systems and encourage
adaptive and generative learning, while providing opportunities for our English language learner
students to access curriculum in classrooms. Developing instructional school-wide English
language learner strategies will provide a wider scope of focus to illicit equitable change within
schools. The current vision is to move toward a more inclusive instructional teaching model for
our English language learner students. Teachers must embrace every student as their own and be
responsible for their instruction. This study will seek to understand policy teachers use to
develop their systems of support for ELL students.
Researchers have focused on the importance of parent involvement in a child’s education
to promote and secure academic success. The topics covered in the literature review emphasized
how school culture administrators and teachers develop will promote parent engagement and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

57
principals, teachers, and parents in the elementary, middle, and high school settings. We
collected qualitative data from interviews as well as the review of the English language master
plans from the two school districts, pseudonym District 1 and District 2. They conducted data
analysis in alignment with the study’s three research questions:
1. How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
2. What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation
for principals, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELL support system?
3. What do principals, teachers, and parents perceive to be the most impactful
components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a
practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater
student success?
We conducted the selection of the participants in alignment with the overall criteria of the
study. We detailed the process for data analysis and identified limitations of this study. One
potential limitation of the study was the small sample size of participants. Another potential
limitation was the experience of the teachers, principals, and parents with the ELD program.
Interviews and surveys also represented a snapshot of the day and time. Lastly, the individual
positionalities as researchers were considered as a possible limitation.
I identify as a man of color. I am a first-generation college student of Mexican and Italian
descent. My grandparents immigrated to the United States from Mexico and Italy. My
grandparents shared stories of educational inequities and their experiences attending segregated
schools in El Centro, California. I am currently working as assistant superintendent and have

58
been a high school principal for 10 years. Thirty percent of the student population at my former
high school were designated as English language learners and ninety percent of the student
population qualified as socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Gabriela Galvez-Reyna is a woman of color and serve as a principal and an educator. Her
primary language is Spanish; She is a first-generation college student of Mexican descent. Both
of her parents are monolingual. She is also the first born and first in her family to learn English
and learned how to navigate the school system. She a current elementary principal serving and
guiding teachers and parents of ELL students in Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District, I
am aware of my own biases based on her role and experiences.
Michelle Correa identifies herself as a woman of color who is an educator. She is a first-
generation college student of Ecuadorian descent, Spanish-speaking, brown complexion and
identifies as a Latina. Her parents are both immigrant monolinguals; she personally observed
them navigate the school system and the adversities they endured due to their culture, language,
and lack of knowledge. Michelle’s professional goal as an educator was to create authentic
connections with all her students' parents by empowering them to break barriers and provide
them with the necessary tools to be successful. As a current Multi-System Support Advisor for
Los Angeles Unified School District, she continues to offer her support and services to students
and families.
The limitations did not prohibit a deep qualitative dive into the review of the research
questions and data because the variety of data provided was robust. These limitations may differ
between the two districts due to differing processes of classification level and resignation with
ELD placement.

59
In Chapter 4, we present the findings of the study, followed by the discussion of the
findings in Chapter 5. For related research findings see Bordi (2023) for teacher perceptions and
Correa (2023) for parent perceptions.

60
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this thematic study is to provide insight into the comprehensive systems
of support necessary for ELL student academic success that are delivered collaboratively by
school principals, teachers, and parents. This thematic study is a case study conducted by three
researchers examining one of the three stakeholder groups looking at how principals, teachers,
and parents contribute to a high-quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL
students’ academic success. In this study, I focus on the teacher’s knowledge, based on district
and school policies, current ELL support systems, and perceptions focused on system
effectiveness. This qualitative study highlights the existing systems of support from two similar
school districts in California with n > 20% of English language learners. I collected data for the
study using individual interviews and surveys of 47 participants. The following are the three
research questions that guided this study.
1. How does the school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
2. What are the intentional design components that make up the system of preparation
for principals, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELL support system?
3. What do principals, teachers, and parents perceive are the most impactful components
of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a practice that
needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater student
success?

61
Participants
I sent requests for participation invitations for the study to 142 teachers from two public
school districts in the state of California that serves a significant population of English language
learners. Table 1 shows the total number of participants from each school district and grade level
with the percentage of ELL students they serve. I sent invitations via email (see Appendix A) to
a total of 70 high school, 20 middle school, and 52 elementary school teachers. Forty-seven of
the 142 teachers invited agreed to complete a survey and participate in the interview process. The
participants included 35 high school, five middle school, and seven elementary teachers,
representing the K–12 continuum for both school districts. Table 3 reflects the participants and
district pseudonyms along with the school level they represent. Years of experience as a teacher
ranged from 17 teachers having (1–3) years of experience, six teachers having (4–7) years of
experience and 24 teachers having 8 or more years teaching experience. All teachers who
completed an interview also completed the survey.

Table 1
Participants of Study
District No. invited to
participate
No. participated to
completion
% of ELL student
population
Overall 142 47 N/A
CA District 1 45 10 21.4
CA District 2 97 37 21.1

62
Table 2
Participants School Level and District
School level CA district 1 CA district 2 Total participants
Elementary 5 2 7
Middle school 2 3 5
High school 3 32 35

Table 3
Interview and Survey Participants (n = 47)
Survey respondent District pseudonym School level Years as a teacher
Teacher A CA district 2 High school 18
Teacher B CA district 2 High school 23
Teacher C CA district 2 High school 21
Teacher D CA district 2 High school 25
Teacher E CA district 1 Elementary 12
Teacher F CA district 1 Elementary 5
Teacher G CA district 2 Middle 2
Teacher H CA district 2 Middle 5
Teacher I CA district 2 High school 22
Teacher J CA district 2 High school 3
Teacher K CA district 2 High school 6
Teacher L CA district 1 Elementary 9

63
Survey respondent District pseudonym School level Years as a teacher
Teacher M CA district 2 Elementary 25
Teacher N CA district 2 Middle 22
Teacher O CA district 2 High school 1
Teacher P CA district 2 High school 3
Teacher Q CA district 2 High school 10
Teacher R CA district 2 High school 3
Teacher S CA district 2 High school 11
Teacher T CA district 2 High school 2
Teacher U CA district 2 High school 8
Teacher V CA district 2 High school 8
Teacher W CA district 2 High school 11
Teacher X CA district 2 High school 14
Teacher Y CA district 1 High school 16
Teacher Z CA district 1 Elementary 26
Teacher AA CA district 1 High school 13
Teacher BB CA district 2 High school 4
Teacher CC CA district 2 High school 3
Teacher DD CA district 2 High school 5
Teacher EE CA district 1 Elementary 3
Teacher FF CA district 2 High school 9
Teacher GG CA district 2 High school 3
Teacher HH CA district 1 High school 7

64
Survey respondent District pseudonym School level Years as a teacher
Teacher II CA district 2 High school 1
Teacher JJ CA district 2 High school 9
Teacher KK CA district 2 High school 3
Teacher LL CA district 2 High school 2
Teacher MM CA district 2 High school 1
Teacher NN CA district 2 High school 1
Teacher OO CA district 2 High school 8
Teacher PP CA district 2 High school 20
Teacher QQ CA district 1 High school 3
Teacher RR CA district 2 High school 9
Teacher SS CA district 2 Elementary 3
Teacher TT CA district 1 Middle 9
Teacher UU CA district 1 Middle 3

Results
In this section, I present the results from the three research questions in two themes
connected to existing literature. The referenced research focuses on each question and theme.
Table 4 shows the alignment between research questions and interview questions. I present a
summary of the results related to each research question, with a final summary at the end of this
chapter.

65
Table 4
Interview Questions Aligned to Research Question
Interview question Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Research Question 3
2 x
3 x
4 x
5 x
6 x
7 x x
8 x x x
9 x
10 x
11 x
12 x
13 x
14 x x
15 x
16 x

Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How does the school district leverage its
policies to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system for its students? The data
used for analyzing question one was predicated on the responses to participants’ Interview

66
Questions 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. Evidence for the findings are organized in two major
themes:
1. Teachers articulated that district policies can help align resources (district and site)
that support systems and services for ELL students.
2. Teachers agreed that the current trainings for principals, teachers, and parents are
guided by district policies with the overall intent focused on supporting the varying
needs of ELL students.
Teachers articulated that district policies can help align resources (district and site) that
support systems and services for ELL students. The development of equitable support services in
schools requires core processes of system change (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Schools that embrace
a shared leadership model with principal(s) and teaching staff are best positioned for aligning
resources for change to meet student needs (Massey et al., 2014). Teacher survey and interview
responses were consistent with recent research that focuses on providing resources leveraged by
school districts and site funds to develop a comprehensive system of support for ELL students.
In the interview, 36 of the 47 teachers spoke about the implementation of their site
support systems for ELL students and the needed or utilized resources. Teachers explained that
the district utilized its policies to help school sites with additional staffing in a way to best
support students. These resources were used to fund additional sections, specialized teachers,
paraprofessionals, coordinators, or tutors. Teacher A supported this theme, saying, “Specialized
sections in a high school master schedule are essential to provide more individualized scaffolded
support.” Teacher A additionally stated that having a bilingual tutor in core content classes was a
necessity “to best bridge language for support of our ELL students accessing academic
language.”

67
Teachers identified Title I funding as an extra resource to add additional support to
school sites. Teacher H was aware of the additional funds provided in the form of Title I and
how those funds impacted support for ELL students. “Our budget has additional money that
helps support positions and sections at our school.” Teacher AA though discussed some conflicts
with additional resources at their site based on the demographics of the school: “Our ELL data
does pose an equity issue at our school. ELL students at our school represent a small fraction of
the student body, and thus the attention to the needs of these students is limited. The logistics of
not having a full-time coordinator and limited staff in the ELL Department at the district is
presenting a problem that is clear in the performance of the entire department.”
Teachers expressed that they felt district policies helped guide school sites with the
allocation of specific resources to better develop and implement support systems for ELL
students. The results from survey data indicate that teachers are knowledgeable of district ELL
policies (see Figure 1) with 41 of the 47 teachers feeling confident in their level of knowledge on
how to use available supports (see Figure 2). Furthermore, 38 of the participants agreed that their
district has effective systems in place to support ELL students’ academic progress (Figure 3).
Thirty-six participants notated consistent results when asked about the effectiveness of the
systems in their schools (see Figure 4).

68
Figure 1
Responses to Survey Item “I Am Well Versed in the ELL Policies of My District”

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

69
Figure 3
Responses to Survey Item “My School District Has Effective Systems in Place That Support ELL
Students’ Academic Progress”

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

70
Teachers agreed that the current trainings for principals, teachers, and parents are guided
by district policies with the overall intent focused on supporting the varying needs of ELL
students. In addition to their confidence in their ELL policy knowledge, teacher participants
responded favorably to current professional development and strategies for principals, teachers,
and parents, which they believe are guided by district policies that is focused on supporting the
varying needs of ELL students. Teacher J discussed scaffolding to meet the varying needs of EL
students. “I really liked the professional development that was offered to teachers about the way
to scaffold lessons. I was able to utilize this strategy after the training to better support my EL
and special education students in class.” The teacher participants mentioned the value of the
support they received from their districts. The support from the district included informational
groups of support such as English language advisory committees that discussed English language
learner policy and resources available. The district English language learner advisory site-based
committees reported back to the larger English language learner district committee.
Teachers overwhelmingly responded that professional development strategies were
offered by the school sites and districts. Teachers described some training as compliance
focused. The schools were focused on looking at ELPAC data and the reclassification criteria
outlined by the district. Teachers felt that the best opportunities for instructional strategies to
support EL students should be embedded regularly in the professional development calendar.
Teachers described the importance of core subject teachers utilizing these strategies to meet the
needs of the schools’ high numbers of English language learners.
Teacher I described ELL instructional strategies: “We need more training on best
practices to meet the needs of our English language learners. I feel that most content teachers
believe that it’s the ELD teachers’ responsibility to teach academic langue to our ELs.” Overall,

71
teachers wanted more ongoing trainings that they can bring back to their classrooms and
implement. The need for a yearly review of reclassification should be systematic for all teachers
and expressed during the interviews by teachers.
District policy guided the professional development calendar for teacher training.
Teachers wanted more of a voice with instructional strategies focused on scaffolding for ELL
students. District led staff development days were the described requirements and current
reclassification rates with ELPAC data for the school. Teacher-led training was well received by
the participants. Teacher O described instructional professional development:
As a new teacher, I am always learning. I was not able to get much out of the policy-
mandated trainings that the district provided to teachers at the start of the school year.
The site-based teacher led ELD trainings were very helpful to me and was able to start
implementing [them] into my classroom immediately.
Districts and sites provided informal sessions for parents that discussed school navigation
with the guidance of accessing available resources. Teacher U expressed the importance of
parent groups, especially for English language learner parents because of the importance of
partnerships for creating a system of support for ELL students:
Over the years, it has been a struggle to get our families to attend these parent group
events. I am happy to see the change in attendance by our families. These groups do a
good job with our resources and information that support student achievement. Teachers,
administrators, and district office staff regularly attend these meetings.
Teacher OO also described the support their parents are receiving. This support took the
form of committees, training, and presentations by outside providers to parents. Teacher OO
stated that:

72
Parent support committees such as ELAC are so very important. We have many families
that need this network to seek information that will help with supporting their children at
home. Our school also hosts a variety of training courses for parents that are facilitated by
an outside group. Many parents attend, and the feedback I have received as a teacher is
very helpful.
During the interviews of 47 teachers, district policies guided training for principals,
teachers, and parents. Teachers understood how to work within the policies that were outlined by
the district and monitored at the sites. When teachers were asked to respond to the statement “I
understand how to work within the existing policy structures to deliver quality support to
students,” 39 strongly agreed or agreed out of 47 participants (see Figure 5).

Figure 5
I Understand How to Work Within the Existing Policy Structure to Deliver Quality ELL Support
to Students

73
Discussion Research Question 1
The research questions were focused on identifying how the school district leveraged its
policies to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system for its students. Training
on strategies and resources were key themes that manifested during the interviews. Teachers
discussed the need to align more resources based on the data with smaller class sizes to leverage
district policies. Forty of the 47 teacher participants agreed or strongly agreed that training
focused on strategies that help support ELL students. The frequency and duration of these
training courses was an area of need from the interviews. The responses to the interview
questions were focused on resource allocation that provided a need for the alignment of ongoing
training to increase ELL student support.
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, what are the intentional design components that make up the
system of preparation for principals, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELL support system? Research Question 2 can best be summarized in terms of
two prevailing themes in the response analysis:
1. Teachers expressed that having opportunities to collaborate and align resources with
other teaching staff and principals allowed them to better meet the needs of ELL
students.
2. Teachers expressed the importance of aligning instructional strategies across all
content areas, to best support the needs of ELL students.
Teach Collaboration With Staff and Principals
Teachers expressed that having opportunities to collaborate and align resources with
other teaching staff and principals allowed them to better meet the needs of the ELL students.

74
Teachers’ instructional practices are paramount to student success. The research reflects that
teacher effectiveness is a predictor of student achievement (Hattie, 2015). Ensuring quality
instruction for ELLs thus requires the involvement of teachers experienced in diverse curricular
and instructional strategies. Teachers overwhelmingly discussed the need to increase
collaborative opportunities with other teachers to support ELL students. Teacher K showed
frustration with the lack of collaboration established at their site: “We don’t have enough time
during the school day to collaborate, and we don’t do it enough.” The importance of
collaboration was discussed heavily among participants during interviews. Teacher TT expressed
the need to collaborate across all content areas. Teacher TT went on to express: “We need more
time to work together to calibrate. Teachers want support from district and site leadership to
allow for more collaboration time during professional development days throughout the year.”
Teacher PP additionally stated that collaboration requires leadership support, “We need our
leadership at the school and district to really support our need to meet and discuss curriculum,
instruction, and support services that align to meeting the needs of our English language learner
students.”
Collaboration with alignment of policy to district and site resources will support the
varying needs of ELL students. The survey asked participants questions that focused on their
perspectives on how effective their current system of collaboration is in affecting and supporting
the overall academic achievement of ELL students at their school sites and district. According to
their answers, they find a higher impact with the teacher–teacher collaboration and parent-to-
teacher collaboration compared to principal-teacher (See Figure 6).

75
Figure 6
How Effective Do You Think the Current System of Parent-Teacher Collaboration Is in
Impacting and Supporting Academic Achievement for the ELL Student?

Figure 7
How Impactful Do You Think the Practice of Teacher–Teacher Collaboration Is in Supporting
ELL Students’ Academic Achievement?

76
Figure 8
How Impactful Do You Think the Practice of Principal-Teacher Collaboration Is in Supporting
ELL Students’ Academic Achievement?

Aligning Instructional Strategies
Teachers expressed the importance of aligning instructional strategies across all content
areas to best support the needs of ELL students. Russell and Von Esch (2018) concluded that
common equitable instructional practices in the classroom for ELL students can effectively help
meet the needs of ELL students. Principal, teacher, and parent collaboration was a recurring
theme during the interview process that fueled the need for the integration of instructional
strategies and alignment across grade levels and content areas. Many high school teachers
discussed accessing academic language. Teacher, I discussed the need for bilingual tutors within
content areas to help access language.
We need to hire additional bilingual tutors for our school. ELL students are in higher-
level math and science classes without any additional support to help with academic
language. This would really help our kids. The bilingual tutors that are dispatched to core

77
classes throughout the school day are really helping with supporting students to be
successful.
Teachers also highlighted the need for equitable access to classes and curriculum. They
believe that the school must allow all students the opportunity to take any class. Teacher N said,
“I don’t think some of our staff want English language learners in their classes. Some believe
that English language learners can’t do their work because they are not competently fluent in
English. It’s sad because some of the students are feeling this way in classes.” English language
learners within our schools have experienced systems that have been developed within schools
that alienate and segregate this population of learners. The number of English language learners
new to the country that are enrolling in high schools and cannot speak, read, or write English
well enough to participate successfully in educational programs without appropriate support
services, continues to be entrenched in school program systems of equity to meet the growing
needs of this population of learners. Alignment of instructional practices to allow for teachers to
best support EL students access curriculum requires teaching strategies that support the
introduction of vocabulary and academic language to give students opportunities to learn words
in context through visual, auditory, and verbal opportunities (Goldenberg, 2008). Collaboration
creates opportunities to interact and develop a sense of community while developing strong
academic, instructional, and social systems for ELLs.
Overall, teachers reported feeling that Designated ELD classes helped with the success of
students new to the country. Many teachers discussed the need for stronger instruction focused
on Integrated ELD in core and elective classes. Integrated ELD instruction is expected to occur
during all classes at the school in the district, and the lack of ongoing training teachers received

78
in this area was concerning. Teacher B said, “We should be really reviewing our school and
district practices to align our professional development calendar to integrated ELD schoolwide.”
Discussion Research Question 2
Teacher collaboration and the focus on instructional strategies that extend into all content
areas are important themes that developed as part of the intentional design components of the
system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents. The survey responses reflected
that the school and district were providing training to principals, teachers, and parents, yet an
ongoing theme was the need for training in instructional strategies that give students access to
curriculum. The responses from the participants were clear: teachers wanted collaboration
focused on lesson planning, strategies, time to discuss curriculum and instruction in this system
of support for English language learners. Participants shared the need to structure opportunities
to discuss the needs and support of ELL students among principals, teachers, and parents. Giving
students equitable access requires intentional design that can be structured under a collaborative
system.
Results Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, what do administrators, teachers, and parents perceive are the
most impactful components of the ELL system of support design, and what do they perceive is a
practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for greater student
success? Two themes emerged from the interview and survey data:
1. Teachers identified that success for English language learners is contingent on
continuous training for principals and teachers, focused on building capacity around
best practices that will directly impact the conditions of the school environment to
increase ELL student support.

79
2. Teachers responded that data alignment to the school sites is needed to improve the
system designed for greater student success.
Continuous Training for Principals and Teachers
Teachers identified that success for English language learners is contingent on continuous
training for principals and teachers, focused on building capacity around best practices that will
directly impact the conditions of the school environment to increase ELL student support.
Teachers identified providing continuous training for teachers and principals as a successful
strategy for English language learners. The teachers stressed focusing on building capacity
around best practices to directly impact the conditions of the school environment to increase ELL
student support. These best practices take the shape of professional development, research-based
strategies incorporated into classrooms and the monitoring of data to drive instruction.
The responses from the participants reflected that the district and all school sites offer
training for principals, teachers, and parents. According to this study, the training that is
delivered to principals, teachers, and parents is not continuous and does not support a
systemwide approach to building the infrastructure needed to increase support and academic
success of ELL students. Reyes and Gentry (2019) cited the importance of instructional
leadership to best recognize the needs of ELL students and pedagogy grounded in research-based
instructional practices delivered in classrooms. District and site leaders must be grounded in
instructional pedagogical approaches to support staff with meeting the needs of the ELL
students.
Furthermore, the community of inquiry theory, which is rooted in cognitive presence
through the learning cycle, provides a framework to further examine the cycle of inquiry needed
for capacity development. Elfers and Stritikus (2013) described the support needed for teachers

80
to build confidence and encourage continuous learning that allows educators to do their best,
through an informed process, in their work with ELL students. Organizational capacity building
requires ongoing training to build better systems of support for ELL students.
Teachers were transparent and open about the need for continuous development for the
three groups: principals, teachers, and parents. Teachers were uniform in the request for more
consistent aligned training. Academic language development, reading, and writing were areas
teachers identified as important to student success of English language learners. Teacher C
highlighted the importance of language:
Teachers need to focus on literacy and academic language with our English language
learner students. Students are not able to access other core content without language
background. Students have expressed frustration in some classes because they are
missing important language to access content.
Teachers agreed that their district offered yearly training when answering the survey
questions (see Figure 9). The instructional focus of these yearly trainings was more on
compliance and not student success. Teacher A said,
In August, year after year, we have an EL training that is on compliance and very boring.
I wish the training would also incorporate best practices of trends that will help our
English language learners. I would like to sit down and help plan the professional
development calendar.
Ongoing professional development training and the way this training is delivered affects
instruction and impacts English language learner students. Teachers referred not only to the
consistency of training, but also to the quality of the training. Teacher C referenced training that
was not beneficial because of the delivery of the content. “I remember being talked at for three

81
hours, having a break, and another 2 hours without collaboration. We finished with takeaways,
and I basically forgot what we discussed.”

Figure 9
My School District Offers Yearly Opportunities to Learn Instructional Strategies That Support
ELL Students

82
Data Alignment to School Sites
Teachers responded that data alignment to the school sites is needed to improve the
system designed for greater student success. Teacher respondents perceive that the policies
currently in place to support ELL students are not implemented effectively and lack cohesion
because of misalignment in the data. Teacher BB expressed frustration with the data
implementation of instructional practices in the classroom that impacts the systems of ELL
students most. “I would like to see other teacher strategies at other schools in the district to
observe teaching language. Our district professional development should be better paired with
school needs.”
Designing, facilitating, and the triangulation of cognitive and social processes with the
intent of understanding impactful educational learning outcomes has been shown to create
conditions for successful classroom environments. Teaching presence begins prior to any
interactions with students through the design and organization of a course (Lynch, 2016).
Teacher M expressed the need for lesson designs that meet the data needs of English language
students. “Teachers and administrators should come together to discuss and review lesson
design. I know we are not planning in a similar way and not aligned to our data.” Teacher Z
stated that
Some of our veteran teachers are not incorporating our school data into planning
instruction. I feel we have a range of staff at different levels with understanding how to
plan with data alignment. I would be interested in helping my colleagues better plan to
support our English language learners.
Analyzing data to guide instruction and support a system of support for ELL students is a
learned skill set. Rueda (2011) discussed the “big three” failures of school systems:

83
fragmentation of approaches, misalignment of approaches and goals, and failure to match
solutions to problems. Teachers referenced stronger PLC data reviews as a team (grade level or
content). Teacher F referenced that some teachers process data reviews in different ways:
Some of my colleagues take data review personally. This led to some staff not taking a
proactive approach and vested interest in moving instruction and data forward with
adaptations. I want my students to be successful. Some staff blame the students and
refuse to process data at our meetings. I would like a better way to review data and plan.
This type of approach should begin with a philosophical shift in the way of addressing students
and issues. Creating proactive intervention systems with English language learner students will
allow staff to connect and build relationships with students, while maintaining consistency and
accountability. We must understand that English language learners within our schools have
encountered a growing educational problem that is entrenched in long held assumptions about
who has equitable access to curriculum and resource. While the federal Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) outlines rulings and protections that guarantee students with limited English proficiency
fair educational opportunities and access, local designs for equitable implementation will
determine what services students receive.
Discussion Research Question 3
Teachers were open about the need to assess and align data with instruction. Training that
was focused on support strategies for EL students was occurring at the district and site levels
(Figure 9). The type of training and frequency of the training was an area of concern expressed
by teachers in surveys and during interviews. Instructional alignment is an impactful part of the
system of support for English language learners that needs to be enhanced. These findings are
unified with principles of the EL roadmap policy (California Department of Education, 2022).

84
Summary
In this chapter, I examined the research findings from the qualitative interviews and
surveys held with 47 teachers from two districts in California. I addressed three research
questions in this study. Research Question1 focused on the knowledge of the participant on
district EL policy to support ELL students. Research Question2 focused on the participants’
understanding of the design mechanics that define the system of preparation for administrators,
teachers, and parents to effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system. Research
Question 3 focused on the perceptions of the more impactful components of the ELL system of
support and practice that need to be replaced, improved, or added to improve the system design
for better outcomes of student success. The findings indicate that the teacher research
participants have knowledge of district ELL policies with the resources and training received
identified as being aligned with current policy. Teacher research participants identified
collaboration and integration of strategies that support EL students as a need to be integrated
across all content areas. Teacher participants identified the need for ongoing training, from
interviews of the 47 participants and survey data focused on strategies, to improve instructional
delivery for a comprehensive ELL support system.

85
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes findings that will help provide guidance to school districts and
teachers to better support ELL students. Policymakers, school districts, and teachers can utilize
the findings of this study to advocate for effective school systems that support ELL students and
contribute to equitable access to content and instruction. Additionally, recommendations are
made for potential future research, as informed by this study.
This study examined the K–12 systems that support the academic success of ELLs with
an analytic focus on the perceptions of principals, teachers, and parents that revealed how these
stakeholders can better understand and effectively provide a more comprehensive support system
for ELLs. This study focused specifically on the perspective of teachers and explored their
beliefs on the school districts’ ability to leverage policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive ELL support system for students. This study highlights design components that
are necessary to the preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents to understand and
effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system. Finally, this study brings forward what
teachers perceive as some of the most impactful components of an ELL support system as well
as practices that need to be further examined, added, or improved. Similar research findings on
the perceptions of administrators can be referenced in Galvez-Reyna (2023). Similar research
findings on the perceptions of parents can be referenced in Correa (2023). The following
questions guided this study:
1. How does a school district leverage its policies to ensure the delivery of a
comprehensive support system for its ELLs?

86
2. What are the intentional design components that develop the system of preparation
offered to principals, teachers, and parents to understand and effectively deliver a
comprehensive ELLs support system?
3. What do principals, teachers, and parents perceive as the most impactful components
of the design system of support for ELLs, and what practices do they think should be
replaced, or added, to improve the system design that leads to student success?
Findings
Study findings suggest that a systemic structure of collaboration and ongoing training is a
necessary component to improve delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system. Teachers
emphasized the importance of integration of instructional strategies that support ELL students
across all content areas. The findings suggest that ELL policy knowledge helps guide school site
and district resources with yearly training that supports current ELL systems of support at the
school sites. Six themes emerged from the study’s three identified research questions. This
section will summarize and discuss the study’s findings and the relation it presents to current
application and practice coupled with existing research. Recommendations for possible future
research is also provided.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How does the school district leverage its
policies to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive ELL support system for its students?
The triangulation of teacher interviews and surveys with existing research produced
findings from two key areas. First, teachers emphasized that district policies helped guide school
sites with the allocation of targeted resources to help develop systems for ELL students. Second,

87
teachers expressed that the current training for them and for principals is guided by district
policies with the intent to meet the needs of ELL students.
The first finding from Research Question 1 was the importance of district policies
providing guidance on effective resources that ensure the delivery of a comprehensive system of
support for ELL students. Teachers emphasized that district policies help guide school sites with
the allocation of targeted resources that help create systems of support for ELL students. The
support system includes instructional trainings, instructional resources, additional support staff,
additional materials that support instruction, and yearly ongoing training offered to teachers,
principals, and parents. However, these findings rely on the resilience and guidance of district
policy to allocate funds for resources that can support their ELL system at their school sites.
These findings align with Yaafouri (2019) who discussed the importance of resources for
teachers and principals with instruction for ELL students and support for their parents. Elfers &
Stritikus (2013) identified the need for ongoing professional development instructional
leadership from the central office that plays a significant supportive role in how districts organize
support for ELL students. Effective ELL program design and implementation requires a balance
between providing services and segregation (Thompson, 2013). Specialized resources designed
for ELL support should not be blended with a delivery model that segregates ELLs.
The second finding is in relation to Research Question 1. This finding stressed the
importance of district policy guiding training for teachers and principals to ensure the delivery of
a comprehensive system of support for ELL students. Teachers agreed that current training for
teachers and principals is guided by district policies with the intent to meet the needs of the ELL
students. Forty-two of the 47 principals agreed that their school district offers yearly
opportunities to learn strategies to support ELL students (Figure 9). Forty of those 42 teachers

88
acknowledged that this training is offered yearly at their school sites. The interviews emphasized
the importance of having policy that guides the training for principals, teachers, and parents.
Luna (2019) and Theoharis and O’Toole (2011) found that educators (principals and
teachers) who have a vision for effective ELL instruction can create aligned instructional goals
and resources that are necessary to accomplish these goals. Teachers can develop a vision for
academic success that includes all students by providing teachers with instructional support as
well as opportunities for professional development (Luna, 2019). The EL training that was
developed in response to the need for ongoing and consistent training throughout the year was
focused on policy and compliance. The need for policy that guides training and instructional
strategies is an important component in the overall system of support for ELL students.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: What are the intentional design components
that make up the system of preparation for administrators, teachers, and parents to understand
and effectively deliver a comprehensive ELL support system?
The intent of Research Question 2 is to have teachers identify the intentional design
components that make up the system of preparation for principals, teachers, and parents to build
an overall understanding of the needs of ELL students. The data used for analyzing RQ2 was
based on interview and survey responses. Teachers agreed that increasing opportunities to
collaborate and align resources among district, principals, and teachers would provide better
supports that meet the needs of the ELL students. Teachers also stressed the importance of
integrating instructional practices across all content areas to ensure equity of access to the
curriculum.

89
The first finding in relation to Research Question 2 was the importance of engaging in
collaborative opportunities to discuss the needs and best instructional practices for ELL students.
Teachers agreed that collaboration is an essential system of preparation for administrators,
teachers, and parents. Teachers expressed that coordination of collaborative opportunities assists
with meeting the needed preparation for school sites and the alignment of resources for the
varying needs and levels of ELL students. Preparation allowed for the building of instructional
capacity, ideas, lesson planning, strategies, support services, intervention and best practices to
support staff meeting the needs of EL students. During the interview process, ninety six percent
of teacher participants mentioned or discussed the importance of engaging in collaborative
opportunities to guide the training needed for principals, teachers, and parents. Teachers
expressed that coordination of collaborative opportunities assists with meeting the needed
preparation for school sites and the alignment of resources for the varying needs and levels of
ELL students. This coordination of collaboration will also benefit the emerging needs of
teachers, support staff, and parents, translating into support of better overall guidance.
The collaborative opportunity finding is consistent with Fullan and Quin’s (2016)
research on how a culture of collaboration needs to be encouraged and cultivated to promote
learning and accelerate student outcomes and achievement. Collaboration is a key factor in
school reform among all staff and a driving force for change (Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011).
“Authentic collaboration and leadership distribution depends on strong beliefs about the value of
collaboration and leadership distribution on the part of leaders along with open communication
with staff, students, and parents” (p. 14). The belief in collaboration to change instructional
practice starts with support from leadership to allow this work to occur at the sites and

90
throughout the district. Collaboration between all members of the school community is a key
component to ensure effective systems of support for ELL students.
The second finding related to Research Question 2 was the importance of instructional
integration practices across all content areas. Teachers stressed the integration of instructional
practices that support ELL students in all content areas as a driver of a systemic approach that
aligns administrators, teachers, and parents. Through these collaborative practices, all content
area teachers can ensure they are supporting the progressive learning of their ELL students.
Teachers discussed the importance for all ELL students to have access to the same curriculum as
their other classmates with the proper support. Teachers also mentioned the importance of
student engagement throughout the learning process. Teachers discussed a team approach to a
strong support system of student support that requires administrators, teachers, and parents to be
consistent on the instructional practices that benefit each student.
The importance of instructional integration practices across all content areas is consistent
with the current California State Policy. According to the English Language Arts/English
Development Framework (ELA/ELD) adopted in July 2014, ELL students should have access to
Designated ELD, defined as targeted instruction that addresses ELL proficiency levels and
language needs. Students are also required Integrated ELD, during which the students participate
in language development in an academic disciplinary context related to academic tasks and
content. Designated ELD assists in building language proficiency, refining the academic use of
English, providing student access to content, setting clear developmental benchmarks, and
offering guidance on specific strategies and supports for teachers, parents, and curriculum
developers (CA Department of Ed, 2014). The main goal of the ELA/ELD Framework is to
ensure language integrated into and through all academic content to support access to instruction

91
for ELL students (Satnibanez & Umansky, 2018). Lumbrears and Rupley (2019) discussed the
importance of integration of instructional practices across all content areas that support ELL
students benefiting from engagement in rigorous content with proper support.
Developing instructional school-wide English language learner strategies will provide a
wider scope of focus to elicit equitable change within schools. This finding aligns with the
teaching presence component of the community of inquiry theoretical framework. Supporting
cognitive and social processes requires teachers to design, facilitate, and create conditions for a
successful learning environment (Garrison et al., 2010).
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: What do administrators, teachers, and parents
perceive are the most impactful components of the ELL system of support design and what do
they perceive is a practice that needs to be replaced or added to improve the system design for
greater student success?
The triangulation of teacher interviews and survey findings with existing research
produced two key findings related to Research Question 3. First, teachers believe that an ongoing
training cycle that helps build principal, teacher, and parent capacity is an impactful component
that is needed to increase ELL student success. Second, alignment to data was considered key to
improving the systems designed for increased student success.
The first finding related to Research Question 3 was the need to include ongoing training
to best support an effective system of support for ELL students. Teachers expressed that ongoing
training would help build principals’, teachers’, and parents’ ability to provide an impactful
system of support needed to increase ELL student success. Teachers discussed that teachers and
principals have been provided yearly training, but the training was not ongoing. Teachers from

92
both school districts at all three levels of the K–12 system overwhelmingly expressed the need
for ongoing training to ensure best practices for ELL students and their diverse needs. Teachers
believe that having teachers and principals attend similar training courses throughout the year
can lead to the development of a common understanding of practices that will best support
teachers.
The need for alignment with ongoing training across the district will improve the overall
system design and lead to greater student success. Alignment and ongoing training for teachers
can best support students accessing curriculum with focused instruction delivered and aligned
with resources identified with their needs. California’s Assembly Bill 2193 and 2012 Assembly
Bill 2193 focused on protections and rights for ELLs and the need for consistency with
implementation to decrease the number of students “at risk” (California Legislative Information,
2022). Effective ELL program design and implementation has fallen short of delivery on
equitable access.
The second RQ3 finding is the need to align data to improve instructional practice for
greater student success. In the last decade, the state of California has focused on developing
specialized guidance for research-based instructional practice and accountability measures, but
outcomes have not been consistent or sustainable. Teachers perceive that data alignment
districtwide is absent from the current system design in their districts and at their school sites.
Teachers mentioned that the current practice is to review ELPAC data and ELL data statewide at
the beginning of the school year and before test administration. Teachers shared that site and
district leadership review LPAC data and site ELL data this for consumption and to strategize
next steps of support for students. The ELPAC and local district-wide data is used to help

93
alignment of benchmarks and with school site plans for student achievement, but it is not
reviewed regularly and consistently enough to help guide and monitor instruction.
Teachers in both school districts believed that leveraging data is a key tool to bridging the
gaps and needs of ELL students. Leveraging of data is supported in research from Gill et al.
(2014) and Fullan and Quinn (2016). Their framework describes data-driven decision-making to
inform decisions at all educational levels and to examine the effectiveness of instructional
practices of system implementation. Teachers identified the need to engage in cycles of data-
driven instruction that can help guide classroom instruction. Teachers looked towards the current
district ELL policy to help guide curriculum pacing and support. The cycle of data collection
needs to be ongoing and evolving. Unfortunately, educational policies may not give all ELL
students what they need to be successful (Callahan, 2016; Hakuta, 2011; Luna, 2020; Thompson,
2013). Data drives instructional practice in classrooms. Having a purposeful focus to meet the
needs of ELL students will allow principals to best allocate resources and staff development
opportunities to support teachers and parents of ELL students.
Limitations
As with all research, this study has limitations. This study was conducted in two school
districts with a high percentage of ELL students. However, this distinctive characteristic was an
identifying factor that helped select these districts for optimal data regarding policy and systems
of support for ELL students. This study’s findings are impacted by internal validity, given the
reliance on self-reported data in surveys and interviews. Interviews and surveys represented a
snapshot of perspectives at a certain time of the year. We preserved the original protocols for the
interviews and surveys. We used triangulation of surveys and interview responses to decrease
respondent validity. The range of teacher experience and knowledge of ELL policies and systems

94
of support was a potential limitation. The participation of teachers was heavily skewed towards
high school, but a range of participants at all levels was represented.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study offer valuable information that can guide district-wide and
schoolwide systems of support for ELL students. ELL students have specific needs that need to
be addressed through an intentional systemic design in the K–12 system. Many teachers
identified that they are not collecting data from students about their perceptions of the
effectiveness of ELL support services in their schools to help address the comprehensive needs
of an effective system of support for ELL students. This should be a future area of study.
Teachers could benefit from support and guidance from their district focused on ELL policies to
help with the implementation of effective teaching and systems of support.
This study examined the relationship between teachers and their role within the overall
support system for EL students at the school site. The study findings established common themes
that inform school district and site leadership about the allocation of resources, policy, language
instruction, and the importance of collaboration across school districts and sites. The research
conducted resulted in thematic findings and implications for teacher instructional practice.
The findings of this study show that if district administrators, principals, and teachers
reflect on what is impactful and hold one another accountable for analyzing different data
sources throughout the school year, the systems of support can improve to help the growing and
evolving needs of our ELL student population. Having an organizational focus that allows for
ongoing training supported by data analysis will allow for development and the maintaining of
effective systems of support for ELL students.

95
The implications for practice are for teachers to be part of the school system of support
with a clear alignment between resources and student needs. The needs of the students should be
informed by data collection that align instructional practices. The system of support must be
connected to the alignment of instructional practices to support ELL learners. Developing a
systemic design where administrators, teachers, and parents consistently collaborate can help
bring shared practices into the alignment of resources, training, and data analysis. We must
continue to confront the inequities in classrooms, schools, and districts to best position our
students for success in college and career.
Future Research
Two areas of future research that focus on institutional areas that remain stagnant are
instructional implementation and the federal, state, and local policy to support English language
learner students. Teachers expressed that they are knowledgeable about their district’s ELL
policies but need more guidance on how to best deliver quality support services to meet the
needs of ELL. The integration of language acquisition skills and techniques into content
Courses that build English proficiency to access the curriculum. Positive and supportive
school culture requires a move toward a more inclusive instructional teaching model for K–12
English language learners. It is important that principals, teachers, school staff, and parents work
as partners to foster student success by coordinating instruction, language acquisition, and
support that focus on the child and their family so they can create a systemic design that reflects
a student’s right to a quality education. The need to continue to develop collaborative
instructional practices and supports that include communication, teamwork, social networking,
and best practices to support the development of English language learners.

96
English Language Learners have experienced educational barriers that have resulted in
the need for proper implementation of existing resources and policies. More research is needed
to understand the obstacles and conflicts between current federal, state, and local policy within
the system. Reviewing policy with a nexus to how the implementation of policy is delivered is
necessary to consider efforts around improving ELL support structures. There is a need to
address equity and access to break down these barriers to effectively implement systematic
change by principals and teachers that must involve parents. Future comprehensive research
around student perspective relative to what they say they need in terms of support and what
teachers and leaders believe they need for success, would be valuable.
Conclusion
Considering the number of ELL students enrolling in California schools on the rise, it has
never been more urgent that all districts develop an effective ELL system. Teachers need to
know how to ensure that conflicts do not exist between federal law, state statute, district policies,
and collaborative implementation designs at their schools. They must have voice in this
alignment work. The study findings show a need for collaboration and integration of
instructional practices across the curriculum, as well as ongoing training with a focus on how to
best analyze data in teams. The lack of alignment between resources, ongoing training, and
implementation of instructional practices that support student learning informed by achievement
data creates serious equity challenges for schools, their students, and their communities.

97
References
AB-81, English Learners: Identification: Notice. (Cal. 2017).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB81
AB-2193, Long Term English Language Learners. (Cal. n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2022, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2193
Akbari, R. (2008). Transforming lives: Introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT
Journal, 62(3), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn025
Al-Mahrooqi, R., Denman, C., Al-Maamari, F. (2016). Omani parents’ involvement in their
children’s English education. SAGE Open Journal, 6(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org.ezproxy.hamline.edu/10.1177/2158244016629190
Alexander, D., Heaviside, S., & Farris, E. (1999). Status of education reform in public
elementary and secondary schools: teachers’ perspectives. National Center for Education
Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999045.pdf
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of
effective teacher student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system secondary. School
Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98.
Almasi, M., & Zhu, C. (2020). Investigating students’ perceptions of cognitive presence in
relation to learner performance in blended learning courses: A mixed-methods approach.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), 324–336.
https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.005

98
Angelides, P., Antoniou, E., & Charalambous, C. (2010). Making sense of inclusion for
leadership and schooling: A case study from Cyprus. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 13(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120902759539
Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 38–54.
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/924/1855
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Campbell, M. (2008). Promising ELL parental involvement: Challenges
in contested times. http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Ar ias_ELL.pdf
August, D. and Hakuta, K., Eds. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A
research agenda. National Academy Press.
Banks, J. A., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K. M., LePage, P., Darling-
Hammond, L., Duffy, H., & McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L.
Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232–274), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Blazar, D., & Pollard, C. (2017). Does test preparation mean low-quality instruction?
Educational Researcher, 46(8), 420–433.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of
qualitative interview. Quarterly and Quantity, 36, 391–409.

99
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Publisher.
Bond, M.A., Tamim, S. R., Blevins, S. J., & Sockman, B. R. (2021). Systems Thinking for
Instructional Designers: Catalyzing Organizational Change. Taylor & Francis Group.
Bordi, J. (2023). A case study of how principals, teachers, and parents contribute to a quality
comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Buenrostro, M., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2022, January 31). Renewing our promise research and
recommendations to support California’s long-term English learners. Californians
Together Championing the Success of English Learners.
http://www.californianstogether.org
Burns, A. (2017). Research and the teaching of speaking in the second language classroom. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. (vol III,
pp. 242–256). Routledge.
California Department of Education. (2017). California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (2014a, July 9). ELA/ELD framework.
http://cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/introductionbeadopted.pdf
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Data Reporting Office (2020–2021)
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/longtermel/Elas.aspx?cds=1964733&agglevel=district&y
ear=2020-21
California Department of Education. (2022). English Learner Roadmap. https://bit.ly/2XfQ4Kq-
Resources. This site was last reviewed in 2022.

100
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Proposition 227 Final Report – Resources. Retrieved
April 2, 2022, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/prop227summary.asp
California Department of Education. (2021). Reclassification.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/#:~:text=Reclassification%20is%20the%20process%20
whereby,student%20meeting%20all%20the%20criteria
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Senate Bill 201 - Instructional Materials - English
Language Arts. Retrieved April 2, 2022, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/im
California State Constitution. (n.d.). California Legislative Information: Article IX Education
[Section 1–Section 16]. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&divisi
on=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=IX
Callahan, R. M., & Shifrer, D. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students:
Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 52(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16648190
Castaneda v. Pickard, 781 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1986) English Language Arts/English Language
Development Framework.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). Title VII, Equal Employment
Opportunities. Assembly Bill 81 English Learners Notification and Identification.
Contreras, F., & Fujimoto, M. O. (2019). College readiness for English language learners (ELLs)
in California: Assessing equity for ELLs under the local control funding formula.
Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 209–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1598121

101
Cook-Harvey, C. M., Darling-Hammond, L., Lam, L., Mercer, C., & Roc, M. (2016). Equity and
ESSA: Leveraging educational opportunity through The Every Student Succeeds Act.
Learning Policy Institute.
Correa, M. (2023). A case study of how principals, teachers, and parents contribute to a quality
comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x15616863
de Brey, C. (2021, February). The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many
education questions (National Center for Education Statistics). National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=96
de Gaetano, X. (2007). The Role of Culture in Engaging Latino Parents’ Involvement in
School. Urban Education, 42(2), 145–162.
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s Radical Love Got to Do with It: Navigating
Identity, Pedagogy, and Positionality in Pre-Service Education. International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 6(1).
Echevarria, X. (2006). School engagement: Testing the factorial validity, measurement,
structural and latent means invariance between African American and White
students (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).

102
Elfers, A. M., & Stritikus, T. (2013). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’
work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 305–
344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13492797
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved April 27, 2022, from https://www.ed.gov/essa
Ferreras, Manuel, "Building Support Systems for High School English Language Learners: A
Developmental Program Evaluation" (2021). Dissertations. 615.
https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/615
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Garces, L. M., & Cogburn, C. D. (2015). Beyond declines in student body diversity: How
campus-level administrators understand a prohibition on race-conscious postsecondary
admissions policies. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 828–860.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215594878
Garrison, D. R. (2017). Cognitive presence and critical thinking. The Community of Inquiry.
http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial5
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education,
15, 7–23.
Gibson, M. A. (2002). The new Latino diaspora and educational policy: Education in the new
Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity. Ablex.

103
Gill, B., Borden, B., & Hallgren, K. (2014). A conceptual framework for data-driven decision
making. Mathematica Policy Research.
Goldenberg, C. (2008) Teaching English language learners: What the research does-and does
not-say. https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf
Gonzales-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005). Examining the relationship
between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review,
17(2), 99–123,
Graham-Clay, S. (2005). Communicating with Parents: Strategies for Teachers. The School
Community Journal, 15(1), 117–129.
Gunderson, L. (2021). The consequences of English learner as a category in teaching, learning,
and research. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(4), 431–439.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1116
Guthier, D. (n.d.). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 1965. Washington Office
of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved April 27, 2022, from
https://www.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/grants-grant-management/every-student-succeeds-
act-essa-implementation/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-esea
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating Language Minority Students and Affirming Their Equal Rights:
Research and Practical Perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–
174. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11404943
Harman, R., & McClure, G. (2011). All the school’s a stage: Critical performative pedagogy in
urban teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(3), 379–402.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning,
Educational Research, 50(3), 277–289.

104
Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson.
Hitt, D., & Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework.
Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban
school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12448250
Johnson, A. (2019). A matter of time: Variations in high school course-taking by years-as-el
subgroup. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 461–482.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719867087
Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of
Immigrant Youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 1–19.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44072586
Kemple, J., & Snipes, J. (2000). Career academies: Impacts on students’ engagement and
performance in high school. MDRC.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
LeClair, Doll, B., Osborn, A., & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-English
language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the
Schools, 46(6), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20398
Lee, J. S., & Jeong, E. (2013). Korean–English dual language immersion: Perspectives of
students, parents and teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 89–107.
Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education
Sciences, 11(8), 377–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377

105
Lochmiller, C., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lucas, T. (2000). Facilitating the transitions of secondary English language learners:
Priorities for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(619), 2-16.

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

106
learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 3–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Maybin, J. (2020). Teaching writing. Teaching English, 186–194.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003071396-26
McGuinn, P. (2015). Schooling the state: ESEA and the evolution of the US Department of
Education. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–
94.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Chapter 1. Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M., (2022, February 22). Re: How to Empower Immigrant Parents to Help ELL Students.
(2022). Continental Educational Publisher.
https://www.continentalpress.com/blog/empowering-immigrant-parents/
O’Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (2016). Quality and equality in American education: Systemic
problems, systemic solutions. In I. Kirsch & H. Braun (Eds.), The dynamics of
opportunity in America (pp. 297–358). Educational Testing Service.
Office of Civil Rights. (1970). Identification of discrimination and denial of services on the basis
of national origin. U.S Department of Education
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/nationaloriginmemo.html
Office of Civil Rights. (2006). U.S Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/annrpt2006/report_pg4.html

107
Oseguera, L., & Conchas, G., & Mosqueda, E. (2011). Beyond family and ethnic culture:
Understanding the preconditions for the potential realization of social capital. Youth &
Society, 43, PP–PP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382030.
Padgett, R. (2006). Best ways to involve parents. The Education Digest, 72(3), 44-45.
Padron, Y., & Waxman, H. (2016). Investigating principals’ knowledge and perceptions of
second language programs for English language learners. International Journal of
Educational Leadership and Management, 4(2), 127.
https://doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2016.1706
Panferov, S. (2010). Increasing ELL parental involvement in our schools. Theory into Practice,
49, 106–112.
Park, S., Martinez, M., & Chou, F. (2017). CSSCO English learners with disabilities guide.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Parsons, M. W., & Shim, J. M. (2019). Increasing ELL parental involvement and engagement:
Exploration of K–12 administrators in a rural state. English Language Teaching, 12(10),
29. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n10p29
Patterson, X. (2018). 1 in 4 students is an English language learner: Are we leaving them
behind? https://counseling.steinhardt.nyu.edu/blog/english-language-learners/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 1(3), 261–
283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Perren, J., Grove, N., & Thornton, J. (2013). Three empowering curricular innovations for
service-learning in ESL programs. TESOL Journal, 4(3), 463–486.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.9

108
Pettit, S. (2011). Teachers' beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom:
A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123–147,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594357
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Polikoff, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416
Potochnick. (2018). The Academic Adaptation of Immigrant Students with Interrupted
Schooling. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 859–892.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218761026
Project IDEAL. (2013). Specific roles of general educators in serving students with disabilities
and their parents. Retrieved February 19, 2022, from
http://www.projectidealonline.org/v/specific-roles-general-educators
Psychology Today (n.d.). Bias. Psychology Today. Retrieved February 14, 2022, from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bias
Pulliam, J., & Terantino, J. (2020). Foundations for teaching English language learners:
Research, theory, policy, and Practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(5), 705–
711. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1841473
Ramirez, A. Y. F. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino
immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35 (2): 93-110.
Reyes, J., & Gentry, J. (2019). Pre-service administrators’ experiences with effective research-
based learning strategies for English language learners. Education Leadership Review,
20(1), 23–38.

109
Reyes, J., & Hwang, N. (2021). Middle school language classification effects on high school
achievement and behavioral outcomes. Educational Policy (Los Altos, Calif.), 35(4),
590–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823747
Riley, B. (2012). Waive to the top: The dangers of legislating education policy from the
executive branch. Education Outlook, 1, 1–6.
Riser-Kositsky, M. (2020). Education statistics: Facts about American schools. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/education-statistics/index.html?cmp=SOC-
SHR-FB
Rizzuto, K. C. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL students: Do their attitudes shape their
instruction? The Teacher Educator, 52(3), 182–202. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1146228
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., Thompson, K. D., & Umansky, I. M. (2016). Research and policy
considerations for English learner equity. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215623553
Roegman, R., Allen, D., Leverett, L., Thompson, S., & Hatch, T. (2019). Equity visits a new
approach to supporting equity - focused school and district leadership. Corwin.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed., pp. 85–92). SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Russell, F. A., & Von Esch, K. S. (2018). Teacher leadership to support English language
learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718767862
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

110
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Chapter 6: Just the truth. In Statistics for people who (think they) hate
statistics: Using Microsoft Excel 2016 (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Samson, X., & Collins, X. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language
leaners. American Progress.
Sanders, X., Durbin, J. M., Anderson, B. G., Fogarty, L. M., Giraldo-Garcia, R. J., & Voight, A.
(2018). Does a rising school climate lift all boats? Differential associations of perceived
climate and achievement for students with disabilities and limited English proficiency.
School Psychology International, 39(6), 646–662.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318810319
Santibañez, L., & Umansky, I. (2018). English learners: Charting their experiences and
mapping their futures in California schools. Policy Analysis for California Education.
PACE.
Shim, J. M. (2018). Involving the parents of English language learners in a rural area: Focus on
the dynamics of teacher-parent interactions. The Rural Educator.
Sosa, A. S. (1997). Involving Hispanic parents in educational activities through collaborative
relationships. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2), 1–8.
Sousa, D. (2011). How the ELL brain learns. Corwin.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies: Handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty years later. New Focus,
Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 6
Téllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2010). A review of research on effective community programs for
English language learners. The School Community Journal, 20(1), 103–119.

111
Theoharis, G., & O’Toole, J. (2011). Leading inclusive ell. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 47(4), 646–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x11401616
Thompson K. D. (2013). Is separate always unequal? A philosophical examination of ideas of
equality in key cases regarding racial and linguistic minorities in education. American
Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1249–1278.
Thompson, K. D. (2017). What blocks the gate? Exploring current and former English learners’
math course-taking in secondary school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4),
757–798.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell.
Umansky, I. (2016). To be or not to be EL: An examination of the impact of classifying students
as English Language Learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 714-
737. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237371666480
Umansky, I. M., & Porter, L. (2020). State English learner education policy: A conceptual
framework to guide comprehensive policy action. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
28(17), n17.
Umansky, I. M., Thompson, K. D., & Díaz, G. (2017). Using an Ever–English Learner
framework to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children,
84(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917707470
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Developing ELL Programs: Glossary. U.S Department of
Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from:
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

112
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. Office for Civil Rights. (1999). Programs for English language
learners. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt99/edlite-how.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2000). The Provision of an Equal
Education Opportunity to Limited-English Proficient Students.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/eeolep/index.html
U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Types of educational opportunities discrimination.
Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-
discrimination
Varga, M. (2017). The effect of teacher-student relationships on the academic engagement of
students. Goucher College.
Vera, E. M., Israel, M. S., Coyle, L., Cross, J., Knight-Lynn, L., Moallem, I., Bartucci, G., &
Goldberger, N. (2012). Exploring the educational involvement of parents of English
learners.
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Villegas Lucas, X. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Suny
Press.
Voight, A., Austin, G., & Hanson, T. (2013). A climate for academic success: How school
climate distinguishes schools that are beating the achievement odds. WestEd.
Wei, M., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Effects of language minority family’s activities in early second
language writing development. Tesol Journal, 3(2), 181–209.

113
Wang, X. (2016). From redistribution to recognition: How school principals perceive social
justice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(3), 323–342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1044539
Wubbels, X., den Brok, P., van Tartwijk, J., & Levy, J. (2012). Interpersonal relationships in
education: An overview of contemporary research. Birkhäuser Boston.
Yaafouri, L. E. (2019, November 25). 6 tips for engaging the families of English language
learners. Edutopia.
Yildiz. (2009). Social Presence in the Web-Based Classroom: Implications for Intercultural
Communication. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(1), 46–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308317654
Yu, S. (2010, August 10). Enrollment by English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) and
grade.
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest//longtermel/ELAS.aspx?cds=00&agglevel=State&year
=2020-21

114
Appendix A: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey
University of Southern University California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

115
Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

116
Appendix B: Online Survey for Principal
1. How many years have you served as a school principal?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
2. How many years at your current school?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
3. Please select the school level you work with.
● elementary
● middle school
● high school
4. What is the percentage of the population of ELL students at your school site?
● 5% to 10%
● 11% to 15%
● 16% to 20%
● 21% to 25%
● 26% to 30%

117
● 31% to 35%
● 35% or more
5. Please select all the programs that are available at your school site for ELL students.
● two-way/dual language
● sheltered content instruction,
● newcomer program
● structured emergent
● ESL
● other
6. What statement best describes the college-level coursework you have taken related to
teaching English Language Learners (ELL)
● I have taken no college coursework related to ELL.
● The needs of ELL ‘s was discussed in coursework, although the coursework
was not specifically on the topic of multilingual education.
● I have taken 1 to 2 college level courses specifically related to teaching ELL
students.
● I have taken 3 or more college level courses specifically related to teaching
ELL students.
Professional Development
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
1. My school site offers yearly training on strategies that help support ELL students.

118
2. My school district offers yearly opportunities to learn instructional strategies that
support ELL students.
3. My school district offers opportunities for principals to learn a variety of
nonacademic strategies that can support ELL students.
4. My school site offers staff development on nonacademic strategies that can support
ELL students.
5. District and school training are raising the capacity of my staff and improving ELL
student outcomes year over year.
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
1. I am highly knowledgeable about how to utilize the supports available for ELL
students in my school district.
2. My school district has effective systems in place that support ELL students' academic
progress.
3. My school site has effective systems in place that support ELL students’ academic
progress.
4. I periodically and systematically collect data from students about their perceptions of
the effectiveness of ELL support services in their academic progress
5. I believe I have site-based authority to change practices in my school that do not
support ELL students.
6. I am well versed in the ELL policies of my district.

119
7. I understand how to work within the existing policy structure to deliver quality ELL
support to students.
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very
impactful).
5. How effective do you think the current system of parent- teacher collaboration is in
impacting and supporting academic achievement for the ELL student
6. How impactful do you think the practice of teacher–teacher collaboration is in
supporting ELL students’ academic achievement
7. How impactful do you think the practice of Principal–Teacher collaboration
is in supporting ELL students’ academic achievement.
8. How impactful do you think school culture is in supporting ELL students’ academic
achievement
9. How impactful do you think using ELL levels criteria to determine student placement
in classes is in supporting ELL students’ academic achievement
Thank you for your feedback. We truly value the information you have provided. Your
responses will contribute to our analysis of systems of support for English Language Learners in
different school districts and future guide districts in implementing supports.

120
Appendix C: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed
University of Southern University California

RECRUITMENT/AGREEMENT OF CONSENT FOR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

121
Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. The data will be kept in a password protected computer and all data will be
destroyed after 3 years. No district or school names will be reported.

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

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

122
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Principal
I want to thank you for taking the time and agreeing to participate in my study. As we
discussed last time we spoke, the interview will not take more than an hour, does this time frame
still work for you?
First, I want to remind you of the purpose of this study and give you a short overview that
is stated in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions about your participation in this
interview. I am a doctoral candidate at USC and am conducting a study about systems that
support English language learners. I am talking to multiple principals to learn and get some
insights about this.
Today, I am wearing the hat of researcher only and therefore the nature of my questions
is not at all evaluative. Please be assured that I will not be making any judgments on your
performance as a principal. My main goal as the researcher today is to understand your
perspective on practices and schoolwide systems that support learning for English language
learners.
The Study Information sheet has all the details that include the confidential nature of this
interview. Since this is all confidential, your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. This information will not be shared with other teachers, the principal, or the
district. All the information obtained for this interview and all the answers provided will be
entered into a report. I will be adding and sharing some of what you say in direct quotes, but
your name will not be cited. To keep the confidential nature as I quote responses, explain results,
and keep your confidentiality I will use a pseudonym. Upon completion, I will be able to provide
you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.

123
The Study Information sheet also informs you that the data will be kept in a password
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
Before we get started, what questions, if any, do you have about the study?
To ensure I capture all the information and details about what you share with me, may I
record this zoom session? The purpose of the recording is to best capture your perspectives and it
will not be shared with anyone outside the research team. May I have your permission to record
our conversation?
Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. How long have you been a principal?
• How long have you been at your current site?
• Have you always served a school with an ELL population?
• Why do you choose to work in a school that teaches ELL students?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the resources available in your district and
school site to support your school, teachers, and parents of Ell student.
2. Describe the resources made available to the school sites that support ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• How do these resources support your teachers?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
3. Describe the process for allocating the resources for the ELL students. Probing
questions:
• Is there an annual assessment of student needs that determines resource

124
decisions?
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
4. Tell me about the resources designated to support the parents of ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• How do these resources support your parents?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the training and support available for
administrators, teachers, and parents of ELL students.
5. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in supporting ELL students at your
school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What made this a success?
• What did you do?
• What did others do?
6. Tell me about a time when you did not feel successful in supporting ELL students at
your school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What led to the lack of success?
7. Describe the training and support available at your school to prepare teachers of ELL
students? How do you measure the effectiveness of the training and support? Probing
questions?

125
• Do you see improved student outcomes?
• How are teachers aware of the support available?
• Who is involved in offering the training?
• Who is involved in offering the support?
• How is implementation monitored?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
• Are you seeing teacher growth as a result?
• Do you see improved student outcomes?
8. Describe the training and support that you as the principal has received in the past
few years that specifically addressed the needs of ELL students. What is mandated
and what are additional resources? Probing questions:
• How have you implemented them?
• What are the outcomes?
• Is there more training and support that you need?
• What data is used to measure implementation
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
9. Describe the training and support available at your school site for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?

126
10. Describe the training and support available at your school district for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
Now we are going to switch gears and talk about the policies that guide the support for
ELL students.
11. Tell me about the district level policies that guide the levels of support for your ELL
students in your district. Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
12. Tell me about the district level policies that help guide the parents of ELL students
Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
13. Tell me about the district level policies that help guide the teachers of ELL students.
Probing questions:

127
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all are you held accountable for implementing the policy?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the policy?
14. In your opinion, are there school wide practices that need to be eliminated that hinder
the achievement of ELL students?
15. Some educators say that the ELL policies are sufficiently designed to support ELL
students, but implementation falls short of meeting student needs. How would you
respond to that statement?
16. If district leadership were to ask for your input in developing a strategic plan for
developing a school wide system of support for ELL students, what questions might
you have and what elements would you include in that plan?
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the resources,
training and policies that support ELL students today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for taking this time to share your thoughts with me today! I really
appreciate not only your time and willingness to share, but also your service in what you do.
Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I find myself with a follow-up
question, can I contact you, and if so, is email, ok? Again, thank you for participating in my
study. As a thank you, please accept this small token of my appreciation $5 coffee gift card.

128
Appendix E: Online Survey for Teacher
1. How many years have you served as a K–12 Teacher?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
2. How many years at your current school?
● 1–4
● 5–10
● 11–15
● 16–20
● 21 or more
3. Please select the school level you work with.
● elementary
● middle school
● high school
4. What is the percent of the population of ELL students at your school site?
● 5% to 10%
● 11% to 15%
● 16% to 20%
● 21% to 25%
● 26% to 30%

129
● 31% to 35%
● 35% or more
5. Please select all the programs that are available at your school site for ELL students.
● ESL classes
● two-way/dual language
● sheltered content instruction,
● newcomer program
● structured emergent
● bilingual education
● other
6. What statement best describes the college-level coursework you have taken related to
teaching English Language Learners (ELL)
● I have taken no college coursework related to ELL
● The needs of ELL ‘s was discussed in coursework, although the coursework
was not specifically on the topic of multilingual education.
● I have taken one to two college level courses specifically related to teaching
ELL students.
● I have taken three or more college level courses specifically related to
teaching ELL students.
Professional Development
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).

130
1. My school site offers yearly training on strategies that help support ELL students.
2. My school district offers yearly opportunities to learn instructional strategies that
support ELL students.
3. My school district offers opportunities for administrators to learn a variety of
nonacademic strategies that can support ELL students.
4. My school site offers staff development on nonacademic strategies that can support
ELL students.
5. District and school trainings are raising the capacity of my department and improving
ELL student outcomes year over year.
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree).
1. I am highly knowledgeable about how to utilize the supports available in my school
district to support my ELL students
2. My school district has effective systems in place that support ELL students' academic
progress.
3. My school site has effective systems in place that support ELL students’ academic
progress.
4. I periodically and systematically collect data from students about their perceptions of
the effectiveness of ELL support services in their academic progress.
5. I believe I have classroom-based authority to change practices in my school that do
not support ELL students.

131
6. I am well versed in the ELL policies of my district.
7. I understand how to work within the existing policy structure to deliver quality ELL
support to students.
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (least impactful) to 5 (very
impactful).
1. How effective do you think the current system of parent- teacher collaboration is in
impacting and supporting academic achievement for the ELL student
2. How effective is the practice of teacher–teacher collaboration in supporting ELL
students’ academic achievement
3. How effective is the practice of principal–Teacher collaboration in supporting ELL
students’ academic achievement
4. How effective is the school culture in supporting ELL students’ academic
achievement
5. How effective is the use of ELL levels criteria to determine correct student placement
in classes to support their academic achievement?
6. How effective are teachers at discussing college and career readiness with ELL
students in support of their academic achievement
Thank you for your feedback. We truly value the information you have provided. Your
responses will contribute to our analysis of systems of support for English Language Learners in
different school districts and future guide districts in implementing supports.

132
Appendix F: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey
University of Southern University California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

134
Appendix G: Interview Protocol for Teacher
I want to thank you for taking the time and agreeing to participate in my study. My name
is Jarrod Bordi and as we discussed last time we spoke, the interview will not take more than an
hour, does this time frame still work for you?
First, I want to remind you of the purpose of this study and give you a short overview that
is stated in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions about your participation in this
interview. I am a doctoral candidate at USC and am conducting a study about systems that
support English language learners. I am talking to multiple teachers to learn and get some
insights about this topic.
Today, I am wearing the hat of researcher only and therefore the nature of my questions
is not at all evaluative. Please be assured that I will not be making any judgments on your
performance as a teacher. My main goal as the researcher today is to understand your perspective
on practices and schoolwide systems that support learning for English language learners.
The Study Information Sheet has all the details that include the confidential nature of this
interview. Since this is all confidential, your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. This information will not be shared with other teachers, the principal, or the
district. All the information obtained for this interview and all the answers provided will be
entered into a report. I will be adding and sharing some of what you say in direct quotes, but
your name will not be cited. To keep the confidential nature as I quote responses, explain results,
and keep your confidentiality, I will use a pseudonym. Upon completion, I will be able to
provide you with a copy of my final paper, if you are interested.
The Study Information Sheet also informs you that the data will be kept in a password
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.

135
Before we get started, what questions, if any, do you have about the study?
To ensure I capture all the information and details about what you share with me, I have brought
a recorder. The purpose of the recording is to best capture your perspectives and it will not be
shared with anyone outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our
conversation?
Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking you some background questions.
1. How long have you been a teacher?
• How long have you been at your current site?
• Have you always served a school with an ELL population?
• Why do you choose to work in a school with a significant ELL population?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the resources available in your district and
school site to support your school, teachers and parents of ELL students.
2. Describe the resources made available to your school that support ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• How do these resources support your classroom and students?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
3. Describe the process for allocating the resources for the ELL students. Probing
questions:
• Is there an annual assessment of student needs that determines resource
decisions?
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?

136
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
4. Tell me about the resources designated to support the parents of ELL students.
Probing questions:
• Are resource decisions site based or district based?
• Do parents have an opportunity to tell you what resources their child needs?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the resources?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the training and support available for
principals, teachers, and parents of ELL students.
5. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in supporting ELL students at your
school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What made this a success?
• What did you do?
• What did others do?
6. Tell me about a time when you did not feel successful in supporting ELL students at
your school site. Probing questions:
• What happened?
• What led to the lack of success?
• Did you feel empowered to make a change or seek support?
7. Describe the training and support available at your school to prepare teachers of ELL
students? How do you measure the effectiveness of the training and support you
received? Probing questions:
• Do you see improved student outcomes?

137
• If not, why are student outcomes not at the level you would like and expect
them to be?
• How are teachers aware of the support available?
• Who is involved in offering the training?
• Who is involved in offering the support?
• How is implementation monitored?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
• Are you seeing teacher growth as a result?
8. Describe the training and support that you have received in the past few years that
specifically addressed the needs of ELL students based on data reviews. What is
mandated from the district and what are additional resources? Probing questions:
• How have you implemented them?
• What are the outcomes?
• Is there more training and support that you need? If so, in what areas?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
9. Describe the training and support available at your school site for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?

138
10. Describe the training and support available at your school district for parents of ELL
students. How is the effectiveness of the training and support measured? Probing
questions:
• How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
• Who is involved in offering the support and or training?
• What data is used to measure implementation?
• What data is used to measure effectiveness?
Now we are going to switch gears and talk about the policies that guide the support for
ELL students.
11. Tell me about the school policies that guide the support for your ELL students at your
school. Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
• “Have there been any changes to ELL related policies in the past two years?”
12. Tell me about the school policies that help support parents of ELL students? Probing
questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all, are you held accountable for implementing them?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness?
13. Tell me about the school policies that help guide the teachers of ELL students.

139
Probing questions:
• What are the goals of the policy?
• What if any, are the limitations of the policy?
• How if at all are you held accountable for implementing the policy?
• What data is used to monitor the effectiveness of the policy?
14. In your opinion, are there school wide practices that need to be eliminated that hinder
the achievement of ELL students?
15. Some educators say that the ELL policies are sufficiently designed to support ELL
students, but implementation falls short of meeting student needs. How would you
respond to that statement?
16. If district administration were to ask for your input in developing a strategic plan for
developing or improving a school wide system of support for ELL students, what
questions might you have and what elements would you include in that plan?
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the resources,
training and policies that support ELL students today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for taking this time to share your thoughts with me today! I really
appreciate not only your time and willingness to share, but also your service in what you do.
Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I find myself with a follow-up
question, can I contact you, and if so, is email, ok? Again, thank you for participating in my
study. As a thank you, please accept this $5 Starbucks gift card as a small token of my
appreciation.

140
Appendix H: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent for Online Survey
University of Southern University California

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

Consent Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

141

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

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

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

142
Appendix I: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para la encuesta en línea
Universidad de la Universidad del Sur de California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

143

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

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

Atención de emergencia y tratamiento de lesiones: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

144
Appendix J: Online Survey for Parents/Encuesta en línea para los padres
Please select the option that best describes your answer. / Seleccione la opción que mejor
describa su respuesta.
● How many students do you have attending K–12 schools in this district? ¿Cuántos
estudiantes tiene usted asistiendo a las escuelas K–12 en este distrito?
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7 or more
● Please select all the grade levels your child/children are enrolled in during this school
year? Seleccione todos los niveles de grado(s) en los que su hijo/a(s) está(n)
matriculado(s) durante este año escolar.
• TK
• K
• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th
• 5th
• 6th

145
• 7th
• 8th
• 9th
• 10th
• 11th
• 12th
● Please select the number of years your child/children have been part of the current
school district. / Seleccione el número de años que su hijo/a(s) ha(n) sido parte de este
distrito escolar.
• 1–2
• 3–4
• 5–6
• 7–8
• 9–10
• 11–12
• 12 or more
● Please select all of the programs that are available at your school site for ELL
students. / Seleccione todos los programas que están disponibles en su escuela para
aprendices del idioma inglés.
• ELD classes / Clases de desarollo de inglés (ELD)
• Two-way/dual language Bidireccional /Lenguaje dual
• Sheltered content instruction / Instrucción de contenido protegido
• Newcomer program / Programa para recién llegados

146
• Structured emergent / Emergente estructurada
• Bilingual education / Educación bilingue
• Other / Otro
• I am not sure / No estoy seguro
Parent Training/ Entrenamiento de padres
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). / Por favor, lea cada una de las siguientes declaraciones. Elija la respuesta que
mejor describa su opinión sobre la declaración utilizando una escala Likert de 4 puntos de 1
(totalmente en desacuerdo) a 4 (totalmente de acuerdo).
● My school site offers training for parents of ELL students. / El sitio de mi escuela
ofrece capacitación para padres de estudiantes del idioma inglés
● My school district offers me opportunities to learn ways I can help support my ELL
students' academic progress. / Mi distrito escolar me ofrece oportunidades para
aprender formas en que puedo ayudar a apoyar el progreso académico de mis
estudiantes del idioma inglés
● My school district offers a variety of workshops for parents to learn different
strategies that can support ELL students. / Mi distrito escolar ofrece una variedad de
talleres para que los padres aprendan diferentes estrategias que pueden ayudar a los
estudiantes del idioma inglés
● My school site does not offer training for parents related to ELL services. / El sitio de
mi escuela no ofrece capacitación para padres relacionada con los servicios para
estudiantes del idioma inglés.

147
● District and school training are raising my capacity as a parent to support my
child/children's academic outcomes year after year. / Las capacitaciones del distrito y
de la escuela están aumentando mi capacidad como padre para apoyar los resultados
académicos de mi hijo(s) año tras año.
Supports for ELL: Awareness and Perceptions / Apoyos para ELL: Conciencia y
percepciones
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). / Por favor, lea cada una de las siguientes declaraciones. Elija la respuesta que
mejor describa su opinión sobre la declaración utilizando una escala Likert de 4 puntos de 1
(totalmente en desacuerdo) a 4 (totalmente de acuerdo).
1. I know how to seek/obtain the support available for my children in my school district.
Sé cómo buscar/obtener el apoyo disponible para mis hijos en mi distrito escolar.
2. I know how to seek/obtain the supports available for my children at their current
school. / Sé cómo buscar/obtener los apoyos disponibles para mis hijos en su escuela
actual.
3. My school district has effective systems in place that support ELL students' academic
progress. / Mi distrito escolar cuenta con sistemas efectivos que apoyan el progreso
académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés.
4. My school site has effective systems in place that support ELL students’ academic
progress. / Mi escuela cuenta con sistemas efectivos que apoyan el progreso
académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés.

148
5. I have the opportunity to give input to change practices in my school that do not
support my children. / Tengo la oportunidad de dar mi opinión para cambiar las
prácticas en mi escuela que no apoyan a mis hijos.
6. I believe my input is heard and valued by my school administrator. / Creo que mi
opinión es escuchada y valorada por el administrador de mi escuela.
7. I understand the existing policy structure that helps deliver quality ELL support to
students. / Entiendo la estructura de política existente que ayuda a brindar apoyo de
calidad a los estudiantes del idioma inglés
8. My child's school values the multiple languages students bring to learning. / La
escuela de mi hijo valora los múltiples idiomas que los estudiantes aportan al
aprendizaje.
Please read each of the following statements. Choose the response that best describes
your opinion on the statement using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (least effective to 4 (very
effective. / Por favor, lea cada una de las siguientes declaraciones. Elija la respuesta que mejor
describa su opinión sobre la declaración utilizando una escala Likert de 4 puntos de 1 (totalmente
en desacuerdo) a 4 (totalmente de acuerdo).
1. How effective do you think the current system of parent- teacher collaboration is in
impacting and supporting academic achievement for ELL student? / En una escala de
1 a 5 donde 1 es menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan efectivo cree que es el
sistema actual de colaboración entre padres y maestros’ para impactar y apoyar el
rendimiento académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés?
2. How impactful do you think the practice of parent -school collaboration is in
supporting ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es

149
menos impactante y 5 es muy impactante. ¿Qué impacto cree que tiene la práctica de
la colaboración entre padres y escuela en apoyar el rendimiento académico de los
estudiantes del idioma inglés?
3. How effective do you think the practice of parent -principal collaboration is in
supporting ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es
menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan efectiva cree usted que es la práctica de
la colaboración entre padres y director en apoyar el rendimiento académico de los
estudiantes del idioma inglés?
4. How impactful do you think the practice of parent -district collaboration is in
supporting ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es
menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan impactante cree que es la práctica de la
colaboración entre padres y distritos en apoyar el rendimiento académico de los
estudiantes del idioma inglés?
5. How impactful do you think school culture is in supporting ELL students’ academic
achievement? / En una escala de 1 a 5 donde 1 es menos efectivo y 5 es muy
efectivo.¿Qué impacto cree que tiene la cultura escolar en el apoyo al rendimiento
académico de los estudiantes del idioma inglés?
6. How effective do you think using ELL levels to determine student placement for
classes is in supporting ELL students’ academic achievement? / En una escala de 1 a
5 donde 1 es menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Qué tan efectivo cree que es usar
los niveles de estudiantes del idioma inglés para determinar la colocación de los
estudiantes en las clases para apoyar el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes del
idioma inglés?

150
7. Do you believe teachers discussing college and career readiness with ELL students
has a positive impact on ELL students’ academic achievement / En una escala de 1 a
5 donde 1 es menos efectivo y 5 es muy efectivo. ¿Cree que los maestros’ que
informan acerca de la preparación universitaria y profesional a los estudiantes del
idioma inglés tiene un impacto positivo en el rendimiento académico?
Thank you for your feedback. We truly value the information you have provided. Your
responses will contribute to our analysis of systems of support for English Language Learners in
different school districts and guide future districts in implementing supports.
Gracias por tus comentarios. Realmente valoramos la información que ha
proporcionado. Sus respuestas contribuirán a nuestro análisis de sistemas de apoyo para
estudiantes del idioma inglés en diferentes distritos escolares y guiarán a futuros distritos en la
implementación de apoyos.

151
Appendix K: Recruitment and Agreement of Consent to be Interviewed
University of Southern University California

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

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

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

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

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

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

152
Confidentiality: Your name will not be included in any written report. Only aggregate data will
be included. The data will be kept in a password protected computer and all data will be
destroyed after 3 years. No district or school names will be reported.

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

Emergency Care and Treatment of Injury: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

153
Appendix L: Reclutamiento y acuerdo de consentimiento para ser entrevistado
Universidad de la Universidad del Sur de California
RECLUTAMIENTO Y ACUERDO DE CONSENTIMIENTO PARA PARTICIPANTES EN
INVESTIGACIÓN
Un estudio de caso de cómo los administradores, maestros y padres contribuyen a un
sistema integral de calidad de K–12 de apoyo para el éxito académico de los estudiantes
ELL.
Investigadores: Jarrod Bordi, Michelle Correa, Gabriela Gálvez-Reyna

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

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

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

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

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

154
Confidencialidad: Su nombre no se incluirá en ningún informe escrito. Solo se incluirán datos
agregados. Los datos se mantendrán en una computadora protegida con contraseña y todos los
datos serán destruidos después de 3 años. No se informarán los nombres de distritos o escuelas.

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

Atención de emergencia y tratamiento de lesiones: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

155
Appendix M: Parent Interview Protocol
Good afternoon, my name is Michelle Correa, and I am a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California. I want to thank you for taking the time and agreeing to
participate in my study. As we discussed last time we spoke, the interview will not take more
than an hour, does this time frame still work for you?
First, I want to remind you of the purpose of this study and give you a short overview that
is stated in the Study Information Sheet and answer any questions about your participation in this
interview. Again, I am a doctoral candidate at USC and am conducting a study about systems
that support English language learners. I am talking to multiple parents to learn and get some
insights about this topic.
Today, I am wearing the hat of researcher only and therefore the nature of my questions
is not at all evaluative. Please be assured that I will not be making any judgments on your
performance as a parent. My main goal as the researcher today is to understand your perspective
on practices and schoolwide systems that support learning for English language learners.
The study information sheet has all the details that include the confidential nature of this
interview. Since this is all confidential, your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. This information will not be shared with other teachers, the principal, or the
district. All the information obtained for this interview and all the answers provided will be
entered into a report. I will be adding and sharing some of what you say in direct quotes but your
name will not be cited. To keep the confidential nature as I quote responses and explain results,I
will use a pseudonym. Upon completion, I will be able to provide you with a copy of my final
paper, if you are interested.

156
The Study Information Sheet also informs you that the data will be kept in a password
protected computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years. Before we get started, what
questions, if any, do you have about the study?
To ensure I capture all the information and details about what you share with me, I have
brought a recorder. The purpose of the recording is to best capture your perspectives and it will
not be shared with anyone outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our
conversation?
Setting the Stage
I am going to start with asking you some background questions about yourself:
1. How long have you had children enrolled in this district?
a. How many children do you have in this district?
b. How long has your child attended their current school?
c. Can you tell me the highest level of education you have completed?
d. What language(s) are spoken at home?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the resources available in your district and
school site to support your school, teachers, and parents of ELL students
2. Describe the resources that are available to your school that support ELL students.
a. Probing Questions:
i. How do these resources support your child?
ii. Has any data been shared to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
resources?
3. Describe how decisions are made about ELL resources.
a. Probing Questions:

157
i. Have you ever been asked to complete a survey about the effectiveness
of the resources and support that your child is receiving?
ii. Are resource decisions made by the school or district?
4. Can you describe the collaboration between you, your child's teacher(s) and the school
Principal to ensure your child's success?
a. Probing Questions:
i. What if any of these resources were provided?
ii. How did these resources support you and your child?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the training and support available for
parents of students who receive ELL services.
5. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in supporting your child at home with
their academic progress.
a. Probing Questions
i. What was the situation?
ii. What made this a success?
iii. What did you do?
iv. What did others do?
6. Tell me about a time when you did not feel successful in supporting your child with
their academic progress.
a. Probing Questions
i. What happened?
ii. What led to the lack of success?
iii. Did you seek support from the school? If so, what type of support?

158
iv. How was your request received?
7. Describe the support that you have received from your child’s teacher to promote
academic progress.
a. Probing Questions?
i. How did the teacher offer you or your child support?
ii. Did you see progress in your child’s academic work?
iii. How often were such supports provided?
iv. What additional resources or supports, if any, would you have wanted
from your child’s teacher to better support your child’s success in
school?
8. Describe the training and support that you have received in the past few years that
specifically address supporting the needs of ELL students.
a. Probing Questions
i. How are parents made aware of the support and training available?
ii. Who was involved in offering the support or training?
iii. What topics or strategies were provided?
iv. What other parents’ training/workshops have been offered for parents
of ELLs?
v. How, if at all, were these workshops beneficial in providing
information about content knowledge around English Language
Learner supports?
vi. What is your opinion regarding the current ELL program, parent
resources, parent training, etc. at this school site?

159
vii. Are there any additional training, resources, or information, if any, you
would like to be offered?
Now we are going to switch gears and talk about the policies that guide the support for
ELL students.
9. Share what you know about the policies related to English Language Learners.
a. Probing Questions:
i. What are the goals of the policy?
ii. Who is held accountable for implementing such policies?
iii. How do you know if such policies are being implemented?
iv. Are there limitations of the policy?
10. If you were asked to develop a plan for a school wide system of support for ELL
students, what questions might you have and what would you include in that plan?
a. Probing Questions:
i. What additional information about policies would you like to obtain?
ii. Are there changes you feel that are needed by the school or staff to
better support the academic achievement of your child?
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the resources,
training and policies that support ELL students today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for taking this time to share your thoughts with me today! I really
appreciate and value parent input. Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I
find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, is email, ok? Again, thank

160
you for participating in my study. As a thank you, please accept this small token of my
appreciation for a $5 coffee gift card.

161
Appendix N: Protocolo de entrevista con los padres
Buenas tardes mi nombre es Michelle Correa y soy estudiante de doctorado en la
Universidad del Sur de California. Quiero agradecerle por tomarse el tiempo y aceptar participar
en mi estudio. Como discutimos la última vez que hablamos, la entrevista no tomará más de una
hora, ¿este marco de tiempo todavía funciona para usted?
En primer lugar, quiero recordarle el propósito de este estudio y darle una breve
descripción general que se indica en la Hoja de información del estudio, y responder cualquier
pregunta sobre su participación en esta entrevista. Una vez más, soy candidato a doctorado en la
USC y estoy realizando un estudio sobre los sistemas que apoyan a los estudiantes del idioma
inglés. Estoy hablando con varios padres para aprender y obtener algunas ideas sobre este tema.
Hoy, solo uso el sombrero de investigador y, por lo tanto, la naturaleza de mis preguntas
no es en absoluto evaluativa. Tenga la seguridad de que no haré ningún juicio sobre su
desempeño como padre. Mi objetivo principal como investigador hoy es comprender su
perspectiva sobre las prácticas y los sistemas escolares que apoyan el aprendizaje de los
estudiantes del idioma inglés.
La hoja de información del estudio tiene todos los detalles que incluyen el carácter
confidencial de esta entrevista. Dado que todo esto es confidencial, su nombre no se compartirá
con nadie fuera del equipo de investigación. Esta información no se compartirá con otros
maestros, el director o el distrito. Toda la información obtenida para esta entrevista y todas las
respuestas proporcionadas se ingresarán en un informe. Agregaré y compartiré algo de lo que
dice entre comillas directas, pero su nombre no será citado. Para mantener la confidencialidad al
citar las respuestas y explicar los resultados, utilizaré un seudónimo. Al finalizar, podré
proporcionarle una copia de mi trabajo final, si está interesado.

162
La Hoja de información del estudio también le informa que los datos se guardarán en una
computadora protegida con contraseña y todos los datos serán destruidos después de 3 años.
Antes de comenzar, ¿qué preguntas, si las hay, tiene sobre el estudio?
Para asegurarme de capturar toda la información y detalles sobre lo que compartes
conmigo, he traído una grabadora. El propósito de la grabación es capturar mejor sus
perspectivas y no se compartirá con nadie fuera del equipo de investigación. ¿Puedo tener su
permiso para grabar nuestra conversación?
Preparando el escenario
Voy a comenzar haciéndole algunas preguntas de fondo sobre usted.
1. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha tenido niños matriculados en este distrito?
a. ¿Cuántos niños tiene en este distrito?
b. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha asistido su hijo a su escuela actual?
c. ¿Puede decirme el nivel más alto de educación que ha completado?
d. ¿Qué idioma(s) se habla(n) en casa?
Ahora me gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre los recursos disponibles en su distrito
y sitio escolar para apoyar a su escuela, maestros y padres de estudiantes ELL.
2. Describa los recursos disponibles en su escuela que apoyan a los estudiantes ELL.
e. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Cómo apoyan estos recursos a su hijo?
ii. ¿Se ha compartido algún dato para demostrar la eficacia de los
recursos?
3. 3. Describir cómo se toman las decisiones sobre los recursos de ELL.
a. Preguntas de sondeo:

163
i. ¿Alguna vez le han pedido que complete una encuesta sobre la eficacia
de los recursos y el apoyo que recibe su hijo?
ii. ¿Las decisiones de recursos son tomadas por la escuela o el distrito?
4. ¿Puede describir la colaboración entre usted, los maestros de su hijo y el director de la
escuela para asegurar el éxito de su hijo?
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Qué pasaría si se proporciona alguno de estos recursos?
ii. ¿Cómo estos recursos los apoyaron a usted y a su hijo?
Ahora me gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre la capacitación y el apoyo disponible
para los padres de estudiantes que reciben servicios de ELL.
5. Hábleme de un momento en que se sintió exitoso al apoyar a su hijo en casa con su
progreso académico.
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Cuál era la situación?
ii. ¿Qué hizo que esto fuera un éxito?
iii. ¿Qué hiciste?
iv. ¿Qué hicieron los demás?
6. Hábleme de un momento en el que no se sintió exitoso al apoyar a su hijo con su
progreso académico.
a. Preguntas de sondeo
i. ¿Qué sucedió?
ii. ¿Qué llevó a la falta de éxito?
iii. ¿Buscó apoyo en la escuela? Si es así, ¿qué tipo de apoyo?

164
iv. ¿Cómo fue recibida su solicitud?
7. Describa el apoyo que ha recibido del maestro de su hijo para promover el progreso
académico.
a. ¿Preguntas de sondeo?
i. ¿Cómo le ofreció el maestro a usted oa su hijo la manutención?
ii. ¿Vio progreso en el trabajo académico de su hijo?
iii. ¿Con qué frecuencia se proporcionaron dichos apoyos?
iv. ¿Qué recursos o apoyos adicionales, si los hubiere, hubiera querido del
maestro de su hijo para apoyar mejor el éxito de su hijo en la escuela?
8. Describa la capacitación y el apoyo que ha recibido en los últimos años que abordan
específicamente el apoyo a las necesidades de los estudiantes ELL.
a. Preguntas de sondeo
i. ¿Cómo se les informa a los padres sobre el apoyo y la capacitación
disponibles?
ii. ¿Quién estuvo involucrado en ofrecer el apoyo o la capacitación?
iii. ¿Qué temas o estrategias se proporcionaron?
iv. ¿Qué otras capacitaciones/talleres para padres se han ofrecido para
padres de ELL?
v. ¿De qué manera, en todo caso, fueron estos talleres beneficiosos para
proporcionar información sobre el conocimiento del contenido en
torno a los apoyos para estudiantes del idioma inglés?
vi. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre el programa ELL actual, los recursos para
padres, la capacitación para padres, etc. en esta escuela?

165
vii. ¿Hay alguna capacitación, recursos o información adicionales, si los
hubiere, que le gustaría que se le ofreciera?
Ahora vamos a cambiar de marcha y hablar sobre las políticas que guían el apoyo a los
estudiantes ELL.
9. Comparta lo que sabe sobre las políticas relacionadas con los estudiantes del idioma
inglés.
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Cuáles son los objetivos de la política?
ii. ¿Quién es responsable de implementar tales políticas?
iii. ¿Cómo saber si tales políticas se están implementando?
iv. ¿Hay limitaciones de la póliza?
10. Si le pidieran que desarrollara un plan para un sistema de apoyo para estudiantes ELL
en toda la escuela, ¿qué preguntas podría tener y qué incluiría en ese plan?
a. Preguntas de sondeo:
i. ¿Qué información adicional sobre las pólizas le gustaría obtener?
ii. ¿Hay cambios que cree que la escuela o el personal necesitan para
apoyar mejor el rendimiento académico de su hijo?
Pregunta de cierre
¿Qué otro punto de vista le gustaría compartir sobre nuestra conversación sobre los
recursos, la capacitación y las políticas que apoyan a los estudiantes ELL en la actualidad que yo
no haya cubierto, si corresponde?

166
Comentarios de cierre
¡Muchas gracias por tomarse este tiempo para compartir sus pensamientos conmigo hoy!
Realmente aprecio y valoro la opinión de los padres. Todo lo que has compartido es útil para mi
estudio. Si me encuentro con una pregunta de seguimiento, ¿puedo comunicarme con usted y, de
ser así, está bien el correo electrónico? Una vez más, gracias por participar en mi estudio. Como
agradecimiento, acepte esta pequeña muestra de mi agradecimiento por una tarjeta de regalo de
café de $5.

Abstract (if available)

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

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 and how teachers can intervene to improve student learning

PDF

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

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university

PDF

Latinx principal belonging and mattering

PDF

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

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

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

In the shadows: the perceived experiences of women principals in secondary schools

PDF

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

PDF

The preparation, recruitment, and retention of California K–12 principals

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a southern California K-12 school district

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K-12 school district

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Bordi, Jarrod Ronald (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/15/2023

Defense Date 04/07/2023

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

Tag case study,ELL student academic success,K–12 system of support,OAI-PMH Harvest,Parents,principals,Teachers

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kishimoto, Christina (committee chair)

Creator Email bordi@usc.edu,jbordi@comcast.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113127151

Unique identifier UC113127151

Identifier etd-BordiJarro-11852.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-BordiJarro-11852

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Bordi, Jarrod Ronald

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230516-usctheses-batch-1045 (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