Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority
(USC Thesis Other)
Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES WHEN THE MINORITIES
HAVE BECOME THE MAJORITY
by
Kimberly Ariya Saguilan
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
December 2018
Copyright 2018 Kimberly Ariya Saguilan
2
Table of Contents
Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ 7
Context of the Problem ............................................................................................................... 7
Historical Barriers to Opportunities to Learn .......................................................................... 8
Segregated Schools. ............................................................................................................. 8
Language Policy. ................................................................................................................ 10
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 15
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 16
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 17
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 17
Implications of the Study .......................................................................................................... 18
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 18
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 18
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 18
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................... 19
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 22
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 22
Critical Race Theory in Education ........................................................................................ 22
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model ................................................................................ 23
Structures and Opportunities to Learn ...................................................................................... 24
State and Federal Policy ........................................................................................................ 25
Housing Policy. .................................................................................................................. 26
Inclusionary Zoning. .......................................................................................................... 26
Education Policy. ............................................................................................................... 28
No Child Left Behind. ........................................................................................................ 29
Local Control Funding Formula. ....................................................................................... 33
Bilingual Educational Act. ................................................................................................. 35
School Structure: Operations, Climate, and Pedagogy .......................................................... 37
School Operations. ............................................................................................................. 37
School Climate. .................................................................................................................. 40
Pedagogy. ........................................................................................................................... 47
3
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 55
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 55
Research Method ....................................................................................................................... 55
Qualitative Research .............................................................................................................. 56
Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 56
Sample and Population .............................................................................................................. 56
School Demographics ............................................................................................................ 57
Teacher Attributes ................................................................................................................. 59
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Performance ..................................................... 60
Student Attributes ...................................................................................................................... 62
Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................... 63
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 63
Documents and Artifacts. ................................................................................................... 63
Observations. ..................................................................................................................... 63
Interviews. .......................................................................................................................... 65
Data Analysis Procedures ...................................................................................................... 66
Research Organization ........................................................................................................... 68
Validating Findings ............................................................................................................... 68
Internal Validity and External Validity. ............................................................................. 68
Ethical Consideration. ........................................................................................................ 69
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 69
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 70
RQ1: Instructional Practices ...................................................................................................... 70
Ms. Hope (Grand Elementary) .............................................................................................. 71
Ms. Spring (Grand Elementary) ............................................................................................ 77
Ms. Olive (Flower Elementary) ............................................................................................. 84
Ms. Figueroa (Flower Elementary) ....................................................................................... 90
RQ2: State and Federal Policy That Impact Schools ................................................................ 95
Funding Policies .................................................................................................................... 95
Physical Conditions. .......................................................................................................... 96
Funding History. ................................................................................................................ 97
Learning Opportunities at Flower Elementary .................................................................... 100
New State Standards. ....................................................................................................... 100
English Language Development. ..................................................................................... 102
4
Learning Opportunities at Grand Elementary ..................................................................... 104
New State Standards. ....................................................................................................... 104
English Language Development. ..................................................................................... 104
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 105
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. 107
Theoretical Framework Model ................................................................................................ 107
Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 108
Implications of the Study ........................................................................................................ 110
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 113
Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................................ 113
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................... 114
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 115
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................... 116
References ................................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A: Document/Artifact Rubric ..................................................................................... 122
Appendix B: Observation Scripting Template ............................................................................ 123
Appendix C: Observational Instrument ...................................................................................... 124
Appendix D: Interview Question Protocol ................................................................................. 126
Appendix E: Information/Faction Sheet ..................................................................................... 127
Appendix F: Informed Consent Form ......................................................................................... 129
5
Figures and Tables
Figure A. Cohort Outcome Data for the class of 2013-2014 displays statewide 12th grade graduation
and dropout rates by ethnicity. ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure B. Cohort Outcome Data for the class of 1993-1994 displays statewide 12th grade dropout
rates and enrollment by ethnicity. ................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 1: SPED vs. GATE Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 32
Table 2: Dropout Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 3: School Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 4: Teacher Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 5: Student Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 6: Research Organization ........................................................................................................................................ 68
6
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine school structures that are failing to provide
equitable opportunities to learn for minority students, in particular African American and Latino.
The research questions included: 1. In what ways do instructional practices in elementary schools
foster or deny equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students? 2. In
what ways do federal and state policies impact schools’ ability to provide equitable opportunities
to learn for African American and Latino elementary school students? For this qualitative study,
four teachers were observed and interviewed from two different school sites. Further exploratory
analyses were conducted using Classroom Observation Schedule (COS). Findings from this
study indicate that language rich social learning experiences increase African American and
Latino students’ equitable learning opportunities. The study also found African American and
Latino students are capable learners when their teachers model respect and have high
expectations. However, state and federal policies have long lasting effects on district who have a
history of inadequate funding. The study demonstrates ways to bridge the equity gap between
marginalized students of color and their White (not Hispanic) counterparts and contributes to
examining access to equitable opportunities to learn.
7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Context of the Problem
The mismatch between an increasingly diverse student population and traditional school
structures modeled primarily for one ethnic group, White (not Hispanic) has resulted in disparate
student outcomes. The shift is increasing numbers of students of color and proportionately fewer
White (not Hispanic) students. The diverse students are now enrolled in schools and responding
to the traditional school structures in different ways (Milner, 2010). Milner (2010) describes
inconsistencies and incongruences between traditional school structures and students other than
White (not Hispanic) as cultural conflicts. Traditional school structures are producing lower
academic achievement between some of these culturally diverse student populations and White
(not Hispanic) students. Historically, in the US, the dominant culture is White (not Hispanic);
other ethnicities or cultures are commonly considered inferior or less important (Mackenzi,
2005).
Middle class and Eurocentric values heavily influence American education (Bazron et al.,
2005). Accordingly, educational structures including school organization, leadership, curriculum,
instruction, policies, and resource allocations reflect the dominant culture, which sets the norms
or standards for all other cultures to assimilate. School data demonstrate that schools are failing
large percentages of minority groups, in particular African American and Latino students.
Schools’ lack of responsiveness to ethnic minority culture and language is one of the major
obstructions that limits access to academic opportunities to learn for multiple students in preK-12
schools.
8
Historical Barriers to Opportunities to Learn
History demonstrates schools’ lack of responsiveness to ethnic minority cultures and
language, which limits access to academic opportunities to learn, especially for African
American and Latino students. Although the Brown vs. the Board of Education Supreme Court
decisions outlawed school segregation, schools remain highly segregated, creating disparities
between schools where the predominant student enrollment is students of color and students of
poverty, compared to schools where the predominate groups of students are White (not Hispanic)
and Asian Americans.
Segregated Schools. Many African Americans surfaced from slavery illiterate and
segregated schools continue to be a barrier to literacy attainment for African Americans (Margo,
1985). Historically under Plessey v. Ferguson, segregated schools, a barrier to academic
achievement, stemmed from the notion of separate but equal (1985). The notion supported the
right of African Americans to attend schools; however, the schools they were forced to attend did
not provide an education equal in quality to that of schools for White (not Hispanic) students.
Student achievement in segregated schools was considerably lower than in the White (not
Hispanic) schools due largely to underfunding (Margo, 1985) among other factors, i.e. facilities,
instructional materials, and quality of teachers. Segregated schools also impacted Latinos. For
example, Texas prohibited Latinos from attending White (not Hispanic) schools and other White
(not Hispanic) establishments. Many Southwestern Whites (not Hispanic) referred to the schools
as “Mexican Schools,” which clearly denied Latinos a quality education (Contreras & Valverde,
1994). Additionally, Latinos were segregated based on the ideology of “language deficiency,”
since English was not their first language. California schools, during this time, created separate
schools for language different groups (1994). Attending a segregated school has been one of the
greatest barriers to educational achievement for African Americans and Latinos, due to the
9
severely limited opportunities to learn (Bankson & Caldas, 1996; Margo, 1985). According to
Mickelson and Nkomo (2012) White, Asian, and middle-class students are more likely to enroll
in rigorous courses in high school, to attend college, choose science, mathematical, engineering,
and technical fields than African American, Latino, and less advantaged working-class counter
parts. Additionally, achievement gaps associated with racial segregation shows lower student
performance compounded over time (Mickelson et al., 2013).
In resistance to “separate but equal,” parents of both African American and Latino
students, in collaboration with organizations like National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and League of United
Latin American Citizen (LULAC), challenged school segregation (Robinson & Robinson, 2003).
For example, the parents of Sylvia Mendez sued the all-White (not Hispanic) Westminster
School District after the district denied Mendez and her siblings’ entrance into the school district
because of their darker skin color. The outcome of this landmark case assisted in desegregating
public schools in California. In addition, the case was used as basis for the future ruling of
Brown v. Board of Education, where de jure segregation was deemed unconstitutional (Boykin
& Palmer, 2016).
Although the Brown v. Board of Education ruling occurred in 1954, full desegregation
still has not occurred. Organizations like NAACP, ACLU and LULAC continued to challenge
the denial of access to education for minority groups in addition to other discriminatory policies
(2003). African American and Latinos are more racially segregated now, based on race, ethnicity
and poverty (Garda, 2007). According to the US Department of Commerce Census Bureau
(2014), African American and Latino ethnic groups are the largest groups living in poverty and
42.6 percent of people of color attend high-poverty schools (Nationalequitatlas.org, 2014).
Districts which are poverty-stricken are also usually schools with high concentrations of African
10
American and Latinos. NCES (2016) revealed three-fourths of students who are African
American and Latino students attend schools where the majority of their peers qualify as low-
income. Many of the schools that these groups attend are failing African American and Latino
students.
Language Policy. Language policy has created a long legacy of inequitable access for
African Americans as Standard Language Learners and Latinos as English Language Learners,
language policies have been used as an exclusionary tool (Stuart, 2006). Crawford (1992) argues,
“language, like race, gender, national origin… serves as a basis to exclude, harass, or exploit
unpopular groups” (p. 287). Language policy, including but not limited to early forms of the
Constitution of California, Proposition 63, Proposition 227, and many more, created classrooms
where English-only instruction was the practice, and English-only assessments were given to
students despite their not understanding or speaking English (1992). These non-English speaking
students’ academic performance demonstrated to be far below their White (not Hispanic)
counterparts. English-only instruction and assessments expanded the achievement gap (Callahan,
2005). Additionally, language minority students were often placed in classes that did not match
their skill level. Although, non-English minority students may have varying levels of skills and
ability, more often than not, these students are grouped together in one class with one teacher
who is unable to adequately support all of their learning needs (Calderon et al., 2011). English-
only instruction without English language development support and English-only assessments
were tools that disenfranchised linguistic minorities from accessing their education (Crawford,
1992). Language policies have been challenged. For instance, in the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case,
the Supreme Court outlawed the neglect of non-English speaking students and mandated non-
English speaking support to students who needed supplemental language instruction.
11
Introduction
Currently, schools across the nation have shifted from predominately White (not
Hispanic) student populations to a more diverse population of minorities. Now that White (not
Hispanic) students are no longer the dominant group numerically, there is a mismatch between
the cultures of schools and the majority of students. In particular, California Department of
Education (CDE) (2016) released statewide student enrollment data by ethnicity in the 2014-
2015. The data demonstrate the largest group, at 53 percent, are now Hispanic or Latino of any
race. The next largest group is White (not Hispanic) at 25 percent. Next, 10 percent of the
student population is made up of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos. Lastly, six percent of
the California student population is African American (CDE, 2016). With the summation of
minority groups, 75 percent of students enrolled in California schools are minorities. In
comparison, during the 1993 – 1994 school year, the largest student population in California was
White (not Hispanic), at 42 percent. Thirty-seven percent of the student population was Hispanic
or Latino. Ten percent of the student population was Asian, Pacific Islander, and Filipino. Lastly,
an estimated nine percent of the student population was African American. From 1993- 1994
school year to 2014 – 2015 school year, there was a 17 percent decrease in White (not Hispanic),
not Hispanic, student population and a 17 percent increase in Hispanic or Latino student
population. The demographic shift speaks to the diversification of the state of California and the
nation. Minority groups are becoming the majority in the US and their culture and values are
becoming more prevalent in shaping how society is evolving. Yet, traditional structures and
institutions do not reflect the interests of the new dominant student populations.
Much of the school data in California demonstrate a huge gap in student performance
based on race. Figures A and B illustrate dropout and graduation rates broken down by ethnicity
and grade from various years in California. Figure A is Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of
12
2013-2014. The cohort data are first broken down by the total number of students statewide in
California. Then, the data are broken down further by ethnic and racial designation, as its main
category. Specific data on various categories are provided. In Figure B, is the first recorded data
by CDE (2016) on dropouts by grade and ethnicity. The data show grades 7 to 12 in the years of
1993 to 1994. The data also provide information on dropouts and enrollment by grade and ethic
group.
The common theme in these figures is that minorities, with the exception of some Asians,
are performing below their White (not Hispanic) counter parts. In particular, the Latino and
African American student population is continually and increasingly performing at failing rates.
The Latino student population in 1993-1994 demonstrates a dropout rate of 7.2 percent. The
African American student population in 1993-1994 demonstrated a dropout rate of 7.9 percent.
In the past 10 years, Latinos dropout rates have doubled, and African American dropout rates
have tripled. The 2013-2014 cohort data illustrate Latino dropout rate as 14 percent and African
Americans dropout rate as 20.3 percent. When examining the 2013-2014 high school dropout
statistics, 61,600 students dropped out of high school and 45,851 out of the 61,600 students were
Latino or African American, which is 74.4 percent of the student population that dropped out of
High School (CDE, 2016).
13
Figure A. Cohort Outcome Data for the class of 2013-2014 displays statewide 12th grade
graduation and dropout rates by ethnicity.
Figure A. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2013-2014
14
Figure B. Dropouts by Grade and Ethnicity 1993-1994
Figure B. Cohort Outcome Data for the class of 1993-1994 displays statewide 12th grade dropout
rates and enrollment by ethnicity.
15
Schools’ failure to provide equitable opportunities to learn for all their students can be
seen in the number of schools in program improvement. In the state of California, 4678 out of
6534 schools (72 percent) are in program improvement status (CDE, 2016) a category created by
No Child Left Behind for low-performing schools. In the Los Angeles Unified School District
alone 647 schools are in program improvement status, and many of these school are in multiple
years of program improvement (2016). The predominate ethnic groups that are enrolled in these
program improvement schools are Latinos and in certain, areas, African American students
(2016). These numbers are a symptom of a larger problem.
Statement of the Problem
U.S. educational structures have not historically, nor are they currently, providing
equitable access to a quality education for all students. Nor, have the educational structures
changed to reflect the rapid change in demographics (Milner, 2010). The data demonstrate
continued low academic performance for marginalized groups, with the exception of Asian
Americans, who have overall achieved academically at a high level. However, Southeast Asians,
as a group, are falling into the same pattern as their African American and Latino peers. Comer
(1998) noted low academic performance as socio-cultural misalignment between home and
school expectations. The current school system’s response is to keep the same structures in place.
Educational policies, school structures (operations and climate) and instruction do not reflect the
increasingly diverse student population (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). These persistent structures
fail in providing African Americans and Latinos equitable academic opportunities to learn.
Limited access to academic opportunities perpetuates the cycle of poverty (Carter & Welner,
2013). The groups that are now larger in number, particularly Latino, African American
(although representation of African American is shrinking) and some Southeast Asian students,
16
are also the groups that are experiencing the least academic success in US schools. The neglect
of these students has serious implications for America’s future.
Significance of the Study
Access to education in the US is based on notions of meritocracy. Increased college and
graduate school enrollment rates demonstrate the value placed on attaining higher education,
which is not equitably assessable for all students. In addition, college and graduate school
enrollment projection studies indicate there is a higher demand for individuals who are prepared
beyond a high school diploma (US Department of Labor, 2017) The National Center for
Education Statistics (2015) shows a 46 percent increase in undergraduate enrollment from 1990
to 2013. In addition, the NCES (2016) also projects a 20 percent increase between 2013-2024 for
graduate school enrollment. The African American enrollment rate grew four percent to an
average of 14 percent total in college in 2014 (2016). Latino enrollment rate grew 13 percent to
an average 17 percent total in college in 2014 (2016). However, as an increasing number of
African American and Latino students continue to be failed by existing school structures, the
consequence is clear: a low quality of life for families and communities where African
Americans and Latinos are in the majority (Heckman, 2006).
An estimated two out of three eighth-graders in US schools are not performing at grade
level in reading and math (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013). Three out of
four eighth graders cannot write at grade level (NAEP, 2013). In addition, every year an
estimated one million students drop out of high school. Of these one million high school
dropouts, 40 percent are African American and Latino students nationwide. Therefore,
understanding how failing school structures impact minority students, especially African
American, Latinos, and Southeast Asians, can provide educators with knowledge leading to
change. These data place US at risk of losing its status among nations and at risk of maintaining
17
a high quality of life for its citizens (Merry, 2013). No nation can thrive when the majority of its
citizens are undereducated. This trend also has serious implications for the quality of life of the
students who have not met with success in US schools (2013).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine school structures that are failing to provide
equitable opportunities to learn for minority students, in particular African American and Latino.
The examination of policies, school structures, and instruction will contribute to the
identification of components of effective urban schooling. This study will examine ways to
rethink existing school structures that are exclusionary rather than inclusive. This study will
provide findings that may help schools provide minorities with equitable opportunities to learn
and develop as a confident individuals, ready to participate in society.
Research Questions
There are two research questions for this study, which evaluates the impact of educational
policies, school structures and instruction on African American and Latino students. The
questions are:
1. In what ways do instructional practices in elementary schools fosters or deny equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students?
2. In what ways do federal and state policies impact schools’ ability to provide equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino elementary school students?
18
Implications of the Study
The implications of this study have the potential to influence the field by providing
guidelines in rethinking classroom practices and school structures to reflect student needs
enabling all students to access equitable opportunities to learn and contributing to the field of
literature.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
The following limitations may impact the results of the study and/or how the study is
interpreted. Data collected through the observations, and interviews rely on the truthfulness of
the teachers, the construct validity of the interview question, and the observation rubric to
interpret. Additionally, socioeconomics may be a factor; however, for this study racial and ethnic
demographics and background will be the main focuses. The study is generalizable to schools,
teachers and classroom participants
Delimitations
The following delimitations may limit this study. The first delimitation is the selection of
the participants for the study. The second delimitation is the limited time I will spend in the field
observing each class and teacher. Lastly, the third delimitation is the instrumentation of analysis
of my data, which includes observations and interview protocols that were established and
implemented by me.
19
Definition of Terms
Accountability – Accountability is the idea of holding schools, districts, educators, and students
responsible for student outcomes (Lopez, 1970).
Achievement Gap - Achievement gaps occur when one group of students (such as, students
grouped by race/ethnicity, gender) outperforms another group and the difference in average
scores for the two groups is statistically significant (Milner, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2006).
School Culture – School culture is a set of standards, values and beliefs, ritual and ceremonies,
symbols and stories that makes up the “persona” of the school (Deal & Peterson, 2016).
Socioeconomic Status (SES) – Socioeconomic status (SES) are households that have little
income or wealth to withstand the negative impacts of poverty (Leonard et al., 2017).
High-Needs Students – Students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special
assistance and support are considered high-needs students (US Department of Education, 2016).
Traditional Schooling – Traditional schooling is defined as teacher-centered delivery of
instruction to classes of students who are the receivers of information. Traditional schools
generally stress basic educational practices and expect mastery of academic learning in the core
subjects of math, reading, writing, science and social studies (Gee, 2014; Lasry et al., 2014).
Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education (CRRE) – CRRE is a term created by Gloria
Ladson-Billings (1995) to describe “a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially,
emotionally, and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and
attitudes.”
Low-Performing Schools – Schools that are in the bottom 10 percent of performance in the
State, or who have significant achievement gaps, based on student academic performance in
reading/language arts and mathematics on the assessments required under the ESEA or
graduation rates (US Department of Education, 2016).
20
Equitable Access – Equitable access is the notion that every student in any classroom in any
public school in America should have the same opportunity as any other student for being taught
by a highly qualified teacher who is supported by a highly qualified principal.
Opportunities to Learn – Opportunities to learn is define a set of conditions that schools,
districts, and states must meet in order to ensure students an equal opportunity to meet
expectations for their performance (Elmore & Fuhrman, 1995).
Opportunity Gap – The opportunity gap refers to the ways in which race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and or other factors contribute to or perpetuate lower
educational aspirations, achievement, and attainment for certain groups of students (Carter &
Welner, 2013).
For the purpose of the this study these definitions will be apply:
• Minority Group – Any ethnic group other than White (not Hispanic), although the
Whites (not Hispanic) are numerically the minority (Greenfield & Cocking, 2014).
• Majority Group – White (not Hispanic), the group considered having the most power
culturally in a particular place (Greenfield & Cocking, 2014).
• Minority Majority Group – An increasing combination of all minority groups, which
out numbers the majority, White (not Hispanic) based on culture. For example, Latinos
are numerically the majority, however, White (not Hispanic) culture is considered the
majority.
21
Organization of the Study
Chapter one provides an overview to the study including the significance of the study and
the purpose of the study. In chapter two, I review relevant literature of existing federal and state
polices, school operations and climate, and instructional practices as it relates to African
American and Latino access to equitable opportunities to learn. In chapter three, I summarized
the research design and methods used in this study. All data procedures, instrumentation, and
analysis are explained in detail. Chapter four presents the findings of study. Lastly, chapter five
provides the implication of the study and offers suggestions for further research.
22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter one provided a statement of the problem and a context for which the problem
exists. In chapter two, I intend to address structures in American education that contribute to the
disparities in the quality of education marginalized students receive. School and district
structures fail to equitably meet the needs of all the ethnic groups in US schools. In particular,
policy and school structures, as well as instructional practices are elements that have a significant
impact on the marginalization of some students, preventing them from attaining academic
success. The literature review will explore the overall impact of policy, school structures, and
classroom practices as well as their impact on marginalized students. In the case of this review,
marginalized students refer to students who lack access to quality academic experiences due to
racial and cultural differences (Akin & Neumann, 2013).
Literature Review
Two key theories that will guide the literature review are Critical Race Theory and
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory. Both theories provide support in understanding how
culturally minority students, namely African Americans and Latinos, develop in environments
influenced by limiting ideologies directly or indirectly.
Critical Race Theory in Education
Critical Race Theory (CRT) can be used to analyze educational structures that
marginalize students of color. Bell (1980) argues the importance of acknowledging the dominant
culture’s power over prominent structures in society and how the dominant culture’s influence
shapes the construction of the way society behaves. Bell invokes the concept of “interest
convergence theory,” which is an essential piece of CRT: the theory suggests that the dominant
culture will support minority interests if doing so is in the interest of dominant culture as well.
Additionally, interest convergence theory asserts that decisions are more likely to occur on
23
behalf of the subordinate group if they can align their interests to the dominate group’s interests.
The main foundation or focus of CRT is understanding racial domination and its oppressive
effects and in particular analyzing the sources of racial oppression.
Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) laid the foundation for CRT in education with three
main premises. First, race is a substantial factor in determining inequity in the US. Second, US
society is based on property rights. Lastly, the intersection of race and property creates an
analytic tool through which we can understand social inequity. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995)
state that CRT can assist in understanding inequalities in school funding, students’ assignment to
special education, discipline practices, curriculum as a form of property, and testing and
assessment. CRT in education is a radical critique of both the status quo and purported reforms.
CRT will be used to analyze how policy and school operational structures are influenced by
White group dominance.
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory illustrates how racial ideologies and inequities in
the macrosystem (society at large) infiltrate human ecological systems and in turn create
educational structures that cause inequitable access to academic opportunities (Bronfenbrenner &
Ceci, 1994). Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) Bioecological Systems Theory postulates that multiple
environments and interactions influence inner and outer ecological systems that develop human
growth. CRT intersects with Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory to demonstrate the
sources and effects of inequalities that minority children may experience. For example, societal
attitudes towards minority groups filter down into policy, institutions, teaching, and
communities. In addition, these attitudes determine how policy, institutions, teaching, and
communities are set up. If racism has a strong presence in the macrosystem, then racism will
24
generally be found in different tiers that ultimately affect the children in microsystem where
family, church, and some community entities directly affect the student.
Each ecological system represents different influences on the child’s development
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Each system in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological system aslo affects the
other. The Microsystem has direct impact on the individual’s development. Yet, in
Bronfenrenner’s ecological systems theory, every system (mesosystem, the exosystem, and the
macrosystem) operates in concentric circles affecting the child in the microsystem, and vice
versa, all systems are affected by the activity in the microsystem. For example, the home affects
the individual’s progress in school, and the school vice versa. Although the individual is not
directly experiencing the other settings, these settings still have indirect influence on the
individual’s development, including systems of beliefs, values, traditions, socioeconomic status,
ethnicity, bodies of knowledge, resources, opportunity structures, law and policy, and live course
options. The macrosystem “[it] may be thought of as a societal blueprint for a particular culture
or subculture” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p.40). The macrosystem ultimately affects the
“particular conditions and processes occurring in the microsystem” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994, p.40). Bronfenbrenner’s model, in combination with CRT, demonstrates how race and
power ideologies influence an individual’s opportunity to access equitable opportunities to learn.
Structures and Opportunities to Learn
In California, for the past ten years, ethnic group percentages have changed drastically
from majority white, (not Hispanic), to a majority minority, primarily made up of Asians,
African Americans, and Latinos who have become the new majority (CDE, 2016). Coinciding
with this ten-year demographic shift, a significant number of African American, Latino, and
some Southeast Asian students continue to perform academically below most other sub-groups
under the No Child Left Behind Act. Statistically, African American, Latino and Southeast Asian
25
students are less likely to graduate. They are subjected to severe punitive disciplinary measures
more frequently than other groups, and are overly referred to special educational (McClure,
2005; Townsend, 2000). These statistics are the results of varying degrees of policy, school
practice, and instruction that have not adapted to the new majority group of minorities.
Educational institutions still largely reflect the racism and biases prominent in US society.
State and Federal Policy
Throughout American history, national and local educational policy makers have shaped
how schools are expected to behave (Williams & Carter, 2014). The pivotal Brown vs. the Board
of Education legislation, which made segregated schools illegal, was a milestone in opening
greater possibilities for minority students to access equitable opportunities to learn (Hanushek et
al., 2009). However, over the past 60 years, many continuing and newly created policies have
worked in opposition to the purpose of Brown vs. the Board of Education. Current policy does
not reflect the change in demographics across the nation. A diversified student population
equates to diversified learning needs. Current and past policy has yet to provide equitable
academic opportunities to learn for all low-income minority students, especially African
American and Latinos. Inclusionary Zoning, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF), Zero Tolerance, and Bilingual Education Act are a few current
policies that have the stated intent to improve minority students’ outcomes; however, these
policies have also acted as barriers. These policies are examples of the influences on the
marcosystem and the exosystem impacting students in their microsystems as expressed by
Bronfenbrener. They affect the family and school’s ability to meet the needs of the student in the
microsystem (Bronfenbrener, 1994). These policies play a role in continuing failure to educate
African American and Latino students. There is a legacy of undoing Brown vs. Board of
Education, in addition to some of the policies which have attempted to move it forward for the
26
benefit of all students. Inequalities in school funding, unfair employment practices set by public
and private industries, zero tolerance policies which have contributed to a school-to-prison
pipeline, punitive accountability policies, and discriminatory housing polices have deterred
implementation of Brown vs. Board of Education as it was intended (Orfield et al., 2016).
African American and Latino students still have experienced major educational inequities.
Housing Policy. Housing policies have a major impact on the quality of schooling in
low-income communities. Some of these polices have contributed to increased segregation, high
concentrations of unemployment in some communities, and high concentrations of residents with
low skills (Orfield et al., 2016). According to Rothstein (2015), the quality of education is
constrained by housing policy; he asserts “it is not possible to desegregate schools without
desegregating both low-income and affluent neighborhoods” (p.21). Theodos et al.’s (2014)
study on residential mobility in school attainment reveals school rank improvement, more often
than not, came from students moving out of low-income school districts, instead of actual school
improvement. Inclusionary zoning is one recent policy designed to reverse the negative impact of
discriminatory housing polices on communities (Rose & Miller, 2016)
Inclusionary Zoning. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (CDHCD) acknowledges that affordable housing is essential in facilitating
educational attainment and the lack of affordable housing negatively impacts education
(California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014). The CDHCD (2014)
defines Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) policies as a requirement of including housing that is affordable
within market-rate developments (CDHCD, 2014). One of IZ’s goals is to reduce the low-
income concentrations through better integration of diverse incomes living in the same
communities (Kontokosta, 2014). Implementation of this policy has the potential to lead to
lower-income-to- moderate-income households residing in middle-income to upper-income
27
communities. If this policy were implemented as intended, a lower-income to moderate-income
household could potentially participate socially with people from various income levels and their
children attend an effective school, which at present tend to be located in more affluent areas
(Schwartz et al., 2012). Theoretically, IZ has the potential to increase access to equitable
academic opportunities to learn.
However, past studies have demonstrated implementation of subsidized housing polices
have caused racial shifts, ghettoization, lower school performance, higher crime rates, and lower
income rates (Kontokosta, 2014). One example of subsidized housing failure is the Watts
Housing Projects during the World War II campaign (Brown et al., 2012). The projects were
originally created to house war industry workers. As the war concluded, war industry
employment dissipated, white people moved to the suburbs, and only African Americans
remained in the projects. Many African Americans left behind were unemployed and in need of
alternative housing and aid (Brown et al. 2012). Watts began to decay socially, economically,
and physically to the point of disrepair and extreme poverty. Equally important to note, there has
been a long history of discrimination against African Americans and Latinos in the workforce.
Discriminatory employment practices contribute to the housing problem by concentrating large
numbers of low-income families in the same communities.
Inclusionary Zoning, like previous housing initiatives, provides low-income minority
groups with the short-term benefit of the initial housing improvement in a low poverty setting.
However, it has had little long-term positive impact. Inclusionary Zoning policy does not
typically serve the lowest income levels or households with extensive support to meet their needs
(Schwartz et al., 2012), leading to long-term improvement. An empirical comparison study of
Montgomery County, Maryland and Suffolk County, New York and a recent comparative spatial
analysis demonstrate outcomes from IZ. The study and the analysis showed IZ policies as
28
potentially intensifying concentrations of poverty and racial segregation through discriminatory
inequitable housing assignments (Kontokosta, 2014). In the long run, IZ policy provides limited
benefits for low-income minority groups. Rather, IZ policy continues to maintain concentrations
of low-income families in poor, minority areas, where students lack access to equitable academic
opportunities.
Inclusionary Zoning policy does not adequately address the implications of location and
its direct correlation to equitable academic opportunities to learn (Zhang, 2009). In 2014, the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) released a study on the importance of housing
location and opportunity. CBPP’s study revealed high poverty neighborhoods can be detrimental
to a child’s cognitive development, school success, social-emotional health, and long-term
physical health (Sard & Rice, 2014). Continual exposure to high poverty stress and violence with
inadequate schooling decreases the chance for students to experience academic success (Sard &
Rice, 2014; CDHCD, 2014). Some studies show low-income students who grow up in low-
poverty neighborhoods experience academic success (Sard & Rice, 2014; CDHCD, 2014).
According to Schetz et al. (2001) policymakers need to address the inconsistency of adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of IZ policy to accurately compare and analyze results of IZ
programs. The variations in outcome lead to questioning the effectiveness of implementing IZ
policy. Neither state nor local governments have actively required proper implementation
through enforcing accountability measures of IZ policy (Schuetz et al., 2001). Kontokosta (2015)
strongly recommends continual evaluation of future housing designed to address current-housing
needs of low-income minority populations and their relationship to students’ academic
performance, particularly with African American and Latino students.
Education Policy. Other institutional policies that negatively impact on low-income
communities are educational policies. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Local Control Funding
29
Formula (LCFF), and the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) are a few examples of educational
policies that are believed to have had good intentions, but eventually had negative impact on
low-income communities with large concentrations of African Americans and Latino residents
(Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2015).
No Child Left Behind. NCLB was an education policy presumably intended to improve
educational opportunities for all children, especially those of lower income families (Dee &
Jacob, 2011). NCLB expanded the Improving American Schools Act, its predecessor, by
focusing on key standards of learning and creating stringent accountability measures. NCLB
required states to test students in reading, math, and science and then publicly report test results
aggregated and disaggregated by specific student subgroups. In instances where schools did not
meet annual yearly progress (AYP), NCLB required school contingency plans for improvement.
NCLB also required schools to hire highly qualified teachers and principals to ensure the
improvement of academic achievement of all students. In its implementation, NCLB exposed
major achievement gaps between underserved students and their peers as well as ignited a
national dialogue on educational improvement. NCLB’s focus on accountability was crucial in
its attempts to ensure quality education; however, effective implementation of the accountability
measures has been challenging. (US Department of Education, 2016).
Nationally, NCLB created a new culture around education. NCLB’s impact on school
districts has placed increased pressure on schools to meet AYP goals and improve student
achievement. School districts reprioritized accountability practices and polices intended to have
the most successful outcomes for student achievement. Not meeting AYP had serious
consequences such as jeopardizing federal funding and being placed in improvement status
(Burch, Donovan, & Steinberg, 2006; Forte, 2010). These reprioritized accountability measures
were passed down to individual schools and administrators, and as a result, schools and
30
administrators became hyper-focused on accountability with insufficient attention and resources
to shape how the accountabilities were to be met. Educators were unduly focused on using
instructional time toward tested subjects (math and language arts), specific content areas within
those subjects, and particular types of test preparation activities (Dee et al., 2013). According to
Hopson and Lee (2011), however, better test preparation, under efforts to improve test scores,
may result in higher test scores that have little or no connection to student learning. Moreover,
NCLB reprioritized allocation of school resources to areas that were now considered more
important or more beneficial to meeting AYP goals, like reading or math remedial programs
(Dee et al., 2013). Schools with high-stakes state testing cultures tended to narrow curriculum
and emphasize test preparation, particularly for “bubble kids” (Dee et al., 2013; Lauen & Gaddis,
2012; Lauen & Gaddis, 2016). Other researchers have described the method of honing in on
“bubble kids” as triage, since these bubble students are near test score cutoffs (Dee et al., 2013;
Lauen & Gaddis, 2012; Lauen & Gaddis, 2016). This focused attention on bubble kids was often
at the expense of students who are well below and well above test score cutoffs because bubbles
kids have the most potential to increase the chance of meeting AYP school goals (Horn, 2016)
Another requirement for meeting AYP school goals under NCLB was the mandate to hire
highly qualified teachers who are content skilled. The intent was to ensure that all students,
including those in under resourced urban schools have teachers who are adequately prepared to
support students in meeting high academic standards. To further ensure effective teaching,
NCLB set professional development standards to promote the continued growth of teachers (Dee
et al., 2013; Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). However, research shows teachers with increased
accountability pressure tended to use instructional time in tested content areas only, with
increased drill and kill, and focus on test preparation rather than instruction that was focused on
multistep problem solving and higher order thinking skills. Lauen and Gaddis (2012) referred to
31
this practice as, “what gets tested gets taught.” NCLB called for higher teacher standards with
content knowledge, although there were mixed findings regarding which teacher academic
abilities have been found to actually translate into academic achievement in the class as the
teacher (Dee et al., 2013; Selwyn, 2007). Schools hired more teachers with master’s degrees
instead of hiring more teachers and creating smaller class sizes (Dee et al., 2013). Schools that
have thrived under NCLB have reaped the benefits of continuous federal funding as well as
additional state funding (Dee et al., 2013). However, African American and Latinos, many of
whom attend school with higher concentrations of African American and Latino low-income
families have not reaped comparable the benefits of NCLB (Ravitch, 2016).
Numerous educational consultants and providers of supplementary instructional materials
benefited as well. In 2003, tutoring companies took in four billion dollars in revenue due to
schools’ attempts to meet NCLB’s requirement for schools to provide remedial services to
students who are not performing to NCLB’s proficiency measures (Burch, Donovan, &
Steinberg, 2006). The increase in remedial services demonstrated the increase in triage-like
strategies to quickly fix the achievement gap (Lauen & Gaddis, 2016). In most cases, African
American and Latino students were the primary groups to participate in the most in these
remedial programs. High percentages of African American and Latino student participation in
special education services is also an indicator of the mismatch between the educational
opportunities made available to these populations. The CDE’s (2016) statewide special education
enrollment report reveals over 68.3 percent of all special education students are African
Americans and Latino. Inversely, African American and Latino students are underrepresented in
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), while Whites and Asians are overly represented. For
example, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) exemplifies the disproportionality. In
the 2014-2015 school year, the LAUSD Special Education Program was comprised of 12% of
32
African American, 3% Asian, 72% Latino and 11% White (not Hispanic) students (CDE, 2016).
In LAUSD a total of 84% of the Special Education population was African American and Latino
participants. Also, LAUSD’s GATE disproportionality index from 2014 – 2015 revealed African
American and Latino students as being 0.85 and 0.7 respectively as an index less than 1.0, which
reflects underrepresentation in GATE (LAUSD, 2015). The table below provides a comparison
of data that demonstrates more African American and Latino students in Special Education and
less in GATE. Moreover, there is higher participation of Asian and White (not Hispanic) in
GATE and less in Special Education. These data contradict research that finds the distribution of
abilities across racial and ethnic groups is rather consistent.
Table 1: SPED vs. GATE Characteristics
SPED vs. GATE Characteristics
African
American
Asians Latinos Whites
(Not
Hispanic)
Special Education Rates of
Participation
(LAUSD)
# of SPED Students by Ethnic
Group/ Total # of Student
Enrolled By Ethnic Group
17%
7%
12%
11%
Gifted and Talented Education
Rates of Participation
(LAUSD)
# of GATE Students by Ethnic
Group/ Total # of Student
Enrolled By Ethnic Group
10%
30%
8%
20%
Note. Inverted rates of SPED and GATE for minority students.
In addition to being the primary groups, many African American and Latino students
were pre-prescribed services that did not match their actual needs (Forte, 2010). Remedial
services provided limited benefits with minimal exposure to rigorous instruction and higher order
33
thinking (Dee & Jacobs, 2011). Remediation has the potential to continue the African American
and Latino students’ achievement gap (2011). According to Lauen and Gaddis (2012), African
American and Latino students need accountability policies that understand the effects of
subgroup-specific accountability pressures and measures on state governments, school districts,
schools, teachers, and students. Under existing policies, school sites and students bear the
greatest accountability.
Local Control Funding Formula. Fiscal accountability policy like the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF) is a new form of “bottom-up” accountability, which in theory gives
local districts increased flexibility to meet the needs of their communities and in theory better
support high needs students such as African Americans and Latinos (Vasquez Heiling et al.,
2014; Delahaye, 2016). However, under LCFF African American and Latino students are not
adequately supported with only twenty percent of the funding going towards supporting
meaningful learning outcomes (Affeldt, 2015). Additonally, if marginalized students are not
receiving adequate funding to meet their needs, they will continue to stay behind (Affeldt, 2015).
Local Control Funding Formula was enacted in 2013-2014 to replace the previous
finance system, which had been in existence for roughly 40 years in California. For school
districts and charter schools, the LCFF establishes a variety of grants in place of the numeroxus
previously existing K–12 funding streams. LCFF requires local districts to create local
accountability plans (LCAP) which explains in detail a list of actions and expenditures the
district will take to achieve goals (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2014). Because LCFF is relatively new,
it remains unclear whether California and local entities have the will and capacity to engage
communities in truly equitable school finance decisions and accountability. In 2013 a statement
was made in a regional session concerning the absence of engagement and informed
understanding by parents in the LCFF process (WestED, 2013). In 2015, a California Statewide
34
survey was conducted over the phone to hear Californians opinions about Common Core, LCFF,
and Smarter Balanced Assessment (Baldassare et al., 2015). This survey revealed 75 percent of
all adults who participated in the survey knew nothing at all about LCFF and 22 percent knew a
little (2015). This is concerning for communities who are in high poverty areas and whose
schools need community input to serve the student population in those areas (Friedlaender et al.,
2014).
Horsford and Vasquez Heilig (2014) described the Las Vegas Promise Neighborhood
Initiative as a community-based reform that was unsuccessful in meeting the needs of high
poverty schools, including a concentration of African American and Latino students. The case
study revealed that far too many communities, that have the greatness needs, lack the capacity to
actively engage in community-based reforms and as a result the communities are unable to
obtain federal or state support (2014). Statistically, communities with the greatest needs are
communities with high concentrations of African Americans and Latinos (Pendall et al., 2016).
Another LCFF challenge is with local entities improperly implementing the policy (Humphrey
and Koppich, 2014). Humphrey and Koppic (2014) noted that districts found difficulties in
getting the “metrics right” in order for the programs, services, and resources to be aligned
appropriately with measures of progress.
A crucial issue with LCFF is the elimination of Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
(BTSA) program. Over the recent years, there has been a 38 percent decrease in the number of
teachers enrolling in credential programs (Affeldt, 2015). Both the elimination of BTSA and the
decrease in enrollment of credential programs foreshadows a weakening of quality teachers and
possible teacher shortages (Goldhaber & Cowan, 2014; Affeldt, 2015). The weakening of quality
teachers equates to fewer high-quality learning opportunities (Goldhaber & Cowan, 2014).
Moreover, teacher shortages equate to larger class sizes and schools who are inadequately
35
supported in providing a high-quality education (2014). High poverty community factors further
exacerbate these possible outcomes. High poverty areas lack a broad base of quality and quantity
of teachers who want to teach in these neighborhoods (Cowan et al., 2016)
Kelly (1970) states school finance formulas cannot be realistically designed in the
abstract or isolated from other measures because implementation challenges will occur. The
state of California needs to have a significant role in ensuring the teacher pipeline is healthy, that
induction and professional development supports are in place, work-satisfaction is tracked and
maintained, and evaluation and support that occurs on a regular basis (Affeldt, 2015). Without
these steps, African American and Latino students will not have equitable academic
opportunities to learn.
Bilingual Educational Act. The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) is known for two main
reasons; first, conceiving a federal promise to the academic achievement of English Language
Learners (ELLs) and secondly, prompting action at the state and local level to meet the needs of
ELLs (Pertzela, 2010). However, the numerous amendments to the BEA, still do not recognize
the importance of language and culture in schools (Lopez & McEneaney, 2012). Rather, the
BEA created classroom environments that aggravated negative stereotypes about ELLs minority
groups, including African American as Standard Language Learners (SLLs) and Latinos as
ELLs. Language minority groups are perceived to have a language deficit (2012). For African
American and Latino students, language is a barrier that could potentially block accurate
assessment of the student (Forte, 2010). Forte (2010) asserts ELLs are at a significant
disadvantage when taking standardized tests in English since the tests would require the student
to be proficient in the English language to accurately demonstrate knowledge and skills (Forte,
2010).
36
Prior to the BEA, language policy was implemented with a nationalist perspective, and
thus was used to exercise social control to ensure language assimilation (Lopez & McEneaney,
2012). The BEA is significant since it emphasized how educational policy should work to
equalize academic outcomes, even if such equity required offering diverse learning programs
designed to teach students English (Pertzela, 2010; Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). The BEA has
gone through several revision, clarification, and reauthorizations to include funding for the
support of language educational resources, teacher training, and development and dissemination
of materials, requiring school districts to overcome linguistic barriers through English acquisition
programs. These English acquisition programs were researched based, implemented with
resources and teachers, and periodically evaluated for effectiveness (Lopez & McEneaney,
2012).
Although increased support and funding initially benefited language minorities, the lack
of consistent and effective language acquisition programs is consequently harming the
population that these programs are supposed to serve (Pertzela, 2010; Lopez & McEneanry,
2012). Various requirements of the BEA, in fact, go against recommendations of language
acquisition or development research and literature, for example, imposing irrational timelines as
to when ELLs should be mainstreamed; however, studies have shown that oral proficiency takes
three to five years and academic English proficiency take four to seven years (Krashen, 1981).
Overall, the BEA does not sufficiently address the needs of ELLs.
In 2013, the National Center for Educational Studies (NCES) reported 4.5 million ELLs
attend public schools nationwide and in general higher concentrations of ELLs attended school
in urban area (NCES, 2013). In California, 1.374 million ELLS attend public schools (CDE,
2016) and 83.5 percent of ELLs are Latinos. Although African American language data is not
represented on the California Department of Education, effective ELL programs are essential
37
when addressing the needs of all language minorities, including African Americans (Lopez &
McEneaney, 2012). ELLs need curriculum and instruction that emphasizes conceptual
knowledge while developing their language skills over a substantial period of time (Krashen,
1981). In Lopez and McEneanry’s (2012) bilingual education study on fourth grade reading
achievement, Latino students who were ELLs and non-ELLs achieved significantly higher when
bilingualism was highly emphasized. Stround and Kerfoot (2013) call for language policies that
encourage deeper conceptual understanding by affirming and increasing student language and
multimodal understandings. Pertzela (2010) calls for language policy that acknowledges
bilingual-bicultural education as a part of education and as essential in creating best language
acquisition practices for today’s classroom. Language policy should validate and affirm cultural
identities and reinforce equitable learning outcomes for all (Stround & Kerfoot, 2013).
School Structure: Operations, Climate, and Pedagogy
Current school structures in high poverty schools do not reflect many of the important
needs of African American and Latino students. Most school structures support failure by not
providing African American and Latino students’ equitable academic opportunities to learn.
Important elements of structural inequities are operations (how the school operates), climate (the
quality and character of school environment) and pedagogy (how teachers teach).
School Operations. How schools operate determine the amount of access students have
to equitable academic opportunities to learn. Fiscal resources and school day scheduling are
areas of school operations that are failing the diverse learning needs of the diverse populations in
US schools, including African American and Latino students.
Fiscal Resources. There are substantial gaps in school spending that has led to
inequitable educational opportunities for many students of color, particularly African American
and Latino students since there are high concentrations of African Americans and Latinos
38
attending high poverty schools (Cascio & Reber, 2013; Jackson et al., 2014). Per pupil spending
during the 2013 fiscal year was an average of $10,700 (US Census Bureau, 2015). The state of
New York in 2013 reported per pupil spending with a high of $19,818, which was the highest out
of all of the states (2015). The state of Utah in 2013 reported $6,555, which was the lowest out of
all of the states (2015). There was a $13,263 difference in spending between states. Tayman et al.
(2012) assert high poverty schools lack adequate fiscal resources to support successful student
outcomes. Studies have shown that the quality of school services and student achievement is
linked to student economic status, since spending variations can occur in response to or in
marginalization of student needs (Cascio & Reber, 2013; Kelly, 1970).
According to Kirabo Jackson et al. (2015), it is how money is spent by school districts, as
opposed to the amount, that affects academic outcomes of students across the nation. Unequal
school spending between districts has commonly been attributed to the achievement gap (2015).
In a recent study showed that court-ordered school finance reforms, which increased effective
spending, positively impacted educational and economic attainment for low-income students
(2015). In particular, the study showed strong and positive effects on high school completion,
adult wages, family stability, and poverty (2015). Low-income students who received adequate
support resources greatly increased their opportunities to learn (Kelly, 1970). Kirabo Jackson et
al. (2015) states that it is important to note that non-poor families only benefited by much
smaller amounts, which illustrates the greater need for effective spending to meet low-income
students’ needs, especially for African American and Latino students.
School Day Scheduling. Ineffective school day scheduling negatively impacts student
achievement, especially African Americans and Latinos, since school day scheduling completely
controls and organizes the learning time of students and teachers (Carriaga, 2012; Hackman,
1995). School day schedule is the tool administrators can use to design or organize the school
39
day to support or marginalize African American or Latino student opportunities to learn. The
organization of the school day is linked to the learning process because scheduling determines
the use of space, groups of students, and the role of staff members (Kruse & Kruse, 1995). There
are several types of school day schedules including, traditional, block and A/B (1995). Each
schedule maintains to the Carnegie Standard, which assumes a specific allotment of time for
each subject equates to successful learning outcomes (1995). School day schedule influences
teacher pedagogy and student interactions with subject matter (Cobb & Abate, 1999). Traditional
school day scheduling has received criticism for many transition periods and teacher centered
lectures (Hackman, 2004; Glasser, 1992). According to Cobb and Abate (1999) extended
instructional periods support deeper and more meaningful learning experiences through sustained
and uninterrupted interactions with the subject matter. Block scheduling or A/B allow for greater
and more effective use of time (Kruse & Kruse, 1995).
However, both schedules encourage what Gardner (1993) refers to as reductivism due to
the organizational structure and method in which instruction is delivered. Reductivism is the
tendency to reduce knowledge to its most minute form of recall and reproduction (Gardner,
1993; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Reductivist instruction does not
promote the development of deeper metacognitive concepts or abilities to apply in real-world
situations (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Reductivist tendencies are directly related to the isolation of
personnel and subject matter from current scheduling practices (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In
other words, school day scheduling promotes one-dimensional delivery of instruction and
program through departmentalization of subjects and isolation of teachers and students (Ten Cate
et al., 2004). Scheduling can be an easy and inexpensive method to improve academic
achievement since use of time can determine whether African American and Latino students
have access to equitable academic opportunities to learn (Hackman, 1995). Ten Cate et al. (2004)
40
suggest that the individuals who are closest to the learning process of students are in the best
position to determine the best use of time and student groups for learning. However, those who
are closest to the learning process are not always the individuals who decide school day
scheduling (2004), and as a result time dedicated to promoting academic opportunities to learn
does not always occur.
School Climate. School climate is associated with student learning and academic
achievement; therefore, a negative school climate can negatively influence the opportunities
African Americans and Latino students have access to in school (Thapa et al., 2013). School
climate is the quality and character of school life socially, emotionally, civically, ethically, and
academically (Thapa et al., 2013; Hopson & Lee, 2011). In a study, eight schools were compared
on the basis of school climate and positive relationships. Christle et al. (2007) findings illustrate
schools with low dropout rates were noted as clean and in good condition. The schools had more
supervision and a lower student-to-teacher ratio. Additionally, the schools had more
professionally dressed teachers and personnel who were frequently observed as having positive
interactions with students. The schools with high dropout rates demonstrated the opposite. The
schools were unkempt and in disrepair. The schools had less supervision and higher student to
teacher ratios. The schools had fewer teachers and personnel who dressed professionally. Also,
the schools had more observed negative interactions between staff and students than positive
ones.
Furthermore, Christle et al. (2007) also noted that administrators and teachers’ turnover
rates were lower at schools with low dropout rates and higher at schools with high dropout rates.
The study’s findings suggest that healthier school climates coincide with low dropout rates
(Christle et al. 2007; Engels et al., 2008). Christle et al. (2007) states students who are attached
to supportive schools in which personnel recognize their individuality and care about and
41
promote their successes are prone to achieve at higher rates, complete high school, and make
successful transitions to adult life. Therefore, attending and learning in school are more likely to
occur when the school climate and relationships are acknowledged and exercised because
students perceive whether they are supported, valued, respected, and safe (Hopson & Lee, 2011;
Christle et al., 2007; Smyth, 2006). Learning environment studies have shown consistent links to
student perceptions of the environment and the learning environment leading to a variety of
student achievement (Dorman, 2001). Studies have shown that positive student perceptions of
their learning environment are associated with positive attitudes toward learning, achievement,
and academic self-efficacy (Dorman, 2001; Fraser, 2014; Tsai, 2000) To promote positive
perceptions Lo et al. (2015) states that by improving cultural and contextual relevance in schools
through school based and researched practices will support meeting the needs of culturally and
linguistically diverse learners, especially for African Americans and Latinos.
Physical Plant. According to Uline and Tschannen-Moran (2008), there is a connection
between poor school facilities (physical plant) and student learning opportunities since poor
school facilities contribute to a negative school climate. Minority students and students from
low-income households, African American and Latino students in particular, are more likely to
attend schools that are olrder and in substandard conditions (Spengler et al., 2006). Bradshaw et
al. (2014) state that the quality of school facilities, classrooms, buildings, and grounds are
indicators of the environment of school climate (Bradshaw et al., 2014). Therefore, Uline and
Tschannen-Moran (2008) explain that “dilapidated, [over] crowded, or uncomfortable school
buildings” result in low morale, reduced effort of all school attendees, and reduced community
interest in supporting schools (p. 56). Many studies have shown a relationship between facilities
and student achievement. Wang and Degol (2016) recognize school facilities as one factor in
creating a school climate that not only enhances student achievement but reduces behavioral
42
issues and dropout rates. School facilities reflect the values that represent the mission and vision
of the school (Wang & Degol, 2016). The school building in the microsystem is influenced by
school infrastructure values and beliefs in the exosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). Students are
indirectly impacted by the interactions they have with school facilities (Bronfenbrenner, 1999)
because building conditions can promote or undermine the development of student engagement
and learning (Wang & Degol, 2016).
In one study building conditions were analyzed in relation to low-income student
performance on standardized tests in Washington, DC public schools. The 2010 US Census
Bureau data shows demographic break down with African American as 51 percent of the
population and Latinos as nine percent of the total population (US Census Bureau, 2010). Of the
17 percent of the population of Washington DC living in poverty, 24 percent were African
Americans and 18 percent were Latinos (US Census Bureau, 2010). The study’s data illustrated
a five to 17 percentile point difference in achievement scores of low-income students, mainly
African American and Latinos, in adequate school buildings (Uline & Tschannen-Moran; 2008).
In another study conducted in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), validated facility
conditions have a clear influence on student academic performance. The Overall Compliance
Rating (OCR) used in this study predicted that LAUSD could increase the Academic
Performance Index by an average of 36 points by bettering the “school’s condition from the
worst to the best” (Buckley et al., 2004, p.3). Former Superintendent of LAUSD Romer
aggressively pushed for the transformation of 17 high priority highs schools in order to address
the achievement gap (Los Angeles Board of Education, 2006). The high school transformation
process was to address the learning environments and physical barriers that these at-risk students
were facing in these low-income high schools (Los Angeles Board of Education, 2006).
43
Although this study on OCR lacked the data that connected compliance with educational
outcomes, African American and Latinos Academic Progress Index (API) growth over 2012-
2013 school year was minimal to none as was Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) African
Americans and Latinos as a group did not meet 2012 nor 2013 AYP criteria (CDE, 2016).
African American and Latinos attending these inadequate buildings are performing at lower
achievement rates than their counterparts who attend schools with adequate buildings. The OCR
study’s findings do suggest, “that school buildings in poor shape lead to reduced learning
[opportunities] ...[and] poorly managed schools lead to [limited opportunities to learn]” (Buckley
et al., 2004, p. 3). Uline and Tschannen-Moran (2014) quantitative study examined the
“interdependent relationships between physical environment and the social environments of
school, and the relationships of each to student achievement” (p. 62). The results revealed that in
poor facilities, there was a lack focus on academics as a priority and learning environment was
less likely to be perceived as orderly. Moreover, communities were less supportive of schools
when the poor facilities lacked community support and teachers showed less optimism for
teaching and supporting students when the teacher perceived they are in a poor building (Uline &
Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Schneider, 2003). Similar findings in various studies throughout the
US have been repeated and the findings revealed student achievement scores are higher in
schools that have higher quality school facilities. The interactions between the microsystem (the
physical plant) and the individual (the student) influence the development of school climate and
student perceptions of school (Bronfenbrenner, 1999).
Leadership. Like quality of facilities, the quality of leadership philosophies and practices
can create inclusive or exclusive school climates for low-income students of ethically and
culturally diverse backgrounds, in particular African American and Latino students (Johnson,
2014). Leithwood et al. (2004) acknowledge school leadership as a crucial component in creating
44
an educational environment that supports positive school climate. According to Valenzuela
(1999) administrators establish expectations for student behavior and create conditions to support
student outcomes. According to Christle et al. (2007) leadership characteristics, philosophies,
attitudes, and behaviors have a direct impact on school climate. Studies show dissatisfied
principals, who showed signs of burnout, devoted most of their time to preferred tasks, and they
felt overwhelmed with administrative responsibilities were associated with poor school climate
(Engles et al., 2008).
Leadership also impacts the school climate for teachers. Research suggests that effective
teachers leave schools with ineffective leaders, especially in urban environments where there are
high concentrations of African Americans and Latinos (Leithwood et al., 2004; CDHCD, 2014).
Leithwood et al. (2004) stress that effective leaders must encourage and maintain a positive
school climate for all stakeholders to attract, maintain, and support good teachers and or
culturally responsive teachers who are better equipped for students who have been marginalized,
especially for African American and Latino students (Coltfelter et al., 2006; Lankfold et al.,
2002). Leadership that promotes positive school climates encourage high student academic
achievement, fosters teacher retention, and allows for engagement and connectedness between
staff and students (Peterson & Skiba, 2001; Orpinas et al., 2009).
Kahlifa et al. (2016) assert there is a need for culturally responsive leadership in urban
schools to meet and respond to the schooling needs of minoritized student and their
communities. Gay (2010) suggests that school administrators, like teachers, must respond
effectively to students’ culture and learning needs in relation to school culture and climate. A
case study of a public, urban, low-income, majority-minority high school demonstrated positive
student achievement despite negative contextual factors such as school closures (Horsford &
Vasquez Heiling, 2014). In the midst of challenges, leaders used these challenges as
45
opportunities to engage in culturally responsive and community-centered leadership practice,
which coincided with positive student achievement (Horsford & Vasquez Heiling, 2014). Hoy
and Sabo (1998) assert principals have a direct impact on student achievement because principals
can create supportive environments (climate) that promote confidence towards academic success
of African American and Latino students (Aponte-Sote, 2014). Supportive environments
embrace students’ families and communities in order to utilize communities’ funds of knowledge
to better support student needs (Dugan et al., 2012). In agreement with Dugan et al. (2012),
Kahlifa et al. (2016) articulated the importance for school leaders to productively engage the
community, since stronger community relationships are related to student success.
Exclusionary Disciplinary Practices. Exclusionary disciplinary practices create a school
climate that has negative consequences for all students, but in particular, for the students African
American and Latino students, who are receiving them (McNeil et al., 2016). Mandated time
away from school for suspensions, expulsions, or opportunity transfers equates to decreased
access and instruction time as contributors to equitable academic opportunities to learn
(Shabazian, 2015). Studies have shown schools with higher rates of suspension and expulsion
exhibit lower academic achievement and poorer school climate (Girvan et al., 2016). The high
school dropout rate continues to grow for African American and Latino students across the
nation (Chavez, 2012). In California alone, dropout rates have nearly doubled for both African
American and Latino students since 1993 (CDE, 2016).
46
Table 2: Dropout Characteristics
Dropout Characteristics
Race and Ethnicity
School Year: 1993 – 1994
Dropout Rate
School Year: 2013 – 2014
Dropout Rate
African American
7.9 percent 20.3 percent
Latino
7.2 percent 13.9 percent
White
4.0 percent 7.6 percent
Asian
2.5 percent 4.5 percent
Note. The following data illustrates data over a span of 10 years.
When examining the 2013-2014 high school dropout statistics, 56,756 students dropped
out of high school and 41,570 out of the 56,756 students were African American or Latino, 73.2
percent of the student population that dropped out of high school (CDE, 2016). The data
demonstrate disproportionate outcomes for African American and Latino students. Smolkowski
(2016) and Bryan et al. (2012) discuss racial and ethnic minorities, especially African American
and Latinos, have disproportionately higher rates of teacher referrals, being sent to the office,
suspended, and expelled. According to Bryan et al. (2012), findings suggest the
disproportionality of discipline referrals of students of color may be attributed to racial bias (as
cited by Rausch & Skiba, 2004; Wallace et al., 2008). Morrison and Skiba (2001) state that the
disproportionality is an outcome of intentional discrimination. CRT suggests exclusionary
discipline practices are shaped by dominant culture’s perspectives on the behavior of African
Americans and Latinos, which is why disproportionate rates of expulsion and suspension occur
for African American and Latino students (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
The findings of Bryan et al. (2012) reveal, in English classes, African American students
had 71% greater odds of being referred to the school counselors for disruptive behavior than
47
White students. The findings also demonstrated, in both English and math classes, students who
were at-risk for disciplinary behaviors and infractions increased their odds of being referred to
the counselor and were considered predictors of teacher referrals to the counselor (2012). Bryan
et al.’s (2012) research alluded to disproportionate exclusionary discipline practices that occur
due to racial tension in teacher or school staff minority student relationships (2012). Okagaki
(2001) asserts “our country naturally elicits resistance from our [students], and resistance is
intensified for some [students] because of the mismatch between behavior norms of school and
home” (p. 19). Skiba (2002) reveals that up to 40 percent of all school suspension are given to
repeat offenders, which indicates suspension are not effective in changing student behaviors. The
interactions that occur in the microsystem (the interactions that occur between school and the
individual student) and the mesosystem (the interaction between school and family that impact
the student indirectly) demonstrate how racial basis infiltrates from the disciplinary practices that
are implemented in the exosystem (discriminatory policies created by policymakers)
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Like policy, teacher biases expressed in their pedagogy can cause a
disconnect that students of color, especially African Americans and Latinos, experience in the
microsystem and the mesosystem (1994).
Pedagogy. Teacher pedagogy can facilitate a classroom environment that embraces
African American and Latino students or marginalizes them (Thomas & Warren, 2013). In most
cases, current pedagogy in US public schools has failed to provide equitable educational
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students (Darling-Hammond, 2012).
Additionally, high poverty schools, which tend to have high concentrations of African American
and Latino students, tend to experience instructional inadequacies and increased rates of
academic failure (Taylor, 2005). On the 2015 Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) California state test results, African American and Latino students from third grade to
48
eleventh grade (testing grade levels) demonstrate low-test scores in the categories of do not meet
or nearly meet the new California Common Core state standards (CDE, 2015). English Language
Arts/Literacy results show 71% of African American students fall in the categories of do not
meet or nearly meet the standards and 67 percent of Latino students do not meet or nearly meet
the standards. Mathematics results illustrate 82 percent of African American students fall into the
categories of do not meet or nearly meet the standards and 79 percent of Latino students do not
meet or nearly meet the standards.
Constructivism, a theoretical framework, promotes critical thinking, problem solving,
group collaboration, and acknowledgement of other perspectives (Villegas & Lucas, 2002;
Snowman & McCown, 2013). Snowman & McCown (2013) assert the importance of helping
students become effective thinkers and problem solvers to construct a richer and more
meaningful arrangement of knowledge. Academic rigor is a key element in constructing
knowledge, building on personal and cultural strengths, and making classroom culture inclusive
of all students (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Snowman & McCown, 2013). Research has shown that
there is a need for constructivism in minority student classrooms since there is a lack of
constructivist practices in their classrooms (Smith, 2015).
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Learning Theory describes learning as a social process and that
social interactions play a fundamental role in constructing of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978;
Snowman & McCown, 2013). Vygotsky (1978) argued that knowledge is co-constructed in
social settings and that in the process of social interactions language is a tool to construct
meaning. Parent and school interactions occurring in the mesosystem and the microsystem shape
the student’s cognitive process to reflect family and school values (Bronfenbrenner, 1994;
Snowman & McCown, 2013). What the student thinks and does is linked to the cultural values
and practices from the exosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Vygotsky’s theory also incorporates
49
the idea of “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), which states that an individual’s cognitive
development is limited to a “zone” and to surpass the zone some assistance is necessary
(Snowman & McCown, 2013). In other words, Snowman and McCown (2013) stated what a
student can do on his own and what he can accomplish with some assistance. Assistance is also
known as scaffolding, a technique to support student development (Snowman & McCown,
2013). Both of theories of learning describe how most human beings, including African
Americans and Latinos, learn and that intelligence and achievement are not an innate mental
ability; rather through social interactions and constructing meaning through those interactions
(Resnick & Hall, 2000; Sownman & McCown, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978).
Without quality pedagogy based on theoretical frameworks of learning, members of
society, especially African American and Latinos, will not build the knowledge they need to
survive (Mayer, 2011). Asset-based Pedagogy and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy are
Constructivist and Sociocultural in nature. The lack of asset-based and culturally responsive
practices continues to marginalize and fail African American and Latino students (Lopez, 2016;
Banks et al., 2001; Taylor, 2005).
Assets-Based Pedagogy. In order to produce equitable academic opportunities to learn,
especially for African American and Latino students, Lopez (2016) states asset-based pedagogies
are necessary to improve the achievement divide. Asset-based pedagogies focus on
“reposition[ing] the linguistic, literate, and cultural practices of working-class communities—
specifically poor communities of color—as resources and assets to honor, explore, and extend”
(Paris & Samyalim, 2014, p. 87). Theoretically, students of color would benefit from this type of
pedagogy because learning encounters are more relevant and effective (Woolfolk, 2010).
However, CRT argues that students of color, especially African Americans and Latinos, are not
seen to have assets that work in school, which equates to their marginalization through pedagogy
50
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). In addition, Villegas and Lucas (2002) explain that when teachers
recognize the central role of diversity in learning, constructivism makes educators responsible
for differentiating school practices to match the diverse backgrounds of their students.
Goldenberg (2013) emphasizes culture as a large factor in why many minority students
disengage from school and achieve at lower levels in all grade levels, especially African
American and Latino students (McClure, 2005). According to Lopez (2016) and Mayer (2011)
teacher pedagogy has explicit links to student achievement because pedagogy manipulates what
the learner experiences. As stated by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), students learn by
constructing meaning from prior knowledge and engaging in cognitive processes that operate on
that knowledge. Pedagogy that incorporates constructing meaning from personal experiences
allow for student home culture (student assets) to be valued in instruction and or curriculum
(Goldenberg, 2013). Through a constructivist perspective, Villegas and Lucas (2002) describe all
students, including African Americans and Latinos, as capable learners who are constantly trying
to make sense of new ideas and experiences. Student methods of thinking and communicating
are seen as resources rather than problems to be cured (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Many urban schools practice the pedagogy of poverty, instead of asset-based pedagogies.
The pedagogy of poverty seeks to follow what Haberman (1991) states these fourteen activities:
giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments, monitoring
seatwork, reviewing assignments, giving tests, reviewing tests, assigning homework, settling
disputes, punishing noncompliance, marking papers, and giving grades. Haberman (1991) asserts
individually these activities may have beneficial effects; however, the concern occurs when
urban schools perform these acts to the systematic exclusion of other instructional activities.
Paulo Freire would label these acts under the “banking concept of education” (Freire, 1968). The
banking concept of education is used as a tool for oppression since students will only receive,
51
fill, and store limited deposits (Freire, 1968). Pedagogy has been treated as an act of depositing
knowledge into a student. Then, students typically respond by becoming compliant and less
active in the learning process (1968). In other words, pedagogy remains stagnant while student
needs go unmet.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. According to Gay (2001) too many teachers and
schools are underprepared to teach diverse student populations. Culturally responsive pedagogy
(CRP) is an asset-based pedagogy that has the capacity to create equitable academic
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students as well as all students. CRP is
also a form of Critical Race Pedagogy. According to Aleman and Gaytan (2016) Critical Race
Pedagogy, like CRP, attempts to better address the needs of marginalized students of color,
African Americans and Latinos, who sometimes unintentionally participate in the
marginalization of population of color through deficit thinking or colorblindness of the
significance of race. Additionally, CRP and Critical Race Pedagogy are designed to challenge
and transform the dominant Eurocentric power ideologies that organize education to create
spaces that validate the experiences of students of color, in particular African Americans and
Latinos (Aleman & Gaytan, 2016).
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is a method to teaching and learning that empowers and
validates students “intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural
references to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 18). The
literature surrounding CRP as an effective practice in addressing the achievement gap is
extensive (Griner & Stewart, 2012). Additionally, the pedagogy acts as a bridge between the
demands of the academic world and the home life the students are experiencing; the worlds are
no longer separate entities (Ladson-Billings, 2002; Griner & Stewart, 2012). There is a limited
scope of CRP research on student academic impact, however there is research that provides
52
insight on effectiveness (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). For example, various researchers that have
connected teacher CRP pedagogy with increased engagement and interest in school, suggesting
that learning is occurring (2016).
According to Berry, Hoke and Hirsch (2004) establishing a learning environment that
promotes success for all students, schools must have teachers who are culturally conscious and
skilled to make learning meaningful for every student. Culturally conscious means to understand
cultural diversities that go beyond an “awareness of, respect of and general recognition of”
ethnic group differences and similarities (Gay, 2002, p. 107). Cultural consciousness comes from
studying cultural characteristics and contributions of different ethnic groups and assessing in-
depth one’s own culture and background (Gay, 2001; Ring et al., 2008). This knowledge will
provide teachers and schools with a better understanding as to why students and families react to
certain things in a certain way (Gay, 2002). Additionally, this knowledge assists in creating
classroom climates, curriculum content and instructional strategies to be responsive and
reflective of the students (2002). Utilizing student culture enhances the teacher’s ability to
determine the students’ learning strengths and weakness.
Culturally responsive pedagogical strategies provide more equitable opportunities to
learn for diverse learners (Griner & Stewart, 2012). Gay (2002; 2010) defines the key
fundamentals if CRP is developing a knowledge foundation about cultural diversity; using
culturally diverse characteristics and experiences in curriculum; creating communities that foster
cultural sensitivity and respect to all cultures; and responding to diversity though instruction.
CRP, also, fosters the practice of cooperative learning that occurs in communities. Within the
community, different cultures and social groups learn to work together to deal with mutual
concerns (2002). Gay (2002) states “culturally responsive teaching develops a sense of
interdependence and feelings of community … [which leads] to helping each other learn” (622).
53
Therefore, according to Gay (2002), culturally responsive pedagogy can significantly increase
minority student engagement and achievement.
Ethnic Centered or Multicultural Curriculum. NCLB’s narrowed curriculum and
assessment negatively impacted the effectiveness of CRP (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).
Therefore, Gay (2000) asserts that “curriculum content should be seen as a tool to help students
assert and accentuate their present and future powers, capabilities, attitudes, and experiences
[and that] ‘relevant curriculum . . . includes information about the histories, cultures,
contributions, experiences, perspectives, and issues of their [students’] respective ethnic groups”
(pp. 111–12). Scherff et al. (2017) acknowledge the importance of relevant curriculum since
relevance engages students in their learning and promotes academic success. Johnson (2014)
states that multiculturalists have long supported a curriculum that is both culturally and
linguistically diverse and equitable. However, multicultural curriculum does not always exist in
school settings where African American and Latino students attend.
Curriculum historically and currently often neglects the role of students’ culture,
traditions, and personal experiences (Lo et al., 2015). Additionally, curriculum comes from the
perspectives of middle class and European values, which influences how students develop and
interact in their microsystem (school and home) and mesosystem (school and home interactions)
(Bronfenbrenner, 1999; Cavilla, 2014). Biased curriculum is created in the exosystem and then
implemented, and as CRT would argue, enforced in mesosystem and microsystem
(Bronfenbrenner, 1999). Nieto and Bode (2011) suggest curriculum must facilitate interaction
across racial and ethnic lines to promote academic achievement for all students, especially
African American and Latino students. For this to occur, teachers can assist students by
questioning the curriculum and addressing inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in the text,
54
and then supplementing the text with other sources to include multiple perspectives (Banks,
1991; Cochran-Smith, 1997; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
According to Griner and Stewart (2012) multicultural curriculum used frequently and
routinely in all subject areas is vital to working with diverse population, especially African
American and Latino students. In a quantitative study, examining the causal effects of assigning
eighth graders to a class with ethnic studies curriculum, demonstrated an increase of 21
percentage points for ninth grade attendance, an average increase of 1.4 in grade point average,
and an increase in credits earned (Dee & Penner, 2017). Dee and Penner’s (2017) findings
suggest high-fidelity implementation with multicultural curriculum can provide effective support
for low-income students.
Summary
The review of literature in this chapter has highlighted the need to rethink schools in a
time where the minority has become the majority. Policy, school structures, and pedagogy are
heavily influenced by dominant culture’s values and traditions, which ultimately affect African
American and Latino students’ opportunities to learn equitably. Critical examination of the
impact of policy, school structures and pedagogy has revealed solutions to lessening the
achievement gap.
55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter communicates the design, sampling, instrumentation, data collection, and
data analysis that was implement in this study. The purpose of this study is to examine policy
and school structures that are failing to provide equitable opportunities to learn for minority
students, in particular African Americans and Latinos. The research questions that guided the
study were:
1. In what ways do instructional practices in elementary schools fosters or deny equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students?
2. In what ways do federal and state policies impact schools’ ability to provide equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino elementary school students?
Research Method
The research design for this investigation was a qualitative approach. The purpose of the
qualitative research was to better understand how people understand their experience, how they
build their own realities, and what significance they gave to their experience. (Merriam, 2009).
This qualitative study was designed to determine if educational policies, school structures, and
instructional practices facilitate or limit African American and Latino students’ opportunities to
learn. Data were collected and supported by a qualitative method using descriptions to convey
what was learned about the phenomenon (2009). All information acquired from the observations,
interviews, and document reviews were categorized into themes for analysis to identify trends
and patterns in educational policy, schools’ structures, and instructional practices related to
African American and Latino students’ access to opportunities to learn.
56
Qualitative Research
McEwan and McEwan (2003) state, “qualitative researchers should provide precise and
specific details that offer the reader a front-row seat for all of the action” (p. 85). Merriam (2009)
shares major characteristics of qualitative research: “the focus is on process, understanding and
meaning; the researcher was the primary instrument of data collection and analysis; the process
was inductive; and the setting was the natural setting of an elementary school, the researcher
functioned as the primary instrument for collection and analyzing data (2014). The researcher
“collected data through examining documents, observing [participants], and interviewing
[teachers]” (Creswell, 2014, p.185). Triangulation of multiple sources of data such as documents,
observation notes, and interviews allowed for inductive analysis to occur in which themes and
categories were created that cut across all of the data sources (2014). The sole focus of
qualitative research was to understand the participant’s perspective and learn the meaning that
the participants have about the particular issue (2014). Therefore, the research design was
emergent, as the study’s direction changed due to the data that was collected.
Research Design
The research design was appropriate for this study because the study may “[observe]
individuals; explore processes… [and] learn about broad culture-sharing behavior of individuals
or groups” (Creswell, 2014, p.187). McEwan and McEwan (2003) state it is important to use
multiple methods of collecting data in order to ensure validity of the findings and lessen the
possibility of jumping to conclusions.
Sample and Population
For this study, two school sites were selected. The criteria for school site selection were
the following: the school sites had a minimum of a 10 percent or above African American and
Latino student populations. One school site was located in a lower socioeconomic area and the
57
other was located in a middle class or higher area within the same school district. Two schools’
sites provided comparative data for analysis. The principal (or assistant principal) was contacted
at each school for permission to do interviews and conduct observations. With the principals’
permission the purpose of the study was introduced to the teachers during a weekly school
scheduled meeting and by letter. Four female teachers were selected by the site’s administrators.
There were three African American teachers, and one Latino teacher. The pool of teachers at
each school did not allow for the selection of a male teacher. The teachers and the elementary
schools were given pseudonyms for anonymity and protection of the participants.
School Demographics
Flower Elementary and Grand Elementary both exist within the same school district;
however, there are differences between the two schools. Flower Elementary is a traditional
district school, while Grand Elementary is a district dependent charter school. Flower
Elementary is a Kindergarten through 6
th
grade elementary school severing 40 percent African
Americans, 57 percent Latino, and 3 percent “other”. Flower Elementary has an 89 percent
student population of socioeconomically disadvantaged; 32 percent of the population is English
Language Learners, and one percent is foster youth. Flower Elementary’s suspension rate is 2
percent, which is 3 percent lower than the district’s average of 5 percent. Lastly, Flower
Elementary’s performance on the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) 2016 – 2017
school year for English Language Arts was 23 percent meeting and exceeding standards, and for
mathematics was 22 percent meeting and exceeding standards.
Grand Elementary is a kindergarten through 8
th
grade elementary school serving 61
percent African Americans, 36 percent Latinos, and 3 percent “other”. Grand Elementary has a
77 percent student population of socioeconomically disadvantaged, 14 percent of the population
is English Language Learners, and a 0.5 percent foster youth population. Grand Elementary’s
58
suspension rate is 9 percent, which is 4 percent higher than the district’s average of 5 percent.
Lastly, Grand Elementary’s performance on the 2016 – 2017 school year SBAC for English
Language Arts was 46.99 percent meeting and exceeding standards and for mathematics was
23.22 percent meeting and exceeding standards.
When comparing the two schools, Flower Elementary has 173 fewer students than Grand
Elementary. However, Flower Elementary is 12 percent higher in SED, 18 percent higher in ELs,
.5 percent higher in foster care youth, and seven percent lower in suspension rates. When
examining state test scores, Grand Elementary outperforms Flower Elementary in ELA by 23.52
percentage points and in math by 1.5 percentage points. Flower Elementary and Grand
Elementary were located in the same district but there are distinctions between the two locations.
Flower Elementary resides in a lower working-class area. Whereas, Grand Elementary resides in
a middle-working class area that is close to a middle/upper-working class city. Location alone
affects the resources the schools may receive by the community. Wang and Sheikh-Khalil (2014)
study revealed lower SES families tend to be less involved and feel less effective at supporting
their children in school because these parents may not have time, resources or information. In
contrast, parents with more education and higher SES parents may be more informed about
opportunities and resources to support their children (Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014). Higher SES
parents may have selected to attend this charter school due to information and resource access,
which directly impacted the charter school’s student population by increasing the number of
students who exhibit higher SES attributes. The table below illustrates both schools’ data.
59
Teacher Attributes
The teachers who participated in the study had both similar and different attributes;
however, each teacher’s classroom and instructional practices demonstrated noteworthy
differences. Ms. Olive is an African American female 5
th
grade teacher at Flower Elementary.
She has been in the classroom for a total of 5 years at Flower Elementary. She speaks the
majority of the time in English; however, when opportunities arise Ms. Olive used Spanish for
her only Spanish-speaking student.
Ms. Figueroa is a Latina female 3
rd
grade teacher at Flower Elementary. She has been in
the classroom for a total of 5 years at Flower Elementary and 15 years total teaching within the
district. Like Ms. Olive, Ms. Figueroa sometimes speaks Spanish in the classroom casually as
part of everyday conversation.
Ms. Spring is an African American female 5
th
grade teacher at Grand Elementary. She
has been in the classroom for a total of 5 years at Grand Elementary and 10 years teaching within
the district. Ms. Spring only speaks English in the classroom.
Table 3: School Characteristics
School Characteristics
School
Enrollment
SED
ELs
Foster
Youth
Suspension
Rate
2017 SBAC
ELA
2017 SBAC
Math
Flower
Elementary
(K-6)
523
AA- 40%
Latino- 57%
89% 32% 1% 2% 23.47% 21.72%
Grand
Elementary
(K-8)
696
AA- 61%
Latino- 36%
77%
14%
.5%
9%
46.99%
23.22%
Note. The following data provides information about the two participating schools.
60
Ms. Hope is an African American female 3
rd
grade teacher at Grand Elementary. She has
been in the classroom for a total of 5 years at Grand Elementary and 9 years teaching within the
district. Ms. Spring only speaks English in the classroom.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Performance
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) performance percentages for each
grade level are different in ELA and Math at each school. Ms. Olive and Ms. Figueroa have
similar student academic performance averages in ELA and Math. Ms. Olive has a grade level
average of 25 percent of students meeting or exceeding standards in ELA and a 21 percent of
students meeting or exceeding standards in Math. Ms. Figueroa has a grade level average of 22
percent and a 23 percent average in Math.
Ms. Spring and Ms. Hope of Grand Elementary demonstrate higher SBAC percentages in
ELA than the Grand Elementary’s ELA performance average. Ms. Spring’s SBAC ELA grade
level percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards was 60 percent, which was 13
percent higher than Grand Elementary’s ELA performance average. Ms. Hope’s SBAC ELA
third grade grade-level percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards was 64 percent,
which was 17 percent higher than Grand Elementary’s ELA performance average. Ms. Spring’s
SBAC Math fifth grade grade-level percentage was 24 percent and close to Grand Elementary’s
Math performance average. Ms. Hope’s SBAC Math percentage was 64 percent and was 40.78
percentage points higher than Grand Elementary’s Math performance average. The table below
illustrates teacher attributes.
61
Table 4: Teacher Characteristics
Teacher Characteristics
Teacher
School
Gender
Ethnicity
Grade
Level
Number
of Grade
Levels
Classes
Number
of
Students
Total
Years at
School
Site
Total
Years
Teaching
Language
2017
SBAC
ELA
2017
SBAC
Math
Ms.
Olive
Flower
Elementary
Female
African
American
5
th
Grade
2 – 5
th
Grades
28
5 years
5 years
English
Spanish
25%
21 %
Ms.
Figueroa
Flower
Elementary
Female
Latina
3
rd
Grade
2 – 3
rd
Grades
30
5 years
15 years
English
Spanish
22%
23 %
Ms.
Spring
Grand
Elementary
Female
African
American
5
th
Grade
2 – 5
th
Grades
28
5 years
10 years
English
60%
24 %
Ms.
Hope
Grand
Elementary
Female
African
American
3
rd
Grade
3 – 3
rd
Grades
22
5 years
9 years
English
64%
(44%
exceeded)
64%
(40%
met)
Note. The following data provides information about the participating teachers and students.
Running head: EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 62
Student Attributes
For this study, 58 students at Flower Elementary and 51 students at Grand Elementary for
a total of 109 students were observed. Each classroom demonstrated a majority minority
population consisting of African American and Latino students. Ms. Hope had the fewest
number of students in her classroom with a total of 22 students. Every other teacher had more
than 28 students in their classrooms but no more than 30. Both Ms. Figueroa and Ms. Spring had
one student who was not African American or Latino. All four teachers have more females than
males in their classrooms.
Table 5: Student Characteristics
Student Characteristics
Teacher
Grade
Level
Total
Number of
Students
African American
Fe M
Latino
Fe M
Other
Fe M
Ms. Olive
5
th
28
5
7
10
6
0
0
Ms.
Figueroa
3
rd
30
9
5
7
8
1 (W)
0
Ms. Spring
5
th
29
10
8
5
5
1 (A)
0
Ms. Hope
3
rd
22
10
6
2
4
0
0
Note. The following data provides the demographic breakdown of each teacher’s classroom. Under
the headings of African American and Latino are Fe and M. These abbreviations represent female
and male students. The (W) represents White (not Hispanic) students and the (A) represents Asian
students.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 63
Instrumentation
The purpose of the study was to describe ways in which polices set by federal and state
regulatory bodies, school structures, and classroom practices impact African American and
Latino students’ opportunities to learn equitably. To answer my research questions, I conducted
classroom observations, interviewed teachers, and examined documents that originated from the
schools: communications and artifacts posted throughout the school that reflect school practices.
Data Collection
The following section describes the type of data that will be used in this study and the
procedures by which the data were collected. Data collected included documents and artifacts,
classroom observations, and teacher interviews.
Documents and Artifacts. Documents are a source of data that do not intrude or alter the
setting (Merriam, 2009). Documents can refer to a “wide range of written, visual, digital, and
physical material relevant to the study” (Merriam, 2009, p. 139). According to McEwan and
McEwan (2003) reviewing documents and artifacts can fill in some of the data gaps or it can
raise questions concerning the validity of the observations, interviews, and interruptions.
Necessary documents and/ or artifacts were collected from administrators and teachers, which
were used as data to answer my research questions. To answer my research questions regarding
school operational structures, I collected school-generated documents such as bulletins to
teachers, letters to parents, and memoranda to analyze school operational structures, such as
discipline, scheduling, finances, and others. Additionally, the bulletins, letters to parents, and
memoranda can indicate aspects of the school climate, operations, and instructional practices or
expectations.
Observations. Observations are a primary source of data in qualitative research
(Merriam, 2009). According to McEwan and McEwan (2003) numerous observations are
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 64
necessary to observe a valid and reliable environment to be used as informative qualitative data.
Merriam (2009) explains two differences between observations and interviews. The first
difference is the observation takes places in the natural setting as it occurs, in contrast to using a
pre-selected location for the interview. The second difference is the observation provides a
firsthand encounter with the phenomenon rather than a second-hand account of an event
described in an interview (2009).
For this study, a total of eight observations were conducted. Each teacher was observed
twice. I observed two 3
rd
grade teachers and two 5
th
grade teachers. Both schools had a majority
minority population of African American and Latino students. Each observation in the classroom
lasted 45 minutes to an hour. Teacher observations took place in the morning and in the
afternoon. Morning and afternoon observations for each classroom provided more exact data that
excluded time of day as a variation during the study.
An observation instrument, Scripting Template (See Appendix), was used to carefully
write what was seen and heard from the teacher (in one column) and the students (in another
column). There was another column for questions or comments that may have arisen during the
observation. The scripting template was organized into five-minute intervals. In the first 10
minutes, all of the students were observed. Then, for the next 35 minutes, African American and
Latino students’ interactions were observed with the teacher and with other students. For the last
10 minutes, the whole class was observed again. However, because the classes were exclusively
African American and Latino, they were the focus throughout the observations.
Another observation instrument, Classroom Observation Schedule (COS), was used to
analyze the scripting from the classroom observations to ensure content validity and address key
points in my research question (Waxman & Padron, 2004). The COS observational instrument
was developed by Waxman and Padron to determine which instructional practice increases
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 65
student learning (2004). A peer review has been conducted on COS to establish content validity.
The COS observation instrument includes: (a) interactions between student/student and
teacher/student, (b) the environment in which the observed behaviors occur, (c) the types of
material students are working with, (d) student engagement activities, (e) student classroom
routine, and (f) language used (Waxman & Padron, 2004).
Interviews. Merriam (2009) describes interviewing as a process in which a researcher
and a participant engage in a discussion that is guided by questions that are focused on the study
(as cited in DeMarrais, 2004). McEwan and McEwan (2003) discuss the best interviews are
interactive and free flowing and have and open conversation of ideas and information. McEwan
and McEwan (2009) state, “the data gathered in this interview sets the stage for more meaningful
and more interpretable observations” (p. 81). Interview allows for the researcher to enter into the
mind or perspective of the participant (Merriam, 2009).
For this study, two teachers at two different school sites within the same school district
were interviewed. Both schools had a majority minority student population. A recorder and hand
notes were used to capture the responses during the interviews. The recorder was used with the
permission of participants. Each interview was conducted in a private location for 45 minuets to
an hour. A semi-structure interview protocol was used to allow interviewees to elaborate on or
extend their responses to the interview questions. The interview protocol included questions that
enabled the researcher to respond to the research questions and literature review. The interview
questions were adapted and or adopted from similar studies to fit this study appropriately. The
adapted and adopted questions came from several dissertations on opportunities to learn and
school climate (Gavrilovic, 2013; Velth, 2013; Salce, 2006; Villa, 2004). The teacher interviews
provided insight on instructional practice between what was described in the interview and what
was observed in the observation.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 66
Data Analysis Procedures
The goal of data analysis was to make sense out of the data (Creswell, 2014). According
to Creswell (2014) there are six steps researchers should follow in data analysis. First, the
research questions were used to organize and prepare the data for analysis. The organization
chart, shown below, demonstrates the areas in which the research questions guided observations,
documents, or interviews to gather data. Next, all data (2014) was reviewed and used the coding
process to generate a description of the setting or people and categories or themes for analysis
(2014). The data was categorized into themes that emerged from analysis. Next, the descriptions
and themes were strategically placed to represent in the qualitative narrative. Lastly, the meaning
of the themes were interpreted by the researcher. These six steps were used to carry out the
qualitative nature of the study. The figure below summarizes Creswell’s Data Analysis in
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 67
Qualitative Research:
Creswell’s Data Analysis in Qualitative Research (Creswell, 2014)
Reading Through All Data
Validating the
Accuracy of
the
Information
Interpreting the Meaning of
Themes/Descriptions
Interrelating Themes/Descriptions
(e.g., grounded theory, case study)
Coding the Data
(hand or computer)
Organizing and Preparing Data for
Analysis
Raw Data
(transcripts, field notes, images, etc.)
Themes Description
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 68
Research Organization
Validating Findings
Maxwell (2013) refers to validity as the “correctness or credibility of a description,
conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account” (p.122). Two strategies were
used to check the accuracy of the study’s findings. The first strategy was triangulation of data
sources. Multiple data sources were used to “reduce the risk of chance associations and of
systemic biases” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 128). The second was what Maxwell (2013) refers to as
respondent validation. Respondent validation is a process of soliciting criticism about your data
and conclusions from the individuals of the study. This allowed for participants to further explain
their actions and or statements, which reduces the possibility for misinterpretation
Internal Validity and External Validity. Merriam (2009) refers to internal validity as
“adequate engagement in data collection” or, in other words, how well the experimentation is
Table 6: Research Organization
Research Organization
Research Question Number Observation Document
Review
Interview
RQ1:
In what ways do instructional practices
in elementary schools fosters or deny
equitable opportunities to learn for
African American and Latino students?
X^2 X^1 X^2
RQ2:
In what ways do federal and state
policies impact schools’ ability to
provide equitable opportunities to learn
for African American and Latino
elementary school students?
X^1 X^3 X^1
Note. Key: X^1 = Highly Useful, X^2 = Useful, X^3 = Not as Useful, Blank = Not a
Source at all
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 69
conducted (p. 219). For internal validity to occur the “data and emerging findings must feel
saturated;” that is the data, that is observed or heard, becomes repetitive and no new information
emerges (p. 219). According to Merriam (2009), generalizability of the study is important to
determine whether the study can be applied to other situations. The study was generalizable to
the teachers and the school sites. External validity provides parameters in which the study’s
findings are not too generalizable, which would compromise the validity of the study. Merriam
(2009) states that internal and external validity of the study must be valid, otherwise.
Ethical Consideration. Many ethical considerations were made during the design and
throughout the research process. First and foremost, all University of Southern California
Institutional Review board (IRB) guidelines and procedures were strictly followed. In addition,
all school district rules and regulations were strictly followed. Merriam (2009) states:
“Ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with regard to the collection of data and in the
dissemination of findings. The researcher must demonstrate trustworthiness in carrying
out the study in as ethical a manner as possible” (p.230).
Therefore, all participants were informed of the nature and purpose of the study and permission
was acquired from all participants to participate in the study. Furthermore, steps were taken to
protect the anonymity of all participants. The participants were informed of the confidential
nature of their responses.
Conclusion
The next chapter focus on the data collected for the case study in response to the research
questions. My conceptual framework constructed from the literature review guided the data
analysis process.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 70
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Chapter one provided an overview of an increasing minority population and how
educational structures such as policy and instructional practices are not providing equitable
access to a quality education for all students. In chapter two the literature addressed the
disparities in the quality of education marginalized students receive. Chapter three described the
design, sampling, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis implemented for the study.
This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected in the study. The findings are based on the
responses to two data points (1) observations and (2) interviews. Documents were not collected
for analysis as originally intended. The research questions that guided the study are:
1. In what ways do instructional practices in elementary schools foster or deny
equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students?
2. In what ways do federal and state policies impact schools’ ability to provide
equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino elementary school students?
Policies, school structures, and instructional practices are elements that have a significant impact
on the marginalization of some students and prevent them from attaining academic success. In
the case of this review, marginalized students refer to students who lack access to quality
academic experiences due to racial and cultural differences, knowledge gaps, and socioeconomic
status (Akin & Neumann, 2013).
RQ1: Instructional Practices
Instructional practices observed through classroom visits and discussed in interviews with
all four teachers revealed learning opportunities that either fostered or denied access to an
equitable quality education for both African Americans and Latinos. It was clear that each
teacher was unique, yet there were some similarities in instructional practices that resulted in
similar outcomes. Two teachers in particular demonstrated high effectiveness in fostering
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 71
equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students. For the other two
teachers, one teacher demonstrated a mixture of effective and ineffective instructional practices,
while the 4th teacher instructional practices that mostly denied African American and Latino
students’ access to a quality education. The following findings discuss instructional practices of
the participating teachers that either fostered or denied equitable opportunities to learn for
African American and Latino students.
Ms. Hope (Grand Elementary)
Ms. Hope’s classroom demonstrated a range of classroom practices, many of which were
discussed in the literature review. During the two observations, Ms. Hope created opportunities
for students to work together to construct knowledge with the teacher’s guidance. First, her
classroom seating arrangement was conducive for students to discuss and collaborate since
everyone sat in groups of four. The seating arrangement allowed for students to become a
community of learners and engage in dialogue, which aligns with the social constructivist theory
of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, the room environment walls were used as learning
resources for both teacher and students. Much of the wall space was being used for academic
anchor charts displaying Costa’s Levels of Questioning. The walls also displayed thinking
sentence frames and other content- specific vocabulary, student work samples, California State
Standards, character traits, classroom rules, daily schedule, and student images. A higher
percentage of Ms. Hope’s walls were dedicated to displaying student work samples from past
inquiry assignments. The inquiry assignments demonstrated varying levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy
and Costa’s Questions.
One of the many learning activities in which she had students engage involved the use of
an inquiry research group poster. The teacher reviewed the prior day’s linking activity. The
students read an informational article about the Mountain of Fire: The Eruption of Mount Saint
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 72
Helen. After the short review, Ms. Hope asked the students to work in their groups to create level
2 and level 3 questions based on Costa’s Levels of Inquiry (Gilson et al., 2014) to further their
knowledge about the volcano from the article. Level 2 questions required students to answer
process-based questions in order to make sense of the information that was gathered. Level 3
questions required students to answer output-based questions in order to apply and evaluate actions
in new situations. Some examples of a student level 2 questions were, “Give a specific example of
another volcanic eruption,” and “Compare and contrast the Mount Saint Helen’s volcanic eruption
with another volcano”. The teacher also used scaffolding support to help students complete the
task by having, students refer to their Critical Thinking Student Wheel, which provided the
students with Level 2 or 3 question sentence frames for written academic language.
The teacher then explained to the students how they were to work together to construct
responses to their student created questions based on Costa’s Levels of Inquiry. Ms. Hope stated,
“Alright class, let’s get back into our groups. In your groups I expect to see well thought out
sentences in response to your created questions”. One group’s written answer was “Bright red lava
flow in Hawaii can get as hot as 1,165 F with the glowing orange flows getting hotter than 1,600
F, according to USGS”. The constructivist activity provided an authentic task that required
students to build on their current knowledge on volcanoes to construct new knowledge through
answering their questions. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Additionally, this activity required the
students to integrate learning from different content areas, since the questions were left open for
the students to use with other assignments. The students came up with a variety of questions, which
resulted in multiple answers for discussion. The teacher provided a range of important scaffolding
activities using posted charts and sentence frames in Academic English, and the Critical Thinking
Student Wheel as a cognitive scaffolding tool. Students responded to the scaffolding by completing
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 73
the assignment to meet the rigor expressed in Costa Levels of Inquiry and the higher cognitive
dimension of analysis in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Through the Social-Cultural and constructivist lenses, this particular activity expected
students to use higher level cognitive skills in a social setting with their peers. Although this kind
of activity may be challenging, the student cognitive growth is maximized through structured
scaffolding and the social context of students working together to construct knowledge (Vygotsky,
1978). Ms. Hope demonstrated the understanding that the task could be too challenging or not
challenging enough for individual students; therefore, the teacher checked in with each group to
ensure the activity met students within their respective Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD).
Ms. Hope read each student’s question, asked the students to assess their question, and then
provided group feedback to properly scaffold their learning. Ms. Hope asked the group, “now, how
can we make this question deeper? Let’s take a look at our thinking wheel. Is there anything that
stands out to you?”. The student group responded by reading their question, “Define volcano”,
reviewing the wheel and one student stated a revised question, “How does a volcano erupt?”.
The California State ELA Standard for this lesson was not explicitly discussed or shown
to the students. Yet, the activity implied the standard Reading Information Text 3.1, “Ask and
answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the
basis for the answers”. Unlike traditional ask and answer curriculum from the textbook, the
students created their questions and then answered these questions based on text evidence. The
students were responsible for creating questions and answering questions, which demanded
higher cognitive interactions than answering questions from a textbook. Rigor is demonstrated
through student engagement in a thinking curriculum/activity (Resnik & Hall, 200).
In the interview, Ms. Hope expressed her belief that “they [African American and Latino
students] can do anything that any other child [can] do when they’re given the opportunity.” She
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 74
also stated, “I want them to succeed, so I kind of do whatever I need to do so that they can
succeed.” Both of her statements align with her observed instructional practices of being asset
based and culturally responsive. In terms of being asset-based, the high expectations that
students are held to in her classroom illustrate her critical awareness to resist the structural,
cultural, and systemic barriers many students of color face (Matthews & Lopez, 2018). Ms. Hope
revealed in her interview that she grew up in the same city as the school and attended the same
school system as her students, which she believes helps her build relationships with the student
and the families. Moreover, Ms. Hope asserted, “It’s important that I know where they come
from…[to] build relationships, so I can motivate them to value education.” Ms. Hope explained,
“It's nice to be able to set those high expectations for those kids and then help them meet them
and then just kind of see how … um… talented and competitive they are . . . uh, regardless of
what others say”.
Ms. Hope’s high expectations can be seen from her class line up procedures to the high
cognitive demand demonstrated in student discussion in her classroom. Ms. Hope’s line up
procedure was as follows, “Line up in 5! 4! 3! 2! 1! Now, line leader you are responsible for
leading this group quietly and in line to the recess area. If anyone, gets out of line you (line leader)
will come tell me immediately.” During the count down, the kids were quickly scrambling into
alphabetical line order. If a student was not in the right place the other students would move them.
Another example was a math activity the whole class was required to take turns in presenting their
answer to a problem and the reasoning behind it. Then as each student shared, the other classmates
either said “agree” or “disagree” with their answer and reasoning. In one instance a student
provided her answer to the class by stating “I got…” but before the student could finish Ms. Hope
immediately stopped the student with, “No we never say I got… what should we say?” The student
stated, “I think…” The teacher cut the student off again with a “No” and then stated, “Tell her
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 75
class”. The class immediately states, “My answer is reasonable!” and the teacher then stated, “Isn’t
that what we say? Ms. Hope then directed the student to move on.
The original student corrected her response by stating; “My answer is reasonable because
4 groups of 5 is 20”. The student who was corrected did not show signs of defeat or disengagement;
instead she moved on accordingly with the flow of the class. Just in this math activity, Ms. Hope
used her relationships with her students to promote a classroom culture based on shared
responsibility for learning and accepting feedback as part of the learning process. They functioned
as a community of learners. Although the process of apprenticing a student into academic language
recommends not interrupting a student to make a correction (Duff, 2010), in this case, this process
seemed comfortable and culturally appropriate to the students. Additionally, the presenting student
was not deterred in continuing her presentation. Ms. Hope, also, expected that all her students
would engage in the math activity and the students were expected to use content specific academic
language during the math activity.
The use of academic language in Ms. Hope’s classroom provided her students with the
opportunity to access the content in a deeper way, which is constructivist and culturally responsive
strategy to promote learning. She shared in her interview, that she realized that there is a lack of
exposure to academic language at home. She recalled a test in college she failed because it was
about a topic she had no exposure to, which is why she found it extremely important to give the
students the language tools and teach them how to think in multiple ways. Ms. Hope showed
culturally responsive instructional practices through transitioning students from home language
patterns to academic language patterns in which curriculum is presented.
For the female student called on to respond, at home “I got” may be used and is accepted;
however, in Ms. Hope’s classroom it is expected that the student responded with “My answer is
reasonable because…” is used when discussing math. Ms. Hope creates the opportunity for two
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 76
worlds, home and school, to be bridged (Ladson-Billings, 2002; Griner & Stewart, 2012).
Correcting the students appeared more like a family correction with the entire class participating
than a stern correction by the teacher. She seems to be unaware of research on language
acquisition that recommends guiding students to engage in contrastive analysis, which allows
students express their home language while they are acquiring a second language (Gee, 2012).
According to the Classroom Observation Schedule (COS), many of Ms. Hope’s activities
demonstrated the majority of her students “actively process[ing] information and interpret[ing] the
classroom reality” (Waxman & Padron, 2004). In other words, Ms. Hope provided opportunities
that encouraged students to apply cognitive processing to make meaning of content during
instruction (Waxman & Padron, 2004). For example, students in their groups would state, “Where
in the text can we support this answer?” or “What other information do we need?” or “Does this
information help with answering our questions?”. Every student in Ms. Hope’s class was either
African American or Latino. The class as a whole through discourse and feedback demonstrated
their ability to think and make meaning about content, which is evidence of academic opportunities
to learn and evidence of learning (Winne, 1985). During the observation, there were no observed
major distinctions between African American or Latino student learning. Everyone was treated as
a valued contributory and provided equitable access to learning opportunities.
Again, it was not observed whether Ms. Hope explicitly stated or showed the California
State Math Standard, but the activity implied the standard in which she was teaching. The standard
was Operation and Algebraic Thinking 3.1, which states,
“Represent and solve problems involving multiplication and division. 1. Interpret products
of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7 as the total number of objects in 5 groups of 7
objects each. For example, describe a context in which a total number of objects can be
expressed as 5 × 7” (California Department of Education, 2013, p. 25).
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 77
As part of the California State Math Standards, there are eight “overarching habits of mind of a
productive mathematical thinker” (California Department of Education, 2013). Ms. Hope uses
Mathematical Practice number three, “construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of
others” in her activity. This activity meets the cognitive demand of the standard as well as the
habits of a productive mathematical thinker.
The 2017 state test scores represent third graders from the prior year of whom 1/3 were
Ms. Hope’s students when she taught in third grade. Although the tests scores were from the
prior year, the scores of 64% meeting and exceeding in ELA and 64% meeting and exceeding
standards in math are comparable to other high performing schools and classrooms. Additionally,
these test scores represent evidence of effective instructional practices for African American and
Latino students. The instructional practices she implemented in her classroom for ELA learning
fostered and created equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students.
Ms. Spring (Grand Elementary)
Ms. Spring’s classroom demonstrated a range of classroom practices, many of which were
discussed in the literature review. During the two observations, Ms. Spring created opportunities
for students to work together to construct knowledge with the teacher’s guidance. First, her
classroom seating arrangement made it conducive for students to discuss and collaborate by seating
everyone in groups of four. The seating arrangement allowed for students to become a community
of learners and engage in dialogue to construct knowledge, which is constructivist by nature. This
arrangement promoted socio-cultural ways of learning. At each group of tables, there were many
learning tools and resources. There were textbooks for social studies, McGraw Hill’s My Math
student workbooks, chapter books and a container for small pieces of paper trash. Additionally,
the room walls were used as learning resources for both teacher and students. Similar to Ms.
Hope’s classroom, much of the wall space was used for academic anchor charts, Costa’s Levels of
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 78
Questioning and Thinking sentence frames, content specific vocabulary, student work samples,
California State Standards, sample character traits, classroom rules, daily schedule, and student
images. There was a balance between wall space dedicated to learning anchor charts/learning
posters and student work samples demonstrating students’ performance on previous assignments.
An example of student work was an informational brochure consisted of a brief history of the topic
with research examples as comparative evidence. One student’s brochure was on the topic of teeth.
The student explained in the first panel of the trifold,
“Humans first started to have tooth problem’s 10,000 years ago. The bristles of tooth
brushes were made from the back of a hog’s neck. In ancient times people filled cavities
with materials such as silver, earwax, and smashed up bird brains.”
In the second panel of the brochure the student stated,
“The Romans understood that teeth needed to be replaced when they fell out. So, they used
bone, wood, or ivory to create fallen teeth similar to the false teeth people wear now. In
ancient times Egypt people made braces out of cat intestines.”
In the third panel of the brochure the student stated,
“It was not uncommon for a cavity or other tooth problems to lead to death. Knights would
charge into battle with oozy sores in their gums. George Washington had only one tooth
left by the time he became president. Many people lost most or all their teeth by the time
they were middle aged.”
Displaying student work communicated to students that their efforts matter (Brooks, 2010; Rychly
& Graves, 2012). Additionally, the student work samples were more than just a spelling test or a
worksheet.
One learning activity she assigned her students was an inquiry research activity. The
teacher reviewed the prior day’s linking activity. The linking activity consisted of the students
reading an informational article about The Great Halifax Explosion. Each student created his or
her own inquiry wheel or graphic organizer. Each student picked one topic, like poison gas, or a
central question, like “How did life change for children in the US during World War I?” The
teacher then instructed the students to research Level 1 of Costa’s Levels of Questioning
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 79
information to provide the student with a basic understanding of facts or situations. After the
review, the Ms. Spring asked the students to work in their groups and rotate to each table to review
each student’s inquiry wheel to complete their individual t-chart. The t-chart on the right side said
“Woman/Children” and the left side said “Inventions”. The purpose of the t-chart was to provide
students an opportunity to compare, distinguish and add seven new pieces of information to their
own knowledge base that they did not have on their individual inquiry wheels. These are cognitive
dimensions of analyzing, and critiquing which are the high levels of thinking on Bloom’s Revised
Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The students responded by quickly placing their
inquiry wheel on their desks and then took out their ELA notebook for the T-chart.
The students were building on their peers’ knowledge to construct a larger knowledge
foundation. Each student group would travel clock-wise with their notebooks and writing
utensils. Students would either pass the student wheels around to each group mate or the students
would do a mini-rotation around the desks. The students would quickly write down information
onto their notebooks. One student stated, “Here, look at this one, this (student work) one has
good information you could use”. Another student stated, “Did anyone see information about
new information about women and children during the World War?”. This activity presented
both Constructivist and Sociocultural learning theories. The students were actively participating
together in a meaningful learning experience to create knowledge.
For example, the students created associations (a type of knowledge building strategy)
between their research and their peers’ research (Snowman & McCown, 2013). The students
selected information to construct their own meaning from the selected information. In two parts
Ms. Spring provided the students with the opportunity to build a foundational level of
information on their own topic. The second part of the activity engaged the students in the
cognitive process of making sense of the information they encountered with other students’
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 80
inquiry wheels. In relation to their own wheels, the students were engaging in an analysis process
enabling them to be metacognitive by thinking about what they knew (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). As an example, one African American female student read over an inquiry wheel and
pointed to a section on the wheel. Here the student was creating associations. The student then
looked at the T-chart and wrote down the information under the inventions section. The student
was in the cognitive process of making sense of the information.
The sociocultural aspect of the activity occurred among the students in their discussions as
they moved to each table with four different inquiry wheels. The students discussed each inquiry
wheel and assessed whether the information added value to their individual t-chart. Each group of
students had different discussions; however, students shared with one another information that
they thought was valuable. While the student groups were moving to other tables, Ms. Spring
visited each group to check how the students were doing with their information collection on the
t-chart. However, Ms. Spring’s check-ins consisted of checking students’ progress towards
completing the task rather than taking the opportunity to provide feedback or scaffolding. For
instance, Ms. Spring stated, “Focus on getting your information. We are rotating very soon”.
In Ms. Spring’s classroom, California State ELA Standards were not taught explicitly but
implied through the cognitive processes illustrated by the students. The students were engaging
with two standards;
“RI.5.3 Explain the relationships or interactions between two or more individuals, events,
ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical text based on specific
information in the text.
RI.5.9 Integrate information from several texts on the same topic in order to write or
speak about the subject knowledgeably” (California Department of Education, 2013, p.
15).”
The standards or cognitive processes required in this social setting activity were higher levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy, level 4 (Analyze) and level 5 (Evaluate). Level 4 (Analyze) is separating the
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 81
information into its constituent parts and determining how the parts relate to one another and to an
overall structure or purpose (Anderson & Krathwol, 2001). Level 5 (Evaluate) means to make
judgments based on criteria and/or standards (Anderson & Krathwol, 2001). The level 4 (Analyze)
cognitive process occurred when the students read their peer’s inquiry wheel to see whether the
information matched their own inquiry wheel’s purpose/topic. The level 5 (Evaluate) cognitive
process occurred when the students actively selected and wrote down the information that the
student judged to fit their inquiry wheel’s criteria. This activity demonstrated student-to-student
collaboration with groups traveling together. The students were using their peers’ work to learn
from each other.
In terms of expectations, Ms. Hope, Ms. Spring demonstrated high expectations of respect
in her classroom. There were several observable occasions when Ms. Spring reminded her students
to show respect towards one another. For example, during the inquiry wheel activity, Ms. Spring
stated, “We are going to be truly respectful of each others’ work. We are not critiquing. We are
just gathering information. Make sure you are respectful of each other’s work. Yes?” After Ms.
Spring’s statement, the students said in unison “yes”.
In the interview, Ms. Spring revealed, “I’m really big on… um…, respect. And them, [the
students] understanding that, you know, there’s different levels and I teach to those different levels
and those different learning styles so that, you know, it’s fair for all students, whether they’re
African American or Latino.” Respect was seen in how the students responded to her. For instance,
during the inquiry wheel activity, Ms. Spring stated clear expectations of how students were
supposed to engage in the activity. Students demonstrated respect by interacting with other
students with on-task discussions. The majority of students completed their required seven ideas
on their t-chart. Even when two boys from another grade level came into the classroom and wanted
to share information with the class. Ms. Spring immediately stopped the two boys and said,
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 82
“Gentlemen as you come into the classroom you need to address the teacher”. Ms. Spring’s
students did not engage with the two boys but kept working on the assigned activity. Ms. Spring’s
students demonstrated an understanding of what was expected of them to meaningfully engage in
the learning activity. Ms. Spring stated in the interview that her high expectations come from the
belief that her students (African American and Latino) have assets. She stated in her interview that
her students love to talk, which is why she chooses peer collaborative activities like the inquiry
wheel activity (Ladson-Billings, 2004). Like Ms. Hope, Ms. Spring has a “asset” mindset that
allows for her to push her students to higher cognitive levels of think and understanding (Lopez,
2017). She demonstrated respect for them by using respectful language toward them, like
addressing them as “gentlemen.”
Ms. Spring also implemented culturally responsive instructional practices that produced
evidence of learning for both African American and Latino students. For example, Ms. Spring
provided a variety of opportunities for her students to participate in classroom learning activities.
From a simple “All Set, You Bet” call and response participation protocol to students getting
ready for a learning activity transition from single student presentations to group work that
showcased other peer’s work, students demonstrated respect for classroom learning experiences.
Regarding language development, Ms. Spring stated, “Using those SDAIE (Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English) strategies, I don’t only just use them for my ELs. All
of my students benefit from them.” All of her students, African American and Latino, benefit from
the use of best practices for language development. According to Gay (2002), “effective teaching
requires mastery of content knowledge and pedagogical skills;” therefore, understanding diversity
plays a key role in classroom. Ms. Spring revealed that she has had extensive experience working
with both African American and Latino students and families. Additionally, from her own
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 83
schooling and by just “being around so many diverse people” she demonstrated skills as a
culturally competent teacher because she can “relate to both”.
The use of academic language was present in the classroom through her anchor charts,
sentence frames, student work samples and teacher modeling. Although, academic language was
not explicitly taught, Ms. Spring modeled and expected the students to engage in academic
discourse. In academic discourse between teacher and student, Ms. Spring set the expectation to
use academic language. In their groups or while the students were journaling, students were
bringing their own variations on English to their discussion with one another, as in student-to-
student small group discussions. Ms. Spring created an opportunity for her students to use home
and academic language, depending on the setting or purpose together. According to Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy, allowing the students to write and share their home language, as well as
use academic English depending on the setting in the classroom was a way to bridge home and
school, which then validates and affirms the student’s culture (Ladson-Billings, 2002; Griner &
Stewart, 2012).
Like Ms. Hope, Ms. Spring used Story Works by Scholastic as the main English Language
Arts curriculum and as the primary resource for the inquiry-based learning process in her class.
Although, Ms. Spring did not show use of explicitly ethnic-centered or multicultural curriculum
and cultural-specific instructional materials, the contemporary-ness of the articles she used made
the curriculum relevant to the students. The monthly magazine provided the students with exposure
to nonfiction, fiction, poems, pair texts, play, debate, infographic and other genres based on pop
culture rather than the specific African American and Latino cultures, who make up the entirety of
her class.
According to the Classroom Observation Schedule (COS) descriptions, many of Ms.
Spring’s activities demonstrated the majority of her students “actively process[ing] information
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 84
and interpret[ing] the classroom reality” (Waxman & Padron, 2004). In other words, Ms. Spring
provided opportunities that encouraged students to apply cognitive processes to making meaning
from content during instruction (Waxman & Padron, 2004). The class as a whole demonstrated
their ability to think about content, which promoted academic opportunities to learn and
demonstrated evidence of learning (Winne, 1985). During the observation, there were not
observable distinctions between African American or Latino student learning in the classroom.
Ms. Spring taught all of her students equitably.
The 2017 state test scores represent 1/2 of Ms. Springs’ fifth graders outcomes in the
prior year. Although the tests scores were from the prior year, the scores of 64% meeting and
exceeding standards in ELA was comparable to other high performing schools and classrooms.
The test scores were evidence of effective instructional practices for African American and
Latino students. However, Ms. Springs math scores are not comparable to high performing
schools and classrooms. The instructional practices she implemented in her classroom for ELA
foster and create equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students, but
the observer did not observe mathematics instruction. Generally, the school’s performance in
ELA is significantly higher than the math scores.
Ms. Olive (Flower Elementary)
Ms. Olive’s classroom demonstrated a range of classroom practices, many of which were
discussed in the literature review. During the two observations, like Ms. Spring and Ms. Hope,
Ms. Olive provided opportunities for students to work together. First, the physical arrangement
made it easy for students to discuss and collaborate since everyone sat in pods of U-Shaped groups.
On the second visit, the students sat in groups of six. The physical space allowed students the
opportunity to become a community of learners and engage in dialogue. These arrangements
promoted social constructivist ways of learning. Similar to the previously discussed teachers’ (Ms.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 85
Hope and Ms. Spring) room environments, the walls were used as learning resources for both
teacher and students. The ratio of student work and learning tools revealed Ms. Olive’s
expectations for learning. Student work samples represented some of the students in the classroom.
The samples included work writing samples, story boards, math classwork, and labeled animal
cells. There was a balance of wall space being used for academic anchor charts, content specific
vocabulary, student work samples, California State Standards, character traits, classroom rules,
and daily schedule.
One learning activity demonstrated an aspect of both constructivist and socio-cultural
learning theories. Ms. Olive played an exponent video and then instructed the students to write
down important facts and or concepts from the video. This assignment required students to engage
in remember and understand cognitive dimensions which enable students to construct factual and
conceptual knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2002). During the video, the teacher announced,
“Class that was an important note. Write that down”. She stated important points for the students
to write down to remember through individual note taking as factual knowledge. However, she
told students what write down rather than provide them ahead of time with needed scaffolding or
tools to decide for themselves what was meaningful in the video to write down.
Unlike, Ms. Hope or Ms. Spring, Ms. Olive did not provide the opportunity for the students
to ask Level 1 and Level 2 type questions to guide their thinking in understanding exponent details
and concepts. She did not refer to walls as learning tools for her students to use. The lack of prior
scaffolding led to Ms. Olive’s telling the students what to write down. All of the dictated items in
response to the video were items that students might have identified themselves with more
scaffolding or tools for student to experience learning in a meaningful way. Practices like the one
Ms. Olive used demonstrate limited opportunities for students to construct knowledge and build
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 86
their cognitive skills. Telling the students what is important lead to low levels of cognition like
remember with little opportunity with little opportunity to construct conceptual knowledge.
The activity had potential to support constructivist and socio-cultural learning. First, the
physical arrangement of the groups would have allowed for constructing meaning, but the activity
took place with students working individually, not in groups. Second, Ms. Olive was doing most
of the thinking for the students by not scaffolding the cognitive process and or providing tools to
support student cognitive development. Prior to the video, Ms. Olive did not prepare the students
for what they were going to view, nor did she solicit questions from the students. In contrast, Ms.
Hope’s students were prepared before activities by creating Costa’s Level 1 questions in order to
establish for themselves basic understanding of facts or situations. Framing questions would guide
the students purposefully to explore the topic. Ms. Olive exhibited a teacher directed approach,
whereas, Ms. Hope supported a student-led approach towards learning. The students did not have
the opportunity to make meaning from the video because the student were focused on writing down
what they were being told to write down. After the video, Ms. Olive sent the students to do the
next task without discussing the meaning on video.
In the next link activity, Ms. Olive assigned her students to work on an exponent
informational poster. This activity required the students to work in groups. The poster expectations
were the following:
- A title
- Two exponent examples,
- The base and exponent are identified for each example
- Each example is written in expanded form
- Each example is written in standard form
- Show all work to calculate the value
- Decorate if there is time left
- Choose 2-3 presenters.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 87
The activity required students to identify facts and concepts and demonstrate understanding of the
mathematical concept. Working in groups with these facts provided students with the opportunity
to construct conceptual understanding around the topic of exponents. According to Bloom’s
Revised Taxonomy, conceptual understanding requires engaging students in appropriate cognitive
actions. It was not observable whether the teacher scaffolded students into performing any
cognitive actions. For example, the teacher roamed the room to review posters and she questioned
the work that the students put on the poster. However, they had minimum advance instruction
before starting to work on the posters. One student group struggled to include all of its teammates
in the group work activity, which led to a few students doing all of the work. The student that was
left out was not noticed by the teacher because he was close to his group. Some students who
received feedback responded by revising work or continuing on-track work. According to Ms.
Olive, she was making the effort to meet students in their respective zones of proximal
development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). Although she was helping students individually, it is
difficult to reach every student individually with scaffolding that could have been provided to all
students prior to the activity starting.
Although Ms. Olive displayed standards in her classroom, explicit standard instruction was
not observed. The previously mentioned activities revealed partial instruction of a standard, which
was focused on “whole-number exponents”. The complete standard was:
“Number Base Ten .5.2. Explain patterns in the number of zeros of the product when
multiplying a number by powers of 10 and explain patterns in the placement of the
decimal point when a decimal is multiplied or divided by a power of 10. Use whole-
number exponents to denote powers of 10” (California Department of Education, 2013, p.
36).
Little academic discourse occurred to help students acquire understanding of the concepts in this
standard. Displayed content standards and partial instruction of the standard demonstrated Ms.
Olive’s awareness of standards, but she displayed a limited ability to teach to the standards.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 88
In both previously mentioned activities, Ms. Olive did not provide sufficient time, tools,
and structure for extended academic discourse between her and the students and among the
students to give them the language they would later use as “self-talk” or inner speech to guide their
own cognitive process through the task (Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher did not conform to learning
theory social constructivist theory which promotes learning in which students were engaged in
complex cognitive processes in a language-rich social context (teacher-student and student-
student) enabling students to regulate their own learning through language they adopted
(Vygotsky, 1978). For example, during the group work activity, the teacher could have provided
the students with sentence frames on how to discuss the topic of exponents, thus providing
cognitive tools for students.
Other learning activities seemed to support what the literature describes as denying or
limiting African American and Latino students’ equitable opportunities to learn. Haberman (1999)
referred to fourteen activities that he said comprise a pedagogy of poverty and tend to occur in
urban schools, like Flower Elementary and Grand Elementary, to contribute to the systematic
exclusion of other instructional activities. Using the COS instrument as a guide revealed that Ms.
Olive’s activities have students working independently, working on written assignments, watching
or listening, and independently working with technology. Haberman’s (1999) fourteen teacher
activities include giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments,
monitoring seatwork, reviewing assignments, giving tests, reviewing tests, assigning homework,
settling disputes, punishing noncompliance, marking papers and giving grades. Individually, each
one of these tasks has its own place in the classroom, yet, the problem lies with the activities used
as the predominant or only forms of instruction.
During both observations, eight out of the fourteen activities in Haberman’s pedagogy of
poverty were observed. For instance, one activity was a spelling test in which Ms. Olive said the
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 89
word and then used the word in a sentence. The test was then collected for a grade without any
discussion of the test itself or the meaning of the words on the test. Students did not have the
opportunity to ask questions. In another activity, Ms. Olive provided the students with a student
independent work time. The teacher provided the students a list of activities they “must do” and
“may do” during the allocated time. The teacher explained that she needed to have student writing
conference for a recent writing assignment that was completed on Google Docs. The first “must
do” activity was to finish Google essay edits and submit it to the teacher. About half the class used
the time to submit the essay, while the other half of the class worked on may-do activities;
including, BigBrainz.com (math program), McGraw Hill’s My Math workbook, or reading.
Haberman (1999) would argue that each of these three examples may had beneficial effects
individually, but students seemed to have minimal instructions.
Ms. Olive’s observations revealed students on task, efficient transitions, well behaved
students, and student work being done. Overall the classroom ran smoothly, yet instructional
practices that were not observed to go beyond remembering and or understanding of the Revised
Blooms Taxonomy. Students were on-task and student work was turned in, but the activities and
work were not planned in a way that engaged students in high cognitive processes. The lack of
expectations for Ms. Olive’s students to work at a higher cognitive level demonstrated a deficit
perspective about them. For example, the student work displayed on the walls showed a diagram
of an animal cell colored and labeled., mainly a remembering activity. Every student’s work was
represented on the wall. Other walls in the classroom demonstrated similar student work samples
displaying lower levels of cognition. Ms. Olive continued to have her students engage in multiple
back to back activities that are repetitive in remembering type skills. Although disruptive behavior
was not a barrier, Ms. Olive’s mindset about her students’ capabilities of engaging in activities
with high cognitive demand (Lewis, 207) showed through the kinds of activities she engaged them
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 90
in. Overall, Ms. Olive set up the classroom for meaningful learning experience but failed to follow
through with instructional practices that fostered high levels of thinking for students to construct
meaning.
Ms. Figueroa (Flower Elementary)
Ms. Figueroa’s classroom demonstrated many classroom practices that the literature
defined as practices that deny access to equitable opportunities to learn. Ms. Figueroa’s classroom
was disorganized and lacked coherence as a learning site. In the front of the classroom, a number
line was falling off the wall. Twelve out of twenty-six letters in the alphabet were posted
underneath the falling number line. The right wall had five anchor charts, a few decoding posters,
an empty job chart, and behavior-focused posters. The back wall had random student work stacked
on top of each other and more behavior-focused posters that instructional posters. The left wall
also had additional behavior-focused posters, a classroom library, file cabinets, and an area for
leveled readers. In contrast with the other three teachers, Ms. Figueroa had the least amount of
student work posted, or learning academic anchor charts and posters. Additionally, there was a
higher percentage of wall space used for behavior charts, rules, and consequences. The seating
arrangements were L-shaped groups observed in the first observation and in the second observation
the seats were in three columns of paired seating. Both seating arrangements were suitable for
sociocultural ways of learning.
Constructivist learning activities were not observed in the classroom. According to the
literature students require interactions with others to construct knowledge. During the
observations, cognitive apprenticeship, modeling cognitive processes that enable students to learn
and then implement, were not present in the classroom (Snowman & McCown, 2013). The teacher
seemed more focused on behavior than learning. She seemed to think that what she considered
good behavior was a prerequisite for learning. Additionally, multiple perspectives or variations on
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 91
answer to questions were not promoted. In the classroom the teacher accepted one-answer as
correct and did not ask the students to go further. For example, during a personification activity,
the teacher stated, “Money is made from trees”. Ms. Figueroa then asked the class to reword or
rephrase a silly sentence. A few students’ hands went up to answer Ms. Figueroa’s questions. Ms.
Figueroa chose one student. The student responded with, “The tree gave me money”. Ms. Figueroa
acknowledged the sentence and moved on. A simple pair share or asking other students to share
their response would have increased the interactions between student to student and teacher to
student which would increase the co-construction of knowledge (Hull & Saxon, 2008).
Although, Ms. Figueroa’s seating arrangements provided opportunities for sociocultural
ways of learning, there were very few opportunities that fostered learning through social
interactions. Many of the social interactions taking place in the classroom were off-task or off-
topic between teacher and students or student with other students. Instead of having peers discuss
with each other, the majority of instruction was conducted in whole group setting with the teacher
doing most of the speaking and by calling on students to answer her questions. Opportunities for
group work, or paired work were not seen during any of the observations.
As previously stated with Ms. Olive, seven of the fourteen activities of the pedagogy of
poverty were observed in Ms. Figueroa’s classroom. The seven activities included the teacher:
giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments, reviewing
assignments, settling disputes, and punishing noncompliance filled the majority of learning time.
Of the observed seven activities there was a higher percentage of interactions settling disputes and
punishing noncompliance. Also, the COS lens revealed a higher number of off-task student
interactions and activities in Ms. Figueroa’s classroom.
Many of the interactions from teacher to student or student-to-student consisted of non-
instructional social discussions, with students being disruptive, being distracted, and interfering
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 92
with ongoing learning activities in the classroom. The disruptive interactions consisted of students
not working on specific learning tasks and students’ interfering and disrupting ongoing activities
in the classroom. For example, three to four students walked around the classroom without
permission to talk to other students. Another example was when a student was going her backpack
for more than 15 minuets without the teacher saying anything to the student. Moreover, there were
other non-instructional activities taking place including, but not limited to, staring into space,
going to the bathroom, cleaning up, needing first aid, getting in line, passing out papers, exercise,
and random walking around the classroom.
Observations revealed fewer learning opportunities that were observed in Ms. Figueroa’s
classroom; however, the learning activities provided support a deficit perspective (Lewis, 2017).
For example, Ms. Figueroa asked the students to take out their McGraw Hill’s My Math workbook.
Ms. Figueroa practiced each math problem by doing them herself, one-by-one with the students as
a whole class. Ms. Figueroa responded to each question on the document camera and had the
students copy her work. The teacher stated in her interview, “I’ve already taught them how to not
copy my paper but sit down and help your [their] friend understand what they’re doing.” However,
there was little opportunity or evidence that the students were helping each other by working
together on the problems. No specific tools or instructions were provided for students to “help”
one another. Ms. Figueroa’s learning activity provided an example of the kind of rote learning,
particularly in mathematics, observed in many schools with predominately African American and
Latino student enrollment. The cognitive processes conform to Bloom’s Remember cognitive
dimension that leads mainly to factual knowledge. The observations of this classroom revealed
few activities that involved opportunities to build concepts through higher cognitive dimensions
of understanding, analysis or critiquing to build conceptual and metacognitive knowledge.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 93
Another activity that demonstrated a deficit perspective about the students or pedagogy of poverty
is the math chucking activity. Ms. Figueroa asked her student to take out their math journals so
that they could “chunk” multiplication/division fact families. For example, the teacher wrote 3 x
9 = 27, 9 x 3 = 27, 27/3 = 9, and 27/9 = 3. Ms. Figueroa asked the students to complete all 3’s fact
family of multiplication and division. She continued to write more fact families and told the
students to repeat the equations to better remember the facts. Ms. Figueroa, like the other teachers,
was not observed to teach explicitly to the standards. Her activity of chucking was based on the
California State Math Standard:
“Operations and Algebraic Thinking. 3.1 Represent and solve problems involving
multiplication and division. 1. Interpret products of whole numbers, e.g., interpret 5 × 7
as the total number of objects in 5 groups of 7 objects each. For example, describe a
context in which a total number of objects can be expressed as 5 × 7” (California
Department of Education, 2013, p. 43”.
The basic part of the standard was being practiced with multiplication facts. In some instances,
certain aspects of learning math can be rather rote at the remembering level; however, learning
cannot stop there (Leung, 2000). Students needed to be scaffolded into higher levels of cognitive
engagement to develop conceptual understanding, of which she provided none. Many teachers stop
with the rote activities and memorization (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Forehand, 2004).
Lastly, Ms. Figueroa stated, “I like to be equitable.” She believed that she was being
equitable because she selects students equitably to participate in the classroom. Although, she
stated she is equitable with choosing students to participate in class, many students in the classroom
did not share, did not participate, and the same few students shared. The lack of opportunities to
discuss and participate denies equitable access to opportunities to learn. Culturally Responsive
pedagogy also asks for all students to discuss and participate in meaningful ways (Gay, 2010;
Paris, 2012), but all students in Ms. Figueroa class did not discuss and or participate in meaningful
ways.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 94
During the interview, she mentioned she needed to scaffold for African American and
Latino students academically and socially, with more emphasis on social skills in reference to
behavior. Moreover, several times in the interview, Ms. Figueroa frequently mentioned how
procedures need to be put in place to teach the students how to transition [from one activity to the
next] so that instructional minutes are not be wasted. However, during the observation the majority
of the time was used to go over rules and expectations on behavior and redirecting students to get
back on task, instead of dedicating time to instruction or meaningful activities. The previously
mentioned activities illustrate less rigorous with more time devoted to lower order thinking, which
tends to occur with deficit mindsets on the part teachers towards African American and Latino
students (Zhao, 2016; Milner, 2008). From the interview and the observations, Ms. Figueroa
demonstrated a deficit mindset that denies African American and Latino students’ equitable
opportunities to learn (Zhao, 2016; Milner, 2008). Like Ms. Olive, Ms. Figueroa demonstrated a
mindset about her students that they were incapable of engaging in activities with high cognitive
demand and that their behavior was a barrier to her being able to promote high cognitive demand
tasks (Lewis, 2017). Ms. Figueroa demonstrated a belief that conflict resolution skills and
communication skills are the areas that she needs to continue to work on more than rigorous and
engaging learning experiences. She stated,
“And so mentally they're not here; they've already, they've checked out and it's just bringing
them into this classroom and reminding them, you're here to learn. This is the purpose of
the day and this is what I need you to do. And that goes along with the social skills that
we're teaching them and how does the school work. Even though they've been in school
for so many years, it seems like they're still testing the waters.”
Her choice of words demonstrated the belief that African American and Latino need to learn to be
in compliance with school rules and conform to traditional school culture and teaching approaches
(Filback & Green from work of: Bartolome, 2008; Hancock, 2011; Milner, 2010; Pollock, 2008)
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 95
to be able to learn. Moreover, Ms. Figueroa’s commentary and focus was on behavior and the
student’s need for constant reminders to behave. Her views about her students are the kind that
lead to disproportionate referrals for disciplinary actions. Instead of seeing student abilities as
assets, Ms. Figueroa focused on procedures for compliance.
RQ2: State and Federal Policy That Impact Schools
The state and federal policies’ impact was observed through classroom visits and
interviews from all four teachers and school visits. The schools served somewhat similar
populations; however, each school presented different outcomes in how state and federal policies
impacted the schools’ ability to provide equitable opportunities to learn for African American
and Latino students. The following findings discuss how state and federal policies impact each
school in either fostering or denying equitable opportunities to learn for African American and
Latino students.
Funding Policies
In 2018, the nation’s per pupil spending was $12, 526 and in the state of California the
average per pupil spending was $9,417. In 2017, the study’s district’s per pupil spending was
$12,172, which was increase from 2012’s per pupil spending of $8,258. Although the dollar
amount has increased by $3,914, the district does not have the enrollment numbers in order to
utilize the funds adequately. As stated by Affeldt (2015), if marginalized students are not
receiving adequate funding to meet their needs, they will continue to stay behind (Affeldt, 2015).
In other words, per pupil spending increased but student enrollment decreased and as a result the
district remains in a deficit and student (African American and Latino) stay behind.
Over the past 15 years, the city in which this school district has been established passed
initiatives that funded district school updates and upgrades. These funds mainly come from state
funds and local bonds dedicated to capital improvements. Other funds come from Title I federal
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 96
funding that is also dedicated to capital expenditures. Public documents about the history of the
school district’s financial problems also indicate the role of federal and state policies in
determining the schools’ ability to provide African American and Latino students access to
equitable opportunities to learn.
Physical Conditions.
Flower Elementary School Updates. In 2017, Flower Elementary received a fresh coat of
paint and exterior upgrades. It was clean and orderly, appearing to be maintained on the exterior
of the building. Indoor hallways provided spaces to post student work samples and showcase
student projects. Flower Elementary’s campus was clean, organized, and with core values and
positive affirmations painted on the walls. There was no trash on campus. Nor, was there trash
on the outside perimeter of the campus. The districted used new sources of funding from the
state bankruptcy funds, city measures like Measure GG, and capital expenditures from Title I to
create and maintain appropriate physical environments for learning. However, individual
classroom interiors of the two observed teacher presented contrasting values. Ms. Olive’s
classroom seemed to continue the campus values of clean and organized; while, Ms. Figueroa’s
classroom presented the opposite with a chaotic and disorganized room environment. This
distinction between the classrooms reflected more on local school practices than district, state, or
federal policies regarding school conditions.
Grand Elementary School Updates. In the same district where major physical plant
improvements occurred through new funding streams from the state and the district. Grand
Elementary’s campus was clean, organized, and a well-maintained state-of-the-art facility. There
was no trash on campus. Nor, was there trash on the outside perimeter of the campus. The
building looked new, since it was recently built in 2011 through the Measure K initiative. When
it came to individual classroom interiors the two observed teachers’ classrooms were aligned
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 97
with school and districtwide standards for a clean and welcoming campus. The appearance of
both schools indicated a districtwide policy for maintaining clean and orderly school
environments, although Flower Elementary was much older than Grand Elementary. Ms. Hope
and Ms. Spring had similar classroom environment expectations with a balance between
academic reference walls and rigorous student work samples. The classrooms were also clean
and well organized.
Funding History. Although Flower Elementary and Grand Elementary projected a sense
of sufficient funding for upkeep, the district has a history of fiscal challenges and underfunding
going back to the 70s. Simultaneously, during the 70s, a demographic shift form majority White
(not Hispanic) to predominately African American and Latinos combined with racial unrest in
the city caused conditions in schools, where school violence between students, rival gangs, and
teacher boycotts were constant occurrences (Waddingham, 1994). This legacy of poor working
conditions and school violence continues to have impact on how schools provide equitable
opportunities for African American and Latino students learn.
In 2001, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed as the re-authorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. NCLB focused on key standards of learning and
creating accountability measures in all subject areas. As a result, schools had to publicly report
results in the aggregate and disaggregated by specific student subgroups (US Department of
Education, 2016). NCLB’s impact on school districts placed increased pressure on schools to
meet AYP goals and improve student achievement. School districts reprioritized accountability
practices and polices intended to have the most successful outcomes for student achievement.
Schools that have thrived under NCLB have reaped the benefits of continuous federal funding as
well as additional state funding (Dee et al., 2013). However, African American and Latinos,
many of whom attend school with higher concentrations of African American and Latino low-
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 98
income families have not reaped comparable the benefits of NCLB (Ravitch, 2016). This was the
case for this study’s school district because not meeting AYP had serious consequences such as
jeopardizing federal funding and being placed in improvement status (Burch, Donovan, &
Steinberg, 2006; Forte, 2010) and ultimately leading to a state takeover. Although the federal
legislation required all schools to administer standardized tests and report the outcomes, neither
the federal of state levels provided targeted resources to implement standards-based instruction
in ways to meet unique needs of school in different socioeconomic and/or cultural environments.
In 2012, the school district in this study struggled financially to the point of bankruptcy,
which also coincided with the release of the new California State Content Standards. State
emergency funds were supplied to the district by the state of California, the state determined
district leaders were unfit to lead, and a district struggling to support the schools with the state
standards transitions. Even before the new state standards, academic support by the district was
minimal. NCLB forced the district to focus on academics; however, due to the lack of leadership
and funding issues, other non-academic challenges became a priority. The results was low
academic performance as reflected in standardized test scores, causing many families who
attended district schools continued to leave and enroll elsewhere.
Since 2012, the number of charter schools increased in the number of school facilities
and students enrolling in them (Ed-Data, 2018). The state has appointed four different
superintendents to lead the district out of financial bankruptcy. However, inconsistent leadership
has led to other challenges that perpetuates and prolongs the districts inability to support schools.
For example, already funded school renovation projects come to a halt due to leadership
turnover. Moreover, the district’s expenditures continue to exceed revenue and the history of
declining enrollment exacerbates the lack of funding the district needs to support student
achievement.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 99
The Fiscal Crisis Management Assistant Team (FCMAT) 2013’s report stated,
“FCMAT is concerned that the district lacks the ability and capacity to set priorities,
implement systemic reform, establish high expectations for student achievement, manage
resources, ensure accountability, and align practices” (FCMAT, 2013).
In addition to inadequate funding, the district apparently continues to make poor decisions about
priorities. For instance, at Flower Elementary, the priority appears to be professional
development focused on discipline instead of professional development to promote effective
implementation of the state standards. The FCMAT releases a yearly review on the progress or
state the district. The 2016-2017 FCMAT report revealed that approximately 800 student left
district schools and the district went from 19 schools to 18 schools.
The report also revealed a lack of school safety procedures, outdated policies, and
excessive employee absenteeism. The report also concluded the district has not made “sufficient
progress in making budget reductions to eliminate its operating deficit,” (FCMAT, 2016, p.4)
furthermore, “there is still much work to be done to achieve full recovery and that work will be
challenged with additional administrative turnover” (p. 5). The district under the state’s guidance
has yet to demonstrate positive outcomes significant enough to support schools. Sciarra and
Hunter (2015) stated:
“Trials challenging unequal and inadequate state funding are increasingly grounded in
extensive proofs of the deficits in teachers, support staff, interventions for struggling
students and other resources essential to afford students a meaningful opportunity to
achieve the very academic and performance standards imposed by the state on local
schools and districts through current accountability regimes” (p. 4).
Therefore, a history of underfunding, through state and federal policies, that has contributed to
conditions that impact the schools’ ability to provide opportunities for African American and
Latino students to access equitable opportunities to learn.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 100
Learning Opportunities at Flower Elementary
New State Standards. State and federal policies have created different conditions for
both Flower Elementary and Grand Elementary. In the case of Flower Elementary, state and
federal policies have created conditions that do not provide equitable opportunities to learn for
African American and Latino students. For instance, California State Content Standards were
intended to improve the quality of teaching and learning for all students; however, both Ms.
Olive and Ms. Figueroa in Flower Elementary, demonstrated a gap between the standards and
classroom practices that do not give their African American and Latino students the learning
experiences needed to meet the standards. The observations revealed instruction did not require
high levels of rigor with appropriate scaffolding and pedagogy that the students in all schools
need in order to have access to equitable learning opportunities. For example, Ms. Figueroa
presents a deficit perspective that focuses on discipline as a priority. Ms. Figueroa’s classroom
displayed more time spent on “teaching” students how to behave. She stated they needed
discipline before they were ready for instruction. Ms. Olive presented positive management
skills; however, the level of instruction does not match the level of mastery needed to master the
standards. Not all schools have made research- and standards-based instruction a priority.
Although this is partially a funding problem, it is also a failure to make appropriate priorities
focused on teaching and learning.
Discrepancies in state and local funding over multiple years have a lasting negative
impact on equitable access to learning (Sciarra & Hunter, 2015) that does not allow students to
meet the California State Content Standards. The district’s policies on teacher hiring, teacher
evaluation and tenure, along with opportunities for professional development also affect the
quality of learning experiences students receive. In Flower Elementary, both teachers stated they
felt they would have liked more professional development to improve their teaching. They felt
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 101
the professional development focused more on the student behavior and discipline than
instruction. Both teachers observed had been in the district for at least five years, but the
classroom practices observed in their classrooms did not reflect research- and evidence-based
practices needed to meet the rigor reflected in the standards. It is not clear whether the emphasis
on rigor and standards implementation seen in Grand Elementary are attributable to the higher
socioeconomic status of the students, increased funding that accrues to district-dependent charter
schools (as Grand is), or leadership decisions.
The SBAC scores for the combined fifth grade of the previous year showed 25 percent of
the students meeting and exceeding ELA standards and 21 percent meeting and exceeding Math
standards. Ms. Olive’s scores represent 1/2 of the total fifth graders. The SBAC scores for the
combined third grade the previous year showed 22 percent of students meeting and exceeding
ELA standards and 23 percent meeting and exceeding Math standards. Ms. Figueroa’s scores are
1/2 of the total 3
rd
graders. Both Ms. Olive and Ms. Figueroa have different instructional
practices; however, both of their instructional practices are producing similar outcomes on the
state test in both ELA and in Math. As a school average, Flower Elementary’s state test scores
are 23.47 percent in ELA and 21.72 percent in Math.
SBAC data and the observation data demonstrated the need for appropriate professional
development and collaboration among teachers to assist teachers in understanding the content,
application, and higher-order thinking skills. Without this support it is difficult for any teacher’s
instruction to meet the demand of the standards and, as a result, students will not meet or exceed
state standards. When asked about professional development, Ms. Olive stated in her interview:
“I wouldn’t say professional development is geared towards helping teachers become
more effective with African American and Latino student learning… I think it’s come up
in terms of then number of discipline referrals we’ve had”.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 102
Her statement in the interview and observed activities in Flower Elementary revealed discipline
as a school priority for professional development. Flower Elementary’s focus on discipline was
demonstrated through the 2017’s school suspension rate of two percent, which was three percent
lower than the district’s suspension average. The low suspension rate suggested that Flower
Elementary’s emphasis is on reducing suspensions and Flower Elementary’s implementation of
professional development towards reducing suspension rates may represent the school’s
improper response to concerns at the state and federal levels to the disproportionate suspension
rates in schools across the nation for African American and Latino students. The school’s
emphasis on discipline may reflect the lack of support provided at the state or federal levels for
addressing root causes of perceived misbehavior of African American and Latino students.
Without teacher professional development in Flower Elementary to support instruction, students
are being denied access to a quality education. On the other hand, Grand Elementary appears to
be effectively implementing the California Standards for African American and Latino Student
in ELA particularly.
English Language Development. Additionally, English Language Development (ELD)
standards is another state policy focused on language acquisition, Flower Elementary showed
little to no evidence of a structured approach to implementing the ELD standards that require
teachers to provide designated and non-designated ELD instruction to English Learners (ELs).
The CA ELD standards:
“are not intended to replace the CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy. Instead, they amplify the
language knowledge, skills, and abilities of these standards, which are essential for ELs
to succeed in school while they are developing their English” (CDE, 2012, p.8)
Flower Elementary had a 32 percent English Learner (EL) population and on the 2017 SBAC
average combined score only 16 percent of ELs met or exceeded standards. When comparing
Standard English Learners (SELs) to ELs, SELs’ score was 22 percent, which was 6 percent
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 103
higher than the performance of ELs (IUSD, 2017). Flower Elementary was not “amplifying” the
CA State Content Standards, rather Flower Elementary was neglecting the ELD standards. There
was a lack of evidence that suggested ELD instruction was potentially missing at the school. For
example, ELD assigned times were not found in the teachers’ agendas. There was an absence of
multicultural curriculum, which Pertzela (2010) states is essential in creating best language
acquisition practices for today’s classroom. During the classroom observations, there were few
instances where academic language or specific academic language development strategies were
used. Claderon et al. (2011) stated, non-English minority students are grouped together in one
class with one teacher who is unable to adequately support all of their learning needs. The
teachers at Flower Elementary were not observed to adequately support all of their students
learning needs which is seen in state testing scores. The SBAC 2017 results demonstrated 9% of
English Learner were meeting or exceeding ELA standards and 12% of English Leaners were
meeting or exceeding Math standards. These results reflect the lack of ELD instruction and the
schools’ ability to support ELs and SELs. There was little evidence of instruction that treated all
students as Academic English learners, supporting students to engage in academic discourse in
the classroom as it is observed in Grand Elementary.
As a district, redesignation of ELs since 2012 decreased significantly from an average
300 students redesignated in 2012 to fewer than 100 students being redesignated in the 2016-
2017 school year (Ed-Data, 2018). Like the state standards, ELD standards are designed to
promote the English language development process; however, ineffective implementation or a
lack of implementation ensured inequitable access to opportunities to learn, especially for
African American students, many of whom students who speak Ebonics and Latino students
many of whom students who speak Spanish as their first language.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 104
Learning Opportunities at Grand Elementary
New State Standards. Conditions at Grand Elementary appeared to provide more
effective implementation of state standards support to provide equitable opportunities to learn for
African American and Latino students. Unlike teachers at Flower Elementary, both teachers
demonstrated effective pedagogies that helped students meet the cognitive demand of the
California State Content Standards, particularly in ELA and math with Ms. Hope and for ELA
with Ms. Spring. Although state testing results do not specify individual classroom scores, Ms.
Hope’s and her two grade level peers produced test scores in the previous year demonstrating 64
percent of students are meeting and exceeding ELA standards and 64 percent of students are
meeting and exceeding Math standards. Ms. Spring and her two grade-level peers produced test
scores demonstrating 60 percent of students are meeting and exceeding ELA standards and 24
percent of students are meeting and exceeding Math standards in the 2016-2017 school year.
Each grade level has different standards and teachers; however, the consistency in instruction
between these two teachers indicates more effective and systematic instructional practices that
are creating opportunities for students to engage in higher-level thinking and content. These
opportunities are supporting effective implementation of state standards for African American
and Latino students which were created to support equitable opportunities to learn for all
students.
English Language Development. Like the state standards, ELD standards created
condition in which Grand Elementary is systematizing designated and non-designated ELD
instruction to English Leaners (ELs). Although, the EL population was 14 percent in the fall of
2017, there was evidence that Grand Elementary is providing opportunities for ELs to access a
quality education. During the observations, designated EL instruction was not observed;
however, there were many occasions where instruction was consistent with the ELD standards
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 105
for all students, treating all students as Academic English learners. The instructional strategies
provided ELs and Standard English Learners (SELs), who are mainly African American, with
scaffolding support, the use of academic language used academic discourse.
In both classrooms at Grand Elementary, the teachers posted on their agendas assigned
ELD times on their daily agendas. Additionally, room environments were print rich with walls
dedicated to academic vocabulary and sentence frames for use of Academic English during
discussions. On the 2017 SBAC average combined score, 38 percent of the EL population at
Grand Elementary School were meeting or exceeding standards. When comparing Standard
English Learners (SELs) to ELs, SELs’ score was 47 percent, which was 9 percent higher than
the performance of ELs (IUSD, 2017). Although, SELs are performing higher than ELs, their
averages scores together were higher than the percentages at Flower Elementary. This
demonstrates a gap between access the students at Grand Elementary are receiving. ELD
standards were more effectively implemented at Grand Elementary to give African American
and Latino students equitable access to opportunities to learn which is demonstrated through the
2017 SBAC ELA results. These classrooms, however, did not seem to support student’s retention
of their home languages, which are essential to their home relationships, as well as their
cognitive growth as well (Perry et al., 2017).
Summary
Access to equitable opportunities to learn is impacted by federal and state policies that
contribute to the conditions created at the school level and at the individual classroom level.
Additionally, the access to equitable opportunities to learn is impacted by instructional practices.
The two schools demonstrate a difference in climate, operational structures, and instructional
practices which has enabled Grand Elementary students to meet California State Standards at a
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 106
higher rate than Flower Elementary academically, even though both schools serve the same
community and population.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 107
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
Chapter one provided an overview of an increasing minority population and how state
and federal policies as well as classroom instructional practices affect equitable access to a
quality education for all students. In chapter two, the literature review demonstrated how African
American and Latino students, as marginalized students, are denied access to equitable
opportunities to learn. Chapter two also provided a conceptual framework for increasing African
American and Latino students’ access to quality education. Chapter three communicated the
research design used to collect data to answer the study’s research questions:
1. In what ways do instructional practices in elementary schools foster or deny equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students?
2. In what ways do federal and state policies impact schools’ ability to provide equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino elementary school students?
Chapter four presented the findings and an analysis of the study. Chapter five will provide
further analysis, conclusions, implications of the findings with recommendations changes in
classrooms and schools. Lastly, chapter five will also provide recommendations for both future
research and future practice.
Theoretical Framework Model
The theoretical framework model, shown below, illustrates the integration of Critical
Race Theory and Bronfrenbrenner’s Bioecological Model. The image illustrates how race and
power ideologies can influence an individual’s opportunity to access equitable opportunities to
learn. The model provided a framework that guided the study’s purpose.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 108
Summary and Conclusions
The study’s findings led to several overarching conclusions about classroom practices
worthy of further pursuit to ensure that African American and Latino students have equitable
access to learning.
• The teachers were created an apprentice “consciousness,” which students used to interact
with one another. Through this process, students developed cognitive structures that
allowed them to go deeper in their learning and gain confidence in their ability to make
meaning of their learning experiences. The students developed academic language in a
Critical Race
Theory
Bronfrenbrenner’s
Bioecological Model
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 109
social context that they could draw upon when doing self-talk to make meaning from text
or complete academic tasks on their own.
• Planned group settings were effective when students had appropriate scaffolding tools to
guide them through high cognitive demand tasks. Therefore, structured scaffolding
activities enabled students to engage in levels of high cognitive demand rather than
repeated lower levels of thinking that results in mainly factual knowledge, but seldom
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.
• Room environment with effective use of wall space plays a significant role in supporting
equitable opportunities to learn. The students used wall resources as learning tools to
help guide them in their own learning process.
• School culture centered on instructional practices that promote higher order cognitive
processes supported African American and Latino students’ access to quality learning
experiences. The study did not observe the teachers explicitly teaching to the standards;
however, their focus on rigor, cognitive demand, and scaffolding prepared students to
meet the standards as demonstrated in their performance on the state standards-based
assessment. Many schools and teachers with low expectations for students only provide
teaching at lower levels of cognitive engagement, following the concept of “banking”
knowledge, where students are “receiving, filling, and storing deposits” of knowledge
(Freire, 1970). It is also known as the pedagogy of poverty, what Freire called a “pedagogy
of the oppressed” (1970).
• A focus on discipline rather than academics did not provide students with access to
opportunities to learn. Discipline is important, but not at the cost of academics. It was
clear that the school that focused on discipline produced lower academic outcomes and
were likely to continue producing low academic outcomes unless there wasa a shift ing
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 110
focus towards improving instruction. The discipline focus indicated a deficit perspective
about the students who attended, who were predominantly African American and
Latino.
• The teachers who demonstrated respect toward the students “created a classroom climate
in which students trusted their teachers’ efforts to guide them in acquiring the skills and
knowledge they needed” (Rousseau, 1999). Modeled behaviors ranged from teacher to
teacher. One teacher demonstrated respect while another demanded it. The teacher who
demonstrated respect received respect back from her students, whereas the teacher who
demanded respect received a range of respect from her students because clear
expectations of respect were not implemented.
• A history of inadequate district funding from state and federal policies significantly
impacted the schools’ ability to provide equitable access to opportunities to learn. The
district in this study wasa faced with both challenging financial issues as well as
leadership instability, leading to inequitable access to opportunities to learn. Due to
limited funds, the district was forced to make difficult decisions on where the funding
should go, ultimately prioritizing its own needs over academics, negatively impacting
equitable access to opportunities to learn.
Implications of the Study
• African American and Latino students responded positively to high expectations from
teachers whose classroom practices exhibited a belief that their students were capable of
high academic accomplishment.
• The study raises questions about the impact of multiple charter schools on African
American and Latino students’ opportunities to learn in school districts that are already
struggling both financially and academically. In such cases some African American and
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 111
Latino students experienced inequitable opportunities to learn. The rise of charter schools
in this study’s district has negatively impacted how the district is able to operate
financially with significant loss of funds generated by Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
• Charter school’s ability to be selective about students they enroll may have a negative
impact on district schools, even though in this study the charter school was a district-
dependent charter (Ultican, 2017). A teacher from the study revealed, that after the school
closed for construction in 2005 and reopened as a charter school, the school had a “fresh
start” which excluded students from some areas, drastically reducing the number of
students with discipline problems. Although the charter school serves African American
and Latino students, a 12 percent difference the number of students considered
economically disadvantaged is significant and it raises the question of socioeconomics as
a factor that intersects with race.
• Classroom practices that focused on students as active learners employing cognitive
actions, as expressed in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Costa’s Inquiry wheel,
contradicted notions that students in predominantly African American and Latino schools
needed remediation and intervention as a fitting substitute for rigor high cognitive
engagement.
• Academic discourse is an essential classroom practice for apprenticing students to use
language as a psychological tool for making meaning of their learning experiences; (i.e.,
reading comprehension and conceptual understanding of mathematics).
• Low expectations, low-level cognitive engagement of students, and over-emphasis on
discipline may be reflective of implicit biases teachers have about African American and
Latino students.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 112
• Teachers need extensive professional development to be able to provide learning
experiences that meet the cognitive demand of the standards. The two teachers at Grand
Elementary whose teaching supported students in rigorous thinking shared with other
teachers in the school state test scores in which 50 percent or more of the students in grades
3 – 8 met or exceeded ELA with the third-grade averaging 64 percent and the 5
th
grade
grade-span averaging 60 percent. The data suggested that instruction at all grade levels was
aligned to the culture of learning set in place by the leadership at the school. Conversely,
the classroom practices of the two teachers observed at Flower demonstrated little
resemblance to each other. As a result, neither of the classes demonstrated practices that
promoted rigor, collaboration among students, and academic discourse observed with the
teachers at Grant.
• Teachers need extensive professional development to be able to adopt classroom
practices consistent with sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning in which
students become a community of learners sharing responsibility for one another’s
learning.
• Schools need to implement coherent research- and evidence-based instructional programs
across all grade levels.
• Federal and state policies resulting in multiple years of underfunding in districts whose
student populations are predominantly African American and Latino and come from low-
income families had a cumulative and long-lasting effects on the district’s ability to
provide equitable opportunities to learn for its students. As a result of their inability to
provide effective instruction, these districts have lost students, causing ongoing loss of
ADA funds. Additionally, decline in school facilities over time led to poor working
conditions that caused teachers to leave for other districts, thus depleting the district of
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 113
veteran, more competent teachers. Policy changes at the state- and federal- level cannot
offset years of financial neglect, even with additional funding.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Practice
• Based on the findings, it is recommended that teachers:
o Be provided with professional development that supports them in facilitating
students, working together to build knowledge, having peer to peer learning, and
engaging in language-rich social settings.
o Be provided opportunities for students to work together in building knowledge,
having peer to peer learning, and engaging in language-rich social settings.
• It is recommended that explicit analysis of the California Content Standards for their
content, concepts, and cognitive demands in order to effectively implement standards-
based instruction that meets students in their respective zones of proximal development.
• It is recommended that adequate funding and resources to engage in professional
development specifically geared towards rigorous instruction that meet the standards,
enabling districts and teachers to develop effective instruction.
• The Department of Education and the California Department of Education needs to
prioritize time and financial resources devoted to ongoing, school-embedded professional
development to ensure equitable opportunities for African American and Latino students
who are among the least served students in US schools.
• Federal and state education departments, as well as districts, need to implement policies
and support for language rich social settings in which all students are considered and
supported as academic English learners.
• It is recommended to address racial domination and segregation.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 114
• Race and SES are substantial factors in determining inequity (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995); therefore, it is recommended to analyze the sources of racial oppression (Bell,
1980) while, addressing the intersectionality of race and socioeconomic status on
students’ access to equitable schooling.
• The state needs to review charter school authorization policies, taking into consideration
recent research regarding the impact of charter schools on district schools operating in the
same district.
• Further research is needed to discover different ways equitable access to learning is
affected in various types of schools. This study was limited to only two school sites, one
district and one district dependent charter. Studying more schools (district and charter)
will provide a larger context for equitable opportunities to learn.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are several recommendations for future research. One recommendation for future
research is to continue the same research with different settings and in a larger pool of schools to
identify a range of instructional practices that are effective in providing equitable access to learning
opportunities. “There are no rules for sample size in a qualitative study” (Patton, 2015, p. 311);
however, larger samples could be useful given that every teacher is different in how they
implement pedagogy. It is important to see how other instructional practices could be beneficial to
African American and Latino students.
Another recommendation for future research is to identify other state and federal policies
needed to provide better support to districts, schools, and teachers in providing equitable
educational opportunities for African American and Latino students. The current approach or
method is implemented with disparate levels of quality at different schools and districts,
depending on the racial makeup or socioeconomic status of the community.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 115
A third recommendation for future research is to explore is why academic language and
discourse development that is effective in English Language Arts (ELA) is often not effective in
promoting learning in mathematics. Further research could focus on what teachers do effectively
to promote student learning in both ELA and math. The study might focus on schools who use
academic language and discourse to examine the relationship between academic language,
discourse, and math. This would provide insight on why there is a mathematics achievement gap.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine (1) instructional practices that foster or deny
equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students and (2) how state and
federal policies impacts the schools’ ability to provide equitable opportunities to learn for African
American and Latino students. The study was built on observations and interviews from four
teachers. The research questions were answered through the identification of a framework of
equitable access to quality learning opportunities for African American and Latino students, which
consisted of academic language and discourse development, higher order cognitive processes, and
unifying support structures. The study’s findings aligned to findings in the literature. Also, the
findings revealed that state and federal policies impact the schools’ ability to provide equitable
access to opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students. Additionally, the
findings revealed instructional practices that hinder or assist African American and Latino students
from accessing equitable opportunities to learn.
Based on the findings of the study, district, schools, and teachers were recommended to
find ways to implement academic language and discourse development, create opportunities to
learn in social settings, and provide professional development on how to effectively implement
state and federal policies that foster equitable opportunities to learn for African American and
Latino students. Recommendations for future research focused on exploring other possible
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 116
effective instructional practices for African American and Latino students; what state and federal
organizations can do to better support districts, schools, and teachers; math instructional practices;
and the impact of attending a district school or a charter school. Ultimately, the study provided
confirmation that African American and Latino students can have positive academic outcomes
when they are provided equitable opportunities to learn. However, due to the limitation of the
study future research is necessary to better understand the formation and maintenance of equitable
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students.
Limitations of the Study
The study has several limitations. One of the limitations was the sample size. Applying
generalization from a sample size of four teachers is a limitation to this study. Another limitation
was the sample profile. In chapter three, the sample profile did not include a male teacher due to
the teacher selection left to the principals’ discretion. There was also a limitation with the richness
of the data collected in the interviews. In some cases, the interviewees offered only brief answers.
Although follow-up questions were asked to evoke additional data, some teachers failed to offer
extended answers. Another limitation was data integrity. Two teachers were interviewed in their
classrooms, whereas the other two teachers were interviewed over the phone. All teachers were
asked the same questions; however, it is unclear if the differences in environment affected the
teachers’ responses to the questions.
A related limitation was the impossibility of triangulating observations with data from
student participants. Students were not the focus of the study; however, their interactions with their
teachers were considered in the data collected from observations. A final limitation was
observational insufficiency. For example, the limitation was that of time and access. Teacher
observations was limited to four classes for 45 to 60 minutes for each teacher on two different
days.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 117
References
Akin, I., & Neumann, C. (2013). Identifying proactive collaboration strategies for teacher
readiness for marginalized students. Journal of College Teaching & Learning
(Online), 10(4), 235.
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A
synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-
206.
Bankston III, C., & Caldas, S. J. (1996). Majority African American schools and social injustice:
The influence of de facto segregation on academic achievement. Social Forces, 535-555.
Bazron, B., Osher, D., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Creating culturally responsive
schools. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 83-84.
Bell, D. A. (Ed.). (1980). Shades of Brown: New perspectives on school desegregation. Teachers
College Press, Columbia University.
Boykin, T. F., & Palmer, R. T. (2016). Examining the Paradox between Dismantling De Jure
Segregation and Affirmative Action: Implications from Contemporary Higher Education
Case Law. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(2), 114-128.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental psychology, 22(6), 723
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological review, 101(4), 568-586.
Brown, G. C., Vigil, J. D., & Taylor, E. R. (2012). The ghettoization of Blacks in Los Angeles:
The emergence of street gangs. Journal of African American Studies, 16(2), 209-225.
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 118
Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to
give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of English only. Addison
Wesley Publishing Company.
Contreras, A. R., & Valverde, L. A. (1994). The impact of Brown on the education of
Latinos. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 470-481.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture. John Wiley & Sons.
Elmore, R., & Fuhrman, S. (1995). Opportunity to learn and the state role in education. Teachers'
College Record, 96(3), 433-458.
Garda, R. A. (2007). Coming Full Circle: The Journey from Separate but Equal to Separate and
Unequal Schools.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
Greenfield, P. M., & Cocking, R. R. (2014). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development.
Psychology Press.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2009). New evidence about Brown v. Board of
Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement. Journal of
Labor Economics, 27(3), 349-383.
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged
children. Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902.
Inglewood Unified School District (2017). School Accountability Report Card 2016-2017.
Kontokosta, C. E. (2015). Do inclusionary zoning policies equitably disperse affordable
housing? A comparative spatial analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 30(4), 569-590.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 119
Kontokosta, C. E. (2014). MIXED‐INCOME HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD
INTEGRATION: EVIDENCE FROM INCLUSIONARY ZONING
PROGRAMS. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(4), 716-741.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
college record, 97(1), 47.
Lasry, N., Dugdale, M., & Charles, E. (2014). Just in time to flip your classroom. The Physics
Teacher, 52(1), 34-37.
Leonard, T., Hughes, A. E., & Pruitt, S. L. (2017). Understanding How Low–Socioeconomic
Status Households Cope with Health Shocks: An Analysis of Multisector Linked
Data. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 669(1),
125-145.
Lopez, F. M. (1970). Accountability in education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 52(4), 231-235.
Margo, R. A. (1985). Education Achievement in Segregated School Systems: The Effects of"
Separate-But-Equal".
Merry, J. J. (2013). Tracing the US deficit in PISA reading skills to early childhood: Evidence
from the United States and Canada. Sociology of Education, 86(3), 234-252.
Mickelson, R. A., & Nkomo, M. (2012). Integrated schooling, life course outcomes, and social
cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36(1),
197-238.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 120
Mickelson, R. A., Bottia, M. C., & Lambert, R. (2013). Effects of school racial composition on
K–12 mathematics outcomes: A metaregression analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 83(1), 121-158.
Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Milner IV, H. R. (2013). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban education.
Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). " Brown" at 62: School
Segregation by Race, Poverty and State. Civil Rights Project-Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Robinson, T., & Robinson, G. (2003). Mendez v. Westminister: Asian-Latino Coalition
Triumphant. Asian LJ, 10, 161.
Rose, K., & Miller, T. K. N. (2016). Communities of Opportunity: Pursuing a Housing Policy
Agenda to Achieve Equity and Opportunity in the Face of Post-Recession
Challenges. Trotter Review, 23(1), 3.
Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated
neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and social problems, 7(1), 21-30.
Rousseau, S. (1999). The Culturally Relevant Dialogical Teacher-Student Relationship Between
Children of Color and White Teachers in American Schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Sard, B., & Rice, D. (2014). Creating Opportunity for Children. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities.
Stuart, A. (2006). Equal treatment as exclusion: language, race and US education
policy. International journal of inclusive education, 10(02-03), 235-250.
Schwartz, H. L., Ecola, L., Leuschner, K. J., & Kofner, A. (2012). Is Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary? A Guide for Practitioners. Technical Report. RAND Corporation.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 121
Theodos, B., Coulton, C., & Budde, A. (2014). Getting to better performing schools: The role of
residential mobility in school attainment in low-income neighborhoods. Cityscape, 16(1),
61.
Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: Reducing
school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 381-391.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 122
Appendix A: Document/Artifact Rubric
Type
Use
Summary
How and Why Produced
How does the document (indicator) demonstrate (to an extent)
support for African American (AA) and Latino students’
opportunities to learn?
How implemented policy/school structure impacts AA and Latino
opportunities to learn
Does the document (indicator) demonstrate
(to an extent) adopted policy or policies in
favor of AA or Latino students?
1 2 3 4
Does the school’s policy include guidelines on
what actions the school should take with
policy implementation?
1 2 3 4
Does the document (indicator) demonstrate
(to an extent) support for positive school
climate that is responsive to AA and Latinos?
1 2 3 4
Does the document (indicator) demonstrate
(to an extent) guidelines to promote school
culture?
1 2 3 4
Does the document (indicator) demonstrate
(to an extent) support instruction that is
responsive to AA and Latinos?
1 2 3 4
Does the document (indicator) demonstrate
(to an extent) support for asset-based
pedagogy or Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
1 2 3 4
To what extent does the document include
guidelines for instruiont that supports AA and
Latinos?
1 2 3 4
Does the document (indicator) demonstrate
(to an extent) support classroom experiences
that is responsive to AA and Latinos?
1 2 3 4
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 123
Appendix B: Observation Scripting Template
Date:
Location:
Time Teacher Student Question/ Comment
5 Mins.
10 Mins.
15 Mins.
20 Mins.
25 Mins.
30 Mins.
35 Mins.
40 Mins.
45 Mins.
50 Mins.
55 Mins.
60 Mins.
Running head: EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 124
Appendix C: Observational Instrument
Classroom Observational Schedule
Data Control No. ________ Grade _____
Subject: Reading Lang. Arts Math Obs#__
School Name __________ ID# ___
Teacher Name _________ ID# ___
Student Name _________ ID# ___
Ethnicity: W B H A O Sex: M F
A.
INTERACTIONS
(check one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1. No Interactions/
independence
2. With Teacher –
Instructional
3. With Teacher –
Managerial
4. With Teacher –
Social, Personal
5. With support
staff
6. With other
students –
Instructional
7. With other
students – Social,
personal
8. Other
B. SELECTION
OF ACTIVITY
(check one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1. Teacher
assigned activity
2. Student selected
activity
C. ACTIVITY
TYPES (Check as
appropriate)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1. Working on
written
assignments
2. Interacting –
Instructional (e.g.,
discussing)
3. Interacting –
Social (e.g.,
talking)
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 125
4. Watching or
Listening
5. Reading
6.
Getting/Returning
Materials
7. Painting,
drawing, creating
graphics, etc.
8. Working with
technology
9. Working with
manipulative
material/equipt.
10. Viewing
video/slides
11. Playing games
12.
Presenting/acting
13. Tutoring peers
14. Not attending
to task
15. No
activity/transition
16. Other ______
D. SETTING
(check one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1. Whole Group
2. Small Group
3. Pairs
4. Individual
E. MANNER
(check one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1. On Task
2. Waiting for
teacher
3. Distracted
4. Disruptive
5. Other _______
F. LANGUAGE
USED (check
one)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1. English
2. Spanish
3. Both English
and Spanish
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 126
Appendix D: Interview Question Protocol
Demographics-
1. What is your position at the elementary school?
2. What do you teach?
3. How many years have you been a teacher at this elementary school?
4. What has been your experience working at a high poverty school setting?
5. In what way do you think fed/state polices influence teaching ELLS, particularly
Spanish/Ebonics speaking students, affect your ability to promote opportunities to learn?
6. What are the school conditions make it conducive to learning? Is the school a safe, clean,
and orderly place that is conducive to learning?
7. In what ways does the school support a welcoming and nurturing school climate?
8. In what ways do you feel operational structures, such as fiscal resources, school day
scheduling, and discipline practices, foster opportunities to learn?
9. What characteristics of school structures do you believe promote opportunities to learn?
10. In what ways do you feel the structures of the school, enhances your ability to teacher
students well, particularly African American and Latinos students?
11. What structures diminishes or enhances your ability to teacher African American and
Latinos?
12. What do you consider to be the reasons African American and Latino student produce
lower test results than White (not Hispanic) and Asians?
13. In what ways do you feel you promote academically equitable opportunities on behalf of
African American and Latino students?
14. What characteristics about instruction do you believe promote opportunities to learn,
particular for African American and Latino students? Which of these instructional
practices do you employ?
15. In what ways do you consider yourself a culturally competent teacher on behalf of
African Americans and Latinos students?
16. How would you describe theory(ies) of learning that are most evident in your classroom
practices?
17. What are the instructional priorities at your school? How do they impact teaching and
learning for African American and Latino students?
18. To the best of your knowledge, in what ways does your school provide ongoing
professional development that helps teacher become more effective in promoting
opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students?
19. How do you believe African American and Latino students respond to your teaching?
20. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 127
Appendix E: Information/Faction Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNTIES WHEN THE MINORITIES HAVE
BECOME THE MAJORITY
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine school structures that are failing to provide equitable
opportunities to learn for minority students, in particular African American and Latino. The
examination of policies, school structures, and instruction will contribute to the identification of
components of effective urban schooling. This study will examine ways to rethink existing
school structures that are exclusionary rather than inclusive. This study will provide minorities
with the equitable opportunities to learn and develop as a confident individual ready to
participate in society.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45 minute to 1 hour
audio-taped interview and two 45 minute to 1 hour classroom observations. In the interview, you
do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be taped, handwritten
notes will be taken.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The audiotapes
will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 128
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Kimberly Saguilan
Email: khyun@usc.edu or ksaguilan1225@gmail.com
Phone: 714.402.4705
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Sylvia Rousseau
Email: srousseau@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 129
Appendix F: Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNTIES WHEN THE MINORITIES HAVE
BECOME THE MAJORITY
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Kimberly Saguilan MA (principal
investigator) and Dr. Sylvia Rousseau (faculty advisor) at the University of Southern California,
because you are a 3
rd
grade or 5
th
grade teacher in a majority minority school environment.
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be
given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine school structures that are failing to provide equitable
opportunities to learn for minority students, in particular African American and Latino. The
examination of policies, school structures, and instruction will contribute to the identification of
components of effective urban schooling. This study will examine ways to rethink existing
school structures that are exclusionary rather than inclusive. This study will provide minorities
with the equitable opportunities to learn and develop as a confident individual ready to
participate in society.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45 minute to 1
hour audio-taped interview and two 45 minute to 1 hour classroom observations. In the
interview, you do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be
taped.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 130
The data and research data will be stored in my computer. The participant will have the right to
review the audio recordings or transcripts, the principal investigator, faculty sponsor, and the
transcribers will have access to the data. The audio-recordings will be used for the educational
purposes of the study. Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will
remain confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The audiotapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed. When the results of
the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Principal Investigator: Kimberly Saguilan
Email: khyun@usc.edu or ksaguilan1225@gmail.com
Phone: 714.402.4705
Address: Rossier School of Education - 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Sylvia Rousseau
Email: srousseau@usc.edu
Phone:
Address: Rossier School of Education - 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 131
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
AUDIO
□ I agree to be audio-recorded
□ I do not want to be audio-recorded
Name of Participant
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine school structures that are failing to provide equitable opportunities to learn for minority students, in particular African American and Latino. The research questions included: 1. In what ways do instructional practices in elementary schools foster or deny equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino students? 2. In what ways do federal and state policies impact schools’ ability to provide equitable opportunities to learn for African American and Latino elementary school students? For this qualitative study, four teachers were observed and interviewed from two different school sites. Further exploratory analyses were conducted using Classroom Observation Schedule (COS). Findings from this study indicate that language rich social learning experiences increase African American and Latino students’ equitable learning opportunities. The study also found African American and Latino students are capable learners when their teachers model respect and have high expectations. However, state and federal policies have long lasting effects on district who have a history of inadequate funding. The study demonstrates ways to bridge the equity gap between marginalized students of color and their White (not Hispanic) counterparts and contributes to examining access to equitable opportunities to learn.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students
PDF
Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
PDF
The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study
PDF
Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes
PDF
The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color
PDF
Equitable access to culturally relevant public-school music programs
PDF
Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning
PDF
Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study
PDF
Creating transformational learning opportunities for teachers: how leadership affects adult learning on a school campus
PDF
Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice
PDF
Cultural proficiency to provide equity for African American and other students of color: an evaluation study
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students
PDF
Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study
PDF
Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Saguilan, Kimberly Ariya
(author)
Core Title
Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/26/2018
Defense Date
08/30/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
access to learning opportunities,Bronfenbrenner bioecological model,Common Core State Standards,critical race theory,culturally relevant and responsive education,Education Policy,English language development standards,equitable access,high needs students,instructional leadership,low performing schools,majority,minorities,minority majority group,OAI-PMH Harvest,opporunity gap,school culture,traditional schooling
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rousseau , Sylvia (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo (
committee member
), Mora-Flores , Eugenia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ksaguilan1225@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-107518
Unique identifier
UC11676669
Identifier
etd-SaguilanKi-6981.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-107518 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SaguilanKi-6981.pdf
Dmrecord
107518
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Saguilan, Kimberly Ariya
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
access to learning opportunities
Bronfenbrenner bioecological model
Common Core State Standards
critical race theory
culturally relevant and responsive education
English language development standards
equitable access
high needs students
instructional leadership
low performing schools
majority
minorities
minority majority group
opporunity gap
school culture
traditional schooling