University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School connectedness for Latinx English learners

(USC Thesis Other)

School connectedness for Latinx English learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

School Connectedness for Latinx English Learners

David Calvo

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

May 2023

© Copyright by David Calvo 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for David Calvo certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Ruth H. Chung
Mark P. Robison
Tracy Poon Tambascia, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
A sense of belonging is a phenomenon that is core to the human experience. The profound short-
and long-term benefits of children feeling connected to adults at the schools they attend are
supported by an increasingly growing body of research. This study sought to better understand
factors that impede or bolster school connectedness for Latinx English learners at a Los Angeles
school which served middle and high school level students. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory was used as a framework to explore two research questions. In Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model, the school is part of each child’s microsystem and is the setting for many
ecological transitions and interconnections with others. Students participated in the study through
a survey made available to the entire student body. Other school stakeholders including teachers,
school leaders, and board members participated through a focus group. Survey data revealed a
relationship between knowledge of support available and willingness to ask for help at the
school. Moreover, a relationship was identified between self-efficacy and school connectedness.
Focus group data identified multiple themes related to school connectedness. The leading theme
to foster student connectedness was caring staff-student relationships. Recommendations focus
on these findings and include promote campus resources, integrate growth mindset instructional
strategies schoolwide, plan deliberate opportunities for fostering student-staff caring
relationships, and prioritize opportunities for parent engagement. The pandemic’s disruption has
adversely impacted children and each school will need to identify how to best reengage its
students and their caregivers. This case study can inform such endeavors.
Keywords: school connectedness, sense of belonging at school, SOBAS, scholastic
familismo, familismo in schools, Bronfenbrenner’s framework in schools, Latinx equity
v
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mami. My mother has been a driving force in my life
for as long as I can remember. When I was growing up, she worked as a typesetter for a book
publishing company. Her job later became home-based, and I remember as a child sometimes
waking up to the sounds of her typing away. click, click, click, ding. click, click, click, ding.
Being exposed to manuscripts and books at an early age, I learned to love reading and language,
which opened the doors to my curiosity about the world. Gracias mami. En tantos libros que
tecleaste en máquina, hubo otras personas que fueron reconocidas. Ahora es tu turno y este
manuscrito te reconoce a ti. Gracias por creer siempre en mí. Although I lost him when I was a
teenager, my papi was my social butterfly role model and taught me the importance of
connecting with others. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that one of the best things that
I learned from mis papas is perseverance, the limits of which I got to challenge through this
program.
vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise family, which I have been
fortunate to have been part of for over 10 years. Without the support of their board of directors,
this study would not have been possible.
While this research led to my understanding of scholastic familismo, I am grateful to
have previously experienced it at other schools. Leaders who were influential in creating and
fostering these communities were Dr. Carlo Rodriguez-Castill, Fernando Zulueta, Magdalena
Fresen, Moctesuma Esparza, and Nancy Suarez. Thank you for your love and the enduring
impact you have made in the communities you served. I would also like to acknowledge the
tutelage of Rhonda Mims, Jeanette Shahbaz, Rose Hodges, Kate Swede, and Dr. Lourdes Rassi.
Thank you to Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia for volunteering to chair my committee and
changing my experience in this pursuit. Thank you also to Dr. Ruth Chung and Dr. Mark
Robison for their support in getting me through to the finish line.
Throughout my life, there have been countless people who have contributed to the person
I am today. Thank you all for your contributions and challenging my thinking to reach for this.
Last but certainly not least, I am grateful to my family for their unwavering love over the
years. I want to thank them for instilling in me the value of familismo, which has helped shape
who I am today. My siblings Tammy, Joe, and Franky were integral to my earlier development
and supportive of my postsecondary pursuits so that I could be the first in our family to get a
college degree. I would like to express my gratitude to the rest of my family who are too many to
individually name. Know that you are cherished. To my husbands Erick, Juliano, and Justin,
thank you for your love and support at home which enabled me to juggle family, career, doctoral
pursuit, and my ongoing service to the community at large.
vii
Table of Contents
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................4
Organizational Background and Mission .............................................................................6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................6
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .......................................................................7
Definitions............................................................................................................................7
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................10
Defining School Connectedness ........................................................................................10
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory ..................................................................36
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................43
Organizational Background and Context ...........................................................................44
Participants .........................................................................................................................52
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................55
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................61
viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................62
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................63
Ethics..................................................................................................................................63
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................66
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................67
Participant Overview .........................................................................................................68
Findings for Research Questions .......................................................................................70
Nostalgia ............................................................................................................................91
Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................91
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................93
Implications of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory .........................................94
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................95
Recommendations ............................................................................................................100
Recommendation 1: Promote Campus Resources ...........................................................101
Recommendation 2: Integrate Growth Mindset Instructional Strategies Schoolwide .....102
Recommendation 3: Plan Deliberate Opportunities for Fostering Caring Relationships 103
Recommendation 4: Prioritize Opportunities for Parent Engagement ............................104
COVID-19........................................................................................................................107
Limitations .......................................................................................................................110
Future Research ...............................................................................................................112
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................113
References ....................................................................................................................................115
Appendix A: 2020–2021 School Climate Survey Supplement ....................................................137
ix
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................145
Appendix C: Focus Group Protocol .............................................................................................147

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Select Respondent Categories Reporting “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” on School
Connectedness Measures ...............................................................................................................20
Table 2: Latinx Immigrant Parent Challenges in the Educational Setting .....................................25
Table 3: Latinx Immigrant Student Challenges in the Educational Setting ...................................28
Table 4: English Learner Related Terminology Organized by Asset- and Deficit Based
Terminology ...................................................................................................................................30
Table 5: Student Achievement Distance from Median Across Resident Schools .........................45
Table 6: Historical Summary Results for School Connectedness Questions ................................50
Table 7: Select LAAAE Student Demographics from 2014 to 2022 .............................................53
Table 8: Estimated Membership of Select Participating Stakeholders ..........................................55
Table 9: Students Participating in the Survey ................................................................................69
Table 10: Largest Participating Stakeholder Group and Source Data Summary ...........................70
Table 11: Focus Group Themes, Categories, and Corresponding Frequencies .............................71
Table 12: Summary of Simple Regression with School Connectedness as a Predictor ................72
Table 13: Summary of Simple Regression with Knowledge of Campus Resources as a
Predictor .........................................................................................................................................73
Table 14: Summary of Three Simple Subscale Regressions with School Connectedness as a
Predictor .........................................................................................................................................74

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: School Belonging Diagrammatic Representation of the Higher Order Concept, Main
Concepts, and Sub-concepts ..........................................................................................................16
Figure 2: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Model ...................................................40
Figure 3: Ethnicity Distribution in the Communities of Koreatown and Westlake .......................48
Figure 4: Historical Trends for School Connectedness Questions ................................................51
Figure 5: Social Capital Implications in the Scholastic Setting .....................................................96
Figure 6: Family Engagement Matrix ..........................................................................................107

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Research has found that schools that serve predominantly vulnerable populations score
low on the school connectedness measure on the California Healthy Kids Survey and their
students have lower achievement on state standardized assessments (Austin et al., 2013;
California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys, 2023a). The California Healthy Kids
Survey, a component of the California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys
(CalSCHLS), is the largest statewide school climate student survey administered in the United
States (California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys, 2023b). The California
Department of Education (2022d) encouraged schools that serve students in Grades 5 and above
to administer the assessment to provide data metrics which can inform plans for student
achievement. Chiu et al. (2012) found that socioeconomically disadvantaged students are likely
to have socioemotional and academic difficulty, which can worsen if there is no connectedness
in the school. Due to a variety of factors, immigrant students are more likely to be exposed to
both poverty and other cultural barriers, such as a new language, that add to these difficulties for
them to bond with significant adults including their teachers (Sibley & Brabeck, 2017).
California’s English learners’ poverty rates range from 74% to 85%, significantly higher than the
21% rate for California’s school-aged children overall (Hill, 2012).
“School connectedness refers to the belief by students that adults in the school care about
their learning and about them as individuals” (Blum & Libbey, 2004, p. 231). Other interrelated
terms often used to express this sentiment include student engagement, school engagement,
school attachment, school bonding, school climate, and school involvement (Blum, 2005; Blum
& Libbey, 2004; Libbey, 2004; Willms, 2003). Notwithstanding the often-interchangeable
terminology, Allen and Kern (2017) identify connectedness as “consistent themes, including
2

emotional attachment to others, having a place within the school, and a sense of inclusion” (p.
17).
This study seeks to better understand the factors that impede or bolster school
connectedness for Latinx English learners in middle and high school grades and the efforts of a
Los Angeles school in reaching increased school connectedness targets. In this study, the term
Latinx will be used in lieu of Hispanic or Latino, and the term English learner will be used to
refer to students in an academic setting for whom English is not their first language.
Background of the Problem
Love and belonging have long been theorized to be key to human development. In
Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, a commonly studied motivational theory in education,
individuals cannot progress to the esteem and self-actualization levels without first fulfilling
belongingness and love needs. The base level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs pyramid is
physiological needs, followed by safety needs. Maslow (1943), contended that “if both the
physiological and safety needs are well gratified, then there will emerge the love and affection
and belongingness needs” (p. 380). Maslow (1943) remarked that a person will “hunger for
affectionate relations with people in general, namely for a place in his group, and he will strive
with great intensity to achieve this goal” (p. 381).
McMillan’s Sense of Community theory further described a need for inclusion.
“Membership” identifies boundaries that separate those in the group and those not in the group.
Since membership boundaries provide emotional safety, a member’s confidence is enhanced, a
sense of entitlement is created, and loyalty is developed toward the group (McMillan & Chavis,
1986). This explanation conceptually aligns to Glasser’s (1997, 1999) choice theory, wherein
love and belonging needs drive other needs. Similarly, Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) belonging
3

hypothesis highlights that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivator. This need to
belong is innate, such that it drives individuals to seek belongingness and maintain it.
A growing body of research supports both the academic and psychosocial benefits of
school connectedness. Chiu et al. (2016, p. 175) emphasizes that “students’ sense of belonging at
school (SOBAS) is central to both their psychosocial well-being and their academic success.”
Children who feel more connected to school achieve increased educational outcomes (Allen et
al., 2016; Blum & Libbey, 2004; O’Malley & Amarillas, 2011). Allen et al.’s (2016) meta-
analysis highlights that one of the most strongly associated themes “with school belonging was
positive personal characteristics, such as conscientiousness, optimism, and self-esteem” (p. 24).
Students who feel more connected to their schools are also less prone to engaging in risky
behaviors such as drug and substance abuse. They exhibit better school attendance, performance,
and remain longer in school than those who do not (Shochet et al., 2006). School connectedness
can also be used to predict future depression symptoms in adolescents (Shochet et al., 2006).
English learners may have challenges in developing school connectedness because of barriers
such as language proficiency, cultural nuances, poverty, and undocumented status (Abrego,
2006; Sibley & Brabeck, 2017). Other issues affecting California’s English learners are age at
entry, diversity of languages, and geographic distribution (Hill, 2012).
Fostering student connectedness may have long-term benefits. Steiner et al. (2019) found
that adolescent school connectedness may impact multiple future adult events and is associated
with increased likelihood of college graduation. “Specifically, school connectedness in
adolescence had independent protective associations for emotional distress, suicidal ideation,
physical violence victimization and perpetration, multiple sex partners, STI diagnosis,
prescription drug misuse, and other illicit drug use” (Steiner et al., 2019, pp. 6-7). Connectedness
can also facilitate confidence in future orientation. Adolescents who find a meaningful place in
4

their families and schools develop a sense of security which catalyzes exploration of their own
future (Crespo et al., 2013). Student connectedness is closely tied to long-term economic well-
being (Willms, 2003). Thus, student connectedness has a broad range of implications for a
student’s future.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of increasing student connectedness is important to understand for a variety
of reasons. Besides the home, school is the most significant setting in the life of children (Allen
& Kern, 2020). Connectedness and engagement with teachers, parents, non-teaching staff, and
other students at school are therefore essential for the development of youth. This developmental
process can be impeded for vulnerable youth; children who have been raised in poverty are more
likely to start school with low levels of social skills and emotional intelligence (Allen et al.,
2016; Catalano et al., 2004; Wilkinson, 2016). Parents coping with poverty and related stressors
may be emotionally overwhelmed and thus unable to model “the social skills necessary for the
formation of healthy relationships with others” (Wilkinson, 2016, p. 181). In California, the high
school graduation rates for students who are Latinx, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or
English learners are respectively 82.1%, 81.2%, and 69.0%, which are all below the statewide
average of 84.2% (California Department of Education, 2022c). The achievement gap may be
partially explained by students' inability to connect with teachers and other school staff, as these
adults may provide future orientation and academic guidance (Gibson et al., 2004).
Chiu et al. (2012) analyzed responses from over one quarter million immigrant 15-year-
olds across 41 countries and found that a positive attitude toward school does not correlate to an
increased sense of belonging. This suggests that simply liking one’s school does not mean
students feel connected or have a sense of belonging there. Despite most immigrant students
having positive attitudes toward school (Chiu et al., 2012, 2016), poverty and cultural barriers
5

affect secondary school immigrant student engagement (Sibley & Brabeck, 2017). In one study,
researchers found that sense of belonging was highest among domestically born students,
followed by second-generation immigrants. First-generation immigrants reported the lowest
sense of belonging (Chiu et al., 2012). Student adaptation to the school environment is key for
academic and social success. However, in a new school environment, ethnic and linguistic
differences can negatively affect the adaptation level of the immigrant student (Chiu et al., 2012;
Gibson et al., 2004). High school students from minority backgrounds participate and perform
better academically when they feel they are accepted as equal members within the school
community (Gibson et al., 2004). Ethnic minority students may be academically unsuccessful
because of the conditions outside of school (Reyna, 2000). That is, if a student is part of a
disadvantaged group, the cause of underachievement may be external, uncontrollable, and more
difficult to address for school leaders. Latinx high school students who experience discrimination
and other educational barriers have a decreased sense of school connectedness (McWhirter et al.,
2018).
A national longitudinal study from 2002 to 2006 that included over 1,700 Latinx high
school youth found that school connectedness may be more of a protective factor for Latinx
students as compared to students from other race/ethnic groups (Niehaus et al., 2016). They
found
When Latino students perceive stronger student–teacher relationships and find greater
interest and value in their school experiences, they tend to display more positive
academic behaviors in the classroom (e.g., coming to class on time and prepared, paying
attention and staying on task), and in turn, higher levels of behavioral engagement
contribute to increased high school completions rates and postsecondary attendance.
(p.63)
6

Thus, schools that serve low income Latinx English learners should intentionally design
activities that will increase their students’ connection to school, so that these students will have
better academic outcomes.
Organizational Background and Mission
This study took place at Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise, a Los Angeles-
based public charter school that serves students in Grades 6-12. In addition to students, other
school stakeholders participated in the study. Teachers and staff, who by the nature of their
positions, spend a significant amount of time with students, have keen student insights. School
leaders have a broader awareness of school needs and can share schoolwide trends or
observations. Board members also participated to ensure proper governance and resource
allocation to improve student belonging. Feedback from members of multiple stakeholder groups
informed factors that nurture or impede school belonging. Knowing what factors impede or
bolster student connectedness may additionally have collateral benefit and improve the
schoolwide program.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
To fulfill its mission and adequately serve its students, all Los Angeles Academy of Arts
and Enterprise students should feel connected to their school. End-of-year school climate surveys
administered to students from 2012 to 2019 suggest a decline in students’ perception of school
belonging. Reasons that impair belonging need to be identified and activities that increase
belonging need to be nurtured. As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
Research Question 1: How do self-efficacy, knowledge of resources, and school
environment influence school connectedness for Latinx English learners?
Research Question 2: What is the role of the microsystem and mesosystem in influencing
and shaping connectedness of Latinx English learners?
7

Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory provides a framework for analyzing
students’ sense of belonging at school. There are multiple nested environments which influence
people and their development, and each environment is represented by a circle. A person is in the
middle of these ecological environments and is influenced by each of the interconnected levels.
Most influence is experienced at the microsystem, the most proximal environment. The
subsequent (and more distal) environments include mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and
chronosystem. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is the most comprehensive and
widely applied framework available to study belonging, especially in settings like schools (Allen,
Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016; Allen & Bowles, 2012).
Definitions
Administrative services credential: Authorizes the holder to perform an enumerated list
of administrative activities. Additionally, an individual must possess this credential in preschool,
K-12, and adult public-school settings to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of instructional
services, evaluate certificated personnel, and discipline students and certificated personnel.
Accordingly, this is the license customarily required for school leadership positions (State of
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2017).
Charter school: A tuition-free public school that is typically independently operated.
Charter schools generally receive greater flexibility over certain operations in exchange for
higher accountability and performance outcomes. The school is established by a “charter”
contract which describes requisite criteria which varies from state to state. The charter has a
defined term which once near the completion of, necessitates a renewal process (National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools, n.d.; National Charter School Resource Center, n.d.).
8

Mesosystem: One of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems, the mesosystem is a
network of microsystems and comprises the interrelations of two or more settings. Family
engagement in schools exists within the mesosystem (El Zaatari & Maalouf, 2022). This
interaction in the mesosystem well positions schools to facilitate resource opportunities and
referrals for parents and families (Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016).
Microsystem: One of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems, the microsystem is the
most proximal level to an individual and includes the home, school, and employment
environments. The elements of a microsystem’s setting include place, role, activity, and time.
Applied in this study’s context, the place (school where study was conducted) comprises of
people with certain roles (such as students and teachers) who engage in activities (such as
teaching and learning) for a particular period of time (this study’s timeframe).
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: An agency in the Executive
Branch of California State Government which serves as a state standards board for educator
preparation for the public schools, the licensing and credentialing of professional educators, the
enforcement of professional practices, and the discipline of credential holders (State of
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2019).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters organize this study. This first chapter provides the reader with key concepts
and terminology commonly found in a discussion about school connectedness. The background,
problem of practice, and research questions are introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of
current literature surrounding the scope of the study including describing school connectedness,
the benefits of school connectedness, considerations for vulnerable populations, the future of
school connectedness, how to foster school connectedness, and an analysis on Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory and its application in this study. Chapter Three details the school for
9

this study as well as the methodology for participant selection, data collection, and analysis
process. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides a
discussion, additional considerations, and recommendations, based on data and literature, for
improving students’ sense of belonging at school.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This study seeks to examine student school connectedness at a downtown Los Angeles
school serving middle and high school grades. Defining school connectedness will be addressed
in this chapter. Theories on the physiological and psychological needs to connect will be
described, and the benefits of school connectedness and considerations for vulnerable
populations will follow. The subsequent sections will describe the future of school
connectedness and fostering school connectedness. The chapter will close with an exploration on
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and its use as a theoretical framework for this study.
Defining School Connectedness
“School connectedness refers to the belief by students that adults in the school care about
their learning and about them as individuals” (Blum & Libbey, 2004, p. 231). Other frequently
used terms include student engagement, school engagement, school attachment, school bonding,
school climate, and school involvement (Blum, 2005; Blum & Libbey, 2004; Libbey, 2004;
Willms, 2003). The different terms provide for an “overlapping and confusing definitional
spectrum” (Libbey, 2004, p. 274). Willms (2003) defines student engagement as youth viewing
“schooling as essential to long-term wellbeing” and possessing positive relationships with others
in school (p. 8). Allen and Kern (2020) assert that the most cited definition for school
connectedness was proffered by Goodenow and Grady (1993) who define school belonging as
“the extent to which they [students] feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported
by others-especially teachers and other adults in the school environment” (p. 60). Student
engagement is multidimensional and should consider the dichotomy of process versus outcome
(Christenson et al., 2012). In addition to the relational ambiguities with these descriptions, the
terms themselves are at times unclear. For example, Olsen et al. (2017) suggested “[it] is widely
agreed that there is no universally accepted definition” (p. 47) for school climate. Although the
11

school connectedness lexicon is broad and may be influenced by various theoretical frameworks
(Libbey, 2004), for the purposes of this dissertation, it will mean as Willms (2003) succinctly
stated, [students] “feel like they belong at school” (p. 8). In contrast to the sentiment of school
connectedness is the feeling of not belonging. Not belonging can also be described as
disaffected, socially isolated, disengaged, ostracized, and alienated (Allen & Kern, 2020).
Notwithstanding the aforementioned (simpler) terms and definitions, school connectedness can
be complex, and research has generated more comprehensive understandings of the experience.
The Physiological Need to Connect with Others
In 1987, Pedersen and Prange suggested a relationship between the hormone and
neuropeptide oxytocin and maternal behavior. Oxytocin was later recognized to alter behavior,
such as social bonding (Carter et al., 1992). These smaller-mammalian species studies paved the
way for larger-mammalian species investigations, including human research. More recent animal
and human research concludes that the brain oxytocin system, also referred to as the
oxytocinergic system, is paramount in the development of parent-fetus bonding, pair bonding,
and social recognition, a key element for social interaction (Pedersen et al., 2014; Sammut et al.,
2019; Uvnäs-Moberg et al., 2005). Oxytocin produced both by mother and fetus throughout
gestation likely affects the antenatal bonding affective process (Galbally et al., 2011). Thus,
oxytocin biologically primes humans to bond with other humans prior to parturition and
throughout life. Conversely, a decrease of oxytocin may lead a neonate to experience adverse
bonding conditions. In addition to the established role that biology plays in human connection,
there are social science contributions.
The Psychological Need to Connect with Others

12

Psychological explanations for love and belonging surfaced decades before the research
on physiological inferences. In Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, a commonly studied
motivational theory in education, individuals cannot progress to the esteem and self-actualization
levels without first fulfilling belongingness and love needs. The base of Maslow’s pyramid (the
hierarchy’s visual representation) is physiological needs, followed by safety needs. Maslow
(1943) contended that “if both the physiological and safety needs are well gratified, then there
will emerge the love and affection and belongingness needs” (p. 380). A person will “hunger for
affectionate relations with people in general, namely for a place in his group, and he will strive
with great intensity to achieve this goal” (Maslow, 1943, p. 381).
McMillan’s sense of community theory further describes a need for inclusion.
“Membership” identifies boundaries that separate those in the group and those not in the group.
Since membership boundaries provide emotional safety, a member’s confidence is enhanced, a
sense of entitlement is created, and loyalty is developed toward the group (McMillan & Chavis,
1986). McMillan (1996) adds
Each of us needs connections to others so that we have a setting and an audience to
express unique aspects of our personality. We need a setting where we can be ourselves
and see ourselves mirrored in the eyes and responses of others. (pp. 315–316)
Love and belonging may therefore influence other needs.
Initially referred to as control theory in the 1970s, Dr. Glasser renamed his body of work
to “choice theory” in the mid-1990s (Glasser, 1997). Choice theory contends that behavior is
purposeful and not externally stimulated. One can only control one’s behavior (and not that of
another person). Behavior is one’s best attempt at any given time and with whatever information
is available to decide regarding one of five basic needs – survival, love and belonging, power,
freedom, and fun. Survival is biological and the latter four are psychological needs. These
13

overlap some of Maslow’s needs previously discussed. However, unlike Maslow, which
contended one level needed to be accomplished before reaching the next, Glasser’s five basic
needs do not need to be satisfied in sequence. In practice, love and belonging is considered more
important than the other needs because it is the fundamental need for satisfying the other needs.
Glasser (1999) emphasized that the need for belonging drives people to “care for others to the
point of caring for others we do not know” (p. 28). Choice theory explores four types of
relationships: adult-adult partnership, parent-child, teacher-student, and manager-employee.
Glasser challenges educators to utilize choice theory concepts to increase student outcomes by
guiding student misbehavior to more effective behaviors for students to meet their needs.
Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) belongingness hypothesis further unpacks belonging. This
idea states that people have a pervasive need to develop and maintain strong interpersonal
relationships. Two conditions are involved in satisfying this need. The first is a need for frequent
and pleasant interactions with a few others. The second condition is that these interactions must
take place in an environment which considers mutual welfare. Thus, interactions with regularly
changing people are less satisfactory to humans than those that are ongoing with the same
people. Conversely, relatedness without ongoing interaction is also less desirable. Baumeister
and Leary (1995) suggest that “belongingness can be almost as compelling a need as food and
that human culture is significantly conditioned by the pressure to provide belongingness” (p.
498). Multiple belonging hypothesis conclusions are applicable in the school environment.
The first is that people form social relationships spontaneously and without ulterior
motives. This concept parallels Glasser’s choice theory insofar as the need to belong drives
humans to care for people unknown. Belonging hypothesis adds that in addition to the natural
evolution of relationships, people devote energy to fostering supportive relationships. Similarly,
people resist dissolving existing bonds. Such resistance may even be irrational or impractical.
14

Because belongingness influences human thought, people interpret interactions through the lens
of the impact to their relationships. Thus, actual or potential relationships affect thinking.
Moreover, belongingness is linked to both positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions
such as joy, contentment, and calm, are associated with feelings of belongingness. Contrariwise,
negative emotions such as anxiety, loneliness, and depression are associated with limited or lack
of belongingness. Baumeister and Leary (1995) also found a relationship between deprivation of
relationships and increased risk for physical illnesses.
Throughout human growth and development, there is a positive relationship between
ample social bonds and the protective effects against psycho- and physiopathology (Pohl et al.,
2019). This connection is especially critical at school, a primary institution of socialization
which will take the typical student 13 years to complete grades kindergarten through 12. Tertiary
and other schooling endeavors throughout life proportionally add to these 13 years.
Research on School Belonging
Craggs and Kelly (2018) conducted a multinational qualitative meta-synthesis on school
belonging. The eight studies originated from the United Kingdom (3 studies); United States of
America (3 studies); Australia (1 study); and Sweden (1 study). Four main concepts arose from
the synthesis of the studies: (a) school belonging and intersubjectivity (positive interactions
between peers); (b) school belonging and knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of
individual identity; (c) school belonging and experiences of in group membership; and (d) school
belonging and safety/security. Six sub-concepts contributed to the emergence of the four main
concepts. The six sub-concepts are: (a) having friends and being a friend; (b) being able to
express yourself without fear of negative judgment; (c) feeling known as an individual; (d)
school acceptance and understanding of ethnic, cultural, and religious identities; (e) not feeling
under threat of exclusion or isolation; and (f) schools valuing the participation of students in a
15

broad range of activities. These six sub-concepts and four main concepts led to the
conceptualization of school belonging as “feeling safe to be yourself in and through relationships
with others in the school setting.” This “metaphorically represents participants’ interpretations of
aspects of the phenomenon of school belonging” (Craggs & Kelly, 2018, p. 1423). Figure 1
visually represents the interrelationship of each of these concepts.

16

Figure 1
Diagrammatic Representation of the Higher Order Concept, Main Concepts, and Sub-concepts

Note. From “Adolescents’ Experiences of School Belonging: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis” by
H. Craggs and C. Kelly, 2018, Journal of Youth Studies, 21(10), p. 1421.
(https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1477125)
17

Benefits of School Connectedness
“Students’ sense of belonging at school (SOBAS) is central to both their psychosocial
well-being and their academic success” (Chiu et al., 2016, p. 175). Accordingly, children who
feel more connected to school achieve increased educational outcomes (Allen et al., 2016; Blum
& Libbey, 2004; O’Malley & Amarillas, 2011). Allen et al.’s (2016, p. 24) meta-analysis
highlights that one of the most strongly associated themes “with school belonging was positive
personal characteristics, such as conscientiousness, optimism, and self-esteem.” Belongingness is
associated with positive emotions, higher levels of happiness and adjustment. Conversely,
rejection in school can lead to feelings such as fatigue, helplessness, boredom, and depression,
which can undermine a student’s academic performance (Fong Lam et al., 2015). Students who
feel more connected to their schools are also less prone to engaging in risky behaviors such as
drug and substance abuse. They are also less likely to participate in misconduct, disruptive
behavior, bullying, and vandalism (Allen et al., 2016). Connected students exhibit better school
attendance, performance, and remain longer in school than those who do not (Shochet et al.,
2006). Students reporting higher school connectedness also reported more friends at school as
well as friends from different social groups (Centers for Disease Control, 2010).
Fostering student connectedness may have long-term benefits. Teachers and other school
staff can scaffold social capital for future orientation and academic guidance (Gibson et al.,
2004). Students who have more knowledge about institutional resources are better positioned to
benefit from the same. This knowledge can be transferable to other life settings, academic
institutions, and the workforce. Steiner et al. (2019) found that adolescent school connectedness
may impact multiple future adult events and is associated with increased likelihood of college
graduation. School connectedness can also be used to predict future depression symptoms in
adolescents (Shochet et al., 2006). Moreover, adolescent school connectedness was linked to
18

protect against future duress, suicide, physical violence, promiscuity, and recreational drug use.
Crespo et al. (2013) similarly found that adolescents who find a meaningful place in their
families and schools develop a sense of security, which fosters an exploration of their own
future. Long-term economic well-being has also been tied to student connectedness (Willms,
2003). Because of the natural relationship between increased student connectedness and
improved student outcomes, schools should conduct activities to increase student connectedness.
“Promoting social and emotional development in children is ‘the missing piece’ in efforts to
reach the array of goals associated with improving schooling in the United States” (Elias et al.,
1997, p.1). Unfortunately, disadvantaged student populations often struggle to connect with their
school.
School Connectedness Considerations for Vulnerable Populations
A study across 41 countries, including 193,073 15-year-old youth, demonstrated that
children with a lower socioeconomic status report a lower sense of belonging than their
socioeconomically advantaged peers (Chiu et al., 2016). Youth who are socioeconomically
disadvantaged are likely to have socioemotional and academic difficulty which worsen if there is
no connectedness in the school (Chiu et al., 2012). In California, the high school graduation rates
for students who are Latinx, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or English learners are
respectively 82.1%, 81.2%, and 69.0% which are all below the statewide average of 84.2%
(California Department of Education, 2022c). Schools that serve predominantly minority and
socioeconomically disadvantaged populations generally demonstrate a high relationship between
low school connectedness on the California Healthy Kids Survey and lower achievement on state
standardized assessments (Austin et al., 2013). California’s English learners’ poverty rates range
from 74% to 85%, which is more than three to four times the overall poverty rate of 21% for
California’s school-age children (Hill, 2012). Spanish is the language spoken at home by about
19

82% of California’s English learners (California Department of Education, 2022a) and almost all
the English learners enrolled at the subject school.
California Healthy Kids Survey outcomes suggest secondary school students who are
“Not English Proficient” feel less connected than their “English Only” peers. This is also true for
students identified as “Socio Economically Disadvantaged” students or “Latinx” students. A
significant number of “Not English Proficient” students are Latinx as Spanish is the language
spoken at home by about 82% of California’s English learners (California Department of
Education, 2022a). Table 1 reflects the percentage of respondents reporting “Strongly Agree” or
“Agree” on school connectedness measures in the California Healthy Kids 2015-2017 survey.
The data is presented by grade level and by respondent category type. For example, 69% of
“English Only” respondents in seventh grade reported “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” on school
connectedness measures versus 64% of “Not English Proficient” respondents in the same grade.
Because the school in this study serves English learners who are socioeconomically
disadvantaged who are of Latinx origin, those two corresponding student respondent types are
included. As is noted in the table below, across all secondary grade levels, “Not English
Proficient” students feel less connected than their “English Only” peers. This is also true for
students who are “Socio Economically Disadvantaged” and for “Latinx” students when
compared to not “Socio Economically Disadvantaged” and “White” peers. This suggests that
students at the intersectionality of “Not English Proficient,” “Socio Economically
Disadvantaged,” and “Latinx” have a higher likelihood of not feeling connected to their school.
20

Table 1
Select Respondent Categories Reporting “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” on School Connectedness
Measures
Grade
Level
Total
Number
of
Students
Select Respondent Categories Reporting
Strongly Agree or Agree on School Connectedness Measures
English Language
Proficiency
Socio Economically
Disadvantaged
Race
English
Only
Reclassified
English
Proficient
Not
English
Proficient
Not Free /
Reduced-
price Meal
Eligible
Free /
Reduced-
price Meal
Eligible
White Latinx
7
69% 68% 64% 72% 66% 74% 66%
21,849 9,350 3,424 1,771 5,500 6,838 3,222 7,503
9
59% 55% 52% 62% 54% 65% 54%
30,677 10,414 4,599 2,091 6,661 8.804 3,313 10,176
11
57% 53% 49% 59% 51% 63% 51%
27,530 9,030 4,132 1,683 6,055 8,039 3,075 8,789

Note. From 2015-2017 California Healthy Kids Survey by California Department of Education,

The notable outcomes gap among the aforementioned student subgroups may be partially
explained by students’ inability to connect with teachers and other school staff as these adults are
well suited to provide future orientation and academic guidance to children (Gibson et al., 2004).
Undocumented youth are particularly disadvantaged in access to role models and can benefit
from teacher-student relationships (Abrego, 2006). Immigrant students are more likely to be
exposed to poverty, have limited language fluency, and other cultural barriers that add to the
difficulties for them to bond with significant adults such as their teachers (Koball et al., 2021;
Sibley & Brabrek, 2017). This lack of school connectedness may contribute to Latinx students’
21

high dropout rate. The National Center for Education Statistics (2022) reported that the 7.4%
dropout rate for Latinx students aged 16-24 is higher than their White (4.8%), Black (4.2%), and
Asian (2.4%) peers. The dropout rates for students who identify as Salvadoran or Mexican, like
those who attend Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise (LAAAE), is even higher at
13.3% and 9.0% respectively (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
The Role of Immigration
Immigrant, socioeconomically disadvantaged students can have low academic
performance outcomes, because of their diminished sense of belonging, even when they are in
schools yielding high academic outcomes. This discrepancy is significant as it reflects an
alarming national trend of lower academic performance by poor minority students than the
academic performance from their peers. Findings from Gibson et al. (2004) show that the
Achievement gap persists through high school, and by the end of the 12
th
grade, just 20%
of the Mexican-descent students had completed all courses required for admission to the
University of California or California State University compared with 64% of the White
students. (p. 134)
Chiu et al. (2012) analyzed responses from 276,165 15-year-old youth across 41 countries and
found that a positive attitude toward school does not correlate to an increased sense of belonging.
Despite most immigrant students having positive attitudes toward school (Chiu et al., 2012,
2016), poverty and cultural barriers affect secondary school immigrant student engagement
(Sibley & Brabeck, 2017). Sense of belonging is highest among domestically born students,
followed by second-generation immigrants. First-generation immigrants have the lowest sense of
belonging (Chiu et al., 2012).
A sense of belonging may be reflected in self-ethnic labeling. First-generation immigrant
adolescents are more likely than their second-generation peers to identify with their homeland,
22

such as Mexican, than an identity of Latinx, Hispanic, or hyphenated such as Mexican-
American. Conversely, second-generation youth are more apt to use pan-ethnic or American
identities than identities relating to their home country. The latter trend is also true for youth who
immigrated earlier in life. This suggests that the age at which children immigrate plays a larger
role in the terms they use to self-identify themselves, than the number of years lived in the
country (Fuligni et al., 2008). First-generation typically refers to immigrants who arrive as
teenagers or adults, whereas the second-generation refers to those born in the United States to at
least one first-generation parent. The 1.5-generation is an emerging term used to describe
children who immigrate before the age of 14 (Abrego, 2006).
Parent support is a key factor in students developing their school connectedness (Allen &
Kern, 2020). Latinx immigrant parents’ high educational aspirations for their children are
influenced by their own struggles (Langenkamp, 2019). However, parents coping with poverty,
lack of resources, and related stressors may be emotionally overwhelmed and unable to
adequately model behaviors fundamental to developing healthy relationships (Wilkinson, 2016).
Children in immigrant families are more likely to live in poverty than domestically born children
(Koball et al., 2021). Immigrant parents may also be reluctant to accept available services due to
external influences. For example, proposals were made in late 2018 to modify the Public Charge
federal regulation (Bernstein et al., 2020). These revisions expanded the criteria for which
immigrant applications for residency may be denied. These proposals produced a widespread
“chilling effect” nationally. Many immigrant families who were not subject to the revisions,
avoided public benefit programs out of fear for potential problems in future immigration
pursuits.
A survey in December 2019 showed that more than one in seven adults in immigrant
families were avoiding governmental benefit programs, including 13% of respondents who
23

reported avoiding free- or reduced-price school lunches for their children (Bernstein et al., 2020).
Because families with an undocumented person generally avoid authorities (Menjivar & Gomez
Cervantes, 2016), getting post enrollment documents from families, such as the application for
free- or reduced-lunch form, can be a challenge for school officials. Although not as sharp as the
national figures, the Public Charge revision impacted LAAAE’s ability to collect free- or
reduced-lunch forms thereby erroneously reducing its percentage of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. This is because if a student does not have a free- or reduced-price lunch
form on file, nor is enrolled in another governmental benefit program, there is no other
mechanism for a school to otherwise identify a student who meets low income criteria. Table 7
demonstrates this recent decreased socioeconomically disadvantaged trend at the subject school.
Nationwide, immigrant students who would have otherwise benefitted from school-provided
meals, went hungry instead. This trend continued into the pandemic when immigrant parents
declined the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer program, a federal program created in
response to lack of school meals due to school facility closures (Gale, 2021). This is problematic
because previously described theories suggest that to achieve belonging, physiological needs
must first be met.
Communication between home and school may also be a barrier. Many immigrant
parents are typically unable to communicate in the English language (Morrison et al., 2016).
Latinx families can have additional challenges which limit their ability to support their children
in school. Latinx immigrant parents often do not have a strong educational background, nor have
they been schooled in the United States and may thereby lack knowledge of institutional
resources (Delgado-Gaitan, 1994; Gibson et al., 2004; Gonzalez & Padilla, 1997; Hill & Torres,
2010; Langenkamp, 2019; Lareau, 2003). The majority of immigrant Latinx children will exceed
the educational attainments of their parents, which limits, or altogether eliminates, their parents’
24

ability to help them with schoolwork (Gonzales, 2010). Nearly half of Mexican immigrant
children do not have a parent who completed high school (Crosnoe & López Turley, 2011). In El
Salvador, 40% of those aged over 25 have attained a secondary education (Rincón et al., 2005).
Because student educational aspirations are partially constructed from their parents’ educational
attainments (Abrego, 2006), the higher dropout rates for Latinx students detailed in the School
Connectedness Considerations for Vulnerable People section above, may also be partially
explained by their parents’ lower levels of education. Despite the disparities in educational
attainment in some Latin American countries, these can be further exacerbated when families
immigrate to the United States. The limited application of knowledge from their home country
can lead Latinx families to experience a change in social status and feel economic and social
segregation (Lad & Braganza, 2013). Table 2 summarizes challenges for parents to maneuver in
the educational system.

25

Table 2
Latinx Immigrant Parent Challenges in the Educational Setting
Challenge Demonstrated by
Against cultural norms Cultural hands-off approach; teacher is the
expert; school is revered.

Communication constraints Some parents have limited or interrupted
formal education and may not be able to read
in English or their heritage language.

Distrust of school officials Not being made aware of their rights; fearful
that school officials may disclose information
to immigration officials.

Unaware of resources available Lack of community outreach to inform
families of the resources available to them.

Lack of financial opportunity to attend higher
education
Families unable to afford higher education;
“out-of-state” tuition; unable to access
financial aid.

Lack of financial capital Despite often working multiple jobs, many
families live in poverty and struggle with
access to resources.

Lack of social capital Families capitalize on family and cultural
connections but seldomly form relationships
with people beyond their social network.

Note: Adapted from “Increasing Knowledge Related to the Experiences of Undocumented
Immigrants in Public Schools” by K. Lad and D. Braganza, 2013, Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 24(1), 1–15.

Problems with a sense of belonging may be attributed to societal structures. That is, there
are social contradictions that can impose limits for the upward mobility of Latinx youth. While
the United States Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe’s outcome in 1981 guarantees all children,
26

regardless of their immigrant status access to public education, access to other services such as
tertiary education financial aid, remained out of reach for undocumented students (Abrego,
2006). Because of their legal status, undocumented youth are particularly vulnerable to social
contradictions (Gonzales, 2010; Morrison et al., 2016) but undergo similar socializations as their
counterpart peers while in school. Thus, when educational access parity ceases after high school,
motivation may decline as students must confront college attendance and workforce admission
barriers. Undocumented Latinx students may begin feeling this difference within the high school
setting, experience rejection, and sense being “pushed out” of school (Adkins, 2017). Many high
school youth do not disclose their undocumented status to teachers or school officials because of
the associated negative stigma (Murillo, 2017) or fear of deportation (Todd et al., 2020). Other
stressors for undocumented youth can include acculturative stress, loss related to homeland
separation, and struggles with reunification of family (Talleyrand & Vojtech, 2019).
Latinx immigrants can also be impacted by related stereotypes that marginalize them
(Crosnoe & López Turley, 2011). Stereotypes, which convey a sentiment about groups, may be
pervasive. The use of stereotypes for attributions impacts judgments of deservingness and
responsibility. Thus, the cause of poor success for these students may be external and
uncontrollable (Reyna, 2000). Latinx high school students who experience discrimination and
other educational barriers have a decreased sense of school connectedness (McWhirter et al.,
2018). According to Chiu et al. (2012), adaptation of the immigrant student in the school
environment is key to academic and social success. However, coping with the new school
environment, ethnic and linguistic differences can negatively affect the adaptation level of the
student. This was also noted by Gibson et al. (2004) for immigrant students at Hillside High
School (HHS) in California. The findings from their research demonstrated that a feeling of not
being valued and belonging permeated many aspects of the Mexican American students at HHS.
27

This included whether (or not) to ask for assistance when needed or be active in class, whether to
participate in school activities, as well as whether to remain at HHS, drop out, or get a transfer
(Gibson et al., 2004). Minority high school students participate and perform better academically
when they are accepted as equal members within the school community (Gibson et al., 2004).
A national longitudinal survey from 2002 to 2006 that included over 1,700 Latinx youth,
found that school connectedness may be more of a protective factor for Latinx students when
compared to students from other race/ethnic groups (Niehaus et al., 2016). Specifically,
When Latino students perceive stronger student–teacher relationships and find greater
interest and value in their school experiences, they tend to display more positive
academic behaviors in the classroom (e.g., coming to class on time and prepared, paying
attention and staying on task), and in turn, higher levels of behavioral engagement
contribute to increased high school completions rates and postsecondary attendance. (p.
63)
Therefore, schools that serve socioeconomically vulnerable Latinx English learners, should seek
mechanisms to increase their students’ connectedness which will in turn improve their outcomes.
School connectedness segues into multiple future benefits. Table 3 summarizes challenges for
immigrant students to maneuver in the educational system.

28

Table 3
Latinx Immigrant Student Challenges in the Educational Setting
Challenge Demonstrated by
Language barrier Unable to communicate with other students or
adults at school; having academic skills
underestimated.

Missing records Missing birth certificate, report cards and other
information helpful for enrollment and
assessing learning needs.

Difficulty forming relationships Unable to trust or open up to peers or adults at
school for fear of being reported.

Detachment Deportation fears; focusing on earning money
rather than going to school since not able to
pursue higher education.

Lack of Advocate Students often advocate for siblings but do not
have someone advocating for them; parents
work long hours and unable to participate in
school activities.

Note: Adapted from “Increasing Knowledge Related to the Experiences of Undocumented
Immigrants in Public Schools” by K. Lad and D. Braganza, 2013, Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 24(1), 1–15.

The Term Latinx
The term Latinx is emerging in the literature as a more inclusive alternative to the terms
Latino or Latina (The Education Trust-West, 2017). Unlike the English language, the Spanish
language has a grammatical gender (Denbaum & de Prada Pérez, 2021). Masculine and feminine
nouns typically end with an “o” and “a” respectively. Latinx proponents argue that the “x”
allows the identifying term to be gender neutral. Other inclusive variations for the Latino or
29

Latina terms include Latiné, Latinu, Latina/o, Latin@, Latin, Latin American, and Latin*
(Salinas, 2020). Opponents to Latinx contend that the term is linguistically imperialistic and
imposes American values onto the language (The Education Trust-West, 2017). The term's
contentiousness is multifaceted. The Royal Academy in Spain, a Spanish language gatekeeper,
referred to the use of “x” as a replacement for “o” or “a” as “alien to the morphology of Spanish”
(Real Academia Española, 2020, p. 74). Government officials in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and
Peru have passed bans on gender neutral language (Lankes, 2022). Domestically, the state of
Arkansas passed a ban on the use of Latinx in government documents. Other states, such as
Connecticut, are considering similar legislation (Eaton-Robb, 2023).
Research also indicates that the term Latinx is not commonly used among those from
within the Latin American diaspora. In the United States, although 23% of adults who self-
identify as Latino or Hispanic were familiar with the term Latinx, only 3% used the term to
describe themselves (Noe-Bustamante et al., 2020). Hispanics with college experience and those
born in the United States are more likely to be familiar with the Latinx term than those without
college experience and those born abroad (Noe-Bustamante et al., 2020). Moreover, it is a term
that is increasing visibility in higher education (Salinas, 2020). Accordingly, despite the
increasingly associated debate, this study will utilize the term Latinx.
The Term English Learner
The term English learner, to identify students in an academic setting for whom English is
not their first language, can be unclear. Some scholars are also troubled by the term’s deficit
implications. Webster and Lu (2012) found that the literature on English learners included 14
related identifiers with unique literature specific results. Their findings indicated the more
commonly related terms included culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD); English as a
second language (ESL) student; English language learner (ELL); English learner (EL); Language
30

minority student; limited English proficient (LEP); and second language learners. These similar
terms have also evolved from deficit- to asset-based expressions (Martinez, 2018; Puget Sound
Educational Service District, 2021; Webster & Lu, 2012). Table 4 organizes some of the related
nomenclature.

Table 4
English Learner Related Terminology Organized by Asset- and Deficit-Based Terminology
Asset-Based Terminology Deficit-Based Terminology
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Student
Emergent Bilingual (EB)
Emergent Multilingual (EM)
English as Additional Language (EAL) Student
Learner of English as an Additional Language
(LEAL)
Language Learner (LL)
Multilingual (ML)
English as a Second Language
(ESL) Student
English Language Learner (ELL)
English Learner (EL)
English Minority Student
Language Minority Student (LMS)
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Non-English Proficient (NEP)

Note. Developed from “Beyond the English Learner Label: Recognizing the Richness of
Bi/Multilingual Students’ Linguistic Repertoires” by R. A. Martinez, 2018, The Reading
Teacher, 71(5), 515-522. (doi:10.1002/trtr.1679); “Labels or Limitations? Recommendations for
Asset-based Language for Multilingual Learners” by Puget Sound Educational Service District,
2022; and “English Language Learners”: An Analysis of Perplexing ESL-Related Terminology
by N. L. Webster & C. Lu, 2012, Language and Literacy, 14(3), 83–94.

31

Martinez (2018) describes the shift in the past two decades from the term LEP to ELL or
EL and noted (p. 515) that the EL label emphasizes what “students supposedly do not know
instead of highlighting what they do know.” Although it can be considered deficit-based, the
term EL is widely understood throughout K-12 education and academia (Webster & Lu, 2012)
and is the term used in the federal education law Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Other
naming conventions consideration included reference to L2 or nativity.
In language development, L1 and L2 respectively refer to the first and second language a
person learns (Naghdipour, 2015). World language learning is common in high schools.
California Education Code encourages world language learning as a curricular component for
students (Gao et al., 2017). Accordingly, California high schools have adopted world language
credit requirements for their students to graduate. Because there may be L2 learners who are not
and have not been ELs, the use of the term L2 may erroneously include students who may not be
an English learner. For example, a student whose first language is English and then later learns
Spanish. While this student may be an L2 learner, the student is not an EL. This rationale
similarly applies to the use of the terms bilingual or multilingual. These asset-based terms have
historically been used for language-majority students in bilingual education settings which were
largely banned in California by Proposition 227 from 1998 until its repeal in 2016 by Proposition
58 (Serafini et al., 2022).
Alternative to L2 nomenclature, some of the literature reviewed for this dissertation
referenced nativity. Chiu et al. (2012) dichotomized language students between native
(domestically born) and immigrant. Niehaus et al. (2016) characterized language learners as
native and non-native. Similarly, Sibley and Brabeck (2017) referenced native-born students.
While nativity may be a globally neutral term, it is not among the better-known terms previously
identified.
32

Learning a new language with similar cognates of a previously known language can
facilitate new language development. “Because of their shared form with L1 items, cognates,
during L2 acquisition, could be a learner’s first foothold into the new lexicon” (Midgley et al.,
2011, p. 1634). Since cognates provide a rich source for Spanish speakers to learn the English
language (Lubliner & Hiebert, 2011), Spanish speakers may learn English easier than languages
with different orthographies or directionality such as Arabic or Hebrew, which read right to left,
or Chinese or Japanese, which read right to left in vertical columns (Gupta, 2012). L2 literacy is
facilitated when the novel language is similar to L1 (Naghdipour, 2015). To avoid potential
confusion to the reader or limit the applicability of the findings of this research, the term EL is
used in this study.
English learners, as a fluid label, has been difficult to monitor as a past designation.
Approximately 19% of California’s public-school students are ELs (California Department of
Education, 2022b). This does not include another 16.3% (or nearly one million) students
statewide who were reclassified English proficient but remain within the Ever-EL designation
(California Department of Education, 2022b). The (federal) Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)
encourages states to further monitor ELs who have reclassified as English proficient. This Ever-
EL term is intended to capture a larger group of students that has otherwise been difficult to
track. This is because English learners who improve their English proficiency become eligible
for reclassification from English learner to English proficient. The less successful students
remain in the English learner category, to which new English learners are added as they enroll.
The newer federally defined term “Ever-English learner” encompasses students who are or were
ever classified as an English learner. This study draws from the revised definition and includes
students who reclassified as English proficient yet remain in ever-English learner status.
33

The Future of School Connectedness
Higher levels of school connectedness “demonstrate stronger correlations with the
indicators of emotional intelligence (Ali et al., 2016, p. 962).” TalentSmart found that emotional
intelligence is the strongest predictor of workplace performance, among 33 other skills tested,
and explains nearly 60% of success in all job types (Bradberry, 2020). They also reported that
employees who have higher emotional intelligence make an average of $29,000 more annually
than those with a lower emotional intelligence. These findings were consistent throughout all
global industries (Bradberry, 2020).
A student’s ability to connect with his or her school may translate into an ability to
connect with a future employer. Thus, developing these skills in students may increase current
and potential future outcomes. According to the World Economic Forum (2016), social skills,
such as emotional intelligence will be a job skill in higher demand across industries by 2020.
This has been a continuing trend for several decades. Excerpted below is the table Elias et al.
(1997, p. 7) provided titled “Figure 1.3. What Employers Want for Teens: 1980s U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration Research Project.” Many of the
desired skills, such as group effectiveness, are aided by the ability to connect with others.
1. Learning-to-learn skills
2. Listening and oral communication
3. Adaptability: creative thinking and problem solving, especially in response to
barriers/obstacles
4. Personal management: self-esteem, goal-setting/self-motivation, personal career
development/goals—pride in work accomplished
5. Group effectiveness: interpersonal skills, negotiation, teamwork
6. Organizational effectiveness and leadership: making a contribution
34

7. Competence in reading, writing, and computation
The report notes that the seventh skill, while essential, is no longer sufficient for workplace
competence.
Many of the desirable employment skills from the 1980s are similar to social skills such
as connecting with others. Moreover, these social skills parallel emotional quotient (EQ) skills
that can be measured and developed over time. Bradberry and Greaves (2009) share that EQ is
“the single biggest predictor of performance in the workplaces and the strongest driver of
leadership and personal excellence” (p. 21). Employees also want to feel connected at their
workplace. Seventy-one percent of the millennial workforce, which represents 20 million people,
report that they want their coworkers to be a ‘second family’ (Giang, 2013). Recent evidence
suggests that a sense of belonging in the workplace bolsters the employee experience and
organizational health (Strayhorn, 2022). This is particularly relevant since 25% of employees
report that they don’t feel a sense of belonging at work (Robichaux, 2021). Thus, there are
compelling reasons to foster school connectedness in schools.
Fostering School Connectedness
Multiple methods have been shown to foster school connectedness. Some nations such as
Portugal, have established mental health education programs that incorporate activities which
advance social and personal skills (Cristóvão et al., 2017). The aim is to promote the mental
health of students who feel secluded and enhance their comfort at school. Such schools have
psychological counselors who offer students unconditional positive regard and help them to
accept themselves and the school environment so that they can be part of the student community.
These programs promote the psychological health of the student and thus enable academic
achievement. The Centers for Disease Control (2010) also highlights the need for adult support.
Adolescent beliefs about themselves are influenced to the extent they believe the adults they
35

interact with care about them. As a result, students who feel supported by the adults around them
will feel more encouraged to be engaged in school.
Improving the quality of classroom interactions is another method that has been used to
enhance the connectedness and inclusivity of students. While this may seem intuitive and logical,
it can be difficult to achieve. Despite teachers’ best intentions, pressure from school leaders,
parents, and state assessments coupled with larger class sizes and less instructional resources,
can make it challenging for teachers to develop meaningful relationships with students (Allen &
Kern, 2020). Training teachers to ensure they include all students regardless of differences,
fosters student engagement (McCormick et al., 2015). When students are respected and treated
fairly by their teachers, it becomes easier for students to feel connected. The teacher also
promotes similar expectations of acceptance and respect among the students. Teachers can also
consult with parents of children who are having difficulty at school so that they can provide more
details to foster the promotion of a sense of belonging in the child. Even if they are not
academically strong, students want their teachers to care for them (Allen & Kern, 2020).
The Centers for Disease Control (2010) identifies four factors closely related to school
connectedness: adult support, belonging to a positive peer group, commitment to education, and
school environment (mesosystem). Because the psychosocial environment is largely driven by
teachers, the Centers for Disease Control (2010) recommends the use of classroom strategies to
enhance students feeling connected at school. Building a responsive and empowering classroom
atmosphere develops a safe and caring community (Elias et al., 1997). Encouraging students to
become active partners in the classroom enables them to thrive.
Meta-analysis on school belonging in 51 quantitative studies (N = 67,378) identified 10
related factors for adolescents (Allen & Kern, 2017; Allen et al., 2016). These educational setting
influences, informed by studies conducted in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand,
36

include academic motivation, emotional stability, personal characteristics, parent support, peer
support, teacher support, gender, race/ethnicity, extracurricular activities, and
environmental/school safety. The most studied theme was academic motivation, while the least
studied was extracurricular activity. Of these themes, teacher support had the greatest effect on
school belonging, followed by peer support, and then personal characteristics. Developing school
structures that provide opportunities for adults to develop positive relationships is recommended
for increasing school belonging (Allen & Kern, 2017).
To satisfy the yearning for wholeness or belonging, school activities should be promoted
to reach diverse student interests and increase school connectedness. Gibson et al. (2004)
described increased immigrant student outcomes associated with HHS students who were
involved in sports and clubs. Instructional and other activities classroom teachers and schools do
to increase school connectedness supports social emotional learning. When fostering student
belonging, there are factors that influence a student’s connectedness.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory describes the different levels of
ecology in which individuals interact. The model shows each person positioned in the center of
concentric circles. Each circle represents each of the interconnected layers of ecology.
Bronfenbrenner likens the ecological environment to a set of Russian dolls which can be
successively stacked. The five nested environmental systems influence children and their
development. The most proximal environment to a person is the microsystem, followed by
mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
A child’s immediate environment, such as the home and school, are at the microsystem
level. The elements of a microsystem’s setting include place, role, activity, and time. Applied in
this study’s context, the place (school where study occurred) comprises of people with certain
37

roles (such as students and teachers) who engage in activities (such as teaching and learning) for
a particular period of time (the study’s timeframe). The interactions among people in their
immediate environment are central to influencing the development of children in school (Tseng
& Seidman, 2007). School climate factors within the school microsystem include teacher-student
relationships, school safety, extracurricular activities, and parental involvement (El Zaatari &
Maalouf, 2022). Interpersonal discrimination is experienced, and acculturation / ethnic identity is
influenced at the microsystem level (Baldwin-White et al., 2017).
Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasized that research can only be valid if conducted within
real-life situations, which include all the elements of a setting. At this level, a dyad, or two-
person system, is one of the most basic units of analysis. Dyadic relationships are key
components of the microsystem because they help people develop broader interpersonal
relationships including triads and tetrads (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979; El Zaatari & Maalouf,
2022). This parallels typical real-life settings, where there are often more than two people who
are also acting in more than two roles. Dyadic data analysis suggests dynamic developmental
processes. That is, if one person undergoes a development process, the other will too. The
ecological model, which is inclusive of multiple settings, enables the analysis of these concurrent
influences.
The mesosystem is a network of microsystems. It comprises the interrelations of two or
more settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The mesosystem includes a school’s mission, vision,
policies, pedagogy, processes, and practices (Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016). Parent and
school relationships exist within the mesosystem (El Zaatari & Maalouf, 2022). For a child, the
mesosystem may manifest as the interactions among family, school, peer group, and television
(Bronfenbrenner, 1976).
38

The exosystem is the next level and includes higher-order effects from more distal
regions. While this level includes settings that affect the child, it does not include the child as an
active participant (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). As an example, a child is affected but unable to
actively participate in a situation, such as a parent’s employment requiring long hours and
thereby extended absence from home. Similarly, a child has little control over community
economic conditions. Exosystem community structures include both the deliberately structured
and spontaneously evolving. A child’s exosystem may include extended family (presuming they
do not live within immediate proximity to the child), parents’ place of employment, another
school attended by a sibling, and local school board policies. Like the mesosystem, schools are
well positioned to facilitate opportunities to bring groups together in the exosystem (Allen,
Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016). That is, a school can engage with community partners to
provide mental health support, family therapy, gang intervention, and a range of other
wraparound services to its students and families.
In the framework, the macrosystem is more remote from the child. The macrosystem
includes the interconnected microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem. The macrosystem
demonstrates ideological patterns and social organizations for a culture or subculture
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Macrosystems carry information and ideology both implicitly and
explicitly (Bronfenbrenner, 1976). Bronfenbrenner highlights that these patterns do not have to
exist. This approach enables blueprints that are contemporaneously responsive and aspirational.
At this level, public policy affects the exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystems in which
schools and children operate (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Proponents contend that sense of
belonging at school has not received comparable scrutiny as academic achievement (Allen et al.,
2016; Allen & Bowles, 2012). There is a theory to practice gap disparity in the awareness of the
benefits of school belonging and it’s intentional programming at schools (Allen & Bowles,
39

2012). Potentially influencing sense of belonging, the macrosystem includes social norms (El
Zaatari & Maalouf, 2022) and structural discrimination (Baldwin-White et al., 2017).
Government-driven accountability influences scholastic practices and initiatives. For example, at
the federal level, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) requires schools nationwide to comply
with practices for English learners. The California Department of Education has similar policies.
The chronosystem refers to the timeline in which the other systems occur. An infant is
only aware of its immediate surroundings (microsystem). As the infant develops, the child
identifies an awareness of the mesosystem and other ecological levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Time provides for ecological transitions. A person experiences an ecological transition whenever
there is a change in role, setting, or both. Examples of ecological transitions include starting
school, promoting grade levels, summer school programs, after school programs, graduation, and
dropout. Since most transitions include more than one setting, related processes impact other
systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1976). That is, when a child starts school, family activities
subsequently revolve around the school’s hours and calendar. For an immigrant, ecological
transitions may also include struggles and obstacles in the immigration pursuit and subsequent
acculturation processes. Acculturation and ethnic identity experiences are developed in the
chronosystem (Baldwin-White et al., 2017).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is the most comprehensive and widely
applied framework available to study belonging, especially in settings like schools (Allen, Vella-
Brodrick, & Waters, 2016; Allen & Bowles, 2012). It is suggested this may be because the
theory demonstrates the varied levels and systems within which schools must operate, whereas
other frameworks omit this larger ecology (Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016). Similarly,
children do not develop in a vacuum, but instead are shaped by their interaction with their
ecological environment. This enables the consideration of multiple factors that can influence a
40

child’s development, rather than isolating a single variable. The theory also posits the dynamic
and reciprocal nature between children and their environment. Implying that environmental
influences are constant, the theory enables complex iterative considerations. Bronfenbrenner’s
framework was used to orient and contextualize the study. Figure 2, adapted from Allen, Vella-
Brodrick, & Waters’ (2016) socio-ecological framework of school belonging, represents
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory in the scholastic setting.

Figure 2
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Model

41

Note. Adapted from “Fostering School Belonging in Secondary Schools Using a Socio-
Ecological Framework” by K. A. Allen, D. Vella-Brodrick, & L. Waters, 2016, The Australian
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 33(1), 97–121.

Conclusion
School connectedness is an important consideration in schools. While there is a
constellation of related terms to describe school connectedness, the definitions often overlap. For
the purposes of this dissertation, it will mean as Willms (2003) succinctly stated, [students] “feel
like they belong at school” (p. 8). Love and belonging have long been theorized as inextricable
elements to human development. Oxytocin biologically primes humans to bond with other
humans prior to parturition and throughout life (Galbally et al., 2011; Pedersen et al., 2014;
Sammut et al., 2019; Uvnäs-Moberg et al., 2005). Several theories additionally explain
psychological needs to connect. Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) belongingness hypothesis
suggest in part that “belongingness can be almost as compelling a need as food and that human
culture is significantly conditioned by the pressure to provide belongingness (p. 498).” Children
who feel more connected to school achieve increased educational outcomes (Allen et al, 2016;
Blum & Libbey, 2004; O’Malley & Amarillas, 2011). Beyond the short-term, student
connectedness has long-term benefits. Unfortunately, data suggests that Latinx,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English learners experience a lower sense of belonging at
school. Because of the natural relationship between increased student connectedness and
increased student outcomes, schools should intentionally conduct activities to increase student
connectedness. There are multiple methods to foster school belonging. These include
establishing a mental health program and improving the quality of classroom interactions.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is used as the theoretical framework for the study as
42

it is the most comprehensive and widely applied framework available to study belonging,
especially in settings like schools (Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016; Allen & Bowles,
2012). This theory demonstrates the varied levels and systems within which schools must operate
and enables the consideration of multiple factors that can influence a child’s development (Allen,
Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016). Similarly, children are shaped by their interaction with their
ecological environment. Bronfenbrenner’s framework enables the consideration of multiple
factors that can influence a child’s development.

43

Chapter Three: Methods
This study was conducted to better understand the factors that impede or bolster school
connectedness for middle and high school level English learners. Data were collected to better
understand these factors. The three approaches to collecting data are qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods which combine the former two (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Johnson &
Christensen, 2014). Qualitative research methods tend to be open-ended and explore meaning,
whereas quantitative research methods tend to be close-ended and limited (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Clark and Estes (2008) identify surveys and focus groups
as the “the best ways to identify beliefs and perceptions” (p. 43). Their joint use integrates both
qualitative and quantitative data, is referred to as mixed methods, and enables triangulation
which increase a study’s validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). A convergent mixed method is one in which both qualitative and quantitative data
are collected and interpreted within a near timeframe (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A survey
and focus group were employed to collect data for this study and are identified by Johnson and
Christensen (2014) as among the most common methods used by educational researchers.
This chapter of the dissertation provides information on the subject school and presents
the research design, methods for sampling, data collection, and analysis. The chapter will close
with discussions on credibility and trustworthiness, validity and reliability, and ethics. The
research questions guiding this study are:
Research Question 1: How do self-efficacy, knowledge of resources, and school
environment influence school connectedness for Latinx English learners?
Research Question 2: What is the role of the microsystem and mesosystem in influencing
and shaping connectedness of Latinx English learners?
44

Organizational Background and Context
Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise (LAAAE) serves approximately 300
students in Grades 6 through 12. Founded on the principle that all students, regardless of
socioeconomic status, should have access to a college preparatory curriculum including access to
business and visual and performing arts programming, LAAAE students can take an array of
coursework in dance, film, music, radio, theater, visual arts, business, entrepreneurship, and
marketing (Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise, 2022). Beyond academics, LAAAE’s
educational program encompasses a holistic approach with multi-tiered systems of support.
These systems of support include positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), multiple
opportunities to demonstrate mastery, and a targeted tutoring program. The student services team
collaborates with community-based organizations which provide onsite and offsite individual
and group therapy, family therapy, gang prevention, and gang intervention. Partnerships also
provide comprehensive after school and extended break programming and services. Students are
provided breakfast, lunch, after-school snack, and supper (for students who stay after school).
Students are also provided with transportation and may select from a public transit pass or
participate in the school-operated transportation services.
As part of LAAAE’s charter renewal every 5 years, an analysis must be performed of
how the school compares to the resident schools the students would have otherwise been
required to attend. Described in its most recent renewal (January 2020), LAAAE has historically
served a higher percentage of English learners, including newcomers (or immigrants with less
than 3 years of entry into the United States), and socioeconomically disadvantaged students, than
most resident schools. Also described in the renewal is academic performance. LAAAE’s
cumulative academic performance from 2016 to 2019 is 30.42% above the median performance
across resident middle and high schools for English language arts and 6.34% above the median
45

for mathematics (LAAAE, 2020). Since this is a cumulative calculation, figures in some years
were negative, but their collective total demonstrated positive growth. Table 5 provides these
analyses disaggregated by middle and high school grade configurations.

Table 5
Student Achievement Distance from Median Across Resident Schools
Distance from Median
English
language arts
Mathematics
2019 High School Performance 16.80% -1.68%
2019 Middle School Performance -6.93% -3.24%
2018 High School Performance -2.06% 10.14%
2018 Middle School Performance -0.06% 4.83%
2017 High School Performance 13.20% -8.37%
2017 Middle School Performance -2.14% -4.86%
2016 High School Performance 11.00% 11.50%
2016 Middle School Performance 0.60% -2.00%
Charter Term Median Performance 30.42% 6.34%

Note. From Charter Petition Renewal by Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise, 2020.

46

LAAAE qualified for California Charter Schools Association’s (CCSA) public advocacy
support for renewal within its accountability framework, which is based on publicly available
academic indicators. LAAAE met the criteria for CCSA renewal support with both
accountability frameworks - the 2020 version starting in 2019, and the previous version which
covered charter term years 2016–2018. Moreover, because of LAAAE’s academic outcomes,
LAAAE has not been identified for Differentiated Assistance under California Accountability,
nor for either Comprehensive Support and Improvement or Additional Targeted Support and
Improvement under Federal Accountability (ESSA). LAAAE has been repeatedly recognized
(2015-2019, 2021-2022) by the California PBIS Coalition for demonstrating systems of tiered
interventions for struggling learners. In 2019, LAAAE was the first California charter school to
earn Platinum recognition in the award’s history. In 2020, LAAAE was recognized with the
COVID Cares award by the California PBIS Coalition for its efforts in supporting students
during the pandemic. Despite state recognition for serving struggling learners, many students are
not academically engaging at expected levels and academic performance levels are not at desired
targets.
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) authorized LAAAE to open in 2005.
LAAAE’s charter has been renewed by LAUSD on multiple occasions, most recently in 2020.
Upon initial authorization in 2005, the school only serviced sixth grade. Adding one grade each
subsequent year, LAAAE graduated its first senior class in June 2012. LAAAE has now
graduated 11 senior classes. The number of cohort graduates for these classes ranged from 11
students (2012) to 44 students (2019). Cohort graduation rates ranged from 39.3% (2012) to 80%
(2017). Several factors, including the small senior class size and students enrolling in later high
school years, contribute to the wide fluctuations in the percentage of students graduating within 4
years. Graduation rate variations are impacted by students who are new to the country and thus
47

require more time to learn English, or who transfer into the school after starting their high school
program at another school. Notwithstanding these variations, internal data demonstrates that
most students who do not graduate on time with their scheduled cohort do subsequently meet
requisite criteria and are able to graduate within two additional years.
LAAAE has operated at four different locations. Moving in June 2022 to its current
facility, which is collocated with an LAUSD high school, it was previously collocated with a
different LAUSD high school from 2016 to 2022, and at a remodeled office facility from 2006 to
2016. It operated 1 year at its first location which was prior to occupation, a former private
school facility.
The Community Which LAAAE Serves
The United States Census Bureau (n.d.) estimates that the County of Los Angeles and the
City of Los Angeles are inhabited by about 10 million and four million people respectively. This
makes the Los Angeles metro area the most populous in California and the second most
populous in the United States (United States Census Bureau, n.d.). LAAAE students primarily
reside in two adjoining Los Angeles communities – Koreatown and Westlake.
Koreatown is 2.7 square miles in size, while Westlake is 2.72 square miles (Los Angeles
Times, n.d.). With a respective population per square mile at 42,611 and 38,214, Koreatown and
Westlake respectively rank the highest and second highest in population density in the entire
county (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). At $26,757 and $30,558, Westlake and Koreatown rank six
and 14 respectively in lowest median income out of 265 neighborhoods that generated data (Los
Angeles Times, n.d.). Additional data provides further context to these communities.
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (2019) reported that there was an approximate
homeless population of 1,869 in Westlake and another 587 in Koreatown. About 40% of adults
have less than a high school diploma in Koreatown (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). In Westlake, that
48

number is about 59%. For the May 2019 to November 2019 reporting period, Westlake ranked
23 (out of 209) in violent crimes; Koreatown ranked 52 (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). Both
neighborhoods are also recognized as the birthplace and remain an active location for Mara
Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13), “one of the world’s largest and arguably most violent street gangs”
(InSight Crime, 2018, p. 3). For both communities, approximately 68% of residents are foreign
born. In Koreatown, Korea (28.6%) and Mexico (23.9%) are the most common foreign places of
birth. In Westlake, Mexico (36.8%) and El Salvador (17.2%) are the most common foreign
places of birth (Los Angeles Times, n.d.). Ethnicities for both communities are detailed in Figure
3.

Figure 3
Ethnicity Distribution in the Communities of Koreatown and Westlake

Note. Developed from “Mapping L.A.” by The Los Angeles Times, n.d.
(https://maps.latimes.com/about/)
49

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Westlake became a “high-risk area.” On July 15, 2020,
the City of Los Angeles posted signs throughout the neighborhood warning residents to take
pandemic precautions (Martin, 2020). A contributing factor was concerns regarding proposals to
modify the Public Charge federal regulation and its implications for future immigration pursuits.
Immigrant communities avoided COVID-19 testing and treatment (Bernstein et al., 2020; Gale,
2021). This avoidance may in part explain why Latinx low-income communities experienced a
higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality than the overall population (Gale, 2021).
Organizational Need
To fulfill its mission and adequately serve its students, all LAAAE students should feel
connected to their school. Reasons that impair belonging need to be identified and activities that
increase belonging need to be nurtured. A School Climate Survey has been administered at the
end of each school year since 2012. The first version of the school climate instrument was
adopted by the LAAAE Board of Directors on December 12, 2011. (There is no record available
of potential previously administered schoolwide school climate surveys.) The survey adoption
was intended to measure multiple student self-reported metrics over time.
Two questions on the annual climate survey directly relate to student connectedness.
Available response options for students were organized in a Likert scale ranging from “Strongly
Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” When this study was conceived in 2019, data from that year’s
School Climate Survey administration continued a trend contrary to the desired outcome. From
its peak in the percent of students selecting “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” in the 2015
administration, survey data since suggests less students feeling connected to the school. The
corresponding questions and summary results for the end of school year survey administrations
from 2012 to 2019 are noted in Table 6 and Figure 4. (In Table 6 and Figure 4, “Agree” includes
50

“Strongly Agree” data and “Disagree” includes “Strongly Disagree” data.) Data in Table 6
contribute to the historical context for understanding this study’s research questions.

Table 6
Historical Summary Results for School Connectedness Questions
Survey
Question
Options 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
1. Most
students feel a
sense of
belonging in
classrooms
and in the
school.
Agree 45.8% 54.6% 49.2% 55.2% 50.2% 40.1% 40.9% 41.1%
Neutral 44.6% 36.0% 42.3% 36.0% 41.4% 47.7% 41.9% 48.0%
Disagree 9.6% 9.4% 8.5% 8.9% 8.5% 12.2% 17.2% 10.9%
2. Most
students feel
cared by other
students,
teachers, and
adults in the
school.
Agree 52.0% 54.0% 52.7% 59.2% 53.5% 44.3% 40.9% 37.9%
Neutral 33.3% 31.6% 32.2% 28.8% 29.6% 36.6% 36.4% 42.3%
Disagree 14.7% 14.4% 14.7% 12.0% 16.9% 19.2% 22.7% 19.8%

Note. From School Climate Survey, Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise, 2012 - 2019.

51

Figure 4
Historical Trends for School Connectedness Questions

52

Increasing student belongingness can yield better school performance. Children who feel
more connected to school achieve increased educational outcomes (Allen et al., 2016; Blum &
Libbey, 2004; O’Malley & Amarillas, 2011). They are also less likely to participate in risky
behaviors (Shochet et al., 2006) and have better future adult life outcomes (Crespo et al., 2013;
Steiner et al., 2019; Willms, 2003). Thus, addressing student connectedness can yield both short
term and long-term benefits. To better understand how to improve student connectedness for its
students, on October 15, 2020, the board of directors resolved to collaborate and share
information necessary to conduct this study.
Participants
Participants for this study included students, teachers and staff, school leaders, board
members, and a consultant. Students were able to participate through the administration of the
annual school climate survey. Other interested stakeholders were able to participate through a
focus group conducted at a regularly scheduled board meeting.
In school year 2018–2019, 99% of the students were minorities with 96.5% of students
identifying as Latinx. Over 88% of students were ELs or were previously classified as English
learners. Over 98% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price meals, a common indicator
of poverty (California Department of Education, 2020). Although Latinx people account for
about 54% of Koreatown’s and 74% of Westlake’s population (Los Angeles Times, n.d.), they
have been overrepresented at LAAAE, with at least 95% of the historical student enrollment,
identifying as Latinx. Consistent with Westlake’s and Koreatown’s most common foreign places
of birth, most students at the school identify with the Salvadoran and Mexican heritages.
Additional details on LAAAE’s student population for the school years 2015 to 2021 are
provided in Table 7.
53

Table 7
Select LAAAE Student Demographics from 2014 to 2022

English
Learners
Reclassified
ELs
Ever-ELs
(EL +
Reclassified)
Socio-
Economically
Disadvantaged
Non-White
Students
Students with
Disabilities
Enrollment
2021-22 39.5% 47.0% 86.5% 91.2% 100% 10.8% 296
2020-21 42.9% 48.7% 91.6% 94.9% 100% 12.0% 275
2019-20 42.6% 48.8% 91.4% 91.1% 100% 6.2% 291
2018-19 37.3% 51.6% 88.9% 98.3% 99.3% 8.4% 287
2017-18 36.5% 54.60% 91.1% 97.70% 99.4% 5.7% 348
2016-17 38.0% 51.0% 89.0% 99.4% 99.7% 5.8% 345
2015-16 38.0% 51.8% 89.8% 99.2% 99.7% 7.6% 382
2014-15 37.1% 51.0% 88.1% 98.6% 99.7% 5.8% 345

Note. Data compiled through a search of California Department of Education’s portal,
DataQuest.

There were 20 teachers with full-time teaching assignments during the 2021–2022 school
year. Although teachers in urban schools are often inexperienced or teaching out of field (The
Education Trust-West, 2017; Vega et al., 2015), such was not the case at LAAAE. The median
teaching experience was 5 years with a quarter of the teachers having more than 10 years’ worth
of experience each. All teachers were credentialed in their corresponding assignments by the
State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. They also possessed English learner
authorization on their credentials. Ten teachers had master’s degrees.
Teachers spend a significant amount of time with students each day. Their contributions
are critical to the achievement of improved belonging by increasing student connectedness best
practices into their daily lessons. Allen et al.’s (2016, p. 28) meta-analysis’ “findings supported
54

the importance of teachers fostering school belonging.” Perceived teacher caring is positively
associated with Latinx engagement and student achievement (Chiu et al., 2012; Riconscente,
2014). The school and teaching workforce is supported by an array of support staff, student
services team members, and school leaders.
The 2021-2022 leadership team was composed of six professionals. The director of data
management and the director of community relations supervised non-instructional staff and
select school operations. The director of student services oversaw the student services team and
student supports. The two assistant principals focused on teacher supervision, curriculum and
instruction, student discipline, and select school operations. The principal led the leadership team
and oversaw all school operations. All six leaders shared in the supervision of students.
Collectively, the six had worked in school environments for 78 years. The leadership team will
contribute by refining programming to improve the fostering of student connectedness.
The school is governed by its board of directors. During the 2021–2022 school year, the
membership was comprised of seven community members who possess expertise in the areas of
business, arts and entertainment, finance, community organizing, school management, and
governance. These professionals are responsible for establishing policies consistent with
LAAAE’s mission and for allocating adequate resources for endeavors such as improving school
belonging. Their role includes oversight of operations to ensure compliance with statutory and
regulatory guidelines. Three board members have served continuously since the school’s
founding in 2005. This service brings stability and continuity to the school’s governance. The
estimated membership of select participating stakeholders is summarized in Table 8.

55

Table 8
Estimated Membership of Select Participating Stakeholders

Students Teachers School Staff
School
Leaders
Board
Members
Estimated
Membership
275 20 24 6 7

Note. Data provided for this study by Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise.

Data Collection and Instrumentation
The data sources for this study include a survey and a focus group. Both approaches
provide insight into factors that may impede or bolster school connectedness. These are further
detailed below.
Surveys
A survey is an appropriate quantitative data collection method for gathering information
from numerous respondents while simultaneously promoting anonymity (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Surveys also enable comparisons between respondent
subgroups (Robinson & Leonard, 2019) such as grade level and gender. Because the school
already administered a survey with questions that were usable for the study, an additional survey
specific to the study was not created. Robinson and Leonard (2019) warned of respondent data
validity, or survey fatigue, when respondents experience multiple surveys. This is a relevant
consideration because the students may question the solicitation of two surveys which would
invariably overlap similar concepts.
To better organize student feedback, the LAAAE board of directors adopted a school
climate survey in December 2011. Although surveys can measure self-reported information that
includes behaviors and abilities (Robinson & Leonard, 2019), the scope of the survey, a
56

reproducible resource (pages 128-129) available within At Home in Our Schools
(Developmental Studies Center, 1994), primarily focuses on attributes and thoughts. That survey
contained 35 questions across five general topics. All responses are Likert style ranging from 1-5
corresponding from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” The number of questions per
category is students (six), parents/families (11), teachers (eight), non-teaching staff (six), and
school community (four). The inaugural instrument used by LAAAE incorporated all 35
questions from At Home in Our Schools’ (Developmental Studies Center, 1994) survey template.
Since its adoption in 2011, the survey has undergone a few minor changes including the addition
of new questions. For example, nine additional questions under the additional topic, About the
Way we Learn, were added. That survey was administered to students at the school from 2012 to
2019. In 2019, school leadership contacted the Center for the Collaborative Classroom, formerly
Developmental Studies Center, to learn the validity and reliability of their published survey in At
Home in Our Schools (1994). Regrettably, the individuals who developed the survey are no
longer associated with the organization and its validity and reliability are reportedly unknown.
Consequently, the school discontinued utilizing that instrument and transitioned to using the
California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) instead. This study analyzes data from this new (to the
school) survey instrument. To access the deidentified historical student survey responses the
school maintained, a request for the same was made to LAAAE pursuant to the California Public
Records Act. The principal investigator was not involved in the recruitment or administration of
the survey. The school was entirely responsible for both.
The CHKS is an established instrument and a component of the California Department of
Education’s California School Climate, Health, and Learning Survey (CalSCHLS) System. In
2017-18, The CHKS was administered to over one million students in nearly 3,000 schools
representing 52% of secondary schools in the state of California (Mahecha & Hanson, 2020).
57

CHKS constructs utilized in the survey for this study - School Connectedness, Caring Staff-
Student Relationships, and Student Meaningful Participation - demonstrate good internal
consistency reliability at α 0.83, α 0.90, and α 0.86 respectively (Mahecha & Hanson, 2020). The
High Expectations and Self-Efficacy constructs from CHKS were also used in this study.
However, Mahecha and Hanson’s (2020) research included the High Expectations scale into the
Caring Staff-Student Relationships scale. Including the High Expectations scale into the Caring
Staff-Student Relationships scale is not new. Nearly 10 years earlier, California School Climate,
Health, and Learning Surveys (2011) research estimated the correlation between these two at
0.98 suggesting they measure the same factor. The School Connectedness and Meaningful
Participation scales also demonstrated a high internal consistency reliability. These figures are
consistent with previous reporting on the CHKS constructs. Hanson and Kim (2007) found
internal consistency reliability for Caring Staff-Student Relationships (labeled as School Support
and including High Expectations), Student Meaningful Participation (labeled as School
Meaningful Participation), and Self-Efficacy at α 0.90, α 0.78, and α 0.82 respectively. The
calculation method for the scales used in this study averaged the percentage of respondents who
selected the top two options on the corresponding questions. This method is consistent with
CHKS’ calculations for its report California Secondary School Climate Report Card 2021-2022,
which averaged the percentage of respondents who selected “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” on the
School Connectedness scale and “Very Much True” or “Pretty Much True” for the Caring Staff-
Student Relationships, High Expectations, and Meaningful Participation scales (California
School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys, 2022).
When it was time to administer the school climate survey, the school announced the
availability of the survey through school announcements and email reminders for students.
Students were provided in school time during their advisory class, whether they were at home or
58

on campus, to take the survey. Students were also able to take the survey later, through an email
accessible link, should they have preferred completing the survey later in the day. The bilingual
survey was administered through Google Forms. Survey questions and answers were
concurrently displayed in both English and Spanish. The survey was translated via Google
Translate. The Spanish version was subsequently reviewed and approved by multiple staff to
verify the translations of directions, questions, and answer options. Making the survey in a
language that is meaningfully accessible to the respondents, is aligned to a respondent-centered
design and increases opportunities for accuracy and completion (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Google Forms collated the data on Google Sheets which provides features for data analyses. The
file was also exportable to Excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for
additional analyses there.
Survey Sampling Strategy
Although random sampling, wherein participants have an equal chance of participating, is
often an ideal approach for data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), the school already
administers an annual school climate survey to its approximately 300 students. Robinson and
Leonard (2019) recommend the use of secondary data analysis as an alternative to administering
an additional survey for data collection. Administration of the survey to all interested students is
consistent with census data collection (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
All students enrolled at the school were encouraged to participate in the survey. Survey
participation from a greater percentage of the population provides a more comprehensive data
collection opportunity than a random sample.
Focus Group
Focus groups are interviews with a group of people who possess information relevant to
the topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Unlike the survey which is considered secondary data
59

because it is coming from another source, the focus group data will be primary data because it is
coming directly from the respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Collected for the purpose of
this study, it is designed to fit the study.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) succinctly stated “[f]ocus groups are appropriate to be used
when this is the best way to get the best data that addresses your research question” (p. 115). A
primary feature of focus groups is that data collection is facilitated in a group setting (Stewart &
Shamdasani, 2015). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested that focus groups are good for topics
that people could talk with each other about but do not. Focus groups
Stimulate talk from multiple perspectives from the group participants so that the
researcher can learn what the range of views are, or to promote talk on a topic that
informants might not be able to talk so thoughtfully about in individual interviews.
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 109)
Thus, a focus group approach for data collection on school belonging may elicit better data than
from individual stakeholder interviews. Moreover, since school belonging is influenced by
relationships, it is a topic well suited for a focus group setting. For this study, one focus group
was conducted using the web-based video conferencing tool, Zoom.
A focus group protocol was developed to lead the focus group dialogue. Patton (2002)
identifies a guide as “essential in conducting focus group interviews for it keeps interactions
focused while allowing individual perspectives and experiences to emerge” (p. 343). Bogdan and
Biklen (2007) proposed a script with prefatory statements to establish the group expectations,
permission to record, and a promise of confidentiality form to enhance the same. The latter was
critical given that factors that impede school belonging may be sensitive in nature. Exposure to
information perceived to be shameful may increase perceived vulnerability among participants.
Accordingly, participants were encouraged to only share what they felt comfortable sharing,
60

contribute to a safe space by not judging others, and not gossip the details of the focus group
with others after the meeting.
The focus group interview followed a semi-structured format. In this type of interview,
also known as a standardized open-ended interview, the questions and sequence are determined
ahead of time (Patton, 2002). The questions were open-ended to elicit authentic meaning.
Robinson and Leonard (2019) highlighted that “open-ended questions also present a unique
opportunity for the researcher to discover new and perhaps unexpected responses…” (p. 92). The
focus group was recorded and transcribed by the online tool, Zoom. An index was created for all
participants. During and after the focus group, the investigator created field notes. Field notes
provided insight into the transcription by contextualizing the focus group experience with
observer comments (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Focus Group Sampling Strategy
The focus group was a convenience sample of attendees at a regularly scheduled LAAAE
board of directors’ meeting. The board meets monthly. Prior to the pandemic, the board
primarily met onsite at the school. Since March 2020, board meetings have been conducted
virtually via web-based video conferencing. As required by the State of California’s Ralph M.
Brown Act, meeting agendas are posted prior to board meetings. The board welcomes and
expects representatives from different stakeholder groups at each meeting. Beyond board
members, regular attendees at board of directors’ meetings include school leaders, teachers and
staff, parents, and students. Since meetings are public, attendance occasionally includes
community and other stakeholders not mentioned. In the stakeholder update section of the
agenda, different groups, such as the associated student body, provide their updates to the board
of directors. As the ultimate policymaking body for the school, the board of directors is
responsible for the affairs and management of the school. Board meeting matters are broad and
61

span topics such as fiscal and instructional oversight. Meetings are also where the board of
directors ensures effective organizational planning by approving long-range and annual goals,
monitoring general policies such as health and safety, use and maintenance of the facility, and
ensuring effective use of resources. Notwithstanding the convenience sample strategy, it is a
purposeful sample because board meeting attendees are typically school stakeholders who are
actively engaged in school affairs and thereby can provide significant data responsive to the
research questions. Maxwell (2013) noted that respondents who volunteer to participate will
provide the best data for the study.
The focus group for this study occurred through an agenda item at a regularly scheduled
(online) board of directors meeting on December 15, 2022. Meeting attendees who wanted to
answer the focus group questions were able to do so. However, answering focus group questions
was not required for any participant. The focus group portion of the meeting was 46 minutes
long. During this timeframe, meeting attendance varied between 16 and 17 people, not including
the interviewer. Fourteen meeting attendees engaged in the focus group. Participants included
board members (5), school leaders (3), teachers (4), staff (1), and consultant (1). Although
parents and students typically attend these public board meetings, no student attended this
meeting. One parent attended the meeting but chose not to participate in the focus group
discussion.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics, which are used to describe the characteristics of data (Salkind,
2017) were used to organize the raw, deidentified survey data. Answers to Likert-scale questions
were aggregated and reported as the Strongly Agree/Agree unit. Similarly, “Strongly Disagree”
and "Disagree” responses were analyzed and reported as Strongly Disagree/Disagree via
frequencies. Many of the questions on the existing school climate survey target elements of
62

school climate which are not central to this study. Thus, those data were not analyzed. Excel was
used for basic data analysis. SPSS was used to calculate the regression analyses.
Focus group interview transcription and field notes were anonymized and analyzed in
concert. A deductive approach using the conceptual framework was followed. Data were then
categorized. The nomenclature of these themes originated from the researcher, the participant’s
words, or the literature review, and are responsive to the research questions, exhaustive, mutually
exclusive, sensitizing, and conceptually congruent (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As an iterative
process, continued analyses and data interrogation yielded additional levels of coding until
emergent themes were identified (Maxwell, 2013). Anticipated themes were relationships with
teachers, relationships with peers, welcoming environment, high expectations, safety,
extracurricular activities, facility, and educational programming. ATLAS.ti was used to support
the qualitative data analysis.
There were three data analysis phases used in this study, a convergent mixed method
design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The first two steps were the analysis of the qualitative and
quantitative data. The corresponding data analyses for this study were the survey analysis and
focus group coding previously described. The third phase of the convergent mixed method
design integrated both data sets (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Both data sources were analyzed
together to respond to the research questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In data collection and analysis, the researcher must consider two threats to validity - bias
and reactivity (Maxwell, 2013). Bias refers to the researcher’s potential bias for selection of data
that is responsive to the research questions. To mitigate this, data should be reviewed
subjectively and comprehensively. Reactivity refers to how the respondents modify data due to
the presence of the researcher. Researchers should minimize influence in the field to reduce
63

reactivity. While being mindful of bias and ethics, the researcher can effectively influence the
interview to solicit greater data responsive to the research questions.
Because I am a student-centered educator and want to improve my students’
connectedness to their school, I have implicit bias. As a primary instrument in my research, my
approach and data collection may be inadvertently influenced by my “theoretical position and
biases” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 264). Therefore, throughout the study, I actively worked to
not allow these potential biases to influence the collection and interpretation of data. Bias can be
reduced through reflexivity. That is, a researcher should reflect on how their background
influences data interpretation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Maxwell (2013) identified additional checks. Persistent fieldwork and long-term
involvement should provide an abundance of insight for the researcher. Rich data from the focus
group contextualized the transcription. The more details available, the greater opportunities to
identify the essence of meaning. Respondent validation enables respondents to verify data.
Searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases also provides extremes of data.
Validity and Reliability
The ethics of an investigator largely influence the validity and reliability of a study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since the survey data were a secondary source, the survey
administration was not done by this researcher. Notwithstanding, because the survey sampling is
census, the confidence level is high.
Ethics
As an investigator, I have multiple responsibilities regarding involving human
participants in my research. These responsibilities are consistent with The Belmont Report (The
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research, 1978) which addressed the ethical principles of human research including principles of
64

respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in research.
Respect for Persons
Respect for persons suggests allowing participants to make their own choices and
protecting those who cannot make their own choices. Rubin and Rubin (2012) remarked that
“deceit is not only ethically wrong, it implies a lack of respect” (p. 85). Accordingly, a study
information sheet was provided and reviewed with the focus group participants. Discussions
relating to school connectedness and belonging may inadvertently result in subsequent thoughts
about shortcomings and self-doubt. Thus, participants were reassured that the focus of the study
was to identify ways the school can increase its students’ connectedness. Board meeting
participants were also informed that their participation in the focus group was voluntary. After
the focus group, collected data was properly stored to preserve confidentiality and avoid
unauthorized access. Students were informed that their participation in the survey, which was
conducted by the school, was voluntary.
Beneficence
A universal ethical consideration is to do no harm (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). This is also expressed by providing the maximum benefit with the least harm (The
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research, 1978). The Belmont Report (1978) clarifies that beneficence isn’t intended to mean
charity or kindness but rather an obligation. Do no harm can manifest in multiple ways (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). During the focus group, the investigator did not pretend to share beliefs which
would lead to a false rapport that may yield information that would have otherwise been
withheld. For similar reasons, the investigator did not make false experiences in the rapport
development nor lead participants to believe some benefit will materialize which will not. For
example, enabling perceptions that talking about ways to improve school connectedness may
65

result in immediate changes to the school environment.
Justice
Justice refers to the distribution of the benefits and burdens of research (The National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research,
1978). Fairness should be distributed. An injustice may be represented by someone who receives
a benefit that has not been earned or is entitled to. In this context, the students bear the burden of
a survey. Similarly, the board of directors meeting participants bear the burden of the focus
group. However, the findings of the study will inure to the benefit of the students.
Role of Researcher
The relationship between the researcher and the participants has ethical implications in
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Glesne (2011) described four researcher roles – exploiter,
intervener/reformer, advocate, and friend. As a student-centered educator, I am a student
advocate and associate with the advocate role. This role is particularly relevant to my study
because I am seeking to improve students’ schooling experience. Some parents and students may
perceive me in the friend role. The prevalence of this perceived role may increase for older
students, such as seniors (and their parents), who may have been school stakeholders for many
years and are thus more familiar with my student-centered approach. The friend perception may
also emerge with students who have siblings who previously graduated from the school. That is,
I may have a prior history with their family through their sibling(s). Many years of school
dances, athletic games, conflict resolution, and individualized education programs, to name a
few, provide ample opportunity to develop familial relationships. Moreover, as the former
principal at the school, there was a positionality consideration. Potential confusion to my dual
role as a board member and researcher was clarified to participants.
66

Conclusion
This chapter provided information on the subject organization, presented the research
design and methods for sampling, data collection and instrumentation, and data analysis. The
chapter closed with discussions on credibility and trustworthiness, validity and reliability, and
ethics. Chapter Four will provide an overview of the findings. Chapter Five will discuss the
findings and provide recommendations to improve student belonging.
67

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to better understand factors that hinder or facilitate school
belonging for English learners at a public school serving approximately 300 students in Grades 6
through 12. As identified earlier in Chapters One and Two, there are established physiological
and psychological needs to bond with other humans. An increasingly growing body of research
supports that students who develop a higher school connectedness receive both academic and
psychosocial benefits, which extend to adulthood.
The CHKS Secondary Core Module is one of the components of the School Climate,
Health, and Learning Survey (CalSCHLS; Mahecha & Hanson, 2020), and was administered to
students at LAAAE to, among other reasons, better understand school connectedness experiences
among its students. A focus group was subsequently conducted to understand additional
influences on school connectedness.
Two research questions were developed to analyze school connectedness for students.
The first research question (RQ1) was designed to understand self-efficacy among students and
its relationship to school connectedness, understand students’ willingness to avail themselves of
supports available at the school, as well as understand how the school environment affects
student belonging. The second research question (RQ2) was intended to better understand
influences in the proximal ecological environments on student connectedness. The research
questions are:
Research Question 1: How do self-efficacy, knowledge of resources, and school
environment influence school connectedness for Latinx English learners?
Research Question 2: What is the role of the microsystem and mesosystem in influencing
and shaping connectedness of Latinx English learners?
68

Participant Overview
Stakeholders participating in the survey were students enrolled at the school. An
anonymous school survey was virtually administered to students during their advisory period.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school facility remained largely closed with a fraction of
students (approximately less than 10% on any given day from April to June 2021) attending
school in person. These in-person students attended school in a hybrid format - a portion in
person and a portion online. The remaining students entirely participated in remote learning at
home. During the class period, advisory teachers informed their students about the voluntary
school climate survey and provided students with the link to take the same. Students both on
campus and at home were able to participate in the survey.
During the advisory period on April 21, 2021, 122 students chose to participate in the
survey. Two of these students did not answer any questions after launching the survey. Thus,
only 120 respondents are identified to have completed the survey that day. On April 23, 2021,
advisory teachers reminded students about the survey. An electronic communication was also
sent to all students with similar information. These reminders provided an additional opportunity
for absent students or students who did not take the survey on April 21 to participate. Twelve
(12) additional students subsequently volunteered to participate. A total of 131 students
completed the survey. Table 9 shows the number of students participating and additional relevant
details.
69

Table 9
Students Participating in the Survey
Grade
Number of Students
Participating
Percent of Students
Participating
Number of
Students
Enrolled
Percent of Enrolled
Students
Participating
Sixth 18 13.6% 35 51.4%
Seventh 18 13.6% 37 48.6%
Eighth 21 15.9% 27 77.8%
Ninth 29 22.0% 66 44.9%
Tenth 15 11.4% 47 31.9%
Eleventh 17 12.9% 37 45.9%
Twelfth 13 9.8% 26 50.0%
TOTAL 131 100% 275 48%

Note. Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise, 2021.

As Table 9 indicates, nearly half of the student body participated in the school climate
survey. However, there was uneven participation across grade levels. Most notably, only 31.9%
of 10th graders participated in the survey, whereas 77.8% of eighth graders participated. There is
also variation in the distribution of grade level participation. In the sample data, ninth graders
accounted for 22.0% of respondents, whereas twelfth grade students accounted for 9.8% of
respondents.
On December 15, 2022, a focus group was conducted at the school’s board of directors’
meeting. Fourteen of the meeting attendees engaged in the focus group. Other meeting attendees
observed or maintained their device camera off. Focus group participants included board
members (5), school leaders (3), teachers (4), staff (1), and consultant (1). Ten of the 14
participants, or 71% of the focus group, were of Latinx heritage. A summary of the study’s
largest participating stakeholder groups and source data is organized in found in Table 10.
70

Table 10
Largest Participating Stakeholder Group and Source Data Summary

Number of
Students
Number of
Teachers
Number of
School Leaders
Number of
Board Members
Survey 131
Focus Group 4 3 5

Findings for Research Questions
The first research question is answered with both survey and focus group data. The
second research question is answered solely with qualitative data. Three themes emerged for
research question one and two themes emerged for research question two. Nostalgia, while not a
theme responsive to this study, also emerged. Below are 12 categories organized under the
aforementioned themes which seek to answer how the school environment influences school
connectedness for Latinx EL students. Table 11 shows the concept frequency that comprises the
themes. Frequency denotes the number of times focus group participants mentioned these
themes.
71

Table 11
Focus Group Themes, Categories, and Corresponding Frequencies
Theme Category Frequency
Positive Effects of School
Connectedness

Better Academic Performance 2
Motivation to Attend School 13
Strategies to Foster School
Connectedness

Caring Staff-Student Relationships 26
Student Meaningful Participation
-Academics
-Extracurriculars
-Continuity of Activities

8
9
4
High Expectations 9
Safety
-Physical
-Emotional
-Safety Monitoring
-Compassionate Approach

2
3
4
7
Assurances of Belonging 9
Challenges to Foster School
Connectedness

Cultural Nuances
-Familismo
-Language Barrier

11
1
Difficulty in Creating Relationships 1
Loss of Intimacy 4
Loss of Trust 8
Facility Challenges 11
Home Life Home Life 8
Parents

Parent Involvement
Parent Communication
Parent Connectedness
14
5
2
Nostalgia 9

Research Question 1: How Do Self-Efficacy, Knowledge of Resources, and School
Environment Influence School Connectedness for Latinx English Learners?
To understand how self-efficacy influences students’ sense of school connectedness, a
simple regression analysis was conducted on the Self-Efficacy subscale. The results revealed a
highly significant finding of p < .001 with a r-squared of .20, suggesting that 20% of variability
in school connectedness may be explained by a students’ self-efficacy. Table 12 provides a
72

summary of the simple regression with school connectedness as a predictor. Relevant data did
not emerge in the focus group.

Table 12
Summary of Simple Regression with School Connectedness as a Predictor
School Connectedness R p
Self-Efficacy .20 < .001

73

To answer how knowledge of campus resources predicts a student’s willingness to ask
for help at school, a simple regression analysis was conducted. The results revealed a highly
significant finding of p < .001 with a r-squared of .50, suggesting that 50% of variability in
asking for help may be explained by knowledge of campus resources for the sample as a whole.
Table 13 provides a summary of the simple regression with knowledge of campus resources as a
predictor. Relevant data did not emerge in the focus group.

Table 13
Summary of Simple Regression with Knowledge of Campus Resources as a Predictor
Knowledge of Campus Resources R p
Willingness to Ask for Help .50 < .001

74

To identify relationships between school connectedness and sense of the school providing
a welcoming environment, three simple regressions were conducted for each of the survey
subscales: Caring Staff-Student Relationships, High Expectations, and Student Meaningful
Participation. No significant relationship was found for any of the analyses. Table 14 provides a
summary for the subscale regression analyses.

Table 14
Summary of Three Simple Subscale Regressions with School Connectedness as a Predictor
School Connectedness R p
Caring Staff-Student Relationships .058 .079
High Expectations .049 .129
Student Meaningful Participation .021 .498

75

Focus Group Findings for RQ1
Contrary to survey data findings, the focus group data revealed a relationship between
school connectedness and caring relationships, high expectations, and meaningful participation.
Moreover, additional categories surfaced. The 12 categories are organized by the three themes of
positive effects of belonging, strategies to develop belonging, and challenges to foster belonging.
Theme 1: Positive Effects of School Connectedness
Participants in the focus group pointed to multiple positive effects of school
connectedness. Two ideas that emerged during the focus group included better academic
performance and motivation to attend school. A board member noted, “The better you do at
school in your subjects, you're going to feel more belonging, you know? Because nobody likes to
be in a place where you’re not just, you know, feeling that you are not actually doing well.” Five
board members, one school leader, and two teachers highlighted varying considerations as
motivating factors to attend school. One board member commented, “Making the school a place
where they [students] want to be versus they have to be. And that’s a struggle. If students think
they’re just going to school because they have to, then there’s nothing personal.” Another board
member added that “I think most of our students feel that they were regarded, well cared for.
They would talk to, everybody was on their team.” Another board member noted that there “Has
been an amazing job with creating a kind of special place within the facilities that we do have
and by that I mean the celebration of the artwork” at school. One teacher said, “I feel like when
students have things to look forward to outside of the strictly academic setting, it really helps
them feel like they belong there, and makes them want to come back to school.” Some of these
comments suggested lived experiences. No drawbacks to school connectedness emerged in the
focus group and the verbalized benefits of school connectedness were consistent with those
identied in research.
76

Theme 2: Strategies to Foster School Connectedness
Focus group participants identified numerous strategies in the discussion on how to foster
school connectedness. Five categories in this theme are caring relationships, high expectations,
meaningful participation, safety, and assurance of belonging. The meaningful participation
category includes three subcategories of academics, extracurricular activities, and continuity of
activities. The safety category comprises physical safety, emotional safety, compassionate
approach, and safety monitoring.
Caring Staff-Student Relationships
Caring relationships is the construct with the highest frequency in the focus group
analysis. Its influence in fostering school belonging was well developed. One school leader
commented,
I think that the connection between our staff and our students is just so crucial for making
students have that sense of belonging and have that reason to come and have that feeling
of continuity as they go through their school years.
A teacher added,
I think what we’re doing in classrooms is awesome. Once our kids are in our classes and
they feel that connection to our teachers, and I feel like once the teacher gets here, gets to
our school, and gets to our campus and gets in the classroom, like all of our teachers are,
like, we care about our kids. I feel it from our teachers.
One teacher noted that connectedness can be observed when students feel “that the teacher is not
judging them, that they value their culture, their language, whatever they’re bringing to the
table.”
Caring relationships can be very profound. One board member noted that for him,
77

There were three or four [teachers] who really made an effort to have relationships that
were outside of the classroom, outside the actual subject matter, outside the class, the
academic class. They had a lasting impact on my life that I deeply appreciate.
A school leader passionately shared,
We live in an age where as educators, we are sort of signing up for possibly having to put
our lives on the line for our students. And it’s something that when I’ve had
conversations with kids about that, I would very willingly make sure that my kids are
protected before myself. I think kids knowing that make them feel like this is where they
belong.
As noted in Table 11, Caring Staff-Student Relationships has more than twice as many
frequencies as the other categories. The depth and breadth of caring relationships as an
underpinning for school connectedness cannot be understated. The emergence of self-sacrifice as
a possible necessity speaks to the love and protection such as a parent would nurture and
provide.
Student Meaningful Participation
Academics, a subcategory of student meaningful participation, refers to the educational
programming of the school. This encompasses concepts such as curriculum and instruction. A
board member noted “If they’re [students] engaged and they feel belonging, they’re going to do
better in their subjects, or if they do good, they’re going to feel belonging, right?” Another board
member added,
Even on the academic side, when we visited the classroom and had meetings, I think
some of the teachers have done amazing jobs celebrating the cultural and also personal
kind of stories of the students through a lot of the special projects. Through the art, you
know? Through the film, you know? And also, the essays that I’ve seen on the wall of
78

special projects. And I think the school has done an amazing job to display and celebrate
those achievements.
These comments acknowledge the broad range of courses that are offered, particularly in the arts,
and are responsive to varied interests among students.
Extracurricular activities, another subcategory of meaningful participation, refers to the
scholastic activities students engage with beyond the typical school day. These activities can be
motivators for students to engage with school. One teacher noted their impact on school
belonging. “I feel like when students have things to look forward to outside of the strictly
academic setting, it really helps them feel like they belong there and makes them want to come
back to school.” Linkages between caring relationships and extracurricular activities are implicit
and were observed. One board member commented, “The time I got to spend with teachers
outside of the formal classroom - activities, trips, going to plays, going to events – were what
really built relationships for me, what really motivated me and kept me in school.” The
implementation of the extracurricular activities program may warrant student input. One teacher
noted “Find something that motivates the kids. All the students are motivated by something. It
might not be the grades, but they’re motivated by something.” Extracurricular activities provide
opportunities for students to see their teachers and other adults in the school in alternative
contexts and learn other types of information from them. Thus, these activities can be additional
environments to nurture caring staff-student relationships.
Continuity of activities, the final subcategory of student meaningful participation, refers
to the continuation of academics and extracurricular activities despite changes in personnel or
facility. Because there have been facility and staff changes, some events were not executed as
they previously were. Some activities are absent altogether. Facility challenges later discussed
have been a contributing factor to changes in activities. One teacher commented,
79

I’ve had many conversations with teachers and staff, and it seems like one of the things
that’s been harder on the kids is sort of lack of stability in some places. I’ll be talking [to
students] and they’ll be like, “oh yeah, we did this fun thing 2 or 3 years ago and then the
teacher left.”
A board member noted that the
Continuation of that [activities] makes a big difference. You know? While we are in a
temporary location, the more we can make the space feel special and feel different from a
[traditional] public school. Or you know, other schools nearby.
A student’s meaningful participation at school is multifaceted. Students can connect to
their schools through academic and extracurricular activities. It’s a matter of finding what
motivates the students and then maintaining those activities.
High Expectations
The data show that teachers held high expectations for student success that required
genuine and deep engagement. One teacher described,
I tried to be someone that’s you know, like trying to give kids more reasons why you
should be going to school and staying in school and getting good grades as opposed to
maybe people in their family that aren’t outright doubting their ability to go to college
and be successful. But they hear it in their homes. Whether it’s like oh well, you’re going
to end up spending all this money on college, or like we can’t afford that, or you have to
work, you know?
High expectations across stakeholders are desirable. One teacher suggested,
Get parents to school and just talk to them about … these things, and maybe helping to
motivate the families a little bit more to like hear from us teachers about our experiences
80

with college or our experiences with why like you know, being in school is really
important and things like that.
The teacher later added that these suggested parent-teacher meetings could help “maybe
dispelling some of the, demystifying some of the things about the fears of going to college,
helping them understand like you know, not coming to school is affecting their kids.” This
category seems to demonstrate a relationship to Caring Staff-Student Relationships as it is these
relationships that are fueling high expectations from the teachers and other school stakeholders.
These high expectations for students, which would facilitate a student’s future well-being, are
akin to those high expectations and desires for life success parents hold for their children.
Safety
The final category for strategies to foster school connectedness is safety. This category
included physical and mental health safety. These are key considerations for immigrant students
who may have experienced trauma in their journey. A school leader remarked,
I take very seriously the safety of our students, and I think when it comes to students
feeling connected to our campus, they have to feel safe here, not only emotionally safe,
which I feel like a lot of you are talking, or talking to that point, but also physically safe
and making sure that … we’re making sure that the kids feel safe that there are no
weapons on campus, that there are no drugs on campus.
This school leader later added how support and resources can help students “feel like,
even if I get in trouble at the school, the people here will help me. You know, come back from it
and not that I’m just going to get kicked out of the school.” This physical safety and emotional
safety may benefit from safety monitoring and compassionate approach. Responding to a query
regarding student monitoring post referral, a school leader answered, “We follow up to see
81

whether or not there was an actual connection and follow through of attendance.” The leader
later added,
If the initial meeting is with the family, and if the family can’t make it out to the agency,
they can have them [meetings] here, [myself and other staff] have been here until 6, 7, or
8 at night facilitating some of these meetings.
For compassionate approach, a school leader noted, “coming from a really punitive place,
coming from a shameful, you know, approach, is not what our kids need. You know, when they
say trauma-informed is the best approach, like that’s 100% true.” The school leader later added,
It’s how I talk to them, how I address them, how we problem solve after they’ve made a
mistake. It’s the single handedly best way I’ve learned to maintain relationships with
students even after I have to have really, you know, serious, regrettable meetings with
their parents.
Safety is a key consideration in school belonging. Previously discussed theories by
Maslow and others assert that belonging cannot be achieved without meeting safety needs. In
addition to physical safety, the data suggest the level of mental health safety needed is such that
there is a compassionate approach that fosters a safe space for adolescents to grow and where
students’ previous trauma, if any, is considered.
Assurance of Belonging
Data showed that students needed assurances of belonging, even in difficult
circumstances. A board member commented, “Nobody likes to be in a place where you’re not
just, you know, feeling that you are not actually doing well.” One school leader noted, “I think
it’s balancing their safety with also some compassion and that this is a safe place to make
mistakes, even very severe ones.” This leader later added, “It has taught me a lot about that is
how you, how compassionate, compassionate you are with the student during what could be one
82

of the worst moments of their young lives, really makes a difference.” Students may have
multiple sources of challenges. Another board member noted, “Even when a student is struggling
in their home life, or even academically, when we call out and celebrate their work, you know,
even if it’s just a smaller expression, I think that really sticks with the students.” Two
participants shared examples of their own oppositional behavior during their secondary
schooling years. Students also need assurance even if there is a limited connection between the
teacher and the student. One teacher noted, “they feel that I like them. That’s not always the
case, but they feel that way and they, and there’s a sense of respect regardless of anything else.”
Providing assurances of belonging when students are defiant or disengaged can be difficult.
While there may be an expectation for spontaneous relationships between adults at school and
students, these adults experience emotions and feelings like other people and may consequently
avoid potentially unpleasant interactions with students who do not typically demonstrate
expected academic behaviors. The degree to which adults at school may provide reassurance to
students may reflect their own scholastic experience empathy. However, similar to how a parent
provides reassurance to a child after family tension, students need similar ongoing assurances by
the adults at their school, even when they make severe mistakes. Every child needs an
unconditional advocate.
Theme 3: Challenges to Fostering School Connectedness
In the focus group discussion, participants discussed multiple challenges which impede
fostering school connectedness. Five categories in this theme were identified: cultural nuances,
difficulty in creating relationships, loss of intimacy, loss of trust, and facility challenges. The
cultural nuances category includes the two subcategories. language barrier and familismo.
Not being able to communicate with a student can limit the development of a
relationship. Language barriers are a challenge for Latinx immigrant students (see Table 3), and
83

it emerged as an impediment for some students to develop school connectedness. A staff member
reflected,
When I think one of the barriers, it’s that language barriers sometimes, maybe not all the
teachers are able to talk to them [students] and speak to them and let them know that we
are on their side and we’re here to help them out.
One teacher observed that teachers should not judge students but “value their culture, their
language, whatever they’re bringing to the table.”
Familismo, a Latinx cultural value, refers to closeness and loyalty to your family (Kim et
al., 2009). This social phenomenon prioritizes the family unit. One teacher in the focus group
shared, “My parents emphasized family first in so many different avenues and that was
something that always stuck in my head growing up.” The teacher later added,
I could see why that could be a huge conflict for students, because oftentimes they might
be the older sibling and have to take care of not only themselves, but maybe one, two or
three other siblings as well. And if this is harped on you from day one that families first,
families first, it’s hard.
A board member suggested balancing familismo and high expectations. “I’m wondering
if we can have a conversation long-term about reframing that dynamic, reframing what it means
to honor your family and also have a personal achievement goal. Right?” The concept of
familismo was evident in other remarks. One teacher noted, “I talk to my students as if they were
my sons and daughters.” A board member suggested communal fellowship: “Perhaps we can
sponsor dinner for parents, right? And encourage them to make a reservation. And we’ll host a
dinner. We can always go to a restaurant and get a wonderful meal for everybody.” The role of
familismo at home and school was interchangeably unpacked. This suggests familismo
84

applications in the scholastic environment. That is, the scholastic environment and related
achievement expectations must also be honored like the expectations in the home environment.
As noted in previous categories, creating relationships when challenges are present can
be difficult which can in turn impede the development of school connectedness. One school
leader commented, “You know, there were a lot of student relationships that took a long time for
me to develop with the students.” Difficulty in creating relationships might be affected by loss of
intimacy and loss of trust. The loss of intimacy seems to be largely influenced by the pandemic.
A board member shared,
I’m concerned that we may have lost our sense of intimacy with our students and the
parents. That’s the sense I get from current conversations in the, on the board, with the
previous, maybe it has something to do with the COVID interruption. But I think we have
a longer way to go to get the intimacy that we’re looking for. For the desire for our
students to be. Because as I was looking at the numbers, the numbers you shared earlier
today, students don’t think it’s such a hot place to be.
A staff member later confirmed, “because of COVID, we have lost like you said, that
intimacy with the parents.” The relocation of the school to another facility in June 2022 also
altered trust in the school community. The relocation resulted in staff resignations and student
withdrawals. Despite anticipating remaining in its previous location, the school was notified by
LAUSD in April that it had to relocate that June to another campus. A teacher noted,
It was super abrupt the way that everyone like found out, and just like you know, the
feeling of trust got burned again, and we’re in the process right now of rebuilding that
with our students, and I, you know, the teachers that have come in, that have replaced the
other teachers that were here, I feel like they’ve got it.
85

In addition to forced relocations, facility access has contributed to facility challenges that
have impeded fostering school connectedness. One teacher noted,
I think kind of what has transpired over like obviously the last months and are, like, was
really hard on keeping the feeling of trust that our students and like maybe parents had in
us as like the school entity.
The teacher added that this was not the first time this happened and the move from the school’s
second location to third [and previous] location “burned a trust that I feel like a lot of, a lot of the
students had with teachers.” Adverse conditions of sharing a school campus were also described.
A teacher noted that students “were like second class citizens,” later adding,
to build that trust and build that feeling of belonging with our students that they have like
their own place that's theirs that they don't have to adjust their lunch schedule to the other
school. They don't have to adjust this thing to what the other school does. They have their
own place that's there’s.
The teacher later asserted, “I know that’s a big undertaking, but that’s kind of like the
biggest one, to build that trust with our students.” Not having its own facility and therefore
sharing a campus with another school has been a difficult experience for the LAAAE
community. LAAAE students did not have the same access to the facility resources as the host
school students did. School is the place where students spend most time outside of their home.
Experiencing exclusion at school while watching other students enjoy those same resources may
not only deter school connectedness but may additionally hamper a student’s acculturation
process.
Summary
Through Bronfenbrenner’s model, it can be observed that there are varied influences on a
child’s development. Similarly, the data indicates that there are multiple elements in the
86

mesosystem that bolster and impede school connectedness for children. Because these are
concurrent phenomena, they should be explored in concert. Students need continued exposure to
available resources to enhance their willingness, up to 50% of the variability, to avail themselves
of these resources. This knowledge of resources fosters self-efficacy, a trait which 20% of
variability in school connectedness may be explained by. While this data emerged in the surveys
and did not appear in the focus group, the focus group did reveal insights which the survey did
not, specifically a relationship between school connectedness and caring relationships, high
expectations, meaningful participation, and other areas.
Focus group data acknowledged that school connectedness is a desirable phenomenon.
Reasons provided for why school connectedness is advantageous were consistent with research.
No disadvantages for school connectedness were identified. Strategies to foster school
connectedness included caring staff-student relationships, high expectations, meaningful
participation, safety, and assurances of belonging. Caring staff-student relationships was well
unpacked and had the highest frequency in qualitative analysis. Caring relationships and high
expectations at school can parallel parent-child relationships at home. For students to experience
meaningful participation at school, there should be academic and extracurricular activities that
are of interest to students. Activities of high interest to students should continue despite changes
in personnel or facility location. Safety needs include physical and mental health safety, for
which a compassionate approach is key. Assurances of belonging, especially when a child makes
a mistake, may preserve the potential deterioration of school connectedness.
Multiple areas emerged as impediments to developing school connectedness and included
cultural nuances, difficulty in creating relationships, loss of intimacy, loss of trust, and facility
challenges. One of the cultural nuances was language barrier which inhibits communication. The
ability to communicate is fundamental in the development of any relationship. It can be
87

particularly difficult for students when they are additionally juggling other challenges such as
those described in Table 3. The other cultural nuance was familismo, a Latinx cultural value that
emphasizes closeness and loyalty to the family. This value can create conflict for students
balancing familial expectations and personal achievement goals. The implications of familismo
at home and school were developed and implied familismo expectations in the scholastic
environment, or scholastic familismo. Building relationships can be difficult but may benefit
from compassionate approaches to discipline and assurances of belonging. A loss of intimacy
and or trust can impair a sense of belonging. Loss of intimacy appeared to primarily be stemmed
from pandemic-response-related measures and loss of trust from the recent school facility move.
Another facility facet that impaired school connectedness was students not feeling welcomed at
the previously shared campus.
Research Question 2: What Is the Role of the Microsystem and Mesosystem in Influencing
and Shaping Connectedness of Latinx English Learners?
In the previous research question, the school environment’s influence on school
connectedness was explored. However, there are other ecologies which influence a child’s sense
of belonging. Focus group discussions provided data responsive to this research question. Below
are four categories, ordered by two themes, which emerged from the focus group discussion. The
two themes are home life and parents. These additional themes further answer the question of
how the microsystem and mesosystem influenced school connectedness for Latinx English
learner students.
Theme 1: The Broad Influence of Home Life
Focus group participants discussed how a student’s home life can influence a sense of
belonging at school. While each child’s home life is different, some circumstances share similar
experiences. A board member noted “Certainly. poverty and the lack of economic resources has
88

a real crushing effect on what families can do.” A teacher shared, “they come where a lot of bad
habits are in that home, whether it be lack of respect, or you know, somewhat abusive or lack of
belonging.” The same teacher later added, “A lot of the parents, they you know, have great
intentions. They may just not feel that they belong in this, in this country, or in this culture yet,
and that rubs off on the students.” Another teacher recalled student interactions:
I say, who in your home is there when you wake up, that’s saying you better be getting up
right now to go to school? And for many of those students, the answer is, I don’t have
someone that’s doing that, and so a lot of the responsibility is on our students to get up,
get their day going, get themselves ready, get on the city bus, get a way to the school on
time.
Observable achievement may also be limited at home. One teacher commented, “Their
parents aren’t telling them no, but they also maybe don’t see people in their immediate family
that went to college, did these certain things that a lot of other people did that are successful.”
Negative messaging may be received through other mechanisms. A staff member commented,
"Most of our students are EL students and they're new to the country, so they really don't feel
like they belong here, right? Because of whatever else is being said out there in society." In
Bronfenbrenner’s model, although some ecologies are more distal and out of a student’s control,
their activities still impact the student. Structural discrimination exists in the macrosystem
whereas discrimination is experienced at the microsystem.
Theme 2: The Important Role of Parents
Focus group participants discussed the role of parents and their significant influence on a
child’s life. The parents theme includes three categories: parent involvement, parent
communication, and parent connectedness. Participants noted that lack of parent involvement
influenced students’ sense of belonging at school. A school leader noted, “I think it’s so what
89

[teacher] was saying, is lack of parent involvement, even if a student, you know, wants to belong
in our school or likes our school.” A staff member commented regarding how to increase parent
involvement, “we’re trying to get that back up by doing our coffee with the principal, and our
parents have shared there that they would like to come back to campus, and they would like to
see more events,” as COVID restrictions have limited onsite activities. A board member queried,
“I would certainly like to hear when the school thinks it’s appropriate to have these in-person
events.” Across the stakeholder groups, it was evident that family engagement needed to be
prioritized.
Opportunities for parent involvement may necessitate repetition. Because parents have
different typical availabilities, repetitive activities can expand access and reach. A consultant
noted
unless we have many activities and coffee with the principal, it's fine in the morning, but
what about those parents that don’t work in the evening? Right, we get that small crowd.
So in other words, duplicating the amount of meetings throughout the day, whether in the
morning, afterschool, and in the evening, even on Saturdays. We have to adapt as an
organization to meet the needs of the parents.
A teacher suggested,
so because we want to give them options because not every family can say ohh you know
Wednesday night, December 15th at 4:30. That's the time we're doing it because the
families are like well, I mean I can't make that, if we get offer multiple times for families
to come to our school and meet us in person, talk to the teachers in person.
The previously discussed category of safety monitoring shared non-traditional hours for other
forms of parent involvement. Perhaps there may be a way to capitalize on this existing school
support.
90

For parents to participate, there should be parent communications informing of ways to
be involved at school. A staff member noted, “I think something that a lot of parents want is the
communication from us.” A consultant added, “they’re [parents] not going to come unless we
invite them.” The form or type of communication with parents may also be important. The
consultant added,
We rely too much on texting, phone calls, robocalls, social media, where parents are still
with the paper, with the pens, with the notices that go in the backpack? … How many
times do teachers … write a personal note to each of their parents?
A staff member highlights “We’re hoping to now do the monthly packets again to try to
inform parents of the events that are happening, to get them more involved in the school and
have that again.” Parent connectedness may be the natural progression of parent involvement and
parent communication. A school leader noted,
I think when a parent is more, also feels connectedness to the school, or if the parent feels
welcomed and that they belong in the school, then that’s like twofold right? It’s always so
much better than if it’s just the student.
When discussing the previously described dinner recommendation, a board member noted,
I would commit and I’m sure other board members might be able to take on showing up
and having conversations with the parents, that we can structure it so there’s some
specific information or participation or instructional goal that we have for that event on
top of creating intimacy again and a sense of connection to the school.
This sentiment also aligns with the categories of high expectations, caring relationships, and
familismo. Indeed, a concerted effort for family engagement can foster parent connectedness.
91

Summary
Circumstances at home, such as poverty and lack of resources, can impact a student’s
school connectedness. Because student aspirations are partially constructed from their parents
and other adults in their mesosystem, implicit family and community feedback may limit a
student’s aspirations. There may also be homes with absent or nearly absent parents.
Notwithstanding, the role of parents in the student’s mesosystem is fundamental. Safety
measures post pandemic limited parent access to campus which subsequently adversely impacted
parent engagement. However, data suggests that parents want to reengage, and the means to how
to accomplish increased family and school engagement were detailed. Such activities may even
foster parent connectedness and strengthen scholastic familismo.
Nostalgia
While not a theme of school connectedness, a sense of nostalgia was threaded throughout
the discussion, particularly as it relates to the impact from COVID. A board member noted, “I
remember that in years past, many board members attended events at the school on a regular
basis and now we have two and a half years where none of us have been able to do it.” Another
board member shared, “I’m concerned we may have lost our sense of intimacy with our students
and parents … maybe it has something to do with the COVID interruption.” The board member
later adding, “and something has changed, and that was a really good thing we were doing
before. So, it seems to me we probably know how to do it again.”
Summary of Findings
A simple regression analysis revealed self-efficacy influences students’ sense of school
connectedness. Another simple regression analysis determined that knowledge of campus
resources predicts a student’s willingness to ask for help at school. To identify relationships
between school connectedness and sense of the school providing a welcoming environment,
92

three simple regressions were conducted for each of the survey subscales: Caring Staff-Student
Relationships, High Expectations, and Student Meaningful Participation. No significant
relationship was found for any of the statistical analyses. However, these themes did emerge in
the qualitative data. The three themes which encompass 12 categories, are positive effects of
belonging, strategies to develop belonging, and challenges to foster belonging. Because other
ecologies influence a child’s sense of belonging, focus group data provided two additional
themes with four categories for consideration. The two themes are home life and parents. These
additional themes further answer how the microsystem and mesosystem influence school
connectedness for Latinx EL students.
93

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to better understand school connectedness in Latinx
English learners at Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise (LAAAE), a public school
which serves about 300 students in Grades 6 through 12. Chapter One provided an overview of
the study. Chapter Two explored the existing literature regarding sense of belonging and
identified Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as the theoretical framework. Chapter
Three detailed the organization and the methodology followed for the study. In Chapter Four, a
relationship between knowledge of supports available and willingness to ask for help at the
school was identified. Student surveys also found a relationship between self-efficacy and school
connectedness. Strategies to promote school belonging were identified in the focus group –
caring staff-student relationships, student meaningful participation, high expectations, safety, and
assurances of belonging. Challenges to foster belongingness identified were cultural nuances,
difficulty in creating relationships, loss of intimacy, loss of trust, and facility challenges. The
focus groups also yielded the themes home life and parents as relevant school belonging
considerations.
This chapter will discuss the findings and make recommendations that LAAAE can
implement to improve the sense of belonging at school for its students. The discussion and
recommendations synthesize the literature review, findings from the study, and provide
opportunities for additional data collection. This chapter will provide recommendations intended
to improve the child’s microsystem (the school and classroom) and students’ ability to engage
with its school. All recommendations are based on the analyses of the data. Lastly, future
research proposes the inclusion of qualitative data collection in the ongoing school climate
survey process.
94

Implications of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory posits interconnected levels of
ecology in which individuals interact. These interactions among people in their immediate
environment are central to influencing the development of children in school (Tseng & Seidman,
2007). The scholastic and home settings are at the microsystem and their interaction is at the
mesosystem. Thus, parent and school relationships exist within the mesosystem (El Zaatari &
Maalouf, 2022). The mesosystem also includes a school’s mission, vision, policies, pedagogy,
processes, and practices (Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016). Since the school controls its
curriculum and instructional practices, it should be able to increase curricular and programmatic
activities that promote knowledge of campus resources and the development of student self-
efficacy. Policies and practices can also be enhanced to respond to strategies that emerged in this
study for students to further develop their sense of belonging such as caring staff-student
relationships, student meaningful participation, high expectations, safety, assurances of
belonging, and parental involvement.
Research on school belongingness has identified 10 related factors (Allen & Kern, 2017;
Allen et al., 2016). Factors relating to the student include academic motivation, emotional
stability, personal characteristics, gender, and race/ethnicity. Factors relating to the microsystem
are parent, peer, and teacher support. Lastly, factors relating to the mesosystem are
extracurricular opportunities and school environment. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory demonstrates the varied levels and systems within which schools must operate (Allen,
Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016) similar to how children are shaped through interactions in their
environment. For a variety of reasons, parents may not be aware of or reach out to available
community agencies for support. Like the mesosystem, schools are well positioned to facilitate
95

the convening of groups within the exosystem that can promote parent involvement and thereby
further promote students’ sense of belonging.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory formed the foundation for the
recommendations, which reflect the various systems that most influence student sense of
belonging and connectedness to schools. The recommendations progress from the most proximal
levels of ecology and to more distal levels.
Discussion
Among the 10 most studied themes impacting school belonging, teacher support has been
shown to have the most impact on a student’s sense of belonging (Allen & Kern, 2017). A
connection with just a single teacher is sufficient for a student to experience the benefits
associated with school belonging (Allen & Kern, 2017). The findings of this study are consistent
with research. Caring relationships is the construct with the highest frequency in the focus group
analysis. Its influence in fostering school belonging was well developed and its effects can be
profound. Referring to teachers from over 50 years ago who made an effort to have a relationship
with him, a board member shared, “They had a lasting impact on my life that I deeply
appreciate.” A teacher asserted, “We care about our kids.”
Relationships can build self-esteem, identity, and agency (Freeland Fisher & Charania,
2021). Relationships provide students with opportunities to develop social capital which are
helpful for future orientation. Social capital is a students’ access and ability to mobilize
relationships that help them further their potential and goals. This includes current goals and
future goals as they progress through the chronosystem. Vulnerable students report limited
access to relationships which can in turn impact their economic mobility. Figure 5 illustrates how
social capital may manifest across a student’s journey in school and beyond.
96

Figure 5
Social Capital Implications in the Scholastic Setting

Note. From 5 Steps for Building & Strengthening Students’ Networks by J. Freeland Fisher and
M. Charania, 2021. Clayton Christensen Institute. Copyright 2021 by Clayton Christensen
Institute.

The Manifestation of Familismo in the Scholastic Setting
Familismo, another relationship theme, also emerged in the focus group discussion.
Familismo, a Latinx cultural value, refers to closeness and loyalty to your family (Kim et al.,
2009). Because of the positive relationship between familismo and increased school engagement,
familismo can be leveraged to improve outcomes for Latinx youth, including increased self-
efficacy (Constante et al., 2019). Participants shared that familismo was a barrier for some
students because their family needs superseded academic pursuits. While familismo was
honored, concurrent academic achievement was expected. A school leader commented, “there's
nothing wrong with putting yourself first and your priorities first as well as your family. But
there has to be boundaries. … Trust me, I know it's hard. I've been there.” A board member
added, “I'm wondering if we can have a conversation long-term about reframing that dynamic,
97

reframing what it means to honor your family and also have a personal achievement goal.
Right?”
The concept of familismo appeared in other remarks. One teacher noted, “I talk to my
students as if they were my sons and daughters.” Board members suggested planning communal
fellowship. The expectation for deep relationships was evident in the dialogue. In the K-12
setting, the doctrine of in loco parentis refers to the legal responsibility of adults to act in the
place of the parent for their students. While it is common, and perhaps even expected, for adults
in the school setting to have some kind of caring relationship with students they interact with, the
pronounced relationships across the school’s stakeholders and high expectations for students and
their future well-being suggest familismo in the school environment, or “scholastic familismo.”
Creating relationships can be difficult to foster and may take time (Allen & Kern, 2017).
One school leader commented, “You know, there were a lot of student relationships that took a
long time for me to develop with the students.” Students may not appear to be responsive, but
they still need assurances of belonging from the adults at school. Students need assurances of
belonging, even in difficult circumstances. One school leader noted, “I think it’s balancing their
safety with also some compassion and that this is a safe place to make mistakes, even very severe
ones.” A board member expanded, “Even when a student is struggling in their home life, or even
academically, when we call out and celebrate their work, you know, even if it’s just a smaller
expression, I think that really sticks with the students.” Two participants shared examples of their
own oppositional behavior during their school years. A student’s perception about coming to
school innately impacts the extent to which the student feels connected to the school (Fong Lam
et al., 2015). Students wanting their teachers to care about them even if they do not perform well
is consistent with research (Allen & Kern, 2020).
98

The Classroom Environment Matters
The classroom, as the venue for this microsystem, is also an important consideration.
Students who feel supported in their learning will have a higher sense of belonging (Allen &
Kern, 2017). However, external pressure from school leaders, parents, standardized assessments,
and other influences can make it challenging for teachers to develop meaningful relationships
with students (Allen & Kern, 2020). In secondary schools, there can be additional barriers. Most
teachers have a full assignment and full class rosters, making it difficult to develop relationships
with students. Teachers can also be teaching a topic of less interest or familiarity. COVID has
also added a safety proximity consideration which can impair relationship development.
Family Engagement is Essential
Opportunities to foster family and caregiver relationships have also been weakened. A
staff member commented regarding how to increase parent involvement, “we’re trying to get that
back up by doing our coffee with the principal, and our parents have shared there that they would
like to come back to campus, and they would like to see more events.” A board member queried,
“I would certainly like to hear when the school thinks it’s appropriate to have these in-person
events.” This study’s focus group data suggests that increased parent involvement will enhance
student school connectedness. A school leader noted that a lack of parent involvement can impair
a student’s connectedness “even if a student, you know, wants to belong in our school or likes
our school.” This is consistent with research that shows parent support is a key factor for
students to develop their sense of belonging at school (Adkins, 2017; Allen & Kern, 2017; Sibley
& Brabeck, 2017). Parent support has even been found to be more impactful than peer support
(Allen & Kern, 2020). This is because adolescents rely on the support from their caregivers to
successfully transition from childhood to adulthood. Caregivers become a critical support system
for teenagers as they take risks, experiment, test boundaries, and make sense of who they are and
99

how they fit in (Allen & Kern, 2017). Despite the benefits for engagement. there are several
challenges Latinx immigrant parents encounter (summarized in Table 2) when they interact with
the educational setting. The school has been proactive in tackling these challenges. For example,
in 2017, the school’s board of directors resolved to establish the school as a safe zone and
resource center. This board resolution highlighted that no law mandates schools assist
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of immigration laws and
empowers the school principal on deciding whether ICE agents would have access to the school
site. It was perhaps these proactive activities that maintained higher parent engagement at the
school prior to COVID.
A board member shared, “I’m concerned that we may have lost our intimacy with our
students and the parents.” Another board member suggested, “Perhaps we can sponsor dinner for
parents, right? And encourage them to make a reservation. And we’ll host a dinner. We can
always go to a restaurant and get a wonderful meal for everybody.” This idea is similar to an
annual schoolwide activity, Family Fiesta. Since 2015, the Family Fiesta has been a day-long
event for students, alumni, school staff, parents, and board members to fellowship. These
communal activities for all school stakeholders further hint at scholastic familismo.
No Home for the School Impedes Student Connectedness
Evidence of the school’s tenuous facility history also emerged as an issue impacting
connectedness. LAAAE remains seeking a permanent facility which would enable exiting its
facility colocation relationship. When people think of a school, they may think of the actual
school building. However, as of 2013-2014, over 40% of California charter schools do not have
their own facility and were collocated in school district facilities (National Charter School
Resource Center, 2015). In local media, school colocation has been a controversial subject
(Stokes, 2016; Szymanski, 2017). LAAAE is a tenant and collocated on a school district high
100

school campus. As the focus group data suggests, LAAAE’s students are aware of campus
resource access differences between schools. A teacher in the focus group shared that LAAAE
students “were like second class citizens,” later adding,
to build that trust and build that feeling of belonging with our students that they have like
their own place that's theirs that they don't have to adjust their lunch schedule to the other
school. They don't have to adjust this thing to what the other school does. They have their
own place that's there’s.
Research in charter school colocation is scant. There is research on school facilities and
their impact on climate, attendance, behavior, and learning. This research, however, primarily
focuses on the condition of the facility (Durán-Narucki, 2008; Earthman, 2017; Kumar et al.,
2008; Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008), features of the facility (Gunter & Shao, 2016;
Matsuoka, 2010; Maxwell, 2016; Tanner, 2009), and health and safety compliance of the facility
(Buckley et al., 2004). Maxwell (2016) found linkages between the quality of the school
environment and the quality of the social environment. Woolner et al. (2018) emphasized that
“change in schools is linked to the physical environment. The existing school space can either
support or constrain the achievement of desired change” (p. 236). As the primary venue for a
student’s mesosystem, the school facility is an influential factor in a student’s sense of
belonging. Despite the daunting task, acquiring a facility that the school can control is important
for this scholastic community. A teacher in the focus group summarized the impact of finding a
facility, “I know that’s a big undertaking, but that’s kind of like the biggest one, to build that
trust with our students.”
Recommendations
Because students spend an abundance of time at school, targeted practices can yield
increased student belonging. Campus resources need to be promoted. Instructional activities
101

should include growth mindset instructional practices. Deliberate opportunities for students to
build relationships with adults need to be planned. Parent reengagement needs to be prioritized.
Recommendation 1: Promote Campus Resources
To increase students’ awareness of school resources, the first recommendation is to
increase activities that promote campus resources. The advisory class period will be integral for
this recommendation. The advisory program varies from school to school but if structured well,
can be a backbone for a middle or high school student’s experience (GreatSchools, 2023). A
good advisory program should meet regularly with activities focused on academic support, social
emotional learning, and future orientation. The first step in this recommendation is to schedule
additional advisory lessons that include all student services resources as well as opportunities for
the student services team members to visit and meet with the advisory classes. While some
lessons throughout the year already address available campus resources and include visits by the
student services team, survey data suggests that some students are not internalizing this
information. Exposure frequency to these activities should therefore increase as well as
employing different mechanisms to convey this information. Additionally, training teachers and
staff on the availability of some key programs available will enable teachers and staff to refer
students to the student services team for available support services. Since teachers and some
support staff spend considerable time with students, their awareness of all campus resources
makes them ideal people to refer students needing available supports. For these activities to have
greater success, the school’s leadership and advisory committee would need to be involved in
updates to the advisory curriculum. The student services team would need to meet with the
advisory team to coordinate activities, communications, and teacher and staff training. These
activities would occur throughout the school year. Their effectiveness can be measured through
future survey administrations and proposed focus groups. Use of the student portal’s “Request to
102

See a Counselor” option will provide an additional source of data regarding students’ knowledge
and willingness to request to seek available student services support.
Recommendation 2: Integrate Growth Mindset Instructional Strategies Schoolwide
As noted in the findings, there is a relationship between self-efficacy and school
connectedness. Developing self-efficacy is integral to learning a new language (Bai & Wang,
2023) and students with a higher self-efficacy, report a higher sense of belonging (Chiu et al.,
2016). Thus, there needs to be an identified process to provide instructional activities that will
further develop student self-efficacy. Growth mindsets in language learners have been positively
associated with self-efficacy (Zarrinabadi et al., 2022). Growth mindset should be integrated
schoolwide but particularly through the advisory curricula. Growth mindset instructional
strategies foster thinking that abilities can be developed through effort and persistence (Kroeper,
2022). People with a fixed mindset tend to believe they fail because they don’t have the ability to
perform otherwise. A growth mindset motivates students to overcome learning setbacks. Four
leading themes in growth mindset are: messages about success, provision of opportunities and
feedback, response to student struggle, and value placement (Kroeper, 2022). Teachers can also
incorporate related instructional strategies into non-advisory lessons. Tutors assigned to students
who are failing multiple classes will also need to be trained in these instructional activities. This
will enable a holistic approach to the delivery of these concepts. Improving students’ self-
efficacy will enable the tutors to additionally assist students who need more support. Like the
first recommendation, the student services team would need to meet with the advisory team to
coordinate activities, communications, and teacher and staff training. Promoting campus
resources as previously recommended will also influence student self-efficacy. There is a
relationship between resource access and self-efficacy. Children living in families with access to
more resources tend to develop a higher self-efficacy. Conversely, living in a family that has a
103

higher household risk, such as lower parent education and income, is associated with lower self-
efficacy (Bradley, 2019). Promoting opportunities for increased development of caring
relationships and increased parent engagement will also foster students’ development of self-
efficacy. These are further described in the next recommendations.
These activities would occur throughout the year and can be measured through future
survey administrations and proposed focus groups. Schoolwide student grades, attendance,
extracurricular engagement, and PBIS participation are also data that may improve as a result of
increased self-efficacy. Tutor assignments and logs can also provide additional related data. If
students need less tutor contact time, then these activities may be contributing to the students’
increased self-efficacy.
Recommendation 3: Plan Deliberate Opportunities for Fostering Caring Relationships
The third recommendation is to deliberately plan to foster caring student-staff
relationships. Teachers who demonstrate fair practices advance school connectedness (Allen &
Kern, 2017). Fair practices include consistent and reasonable rules that have been mutually
agreed upon. When teachers play an active role in fostering relationships, the connection can be
enhanced (Allen & Kern, 2020). Teachers also need time to implement activities that foster
caring relationships. “Warm and fuzzy” activities should not be underestimated, and their value
needs to be emphasized in school (Allen & Kern, 2020). Although all teachers should be doing
these activities to foster classroom community, deeper relationship activities can be infused
through the advisory curricula.
The school’s leadership team will need to coordinate the professional development
activities for teachers and staff. Topics that may emerge from a needs assessment include
trauma-informed practices, culturally relevant pedagogy, and inclusive practices. Training
teachers to ensure they include all students regardless of differences, fosters student engagement
104

(McCormick et al., 2015). When students are respected and treated fairly by their teachers, it
becomes easier for students to feel connected. The teacher also promotes similar expectations of
acceptance and respect among the students. Teachers can also consult with parents of children
who are having difficulty at school so that they can provide more details to foster the promotion
of a sense of belonging in the child (Allen & Kern, 2020).
Relationship mapping is an activity that can be employed to identify students with
potential gaps in school connections (Making Caring Common Project, n.d.). In this meeting
activity, student rosters are posted throughout the room. School staff circulate and place a sticker
dot next to students they have a relationship with. Once all adults have finished, the rosters on
the wall will provide a visual of the perceived relationships of all the children in the school. This
activity will also show students with limited or no perceived positive connection. These children
are subsequently paired with an adult mentor who then works to build a relationship with the
assigned student(s). A similar and reverse activity can be done by students electronically, like
through Google Forms, to identify teachers and staff they feel connected to.
Activities to increase caring student-staff relationships should occur throughout the year
and can be measured through the end-of-year survey and proposed focus groups. Since the High
Expectations scale is closely related, its results can also inform the development of caring
student-staff relationships. As noted for the previous recommendation, schoolwide student
grades, extracurricular engagement, and PBIS participation may also improve as a result of
increased caring relationships. Student grades schoolwide, extracurricular engagement, and PBIS
participation may also be other sources for evaluating effectiveness.
Recommendation 4: Prioritize Opportunities for Parent Engagement
Prior to COVID, there was higher parent engagement. More parents came to parent
meetings and school activities. One of the most cherished events is the annual Family Fiesta
105

wherein stakeholders convene and celebrate the scholastic familia. When the school transitioned
to distance learning. There was a marked decrease in parent participation. When students initially
returned to campus, safety protocols prevented parents from coming onto campus. Although
parents can now return to campus, their extended limited opportunities for engagement have
decreased the overall parent engagement.
To expand opportunity access for parent involvement, events need repetition or
alternating schedules. A consultant noted,
unless we have many activities and coffee with the principal, it's fine in the morning, but
what about those parents that don’t work in the evening? Right, we get that small crowd.
So in other words, duplicating the amount of meetings throughout the day, whether in the
morning, afterschool, and in the evening, even on Saturdays. We have to adapt as an
organization to meet the needs of the parents.
Increased parent communications of how to be engaged can also boost parent
involvement. A staff member noted, “I think something that a lot of parents want is the
communication from us.” A consultant added, “they’re [parents] not going to come unless we
invite them.” The form or type of communication to parents may also be key in fostering
scholastic familismo for parents. The consultant added,
We rely too much on texting, phone calls, robocalls, social media, where parents are still
with the paper, with the pens, with the notices that go in the backpack? … How many
times do teachers … write a personal note to each of their parents?
If the relationships among school staff and parents flourish, parent connectedness will emerge. A
school leader noted,
106

I think when a parent is more, also feels connectedness to the school, or if the parent feels
welcomed and that they belong in the school, then that’s like twofold right? It’s always so
much better than if it’s just the student.
The California Department of Education (2017) recommends schools establish a family
engagement team that includes school staff, families, and community members. The team’s
diverse membership should bring a collective perspective on family engagement. After the
family engagement team has formed, they can (a) determine strengths and challenges for families
at the school; (b) investigate current levels of trusting relationships between the families and
school; (c) identify connections of family engagement activities to student learning; and (d)
evaluate the strengths and challenges of existing family engagement activities. This information
can inform two critical dimensions of family engagement - trusting relationships between
teachers and caregivers, and the linkages of parent involvement to student learning. To support
parent engagement, professional development should be provided to teachers and staff in best
practices for family engagement and training regarding school and related policies for
undocumented families and children. Ongoing feedback and future focus groups can inform the
success of parent engagement. The California Department of Education encourages the use of
their Family Engagement Matrix when annually evaluating parent engagement. Figure 6
describes the Family Engagement Matrix.
107

Figure 6
Family Engagement Matrix

Note. From Family Engagement Toolkit: Continuous Improvement Through an Equity Lens by
California Department of Education, 2017.

COVID-19
During the implementation of this study, schools around the world were adversely
impacted by the pandemic. Strategies to contain the spread of COVID-19 affected schools in
more than 100 countries (Onyema et al., 2020). LAAAE school leadership announced to its
stakeholders on March 13, 2020, that the school would pivot to remote instruction for “2 weeks”
108

commencing on March 16. Regrettably, it would be over 1 year before students returned to
campus. Although school leadership had been ready earlier to receive students, the facility
colocation agreement guidelines forbade LAAAE from bringing students back earlier. Once
authorized by the district, LAAAE prioritized the return of students with disabilities who began
returning to campus on April 7, 2021. Including irregular onsite attendance, approximately 30%
of students had returned to campus by June 2021. Access to campus by both students and staff
required weekly COVID testing and evidence of a negative test. If a student was unable to take a
test, campus access was revoked until a negative test was provided. The Return 2 Learn Tracker
(2021) showed that on June 7, 2021, 57.1% of California districts were similarly operating in a
hybrid manner. Research demonstrates that remote instruction was a key driver for widening
achievement gaps and California high poverty schools were among schools in the nation with the
most remote learning weeks for school year 2020–2021 (Goldhaber et al., 2022). Students at
high poverty schools which remained in distance learning lost about 22 weeks of learning, with
Latinx children losing about 4 more weeks of instruction than White students did (Kane, 2022).
A study on 30 California school districts showed that chronic absenteeism had more than
doubled from 2019 to 2021 (Dorn et al., 2021). Although LAAAE students returned to full in
person instruction in the Fall of 2021, student attendance during the 2021 – 2022 school year
remained below pre-pandemic levels. A recent study suggests a relationship between building
attendance and student outcomes. Educators 4 Excellence (2020) surveyed about 600 teachers.
Teachers reported that more than half of students were not completing assignments on par with
rates pre-COVID-19. The rates progressively worsened in schools that served increasing
numbers of low-income students.
The impacts of COVID were multifaceted. Latinx low-income communities experienced
a higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality than the overall population (Gale, 2021). One of the
109

primary communities the school serves, Westlake, became a COVID-19 “high-risk area”
(Martin, 2020). The school community was in ongoing mourning. Regular reports of parents and
other family members who perished, including families who lost multiple people and students
left without a caregiver. School staff were also impacted as they too lost family members or
became ill. In 2020, a schoolwide virtual funeral was conducted for a teacher. The instability and
disruption COVID-19 brought, triggered historical trauma for many families. These events in the
mesosystem and exosystem were simultaneously occurring in the broader macrosystem, levels
also known to impact children’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Although it may be too
early to fully determine the negative impacts of the pandemic, Heider (2021) argued that one of
the most significant losses for students was a decline in sense of belonging at school.
Prior to COVID-19, researchers contended that student belonging has not been given the
same attention as other scholastic considerations such as academic achievement (Allen &
Bowles, 2012). Despite the abundance of benefits to students, there has been a disparity between
the importance of school connectedness in research and its deliberate incorporation into the
school environment. COVID may have been the inflection point for this. During the pandemic,
37% of U.S. high school students reported poor mental health and 44% felt persistently sad or
hopeless (Jones et al., 2022). This Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study
found that students who experienced school connectedness were significantly less likely to report
persistent feelings of sadness and other measures of poor mental health. As an example, 28% of
students who experienced school connectedness reported poor mental health during the
pandemic versus 45% of their peers who didn’t have school connection and reported similar
feelings. The CDC study called for the implementation of strategies to foster school
connectedness and noted that their study can inform programs at schools.
110

President Joseph Biden challenged in his 2022 State of the Union address to tackle
mental health for children “whose lives and education have been turned upside down” (Biden,
2022). Shortly thereafter, the Biden-Harris administration introduced a national effort to support
students, including launching the National Partnership for Student Success (NPSS), a public-
private partnership which will recruit, train, and place 250,000 adults into high impact roles to
support kids throughout the country (White House, 2022). President Biden called on schools to
use American Rescue Plan revenues to combat learning loss, address mental health, and fund
high impact tutoring, summer learning activities, and afterschool programs. These additional
learning activities will create additional opportunities for students to develop caring relationships
with adults.
Limitations
During remote instruction in the COVID-19 pandemic, student engagement decreased at
the school. Although 48% of students participated in the survey, participation was lower than in
previous years. As an example, the two immediately preceding survey administrations for the
end of the first and second semester in 2019-2020 had an 86% and 87% participation rate
respectively. Although a different instrument was used in the prior school climate survey
administrations, reported student school connectedness perceptions in general, were lower than
in previous years. Student prolonged absence from campus may have contributed to a reported
decreased sense of school connectedness.
In preceding school years, the school climate survey was completed by students on
campus. The onsite setting provided an opportunity for proctors to clarify any misunderstandings
the students may have as they answer the survey. Since most students completed the survey for
this study off campus, it is possible that students may have misunderstood survey questions and
answered them according to that interpretation.
111

The CHKS Secondary Core Module is one of the components of the School Climate,
Health, and Learning Survey (CalSCHLS; Mahecha & Hanson, 2020). Administering another
CalSCHLS instrument, such as the Secondary School Climate Module may have provided
additional data on factors influencing students’ sense of belonging. An alternative to CalSCHLS
are other tools to measure school belonging, including Psychological Sense of School
Membership, Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness, School Connectedness Scale,
and Student Engagement Instrument (Allen & Kern, 2017). In a student’s mesosystem, parent-
school relationships, staff-student relationships, and other relationships relating to the school
influence their sense of belonging (Allen, Vella-Brodrick, & Waters, 2016; Bronfenbrenner,
1976; El Zaatari & Maalouf, 2022). Other instruments or other CalSCHLS modules, such as the
California School Staff Survey or the California School Parent Survey, could have been
administered to determine perception differences, if any, among stakeholders.
Survey data has limitations in providing meaning to selected options (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). In this study, surveys are not the best option for collecting precise information.
Surveys are also unable to capture nonverbal responses such as facial gestures or body language
that respondents may make as they answer questions in a focus group. Although there is
anonymity, a student may still not truthfully respond and may instead reply with a socially
acceptable response. Qualitative and quantitative data were both collected. However, quantitative
data were only collected from students and qualitative data were only collected from teachers
and staff, school leaders, and board members. Moreover, there was a delay between the survey
administration (April 21 and 23, 2021) and the focus group (December 15, 2022). This delay was
due to a shift in the design of the study. Since the schooling community was consistent
throughout this timeframe, this delay should not adversely impact findings. Furthermore, the
delay may have benefitted the opportunity for additional reflection time on the survey data.
112

The focus group was conducted at a board of directors meeting which customarily
includes attendance from all major stakeholder groups. Unfortunately, no parents or students
participated in the focus group, thereby omitting their feedback there. The inclusion of more
stakeholders in the survey would have enhanced its findings. Similarly, focus group participants
were a subgroup and not representative of the whole community. Parents influence students’
sense of school belonging (Allen & Kern, 2017, 2020) and thus parent insight is invaluable.
Parent voice is a key consideration in school connectedness because parents and home life
significantly influence a student’s ability to connect to their school. Moreover, since school
connectedness is experienced by each individual student, students should be more involved in the
process of identifying what influences their sense of belonging at school. Student participation in
the focus group may have amplified the findings. Student participation in focus groups was part
of the initial design of the study. However, pandemic related challenges precluded the
continuation of that design. Time limitations did not allow for a series of focus groups which
would enable the unpacking of themes that emerged in this study.
Future Research
Future research should continue to include focus groups to gain a better understanding of
the factors that impede or bolster student connectedness. Additional data will enrich and provide
more meaning to future survey administrations. Future research may also evaluate the
effectiveness of the recommendations from this study. Since settings of a given kind, in this case
schools, tend to be alike within the ecological environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the
recommendations in this chapter may also be responsive to other schools that are working on
improving their students’ school connectedness. Qualitative data should be collected annually to
supplement the annual school climate. It may be helpful to plan the focus groups to coincide with
the administration of the survey data so as to enable both analyses in concert.
113

Conclusion
Humans have a need to connect with one another, and an increasingly growing body of
research supports the broad short- and long-term benefits of school connectedness. The purpose
of this study was to better understand what factors improve or hinder school connectedness for
students at LAAAE, a school that serves about 300 students in Grades 6 through 12. Over 90%
of students are Ever-English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and Latinx. These
demographics are each associated with lowered school connectedness and concurrent
membership in multiple subgroups may exacerbate lowered school connectedness.
Two research questions were investigated, and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
systems theory was used as a framework for the discussion of the findings and recommendations.
In the ecological model, the school is part of each child’s microsystem and is the setting for
many ecological transitions and interconnections with others.
A survey was administered to 131 students. The SPSS was used to compute the data for
the research questions. A relationship between knowledge of supports available and willingness
to ask for help at the school was identified. Moreover, a relationship was identified between self-
efficacy and school connectedness. Focus group data also identified additional themes related to
school connectedness. Recommendations focus on these findings. To identify relationships
between school connectedness and sense of the school providing a welcoming environment,
three simple regressions were conducted for each of the survey subscales: Caring Relationships,
High Expectations, and Meaningful Participation. No significant relationship was found for any
of the analyses. These themes did emerge in the qualitative data. Atlas.ti was used to support the
analysis of the focus group transcript. The three themes which encompass 12 categories, are
positive effects of belonging, strategies to develop belonging, and challenges to foster belonging.
114

The two other themes that emerged as relevant ecological system components are home life and
parents.
The pandemic’s disruption has adversely impacted children. Large scale efforts are
underway to promote school connectedness to reengage students. Scholastic familismo emerged
as a phenomenon that demonstrates caring relationships and high expectations for Latinx English
learners. Recommendations were made to improve students’ sense of school connectedness and
collect more data. These recommendations span planning students’ awareness of campus
resources, improving self-efficacy, enhancing opportunities for caring relationships, and
increasing parent engagement opportunities. Future focus groups are recommended to continue
providing meaning to student survey data.
115

References
Abrego, L. J. (2006). “I can’t go to college because I don’t have papers”: Incorporation patterns
of Latino undocumented youth. Latino Studies, 4(3), 212-231.
Adkins, E. (2017). Educating the outsiders: The importance of social support in the success of
Latino undocumented students. UReCA: The NCHC Journal of Undergraduate Research
& Creative Activity, 14.
Alexander, M. (2005). Pedagogies of crossing: Meditations on feminism, sexual politics,
memory, and the sacred. Duke University Press
Ali, A., Buzdar, M. A., Perveen, S., & Ramzan, M. (2016). What builds emotional intelligence?
Fixing the role of personal and social well-being. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences
(PJSS), 36(2), 959-967.
Allen, K., & Kern, M. (2017). School belonging in adolescents: Theory, research and practice.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5996-4
Allen, K., & Kern, M. (2020). Boosting school belonging: Practical strategies to help
adolescents feel like they belong at school. Routledge.
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2016). What schools need to
know about fostering school belonging: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review,
30, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Allen, K. A., & Bowles, T. (2012). Belonging as a guiding principle in the education of
adolescents. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 12(1),
108–119.
Allen, K. A., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2016). Fostering school belonging in secondary
schools using a socio-ecological framework. The Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 33(1), 97–121.
116

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc.
Austin, G., Hanson, T., & Voight, A. (2013). School connectedness and academic achievement
in California high schools. S3 Factsheet #5. WestEd.
Bai, B. & Wang, J. (2023). The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in self-
regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching
Research: LTR, 27(1), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820933190
Baldwin-White, A. J. M., Kiehne, E., Umaña-Taylor, A., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2017, March). In
pursuit of belonging: Acculturation, perceived discrimination, and ethnic–racial Identity
among Latino youths. Social Work Review, 41(1), 43–52.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bernstein, H., Gonzalez, D., Karpman, M., & Zuckerman, S. (2020, May). Amid confusion over
the public charge rule, immigrant families continued avoiding public benefits in 2019.
Urban Institute.
Biden, J. (2022). State of the Union Address. https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-
2022/
Blum, R. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 16–20.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/224848080/
117

Blum, R., & Libbey, H. (2004). Executive summary. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 231–
232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08278.x
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bradberry, T. (2020). The massive benefits of boosting your emotional intelligence. The World
Economic Forum
Bradberry, T., Greaves, J., & Lencioni, P. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. TalentSmart.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher,
5(9), 5–15.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). Los Angeles Unified School District school
facilities and academic performance. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
California Department of Education. (2023). DataQuest. Data engine.
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2017). Family engagement toolkit: Continuous
Improvement through an equity lens.
California Department of Education. (2020). DataQuest 2018-19 Enrollment by Ethnicity and
Grade.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrEthGrd.aspx?cds=19647330110304&agglev
el=school&year=2018-19&ro=y
California Department of Education. (2022a). Facts about English learners in California.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2022b). English learners in California Schools.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sg/englishlearner.asp
118

California Department of Education. (2022c). 2020–21 data summary.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/datasummary.asp
California Department of Education. (2022d). California Health Kids Survey.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/at/chks.asp
California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys. (2011). Measurement analysis of
CHKS core and school climate module items.
https://data.calschls.org/resources/SCM.pdf
California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys. (2022). California Secondary School
Climate Report Card 2021–2022. https://data.calschls.org/resources/SCM.pdf
California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys. (2023a). California Healthy Kids
Survey, public dashboards. https://calschls.org/reports-data/public-dashboards/
California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys. (2023b). CalSCHLS Homepage.
https://calschls.org/
Carter, C. S., Williams, J. R., Witt, D. M., & Insel, T. R. (1992). Oxytocin and social bonding.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 652(1), 204–211.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The
importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social
Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252–261.
Centers for Disease Control. (2010, Fall). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing
protective factors among youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 19(3), 20–24.
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W., Mcbride, C., & Mol, S. T. (2016). Students’ sense of belonging at
school in 41 countries: Cross-Cultural variability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
47(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115617031
119

Chiu, M. M., Pong, S., Mori, I., & Chow, B. W. (2012). Immigrant students’ emotional and
cognitive engagement at school: A multilevel analysis of students in 41 countries.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(11), 1409–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-
012-9763-x
Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Constante, K., Marchand, A. D., Cross, F. L., Rivas-Drake, D., & Cardemil, E. V. (2019).
Understanding the Promotive Role of Familism in the Link Between Ethnic-Racial
Identity and Latino Youth School Engagement. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 7(3), 230–
244. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000117
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. 3 ed. SAGE Publications.
Craggs, H., & Kelly, C. (2018). Adolescents’ experiences of school belonging: a qualitative
meta-synthesis. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(10), 1411–1425.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1477125
Crespo, C., Jose, P. E., Kielpikowski, M., & Pryor, J. (2013). “On solid ground”: Family and
school connectedness promotes adolescents’ future orientation. Journal of Adolescence,
36(5), 993–1002.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cristóvão, A., Candeias, A., Verdasca, J., & Cristóvão, A. (2017). Social and emotional learning
and academic achievement in Portuguese schools: A bibliometric study. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1913–1913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01913
120

Crosnoe, R., & López Turley, R. N. (2011). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2011.0008
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Socializing young children in Mexican-American families: An
intergenerational perspective. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking, Cross-Cultural Roots
of Minority Child Development (pp. 55–86). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Denbaum, N., & De Prada Pérez, A. (2021). How do Spanish heritage speakers in the US assign
gender to English nouns in Spanish-English code-switching? The effect of noun
canonicity and codeswitcher type. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(6), 846–
872.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2010). Social cognitive theory. The Gale Group.
Developmental Studies Center. (1994). At home in our schools. Child Development Project.
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021, December 14). COVID-19 and
education: An emerging K-shaped recover. McKinsey & Company.
Durán-Narucki, V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic
achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.008
Earthman, G. I. (2017). The relationship between school building condition and student
achievement: A critical examination of the literature. Journal of Ethical Educational
Leadership, 4(3), 1–16.
Eaton-Robb, P. (2023, February 1). Democratic-backed Connecticut bill would ban ‘Latinx’
term. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/politics-connecticut-state-government-
waterbury-arkansas-77817868efdbd4ee7651575acc665c6f
Eccles, J. (2010). Behaviorism. The Gale Group.
121

The Education Trust-West. (2017). The majority report: Supporting the educational success of
Latino students in California.
Educators 4 Excellence. (2020). Voices from the virtual classroom: A survey of America’s
teachers on COVID-19-related education issues.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M…. Elias,
M. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: guidelines for educators.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
El Zaatari, W. & Maalouf, I. (2022). How the Bronfenbrenner bio-ecological system theory
explains the development of students’ sense of belonging to school. SAGE Open, 12(4),
1-18.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1177
Fong Lam, U., Chen, W-W., Zhang, J., & Liang, T. (2015). It feels good to learn where I belong:
School belonging, academic emotions, and academic achievement in adolescents. School
Psychology International, 36(4), 393–409.
Freeland Fisher, J. & Charania, M. (2021). 5 Steps for building & strengthening students’
networks. Clayton Christensen Institute.
Fuligni, A., Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., & Baldelomar, O. (2008). Stability and change in ethnic
labeling among adolescents from Asian and Latin American immigrant families. Child
Development, 79(4), 944–956.
Galbally, M., Lewis, A., van IJzendoorn, M., & Permezel, M. (2011). The role of oxytocin in
mother-infant relations: A systematic review of human studies. Harvard Review of
Psychiatry, 19(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229.2011.549771
122

Gale, R. (2021). Legal counsel: A health care partner for immigrant communities. Health Affairs,
40(8).
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45–56.
Gao, N., Lopes, L, & Lee, G. (2017). California’s high school graduation requirements. Public
Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/hs-graduation-
requirements.pdf
Giang, V. (2013, June 15). 71% of millennials want their co-workers to be a ‘second family’.
Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-want-to-be-connected-to-
their-coworkers-2013-6
Gibson, M. A., Bejínez, L. F., Hidalgo, N., & Rolon, A. C. (2004). Belonging and school
participation: Lessons from a migrant student club. In M. A. Gibson, P. Gandara,
Koyama, & a. J. Peterson, School Connections: U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School
Achievement (pp. 129–149). Teachers College Press.
Glasser, W. (1997, April). A new look at school failure and school success. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 78(8), 596–602.
Glasser, W. (1999). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. HarperPerrenial.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4the ed). Pearson.
Goldhaber, D., Kane, T., McEachin, A., Morton E., Patterson, T., & Staiger, D., (2022) The
Consequences of remote and hybrid instruction during the pandemic (Research
Report). Center for Education Policy Research, Harvard University
123

Gonzales, R. G. (2010). On the wrong side of the tracks: Understanding the effects of school
structure and social capital in the educational pursuits of undocumented students.
Peabody Journal of Education, 85(4), 469–485.
Gonzalez, R. & Padilla, A. M. (1997). The academic resilience of Mexican American high
school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(3).
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values
to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 62(1), 60–71.
GreatSchools. (2023). The most important class in high school isn’t want you think.
https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/advisory-the-most-important-class-in-high-
school-isnt-what-you-think/
Gunter, T. & Shao, J. (2016). Synthesizing the effect of building condition quality on academic
performance. Education Finance and Policy, 11(1), 97-123.
Gupta, R. (2012). “Which way do the letters go?” A study of children learning about print
directionality. Language in India, 12(4), 1–16.
Hanson, T. L., & Kim, J. O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: the
psychometric properties of the Healthy Kids Survey (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2007–No. 034). U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Heider, K. L. (2021). Isolation, burnout, and a lost sense of belonging: Combating the challenges
of distance education during a pandemic. Distance Learning, 18(1), 25–35.
Hill, L. (2012, September). California’s English learner students. Public Policy Institute of
California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-english-learner-students/
124

Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations
and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and
schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 95–112.
InSight Crime. (2018). MS13 in the Americas. How the world’s most notorious gang defies logic,
resists destruction. Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, American University.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1043576/download
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed). SAGE Publications.
Jones, S.E., Ethier, K.A., Hertz, M., DeGue, S., Le, V.D., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Dittus, P.J., &
Geda, S. (2022). Mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school
students during the COVID-19 pandemic — Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences
Survey, United States, January–June 2021. MMWR, 71(Suppl-3):16–21.
Julian, M., Rosenblum, K., Doom, J., Leung, C., Lumeng, J., Cruz, M., … Miller, A. (2018).
Oxytocin and parenting behavior among impoverished mothers with low vs. high early
life stress. Archives of Women’s Mental Health., 21(3), 375–382.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-017-0798-6
Kane, T. (2022, May 22). Kids are far, far behind in school. The Atlantic.
Kim, B., Soliz, A., Orellana, B., & Alamilla, S. G. (2009). Latino/a values scale: Development,
reliability, and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
42(2), 71–91.
Koball, H., Moore, A., & Hernandez, J. (2021). Basic facts about low-income children. National
Center for Children in Poverty.
Kroeper, K. (2022). Identifying teaching behaviors that foster growth mindset classroom
cultures. American Psychological Association.
125

https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psychology-teacher-network/introductory-
psychology/growth-mindset-classroom-cultures
Kumar, R., O’Malley, P., & Johnston, L. (2008). Association between physical environment of
secondary schools and student problem behavior: A national study, 2000-2003.
Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 455–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506293987
Lad, K., & Braganza, D. (2013). Increasing knowledge related to the experiences of
undocumented immigrants in public schools. Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 24(1), 1–15.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.ka. the Remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Lam, U. F., Chen, W., Zhang, J., & Liang, T. (2015). It feels good to learn where I belong;
School belonging, academic emotions, and academic achievement in adolescents. School
Psychology International, 36(4), 393–409.
Langenkamp, A. (2019). Latino/a immigrant parents’ educational aspirations for their children,
Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(2), 231–294.
Lankes, A. (2022, July 20). In Argentina’s capital, a battle over gender-inclusive language in
classrooms. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/world/americas/argentina-gender-neutral-
spanish.html
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. University of California
Press.
Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08284.x
126

Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise. (2020). Charter petition renewal.
Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise. (2022). About us.
http://www.laaae.org/?page_id=2
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. (2019). 2019 homeless count by community / city.
https://www.lahsa.org/data?id=13-2019-homeless-count-by-community-city
Los Angeles Times. (n.d.). Mapping L.A. http://maps.latimes.com/about/
Lubliner, S., & Hiebert, E. (2011). An analysis of English–Spanish cognates as a source of
general academic language. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 76–93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.568589
Making Caring Common Project. (n.d.). How-to guide to relationship mapping. Harvard
Graduate School of Education.
https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/s/relationship_mapping_strategy.pdf
Martin, E. (2020, July 15). Signs warn Westlake, Pico-Union residents they live in a ‘high-risk’
area for COVID-19. KTLA5. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/signs-warn-westlake-pico-
union-residents-they-live-in-a-high-risk-area-for-covid-19/
Martínez, R. A. (2018). Beyond the English learner label: Recognizing the richness of
bi/multilingual students’ linguistic repertoires. The Reading teacher, 71(5), 515-522.
doi:10.1002/trtr.1679
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. The Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Matsuoka, R. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(4), 273–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011
127

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. 3 ed. SAGE
Publications.
Maxwell, L. E. (2016). School building condition, social climate, student attendance and
academic achievement: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46,
206–216.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McCormick, M., Cappella, E., O’Connor, E., & McClowry, S. (2015). Social-emotional learning
and academic achievement: Using causal methods to explore classroom-level
mechanisms. AERA Open, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415603959
McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 315–
325.
McMillan, D. W. & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.
McWhirter, E., Garcia, E., & Bines, D. (2018). Discrimination and other education barriers,
school connectedness, and thoughts of dropping out among Latina/o students. Journal of
Career Development, 45(4), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317696807
Menjivar, C. & Gomez Cervantes, A. (2016). The effects of parental undocumented status on
families and children. American Psychological Association
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Midgley, K., Holcomb, P., & Grainger, J. (2011). Effects of cognate status on word
comprehension in second language learners: An ERP investigation. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 23(7), 1634–1647. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21463
128

Morrison, S. S., Walley, C. T., Perez, C. P., Rodriguez, S., Halladeen, I., & Burdier, V. (2016).
School counselors working with undocumented students. VISTAS Online, 43(1).
Murillo, M. A. (2017). The art of the reveal: Undocumented high school students, institutional
agents, and the disclosure of legal status. The High School Journal, 100(2), 88–108.
Muzik, M., Ads, M., Bonham, C., Rosenblum, K. L, Broderick, A., & Kirk, R. (2013a).
Perspectives on trauma-informed care from mothers with a history of childhood
maltreatment: A qualitative study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1215–1224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.07.014
Muzik, M., Bocknek, E., Broderick, A., Richardson, P., Rosenblum, K., Thelen, K., & Seng, J.
(2013b). Mother–infant bonding impairment across the first 6 months postpartum: the
primacy of psychopathology in women with childhood abuse and neglect histories.
Archives of Women’s Mental Health., 16(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-012-
0312-0
Naghdipour, B. (2015). The impact of L1 reading directionality mode on L2 reading fluency. The
Journal of AsiaTEFL, 12(1), 53–77.
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture and
learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449–475.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (n.d.). What is a charter school?
https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools/what-charter-school
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Indicator 17 Snapshot: High School Status
Dropout Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rdcs.asp
129

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Status dropout rates. Condition of education.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coj
National Charter School Resource Center. (n.d.). What is a charter school? United States
Department of Education. https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/what-charter-school
National Charter School Resource Center. (2015, April 20). An analysis of the charter school
facility landscape in California. Charter School Facilities Initiative.
https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/N
CSRC%20Charter%20School%20Facility%20Landscape%20in%20California.pdf
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. Available at
https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf
Niehaus, K., Irvin, M. J., & Rogelberg, S. (2016). School connectedness and valuing as
predictors of high school completion and postsecondary attendance among Latino youth.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 54–67.
Noe-Bustamante, L., Mora, L., & Lopez, M. H. (2020). About one-in-four U.S. Hispanics
have heard of Latinx, but just 3% use it. Pew Research Center.
Olsen, J., Preston, A., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., & Cusumano, D. (2017). A review and
analysis of selected school climate measures. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 91(2), 47–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2017.1385999
O’Malley, M. D. & Amarillas, A. (2011). What Works Brief #4: School connectedness. WestEd.
http://californias3.wested.org/tools/1
130

Onyema, E. M., Eucheria, N. C., Obafemi, F. A., Sen, S., Atonye, F. G., Sharma, A., & Alsayed,
A. O. (2020). Impact of coronavirus pandemic on education. Journal of education and
practice, 11(13), 108-121.
Pajares, F. (2010). Self-efficacy theory. The Gale Group.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pedersen, C. A., & Prange, A. J. (1987). Evidence that central oxytocin plays a role in the
activation of maternal behavior. Perinatal development: A psychobiological perspective,
299–320.
Pedersen, C., Chang, S.W.C., & Williams, C.L. (2014). Evolutionary perspectives on the role of
oxytocin in human social behavior, social cognition and psychopathology. Brain
Research, 1580, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.07.033
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-
regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.
Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Pohl, T., Young, L., & Bosch, O. (2019). Lost connections: Oxytocin and the neural,
physiological, and behavioral consequences of disrupted relationships. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 136, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.12.011
Posner, J., Russell, J., & Peterson, B. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative
approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 715–734.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340
131

Puget Sound Educational Service District. (2022). Labels or limitations? Recommendations for
asset-based language for multilingual learners.
Real Academia Española. (2020). Informe de la Real Academia Española sobre el lenguaje
inclusivo y cuestiones conexas. https://www.rae.
es/sites/default/files/informe_190320.pdf
Return 2 Learn Tracker. (2021). American Enterprise Institute.
https://www.returntolearntracker.net/instructional_status/
Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution information
in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 85–110.
Riconscente, M. M. (2014). Effects of perceived teacher practices on Latino high school
students’ interest, self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of
Experimental Education 82(1), 51–73.
Rincón, H., Sala, M., Sala, F., Tarnapol, P, Whitacre, P., & Lee, T. (2005). Basic education in El
Salvador: Consolidating the foundations for quality and equal opportunities. Academy
for Educational Development.
Robichaux, A. (2021, April 21). 1 out 4 of your employees feel they don’t fit in. Here’s why that
matters, and what to do about it. Entrepreneur.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/1-out-of-4-of-your-employees-feel-they-dont-
fit-in-heres/368770
Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship. In Sociocultural Studies of Mind (pp. 139–164).
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174299.008
132

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Salinas. (2020). The complexity of the “x” in Latinx: How Latinx/a/o students relate to, identify
With, and understand the term Latinx. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(2),
149–168.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (6th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Sammut, E., Sammut, M., Chetcuti, S., & Calleja-Agius, J. (2019). The role of oxytocin in
maternal-fetal bonding and social interaction. International Journal of Prenatal and Life
Sciences, 3(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.24946/IJPLS
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Scott, S. & Palinesar, A. (2010). Sociocultural theory. The Gale Group. www.education.com
Seli, H., & Dembo, M. (2019). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus
on self-regulated learning (6th ed). Routledge.
Serafini, E.J., Rozell, N., & Winsler, A. (2022). Academic and English language outcomes for
DLLs as a function of school bilingual education model: the role of two-way immersion
and home language support. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 25(2), 552–570.
Shochet, I., Dadds, M., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an
underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community
prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 170–179.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_1
133

Sibley, E. & Brabeck, K. (2017). Latino immigrant students’ school experiences in the United
States: The importance of family-school-community collaborations. School Community
Journal, 27(1), 137– 57.
State of California Commission for Teacher Credentialing. (2019, March 1). About the
commission. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/default
State of California Commission for Teacher Credentialing. (2017). Administrative services
credential for individuals prepared in California. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/leaflets/cl574c.pdf
Steiner, R. J., Sheremenko, G., Lesesne, C., Dittus, P., Sieving, R. E., & Ethier, K. A. (2019).
Adolescent connectedness and adult health outcomes. Pediatrics, 144(1),1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3766
Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Stokes, K. (2016, April 28). Charter schools sharing LAUSD campuses: Nobody loves it,
everyone has to live with it. Southern California Public Radio, 89.3 FM KPCC.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/04/28/60071/charter-schools-sharing-l-a-unified-
campuses-nobod/
Strayhorn, T. (2022, November 29). Employees want to feel a sense of belonging at work. Here’s
how leaders can make that possible. Entrepreneur.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/how-to-create-a-culture-of-belonging-
at-your-company/438493
Stuebe, A., Grewen, K., & Meltzer-Brody, S. (2013). Association between maternal mood and
oxytocin response to breastfeeding. Journal of Women’s Health., 22(4), 352–361.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2012.3768
134

Szymanski, M. (2017). Charter schools located on multiple LAUSD campuses are down, but it’s
still disruptive, families say (LA School Report). http://laschoolreport.com/charter-
schools-located-on-multiple-lausd-campuses-are-down-but-its-still-disruptive-families-
say/
Talleyrand, R. M. & Vojtech, T.-G. (201). Potential stressors of undocumented Latinx youth:
Implications and recommendations for school counselors. Professional School
Counseling, 22(1), 1–8.
Tanner, C. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational
Administration, 47(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955809
Thacker, T., Bell, J., & Schargel, F. (2010). Creating school cultures that embrace learning:
What successful leaders do. Eye On Education.
Todd, A., Ayala, C., & Barraza, K. (2020). School counselors working with undocumented
students in K-12 school settings. Journal of School Counseling, 18(14).
Tseng, V., & Seidman, E. (2007). A systems framework for understanding social settings.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3-4), 217–228.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9101-8
Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities,
school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1),
55–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810849817
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). QuickFacts: Los Angeles City, California; Los Angeles
County, California.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescitycalifornia,losangelescountyca
lifornia/PST045219
135

Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Arn, I., & Magnusson, D. (2005). The psychobiology of emotion: the role of
the oxytocinergic system. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 12, 59–65.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_3
Vega, D., Moore III, J. L., & Miranda, A. H. (Summer 2015). In their own words: Perceived
barriers to achievement by African American and Latino high school students. American
Secondary Education, 43(3), 36–59.
Vieno, A., Perkins, D., Smith, T., & Santinello, M. (2005). Democratic school climate and sense
of community in school: A Multilevel Analysis. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 36(3-4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-8629-8
Webster, N. L. & Lu, C. (2012). “English language learners”: An analysis of perplexing ESL-
related terminology. Language and Literacy, 14(3), 83–94.
White House. (2022). Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Launches National Effort to
Support Student Success. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2022/07/05/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-launches-national-effort-to-
support-student-success/
Wilkinson, I. G. (2016). Why some children come to school with “baggage”: The effects of
trauma due to poverty, attachment disruption and disconnection on social skills and
relationships. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth/Le Journal Canadien de Famille et
de la Jeunesse, 8(1), 173–203.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: a sense of belonging and participation:
results from PISA 2000. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264018938-en
Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships
with aggression and victimization. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 293–299.
136

Woolner, P., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2018). Structural change from physical foundations:
The role of the environment in enacting school change. Journal of Educational Change,
19(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9317-4
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy
for the fourth industrial revolution. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1820820803/
Zarrinabadi, N., Rezazadeh, M., Karimi, M., & Lou, N. M. (2022). Why do growth mindsets
make you feel better about learning and yourselves? The mediating role of adaptability.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 249–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1962888
137

Appendix A: 2020–2021 School Climate Survey Supplement

Instructions
To evaluate and improve our school program, please rate each statement by selecting the answer
closest to your opinion. You do not have to answer any question you don’t want to. The survey
will take about 10 minutes to complete. Thank you for participating.

Para evaluar y mejorar nuestro programa escolar, califique cada declaración seleccionando a la
respuesta más cercana a su opinión. No tiene que responder ninguna pregunta que no desee. La
encuesta tardará unos 10 minutos en completarse. Gracias por participar.

1. What is your grade level?
¿Cuál es su nivel de grado?

▢ 6
▢ 7
▢ 8
▢ 9
▢ 10
▢ 11
▢ 12

2. What is your gender?
¿Cuál es su género?

▢ Female / Femenino
▢ Male / Masculino
▢ Nonbinary / No binario
▢ Something Else / Otra Cosa

3. What is your race or ethnicity? (Mark all that apply.)
¿Cuál es tu raza o etnia? (Marque todas las opciones que correspondan.)

▢ American Indian or Alaska Native / Indio Americano o Nativo de Alaska
▢ Asian or Asian American / Asiático o Asiático Americano
▢ Black or African American / Negro o Afroamericano
▢ Hispanic or Latinx / Hispano o Latinx
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander / Nativo Hawaiano o Isleño del Pacífico
▢ White / Blanco
▢ Something Else / Otra Cosa

4. What language is spoken most of the time in your home?
138

¿Qué idioma se habla la mayor parte del tiempo en tu casa?

▢ English / Inglés
▢ Spanish / Español
▢ Another language / Otro idioma

5. What best describes where you live? A "home" includes a house, apartment, trailer, or mobile
home.
¿Qué describe mejor el lugar donde vives? Un “hogar” incluye una casa, un departamento, un
tráiler, o una casa móvil.

A home with one or more parent or guardian / Un hogar con uno o más padres o tutores
Other relative’s home / El hogar de otro pariente
A home with more than one family / Un hogar con más de una familia
Friend’s home / El hogar de un amigo o una amiga
Foster home, group care, or waiting placement / Un hogar de crianza, un lugar de cuidado
de grupos, o un lugar de espera hasta ser ubicado en un hogar
Hotel or motel / Hotel o motel
Shelter, car, campground, or other transitional or temporary housing / Un albergue, un
automóvil, campamento, o otra vivienda temporal o de transición
Other living arrangement / Otra forma de vivienda

6. How well do you understand, speak, read, and write English? (Select one answer per row.)
¿Qué tan bien entiendes, hablas, lees, y escribes en Inglés? (Seleccione una respuesta por fila.)

Very Well /
Muy Bien
Well /
Bien
Not Well /
No Bien
Not At All /
Para Nada
Understand English / Entiendo Inglés ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Speak English / Hablo Inglés ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Read English / Leo Inglés ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Write English / Escribo Inglés ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

7. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Select one answer per
row.)
¿Qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo estás con las siguientes frases? (Seleccione una respuesta
por fila.)

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Select one answer per
row.)
139

¿Qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo estás con las siguientes frases? (Seleccione una respuesta
por fila.)

Strongly
Disagree /
Muy en
Desacuerdo
Disagree /
En
Desacuerdo
Neither
Disagree Nor
Agree / Ni de
Acuerdo Ni
de
Desacuerdo
Agree /
De
Acuerdo
Strongly
Agree /
Muy
de
Acuerdo
Teachers at LAAAE
communicate with
parents about what
students are expected to
learn in class. / Los
maestros de LAAAE se
comunican con los
padres sobre lo que se
espera que los
estudiantes aprendan en
clase.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Parents feel welcome to
participate at LAAAE. /
Los padres se sienten
bienvenidos a participar
en LAAAE.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
LAAAE staff take parent
concerns seriously. / El
personal de LAAAE
toma en serio las
preocupaciones de los
padres.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

8. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Select one answer per
row.)
¿Qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo estás con las siguientes frases? (Seleccione una respuesta
por fila.)

Strongly
Disagree /
Muy en
Desacuerdo
Disagree /
En
Desacuerdo
Neither
Disagree Nor
Agree / Ni de
Acuerdo Ni
de
Agree /
De
Acuerdo
Strongly
Agree /
Muy
de
Acuerdo
140

Desacuerdo
I try hard to make sure
that I am good at my
schoolwork. / Me
esfuerzo mucho para
asegurarme de que soy
bueno en mi trabajo
escolar.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I try hard on my
schoolwork because I
am interested in it. / Me
esfuerzo mucho en mi
trabajo escolar porque
estoy interesado en él.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I work hard to try to
understand new things
when doing my
schoolwork. / Trabajo
duro para tratar de
entender cosas nuevas
cuando hago mis tareas
escolares.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I am always trying to do
better in my
schoolwork. / Siempre
trato de hacerlo mejor
en mi trabajo escolar.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I am interested in the
schoolwork I do when
participating in school
from home. / Me
interesa el trabajo
escolar que hago
cuando participo en la
escuela desde casa.

▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

9. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Select one answer per
row.)
¿Qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo estás con las siguientes frases? (Seleccione una respuesta
por fila.)

141

Strongly
Disagree /
Muy en
Desacuerdo
Disagree /
En
Desacuerdo
Neither
Disagree Nor
Agree / Ni de
Acuerdo Ni
de
Desacuerdo
Agree /
De
Acuerdo
Strongly
Agree /
Muy
de
Acuerdo
I feel close to people at
LAAAE. / Me siento
cercano a la gente de
LAAAE.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I am happy to be at
LAAAE. / Estoy feliz de
estar en LAAAE.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I feel like I am part of
LAAAE. / Siento que
soy parte de LAAAE.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
The teachers at LAAAE
treat students fairly. /
Los maestros de
LAAAE tratan a los
estudiantes de manera
justa.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I feel safe in LAAAE. /
Me siento seguro en
LAAAE.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I know how to ask for
help at LAAAE if I need
help. / Sé cómo pedir
ayuda en LAAAE si
necesito ayuda.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I ask for help at LAAAE
if I need help. / Pido
ayuda en LAAAE si
necesito ayuda.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

10. There is a teacher or some other adult at LAAAE... (Select one per row.)
Hay un maestro o algún otro adulto en LAAAE ... (Seleccione una respuesta por fila.)

Not At All A Little Pretty Very Much
142

True /
No Es
Cierto en
Absoluto
True / Un
Poco
Cierto
Much True
/ Bastante
Cierto
True /
Muy Cierto
who really cares about
me. / quien realmente
se preocupa por mi.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
who notices when I'm
not there. / que se da
cuenta cuando no estoy.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
who listens to me when
I have something to say.
/ que me escucha
cuando tengo algo que
decir.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
who tells me when I do
a good job. / que me
dice cuando hago un
buen trabajo.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
who always wants me to
do my best. / que
siempre quiere que
haga lo mejor que
pueda.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
who believes I will be a
success. / que cree que
tendré éxito.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
who provides me with
interesting activities to
do while I am
participating in school
from home. / que me
proporciona actividades
interesantes para hacer
mientras participo en la
escuela desde casa.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

11. At LAAAE... (Select one per row.)
En LAAAE ... (Seleccione una respuesta por fila.)

143

Not At All
True /
No Es
Cierto en
Absoluto
A Little
True / Un
Poco
Cierto
Pretty
Much True
/ Bastante
Cierto
Very Much
True /
Muy Cierto
I do interesting activities. / Hago
actividades interesantes.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I help decide things like class activities
or rules. / Ayudo a decidir cosas
como las actividades de la clase o las
reglas.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I do things that make a difference. /
Hago cosas que marcan la
diferencia.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I have a say in how things work. /
Tengo voz y voto en como funcionan
las cosas.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I help decide school activities or rules. /
Ayudo a decidir las actividades o las
reglas de la escuela.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢

12. Select how TRUE you feel each of the following statements is about you. (Select one per
row.)
Seleccione cuán VERDADERO siente que cada una de las siguientes afirmaciones es sobre ud.
(Seleccione una respuesta por fila.)

Not At All
True /
No Es
Cierto en
Absoluto
A Little
True / Un
Poco
Cierto
Pretty
Much True
/ Bastante
Cierto
Very Much
True /
Muy Cierto
I can work out my problems. / Puedo
solucionar mis problemas.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
I can do most things if I try. / Puedo
hacer la mayoría de las cosas si
lo intento.
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
There are many things I do well. / Hay ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
144

muchas cosas que hago bien.

145

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

STUDY TITLE: School Connectedness for English Learners

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: David Calvo

FACULTY ADVISOR: Tracy Poon Tambascia, Ed.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to better understand what influences a student’s sense of belonging
at school. Research shows that students with a stronger sense of belonging at school get better
grades, have more friends, and have better life outcomes. You are invited as a possible
participant because you are a stakeholder at this school.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to attend a board of directors’ meeting. At the point
in the board meeting where the discussion is agendized, participants can verbally provide their
opinion to questions. The focus group should not take more than one hour. This section of the
board meeting will be recorded to facilitate data collection accuracy.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation; however information provided may be
useful for improving students’ sense of belonging and thereby improving the school climate.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
An alternative is not to participate.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB 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. Data will be stored on a computer for the duration of the study which is
expected to be completed by May 2023. Your information that is collected will not be used or
distributed for future research studies, even if all your identifiers are removed. Note that the
investigators will be required to report certain cases of potential serious harm to you, or others,
such as suicidality or child abuse, to the appropriate authorities.

Due to the nature of focus groups, your confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

146

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact David Calvo at calvod@usc.edu or
faculty advisor Tracy Poon Tambascia at tpoon@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

147

Appendix C: Focus Group Protocol

Number of Participants __________________________________________________________

Pseudo names used __________________________________________________________

Date of Interview: ______________________________________________________________

Time in / Time Out: ____________________________________________________________

Introduction

Thank you for meeting with me today. I am conducting research for a doctoral program at USC
and am exploring what factors improve or decrease a student’s sense of belonging at school.
Research shows that students with a stronger sense of belonging at school, get better grades,
have more friends, and have better life outcomes. This school’s leaders seek ways to improve
student sense of belonging which is why we are here today to hear from you. I anticipate our
group meeting to take about 45 to 60 minutes.

I want to assure you that I am strictly a researcher today. What this means is that the nature of
my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making judgments about your ideas. This interview
is also confidential. Please share what you feel comfortable sharing and contribute to a safe space
by not judging others. If you share abuse or neglect, I will need to report this to the authorities.
Does everyone understand and agree with these items? (Affirm with each one.)

Your participation is completely voluntary. You do not have to answer any question you don’t
want to and you may stop participating with the group at any time. 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. If you are comfortable with it, I
would like to record our conversation and the recording will be destroyed after it is transcribed.
Does everyone understand and agree with these items? (Affirm with each one.) Before we begin,
I am going to ask each of you to pick a pseudonym (such as an animal or favorite food) and state
it each time prior to you answering a question. For example, if you picked pizza, you would say
the word pizza before each time you answer. This way, when the interview is transcribed, we can
organize your feedback without knowing your name. Do you have any questions? Ready to
begin?

1. How can we improve student connectedness for the school’s students?

2. What barriers or challenges prevent students from developing a stronger sense of
belonging at school?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A sense of belonging is a phenomenon that is core to the human experience. The profound short- and long-term benefits of children feeling connected to adults at the schools they attend are supported by an increasingly growing body of research. This study sought to better understand factors that impede or bolster school connectedness for Latinx English learners at a Los Angeles school which served middle and high school level students. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory was used as a framework to explore two research questions. In Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, the school is part of each child’s microsystem and is the setting for many ecological transitions and interconnections with others. Students participated in the study through a survey made available to the entire student body. Other school stakeholders including teachers, school leaders, and board members participated through a focus group. Survey data revealed a relationship between knowledge of support available and willingness to ask for help at the school. Moreover, a relationship was identified between self-efficacy and school connectedness. Focus group data identified multiple themes related to school connectedness. The leading theme to foster student connectedness was caring staff-student relationships. Recommendations focus on these findings and include promote campus resources, integrate growth mindset instructional strategies schoolwide, plan deliberate opportunities for fostering student-staff caring relationships, and prioritize opportunities for parent engagement. The pandemic’s disruption has adversely impacted children and each school will need to identify how to best reengage its students and their caregivers. This case study can inform such endeavors.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Changing course, creating opportunity: a study on the implementation of an early college model for African American ninth grade students

PDF

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

PDF

Connectedness and distance learning: a study of student, teacher, and parent perceptions

PDF

Biophilia: a study of how nature-focused environments influence Black student wellbeing through an ecological systems theory

PDF

Examining influences on the decision-making process of Filipino students and parents in selecting a post-secondary institution

PDF

Understanding the challenges of recruiting and retaining native English-speaking teachers in Macao

PDF

Intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic use of technology in teaching practice

PDF

Developing capacity for higher education administration in Kazakhstan

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

The relationship between Latinx undergraduate students’ mental health and college graduation rates

PDF

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

Understanding Filipino student sense of belonging in a Hawaiʻi public school

PDF

Measuring student persistence at an alternative charter high school: internal school evaluation and external policy implications

PDF

Measurement of school connectedness (MOSC): modified connectedness questionnaire for secondary schools.

PDF

Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study

PDF

Perceptions and approaches to Armenian genocide education among reputably effective public secondary school educators in greater Los Angeles

PDF

Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

PDF

Growing international student enrollment from developing markets

PDF

Making the global local: Sino-foreign cooperation universities, interdisciplinary study and 21st-century skills

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

Asset Metadata

Creator Calvo, David (filename)

Core Title School connectedness for Latinx English learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/10/2023

Defense Date 02/27/2023

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

Tag Bronfenbrenner’s framework in schools,familismo in schools,Latinx equity,OAI-PMH Harvest,scholastic familismo,school connectedness,sense of belonging at school,SOBAS

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Poon Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Chung, Ruth H. (committee member), Robison, Mark P. (committee member)

Creator Email calvod@usc.edu,calvoteaches@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113004109

Unique identifier UC113004109

Identifier etd-CalvoDavid-11593.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CalvoDavid-11593

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Calvo, David

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230411-usctheses-batch-1019 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu