University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT:
A GAP ANALYSIS INQUIRY PROJECT ON THE DISTRICT REFORM
EFFORTS AND ITS IMPACT IN NARROWING THE HISPANIC EL
ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

Lesette Wendy Molina-Solis

_______________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Lesette Wendy Molina-Solis
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my soul mate, my best friend, my love:
Robert and my two adorable little boys, Julian and Adrian. My husband’s patience,
understanding and support guided me towards completion of this wonderful yet
trying journey of learning and transformation. I will forever treasure you my love.
He and my son Julian created Tuesday Meatloaf Night at Boston Market. The park,
McDonald’s play area and Toy’s R Us became their second home on Tuesday nights
while I attended class. Thank you my little Julian for being so understanding while
mommy went to class. To my little guy, Adrian, thank you for accompanying me to
class for nine months and giving me the final motivation to complete this life-long
dream. I love you all so very much!
I also dedicate this dissertation to my parents Raul and Irma. They are the
reason why I initially pursued this goal. Thank you both for your guidance in life,
for being such nurturing parents and always encouraging me in my endeavors. Your
teachings, but most of all your love has made me the person I am today. I love you
both very much! Last of all, I dedicate this dissertation to my little sister, Denise. I
have always tried to be a positive role model for you: remember, follow your dreams
and with hard work and dedication, “You can do it!” Thank you Nerdita, for helping
me de-stress from my work by listening to me while sipping over some much needed
coffee. I love you forever and always!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the people who have supported,
motivated and encouraged me throughout the past three years. First and foremost, I
acknowledge my family for being so understanding and patient while I pursued this
goal. Secondly, I acknowledge my friends and classmates for sharing my joys, but
most of all helping me gracefully overcome the challenges encountered. We made it
dissertation brother and sister!! Specifically, I acknowledge Jose and Betsy for being
wonderful mentors, colleagues, but above all, friends. Fight On my fellow Trojans!
I also wish to acknowledge a group of the most inspiring professionals: my
professors at USC. I entered this program three years ago becoming disillusioned
with my profession. Dr. Laurie Love re-enlightened my enthusiasm for education,
reminding me once again of my calling and reason for pursuing education. Dr.
Pedro Garcia’s knowledge and expertise helped me redefine my career aspirations
and for that, I will forever be grateful. However, I cannot have completed this
mission without the direction, feedback, and abundant knowledge from my chairs,
Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. David Marsh. I thank them most of all for exposing me to
such wonderful opportunities as presenting to a Superintendent of schools and Board
of Education, for making me perfect my work and pushing me beyond my beliefs. It
is because of their passionate wealth of knowledge and motivational remarks that I
successfully completed this work.
I graciously thank the wonderful educational staff at Rowland Unified School
District for generously providing their time to meet with my colleagues and me. The
iv
Superintendent, her executive board, Board of Education, and staff of educational
professionals all demonstrated extreme professionalism and dedication to their
students. Without their enlightenment, this dissertation could not have been
completed. Last of all, I thank the children from Rowland Unified School District.
They are the reason for our continued aspirations to become better educators. Thank
You!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. …ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………… …iii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………. …vi
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………… …1
Chapter 2: Chapter 2: Part A: Literature Review………………………….. …19
Chapter 2: Part B: Methodology……………………………….. …43
Chapter 2: Part C: Common Findings…………………………..…59
Chapter 3: Chapter 3: Part A: Expanded Literature Review:……………… …75
A Focus on Solutions
Chapter 3: Part B: Solutions Summary……………………….. …100
Glossary………………………………………………………………………..…109
References…………………………………………………………………….. …126
Appendices
Appendix A: Work Done in Rowland USD Outlined by Semester….…135
Appendix B: District Assistance Project: Scanning Interview……... …136
Appendix C: One Month Interview Questions……………………… …138
Appendix D: Round Two Interview Questions……………………... …139
Appendix E: Triangulation………………………………………….. …140
Appendix F: Executive Summary: Examining the Effectiveness….. …141
of Reform Implementation through Gap Analysis:
Hispanic EL Academic Achievement Gap
Appendix G: Proposed Solution PowerPoint Presentation…………... …162
Appendix H: Hispanic English Language Learner Table……………. …180
vi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this case study was to conduct a gap analysis for the
pervasive underperformance of Hispanic English Learner (EL) students in Rowland
Unified School District. This qualitative inquiry project looked at educational
practices from elementary through middle school throughout the district and how
these aligned to district initiatives for narrowing the gap. Through the use of
interviews, observations and surveys, the authors gathered information to develop
perceived root causes and then formulate solutions to present to the Superintendent
and her executive board.
The process of change, district support and cultural proficiency all
contributed to the existing Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified.
Despite the district’s efforts in addressing the students’ needs via district wide
initiatives supported from a grant through the Ball Foundation, high beliefs in
collaboration and de-centralized nature of the district, Hispanic EL student needs
were not adequately being addressed. In actuality, the fairly recent programs
identified to address EL needs had not been fully implemented by all district
stakeholders. Although district level personnel demonstrated much support and
commitment to addressing EL student needs, the decentralized nature of the district
hampered the implementation with fidelity of EL classroom strategies. Lastly, a
sufficient percentage of staff members had perceived assumptions about their
students’ academic progress. The staff overwhelming demonstrated limited cultural
proficiency about their students’ home life, background and knowledge base to
vii
adequately aid their students in gaining access to the classroom curriculum. In
addition to sustaining and ensuring implementation of research based effective
teaching practices for ELs, staff members need to increase their understanding of
their students’ cultural background through guidance and increased accountability
from the district.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In order for the U.S. to remain within the forefront of global economic trade,
its citizens must partake in ensuring the young are effectively prepared for effective
global competition. Christensen, (2008) Hochschild and Scovronick, (2004) Garcia,
(2002) and Maume, (1999) have stated that educational systems must increase its
capacity to prepare students with sufficient academic, social and personal skills to
meet the increasing demands established by global markets. Although schools have
been able to sustain positive and consistent outcomes in terms of producing a
workforce capable of maintaining the U.S. as a respectable leader within the global
market economy, this has not been the reality for all of the students served in
American schools (Marzano, 2004). A group of students who have persistently been
excluded from such measurable success in school have generally been language
minority and cultural minority students educationally known as English Learners
(ELs). There is not widespread agreement about the labels used to describe English
Learners, and in fact there is controversy in the literature on this point. In this
document, we use the terms English Learner and Long Term English Learners,
recognizing that there is a great heterogeneity within the group. A vast majority of
the underperforming ELs are of Hispanic decent. Thus, the purpose of this inquiry
project was to determine the motivational, knowledge and organizational factors
contributing to the Hispanic EL achievement gap in the Rowland Unified School
District (RUSD). Particularly, this inquiry project addressed the question: Despite
2
implemented district-wide reform efforts, what are the root causes of the persistent
achievement gap amongst Hispanic EL students in RUSD?
In the United States, school districts have been struggling with the challenge
of teaching Hispanic ELs for decades. This is especially true for large urban school
districts with large percentages of EL students. Further compounding the challenge
is the accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which have
raised the stakes for schools and districts, requiring them to disaggregate data to
show that their Hispanic ELs are making adequate progress within a specified time
frame. Rowland Unified School District is no exception. In its efforts to meet state
and federal benchmarks for student performance, Rowland Unified School District
(RUSD) has made their Hispanic EL subgroup a priority.
The district, like numerous others in the nation, struggles to improve student-
performance, especially within the minority-language student population. In effect,
mandated cost-cutting measures have made it challenging for RUSD to effectively
employ previously planned interventions. As a result, the district has endured
numerous challenges in effectively maintaining programs to adequately address the
needs of its students, with the bulk of its challenges affecting the Hispanic students.
Consequently, Hispanic students have consistently experienced challenges in
meeting national and state educational targets and benchmarks. This persistent
achievement gap amongst the Hispanic EL population is of grave concern as
projections place this subgroup in the majority within the next decade in California
(Garcia, 2002). In a ten year span, the EL population grew from 14% to 47% across
3
the United States, with the western U.S. demonstrating the largest concentration of
EL students (one in every six students were identified as EL) (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2004). Following years of controversy regarding the
educational pedagogy utilized to address the academic needs of ELs, the nation and
RUSD currently find themselves with a widening achievement gap between Hispanic
ELs and White/Asian students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).
The Issue of Labels
Much controversy exists as to which term to utilize for identifying persons
from various Latin American countries. Ethnic terms came into existence to initially
define a diverse group of second and third generation European immigrants settled in
inner-city neighborhoods. Later, the term defined recent immigrants from Latin
American countries (Yankauer, 1987). The term Hispanic, has been recognized by
many as a product of the prejudice and discrimination against individuals from
diverse Latin American countries: “Hispanic seems to be a subdivision of Latinos
into which we put only those Latin American’s of low income who have black skins
or are obvious half breeds” (Yankauer, 1987, p. 15). Yankauer (1987) states others
oppose the term Hispanic, because it lumps a group of greatly diverse individuals
into one category, denying them the dignity of assigning them a country of origin.
The term Hispanic actually comes from the Latin word for Spanish. Thus, Hispanic
usually encompasses those nations initially conquered by Spain (Yankauer, 1987).
Hispanic has become the term government agencies, media, and U.S. Census Bureau
uniformly utilize to identify this diverse group of individuals.
4
A major concern in grouping diverse peoples into one category is that
“Hispanics or Latinos differ sharply in historical experience, socioeconomic status
and identity” (Calderon, 1992, p. 37). Even among Mexican-Americans, great
differences exist between those who originally inhabited the Southwest, immigrants
since 1910, and descendents from both of these (Calderon, 1992). Puerto Ricans and
Cubans, have even greater differences among Mexican-Americans and within their
own group (Calderon, 1992). Despite this concern, another common term used to
identify individuals from Latin American countries is Latino. Latino, however,
appears to be more favorable than Hispanic. It is seen as a unifying term among
“Latino groups whose identity is socially constructed by U.S. foreign policy”
(Calderon, 1992, p. 39). The term, Latino, has existed within activist circles since
the middle 1970s, becoming a symbol of common issues and collective action.
However, the intent of the term never implied a separate ethnic identity as did the
word Hispanic (Calderon, 1992).
During the 1960s, Mexican-American activists fought to establish Chicano as
a replacement for Spanish-American which denied native origins and solely implied
Spanish origins (Calderon, 1992). However, the greater society continued to accept
Spanish-American as the common term since Chicano and even Mexican-American
were seen as militant terms. In time, the word Spanish-American was replaced by
Hispanic, with the approval of various Latino politicians (Calderon, 1992).
5
For the purposes of this inquiry project, the term Hispanic has been used to
remain consistent with federal terminology, educational terminology and student
testing data terminology.
Defining Achievement Gap
This project consists of studying the potential reasons for an existing gap
between established goals and actual outcomes: inquiry project. Researchers present
slight variations in defining "achievement gap." Presenting these multiple
perspectives to define the achievement gap will enable this inquiry project to conduct
a thorough gap analysis. In general, an achievement gap is defined as a difference in
academic performance among two or more distinct student groups. Lee (2002)
presents the gap as academic performance outputs between racial and ethnic groups
while Haycock (2001) considers the gap as existing in school settings between low
socioeconomic/minority students and White, affluent students. Slavin and Madden
(2006) more precisely define the gap as academic performance disparities between
African American and Latino students with White students. Anderson, Medrich and
Fowler (2007) consider national test scores between the various ethnic groups in an
educational setting to describe gaps persistent in schools among students of color and
White students. It is noteworthy to mention that gaps exist all the time and not all
are negative such as gaps due to age, amount of time studying, etc. However, for the
purposes of this project, we will be concentrating on negative achievement gaps
which are racially and ethnically linked, due to school rather than solely student
factors.
6
It is vital to consider the achievement gap holistically as various aspects can
and do impact student achievement. Presenting these various definitions of the
achievement gap will allow this inquiry project to consider external and internal
factors attributing to motivation, knowledge and organizational aspects that have led
to the continued achievement gap in school districts. In essence, researchers present
similarities in their definitions, basing the achievement gap as a gap between the
White, non-Asian students and students of color, low socioeconomic status (SES)
and English Language Learners. Developing an understanding of how a researcher
defines the gap allows for clarity, focus and direction of the project. For the purpose
of this inquiry project, the achievement gap is defined as the continuous difference in
academic performance between Hispanic ELs and White and/or Asian students.
Historical Context of the Achievement Gap
Historically, public schools have been viewed as the institutions that prepare
its youth for success in society, and in more recent decades, for global market
competition. However, the public school system has not always been effective in
preparing all its youth for future success. Disparities in education have existed since
the 1800’s, documented with the U.S. Supreme Court Case Plessy v. Ferguson
(1886). This case upheld a “separate but equal” policy that allowed for segregation
in public schools. Although schools remained separate between minorities and the
majority, primarily African American and White students, the equality aspect was
not monitored nor enforced, causing a great disparity in educational standards,
7
facilities and resources to prevail for years (Verdun, 2005). Stemming from this
“separate but equal” clause, the educational term, achievement gap, emerged.
Since the early 1900’s, African American and Hispanic students have
consistently underscored their White or Asian peers, leading to increased high school
drop out rates (Curran, 2005). Since the decision made in Plessy v. Ferguson
remained, nothing much was done to amend the poor educational experience of
African American and Hispanic students until the early 1950’s. In 1954 a landmark
case, Brown v. Board of Education, ruled illegal the segregation of students, finding
educational institutions at the time were not equal, but rather offering inferior
educational standards, buildings and programs to African American students (Carroll
et al., 2004; Reed, 2002).
Although a powerful landmark case in education, the ruling from Brown v.
Board of Education did not lead to increased academic achievement for minority
students (Barton & Coley, 2008). Reed (2002) states an educational disparity
remained even after desegregation, when comparing African American and Hispanic
students with their White and Asian counterparts, converting an educational dilemma
into a political and societal issue as well. Thus, a persistent disparity in learning and
achievement remains between minority groups and White or Asian students even
years after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling (Carroll et al., 2004).
In response to this educational disparity, President Johnson signed the Civil
Rights Act and supplied the U.S. Congress with the Equality of Education Study
which documented the inequality in education for all students (Coleman, 1966).
8
This study, also known as the Coleman Report, found socioeconomic factors to
significantly impact educational advancement, nearly counteracting the efforts of
school systems. Sirin (2005) also published a review demonstrating a medium to
strong relation between social economic status and achievement. The relation found
was contingent upon school level, minority status, and school location (Sirin, 2005).
Following the Coleman (1966) findings, government supported programs, such as
Head Start, came into effect to help students coming from low socioeconomic
environments, with the purpose to sustain the academic development of these
children (National Head Start Association, 2009). The Equal Opportunity Program
(EOP) was also created to assist minority, low socioeconomic students with college
admission, financial aid, and tutoring (Caroll et al., 2004).
The Hispanic EL Achievement Gap
Between the 1970s through 1980s, the achievement gap narrowed due to the
efforts of programs such as EOP and Head Start (Haycock, 2001). Additionally,
from 1970 to 1988, increased funding allowed for improved teacher training,
programs and materials, resulting in the achievement gap between Hispanics and
White students to decrease by one third (Haycock, 2001). This narrowing has also
been attributed to the emphasis of teaching basic skills and lowering the minimal
scores of the NAEP, which assesses grade levels and provides an overview of
academic progress in the country (Barton & Coley, 2008).
The Lau vs. Nichols Supreme court decision, requiring schools to ensure
school systems, established equal access to the curriculum for English Learners.
9
Following this ruling, California became one of the first states to develop a
comprehensive bilingual education bill: The Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural
Education Act of 1976 (Gandara et. al., 2000). According to California Education
Code, 1976, Section 52161, the purpose of this legislation was to develop sufficient
English proficiency among ELs so that they may have increased access to the
curriculum. The bill created much controversy regarding the teaching of a primary
language in public schools, thus not all EL students benefited from quality bilingual
education. The state developed the Bilingual Cross-cultural and Academic
Development Credential in response to the need, but by 1997, only one-third of all
ELs in the state had teachers with proper bilingual credentialing (Rumberger &
Gandara, 2000). The remaining students received instruction without specialization
in addressing their unique bilingual needs (Gandara et. al., 2000).
Despite these gains, in 1983 President Reagan charged the National
Commission on Excellence in Education to produce the A Nation at Risk (1983)
report, which brought into perspective the current state of the United State’s
educational system. The report labeled the U.S. educational system as mediocre,
creating a sense of urgency to improve upon the academic system in the U.S.,
especially in math and science so as to create students who could effectively compete
in a global economy (NCEE, 1983). By this time, scores on the NAEP took a dip for
Hispanic students, demonstrating a widening gap during the 1990’s (Barton & Coley,
2008).
10
Imperative for Addressing the Hispanic EL Achievement Gap
The CDE (2008) declared nearly 1 of every 4 students in California an EL
student. Nationwide, there are 5 million EL students, of which 1.5 million reside in
California. Most significantly, 85% of the ELs in our nation speak Spanish as their
primary language. According to Gandara et al., (2003), 25% of California’s student
population is EL. In addition to dealing with language barriers at school, the
majority of ELs also live within the poverty level (Lee, 2002). ELs have consistently
scored in the below basic or far below basic range on state and national tests such as
the California Standards Test (CST) and NAEP (Freeman et al., 2002). This reality
has caused various schools and districts to look towards addressing EL needs as their
sites face sanctions under NCLB. Since NCLB proficiency targets will increase to
over 50% in 2010, schools and districts that have kept from becoming a program
improvement (PI) school in previous years, now face the possibility of entering PI
status. Despite federal law mandating low performing schools to maintain highly
qualified staff members, it becomes quite difficult for schools and districts to
maintain high quality staff members at these sites as sanctions and increased scrutiny
does not create a favorable working environment for teachers, further impacting the
achievement of an already struggling student population (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Academic achievement on the CST is measured via a five-tiered scale of Far
Below Basic (FBB) to Advanced (A). NCLB established the proficiency targets for
schools in 2009 to be 45% in ELA and Math. The CDE (2009) data indicates thirty
to forty point gaps between EL students and their Asian or White counterparts.
11
Hispanics scored 38.9% in ELA and 43.8% proficiency in Math. However, White
students scored 69.0% in ELA and 67.4% in Math. Asian students scored 74.6% in
ELA and 81.0% in Math (CDE, 2009). The 2009 CDE data indicates African
American, Hispanic, low-SES, EL and Special Education students failed to not meet
the national proficiency targets established by NCLB.
Traditionally underperforming subgroups (Hispanic, African American,
Special Education, EL, and low-SES) have benefited from the increased rigor and
instructional focus resulting from the mandates established by NCLB (Koehler,
2004b). Despite these educational gains, a substantial achievement gap between the
minority groups and White or Asian students prevails, demonstrating at least a 30%
gap between Hispanic ELs and their White counterparts (Koehler, 2004b).
California is sixth lowest nationally when ranking its eighth graders in math
proficiency (NAEP, 2007). In addition, the reading and math abilities of Hispanic
tenth graders is equal to that of White eighth grade students; when one compares the
same ability levels of Hispanic ELs, the proficiency level drops even more
(Haycock, 2001).
The fastest growing EL student population has become Hispanics, mainly due
to immigration and high birth rates (Karoly, Constantijn, Panis, 2004). EdSource
(2007) estimates that nearly 1.6 million, or one out every four students enrolled in
California schools, are currently designated as (an) English Language Learner,
(EdSource, p. 1). Estimates suggest that in the last twenty-five years, the ELL
subgroup population has steadily grown from 8% to 25% enrolled, (EdSource, p. 1).
12
According to Karoly et al. (2004), Hispanics are also projected to become a large
percentage of the nation’s workforce in years to come. The demand for these
laborers will include “highly skilled workers who can develop the new technologies
and bring them to market and exploit the new technologies in the production of
goods and services” (Karoly, Constantijn, Panis, 2004, p. 20). However, considering
the overall low test scores of Hispanic ELs, high school dropout rates and low
college graduation rates, educators in California, and the country for that matter, are
not effectively reaching this population and in turn, failing to maximize the potential
of the nation’s future workforce (CDE, 2009).
In order to survive in the 21
st
Century World market, the United States must
develop a sense of urgency to address the diverse educational needs of ELs. This
population can no longer be ignored, or taught like the mainstream, as their needs are
linguistically complex (Gold, 2006). Thus, the technological skills, communication
abilities, decision making skills, and collaboration abilities must all begin in
elementary school. The curriculum offered to these students must include these ever
important job skills to ensure they become members of a productive system rather
than persons making minimal income, and requiring public assistance to make ends
meet (Gold, 2006).
Background of the Problem
Propositions 187 and 227
In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, also known as the Save
Our State (SOS) Initiative. It was designed to create a state-run citizenship screening
13
program whereby illegal immigrants would be prohibited from utilizing public
services such as health care, education and other social services in the state of
California (Bosniak, 1996). Although it was passed by voters, it was found
unconstitutional by a federal court. Although supporters of the proposition stated its
intent to be purely economic, arguing the state would spend about three billion
dollars a year on services for illegal immigrants, half of which covered educational
costs for educating children of illegal immigrants (Bosniak, 1996). However, had
the law been found constitutional, the state would have impacted an estimated
308,000 immigrant children from receiving an education. This proposition
established the sentiment against educating immigrant children. Mixed sentiment
arose among Californians regarding its constitutionality. However educationally,
Proposition 187 established the path for Proposition 227 to follow.
ELs continued to perform below their White peers, thus the efficacy of
bilingual education become a strong political debate in California (Gandara et. al.,
2000). However, only one-third of all EL students had access to a bilingual program
during the 1980s and early 90s, therefore the disparaging evidence for the failure of
bilingual education was misleading (California Department of Education, Language
Census, 1997). The educational system failed to support the linguistic needs of
immigrant children, particularly Hispanic ELs with estimates suggesting one-third of
all Hispanic students eventually dropped out of school (as compared to only one-
tenth of White students) (Garcia, Rodriguez, Stritkus, 2000). In response to the
continued underachievement of ELs, policy makers proposed a new California ballot
14
measure entitled: “English for all Children.” The goal for this measure was to
ensure English proficiency for all children by requiring children to be instructed in
English language classrooms with a transitional support program which was not to
exceed one year. Additionally, instruction in the native language could only occur if
a parent signed a yearly waiver (Garcia, Rodriguez, Stritkus, 2000).
In June of 1998, California voters passed the “English for all Children”
measure which became known as Proposition 227, impacting ELs and the feasibility
of access to Bilingual Educational Programs (Gold, 2006). This also became a
landmark decision on the part of Californian voters as it presented the first time
voters made a decision regarding pedagogical strategies for instructing students
(Gandara et. al., 2000). Although schools could provide bilingual education, it could
only occur after parents requested a yearly waiver from primarily English or all
English instructional programs. However, bilingual programs were not always
offered at the student’s school of residence due to a limited amount of signed parent
waivers. Therefore, parents could opt to send their child to another school or wait
until sufficient waivers were received at the home school, which rarely occurred.
Since the passage of 227, over 92 percent of ELs have been enrolled in primarily
English programs (Gold, 2006). In effect, “1.6 million English learners in
California, with a wide range of language and academic needs…are overwhelmingly
taught in English” (Gold, p. 7, 2006). A large number of ELs have limited
proficiency in English and begin struggling with their academics as early as grade
one (Gold, 2006).
15
No Child Left Behind
The federal legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 has led
educators to develop a sense of urgency. NCLB established a mandate, whereby all
educational agencies need to ensure 100% proficiency for all its students by 2014.
Educators find themselves approaching the 2014 deadline with dismal chances of
ensuring 100% proficiency for all their students. Prior to this initiative, A Nation at
Risk and the TIMSS Report (1995) all brought into perspective the current state of
the United States’ educational system, placing pressure upon the federal and state
governments to ameliorate current educational outcomes. Therefore, states increased
accountability to ensure their districts capably met the demands established by
NCLB and initiated efforts to create a system where their students graduated high
school better prepared for today’s professional expectations. In turn, districts have
developed innovative sets of measures to ensure that their schools more adequately
meet the diverse needs of their students.
Although these efforts appear effective, not all students demonstrate the
expected academic progress. Furthermore, when district data is disaggregated, time
and time again the subgroups continuing to demonstrate the widest achievement gap
are the Hispanic, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and
other Pacific Islander populations (KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnick,
2007). The persistent achievement gap among the Hispanic population is of
considerable concern as this subgroup is projected to become the majority within the
next decade in California (Garcia, 2002).
16
In its quest to promote equality in education, NCLB delineated federal
requirements in the education of all children, but specifically for minority students.
Implementations of the federal guidelines in NCLB yield identification of significant
achievement gaps within minority subgroup populations in American schools. Gaps
in student performance seem to become increasingly common in public education,
(EdSource, 2007). Consequently, public concerns surrounding American schools’
effectiveness in educating minority students have steadily increased. Salamon,
(1991) concluded that there exists a need to effectively address and deal with
inequity issues as an essential task for the wellness of our nation’s democratic
philosophy, economic strength, and status.
In California, statewide studies consistently show disproportionate patterns of
specific student subgroup achievement levels (NCLB, 2001). Specifically, patterns
of ELL students’ underperformance have increased and become increasingly more
evident. The numbers continue to rise. As a result, the number of schools and
districts becoming labeled Program Improvement (PI) also continue to rise. As more
ELLs enroll in California public schools, this pattern of under-performance carries
potentially damaging effects to state and American society. This trend also
jeopardizes our collective well-being as the resulting gaps extend into local, state,
and national economics.
Garcia, (2002) and EdSource, (2006) stated that in California, the connection
between student achievement and social status have become a hot topic in education.
Because California has high EL student enrollments, ensuring educational equity is
17
especially important. Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) in California has
recently become a PI status district under NCLB guidelines. Such status is primarily
due to its Hispanic and ELL subgroups' performance levels falling short of the
NCLB requirements, (California Department of Education, 2010).
Admirably, RUSD has successfully promoted overall student performance
levels in the positive direction. Consequently, the district has earned a distinctive
reputation as a high-performing district: an achievement the district is very proud of.
RUSD plays a critical leadership role in the quality of education that is practiced in
schools. That role is crucial to the success of its students and consequently, to the
wellness and health of society as a whole.
Importance of the Problem
The district has several responsibilities in its role as the educational
organization. According to Clark and Estes (2002), organizations will ultimately face
organizational, motivational, and knowledge based barriers. Clark and Estes defined
organizational barriers as: "missing tools, inadequate facilities or faulty processes or
procedures," (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 44). This inquiry project will focus on
identifying such organizational, as well as motivational and knowledge-based
barriers, which may contain the underlying causes for the existing gaps. Because it is
the responsibility of a district and its schools to safeguard educational equity and to
promote equal opportunities for all students, successful student preparation is a key
responsibility of both district and schools.
18
Analysis of the Problem
The purpose of this inquiry project was to identify factors contributing to the
existing student achievement gaps in Rowland Unified School District (RUSD). As
mentioned earlier in the paper, this inquiry project addressed the question: Despite
implemented district-wide reforms efforts, what are the root causes to the persistent
achievement gap amongst Hispanic EL students in Rowland Unified School District?
The problem solving framework by Clark and Estes (2008) will allow for deep
examination of the root causes, motivational, knowledge, and organizational, for the
achievement gap.
Different frameworks will be used to support the motivation, knowledge and
organizational theories to inform our analysis. The use of these frameworks will
give the project team two basic supports: (1) the frameworks will act as lenses which
will help guide the team's observations and (2) the frameworks will provide scientific
background to support the project and its findings. The project's findings will
facilitate applicability to RUSD by generating recommendations for future
implementation, aiming to improve Hispanic EL student performance. The project
and its results will provide a platform for considerations for areas of future research
in the quest of educational equity and the improvements in the education of Hispanic
EL students in RUSD.
19
CHAPTER 2
PART A: LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature related to student achievement indicates increasing disparities
between native English speakers and English Learners (ELs). When comparing ELs
from various ethnic groups, Hispanic ELs consistently underscore other EL
subgroups, creating a grave concern as Hispanics are projected to become the
majority in California within the next decade (Garcia, 2002). The result of this
disparity has commonly been referred to as the achievement gap in the field
literature, among educators and policy makers. As federal expectations increase for
academic student achievement, the Hispanic EL achievement gap widens, creating
deep concern for local educating agencies as many face federal sanctions for failing
to close the gap. This chapter analyzes the roots of the gap and provides literature to
address these root causes.
To understand the Hispanic achievement gap, it is imperative to understand
the educational historical perspective. Then, research directly related to the Hispanic
EL achievement gap will be presented to investigate the teaching approaches,
strategies, practices, conditions and leadership found significant to close the
Hispanic EL achievement gap. Since this inquiry project is focused on sustainability
and potential replication for the Rowland Unified School District, a combination of
factors found to present significant effects on student achievement are offered.
20
Laws and Regulations
In the past two decades, numerous laws and regulations have been enacted
impacting Hispanic EL student achievement. Although not all laws have passed, as
they have been considered unconstitutional, their implications and discussion have
led to negative effects for Hispanic EL student learning. Additionally, studies
supported by the U.S. government assessing current U.S. student educational
excellence in relation to global standards led to country wide reform efforts to
transform the U.S. educational system so as to become more competitive globally.
However, these efforts have consistently failed to adequately narrow the Hispanic
EL achievement gap.
Impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
To address the achievement gap and findings from the TIMSS Report,
President George W. Bush signed the federal legislation of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) (2002). NCLB forced educators to place extensive focus on high standards,
rigorous instruction and meet elevated student outcomes. Schools and districts that
have failed to meet the academic benchmarks established by NCBL have faced
federal sanctions. Additionally, benchmarks must be met for every subgroup at the
school site, including Hispanics and ELs. However, limited federal funding to
support the various subgroups and an overemphasis on testing has created an unfair
testing situation for ELs by failing to offer ELs testing material which measures
content ability in relation to their English language proficiency level (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). Additionally, disaggregated data of successful schools and
21
districts demonstrate a discrepancy between Hispanics and Caucasian or Asian
students (KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnick, 2007).
Language and Sociocultural Factors
Achievement gaps become evident as early as first grade, however, the gap
widens as students become older, leading to an increased dropout rate among
Hispanics, Hispanic ELs and other minority groups (Calderon, 2008). A more
alarming fact is that 80-91% of ELs in middle and high school were born in the
United States and have been instructed in U.S. schools since kindergarten (Tienda,
(2007). The result is an overwhelmingly high number of long-term ELs (LTELs)
attending public schools in most states (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007).
Diverse Linguistic Characteristics Amongst English Learners
Hispanic ELs are comprised of varying subgroups, distinct groups within a
larger group, such as country of origin, level of acculturation, socioeconomic status,
and degree of native and/or English proficiency. However, according to Freeman et
al. (2002), the three most common Hispanic EL subgroups are: recent immigrants
with appropriate exposure to formal schooling, recent immigrants with limited
formal schooling, and LTELs. These differences among Hispanic ELs require
diverse instructional needs. LTELs face academic challenges such as native
language limited literacy skills and low acquisition of academic English skills
(Freeman et al., 2002). In turn about 56% of LTELs fail to demonstrate adequate
progress in grade level standards and do not meet language reclassification
standards, meaning they do not demonstrate English language proficiency even after
22
receiving English instruction for at least 5 years in the U.S. (Capps et al., 2005).
This lack of progress may be attributed to linguistic needs, attendance in primarily
racially segregated schools, and attendance in low-performing schools situated in
poverty stricken communities (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). It has been found that
students’ lack of progress may be linked to the quality of education received.
Overwhelmingly, students of minority status attending schools located in primarily
low SES communities suffer from inferior education when compared to non-
minority, higher SES counterparts.
It had become common knowledge among educators that it takes a student
between five to seven years to gain English proficiency (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,
Saunders & Christian, 2005). However, the National Literacy Panel for Language
Minority Children and Youth concurred that the number of years needed to develop
English proficiency can vary depending upon the quality of instruction and other
factors such as proficiency in primary language and exposure to academic language.
Additionally, their findings indicated English proficiency may be obtained within
three to four years if students are provided with quality, systematic instruction at
school (Calderon, 2008). However, when students are not provided the additional
language, academic and cultural needs to adequately access the curriculum, then
students do not master English proficiency even within the five to seven year range.
“When the seventh year is up, the students are unfortunately blamed for not
achieving at grade level” (Calderon, 2008, p. 416).
23
LTELs have a poor acquisition of their primary language (L1) skills,
therefore have an inability to transfer language knowledge from the L1 to the
acquired language (L2). In actuality, a large number of Hispanic ELs develop
negative connotations towards their L1, meaning in time, they disassociate
themselves from the language, limiting communication with their parents who are
primarily foreign born immigrants (Goldenberg, 2008). Thus, their linguistic needs
will be more intensive due to their limited L1, limited oral connection to their home
life, and lack of academic English skills (Cobb, 2004). They may learn sufficient
English to engage in English language conversations; however their mastery of
academic English may take in excess of seven years, leading to an educational
tracking system that limits their ability to take electives of choice and college bound
courses (Goldenberg, 2008). By this time, the limited academic English these
students have acquired leads them to placement in English as a Second Language
(ESL) classes in middle schools, tracking them for near certain failure.
Sociocultural Factors
It is important to consider sociocultural factors among ELs as these may
impact student achievement. Sociocultural factors typically include characteristics
such as “values, beliefs and assumptions that then influence the learning process and
ultimately learning outcomes” (Goldenberg, Rueda, & August, p. 250, 2006).
Additionally, students identify themselves according to these sociocultural factors;
these can impact how they behave and the motivational attributes that may lead to
increased or decreased success in school (Goldenberg et. al., 2006). Students’
24
diverse familial backgrounds, attributed to the characteristics associated with
sociocultural factors, create discrepancies in experiences which again can impact
classroom academic behaviors and outcomes.
Research associates socioeconomic status (SES) with academic student
achievement, whereby a correlation has been seen between low SES with poor
academic results and high SES with increased success in school (Gandara et al.,
2003). SES is determined by material (economic) status, parental years of formal
schooling and occupation (Goldenberg et. al., 2006). In addition, research indicates
a strong relationship between the schools students attend and the location of these
schools with student achievement, attributing the SES of these communities as key to
determining academic success (Goldenberg et. al., 2006). Most students from low
SES backgrounds struggle academically as their parents may not have the academic
and financial resources to support the learning at home, creating differences in
opportunities to learn between low and high SES students. Often, low SES students
find themselves without proper home supervision to assist with homework, high
transience, financial instability and excessive absenteeism (Freeman et al., 2002).
Another sociocultural factor is the underlying stigma of being of Hispanic
descent in this country as a result of controversy towards bilingual education and
political agendas towards English only instruction. As a response to the stigma
associated with their L1 and SES, a study found that students may attempt to
“represent aspects of an ideal identity, what the student aspires to becoming,”
meaning EL students attempted to pass as English proficient (Monzo & Rueda, p. 37,
25
2009). However, this may impede the student’s ability to acquire true mastery of the
English language, thus going through his academic career pretending to be more
fluent in English that he really is, impacting his overall academic performance.
Students are aware of the importance placed within the school system to acquire
English and “attach non-English proficiency to a variety of negative characteristics
such as low intelligence” (Monzo & Rueda, p. 35, 2009). These authors also found
that students understand the social power associated with English and that Spanish is
considered of less importance, thus the L1 can disassociate them from the
mainstream. This in turn creates detrimental effects in terms of rejecting familiar
ties, cultural background, and their L1.
Monzo and Rueda (2009) found that Hispanic ELs attempted to address their
L2 deficiencies: by “masking” their inadequacies and pretending to be more fluent
than their true ability. Although these students proved resourceful at developing
strategies to present themselves more fluent and fulfill their perceived role of a more
important member of society, they were in actuality hindering their true academic
learning. “By having to allocate cognitive resources to the task of appearing
competent add a source of extraneous cognitive load that does not directly contribute
to learning and which could be expected to lead to negative achievement over time”
(Monzo & Rueda, p. 37, 2009). Educators must become aware of these social
factors and address them instructionally. Simply providing students with equal
access to education is not sufficient. Differentiation of instruction, increased teacher
knowledge, understanding of motivational learning factors, effective school
26
leadership and incorporating culturally sensitive and responsive education is vital.
Without addressing the complexities of the sociocultural and linguistic
characteristics Hispanic ELs face, the achievement gap will continue to prevail.
Additionally, teacher attitudes and expectations of themselves and of the
children they service can greatly impact student outcomes. In general, teachers’
sense of self efficacy can have an effect on student academic achievement, regardless
of student background (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1989). Winfield (1986) found
that teachers’ ways of interacting with students, level of expectation and beliefs
about their students, can all affect learning outcomes. “The nature and degree of
teacher expectation effects in a particular classroom are likely to vary as a function
of beliefs about teaching and learning and specific teacher and student
characteristics” (Winfield, 1986, p. 253). A factor considered to be of grave
importance is the teacher’s role definition, which is described as the teacher’s
willingness to assume the responsibility for student learning (Winfield, 1986). In
essence, teachers’ abilities to instruct students’ varying level of needs in addition to
their level of expectation (self and student) can influence students’ opportunities to
learn.
Factors Contributing to Achievement Gaps
This project utilized a gap analysis approach, (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine possible factors contributing to achievement gaps for Hispanic English
Learner students in the Rowland Unified School District. The Gap Analysis
Framework considers three constellations of factors as having significant impact on
27
achieving performance goals. These factors are: knowledge-based causes,
motivational causes, and organizational causes. This section considers each of these
factors as the foundation for the examination of root causes for the achievement gap
this inquiry project is studying. Thus, the Hispanic English Learner achievement gap
will be analyzed as motivational, knowledge-based and organizational/structural
issues in current educational practices.
Motivation
According to the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Model, the
examination of motivational factors is essential to discovering root causes for the
existing gaps. Motivation is defined as “the internal, psychological process that gets
us going, keeps us moving, and helps us get jobs done, influencing choosing to work
towards a goal, persisting at it until it is achieved and total mental effort needed to
invest to get the job done” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 44). Motivation involves active
choice, persistence and mental effort to complete a task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A framework useful in defining motivational factors is the Expectancy Value
Theory. Expectancy Value is defined as “individuals’ expectancies for success and
the value they have for succeeding as important determinants of their motivation to
perform different achievement tasks, and their choices of which tasks to pursue”
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2002, p. 92). Atkinson (1957) originally defined expectancy as
a person’s anticipation that their performance of a task will lead to success or failure,
whereas he defined value as the relative attractiveness of succeeding or failing on a
given task. These are important factors for Hispanic EL students because “children’s
28
expectancies and values can help regulate their achievement behaviors (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2002, p. 108). Additionally, teachers’ expectancies and values can impact
student learning as teacher’s may develop lower/higher expectations for their
students depending upon their personal anticipations of a student’s ability to perform
a task. Knowing students’ expectancies and values can assist teachers to adequately
address student needs during instructional delivery.
Current efforts to close the achievement gap have predominantly focused on
varying student characteristics: socioeconomic status, age, grade level and
community: all elements presented in the Effective Schools Research (Rueda, 2006).
However, these efforts have overwhelmingly focused upon a holistic approach to
addressing the gap (an intervention program for example), which have not always
successfully addressed the diverse needs of Hispanic EL students. Thus, the end
result has been a persistent achievement gap. Traditionally, educational efforts have
targeted culturally and linguistically diverse students. However, schools have failed
to systematically include motivational issues linked to culturally accommodated
instruction (Rueda, 2006). Rueda (2006) suggests looking at EL instruction through
the lenses of critical motivational components and expectancy value theory. When
students approach a task, they may often ask themselves: Why should I do this task?
Here, a student is looking at interest, importance, utility and cost (Rueda, 2006). In
essence, students are attributing task value to a specific assignment. In addition, a
student may question: Am I able to do this task? Which involves issues of self-
efficacy, perceived task difficulty and causal attribution (Rueda, 2006). Considering
29
these plausible issues of motivation, it is imperative that school districts, professional
development and teacher planning consider these factors in their delivery of
instruction to EL students.
Often, EL students have limited exposure to school-like vocabulary, thinking
processes and literature. Therefore, EL students may not acquire the same task value
on utility for reading, comprehension and other educational tasks as teachers or
students from middle class backgrounds (Rueda, 2006). In addition, these same
students may not have developed the self-efficacy to succeed in school based
curriculum specifically comprehension of complicated texts (Rueda, 2006). Thus,
Rueda (2006) suggests incorporating cultural accommodations to guide engagement.
In this situation, culture should not be interpreted as an all encompassing construct
but rather as the individual beliefs and practices of a student within a specific
educational context (Rueda, 2006). Therefore, Rueda (2006) states that when
considering cultural accommodations, educators must learn and negotiate the
diversity behind culture, make selective decisions based on this information and
systematically link goals with cultural accommodations.
Guthrie, Wigfield and Humenick (2006) suggest teachers could increase a
student’s intrinsic and internal motivation by utilizing situational interest to
encourage long term interests in reading. Teachers could incorporate situational
interest by using hands-on activities and providing a wide range of books on the
topic of learning with teacher guidance to promote student curiosity on the topic.
The authors found students who were exposed to situational interest had increased
30
motivation which led to increased comprehension when compared to a controlled
group of students who were not exposed to such engaging instructional activities.
Since motivation is a key factor in determining choice, persistence and effort, for
both student and teacher, it is vital that motivational factors be considered when
delivering instruction to EL students (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002).
Wigfield and Eccles (2002) state the expectancy-value theory to be very
important when considering student motivation: a person’s expectancies for success
and the value placed upon succeeding are primary determinants of their motivation
to perform various activities. In addition, these authors indicate that a child will
develop expectancies and values for themselves based upon previous performance,
achievement goals, self schemata, and beliefs about specific tasks. Therefore, if an
EL child enters kindergarten without the base knowledge or language to successfully
complete tasks, this child’s motivation is likely to decrease as the year progresses. It
is key that teachers understand how expectancy-value is related to motivation,
leading to children’s successes or failures in school.
Although the research about motivation and ethnic minority students is
limited, in general researchers have found minority children and their parents to
highly value schools (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Most minority parents desire
academic success for their children. However, academic achievement is inhibited by
difficulties associated with the poverty some of these ethnic minority students
encournter, especially Hispanic EL students (Huston, McLoyd & Coll, 1994).
Teachers must then not only consider language issues when addressing Hispanic EL
31
student needs but also potential financial difficulties and how these can greatly
impact motivation and ultimately, academic success in school.
Wigfield and Eccles (2002) suggest guiding students to develop competence
beliefs, goal setting and confidence building through exposure of different activities
with immediate teacher feedback directly related to the performance. These
researchers also suggest that behavioral regulation is key in making choices to
continue or cease a certain activity. Thus, teachers should teach children how to
increase their confidence, develop their beliefs, and establish goals which will aide
them in confronting real world tasks, by providing a variety of classroom activities
related to a topic. Continuous exposure to key concepts with multiple activities to
experience that concept allows a child to accumulate more understanding about that
topic, which in turn increases a child’s sense of competence about their
understanding of that concept (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). The activities presented to
students must be valuable to them, connected with what they do on a daily basis, and
authentic. In this way, students not only develop an appreciation for their learning,
but also relate their learning to future goals, which in turn promotes motivation
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Much related to student motivation is teachers’
expectancies and values. A teacher’s self-efficacy can impact the capacity to
effectively instruct students from diverse SES levels, language proficiencies, and
ethnicities. Also, a teacher’s level of expectation in addition to the value held in
educating students from lower performing schools all affect the students’ learning
outcomes (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008).
32
Another motivational issue is related to teacher efficacy. Teacher efficacy is
defined as a teacher’s “judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may
be difficult or unmotivated” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Under Bandura’s (1986)
cognitive social learning theory of self efficacy, judgments of efficacy are based
upon four types of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion and emotional states. His research found
performance accomplishments to have the strongest effect on teacher efficacy. “In
an educational sense, teachers’ beliefs about their own capabilities determine their
behavior, their thought patterns, and their emotional reactions to challenging
situations” (Hipp, 1997, p. 3). According to Ashton (1994), this sole characteristic
has demonstrated a consistent relationship to student achievement. Research has
found that the higher the teacher efficacy, the more a teacher invests in teaching,
establishing high goals and aspirations, and implementing greater levels of planning
and organization (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). When a teacher believes in
himself to reach desired student outcomes, then he is more willing to experiment
with a variety of teaching styles and approaches to ensure his students’ diverse needs
are met. Efficacy also affects a teacher’s persistence and resilience; enabling
teachers to work with students demonstrating difficulty learning new concepts
without becoming overly critical of the students’ abilities (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
2001). Essentially, teachers with higher levels of self efficacy took greater
responsibilities for their students’ successes or failures, rather than blaming outside
33
factors such as language or socio-economic levels ((Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
2001).
Administrators play a key role in influencing student and teacher
motivational outcomes. Their personal sense of self efficacy and other motivational
factors can greatly impact the successes their teachers face in effectively educating
EL students and reaching desired educational outcomes. Current research provides
evidence that teacher’s self efficacy relates to student achievement, however,
“studies also indicate that principals need to be persuaded to act on this strong and
positive linkage and focus on conditions that help teachers acquire and sustain
feelings of competence and worth” (Hipp, 1997, p. 2). According to her study, Hipp
(1997) found that administrators who model behavior, inspire the group’s purpose,
recognizes teacher efforts/accomplishments, provides personal and professional
support, manages student behavior and promotes a sense of community, all of which
foster high teacher efficacy. Additionally, administrators must hold the self efficacy
to encourage innovation and continual growth not only for themselves but also for
their staff. This includes a belief in the district reform efforts to address Hispanic EL
educational needs. Without the continuous support of administrators at various
levels, not all teachers will develop the necessary self efficacy and motivation to
adequately assist Hispanic ELs, thus not reaching the desired goal of closing the
achievement gap.
34
Knowledge
A key dimension of the gap analysis approach is the examination of
knowledge gaps. We define knowledge as whether a person “knows how (and when,
what why, where, and who) to achieve their performance goals” (Clark & Estes,
2008, p. 44). One convenient framework for considering differing types of
knowledge is the taxonomy developed by Anderson & Krathwohl (2001). They
define types of knowledge, including factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive, and also the cognitive processes which may be involved in each type
of knowledge. Definitions for each of these types of knowledge are:
• Factual Knowledge: is the knowledge that includes specific details and
elements.
• Conceptual Knowledge: is knowledge that builds upon the factual
knowledge and begins to organize the element into larger concepts.
• Procedural Knowledge: is the knowledge of how to do something or the
process involved in doing it.
• Metacognitive Knowledge: is the knowledge about knowledge. It is
knowing what is known. It is knowing how, when, and why to use the
knowledge.
In short, an assumption of gap analysis is that goals may not be met because of key
knowledge gaps – on the part of teachers, students, and other key players in school
outcomes. In the paragraphs that follow, key knowledge that is critical to ensure the
success of EL students is considered.
35
The achievement gap amongst Hispanic ELs is often evident since preschool.
These early learning years of a child are a critical time where rapid growth and
learning can occur (Rueda & Yaden, 2006). Thus, it is crucial that educational
systems take advantage of this period in a child’s life and foster the foundation that
will lead to success in reading and writing later in life. Research notes the
importance of providing consistent early literacy exposure during the preschool
years, especially when a significant distinction is evident between the literacy
environments at home and school (Rueda & Yaden, 2006). These authors suggest
that literacy can be fostered when educational systems provide the right types of
programs, providing students with optimal learning conditions. These conditions
must also build upon current practices and values. In addition to this, EL students in
the early grades require specially designed assessments which consider their
developmental stage and linguistic backgrounds. Additionally, one assessment
should not determine reclassification of a child’s language ability but rather it should
include a triangulation of assessments so that children could more appropriately
demonstrate their true language capabilities in diverse settings (Rueda & Yaden,
2006).
Social Capital
Some EL students also find themselves lacking the social capital knowledge
to know how to successfully navigate through the educational system. Utilizing
Anderson and Krathwohl’s definition of knowledge, this translates to conceptual
knowledge, understanding the “interrelationships among the basic elements within a
36
larger structure that enable them to function together” (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001, p. 1). “Parents who understand the knowledge and behaviors rewarded in
schools may pass these onto their children. While the desire to succeed academically
is often high among immigrant families, this desire is not often matched by
knowledge of how to achieve it” (Rueda, Monzó, & Arzubiaga, 2003, p. 2). These
authors suggest providing immigrant families with academic instrumental knowledge
(AIK): a specific type of cultural knowledge whereby families’ cultural basis is
legitimized while also introducing school practices so that a hybrid of practices
emerge reflecting a balance of the wide range of values, beliefs, resources and
familial constraints within an educational setting. Thus, Rueda et.al., (2003) stress
the need for school systems to acknowledge and use the cultural capital with which
Hispanic EL students’ families enter the educational system and use this information
to create links that support the learning of specific practices and information needed
in order for EL students to succeed in school. Educators within RUSD can assist
Hispanic EL families to mitigate the educational system via various avenues, (parent
classes, community outreach, etc.) so that EL students maximize their educational
opportunities. Without providing these opportunities, some Hispanic families within
RUSD may continue to aimlessly hold high aspirations for their children.
Curriculum
Pearson and Raphael (1999) emphasize the need for balance in literacy
curriculum. Specifically, these researchers call for a need to implement a truly
balanced curriculum which incorporates a deep reflection upon the context and
37
content of literacy instruction. The researchers revolve their work around four areas
of instruction: authenticity, classroom discourse, teacher’s roles, and curricular
control.
The notion of authenticity is crucial in ensuring student engagement and
learning, thus increasing student procedural knowledge. Some teachers often lack
the knowledge to effectively engage students towards a specific learning objective.
“Too many school tasks are unauthentic, unrealistic, and by implication, not useful
for engaging in real world literacy activities” (Pearson & Raphael, 1999, p. 25).
Students do not always understand how the learning in one task can transfer onto
other things. Tasks should therefore reflect realistic situations with viable goals. A
simple example is writing for a specific audience and purpose rather than for solely
demonstrating knowledge of conventions. Classroom discourse, according to the
researchers, includes control of topics of turns by both teachers and students. The
extent of control should be determined by the activity’s goals so that a variety of
discussion patterns are experienced in the classroom setting. Teachers’ roles and
classroom discourse are closely related in that both deal with control. However the
former impacts solely teacher control. Pearson and Raphael (1999) state students
learn passively when teachers engage in direct instruction and learn actively when
the teacher facilitates a classroom discussion. Therefore, it is vital that teachers
combine a mixture of instructional delivery methods to maximize learning: explicit
instruction, modeling, scaffolding, facilitating, and participating. Sadly, students
from high SES backgrounds usually benefit from high yielding instruction and
38
activities while students from low SES primarily receive explicit instruction
followed by worksheet completion. Lastly, although teachers do not have much say
over curricular control, they can accommodate lessons according to the standards
and knowledge pertinent to the learning objectives for the lesson. “Educators must
make clear those standards to which we would hold our students accountable as they
move through the curriculum” (Pearson & Raphael, 1999, p. 29).
Teaching Strategies
The EL population has increased by approximately 57 percent during the last
decade (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008). Unfortunately, current research
indicates that many mainstream teachers do not have sufficient knowledge to
effectively teach EL students, further aggravating the efforts to close the
achievement gap (Ballantyne et al., 2008). Additionally, the majority of educators
addressing the needs of EL students are White, female, middle-class living in
suburban or rural environments, it is vital they not only learn the pedagogy behind
instructing EL students, but also understand the sociocultural characteristics of the
EL population (McGraner & Saenz, 2009).
McGraner and Saenz (2009) present a set of six codified practices that
mainstream teachers must incorporate to effectively address EL instructional needs,
and which can be considered as key knowledge gaps if they are not considered by
teachers:
1. Sociocultural and political foundations for teaching EL students;
2. Foundations of second language acquisition;
39
3. Knowledge for teaching academic content to EL students;
4. Effective instructional practices for teaching academic content to EL
students;
5. Assessment practices and accommodations for EL students;
6. Professional engagement and collaboration.
Because of the diversity of backgrounds for EL students, it is vital teachers
understand the sociocultural and political aspects influencing these students’
educational experiences, which includes factual knowledge. The school system is
usually the first encounter with formal U.S. culture, thus educators must be well
prepared to ensure this initial contact is positive so as to create strong family,
community and academic engagement (McGraner & Saenz, 2009). Teachers must
also understand how students acquire a second language, most importantly that this
acquisition is not always linear. Failure to progress through the identified stages is
not necessarily indicative of a learning disability (McGraner & Saenz, 2009).
Research also indicates that student learning is highly dependent upon a
teacher’s conceptual understanding of the academic content (Ball, 1990). When a
teacher holds a strong understanding of content knowledge, the teacher is capable of
facilitating student learning via the use of curricular resources and appropriate
assessment tools (McGraner & Saenz, 2009). These researchers also suggest
scaffolding the learning of concepts and word meanings so that students are exposed
to direct, intensive instruction. A key component of measuring learning is
assessments. EL assessments should be specifically developed to measure the
40
academic content taught, appropriate to the standard measured and students’
language proficiency levels (McGraner & Saenz, 2009). Thus, it is crucial that
mainstream teachers work in collaboration with El specialists and teachers to
increase their knowledge of the specialized assessments EL students require. EL
students present diverse, specialized needs, given their growing numbers, teachers
must possess the adequate knowledge base to address their educational needs. Only
then will educators come closer to narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap. In
sum, the range of possible knowledge gaps that might contribute to lower
achievement levels for EL students include the following: factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge.
Organizational
A final critical dimension considered by a gap analysis approach is
organizational factors that may impact the achievement of performance goals. These
may be institutional and organizational policies, structures, and cultural practices.
Organizational culture is defined as “what we value, and how we do what we do as
an organization. It is the most important work process in all organizations because it
dictates how we work together to get our job done” (Clark and Estes, 2001, p. 107).
One key aspect of organizational culture is how difference is tolerated.
Specifically, what are the cultural practices and beliefs that characterize the
educational practices related to EL students? Researchers have found institutional
racism to be a contributing factor to the ongoing achievement gap between minority
students and their non-minority counterparts. The difficulty in addressing this
41
structural barrier to academic achievement for all students is how to achieve
equitable outcomes that do not unfairly penalize the most underserved (Johnson,
2002). Despite various educational reforms, we find ourselves in the 21
st
century
with a persistent achievement gap in education, usually identified by race, income
and ethnicity. Organizationally, minority students are overrepresented in special
education as well (Johnson, 2002). Traditionally, the blame has fallen onto the
cultural, racial, ethnic, socio-economic and linguistic backgrounds of these failing
students. However, Singham (1998) proposes an alternative response to this dismal
data: “the primary problem lies not in the way black or other minority children view
education but in the way we teach all children, black, white, or other” (Singham,
1998, p. 12). However, cultural practices and beliefs, as reflected in school practice,
is an important factor that may impact student achievement for EL students.
Schools with large numbers of low income, minority students have been able
to address this structural root of the achievement gap much more successfully than
other schools with similar students (Haycock, 2001). In general, research has
consistently found the following elements visible within a school culture that has
been able to narrow this gap:
• High goals, high standards, high expectations and high accountability for
adults and students;
• Well qualified and competent teachers;
• Curriculum and content that is highly rigorous; and
42
• Continuous inquiry and monitoring through the use of data (Johnson,
2002).
In contrast, the absence of these factors would represent key organizational barriers
to academic achievement, and are factors which merit examination.
Another structural cause for the achievement gap lies within the
organizational structure of the district and school’s leadership. District and school
leadership must believe in the high expectations of all students and demonstrate this
belief through actions. Sergiovanni (2001) states educational leaders should have a
vision of change, accepting the current data and trends are unacceptable. This
nonconforming point of view must also be communicated effectively to all
stakeholders, not solely believed but articulated daily. According to this researcher,
district and school leaders should also lead the instructional path. It is no longer
sufficient to administer a school or district with managerial skills; leaders must also
have a strong understanding of curriculum and instruction. Lastly, Sergiovanni
(2001) suggests leaders must play a vital role in continuous efforts to support all
staff. As Michael Fullan (1993) stated, district administrators are most important for
setting the expectation for reform. For true reform to take effect and in response,
witness a narrowing of the achievement gap, reform must be learned, practiced,
supported and monitored daily.
43
CHAPTER 2
PART B: METHODOLOGY
Co-written by: Lesette Molina-Solis, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava,
& Alberto Alvarez
Inquiry Project Purpose
The purpose of this alternative capstone was to examine the impact of the
inquiry project to examine the ways it is related to current educational reform efforts
on closing the achievement gap for the Hispanic EL student population in RUSD.
Three distinct purposes drove this alternative capstone inquiry project. The first
purpose was to examine the impact of the district’s current educational reform efforts
on closing the achievement gap for the Hispanic EL student population in RUSD.
The second purpose was to utilize the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model as a
problem-solving framework for analyzing the Hispanic EL achievement gap by
exploring the motivational, organizational, and knowledge-based barriers that impact
the achievement gap. The third purpose was to examine the current state of the
various reform efforts implemented in RUSD to address the achievement gaps as
noted by API and AYP amongst the Hispanic EL student population.
Gap Analysis Overview
The gap analysis is a systematic problem-solving approach to helping
improve performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The
Gap analysis model is an effective tool to explicitly communicate the problem
statement using goals, measures/performance indicators, standards, and gaps. The
44
Gap analysis model is designed to assist organizations in identifying goals with the
purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of any possible root causes that could
impede the organization from achieving its goal. In order to be able to accurately
develop a problem statement, a thorough analysis of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational/cultural barriers must be considered. The Gap analysis model
functions from the premise that performance gaps derive from one or more of the
following: a lack of knowledge and/or skills, a lack of motivation, and/or a lack of
tools, facilities, or some type of organizational barrier. Once the root cause(s) are
identified, effective solutions and performance indicators are established. The last
step in this model is the incorporation of an evaluation plan to assess the success of
the solution after the implementation cycle. Due to the limited time frame of our
inquiry, the inquiry team does not present an evaluation.
The Gap model has five steps to ensure a systematic application of the model.
The first step is to Define Goals: this step is a guide in how to write performance
goals and how to create a plan to achieve those goals. In this step the goals will be
examined at three levels: long term goals, intermediate goals, and day-to-day goals.
Goals are reviewed to ensure they are aligned at all levels, they are measurable, and
that goals fit in with each other. The goals that are set need to be measurable and
supported by all the stakeholders because they are ‘C
3
Goals’ (Clark & Estes, 2002).
“The best work goals are C
3
Goals: Concrete, Challenging, and Current” (Clark &
Estes 2002, p. 26). A concrete goal is easy to understand and can be measured. A
45
challenging goal would be a feasible next step. A current goal can be attained in a
shorter amount of time (weeks or months) vs. years.
The second step is to Determine Gaps. The current level of performance is
compared to a standard that represents a desired level of performance. This
comparison would involve collecting benchmark data from other organizations that
are currently meeting the desired goal. The gap is determined by subtracting the
organization's current performance in comparison to the achievement of an other
organization that has achieved the desired goal. The difference between the current
performance and desired performance becomes the gap (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The third step in the Gap analysis model is to Investigate Causes. Causal
analysis consists of listing all the possible causes that may be the root cause of a less
than desired performance. A root cause is defined as the underlying factor(s)
contributing to the gap between achieved and desired goals. This analysis is
specifically done by looking at the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization/culture for the potential causes of the gap. The organization using the
gap analysis model will examine all stakeholders in the organization and examine
them in each area. Knowledge refers to education, information, and professional
development. Motivation refers the willingness of a person to participate as well as
effort. Organizational gaps refer to the climate of the organization, its practices, and
its norms. The potential cause(s) in these three areas are assessed and are either
validated as a root cause or eliminated. By using this process of elimination, a
clearer picture can be obtained of what is likely causing the performance gap(s).
46
Once all the plausible root causes of the determined gap are investigated,
eliminated or accepted, solutions can be identified leading to the fourth step:
Proposed Solutions. Emphasis here is placed on providing solutions that target the
areas of learning, motivation, and organization. Solutions are research-based and
address problems that are directly tied to the root causes identified in Sep 3.
The fifth step is to Evaluate Outcomes. An important step in ensuring
program or solution effectiveness is to evaluate the results. Results from solution
implementation are evaluated and modified as needed. The evaluation process itself
has four levels according to the gap analysis model. The four levels are: reactions,
impact during the program, transfer, and the bottom line. This is an ongoing process;
at this point, the solutions may be modified and re-implemented until the desired
goals are achieved. Without this key component of the gap analysis model, true
program effectiveness may not be determined, thus the gap(s) may not be narrowed.
Due to time limitations, it is noteworthy to mention that this inquiry project did not
include this final step in the gap analysis process. However, it is a very crucial step
in the overall analysis.
Project Design
Given that the data collected was via interviews and observations and that the
ultimate purpose of this inquiry project was to provide RUSD Board Members
plausible solutions to their dilemma, it was the determination of the inquiry team that
a qualitative design was the best method to conduct this project. “A qualitative
design needs to remain sufficiently open and flexible to permit exploration of
47
whatever the phenomenon under study offers for inquiry (Patton, 2002, p. 255).”
From this perspective, solutions were presented. Given current literature, it is the
assumption that the achievement gap in RUSD may be associated with motivational
student/teacher factors, organizational factors, and knowledge based factors of both
students and educators.
The inquiry team agreed upon conducting a formative inquiry project, in that
the purpose of this project was to “judge the processes and outcomes aimed at
attempted solutions (Patton, 2002, p. 218).” RUSD has implemented various district
wide reform efforts to address the mandates articulated by the federal legislation of
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the fact their district has recently become a
Program Improvement One district (PI 1). This is due in large part to their Hispanic
population not meeting the state testing proficiency guidelines. Thus, this inquiry
project analyzed the current reform efforts, how these compared to research based
literature, the extent of the reform efforts, how these compared to research based
literature, and the degree of impact the reform efforts have on the educational
outcomes for the Hispanic EL student population.
Additionally, at the conclusion of data collection and analysis, the inquiry
team members presented findings to the RUSD Board of Education so as to suggest
improvements upon their current reform efforts, staff development, and
organizational support with respect to the Hispanic EL subpopulation. It was the
intent of the inquiry team to provide fiscally responsible and empirically based
solutions to the current Hispanic EL Achievement Gap in RUSD. It was also the
48
intent of the inquiry team to provide suggestions for further inquiry as every possible
reason leading to the Hispanic EL Achievement Gap may not be answered given the
time limitation of the study. However, it was the intent of the inquiry team to
attempt to provide sufficient answers so that RUSD may continue onto its quest for
continued student academic achievement. The inquiry team began the project in the
Fall of 2009 and concluded in the Fall of 2010 (see Appendix A).
Focus of the Gap Analysis Inquiry
The focus of analysis in this project was Rowland Unified School District
along with the corresponding state testing data, reform program elements, teacher
instruction, whole program implementation, school administrative support, and
organizational support. The purpose of this inquiry project suggested using a
qualitative methodology to investigate findings for proposal to the RUSD Board of
Education. This project’s focus was to understand the Hispanic achievement gap
despite district wide reform efforts. Therefore, this inquiry project used purposeful
sampling methods to gather data. A lead district level participant provided additional
resources, leading to the use of chain sampling, which is an approach for locating
information-rich informants by asking well-situated people for leads (Patton, 2002).
Strategically chosen interviews were the primary source of data collection tool. In
addition, data was gathered by conducting detailed observations and distributing
surveys and questionnaires. For the purposes of this project, a naturalistic inquiry
approach was exercised.
49
Data Collection Tools
Data collection tools utilized by the research team provided the nature of this
project, utilization of data collection sources such as observations, interviews, and
questionnaires were seen as the most appropriate to provide answers in the guiding
questions (see Appendix B). The observation protocol included sections to examine
posted class work, evidence of the use of district reform strategies, visuals, district
EL materials and resources.
In addition, the inquiry team conducted three levels of interviews, Phase I, II
and III (see Appendix B, C, D). The first level of interviews consisted of questions
regarding the achievement gap, perceived reasons for the gap and desired outcomes
for the district regarding Hispanic EL achievement. The second level of interviews
consisted of questions regarding teacher implementation of reform efforts,
knowledge of the EL reform strategies, and perceived district wide support for
addressing EL educational needs.
The questionnaires provided information regarding collaboration, student
needs and knowledge about diverse teaching strategies. During this phase the
inquiry team utilized the Stages of Concern model to gather a deeper understanding
for the current gap (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). Additionally, given the problem-
solution framework this project was working with, it was decided by the team that
this would be the optimal method to examine the Hispanic EL achievement gap
holistically. The team not only looked at the responses of individual participants, but
also looked at the organization of RUSD, its people and the greater community it
50
serves, which is of great influence among the Hispanic population. Lastly, the team
conducted Phase III interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the unique
problems associated with the Hispanic EL achievement gap. The informants
provided the depth needed to analyze the presented problem. Validity and
confidence for the project was improved by implementing the use of triangulation.
As stated in Patton 2002, “a rich variety of methodological combinations can be
employed to illuminate an inquiry question (p. 248).” Patton also states that using
triangulation allows for testing of consistency, increasing the credibility of a study or
project.
Procedures
Entry to RUSD was facilitated by the inquiry team’s university dissertation
advisors. The district superintendent agreed to the alternative capstone inquiry
project design conducted by doctoral students. Areas of inquiry were provided by
the Superintendent, and the Board of Education approved the areas of inquiry as
being essential for continued districtwide improvement. The initial meeting was
facilitated by the university dissertation advisors and RUSD representatives. At this
meeting, the thematic dissertation group doctoral students received information
specific to the areas of inquiry in addition to learning about the district’s vision and
mission statements. The district also presented current reform efforts that have been
a part of RUSD's strategic plan for improvement. A significant part of their
presentation focused on information regarding the district's partnership with the Ball
Foundation (see Appendix A). It was crucial that the inquiry group become
51
knowledgeable about the foundation and the work implemented in RUSD as a result
of their partnership.
The project commenced in the fall of 2009 with a presentation conducted by
the Board of RUSD to the Marsh/Rueda thematic dissertation group in the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California (see Appendix A). The
Board presented areas of concern for their district, one of which included the
Hispanic EL achievement gap. In the late winter of 2010, the three doctoral students
comprising the team inquiring about the Hispanic EL achievement gap, began initial
interviews with key district-level members from the district’s office of Bilingual
Education. These Phase I interviews provided an overview for the context of the gap
in addition to some document analysis (see Appendix B). These participants also
provided school-based leads as potential participants.
The inquiry team made contact with RUSD’s Director of Bilingual Education
for an initial interview. During this interview, one of the group's objectives was to
establish a professional working relationship based upon a high level of mutual trust
and respect. In order to establish this relationship, it was imperative that the inquiry
group be transparent in its intent and processes. The inquiry team introduced itself
quickly to the district, emphasizing that the intent of the inquiry team was to help the
district with their effort in addressing the needs of their Hispanic EL subgroup.
The inquiry team proceeded to explain the gap analysis model and the
rationale for its use with enough detail to build support. At this point the inquiry
team asked the Director of Bilingual Education for a summary of where RUSD
52
currently stood with addressing the Hispanic achievement gap in their district. The
inquiry group also requested any additional district documents that would provide
more information. As a conclusion to the initial interview, it was imperative to ask
for guidance in suggesting nine people that would be great "next interviews" in
obtaining a greater understanding of the Hispanic achievement gap in RUSD. The
inquiry group at that time established the most convenient way to communicate with
the Director of Bilingual Education and confirmed the best mode of contact for these
nine suggested stakeholders.
This initial interview served as the official initiation to the data collection that
transpired over the next few months. A letter indicating the intent of the project was
sent to the Director of Bilingual Education for review and acceptance. Once the
approval was received it was sent to the principals at the school sites recommended
by the district-level contact. The inquiry group proceeded to make contact with
school administrators via telephone and email. Once the respondents acknowledged
willingness to participate in the project interviews. At the conclusion of these
interviews, follow-up interview and observation dates were set with classroom
teachers.
A set of Round One and Round Two interviews with teachers followed.
Round One interviews consisted of gathering an overview of information regarding
possible root causes of the achievement gap in RUSD. This interview also included
an overview of the participants’ Stages of Concern (SOC), understanding and
conceptualizing professionals’ concerns regarding innovation (Bailey & Palsha,
53
1992). In this project, the concern for innovation included district initiatives to
address EL instruction. Additionally, a scanning interview was conducted where
educators were asked about their understanding of the problem, instructional tools
used to address the problem, and reasons for the existing problem (see Appendix B).
These interviews were conducted in person by a single or two-person team or over
the phone. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed by the project team
members. The main purpose of the interviews was to gather data in the subject’s
own words.
Round Two interviews of classroom teachers included a month survey of
instruction (Appendix C). These in person interviews, conducted by a single or two-
person team, involved gathering further information to support or refute possible
gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. Interviews were recorded
and later transcribed for accuracy. During the interview, inquiry team members
scanned the classroom environment for evidence of using instructional materials or
tools presented by interviewees during the interview process. For the purposes of
practicality and respect for the participants’ time, Round One and Round Two
interviews did not exceed 40 minutes.
From this point, the inquiry team began the second phase of the interview
process, including use of the Stages of Concern (SOC) methodology (Hall & Loucks,
1979). The inquiry team contacted the school leads provided by the district level
members. Once contact was made, interviews were established with principals,
classroom teachers, and EL Leads. These interviews were conducted either in
54
person or over the phone by one to three members of the inquiry team. The team
then continued with Phase III level of interviews, including classroom observations,
distribution of surveys and questionnaires to follow up on unique issues that
continued throughout the Spring 2010 semester (see Appendix D).
During the Summer 2010 semester, the team began analyzing the data and
identifying the performance gaps with their root causes. These findings were
compared with empirically based literature. Additionally, the team prepared for a
presentation of findings with present and future recommendations to the RUSD
Superintendent and executive board. During the early Fall 2010 semester, the
inquiry team presented an executive summary of its findings to the Superintendent
and her Leadership Cabinet. The team, along with two other inquiry groups from the
university, attended a meeting with the Superintendent and related staff. At this
meeting, the district presented new information regarding changes in the district and
other relevant information to provide further insight into the findings presented in the
executive summary. At this point, the inquiry team looked at the gathered data,
included the information from this meeting and established more coherent findings.
Then, the team continued to work on its empirically-based review of literature
aligned with the findings and prepared for a presentation to the Superintendent and
her Leadership Cabinet. In November 2010, the team presented its findings to the
district (see Appendix H). At the conclusion of the meeting, the team was invited to
present its findings to the Board of Education and school principals. This
presentation was scheduled for early in the Spring 2011 semester.
55
Executive Summary
Once our initial data analysis was complete and the inquiry team had a more
authentic understanding of the root problems we met with our dissertation advisor.
As a group we agreed that the best way to communicate our progress to the
leadership team at RUSD was to provide them with an executive summary. The
executive summary gave a brief background of our work as well as a summary of the
identified performance gaps. It also provided what the inquiry team found to be the
root causes of the identified, perceived problem by the district. All three Rowland
inquiry teams created an executive summary for their particular area of focus.
After the executive summary had been made available to the leadership team
at RUSD a date was set so that the inquiry teams could present and field any
questions surrounding the executive summary. The three groups met with the RUSD
Superintendent and her Leadership Cabinet comprised of her assistant
superintendents and directors.
Culminating Presentation
Group PowerPoint
In preparation for the final presentation of our findings there was a lot of
additional work involved. As a team of nine we met with our advisor to brainstorm
and work out what our final presentation to the district would be and how it should
be presented. We agreed that, before we moved forward, we as a team of nine
needed to understand the findings, solutions, and recommendations of all three
groups to ensure that we were consistent in what we would be presenting.
56
Inconsistencies in our presentation could potentially discredit all of our work. Once
we were able to align the common findings among the three inquiry teams we then
focused on the unique differences as an additional area of focus.
At that time we agreed to develop a streamlined PowerPoint. Every inquiry
team was assigned the responsibility to produce three to five slides that would
convey the information that their team wanted to present. This assignment was
undertaken with the understanding the there would be an initial set of slides that
would frame the inquiry project and highlight the commonalities among the three
groups. The group was very clear that the PowerPoint should be cohesive and
connected in its presentation. Although three inquiry teams examined three different
topics we did not want three different styles to come across in the PowerPoint. We
wanted the focus to be on RUSD and the inquiry work that was conducted in their
district. We sought to provide a way to present our proposed solutions as a way to
support the work currently in place while at the same time addressing their pre-
identified areas of concern.
Possible Solutions Presentation
The presentation of our collective work was also strategically planned. One
member from each inquiry team presented the main slides pertaining to their group’s
work. In addition, the entire group had one additional member open and close the
presentation to provide a coordinated introduction and conclusion. The other team
members provided support during the question and answer session that immediately
followed each inquiry team presentation.
57
Additional Presentations to District Groups
At the closing of the presentation the RUSD superintendent made a formal
request to our dissertation advisor for our district team to make this formal
presentation two more times. Once to all the school site principals, and once more to
their School Board of Education. The three inquiry teams were honored by the
request and unanimously agreed to return sometime early in the Spring 2011
semester.
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration.
The intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a
traditional dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of
providing consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not
considered as “research” as such, and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for
research designed to produce generalizable knowledge. The following sections from
a University Institutional Review Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the
present project:
Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge”
1
(45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be
applied to populations or situations beyond that studied.
2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and
autonomy) for human subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
58
hypothesis [and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually
described in a formal protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of
procedures to reach that objective.

“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work
(e.g., routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for
internal management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance,
quality improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or
contracted-for services. It generally does not include journalism or political
polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute research in
circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable
knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)

Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the
data derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the
efficiency of an institutional practice. (Office for the Protection of Research
Subjects, p. 4)
59
CHAPTER 2
PART C: COMMON FINDINGS
Co-written by: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava,
Lesette Molina-Solis
Introduction
As a subgroup, Hispanics in the United States have historically struggled
academically. This had been especially true in large urban school districts that have
large percentages of EL students. Further compounding the issue is the challenge of
how to help these students become academically successful, are the current stressors
that accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has added. NCLB
has raised the stakes for schools and districts, requiring them to disaggregate data to
show that their Hispanic ELL subgroups are making adequate progress within a
specified time frame. Rowland Unified School District is no exception to the
accountability pressures of this reform.
In its efforts to meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance,
Rowland Unified School District has made their Hispanic ELL subgroup a priority.
Among the different schools we visited, it became clear that the NCLB requirements
have significantly changed the academic course of Rowland USD. These changes
have fundamentally influenced the way the district and the school sites are making
decisions for ELs. Some areas that have been greatly influenced are the allocation of
funds and selection of instructional programs. The decisions are made in the areas
that directly and indirectly support the progress of the district EL reform. The
60
leadership team at Rowland understands that NCLB has placed a spotlight on the
Hispanic and EL subgroups. Although these accountability measures have been
imposed by NCLB, Rowland’s leadership team has found a way to capitalize on this
situation as an opportunity to support the district reform and help all students
succeed.
This alternative capstone project focused primarily on looking at the
achievement gap of Hispanic EL’s in Rowland Unified. The project team reviewed
existing district documents (Strategic Plan, Master Plan for English Learners, Single
Action Plan for Student Achievement, School Accountability Report Cards, etc.) and
conducted a series of structured interviews with the intent of getting a better
understanding of why there continues to be an achievement gap for the Hispanic
ELL subgroup within the district.
After collecting and analyzing the data gathered from the scanning interviews
conducted in March and April of 2010, several themes emerged. Throughout these
themes a number of factors surfaced that hindered the positive impact of programs,
initiatives and diverted attention and resources from the goal of improving teaching
and learning for ELs. These areas of focus were evident across multiple data
sources. The documents, surveys, interviews, and observations soundly supported
the following areas of focus:
1. Curriculum - What programs were being used to address the needs of
Hispanic EL students.
61
2. Collaboration – How did teachers work together as professionals to
support the Hispanic EL Students.
3. Communication – How key information was transmitted from the district
office to the teachers at the school sites.
4. Professional Development – What PD was offered to teachers to support
the needs of ELs, how were teachers selected (or not selected) to attend,
and who was actually attending.
5. Teacher Efficacy – What responsibility did teachers believe they had to
the Hispanic EL students that they serviced.
6. Leadership – How were the principals at the individual school sites
ensuring that the academic needs of the Hispanic EL students became a
school wide focus.
These areas of focus became the backdrop for the second round of interviews, which
were completed at a variety of schools K-8 within the district. The team used these
areas of focus as a point of departure when interviewing classroom teachers in both
elementary and intermediate sites.
After the team conducted the second round of interviews, reviewed
documents, and analyzed the complete interview process the team found that some
performance/work goals were being met towards accomplishing the organizational
goal to close the Hispanic EL achievement gap. While also revealing that other
performance goals/objectives had not been made clear or were yet to be identified.
This has resulted in essential performance goals not being met. These performance
62
gaps stem from deficiencies in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
processes and resources. The team analyzed the responses to see if they related with
knowledge and skill, motivation, and or organizational barriers.
What follows is a summary of the findings collected through the review of
documents and interview process. First are our positive findings of the activities that
take place at the district and school levels towards meeting the organizational goal of
closing the Hispanic academic achievement gap. Then there is a more in-depth
explanation of key concepts for analyzing data. This is followed by a summary of
the root causes of the performance gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational procedures and resources that we believe has prevented Rowland
USD from closing the Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Strengths
RUSD is a highly successful district as evidenced by countless honors and
the national respect it has received. RUSD earned four National Blue Ribbons,
sixteen California Distinguished Schools, and several Golden Bell Awards. There
are numerous exceptional practices that RUSD already has in place that are an
excellent launching pad for propelling their efforts to close the EL Hispanic
achievement gap. Rowland has a culture of professionalism and high expectations
among the staff that contribute to the academic success of students. Every person
that the inquiry team encountered expressed personal pride they had in working for
Rowland and for the children they serve. Many of those interviewed were also proud
63
to share that they are alumni of RUSD and that they have placed their own children
in the Rowland school district.
Clear Vision for Reform
In RUSD, there seems to be great support for the advancement of a clear and
unified vision of the district reform efforts. The process of establishing this vision
and rallying support behind district goals created the necessary buy-in to make the
reform implementation successful. RUSD’s shared vision for reform has signaled a
district commitment to system-wide change.
From the very first interaction with the district it was clear that through their
partnership with the Ball Foundation there had been substantial work on creating a
clear vision. All of the district leadership was able to articulate how their particular
department contributed to the overall district vision.
English Language Learner Advocacy
RUSD has very dedicated and effective advocates for the improvement of EL
instruction and services. These advocates have helped guide and advance the
district’s EL reform agenda. One of these advocates in specific is the Director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education. Everyone interviewed spoke about the positive
support for the changes in the EL reform from the school board, the superintendent,
and the bilingual education director. The superintendent and the director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education not only have the expertise needed but also the
commitment required for improving the quality of EL instruction in RUSD. The
Curriculum and Bilingual Education Director has taken proactive steps to build a
64
culture of collaboration. The bilingual education director understands the
importance of setting high standards for EL achievement. The bilingual education
director also makes every effort to provide the tools and curriculum support that
schools may need to meet these high standards. The director believes in the
importance of research based strategies and supporting the use of data to improve
instruction and services for ELs.
Bilingual Education Office
When Rowland USD made EL achievement a priority it also empowered the
office of Bilingual Education. Throughout the interviews conducted in the district,
there was consistent feedback about how important the role of the Curriculum and
Bilingual Education department has been in making the needs of ELs a district-wide
focus. The bilingual education office also works collaboratively with other districts
office departments to support instructional improvement for ELs in making the EL
focus an integrated part of all support offered from all the departments. It was also
mentioned repeatedly how the department of Curriculum and Bilingual Education is
included in the highest levels of decision-making, which helps to keep the needs of
Hispanic EL students on the table.
Master Plan for English Learners
RUSD has created a district wide Master Plan for English Learners. This
plan includes specific efforts to systematically build schools’ capacity to instruct and
support ELs. Communication with, and involvement of, school staff and the
community were essential in the formulation of this plan. The district actively
65
engaged teachers, principals, and other school administrators in the adoption of
organizational and instructional strategies.
RUSD identified a deliberate policy and specific practices for the English
Language Development (ELD) of ELs. The district strategies and practices signal an
implicit understanding of the dual academic challenge of ELs: to acquire both
proficiency in English and the literacy skills to comprehend content. RUSD supports
ELs by providing both Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education
throughout the district.
Support for Implementation
In response to emerging achievement deficits, RUSD has taken the initiative
to implement reforms needed to improve student achievement. With respect to the
ongoing needs of ELs, RUSD has created the EL lead position at each school site
with the intent to improve the quality of the EL program. RUSD has also taken major
steps to better coordinate district resources in order to meet its organizational goals.
For example, each school site was assigned an EL lead teacher who provides
information and coaching on the newly adopted collaborative model of instruction,
conducts presentations for staff, facilitates meetings, and works with school
personnel to facilitate professional development activities. These lead teachers
essentially act as liaisons between the school and the district, ensuring that schools
had the support they needed in meeting the needs of EL students. Also, depending
on if a school has a Structured English Immersion program or a Bilingual Education
Program, the Office of Bilingual Education is ready to support every individual site.
66
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes
As the team reviewed the interviews and observations, four themes emerged.
One or more of these four themes repeatedly found their way to the center of every
conversation held. These themes first surfaced in the initial scanning interviews and
continued to come up during the follow-up interviews and school visits with site
administrators and teachers. The four emergent themes that were identified were: 1)
the academic impact of a decentralized district on the Hispanic EL subgroup, 2) an
absence of a clearly identified plan and support for the progress of ELs, 3) the
perception of professional accountability for the progress of Hispanic ELs, and, 4) a
gap of cultural knowledge of students’ backgrounds and experiences.
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District on the Hispanic EL Subgroup
The inquiry team found that for the specific topic of Hispanic EL
achievement the advantages of decentralization seem to have created some
unintended disadvantages for Hispanic ELs. The explicit accountability for student
progress seems to be the biggest hurdle to overcome in trying to close the Hispanic
EL achievement gap in a decentralized setting. For example, among the interviews
that were conducted there was a widely expressed feeling that no two schools
addressed the needs of ELs in the same way. Furthermore, within each site, every
classroom was an island unto its own. Many site administrators and teachers believe
there are no explicit goals or targets for student progress in place. There was also a
belief that no system was in place to support or monitor the implementation of
adopted programs because "everyone is doing something different." This perceived
67
lack of support and oversight leads to inconsistency in the implementation of the
curriculum, and programs for ELs. Any and all decisions regarding curriculum and
levels of implementation is left at the discretion of the leadership of the individual
schools sites. The byproduct of all these decentralized decisions is the delivery of an
ELD academic program that potentially can vary not only from school to school, but
from classroom to classroom.
Although many teachers like the ability to make independent decisions, some
teachers specified that they would prefer the district to impose more structure when it
came to issues surrounding ELs. Teachers and administrators that stated this, felt
that not enough is being done at the district level to effectively implement the EL
reform at the schools. They added that they did not feel they had the curricular
knowledge or the content expertise to make decisions for EL students. Through this
lens, the teachers did not see the district valuing certain reform activities nor
providing enough follow-up support.
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for the Progress of ELs
Through interviews with administrators and teachers, it became clear that
some people interviewed believe that the district has not effectively articulated or
communicated a vision for the kind of instructional program it wants for their ELs.
Many administrators and teachers interviewed stated that the district had not clearly
communicated their goals. Some teachers expressed their awareness of the district’s
general expectations for ELs, but shared their frustration over the absence of clear
performance goals. In absence of clear performance goals, people tend to focus on
68
tasks they deem important, instead of helping achieve the organizational goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The perceived lack of a comprehensive and concrete plan to meet
the needs of ELs is an example of how some respondents feel that the district
seemingly has no clear performance goals or expectations for schools.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed feeling
that they are working as hard as they can for the best of their students but they really
do not know what the district preferences are. During one interview, a lead ELD
teacher at a site was asked what the districts goals were for Hispanic EL students, the
teacher responded, “I didn’t know there were any. If there are, I would love to know
what they are.” There was also a voiced frustration that not all lead teachers are
allowed the time or forum necessary to effectively communicate the district message
that they were entrusted in “taking back” to their respective sites. One veteran lead
teacher stated, “Well it all depends if your site principal values what you are bringing
back. Some principals make room for you on the agenda, while others just put you
off by saying that the staff knows where to find you if they have EL questions.”
The degree of the gap ranged between teachers that were extremely
knowledgeable in the goals and forms of support the district provided to teachers that
they did not know existed. The knowledgeable teachers were able to articulate the
best instructional practices for ELs and how to access support. At the other extreme,
some teachers did not know who the Lead EL teacher was at their site or that the
position even existed. Many teachers expressed that EL trainings were only for EL
teachers and not accessible to all.
69
The topic of follow-through repeatedly surfaced in all of the interviews.
Many teachers commented that any ideas and plans proposed for ELs at the district
or site administrative level rarely makes it into the classrooms. The example that
was repeatedly given was that of the English Learner Program. This partial
implementation of an organizational goal reflects the perception of a practice of
strong verbal commitment but a lack of faithful implementation. Other perceptions
include that EL instruction is a separate curricular area. It is not perceived as an
integrated part of the core curriculum nor is it monitored to ensure consistency.
Although the district does mandate specialized language support for ELs, there is no
system in place for guidance and oversight of the EL program component.
Individual schools end up adopting different approaches for implementation. Sites
vary in the time they allocate for ELD. They vary in how ELD groups are formed,
the size of the groups, how many levels are in a group, and how teachers are
assigned to teach these groups. The most common variation of the ELD program
consisted of having EL students leave the homeroom during core instruction to
receive a pull-out ELD intervention. This is not very effective as students are
missing core instruction to provide ELD in a supplemental setting.
Some of the teachers interviewed explained that they were not involved in
selecting the ELD programs or materials, nor have they been trained on how the
program components should be integrated with the core curriculum. Many general
education teachers have not received any specialized training in English language
development strategies or differentiated instruction.
70
Another layer of frustration by some teachers was the perception that
resources were not equal between school sites or even within departments. These
perceived inequalities create feelings of isolation for ELD teachers and departments.
Perception of Professional Accountability for the Progress of Hispanic ELs
One significant common finding was the consistent belief that ELD teachers
were ultimately responsible for all EL students. Many teachers reported that there
are no conversations or collaboration around how to meet the needs of EL students
throughout the day and across the curriculum. There was little evidence of
collaboration between teachers at a site and even less evidence of any collaboration
between school sites. Working in isolation can be considered an organizational
problem. It can also negatively impact motivation because teachers feel that
everyone is not held accountable. Teachers who serve EL students voiced that they
feel they carry a heavy burden of responsibility and moral obligation for the student
population. They also believe that the teachers who don’t service EL students wash
their hands of that “problem” because those are “not their kids”.
Some of the teachers and administrators that were interviewed felt that there
is little professional development for teaching literacy to ELs. There are even fewer
professional development opportunities for teachers to learn how to address the
needs of ELs during core curriculum. Teachers need PD to show them how to
effectively teach their students the core content while helping them acquire the
academic English necessary to be successful in the content area. Those interviewed
explained that teachers who have not been selected or have self-selected to work
71
with EL students' feel that they are not adequately prepared to work with EL
students. This feeling of inadequacy perpetuates the unspoken practice of not taking
ownersip of EL students by teachers who feel they are not qualified to support them.
Conversely, many ELD teachers feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of
responsibility that is placed on them to have ‘success with those students’. There is
also a belief that the majority of the staff who are not “responsible” for ELs are
“allowed” to put some distance between themselves and the problem of closing the
Hispanic achievement gap. There is a collective sense of low teacher efficacy, or
teachers’ perceptions that their efforts as a group will not positively impact student
achievement. This is important, since a low collective efficacy affects persistence
and can create a culture of low expectations.
“Given the importance of access to quality teachers for student achievement-
particularly among ELs—it comes to no surprise that access to high quality
professional development (PD) for general education teachers and EL teachers alike
was (is) instrumental in the reform initiatives of improving districts” (Great City
Schools, Oct. 2009, p. 22). All the administrators and EL leads interviewed
understood the importance of PD, however, they stated that Rowland does not have a
coherent strategy for building EL staff capacity through targeted professional
development. In Rowland USD, professional development is largely voluntary. In
the absence of centrally-defined, supported, and monitored professional
development, each school determines and provides for its own professional
development needs. Those interviewed reported that the focus and quality of
72
professional development varies from school to school. Most professional
development opportunities that are offered in Rowland USD do not integrate EL-
specific content into their offerings or address strategies for differentiated
instruction.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When a middle school teacher was asked about English Learners
taking core curriculum with ‘English Only’ students, the teacher responded, “I don’t
know how to help them sometimes. I am not trained to teach these kids. So when
they struggle I send them back to the ELD teachers.” Several teachers felt that they
could not help “these” students. Some teachers felt that the causes for low student
achievement were not connected to their professional effort. With this type of
external attribution, some teachers may feel that their efforts are pointless, and
instead focus on other work goals. Further complicating the matter is the potential
difficulty in addressing such a sensitive issue. Many times teachers are not aware
that their attitudes or lack of effort impact student achievement.
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students’ Backgrounds and Experiences
By the time a student arrives at a school they have already been impacted by
their environment. The environment that they come from includes home, culture,
language, and any previous schooling. In order to be effective, educators must
understand and value the diverse backgrounds their students come from and use that
information as a resource in designing instruction. Acknowledging that students
73
come to school with unique experiences necessitates an acceptance that there is no
simple, one size fits all solution.
In conversations and interviews, the inquiry team found a significant gap in
knowledge about the Hispanic culture within the school district and the community.
This lack of knowledge includes the knowledge of one’s self and group and the
perceptions and knowledge of other cultural groups. Almost all administrators and
teachers interviewed commented on the cultural differences between their students
and the community. One staff member stated that, “Students do not feel it is
important to learn English because they do not use it at home or even at school when
they are with their friends.” There is also a general perception that the parents are
more concerned with the ethnic demographics of the schools, than the academic
standings of their child. One teacher stated that, “For the most part, the Hispanic
parents do not really value their children learning English as long as they are in a
school where the majority of the students look like them and there are no (social)
problems.”
One teacher explained that Hispanic parents are comfortable living among
themselves and only speaking Spanish. This was further supported when a middle
school teacher stated the transition to their school (from the elementary schools) is
difficult because the Hispanic kids that come in from all Hispanic elementary
schools do not like going to school with the Asian students. While these ideas can
also be attributed to other root cause such as motivational and organizational, they
stem from a basic lack of factual knowledge about the students culture.
74
Cautions and Limitations
It should be recognized that the patterns reported here are based on a limited
number of conversations and interviews with a limited number of respondents within
the district. In addition, the time period over which the information was collected
was relatively short. Finally, these patterns are based on self-report information, and
reflect respondents’ perceptions.
It is also important to keep in mind that for the most part the patterns reported
were widespread among those with whom we spoke. In addition, while perceptions
may or may not reflect objective reality, they do have an important influence on
behavior and the ultimate achievement of overall goals. Therefore, we hope to work
with the district in the next phase of the work as we begin to assess our findings and
formulate appropriate and helpful recommendations for next steps in addressing
gaps.
This chapter provided a detailed definition of the GAP analysis model. It
then provided a detailed account of the process that was used by the inquiry team.
Additionally, this chapter included a section on the inquiry team’s findings. These
findings consisted of the districts strengths as well as emergent themes related to root
causes. The following chapter will address the literature that supports the inquiry
team’s findings and possible solutions. Chapter three also will provide an in-depth
solution summary.
75
CHAPTER 3
PART A: EXPANDED LITERATURE REVIEW: A FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS
Co-written by: Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, Alberto Alvarez,
& Lesette Molina-Solis
Introduction
RUSD is generally regarded as a high-performing school district. The district
has worked diligently in the past decade to become a front runner in the areas of
educational excellence. For example, RUSD has earned a reputation of being one of
the premier staff development district in the Southern California area. In its quest to
provide educational equity, the district has undergone significant district wide
reforms including staff development, which include the implementation of Thinking
Maps, a graphic organizing strategy to improve literacy performance in students.
This district wide adoption of the use of a teaching strategy that uses visual graphic
organizers called Thinking Maps seemed promising to more effectively target
student learning. In addition, RUSD has attempted to adequately address its
persistent achievement gap which seems to be negatively affecting the majority of
EL students. Most significantly, however, the persistence of the achievement gap
seems to affect Hispanic ELs most negatively as compared to Asian ELs according
to state and federal assessment indicators. In addition to Thinking Maps, RUSD has
taken significant strides in their quest to exit PI status, by actively taking partnership
with the Ball Foundation grant. The focus of the grant is to improve student
performance in literacy as measured by state and federal indicators. Finally, RUSD
76
is currently phasing in a district wide push for professional development for teachers
aimed specifically at providing teachers preparation and workshops in efforts to
address the needs of ELs. RUSD’s aim is to build teacher capacity in the usage and
delivery of effective instructional strategies which address specific EL needs.
Holistically, RUSD’s attempt to address their EL students’ educational needs
seem to be missing their intended target. As a result, the current implementation of
instructional strategies, (Thinking Maps and Pictorial Math) has yielded modest
gains within the district’s performance goals. Specifically, as a result of RUSD’s
instructional focus, Asian ELs have made greater gains than gains made by Hispanic
ELs as measured by current CSTs, and other district benchmarks and indicators. As
a result, the achievement gap between ELs and non-El students in RUSD seems to
continue to widen. Of high concern, and most disturbingly, the gap between Asian
ELs and Hispanic ELs seems to be increasingly widening, rendering RUSD at high
risk of remaining in PI status.
The purpose of this inquiry project was to look at potential root causes that
may be mitigating the current achievement gap that negatively impacts RUSD’s EL
student population. By using Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model, this
inquiry project team attempted to identify knowledge/skill, motivational, and/or
organizational barriers which may be actively preventing the academic advancement
for the EL subgroup district wide.
As a result of the project team’s inquiry, three critical factors were identified
as areas of concern within RUSD’s instructional framework and vision. The first
77
factor contributing to the persistence of RUSD’s gap is that of inconsistent
implementation and the district’s fidelity to the district wide EL strategies, namely
Thinking Maps, and Pictorial Maps. The second factor affecting RUSD’s
progressive attempts at meeting the widening achievement gap is two-fold: since the
inception of the inquiry project, federal and state indicators and the federal and state
policies, has caused RUSD to amend their English Learner Master Plan. This event
has caused RUSD to file a state required ELMP Amendment which clearly outlines
the district’s systemic approach to address its current efforts at eliminating the EL
achievement gap. The third factor that actively impedes successfully addressing the
Hispanic EL progress is the absence of culturally proficient pedagogy that effectively
addresses the minority students’ academic needs. As a result, the majority of
teachers who teach ELs perceive those who do not teach ELs as self-detaching from
the responsibility to teach ELs.
This chapter presents some possible areas which the district might consider in
its effort to provide an optimal learning experience for all students. The areas
considered here include work related to cultural proficiency in instructional
practices, and work related to bringing about change in educational organizations.
Each is discussed below.
Process of Change
Turnaround Change
Based on current research, deep and sustainable change needs to occur at
RUSD and within their stakeholders. The type of change that may benefit RUSD is
78
called turnaround change. According to Reeves (2009), Marzano, (2004) and others,
turnaround change is effective in addressing the performance gaps that have plagued
educational organizations similar to RUSD. However, turnaround change is costly,
and its takes time. Research shows that meaningful, effective instructional and
organizational change must be nurtured, monitored, and supported consistently.
Reeves, (2008) contends that change initiatives that are initiated by school
level leaders must be reinforced throughout the change process. The new research
contrasts faculties that implemented the same change initiatives, and claimed the
same initiative labels, but had vastly different levels of implementation. The results
are striking: when 90 percent or more of a faculty was actively engaged in the
change initiative, student achievement results in reading, science, and math were
dramatically higher than when the same initiative was introduced with only 10
percent of the faculty actively engaged. Therefore the variable is not simply the
program, the label, the guru, or the conference. The variable is implementation,
(Reeves, 2008, p. 16).
Further, Reeves cites that effective leaders gain buy-in from constituents by
getting results that demonstrate the effects of the change is in the best interest of all
stakeholders. While proposing practical strategies aimed at improving grading,
teaching, and leadership practices, Reeves (2009) warns that leaders will likely be
met with opposition and resistance. “You will not close the implementation gap with
another set of three ring binders or announcements about the latest initiatives to close
the gap with immediate wins, visible recognition of what works, a focus on
79
effectiveness rather than popularity and a direct appeal to the values that brought us
all into this profession in the first place” (Reeves, 2008, p. 93).
Pappano (2010) contends that school turnaround is about rapid and dramatic
improvement, not just in test scores, but also in culture, and student aspirations.
Appropriately, Pappano (2010) implies a much more direct, no-nonsense, holistic
approach in readily and effectively addressing a schools’ culture. However, the
writer of this dissertation cautions that the reader must be aware that the term culture
can take on several different meanings in a school setting. For example, school sites
develop their own educational culture; there are also cultures that hold students to
certain levels of expectations, hence breeding a culture of excellence or mediocrity,
and various levels in between. Schools also host cultures of teacher collaboration;
school staffs host cultures of behavior expectations from different groups of students.
Pappano (2010) urges that turnaround leaders commit and lobby to establish and
maintain a consistent culture of no excuses and high expectations. She further calls
for turnaround leaders to establish a culture of building capacity throughout their
teaching staff.
Transformational Theory
Rickey (2008) presents a potentially useful model of elementary school
reform. In her dissertation, Rickey used qualitative action research and she looked at
ways which adult learning and transformational learning theory can empower school
leaders to guide teachers to improve the quality of their practice. Strategies also
included as part of Rickey’s model included, “the challenging of assumptions, use of
80
questions to support reflection and personal growth, exercising patience with the
process, and the realization that individuals needed supportive pressure over time to
help the change process work” (Rickey, 2008, p. 5). Rickey suggests that any
successful approach at school reform should include: “examination of how school
leaders prepare for and facilitate change as they work with individual teachers”
(Rickey, 2008, p. 16).
At the conclusion of her study, Rickey found “that professional development
had not been as effective in helping teachers make lasting change” (Rickey, 2008, p.
186). Gordon (2004) agrees that “it is time to take the principles of adult learning
seriously” (p. 1). He also acknowledges that school personnel have not used any of
the principles of adult learning theories in their full capacity to better prepare
teachers.
Rickey (2008) proposed a model which captures adult leaning theory
processes to help school leaders deal with better preparing teachers. The process
begins with a dilemma that affects student learning or performance. Flow, then
proceeds to pinpointing an individual’s concerns, what is not working, and what is
different from the current course of action. Flowing through the process helps
individuals identify specific needs to address the dilemma, to identify which
members of their department, if any, have been consulted about the dilemma, and
discerning if any of the field literature addressing the specific dilemma has been read
by those involved. Answers to these probing questions funnel into the action phase,
and probe if the individual is ready to try the change process. If answered yes, the
81
action phase begins and flows into examining results. At this stage, three general
questions are posed: do you need help thinking about the results, what evidence do
you have, and what should we be looking for? Once results are secured, the model
asks individuals if they are prepared to share out results. A “yes” answer guides the
individual through the third phase: sharing results. A “no” answer at this stage
provides two possible courses: try again, or try something else. A yes response to
willing to try again leads individuals back to the action phase and the process begins
all over again. A no response to wanting to try something else leads to the individual
receiving encouragement and support from the leader.
The flow chart proposed by Rickey’s research, provides a non linear process
to help individual teachers make change. Rickey suggests that leaders working with
their teachers through this change process should use a supportive and collaborative
approach. One key factor that Rickey’s model poses is the reflective opportunities
for leaders and teachers. As leaders and teachers work through the model, taking
opportunities to reflect on progress made and objectives met, are encouraged.
Finally, the model gives flexibility to participants to enter at any point in the model
and to progress through at the rate of speed that is most comfortable and/or most
appropriate for specific dilemmas.
Educational Equity
The Center for Research, Evaluation and Training in Education (CREATE,
2009) is currently analyzing data results from an intensive program instituted in the
Garden Grove Unified School District. The program focused on middle school
82
Hispanic ELs specifically. CREATE’s aim was to increase long term ELs’ success
rate at the high school level. The program is structured in a linear and sequential
fashion, and thus far has encouraging results for researchers, as the preliminary
results seem promising in helping to effectively close the educational equity gap.
The pilot program addressed Hispanic ELs specifically. CREATE’s (2009)
program is designed to engage long-term EL students with school, provide them with
the academic language and skills they need to succeed in middle school, high school,
and beyond. The program’s strategies targeted improvement of ELs’ skills primarily
in building academic vocabulary, while nurturing students’ skills in note-taking, time
management, and study and social skill development. Throughout the coursework,
ELs received targeted rigorous instruction in the development of academic English
literacy, reading, writing, and vocabulary as well. Through the course of two
calendar years, the schools involved in the pilot program identified strong EL
candidates from the program. It involved 115 seventh grade students in multiple
school sites. Fidelity of the implementation was ensured by implementing
standardized recruiting techniques and procedures, and by consistent and continuous
regular school visits.
The program included a prescribed seventh grade curriculum in addition to
the state mandated seventh grade curriculum, a college readiness path composed of
middle school English language development courses for intermediate ELs. The
goal was to accelerate academic language acquisition and entrance to college
preparatory high school coursework. ELs in the program registered for Spanish for
83
Spanish Speakers courses that were made available starting in middle school, as a
pathway to AP Spanish in high school.
During summer bridge sessions in sixth and seventh grades, language
development courses overlay college preparatory coursework, getting students ready
for the rigors of ninth grade college preparatory coursework. Content area teachers
and the pilot program instructors received support in release time to collaborate and
to plan instruction and activities for the pilot program students. These supportive
sessions proved critical for teachers’ needs to help them meet their students’
academic needs. An additional key support that benefited students was the use of
academic tutors in their pilot courses. The tutors met regularly with students to help
academic skills, and build social capital. In addition, teachers involved in the pilot
received instructional support and curriculum coaching throughout the program.
Perhaps most importantly, teachers received continuous training and staff
development support. Teachers were actively involved in yearly curriculum training,
specific periodic curriculum articulation sessions with regular content teachers,
regular visits from program coaches, and other training, articulation, collaboration as
necessary. Content area specific training sessions were refined to ensure that
students received instruction that allowed student access to academic rigorous
coursework.
As discussed above, the preliminary data show promising results for the
college readiness program. Under this instructional model, the Hispanic ELs
consistently outperformed their White counterparts, based on grade point averages,
84
district benchmarks in math, English, science and social science, and CST test scores
in math, English, science, and social science. Following the pedagogical model as
proposed by Guthrie (2010), should empower RUSD replicate similar results in their
Hispanic EL student population. Increasing academic rigor, while simultaneously
scaffolding academic instruction in ways that will ensure that minority students are
provided access to the curriculum, will yield increased student performance. The
lessons to be learned from the college readiness model are that EL students need
scaffolds and support to gain access to rigorous content classes in order to actively
participate in American education. Hispanic ELs, like all other students, will
perform to the level of their teachers’ expectations.
District Office Support
The expectation placed on classroom teachers to close the achievement gap
cannot be accomplished without the consistent support of the district office. The
next section presents supporting literature for the role of the district office in guiding
schools sites in being able to close the achievement gap. “A district’s ability to
support ambitious instructional reform is viewed primarily as a capacity to learn the
substantive ideas at the heart of the new reform and to help teachers and others
within the district to learn these ideas” (Spillane and Thompson, 1998, p. 5). In an
era of high stakes accountability RUSD must find a way to stand by their belief in
decentralization while facilitating the necessary support needed to close the Hispanic
achievement gap.
85
The Role of the District Office
The topic of improving education usually involves deep conversation about
what teachers are, or are not doing, or what the school provides or doesn’t provide.
What is usually not part of a discussion on improving education, is the role that the
district office plays in supporting the teachers and school sites with closing the
achievement gap. Traditionally the district office is looked at as a management
machine. It is thought of as bureaucratic and not at all connected to the daily
academic practices of the school sites. The district office is seen as big brother
ensuring compliance and procedures, but not necessarily the champion of
professional growth and student centered decision-making. The irony of overlooking
the district office is that the district office is one of the fundamental components to
what makes schools successful and student achievement possible.
Elmore wrote an extensive research paper in 2000 titled “Building a New
Structure for School Leadership” looking at how standards based reform has
impacted policy and practice. In this work Elmore addresses the role of the central
district office. He states that, “Organizations that improve do so because they create
and nurture agreement on what is worth achieving, and they set in motion the
internal processes by which people progressively learn how to do what they need to
do in order to achieve what is worthwhile” (Elmore, 2000, p. 25). Elmore (2000)
also defines the term “loose coupling” when describing the lack of attention to daily
curricular issues by the district office. Elmore describes the idea of “loose coupling”
as being the idea that the power of educational decision-making “…resides in
86
individual classrooms, not in the organizations that surround them” (Elmore, 2000, p.
6). Elmore suggest that loose coupling is the reason why the role of the district
office is often overlooked.
In “Bringing the District Back In: The Role of the Central Office in
Improving Instruction and Student Achievement” Martha Able Mac Iver and
Elizabeth Farley reported that, “More recent studies of districts identified as high
performing, relative to the poverty level of their students, have been conducted in
Texas (Ragland, Asera, & Johnson, 1999; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000) and
North Carolina (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2000). The common themes
emerging from these studies in relatively high-performing or improving districts
largely echoed those of Murphy and Hallinger. They included: 1) a climate of
urgency regarding improved achievement for all students; 2) a sense that
achievement was the primary responsibility of every staff member in the district; 3) a
shared sense of the central office as a support and service organization for the
schools; 4) a primary focus on improving instruction, accompanied by a high level of
resources devoted to coherent professional development linked to research-based
practices; 5) focused attention on analysis and alignment of curriculum, instructional
practice and assessment; 6) professional development for principals in interpreting
data to make good instructional decisions” (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003, p. 6). These
findings are critical in stressing how important the district office is in supporting
schools in the efforts that are necessary for student achievement and the closing of
the achievement gap.
87
Massell provides a policy brief reviewing the research that the Consortium
for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) conducted and examines the role of
districts in building capacity. Over a two year time period CPRE conducted
observations in 22 school districts within eight states including California. Massell’s
article outlines the four major strategies for capacity building that came from the
CPRE researchers. These strategies include:
• Interpreting and using data;
• Building teacher knowledge and skills;
• Aligning curriculum and instruction;
• Targeting interventions on low-performing students and/or schools.
(Massell, 2000, p. 1)
Massell provides a solid argument for why the district office should not be
overlooked. Massell points out that although the schools are the focal point of
accountability measures, districts should not be dismissed as they “...are the major
source of capacity-building for schools-structuring, providing, and controlling access
to professional development, curriculum and instructional ideas, more and more
qualified staff, relationships with external agents and so on. What districts do
influences how schools as organizations address the performance goals set by states,
whether or not they have the necessary capacity to do so.” (Massell, 2000, p. 6)
Foley (2001) published a report titled “Contradictions and Control in
Systemic Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia Schools”.
Foley provides a detailed report of a five-year evaluation by The Consortium for
88
Policy Research in Education (CPRE) of a comprehensive reform effort that
Philadelphia had put in place. This report examines the role of the district office and
the capacity of the district to support such reform. As part of this report Foley
provides a section offering lessons for reforming schools, pointing out how the role
of the district office is vital in building a school site’s capacity and could highly
influence the choices that individual school sites make to improve academic
achievement. Foley states that the direction a central office decides to go is
“…influenced by the central’s office capacity to support the reforms and their
perceptions of school capacities” (Foley, 2001, p. 25).
Additional research by Anderson (2003) reviews the role of the district office
over the years in educational change. The role of the district office has become more
and more important as revealed by “…the realization that district influence is
unavoidable if not desirable” (Anderson 2003, p. 4). Anderson sums up his
historical overview by stating that “… the evidence that districts do matter, and that
at least some districts “matter” in powerfully positives ways for student performance
in large numbers of schools and for students of all sorts of backgrounds” (Anderson
2003, p. 5).
The potential power to influence student achievement by a district office is
critical to acknowledge. Once the importance of the district office is recognized and
embraced, the district office will be better able to serve and support. The district
office has an immense responsibility to improve education and close all and any
achievement gaps, including those of Hispanic EL learners.
89
Cultural Proficiency
Rowland Unified has offered its teachers training in English Language
Development and English Learner strategies. It has established EL Leads at every
school site, serving as the key person to assist classrooms with addressing EL student
needs. The Bilingual Department at the district level has made consistent effort to
implement a Master Plan that complies with state law and also addresses EL
instructional needs at school sites. Despite these efforts, Hispanic ELs continue to
lag behind their non-Hispanic EL counterparts. According to the responses received
from some of the interviewees, some of the teachers attributed this achievement gap
to a lack of interest on the part of the Hispanic students’ families. “It’s obvious, the
parents don’t care; they don’t come to parent meetings or take interest in their kids’
learning. Yet you do see the parents of our other EL group participating and
interested.” The inquiry team found both a cultural knowledge gap and negative
teacher attributions towards Hispanic EL students as identified in the previous quote
which impacts the Hispanic EL academic achievement at RUSD. Cultural
proficiency is defined as, “a way of being that enables both individuals and
organizations to respond effectively to people who differ from them” (Lindsey,
Robins, & Terrel, 2003, p. 5).
Current literature identifies the importance of educators understanding
sociocultural theories of learning in order to adequately address diverse learning
needs, in this particular instance, Hispanic EL student needs. RUSD is implementing
research based, effective teaching practices to enhance Hispanic EL lesson delivery.
90
However, the inquiry team is recommending not only aligning these instructional
efforts with increasing educators’ sociocultural competence so that strategies and
pedagogy are increased, but also addressing teachers’ negative attributes about
Hispanic EL students. In essence, it is essential that instructional and pedagogical
factors are considered in light of cultural practices in the homes and community.
There are interesting examples in the literature of how some schools have
been able to integrate cultural considerations into meaningful pedagogy, and these
will be briefly described in the following section as possible models for the district to
examine. These include work on attribution theory, funds of knowledge approaches,
cultural modeling and notions of “third space” which all involve understanding the
Hispanic EL cultural perspective to enhance the students’ educational experience at
school with the ultimate goal of increasing academic achievement.
Attribution Theory
Teacher attribution knowledge suggests that teachers attempt to explain low
or unexpected academic achievement outcomes of their students by looking at
potential causes such as students’ prior achievement, difficulty of current task, or
effort placed towards the completion of a task (Weiner, 1986). Additionally,
according to Weiner (2000), success and failure in achievement occurs within a
social context comprised of teachers, peers and family. Motivation to do well or not
is attributed to the perceptions these individuals hold of the student: their beliefs
about the student’s ability to succeed or fail. Moreover, “teachers’ emotional and
behavioral reactions to their students’ academic outcomes have a direct impact on
91
the behavior of their students, influencing children’s future actions and self
perceptions” (Clark & Artiles, 2000, p. 77). Thus, it is key teachers understand the
impact that their perceptions of students have on motivation and in turn, student
achievement. Once this concept is addressed and understood, then educators may
move towards increasing their cultural knowledge and more effectively address the
Hispanic EL student needs within RUSD. Therefore, it is important that the district
provide professional development for increasing teachers’ cultural knowledge of
their students within the context of the deep impact their personal perceptions has on
student achievement.
Funds of Knowledge
Work on “funds of knowledge” began as a response to deficit views of
students from diverse language and cultural backgrounds. Simply stated, this
perspective considers the everyday knowledge of families and communities as
resources which can be used in instruction, rather than as deficits to be overcome.
Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd-Tenery, Rivera, Rendon, Gonzales, and Amanti (1993), have
argued that some schools generally view working-class minority households as not
providing students with socially and intellectually rich resources. Thus, educators
have blamed this disadvantage as a means to justify lowered learning expectations.
These researchers also suggest that overall, educators have negated to utilize, as a
foundation, the knowledge these students bring to school from their homes by
emphasizing instead what these students lack in terms of language and knowledge.
By understanding the accumulated knowledge base from each home, teachers have
92
formed curriculum units that tap into their students’ funds of knowledge (Gonzalez
et al., 1993).
Technically, funds of knowledge considers the vital knowledge and skills
households need to function (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). It is a
developed and accumulated skill set of abilities, ideas or practices that enable a
family to function. Thus, the goal of funds of knowledge is to connect classroom
instruction with communities with the aims of providing “classroom instruction that
far exceeds in quality to the rote-like instruction that children commonly encounter
in schools” (Hattam et al., 2007, p. 2). Hattam et al., (2007) suggest accomplishing
this task by educators conducting an analysis of student’s households, providing
educators with the time to think about their findings, determine how to utilize the
knowledge pedagogically, and incorporate opportunities within the classroom setting
that connect student home life with school life. The ultimate goal of the funds of
knowledge research is to maximize student learning, particularly that of minority low
SES students, by ensuring they can engage and identify with the curriculum content
which will lead to increased student interest and motivation for learning (Hattam et
al., 2007).
In the original work, one avenue to comprehend students’ funds of
knowledge was conducting home visits with an emphasis on understanding the
sociopolitical and economic context of the households and analyzing their social
history (Gonzalez et al., 1993). It served as one important way to gain insight into
the household history as it provided information regarding origins, development, and
93
labor history; all of which reveal some of the home’s funds of knowledge.
Additionally, another purpose of these home visits by teachers was to determine how
families developed social networks, connected them with other households, built
trust and thus exchanged resources, including funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al.,
1993). An important factor of these social exchanges was found to be their
reciprocity. “Reciprocity presents an attempt to establish a social relationship on an
enduring basis. Whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, the exchange expresses and
symbolizes human social interdependence” (Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg, 1992, p.
142). In essence, these interactions are based on the foundation of mutual trust
(confianza).
Gonzalez et al. (1993) state that a transformative effect of the funds of
knowledge is to supplant the idea that working-class minority students lack
worthwhile knowledge and experiences with the idea that these households can
foster a child’s cognitive development with a wide range of diverse skills. “Any of
the numerous funds of knowledge found within the households could form the basis
for curriculum units in science, math, language arts, and other subjects” (Gonzalez et
al., 1993, p. 8). It is vital that educators not simply learn about their students’ funds
of knowledge, but use it within the classroom pedagogy (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992). This is not an easy task, which is why Gonzalez et al. (1993)
suggest providing teachers with time and support to collaborate so that theory
becomes practice. These sessions of teacher collaboration can maximize student
learning by conceptualizing the pedagogical connection between classroom
94
standards students must master, and the foundational knowledge base of students’
households.
While the original work focused on teacher visits to homes, and then
collaborative meetings where the information was integrated into instruction, there
may be a variety of ways to accomplish the same goals. The overall idea, however,
is first of all to focus on actual cultural practices of students and families rather than
on assumptions about generalized traits, and second, to use the cultural resources of
students and families as vehicles to promote instructional goals. Familiarity with this
work may be of help to the district in thinking about one way to develop targeted
professional development to effectively address the cultural issues in the schools.
Cultural Modeling
Another potentially useful way for thinking about cultural issues is based on
the work on cultural modeling. Cultural modeling attempts to increase students’
comprehension of subject matter by connecting new concepts to the knowledge they
have formed in their homes and communities. The aim of Cultural Modeling is to
facilitate students’ learning generative concepts in academic subject matters, by
helping them to make connections between the target knowledge and forms of
knowledge they have constructed from their home and community (Lee, Rosenfeld,
Mendenhall, Rivers, & Tynes, 2003, p. 42). Thus, instructional design should
involve a combination of the academic curricular task and daily practices familiar to
students. Similar to the funds of knowledge approach, the ultimate goal of Cultural
Modeling is to make recognizable connections for students between the home and
95
school content. Orellana and Eksner (2005), define Cultural Modeling as a
framework for curriculum design that builds explicitly on non-dominant students’
resources by making connections between disciplinary constructs and students’
cultural funds of knowledge. In effectively doing so, it is essential educators
understand the academic discipline well enough to determine how to incorporate
cultural perspectives effectively so that students’ social, conceptual and linguistic
backgrounds are addressed within the curriculum.
It is noteworthy to mention that Cultural Modeling is not cultural matching in
that the latter attempts to align discourse, norms, values of the home with school
(Orellana & Eksner, 2005). This approach is not only difficult, but often done
superficially. True Cultural Modeling, according to Orellana and Eksner, (2005)
involves modeling highlights of the generative role of the cultural funds of
knowledge and the targeted ways in which a particular skill set can be utilized in
another setting. It is key to incorporate students’ everyday experiences into the
curriculum. This is referred to as cultural data sets. Examples of such data sets
include dialogues or rap lyrics. By using these familiar data sets, students can draw
upon their habits of mind into an academic setting and make explicit connections to
the instruction. “They identify strategies for meaning-making as they move from
analyzing personally meaningful texts to canonical works of literature” (Orellana &
Eksner, 2005, p. 55).
Cultural Modeling, as funds of knowledge research, draws upon the rich
resources non-dominant students bring to the classroom, resources, which are often
96
undermined or diminished. Lee et al. (2003) stress the importance of challenging
deficit framings of immigrant, minority students. Additionally, Cultural Modeling
looks at the positives of bilingualism, considering code switching as a fundamental
language and literacy skill for English Learners, a skill often discouraged within
classroom settings (Orellana & Eksner, 2005). When Cultural Modeling is done
effectively, then classrooms become learning environments where students can make
an explicit connection to the content being taught; they use personal knowledge
gained from their home to develop disciplinary knowledge and problem solving
skills (Lee et al., 2003). Cultural modeling approaches may represent another
fruitful way that the district might consider cultural factors in the classroom by
providing teachers time to understand the community, collaborate findings in grade
level/subject teams, and develop lesson plans that align cultural modeling practices
into the standards based curriculum across content areas.
Third Space
The third approach the inquiry team suggests the district may consider to
address the Hispanic EL cultural factors in the classroom, is Gutierrez’ (2008) social
construct of “Third Space.” According to the author, Third Space challenges
traditional conceptions of academic literacy and instruction for minority students and
replaces these with forms of literacy that involve students’ sociohistorical lives
(Gutierrez, 2008). The Third Space construct attempts to transform the current
educational system into a more equitable system for all students. The key idea of
third space is that learning environments are socially constructed in interaction
97
between all participants: teachers and students. An “in- between” social space for
learning that bridges everyday knowledge and academic knowledge can be socially
constructed when teachers and students do not share cultural understandings and
practices (Gutierrez, 2008). Thus, there is a building on students’ existing
knowledge and cultural practices while attaining key academic goals.
Gutierrez (1995) defines socioculural knowledge as an understanding of “the
contexts in which students learn, that is, what students learn, how that knowledge is
transmitted, who is present in the learning activity, and which goals and motives
drive the learning; the acquisition of academic discourse is a socially mediated
process” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 22). To maximize learning, Gutierrez (1995) argues
that a degree of reciprocity must exist between the teacher and students in terms of
roles held in the classroom context, social roles, and classroom activities. In doing
so, planned lessons and activities should consider the following factors: who, what,
goals/values, how and purpose or motives (Gutierrez, 1995). Additionally, these oral
interactions should take the form of varied structures such as tutorials,
comprehension circles, writing conferences, theater, mini-lessons and whole group
discussions (Guiterrez, 2008).
A second factor influencing learning is classroom discourse. Gutierrez
(1995) defines classroom discourse as an “instantiation of culture, where the
classroom discourse is considered constitutive of classroom culture, an instantiation
of the culture of the classroom” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 26). Thus, classroom activities
become examples of the type of discourse within a classroom setting, revealing the
98
connection between the student and classroom culture. Therefore, in order for
students to effectively participate in classroom discourse, they must understand how
to participate in the classroom community’s activities. Gutierrez (1995) suggests
that Latino children require knowledge of the nature of the classroom discourse.
Thus, children need to be taught the social and physical arrangement of classroom
activities and be socialized through instruction as to the forms and uses of language
and behaviors associated with successful participation in these activities. “Variance
in competence might be understood to be the result of students’ access to and
participation in varying activities, classroom participation structures, and forms of
classroom discourse. Of importance then, is the degree to which students have
access to both linguistic and social knowledge embedded in and transmitted by the
discourse of the classroom” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 27). Therefore, Gutierrez (1995)
states that student learning is dependent upon students’ understanding of how they
can participate within the classroom setting, including the role they hold, their
membership within the classroom environment, types of interactions held and their
use of oral and written language. This understanding is developed through
participation in meaningful classroom discourse where “competence is bidirectional,
involving both students and teacher” (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 29).
Conclusion
Educators have direct impact on student achievement. At the same time,
educators face obstacles in education, including understanding the various cultural
backgrounds of their students well enough so that all students have access to the
99
curriculum. Additionally, it is vital educators understand their impact on student
learning, including how their perceptions of students, attribution, can affect student
motivation for learning. Teachers thus require support to face these challenges and
effectively educate the diverse students in their classrooms. Addressing the cultural
knowledge gap of educators within RUSD by initially addressing teachers’ negative
attribution of students is essential to close the Hispanic EL achievement gap in the
district.
100
CHAPTER 3
PART B: SOLUTIONS SUMMARY
The expectation placed on classroom teachers to close the achievement gap
cannot be attained without the targeted effort and consistent support of the district
office. Decentralized and centralized districts alike are being called upon to find
ways to provide guidance and on-going sustainable support to their schools and their
staffs. RUSD is a decentralized district that prides itself in the achievements gained
by the independent, free-thinking freedom that decentralization fosters.
As an inquiry team, there are three distinct areas where we offer possible
solutions that will be compliant with Rowland USD’s decentralized structure. The
first solution is a focus on the research that explains the importance of the time that
is takes to see a district reform through from a strategic start to a successful finish. A
second solution is to understand what the most current literature and case studies say
about the positive contributions to a school site when the district office is the
common source of support. The third possible solution is understanding the
importance of academic cultural proficiency in a district with a larger population of
Hispanic English Learners.
Change Processes
Districts throughout California are trying to find the one-size-fits-all, quick
fix to the Hispanic EL achievement gap, that with every passing year becomes a
more insurmountable task. As the clock ticks to 2014, the desperation to find
solutions increases. What many districts do not understand is that, what seems to be
101
a logical choice of trying something new, is actually detrimental and
counterproductive to the goal of closing the achievement gap. Any district taking on
a reform effort must do two things. They must do their due diligence in researching
the actual reform effort that has been selected, and research and understand the
amount of time they must commit to give to that particular reform in order to see the
fruit of their labor.
Turnaround change is a highly effective systemic approach that creates
disruptions in failing educational processes. By introducing disruptive events in
everyday practices and decisionmaking processes, turnaround change aims to alter an
organization’s direction. It brings about dramatic, notable change within struggling
school districts. By purposefully altering the course of underperforming school
districts, turnaround change alters existing procedures causing dramatic shifts in
organizational structures and pedagogy to increase student performance. Reeves
(2004) cites that turnaround change is costly, takes time, commitment, and is not
always immediately visible. Reeves believes that significant returns in turnaround
were most notable in schools that committed to changes, invested with fidelity and
aimed at long term results and made change possible at the district level (Reeves,
2004). In addition, Boyne (2006) states it best when he proposes that, “a firm in a
turnaround situation faces a stark choice between strategic change that may lead to
recovery and strategic persistence that is likely to result in outright failure” (Boyne,
2006, p. 6).
102
In addition, Pappano, (2010) points out that school turnaround is about rapid
and dramatic improvement, not just in the area of test scores, but also having to do
with culture and student aspirations. Rueda, Monzo, and Arzubiaga (2003) point out
that the real issues affecting various schools can best be described as ‘a problem of
fit’. Rueda, Monzo and Arzubiaga, (2003) explain that to generate any type of
reaction from the students, parents, or other stakeholders, the pressing issues must be
perceived as immediate and concretely impacting their community. Rueda, Monzo
and Arzubiaga (2003), argue that all families’ posses cultural and social capital,
however, it does not always line up to that set of values that schools value. Rueda,
Monzo and Arzubiaga (2003) propose that parental perceptions of home literacy
practices and schools’ literacy demands must be negotiated between the families and
educators to maximize buy in. This research supports that RUSD’s work must focus
on improving the connections between the home culture and the school culture.
Enriching the relationships between the district and the RUSD community will foster
a more positive learning environment. Enabling students, parents, and staff, to share
the responsibility of improving student outcomes, will enable stakeholders to take
ownership of student performance progress.
Rickey (2008) proposes a process for structural change. Rickey (2008)
presents a practical model for systemic change grounded in supportive coaching and
reflective practice focusing on the promotion, development, and nurturing of teacher
leadership. One key characteristic is the minimal costs to operate and sustain the
model. A key factor while considering Rickey’s (2008) model, is its potential to
103
enhance the current ‘communities of practice model’ that is currently in place in
RUSD. Additionally, Rickey’s (2008) model of a reflective, inquiry based coaching
model process, seems like a perfect fit in RUSD for two major reasons. First,
Rickey’s (2008) model seems to fit as an extension of RUSD’s current reflective
work with the Ball Foundation grant. One major benefit is that Ball has already
established the philosophical foundation for Rickey’s (2008) model and subsequent
work in RUSD. Staff resistance to Rickey’s (2008) approach will be minimal.
Secondly, fiscal impacts to RUSD would be minimal because RUSD’s
organizational structure would not be altered in any way. RUSD’s employment of
EL Leads should facilitate a smooth adoption and transition into the implementation
phase of Rickey’s model. The additional coaching responsibilities placed on EL
Leads will produce rich professional experiences and will foster a professional
learning community (PLC). Existing research on PLCs points to positive results for
districts that commit to the process with fidelity.
An EL college readiness pilot is in numerous local districts. Currently,
Garden Grove, Montebello, and Whittier districts are implementing versions of a
well thought out curriculum that has produced significant results with long term ELs.
Although successful, it is costly in the areas of teacher training and professional
development. However, this inherent requirement in the turnaround and change
processes supports the calls for effective leadership, constant teacher collaboration,
and continuous data analyses of student outcomes, (Reeves, 2004, Marzano 2003,
CDE, 2010, Boyne, 2006, Rueda, Monzo & Arzubiaga, 2003, DuFour, 2004). The
104
successful approaches described by these researchers highlight the level of
commitment and fidelity that turnaround change takes. An additional consideration
that must be taken with this model is its need to sustain effective, consistent
implementation. Faithful implementation is a significant requirement in this
approach yet the results seem promising. This EL model is grounded in the
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) approach. AVID models have
been significantly successful in closing achievement gaps within minority student
subgroups.
The key to AVID’s success in promoting student achievement lies in the
uniform approach of combining a rigorous academic curriculum, with extensive
student scaffolds and accessible supports for all students. In the AVID model there
are high expectations and all students are held accountable for their academic
preparation. Students receive consistent and continuous academic support from their
teachers, tutors, and their peers. Classroom instruction is delivered using research
based strategies that promote critical thinking in a collaborative classroom setting.
Students are encouraged and enabled to exceed above expected levels of
performance. The AVID model empowers students, teachers, and schools to alter
the underperformance cultures that exist in many failing American schools.
District Support
More recent reform necessitates a pedagogy that focuses on teaching,
learning and content. These reforms, led by NCLB, are based off the premise that
teaching requires deep content knowledge. Because of these underlying
105
assumptions, these reforms are heavily dependent on the local capacity of districts to
create and implement policies that will not only support, but more importantly
sustain, instructional improvements towards closing the achievement gap. This shift
in the level of instruction has created the need for school districts to self-reflect on
their contributions and on their ability to increase and sustain high quality
instruction.
Traditionally, district offices have not been looked at as the point of origin
for change and academic growth. Elmore (1993) attributes this lack of recognizing
the role of the district office to the concept coined “loose coupling” The idea of “lose
coupling” states that the core of educational decision-making “…resides in
individual classrooms, not in the organizations that surround them” (Elmore, 1993, p.
5). This perception is what hinders district offices from assuming the key leadership
role that is needed.
With the deadline for NCLB looming, and the current sense of urgency to
raise student achievement, districts in California have been placed in a unique
situation to evaluate the one area that is usually overlooked, the district itself.
District wide reform has been the educational choice as the plan of action throughout
the country. For many districts searching for how to support and lead their schools
towards academic growth, is a reform effort in itself. MacIver and Farley (2003)
found that the role of a district was critical in building a school’s capacity. It is
important to look at the literature that describes how central offices go about creating
systemic change and building capacity.
106
If, as history points out, school districts have not been the focus of attention
when looking at closing achievement gaps, then a decentralized district would be an
even less likely candidate for focused attention. We suggest as a solution that the
district office become the primary focal point for any district reform, irrespective of
being decentralized. In looking at the powerful contributions of a district office to
the individual success of a site, it becomes evident that providing coherent and
sustainable support with district guidance contributes to the individual success of
school sites.
MacIver and Farley (2003) reviewed literature on the impact of district
support on school achievement. They found that in our current educational system,
schools are in need of an effective intermediary between themselves and the state. In
addition, there was a study that took place over two years, looking at seven states and
twenty-two districts by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE).
Their research found that the district’s role was vital in building a school site’s
capacity, and could highly influence the choices that individual school sites made to
make to improve academic achievement (Massell, 2000).
Cultural Proficiency
As a third solution, we suggest that the district office look at a way of
enabling both individuals and organizations to respond effectively to people who
differ from them culturally. RUSD is implementing research based, effective
teaching practices to enhance Hispanic EL lesson delivery. However, the inquiry
team is recommending aligning these instructional efforts by increasing educators’
107
sociocultural competence so that not only strategies, but also pedagogy is improved.
In essence, it is essential that instructional and pedagogical factors are considered in
light of cultural practices in the homes and community. The literature presents
examples of how some schools have been able to integrate cultural considerations
into meaningful pedagogy. These models, funds of knowledge, cultural modeling,
and third space are briefly described as possible models for the district to examine.
Funds of Knowledge research contends that the everyday knowledge of
families and communities be viewed positively as resources which can be used in
instruction rather than seen as deficits that need to be overcome. Gonzalez et al.
(1993), have argued that some schools generally view working-class minority
households as not providing students with socially and intellectually rich resources.
In the original work, home visits were conducted to gain insight into the household
history, social networks, connections to other households, trust building and
exchanging resources, including funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 1993).
Cultural modeling presents another potentially useful way for thinking about
cultural issues. The aim of cultural modeling is to facilitate students’ learning of
academic concepts by helping them make connections between the knowledge they
have constructed from their home and community with the knowledge presented at
the school site (Lee, et al., 2003, p. 42). Instructional design should involve a
combination of the academic curricular task and daily practices familiar to students.
By infusing the familiar with the new, students are better able to process information
108
to a level of deep understanding that supports comprehension, analysis, and critical
thinking.
Lastly, Third Space, as presented by Gutierrez, (1995) involves a classroom
setting that explicitly reveals the connection between the student and classroom
culture. Gutierrez (1995) states that student learning is dependent upon students’
understanding how they can participate within the classroom setting, including the
role they hold, their membership within the classroom environment, types of
interactions held and their use of oral and written language. This understanding is
developed through participation in meaningful classroom discourse where
“competence is bidirectional, involving both students and teacher” (Gutierrez, 1995,
p. 29).
Conclusion
This section of the current literature focused on empirically based educational
strategies that may assist in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap. The
purpose of this literature was to present solutions of effective, sound educational
practices to address the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD. Additionally, this
literature presented pertinent information that educators should hold to understand
the basis for the Hispanic EL gap and utilize this information to adequately
differentiate Hispanic EL instruction.
109
GLOSSARY
Academic Language: The language and vocabulary associated with education and
requires use of higher-order thinking skills. It is the language of texts and
formal language. It mostly consists of the language functions needed for
academic content.
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests. A
school’s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same
type and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in
terms of students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held responsible
for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for
their success or lack of success in doing so. In education, accountability is
currently thought to require measurable proof that teachers, schools, districts,
and states are teaching students efficiently and well, usually in the form of
student success rates on various tests. In recent years, most accountability
programs have involved adoption of state curriculum standards and required
state tests based on the standards. Many political leaders and educators
support this approach, believing that it brings clarity of focus and is
improving achievement. Others argue that, because standardized tests cannot
possibly measure all the important goals of schooling, accountability systems
110
should be more flexible and use other types of information, such as dropout
rates and samples of student work.
Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students’ lack of
academic success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is
not unique to any ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among
African Americans and Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are
multifaceted. They do to some degree stem from factors the children bring
with them to school; however, other factors that contribute to the gap stem
from students’ school experiences.
Achievement Test: Tests used to measure how much a student has learned in various
school subjects. Most students take several standardized achievement tests,
such as the California Achievement Tests and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills.
These norm-referenced, multiple-choice tests are intended to measure
students' achievement in the basic subjects found in most school districts'
curriculum and textbooks. Results are used to compare the scores of
individual students and schools with others—those in the area, across the
state, and throughout the United States.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives
111
funding under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional
development, and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the
educational program’s objective and standards.
Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for testing
and evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.
At-risk Students: Students who have a higher-than-average probability of dropping
out or failing school. Broad categories usually include inner-city, low-
income, and homeless children; those not fluent in English; and special needs
students with emotional or behavioral difficulties. Substance abuse, juvenile
crime, unemployment, poverty, and lack of adult support are thought to
increase a youth's risk factor.
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement
expected of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
Bilingual Education: The use of two or more languages for instruction. In the United
States, students in most bilingual classes or programs are those who have not
acquired full use of the English language, so they are taught academic content
in their native language (usually Spanish) while continuing to learn English.
112
Brown v. Board of Education: The case heard by the United States Supreme Court in
1954 in which racial segregation in public schools was held to be
unconstitutional.
California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content
standards.
Cohort: A particular group of people with something in common. For instance, a
cohort might be a group of students who had been taught an interdisciplinary
curriculum by a team of junior high school teachers. Researchers might want
to track their progress into high school to identify differences in success of
students in the cohort compared with students who had attended conventional
classes in the same school.
Collaboration: A relationship between individuals or organizations that enables the
participants to accomplish goals more successfully than they could have
separately. Educators are finding that they must collaborate with others to
deal with increasingly complex issues. For example, schools and school
systems often form partnerships with local businesses or social service
agencies. Many schools teach students how to work with others on group
projects. Some educators call this collaborative learning, although it is more
commonly known as cooperative learning.
Comprehensive School Reform: An approach to school improvement that involves
adopting a design for organizing an entire school rather than using numerous
113
unrelated instructional programs. New American Schools, an organization
that promotes comprehensive school reform, sponsors several different
designs, each featuring challenging academic standards, strong professional
development programs, meaningful parental and community involvement,
and a supportive school environment.
Continuous Progress: A system of education in which individuals or small groups of
students go through a sequence of lessons at their own pace, rather than at the
pace of the entire classroom group. Continuous progress has also been called
individualized education or individualized instruction and is one version of
mastery learning. In continuous-progress programs, able and motivated
students are not held back, and students take on new lessons only if they
show they have the prerequisite skills. A criticism, however, is that
unmotivated students often progress more slowly than they would in regular
classes.
Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Core Curriculum: The body of knowledge that all students are expected to learn.
High schools often require a core curriculum that may include, for example,
four years of English, three years of science and mathematics, two or three
years of history, one or two years of a foreign language, and one year of
health studies. Courses that are not required are called electives.
114
Critical Thinking: Logical thinking based on sound evidence; the opposite of biased,
sloppy thinking. Some people take the word critical to mean negative and
faultfinding, but philosophers consider it to mean thinking that is skillful and
responsible. A critical thinker can accurately and fairly explain a point of
view that he does not agree with.
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district. Curriculum
documents often also include detailed directions or suggestions for teaching
the content. Curriculum may refer to all the courses offered at a given school,
or all the courses offered at a school in a particular area of study. For
example, the English curriculum might include English literature, literature,
world literature, essay styles, creative writing, business writing, Shakespeare,
modern poetry, and the novel. The curriculum of an elementary school
usually includes language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and other
subjects.
Data Driven Decision Making: The process of making decisions about curriculum
and instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and data and
standardized test data. Data driven decision-making uses data on function,
quality, and quantity of inputs and how students learn suggest educational
solutions.
Decentralization: The deliberate reassignment of decision-making authority from
states or districts to local schools based on the beliefs that people who are
closest to a situation make better decisions and that people work hardest
115
when implementing their own decisions. The primary vehicle for school
decentralization in recent decades has been site-based management, under
which decision-making authority has been delegated to local schools, often
accompanied by a requirement that schools establish representative school
councils.
Disaggregated Data: Test scores or other data divided so that various categories can
be compared. For example, schools may break down the data for the entire
student population (aggregated into a single set of numbers) to determine
how minority students are doing compared with the majority, or how scores
of girls compare with those for boys.
Educational leadership: Leadership in formal educational settings. It draws upon
interdisciplinary literature, generally, but ideally distinguishes itself through
its focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human development. In
contemporary practice it borrows from political science and business. Debate
within the field relates to this tension.
Educational organization: Organization within the scope of education. It is a
common misconception that this means it is organizing the educational
system; rather, it deals with the theory of organization as it applies to
education of the human mind.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): U.S. legislation passed in 1965
that provided large amounts of federal aid to states and local districts as part
of the larger War on Poverty. ESEA must be reauthorized periodically by the
116
Congress. The most well-known provision of ESEA is Title I, which targets
funding to schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged
children in order to improve their educational opportunities. The 2002
version requires that states administer annual tests in math and reading for all
students in grades 3 through 8; schools failing to produce sufficient
improvements in student test scores will be subject to sanctions. Advocates of
these testing provisions argue that they are necessary to ensure that all
children receive a quality education; others argue, however, that such tests
are not an accurate measure of educational quality and that the accountability
provisions will compel teachers to teach to the test, narrowing the curriculum
and focusing on rote learning.
English as a Second Language (ESL): Teaching English to non-English-speaking or
limited-English-proficient (LEP) students to help them learn and succeed in
schools. ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) has generally the
same meaning as ESL.
English Language Learner (ELL): A student whose first language is other than
English and who is in a special program for learning English (which may be
bilingual education or English as a second language).
Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student
achievement in that area.
117
Hispanic: The term Hispanic was first adopted by the United States government in
the early 1970s, during the administration of Richard Nixon, and has since
been used in local and federal employment, mass media, academia, and
business market research. It has been used in the U.S. Census since 1980.
Hispanic defines a region of origin, not a person’s race. It’s a term referring
to a person of Latin American descent living in the United States.
Historically, areas conquered by the Spaniards were considered part of a
region originally called Hispania. Modern countries which can trace their
history to Spain are now considered to be Hispanic, and include Mexico,
Central America, and most of South America where Spanish is the primary
language. The only exception to this Hispanic designation is Brazil, which
was settled by Portugal, not Spain. Any citizen of those countries originally
colonized by Spain can be considered Hispanic. People from Mexico, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and other areas south of the American border
would all be considered Hispanic. Often the term "Hispanic" is used
synonymously with the word "Latino", and frequently with "Latin" as well.
Even though the terms may sometimes overlap in meaning, they are not
completely synonymous. (Also see Latino)
Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.
Instructional Leadership: Actions or behaviors exhibited by an individual or group
in the field of education that are characterized by knowledge and skill in the
118
area of curriculum and instructional methodology, the provision of resources
so that the school’s mission can be met, skilled communication in one-on-
one, small-group and large-group settings, and the establishment of a clear
and articulated vision for the educational institution.
Latino: Latinos are speakers of romance languages (Spanish) and by definition are
Latins. Because of the popularity of "Latino" in the western portion of the
United States, the government adopted this term in 1997, and used it in the
2000 census. "Latino" is very close in meaning to Hispanic, but it also
includes other countries such as Brazil. The regional description "Latin
America" now refers to the countries where Romance languages (Spanish,
Portuguese) are spoken. (Also see Hispanic)
Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) Students: Students who are reasonably fluent in
another language but who have not yet achieved comparable mastery in
reading, writing, listening, or speaking English. LEP students are often
assigned to bilingual education or English-as-a-second-language (ESL)
classes.
Low-Performing Schools: Schools, almost always located in urban or low-income
rural areas, in which an unacceptably low proportion of students meet
established standards, as indicated by test scores. Also called failing schools.
Some observers believe it is unfair to call such schools failing because, they
say, the real failure is society's for allowing the social conditions that hamper
student learning. Others point out that some schools, called effective schools,
119
succeed in teaching low-income children, so others could do it too. Because
policies increasingly focus on such schools, and because test scores usually
vary from year to year rather than going steadily up or down, state and
national officials have devoted considerable attention to procedures for
deciding which schools should be declared low-performing.
Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure a
student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA
programs provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools. (Also see
“Elementary and Secondary Education Act”)
Mentoring: A developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a
less experienced partner referred to as a mentee or protégé. Usually - but not
necessarily - the mentor/protégé pair will be of the same sex.
Pedagogy: The art of teaching—especially the conscious use of particular
instructional methods. If a teacher uses a discovery approach rather than
direct instruction, for example, she is using a different pedagogy.
Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it
from a set of possible answers provided for them. A form of assessment that
is designed to assess what students know through their ability to perform
certain tasks.
120
Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire
the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully. Also
known as staff development, this term refers to experiences, such as attending
conferences and workshops, that help teachers and administrators build
knowledge and skills.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.
Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a
row they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of
having all students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to improve
student performance. USLI has identified ten key change levers that are
worthy of study: curriculum, assessment, professional development, human
resource system and human capital management, finance and budget,
communications, governance/board relations, labor relations/contract
negotiations, family and community engagement, and strategic plan.
Rigor: Academically challenging.
Sampling: In education research, administering a test to and analyzing the test
results of a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics of the
entire student population. Based on their analysis of the data of the
121
representative sample, 22 researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer
important trends in the academic progress of an individual or group of
students.
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members,
who set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The
governing board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the
district superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee
unions.
School Climate: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational
structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular
ways. Some schools are said to have a nurturing environment that recognizes
children and treats them as individuals; others may have the feel of
authoritarian structures where rules are strictly enforced and hierarchical
control is strong. Teaching practices, diversity, and the relationships among
administrators, teachers, parents, and students contribute to school climate.
Although the two terms are somewhat interchangeable, school climate refers
mostly to the school's effects on students, whereas school culture refers more
to the way teachers and other staff members work together.
School Culture: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational
structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular
ways. Some schools are said to have a nurturing environment that recognizes
children and treats them as individuals; others may have the feel of
122
authoritarian structures where rules are strictly enforced and hierarchical
control is strong. Teaching practices, diversity, and the relationships among
administrators, teachers, parents, and students contribute to school climate.
Although the two terms are somewhat interchangeable, school climate refers
mostly to the school's effects on students, whereas school culture refers more
to the way teachers and other staff members work together.
School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
relevant to educational activities.
Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the
power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the
belief (however accurate or inaccurate) that one has the power to produce that
effect.
Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English
Learner status, and special education designation. Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged: Students whose parents do not have a high school diploma or
who participate in the free/reduced price meal program because of low family
income.
123
Site-Based Decision-making: A system of school governance by which most
decisions, including staffing and spending decisions, are made at the level of
the individual school, rather than at district or other agency level. Also
known as school-based or site-based management. (Schools or sites are not
necessarily whole buildings. In some cases, a building may house several
schools.) Site-based decision-making is frequently confused with
participatory or shared decision-making. Some schools have teams composed
of administrators, teachers, and parents; some include student representatives,
community members, and one or more business partners. Team members
share responsibility for educational, leadership, and administrative functions.
In fact, site-based decision-making does not depend on any particular
arrangements for governance at the school level. Some highly successful
programs assign authority to school principals, who are responsible for
deciding how best to involve others. And shared decision-making tends to be
more successful when local administrators use it voluntarily.
Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions. Tests that are administered and
scored under uniform (standardized) conditions.
Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum. In
current usage, the term usually refers to specific criteria for what students are
expected to learn and be able to do. These standards usually take two forms
in the curriculum:
124
• Content standards (similar to what were formerly called goals and
objectives), which tell what students are expected to know and be able to
do in various subject areas, such as mathematics and science.
• Performance standards, which specify what levels of learning are
expected. Performance standards assess the degree to which content
standards have been met. The term "world-class standards" refers to the
content and performances that are expected of students in other
industrialized countries. In recent years, standards have also been
developed specifying what teachers should know and be able to do.
Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and evaluated by the
district’s board of education and responsible/accountable for all school
district’s operations and management.
Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged
students based on the number of low-income students in a school. Refers to
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965,
which is intended to improve education in high-poverty communities by
targeting extra resources to schools and school districts with the highest
concentrations of poverty. These are areas in which academic performance
tends to be low and the obstacles to raising performance are the greatest.
First enacted as part of the War on Poverty, Title I was known for a while as
Chapter I. ESEA must be periodically reauthorized. The most recent
reauthorized version of the law, named No Child Left Behind, requires states
125
to administer annual assessments in reading and math for all students in
grades 3–8. Schools will be expected to demonstrate that all students are
making adequate yearly progress in achieving proficiency on state standards,
as measured by test scores. Schools not making adequate yearly progress will
be targeted for improvement and they will receive additional assistance from
the state. Schools continuing to not achieve adequate yearly progress will be
subject to sanctions, including reconstitution of staff or conversion to a
charter school.
126
REFERENCES
American Education Act (1974)

Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and asssessing: A revisión of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Anderson, S. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature (ICEC No. 2). Ontario, Canada: International Center for
Educational Change, Ontario Institute fir Studies in Education.

Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority representation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.

Atkinson, J.W., (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior.
Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Ball, D.L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring
to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.

Ballantyne, K. G., sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English
Language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved June 10, 2010,
from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELLsBuildingTeacherCa
pacityVol1.

Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2008). Windows on achievement and inequality. Retrieved
from http://www.ets.org on 4/20/2010.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2).

Bensimon, (2004). The report card. Phi Delta Kappan. Univerity of Southern
California.

Bosniak, Linda S. (1996). Opposing prop. 187: undocumented immigrants and the
national imagination. Connecticut Law Review, 28(3), 555-571.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

127
Calderon, J. (Autumn, 1992). Hispanic and latino: the viability of categories for
panethnic unity. Latin American Perspectives 19(4), 37-44.

Calderon, Margarita. (2008). Preparing Teachers-----------

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Office of Policy and Programs.
(1998), Proposition 227: A Fact Sheet that focuses on CLAD/BCLAD
Teacher Preparation. Sacramento: CTC

California Department of Education. (1999). Proposition 227, Survey, Interim
Report. Sacramento: CDE.

California Department of Education. (2008). Taking center stage. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.gov

California Department of Education. (2009). Testing and accountability. Retrieved
from http://www/ced.ca.gov/ta/ on: 4/20/2010.

California Department of Education. (2010). Retrieved on August 14, 2010, from
www.cq.cde.dataquest.gov

California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English
learners: Research-based approaches.

Capps. R., Fix, M., Murray; Ost, J.; Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left
Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Carroll, T., Fulton, K., Abercrombie, K., & Yoon, I. (2004). Fifty years after Brown
v. Board of Education: A two-tiered system. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., and Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw Hill:
New York, New York.

Clark, M.D., and Artiles, A.J.(Feb. 2000). A cross-national study of teachers’
attributional patterns. The Journal of Special Education, 34( 2), 77-89.

Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

128
Cobb, C. (2004). Improving adequate yearly progress for English language
learners. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education,
National Center for Education.

Collier, V. P. (2009, October). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language
minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal,
16(1-2), 187-212.

Council for the Great City Schools. (1992). Succeeding with English Language
Learners: Lessons Learned from the Great City Schools. Washington DC.
Retrieved August 9, 2010 from www.cgcs.org

Curran, B. (2005). Graduation counts: A report to the National Governor’s
Association Task Force on State High School Graduation Rates. Retrieved
from
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb50
1010 on: 4/28/2010.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating “no child left behind.” Retrieved from
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond on: 4/27/2010.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

EdSource (2006).

Elmore, R.F. (1993). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Foley, E. (2001, August). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The
ascendancy of the central office in Philadelphia schools. Philadelphia:
Consortium for Policy and Research in Education.

Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How
to reach limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fullan, Michael. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
Levittown, PA.: Falmer Press.
129
Gandara, Patricia; Maxwell-Jolly, Julie; Garcia, Eugene; Asato, Jolynn; Gutierrez,
Kris; Stritikus, Tom; Curry, Julia. (2000) The Initial Impact of Proposition
227 on the Instruction of English Learners. California Univ., Santa Barbara.

Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B., and Scribner, K. (2009). The demographic imperative:
English language learners represent a growing proportion of U S students.
To meet these students’ needs, we must understand who they are. Educational
Leadership Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (v. 66,
7).

Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
Understanding and meeting the challenge. (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Garcia, Eugene E.; Rodriguez, Julia E. Curry; Stritkus, Tom. (2000). The Education
of Limited English Proficient Students in California Schools: An Assessment
of the Influence of Proposition 227 in Selected Districts and Schools.
University of California, Berkeley.

Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 Introduction. Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and the Challenge (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 33-39). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian D. (2005). English
language learners in U.S. schools: an overview of research findings. Journal
of education for students placed at risk, 10(4, 363-385.

Giuliani, R. (2002). Leadership, Chapter 4. New York:Hyperion.

Gold, N. (2006) Successful Bilingual Schools: Six Effective Programs in California.
San Diego: San Diego County Office of Education.

Goldenburg, Claude (2008). Teaching English Language Learners: With a million
English learners in schools across the county, it’s important to know what the
research does and does not say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44.

Goldenberg, C, Rueda, R.S., & August, D. (2006). Synthesis: Sociocultural contexts
and literacy development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing
literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel
on Language-Minority Children and Youth. (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

130
Gordon, S. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering
learning communities. Boston: Pearson Education; Allyn and Bacon.

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N., M. (2006). Influences of stimulating
tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Education
Research, 99(4), 232-246.

Hanushek, E. A., and Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public
schools. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6),
6-11.

Hochschild, J. and Scovronic, N. (2004). The American dream and the public
schools. Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY.

Huston, A.C., McLoyd, V., & Coll, C.G. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in
contemporary research, Child Development, 65, 275-282.

Interview with Ms. Okiishi, Bilingual Education Services, Program Director. January
15, 2009.

Johnson, Ruth S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: how to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press, Inc.

Karoly, Lynn A. and Panis, Constantijn W. A. (2004). The 21
st
Century at Work:
Forces Shaping the Future Workforce and Workplace in the United States.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., & Provasnick, S. (2007). Status and
trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Kindler, (2002) in Lucas, Villegas, and Freedson-Gonzalez, “In 2003,

Koehler, P. (2004). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, more
improvement needed. Retrieved from www/wested.org

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress
toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
131
MacIver, M.A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (CRESPAR
No. 65). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July
10, 2010, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action.
Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies.
Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy research in Education. Retrieved
September 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov

Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation
and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. University of
Cincinnati.

May 11, 2010 http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results03_fourth03.asp

McGraner, K.L., & Saenz, L. (2009). Preparing Teachers of English Language
Learners. Washington, D.C., National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality

Monzo, L., & Rueda, R. (2009). Passing as English fluent: Latino immigrant
children masking language proficiency. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 40(1), 20-40.

Mora, J. K. (April, 2009). From the ballot box to the classroom: Using state ballot
initiatives to regulate the education of language minority students is like
using a sledgehammer to repair a wristwatch. Educational Leadership.

Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from
organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of
Educational Administration. V 46, 1. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The condition of education 2005.
Washington, DC: U.S.; Department of Education.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Education Programs (NCELA). (2006). Frequently asked questions.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.

National Education Association. (2008). English language learners face unique
challenges. Center for Great Public Schools: Washington, DC.
132
National Head Start Association. (2009). About the national Head Start Association.
Retrieved from www.NHSA.org/about_nhsa on: 5/1/2010.

Newsweek Magazine. (2009). One of top high schools in the nation. Retrieved from
http://rhs.rowlandschools.org/index.jsp on August 9, 2010.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational
opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Californians
Together

Padilla, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2001) Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-
born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and
bilingual/ESL instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3),
727-742.

Pappano, L. (2010). Scenes from the school turnaround movement: Passion,
frustration, mid-course corrections make rapid reforms. Harvard Education
Letter.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative designs and data collection (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage

Pearson, P., & Raphael, T. (1999). Toward a more complex view of balance in the
literacy curriculum. In W.D. Hammond & T.E. Raphael (Ed.), Early literacy
instruction for the new millennium (pp. 1-21). Grand Rapids: Michigan
Reading Association.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Reed, D. (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact and what is left undone.
Retrieved from www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF23A.pdf on:
4/20/2010.

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Research and Policy. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together Research and Policy.

Rickey, D. L. (2008). An action research study of the use of adult and
transformational learning theory to guide professional development for
teachers. Dissertation: Capella University.
133
Rowland Unified School District. (2010) retrieved from
www.rowlandschools.org/apps/pages on July 5, 2010.

Rueda, R. (2006). Motivational and cognitive aspects of culturally accommodated
instruction: The case of reading comprehension. In D.M. McInerney, M.

Dowson, & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Effective schools: Vol. 6: Research on sociocultural
influrnces on motivation and learning. (pp. 135-158). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Rueda, R., & Yaden, D. (2006). The literacy education of linguistically and
culturally diverse young children: An overview of outcomes, assessment,
and large-scale interventions. In B. Spodek & O.N. Saracho (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children, 2
nd
Ed., (pp.
167-186). Mahwah, NF: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Pub.

Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. In P.
Pedraza & M. Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: Setting an agenda. (pp. 185-
204). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003). Academic instrumental knowledge:
Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic intervention approaches.
Current Issues in Education, 6(14).

Rumberger, R.W., & Gandara, P. (2005, Winter). How well are California’s English
learners mastering English? UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute
Newsletter, 15(2), 1-2.

Rumberger, R. and Gandara, P. (2000). The schooling of English learners. In G.
Hayward and E. Burr (Eds.) Conditions of Education 2000. Berkeley CA:
University of California, Policy Analysis for California Education.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective perspective. Fourth
Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman Publishing.

Short, D.J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions
to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English
language learners- a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap between black
and white students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 9-18.
134
Spillane, J.P. & Thompson, C.L. (1998). Looking at local school districts’ capacity
for ambitious reform. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.

Tienda, M. (2007). Hispanic demographics and implications for schools [Keynote
speech]. Washington DC: Office of English Language Acquisition Summit.

Verdun, V. (2005). Big disconnect between segregation and integration. Negro
Educational Review, 56(1), 67.

Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L. et. al. (2010, May). What are we doing to
middle school English Learners? Findings and recommendations for change
from a study of California EL programs. (Narrative Summary). San
Francisco: WestEd.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an
attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs,
expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through
adolescence. Development of Achievement Motivation. (pp. 91-120).
Academic Press.

Williams, B. (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs
and Practices. 2
nd
edition. ASCD.

Williams, T., Kirst, M. W., Haertel, E., et al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle
grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., and Hoy W. K. (1989). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education.
6(2), 137-148.

Yankauer, A. (January 1987). Hispanic/Latino- what’s in a name? American
Journal of Public Health. 77(1), 15-17.
135
APPENDIX A
WORK DONE IN ROWLAND USD OUTLINED BY SEMESTER
Semester Steps taken in Inquiry Process
Fall 2009 • Inquiry Team Formation
• Context of District Need
• Understanding District Priorities
• Narrowing inquiry focus
Spring 2010 • Exploring the Roots
• Data Collection
Summer 2010 • Data Analysis
• Identification of Performance Gaps & their Root Causes
• Development of Findings &
Recommendations/Considerations
Fall 2010 • Presentation of Findings &
Recommendations/considerations to District Groups
136
APPENDIX B
DISTRICT ASSISTANCE PROJECT
SCANNING INTERVIEW
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:
Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’d like to focus on (topic). You
comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or
attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.

1. Please give me an overview of (topic)?
• What is the current situation?
o What is being done about it?
o Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense?
2. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
• Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding (topic)?
o Has the district tried to address the (topic) in specific ways?
Please describe.

• Was there any success with these efforts?
• Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?
3. Regarding the (topic), are there any formal or informal goals for what you or
the district are trying to accomplish?

• What is the goal(s) of this effort?
• What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
137
• How will you/the district know if it is successful?
• Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get
details)

• How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire
to be?

4. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the
district from achieving perfect success on (topic)? Is the problem linked to
many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of
motivation, of culture, of politics or what?

• Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational
culture/structure

• Probe by role group
5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to
better understand the (topic) here in the district—any suggestions?
138
APPENDIX C
ONE MONTH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic Students, and your thoughts on
this topic would be helpful. We’d like to know what things you have done in your
class the past month to help your ELL Hispanic students learn.

1. What were your goals for your Latino ELL students?
2. What were your strategies to help your students achieve these goals?
What/When/How? What kinds of things did you do in the classroom to help
your ELL Hispanic students learn?

3. To what extent were you successful?
139
APPENDIX D
ROUND TWO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Themes
1. Expectations for ELL students
2. Decentralization
3. Goals
4. Perceptions
Stages of Concern
1. What are some things you are doing in your classroom to address the needs
of EL learners? (Behavior/Experiences)

2. How is it going? (Feelings/Emotions)
3. What does it take to make this intervention a successful one?
(Knowledge/Skills)

4. What do you see as the pros and cons for your own involvement in the
instruction of EL learners? (Perceptions) (Opinion/Value)

5. What are the measures of success? (Goals) (Knowledge/Skills)
6. What is your opinion on having an ELL Lead Teacher? (Decentralization)
(Opinion/Value)

7. What is you role in working with the ELL Lead Teacher?
(Behavior/Experiences)
140
APPENDIX E
TRIANGULATION
Title of dissertation: GAP Analysis of Hispanic Student Achievement in Rowland
Unified School District

Chairs: Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda
Methods
Data Sources
RQs Interview Observation
Document
Analysis
(1) What do key role groups in the
RUSD perceive to be the root
causes of the Hispanic ELL
achievement gap?
X X
(2) What do key role groups in the
RUSD perceive s possible solutions
to closing the Hispanic ELL
achievement gap?
X X
(3) What does the project team
identify as root causes of the
Hispanic achievement gap?
X X X
(4) What does the project team
identify as possible solutions to
closing the Hispanic ELL
achievement gap?
X X X
(5) How will the district respond to
the project team’s suggestions?
X X
141
APPENDIX F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH GAP ANALYSIS: HISPANIC EL ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, and Lesette Molina-Solis
University of Southern California
August 23, 2010
Background
In its quest to adequately perform its role as an effective and responsible
school district, the Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) tries to deliver sound,
quality educational programs for all of its students. Following the vision of
educational equity for all, RUSD consistently searches for best-current educational
practices and strategies that promote academic excellence throughout its student
body. For example, RUSD has gained local respect in its efforts to provide
educational excellence. Currently, RUSD boasts of numerous accolades in education
including numerous Blue Ribbon schools, several Title 1 Academic Achievement
Performance recognitions, and it’s partnership with the Ball Foundation, and one
high school has been deemed as one of the nation’s top high schools by Newsweek
Magazine, (RowlandSchools.org, 2010).
On a national level, NCLB mandates that all students attending public
schools must meet the same academic standards in reading and math, (National
Education Association, 2008). As a result, the NCLB accountability demands placed
on districts and schools have increased the scrutiny given to various subgroups
142
including, among others, English Learners (ELs). In order for schools to meet their
adequate yearly progress (AYP) growth targets, each one of four specifically
designated subgroups, (economically-disadvantaged, students of color, students with
disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency) must meet their expected
growth targets, as established by the federal guidelines in NCLB, (NEA, 2008).
NCLB, (2001) has brought educational issues affecting previously
unexamined student populations to the forefront. One consequence of the current
increase in accountability efforts is that, an academic achievement gap has surfaced
within the RUSD. Specifically, despite its consistent and continual efforts at
educational reform to maximize levels of student academic performance, RUSD has
entered Program Improvement (PI) status (CDE, 2010).
The Hispanic and the EL subgroups’ academic performance indicators
persistently show a gap when results are compared to academic levels of other
subgroups in the district. In 2008, all subgroups within RUSD met NCLB growth
targets, with the exception of two subgroups, Hispanic students and ELs. The
Hispanic subgroup and the EL subgroups scored lowest in academic attainment in
English Language Arts and Math. Achievement and attainment gaps between these
subgroups are evident at the elementary and middle school levels.
The current Hispanic achievement gap is of concern to RUSD students,
educators, and administrators. Increasingly severe sanctions will continue to
accumulate and negatively impact RUSD if the current patterns of student
performance gaps persist. Federal and state sanctions, including mandates to
143
reorganize and/or eventual takeover of school and/or district operations loom in the
realm of possible future sanctions. In order to avoid negative consequences such as
the ones outlined above, all national public school districts, including RUSD must
prepare all their student subgroups to meet the mandatory academic growth targets.
The Current Project
The current project is an inquiry project which is based at the University of
Southern California (USC). It is part of an alternative dissertation project which
involves teams of students working with two school districts, one being RUSD. The
faculty leaders of the project approached the district with a request to identify areas
that the district would like to receive feedback on. The present inquiry team has
focused on the achievement gaps for Hispanic students at the elementary and middle
school levels. The overall intent is to help, in a consultant role, uncover the root
causes of the achievement gaps in RUSD and pose possible solutions and next steps.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to identify root causes of the academic
achievement gaps in RUSD, specifically for Hispanic EL students at the elementary
and secondary levels. Specifically, the goal was to implement the Clark and Estes
‘GAP Analysis’ mode to help RUSD close the existing and widening achievement
gap between Hispanic EL students and their elementary and middle school peers.
The GAP Analysis framework became the lens by which the inquiry project team
examined potential roots to student performance problems and root causes of the
Hispanic students and EL students’ achievement gaps within RUSD.
144
The GAP Analysis process helped identify root causes of current problems
around existing issues in knowledge, motivation, and organizational structure within
the district. This inquiry project’s focus was to determine positives and negatives of
the numerous reform efforts instilled in RUSD to address the achievement gaps as
noted by API and AYP amongst Hispanic and ELL student populations and to
provide RUSD with suggestions for closing the persistent gap. The research-based
literature review helped the USC inquiry project team to consider potential solutions
to current performance inequities issues as mentioned above, which will help close
the persistent achievement gaps in RUSD.
The inquiry team opted to implement the Clark and Estes, (2002) gap
analysis model as a framework to inquire into potential root causes for the gaps in
academic performance. An explanation of the gap analysis and its process is
described below.
The Gap Analysis Model
According to Clark and Estes, (2002), a gap analysis is a systematic problem-
solving approach to help improve a team’s performance and achieve its goals, (Clark
& Estes, 2002). According to the authors, the gap analysis process can be
instrumental in helping organizational teams, such as school districts, measure
existing gaps resulting from the discrepancies between the organization’s desired
performance targets and actual levels of current performance. Clark and Estes’
(2002) systemic observational process can help organizations identify potentially
successful strategies to help bridge gaps between desired and actual disparities in
145
performance thus helping RUSD meet their growth goals and objectives. The gap
analysis process can also help teams identify potential root causes for performance
problems, and potential solutions to effectively address their performance gaps. By
measuring gaps between their desired and actual goals and objectives, teams
strategize to effectively address and close the gaps. The gap analysis process
involves a five-step approach, (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
The Gap model has five steps to ensure a systematic application of the
model. The first step is to Define Goals: this step is a guide in how the performance
goals should be written and how to create a plan to achieve the goals. In this step the
goals will be examined at three levels: long term goals, intermediate goals, and day to
day goals. Goals are reviewed to ensure they are aligned at all levels, they are
measurable, and that goals fit in within each other. The goals that are set need to be
‘concrete’ goals that are clear, measurable and supported by all the stakeholders
because they are ‘C3 Goals’ (Clark & Estes 2002). “The best work goals are C3
Goals: Concrete, Challenging, and Current” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 26). A concrete
goal is one that is easy to understand and can be measured. A challenging goal is one
that would be a feasible next step. A current goal is one that can be attained in a
shorter amount of time (weeks or months vs. years).
The second step is to Determine Gaps. The current level of performance is
compared to a standard that represents a desired level of performance. This
146
comparison would involve collecting benchmark data from other organizations that
are currently meeting the desired goal. The gap is determined by subtracting the
organization's current performance in comparison to the achievement of the other
organization who has achieved the desired goal. The difference between the current
performance and desired performance becomes the gap.
The third step in the Gap analysis model is to Investigate Causes. Causal
analysis consists of listing all the possible causes that may be the root cause of a less
than desired performance. This analysis is specifically done by looking at the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational/cultural for the potential causes of the gap.
The organization using the gap model will look at all of the stakeholders in the
organization and examine them in each area. Knowledge refers to things such as
education, information, and professional development. Motivation refers to such
things as willingness to participate and effort. Organizational gaps refer to things
such as: climate of the organization, its practices and its norms. Each potential cause
in these three areas is assessed or ruled out. By using this process of elimination, a
clearer picture can be obtained of what is likely causing the performance gap(s).
Once all the plausible root causes of the determined gap are investigated,
eliminated or accepted, solutions can be identified leading to the fourth step: Propose
Solutions. An emphasis is placed on providing solutions that target the areas of
147
learning, motivation, and organization. Solutions are research-based and address
problems that are directly tied to the root causes from the previous step.
The fifth and final step is to Evaluate Outcomes. Outcomes and results of the
implemented solutions are evaluated and modified as needed. The evaluation process
itself has four levels according to the gap model. The four levels are; reactions,
impact during the program, transfer, and the bottom. This is an ongoing process and
the solutions can be modified and re-implemented until the desired goals are achieved.
The Inquiry Process
USC professors and students formed inquiry teams and developed a plan to
interview key district office level administrators who could offer critical background
information to begin the inquiry process. Almost simultaneously, district personnel
prepared informational presentations for the USC teams. USC professors helped
students develop an interview protocol and assigned teams to perform inquiry at
three levels: elementary, high school, and district levels.
The three doctoral students made contact with RUSD’s Director of Bilingual
Education for an initial interview. This individual provided guidance in suggesting
nine people with whom the team could conduct "next interviews" with the purpose
of getting a further understanding of the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD. The
inquiry group at that time established the most convenient way to communicate with
the Director of Bilingual Education and confirmed the best way to get in contact with
the nine suggested interviewees.
148
The inquiry team sent the Director of Bilingual Education a letter indicating
the intent of the project. Once the approval was received, it was sent to the nine
principals at the school sites recommended by the district level contact. The inquiry
group proceeded to make contact and actually interviewed 2, district level
administrators and 8 school administrators. Contact was also made via telephone
and email. At the conclusion of these interviews, follow-up interview and
observation dates were set with 17 classroom teachers recommended by the school
administrators.
Interviews were held in three phases: phase 1 included district level
interviews, phase 2 included school site level interviews, and phase 3 included
interviews after one month of the initial contact with teacher/administration. During
the interviews, the data collected was coded and later examined by USC teams,
looking for root causes for the existing gaps.
Findings
RUSD has made their Hispanic EL subgroup a district priority in efforts to
meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance. RUSD cited NCLB as an
important factor in understanding the context of what has put a spotlight on this
particular subgroup. There is a determination in RUSD to capitalize on the opportunity
to further advance the districts reform efforts. Among the different schools that were
visited, it became clear that in RUSD certain steps have served to create the foundation
necessary to advance EL reform district wide.
149
What follows is a summary of the findings collected through the review of
documents and the interview process. First, is a summary of RUSD’s strengths
currently operating at the district and school levels towards meeting the organizational
goal of closing the Hispanic EL achievement gap. This is followed by a summary of
the emergent themes as to what the team found to be hindering RUSD from closing the
Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Strengths
RUSD is a highly successful district as evidenced by countless honors and
national respect it has received. RUSD earned four National Blue Ribbon, sixteen
California Distinguished Schools, and several Golden Bell Awards. There are
numerous exceptional practices that RUSD already has in place that are an excellent
launching pad for propelling their efforts to close the EL Hispanic achievement gap.
Rowland has a culture of professionalism and high expectations among the
staff that contribute to the academic success of students. Every person that the
inquiry team encountered expressed personal pride they had in working for Rowland
and for the children they serve. Many of those interviewed were also proud to share
that they are alumni of RUSD and that they have placed their own children in the
Rowland school district.
Clear Vision for Reform
In RUSD, there seems to be a great support for the advancement of a clear
and unified vision of the district reform efforts. The process of establishing this
vision and rallying support behind district goals created the necessary buy-in to make
150
the reform implementation successful. RUSD’s shared vision for reform has
signaled a district commitment to system-wide change.
From the very first interaction with the district is was clear that through their
partnership with the Ball Foundation their had been substantial work on creating a
clear vision. All the district leadership was able to articulate how their particular
department contributed to the overall district vision.
English Language Learner Advocacy
RUSD has very dedicated and effective advocates for the improvement of EL
instruction and services. These advocates have helped guide and advance the
district’s EL reform agenda. One of these advocates in specific is the Director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education. Everyone interviewed spoke about the positive
support for the changes in the EL reform from the school board, the superintendent,
and the bilingual education director. The superintendent and the director of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education not only have the expertise needed but also the
commitment required for improving the quality of EL instruction in RUSD. The
Curriculum and Bilingual Education Director has taken proactive steps to build a
culture of collaboration. The bilingual education director understands the importance
of setting high standards for EL achievement. The bilingual education director also
makes every effort to provide the tools and curriculum support that schools may need
to meet these high standards. The director believes in the importance of research
based strategies and supporting the use of data to improve instruction and services
for ELs.
151
Bilingual Education Office
When Rowland USD made EL achievement a priority it also empowered the
office of Bilingual Education. Throughout the interviews conducted in the district,
there was consistent feedback about how important the role of the Curriculum and
Bilingual Education department has been in making the needs of ELs a district-wide
focus area. The bilingual education office also works collaboratively with other
districts office departments to support instructional improvement for ELs in making
the EL focus an integrated part of all support offered from all the departments. It
was also mentioned repeatedly how the department of Curriculum and Bilingual
Education is included in the highest levels of decision-making, which helps to keep
the needs of Hispanic EL students on the table.
Master Plan for English Learners
RUSD has created a district wide Master Plan for English Learners. This
plan includes specific efforts to systematically build schools’ capacity to instruct and
support ELs. Communication with, and involvement of, school staff and the
community were essential in the formulation of this plan. The district actively
engaged teachers, principals, and other school administrators in the adoption of
organizational and instructional strategies.
RUSD identified a deliberate policy and specific practices for the English
Language Development (ELD) of ELs. The district strategies and practices signal an
implicit understanding of the dual academic challenge of ELs: to acquire both
proficiency in English and the literacy skills to comprehend content. RUSD supports
152
ELs by providing both Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education
throughout the district.
Support for Implementation
In response to emerging achievement deficits, RUSD has taken the initiative
to implement reforms needed to improve student achievement. With respect to the
ongoing needs of ELLs, RUSD has created the EL lead position at each school site
with the intent to improve the quality of the EL program. RUSD has also taken major
steps to better coordinate district resources in order to meet its organizational goals.
For example, each school site was assigned an EL lead teacher who provides
information and coaching on the newly adopted collaborative model of instruction,
conducts presentations for staff, facilitates meetings, and works with school
personnel to facilitate professional development activities. These lead teachers
essentially act as liaisons between the school and the district, ensuring that schools
had the support they needed in meeting the needs of EL students. Also, depending
on if a school has a Structured English Immersion program or a Bilingual Education
Program, the Office of Bilingual Education is ready to support every individual site.
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes
As the team reviewed the interviews and observations, four themes emerged.
One or more of these four themes repeatedly found their way to the center of every
conversation held. These themes first surfaced in the initial scanning interviews and
continued to come up during the follow-up interviews and school visits with site
administrators and teachers. The four emergent themes that were identified were: 1)
153
the academic impact of a decentralized district on the Hispanic EL subgroup, 2) an
absence of a clearly identified plan and support for the progress of ELs, 3) the
perception of professional accountability for the progress of Hispanic ELs, and, 4) a
gap of cultural knowledge of students’ backgrounds and experiences.
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District
on the Hispanic EL Subgroup
The inquiry team found that for the specific topic of Hispanic EL
achievement the advantages of decentralization seem to have created some
unintended disadvantages for Hispanic ELs. The explicit accountability for student
progress seems to be the biggest hurdle to overcome in trying to close the Hispanic
EL achievement gap in a decentralized setting. For example, among the interviews
that were conducted there was a widely expressed feeling that no two schools
addressed the needs of ELs in the same way. Furthermore, within each site, every
classroom was an island unto its own. Many site administrators and teachers believe
there are no explicit goals or targets for student progress in place. There was also a
belief that no system was in place to support or monitor the implementation of
adopted programs because "everyone is doing something different". This perceived
lack of support and oversight leads to inconsistency in the implementation of the
curriculum, and programs for ELs. Any and all decisions regarding curriculum and
levels of implementation is left at the discretion of the leadership of the individual
schools sites. The byproduct of all these decentralized decisions is the delivery of an
154
ELD academic program that potentially can vary not only from school to school, but
from classroom to classroom.
Although many teachers like the ability to make independent decisions, some
teachers specified that they would prefer the district to impose more structure when it
came to issues surrounding ELs. Teachers and administrators that stated this felt that
not enough is being done at the district level to effectively implement the EL reform
at the schools. They added that they did not feel they had the curricular knowledge
or the content expertise to make decisions for EL students. Through this lens, the
teachers do not see the district valuing certain reform activities nor providing enough
follow-up support.
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for
the Progress of ELs
Through interviews with administrators and teachers, it became clear that
some people interviewed believe that the district has not effectively articulated or
communicated a vision for the kind of instructional program it wants for their ELs.
Many administrators and teachers interviewed stated that the district had not clearly
communicated their goals. Some teachers expressed their awareness of the district’s
general expectations for ELs, but shared their frustration over the absence of clear
performance goals. In absence of clear performance goals, people tend to focus on
tasks they deem important, instead of helping achieve the organizational goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008). The perceived lack of a comprehensive and concrete plan to meet
155
the needs of ELs is an example of how some respondents feel that the district
seemingly has no clear performance goals or expectations for schools.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed feeling
that they are working as hard as they can for the best of their students but they really
do not know what the district preferences are. During one interview, a lead ELD
teacher at a site was asked what the districts goals were for Hispanic EL students, the
teacher responded, “I didn’t know there were any. If there are, I would love to know
what they are.” There was also a voiced frustration that not all lead teachers are
allowed the time or forum necessary to effectively communicate the district message
that they were entrusted in “taking back” to their respective sites. One veteran lead
teacher stated, “Well it all depends if your site principal values what you are bringing
back. Some principals make room for you on the agenda, while others just put you
off by saying that the staff knows where to find you if they have EL questions.”
The degree of the gap ranged between teachers that were extremely
knowledgeable in the goals and forms of support the district provided to teachers that
did not know they existed. The knowledgeable teachers were able to articulate the
best instructional practices for ELs and how to access support. At the other extreme,
some teachers did not know who the Lead EL teacher was at their site or that the
position even existed. Many teachers expressed that EL trainings were only for EL
teachers and not accessible to all.
The topic of follow-through repeatedly surfaced in all of the interviews.
Many teachers commented that any ideas and plans proposed for ELs at the district
156
or site administrative level rarely makes it into the classrooms. The example that
was repeatedly given was that of the English Learner Program. This partial
implementation of an organizational goal reflects the perception of a practice of
strong verbal commitment but a lack of faithful implementation. Other perceptions
include that EL instruction is a separate curricular area. It is not perceived as an
integrated part of the core curriculum nor is it monitored to ensure consistency.
Although the district does mandate specialized language support for ELs, there is no
system in place for guidance and oversight of the EL program component.
Individual schools end up adopting different approaches for implementation. Sites
vary in the time they allocate for ELD. They vary in how ELD groups are formed,
the size of the groups, how many levels are in a group, and how teachers are
assigned to teach these groups. The most common variation of the ELD program
consisted of having EL students lave the homeroom during core instruction to
receive a pull-out ELD intervention. This is not very effective as students are
missing core instruction to provide ELD in a supplemental setting.
Some of the teachers interviewed explained that they were not involved in
selecting the ELD programs or materials, nor have they been trained on how the
program components should be integrated with the core curriculum. Many general
education teachers have not received any specialized training in English language
development strategies or differentiated instruction.
157
Another layer of frustration by some teachers was the perception that
resources were not equal between school sites or even within departments. These
perceived inequalities create feelings of isolation for ELD teachers and departments.
Perception of Professional Accountability for the
Progress of Hispanic ELs
One significant common finding was the consistent belief that ELD teachers
were ultimately responsible for all EL students. Many teachers reported that there
are no conversations or collaboration around how to meet the needs of EL students
throughout the day and across the curriculum. There was little evidence of
collaboration between teachers at a site and even less evidence of any collaboration
between amongst school sites. Working in isolation can be considered as an
organizational problem. It can also negatively impact motivation because teachers
feel that everyone is not held accountable. Teachers who serve EL students voiced
feeling that they carry a heavy burden of responsibility and moral obligation for the
student population. They also believe that the teachers who don’t service EL
students wash their hands of that “problem” because those are “not their kids”.
Some of the teachers and administrators that were interviewed felt that there
is little professional development for teaching literacy to ELs. There are even fewer
professional development opportunities for teachers to learn how to address the
needs of ELs during core curriculum. Teachers need PD to show them how to
effectively teach their student the core content while helping them acquire the
academic English necessary to be successful in the content area. Those interviewed
158
explained that teachers who have not been selected or have self-selected to work
with EL students' feel that they are not adequately prepared to work with EL
students. This feeling of inadequacy perpetuates the unspoken practice of not taking
owne3rsip of EL students by teachers who feel they are not qualified to support
them.
Conversely, many ELD teachers feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of
responsibility that is placed on them to have ‘success with those students’. There is
also a belief that the majority of the staff who are not “responsible” for ELs are
“allowed” to put some distance between themselves and the problem of closing the
Hispanic achievement gap. There is a collective sense of low teacher efficacy, or
teachers’ perceptions that their efforts as a group will not positively impact student
achievement. This is important, since a low collective efficacy affects persistence
and can create a culture of low expectations.
“Given the importance of access to quality teachers for student achievement-
particularly among ELs-it comes to no surprise that access to high quality
professional development (PD) for general education teachers and EL teachers alike
was (is) instrumental in the reform initiatives of improving districts” (Great City
Schools, Oct. 2009, p.22). All the administrators and EL leads interviewed
understood the importance of PD, however, they expressed that Rowland does not
have a coherent strategy for building EL staff capacity through targeted professional
development. In Rowland USD, professional development is largely voluntary. In
the absence of centrally-defined, supported, and monitored professional
159
development, each school determines and provides for its own professional
development needs. Those interviewed reported that the focus and quality of
professional development varies from school to school. Most professional
development opportunities that are offered in Rowland USD do not integrate EL-
specific content into their offerings or address strategies for differentiated
instruction.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When a middle school teacher was asked about English Learners
taking core curriculum with ‘English Only’ students, the teacher responded, “I don’t
know how to help them sometimes. I am not trained to teach these kids. So when
they struggle I send them back to the ELD teachers.” Several teachers felt that they
could not help “these” students. Some teachers felt that the causes for low student
achievement were not connected to their professional effort. With this type of
external attribution, some teachers may feel that their efforts are pointless, and
instead focus on other work goals. Further complicating the matter is the potential
difficulty in addressing such a sensitive issue. Many times teachers are not aware
that their attitudes or lack of effort impact student achievement.
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students’ Backgrounds and Experiences
By the time a student arrives at a school they have already been impacted by
their environment. The environment that they come from includes home, culture,
language, and any previous schooling. In order to be effective, educators must
understand and value the diverse backgrounds their students come from and use that
160
information as a resource in designing instruction. Acknowledging that students
come to school with unique experiences necessitates an acceptance that there is no
simple, one size fits all solution.
In conversations and interviews, the inquiry team found a significant gap in
knowledge about the Hispanic culture within the school district and the community.
This lack of knowledge includes the knowledge of one’s self and group and the
perceptions and knowledge of other cultural groups. Almost all administrators and
teachers interviewed commented on the cultural differences between their students
and the community. One staff member stated that, “Students do not feel it is
important to learn English because they do not use it at home or even at school when
they are with their friends.” There is also a general perception that the parents are
more concerned with the ethnic demographics of the schools, than the academic
standings of their child. One teacher stated that, “For the most part, the Hispanic
parents do not really value their children learning English as long as they are in a
school where the majority of the students look like them and there are no (social)
problems.”
One teacher explained that Hispanic parents are comfortable living amongst
themselves and only speaking Spanish. This was further supported when a middle
school teacher stated the transition to their school (from the elementary schools) is
difficult because the Hispanic kids that come in from all Hispanic elementary
schools do not like going to school with the Asian students. While these ideas can
161
also be attributed to other root cause such as motivational and organizational, they
stem from a basic lack of factual knowledge about the students culture.
Cautions and Limitations
It should be recognized that the patterns reported here are based on a limited
number of conversations and interviews with a limited number of respondents within
the district. In addition, the time period over which the information was collected
was relatively short. Finally, these patterns are based on self-report information, and
reflect respondents’ perceptions.
It is important to keep in mind however, for the most part the patterns
reported were widespread among those with whom we spoke. In addition, while
perceptions may or may not reflect objective reality, they do have an important
influence on behavior and the ultimate achievement of overall goals. Therefore, we
hope to work with the district in the next phase of the work as we begin to assess our
findings and formulate appropriate and helpful recommendations for next steps in
addressing gaps.
162
APPENDIX G
PROPOSED SOLUTION POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180
APPENDIX H
HISPANIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER TABLE
TEAM: Hispanic English Learners
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
Turnaround
Change:
The description of a
school’s or LEA’s
efforts and resources
to direct their student
performance
outcomes.
Implementation:
Costly, and takes
time/possible, effective
turnaround change must
be nurtured, monitored,
and supported
consistently.
Reeves
(2004)
Pappano
(2010)
Rickey
(2010)
Transformational
Theory:
Focusing on adult
learning.
Proposes a linear,
inquiry-based frame for
leaders to practice
reflective coaching as a
guide in promoting
instructional and
organizational change
via a reflective skill gap
analysis process to alter
adult pedagogical
beliefs.
Rickey
(2008)
The
implementation
of a relatively
new district plan
for supporting
the progress of
ELs
Educational Equity:
Change the current
practice and
organizational
structure to prepare
ALL teachers to
effectively address
ALL students’ needs.
Focus of district should
include a rigorous,
college-ready,
curriculum for all
RUSD students.
CREATE (2009) model
provides a framework
for emulation.
Guthrie,
L.F. (2009)
181

Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
In our current state educational
system, schools are in need of an
effective intermediary between
the schools and the state.
MacIver
and Farley
(2003)
Massell describes 4 approaches to
school improvement:
1. Interpreting and using data
2. Building teacher knowledge
& skills
3. Improving curriculum and
instruction
4. Targeting interventions for
low performing students
Massell
(2000)
Consortium for Policy Research
in Education (CPRE) study found
that the district’s role was vital in
building a school sites capacity
and could highly influence the
choices that individual school
sites made to make to improve
academic achievement.
Foley
(2001)
Model implementation is directly
related to the leadership provided
by administrators.
McDougall,
Saunders, &
Goldberg
(2002) as
cited in
Gordon, S.
(2004)
The academic
impact of a
decentralized
district on the
Hispanic EL
subgroup
District Role
• Establish
instructional &
curricular
focus
• Consistent &
coordinated
instructional
activities
• Strong
leadership
from
Superintendent
• Emphasis on
monitoring
instruction &
curriculum
There is a need for professional
development for principals to
help them also become
instructional leaders.
Anderson
(2003)
182

Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
A perception of
professional
accountability by
teachers for the
progress of
Hispanic ELs
AT THIS TIME SAME AS
CULTURAL
PROFICIENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
By providing direct
guidance to teachers,
districts play a role in
bridging the gap
between existing
practice and a more
challenging pedagogy.
Large scale reform
now necessitates
focused attention on
how to motivate
teachers to change
practices.
Elmore
(1996)
MacIver &
Farley
(2003)
183

Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale
Evidence/
Literature
A gap of
cultural
knowledge of
students’
backgrounds
and
experiences
Cultural Proficiency:
a way of being that
enable both
individuals and
organizations to
respond effectively to
people who differ
from them
By increasing sociocultural
competence, instructional and
pedagogical factors can be considered
in light of cultural practices in the
homes and community.
Lindsey,
Robins, &
Terrel (2003)
Funds of Knowledge:
considers the
everyday knowledge
of families &
communities as
resources to be used in
instruction
By responding to deficit views of
students from diverse language and
cultural backgrounds, educators
consider the everyday knowledge of
families and communities as resources
which can be used in instruction.

By connecting classroom instruction
with communities, student interest will
increase as will student motivation.
Gonzalez,
Moll, Floyd-
Tenery,
Rivera,
Rendon,
Gonzalez, &
Amanti
(1993)
Cultural Modeling:
goal is to connect
students’ knowledge
from the home with
knowledge presented
at school
By making recognizable connections
between the home and school content
for students, students better understand
the content presented at school.

By incorporating students’ everyday
experiences into the curriculum,
students are better able to identify
strategies for meaning-making as they
move from analyzing personally
meaningful texts to canonical works of
literature.
Lee,
Rosenfeld,
Mendenhall,
Rivers, &
Tynes (2003)
Third Space:
establish a connection
between the student
and classroom culture
so that students
understand how to
participate in the class
To transform the current educational
system into a more equitable system
for all students by establishing a
connection between the student and
classroom culture so that students
understand how to participate in the
class.

By developing a rich curriculum with
various methods of interaction,
students begin to understand who they
are what they may accomplish
academically and beyond.
Gutierrez
(1995)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this case study was to conduct a gap analysis for the pervasive underperformance of Hispanic English Learner (EL) students in Rowland Unified School District. This qualitative inquiry project looked at educational practices from elementary through middle school throughout the district and how these aligned to district initiatives for narrowing the gap. Through the use of interviews, observations and surveys, the authors gathered information to develop perceived root causes and then formulate solutions to present to the Superintendent and her executive board.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

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

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

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

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Molina-Solis, Lesette Wendy (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2011

Defense Date 01/19/2011

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

Tag achievement gap,gap analysis,Hispanic EL,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Rowland Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email lwm5995@lausd.net,molinaso@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3802

Unique identifier UC155735

Identifier etd-MolinaSolis-4309 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-465470 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3802 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MolinaSolis-4309.pdf

Dmrecord 465470

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Molina-Solis, Lesette Wendy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu