Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners
(USC Thesis Other)
School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
School Leader Impact on Equitable Grading Practices to Support Middle School English
Learners
by
Heather Bojorquez
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 2022
© Copyright by Heather Bojorquez 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Heather Bojorquez certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
Cathy Krop
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
Equitable grading practices are a frequently researched topic for 21st century educators and
scholars. However, there is limited research regarding equitable grading, specifically for English
learners and at the middle school level. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into
school site leader strategies that improve teacher grading practices in support of English learners.
Middle School principals from a single district in Orange County, California who serve a
population of English learners at or above the state percentage of 18% were involved in this
mixed-methods study. The study was guided by four research questions focused on gaining
insight into common grading practices, participants’ perceptions of how grades reflect English
learner success, and strategies they employ to guide teacher practice. The data sources were a
survey and five one-on-one interviews. The research described themes and findings of leaders’
practices and their perceived impact on English learners.
v
Acknowledgements
There are so many people to thank for their eternal support and encouragement through
the past 3 years. First, my family for always encouraging me to try new things and never
doubting me. Thank you to my husband who was ever supportive and now cannot wait for me to
go away for a weekend and not have to write anything. Thank you to my various friend groups
(GGG, TUSD, and DIP) who cheered, rallied, texted memes, and just helped me finish strong.
To all the USC Rossier professors, thank you for inspiring me to think critically about the state
of education and what I can do to help improve educational outcomes for all students. Finally, I
could not have successfully finished without the gentle reminders and questioning from my
dissertation chair and committee. I appreciate your feedback and encouragement that I am a
capable, thoughtful, and inspiring scholar and leader.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................................5
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................9
Historical Context and Current and Former Grading Practices ...........................................9
Transformational Leadership .............................................................................................18
Theories ..............................................................................................................................27
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................33
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................35
Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................35
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................36
Instrumentation and Protocols ...........................................................................................37
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................39
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................40
Summary ............................................................................................................................41
vii
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................42
Participants .........................................................................................................................43
Results ................................................................................................................................44
Results Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................44
Discussion Research Question 1 ........................................................................................49
Results Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................49
Results Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................54
Discussion Research Question 3 ........................................................................................56
Results Research Question Four ........................................................................................58
Discussion Research Question Four ..................................................................................65
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................69
Findings .............................................................................................................................70
Limitations .........................................................................................................................76
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................77
Future Research .................................................................................................................79
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................80
References ......................................................................................................................................82
Appendix A: Interview Protocol: Middle School Level Leaders ..................................................88
Appendix B: Survey Protocol ........................................................................................................94
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: The Five Pillars of Equitably Grading English Language Learners 16
Table 2: Survey Participants 43
Table 3: Interview Participants 44
Table 4: Purpose of Student Grades 46
Table 5: Cultural Bias in Grading Practices 49
Table 6: Teacher Readiness to Grade Book Analysis 63
Table 7: Leader Readiness to Lead Grading Discussions 64
Table A1: Questions 90
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 38
Figure 2 Concurrent Triangulation Design 41
Figure 3 The Teachers I Work With Offer Alternative Assessment Opportunities to Differentiate
Learning for English Learners 52
Figure 4 Comparative Data of English Learner Academic Performance 55
Figure 5 I Use the Following Forums to Engage in Dialogue With Teachers About Grading
Practices 61
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
To raise un niño bien educado (a well-educated child) requires the education of the whole
being in relation to family and community” (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999, p. 423).
School practices change when it comes to curriculum, meeting socio-emotional needs,
hiring, using instructional technology, and even becoming community hubs during
unprecedented events like a global pandemic. However, one area that has seen little change is
grade assignments for students at the secondary level. Grading practices at the elementary level
tend to focus on learning and meeting standards, and high schools maintain the traditional A–F
model that results in a numeric grade point average (GPA). Middle school educators’ role is to
help transition students from elementary to high school. Middle school grades matter because
students’ GPAs can determine their placement in high school college preparatory courses.
Complicating matters is that students identified as English learners (ELs) at the middle
school level are marginalized and require strategic support to access a grade-level curriculum
fully. In the 2019–2020 school year, 18.6% of California’s 6.2 million students were ELs,
making them the largest EL population in the United States (California Department of Education,
2021a). According to the California Department of Education (2021a), approximately 1.148
million ELs enrolled in California public schools in the 2019–202 school year. Approximately
41.5% of all public-school students in California speak a language other than English at home,
with Spanish being the most prevalent language at 81.97% (California Department of Education,
2021a).
In California, teachers hold autonomy over assigning students’ grades. The education
code §49066(a) states,
2
When grades are given for any course of instruction taught in a school district, the grade
given to each pupil shall be the grade determined by the teacher of the course and the
determination of the pupil’s grade by the teacher, in the absence of clerical or mechanical
mistake, fraud, bad faith, or incompetency, shall be final.
The code allows teachers to maintain control and power over what and how they grade. The
education code also creates difficulty for school leaders who want to transform site or district
systems in considering how grading practices may be biased and hinder EL students’ progress.
School leaders must serve as advisors for teaching staff and ensure that teachers are part of the
conversation on identifying inequitable grading practices that prevent students from
demonstrating their learning, progress, and potential.
Background of the Problem
Researchers have examined grading practices and explored strategies to develop more
equitable practices that consider using behavior (homework, participation, and compliance) to
determine grades (Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020). Students’ grades often reflect several
achievement and non-achievement variables. English learners bring a unique set of challenges in
learning, especially in general education content classes at the secondary level. These students
have not been a focus of the research. They are typically grouped with other “exceptional
learners,” such as students enrolled in special education. While many special education strategies
to address accommodations and modifications for learning help support ELs (Jung & Guskey,
2010), other special factors, such as language and culture, are not typically addressed in grading
research.
This study explored middle school leaders’ strategies when working with teachers to
investigate possible bias in grading for middle school ELs. In this study, middle school is defined
3
as a school that serves students enrolled in the sixth through eighth grades. While various
languages are represented in these schools, this study used critical race theory (CRT) with a
Latino critical theory (LatCrit) lens since Spanish is the most common language spoken among
the state’s ELs.
Statement of the Problem
School leaders face the challenge of supporting all students’ learning and ensuring that
their grades accurately reflect academic progress. Traditionally marginalized students encounter
additional challenges in middle school. Ultimately, equitable and accurate grades result from
effective teaching and differentiation to meet students’ individual needs. Not all ELs enter school
with the same needs, and their background knowledge in native language development and
English academic language development vary widely. Recent immigrants may have experienced
interrupted schooling. Also, long-term ELs in middle school demonstrate significant learning and
performance gaps in content areas like reading and math (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). General
education secondary content teachers are underprepared to differentiate instruction to meet these
students’, address academic language learning development, and grade learning outcomes
equitably. Such preparation includes multicultural knowledge and cross-cultural shifts in
pedagogy and communication (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006).
What a student brings to school as an EL is different from an English-only speaker.
Latinx ELs bring their community, family, culture, and stories to know or understand the world
around them (Bernal, 2002; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). These students often live in lower-
income communities and do not have access to the same resources and opportunities as their
middle-class counterparts. Middle school leaders have a responsibility to support teachers in
understanding this multicultural background. Differentiating grading is challenging as many
4
teachers do not come from the same cultural background as their students (race, economically,
neighborhood, language). For the 2018–2019 school year, the California Department of
Education (n.n.-b) reported that 60% of teachers were White and 21% were Hispanic. This issue
poses additional challenges as teacher positionality traditionally leads to assessing and assigning
grades. Rather than considering the learning of English as a second language as a deficit, school
leaders must shift long-standing educational practices to support a change in educators’ mindsets
to view bilingualism as an asset and use students’ cultural understanding, history, and
community as a support for educational success (Bernal, 2002).
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to provide insight into leader strategies to effect change in grading
practices in support of middle school ELs’ unique needs. The study explored how middle school
leaders identified these students’ specific needs, leader perceptions regarding assessment and
progress monitoring, leader perceptions about teacher grading practices, and whether the grades
represent compliance behavior, learning behavior, or both. Surveys provided specific
demographic data for middle schools and school leaders involved in the research, along with
middle school leaders’ beliefs and perceptions regarding teacher grading practices. Interviews
were conducted to gather specific data to understand how school leaders work with teachers to
address these students’ unique needs. Data were also collected on grading practices to determine
if grading systems promote or hinder students’ placement in high school college preparatory
coursework. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What current and former systemic grading practices are traditionally in place, and do
these practices perpetuate bias?
2. How do middle schools measure outcomes of learning for ELs?
5
3. Do grading practices measure ELs’ academic achievement, and do those measures
support them toward college-bound pathways?
4. What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide teacher reflection to transform
grading practices for equity?
Significance of the Study
There is much research in the education field on the effects of leadership for ELs in the
elementary grades. This research assumes effective leadership and practices ensure that students
no longer require support in their English language beyond elementary school. Recent research
also frequently explores equitable high school grading practices. High school is a critical time in
students’ educational pathway. Grades and placement in college preparatory courses can
determine their future college and career readiness trajectory. However, middle school students
are in the middle, and students who have been educated in the United States for many years but
have not met the criteria to be considered proficient in the English language (long-term ELs) are
often ignored (Thompson, 2015).
Definition of Terms
• Critical Race Theory (CRT): A framework for educational research through the lens
that race plays a significant factor in education policies. Racism is embedded in
society and our school systems and is not a product of individual bias or prejudice
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Sawchuck, 2021).
• Educational Equity: Equity in education provides all students with the means,
opportunities, and support they need to achieve success in school and beyond. Equity
in education is data-based and ensures that school systems provide adequate funding,
high-quality curriculum, high-quality teachers, social support, fair and just discipline
6
practices, and monitor progress. Policies and practices adjust to ensure that every
student is engaged and on track toward graduation and beyond (Center for Public
Education, 2016).
• English Language Learner (EL or ELL): Simply defined, an EL is a student whose
proficiency in the English language is as such to affect their ability to participate and
succeed in school meaningfully (Linquanti et al., 2016).
• Emergent Bilingual: An asset approach in defining students who have a language
other than English and are developing their English proficiency skills in school, thus
embracing the view of bilingualism as an asset rather than a deficit (Solano-Flores,
2016).
• Explicit Bias: Stereotypes that are consciously endorsed and likely affect the
decision-making and treatment of racially-minoritized individuals (Quinn, 2020).
• Implicit Bias: Stereotypes that unconsciously are held and not consciously identified
through self-reflection, when automatically activated, still affect the decision-making
and treatment of racially minoritized individuals (Quinn, 2020).
• Latino Critical Theory (LatCrit): A complimentary framework that explores CRT
more deeply into Latinx systems of “knowing.” LatCrit considers other aspects of
Latinx life, such as language, culture, immigration, and family structures, as
epistemology (Bernal, 2002).
• Long Term English Learner (LTEL): Students whose primary language when they
entered the United States public school system was a language other than English.
These students have been enrolled in school in the United States for many years but
have not yet mastered proficiency in English (Thompson, 2015).
7
• Mastery Grading: Student grades are based on performance and proficiency based on
a set of performance criteria that are predetermined and specified. Student
achievement is scored on academic factors only. Non-academic factors, such as
behavior, effort, and participation, are not included in standards-based grading
(Brookhart et al., 2016; Knight & Cooper, 2019; Quinn, 2020).
• Reclassified Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP): In California, students who are ELs
and demonstrate sufficient proficiency in English by meeting specific criteria are
identified as Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students. The
requirements are (a) overall score of a 4 (highest level) on state language assessment,
(b) Teacher evaluations, (c) Parent consultation, (d) Demonstration of basic skills that
are relative to English proficient students (California Department of Education,
2021b).
• Standards-Based Grading (SBG): Another term used to describe the same behaviors
as mastery grading. (Brookhart et al., 2016; Knight & Cooper, 2019; Quinn, 2020).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview and
introduction of the study. It identifies how traditional grading practices in Southern California
middle schools perpetuate bias for ELs. It also recognizes a need to align how middle school
leaders work with teachers to affect grading practices to ensure these students are set up for
success in high school. Chapter Two presents a literature review in the following areas:
transformational leadership, equitable versus inequitable grading practices, and the unique needs
of ELs in terms of identifying and naming success in school. Chapter Three describes the
methodology selected for this mixed-methods research study. The chapter describes the sample
8
selected, document analysis, survey questions, interview questions, data collection, and data
analysis. Chapter Four is a report of the results. Chapter Five includes a summary of the results,
implications for practice, conclusions, and recommendations. References and appendices are
included in the back matter.
9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Educators across the United States commonly discuss fair and equitable grading for all
students. English learners are exceptional learners whose specific learning and evaluation needs
must be included in this discussion. This literature review will begin by examining the history of
grading practices and then turn to current grading practices used in public middle schools. The
literature review also includes research regarding effective practices in differentiating classroom
instruction, assessment, and grading behaviors. Teacher grading practices require a leader who is
effective in invoking change, which is a challenging task that requires a skillful approach to
guide teachers in thoughtful analysis of their grading practices. Also included is a literature
review regarding transformative leadership and the leadership skills required to promote change
concerning grading. Finally, the chapter explores grading practices for ELs through the lens of
CRT and LatCrit. The study’s conceptual framework demonstrates how a traditional grading
policy maintains bias and perpetuates inequities for middle school ELs.
Historical Context and Current and Former Grading Practices
Educators have consistently debated grading trends. Nevertheless, providing grades for
student performance is universally understood and an expected part of the education system.
Brookhart et al. (2016) provided a timeline of grading trends starting in the late 1800s. Early
grading concerns focused on grade reliability, as progress reports were provided in an oral
narrative format. Early 20th-century grading practices adopted fewer and broader categories,
leading to the standardized A–F grading scale and numerical grading systems (Brookhart et al.,
2016; Schneider & Hutt, 2014). Though standardization was the goal, individual grading
variations continued. Post-World War II, grades were used to track students into advanced or
remedial courses, college admissions, and hiring practices (Schneider & Hutt, 2014), thus
10
allowing grades to determine student learning and financial growth opportunities and to close
equity gaps. Although traditional grading practices raise equity concerns amongst educators and
grading reform researchers, most secondary schools today maintain the A–F scale.
Current Grading Practices
Research indicates that grades are multidimensional and include factors like cognitive
achievement and other behaviors that teachers value, such as effort, punctuality, and engagement
(Brookhart et al., 2016). Ideally, grades are measures of learning. However, there is strong
evidence that schools use grades to measure academic and non-academic progress. Research
suggests that including non-academic behaviors in a student’s grade can invalidate it as a
measure of learning and ultimately hinder student learning (Knight & Cooper, 2019). However,
grades tend to be “better predictors of future success in school than tested achievement,”
including high school graduation and a reduced risk of dropping out of school (Brookhart et al.,
2016, p. 834). Additionally, grades continue to be used for various purposes beyond feedback on
learning, such as grade-level promotion or retention, identification for special education services,
identification for intervention or advanced courses, college admission, and scholarships (Knight
& Cooper, 2019).
Recent shifts in teaching standards in the United States to Common Core State Standards
emphasized deeper learning in content areas. Along with deeper learning and opportunities for
students to learn, err, and re-learn, the measurement for success also shifted. The shift of
standards and recommendations for learning measurement aligns with equitable grading
practices since the goal of learning is standard mastery over work completion and compliance
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). Standards-based grading
(SBG) measures achievement based on specific standards and removes non-academic factors
11
from students’ grades. Basing grading on proficiency in specific standards allows for multiple
opportunities for teachers to reteach and for students to reach proficiency (Brookhart et al., 2016;
Knight & Cooper, 2019).
Issues of Inequity
Although SBG aims to keep non-academic behaviors from affecting grades (Knight &
Cooper, 2019), issues of inequity arise when applying it to students with exceptional needs.
Culturally and linguistically diverse students may not progress toward proficiency of a standard
at the same rate as a student whose primary language is English. A shift in teachers’ expectations
to engage in culturally responsive practices and include grading practices that promote equity
includes cultural and linguistic support for equitable opportunities for learning (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). This shift includes differentiating
instruction for robust learning experiences and possibly differentiating standard mastery criteria.
California Education Code §49066 provides autonomy to teachers regarding grading
practices. While this policy prevents administrators from changing grades, researchers note that
this autonomous practice leaves little room to consider that teachers’ implicit bias can affect
grading practices (Quinn, 2020). While there continues to be a paucity of studies on how implicit
bias can affect grading, research centers around race or gender. There is a lack of research on
how teachers’ bias affects grading for ELs. Research has shown that biased grading has a long-
term adverse effect on students’ “future exam performance, course taking choices, and field of
study” (Quinn, 2020, p. 376). The continuance of traditional grading structures perpetuates
opportunity gaps for minoritized students. It has made the “high achievement of some students
groups and the underachievement of other groups predictable” (Feldman, 2019, p. 66).
12
Grading Best Practices for English Learners
There is much research regarding grading reform, assessments, and differentiation in
instruction. There is limited evidence of specific inquiry regarding grading reform for ELs
specifically. The assumption is that if teachers engage in grading reform for all students, then
these students will also benefit (Feldman, 2019). Grading reflects teachers’ values, norms, and
beliefs that can either contribute to or dismantle inequitable systems (Greenbaum, 2021), yet
implementing grading best practices is not a quick fix.
According to Feldman (2019), there are three pillars of equitable grading: mathematical
accuracy, bias-resistant, and motivation. Grades that are mathematically accurate ensure that
students are clear about how grades are calculated. The grades also represent the preponderance
of learning. Thus, researchers (Feldman, 2019, 2020; Guskey, 2020; Jung & Guskey, 2011) have
noted that including a score of zero on a 100-point scale makes grade recovery mathematically
difficult at the least and impossible at worst. Grades that are bias-resistant ensure that all students
have an opportunity for success, regardless of privilege. Teachers should use grading practices
that promote students’ individual success and progress. Teachers should also continuously
explore the implicit biases they bring to the classroom and ensure that grades do not reflect these.
Finally, best practices in grading include motivational grades and supporting a growth mindset
for students. English learners should have opportunities for do-overs to reach learning targets.
Motivational grades encourage students to take risks in their learning and increase their
confidence in their ability to be successful and persevere. When learning content and language,
educators must provide motivational support to students to make attempts and improve upon
their learning.
13
Anti-Racist Grading Practices
Middle school leaders are responsible for opening forums for bias-resistant anti-racist
grading practices (Feldman, 2019; Greenbaum, 2021). In a post-COVID-19 pandemic era, it is
time for conversations that position teachers and schools to analyze and disrupt grading practices
that perpetuate inequities. School leaders and teachers can be courageous co-conspirators in
shifting grading practices and unlearning habits and systems that protect and perpetuate systems
of privilege and oppression (Greenbaum, 2021; Love, 2019). Anti-racist grading practices begin
with teachers examining their biases and potentially discriminatory practices and structures. This
personal reflection begins with educators checking their own beliefs and whether they believe
students can achieve the learning outcome (McKibben, 2020).
The education system houses a deficit narrative surrounding secondary ELs. The longer a
student is classified as EL, the more negative connotation is attached because the student has not
yet met the criteria to be identified as proficient in the English language. Students identified as
EL often do not have equitable access to educational opportunities, hindering their academic
trajectories (Thompson, 2015; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). The classification of long-term ELs
(LTELs) also brings deficit-mindedness to the educator and blames the student by focusing on
perceived academic shortcomings (Thompson, 2015). Students enrolled in middle school are
aware of the labels placed on them and their inability to enroll in more challenging and desirable
courses due to their EL status. This status can be viewed as stigmatizing at the secondary level.
Students’ multilingualism is not perceived as a value. This stigmatization alienates and requires
an overhaul in the education system to achieve authentic anti-racist grading practices
(Thompson, 2015).
14
Educators must examine the curriculum as the learning input and student grades as the
output of learning (McKibben, 2020). Anti-racist grading cannot be addressed alone. Grading
practices directly correlate to the curriculum. Middle school leaders and teachers can ensure
pedagogical practices to support students’ unique language needs. Grading practices must reflect
equal anti-racist best practices, such as allowing students to demonstrate learning in a way that
makes sense to them. Therefore, grades are determined by how a student demonstrates
acquisition of the learning outcome rather than compliance with completing an assignment
(McKibben, 2020).
Inclusive Grading Model
Equitable grading best practices for ELs require specific considerations for their unique
learning needs. While allowing for academic decision-making is a critical component for
educators, it can also lead to a lack of coherence for students and parents at the secondary level.
Middle school students transition from having one teacher determining grades to multiple
teachers for the first time. Navigating the grading systems for multiple teachers can be
challenging for both students and parents, who may not have the knowledge or background on
best communicating with teachers and educators to understand how grades are earned. All
teachers do not need to grade similarly and devalue teacher professional autonomy. Grade-level
teams, curriculum departments, individual schools, and districts can support students by shifting
the focus to coherence in grading or developing common practices and a shared understanding of
grading (Feldman, 2019; Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011). An inclusive grading model may reduce
the cognitive load for students and families in discerning how each teacher applies grades to
assignments and move the focus from earning points and gamifying grades to learning (Feldman,
2019; Jung & Guskey, 2011).
15
Determining grades by how well students master learning targets or standards, which is
referred to as SBG or mastery grading, moves the focus away from points-based grading
practices to learning. Thus, SBG can correct biases and inaccuracies of traditional grading due to
the emphasis on students meeting clearly identified learning targets (Jung & Guskey, 2011). It
also magnifies the challenges of students who struggle to achieve these learning targets, as they
may have a more difficult time reaching grade-level content standards as they continue to
develop language skills. Educators are accustomed to implementing learning accommodations
and modifications to lesson plans or work production for students with special needs and
individualized education programs. With appropriate accommodations, ELs should be able to
access and demonstrate learning toward grade-level standards (Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011;
Staehr Fenner et al., n.d.)
Inclusive grading for ELs is not a one-size-fits-all approach. These students come to
school with a range of abilities. Grading equity cannot come without equitable access to high-
quality teaching and instruction of content. Grading and instruction are not mutually exclusive.
The educator should consider whether adaptations to expectations are required to support
academic success for EL students (Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011; Staehr Fenner et al., n.d.). For
grading practices to be inclusive, the educator must determine whether students can meet
expectations without accommodations or modifications. Effective grading is typically based on
clear standards and progress criteria (Jung & Guskey, 2010). Staehr Fenner et al. (n.d.) laid out a
set of five pillars (Table 1) to guide teachers toward equitable grading practices specifically for
EL students.
16
Table 1
The Five Pillars of Equitably Grading English Language Learners
Pillar 1 Identify the content and language standards
Pillar 2 Incorporate scaffolding to support English language learners in achieving the
standards
Pillar 3 Support English language learners’ progress toward mastery
Pillar 4 Assess English language learners’ progress equitably
Pillar 5 Involve English language learners, families, & colleagues
Note: From The Five Pillars of Equitably Grading ELLs by Staehr Fenner, D., Kester, J., and
Snyder, S. (n.d.). Colorín Colorado. (https://www.colorincolorado.org/blog/five-pillars-
equitably-grading-ells)
It is not enough for the teacher to identify the students’ content and language standards.
They must also clearly communicate expectations and success criteria with model work samples
so that students understand how to demonstrate learning. A learning scaffold is a support strategy
that helps students access grade-level learning standards. Learning scaffolds are not a permanent
solution but rather temporary support for students as they make their way toward mastery of
standards. Scaffolds can include time, additional opportunities for learning, adjusted materials,
access to tutors, or peer grouping. Exercising cultural competence is a critical piece for teachers
to support ELs as the students and families do not always have a complete understanding of the
American school system. Late or missing work indicates students’ need for support, not
resistance to learning or lack of effort. Grades and grading practices should not be punitive
measures (Feldman, 2019; Staehr Fenner et al., n.d.). Therefore, grades that indicate progress
toward mastery, whether through SBG or other systems, will show students’ progress toward
17
grade-level standards and the supports utilized. With appropriate accommodations in place, ELs
should be able to access and successfully learn (Jung & Guskey, 2010).
Assessment and Differentiation
Inclusive, bias-resistant, and mathematically sound grading includes various assessment
opportunities for students to demonstrate their progress toward standard mastery. More frequent
assessment allows the teacher to implement scaffolds, accommodations, and modifications of an
inclusive grading model to support students’ progress (Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011; Tomlinson
et al., 2015). The key is for exceptional learners to strive toward the same learning goal or target
as their classmates but demonstrate their learning alternatively (Guskey, 2020; Tomlinson et al.,
2015). An accommodation would change the expectation of student performance without a shift
in grading expectations (Jung & Guskey, 2011). One example might be for students to explain
their understanding of content verbally rather than in writing. If demonstrating mastery of a
grade-level content standard is beyond a student’s reach, then a modification would be required.
This modification entails altering the expectation and standard to the highest expectation that a
student can achieve (Jung & Guskey, 2011). Grades should then reflect students’ performance
toward standards with accommodations and modifications as necessary. Teachers can
differentiate the assessment and assignment without changing the learning goal (Tomlinson et
al., 2015).
An assessment’s purpose is critical when determining whether its results affect overall
grades. Pre-assessments should not be graded but provide students and teachers information to
determine instructional practices, differentiated learning opportunities, and students’ learning
progress (Tomlinson et al., 2015). These assessments are scored but rarely included in the
students’ overall grades. The purpose is to provide clear and timely feedback critical for students
18
to improve their learning. It also helps teachers determine reteaching needs or extensions of
learning opportunities. Formative assessment provides the next steps for instruction and indicates
whether further differentiation and scaffolding are needed (Tomlinson et al., 2015). Summative
assessments are the final indication of learning and indicate progress toward meeting grade-level
standards and learning targets. Students’ grades should include the results of summative
assessments. If students require grade level modification (or change in standard expectation),
then clear notations about modifications on their report cards and, ultimately, transcripts should
indicate that the grade resulted from modification of expectation (Jung & Guskey, 2011).
Ultimately, learning targets and assessments must be aligned. Grading students’ work
must be tied to the learning goals to ensure inclusive, anti-racist grading practices (Guskey,
2020; Tomlinson et al., 2015). There is much research on best implementing equitable grading
practices for ELs at the elementary level. Thoughtful and skilled secondary educators could
adopt these in their grading practices. The paucity of research specific to middle school grading
practices is noteworthy and indicates a need for skilled transformative leadership to guide
grading reform.
Transformational Leadership
Equitable and inclusive grading practices present instructional challenges for teachers and
school leaders to disrupt traditional grading practices that have marginalized exceptional
learners. Since grading decisions lie with the teacher, a transformational leader can influence and
inspire change to meet students’ needs. A transformational leader is a role model and helps
create a vision and connection for a need for change, raising motivation and morality based on
values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals (Northouse, 2007). Transformational leadership
centers around the followers’ intrinsic motivation and professional development toward a
19
common goal influenced by the leader (Northouse, 2007). Changes in grading practices focused
on equitable grade opportunities can be controversial. A transformational leader must create a
safe and supportive climate where teachers can be creative and innovative in trying new
approaches to grading and be inspired to engage in careful and thoughtful problem solving
(Northouse, 2007). Leaders serve as coaches and advisors while teachers explore grading best
practices and inclusive grading practices that strive to focus on learning targets and progress
monitoring.
Strong leadership practices help improve classroom teachers’ educational outcomes and
systems of support (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). There is an achievement affecting linguistically
diverse students. Still, “inadequate teaching capacity and other schooling conditions create
serious equity challenges for leaders as they attempt to provide direction and support for
equitable and effective educational opportunities” for ELs (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014, p. 306).
Teachers’ have sole discretion in their grading practices. Thus, there is a need for direct
leadership for ELs’ differentiation needs. If teachers do not have aligned supports via strong
leadership, then students’ grades may not be accurate and fair. Additionally, ELs may miss
learning opportunities if they do not grow academically and on pace with native-English
speaking peers. Middle school leaders can take specific, proven actions to change teaching and
grading practices to measure ELs’ progress equitably.
Leadership Actions Impact Teaching Practice
A transformative middle school leader plays a central role in creating an environment that
values learning improvement. Elfers and Stritikus (2014) found that supportive and effective
learning environments are complex and have significant implications for the work of school and
district leaders. They wrote, “Principals who focus on instruction, foster community, and trust,
20
and clearly communicate school mission and goals can change instructional practice” (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014, p. 309). However, much research is needed on how instructional supports and
changes directly affect EL students as these students face specific challenges. Some challenges
are continued achievement gaps in reading and math. However, these gaps are decreased for
former EL students or redesignated ELs (students deemed proficient in the English language),
especially when redesignated at a younger age. Academic progress decreases for ELs in later
grades.
The literature indicates how school leaders might support EL student progress so that
students receive equitable instructional opportunities. Leaders need to collaborate to provide
inclusive support for teachers who do not always have expertise in meeting EL student needs.
The process of language acquisition and content learning is long-term and ongoing. Persistent
achievement gaps demonstrate the struggle schools face to provide ongoing, long-term, and
focused support for all students (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). This critical claim highlights that
districts and sites must examine instructional, assessment, and grading practices to close gaps.
Transformative Leadership Actions
Most leaders are empathetic to their school communities’ multicultural needs. However,
training and preparation for leading effective and systemic change concerning multicultural
learning are not common (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). The research presents specific actions
that middle school leaders can take to transform instructional and grading practices for ELs
(Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Grissom et al., 2021). While the most
direct impact on student progress and closing achievement gaps lies with teachers, principals also
significantly affect student learning (Grissom et al., 2021) when they engage in transformative
efforts to address teaching and learning practices directly.
21
Communication and Coherence
A transformative leader sets the stage and instills a call to action for the school site and
district. The first action to instilling change is to communicate a compelling rationale to all
stakeholders regarding the need for change (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014) and set the stage for
coherence by creating a “shared depth of understanding about the nature of the work” (Fullan &
Quinn, 2016, p. 30). The leader must communicate personal values and paint a vision for the
future of ELs if the change does or does not occur (Northouse, 2007). Strong communication
includes the assurance that expectations for instruction are explicit (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006).
High-Quality Instruction
A focus on high-quality instruction (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014) must be a priority. First,
instructional practices must meet the diverse linguistic needs of ELs and then shift to assessment
and grading. Differentiation in instruction, analysis of assessment data, and involving all
stakeholders align with equitable grading. This instructional focus includes leadership strategies
with high leverage toward change in instructional practices, such as instructionally focused
feedback, instructional coaching, and building and sustaining a collaborative culture amongst
leadership and teachers (Grissom et al., 2021). School leaders should address and lead
conversations on how students learn, teachers’ instructional practices, assessment, and,
ultimately, grading practices (Grissom et al., 2021). Grades should reflect learning. If
differentiation occurs and supports are provided, grades should not reflect teacher bias. If
grading practices are inequitable, then school leader feedback, inquiry, and guided reflection
with teaching staff can directly affect student progress (Grissom et al., 2021). Teachers need to
shift instructional practices to support language and content acquisition to best serve their ELs
(Elfers & Stritikus, 2014).
22
Data-Driven Instructional Dialogue
A transformative leader uses student data to identify school needs and inspire action
(Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Grissom et al., 2021). The data can help identify issues of inequity and
guide high-quality instructional practices with an intentional focus on equity and cultural
responsiveness in teaching, learning, assessment, and measurement of learning progress
(Grissom et al., 2021). School leader feedback, inquiry, and guided reflection with teaching staff
can inspire action and have a direct impact on student progress (Grissom et al., 2021; Guskey,
2020). More time spent in data dialogue with the leader as the coach can create a climate where
teachers are empowered to make instructional shifts in support of student needs, which can
ultimately result in a deeper analysis of overall grading practices.
Collaboration
School-based actions to transform instructional and grading practices must emphasize a
leadership collaboration at the site and district levels to improve differentiation for ELs. District
and school-level initiatives should be blended and aligned (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). Aligned
leadership is crucial to creating systems to support classroom teachers. An aligned approach
sends a message that leaders at all levels value the vision and teachers’ work (Gardiner &
Enomoto, 2006).
School Leader Skills and Behaviors Through an Equity Lens for Equitable Grading for
English Learners
School leaders must hold a variety of skills to develop strong transformative leadership
behaviors. Their investment in strengthening their leadership skills and behaviors can close
achievement gaps (Grissom et al., 2021). A focus on skills and behaviors with a high return on
investment can support transformative change and result in increased equity in instruction and
23
grading to close achievement gaps. Instructional skills do not refer to content knowledge but to
the ability to support teachers’ instruction. This support includes honest and well-done teacher
evaluations with actionable feedback. Leadership behaviors include engaging in instructionally
focused interactions with teachers. An emphasis on coaching teachers through feedback can lead
to higher student performance outcomes (Grissom et al., 2021). Influential school leaders
collaborate with teachers to develop alternative approaches to meet marginalized students’
learning needs. They ensure explicit professional development, including how instructional
practices affect grading (Grissom et al., 2021). Equitable grading results from improved and
equitable instructional practices that meet students’ specific language needs.
People-focused leadership creates a caring and trust-based environment. Transformative
school leaders are skilled communicators who instill a shared set of beliefs about the
organization and develop a climate of trust (Grissom et al., 2021). The leader inspires a culture
of continuous improvement and optimism that the work is achievable and students will be
successful. Transformative leadership behaviors include creating a productive climate where
teachers and students feel emotionally supported. Staff members learn about marginalized
students’ unique needs. The school climate consists of high expectations and the value of
language diversity. Skilled school leaders prioritize collaboration and professional learning
communities (PLCs), where teachers have permission to try new strategies and risk failure
through an empowered collegial collective efficacy (Grissom et al., 2021). During the PLC,
leaders guide the use of data to identify students and target instructional resources. With equity
as a focus, leaders examine site and content curricula with bias in mind and provide
recommendations for reform (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). Time is built into the school schedule
24
and valued so that teachers engage in thoughtful reflection of their practices toward continuous
improvement for equity (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006).
Transformative school leaders are also skilled in organizational management of budgets,
hiring, facilities, and school safety (Grissom et al., 2021). The leaders’ behavior includes
effective and strategic management of personnel and school resources. Skilled school leaders
hire for diversity and ensure that new hires have a clear commitment to equity. Leaders provide
that the most successful and experienced teachers serve the EL community to support school
goals. They also communicate a clear commitment to equity with all stakeholders, including
teachers, staff, students, and families (Grissom et al., 2021). They also consider how policies
continue to marginalize specific groups of students (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). They create
school structures to support student learning regarding scheduling and programs. Finally, time is
built-in and protected to allow all teachers to collaborate (Grissom et al., 2021).
Strong transformative leadership skills lead to leadership behaviors that produce positive
school and student outcomes. Adopting an equity lens challenges school leaders to consider how
their decisions and actions “remove barriers and create opportunities for historically underserved
groups” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 74). School leaders should have the skills and behaviors to
engage in meaningful dialogue with teachers regarding their instructional and grading practices.
It can take years for a school leader to develop these skills and behaviors. Therefore, principal
turnover can negatively impact school change, instructional improvement, and student outcomes,
as the transformative change process takes time to implement successfully.
Transformative Change Process for the Equitable Grading of English Learners
School leaders must understand the change process and prepare strategies to support
grading reform. The research concludes that while there are various steps to instituting change,
25
the process is not typically linear (Akhtar & Fullan, 2019). Guskey (2020) suggested that to
begin the conversation on grading reform, school leaders should try an alternative model to
change that begins with teacher professional development. While setting a clear vision and
making a call to action are critical, school efforts to directly change attitudes and beliefs rarely
succeed (Guskey, 2020). Change is a gradual and challenging process, and the onus is on school
leaders to prepare teachers for change. Guskey’s (2020) alternative model for change begins with
professional development that should lead to a change in teachers’ classroom practices. Over
time, teachers should see a change in student learning outcomes due to the change in teaching
practices, leading to a change in their attitudes and beliefs. For school leaders, change requires
continuous follow-up, support, and positive pressure to implement the skills and strategies
outlined in professional development.
Akhtar and Fullan (2019) proposed an eight-step process to instill change in educational
forums, while Reeves (2008) suggested a five-step approach. There are similarities in terms of
the steps. All include creating a sense of urgency, gathering evidence for rationale, and co-
creating a clear vision for the need for change (Akhtar & Fullan, 2019; Guskey, 2020; Reeves,
2008). Other recommendations include identifying teacher leaders to are already or ready to
implement grading policy change (Reeves, 2008) and removing barriers to change to enable and
facilitate action (Akhtar & Fullan, 2019).
Transformative leaders can ensure that student grades are fair, accurate, specific, and
timely (O’Connor et al., 2018). Fairness does not mean the same for all students. In their work
together, leaders and teachers must agree on the purpose of grades. For grading practices to be
considered equitable, they must include differentiation in assessment and the implementation of
accommodations for students to demonstrate their learning (O’Connor et al., 2018). Accurate
26
grades ensure separate reporting of students’ learning progress and behaviors (Feldman, 2019;
Guskey, 2020; O’Connor et al., 2018). Traditional grading has resulted in students learning how
to earn points rather than making progress (Feldman, 2019; O’Connor et al., 2018). Grades based
on points are an issue of compliance and student behavior. Homework, penalties for late work or
absences, zeros, and extra credit contribute to inaccurate grades as they measure behavior over
learning.
Finally, school leaders must help teachers not confuse proficiency in English with
subject-matter competency for grades to accurately reflect students’ progress. Specific grades
should be based on learning standards, goals, and criteria (Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2020;
O’Connor et al., 2018). Criteria for progress should be modeled and clearly explained. Students
must not be penalized for errors made during formative practice opportunities (O’Connor et al.,
2018). Last, grades and feedback to students should be timely. The goal of timely feedback is to
help students improve their performance and guide the next steps for teachers’ instructional
plans. For ELs, timely feedback would allow for language support and guide teachers where
more support might be needed. Leaders can communicate to teachers that more timely feedback
to students positively affects student learning and develops trust. The emphasis moves toward the
progress of learning and away from accumulating points for a grade.
Teachers’ grading decisions, policies, and practices are among the last holdouts for
teachers to elicit control over students (Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020). It takes a skilled leader to
guide transformative change in grading to ensure equitable opportunities for all students.
Leading grading reform is a challenging task yet would support the reduction of student failures
and enrollment in remedial courses and increase access to varied opportunities for marginalized
students (Reeves, 2008). Change efforts are not an effect of buy-in but rather a commitment to
27
try new ideas and measure the results. Leaders can implement change through professional
development or changes in school policy and procedures. Clear and consistent communication is
critical for teachers to follow through with changing practices. It is also essential to communicate
with parents and students (O’Connor et al., 2018). Students’ grades and progress reporting share
“better, more accurate, and more meaningful information to families and students (Guskey, 2020,
p. 76). Using data-driven dialogue, skilled transformative leaders create a sense of urgency
(Akhtar & Fullan, 2019; Reeves, 2008). They work collaboratively with stakeholders to find
common ground and develop action steps. They are comfortable living in the space with teachers
do not necessarily have to have a complete agreement. Still, they must move toward equity for
all students (O’Connor et al., 2018) and remove discriminatory practices that prevent some
students from finding academic success and accessing educational opportunities based on grades.
Theories
This study used two theories to examine the research topic and consider how traditional
grading perpetuates bias. With a focus on ELs in middle school, CRT and LatCrit were used to
explore equitable grading practices and how school leaders affect grading practices. Educators
should consider the Eurocentric philosophies and mentalities, such as meritocracy and work
ethic, preventing the equitable grading of students with exceptional needs. English learners bring
a different worldview and epistemology to their learning than their teachers, many of whom are
not from the same background as their students. Therefore, leaders and teachers can use this
knowledge to restructure how students demonstrate knowledge and how they measure success.
Critical Race Theory
The U.S. education system maintains a Eurocentric lens to determine what is essential
and valued in school (Bernal, 2002). It is essential to understand the tenets of CRT as they
28
pertain to education to explore how grading practices can perpetuate or dismantle inequities and
opportunity gaps. The first tenets of CRT are the belief that race is socially constructed and that
racism is embedded in policies and systems as a normal part of society (Delgado & Stefancic,
2001; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Since racism ultimately shows up
in laws and policies, the third tenet is that racism is commonplace and not a product of individual
bias (Sawchuck, 2021). Finally, the fourth tenet recognizes the need to listen to the lived
experiences of those who have been marginalized to understand how racism shows up (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Following the
direction of that fourth tenet, this study sought to identify how grading systems, policies, and
practices might perpetuate inequities for middle school ELs.
In education, CRT can help examine how K–12 policies and practices might contribute to
racial inequities, such as access to high-level curriculum and grading policies. Race is a factor
when examining inequities in education, especially when studying students who live in poverty,
school achievement data, and dropout rates (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Historically,
property ownership has been foundational to forming laws and power, and educational property
has many contexts.
Opportunities to enroll in various courses and grading practices are educational property
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). These opportunities are often denied to students of color and
students with language diversity. They are frequently enrolled in less rigorous courses or not
provided with appropriate language support to access rigorous curricula. Educators often use
students’ grades to determine whether students can access secondary education coursework.
Since teachers hold autonomy in determining grades, they and school leaders need to examine
how grading determines placement into higher-level courses and whether current practices
29
perpetuate the limiting of opportunities. The education code protects the teacher and does not
consider the possibility of bias in grading policies. Using the tenets of CRT as a baseline,
educators ensure that inequitable grading practices do not determine access to high-level courses
as educational property.
Critics of CRT assert that policy change will lower expectations and ultimately harm all
students (Sawchuck, 2021). Critical race theorists (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings,
2013; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) have stated that one does not always recognize oppression
when one is part of it. Educators who do not self-reflect and analyze how grading policies hinder
marginalized students from success and access to high-level education perpetuate the denial of
access to educational equity. Most teachers utilize historical grading practices that maintain
grades as a meritocracy system by accumulating points or percentages (Brookhart et al., 2016;
Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020). Thus, critical race theorists would challenge grading systems
based on the accumulation of points rather than progress toward a learning target or goal as an
example of systemic racism that hinders marginalized students’ access to educational
opportunities. Equity in grading practices would not mean lowering expectations; it would mean
considering how to help all students access and master; challenging content.
Latino Critical Theory (LatCrit)
Critical race theory is the foundation for LatCrit, which examines how the Latinx
community has experienced racism in society and educational settings. LatCrit is complementary
to CRT as both are frameworks that challenge dominant ideologies. Both CRT and LatCrit
theorists acknowledge that educational structures and policies frequently perpetuate the
marginalization of students whom the same policies aim to support (Bernal, 2002; Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
30
LatCrit adds to CRT by including issues unique to the Latinx community, such as
language, immigration, ethnicity, culture, and identity (Bernal, 2002). Race and racism are not
solely based on skin color but also include class, language, and poverty (Solórzano & Yosso,
2001). LatCrit emphasizes storytelling and counter-storytelling to challenge dominant ideologies.
School leaders and educators must understand students’ stories to challenge traditional grading
practices as an issue of equity. When addressing fears of change, school leaders can lead an
analysis of what is norm and learn to listen to the students’ stories to help provide insight into the
need to shift toward equity (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). English learners’ bilingualism is often
devalued in the education system and considered an obstacle to learning (Bernal, 2002).
However, bilingualism is cultural knowledge. Research has found that bilingual students have
recognized their bilingualism as a tool and support in the educational system (Bernal, 2002).
School leaders and educators who access this home knowledge can elicit a strong commitment
from the families, community, and school system.
Listening to Els’ stories creates a stronger school community, allows for educator
reflection to challenge the norm, and can open doors to alternate student progress and success
measurements (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). Thus, CRT and LatCrit theorists purport that teachers
have low expectations for ELs based on language acquisition and continue to receive dull and
boring instruction and curriculum (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). When teachers attribute students’
failure to language, culture, or parent disinterest in school, they place the onus outside the school
context. It gives comfort to teachers that their instructional choices or grading policies are not at
the root of student failure (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Equitable grading practices are ultimately
about teaching pedagogy and practices. When blame falls outside the school systems, teachers do
31
not have to examine how bias affects their expectations of students, pedagogical change, or
equity in grading.
There is a cultural contrast between school systems and many Latinx families. In the
Latinx community, family is viewed as the foundation for all members’ economic success. This
community values family members sharing in the ultimate family success. This ideology
contrasts with the Euro-American ideal of the rugged individual, where each person is
responsible for their success (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Therefore, when students leave school
and reenter the home, there is a cultural shift. To be bien educada (well educated) in Latinx
culture is more than school educated (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Education includes family
morals, values, and supporting the family. Grading practices that are highly affected by
homework, home-based projects, and outside learning create an equity gap for ELs and Latinx
students. School staff must listen to the stories of our Latinx and EL students and their families.
Students should be held accountable for academic work during academic school hours. School
personnel can set up office hours and tutoring opportunities for students to get support on
challenging assignments inside the school system, rather than penalizing students for work not
completed outside the school day. Eliminating systems that track students into lower-level
classes can provide access to more rigorous and high-interest coursework (Villenas & Deyhle,
1999).
Critical Race Theory, Latino Critical Theory, and Educational Policies
California state policies directly related to educational opportunity have propagated
continued bias toward ELs and Latinx students (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). California
Proposition 187 (1994) targeted immigrant women and children by denying school and medical
services. Proposition 187 also exposed how teachers in support of 187 used their authority in the
32
classroom to devalue Latinx and EL culture and make immigrant children feel as if they did not
belong in the school community (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). California Proposition 227 (1998)
banned bilingual education in California and perpetuated the idea of the immigrant other in
school communities. These policies exemplify how race and racism play into school practices
and ultimately influence teacher instructional practices and decisions.
Education policy can hide individual teachers and leaders’ underlying biases that can
negatively affect ELs’ achievement and opportunities. Bias and racism in systemic school
policies may not be visible and need to be uncovered. American democratic ideals of
meritocracy, objectivity, and individuality perpetuate bias in the educational system. These ideals
lead educators to believe that students’ grades and class placement are based on merit and work
ethic and fail to recognize the influence of race and culture on students’ school experiences
(Bernal, 2002). This perspective, or norm, devalues and ignores students’ lived experiences,
cultural motivations, and cultural views as to what is valued (Bernal, 2002).
California Education Code 49066(a) can protect the teacher. However, school leaders are
responsible for open dialogue and investigating bias in grading practices at the individual, site,
and local levels. School leaders have an obligation to their students and must pose questions
about race and racism in the school setting and educators’ ethical responsibility (López, 2003).
School leaders and teachers are responsible for questioning what perspectives are privileged in
grading practices. Some examples of instructional and grading practices that leaders can consider
include homework, late work policies, student assessments, opportunities to improve, the
language of assessment, and assessments or assignments that are very language-based (López,
2003). School leaders must ask which students can access all information and what opportunities
students have to succeed in the class and educational pathway. If there are students who cannot
33
access the information, school leaders must engage teachers in thoughtful reflection and change
to provide support to allow their access. Toward those efforts, CRT and LatCrit lay a foundation
for leaders to raise questions about race and racism (López, 2003) in their schools and challenge
systems and practices that privilege certain students’ perspectives (López, 2003).
Conclusion
Latinx students and ELs’ lived experiences set a stage for how they experience school
and learning. Villenas and Deyhle (1999) noted that the median household income, poverty data,
and dropout rates for Latinx students and families were higher than the national average.
Currently, more Latinx families still live below the poverty line than the national average (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2021). In 2020, Spanish was the primary language for 75% of the state’s ELs. Of
the 1,250,000 ELs in public schools in the United States, 934,958 report Spanish as their primary
language (KidsData, 2022). Living below the poverty line limits students’ ability to access
educational opportunities and hinders their progress in school.
According to Villenas and Deyhle, in 1999, the dropout rate for Latinx students was 35%,
and it was 46% for Immigrant Latinx youth. New data from the California Department of
Education (n.d.-a) indicate the statewide dropout rate was 8.9% in 2020. Hispanic or Latinx
students have a higher dropout rate of 9.8%, and ELs hold a dropout rate of 17.7%. The only
subgroup with a higher dropout rate than ELs in California is foster youth. It is unclear how the
COVID-19 pandemic, school closures, and various school operating systems (distance learning,
hybrid, in-person) in 2020 affected the dropout rate or whether the percentage accurately
depicted all students. The difference in the number of ELs who drop out of high school indicates
inequities and systemic changes needed to ensure they are supported in school. Instructional best
practices to meet these students’ language needs are an area of exploration for school leaders.
34
Implementing accommodations and modifications in grading practices that measure student
progress over compliance to Eurocentric ideals is also a necessary focal point. The path toward
the significant increase in dropout rates for ELs begins in middle school. Students who do not
receive support in middle school or are redesignated as English proficient before they reach high
school are more likely to drop out. Districts use grades as one indicator of English language
proficiency.
A transformative leader is highly cognizant of how students in the school community
view the world around them. Leaders challenge teachers to question their individual biases that
negatively impact student access to opportunities and rigorous content. School leaders focus on
high-quality instructional practices (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014) to inspire a shared vision of
equitable access and opportunity for ELs (Grissom et al., 2021) and work toward eliminating
policies and practices that marginalize any group of students (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006). CRT
and LatCrit theorists challenge school leaders to explore how the school system might create an
improved educational experience for students of color and language-diverse students (Bernal,
2002; Solórzano, 1998).
School leaders consider student epistemologies an asset to learning in terms of grading
practices that dismantle traditional biased structures. Conventional grading practices perpetuate
the idea of Eurocentric meritocracy (Bernal, 2002). School leaders work to transform policies,
procedures, and teaching practices to equitably measure learning and knowledge and therefore
ensure ELs’ academic success in middle school. The research demonstrates many examples of
successful school leadership at the elementary level. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of research
on how leaders effectively inspire grading transformation at the middle school level.
35
Chapter Three: Methodology
Southern California public middle schools served approximately 1.1 million ELs in
grades K–12 during the 2019–2020 school year. Nonetheless, 15% of ELs are considered at-risk
or identified as LTELs (California Department of Education, 2021b). These students have been
enrolled in public schools in the United States for 2 or more years and still have not
demonstrated significant proficiency in the English language. When students do not meet the
requirements to demonstrate that proficiency by the time they reach middle school then teachers
and site leaders must examine systemic practices that perpetuate bias and prevent them from
demonstrating growth and learning. Students reclassify as fluent English proficient by meeting
four criteria, one of which is teacher evaluation determined at the local level (California
Department of Education, 2021b). Students’ grades are one criterion that qualifies as teacher
evaluation. While teachers hold autonomy in determining student grades (Quinn, 2020), middle
school leaders are responsible for engaging teachers in evaluation and investigation into their
grading practices to ensure a bias-free approach and equitable opportunities for all students.
Leaders place a critical role in “creating and sustaining systems of support for classroom teachers
working with English learners” (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014, p. 318). Research regarding the
strategies and support middle school leaders provide to teachers is necessary to help other leaders
transform grading equity.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to examine strategies that middle school leaders use to
ensure bias-free and equitable grading practices. Current and future middle school leaders will be
able to make research-based and informed decisions on how to instill reflective practices among
their teaching staff to check for explicit and implicit biases in their teaching and grading policies.
36
Systemic policies that negatively affect ELs will ultimately be changed to ensure they have
access to quality instruction and high-level opportunities to meet high expectations and learning
outcomes. The following research questions guided the study:
1. What current and former systemic grading practices are traditionally in place, and do
these practices perpetuate bias?
2. How do middle schools measure outcomes of learning for English learner students?
3. Do grading practices measure English learner achievement, and do those measures
support them toward college-bound pathways?
4. What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide teacher reflection to transform
grading practices for equity?
Sample and Population
An explanatory sequential mixed-method approach was utilized to understand the
problem and potential recommendations for a transformative leadership approach to equitable
grading. Survey participants were recruited from a single unified school district in Orange
County, California. All middle school leaders were identified by accessing the district’s website
as a purposeful sample for a quantitative survey (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The search was
limited to middle schools in this district. For this study, a middle school is defined as serving
students in Grades 6 through 8. Potential participants were leaders at schools that serve an EL
population equal to or greater than the state’s EL percentage of 18.6%. By narrowing the sample
to these leaders, the study sought to support more site leaders’ efforts to ensure equitable grading
practices.
The final survey question inquired if the participant was willing to participate in a
maximum 45-minute one-on-one interview. Participants who agreed to be interviewed were
37
contacted directly to set up a meeting time. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and recorded
for later transcription. Additionally, using snowball sampling, participants were invited to share
the survey with their colleagues who meet the criteria.
Instrumentation and Protocols
For this study, both qualitative and quantitative research was conducted for a mixed-
method approach. In keeping with Lochmiller and Lester’s (2017) education research process,
the data were collected using a survey and interview protocol that directly addressed the four
research questions. Data from surveys and interviews produced evidence to answer the research
questions.
Methodology
The methodology allowed for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative data were collected from surveys sent to middle school leaders whose school sites
serve a population of at least 18% ELs. Qualitative data were collected via individual personal
interviews.
Mixed-Method
The study explored various approaches that leaders take to address equity issues in
grading. A mixed-methods approach allowed complementarity and expansion (Maxwell, 2013)
of survey data and personal interviews. The data were centered around transformational change
theory, grading best practices, CRT, and LatCrit (Figure 1).
38
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Qualitative Instrument
Qualitative data were collected through interviews. The interviews followed an open-
ended, semi-structured protocol. Interviewees were volunteers from among the survey
respondents. The interview protocol (Appendix A) consisted of 10 questions written to align with
the study’s research questions. Follow-up and probing questions were also included to gather
more details, clarify as needed, or elicit elaboration from the interviewee (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Quantitative Instrument
Quantitative data were collected from a survey. The survey was used to collect middle
school leaders’ beliefs, opinions, and strategies regarding how they support teachers’
implementation of equitable grading practices for ELs (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Survey
39
questions directly correlated to the four research questions. The survey protocol (Appendix B)
was administered in four parts. Part 1 focused on demographic information. Part 2 centered
around grading practices used by the teachers the respondents supervise, emphasizing learning
outcomes for ELs. Part 3 focused on participants’ perceptions of ELs’ needs and grades as a
measure of academic achievement. Finally, Part 4 focused on the respondents’ leadership
strategies to engage teachers in reflection on grading, bias, and equity about grading. All survey
items were closed-ended questions and included a 5-point Likert-type rating scale.
Data Collection
The data collection circle was followed as outlined by Creswell (2013). The cycle is as
follows: (a) locate individuals, (b) gain access and develop rapport, (c) conduct purposeful
sampling, (d) collect data, (e) record information, (f) resolve field issues, and (g) store data. First,
a single district located in Orange County, California, with multiple middle schools that meet the
criteria for EL percentage, was identified to administer the survey. Potential participants and
email addresses were located via the school district’s website. An online survey was sent via
email to collect responses. A cover letter was included in the email and survey that included the
purpose of the study and the reason the individual was selected (Appendix C). The survey was
only sent to potential school leaders at the Orange County school district’s public schools that
serve Grades 6 through 8 and where at least 18% of the student population are ELs.
The final question on the survey inquired if the leader was willing to volunteer for a 45-
minute interview. Convenience sampling served to collect qualitative data as all survey
participants had been purposefully selected (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) and met selection
criteria. Five individual and in-depth interviews were conducted to address the study’s research
40
questions. Each participant gave prior consent to the researcher, and all responses remained
confidential (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Volunteers were invited to select a date and time that was most convenient for them via
the scheduling website Calendly. The confidentiality statement was read during the interview,
and permission was sought for the interview to be recorded. All survey and interview data were
saved on an external hard drive to maintain the confidentiality of responses. Participants were
also reminded before the survey and interview that they could withdraw from the study at any
time. Answers were coded with a number, such as “S1” for Survey Response 1 and “I1” for
Interview Response 1 to protect participant identity. All interview responses were transcribed via
the online transcription website Rev.com and coded by the researcher.
Data Analysis
An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used for this study that
combines quantitative data from surveys and qualitative data from interviews. All survey items
and interview questions are directly related to the research questions used to guide this study.
Data from surveys and interviews were transcribed and coded in individual reports. Data were
sorted, and themes in leadership strategies for the equitable grading of ELs were identified across
all the protocols. Findings were compared to the literature regarding former and current grading
practices, equitable and bias-resistant grading practices, and transformational leadership
strategies. Findings were also coded thematically pertaining to CRT and LatCrit. This data
triangulation (Figure 2) helped analyze research findings to learn if middle school grading
practices take a student’s language and culture into account. Throughout the process, participant
confidentiality was strictly kept.
41
Figure 2
Concurrent Triangulation Design
Summary
Chapter Three outlines the methodology used to conduct the study. The study used a
mixed-methods approach that includes quantitative data from surveys and qualitative data from
interviews and documents. The target population consisted of middle school leaders at one
school district in Orange County, California, whose schools enroll a minimum of 18% ELs. The
data analysis addressed how participants work with teachers to transform traditional grading
policies and practices into a more equitable grading system. The findings are presented in
Chapter Four, and a discussion of the findings follows in Chapter Five.
42
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Four presents the results of the data analysis. The study aimed to explore the
impact that middle school leaders have on grading practices that affect ELs. The research
questions focus first on current grading practices and their impact on ELs. A final research
question explores how leaders work with teachers to reflect on their grading practices and
analyze if grading systems support ELs ‘ academic success at the middle school level.
An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016) was used to conduct the research. Quantitative data were gathered from an
online survey sent to middle school principals and assistant principals within an urban unified
school district in Orange County, California. The online survey was sent to school leaders whose
schools serve an EL student population at or above the California state average of 17.7%.
Twenty-three middle school leaders in the district received the survey via email. Qualitative data
were collected from one-on-one interviews with five middle school leaders who responded to the
online survey and volunteered to be interviewed. A mixed-methods approach provided general
perceptions and attitudes held by school leaders from the initial survey (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Information from surveys and interviews was collected to conduct data analysis.
Information was consolidated, reduced, and interpreted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) by rereading
interview transcripts and reviewing survey responses. Recurring themes were identified that
aligned to the research questions and coded utilizing an open-coding format (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Themes that correlated back to research studies and connected to the research questions
are noted in the research results.
43
Participants
Of the 23 requests sent, 13 participants opened the survey, and nine completed it. All who
completed the survey met the requirements of serving as a middle school leader of a school that
met or exceeded California’s average percentage of ELs. All respondents were female. Four
respondents were principals, and five were assistant principals. The average number of years the
respondents have served in a leadership role is 11. The average number of years they have served
in their current position is 3. Of the nine survey participants, five were interviewed. The
interviewees were four principals and one assistant principal from various middle schools. The
average number of years the interview participants have served in a leadership role is 12. The
average number of years they have served in their current position is 4.
Table 2
Survey Participants
Survey respondent Leadership position Years in leadership Years in current
position
1 Principal 9 6
2 Assistant principal 8 3
3 Assistant principal 12 2
4 Principal 23 3
5 Principal 16 3
6 Assistant principal 3 1
7 Assistant principal 6 2
8 Assistant principal 5 3
9 Principal 21 8
44
Table 3
Interview Participants
Participant
pseudonym
Leadership position Years in leadership Years in current
position
Abigail Principal 23 3
Brenda Principal 8 3
Cate Principal 5 3
Diane Assistant principal 3 1
Elizabeth Principal 21 8
Results
The research results are presented in order by research question. Each group of results
begins with a connection to current research. The results are organized into themes discovered
for each research question based on survey and interview results. Four research questions guided
the study:
1. What current and former systemic grading practices are traditionally in place, and do
these practices perpetuate bias?
2. How do middle schools measure outcomes of learning for English learner students?
3. Do grading practices measure English learners’ academic achievement, and do those
measures support them toward college-bound pathways?
4. What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide teacher reflection to transform
systems of inequitable grading practices?
Results Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What current and former systemic grading practices are
traditionally in place, and do these practices perpetuate bias?” Current research indicates that
45
traditional grading trends have been in place in American schools since the early 21st century,
and most secondary schools maintain the A–F scale although there is a marked increase in
interest in standards-based grading (Brookhart et al., 2016). Grading reform emphasizes an
equity approach that measures student progress toward learning targets rather than an
accumulation of points (Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020; Jung & Guskey, 2011) and focuses on
accurate, bias-resistant grades that are motivational for students (Feldman, 2019). Grading
reflects educators’ values, norms, and beliefs about students (Greenbaum, 2021), and teachers
have the autonomy to make meaningful instructional decisions about grading that can either
perpetuate or dismantle inequitable systems that affect ELs’ opportunities to progress
academically (Greenbaum, 2021).
The survey asked about respondents’ perceptions of teacher grading practices and leader
thoughts on the purpose of student grades. The interview responses provided more in-depth
insight into how leaders view grading overall as an issue of equity. The responses indicated that
participants believe grades hold value as a reflection of student learning progress, yet they also
noted there is variability in how teachers grade, which creates challenges for ELs (Fullan &
Quinn, 2016). Survey and interview responses also indicated that participants believe teachers
are well-intended, but bias is an important consideration and can affect grading practices
(Feldman, 2019; McKibben, 2020).
Student Grades Should Reflect Student Progress Over Time and Provide Feedback for
Learning
The literature indicates that, ideally, grades are measures of learning (Brookhart et al.,
2016). The instructional standards shift to Common Core State Standards has led to more
emphasis on deep learning in all content areas, allowing students to learn, make mistakes, and
46
relearn (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). The data obtained
from two survey items indicate that respondents believe that grades should be a learning
measurement and provide teachers guidance for future instructional decisions. When asked to
rate the perceived importance of grades on a Likert scale, 88% of the respondents rated the most
crucial purpose of grades as “to give students feedback about their progress toward meeting
learning goals and standards” (Table 4). This sentiment mirrored individual interview
perceptions. When noting her perceptions of grading, one interview participant shared that she
believes that some teachers “understand the benefit of grading kids where they are, grading on
mastery, and giving kids an opportunity to learn over just a letter grade.” Abigail recognized that
if a middle school teacher came from an elementary background, they held a “stronger concept
of mastery grading by standards” and tended to “look toward progress” in student learning. She
also noted that teachers with only secondary experience typically maintain a more traditionally
grading structure. The teachers “set up their grade books as their colleagues do, which typically
means the grade books reflect a similar grading pattern that they had as students in classrooms.”
Table 4
Purpose of Student Grades
Question 1 Most
important
2 3 4 5 Least
important
To give students feedback
about their progress toward
meeting learning goals and
standards
77.78% 11.11% 0% 0% 11.11%
To guide teachers in
instructional planning
0% 50% 25% 25% 0%
47
Survey data also indicate that respondents value using grades as information to guide
teachers’ instructional decisions for scaffolding, differentiation, and reteaching. Half of the
participants surveyed selected guidance to teachers for instructional planning as the second-
most important purpose for grading (Table 4). Abigail shared in her interview that her perception
is that educators have “gotten into the trap of student task completion and turning in
submissions” for grades. However, she believes that looking at grades and encouraging teachers
to allow students an “opportunity for retakes and reassessments” would not be “lowering the skill
but making sure that we provide accessibility” for students to succeed. The literature confirms
that providing scaffolding to achieve the standards is a critical pillar of equitable grading for ELs
(Staehr Fenner et al., n.d.).
Grading Practices Vary by Teacher
The interviewees see a marked variability in teachers’ systems and structures to
determine grades. All five participants recognized that the California Education Code allows for
teachers to be the ultimate decision-maker on how grades are assigned and calculated. While
they all shared an understanding of the education code, there was consensus that some level of
coherence or shared understanding about grading practices can help reduce the cognitive load for
students and families to figure out how each teacher grades (Feldman, 2019). Elizabeth noted
that single-subject teachers tend to be “content-driven” in their grading practices. They rely on
traditions without looking at how individual grades impact students’ overall grades. Brenda
explained that upon examining grade books, she noted the inclusion of “things in the grade not
necessarily related to student academic success,” such as including points for bringing materials
or a parent signing a syllabus. She recognized that “none of that is related to the standards” and
“does not really lead to mastery of any sort of skill.” Including points for behaviors not related to
48
learning creates a system of “gamification” or “points grabbing” for some students and
perpetuates opportunity gaps and bias in grading (Feldman, 2019; Schneider & Hutt, 2014). On
the other hand, Cate indicated that while there are still struggles with variability in grading
practices at her site, about “50% of the teachers are doing mastery grading” with minor changes
such as changing the grading scale from 0–100 to 50–100. Eliminating zeroes allows for a more
equitable opportunity for students to recover mathematically (Feldman, 2019).
Bias Impacts Student Grades
Overwhelmingly, the participants’ perception is that, at the core, teachers believe that the
decisions they make are in the best interest of the students. Nevertheless, all surveyed
respondents agreed that cultural bias can affect student grades (Table 5). When asked in the
interview about the challenges that ELs might face, Diane responded that most teachers at her
school “do not share the same culture as many students.” She noted that some staff struggles to
“relate to our students that are struggling with language barriers, and it translates negatively to
student grades.” Brenda shared her experience with her staff that teachers view supporting ELs
as
A negative thing that they have to tailor to a student with a different learning need.
Teachers become so attached to their content that they forget that their main role as
educators is to teach students skills that they can apply to other content areas. And we do
not do that for kids, especially those learning another language.
The literature confirms that deficit language that focuses on the perceived academic
shortcomings of ELs continues to negatively impact their progress and opportunities to enroll in
varied coursework (Thompson, 2015).
49
Table 5
Cultural Bias in Grading Practices
Question 1 Strongly
disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
To what degree do you
believe that cultural bias
can affect student grades?
0% 0% 0% 44.44% 55.56%
Discussion Research Question 1
In both survey and interviews, participants’ responses indicate that leaders value grades
that reflect student learning and progress. The data also demonstrate that they perceive
inconsistencies in grading practices that may reflect bias in these practices. The literature
suggests grades should only reflect progress toward learning targets and remove non-academic
factors from grading to ensure equitable grading practices for all students (Brookhart et al., 2016;
Feldman, 2019; Jung & Guskey, 2011; Knight & Cooper, 2019). Middle school leaders must
honor the education code that allows teachers autonomy to determine grading practices and work
within that structure to support school systems to critically encourage practices that encourage
opportunities for students to earn grades that genuinely reflect learning.
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “How do middle schools measure learning outcomes for EL
students?” Before middle school leaders and teachers can address whether grading practices are
equitable for ELs, they must first look at how these students’ progress is assessed and measured.
The literature presents that differentiation and scaffolding do not mean to change the learning
goal but rather the assessment or means of demonstration of learning (Tomlinson et al., 2015).
The survey inquired about the types of assessments used in each middle school leaders’ school.
50
Interview questions asked participants to share how ELs demonstrate progress overall and in the
content area classroom. The survey also asked middle school leader perception around whether
teachers differentiate assessments for these students. Though not directly asked in the interview,
participants chose to share a need for more consideration of scaffolding for measuring Els’
success.
Middle Schools Use Multiple Measures to Gauge the Progress of English Learners
Tomlinson et al. (2015) connected the various types of assessment to grading and
described when different assessments should or should not be used in grading. Pre-assessments
and formative assessments can measure progress and provide information to students, families,
and teachers but should not be included in the student’s grade, whereas summative assessments
would be included in the final grade (Tomlinson et al., 2015). Participants responded with
various types of measurement. All respondents confirmed that tests/quizzes, verbal/oral skills
and presentation, and classwork determine grades. Homework and visual representation received
the fewest responses. Seven of the nine respondents also noted that written output is used to
measure progress. Respondents had an opportunity to list any other source of measurement, and
it is interesting to note that the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California
(ELPAC), was not mentioned. It was mentioned, however, in interview responses.
When asked how the school site measures EL progress, Abigail, Cate, and Elizabeth
discussed the multiple measures used. All three mentioned the state ELPAC assessment as an
initial measurement of language progress. Abigail wanted to dig more deeply into the ELPAC
results to support instructional practices beyond the test. She stated, “I wish we did a better job
looking at the ELPAC levels. That rubric really drives where a student is progressing, based on
performance in English speaking, reading, and writing.” Though the ELPAC is typically a
51
summative assessment, her sentiment aligns with research by Tomlinson et al. (2015), which
found that the purpose of a formative assessment is to provide feedback to students to improve
learning and to teachers to help determine the next steps for instruction, including differentiation
and scaffolding.
Elizabeth and Cate discussed district and site-based reading and writing assessments.
Elizabeth shared that in addition to ELPAC results, teachers
Do a formative writing assessment three times a year which is teacher created. Teachers
do a collective grading process and work off a rubric. We meet, we discuss, but we could
do a better job focusing on the EL kids and where they have come. We have been putting
their writing in the EL folder to see that progress.
Cate shared that the benchmark assessment used “also help determine where their [EL students]
growth is and where the gaps are.” All responses focused on EL progress in reading, writing, and
speaking through formative assessments and did not include discussion of multiple measures in
the content area.
Differentiation of Assessments in Content areas Poses a Challenge
The survey question asked leaders to note their agreement with the statement, “The
teachers I work with offer alternative assessment opportunities to differentiate learning for
English learners.” Responses indicate that this is an area of exploration for participants. Three
disagreed with the statement, and six agreed with it. However, only one of the six strongly
agreed, while five somewhat agreed (Figure 3). One-third of the respondents disagreed with the
statement, and over half of the respondents only somewhat agreed.
52
Figure 3
The Teachers I Work With Offer Alternative Assessment Opportunities to Differentiate Learning
for English Learners
Interview data reinforced the survey responses in that respondents see a need to work
with content area teachers to provide alternative ways for ELs to demonstrate learning in the
classroom. Cate shared that when it comes to content area assessments, ELs often
Do not have the language acquisition to be able to communicate their understanding. So,
they may do a science lab and understand the process of what is happening, but if they
cannot communicate that, they are not seen as having mastery of that content.
In response to the same question, Brenda responded that these students “do not feel as successful
because they do not pass the test. Students learning a language have so many other markers to
measure success. We are not doing a good job scaffolding.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
Number of Respondents
Number of Respondents
53
When asked to describe the ideal means teachers might address EL needs, Elizabeth
elaborated on the idea that student grades reflect what teachers value. She said, “It’s coming to
an understanding that as a classroom teacher, we value and respect where kids are coming from
and be honest in the discussion that some kids may need different levels of support.” Cate
acknowledged that teachers of content areas are not prepared to meet these students’ language
needs. She proposed that middle school leaders “train our teachers in scaffolding. Many EL
strategies are very effective for all students, and if teachers would just scaffold and do text
chunking and close reading, little things like that can really help our students develop in all
content areas.”
Discussion Research Question 2
Overall, the survey and interview responses indicate that middle schools use multiple
measures to gauge language proficiency progress. Districts and school sites use a variety of
assessments to measure language progress. However, there is a continued need for differentiation
and scaffolding for ELs when measuring growth in content area classes. The literature supports
inclusive considerations for these students (Jung & Guskey, 2011), including making
accommodations to assignments and assessments without lowering grade-level expectations.
Educators must remember that adjustments are not a one-size-fits-all approach, but it is
necessary to know students’ abilities (Jung & Guskey, 2011). Grades can measure progress and
not just mastery of language and content standards acquisition (Staehr Fenner et al., n.d.) to
support Els’ overall progress. Student grades may not genuinely reflect learning without the
purposeful implementation of appropriate accommodations and modifications when assessing
English learner progress.
54
Results Research Question 3
Research question three asked, “Do grading practices measure ELs’ academic
achievement, and do those measures support them toward a college-bound pathway?” Research
regarding these students’ academic success highlights that students who have not been
reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP) by middle school are often placed in intervention
classes to address perceived academic shortcomings (Shin, 2020; Thompson, 2015). The long-
term English learners (LTEL) classification can negatively impact a student’s opportunity to
access educational opportunities that will place them on a college-bound pathway (Shin, 2020;
Thompson, 2015). Secondary students who are tracked or grouped with other EL or LTEL
students are aware of this placement and feel disengaged and disconnected from school and
learning (Shin, 2020; Thompson, 2015). Survey results strongly confirmed that ELs in the
district studied perform below their peers. While neither the survey nor interviews resulted in
reliable data regarding the impact of grades, there was significant data to confirm that the current
system of intervention and intended support for these students have not wielded opportunities for
them to access more rigorous and engaging coursework nor academic achievement in
comparison to their peers.
The survey asked about perceptions regarding ELs’ academic performance compared to
English-only and RFEP students at their site. All survey respondents noted that ELs perform
below or significantly below their English-only and RFEP peers (Figure 4). The survey included
an open-ended question regarding perceived barriers to supporting unbiased approaches to
grading for these students. One leader responded, “We can’t seem to figure out how to accelerate
EL student progress.” In interviews, participants were asked what types of classes ELs take.
Responses included a special cluster of classes for students new to the country, language support,
55
reading support, math support, and general academic support classes. The data indicate that
although these students have intervention support classes, this support does not translate to
academic achievement.
Figure 4
Comparative Data of English Learner Academic Performance
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
How have English learners at your site achieved
academically compared to their English-only
peers?
How have English learners at your site achieved
acadewmically compared to their Reclassifed
English Proficient (RFEP) peers?
EL Academic Performance
Signifiantly Below Below Same As Better Significantly Better
56
Four interviewees explained that ELs are clustered or tracked via their language support
class. When these students are tracked or grouped in a cluster or cohort, their academic
achievement does not appear to improve (Shin, 2020; Thompson, 2015). Brenda explained that
in her newcomer cluster, the intention is for students new to the country to have a space where
they can “build community, have one teacher that helps them with all of the content areas
together, and build the skills they need” to be successful in other content area classes. Abigail,
Diane, and Elizabeth also indicated that students enrolled in language support classes tend to
follow a similar schedule and are tracked throughout the day. Abigail indicated that students
might not feel welcomed by other content area teachers when tracked. She said,
I don’t know how overall welcoming we are to ELs. We push them through the content,
and we don’t pull back and scaffold content. We are just pushing them through and
hoping that they stay on the coattails” of their peers.
Diane went further to describe how these students may not enroll in high-interest and
college preparatory courses by stating that classes that track them put them “in a box with peers
that are experiencing the same struggles and they are segregated from the rest of the students
based on their reading and writing skills.” Overall, all interview participants stated a desire to do
better for ELs by exploring how teachers might be more aware of and scaffold to meet the varied
needs of the students.
Discussion Research Question 3
While the data did not reveal grading practices that middle schools use specifically for
ELs, there was clear data to support that these students appear to enroll in coursework that is
intended to remediate language but ultimately demotivates students and does not allow for them
to explore interests and place them on a college-bound pathway. Survey and interview data
57
indicate these students continue to perform below their peers, and the courses do not positively
impact student learning. The literature shows that students of color are frequently tracked into
low-level classes that are not engaging or motivating (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Shin, 2020;
Thompson, 2015; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Placement in remedial or intervention coursework
does not appear to yield academic success (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Villenas & Deyhle,
1999). English learners had the second-highest dropout rate of 17.7% in 2020 (California
Department of Education, n.d.-a). The significant dropout rate indicates that systemic changes
are needed to ensure that these students are supported and engaged in school.
Tracking students does not lead to academic success at the middle school level. Instead, it
appears to prolong a student’s placement in intervention classes rather than improve language or
academic progress. According to Solórzano (1998), schools can look to improve ELs’ school
experience by recognizing that the course and cluster intended to support them may be a source
of oppression that prevents them from learning from peer language models and challenging
themselves in more rigorous coursework. Rather than target the students’ language abilities, the
onus is on the school system and structures to explore and change systems that fail to accelerate
these students’ progress in their content area classes. Placing blame on the student’s language
abilities, culture, or home life, rather than focusing on how the school system can improve, does
not inspire change (Solórzano, 1998; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Survey and interview data
confirm that tracking has not elicited academic growth nor allowed students to explore college-
bound pathways. Middle school leaders can work with teachers and guide reflection on
instructional and grading practices to support these students in content area classes, rather than
removing them from rigorous, high-interest classes.
58
Results Research Question Four
Research question four asked, “What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide
teacher reflection to transform systems of inequitable grading practices?” Survey and interview
participants were asked questions about how they open communication and dialogue regarding
grading practices with their teaching staff and engage teachers in reflection about grading best
practices. Three themes emerged from the survey and interviews. The first theme is that grades
and grading practices result from high-quality instruction. Elfers and Stritikus (2014) wrote that
teaching capacity and the ability to recognize and differentiate for varied learners is a critical
component of creating supportive school conditions. Leaders who engage in instructionally
focused conversations with teachers directly impact student learning (Grissom et al., 2021). The
second theme that emerged was that leading effect professional learning communities takes time
and strategic planning. Leaders play a critical role in improving learning and help to create a
supportive, effective, and equitable learning environment for teachers and students (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014; Grissom et al., 2021; Guskey, 2020). The final theme that emerged is that though
participants have a strong desire to shift mindsets about grading, there are continued challenges
to overcome. Change efforts will not yield full buy-in from teaching staff, but leaders need to
work through the challenges with a commitment to support and try new ideas (O’Connor et al.,
2018) that support student achievement and learning progress.
Grades Are a Result of High-Quality Instruction and Coaching
The literature indicates that leaders who focus change efforts on high-quality
instructional practices can positively affect transformative change as it relates to grading
practices (Feldman, 2019; Grissom et al., 2021; Guskey, 2020; Reeves, 2008). The survey did
not include questions geared toward instructional practices. Interview questions did lend to
59
responses that connected grades to instructional practices. Therefore, all data was gathered from
interview responses. The first theme that emerged was that equitable grading results from high-
quality instruction. When asked what content area teachers look at to determine success for ELs,
Elizabeth pointed to purposeful instruction prior to assessment and grades. She stated, “the
discussion is more about the teaching that happens before grading. The scaffolding and pre-
learning activities should be purposeful. Teachers need to be mindful about groups and make
instructional decisions that support the needs of our EL kids.”
Brenda acknowledged that grades are not attached to graduation credits in middle school
but can determine the college and career readiness pathway for ELs. She emphasized that high-
quality instruction would emphasize skills and the application of the skills in all content areas.
She stated she would like to see teaching that is “focused on skill on real-world learning
experiences so kids can see why their learning matters and be proud of what they’re doing in
their classrooms.” Students who experience high-quality and purposeful learning activities prior
to assessment are more likely to connect their learning across content areas, and grades result
from thoughtful instruction. If instructional supports are aligned to support the academic needs of
students, the resulting grades will be fair and accurate (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Feldman, 2019).
Both Abigail and Brenda connected high-quality instruction to careful instructional
coaching by middle school leaders. Brenda shared that she would instigate a coaching
conversation with the teacher when asked about the next steps she might take as a leader if she
noticed a disproportionate number of ELs earning lower grades than their peers. Rather than use
the conversation as punitive for the teacher, she turned to a grading study session. She shared, “I
would ask to see how things are graded. If there is a rubric, we could see how the student landed
on a certain grade. Then we can turn the conversation toward reteaching and see if more
60
scaffolds are needed or if the student could work with a group. A student might have a better
opportunity to show their knowledge, especially when language is a struggle, with a group.”
When looking to make transformative changes to grading practices, Abigail stated she would
start with early initiators and work alongside them as a facilitator. She said, “Some teachers pick
up initiatives quickly. I would probably start with them and see how we can shift their grading
practices and see if we can build a grassroots effort.” Beginning with early adopters and
providing professional development and coaching can help flush out potential questions while
the school leader prepares to transform instruction and grading school-wide (Gardiner &
Enomoto, 2006).
Opportunities for alternate demonstration of learning also emerged as a marker of high-
quality instructional decision-making that positively affects grades for ELs. There is evidence in
the literature that equitable grading allows for students to make mistakes and correct mistakes
after instructional feedback from teachers (Feldman, 2019; Knight & Cooper, 2019; Tomlinson
et al., 2015) in the differentiated classroom. Cate emphasized the need for an instructional shift
to include mastery grading practices so student grades can reflect learning progress. She stated,
“I think that providing multiple opportunities for students to show learning and understanding
lends itself to an equitable grading policy.” She elaborated that high-quality instruction includes
multiple formative assessments “so teachers can see where those gaps are and step in and help
remediate sooner and bring students along.” Abigail shared a similar sentiment. She said, “what
would be beneficial for our ELs is the opportunity for retakes, reassessments. Not lowering the
skill but making sure that we provide access to it.” With careful coaching, middle school leaders
inspire instructional shifts that include high-quality instructional support that can result in
equitable grading practices.
61
Effective Professional Learning Communities
The second theme that emerged from both survey and interview data is strategic planning
and a commitment to developing a strong professional learning community (PLC) plan. Survey
data indicates that respondents use a variety of forums to engage teachers in dialogue about their
grading practices (Figure 5). 100% of the survey respondents engage in grading conversations in
grade level or PLC meetings. Eight out of nine respondents indicated they also use individual
coaching conversations and staff meetings as a forum to share grading information. The least
utilized forum was teacher evaluations, with six out of nine responses.
Figure 5
I Use the Following Forums to Engage in Dialogue With Teachers About Grading Practices
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Individual Coaching
Conversations
Grade Level
Meetings/Professional
Learning Communities
Whole Staff Meeting Teacher Evaluations
Number of Responses
n = Number of Responses
62
In the interview, Elizabeth detailed the careful decision-making she uses to plan weekly
professional learning community meetings strategically. She shared,
We set our calendar a year in advance and make it very purposeful. Our discussion
centered around EL kids comes at least three, four times every year. We talk about best
practices and work as a whole school community. But I also work individually with
teachers.
She also includes paraprofessionals who work with ELs in PLC meetings to include them in best
practice discussions and analyses of students’ progress.
Abigail is careful to introduce new or challenging topics first to her leadership team as a
PLC before bringing the topic to the whole staff. Her most recent meeting with grading as a topic
included using data to drive the discussion. She shared,
I took the leadership team through a grade mark analysis from our student database. We
can pull a report to see the percentage of students per teacher/course/period who earned a
grade of A, B, C, D, or F. We also disaggregated the data by program, such as ELs. You
can see trends like who is earning an A and earning an F. Then, we turned that discussion
to how we set up our grade books.
In order to create a safe environment for staff, Abigail ensured that teacher names were removed
from the report. This anonymity allowed the discussion to center on grades and issues of equity
rather than focus on the teacher. The strategic planning to engage teachers in dialogue around
grades without alienating anyone reflects survey responses. Respondents were asked to indicate
the degree they agree or disagree with the following statement, The teachers I work with are
receptive to the analysis of their grading practices. 55% of the respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement (Table 6). Grading practices continue to be the decision of the
63
classroom teacher. School leaders who seek to lead teachers through reflective analysis of their
grading practices demonstrate leadership behaviors that support instruction by facilitating
instructionally focused collaboration and centered on equity (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Grissom
et al., 2021).
Table 6
Teacher Readiness to Grade Book Analysis
Question 1 Strongly
disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
The teachers I work with are
receptive to the analysis of
their grading practices.
0% 33.3% 11.11% 33.33% 22.22%
64
Overcoming Challenges
Another theme that emerged from the data is that participants face various challenges
when instilling transformative change in grading practices. Though the challenges exist, all
survey respondents feel prepared to lead the conversation with teachers (Table 7). Given an
open-ended response regarding barriers, school leaders face supporting teachers to ensure
equitable grading practices, all responses centered on resources. The resources listed fell into the
following categories: time, funding, and personnel.
Table 7
Leader Readiness to Lead Grading Discussions
Question 1 Strongly
disagree
2 3 4 5 Strongly
agree
I feel prepared to lead
conversations with teachers
about their grading
practices.
0% 0% 0% 66.67% 33.33%
65
The most prevalent barrier school leaders listed in survey responses was time to ensure
quality professional development for teachers geared toward equitable grading for ELs. While
multiple interview responses shared that there is built-in time in the school calendar for PLC
meetings, schools often struggle with initiative overload. The literature outlines the value of
school sites and districts aligning initiatives to ensure consistent messaging and focus (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; O’Connor et al., 2018). Middle school leaders make time
for what they value. In weekly staff or PLC meetings, time for reflection is a common practice
shared in interview data. One survey respondent indicated that time is a concern for teachers not
to view shifting instructional or grading practices as an “additional duty, but rather a necessary
instructional practice.”
Careful coaching and facilitating by the school leader can also provide opportunities for
another time concern mentioned in the survey - time to reflect on “individual unconscious bias
about ELs” and grades. Funding and staffing were also listed in survey responses as potential
barriers to addressing equity issues. One respondent wrote, “A barrier we face is funding and
access to a full-time paraprofessional to support our EL population.” Highly qualified and trained
staff was also listed as a barrier. Limited resources present some challenges for school leaders
when looking to instill transformative change in grading practices at the school site. School
leaders can partner with district-level leadership to align initiatives, plan staff training and PLC
time strategically, and ensure teachers are provided the time and support needed to reflect on best
practices in instruction, grading, and strategies that positively impact ELs.
Discussion Research Question Four
Survey and interview data revealed three themes: equitable grading due to high-quality
instruction and instructional coaching, change efforts through a guided professional learning
66
community and overcoming challenges in funding, time, and personnel. Middle school leaders
must be instructional leaders first (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Grissom et al., 2021; Guskey, 2020).
With equitable grading as the goal, leaders must collaborate with teachers and coach them on
their grading practices. The participants in this study confirmed that coaching and working
alongside their teachers was a critical component of helping teachers ensure purposeful
scaffolding so that student grades are more reflective of student progress and learning. The
coaching conversation allows the leader to build a productive professional dialogue with each
teacher and creates a climate where teachers feel supported (Grissom et al., 2021).
The skills employed by middle school leaders for individual instructional coaching must
also be used to develop a strong group professional learning community. Effective use of PLC
emerged as a second theme. Participants acknowledged that approaching the topic of grading is a
process that takes a thoughtful approach since individual teachers can determine grading
practices. Participants indicated that learning alongside the teachers, using data to guide
discussions, and ensuring a well-planned PLC calendar supports the notion that leaders play a
“key role in shaping and improving learning” (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014)) for students and where
teachers feel a sense of safety to try and risk failure in instituting grading reform (Elfers &
Stritikus, 2014; Grissom et al., 2021).
The final theme that emerged was a recognition of the various challenges that
respondents face when seeking to institute change, such as grading practices. Time, personnel,
and funding were the main factors mentioned in surveys and interviews. The literature supports
the notion that leading grading reform is challenging. Nevertheless, middle school leaders can
approach these potential roadblocks by working collaboratively with district initiatives so that
both the district and the sites align (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). Dedicated time to professional
67
development creates a sense of urgency (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006;) and provides teachers and
leaders with dedicated time to reflect on student grading data, grading practices, and instructional
best practices (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Grissom et al., 2021).
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on current and former grading trends and whether
traditional grading practices perpetuate bias. The findings indicate that the participants note that
grading reform is needed if grades reflect student learning. Research participants see variability
in teacher grading practices which may reflect bias due to a deficit mindset of language ability.
The lack of coherence in grading practices also creates a system where students and families are
left to figure out each teacher’s grading system and makes grades more about points than
learning. These findings align with the research that the purpose of student grades should be
about learning progress and mastery of learning targets or standards rather than an accumulation
of points that indicate compliance over learning (Brookhart et al., 2016; Feldman, 2019; Jung &
Guskey, 2011; Knight & Cooper, 2019).
Research Questions 2 and 3 focused on how middle schools measure EL learning
outcomes and whether they enrolled in coursework that supports them toward a college-bound
pathway. The themes that emerged from the two questions indicate that middle schools use
multiple measures to monitor language acquisition progress yet struggle to differentiate or
scaffold in content area classrooms. Additionally, tracking these students with others with similar
needs does not accelerate their progress.
Research Question 4 focused on strategies to engage teachers in reflection about their
grading practices and how they impact ELs. Research participants indicated that using a
coaching model is critical when working with grading reform since teachers hold the decision-
68
making power of general grading practices. Along with individual coaching, a clear PLC
direction is necessary to engage all teachers in dialogue surrounding best instructional practices
and how those practices translate to equitable grading. Middle school leaders can set a clear tone
and direction and a sense of urgency through well-planned PLC discussions and professional
development that encourage teachers to explore how grades reflect personal and systemic values,
beliefs, and norms (Greenbaum, 2021; Guskey, 2020; Reeves, 2008).
Chapter Five will include a discussion of the research and further considerations and
implications of the study. Chapter Five will conclude with recommendations for further research.
69
Chapter Five: Discussion
Grading practices at the secondary level have maintained a traditional A–F structure since
the early 20
th
Century (Brookhart et al., 2016; Feldman, 2019). In California, teachers maintain
autonomy in how to best determine and assign grades for students (California Education Code
§49066, 1980). The significance of this study is to explore how middle school leaders work with
teachers to ensure equitable grading practices are in place to support ELs. Chapter Five
summarizes this study’s findings to inform current and future middle school leaders regarding
grading best practices for these students and transformative leadership best practices for grading
reform. Recommendations for future research are also included.
California is home to the nation’s largest population of ELs (KidsData, 2022), yet their
dropout rate was 18.4% in 2020 (California Department of Education, n.d.-a). Grades earned in
middle school help to determine placement in high school level courses that put students on a
college-bound pathway (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Critical race and Latino critical theorists
assert that current educational structures marginalize ELs (Bernal, 2002; Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995). For these students, language acquisition, immigration, culture, and family structure
(Bernal, 2002; López, 2003) conflict with traditional American values of meritocracy and
individuality (Bernal, 2002; Sawchuck, 2021) that traditional grading practices often employ at
the secondary level. The purpose of this study was to better understand grading practices that
affect English learners at the middle school level and offer insight into the transformational
leadership practices of school leaders. The research questions that guided this study were
1. What current and former systemic grading practices are traditionally in place, and do
these practices perpetuate bias?
2. How do middle schools measure outcomes of learning for English learner students?
70
3. Do grading practices measure English learners’ academic achievement, and do those
measures support them toward college-bound pathways?
4. What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide teacher reflection to transform
grading practices for equity?
This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This method included comparing and analyzing both qualitative
and quantitative data. Quantitative data were collected via a 15-question survey from nine middle
school leaders. Five survey respondents volunteered to be interviewed. The study’s results
provided information about how participants view grading as a measurement of English learner
progress at the school-site level. Critical theories included in the conceptual framework included
research related to current grading practices, best practices for measuring the progress of ELs,
critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and transformational change theory. Quantitative data
from the survey and qualitative data from interviews were used to explain and develop the
research findings.
Findings
The findings of this study were based on the data collected via survey and interview.
Findings from the research suggest that participants view equitable grading due to high-quality
instruction. Middle schools use various measures to gauge EL language development, but there
is a lack of coherence in teacher grading practices. Further findings suggest that tracking these
students in well-intended language intervention coursework in middle school does not set them
up for access to high-interest, college-bound pathways. To enact transformative change in
grading practices, middle school leaders must invest time in professional development that
improves instructional practices. Individual coaching and strategic use of professional learning
71
communities are examples of strategies to enact change to ensure equitable grading. Nine themes
emerged from the four research questions. Each theme is presented and linked to existing
literature connected to each theme.
Research Question 1
Data analysis resulted in three findings. The first finding is that participants agree that
student grades should report student progress on learning goals. This finding was consistent with
the research that standards-based or mastery grading is a more accurate reflection of student
learning (Brookhart et al., 2016; Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020). Grades that eliminate
extraneous, non-academic behaviors such as homework completion or participation prevent
unconscious bias from negatively impacting student grades (Feldman, 2019; Knight & Cooper,
2019). Grading practices vary in middle schools. The results confirmed that the variability in
how grades are calculated and earned produces confusion (Feldman, 2019) and can result in an
emphasis on gaining points over learning (Feldman, 2019; Schneider & Hutt, 2014).
Interview responses also confirmed the second finding that respondents believe that
grades based on learning progress can also serve as guidance for teachers in instructional
planning. This finding is impactful for school leaders when working with content area teachers.
ELs are developing language skills while also being asked to demonstrate content knowledge.
Middle school leaders can work with teachers to analyze grades to determine small group
intervention, re-teaching lessons, and provide students with opportunities to re-assess, so
students see value in learning, making mistakes, and then learn from the mistakes to gain greater
content knowledge (Feldman, 2019; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2020). Grading reform is a commitment to inclusive grading, including
72
accommodating learners and modifying expectations without lowering rigor or skill (Jung &
Guskey, 2011).
The final finding for Research Question 1 was that student grades might reflect bias. If
grades are calculated through points versus a demonstration of learning, outside factors can
negatively impact them (Feldman, 2019). The participants reflected on the importance of
teachers knowing students’ stories to adjust expectations for work that may be required to be
completed outside the school setting. This acknowledgment that ELs may have cultural
differences in family expectations beyond the school day aligns with Critical Race and Latino
Critical theorists (Bernal, 2002; Solórzano, 1998; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001; Villenas & Deyhle,
1999). The leaders concurred that there is a need for cultural awareness and relationship-building
to recognize grading expectations that perpetuate bias and eliminate those practices when
adjusting grading practices.
Research Question 2
Data analysis yielded two findings. The first finding was that while middle schools use
multiple measures to gauge progress in language ability, there is a need for a deeper analysis of
students’ skill development. Survey and interview responses indicate that the participants gauge
student progress using state and school-based benchmark assessments. The interviewees use the
scores of these assessments to measure student progress but shared an interest in disaggregating
the scores into more detail based on the rubric to see where ELs find success and where they
need additional support. This sentiment aligns with Tomlinson et al. (2015), who detailed the
notion that formative assessments provide feedback to teachers to monitor student progress and
provide information to students on growth and growth areas. This finding was also consistent
with the work of other researchers that formative assessments should support students’ progress
73
toward mastery of skills without lowering grade-level expectations (Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011;
Staehr Fenner et al., n.d.).
The second finding was that scaffolding in the content areas for ELs to demonstrate their
learning is an area of growth. Interview participants agreed that these students might struggle to
articulate content knowledge as they continue to develop language abilities. Participants noted
that teachers of content areas may not have the specialized training required to differentiate
assessments and assignments intentionally and that it is the role of the leader to provide that
support to ensure teacher success and student access to content. This sentiment aligns with Jung
and Guskey’s (2011) work that students can demonstrate progress toward learning targets and
goals differently without lowering grade-level expectations. With appropriate accommodations,
teachers can change the expectation of how students demonstrate their knowledge (verbal vs.
written) so that students can access the content and learn (Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011).
Research Question 3
The study’s results produced one common finding: tracking neither improves academic
achievement nor guides students toward a college-bound pathway. The interviewees shared that
students identified as ELs are enrolled in some support classes or classes based on their
performance on language assessments and prior grades. Nevertheless, all survey respondents
stated that these students continue to perform below or significantly below their English-only or
redesignated English learner peers. The data indicate that clustering has not yielded the academic
success desired through targeted interventions. Students enrolled in language support classes or
intervention electives cannot enroll in high-interest or college and career pathway courses. This
finding is in keeping with the research of Tomlinson et al. (2015), which asserted that students
who are not permitted to enroll in more engaging and challenging coursework lacked interest in
74
school and were generally unmotivated. At the secondary level, Tomlinson et al. recognized that
students are aware of the leveling of courses and that their placement in language intervention is
stigmatizing. Continued tracking of ELs in lower-level coursework impacts their access to
college-bound opportunities and perpetuates a deficit-based mindset about their abilities to
succeed (Solórzano, 1998; Tomlinson et al., 2015; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999).
Research Question 4
The first finding regarding the fourth research question is that leaders must emphasize
change efforts around high-quality and equitable instruction first to get to equitable grading. The
research supports that it is impossible to engage in equitable and anti-racist grading practices
without first addressing teaching practices (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; McKibben, 2020; Staehr
Fenner et al., n.d.). Middle school leaders who engage teachers in instructional support and
facilitate collaboration amongst language specialists and content area teachers can foster an
environment that challenges teachers to examine their grading practices for equity (Fullan &
Quinn, 2016; Grissom et al., 2021).
The second finding revealed that participants use multiple forums to engage teachers in
reflection on grading practices, yet the most common practice was the ability to guide teachers in
using their professional learning community (PLC) thoughtfully and effectively. The planning
process for guided PLC aligns with the literature that strong leaders set a clear purpose and sense
of urgency, use data as a basis for that purpose, provide targeted professional development, and
ensure a safe and supportive environment for teachers to shift practices, struggle, and improve
(Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020; Reeves, 2008). Change efforts are a collaborative endeavor with
leaders and teachers and are not a result of teacher buy-in but rather a commitment from leaders
75
and teachers to try new ideas and measure the results through the PLC (O’Connor et al., 2018;
Reeves, 2008).
The final finding for Research Question 4 was that middle school leaders inevitably face
challenges during transformational change. Quantitative data results indicated that, while shifting
grading practices is challenging, all survey respondents are prepared to guide this discussion.
The results revealed that leaders must overcome obstacles, including time, funding, and high-
quality staff. The literature provided insight that they can overcome some of these challenges by
aligning work with district-level initiatives to ensure messaging regarding the value of equitable
teaching and grading practices is clear (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; Fullan & Quinn, 2016;
O’Connor et al., 2018). This finding also aligns with the earlier finding that influential school
leaders are instructional leaders. If equity and grading shifts are a core value, then professional
development and effective coaching for instructional and grading reflection are necessary to
overcome barriers (Guskey, 2020; Reeves, 2008).
Ancillary Finding: The Power of Relationships
In addition to the findings connected to the four research questions, there was one
additional notable finding. The research questions centered on grading, assessment, and
leadership practices. However, through the interviews, the sentiment that the power of
relationships and truly knowing the students’ stories are at the core of equitable grading for ELs.
The results suggest that for teachers to make instructional and ultimately grading shifts for
equity, they must spend time knowing and understanding the people they serve in the classroom.
Interview participants indicated that when teacher culture does not reflect the culture of ELs, it is
the charge of the adults to ask questions, seek to understand, and acknowledge the students’
stories to gain a deeper understanding of the student experience.
76
Equitable grading shifts cannot happen from professional development alone but must be
driven by a teacher’s desire to understand and better support the EL from where they are. This
sentiment aligns with the research of Bernal (2002) that if middle school leaders and teachers are
looking to shift traditional practices, then there must be an understanding of the cultural
knowledge of our Latinx community. Leaders and teachers must shift the concept of grades from
a meritocracy of points accumulation to allow for and honor students’ experiential knowledge as
a learner strength (Bernal, 2002). Bilingualism has been viewed as a deficit to learning (Bernal,
2002; Thompson, 2015). Therefore, instructional and grading shifts begin to emerge when
teachers and leaders shift the deficit mindset about language learners and work to develop
relationships first to understand the students’ perspective.
Limitations
Limitations in this research include generalizability. While there were 23 middle school
leaders, nine survey responses were collected. The larger sample size could have generated more
detailed results or presented a variety of responses to the survey questions. Additionally, all data
were self-reported by survey and interview participants, which could impact the internal validity
of the results. Triangulation of the data ensured that the findings’ validity was checked.
Another limitation is the paucity of research explicitly related to middle school grading
practices and differentiated grading practices for Ls. The literature included a broad scope of
research related to best grading practices overall or at the secondary level. Some literature
included these learners as an exceptional subgroup, but little has been written about this study’s
narrow topic.
77
Implications for Practice
This study contributes to the research regarding leadership practices that impact equitable
grading for English learners. Findings from this study aligned with prior research and add to
implications for middle school leaders. The first implication for practice is that middle school
leaders must be strong instructional leaders to impact equitable grading practices. The literature
demonstrated that efforts to change teachers’ attitudes and beliefs have not proven successful
(Guskey, 2020). School leaders who engage in thoughtful change practices recognize that the
process is slow and requires consistent follow-up, feedback, support, and pressure from the
leader (Grissom et al., 2021; Guskey, 2020). Equitable grading reports student progress toward
learning targets more clearly, accurately, and fairly (Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020). It is the role
of the leader to ensure that they are actively engaged in instructionally focused conversations
with teachers, building a positive professional climate where teachers feel supported to try new
practices, and facilitate collaboration between professional learning communities that are
focused on effective support and strategies for ELs and equity (Grissom et al., 2021).
The second implication for practice is the critical role that school leaders play in
developing a climate of care, a culture of continuous improvement, and academic optimism. The
study found that participants who carefully plan a calendar of professional development and PLC
discussions centered on the growth and needs of ELs have more honest conversations with staff
about best practices and instructional shifts. The school leader is the model and must approach
data analysis with an equity lens. Effective leaders engage PLCs in using data to identify
students in need and target resources to support students and teachers (Grissom et al., 2021).
Middle school leaders can begin the conversation around understanding students’ culture,
community, and home knowledge to challenge traditional thinking around grading and learning
78
(Feldman, 2019; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). A commitment to equitable grading means
exploring effective accommodations or modifications for students to demonstrate learning
(Guskey, 2020; O’Connor et al., 2018) and honoring the knowledge ELs bring to the classroom
(Bernal, 2002; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001).
The third implication for practice is the guided exploration with teachers into current
grading practices. The findings suggest that grading practices that are standards or mastery-based
are more equitable and demonstrate a fair picture of students’ progress toward learning goals
(Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020; Jung & Guskey, 2010, 2011). Leaders can guide teachers by
analyzing how current grades are calculated to ensure mathematical accuracy (Feldman, 2019). It
is beneficial for leaders to help teachers look for discriminatory practices, such as penalization
for home-based learning or the inclusion of non-academic behaviors and provide research-based
reasoning to eliminate these practices (Feldman, 2019). If grades are to be motivational for
students, then leaders must help teachers recognize the value of allowing students opportunities
for do-overs and re-takes in learning. This practice can encourage students to take risks in
learning and support a growth mindset for students so that they can have the opportunity to
improve (Feldman, 2019). Finally, one of the many challenges for middle school students and
families is managing the various ways that student grades are calculated based on teacher
decisions. The middle school leader’s role is to work with teachers to develop a shared
understanding about grading for equity and move toward common grading practices to reduce
the cognitive load for students and families to figure out how to earn points (Feldman, 2019).
This coherence building shifts the focus back to grades as a reflection of learning rather than an
accumulation of points (Feldman, 2019; Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
79
A final implication for practice centers on the power of relationships with students and
families in order to best meet Els’ unique needs. Interview data revealed that building and
encouraging positive relationships with students and the community is foundational for inspiring
instructional and grading shifts. School leaders and teachers can seek to understand and value
Els’ cultural knowledge. It is important to listen to the stories of the students and earn what is
valued in the home and within the family structure (Bernal, 2002; McKibben, 2020; Solórzano &
Yosso, 2001). Then work collaboratively to accommodate instructional practices and
expectations so that English learners can be included in the learning process and take advantage
of college-bound pathways in their schooling.
Future Research
The results of this study and review of the literature indicate a need for future research
specific to middle school grading practices. The study revealed that standards-based grading
practices are common in elementary school grading practices. Middle school level teachers are
not as experienced in grades as a measure of progress. Qualitative data indicated that middle
school teachers tend to follow what has been in place or grade students as they were graded
through an accumulation of points that include compliance-based behaviors versus progress
toward learning targets. Since middle school grades are not a factor in college entrance,
educators at this level can explore a middle ground between elementary standards-based
practices and high school A–G requirements. It would be beneficial to explore middle school
sites that have implemented standards-based grading and measure how this shift in grading
affects student progress in language development and content, connection to learning, and
placement in high school level coursework.
80
The study also revealed that though there is much research on equitable grading overall,
few studies specifically address ELs’ unique learning and language needs. While there is
generalizability in the transfer of grading best practices for all students to English learners,
middle school leaders, and teachers must view ELs as an exceptional subgroup with unique and
diverse needs related to language acquisition and community and culture. Future research could
strengthen the findings of this study by including quantitative or qualitative inquiry around how
teachers specifically accommodate or modify opportunities for these students to demonstrate
learning. The research could then include a specific investigation into how teachers record
scaffolding strategies in the grade book. Research into specific strategies that have proven
effective for ELs could support future leaders in guiding teacher reflection on their grading and
instructional practices.
Finally, additional research is recommended in teaching credential programs and the
inclusion of our lack of emphasis on scaffolding and differentiation for ELs for single-subject
content area teachers. The study’s findings indicated a lack of knowledge for secondary content
area teachers on addressing these students’ language needs and adjusting instruction and grading
accordingly. It would be beneficial for future researchers to explore how future content-area
teachers receive instruction on how to measure student learning and how that translates to
grades. Additional research could also include how teacher credential programs support new
teachers in making instructional and grading decisions that eliminate bias.
Conclusions
This study highlighted the importance of the role of the middle school leader in
instituting change that supports equitable grading for middle school ELs. Grading practices tend
to follow the structural format designed in the early 21st century. Teachers and leaders are
81
beginning to recognize that the traditional A–F system based on an accumulation of points and
compliance behaviors is not a true reflection of student progress toward learning targets
(Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2020). While teachers maintain the decision-making control of how to
set up grade books, it is the role of the leader to unveil possible biased practices that negatively
impact the grades of marginalized students and encourage teacher collaboration and reflection
(Grissom et al., 2021) on how grades either provide or deny access to future college-bound
coursework. Through honest feedback, coaching, data analysis, and guided PLC that emphasizes
Els’ unique needs, middle school leaders can have a lasting impact on teacher practices and,
ultimately, the opportunities students should have to access rigorous, high-interest, college-
bound coursework in high school and beyond. Leading grading reform is a challenging and
lengthy process. However, the ultimate result could reduce EL failure, increase student
engagement, improve student and staff morale, and increase access to varied learning
opportunities for traditionally marginalized students (Reeves, 2008).
82
References
Akhtar, V. L., & Fullan, J. P. (2019). Charting the course: The path to transformation in education.
Kotter. https://www.kotterinc.com/research-and-insights/transformation-in-education/
Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered
epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge.
Qualitative Inquiry. 8(1), 105–126. doi:10.1177/107780040200800107
Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, F., Stevens,
M. T., & Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the
most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research. 86(4):803-848.
doi:10.3102/0034654316672069
California Department of Education. (n.d.-a). California Department of Education releases
2019-2020 high school graduation and dropout rates. [Data file].
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr20/yr20rel101.asp
California Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Certificated staff by ethnicity for 2018-19. [Data
File]. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Staff/StaffByEth.aspx?cLevel=State&cYear=2018-
19&cChoice=StateNum&cType=O&cGender=B&Submit=1
California Department of Education. (2020). English learners in California Schools. [Data set].
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sg/englishlearner.asp
California Department of Education. (2021a). English learner students by language by grade
[Data Set]. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpringData/StudentsByLanguage.aspx?
Level=State &TheYear=2020-21&SubGroup=All&ShortYear=2021&GenderGroup
=B&CDSCode=00000000000000&RecordType=EL
California Department of Education. (2021b). Reclassification. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/
California Education Code § 49066 (1980).
83
Center for Public Education. (2016). Educational equity: What does it mean? How do we know
when we reach it? Center for Public Education. https://www.nsba.org/-
/media/NSBA/File/cpe-educational-equity-research-brief-january-2016.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage Publications.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: an introduction. New York University
Press.
Elfers, A. M., & Stritikus, T. (2014). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’
work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly. 50(2), 305-
344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13492797
Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: what it is, why it matters, and how it can transform
schools and classrooms. Corwin.
Feldman, J. (2020, September 1). Taking the stress out of grading. ASCD.
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/taking-the-stress-out-of-grading
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence making: How leaders cultivate the pathway for school
and system change with a shared process. School Administrator. June 2016, 30-34.
Gardiner, M. E., & Enomoto, E. K. (2006). Urban school principals and their role as
multicultural leaders. Urban Education, 41(6), 560-584.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906294504
Greenbaum, K. (2021). Equitable grading practices, technology, & motivation. The Learning
Counsel. https://thelearningcounsel.com/article/equitable-grading-practices-technology-
and-motivation
84
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How Principals Affect Students and
Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research. The Wallace Foundation.
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/how-principals-affect-
students-and-schools-a-systematic-synthesis-of-two-decades-of-research.aspx
Guskey, T. R. (2020). Get set, go! Creating successful grading and reporting systems. Solution
Tree Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239761
Jung, L. A., & Guskey, T. R. Grading exceptional learners. (2010) Model for grading disabled
and English language learners. Educational leadership. 67(5), 31.
Jung, L. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2011). Fair & accurate grading for exceptional learners. Principal
Leadership, 12(3), 32-37.
KidsData. (2022). English learners in public schools by primary language.
https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/45/english-learners-language/bar#fmt=474&loc=2,127,
347,1763,331,348,336,171,321,345,357,332,324,369,358,362,360,337,327,364,356,217,3
53,328,354,323,352,320,339,334,365,343,330,367,344,355,366,368,265,349,361,4,273,5
9,370,326,333,322,341,338,350,342,329,325,359,351,363,340,335&tf=110&pdist=41&c
h=106,100,105,736,107,738,104,112,99,102,734&sort=loc
Knight, M., & Cooper R. (2019). Taking on a new grading system: The interconnected effects of
standards-based grading on teaching, learning, assessment, and student behavior. NASSP
Bulletin. 103(1):65-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636519826709
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Handbook of critical race theory in Education. Routledge.
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203155721.ch3
Ladson-Billings, G. J., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97, 47–68.
85
Linquanti, H., Cook, G., Bailey, A., & MacDonald, R. (2016). Moving toward a more common
definition of English learner: Collected guidance for states and multi-state assessment
consortia. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/
2017-10/MoreCommonDefinition-Final_0.pdf
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
López, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68–94.
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational reform. Beacon Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.
McKibben, S. (2020). “Anti-Racist” grading starts with you. (Interview with Cornelius Minor).
Educational Leadership, 78(1), 12–13.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry.
Pearson.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Changing expectations for
the K–12 teacher workforce: Policies, preservice education, professional development,
and the workplace. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25603
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
O’Connor, K., Jung, L. A., & Reeves, D. (2018). Gearing up for FAST grading and reporting.
Phi Delta Kappan, 99(8), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718775683
86
Quinn, D. M. (2020). Experimental evidence on teachers’ racial bias in student evaluation: The
role of grading scales.” Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 42, 375–392
Reeves, D. (2008). Leading to change: Effective grading practices. Educational Leadership,
65(5), 85–87. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb08/vol65/
num05/Effective-Grading-Practices.aspx
Sawchuck, S. (2021, May 18). What is critical race theory, and why is it under attack? Education
Week Spotlight: Spotlight on Critical Race Theory. 2021, June 11. 2-4.
https://fs24.formsite.com/edweek/images/THIS_ONE_6-10_CriticalRaceTheory.pdf
Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A–F marking scheme.
Journal of curriculum studies. 46(2):201-224. doi:10.1080/00220272.2013.790480
Shin, N. (2020). Stuck in the middle: Examination of long-term English learners. International
Multilingual Research Journal. 14(3), 181–205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1681614
Solano-Flores, G. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Theory and practice. (1st ed.).
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203521953
Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the
experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 11, 121-136.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-
storytelling. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110063365
Staehr Fenner, D., Kester, J., & Snyder, S. (n.d.). The five pillars of equitably grading ELLs.
87
Thompson, K. D. (2015). Questioning the long-term English learner label: How categorization
can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117(12), n12.
Tomlinson, C. A., Moon, T., & Imbeau, M. B. (2015). Assessment and student success in a
differentiated classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/assessment-and-di-
whitepaper.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Income and poverty in the United States: 2019. [Data file].
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html
Villenas, S., & Deyhle, D. (1999). Critical race theory and ethnographies challenging the
stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience, and resistance. Curriculum Inquiry,
29(4), 413-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00140
88
Appendix A: Interview Protocol: Middle School Level Leaders
Name of Researcher:
Date of Interview:
Name of Interviewee:
City:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Interview start time:
Interview end time:
My name is Heather Bojorquez, and I am a doctoral student researcher at the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. I am conducting a study on the leadership
strategies that middle level leaders use to engage teachers in critical analysis of bias in their
grading practices for English learners. This study is being conducted to help researchers
understand and analyze the grading practices that are traditionally in place and how leaders work
to disrupt grading policies that may disenfranchise middle school English learners.
During this interview, I hope to learn more about your experiences when analyzing
grading practices and your work with teachers. I am particularly interested in learning about
barriers you may have encountered along with what has worked in transforming grading
practices at your site.
The information that you provide will hopefully serve to support other middle level
leaders gain strategies to institute change at their site. I want to assure you that your comments
will be strictly confidential. I will not identify you, or your organization, by name. I would like
to record this interview to capture information that I may have missed. Would this be okay to do?
The interview should take approximately 45 minutes. Thank you for your time.
89
Name: Heather Bojorquez
Research Questions:
1. What current and former systemic grading practices are traditionally in place and do
these practices perpetuate bias?
2. How do middle schools measure outcomes of learning for English learner students?
3. Do grading practices measure English learner academic achievement and do those
measures support them toward college bound pathways?
4. What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide teacher reflection to transform
grading practices for equity?
Hello, my name is Heather Bojorquez and I’ll be leading our interview today. As I
mentioned in our email communication, I am conducting research for my dissertation topic. I am
exploring the leadership strategies that middle-level leaders use to engage teachers in critical
analysis of bias in their grading practices for English learners. This study is being conducted to
help researchers understand and analyze the grading practices that are traditionally in place and
how leaders work to disrupt grading policies that may disenfranchise middle school English
learners.
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. As a middle school leader, your
input is greatly appreciated. This interview will take approximately 45 minutes today. If at any
time you would like to stop the interview, please let me know.
As we dig into our questions, please be aware that there are no right or wrong answers. I
am interested in hearing your thoughts, perspectives, and experiences. I am grateful for your
thoughtful and honest responses.
90
With your permission, I’d like to record the interview. The recording will only be used by
me to assist with transcription and data collection. Is that okay with you?
Finally, I want to confirm that you received the participant agreement, is that correct?
Would you like to review the content of the agreement, and did you have any questions? I also
want to reiterate that your responses are confidential, and you can decline to respond or stop the
interview at any time.
Do you have any other questions before we begin?
I will begin the recording now.
Table A1
Questions
Interview question (with transitions) Research question
To begin, I’d like to know a little bit about
you.
What is your current position or role at your
school site/district?
Question 1:
Conceptual framework: Leadership,
demographic question
In what capacity do you work with teachers in
terms of their work with English learners?
Question 2:
Conceptual Framework: Leadership,
demographic question
How do you define success for all students?
How does your definition align to teachers’
definitions?
Question 3:
Conceptual framework: Leadership
RQ 3
This next set of questions center around
overall grading practices.
Describe a recent meeting, if any, where
grading practices were discussed.
What was your role in this meeting?
What teacher perceptions were revealed
in this meeting?
Question 4:
Conceptual framework: Leadership/leader
behavior & teacher behavior; Grading
perceptions
RQ 4
91
Interview question (with transitions) Research question
What patterns, if any, have you noticed in
how teachers determine or calculate grades
for all students?
Question 5:
Conceptual framework: Grading practices
RQ 1
What strategies have you used that encourage
teacher reflection on their grading
practices?
What, if anything, surprised you about
teacher responses?
Question 6:
Conceptual framework: Leadership
RQ 4
Some teachers and/or teacher leaders might
say that student grades are not a reflection
of student learning. How might you respond
to this statement?
Question 7:
Conceptual framework: Leadership & grading
RQ 2
Let’s dig a little deeper into how English
learners are successful or not successful in
school.
How does your school site measure English
learner progress overall?
In content classes?
Question 8:
Conceptual Framework: Grading Practices
RQ 2
What do you perceive to be some challenges
your English learners face related to
academic success?
Question 9:
Conceptual framework: LatCrit
RQ 3
How do these challenges (summarize what
was shared) translate into English learners’
overall grades?
Question 10:
Conceptual framework: LatCrit & grading
practices
RQ 1
What might be some reasons you perceive
English learners might struggle to achieve
in content area courses?
If responses are mostly external
(student/family based): What might be
some internal (school based) factors
teachers and administrators can
consider that leads to lower grades for
English learners?
Question11:
Conceptual framework: Leadership & LatCrit
RQ 1
Suppose you notice a disproportionate number Question12:
92
Interview question (with transitions) Research question
of English learners earning grades that are
lower than their peers’ grades. What might
be your next steps in follow up discussions
with teachers?
Conceptual framework: Leadership & LatCrit
RQ 4
Describe the ideal means teachers might
address the specific needs for English
learners in their grading practices.
How frequently do you see these
strategies being utilized by teachers?
What might be some reasons you
perceive that teachers do or do not
implement these differentiation
strategies?
Question 13:
Conceptual framework: LatCrit & grading
practices
RQ 2
In your school site, what courses do English
learners enroll in to support their learning?
How do you determine placement for
students in this course?
How do you measure student success in
this course?
Question 14:
Conceptual framework: LatCrit & leadership
RQ 3
Our final question today centers around your
role as a school leader and change.
If you could wave a magic wand at your
school site, what would you change about
your school’s policies around grading for
all students, but specifically in support of
your English learners?
Question 15:
Conceptual framework: leadership, grading
practices, and CRT/LatCrit
RQ 4
93
Thank you so much for your time and insight. Before we finish, is there anything else that
you would like to add? What should I have asked, but didn’t?
When I complete my data collection, I’d love to share the information with you to gain
feedback and to ensure that I have captured your thinking accurately. Would you like me to send
a summary to you?
Thank you again, it was a pleasure learning from you today.
94
Appendix B: Survey Protocol
July 2021
Dear Survey Participant,
Thank you so much for the time you agreed to spend answering some of my questions.
The survey should take no more than 15 minutes. Before you get started, I want to give you an
overview of my study to answer any questions you might have about your participation in this
survey. I am a doctoral student at USC and am studying how middle school leaders work with
teachers to explore and transform biases in grading practices that impact English learners.
I want to assure you that this survey will be kept strictly confidential, and your responses
will remain confidential. No identifying information will be stored with your responses. Your
information will not be shared with your district in any capacity. I will de-identify any of the data
I gather from you by coding each survey response with a code utilizing a letter and number, ex.
S1. The data I collect from the surveys will be used to help answer my research questions. The
final question will give you the option to provide contact information if you would like to
volunteer to participate further in the study in a more complex and detailed one-on-one
interview. If you choose to volunteer, your contact information will not be connected to your
survey responses. Please know that I am wearing the hat of a researcher and will not apply any
judgment to you as a leader or colleague based on your responses.
I will keep the data on a password-protected computer and all data will be destroyed after
3 years. Remember, this survey is completely voluntary, and you may opt-out at any time. There
are no known risks for your participation in this survey. Please be honest in your responses.
If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at:
hbojorqu@usc.edu.
95
Again, thank you so much for your valuable time and your contribution to furthering the research
on leadership and grading.
Sincerely,
Heather Bojorquez
96
Name: Heather Bojorquez
Research Questions:
1. What current and former systemic grading practices are traditionally in place and do
these practices perpetuate bias?
2. How do middle schools measure outcomes of learning for English learner students?
3. Do grading practices measure English learner academic achievement and do those
measures support them toward college bound pathways?
4. What strategies do middle school leaders use to guide teacher reflection to transform
grading practices for equity?
Target population:
Middle school level leaders who serve a student population at or above 18% of the total
school population
Introduction and instruction:
You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to explore
how middle school leaders work with teachers to explore and transform biases in grading
practices that impact English learners. You are invited to participate in this study because you are
a middle school leader in Southern California of a school that serves an English learner
population that is equal to or greater than the state EL population. The survey will take
approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Should you decide to participate, you will complete an online survey that contains
questions related to your leadership practices and teacher grading practices for English learners.
You will be asked to consent to the survey.
97
In this study, you will not have any more risks than you would in your normal day.
Participation in this study may benefit you personally by helping to identify specific
leadership strategies that exist among secondary school leaders and support other school leaders
in their research to support teachers and students.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and will remain confidential. You may
withdraw from the study at any time. All data will be recorded and all identifying information
will be deleted at the end of the study. Neither individuals nor the school district will be
identified in the final research report. Any findings will be shared in a summarized format across
participants without individual data.
You may contact me with questions at hbojorqu@usc.edu. You may also contact the USC
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects at (213) 821-1154 for any questions you might
have about your participant rights.
98
Survey instrument
By continuing this survey, you give your consent to participate in this study.
⬚ Yes: I do give my consent.
⬚ No: I do not give my consent.
Survey Demographic Questions:
1. Gender: How do you identify?
⬚ Female
⬚ Male
⬚ Non-binary
⬚ Prefer not to answer
⬚ Prefer to self-describe, below:
2. Please describe your leadership role.
⬚ School site principal
⬚ School site assistant principal
⬚ District Administrator
⬚ Other: (Fill in the blank)
3. I serve a direct role in teacher professional development.
⬚ Yes
⬚ No
4. How long have you served in your current position? (Fill in the blank.)
5. How long have you served in total in a leadership role? (Fill in the blank.)
99
6. My middle school site serves an English learner population at or above 18% of the total
student population.
⬚ Yes
⬚ No
Survey Items:
Please rank the following in order of what you think is the most important purpose of grades (1)
to the least important purpose of grades (5).
1. What do you perceive is the main purpose of student grades? (RQ1)
⬚ Administrative purposes (class rank, credits for graduation, placement into
courses, grade point average (GPA), athletic eligibility, student
Recognition, etc.)
⬚ To give students feedback about their progress towards meeting learning goals
and standards
⬚ To provide guidance to students about future coursework and career paths
⬚ To provide guidance to teachers for instructional planning
⬚ To motivate students
Indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with the following statements.
2. Grades should reflect achievement of intended learning goals - whether the school is
using a conventional, subject-based report card or a report card that represents these
intended learning goals as standards. (RQ3)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
3. Student behaviors (such as timeliness, participation, or effort) should be reflected in
student grades. (RQ1; RQ2)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
100
4. I feel prepared to lead conversations with teachers about their grading practices. (RQ4)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
5. The teachers I serve are knowledgeable about grading differences that may exist between
students based on their language status. (RQ1)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Select all that apply.
6. I use the following forum(s) to engage in dialogue with teachers about grading practices.
(RQ4)
⬚ Individual Coaching Conversations
⬚ Grade Level/Content Area Team Meetings or Professional Learning Communities
(PLC)
⬚ Whole Staff Meeting
⬚ Teacher Evaluations
⬚ Other (Fill in the blank.)
7. How do teachers measure and/or assess English learner progress toward content learning
outcomes? (RQ2)
⬚ Tests / Quizzes
⬚ Verbal / Oral Skills and Presentation
⬚ Non-verbal representation
⬚ Homework
⬚ Classwork demonstration of learning
⬚ Written Output
⬚ Other (Fill in the blank.)
101
Indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with the following statements.
8. Teachers I work with offer alternative assessment opportunities to differentiate learning
for English learners. (RQ2)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
9. Teachers I work with are receptive to analysis of their grading practices. (RQ4)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
10. Teachers I work with implement strategies that allow for English learners to improve
their grades. (RQ3)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
11. To what degree do you believe that cultural bias can affect student grades? (RQ1)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Indicate your perception of English learner achievement in relation to course grades.
12. How have English learners at your site achieved academically in comparison to their
English only peers? (RQ3)
1 2 3 4 5
Significantly Below Below Same As Better Significantly Better
13. How have English learners at your site achieved academically in comparison to their
Reclassified English Proficient (RFEP) peers? (RQ3)
1 2 3 4 5
Significantly Below Below Same As Better Significantly Better
102
Fill in the blank.
14. What barriers stand in the way of school leaders’ support of teachers to ensure an
unbiased approach to grading students, particularly English learners in the middle school?
(RQ4)
15. How did you find out about this survey?
16. Optional: If you are willing to participate in a more in depth, one on one interview to
support this research study, please enter your contact information below. (NOTE: All
contact information will be kept confidential and separate from your responses to this
survey.)
Name:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey. Your responses will be kept confidential
and will be used to analyze strategies that middle school leaders use to support teacher
exploration of equitable grading practices for Latinx students. If you have any questions, feel
free to contact me at hbojorqu@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Equitable grading practices are a frequently researched topic for 21st century educators and scholars. However, there is limited research regarding equitable grading, specifically for English learners and at the middle school level. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into school site leader strategies that improve teacher grading practices in support of English learners. Middle School principals from a single district in Orange County, California who serve a population of English learners at or above the state percentage of 18% were involved in this mixed-methods study. The study was guided by four research questions focused on gaining insight into common grading practices, participants’ perceptions of how grades reflect English learner success, and strategies they employ to guide teacher practice. The data sources were a survey and five one-on-one interviews. The research described themes and findings of leaders’ practices and their perceived impact on English learners
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership
PDF
Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners
PDF
Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices
PDF
Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Reducing the education debt through supporting African American and Latinx teacher longevity
PDF
Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows
PDF
Urban elementary school leaders as catalysts for culturally responsive engagement: re-imagining parental and family engagement post-COVID 19
PDF
Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners
PDF
Science as white property: BIPOC elementary teachers’ science experience and its impact on their pedagogy
PDF
A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Preservice teacher perspectives: impact of culturally responsive pedagogy and implications of Eurocentric, whitewashed roots on United States education
PDF
Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms
PDF
Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success
PDF
The role of district and school leaders in educating traumatized children in California public schools
PDF
The fourth industrial superintendent: transforming public school systems beyond 21st-century mindsets
PDF
Who’s teaching whom: a micropolitical examination of teacher placement practices in Milwaukee County high schools
PDF
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
PDF
Building equity for English language learners: technology employees in Fortune 500 companies
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bojorquez, Heather
(author)
Core Title
School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-05
Publication Date
04/29/2022
Defense Date
04/07/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
English learners,grading,impact,Leader,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Cash, David (
committee chair
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
), Krop, Cathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hbojorqu@usc.edu,heather.bojo@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111136581
Unique identifier
UC111136581
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Bojorquez, Heather
Type
texts
Source
20220428-usctheses-batch-934
(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
Tags
English learners
grading
impact