University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

(USC Thesis Other)

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 1

BUILDING TEACHER COMPETENCY TO WORK WITH MIDDLE SCHOOL LONG-TERM
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: AN IMPROVEMENT MODEL

by

Gwendolyn Delgado

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

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Gwendolyn Delgado

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 2
DEDICATION

This is dedicated to the ones I love.
God, Lord Jesus thank you for the blessings you have bestowed upon me in my life and the
continue love and hope you will give to me in time of need. Provide me with the blessings that
are meant to be mine and remove those from my path that will intrude in my peace.
To my husband for your unconditional love, your unweaving support, your smile, your
encouragement, your ability to know when I need a break and a trip to Vegas and for every
moment we have shared together for the last twenty years and for those unforgettable moments
filled with travels, music, laughter, food, and wine that are yet to come.
To my parents who came to this country to give my brother and I a better opportunity to be
successful in life. I want you to know Mommy and Daddy I have embraced this opportunity and
I put everything I have my heart, mind, and soul all that I do. Please know that everything I do is
to represent the both of you and to make you proud. For the last three years as the both of you
have battled cancer, I have found strength in your pain and I have seen first-hand the meaning of
Fight On.
To my Pooky Bear, it takes hard work, it takes heart, and it takes everything you have inside of
you to make it in this life. I am always here to support and love you.
To my friends and family who missed my presence but always had the patience and
understanding to support me in the best way possible.
To all my students, past, present, and future may you always have a teacher in your corner
willing to fight a good fight for you so that you will have a better future.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my dissertation committee, thank you Dr. Freking for your guidance through this
process, Dr. Krop I cannot thank you enough for not only your academic support but your
kindness and empathy you showed me during the most trialing times I experienced personally
during this process, and Dr. Mora-Flores I value your input.
To my organization for allowing me to conduct research on site. To Mrs. Krantz your
support during this process was so remarkable and supportive. Thank you for providing me the
resources and support I needed to be successful. To all the teachers who participated in the study
I appreciate the level of trust that you had in me to share your valuable thoughts and opinions
with the intentions of helping our at-risk students become success young adults. To the
Wolverine Team Teachers for always reaching out to me when I needed it the most and
reminding me to go home.
To all the professors in the OCL program, your knowledge, passion, and dedication to
our cohort will always be appreciated. Finally, to Cohort 7 what an exceptional and incredibly
supportive group of people that I am proud to call my friends. I am a Trojan in heart, character,
mind, and spirit because I embrace the fight and that is the only way one can triumph. Fight On!

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction 11
Problem of Practice 12
Organizational Context and Mission 14
Organizational Performance Status 15
Related Literature 18
Importance of Addressing the Problem 19
Organizational Performance Goal 20
Description of Stakeholder Groups 21
Stakeholder’s Performance Goals 22
Stakeholder Group for the Study 23
Purpose of the Project and Questions 23
Methodological Framework 24
Definitions 24
Organization of the Study 25
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 27
Characteristics of Middle School LTEL Students 27
Identifying Literacy Gaps of LTEL Students in Middle School 31
Teaching Practices for Developing Literacy among Middle School LTEL Students 32
Educators’ Legal Accountability to LTEL Students 33
Title One Funds to Provide Support and Accountability 35
Title One Funds to Create Literacy Interventions for LTEL Students 36
Professional Development at the Middle School Level 37
Benefits of Professional Learning Community Practices at the Middle School
Level 38
Data Training as Part of Professional Development 39
Multicultural Training as Part of Professional Development 40
Looking at Data Through a Diverse Lens 41
The Effects of Poor Performance on LTEL Students 42
Reclassification and Misplacement 43
Teacher Competency to Work with At-Risk LTEL Middle School Students 45
Diversity as a Tool to Build Teacher Competency 46
Effective School Systems to Support Teacher Competency 47
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework 48
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 49
Knowledge Influences 50
Motivation Influences 52
Organizational Influences 54
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context 57
Conclusion 61
Chapter Three: Methodology 63
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 5
Research Design and Methods 63
Participating Stakeholders 64
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 65
Interview (Recruitment) Strategy 65
Rationale for Participants 66
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale 67
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale 67
Rationale for Participants 68
Data Collection and Instrumentation 68
Interviews 69
Observations 69
Document and Artifact Access and Rationale 70
Credibility and Trustworthiness 70
Ethics 71
Limitations and Delimitations 72
Limitations 72
Delimitations 73
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 74
Participating Stakeholders 76
Observations 78
Data Derived from Follow-Up Interviews 79
Knowledge Results 80
Knowledge Findings 82
Teachers Lack the Conceptual Knowledge to Use Data Driven 80
Instruction and Create Proper Interventions to Enhance Literacy
as a PLC 82
Growth of Knowledge through Professional Support 83
Teachers Need to Know What Instructional Strategies Improve the
Academic and Social Growth of At-Risk Middle School Students 85
Observable Knowledge and Academic Support 88
Knowledge and Social Support for LTEL Students 89
Observable Transfer of Knowledge 91
Teachers Needed to Know the Cultural Backgrounds and Aspects of
Latino LTEL students. 93
Summary of Knowledge Influences 96
Motivation Results 96
Motivation Findings 97
Teachers Need to Feel That They Have the Knowledge and Skills
to Work with At-Risk Students 97
Validating the Data 99
Teachers Need to Feel They Are Capable of Developing Proper
Interventions to Increase Reclassification Rates for Middle School
LTEL Students 100
Summary of Motivation Influences Results 102
Organizational Results 103
Leadership and the Culture of the Organization 104
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 6
Lack of Leadership is Affecting the Culture of the Organization 106
Tackling the Issue from a Different Angle 106
Lack of Accountability Systems Put in Place Affects the Cultural
Model of the Organization 107
Summary of Organizational Barriers Results 108
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Barriers 108
Chapter Five: Recommendations for Practice 110
Knowledge Recommendations 110
Knowledge Recommendation: To Enhance Conceptual Knowledge through
Meaningful Professional Development 112
Data Training to Enhance Conceptual Knowledge 112
Creating Professional Learning Communities and Mentorship 114
Program
Professional Learning Communities to Enhance Conceptual 114
Knowledge
Teacher Mentoring Program to Fill the Knowledge Gap among 116
Educators
Knowledge about Latino Culture to Build Academic Connections 116
Title One Funding to Build Teacher Knowledge 117
Motivation Recommendations 118
Motivation Recommendation 1: Training Teachers to Understanding What it
Means to Be an Educator at Title One School 120
Motivation Recommendation 2: Encourage Educators to Collaborate to Set
Specific Goals and Measurable Performance Goals Using Data 121
Recommendation 3: Looking through the Lens of Diversity to Motivate
Educators to Create Interventions for LTEL Students as Part of the Goal
Setting Theory 122
Title One Funding to Increase Teacher Motivation 123
Rewarding Teachers Who Provide Interventions to LTEL Students 124
Understanding the Needs of Title One Student Population 125
Organizational Recommendations 125
Organizational Recommendation 1: Establish a Culture Setting of
Accountability within the Organization 128
Organizational Recommendation 2: Encourage the Organization to Set
Specific SMART Goals for LTEL to Establish Cultural Settings and Models
within the Organization 129
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 130
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 131
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 132
Level 3: Behavior 133
Required Drivers 134
Level 2: Learning 136
Level 1: Reaction 140
Evaluation Tools 141
Data Analysis and Reporting 141
Evaluation Summary 143
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 7
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gap Analysis Approach 143
Limitations and Delimitations 144
Future Research 145
Conclusion 145
References 147
Appendix A: Interview Instrument 166
Appendix B: Interview Protocols 168
Appendix C: Observation Checklist 173
Appendix D: Observation Protocols 175
Appendix E: Document and Artifact Analysis Protocols 177
Appendix F: Training Survey Immediately Following the Wolverine Team Model Program 179
Appendix G: Delayed Training Survey Following the Wolverine Team Model Program 181

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 8
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: CAASPP results for English Language Arts, 2015/16, 2016/17 school year 16
Table 2: Organizational mission, global goal, and stakeholder performance goals 22

Table 3: Assumed knowledge influences 52

Table 4: Assumed motivational influences 54

Table 5: Assumed organization influences 57

Table 6: Description of participants in the interview process of the study 77

Table 7: Summary of knowledge influences 82

Table 8: Observed teaching strategies in Achieve Classrooms 88

Table 9: Ethnic distribution of public school teachers: 2016–2017, State of California 93

Table 10: Motivation influences 97

Table 11: Participant’s perception of self-efficiency and perception of colleagues’ 99
ability to work with at-risk LTEL students
Table 12: Organization influence 104
Table 13: Staff recommendations to improve communication about LTEL SMART Goal 106
Table 14: Summary of knowledge influences and recommendations 111
Table 15: Summary of motivation influences and recommendations 119
Table 16: Summary of organization influences and recommendations 127
Table 17: Outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes 133
Table 18: Critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation 134
Table 19: Required drivers to support critical behaviors 135
Table 20: Evaluation of the components of learning for the program 139
Table 21: Components to measure reactions to the program 140
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 9
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. CAASPP results for (ELA) for the 2015–2016 school year, LTELS only 17
Figure 2. CAASPP results for (ELA) for the 2016–2017 school year, LTELs only 17
Figure 3. Conceptual framework 60
Figure 4. Conceptual knowledge use of data 84
Figure 5. Response from educators broken into 4 major themes 86
Figure 6. Picture of student portfolio 92
Figure 7. Ethnic distribution of public school teachers: 2016–2017, State of California 94
Figure 8. ACHIEVE classroom 95
Figure 9. Sense of urgency expressed by participants through one-on-one interviews 101
Figure 10. Teacher’s motivation influences to work with at-risk LTEL students toward 102
reclassification
Figure 11. Roles of EL coordinator vs administration 105
Figure 12. Dashboard for survey results of the WTM program 142
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 10
ABSTRACT
Middle school teachers need to have a variety of strengths in order to work with at-risk Latino
Long Term English Language Learners (LTELs). Educators should be knowledgeable in their
content matter and capable of using literacy strategies to increase literacy skills among LTEL
students. Teachers also need to be motivated to work toward global goals focused on at-risk
LTEL student achievement. School administrators need to create supportive school-wide systems
that accommodate the needs of such teachers. Teachers need to have knowledge, motivation, and
organizational culture aligned in order to enhance teacher competency to work with at-risk LTEL
students. The purpose of this study was to determine if a gap in knowledge, motivation, or
organization influencers impacted teacher competency with at-risk LTEL Latino students at the
middle school level, precisely at a Title One School. The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis model
was used to guide the study to determine if a gap lay among educators that impacted their
competency. A thorough review of the literature developed the assumed influences which were
validated by data collected. The study participants were educators at Howl Middle School who
worked closely with at-risk Latino LTEL students from grades seventh through eight. This study
concluded that the participants demonstrated strong knowledge and motivation indicators to
work with at-risk Latino LTEL students. Participants of the study even requested professional
development topics they believed would increase knowledge and motivation for all educators on
campus. The gap fell within the organization’s culture settings and models, which impacted
teacher’s competency. Recommendations are provided in Chapter 5 to improve the
organization’s culture and school-wide support systems to increase teacher competency. These
recommendations are based on the validated influences and were developed using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 11
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Prior to 2015, the State of California had yet to set a clear classification for students who
had been part of the English Language Learner program but had failed to reclassify out of the
program within a certain time span (Olsen, 2010a). As these students continued in the program
without meeting reclassification requirements in the school system, they were designated as part
of the at-risk student population (Olsen, 2010a). According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, to be classified as an at-risk student means the student has a higher likelihood of
academically failing or dropping out of school due to the underlying circumstances that affect his
or her academic and social abilities (Kaufman, Bradbury, & Owings, 1992). In October 2015,
then-governor Jerry Brown amended the Education Code to include Sections 313.1 and 313.2,
which defined this large at-risk student population in the State of California as Long Term
English Language Learners (LTEL). According to the Senate Bill:
An English Learner who is enrolled in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, has been
enrolled in schools in the United States for six years or more, has remained at the
same English language proficiency level for two or more consecutive prior years,
or has regressed to a lower English language proficiency level as determined by
the English language development test identified or developed pursuant to Section
60810, or a score developed by the Superintendent on any successor test. “English
Learner at risk of becoming a long-term English Learner” means an English
learner who is enrolled in any grades 3 to 12, has been enrolled in schools in the
United States for four to five tears, scores at the intermediate level or below on
the English language development test, and has scored in the fourth or fifth year
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 12
at the below basic or far below basic level on the prior year’s English language
arts standards-based achievement test. (Senate Bill 750, 2015)
Problem of Practice
The National Education Association (NEA) describes LTELs as a subgroup of English
Language Learners (ELLs) who has been enrolled in a school in the United States for 6 or more
years (Olsen, 2010). In the State of California, LTEL students make up about 59% of the
secondary student population across 40 different districts within the state (Olsen, 2010).
According to the California Department of Education Data Reporting Office, LTEL secondary
students make up 27% of the at-risk student population within grades seventh through eighth
statewide. Olsen (2010) argued that despite striking statistics within the State of California,
LTEL students have remained “an invisible group” within the public secondary school realm. A
significant number of LTEL students are of Latino descent born in the United States and are
often classified in middle school because of their inability to meet California reclassification
requirements (California Department of Education [CDE], 2018; Olsen, 2010). Often, many
districts and schools state wide are failing to recognize the distinct needs of the LTEL students
they serve (Olsen, 2010). Title One funds for schoolwide programs are designed to improve
school systems of practice to increase achievement for all students, specifically high-risk
students (National Center for education Statistics [NCES], 2018).The purpose of this research
was to determine if gaps in knowledge, motivation, or gaps that exist within an organization
impacts a teacher’s competency in working with a disproportionately sizeable at-risk LTEL
student population at the middle school level (Hahnel, Wolf, Banks, & Lafors, 2014; Olsen,
2010).
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 13
The middle school LTEL population is a diverse and complex group that has several
different academic and social needs which educators must feel equipped to manage (Jacobs,
2008). Cummins and Miramontes’s (2006) research indicated that LTEL students have a certain
degree of literacy skill, specifically a strong use of verbal communication, but lack basic literacy
skills such as reading and writing. LTEL students’ dual language skills often confuses educators,
which, according to Jacobs, causes them to neglect the needs of LTEL students and project upon
them negative stereotypes such as being lazy. Jacobs stated that LTEL students are often
subjected to negative labels and criticized for lacking academic skills, given their native-born
status in the United States. McKinney (2008) states that neglecting students’ academic or
emotional needs signals a teachers’ lack of competency in their daily classroom routines.
Educators need adequate support and resources to build their competency to work with such a
challenging student population (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Effective allocation of Title One
funds can be used as preventive measure to help EL student redesignate before becoming
classified as LTEL students by providing adequate resources, professional development, and the
implementation of specialized programs to support educator competency in working with
populations with unique academic and social intervention needs. (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Title One funds for school-wide programs are designed to improve school systems of
practice to increase achievement for all students, specifically high-risk students (NCES, 2018).
High-risk students are students who are designated Socially Economic Disadvantaged (SDE),
English Language Learners (ELL), LTELs, foster youth, or students who are struggling
academically; typically, such students are of Latino descent (Brewster & Bowen, 2004). The
proper allocation of Title One funds by schools to improve educational outcomes for all students
is a challenge but stakeholders must emphasize the importance of responsible spending
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 14
(Sunderman, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize that an organization needs to tracks its
performance using indicators and that stakeholders need to monitor the progress in order to hold
the organization accountable. Olden (2009) stated that the first strategy a school must emphasize
in order to help at-risk students and compel school leaders and teachers to take on the
performance challenges that lie ahead is to foster a sense of urgency. Urgency can motivate
educators manage the hurdles of working with high-risk students; however, they must possess
knowledge of how to work with this difficult population and understand how funding can help
and restrict educators under Title One funding.
The presence of LTEL students in California classrooms is growing at an increasing rate;
as such, research that investigates the needs of this population is essential to building teacher
competency and thus increasing academic achievement for this at-risk student population (Olsen,
2010). According to Menken, Kleynm, and Chae (2012), little to no research has been conducted
on teacher competency in working with LTEL students with a focus on meeting their academic
and social needs; hence, the importance of this study is twofold: as research and as advocacy for
this neglected at-risk student population.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Corazon School District (CSD) is located in the Santa Clarita Valley in the Northern
part of Los Angeles County, CA. In the 2016/17 school year, CSD serviced 26,822 students from
seventh through 12th grade; of those, 6,763 were junior high students (Engbrecht, 2018). The
district's annual budget was nearly $180 million, which funded an area of six high schools, one
continuation school, a middle-college high school, an independent study school, a homeschool
support program, six junior high schools, an adult school, and an occupational program (CSD,
2018). The district had experienced an increase of at-risk student populations, which included
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 15
free/reduced-price meals for pupils, English Language Learners, LTELs, socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, and Foster Youth (CALPADS, 2018). CSD expected this number to
increase within the next few years, considering the growth occurring within the area (Engbrecht,
2018). CSD had constructed a mission statement to drive the district toward a common goal:
Prepare students to meet the challenges of the future as lifelong learners and responsible
citizens. In partnership with families and community, we create meaningful and diverse
learning opportunities for all students, so they develop the knowledge, skills, and
character necessary to succeed. (Engbrecht, 2018)
HOWL Middle School (HMS) was one of the six middle schools that made up the CSD.
HMS school’s population was an accurate reflection of the ever-growing diverse population that
the district and community were experiencing. The school’s vision and mission statement were
created to meet the diverse needs of the school’s growing student population The mission
statement was to “engage in a flexible learning community that cultivates growth, curiosity, grit,
and a love for learning,” and the vision of the school was to encourage students to “learn with
vigor, lead with vision, and live with value” (HMS Mission and Vision Statement, 2017). Rueda
(2011) would suggest that HMS needed to define goals, including performance learning goals to
hold the organization accountable to its stakeholders. Further, Clark and Estes (2008) warned
that lacking a mission statement with attainable and definite measurable goals contributes to a
counteractive relationship of accountability between different stakeholders in an organization.
Organizational Performance Status
Data collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) reported that there were
1,200 students enrolled at HMS for the 2017–2018 school year (CDE, 2017). Forty-six percent
of the student population was on free and reduced lunch, and the majority of those students were
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 16
ELLs, LTELs, and Foster Youth (CDE, 2016). Forty-five percent of the student population did
not meet the standard of performance on the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress in 2016 (CASPP, 2016). HOWL Middle School’s academic growth was tracked
through California Dashboard, an accountability system that rates a school’s academic growth
and monitors school population established by the California Department of Education (CDE).
The CDE reported that in the previous two school years, HMS had shown little to no growth
measured through standardized testing (CDE, 2018).
Table 1
CAASPP Results for English Language Arts, 2015/16, 2016/17 School Year
2015–2016 CAASPP DATA
For the entire school population
2016–2017 CAASPP DATA
For the entire school population
DATA Gain/Loss
54% of 7
th
-graders meet or
exceeded the ELA standards
55.7% of 7
th
-graders meet or exceed
ELA Standards
1.7% gain
49% of 8
th
-graders meet or exceed
ELA Standards
49.4% of 8
th
-graders meet or exceed
ELA Standards 49.4%
.4% gain

The lowest underachieving group with a socioeconomic disadvantage background were African

Americans, Latinos, and White students; however, LTELs made up the highest underachieving

population, regardless of economic status (CASPP, 2016).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 17

Standard Exceeded: Level 4 7th-grade
1%
8th-grade
0%
Standard Met: Level 3 7 6
Standard Nearly Met: Level 2 33 36
Standard Not Met: Level 1 59 59

Figure 1. CAASPP results for (ELA) for the 2015–2016 school year, LTELs only.
Note. Data gain/loss indicates an increase from seventh grade to eighth grade in Level 1 to 2 but no
significant increase to level 3 or 4 to show proficiency in meeting ELA standards.

Standard Exceeded: Level 4 7th grade
0%
8th grade
0%
Standard Met: Level 3 16 8
Standard Nearly Met: Level 2 19 32
Standard Not Met: Level 1 65 60

Figure 2: CAASPP results for (ELA) for the 2016–2017 school year, LTELs only.
Note. Data gain/loss indicates a decrease from seventh grade to eighth grade from Level 3 to Level 2 and
an increase in Level 1 to Level 2 but no significant advancement in proficiency in ELA standards.

In the 2017–2018 school year, HMS fit the criteria to receive Title One funding due to its
large, high-risk student population, which included 46% socioeconomically disadvantaged
students, 15% ELLS—and of those ELLS 10% were LTELs, and 1% foster youth (CDE,
2018).The LTEL student population at HMS was designated as a high-risk student population, as
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 18
described by the CDE, and experienced both academic and social struggles on campus. The
LTEL population for the 2016-2017 school year was 180 students in total. LTELs made up 68%
of this high-risk student population at HMS. The percent of LTELs dropped by a few numbers
for the 2017–2018 school year but was expected to increase for the 2018–2019 school year due
to the diversification of the community and low reclassification rates in local feeder elementary
schools. LTELs made up 10% of the student population at HMS, which was a small portion but
was one of the most challenging populations academically and socially for teachers to work with
due to their unique circumstances and needs (Olsen, 2010).
Related Literature
Many studies have concluded that educators are the key influencers to increase LTEL
students’ academic achievement by focusing their energy on building literacy skills, which
impacts LTEL students’ abilities to reclassify out of the English Language Learner Program
(Ascension-Moreno, Kleyn, & Menken, 2013; August 2002; August, Carlo, Dessler, & Snow,
2005). The distinctive characteristic that plagues LTEL student achievement is low literacy
skills, which affect their performance at school and result in poor academic achievement,
inappropriate behavior, lack of motivation, and detachment from school culture (Mora, Villa, &
Dávila, 2006; Olsen, 2010, 2014; Schneider, Martinez, & Owens, 2006). A lack of well-trained
teachers, misplacement of students, unrealistic reclassification standards, low expectations from
teachers, inadequate academic standards, a lack of appropriate support, inefficient school system
programs, poor home environment, and systematic discrimination all play a role in hindering
LTEL student success (Menken & Kleyen, 2010; Moll, Amanti, Nerff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Olsen,
2010). Building teacher competency to work with a demanding at-risk student population
supports teacher knowledge and motivation to meet the challenging task of providing proper
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 19
literacy interventions for LTEL student and increasing student achievement (McKinney, 2008;
Menken & Kleyen, 2010; Olsen, 2010).
LTELs’ stigmas and unique literacy needs make teachers feel inadequate to handle their
academic and social growth (Sims, 2006; McKinney, 2008; Tsovili, 2004). Title One funding, if
used effectively, can help improve teacher competency to increase their motivation to use their
knowledge to create specialized programs that provide academic and social support for high-risk
middle school students. Allocation of funds that provide professional development and adequate
training to use data to collaborate with peers through a Professional Learning Community (PLC)
model would enhance teacher competency (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Sunderman, 2001).
Administration using Title One funds to provide educators with support to enhance competency
can result in the reclassification of middle school Latino students by affecting educators’ low
self-efficacy and creating change with the knowledge needed to feel confident to work with an
at-risk student population (Firestone & Shipps 2005; Marsh, 2012; Sunderman, 2001).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
LTEL Latino middle school students are a diverse population with distinctive needs that
are rooted in a complex cause-and-effect cycle (Callahan, 2005). Both educators and LTEL
students need to navigate this cycle together and face the lack of English literacy skills,
disproportionate socioeconomic situations, immigration status, national country identity, and
systematic discrimination through education policy (Callahan, 2005; Krashen & Brown, 2005).
Educators need to feel equipped and supported to help LTEL middle school Latino students
reclassify and gain literacy skills that will enable them to be successful individuals (McKinney,
2008). Edsource (2008) declared that high-risk student populations often perform academically
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 20
lower and require educational support structures that foster academic growth, allocated through
proper funding, which includes the practical use of Title One funding.
It is critical to address California’s historically underserved at-risk student population
(Menken & Kleyen, 2010; Olsen, 2010). Title One funds support this type of student population
by providing schools with the fiscal ability to face several challenges (Edsource 2008; Hanushek
& Lindseth, 2009). HMS can use Title One funds to address issues including, but not limited to,
the shortage of teachers prepared to effectively teach LTELs, a lack of designated programs for
secondary LTELs, and inadequate data systems for tracking student progress (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009). These challenges contribute to the negative consequences associated with being
a LTEL and impact a teacher’s competency to address their needs (Menken et al., 2012).
Research from Olsen (2014) showed that ELs who go on to become LTELs are at a greater risk
of dropping out of school and that LTELs who do complete high school often lack access to
academically rigorous courses while in school, resulting in a decreased motivation to enroll in
and complete college (Olsen, 2010).
Organizational Performance Goals
HMS did not include measurable quantitative goals in either its mission or vision
statement. Instead, the focus was on qualitative goals, which according to Steckler, McLeroy,
Goodman, Bird, and McCormick (1992) provide an anthropological approach that concentrates
on the social aspect of the goals—compared to the quantitative goal that focuses on measurable
data. Morphew and Hatley (2006) would acknowledge that HMS’s mission statement is
motivational and inspires educators to follow the organization’s purpose and goal; however, that
purpose remains unclear without an explicit, quantitative goal. At the time of this study, HMS
was beginning its transition as a Title One school and receiving state-mandated funds to create a
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 21
school site plan that indicated goals for high-risk student population. The new goal set in place
for the 2018/2019 school year was that 3% of ELL students would reclassify; however, there was
no specific goal for LTEL students. Olsen (2010) stated that often LTEL students are lumped
with the ELL student population, fueling the idea that LTELs are an “invisible” student
population. Rueda (2011) suggested that specific goals that provide clear expectations help an
organization develop strategies to implement a solution to meet the value of the organization and
set the behavior to accomplish the set global goals.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Wheeler and Sillanpa (1998) described stakeholders as any person or group that can
influence and contribute to the goals of an organization. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that it is
important for employed stakeholders to both know their goals in an organization and know how
to check their progress toward meeting the set goal. At HMS, the major stakeholder groups were
educators and administrators; both groups were involved in improving the academic performance
of LTEL students. In the 2016–2017 school year, HMS increased the size of its educator staff
from 46 teachers on campus to 56 (School Accountability Report Card [SARC], 2017). All
teachers were fully credentialed and qualified to teach, which fell in line with the California
Commissary of Teaching Credentials (CTC). All educators on campus, according to the CTC
(2017), were authorized to teach ELL students, including LTELs. Qualifications to teach this
high-risk student population derive from mandated prerequisite credentials, known as the EL
Authorization/CLAD Certificate, to receive one’s teaching credential through the State of
California (CTC, 2017). Studies by Cervera (2013), Geddes (2015), and Daniel (2012) found that
credential school practices served, in theory, as preparation for educators. However, the reality of
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 22
being in the classroom with such a demanding population left teachers feeling inadequate and
underprepared, thus affecting their competency to work with at-risk student populations.
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goals
Table 2
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
“To engage in a flexible learning community that cultivates growth,
curiosity, grit, and a love for learning.”

Organizational Performance Goal
By the end of the 2019/20 school year 25% of Long-Term English Language Learners will
reclassify as Redesignated Fluent English Proficiency (RFEP) Students
Educators
September 2019,
effective
interventions funded
by Title One will
begin to be put in
practice to increase
academic and social
progress for high-risk
LTEL middle school
students.

Educators
May 2020, teachers
will have created
SMART goals as a
PLC to hold
themselves
accountable for the
academic and social
progress of high-risk
LTEL middle school
students.

Administration
Throughout the
2019/2020 school
year, administrators
will provide monthly
professional
development and
adequate support to
promote teacher
competency to work
with high-risk LTEL
middle school
students.

Organization
State above under
performance goal

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 23
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group that would contribute to clarifying how middle school educators
perceived LTELs and their capabilities to work with a high-risk student population were the
educators of HMS. Educators were key contributors in the facilitation and creation of specialized
programs financed by Title One Funds with the intention of enhancing LTEL students’ academic
progress by building literacy skills. Educators were the major stockholding group within the
organization responsible for enhancing literacy and tackling the academic barriers that were
keeping LTEL students from being academically successful in the classroom. Highlighting
stakeholders’ motivation to implement the solutions and program to provide the necessary
\support to LTEL students and measure their enthusiasm and satisfaction with the support
systems put in place within the organization to implement solutions is vital to providing adequate
student support (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to determine how a gap in knowledge, motivation, or
organizational culture impacted a teacher’s competency to work with at-risk LTEL middle
school students at a Title One school. The study explored how the organization could better
support teachers to increase their knowledge and motivation and create a sense of urgency to
help reclassify LTEL middle school Latino students. A complete gap analysis was guided by the
questions below:
1.What types of knowledge gaps are affecting teachers’ abilities to implement
effective teaching strategies and develop academic literacy interventions to enhance the
academic progress of Long-Term English Learners?
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 24
2. How do middle school teachers perceive at-risk middle school LTEL students,
and how does this perception impact their motivation to work with LTEL students?
3. What types of support do administration need to provide teachers to work with
LTEL students, and what factors are identified by teachers as essential regarding having
adequate support?
Methodological Framework

Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis is a systematic framework that uses an analytical
method to identify knowledge, motivation, and organization culture (KMO) gaps. Clark and
Estes gap analysis helps to determine if stakeholders within an organization can work toward
accomplishing set global goals or if a KMO gap hinders a stakeholding group from working
toward the set goal. The framework elucidates a gap in the actual performance level of a
stakeholding group that may be interfering with the preferred performance level within an
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Using the gap analysis model, this study identified factors
that contributed to the performance gaps to determine which KMO influencers were impacting
teacher’s competency. Maxwell (2013) suggested that triangulating research to validate the
KMO gap findings would support the findings. In this study, interviews, observations, and
document and artifact analysis provided meaningful data. The recommended research-based
solutions were evaluated in a comprehensive manner, based on the findings of this study, and
supported by qualitative evidence.
Definitions
At-Risk Student: The term at-risk is often used to describe students or groups of students
who are considered to have a higher probability of failing academically or dropping out of
school.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 25
English-Language Development (ELD): English-Language development is a specialized
program of English language instruction appropriate for the English learner (EL) student's.
English Learner (EL) Students: English learner students are those students for whom
there is a report of a primary language other than English on the state-approved Home Language
Survey and who, on the basis of the state-approved oral language (grades kindergarten through
grade 12) assessment procedures and literacy (grades three through 12 only), have been
determined to lack the clearly defined English language skills of listening comprehension,
speaking, reading, and writing necessary to succeed in the school's regular instructional
programs.
Long-Term English Language Learner (LTELs): English learners who need more than 5
years to become English proficient.
Middle School Level: A school intermediate between an elementary school and a high
school, typically for children in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.
Reclassification: Information on how a district determines whether or not an English
learner student has sufficient English proficiency to be reclassified as a fluent English speaker.
Title One Funds: A program that provides financial assistance through state educational
agencies (SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) and public schools with high numbers or
percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic
content and student academic achievement standards.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters were used to organize this study. Chapter 1 provides the reader with the key
issues, terminology, the organization’s mission and vision, goals, an introduction to the
stakeholders of HMS, and the basic concepts of gap analysis. Chapter 2 reviews the literature
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 26
surrounding the scope of the study. Chapter 3 details the assumed interfering elements,
methodology that structures this study, choice of participants, data collection process, and
analysis. In Chapter 4, data results are assessed, coded, and analyzed. Chapter 5 provides
recommendations based on data and the literature.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 27
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will examine LTEL Latino middle school students and teacher
competency in working with an at-risk middle school population in a Title One school. The study
begins with a description of characteristics of LTEL Latino students in the State of California
that includes a description of reclassification requirements in the State of California and the
importance of support in middle school for LTEL students. This literature review identifies the
literacy gaps that plague LTEL students and effective teaching practices for developing literacy
among LTEL students. The review further examines the legal accountability educators have in
working with LTEL students’, including how Title One funds can be used to foster support and
accountability. The review has a brief discussion of how different types of professional
development can enhance teacher knowledge and motivation to work with LTEL students. A
survey on the effects of poor performance on LTEL students, reclassification, and misplacement
issues also appears in this chapter. Next, the review explicates the importance of teacher
competency when working with at-risk LTEL students and using different strategies such as
diversity tools and creating effective school systems to support teacher competency. Following
the general literature, I turn to Clark and Estes’s (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Framework, which focuses on educator knowledge, motivation, and
organizational culture influencers. The review concludes with the stakeholder’s interaction with
the Clark and Estes’s framework and a conclusion.
Characteristics of Middle School LTEL Students
Olsen (2010) described the unique characteristics that makeup a majority of LTEL
students enrolled at the middle school level in California. A large population of LTEL students
are of Latino descent, born in the United States, and often misidentified as orally proficient in
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 28
English (Olsen, 2010). LTEL students can give the illusion of being fluent English speakers,
even as they lack language and literacy skills to meet grade-level standards (Menken & Kleyn,
2010). The core challenge for LTEL Latino middle school youth is developing academic English
language skills despite their ability to communicate socially well in English with peers and
educators (Cummins, 2001). Olsen (2010.a) stated that LTEL Latino students live a dual
language existence, in which they use Spanish as their predominate home language and English
as their preferred socializing language. According to Padilla (2006), most Latino LTEL students
are second-generation children—someone who is either a U.S.-born child of immigrant parents
or a child who immigrated from another country before the age of five. Padilla (2006) noted that
it is customary for immigrant parents of second-generation children to continue practicing native
home traditions, which includes using a home language.
The home language of many second-generation students is not English, and therefore, as
students enroll into a public school in California, they are designated English Language
Learners. Olsen (2010) described LTELs as students who have been enrolled in a school in the
United States for more than 6 years and have not met state requirements or district criteria for
reclassification. Without academic language proficiency and stunted by low literacy
understanding, LTELs perform poorly on standardized tests, experience low academic
achievement, and are at risk of dropping out of school (Flores & Menken, 2015). According to
Menken (2013a), Latino students have disproportionately high dropout rates, grade retention, and
course failures; and, more of these Latino students are deemed Long Term English Language
Learners than any other minority student group (Menken, 2013a; Olsen, 2010; Ruiz De Vasco,
2005). LTELs are failing to improve due to an education system that is failing to provide the
necessary support to enhance their education (Menken, 2013b).
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 29
Olsen’s (2014) research stated that 41% of EL students reclassified in elementary school,
leaving 59% of the population declared LTEL students in middle or high school. As LTEL
students moved higher through the education system, it became increasingly hard to reclassify
out of the EL Program (Olsen, 2014). Rigorous content, complex test concepts, increases in
academic vocabulary, and connecting grammar throughout the writing process to show mastery
of English all present incremental challenges for many LTELs (Olsen, 2014). Under Common
Core Standards in California, LTEL students must demonstrate a deeper understanding and
knowledge of content in a language in which they are not academically proficient, resulting in a
“sink or swim mentality” toward Latino LTEL middle school students (Olsen, 2014).
LTEL students must meet a mandated set of requirements to reclassify out of the EL
program, which is not a cohesive set of standards throughout the State of California; instead it is
based on district criteria (Abedi, 2004). At the time of this study, the California Department of
Education (n.d.) required LTEL students to earn a C grade point average. On average, LTEL
students earned a cumulative grade point average score of a 2.0 or lower, which is equivalent to a
D range grade (Olsen, 2014). To meet California requirements to reclassify out of the English
Language Program, students were required to have a C-range grade point average (CDE, n.d.).
For LTEL students to be placed in college preparatory classes and gain the opportunity to take an
elective that is part of the A-G requirements to qualify for college acceptance, they must have a
C or better grade point average (Olsen, 2014). LTEL students are tested yearly based on the
English language development/proficiency (ELD/P) standards, which are aligned with the
Common Core (CDE, n.d.). Both sets of standards were measured in a new test rolled out in
2018, known as the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC). LTEL
students are required to score a 3 or 4 on the reading, listening, and speaking, and writing
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 30
portions of the assessment. Despite the state’s initiative to create the California Roadmap for
English Language Learners in 2018, in which an abundance of research was conducted on best
teaching practices to increase LTEL student reclassification rates, Latino LTEL students at the
middle school were still performing at a low academic rate. The reality is that, according to
Olsen (2014), middle schools have been ill equipped to work with at-risk LTEL students, and
teachers have limited knowledge and understanding of how to best meet their academic and
sociocultural needs.
Becerra (2001) stated that often Latino students have deficient social-emotional
competencies and self-efficacy motivation to perform academically due to feeling
disenfranchised from school. In California, Latino students drop in academic achievement as
they progress through their education; by eighth grade, Latino proficiency rates in English
Language Arts drops by 40% (Education Trust Research Report, 2017). Countless research
findings included in this study have identified a negative stigma directed toward Latino LTEL
students by educators who incite negative attitudes from students toward their academic abilities
and value of an education (Becerra, 2001; Olsen, 2010, 2014). Rodriguez and Morrobel (2004)
have argued that negative stereotypes of Latino LTEL students being lazy, incapable, lacking
parental guidance, and having undiagnosed learning disabilities have largely gone unchallenged
and are often used by educators as justifiable barriers toward academic success. The low
academic success of Latino LTEL middle school students comes from years of poor instruction,
scarce educational resources, and a climate of failure and low expectations (Education Trust
Research Report, 2017). Abundant data show that Latino LTEL students perform at lower
achievement levels than other students; it is essential to close the achievement gap by holding
school systems accountable for the academic success of LTEL students—especially in middle
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 31
schools, where, research shows, Latino students are exposed to a less supportive environment
(McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004; Wooley, Koi, & Bowen, 2009).
Identifying Literacy Gaps of LTEL Students in Middle School
Academic gaps for middle school Latino LTEL students begin in elementary school and
progress during middle school. Research indicates that gaps in academic language and literacy
were the primary influencers on Latino student academic achievement, specifically at the
secondary level of education (Gibbons, 2009; Menken, 2008; Ruiz de Velasco, 2005). Short and
Fitzsimmons (2007) made the strong statement that LTEL students suffer from an “academic
literacy crisis” at the middle school level and have advocated for all stakeholder groups within an
organization to take concern over such a serious issue. Short and Fitzsimmons further explained
that building literacy skills for ELLs is no longer an issue tacked onto elementary teachers but is
now for the middle secondary school teachers as well due to the high classification rates from
English Language Learner to Long Term English Language Learner students at this level.
According to Scarcella (2002), learned academic literacy skills translate into the ability to
transfer knowledge in different forms and skills of literacy, which include reading, writing,
speaking, and listening abilities. LTEL students need to have the opportunity to engage in these
practices in a structured classroom environment (Olsen, 2010).
LTEL middle school students lack the necessary literacy skills to reclassify despite their
self-identification as native-English speakers (Olsen, 2010). Educators often misinterpret as
LTELs ability to socially articulate themselves in the classroom and among peers as a literacy
ability (Flores et al., 2015). Despite their strong social verbal skills, LTEL students lack the
academic language to be successful students in the classroom, a phenomenon that confuses
educators and creates negative stigma (Flores & Menken, 2015). LTEL middle school students
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 32
also struggle with reading comprehension and the basic skills necessary to read different types of
reading text materials in the middle school level (Pardo, 2004). The variety of gaps of literacy
skills among LTEL students makes this at-risk student population a challenge to educate for
many middle secondary level teachers.
Teaching Practices for Developing Literacy among Middle School LTEL Students
A wide variety of knowledge about teaching strategies, classroom management, and
creative instruction has to be known by educators in order to properly support the literacy needs
of middle school LTEL students (de Jong, 2004). Zwiers, O’Hara, and Pritchard (2013)
suggested that three high-impact teaching practices for middle school teachers to use to develop
academic language are using complex grade-level texts, creating rigorous academic expectations
through the use of meaningful content, and fostering positive academic interactions. Modeling is
also a strong teaching strategy middle school educators can implement in order to demonstrate
for LTEL students how to use academic language and guide their abilities to use academic
language outside of the classroom (Zwiers et al., 2013). Modeling is also an appropriate
instructional piece when scaffolding the writing process for LTEL students. Modeling the
writing process and breaking the content into chunks makes writing a more practical task for
students (Zwiers et al., 2013).
Competent teachers working with middle school LTEL students require a vast amount of
knowledge and motivation to implement different scaffolding techniques to make content and
difficult text relevant (Alvermann, 2002; Calderon, 2001). Educators need to be confident in
their knowledge to facilitate connections between student’s prior knowledge and current
capabilities by using explicit teaching strategies to increase vocabulary, writing, and reading
skills (Alvermann & Eakle, 2003; Clark & Estes, 2008). LTEL middle school students are often
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 33
referred to as struggling readers, and educators put an emphasis on building reading
comprehension in their classrooms by using methods such as Silent Reading or Accelerated
Reader, but neither method is conducive to increasing a student’s reading ability if the student
lacks the comprehension skills to understand what he or she is reading (Rasinski, Samuels,
Hiebert, Petscher, & Feller, 2011). Research from Rasinski et.al. suggested that these methods of
enhancing reading must be used along with strong reading instruction practices to improve
reading comprehension skills. According to Alvermann and Eakle (2003), a strong reading
curriculum should use a variety of texts within content area classes, and educators must use
effective teaching strategies to help the student analyze and interpret the text. Teaching LTEL
middle school students to bookmark the text to slow down their reading and offering a wide-
range of free-choice high-interest materials that is non-fiction will help motivate LTEL students
to engage with the reading content. Most importantly, educators must always take into
consideration LTEL students’ current abilities to read, write, and communicate orally and not use
their years of schooling or residency in the country as the measurement of success (Alvermann &
Eakle, 2003; Ryan & Buaman, 2015).
Educators’ Legal Accountability to LTEL Students
Educators and administrators of all schools have the legal responsibility to provide an
equal opportunity for Long Term English Language Learners to have access to an education
(Shah, 2013). Proposition 227 and No Child Left Behind influenced education policies by
creating an accountability systems mandated by the state and federal government (Menken,
2013b).
The focus of each initiative was to enhance English language proficiency for all students
but specifically at- risk student populations by holding districts and schools accountable for
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 34
achievement (Menken, 2013b). Accountability was tracked through standardized test scores,
which impact a school’s Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) score. According to the CDE, schools
that scored low on the AYP were given a grace period of 1 year to improve their performance.
Schools that performed low for 2 years in a row were designated as a School In Need of
Improvement (SINI) and would have to follow the protocol of No Child Left Behind, which
included creating an action plan for school improvement, and receive funding from LEAs. SINI
that continued to show low progress or little to no improvement would be provided with extra
support for families of the school including educational resources and tutoring, and schools
would receive corrective action. SINI that continued on the path of failure would be held
responsible to restructure the school and replace the current staff, creating a high-stakes situation
for all stakeholders involved (Sunderman, 2001).
In 2012, the Obama administration began granting flexibility to states regarding specific
requirements of NCLB under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The new initiative
allowed states to develop curriculum plans designed to close achievement gaps, increase equity,
improve the quality of instruction, and increase outcomes for all students. California currently
implements Common Core Standards to measure student achievement and tracks student
proficiency through a new form of standardized testing known as the California Assessment of
Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) (CDE, 2018). To track EL and LTEL progress, a
new standardized assessment, the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California
(ELPAC), was rolled out in April 2018. Under the new ELPAC achievement guidelines, EL/
LTEL student achievement began to be tracked for the new school year of 2018/2019.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 35
Title One Funds to Provide Support and Accountability
The purpose of Title One is to service children who are failing, or most at risk of failing,
and to support their growth to meet state academic standards (Title One, 2015). Organizations
classified as school-wide Title One have at least 40% of student enrollment from low-income
families (Title One, 2015). To ensure funding is properly used by Local Education Agencies
(LEAs) and schools, stakeholders must answer important questions about effective intervention
programs that increase academic success among at-risk LTEL middle school students. These
questions include how much money does it cost to ensure that all at-risk LTEL students meet
grade-level standards every year, and how will schools be held accountable for allocation of
funds in order to reach the required school goals set as an accountability measure? (Sunderman,
2001. The organization also needs to question how confident teachers are in their own
knowledge to work with a demanding student population such as at-risk LTEL middle school
students? Are teachers willing and motivated to carry out new intervention initiatives to increase
literacy in LTEL students with the purpose of growing reclassification rates of LTEL middle
school students? How will funds be used to support educators to carry out the task of improving
LTEL student achievement?
The proper allocation of funds to improve educational outcomes for all students is a
challenge, but stakeholders must emphasize the importance of responsible spending (Sunderman,
2001). Clark and Estes (2008) would underscore that an organization needs to tracks its
performance using indicators that stakeholders must monitor in order to hold the organization
accountable; to be fiscally and academically responsible. Odden (2009) stated that the first
strategy a school must emphasize to help at-risk students and provoke school leaders and
teachers to take on the performance challenges that lie ahead is to create a sense of urgency.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 36
Urgency can motivate educators to take on the challenge of working with high-risk students;
however educators need to know how to address the needs of LTEL middle school students
(Odden, 2009).
Title One Funds to Create Literacy Interventions for LTEL Students
Developing a proper and effective literacy intervention at the middle school level comes
with many challenges that educators are often not prepared to address by themselves due to the
wide gap in literacy skills that afflict LTELs students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, &
Rivera, 2006). Researchers have argued that interventions designed for native English speakers
and English Language Learners would not be beneficial in increasing literacy skills for LTEL
students due to their unique academic needs (Francis et al., 2006; Olsen, 2010; Short &
Fitzsimmons, 2007). Francis et al. noted that educators and schools must be intentional when
matching a student’s academic need to the proper support program. Educators are responsible for
monitoring LTEL student progress to track academic growth and tailor a response to intervention
(Francis et al., 2006). The administration and educators in the organization must also make a
joint decision on the time of day for intervention and whether it will take place during regular
class-wide instruction or after instructional hours (Francis et al., 2006).
Many Title One Schools have turned to after-school programs to offer more instructional
time to help at-risk students performing below proficiency to “catch up” to their peers and use
the money to fund such programs (Sebastian, 2013). Findings in different research found the
after-school intervention tutoring programs do not significantly impact students’ achievement on
reading/language arts, mathematics, and science based on gender and ethnicity (Sebastian, 2013).
Research from Francis et al. (2006) indicated that class-wide instruction during the instructional
school day has a greater success rate for middle school LTEL students. School educators and
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 37
administrators often attach themselves to the after-school model due to a lack of knowledge to
initiate better intervention models (Sebastian, 2013).
Professional Development at the Middle School Level
The purpose of Professional development (PD) is to engage educators to take ownership
of their knowledge and translate what they have learned into their classroom (Darling-
Hammond, 2002). Research from Darling-Hammond emphasized the importance of meaningful
and impactful PD for educators and its influence on student learning. Professional development
is an ongoing process whereby educators have the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues and
share their experience as learners (Darling-Hammond, 2002). PD can be a valuable support tool
for educators working with demanding at-risk student populations (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams,
2004). Darling Hammond declared that PD needs to transfer valuable knowledge to educators
working with demanding student populations to provide the proper support and preparation to
enhance teacher competency.
Educators themselves need a constant cycle of learning to increase their skills and
knowledge to adequately work with at-risk LTEL students and integrate new knowledge into
their classrooms (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). The intentions of PD, according to
Darling-Hammond and Richardson, is to empower teachers to serve the needs of students by
providing training in multiple topics that can enhance their ability to work with a demanding
student population. Research from Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) found that
professional development for secondary teachers was most valuable when educators were taught
how to use effective teaching strategies for teaching English Language Learners, provided
support to collaborate with colleagues, explained how to properly use data, and attended to other
factors unique to English Language Learners. Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) found that teachers
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 38
valued receiving ongoing training throughout the school that enhanced language and literacy for
students, including how to develop literacy skills, and design and deliver curriculum, instruction,
and assessment in core content areas.
Benefits of Professional Learning Community Practices at the Middle School Level
DuFour (2007) defined a Professional Learning Community (PLC) as a practice of
collaborative teams whose members are working to achieve common goals linked to the mission
and vision of the organization. The practice of PLCs in education has emerged as a result of the
need to hold schools accountable for student outcomes and to initiate a reform to change and
improve the public school education system (DuFour, 2007). The primary objective of a PLC is
for educators as a collaborative team to be transparent with one another about teaching practices,
achievement data, and student progress in order to determine where the academic gap lies for
students (Dufour, 2007). Training as part of professional development is essential if a school is
moving toward a PLC model with the intention of increasing student outcome and performance
(Darling Hammond, 2002; DuFour, 2007). The entire process requires PLCs to spend a
considerable time collaborating to create common assessment, sharing effective teaching
strategies, tracking and discussing assessment data, and developing intentional interventions for
struggling students (Kohl, Penny, Glenn, & Maldonado, 2014).
DuFour (2007) explained that PLCs at any grade level can offer the necessary support for
educators to discuss practical solutions to difficult daily encounters in the classroom. Using the
PLC model, Garcia (2005) stated, as teachers receive the opportunity to talk as practitioners and
discuss issues with purpose, they can identify trends in student achievement and find a platform
to share successful teaching practices. Working collaboratively with colleagues within the school
setting is vital for educators to enhance their own knowledge, according to Joyce (2004), because
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 39
the PLC model encourages educators to use the most current research to drive instruction and
decisions. According to DuFour, the ultimate goal of PLC is to use research to promote student
achievement through a collaboration process and update knowledge skills through current
research practices.
Data Training as Part of Professional Development
The idea of data-driven decision making in the education field refers to educators and
administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of data to gauge student
success (Mandinach, Honey, & Light, 2006). Data can include standardize assessments, PLC-
developed formative and summative tests, grade-level standard work, grade reports, and other
measurable pieces of information (Mandinach et al., 2006). As Young (2006) explained,
educators can feel intimidated about using data or overwhelmed by technical difficulties in
making decisions to help improve student success. Teacher competency may be affected when
educators have a lack of quantitative knowledge and are not properly trained to use data to drive
classroom instruction. Educators often interpret data as an end-of-the-year assessment to gauge
student’s overall progress and often do not rely on data or find value in using data in their daily
classroom instruction (Young, 2006). Earl and Katz (2002) argued that educators need to find
value in data if they are going to implement instruction that is tied to the outcome of the
information provided to them. To build value, teachers should feel confident in their abilities,
hence the importance of providing data training PD to educators (Darling Hammond, 2002).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 40
Multicultural Training as Part of Professional Development
Acknowledgement of different diversity factors can help educators better understand how
to interact with a low-achieving LTEL Latino students; for example, the theory of
intersectionality, which, according to Dhamoon (2011), was developed by American critical race
scholar Kimberle Crenshaw as a method to explain how social identities overlap, such as with
racial and gender discrimination. One major intersectional concept of diversity often overlooked
but necessary to acknowledge is gender (Zambrana & Zoppi, 2002). Latina students at one point
had a higher high school dropout rate than Latino males in 2013 (Gandara 2015). Results from
Zambrana and Zoppi (2002) showed that academic disparities between Latina students and other
minorities arose due to their exposure to role constraints and teacher neglect, low self-esteem,
and other psychosocial issues. Often, published academic data do not distinguish statistics with
in-depth information that explain to educators the disparities that plague young Latina students.
This type of information strengthens the success of these individuals to close the achievement
gap between Latinos and other minorities (Zambran & Zoppi, 2002).
Most datasets that measure academic achievement do not distinguish among Latino
subgroups and disregard significant cultural and economic differences among different Latino
communities. Mexican Americans, who are the largest and fastest growing Hispanic subgroup in
the United States, have the lowest rates of educational attainment compared to other groups.
Cuban Americans report the highest levels of high school completion, and “other Hispanics”
report the highest standards of bachelor's degree attainment (Schneider et.al 2006). Latinos do
not share the same cultural and economic stature; therefore, the value of education differs
between Latino communities (Becerra, 2001). Understanding the distinct values of education
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 41
among different Latinos can be realized through the practice of multicultural education (Ramirez
& Jimenez-Silva, 2016).
Evidence from Ryan and Buaman (2015) suggested that generational status makes a
substantial impact on Latino student achievement, as does gender, according to Carpenter and
Ramirez (2009) and cultural differentiation, as stated by Schneider et al. (2006). These diverse
factors contribute to academic success for Latino students, and effective educational leaders
evaluate them to address institutional policy and practices that create barriers to equity and break
from rigid definitions of academic success and the academic gap factors (Bensimon, 2005).
Educators often make “one-size-fits-all” assumptions when discussing instructional
approaches. Bartolome (1994) urged teachers to stay away from such perceptions, which
promotes assumptions and reinforces a disarticulation between allowing diversity to flow freely
and the socio-cultural realities that create rigid definitions to define students. Educators need to
remember that the constraints that standardized data put in practice are only a social construction
that prevents teachers from actually understanding the diverse intersectional fabric that
constructs Latino LTEL students. Standardized tests assert forms of power that tries to pit
different minority groups against one another rather than using one's differences to improve and
strengthen them to enrich education.
Looking at Data through a Diverse Lens
Carpenter and Ramirez’s (2009) research has suggested multiple factors that contribute to
the academic gap between minority students and even within minority students. Trends in
education concerning educational differences are significantly influenced by the presence of a
foreign-born population, as stated by Ryan and Buaman (2015). The level of education that
measures achievement gap data differs among Latinos who are native to the United States and
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 42
those who are foreign born (NCES, 2010). The diversity of the LTEL student population is also
evident in their varying levels of proficiency and use of English and Spanish due to immigration
status. The NCES (2010) published data indicating that, nationally, 21% of Latinos reported
speaking only English at home, while 41% reported not using English at home and did not speak
English. English proficiency is well documented as affecting affect achievement data. However,
most data published do not make accommodations for English Language Learners who have to
take the uninformed test that measures their academic performance in a language in which they
are not proficient (Schneider et al., 2006).
Achievement data that do not differentiate the two groups but instead lump all Latino
students together increases the possibility of skewing the data. Performance data that do not
distinguish native-born and foreign-born fail to convey accurate information that determines if
there is an achievement gap and how educators can interpret the factors that feed into the gap
(Ryan & Buaman, 2015). To lump together recent immigrant groups that have academic
struggles will statistically bring down the numbers of Latino achievement, so one cannot take
these data as an accurate reflection of achievement unless one is viewing the information with a
diversification lens into the student’s background (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2009). Effective
educational leaders also need to look at other intersectional avenues that can affect the progress
of low-achieving Latino LTEL students.
The Effects of Poor Performance on LTEL Students
There are dramatic academic consequences for LTEL students in middle school who lack
essential literacy skills (August et al., 2005). However, it is just as important to consider what
happens to these students’ motivation and self-efficacy as they repeat another year of academic
failure (Evans, Hentschke, Labrucherie, & Rueda, 2013). After years of academic struggle,
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 43
LTELs begin to experience self-doubt and form negative responses to their abilities, resulting in
a disconnect between the student and those responsible for their education (Evans et al., 2013;
McKinney, 2014; Olsen, 2010). Academic failure, lack of motivation, and frustration in failing
school systems result in a low number of reclassification of LTEL Latino students in middle
school. LTELs carry these traits with them to high school, which build into feelings of doubt for
many students that they will have successful academic career (Brewster & Brown, 2004). Sixty-
five percent of LTELs in California dropout of high school and are falling through the cracks due
to their social and academic disconnection with their education (EdSource, 2009).
Reclassification and Misplacement
LTEL students must navigate an education system that often fails to provide them the
proper support to reclassify and officially declare their proficiency in the English Language; this
systematic discrimination starts with the reclassification criteria (Perez et al., 2008). To
reclassify in California and be designated as a Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)
student, LTELs need to pass the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California
(ELPAC), meet grade-level standards, and receive a teacher recommendation (CDE, 2018).
Abedi (2008) noted that districts do have the option to mandate their criteria for reclassification,
creating an inconsistency among California school districts. Unfortunately, most high-risk LTEL
Latino students lack the literacy skills needed in middle school to designate out of LTEL
classification before entering high school (Olsen, 2010).
LTELs are performing at low achievement rates as indicated by failing results (Olsen,
2010). Educators have questioned the student capabilities and lack of skills instead of the
education system itself, which provides little to no support for these students (Fernandez &
Inserra, 2013). The failure to attain necessary academic skills such as literacy, reading, and
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 44
communication leads school officials to designate a high number of LTELs as individual need
students (Menken, 2013b). Butiko, Rodriguez, Cernusca, and Williams, (2017) declared that
there is an over-classification of LTELs as special needs students—a consequence of the lack of
necessary resources and tools to accurately test for reading disabilities. Research in
misdiagnosing ELL students has identified a lack of teacher understanding of their student’s
literacy abilities and low expectations for the LTEL student population (Butiko et al., 2017).
Misdiagnosing LTELs and unrealistic reclassification criteria result in students being
grouped and tracked by school organizations to measure growth but often does not mean
providing support to students or to staff who have to educate the high-risk population (Butiko et
al., 2017). LTEL students are often grouped and are taught by the ELL teacher teams on a school
campus. The ELL team is often solely responsible for the academic growth and reclassification
of LTEL students (English, 2009). Butiko et al. (2017) stated that some schools use tracking as a
method to exclude students from the best form of education. McKinney (2008) maintained that
designated EL teachers often feel overwhelmed by the high number of diverse students they are
responsible for educating. Teacher anxiety and tracking of students hurt LTEL student
achievement and usually fails (Butiko et al., 2017; McKinney, 2008). Olsen (2010) emphatically
declared that tracking and grouping ELL students promotes school segregation by using their
social and linguistic status to separate them, which is a civil rights violation. Funneling LTEL
students through a system of weak curriculum and social exclusion and limiting their rights to
receive appropriate help from confident teachers brings negative results to this population
(Olsen, 2010).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 45
Teacher Competency to Work with At-Risk LTEL Middle School Students
Youngs and Youngs (2001) cited that multiple factors can influence a teacher’s
competency to work with a demanding student population such as LTEL middle school students.
These factors include the educator’s age, gender, and years within the profession. Mayer (2011)
suggested that a teacher’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers also impact a
teacher’s competency. For example, an educator’s previous preparation program would impact
his or her knowledge of teaching English Language Learners (ELLs), exposing the teacher to
multicultural issues and installing cultural awareness of students from diverse backgrounds. A
teacher’s competency is influenced by his or her attitudes and motivation to work with a high-
risk student population (McKinney, 2008). Teacher competency is influenced by the
organization’s ability to provide support to enhance knowledge and motivation with the goal to
help the organization meet its global goal to educate students (Rueda, 2011). According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2002), educators expressed in a survey taken about
teacher competence that many of them lack the proper teacher training and professional
development to work with their school site ELL population.
Lack of knowledge, motivation, or organizational culture influencers can contribute to
educators creating a false and stereotypical negative connotation of LTEL students as lazy,
culturally deprived, disrespectful, disengage, and judgmental on the student’s home life (Sims,
2006; Tsovili, 2004). Teachers’ negative perceptions are reinforced by a belief in student
inadequacies. McKinney (2008) posited that negative attitudes and perceptions of educators can
impact student achievement and social connection to the school. A majority of LTEL students,
according to Olsen (2010), are minority students, specifically Latino and are low income; and, as
McKinney stated, robust findings prove that minority students who are financially challenge and
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 46
perform at low academic levels will have a stronger reaction to educator’s negative sentiments.
McKinney continued by stating that minority students shape their academic confidence in school
based on the teacher’s reaction to their performance. Therefore, the impact of negative teacher
attitudes and perceptions of LTEL students impact the student’s belief in his or her knowledge
skills and motivation to be academically and socially successful (Olsen, 2010; Tsovili, 2004).
The educator not only impacts the student in a contrary manner but also hinder their ability to
create an inclusive classroom environment that promotes diversity, academic growth, social
interaction, and cultural awareness (McKinney, 2008).
Diversity as a Tool to Build Teacher Competency
Closing the academic gap is issue for many educators; however, when educators lack the
knowledge and motivation to work with high-risk students, pupils are no longer valued, and a
negative perception of them is established. Despite positive interactions with LTEL students,
educators often form a negative perception due to published statistics on the low achievement of
LTEL students (Bensimon, 2005). Educators as effective leaders need to open their minds to
understand better the impact that polluted data can have on making important decisions that
affect access to equitable educational opportunities in an organization (Bensimon, 2005). To
make such decisions, Bensimon suggested that educators should evaluate and disaggregate data
that lack dimensions of diversity. Angeline (2011) and Prieto, Phipps, and Osiri (2009)
concluded that effective leaders consider a large number of different dimensions that can impact
the success of an individual in an organization. These aspects include race, culture, religion,
gender, sexual orientation, age, immigrant status, profession, personality type, functional
background, education level, and other demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics
(Angeline, 2011). Educators must hold themselves responsible and accountable for establishing a
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 47
perspective that includes an intersectional diversity lens (Bensimon, 2005). At the same time,
educators must recognize that the achievement gap has deep roots and that it is not solely their
organization's responsibility to tackle this dilemma (Bensimon, 2005). Governments,
communities, neighborhoods, and families have the responsibility to create conditions that
remove barriers to cognitive development and support learning in the home (Carpenter et al.,
2006) As Barton (2004) suggested, educators need to move past the static factors and be capable
leaders that look at deeper diverse factors as well (Carpenter et al., 2006).
Effective School Systems to Support Teacher Competency
School systems often focus on surfaces issues rather than the underlying issues that can
cause low academic achievement (Becerra, 2012). One way to begin to break down barriers for
Latino LTEL students is to offer students access to a school social worker, who can provide
insight to administrators and teachers about the causes of learning problems (e.g., behavioral
issue) that result in low academic achievement (Becerra, 2012). School social workers can have a
valuable impact on the creation of positive relationships between teachers and Latino students
who often are labeled as behavior problems (Becerra, 2012). School social workers address
teachers’ lack of understanding of the Latino culture, family life, and communities which can
bring clarity to teachers and administrators (Becerra, 2012). Building a bridge of understanding
between the school and the student's life results in a deeper understanding of Latino LTEL
students (Conchas, 2001). Schools are responsible for providing multiple avenues of support to
improve the academic success of Latino students, strengthening the relationship between the
school and the student (Becerra, 2012).
School support systems should help increase low-achieving Latino student’s confidence
in the classroom and construct a social consciousness to achieve academic success. Positive
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 48
Behavioral Intervention Support (PBIS) encourages teachers and students to work together to
increase academic motivation and engagement, which for Latino LTEL students builds a culture
of school connectedness (Wooley, Loi, & Bowen 2009). The definition of school connectedness
is for students to feel close with not only peers but also staff (Wooley et al., 2009). Wooley et al.
analyzed key factors across schools, families, and neighborhoods and found that teacher support
was the most influential factor predicting better behavior at school, more positive attitudes
toward school, and better academic performance, all goals of PBIS.
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis model provides a research-tested conceptual
framework to determine gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that affect
the performance of a stakeholder group in an organization. According to Krathwohl (2002), there
are four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Without
adequate knowledge, stakeholders are unable to meet the performance goals set by the
organization. Mayer (2011) stated that motivation is key for stakeholders to access and use their
knowledge to achieve a performance goal. There are several types of motivation, which include
active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Pajares, 2006). Organizational influencers such as
work processes and material resources can cause barriers to performance achievement goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Through a six-step process, Clark and Estes’s framework can determine
which KMO factors stakeholders lack. These steps go through the process of identifying the gap,
formulating a solution, and evaluating the implementation results; all steps serve the purpose to
improve stakeholder’s performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The steps are as follows (Clark and
Estes, 2008):
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 49
1. Identification of key business goals;
2. Identification of performance goals;
3. Determination of performance gaps;
4. Analysis of performance gaps to determine knowledge, motivation, or
organizational causes;
5. Identify solutions to knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational process
causes and implement;
6. Evaluation of results and revision of goals.
For this study, the gap analysis model provided an insightful perspective on determining
which KMO influencers were affecting teacher competency to work with high-risk LTEL middle
school Latino students at a Title One school. Shedding light on performance gaps will help HMS
make the right decision to build teacher knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Also,
it will guide the organization to make effective spending decisions of Title One funds to address
KMO gaps and lead to successful solutions to address the academic and social needs of LTEL
Latino students.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
For educators to work with at-risk middle school LTEL students, educators need a range
of knowledge to build their competency to provide adequate support to a unique student
population. Kirkpatrick (2016) and DuFour (2007) both suggested that teachers reflect, create,
and follow fundamental steps, which include principles such as how students learn, what
motivates students to learn, how to manage a classroom, and how to assess student learning to
build their knowledge. These principles help expand educator knowledge toward implementing
effective intervention practices for at-risk middle school students (DuFour, 2007). Kirkpatrick
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 50
encouraged providers to evaluate the process of learning and to build motivation toward the
reaction to education.
Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002) defined knowledge through four different categories: factual,
procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive. This study focused on three types of knowledge to
help build teacher competency to work with LTEL students. Factual knowledge is recalling
information; as a form of knowledge, it is the foundation of basic information and includes data
elements such as terms. Procedural knowledge is the ability to transfer knowledge into action
and understand how to perform an action (Krathwohl 2002). Conceptual knowledge is only
gained if one follows and can use factual knowledge to connect larger concepts to one another to
construct a relationship (2008). Table 3, below, provides a listing of the three assumed
knowledge influences that have been derived from the research literature, the knowledge types,
and how these knowledge influences were assessed by this study.
Teachers need to have cultural knowledge of the Latino community in order to provide
proper academic and social support to LTEL Latino students. Research from Alvarado and
Richard (2013) declared that Latino students at the middle school level have a unique set of
influences that impact their academic stability. These influencers include the student’s
identification of immigration status, generation status, family interdependency, and resiliency to
overcome years of negative school interactions (Alvarado & Ricard, 2013; Ryan & Buaman
2015). Becerra (2001) encouraged educators to increase their knowledge about the Latino culture
to build a positive social connection with Latino student's in order to improve LTEL student
academic performance.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 51
Teachers need to know what instructional strategies improve the academic and social
growth of at-risk middle school students. Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) stated that in order to
ensure LTEL students are building literacy skills, educators need to use a wide range of blended
and intentional teaching strategies. LTEL students are often expected by educators to use a
complex academic vocabulary, use syntactic writing structures, read at grade level due to their
year of education (de Jong, 2004). Olsen (2010) emphasized that a lack of structured literacy
skills impacts LTEL student academic and social achievement. Teacher’s need to have
confidence in their knowledge to use the appropriate teaching strategies to enhance student
achievement (Rueda, 2011).
Teachers need to know how to use data to establish and monitor the progress of high-risk
LTEL students enrolled in intervention programs (Marsh, 2012). It is essential for educators to
use data from common assessments that measure students’ knowledge and use the factual
information to provide proper interventions for students who did not reach the attainable
academic requirements (Marsh, 2012). Goals and data provide conceptual knowledge to teachers
who work in a Professional Learning Community (PLC) to establish an acceptable standard of
learning (Dufour, 2007). Data goals are intended to motivate teachers’ reactions to intervention
and to determine if a student has achieved or exceeded an academic standard (Rueda, 2011). The
entire process of creating goals, measuring student knowledge, and using data to determine if a
student achieved the goal strengthens a PLCs ability to expand their knowledge (DuFour, 2007).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 52
Table 3
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Organizational Mission
To engage in a flexible learning community that cultivates growth, curiosity,
grit, and a love for learning"
Organizational Global Goal (2019/20)
Twenty-five percent of English Language Learners will reclassify as
Redesignated Fluent English Proficiency Students
Stakeholder Goal
By September 2019, teachers created SMART goals as a PLC to hold themselves
accountable for the academic and emotional progress of at-risk LTEL middle school
students

Knowledge Influence

Knowledge Type
Teachers need to have cultural knowledge of
the Latino community in order to provide
proper academic and social support to LTEL
Latino students
Factual

Teachers need to know what instructional
strategies improve the academic and social
growth of at-risk middle school students
Procedural
Teachers need to know how to use data to
establish and monitor the progress of high-risk
LTEL students enrolled in intervention
programs.
Conceptual

Motivation Influences
Understanding what motivation is and what impacts motivation positively or negatively
is essential when determining what needs or issues an organization needs to address to increase
performance, productivity, and employee engagement to help at-risk middle school students
(Rueda, 2011; McKinney, 2008). Mayer (2011) stated that motivation is influenced by the
amount of effort an individual puts forth to understand his or her role in accomplishing the
organization’s global goal, and appreciate that circumstances can arise while working toward this
goal and their own capabilities toward accomplishing the goal. Table 4, below, shows a listing of
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 53
the two assumed motivation influences derived from the research literature, the motivation types,
and how these knowledge influences were assessed by this study.
Teachers need to feel confident in their knowledge and skills to work with at-risk LTEL
middle school students (McKinney, 2008). Self-efficacy can motivate a person and make an
impact in his or her personal and professional capabilities to carry out a task, reach desired goals,
and take on leadership roles in their organization (Barnett & McCormick, 2003). Pajares (2006)
suggested that one can view oneself through a positive or negative lens, which is influenced by
several factors including evaluations by their peers on performance and professional pressure.
These factors can result in a negative or positive psychological reaction toward one’s self-
efficacy as an individual (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy motivates an individual to believe his or
her capabilities can efficiently contribute to successfully achieving goals (Reuda, 2011)
Teachers believe they can influence at-risk LTEL middle school success by creating
effective interventions to increase LTEL literacy skills. Goal setting catches a teacher’s attention,
but the results can hold their interest in working toward those goals and affecting self-efficacy
(Mayer, 2011; Pajares, 2006). Low self-efficacy and lack of particular interest creates low
motivation and causes educators to question their capabilities, affecting their motivation to
accomplish the global goals of an organization (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 54
Table 4
Assumed Motivation Influences
Organizational Mission
To engage in a flexible learning community that cultivates growth, curiosity,
grit, and a love for learning
Organizational Global Goal 2019/20
Twenty-five percent of English Language Learners will reclassify as
Redesignated Fluent English Proficiency Students
Stakeholder Goal
By September 2019, teachers created SMART goals as a PLC to hold themselves
accountable for the academic and emotional progress of at-risk LTEL middle school
students
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivation Type
Teachers need to feel confident in their
knowledge and skills to work with at-risk
LTEL middle school students.
Self- Efficacy
Teachers need to believe they can influence
at- risk LTEL middle school success by
creating effective interventions to increase
LTEL literacy skills
Goal Setting

Organizational Influences
Schein (2010) stated that culture is the most potent influencer within an organization and
can influence all aspects of the organization. Culture impacts stakeholder motivation and ability
to carry out a task to fulfill mission and vision (Schein, 2010). Culture influences the energy of
the organization’s environment, and even the stakeholder’s drive to tackle the global goal of the
organization (Schein, 2010). Individual stakeholders are not solely responsible for making an
impact on the organization’s cultural setting and models; it is the stakeholders as a group whose
behavior leads to success or failure within an organization (Schein, 2010). Schneider (1996)
posited that stakeholders need to value the culture of the organization to adopt the policies,
practices, and procedures of the organization as their beliefs. This section will explore the
cultural model and cultural setting influences on performance that may impact the stakeholder
groups, particularly teachers, of HMS and their competency to work with at-risk LTEL students.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 55
Table 5, below, shows organizational influences that have been derived from the research
literature, the type of organization culture, and how these influencers were assessed by this
study.
Culture impacts stakeholder’s motivation and ability to work toward a global goal. Rueda
(2011) elaborated on the importance for the stakeholders as a group to accomplish short-term
goals that would help the organization meet its global goal. Schein (2010) stated that this would
build a culture in which stakeholders value their relationship to each other and work collectively
toward recognized shared values. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that the providers do not
always have to be part of the goal-setting process, but nonetheless need clear and consistent
goals to work toward accomplishing together. Rueda promoted organizations to increase
accountability by building educator knowledge of instructional innovations and provide training
in research-based interventions/systematic procedures influenced by data. An organizational
culture that focuses on goal setting, data to drive response, and proper training for staff can
increase the educator’s growth professionally, resulting in highly trained teachers who impact
student academic outcomes (Rueda, 2011).
Stakeholders need to value the culture of the organization to adopt the policies, practices,
and procedures of the organization as their beliefs (Rueda, 2011). To create a successful
benchmarking system that can indicate if the organization’s goal is attainable, teachers are
encouraged to work together as a professional learning community (PLC) (Dufour, 2007). To
create a successful PLC, a department needs to commit to reexamining its practices and align its
goals to fulfill the mission and vision of the school (Dufour, 2007). Collaborating with a PLC
allows teachers to find new ways to measure knowledge and skills during a lesson and determine
a student’s prior experience and knowledge obtained after the lesson (Dufour, 2007). Depending
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 56
on the expertise reached, teachers can design an appropriate assessment to measure students’
knowledge (DuFour, 2007). Following this process, Kirkpatrick (2016) provided formative data
to measure student achievement accurately. Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
goals (SMART) are strategic and link to the global goal, which focuses on evidence of student
learning influence by teacher strategies (Dufour, 2007). SMART goals are a mandatory process
for PLCs to determine if students are reaching academic goals that align with the organization’s
mission and vision (Dufour, 2007).
SMART goals should drive PLCs to decide what content and skills students need
(DuFour, 2007). PLC departments should use data from the assessments that measure students’
knowledge and motivate their reaction to interventions for students who did not reach the
attainable academic requirements (DuFour, 2007). Goals and data provide factual knowledge to
PLCs to establish an acceptable standard of learning, motivate teachers’ reactions toward
intervention, and determine if the student has achieved or exceeded that standard (Rueda, 2011).
The entire process of creating SMART goals, measuring student knowledge, and using data to
determine if students attain and achieve the goal fosters engagement and strengthens a PLCs
ability to expand their knowledge (DuFour, 2007).
Educators have the power to lead school change, and it is essential for the providers of
HMS to be part of the goal-setting procedure of the organization (Rueda, 2011). Schein (2010)
states that goal-setting builds a culture wherein stakeholders value their relationship to each other
and work collectively to recognized share values. Student success should drive educators to
achieve personal gratification but also influence PLCs to continue working toward organizational
goals (Atkinson, 2000; Clark, & Estes 2008). Educators may feel motivated to persist through
hardships together as a PLC because, through collaboration, they do not exhaust individual
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 57
mental effort and work as a unit to contribute and achieve organizational success (Jensen, 2014
Rueda, 2011). Teachers and PLCs who fail to properly collaborate with one another lack
motivation that leads to performance issues that link to the culture of the organization (Kohl et
al., 2014).
Table 5
Assumed Organization Influences
Organizational Mission
To engage in a flexible learning community that cultivates growth, curiosity,
grit, and a love for learning"
Organizational Global Goal (2019/20)
Twenty-five percent of English Language Learners will reclassify as
redesignated fluent English Proficiency Students
Stakeholder Goal
By September 2019, teachers will create SMART goals as a PLC to hold themselves
accountable for the academic and emotional progress of at-risk LTEL middle school
students

Assumed Organization Influence

Organizational Influencer Type
Stakeholder’s behavior impacts motivation
and ability to work toward a global goal
Culture Setting

Stakeholders need leadership to value the
culture of the organization to adopt the
policies, practices, and procedures of the
organization as their beliefs.
Culture Model

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
A Conceptual Framework helps structures research by focusing on the specific elements
of research design, beliefs, and theories (Maxwell, 2013). Conceptual theory serves to guide a
researcher through information and aids in creating crucial aspects of research design, including
goals and meaningful research questions drive the research (Maxwell, 2013). According to
Maxwell (2013), robust research design will help identify potential validity threats, narrow the
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 58
researchers focus on a meaningful review of the literature, and challenge the researcher to
expand on grounded theory toward experimentation. Experiments challenge one to develop a
plausible explanation of what one has observed in the field and supports researchers to challenge
how to support or disprove the theories they have created through observation within an
organization (Maxwell, 2013). Challenging, questioning, and researching issues within an
organization help identify the gaps within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Deficiencies in
an organization weaken the entire institution and prohibit stakeholders from being held
accountable and prevent the organization from reaching its set global goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The Conceptual Framework evaluates how stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences impact the professional and personal performance of the stakeholders
within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). The conceptual framework, as suggested by
Maxwell (2013) and Creswell (2014), helped construct the research question for this study with
the purpose of driving the investigation based on the problem statement. The conceptual
framework for this study will also serve to identify key variables, which influence the KMO of
the stakeholder group of the study and make a linkage to the problem of practice (Rocco &
Plakhotnik, 2009).
Rueda (2011) suggested that to improve student achievement, educators need to focus on
building student knowledge, enhancing motivational drive, and considering institutional
organization factors. Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework is used in the study to
determine the gaps in knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational barriers that prevent
teachers from working with high-risk students and effectively using Title One funds to support
them. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that the gap analysis framework is a proven problem-solving
model that can pin point gaps in knowledge and motivation and identify how organizational
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 59
barriers create a gap in stakeholder performance within an organization. Clark and Estes (2008)
claimed that the identification of these gaps can help an organization address these issues,
resulting in a census within the organization to meet set global goals.
Mayer (2011) categorized knowledge, motivation, and organization influence as three
separate conditions that interconnect with one another and impact stakeholder performance
within an organization. An example of how each factor correlates with one another would be an
educator’s motivation to work with at high-risk students in secondary education, which can be
impacted by their lack of knowledge and skills to work with such a population and find no
support through their organization (Mayer, 2011). A stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation
can make a positive or negative impact on the setting and model of an organization and the
overall success of attaining the global goals of an organization (Rueda, 2011). Figure 2, below,
shows the conceptual framework in an open dialogue to equally examine how the culture of the
organization, along with organizational influences, impact the knowledge and motivation
influences

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 60

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework.
Note. Describes the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, that, when
applied to a Title One School Model.

In the Conceptual Framework knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences all
revolve around the stakeholder’s personal and professional perception about his or herself and
the impact it has on the organization and vice versa—the organization’s impact on their
knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The educators of HMS had to build their
knowledge of how to set goals, learn how to use data to plan for meaningful interventions
effectively, and improve on teaching strategies to help at-risk students, as shown in Figure 2.
Administrators are responsible for building these knowledge skills by providing professional
development, training in how to function as a Professional Learning Communities, and outlining
Knowledge
Factual Knowledge
Teachers need to have
cultural knowledge of the
Latino community in order
to provide proper
academic and social
support to LTEL Latino
students.
Procedural Knowledge:
Teachers need to know
what instructional
strategies improve the
academic and social
growth of at risk middle
school students.
Conceptual Knowledge:
Teachers need to know
how to use data to
establish and monitor the
progress of high-risk
students enrolled in
intervention programs.
Organizational Influencers
Cultural Setting
Administration provides
training to teachers on
how to effectively use data
and goals to help at-risk
middle school students.
Cultural Setting
Stakeholders create clear
quantitative goals that are
shared with the staff.
Cultural Model
Teachers show no interest
in providing effective Title
One Intervention.
Motivation
Goal-Oriented: Teachers
feel that they capable to
take on the difficult task of
working with high-risk
students and develop
proper interventions to
help these students
Self-Efficacy: Teachers
need to feel that they have
the knowledge and skills to
work with high-risk
students
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 61
clear and concise global goals (DuFour, 2007; Rueda, 2011). However, the organization failed to
provide any of these support systems for educators, which impacted their motivation to perform
and, in the case of HMS, impacted teacher’s motivation to work with high-risk students (Mayer,
2011). Since the organization lacked provide proper training, according to Grossman and Salas
(2011), HMS was failing to increase its stakeholders’ perception in creating a global society that
strives to accomplish set goals. Knowledge, motivation, and organization influencers equally
affect one another, which means that since educators lack the knowledge to work with high-risk
students (due to the lack of organizational influences) their motivation is affected (Clark & Estes,
2008). With no behavior modeling, error management, and a lack of realistic environment
training, educators at HMS questioned their self-efficacy to work with such a demanding student
population (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Self-efficacy and a lack of ability to be goal oriented
impacted the organization’s ability to cultivate a safe and positive stakeholder culture (Grossman
& Salas, 2011). The conceptual framework above displays a gap in motivation, knowledge, and
organizational barriers and creates a link to teacher’s inability to work with Title One high risk
students.
Conclusion
The purpose of the literature review was to define the unique characteristics of LTEL
students in California and the academic and social struggles of this high-risk middle school
student population. The research illustrated how teachers had a negative perception of LTEL
students, leading to misdiagnosis to special education and a low number of reclassifications in
middle schools. Teachers lacked cultural awareness, which would enable them to decipher bias
studies in academic data, which offers in-depth clarification of Title One funds and how LEAs
are required to use the funds. The literature review identified effective academic and emotional
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 62
interventions that have successfully impacted high-risk middle school students by effectively
spending Title One funds. The review also included the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework
to determine the stakeholder’s grasp of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
needed to work with high-risk middle school students. The gap analysis identified conceptual
and formative knowledge as indicators that need to be measured for understanding by
stakeholders. Not only does stakeholder knowledge need to be measured but stakeholder
motivation also needs to be rated. The literature review identified motivational influences,
specifically goal-oriented and self-efficacy, related to stakeholder’s capabilities of working with
high-risk middle school students. Finally, the literature review identified cultural models and
cultural setting organizational influences related to the schools’ protocols and teacher leadership
roles.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 63
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences using the Clark and Estes KMO model to determine HOWL MS educators’ needs in
their professional abilities to work with a demanding at-risk middle school student population,
such as Latino at-risk LTEL students, and to determine if a gap lay among the KMO influencers
that was affecting an educator’s competency.
Research Design and Methods
The goal of using a qualitative research method for this study was to better understand
how KMO influencers affected teachers' ability to work with at-risk LTEL middle school Latino
student population at a Title One school. According to Creswell (2014), qualitative methods
allow researchers to explore a central phenomenon in-depth, as expressed by the participants’
reality and experience. The qualitative method, therefore, was ideal to answer the proposed
research questions because it provided essential insight into what educators believe need to be
addressed or answered to build teacher competency (McKinney, 2008).
1. What types of knowledge gaps are affecting teachers’ abilities to implement effective
teaching strategies and develop academic literacy interventions to enhance the academic
progress of Long-Term English Learners?
2. How do middle school teachers perceive at-risk middle school LTEL students, and
how does this perception impact their motivation to work with LTEL students.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 64
3. What types of support does administration need to provide teachers to work with
LTEL students, and what factors are identified by teachers as being essential regarding
having adequate support?
Elements of qualitative research include the study of the behavior of participants in their
natural settings, deciphering situational factors, and understanding the participant's perspective
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data were gathered through classroom observations, teacher
interviews, and analysis of document artifacts to extract data that helped to answer the research
questions and address the problem of practice. Data gathered and analyzed in triangulation,
according to Rueda (2011), enforce the credibility of the research and can specify which KMO
indicator was affecting the teacher's ability to work with LTEL students. Creswell (2014) stated
that several sources of information provide the researcher with multiple perspectives and insight,
which enhances the credibility of the study. The next section includes the criteria sampling of
participants, along with interview strategies, observation criteria, and document analysis
procedures. The chapter also details the credibility and trustworthiness of the study and the
reliability of data. The chapter will end with ethical procedures and the limitations of the study.
Participating Stakeholders
Fifty-four educators at HMS were split into two grade levels and further divided into two
sub-categories, which included department by content and by school teams. Of the fifty-four
teachers, twenty teachers were chosen to participate in the study. (The criteria for the participants
are described later in this chapter.) Due to limitations of the study, which included time restraints
within the organization and district-mandated testing, some selected teachers could not
participate in the study; therefore, the number for teacher participants that fit the criteria included
five seventh-grade teachers, four eighth-grade teachers, and one split grade-level teacher. In
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 65
total, 10 teachers, one administrator, and two counselors were a invited to participate in the
study. The 13 participants had strong working connections with at-risk LTEL students and were
deemed a valuable focus group for the study. The purpose of the study was to determine if the
stakeholders had any gaps in their knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences that
impeded educators from effectively implementing proper academic and social interventions for
LTEL students under Title One funding. To target the proper sample, criteria-based sampling, a
form of purposeful sampling was used as a qualitative method (Maxwell, 2013). Creswell (2014)
and McEwan and McEwan (2003) have suggested that a purposeful sample can provide a deep
understanding of a research problem.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers had to have at least 5 years of teaching experience in the classroom
Rationale. Beer (2000) suggested that, as teachers advance in their careers, they began to
shape effective practices to support their school environments.
Criterion 2. Participants must take part in a teacher leadership role in the organization
Rationale. Per Frias (2014) education leaders encouraged student success by emphasizing
collaboration among faculty, felt a need to address diverse student population interests and
needs, and were capable of assembling the resources to adequately support high-risk students.
Criterion 3. Participants had to currently work with at-risk LTEL students.
Rationale. In Evans et al. (2013) teachers working with high-risk students in a middle
school population were the focus of the study.
Interview (Recruitment) Strategy
Five seventh-grade teachers, nine eighth-grade teachers, one split-level teacher, an
administrator, and two counselors were invited to participate in the interview portion of the
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 66
study. Johnson and Christensen (2015) stated that the number of participants does not always
have to be a large population but rather a meaningful population that can provide valuable data
and insight. For the study, criteria-based sampling was the best form of purposeful sampling
(Creswell, 2014). Stringer (2014) indicated that the research has chosen participants for the study
base on predetermined characteristics with the intention that their experience could shed light on
the phenomenon occurring within the organization. Participants received an individual email that
invited them to take part in a 30-minute interview process. Each potential participant received a
description of the study, their role as a participant, and the overall goal of the study. They were
given 3 days to respond via email to the researcher, after that point the researcher discussed the
purpose of the study in-person with the potential participants. An in-person conversation helped
alleviate any stress participants may have had about partaking in the study and provided an
opportunity to answer any questions participants had about the study. Once participants agreed to
take part in the interview process, they were asked to sign an informed consent form, which
outlined the purpose of the study, type of research being conducted, procedures, duration,
confidentiality, sharing of results, and withdrawal procedures of the study.
Rationale for Participants
Participants could only take part in the study if the consent form was signed before any
qualitative method was conducted. The purpose of the interview was to use a criteria-based
sampling since the educators were specifically asked to partake in the study due to their
experience working with LTEL students (Creswell, 2014). Interviews also provided insight into
the educators’ perceptions of LTEL students and any KMO indicators that affected their
competency in working with a high-risk middle school population (Clark & Estes, 2008).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 67
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 2. Participants had to teach a core content subject.
Rationale. A variety of teachers could provide multiple perspectives, differentiated
teaching strategies, and various opinions on how Title One funds could be used.
Criterion 3. Per Butiko, Rodriguez, Cernusca, and Williams (2017), participants had to
have LTEL students enrolled in the class period being observed.
Rationale. Teacher interaction with students shapes students’ academic performance and
motivation to learn the content (McKinney, 2008)
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
Observations data were collected in a natural setting in the participating teacher's
classroom with structured guidelines for an entire class period, which was 45 minutes. Data were
collected in time increments, every 10 minutes, and the researcher was looking for specific types
of interactions between LTEL students and educators. The purpose of the observation was to
witness the interaction between four ACHIEVE teachers during individual observations and their
interaction with LTEL students. ACHIEVE is a support class designed to provide academic and
social support to at-risk LTEL students on campus. There is not set curriculum, and the class is
intended to support the content by reviewing subject matter from other classes. Participants to be
observed were asked permission to do so during the interview portion of the study and had the
option to decline this part of the study (Creswell, 2014). Direct observation in a natural setting of
the participant's classroom allowed the researcher to view the different KMO indicators play out
in a realistic everyday setting (Stringer, 2014). The observation provided the researcher the
opportunity to witness the reality of the interactions between the educators and LTEL students
and how the KMO indicators played a role in that interaction (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 68
Rationale for Participants
Direct observation in the natural setting of the participants’ classrooms allowed the
researcher to view the different KMO indicators play out in realistic everyday settings. The
observation provided the researcher the opportunity to witness the reality of the interactions
between the educators and the LTEL students and how the KMO indicators played a role in that
interaction (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
To confirm that there was a gap in knowledge, motivation, and organization, a collection
of qualitative data gathered through interviews and observations were generated to indicate
where that gap lay and how it affected teacher competency. Academic documents of quantitative
data for at-risk LTEL middle students were evaluated. A comparison between both data
collections was meant to confirm or controvert the need for adequate intervention programs that
address the literacy skills needs (Creswell, 2014). A side-by-side comparison of data themes and
corresponding data can lead to correlations, but the study must use a triangulation design to
ensure validity and reliability (Creswell, 2014).
Open-ended interview questions established the knowledge, motivation, and organization
indicators that affected teacher competency (McKinney, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Observations
provided insight into whether there was a gap in the KMO model (Maxwell, 2013). An analysis
of academic documents was used as a triangulation step to enforce the credibility of the study.
Also, it helped to formulate insight for the organization to use Title One funds to invest into
literacy interventions that promote the academic and social success of LTEL students at HMS.
According to Creswell (2014), the overall purpose of the data collection is to gather information
that can answer the research questions.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 69
Interviews
According to Creswell (2014), interviews provide researchers with the opportunity to get
a glimpse of the participants’ reality and allows researchers to distill the meaning of the
participants’ experiences. A semi-structured interview method is ideal for researchers to explore
in-depth with the participants by allowing the conversation to flow and offer follow-up
questions. A purposeful sample of the stakeholder group provided a more in-depth analysis of
the qualitative data collected during the study to answer the research questions (Creswell, 2014).
The purpose of the interview questions, which can be found in Appendix A, was to provide the
educators who participated in educating the student an opportunity to articulate their experiences
with that work, to express how they perceived their ability to work with LTEL at-risk middle
school students, and to discuss their motivation to develop literacy interventions for LTEL
students. Guided questions driven by the literature sought to determine where KMO gaps lay
within the organization and to measure teacher competency (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). All
interviews were conducted individually and were recorded and transcribed with the permission
of the participants protocol for the interview recruitment is found in Appendix B.
Observations
Forty-five-minute classroom observations were conducted with the purpose of looking at
how teachers interacted with their LTEL students academically and socially. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) stated that accurately observing participants requires the researcher to develop the
skill to notice details, similarities, and differences in connecting outcomes to actions that could
impact KMO indicators (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations took place in teachers’
classrooms; locations varied throughout the campus, but the layout of the rooms was similar to
one another. Teaching strategies expressed in the interview process, literacy interventions, and
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 70
use of resources supplied by the organization to build literacy skills were actions the researcher
needed to be aware of and document during the observation process. (Observation protocols can
be found in Appendix C; observation recruitment process is in Appendix D.)
Document and Artifact Access and Rationale
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that document and artifacts are used for a specific
meaning and send a message to the research to construct and apply to answering the research
questions. The documents being analyzed were progress reports from literacy interventions used
in the ACHIEVE classes. ACHIEVE classes are intervention class periods dedicated to
increasing the academic achievement of EL and LTEL students at HMS. Documents were not
used as quantitative data but as qualitative data. A discussion with the participants about LTEL
student progress was centered around the documents. Only documents and artifacts that related
to the research questions were used. A discussion took place on proper interventions for LTEL
students, Title One spending on professional development, and teacher motivation to participate
in programs that focus on improving high-risk student performance. Analysis of the documents
was consistent with the research questions and specifically aligned with effective interventions to
help LTEL students’ progress.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Creswell (2014) explained that qualitative methods validate research and ensure that the
findings gathered through qualitative research are valid and support the claims of the research.
According to Creswell, there are three forms of qualitative validity: content validity, predictive
or concurrent validity, and construct validity. According to Maxwell (2013), threats to validity in
qualitative research can be difficult to control, but there are ways to avoid these risks. Maxwell
suggested avoiding researcher bias and reactivity. Researcher bias affects a study because the
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 71
researcher has influence over the data and can skew the outcome and the opinions of the
participants. Researchers can also affect a study through reactivity, which affects the
environment a researcher is observing or the environment in which an interview is being
conducted. The two threats affect the credibility and trustworthiness of the study, compromise
the reputation of the research, and discredit the study due to bias findings and reactivity.
Ethics
As an educational leader at HMS, I had a responsibility to ensure that the data collected
from peers was used to improve the organization and to protect the identity of my colleagues.
The University of Southern California (USC) and the State University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) provide researchers with guidelines and restrictions that one needs to follow to
protect the integrity of the study and to protect the participants of the study. This study was
approved by both the USC and the IRB and followed the protocols to ensure that the study was
legitimate and conducted with integrity to protect human participation.
Human participation included only adults over the age of 18. No minors were part of the
study even though the focus was on high-risk middle school students. Potential participants
received consent forms with information about the study, including the purpose and impact it
would have on the organization. Transparency of the purpose of the study was prioritized so that
participants felt motivated to participate and to respond honestly during the interview to avoid
transparency limit deception (Glesne, 2011). Participation was voluntary for educators.
Confidentiality was expressed in the consent form to recruit a decent amount of participants.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posited that respondents need to feel secure in participating
in a study. If respondents feel that the researcher is not protecting their privacy during the data
collection process (quantitative practice), this can impact other parts of a mixed-methods study
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 72
(qualitative practice), including the interview and observation process. Respondents may be
embarrassed to answer some questions during the interview process and may deny observation
opportunities or changes in activity or behavior due to distrust (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is
essential to establish a level of trust with the respondents as the researcher.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Creswell (2014) stated that regardless of research method and design, there are aspects of
a qualitative study that the researcher cannot control. Using a modified version of a gaps analysis
model from Clark and Estes (2008) to solve a possible lack of KMO indicators within an
organization needs an adequate amount of time. However, the study took place in a short
amount of time—from August 2018 to January 2019. During this time, all qualitative data were
collected, including the interviews, observations of educators in their natural settings, and an
examination of school data reports. All stakeholders of the organization, not just those who
participated in the study, were responsible for implementing any solutions recommended to
support the academic growth of LTELs by September 2019 for the upcoming school year.
Creswell (2014) provided a checklist for long-term study protocols to avoid limitations, but in
this case, the checklist could not be applied due to time constraints.
The researcher must consider the limitations that participants place on the study,
especially during the qualitative method portion of the study. The response to qualitative
questions is influenced by many different factors, including respondent cognition, the interaction
between the researcher and the participant, exaggeration, false responses, comfort level of the
participant, and the respondent's state of mind (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Not only can these
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 73
issues affect the way educators respond to the qualitative questions, but these same factors can
also affect their behavior during classroom observations.
Delimitations
Delimitations are the influences on the study that the researcher can control (Creswell,
2014). Criteria-based sampling was a strong method for this study to gather valuable data that
could provide a realistic examination of where the gaps lay for educators within the KMO model,
which affected teacher competency to work with high-risk middle school students. Criteria
sampling allowed the researcher to trust the responses of the educators partaking in the study
because they met the set requirements that made them qualified candidates to participate in the
study. Another delimitation that built trust and credibility in the study was that the observations
were performed on one site only, and the researcher used the observations to ensure that what
was said in the interview was the reality these educators encountered in their classrooms.
Analysis of documents also served as a delimitation factor because there was a triangulation of
data to relieve any concern of biased opinions or approach toward the study.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 74
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influencers as they impact teacher competency to work with at-risk middle school Long Term
English Learners. This chapter presents data that either validate or do not validate the assumed
influencers identified in Chapter 3. Qualitative data were collected to determine the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influencers that have priority in order to provide improvement
recommendations to the organization (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative
data includes 13 in-person interviews, which included two counselors, 10 teachers, and one
administrator from HOWL Middle School. Each interview averaged about 30 minutes; all
interviews were recorded, and the interviewer took notes during each interview. After each
interview, each recording was transcribed. Afterward, the data were coded and analyzed
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Every participant signed a confidentiality waiver and was referred to
by pseudonyms for confidentiality.
Qualitative data were collected by observing four ACHIEVE teachers on campus.
ACHIEVE was an intervention support class for LTEL students intended to provide additional
academic support to LTEL students. ACHIEVE teachers worked with core content teachers to
reteach core class content, provide a space and time for LTELs to work on homework and
classwork, and track LTEL student’s literacy progress using the ILIT program. The ILIT
program was a comprehensive digital literacy program that focused on using blended reading
text to build and enhance literacy skills and language development (ILIT, n.d.). The ILIT
program was intended to be used as an ELA intervention, a resource that served as a
supplemental instructional material, or English language development. Participants were
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 75
observed in their natural classroom settings, which according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
provides the observer with authentic data about the reality of their environment. The observer
took observation notes of the teachers’ interactions with LTEL students, and classroom
environment and teaching strategies were noted during the observation. Also part of the
qualitative study was analysis of documents and artifacts, which included student reclassification
rates and ILAP information. The questions that guided this study were:
1. What types of knowledge gaps are affecting teachers’ abilities to implement effective
teaching strategies and develop academic literacy interventions to enhance the academic
progress of Long-Term English learners?
2. How do middle school teachers perceive at-risk middle school LTEL students, and
how does this perception impact their motivation to work with LTEL students.
3 What types of support does administration need to provide teachers to work with LTEL
students, and what factors are identified by teachers as being essential regarding having
adequate support?
The chapter begins with a description of the stakeholders who participated in the
interview and the observation portion of the study. After the description of participating
stakeholders, the data are organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers.
Within those KMO influencers was a determination of whether a gap lay within those
classifications and if the KMO gap was validated or not with a brief discussion of which
instrument was used to make this conclusion. Validation was measured if 50% or more of
participants reached a consensus response during their interview. The findings section follows up
after each KMO indicators and provides data analysis to explain the research questions.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 76
Participating Stakeholders
Interview sampling criteria stipulated that teachers had to have at least 5 years of teaching
experience/experience working with high-risk students. Participants had to take part in a
leadership role in the organization or have some experience working at a Title One–funded
school and currently work with LTEL students. The purpose of these interviews was to glean
unique insight from the educators of HOWL MS who directly interacted and provided academic
support to at-risk LTEL middle school students. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that the interview
process provides the researcher with the opportunity to learn to about the participant's beliefs and
perceptions that are influenced by direct involvement with the work—which, for our purposes,
was the work of enhancing literacy for at-risk LTEL middle school students of Latino descent.
The research questions were intended to provide responses that could be analyzed and
categorized into knowledge, motivation, or organizational barrier causes.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 77
Table 6
Description of Participants in the Interview Process of the Study
Participant Years of
Experience
Title One
Experience
Leadership
Role
Academic
Content
No. of
LTEL
students
Education/
Authorizations
Teacher A 15 2 8th-grade math lead
& educator mentor
8th-grade math
EL Team
Member
15 Single Subject/CLAD
Teacher B 22 2 Safe School
Ambassador
8th-grade
English
EL Team
Member
15 Single Subject/CLAD
Masters
Teacher C 25 6 X 7th-grade
English &
Achieve Class
14 Single Subject/CLAD
Masters
Teacher D 6 2 Teen Leadership &
CKH champion
7th-grade
English
10 Single Subject/CLAD
Teacher E 14 14 X
*EL Coordinator
*Title One
Coordinator
*Intervention
Coordinator
7th-grade
Science
15 Single Subject/CLAD
Administrator 12 12 Admin Works with both
grade levels
110 Single Subject/CLAD

Admin Cred
Counselor A 12 2 Lead Counselor Works with both
grade levels
110
Counselor B 28 10 Student Services Works with both
grade levels
110
Teacher G 18 6 Instructional Coach 7th-grade
Science
14 Single Subject/CLAD
Teacher H 16 16 X

7th-grade
science
EL Team
14 Single Subject/CLAD

Teacher I 15 5 Team Lead 8th-grade
science
EL Team
15 Single Subject/CLAD
Teacher J 12 2 8th-grade English
Lead
8th-grade
English
ACHIEVE
14 Single Subject/CLAD
Teacher K 18 14 EL Coordinator 8th-grade
ACHIEVE
7th-grade
ACHIEVE
110

Single Subject/CLAD
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 78
Observations
Qualitative data were also gathered through classroom observations. A focus on the
ACHIEVE teachers served as an opportunity to observe their practices with LTEL students and
any intervention support systems put in place to help improve literacy for LTEL students by the
organization. Notes created in each of the classrooms focused on themes that were coded from
data developed during the one-on-one interviews. A code sheet was marked during observations
focusing the researcher on looking for specific behaviors every 10 minutes.
• Teacher 1: teaching for 18 years; had experience working with LTEL and EL students.
Teacher was an English teacher and taught both seventh- and eighth-grade ACHIEVE
classes; strong sense of urgency to reclassify LTEL students, attended extra district
trainings and outside professional development to improve ability to support LTELs
academically and socially.
• Teacher 2: teaching for 12 years; had experience working with LTEL and EL students.
Teacher was an English teacher and teaches an eighth-grade ACHIEVE class; strong
sense of urgency to reclassify LTEL students and believed in the method of scaffolding
writing and grammar as a necessary academic skill to improve reclassification rates.
• Teacher 3: teaching for 25 years; had experience working with LTEL and EL students.
Teacher was an English teacher and teaches a seventh-grade ACHIEVE class. Strong
sense of urgency; was currently working on a master’s in curriculum and was learning
about the cultural value needed to help minority students be successful in the classroom.
• Teacher 4: teaching for 15 years; had experience working with LTEL and EL students.
Teacher was an English teacher and taught a seventh-grade ACHIEVE class; strong sense
of urgency to reclassify LTEL students but only if they were prepared for reclassification.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 79
Observation data were collected in the classrooms of these participants. Observation data were
transcribed and coded by themes and served to form follow-up questions.
Data Derived from Follow-Up Interviews
The researcher conducted follow-up interview questions with the four ACHIEVE
teachers that participated in both the interview and observations. The ILIT reports influenced the
document analysis that tracks literacy proficiency. ILIT is a Literacy Intervention program that
the school had invested Title One funds into as a resource to track LTEL student literacy
progress. Follow-up questions focused on the participant’s knowledge, classroom practices, and
perceptions regarding LTEL students. Follow-up questions were also intended for participants to
comment on the classroom practices observed. The focus of the follow-up interview questions
was to determine how data informed the decisions teachers made to select, plan, teach, and
monitor LTEL students’ literacy development. Follow-up interviews were very casual, and either
conducted through email or in in-person classroom visits depending on the availability of the
individual and lasted no more than 15 minutes. The researcher used the following interview
protocol to guide the conversations:
1. How do you create the conditions where LTEL students find value in their academics?
2. How are assignments selected to allow LTELs to develop literacy skills in ACHIEVE
classes?
3. How successful are LTEL students outside of their ACHIEVE classes?
4. How is the data from ILIT used to drive your instruction in your ACHIEVE class?
5. Does the literacy progress of ILIT reflect an LTEL student’s actual progress in their
content classes?
6. Is the ILIT data shared with LTEL student’s core content English teachers?
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 80
The general literature review explored the unique characteristics that define an LTEL
student; the systematic procedures and policies that promote discrimination against LTEL
students; and the different knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may affect
a teacher's competency to work with a demanding at-risk middle school student population. The
conceptual framework (see Figure 2) describes how these assumed influences were used to guide
the focus of this study. The assumed knowledge influencers include educators’ capabilities to use
data to drive instruction and create interventions to enhance literacy for LTEL students.
Knowledge influencers included educators’ implementation of effective teaching strategies for
LTEL students and knowledge about the characteristics that define LTEL students’ backgrounds.
The assumed motivational influences that were measured were self-efficacy—meaning how
confident teachers were in their skills to work with LTEL students and goal-oriented motivation.
The assumed organizational barrier examines what type of support systems administration was
providing to teachers to work with LTEL students and how Title One funds were being used to
support teachers to implement interventions to enhance literacy for LTEL students. The results
section discusses the KMO gaps among the stakeholders within the organization using the Clark
and Estes (2008) gap analysis model.
Knowledge Results
Rueda (2011) not only emphasized the importance of knowledge to implement
organizational change but also to understand what knowledge gaps educators may have so that
administration could address those gaps by empowering individuals through education in order
to enhance their competency to implement cultural change within an organization. The focus of
assumed knowledge influencers for this study supports the idea that teachers’ knowledge has a
substantial impact on LTELs’ academic success (Evans, Hentschke, Labrucherie, & Rueda,
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 81
2013). Rueda (2011) noted that the ability to categorize (factual knowledge), classify principles
(procedural knowledge), and the ability to create models or necessary procedures based on
theories (conceptual knowledge) is essential for educators when working with a demanding,
high-risk student population (Evans et.al 2013). The basic understanding and context of LTEL
backgrounds and information is the idea of factual knowledge and knowing which methods and
skills were needed to accomplish a specific goal is procedural knowledge (Rueda, 2011).
McKinney (2008) stated that how confident a teacher is in their knowledge skills either hinders
or enhances a teacher’s ability to work with LTEL middle school students.
Data analysis indicated that educators at HOWL MS had the ability, through their factual
and procedural knowledge, to work with LTEL at-risk middle school students. However, they
lacked the conceptual knowledge to use data to create effective literacy interventions and track
LTEL student academic achievement through benchmarking systems. Evans et al. (2013) stated
that the use of data to track student achievement is significant, but data use is crucial in creating
interventions to enhance LTEL student literacy. The lack of conceptual knowledge is a priority
for administration and enhances an educator’s professional competency to work with a
demanding, at-risk student population.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 82
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences
Influence Type Assumed Influence Validated as a
Gap?

Priority

Conceptual Knowledge Teachers need to know how to
use data to establish and monitor
the progress of high risk LTEL
students enrolled in intervention
programs.
V Yes
Procedural Knowledge Teachers need to know what
instructional strategies improve
the academic and social growth of
at-risk middle school students
No No
Factual Knowledge Teachers need to have cultural
knowledge of the Latino
community in order to provide
proper academic and social
support to LTEL Latino students
No No

Knowledge Findings
Teachers lack the conceptual knowledge to use data-driven instruction and create
proper interventions to enhance literacy as a PLC. The underlying assumption within the
organization was that educators knew how to use the data provided to them by the administration
to drive instruction and create proper interventions to help LTEL students achieve literacy skills.
However, the results and findings of this qualitative study indicated that a majority of the
teachers who participated in the study did not know how to use data provided by the
administration to enhance their teaching practices and create effective literacy interventions for
LTEL students. The data found that one-on-one interviews helped to answer the research
question, “What types of knowledge gaps are affecting teacher’s abilities to implement effective
teaching strategies and develop academic literacy interventions to enhance the academic progress
of Long-Term English learners?”
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 83
Teachers responded with confidence when asked about using the data provided to them
by the administration and their use of the data. For example, Teacher A responded similar to
Teacher G that the data provided by administration was used as background student information.
Teacher B stated, “The data serves as a way to measure their prior knowledge and group
placement as a teaching strategy when collaborating with peers is necessary.” A majority of
teachers did feel less confident in their capabilities to pull data on their own or generate data.
Over 50% of participants expressed their lack of knowledge to use data on their own and their
reliance on administration to provide student data and review the use of data in their classrooms.
Teachers expressed that instruction was not driven around data and neither were interventions in
their classrooms. Teacher relied on the administration to create data-driven interventions to
enhance literacy for LTEL students and only selected individuals took part in the creation of
those interventions.
Growth of knowledge through professional support. Marsh (2015) stated that data-
driven decision making increased accountability in an educational organization when data were
collected through proper benchmarking systems and motivated providers and directors to make
instructional decision making to improve student academics. Throughout the conversation with
each participant, there was a lack of understanding about how to create benchmarking systems as
a PLC and how to use data from the assessments to track student achievement, and a
misunderstanding as what it means to work as a PLC to create and breakdown the data.
However, Teacher B, who had worked at a PLC school for 20 years before teaching at HOWL
MS declared, “We are far from being a Professional Learning Community on this campus, and
we do not follow the steps to create a benchmarking system because we do PLC the right way.”
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 84

Figure 4. Conceptual knowledge use of data.
The image above displays the responses of educators at HMS and how they used their conceptual
knowledge to implement data in their classrooms.

Every participant in the one-on-one interviews thought that administration needed to
provide data training and believed that such training would build their competency to work with
a demanding at-risk student population. The recommendation is to provide educators at HOWL
MS with meaningfulness information during professional development to connect new
information to ideas already known. McKenzie, Kathryn, and Scheurich (2004) cited several
variables that impact a teacher's competency to work with a demanding at-risk student
population can be addressed through proper teacher training. Rueda (2010) suggested that the
organizations are responsible for providing training through professional development to ensure
that employees feel capable of carrying out their daily task with the intentions of working toward
a common goal set by the organization. Mayer (2011) suggested that a transfer of knowledge
empowers teachers to feel more confident in their skill sets and abilities to work with students.
The purpose of PD is to expand knowledge by processing information, sharing experiences and
teaching strategies to learn how to improve instruction classrooms (Mayer, 2011). The evidence
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 85
affirmed that providing teachers with data training can enhance teacher competency to use data
to drive instruction and create interventions as a PLC to improve literacy for LTEL middle
school students.
Teachers need to know what instructional strategies improve the academic and
social growth of at-risk middle school students. Upon analysis of the interviews, significant
statements and formulated meanings came from over 50% of the participant’s responses in
which the researcher can firmly state that educators at HOWL MS did have the procedural
knowledge of instructional strategies to work with at-risk LTEL students. The assumed
knowledge influencer was proven to be a strength among educators. Using the Clark and Estes
(2008) Gap Analysis Model, educators have the necessary knowledge to implement effective
teaching strategies in their classrooms to improve the academic and social growth of at-risk
LTEL students. The following research question, “What types of knowledge gaps are affecting
teachers’ abilities to implement effective teaching strategies and develop academic literacy
interventions to enhance the academic progress of Long-Term English learners?” was
addressed through analysis of data to answer this research question.
The general literature review research identifies that teachers need to know what
instructional practices work to enhance the academic and social growth of LTEL students.
According to Olsen (2010), addressing the social needs of LTEL students can impact their
motivation to perform in a classroom. Therefore, it is vital for educators to know how to
address both the academic and social needs of LTEL students (Olsen, 2010). Cummins and
Miramontes (2006) stated through their research that educators must use their knowledge and
skills to help students make connections with prior learning; employ a variety of instructional
strategies and differentiated teaching strategies so that content is comprehensible; and monitor
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 86
their language to ensure students have access to the curriculum. McKinney (2008) would
support Cummins and Miramontes (2006) statement by adding that when teachers can use their
knowledge and skills to carry out such tasks in their classroom their competency to work with
all types of student is obvious. Also, such a demonstration displays the educator’s ability to
address the essential duties of working with LTEL students as stated by Cummins and
Miramontes (2006). Figure 5, below, displays the responses from over 50% of the participants
about the teaching strategies used in their classrooms that seemed to be most effective with
LTEL students. The figure breaks down the most popular teaching strategy among the
participants in the middle; and the outside figures displays how teacher’s use the strategies in
their classrooms to help improve LTEL student achievement.
Figure 5. Response from educators broken into 4 major themes.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 87
Participants in the study went into detail about the importance they individually and as
an organization placed on the importance of implementing robust teaching strategies to
improve LTEL students reading and writing skills. de Jong and Harper (2004) made a strong
correlation, as did Olsen (2014), about the crucial role the reading and writing processes plays
in LTEL student academic achievement. de Jong and Harper (2004) stated that teachers need to
scaffold the writing process and have specific instruction in the writing structure, such as a
sentence, and paragraph formation. Teacher G (an Instructional Coach) and Teacher K (the EL
Coordinator) specifically spoke in their interviews about how they both provide teachers with
techniques to improve their scaffolding strategies within their classrooms. Both teachers shared
how their leadership roles on campus included having extra time to visit classrooms and
provide literacy coaching to teachers, specifically for teachers on the designated EL team for
both grade levels. Collaboration between a lead teacher such as an EL Coordinator or an
Instructional coach is an opportunity for educators to interact in a favorable exchange of
knowledge (Rueda, 2011). An exchange of knowledge in which teachers can reflect together
and create solutions to enhance teaching strategies in the classroom is beneficial not only for
LTEL students but also for the educators involved (Rueda, 2011). Reflection practice on the
outcome of a lesson helps teachers understand what they need to know, analyze their academic
strengths and weaknesses and build the literacy skills they need to help LTEL students bridge
the academic gaps they face in the classroom.
Qualitative data collected through observations validated the claim that teachers knew
how to implement effective teaching strategies to enhance the academic outcome of LTEL
students in their classrooms. During the ACHIEVE classroom observations, it was evident that
teachers were using differentiated teaching strategies, an emphasis on vocabulary, read aloud,
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 88
and class discussions to drive their instruction. According to de Jong (2005), all of these methods
are effective teaching practices to use in the classroom when working with English Language
Learners. In Table 8, below, an X indicates that the educator used a research-based teaching
strategy to engage LTEL students in their class at one point in their lesson during a 45-minute
class period. It is also important to note that Teacher A was observed twice during the
observation study once during their seventh-grade ACHIEVE class and eighth-grade ACHIEVE
class.
Table 8
Observed Teaching Strategies in Achieve Classrooms
Teacher Vocabulary Sentence
Starters
Pair
Share
Think
Time
Collaboration
Time
Read
Aloud
Close
Reads
Class
Discussion
Self-
Tracking
Visual
Aids
1: 7th
grade

x x x

x x

1: 8th
grade
X X X X X X X X
2 x x x x x x x x x x
3 x

x x x x x x

4 x

x x x

x x

Observable knowledge and academic support. The observed lessons allowed the
researcher to witness effective teaching strategies in the ACHIEVE classrooms and, at the same
time, observe the manner in which instruction was provided to the students. During
observations, three out of the five classes were teaching content and the other two classes were
reviewing content. In the classrooms where teachers were reviewing content, the allocated time
served more as a “catch up” day, as Teacher 1 and 4 explained to their seventh-grade LTEL
students. In the eighth-grade classrooms and in Teacher 3’s seventh-grade classrooms, a lesson
was being taught during the observation. All three teachers were working with students to
identify key vocabulary for not only content use but also to develop their vocabulary, providing
multiple opportunities for students to use and internalize academic vocabulary and working on
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 89
building upon language structures. Direct instruction and scaffolding of content material was
observed and there was a repeated practice of checking for understanding through questions
delivered by the teacher during instruction. The check for understanding questions were used as
a strategy by all three teachers to not only strengthen students’ input in the discussion but also
further explain for those students who did not understand the question. At one point in Teacher
2’s classroom, a student answered a class discussion question about the story that was being
read and another student yelled out right after the response “I get it, so she wasn’t hiding from
him she was lost!”
Knowledge and social support for LTEL students. Not only was scaffolding and
class discussion being used, but often participants provided students with visuals to help them
understand concepts and allowed students to illustrate their responses by drawing out
vocabulary words on a vocabulary matrix. Lacking in the classroom observations were
formative checks of understanding for the overall lesson for the day. Most teachers ended the
period with reminders of homework, tutoring opportunities, and positive affirmations on
behavior and progress of the class. However, as deJong and Harper (2004) stated, teachers
should gauge the academic understanding of their students to determine if students reached the
literacy goal set in place for the particular lesson.
As mentioned in the literature review, Olsen (2010) stated that academics is not the
only type of support an LTEL student needs to be successful in the classroom; they also need
social support for motivation. Teachers must know not only their LTEL students learning
deficiencies but also the personal conflict they may be experiencing that is hindering their
academic success (Gándara et al., 2005). With a personal relationship established and an
understanding of the student’s schooling experiences, educators strengthen their own ability to
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 90
develop and plan lessons that are not only effective but also meaningful for LTEL students
(Gándara et al., 2005). Educators who participated in the study not only displayed their
knowledge to provide academic support to their LTEL students but were confident they could
provide social support for the at-risk student population.
All 13 participants in the study during the interview process agreed that the
administration provided support to all educators on campus by providing Capturing Kids
Hearts training. Capturing Kids Hearts allowed teachers, as expressed by Teacher E, to “help
teachers build a bridge” and equipped educators with the necessary tools and resources to help
build the social relationship needed in the classroom. Capturing Kids Hearts (CKH) is a
systemic set of procedures to help educators transform their classrooms and show leadership,
mentorship, accountability, and commitment to improving and enhancing their relationships
with all their students. The district, administration, and campus leadership modeled the desired
behavior throughout the organization and all educators on campus were held accountable for
carrying out the professional behaviors and processes of CKH.
The main goal of CKH and the purpose was to help all educators acquire specific
socioemotional learning techniques and classroom facilitation tools with the intention of
peaking student interest in learning, establishing collaborative agreements of behavior in every
classroom to create a safe learning environment, creating high performing groups that are
modified by learning levels, increasing pro-social skills to help create a strong school culture,
creating more time-on-task, and increasing student performance. (Capturing Kids' Hearts 1,
Capturing Kids' Hearts 2, Coaching Greatness). According to the process of CKH, every
faculty member had to be committed to utilizing the processes and techniques until
breakthrough occurs; and, at HOWL MS, educators were fully committed to the process,
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 91
specifically because, as mentioned by Teacher D, “We want all students to want to be here and
feel safe on our campus.” Olsen (2010) and Becerra (2001) would agree that a favorable school
climate enhances a LTEL student's social skills, resulting in the sense of security for the
student to learn.
Observable transfer of knowledge. The qualitative data in this study showed that
throughout the lessons by all participants in their ACHIEVE classrooms, educators were
consistently making simple and discrete attempts to ensure that classroom procedures and
expectations were maintained and also to ensure that students felt a positive atmosphere within
the classroom setting. This was a priority expressed during the one-on-one interviews. The
ACHIEVE teachers started each observable class by greeting students at the door. Teacher A
referred to the social contract by reminding students the expected behavior in their classroom.
Teacher D demonstrated the same behavior when reminding students of the expectation of
participation in his classroom. Both teachers received full participation after referring back to
the social contract—a CKH classroom procedure.
Other observable teaching strategies implemented with the purpose of providing social
support for LTEL students in the ACHIEVE classrooms included involving the student in
making choices about their education. Teachers 1 and 4 gave students an opportunity to catch
up on any work that was missing in any other class. Both teachers gave students the
opportunity to advocate for themselves and prioritize their work load, and spoke to them about
which grade and class was to be worked on. Students received portfolios with assignments that
needed to be worked on or taken over. The ACHIEVE teachers work alongside members of
their teams to gather this work for students on a weekly basis in order to increase the grades by
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 92
making up missing assignments or re-taking tests. The mage below is a student’s portfolio in
Teacher 1’s ACHIEVE class

Figure 6. Picture of student portfolio.
Participants also focused on redirecting students in a positive manner with a focus on
learning and using motivational language such as “You can do it,” and “Let’s try together, we
can get your grade up.” Participants also sometimes used appropriate tone and age-appropriate
language, and Teacher 1 even used Google translate to speak to a student who only spoke
Armenian. Intentional groupings during classroom observations were noted and, as follow-up
question to Teacher 3, the teachers said her intentions for this was to promote “positive
interactions.” Students often asked to collaborate with other students in the small classroom
setting and asked if they had questions. Students felt very comfortable asking the teacher and
each other for help. The positive classroom settings was strongly noted in the observation
process and, according to the one-on-one interviews, the CKH training expected teachers to
foster such environments and contribute to these welcoming classroom settings. The following
research question, “What types of support do administration need to provide teachers to work
with LTEL students and what factors are identified by teachers as being essential regarding
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 93
having adequate support?” was answered and validated through observation and interviews.
Over 50% of participants believed that CKH was a powerful resource and classroom tool that
helped formulate strong personal relationships between themselves and LTEL students
Teachers needed to know the cultural backgrounds and aspects of Latino LTEL
students. According to data posted by the California Department of Education in the
2016/2017 school year, a vast majority (65%) of the teachers across the state were of Caucasian
descent and females made up the bulk of this number. Table 9, below, shows data posted by
CDE that breaks down the ethnic distribution of public school teachers throughout the state.
Table 9
Ethnic Distribution of Public School Teachers: 2016–2017, State of California

Ethnicity Number of Male
Teachers
Number of Female
Teachers
Total
American Indian or Alaska
Native
464 1,047 1,511
Asian 4,023 13,227 17,250
Pacific Islander 281 687 968
Filipino 1,171 3,380 4,551
Hispanic or Latino 16,834 44,921 61,755
African American 3,705 8,457 12,162
White (not Hispanic) 51,131 142,065 193,196
Two or More Races Not
Hispanic
722 1,907 2,629
No Response 3,086 7,995 11,081
Total* 81,417 223,686 305,103
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 94
HOWL MS teacher population closely related to the ethnic demographics of the State
of California. Figure 7, below, shows the ethnic distribution of the organization starting from
the year 2013 to 2017.
Figure 7. Ethnic distribution of public school teachers: 2016–2017, State of California.
Research from White, Zion, and Kozleski (2005) stated that often it is a natural
tendency for educators to allow their personal experience, histories, and belief in culture to
shape their classroom environment. White et al. warned that teachers may not always be aware
that the perception they have of another culture may not be correct because they have created
this belief through their assumptions, beliefs, and experiences with other social and cultural
groups. Often, this lack of awareness that creates a disconnect with students and families of the
Latino culture.
Krathwohl (2002) discussed that factual knowledge is the foundation and includes data
elements such as terms and details. Factual knowledge can also be applied to knowing the basic
understanding of a culture, details that can be recalled about the Latino culture, which can help
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 95
an educator better understand the academic and social needs of an LTEL Latino student.
Qualitative data show that over 50% of participants had a basic understanding of the Latino
culture. Teachers understood the cultural obligations some students might have to take on,
insight into cultural traditions that impact student learning, and parent expectations in the Latino
culture. Teacher D mentioned that she was aware that the Latino culture is very communal, so
she made sure to use collaboration instruction practices with her LTEL students. Counselor B
shared that he was aware that Latino parents placed emphasis on teachers to handle the student's
education, and therefore he had to work on making sure parents took ownership of their students’
education. Only one teacher during the observation process not only displayed an understanding
of cultural awareness but also embraced elements of the Latino culture. The teacher had recently
celebrated Dia de Los Muertos with her students and scaffolded an entire lesson with a writing
prompt as her summative assessment about the cultural importance of this day for her students.
The decorations still hung in the classroom during the observation and so did the enthusiasm of
the students, as often the researcher would see students playing with the paper mache banners
and looking at their decorated skulls.

Figure 8. ACHIEVE classroom.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 96
While there was a basic understanding of the Latino culture, all participants advocated for
more multicultural education training. Teacher I believed that providing cultural training in the
Latino culture would be beneficial for all staff members. Participants seemed to know
individually about the Latino culture but sought to have a collaboration training with all
educators about the topic.
Summary of Knowledge Influences
Of the three assumed knowledge influences being analyzed through the Clark and Estes
gap analysis model for this study, only one was validated: Teachers lack the conceptual
knowledge to use data to drive instruction and create proper interventions to enhance literacy
as a PLC. Therefore, there is a priority for the organization to address this gap in knowledge to
enhance teacher competency to work with at-risk LTEL students.
Motivation Results
Mayer (2011) suggested that a stakeholder may have the knowledge to carry out their
assigned task but may choose not to do so due to a lack of motivation to actively use and apply
their knowledge. The KMO model suggests that motivation is a significant influencer for
stakeholders and can affect their expected work performance. This study had a focus on
motivation, specifically self-efficacy and goal-oriented influencers. Qualitative data results
through one-on-one interviews provided in-depth information about stakeholders’ own
personal perception as well as their perception of their peers. Motivation was a critical
influencer on educators and could impact their self-efficacy which can impact their competency
in working with a demanding at-risk student population such as LTELs (McKinney, 2008;
Rueda, 2014). Educators who lack the motivation to work with LTEL students are most likely
to fail at providing LTEL students with the essential academic skills that they need to succeed
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 97
in the classroom (Olsen, 2014). Clark and Estes (2008) elaborated that individuals who are
more positive and have confidence in their knowledge and abilities are significantly more
capable and competent to carry out and complete arduous tasks. For the study, there was a
significant focus on the assumed motivational influencers that may affect a teacher's
competency to work with LTEL students. These influencers can impact an educator’s belief in
their skill capabilities to work with an at-risk student population, question the value of working
with LTEL students, and impact their sense of urgency to help LTEL students reclassify in
middle school from the English Language Program. To determine if there was a gap in the
motivation influencers, relevant literature was consulted after analyzing the data.
Table 10
Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influence

Validated as
a Gap

Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Self-efficacy: Teachers need to feel confident in their knowledge and skills
to work with at-risk LTEL middle school students
No N
Goal-Oriented Theory: Teachers need to believe they can influence at-risk
LTEL middle school success by creating effective interventions to increase
LTEL Literacy skills.

No N

Motivation Findings

Teachers need to feel confident that they have the knowledge and skills to work
with at-risk students. According to Banks and Banks (2012), the main factor that contributed
to the academic failure of LTEL students was a lack of well-trained teachers that felt
incompetent in their abilities to provide the necessary support for LTEL students. Educators
only feel competent to work with LTEL students when they felt prepared and had the
knowledge to meet the needs of LTEL students. Pajares and Schunk (2001) declared that
confidence in one's skill set leads to a stable formation of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a self-
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 98
constructed phenomenon one creates for oneself; therefore, it is possible for educators to
miscalculate or misperceive their actual skills. This misperception can have a compound effect
on an educator’s motivation and also how they view other educators’ abilities compared to their
own (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Over 50% of educators who participated in the study showed
confidence in their self-efficacy to provide adequate academic and social support to improve
LTEL student achievement. Participants believed that their knowledge and skills set would
help increase reclassification numbers for LTEL students.
Leadership roles on campus and educational backgrounds were two main factors that
influenced the participants’ self-efficacy. However, they doubted their peers’ ability to carry
out the same tasks. These responses uncovered that school leaders doubt a collective self-
efficacy for the organization. According to Bandura (1986), collective efficacy refers to a
group's shared belief in every member’s conjoint capabilities to attain an organization’s
mission, vision, and goal. It involves the belief or perception that effective collective action can
address any issue that may affect an organization and that all members of the organization will
accomplish the desired task together as a unit (Bandura, 1986). Evaluations on peers’
performance can contribute to professional pressure and hinder others’ self-efficacy and
perception of their skill causing doubt that can impact the organization as a whole (Parajes,
2006).
The following table answers the interview question “What barriers do you believe
LTEL students face that hinder academic achievement and social stability in school and what
perpetuates these barriers? Describe how confident you feel addressing these barriers and
how confident are you in your team to address these barriers?” The research question
measures not only the participant’s self-efficacy but also the self-efficacy of their peers.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 99
Table 11
Participant’s Perception of Self-Efficiency and Perception of Colleagues’ Ability to Work With
at-Risk LTEL Students
Educator Quotation
Counselor B
Strong self-efficacy in ability to reach
students and work with parents
“This is not a put-down, but I do not
think teachers know how to support
LTEL students.”
Teacher F
Strong self-efficacy in providing support
to teachers to work with LTELs
“I do not get the overall sense that
teachers are motivated to work with
LTEL students.”
Teacher K
Strong self-efficacy in providing support
to teachers, data used to drive instruction,
goal setting, and teaching strategies
“Some are better than others providing
support to LTEL students.”
Teacher I
Strong self-efficacy in literacy skills
“No teacher’s on this campus are not
motivated to work with LTEL students
because there is a lack of empathy.”
Teacher G
Strong self-efficacy in building positive
relationships with students, data use, and
teaching strategies
“I think we are getting there and maybe
in the future, we can address these issues
as a team.”

Validating the data. During the interview, participants were asked specific questions
that would measure their self-efficacy that answers the following research question: “How do
middle school teachers perceive at-risk middle school LTEL students, and how does this
perception impact their motivation to work with LTEL students?” While the responses were
relatively positive, the observable data questioned the validity of some of the participants’
responses. During an observation of a participant who took part in both the interview and
observation, his/her response to the interview question and his/her behavior did not seem to
match. During this observation, a student became very upset about his grades. The teacher
informed him that he was failing multiple classes, saying, “There’s probably not much you can
do at this point to get your grade up in order to pass the quarter.” This news discouraged the
young boy, and he became visibly upset and began to shut down emotionally. He refused to
continue to work during the “catch up” class time and instead began to act out in class. The
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 100
young man was observed wandering the classroom, distracting others, and at one point crying
on the floor. The teacher had little to no interaction with the young man. The teacher attempted
to redirect him by saying “Okay, let’s get back to work.” The teacher was observed focusing on
the students who were on task and asking for his assistance. The teacher had positive
interactions with those students and directed the students to different avenues of resources and
aid to ensure the “behaved” students finish their work. The student who emotionally shut down
finally got back to work after a peer helped redirect him and told him “Hurry up man, we have
to get this done.”
The young man’s reaction and behavior completely demotivated the teacher from
interacting with the child. A follow-up interview took place with this teacher, seeking
clarification on the situation with the intentions of asking if the teacher reacted in such a way
due to a lack of knowledge or motivation to work with the student. The questions were posed
very casually so as not to antagonize the participant. The response from the teacher was “This
happens a lot with him, I have learned to just let it go, I have other students I need to help and
that want my help.” The teacher’s was motivated to work with those whom he could help;
though his initial response to in the one-on-one interview was that he was highly motivated to
work with all LTEL students.
Teachers need to feel they are capable of developing proper interventions to
increase reclassification rates for middle school LTEL students. Clark and Estes’s (2008)
research indicated that goal setting is a critical influencer on one's motivation to perform one’s
duties within an organization. To enhance performance within an organization, it is essential to
establish specific and attainable goals that promote stakeholder's self-efficacy in possessing and
accomplish set global goals. HOWL MS had a SMART Goal that stated that the organization
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 101
would increase reclassification rates for EL students by 3%. To do so, educators needed to work
toward this global goal and provide proper interventions to support literacy to promote academic
achievement for LTEL students. The table below indicates the sense of urgency educators had in
working toward the goal to improve the reclassification rates of LTEL students. Participants’
responses were analyzed and categorized into four different themes. The responses given by the
participants generated these themes.

Figure 9. Sense of urgency expressed by participants through one-on-one interviews.
To determine if educators felt motivated to accomplish the set global goal to increase
reclassification rates for LTEL’s, the following question was asked during the one on one
interview: “How do you view your role when it comes to LTEL student achievement? What type
of expertise and support do you need to carry out the role you describe correctly?” Response to
this question by over 50% of the participants was exceptionally positive. Many educators, such
as Teacher J, “felt that I must ensure my LTEL students reclassify.” There were strong factors
that influenced teachers’ feelings to meet the global goal, and teachers shared a strong sense of
urgency to help students reclassify at the middle school level. The table below breaks down three
No Urgency
1
Little to No Sense of
Urgency
1
Some Sense of
Urgency
2
Strong Sense of
Urgency
9
Sense of Urgency to Increase Reclassifciaton Rates for
LTELs
No Urgency Little to No Sense of Urgency Some Sense of Urgency Strong Sense of Urgency
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 102
major themes found through the data analysis and coding process, which were teachers have a
professional obligation, personal obligation, and cultural motivators to work toward the goal set
by the administration. The personal obligation is defined as a having shared a similar educational
background as LTEL students, and cultural motivators mean teachers of Latino descent feel a
social bond to help LTEL students. While professional motivation is a positive influencer
because the individual has accountability for their work performance if professional goals are not
meet, it could demotivate an individual, whereas research indicates that educators need to have a
personal motivator to fuel their enthusiasm.

Figure 10. Teacher’s motivation influences to work with at-risk LTEL students toward
reclassification
Summary of Motivation Influences Results
Both of the assumed motivation influences for this study were not validated as a gap.
There were strong responses; over 50% of participants had a strong belief in their educator's
self-efficacy, but there was evidence that questioned the self-efficacy and abilities of their
Cultural Connection
2
Personal
Connection, 4
Professional
obligation, 6
Cultural Connection Personal Connection Perfessional Obligation
Motivation factors to work toward reclassificaton
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 103
peers. This negative perception can only affect the organization’s ability to reach the EL
SMART Goal. The data concluded with an influencer that motivates educators through the
goal-setting process. Again, they showed confident and robust self-reflections on their abilities.
The overall purpose of using the gap analysis was to indicate if there were motivational gaps
within the organization, specifically, the educators of HOWL MS. While they had the self-
efficacy, a strong sense of urgency and the right type of motivation to fuel them during the
goal-setting process can and does have an impact on the organization's culture.
Organizational Results
Stakeholders within an organization may have the necessary knowledge to perform
their tasks with the intentions of accomplishing a global and may also be highly motivated to
work toward that goal despite any difficulties. However, if any organizational barriers exist, no
matter how much knowledge and motivation stakeholders have, they will not be able to meet
their performance goals in order to accomplish the set global goal of the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). This study focused on using the gap analysis model to determine if
HOWL MS had any organizational barriers that were hindering teachers’ competency to work
with at-risk LTEL students. Through data gathered through the qualitative study, gaps were
revealed within the organization's culture and organization’s models that were validated and
were of high priority to address by the administration of the organization. The data gathered
answered the following research question: “What types of support do administration need to
provide teachers to work with LTEL students and what factors are identified by teachers as
being essential regarding having adequate support?”

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 104
Table 12
Organization Influence
Assumed Organization Influence

Validated as
a Gap

Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Culture impacts stakeholder’s motivation and ability to work toward
a global goal
V Y
Stakeholders need leadership to value the culture of the organization
to adopt the policies, practices, and procedures of the organization as
their beliefs.
V Y

Leadership and the Culture of the Organization
There was an overall consensus: over 50% of the participants believed that a lack of
leadership from the administration was a barrier within the organization and affecting their
competency to work with LTEL students. Schein (2010) stated that leadership style—or lack
thereof—does affect the culture of an organization. The administration of HOWL MS provided
support regarding resources and professional development to educators, however teachers had
the liberty to make decisions about pacing, curriculum, assessments, and grading requirements
on their own. Participants, such as Teacher E, Teacher F, and Counselor A, expressed that the
administration was “overwhelmed with other priorities” and that administration had “no time to
focus on the details of teacher’s daily tasks.” Schein (2010) warned that when stakeholders are
dependent on their own decisions and create their strategy making-decision process, they feel
their own management process is more conducive than the actual administration of the
organization.
Participants also felt that LTEL student achievement was not a priority for the
administration and that there was no sense of urgency to work toward the global goal to
increase reclassification rates of LTEL students. Multiple teachers discussed in the interview
process that LTELs’ achievement was solemnly discussed during professional development or
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 105
staff meetings. Teacher A claimed it is “important to some teachers but it’s not a school-wide
focus." Educators relied exclusively on the EL Coordinator on site to receive information about
LTEL student achievement. Every participant in the study referred to the EL Coordinator as
their point person when it came to LTEL achievement and support. The table below
demonstrates what type of supports teachers received from the EL Coordinator and
administration. The participants in the study described the types of resources and support
systems received by both administration and the EL Coordinator. The findings reveal that the
EL Coordinator was held more accountable to inform the staff about LTEL student
achievement and information than the administration.

Figure 11. Roles of EL coordinator vs administration.
EL Coordinator
Provide data to staff members
Effective Teaching strategies
ELCAP Scores shared to the staff
LTEL student progress toward
reclassifcation
ELAC Parent Meeting Information
Classroom Observation Visits to support
LTELs
Modification Techniques for LTELs
LTEL reclassficiation rates
CA Dashboard LTEL data
HOWL MS Adminstration
Provide data to staff members
Effective Teaching startegies
CA Dashboard LTEL Data
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 106
Lack of leadership is affecting the culture of the organization. A dearth of leadership
was felt by staff members due to the lack of communication from administration, specifically on
the topic of SMART goals. All 13 participants did not know the SMART Goal put in place for
LTEL student achievement. Every participant claimed that they knew of an EL SMART goal,
but were not sure of the specific details such as the reclassification rate that the school was
expected to reach. Not only did teachers not know the EL SMART goal but they also expressed
they were not sure what their role was specifically in working and accomplishing the set global
goal. The lack of communication about the importance to accomplish this goal was seldom
spoken about and in a sense not clearly explained by the administration to staff members.
Participants did make recommendations during the interview process of how the administration
could effectively communicate the SMART Goal to staff members. By doing so, educators
believed it would promote value among stakeholders in working toward the global goal and unite
the staff to work together toward a common goal.
Table 13
Staff Recommendations to Improve Communication about LTEL SMART Goal
Email staff member’s reminders to discuss
the SMART Goal as a team and department.

A constant reminder at every PD and staff
meeting.
Provide data as a department to the
administration to show their progress
towards SMART Goal.
Post the SMART Goals for the organization
in every classroom and critical locations in
the school.

Tackling the issue from a different angle. While participants acknowledged the lack
of leadership in some realms, they openly spoke about how the administration was leading in
other important issues that may not be directly tied to LTEL student achievement and
reclassification but could also possibly improve LTEL student achievement. The discussion of
administration providing professional development and training to teachers to handle the large
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 107
impoverished student population of HOWL MS was the main priority for the administration.
All 13 teachers spoke about the book Disrupting Poverty as a resource administration provided
to staff members and was reviewed in every staff meeting and professional development.
Several participants made the correlation to the book's content and how it could be applied to
help LTEL students improve their academic and social behavior in the classroom. Multiple
participants also shared how this type of training builds their confidence to work with poverty-
stricken students who are categorized as an at-risk student population. Banks and Banks (2012)
placed a strong emphasis on educators needing to know how to work with students from a
lower economic background in order to meet the students’ learning needs and respond to
students’ diverse needs. This concept ties closely with Olsen’s 2010 research, which indicated
that educators need to know how to work with LTEL student’s diverse academic needs as well.
Lack of accountability systems put in place affects the cultural model of the
organization. Schneider (1996) explained that stakeholders need to value the culture of the
organization to adopt the policies, practices, and procedures of the organization as their beliefs.
At HOWL MS, educators seemed to value school's culture, but there was a lack of
accountability systems in which policies, practices, and procedures were a priority to educators.
According to Menken et al. (2012), educators are the main contributing factor to the quality of
classroom instruction; with no clear expectations or goals being defined to educators there is a
lack of accountability across the staff to meet those requirements and accomplish the set global
goals or SMART Goals. Rueda (2010) clarified that effective SMART Goals are concrete,
challenging, and relevant, and support the mission and vision of the organization achievement.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that when goals are understood stakeholders feel a sense of
urgency to perform in a manner that will accomplish this goal. Research by Dufour (2007)
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 108
stated that PLCs are the most effective when goals are set up with expectations clearly stated
by the administration. Teachers C, G, I, J, and K all explained in their interviews that the focus
for this year was to learn about the PLC process and implement collaboration next year.
Therefore, while this was a barrier within the organization, it was also in the process of being
addressed and therefore not a priority to address.
Summary of Organizational Barriers Results
Both of the assumed organization influences for this study were validated. A lack of
leadership affected the cultural setting of the organization, resulting in educators feeling that
there was no sense of urgency to reclassify LTEL students; LTEL student achievement did not
appear as a priority to the administration but it was to the EL Coordinator. A lack of
accountability systems affected the culture model for the organization, however the school was
transitioning and adopting the practice of a Professional Learning Community. Organizational
barriers were affecting teacher competency to work with LTEL students and were of the
highest priority to address.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Barriers
According to Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, educators of HOWL MS had some
gaps in their knowledge that could be hindering their competency to work with at-risk LTEL
students. These gaps included a lack of conceptual knowledge, a lack of understanding about
how to access data on their own and use it to drive instruction, and a lack of effective
interventions for LTEL students. Educators lacked in-depth knowledge of the Latino culture to
better build better connections in their classrooms but had the basic knowledge about the
Latino community. Participants made a request to have multicultural training during PD
Teachers had strong procedural and factual knowledge, which meant that they knew effective
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 109
teaching strategies that could improve the academic achievement of LTEL students in their
classrooms and could use background knowledge about the Latino culture to identify strengths
and weakness for Latino LTEL students in the classroom. A gap in motivation lay not in an
educator's own belief that he or she could work with LTEL students and contribute to LTEL
student achievement. The gap lay with collaborative self-efficacy in which educators doubted
their peers’ ability to carry out the same performance task. Overall, there was no gap found in
teacher motivation influencers. Teachers were motivated to work with LTEL students and had
their drive aligned with the goal-setting theory. The actual real concern and gap lay within the
organization's culture setting and model and proved to be a barrier for stakeholders. Educators
at HOWL MS had the knowledge and motivation to work with LTEL students, however the
organization lacked clear and defined SMART Goals that were communicated to the staff,
lacked of urgency to reclassify LTEL students felt by staff members, and had no real
accountability systems in place to hold all stakeholders accountable for LTEL student
achievement. These organizational barriers can hinder a teacher’s competency to work with
LTEL students.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 110
CHAPTER FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Long Term English Language students have unique academic needs that educators must
address in order to close the literacy gap that hinders their academic achievement across all
content areas (Olsen, 2010). Educators are not solely responsible for building and supporting the
academic and social skills among the LTEL student population, but it is a partnership among all
stakeholders of the organization (Olsen, 2010). In order for all stakeholders to find value in
uniting toward a common goal to increase the academic achievement of LTEL students, the
organization itself must reflect on its systems of practice. This study explored the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers on performance using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model to determine if a gap lay among educators and how it impacted their competency
to work with a demanding, at-risk middle school student population such as LTEL students.
Chapter 4 presented an analysis of the data collected in this qualitative study, which determined
the gap among the assumed influences. Chapter 5 provides recommendations for HOWL MS in
order to enhance teacher competency and suggested allocation of Title One funds in order to
support the teachers’ knowledge and motivation.
Knowledge Recommendations
Educators in secondary schools face a unique challenge when working with at-risk LTEL
students due to the gaps in literacy and distinct language issues that develop in elementary school
(Olsen, 2010). According to Olsen, poor teaching practices impact LTEL students’ literacy skills
and makes significant deficits in reading and writing skills as well. To meet the unique and often
demanding needs of LTEL students, educators within the organizations are encouraged to
enhance their knowledge and apply what they have learned to build their competency to work
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 111
with a demanding at-risk student population. Evidence from interviews, observations, and
document analysis indicated that educators of HOWL MS had the procedural knowledge to
implement effective teaching strategies to improve literacy for at-risk LTEL students; therefore,
no gap was validated for that specific influence. During interviews and observation, it was
revealed that educators of HOWL MS also had factual knowledge about the necessary
background of the Latino culture; therefore, no gap was validated for that specific influencer. A
gap in conceptual knowledge did exist among educators to use data as a Professional Learning
Community to create proper interventions to enhance literacy among at-risk LTEL students;
therefore, it was validated as a knowledge gap and is a priority for the organization to address.
Table 14
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence

Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Conceptual Knowledge V Y Conceptual
(declarative)
knowledge increases
when an individual
learns how facts relate
to form relationships
or structures that
function together
(Krathwohl, 2002).
The recommendation is for
the administration first to
provide data training to
teachers, to use multiple
outlets of data resources.

The administration needs to
provide meaningful PD with
specific topics that can
sustain a successful PLC.

Procedural Knowledge N N Specific skills,
techniques, and
methods used to
accomplish a specific
goal (Rueda, 2010)
Teacher mentorship program
for teachers who need extra
support in providing
differentiated instruction for
LTEL students
Factual Knowledge N N Knowledge of a
specific discipline, one
needs to be familiar
with in order to
understand how to
address the issue
(Rueda, 2010)
Reoccurring Professional
Development about LTEL
teaching strategies and
cultural awareness training

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 112
Knowledge Recommendation: To Enhance Conceptual Knowledge through Meaningful
Professional Development
The recommendation is to provide educators at HOWL MS with meaningful information
during professional development (PD) to connect new information to ideas already known.
McKinney (2008) declared that several variables impact a teacher's competency to work with a
demanding at-risk student population. Rueda (2011) suggested that the organization be held
responsible for providing training through PD with the intention of strengthening employees’
capabilities to carry out their daily tasks. Educators will show their competency by displaying
their intentions of working toward a common goal set by the organization. Mayer (2011)
suggested that a transfer of knowledge empowers teachers to feel more confident in their skill
sets and abilities to work with students. The purpose of PD is to expand knowledge by
processing information, sharing experiences, and teaching strategies to learn how to improve
instruction in the classroom with the intentions of building teacher competency (Mayer, 2011;
McKinney, 2008). There are three topics that participants in the study expressed interest in and
believed would be meaningful information to the entire staff of HOWL MS. Training topics
include providing teachers with data use training, how to conduct a proper PLC, and cultural
awareness training, specifically about the Latino culture.
Data training to enhance conceptual knowledge. According to Marsh, Pane, and
Hamilton (2006), data-driven decision making (DDDM) is part of a systematic process of
collecting and analyzing several forms of data, which include formative and summative
assessments to guide educators to make decisions that will improve the academic success of
students. DDDM practices include all stakeholders within the school’s organization to take part
in the process of choosing the data to analyze, including their input, and voicing their satisfaction
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 113
or discontent for the data collected. Marsh et al. (2006) stated that all stakeholders should use a
variety of data collected from different sources such as summative and formative assessments,
standardized information, grading data systems, and other measurable instruments in order to
decide on how to create proper interventions to boost student learning.
The entire process of creating measurable instruments, tracking student success, and
using data to make informed decisions can be an intimidating procedure for most educators. To
alleviate this stress, Earl and Katz (2002) suggested that an organization needs to develop a
culture of data use. Mayer (2011) encouraged school leaders—not just administration—but all
educators who are leaders on campus to use PD as a time to model effective strategies that will
build capacity within the organization. Earl and Katz expressed that creating a data-rich school
culture promotes educators to develop an inquisitive mind, become data literate, and create a
culture of inquiry, which can result in educator’s feeling competent in their abilities to use data
as a valuable resource to create a sense of urgency to improve student achievement.
To help all students achieve, specifically at-risk LTEL middle school students, educators
need to feel confident in their skill sets, which include their ability to transfer learned knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge, according to Krathwohl, increases when an
individual learns how facts relate to form relationships or structures that function together.
Conceptual knowledge for educators at HOWL MS would be validated when they translate their
training to use data to create effective interventions to support student learning. For educators of
HOWL MS, the increase in conceptual knowledge would allow teachers to model their
knowledge in their classrooms. The growth of conceptual knowledge through data training
would also impact how educators make decisions to differentiate instruction for LTEL students.
The use of data information would help educators determine an LTEL student’s readiness to
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 114
engage in content, create a learning profile based on data that indicates how the student learns,
and increase student interests. Marsh et al. (2010) declared that educators should create a regular
routine adopted by the organization to not only use data to guide instructional decisions but for
ongoing changes when needed to promote student learning.
Creating professional learning communities and mentorship program. Due to the
demanding language needs and academic gaps that hinder LTEL student’s success, Olsen (2010)
noted that educators need to provide LTEL students with rigorous and relevant lessons that not
only provide academic growth but also capture the student's interest. Working alone on such a
difficult task to create such lessons can be an ambiguous and arbitrary task for an individual.
According to Grossman and Salas (2010), connections through collaboration before, during, and
after the lesson through the PLC process elevates the level of learning and development not only
for the student but as for the educator as well. The PLC can also serve as an opportunity to
provide valuable coaching time that reflects in positive mentorship relationships. According to
Joyce (2004) and Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth (2001) mentorship is a key influencer on
new teacher success, retention of teachers in the field, and educator’s motivation and knowledge
influencers.
Professional learning communities to enhance conceptual knowledge. According to
Grossman et.al. (2001), a PLC's primary focus is student success and the improvement of
professional practice among their teacher community. Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gayner
(2017) declared that the following topics need to be discussed and reviewed during professional
development in order to sustain a successful PLC model within an organization.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 115
1. Professional Development needs to be content focused.
2. Professional Development needs to incorporate active learning utilizing adult learning
theory.
3. Professional Development needs to supports collaboration, typically in job-embedded
contexts.
4. Professional Development needs to use models and modeling of active practice.
5. Professional Development needs to provides coaching and expert support.
6. Professional Development needs to offers opportunities for feedback and reflection.
By providing constant reinforcement of PLC practices to educators at HOWL MS, there is an
expectation that conceptual knowledge will expand and result in a comprehensive secondary
school program for LTEL students. The program comes as a suggestion by Olsen (2010) and
aligns well with Darling-Hammond et al.’s (2017) and Grossman et al.’s (2001) ideas of what a
PLC model should be emulating.
1. Create a course designed for LTELs, emphasizing writing, academic vocabulary, and
engagement.
2. Strategic placement of LTEL students in classroom collaboration teams using data.
3. Educators work together with administration and counselors to engage with LTEL
their students.
4. Work together as a PLC to develop skills within the team to implement appropriate
instructional strategies.
5. Systems for monitoring progress and using data to support and create effective
interventions with the intentions to increase literacy for LTEL students.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 116
Implementation and carrying out of any of these listed tasks shows teachers’ abilities to transfer
their conceptual knowledge into actions that would benefit not only the organization but also the
LTEL student population at HOWL MS.
Teacher mentoring program to fill the knowledge gap among educators. The focus
of Professional Learning Communities and professional development is to cultivate and foster
positive collegial relationships with the intentions to promote student learning and teacher
knowledge (Darling Hammond et al., 2017; Mayer, 2011). According to Sargent (2003), the
purpose of a teacher mentorship is for educators to share their experience and expertise with new
educators to the field or educators who need extra support in their classrooms. Sargent described
the partnership between an experienced teacher guiding and supporting a beginning teacher or a
colleague with years in the profession as part of the professional development model. In the case
of HOWL MS, a mentorship program in which educators have strong procedural knowledge
about teaching strategies that are effective in building literacy among LTEL students can mentor
a teacher who may need support in this area. Mentor teachers could also provide resources and
demonstrations during PD for the entire staff to take part in. Athanases and Achinstein (2003)
stated that mentoring does not always have to be a formal practice, but could be informal as well.
For example, causal check-ins and reflection practices between teachers could increase teacher
competency and knowledge. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) maintained that in order for a mentoring
program to be effective, the mentor needs to address the critical needs of the supporting teacher.
Knowledge about Latino culture to build academic connections. There were three
topics shared by participants of the study that they believed would be valuable information to
share with all staff members of HOWL MS during PD: data training, PLC and mentorship
information, and multicultural practices such as learning in-depth material about the Latino
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 117
culture. The study showed that educators have a basic understanding of the Latino culture but felt
that an in-depth understanding of the culture would benefit their abilities to work with LTEL
students. The majority of LTEL students at HOWL MS were of Latino descent. Improving upon
educator's factual knowledge about the Latino culture would elevate their competency to work
with the LTEL student population at the school site.
Becerra (2001) indicated that when educators have a strong representation and
understanding of the Latino culture, it can impact a Latino student’s motivation to be successful
in their classroom. Educators can use cultural knowledge to build positive classroom
environments, develop classroom procedures, and understand how Latino students interact with
one another (Becerra, 2001). A translation of knowledge about the Latino culture can be
represented in how teachers choose to conduct collaborative learning strategies with LTEL
students, perform cooperative student engagement, and even use distinctive communication
language to check for understanding (Conchas, 2001; Ramirez & Jimenez-Silva, 2016).
Title One funding to build teacher knowledge. The primary objective of Title One
funds is to provide an opportunity for low-income schools to develop consistent and uniform
curriculum goals within an organization by enforcing mandated accountability measures upon a
school site (Schulman, 2001). The expectation is that, through the allocation of Title One Funds,
schools will improve the performance of all students, specifically at-risk student populations
(Schulman, 2001). The organizational systems put in place and funded by Title One funds are
meant to change student outcomes by altering what is taught and how it is taught. Teaching
strategies, professional development, teacher training, and resources all have to be justified with
substantial research in order to allocate Title One sums to fund programs. The approach to using
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 118
data and research, according to Schulman (2001), is to introduce a framework of accountability
that influences decisions schools make regarding the allocation of Title One–funded resources.
Schulman (2001) suggested that to improve on academic practices, school organizations
should focus on school improvement initiatives to be adopted school-wide. Attention on
instructional and curricular issues is critical but just as important is a focus on adopting and
adding on programs that target specific low-performing student populations McKenzie et al.
(2004). To carry out such an effort, educators need to know how to create intentional effective
literacy interventions designed around data (Marsh, 2012). To make this initiative appealing,
funding a mentorship program using Title One sums can provide teachers with a monetary
incentive using Title One Funds to encourage teachers to share their knowledge (Sunderman,
2001. Title One funds can also be used to send teachers to conferences, training, and webinars to
continue growing in their field, specifically in learning how to work with LTEL students
(Sunderman, 2001).
Motivation Recommendations
Bandura (1977) stated that motivation impacts an individual’s performance. Self-efficacy
is a motivational theory in which individuals develop beliefs toward their abilities and
characteristics, which impacts their behavior to achieve a set goal and effects how much effort
they put into their performance based on their perception of their skill sets (Bandura, 1977). Self-
efficacy for an individual can be high or low depending on the outcome of a performance task,
attainment of a goal, vicarious experiences, and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). According to
Yough and Anderman (2006), a focus on mastering a goal through individual improvement,
learning, and progress promotes positive motivation and is part of the Goal Setting theory. The
table below shows that participants in the study had a strong sense of self-efficacy to work with
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 119
an at-risk student population, but a gap existed among the goal setting influence to create
effective interventions that would increase LTEL student achievement. Teachers who are
motivated to work with challenging student populations need to have a strong sense of
motivation; not having one impacts their competency to carry out their task and expected job
duties (McKinney, 2008).
Table 15
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy: Teachers need to feel
that they have the knowledge and
skills to work with at-risk LTEL
students at a Title One School
N N Activating and
building upon
personal interest
can increase
learning and
motivation
(Schraw
& Lehman, 2009).
Collaborative groups will have
the opportunity to work toward
attaining both social and
academic goals for LTEL
students (Pintrich, 2003).

Activate personal interest by
providing choices and allow
teachers to take
control of support systems that
provide support for LTEL
students using a tool from a
diversity tool kit. (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009).
Goal-Oriented: Teachers feel capable
of taking on the difficult task of
working with at-risk students and
develop proper interventions that are
data-driven to help increase LTEL
student achievement at a Title One
School
N N Focusing on
mastery, individual
improvement,
learning, and
progress
promotes positive
motivation (Yough
& Anderman,
2006).
Encourage people to set
specific goals and
measurable performance goals
through the use of data (Clark
& Estes, 2008).

Administration can model
enthusiasm or interest as
administration to reach global
(Schraw & Lehman,
2009).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 120
Motivation Recommendation 1: Training Teachers to Understanding What it Means to Be
an Educator at Title One School
To foster the strong motivation influencers within the organization, teachers need to be
aware of the changes the organization is currently undergoing. EdSource (2008) explained that
most Title One School’s student populations lack the financial stability to be a success in the
classroom. Title One Schools such as HOWL MS, whose student population is 50%
socioeconomic disadvantaged had issues such as students lacking the basic supplies or
necessities to survive and chronic school absences. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students
often come from single-parent homes in which parents are working multiple jobs or longer-than-
average work hours to maintain a household; this is prevalent in the Latino community (Beccera,
2001). In most Latino families, this often means that the oldest child or oldest female child is
responsible for acting as the parent, providing dinner, working on house chores, and helping
younger siblings with homework (Zambrana & Zoppi, 2002).
Gorski (2008) stated that often teachers working in Title One schools are working with
students whose sole instinct is to survive the environment in which they live. For educators to
keep themselves motivated to work with at-risk student populations at a Title One School they
must have professional development that focuses on understanding the student’s situation and
how to work with at-risk student populations to meet their needs and achieve success (Heckman,
2009). Professional development workshops that provide teachers with a guideline of how to
work with Latino LTEL at-risk students would support the self-efficacy of educators to feel that
they are capable of tackling difficult barriers, which includes gangs, drugs, parents working
multiple jobs, and teen pregnancy (Becerra, 2001; Gandara, 2015; Zambrana & Zoppi 2002).
Gorski stated that teachers at Title One Schools will also encounter a larger student population
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 121
that is from the foster care system or homeless. All of these overwhelming factors can hinder a
teacher's motivation to work at a Title One School but understanding and empathy to a student's
background motivates a teacher's performance as well as a student’s (Heckman, 2009).
Motivation Recommendation 2: Encourage Educators to Collaborate to Set Specific Goals
and Measurable Performance Goals Using Data
The educators of HOWL MS can improve instructional practice, collaborate to create
appropriate benchmarking systems that provide accurate data, and improve academic
interventions through the use of data only if they believe in the global goals established with the
directors of the organization (Marsh, 2012; Marsh & Farrell, 2015). Findings from the study
indicated that educators of HMS did not collaborate with one another to create proper
benchmarking systems that tracked student progress. The findings also highlighted the
dependency educators had on teacher leaders to model teaching strategies and procedures for the
staff. Teacher leaders will use the framework idea of data-driven decision making to improve
education because, without their full participation and leadership, any effort to reform education
will fail at the school and result in a disfranchised stakeholder group (Burke, 2004; Dowd, 2005).
Teacher leaders not only serve as mentors but they encourage one another to follow and adopt
the policies of their schools; they are the key to establishing accountability requirements
resulting in higher motivation from teachers to value the use of data and work towards set global
goals (Elmore, 2002; Firestone & Shipps, 2005; Rueda, 2010).
The creation of a formative assessment system used as a school procedure, peer
coaching, creating of literacy interventions, student base activities, are all protocols that are data-
supported to improve educators access and ability to understanding what type of response
systems would be best address the needs of their student population (Dowd, 2005; Marsh, 2012).
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 122
Data-driven decision making would narrow the focus of the appropriate educational support
systems needed to provide academic support for LTEL students (Dowd, 2005; Marsh, 2012).
Educators and administrators together analyze, design, and implement systematic procedures
driven by data with to promote (Ozcan, 2008).
Recommendation 3: Looking through the Lens of Diversity to Motivate Educators to
Create Interventions for LTEL Students as Part of the Goal Setting Theory
Participants in the study expressed that they had a cultural connection that motivated
them to work with Latino LTEL students, and many felt not only a professional obligation but
also a personal responsibility to increase reclassification rates. Making a recommendation that is
part of a diversity tool kit seems fitting considering it was a topic of interest and connections for
participants in the study. An Equitable Scorecard would hold both administration and educators
accountable for the progress of LTEL students using data to indicate their academic achievement
(Bensimon et al., 2007; Marsh 2012). An Equitable Scorecard is a benchmarking system that can
report the realistic organization capability in reaching the global goals in order to improve the
success of students from underrepresented racial-ethnic groups (Bensimon et al., 2007; Firestone
& Shipps, 2005). The scorecard measures different components of an organization, and its
purpose is to hold agencies accountable for their educational performance to promote equitable
educational access to students, institutional receptivity, and excellence (Bensimon et al., 2007).
The scorecard for HOWL MS would track the progress of three different stockholding
groups in the organization: the educators, administrators, and LTEL students. The entire school
would be responsible for using data to monitor the academic progress of LTEL students as part
of the guidelines of the Equitable Scorecard. Each grade level would be responsible for creating
an educational objective aligned with the global goals to increase LTEL reclassification rates for
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 123
LTEL students. The initiative would track LTEL student progress by data through the use of
different benchmarking systems to determine student achievement and be shared with staff
members during PD (Clark & Estes 2008). The administration would create a goal separate from
the educators’ grade-level goal. All students will increase both ELA and Math scores by 15%, as
measured by California Dash. The scorecard would use data measurements from the CASP
standardized test; the targeted group would be LTEL students; and the school’s administration
would be responsible for creating school initiatives to ensure the organization can meet the
objective. The seventh- and eighth-grade providers would create a similar aim so that yearly
data can transfer over between grades to investigate if any gaps have occurred between the 2
years for students who are struggling academically (Rueda, 2011). The purpose of the Equity
Scorecard initiative is to use data as a gap analysis to pinpoint struggling students using
measurable data (Clark & Estes 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Title One Funding to Increase Teacher Motivation
Sunderman’s (2001) study centered around the idea of increasing accountability of Title
One Schools and allocating funds with the purpose of creating effective school-wide systems that
enhance student achievement. Sunderman made two strong suggestions to support educators and
impact the teacher's motivation to work at a Title One school. The recommendations made in the
study easily fit the needs of HOWL MS, considering that participants in the study echoed the
suggestions made in the 2001 study. The first recommendation by Sunderman was to allocate
Title One funds to reduce class size. In the study, principals who used the funds to reduce class
sizes by either hiring more teachers or qualified teacher aides by budgeting for their hourly rate
saw an increase in student achievement, including among their at-risk student population.
HOWL MS could use the Title One funds to hire new teachers to reduce class sizes—a
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 124
suggestion from all participants in the study. Over 50% of the participants believed that smaller
class sizes would help educators provide the necessary one on one time that LTELs need to help
increase academic performance (Sunderman, 2001). Smaller class sizes and teacher aides would
help ease the stress of working with a large LTEL student population in the classroom, according
to the participants in the study. The hiring of a new teacher would most likely be a cost that the
district would have to approve and can be a problematic demand. However, a more realistic
allocation of funds would be to hire more qualified teacher aides. The aides could be recruited
retired senior volunteers, college students as part of a teacher residency program, or paid hourly
aides. Teacher aides would pull out groups of LTEL students or have one-on-one time with a
LTEL student to work on the specific content material. The recommendation of using funds to
pay for hourly aides or recruit teacher aides would reduce class sizes for teachers and keep
teachers feeling motivated to work in a Title One School.
Rewarding Teachers Who Provide Interventions to LTEL Students
The second recommendation inspired by Sunderman’s (2001) research is to target
specific grades, subjects, or students to provide intervention support. Short and Fitzsimmons
(2007) suggested that the targeted group would receive a better opportunity to gain attention that
is needed to fill in their academic literacy gaps. Researchers have argued that interventions
designed for native English speakers will not necessarily work for LTEL students, but by
creating an intentional literacy support system driven by data, LTEL students have the
opportunity to gain access to valuable teaching time and materials. Hanushek and Lindseth
(2009) declared that an organization that is looking to improve outcomes should create a reward
system to increase motivation from stakeholders. The reward system is related to the contribution
toward working to the desired outcome and could be a monetary incentive (Hanushek &
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 125
Lindseth, 2009). Under this model of reward system, if teachers are willing to work after their
contract hours to provide proper support to LTEL students, they should be rewarded for their
efforts.
Understanding the Needs of Title One Student Population
The third recommendation, while simple, is a practical recommendation in the sense of
understanding the student population that makes up a Title One School. Both Gorski (2008) and
Pogrow (2009) claimed that students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged face inequities
and have fewer opportunities to be successful in the classroom, which contributes to the
achievement gap between poor students and affluent middle-class students. Investment in
necessary school materials such as paper, pencils, folders, snacks, water, and even into a set of
PE Uniforms, school t-shirts, and warm clothing for students of need would be incredibly helpful
(Pogrow, 2009). Handing out of these materials to teachers to allocate to at-risk students would
alleviate the daily stress of classroom management issues in the classroom for teachers.
Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) would call this practice a culturally responsive teaching
strategy, in which educators intentionally take into account their students’ background in order to
create a more supportive learning environment.
Organizational Recommendations
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Model allows an organization to diagnose a
performance gap and the impact organizational influences have on such gaps. Stakeholders
within the organization may have the knowledge to perform designated tasks, and may be highly
motivated to work toward accomplishing global goals but if organizational barriers exist,
stakeholders within the organization—no matter the level of their knowledge and motivation—
will not meet their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Organizational
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 126
culture settings can impact how an individual thinks and his or her behavior within the
organization (Rueda, 2011). A culture model is the standard practice for the organization to
promote accountability through systematic procedures. According to Rueda, an organization's
culture models impacts how an individual believes the world works within the organization, or
how they believe the world should work within the organization. Findings in Chapter 4 show that
stakeholders who took part in the study indicated that organizational influencers impact
educator’s competency to work with LTEL students—specifically, because of a lack of cultural
setting and modeling due to the lack of leadership within the organization.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 127
Table 16
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Culture impacts
stakeholder’s
motivation and
ability to carry out
their task to fulfill
the mission and
vision.
V Y An organizational culture that
focuses on goal setting, data to
drive response, and proper training
for staff can increase an educator's
growth professionally, resulting in
highly trained teachers who impact
student academic outcomes (Rueda,
2011).

SMART goals are
communicated with
educators and can be
revisited during
professional
development.
Accountability
systems for the entire
organization to work
toward global goals
Stakeholders need to
value the culture of
the organization to
adopt the policies,
practices, and
procedures of the
organization as their
beliefs.
V Y Culture models promote
organizations to increase
accountability by building
educators’ knowledge of
instructional innovations and
provide training in research-based
interventions/systematic procedures
influenced by data.
Administration and
educators create Smart
Goals to increase
reclassification rates
for LTEL students.

Teacher voice in the
allocation of Title One
funds to fund literacy
interventions

During the study, participants expressed that the management of the organization felt
inconsistent and there were no real expectations to address the needs and to increase
reclassification rates of LTEL students for educators. Educators at HOWL MS relied on their
knowledge and motivation to work with the demanding at-risk student population and indicated
that the administration provided no clear define goals, expectations, or accountability.
Administration focus was set on other issues that were a priority to management and the
obligation to provide teachers with support, resources, data, and increase LTEL reclassification
rates fell on the shoulders of the school’s EL Coordinator. Olsen (2010) declared that schools
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 128
need to operate with the needs of LTEL students in mind in order to create a cohesive
organization and an alliance between administration and educators to increase LTEL
reclassification rates.
Organizational Recommendation 1: Establish a Culture Setting of Accountability within
the Organization
The recommendation is to build a culture setting of accountability among the
administration and educators of HOWL MS to work together to goal set and establish
accountable procedures such as PDs and effective communication toward accomplishing an
LTEL global goal. The absence of accountability expressed by participants in the study included
a lack of communication from administration about the educator’s role in increasing LTEL
student achievement. The administration also did not focus on SMART goals during Professional
Development or best teaching practices to work with LTEL at-risk students. No stakeholder was
accountable for creating support systems that increased the academic progress of at-risk LTEL
students. It is essential to address these accountability issues because, without a clear stance and
accountability that fuels the motivation of both educators and administrators to strive toward,
both stakeholder groups remain unaware of how to drive performance to support students
adequately, allocate resources and funds efficiently, and help the organization meet academic
standards (Elmore, 2002).
To increase a culture setting of accountability within the organization, it is recommended
that the administration of HOWL MS start by concentrating less on external accountability such
as focusing on state standards, testing, and mandated standardized testing and instead put its
energy in promoting internal accountability, which promotes moral and professional
accountability among the providers at the organization (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). According to
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 129
Firestone and Shipps, internal accountability centers around effective teaching strategies deep-
rooted in teacher training and PD. Darling-Hammond and Snyder (2015) suggested creating an
expectation that all stakeholders are accountable as a way to improve school culture and in turn
provide equity and availability for students to learn.
Organizational Recommendation 2: Encourage the Organization to Set Specific SMART
Goals for LTEL to Establish Cultural Settings and Models within the Organization
HOWL MS did not use data to ensure educators and administrators were meeting short-
term goals to achieve the global objectives. The lack of data prevented necessary policy changes
by the administration to take place—changes driven by data collected through proper
benchmarking systems (Bensimon et al., 2007; Marsh, 2012; Rueda, 2011). According to
participants in the study, the practice of using data to measure accountability was not shared or
effectively communicated to the staff by the administration. Administrators and educators are
accountable to ensure there is an equitable opportunity to learn and that the school is capable of
reaching academic expectations by using data to increase the organization's culture setting. The
use of data to create SMART goals creates strategic planning efforts to tackle educational gaps
within their struggling populations and creates a cultural setting of accountability (Dowd, 2005).
Marsh would argue that it is essential for both educators and administrators of HOWL MS to use
the data to establish appropriate strategic protocols that would guide stakeholders to create an
LTEL Smart Goal for each department to meet.
A clear SMART goal for each department can drive educators and administrators to
create proper benchmarking systems that can provide factual data to drive accountability (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Dowd, 2005). LTEL SMART goals must be concrete and precise so that
providers can carry out initiatives to reach the goals and are accountable to measure their
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 130
progress in achieving those goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Effective communication practices such
as sharing department progress toward creating LTEL SMART goals and working to accomplish
the goal would build accountability but also a sense of urgency to reclassify LTEL students (Earl
& Katz, 2002; Odden, 2009). The LTEL SMART goal should focus on enhancing literacy within
the department's content subject to increase LTEL student reclassification rates. Educators have
the power to lead school change, and it is essential for educators of HOWL MS to be part of the
goal-setting procedure of the organization as the first step to an action plan to establish
accountability expectations and enhance the culture of the organization (Rueda, 2011). Clark and
Estes stated that global goals created during the goal-setting process should guide the entire
organization toward a realistic acquisition of goals that should improve the organization's future.
Teachers must be at the center of the reform movement to increase LTEL student reclassification
rates by building professional accountability and working alongside administrators so that a
culture model is a based on building accountability (Firestone & Shipps, 2005).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The Implementation and Evaluation Plan for this study is influenced by the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation work (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The four evaluation levels
of training use an event-based approach meant to influence the training programs that would
result in the desired outcomes of the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The
purpose of the model is to use the approach in reverse, which emphasizes the importance of
evaluating achievement as the desired result—followed by behavior, learning, and reaction—
compared to other frameworks that use the opposite sequence of order, which places a greater
influence on reaction than on learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 131
The Implementation and Evaluation model does not measure each level sequentially and
independently; instead, it measures and evaluates each level using a systematic approach. Each
level is evaluated with the purpose of providing valuable information of how implement change
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The Implementation and Evaluation Plan of the New World Kirkpatrick Model starts at
Level 4, where the concentrated focus is on evaluating the achievement of organization results.
Indicators that influence behavior that impacts the desired organization results are selected,
measured, and evaluated at this level. Level 3 focuses on expected behaviors and the drivers of
those behaviors, which include reinforcement of the desired behavior, monitoring expected
behavior, and interventions used to encourage the application of those behaviors toward tasks
performed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 2 tracks the stakeholder’s knowledge and
motivation to performing tasks aligned with their job description. Level 1 addresses the
fundamental reaction to the provided training. Altogether, the four levels outlined by Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick involve all key stakeholders as part of the process by providing a common
structure to identify gaps that affect the achievement of desired results, and deeper knowledge
and appreciation for implementing change within an organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Howl Middle School served a disproportionately large at-risk student population. The
goal of the organization was to support all student by creating a safe learning environment for
students to excel in their academic and social skills. As of the 2016/2017 school year, HMS was
designated as a school-wide Title One school and was required to put into practice support
systems to increase the academic performance of at-risk students. The purpose of this study was
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 132
to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers on educator’s performance
and how a gap in any of the KMO influencers impacted their competency to work with a
demanding, at-risk middle school student population such as LTEL Latino students.
The stakeholders for the study were educators of HMS, who had a close relationship and
responsibility in working with at-risk LTEL students. Through the study and findings, it was
discovered that there was no LTEL Smart Goal in the organization; however, there was an
English Language Learner goal, in which the LTEL students were lumped together as part of the
EL student population. This study recommends the formation of an organizational goal
specifically designed to support LTEL students—one to be made and valued by all stakeholders
in order to work toward the desired outcome for LTELs. The recommendations within this
chapter address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences found in this study and
the inclusion of the New World Kirkpatrick Model as a model for future evaluations and training
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 results and leading indicators include external, summative metrics, and internal,
formative metrics (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The results and indicators are related to the
outcome of the training received to determine if the training delivered served the purpose to meet
goals and the desired outcomes of an organization. The recommendation to create an LTEL
Smart Goal is to prioritize the type of training that educators are receiving at HMS. Level 4 of
the Kirkpatrick Model provides a framework of how to measure the outcomes of long-term
goals. The external outcomes and metrics are a summative assessment that shows the impact of
successful student interventions, as shown in the table below.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 133
Table 17

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased ELPAC Scores Higher number of at-risk LTEL students
scoring a 4 on the ELPAC
Yearly publication from the CA Dashboard
Increased CASSP Scores Higher number of at-risk LTEL students
scoring Basic, Proficient or Advance on
the CASSP
Yearly publication from the CA Dashboard
Increased in scores in the
District Writing Exam
Higher number of at-risk LTEL students
scoring a 3 on the District Writing Exam
Semester reports provided by the Corozon School
district
Internal Outcomes
Increased teacher motivation
to work with a demanding at-
risk student population
Increase in climate survey about employee
engagement and motivation
Quarterly climate and employee
engagement survey.
Increased teacher leadership
to demonstrate to staff
effective teaching strategies
Educators are willing to
to fill key leadership positions
and roles.
Tracking of teacher participation tracked by
Administration

Level 3: Behavior
Level 3 of the Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) centers on behavior by focusing on
three principles that provide a foundation for evaluating the desired behavior, the drivers that
monitor and reinforce critical behaviors, and organizational support and culture resources used to
support the desired behaviors.
The Level 3 behavior for this study is to determine if, after receiving training, educators
could determine if they needed extra support from administration or if educators felt confident in
translating their knowledge from training into everyday classroom practices. The expected
critical behavior of the stakeholders is the development of an LTEL Smart Goal as a Professional
Learning Community in order to build accountable expectations among all stakeholders within
the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The second critical behavior was based on
performance toward accomplishing the Smart Goal. The third critical behavior was stakeholders
using data to create literacy interventions to demonstrate a deep understanding of data from
professional development training.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 134
Table 18

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Educators use their knowledge
as a PLC to create an LTEL
Smart Goal
Documentation of
specific measurable
goals, which includes
timelines, check-in
points stakeholder
involvement,
resources required,
and measurement and
evaluation methods.
Implementation plans and
direct reports reviewed by
both PLC teams during
Professional development
to ensure that the LTEL
Smart Goal alignment
with the organization’s
goals.
Ongoing review of the LTEL
Smart goal development and
implementation planning
phase.
Educators are motivated to goal
set and create an LTEL Smart
Goal
Self-reflection
surveys
Climate and employee
engagement survey
includes a self-reflection
piece that includes
questions and short ended
questions
Quarterly climate and
employee
engagement survey.
Educators use their knowledge
from data training to create
effective literacy interventions
for LTEL students
Documentation from
standardize tests,
grades, and
monitoring
assessments
LTEL students’ academic
progress is evaluated by
looking at data to
determine if the Literacy
Intervention created
helps reach the expected
academic goal of the
school.
Review and
evaluation at the
end of each grading period.

Required Drivers
Reports, survey, and documentation will require the active support of additional
stakeholders to achieve the desired outcome and organizational goals. Administration, teacher
leaders, department leads, and core content PLC members play an active and critical role in
reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring the progress of each critical behaviors. The
table below highlights the behavioral mechanisms of reinforcement, encouragement, and
monitoring, which are essential in providing the proper knowledge and motivation for teacher’s
working with at-risk LTEL middle school students.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 135
Table 19
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3, etc.
Reinforcing

Professional Development, training, examples of
effective teaching practices, goal setting, using
data to measure student achievement, evaluation,
and implementation of Literacy Interventions

Ongoing check-in during monthly
Professional Development and
weekly PLC team meeting
1, 2, 3
Teacher Mentoring Program Ongoing throughout the school
year
1, 2, 3
PLC meeting to discuss assessments, data use, and
student progress
Weekly Meetings 1, 2, 3
Training in Reflective Teaching Practices Quarterly Reflection during
Professional Development
1, 2, 3
LTEL Smart Goal Checklist Quarterly Reflection during
Professional Development
1, 2, 3
Encouraging

PLC review and collaboration
meetings to provide feedback, support,
and encouragement during the
implementation of their
developed LTEL Smart goals.
Quarterly during Professional
Development
1, 2, 3
Feedback from teacher mentor coach Ongoing throughout the school
year
1, 2, 3
Rewarding

Public acknowledgement at staff meetings when
significant growth towards reaching the LTEL
Smart Goal has been achieved.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Incentives for teachers who chose to develop a
literacy intervention or work after school in a
support class with LTEL students. Incentives
include monetary funds, addition prep pay, or
extended prep period.
Ongoing throughout the school
year
1, 2, 3
Monitoring

Administration tracks progress toward reaching
the global set goal
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Educators directly report to administration about
their own perception about their abilities during a
one on one interview about the implementation
progress, learnings, course corrections, and needed
support to reach their LTEL Smart Goal set by
their PLC
Ongoing throughout the school
year
1, 2, 3
Review of staff climate survey to
identify any changes or adjustments to plan,
approach, and/or self-efficacy for PLCs to feel
competent in their abilities to reach the LTEL
Smart Goal
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 136
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), it is essential for administration to be closely
involved in assessing the drivers that impact behavior in order to achieve the sought-after
outcomes. The drivers are developed as a long-term process to encourage, reinforce, and reward
positive changes in behavior (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Drivers can also change
behavior in a negative manner; finical limitations, time constraints, or inconsistencies among
stakeholders can diminish the desired outcomes within an organization (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The table above shows suggestions to continuously check on the progress of
educators in order to enhance their competency by providing clear expectations and
communication toward working to reach not only the PLC LTEL Smart Goal but also the LTEL
Global Goal of the organization.
Level 2: Learning
The goals described in this section are categorized using the Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) evaluation components of learning: skills, knowledge, attitude,
confidence, and commitment. The goals are aligned with the validated gaps described in Chapter
4. The findings indicated that the gap for educators was a result of administration support and a
gap in the culture setting and model of the organization. Therefore, the recommended solutions
are for educators to be able to:
1. Develop an LTEL Smart Goal as a PLC and work collaboratively to accomplish the
desired outcome (Goal Setting, Procedural Knowledge, & Motivation).
2. Describe key steps of their plan they have created as a PLC to increase LTEL student
achievement (Procedural).
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 137
3. Plan and monitor the work and progress as a PLC through the use of data to enhance
teacher competencies to work improving the academic and social progress of LTEL at-
risk middle school students (Conceptual Knowledge & Self-Efficacy Motivation).
4. Describe the literacy needs of LTEL students in their classrooms (Declarative)
5. Understand Latino culture to support the social and academic needs of at-risk Latino
LTEL students (Declarative & Motivation).
6. Know how to use data as a valuable source of information to create effective
interventions to enhance literacy skills for LTELs (Motivation, Formative Feedback, &
Goal Setting).
7. Demonstrate effective communication skills such as using email, meeting agendas, and
ongoing discussions about LTEL student progress (Procedural Knowledge).
8. Indicate confidence in their abilities and those of their colleagues to successfully
implement literacy interventions to achieve the desired outcomes for LTEL student
achievement (Self-efficacy, Conceptual Knowledge, & Confidence).
9. Educators recognize their role and responsibility in increasing literacy skills to
promote at-risk Latino LTEL middle school reclassification rates (Accountability).
A leadership development program will support educators of HMS in reaching the listed
learning goals above by providing training to the administrators of HMS to improve the culture
setting and models of the organization, this program is called the Wolverine Team Model
(WTM). The WTM program will address the role and responsibilities of administrators in
supporting educators working with at-risk LTEL students, the organization’s protocols as a Title
One School in developing and funding initiatives to increase at-risk student achievement, and
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 138
how to engage and motivate teacher leaders on campus as vehicles of support to motivate and
educate other teachers on campus.
Due to the time constraints and daily obligations of administrators on campus, online
training in the form of videos and modules would be a realistic approach to providing adequate
training and opportunities to encourage administrators to use the leadership program. Short 30-
minute videos with interactive modules and monthly 45-minute webinars with peers to serve as a
sounding board would focus on the administrator’s role in providing support. The content
material would focus on the articulation of meaningful professional development for educators
by assessing the gap of knowledge or motivation within the organization and supporting those
areas through learning.
Another focus of the WTM program is to help educators evaluate the success of protocols
and school systems set in place to increase at-risk student achievement. The program will guide
administrators in creating tools and various school expectations that include all stakeholders in
measuring accountability. At a Title One School, accountability measures are mandatory as a
method to track allocated Title One Funds. Strategic development of programs driven by data
will be a focus in this portion of the program. Interactive workshops that include administrators
creating timelines, performance feedback systems, and culture surveys will serve as an
opportunity to receive feedback from peers before rolling out protocols with educators. The
content also emphasizes the importance of effective communication skills to articulate the clear
expectations and preferred behavior attributes of educators to follow the protocols put in place to
reach the desired outcome. The WTM program will also have a component in which
administrators will be taught how to motivate teacher leaders to serve as an extension of
administration in providing knowledge and motivation support to other educators on campus.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 139
The Literature Review revealed that a gap in either knowledge or motivation can impact
influencers and hinder an educator’s competency, resulting in poor performance in the classroom
and a lack of desire to work with at-risk LTEL middle school students. Therefore, it is important
to evaluate the learning for conceptual knowledge and motivation to ensure that the educators
have the proper training and confidence in their teaching strategies to enhance literacy skills for
LTEL students and to ensure that they are motivated by seeing the value of their decisions in
creating effective, data-driven literacy interventions to increase reclassification rates for at-risk
LTEL students. Educators also need to have the self-efficacy to apply the newly obtained
knowledge provided through professional development to motivated them to goal set as a PLC as
they determine Table 20 shows the evaluation methods and timing for these components of
learning.
Table 20
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Checks for Understanding of content material During and after video
demonstrations or lectures.
Checks for Understanding through discussions,
individual and small group activities in which
artifacts need to be made and shared
Periodically during portions of the course and during
times in the module work
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Quality and clarity of feedback from peers about
products created to share to staff during group sharing
During the Webinar sessions
Individual application of the skills from the
independent modules that shows planning
and implementation a of school protocols and plans.
During the course work of the program and after the
program has ended
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Pre- and post-reflection practice of the program In the beginning and end of the Leadership Program
Peer feedback During the program
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Increase in teacher leaders on campus In the beginning and end of the Leadership Program
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Title One Mandatory Accountability Measure Throughout the program the administrator needs to keep
in mind that mandated requirements from Title One
Funding drives there purpose.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 140
Level 1: Reaction
The last level of measurement and evaluation of the Kirkpatrick New World Model is
Level 1, the reaction of individuals during the learning process. The purpose is to measure how
engaging the learning experience was and whether individuals found value in the information in
order to apply it to the work they do in the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level
1 evaluations are frequently done as both a formative and summative evaluations. Formative
evaluations allow for corrections and clarifications of information to be made during the learning
process course; summative evaluations are performed to measure a reaction to the information
after the end of a course (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Evaluations provide the opportunity
to increase engagement among participants by making adjustments to content, offering
clarification in delivery, providing extra resources and support to participants, and creating a
learning environment that participants find meaningful. The table below illustrates the methods
and frequency of measuring Level 1 reactions to the learning program.
Table 21
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Participation Ongoing throughout the leadership
program
Attendance Ongoing throughout the leadership
program
Completion of tasks/ modules/ webinars Ongoing throughout the leadership
program
Implementation of protocols created to support staff members and hold them
accountable
Ongoing throughout the leadership
program
Observing and supporting how educators are using data to create literacy interventions Ongoing throughout the leadership
program
Communicating LTEL Smart Goal progress and providing support to teacher leaders
serving as an extra support to administration
Ongoing throughout the leadership
program
Relevance

Application of school protocols created to enhance at-risk student academic progress During and after the leadership
program has ended
Customer Satisfaction

Staff Climate Survey Quarterly during the school year

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 141
Evaluation Tools
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested that immediately following a program, a
survey asking participants to rate the relevance of the WTM program content, their individual
engagement throughout the program, and their overall satisfaction with the program is an
essential practice. An evaluation instrument rating components of Level 1 and Level 2 of the
proposed program is in found in Appendix E. The survey will be electronically sent to the
administrators of HMS immediately following each completed leadership training module. The
school site’s Title One Coordinator will be held responsible in distributing both formative and
summative surveys, collecting, and tabulating the responses.
Approximately 3 months after the leadership program, a delayed survey will be sent to
the administrators of HMS by the Title One Coordinator. A 90-day period provides ample time
for administrators to apply their new skills to implement school protocols to provide educators
with support to work with at-risk LTEL students. This delayed program survey will help
measure the drivers and desired behavior by rating the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) four
levels of evaluation: Reaction (Level 1), Learning (Level 2), Behavior (Level 3), and Results
(Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that the process of analyzing data and using the
results to evoke change within an organization is an important task; but just as important is the
sharing and publication of the results to justify the implementation of a new plan or program to
stakeholders (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Title One Coordinator will take the last
survey assessment that measures the value of the entire leadership program course and create a
dashboard that pinpoints different levels of The New World Model. Another dashboard will be
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 142
used for the delayed survey to measure how administration have used their education from the
leadership program to create protocols to support educators and the impact on the behavior of
educators to work with at-risk LTEL students. The dashboard can be posted on the bulletin board
in the staff work room and updated by each report or climate survey. Examples of possible
performance indicators are in the figure below, which shows how the initial end of the course
survey can be used as a baseline and every survey afterward can be used to make a comparison
to the first findings. The Figure 22 shows the initial results compared to the delayed survey and
two quarterly surveys afterwards. The questions that measure the Kirkpatrick Levels are
assessed, the response that shows a spike in the results are highlighted in green to emphasize the
growth among administration in their abilities after using the leadership program training to
provide support to educators working with at-risk LTEL students.

Figure 12. Dashboard for survey results of the WTM Program
Note. Starting with the initial end of the course reflection survey of the Leadership Program, the delayed survey
results, and the quarterly measurement of the New World Model results.

4.3
4.5 4.5
5
3
4
4.5
5
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Intiatl Delayed Survey Quarterly 1 Quarterly 2
Dashboard Survey Results
Content Was Useful
Increase in Confidence after program
Application of content to my job is meaningful
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 143
Evaluation Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick framework and approach was used in this study to develop
an implementation plan that measures the Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels by emphasizing the desired
outcome for the organization. In the case of this study, HMS educators valued the idea of
achieving organization but barriers and gaps in the culture model and setting of the school
impacts teacher competency in working with a demanding at-risk LTEL student population. The
New World Model was specifically used to increase teacher knowledge, behavior, and
motivation by training administration in providing adequate support and school protocols that
teachers need to work with at-risk LTEL students. The training suggestions for administrators in
the leadership program were influenced by the gap influencers of the KMO model.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gap Analysis Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework was used to analyze a
performance problem and develop recommendations based on empirical results. The Clark and
Estes Gap Analysis Framework provided structure and guidance throughout the study.
Procedures of analyzing data results to identify the gaps within the organization to make proper
recommendations for improvement and change were driven by the Gap Analysis Model. The
in-depth examination of knowledge, motivation, and organization influences allowed for the
research to take a systematic approach to pin point the root that influenced the KMOs. Finding
were validated through the use of a data-driven analysis to discover evidence to determine
influence gaps and research-based solutions. The weakness to the Clark and Estes Gap
Analysis Framework is that the organization might be reluctant to implement changes and
blame human behavior on the gaps instead of the organizational barriers.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 144
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations in the study were influences the researcher could not control; delimitations
were the influences on the study that the researcher could control. The first limitation that the
research could not control was the time span in which the study and data could be conducted.
Due to district and state testing, data could only be collected from the entire month of October
2018 to the first week of December 2018, resulting in the second limitation of the study.
Creswell (2009) warned about a small sample size for a study, for it may be difficult to find
significant relationships from the data. McEwan and McEwan (2003) suggested that for
qualitative research, simple size is less of an issue as long as it is explained that it does not
affect the research. The sample size did not affect the study; but due to the time constraints, the
availability of staff members that fit the criteria for the study was limited to participation, thus
decreasing the sample size. Another limitation to the study was that it was not a mixed-method
model; instead, with time restraints and limited availability of participants, the qualitative
process was the most efficient method to collect data. For further research, it would be
recommended to do a mixed-methods model to provide quantitative data to the study.
A delimitation to the study was that the participating stakeholder group was limited to
teachers with 5-years of teaching experience, because as Beers (2003) noted, early in a teaching
career, educators often are bombarded with other mandated tasks such as participating in a
teacher induction program, working toward tenure, and exploring teaching strategies. Five
years or more teaching criteria seemed fitting for the study because at that point in a teacher’s
career they are past mandated distractions and are working toward mastering their teaching
craft. Eliminating the criteria for years of experience would allow for to gauging a more
meaningful analysis of KMO gaps within an organization. It is important to note that only
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 145
teachers who held leadership positions on campus were included in the study, which may have
influenced how individuals felt and perceived the gaps within the organization—specifically
motivation influences within the organization.
Future Research
Future research should also include teacher voice, which is research that provides
teachers the opportunity to express what they believe enhances teacher competency to work
with LTEL students. Research on teacher voice should include what educators deem valuable
professional development training that helps increase knowledge and personal expertise to
provide effective literacy practices with LTEL students. Future research could also track how
administration supports teachers to check for understanding and monitor LTEL student
progress in order to create a sense of urgency to reclassify LTEL students in the middle school
level. Another research topic could be to evaluate what is considered to be effective practice
that educators use to make connections, build relevance, and to affirm language and culture.
Lastly, research about the systematic discrimination many Latino at-risk LTEL students endure
in the high school level is essential to address. Denying access to A-G requirements, an in-
depth look into dropout rates of exclusively Latino LTEL students, and college acceptance
rates of at-risk Latino LTEL students is a crucial research point to investigate.
Conclusion
Middle school is a crucial time for LTEL students in their academic careers. It is time
for this at-risk student population to either rebound from past academic failures or as a missed
opportunity to continue on an academic journey that will become increasing difficult and have
strong ramifications on their futures. At-risk Latino LTEL students are underserved in the
middle school level and experience years of inconsistent policies and programs that miss the
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 146
mark of providing them with the literacy skills needed to perform at grade-level standards.
California has an exclusive relationship with this invisible student population by being the first
state to acknowledge their presence and by creating unrealistic designation protocols to
reclassify out of the English Language Learner program.
The key influencer on LTEL student achievement are teachers. Educators need to have
the knowledge, training, resources, and motivation to work with such a diverse student
population. Many educators lack the motivation to work with LTEL students due to feeling
overwhelmed with large class sizes, declining budgets, and lack of training and resources.
Some initiatives, such as Title One Funding, intend to support LTEL students, teachers, and
schools to provide adequate support systems and training to work with the population; but
ultimately teachers need to feel competent in their abilities to increase at-risk LTEL Latino
student achievement. Misconception and stereotyping of LTEL students by educators is a result
of a lack of knowledge about the at-risk student population and teacher’s need for proper
training to eliminate the negativity that surrounds LTEL Latino students. By eliminating
negative thoughts, middle school teachers would feel motivated to advocate on behalf of this
largely marginalized at-risk student population by creating a sense of urgency to not only
increase reclassification rates for LTELs but also share their knowledge with other educators to
motivate and build teacher competency to work with an incredibly diverse student population
that seeks the acceptance and help of their middle school educators.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 147
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and English language learners: Assessment and
accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and
recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31
Alvarado, M., & Ricard, R. J. (2013). Developmental assets and ethnic identity as
predictors of thriving in Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 35(4), 510–523. doi:10.1177/0739986313499006
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34(2), 189–208.
Alvermann, D. E., & Eakle, A. J. (2003). Comprehension instruction: Adolescents and their
multiple literacies. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading
comprehension (pp. 12–29). New York, NY: Guilford.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249.
Ascension-Moreno, L., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2013). A CUNY-NYSSIEB framework for the
education of long-term English language learners: 6-12 grades. CUNY-NYSIEB
Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals. Retrieved from http://www.nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.
edu/files/2013/06/CUNYNYSIEB-Framework for-LTELLSLS-Spring-2013-FINAL.pdf

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 148
Athanases, S., & Achinstein, Betty. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and low
performing students: The centrality of formative assessment in the mentor's repertoire of
practice. teachers college record. Teacher’s Colle Record,105, 1486–1520. 10.1111/1467-
9620.00298.
Atkinson, L., & O’Hair, M. (2005). Schools as learning organizations: Relationships between
professional learning communities and technology-enriched learning environments.
ProQuest Dissertations. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/305404028/
August, D. (2002). Transitional programs for English language learners: Contextual factors and
effective programming (Report No. 58). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
20(1), 50–57.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Banks, J. A., & McGee Banks, C. A. (2012). Multicultural education: Issues and
Perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2003). Vision, relationships and teacher motivation: a case
study. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09578230310457439
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 149
Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy.
Harvard Educational Review, 46(2), 173–195.
Barton, P. (2004) Why Does the gap Persist? Closing the Achievement Gap, 62(3) 8–13
Becerra, D. (2001). Perceptions of educational barriers affecting the academic achievement of
Latino K-12 Students. Children & Schools, 34(3), 167–177.
Bennett, S. L. H, Rueda, R., Yates, K. A., Love, L. (2013). A capstone project: Closing the
achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School Using the
Gap Analysis Model, University of Southern California.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99–111.
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher
education: Leveraging promise (pp. 143–166). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Beers, J. (2000). Teacher Stress and Coping: Does the Process Differ According to Years
of Teaching Experience? doi:10.15760/etd.809
Brewster, A., & Bowen, B. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino
middle and high school students at risk of school failure. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal, 21(1), 47–67.
Butiko, R., Rodriguez, T., Cernusca, D., & Williams, N. (2017). Middle school teachers’
perceptions of long-term English language learners. ProQuest Dissertations. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1966227922/

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 150
Calderon, M. (2001). Curricula and methodologies used to teach Spanish-speaking limited
English proficient students to read English. Effective programs for Latino students (pp.
251–305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress of EL Student Results
2015-16 School Year.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress of EL Student Results
2016-17 School Year
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (2016). Retrieved from
https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2016/search.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2017). Standards of quality and effectiveness
for professional teacher preparation programs. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2014). Academic criterion for reclassification. Retrieved
from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rd/acadreclass14.asp
California Department of Education | LCFF-LCAP. (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/19651366111926/2/StudentGroupReport
California Department of Education | LCFF-LCAP. (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/19651366111926/2/StudentGroupReport
California Department of Education | LCFF-LCAP. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/19651366111926/2/StudentGroupReport
California Department of Education. (2018). The California English Learner Roadmap:
Strengthening Comprehensive Educational Policies, Programs, and Practices for English
Learners (CA EL Roadmap. (2018). Retrieved from http://cabe2018.gocabe.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/CDE_EL_Roadmap_Guidance.pdf
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 151
California Department of Education Reporting Office. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
California Department of Education Reporting Office. (2018). EdData for La Mesa Junior High
School. Retrieved from cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education Reporting Office. (2018). Ethnic distribution of public
school teachers: 2016–17 in the state of California. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
California NAEP Results. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/nr/caresults.asp
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and High School English Learners: Limiting Opportunity to
Learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.
doi:10.3102/00028312042002305
CALPADS UPC Source File (K-12). (2018). Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filescupc.asp
Capturing Kids Hearts (n.d). Retrieved from https://flippengroup.com/education-
solutions/capturing-kids-hearts/
Carpenter, D., & Ramirez, A. (2009). The matter of dropouts: Understanding differences within
racial and ethnic groups rather than between groups is more likely to aid us in
developing policies that can help us overcome the achievement gap. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE. Retrieved from http://pdk.sagepub.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/
Cervera, C. M. (2013). Teacher perceptions of the preparation needed to work effectively with
English language learners in the secondary mainstream classroom (Order No. 3600552).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text (1491118639)

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 152
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Commins, N., & Miramontes, O. (2006). Addressing Linguistic Diversity from the Outset.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 240–246. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285591
Conchas, G. (2001) Structuring failure and success: understanding the variability in Latino
school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71(5) 475–490
Cornell, H., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world
(2nd ed., Sociology for a new century). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
(CSD) William S. Hart Union High School District. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.hartdistrict.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=317465&type=d&pREC_I
D=725073
Cummins, J. (2001) Negotiating identities: education for empowerment in a diverse
society (2nd ed.). Ontario, CA: California Association of Bilingual Education
Dhamoon, R. K. (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research
Quarterly, 64(1), 230–243.
Daniel, S. M. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers' learning to educate English learners in a
teacher education program: A case study (Order No. 3543448). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global
(1197736604).

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 153
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to
“Teacher certification reconsidered.” Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n36
Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gayner. (2017). Effective teacher professional development.
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational
Leadership, 5(66), 46–53.
de Jong, E. J. (2004). After exit: Academic achievement patterns of former English language
learners. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 12(50), 1–21.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language
learners: Is being a good teacher enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don't drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts, Lumina
Foundation for Education.
Dufour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A Bandwagon, an idea worth
considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal,
39(1), 4–8.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2002). Leading schools in a data rich world. In K. Leithwood, P.
Hallinger, G. Furman, P. Gronn, J. MacBeath, B. Mulforld, & K. Riley (Eds.),
The second international handbook of educational leadership and administration.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 154
EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA
EdSource. (2009). High schools have shown steady improvement in dropout rates.
PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e564292009-001
Engbrecht, V (2018). Retrieved from
http://www.ed-data.org/district/Los-Angeles/William-S.-Hart-Union-High
English, B. (2009). Who is responsible for educating English language learners?
Discursive construction of roles and responsibilities in an inquiry community.
139 Language and Education, 23(6), 487–507. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.dominican.edu
English Learner Students by Language by Grade. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpringData/StudentsByLanguage.aspx?Level=State&The
Year=201718&SubGroup=All&ShortYear=1718&GenderGroup=B&CDSCode=000000
00000000&RecordType=EL
Education Trust Research Report; Looking at Latino Student Success. (2017) Retrieved from
https://1k9gl1yevnfp2lpq1dhrqe17-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/Latino_Success_Report_Final.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/
resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-achievement
Evans, E., Hentschke, G., Labrucherie, M., & Rueda, R. (2013). Teacher perceptions of
instructional practices for long-term English learners. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1400477661/
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 155
Fernandez, N., & Inserra, A. (2013). Disproportionate Classification of ESL Students in U.S.
Special Education. TESL-EJ, 17(2), 1–22. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651841196/
Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for
research in educational leadership (pp. 81–91). New York: Teachers College Press.
Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality:
Identities of students labeled long-term English language learners. Journal of Language,
Identity & Education, 14 (2), 113–132, doi:10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for
the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for
instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation,
Center on Instruction. Retrieved from www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-
Interventions.pdf
Frias, G. (2014). High performing schools in high risk environments: A study on leadership,
school safety, and student achievement at two urban middle schools in Los Angeles
County [Data set]. University of Southern California Digital Library (USC.DL).
https://doi.org/10.25549/USCTHESES-M2864
Gandara, P. (2015). Fulfilling America’s future: Latinas in the U.S., 2015.
The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Washington, DC:
Department of Education.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 156
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development
needs. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Geddes, A. C. (2015). Teacher perceptions of their preparation in teaching English language
learners: A mixed methods study. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full
Text (1738989606). Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1738989606?accountid=14749
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking. Learning in the
challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gorski, P. (2008). The myth of the “culture of poverty.” Educational Leadership, 65, 32–36.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.
The Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.
Hahnel, C., Wolf, L., Banks, A., & LaFors, J. (2014). REPORT: The language of reform:
English learners in California's shifting education landscape. Retrieved from
https://west.edtrust.org/resource/the-language-of-reform-english-learners-in-californias-
shifting-education-landscape.
Hanushek, E., & Lindseth, A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses [electronic
resource]: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools / Eric A.
Heckman, J. J. (2008). Schools, skills, and synapses. Economic Inquiry, 46(3), 289–324.
doi:10.3386/w14064
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 157
ILIT Information. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://mypearsontraining.com/products/ilit
Jacobs, L. C. (2008) Long-term English learners writing their stories. The English Journal,
97(6), 87–91.
Jensen, C., Miller, H., Bullock, C., & Hanson, A. (2014). Including Teachers in the Design of
Collaborative Professional Development. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1537043405/
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Joyce, B. (2004). At odds: strategic planning “How are professional learning communities
created? History has a few messages.” Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (1), 76–83.
Kaufman, P., Bradbury, D., & Owings, J. (1992). Characteristics of at-risk students in NELS:88.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Krashen, S., & Brown, C. L. (2005). The ameliorating effects of high socioeconomic status: A
secondary analysis. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 185–196
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kohl, K. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of becoming a professional learning community
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi
/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=dissertations

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 158
Mandincah, E. B., Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven
decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA, San
Francisco, CA
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and
gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven
decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational
Management Administration Leadership, 43(2), 269–289.
doi:10.1177/17411432145372294
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-drive decision making
in education (RAND Education occasional paper). Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan-Adkins, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good,
what's not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals
to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(5) 601–632. doi:10.117/0013161X04268839
McKinney, R. W. (2008). Teacher attitudes toward English language learners (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 159
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences. Theory
into Practice, 49(2), 121–128. doi:10.1080/00405841003626619
Menken, K. (2013a). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic
language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46(4), 438–476.
Menken, K. (2013b). Restrictive language education policies and emergent bilingual youth: A
perfect storm with imperfect outcomes. Theory into Practice, 52(3), 160–168.
doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.804307
Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the
educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399–417.
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on "long-term English language learners":
Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 121–142.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzales, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132–141.
Mora, M. T., Villa, D. J., & Dávila, A. (2006). Language shift and maintenance among the
children of immigrants in the U.S.: Evidence in the Census for Spanish speakers and
other language minorities. Spanish in Context, 3(2), 239–254.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 160
Morphew, C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission Statements: A Thematic Analysis of Rhetoric
across Institutional Type. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/3838697
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics 2013. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015011.pdf
National Center of Education Statistics (2018). The condition of education - preprimary,
elementary, and secondary education - finances – public school expenditures - indicator
April (2018). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmb.asp
The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions (National
Center for Education Statistics). (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000.
Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs
elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
The National Education Association. (1975). Code of ethics of the education profession.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/30442.htm
Odden, A. R. (2009). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for
California's long term English Learners. California Together. Retrieved from
http://www.californiatogether.org
Olsen, L. (2010a). Changing course for long-term English learners. Leadership, 40(2), 30–33.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 161
Olsen, L. (2014). Meeting the unique needs of long term English language learners: A guide
for educators. National Education Association.
Ozcan, Y. A. (2008). Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation. An Assessment
using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA),(Ed.) Chapter 1, 3-14. Springer Science+
Business Media, New York, 4.
Padilla, A. M. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 28(4), 467–497. doi:10.1177/0739986306294255
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading
Teacher, 58(3), 272–280.
Pogrow, S. (2009). Accelerate the learning of fourth and fifth graders born into poverty.
Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 408–412.
Prieto, L., Phipps, S., & Osiri, J. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13–22. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i4.4966
Ramirez, P. & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2016). Introduction to the special issue. The intersectionality
of border pedagogy and secondary education: Understanding and learning from the
powerful worlds and lives of Latino/a youth. The High School Journal, 99(4), 279–281.
Rasinski, T., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2011). The relationship
between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students’ reading
comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Reading Psychology, 32(1),
75–97.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 162
Rocco, T., & Plakhotnik, M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1),. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221841803/
Rodriguez, M. C., & Morrobel, D. (2004). A review of Latino youth development
research and a call for an asset orientation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 26(2), 107–127. doi:10.1177/0739986304264268
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Ruiz de Velasco, J. (2005). Performance-based school reforms and the federal role in helping
schools that serve language minority children. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children
behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 33–56). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Ryan, C., & Buaman, K.(2015). Education attainment in the United States: Population
characteristics. Current Population Report, United Census Bureau.
Sargent, B. (2003). Finding good teachers-and keeping them. Educational Leadership, 60(8),
44–47.
Scarcella, R. (2002). Some key factors affecting English learners’ development of advanced
literacy. Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with
power (pp. 209–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 163
Schneider, B., Martinez, S., & Owens, A. (2006). Barriers to educational opportunities for
Hispanics in the United States. In Hispanics and the future of America (pp. 179–227).
National Academies Press.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC). (2017). Retrieved from
https://4.files.edl.io/da7a/01/31/19/225126-f002d82d-722f-477b-b6fa-f90cac9634a6.pdf
Sebastian, J. (2013). The impact of an after-school intervention program on academic
achievement among middle school students. Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text (1427344561)
Senate Bill 750—Bill Text. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.legiscan.com
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Test Results for: State of California. (n.d.). Retrieved February
06, 2018
Sims, D. (2006). How cultural dynamics and teacher preparation affect the educational
opportunities of minority students. Essays in Education, 17, 1–12.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning
teacher turnover?” American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 681–714.
Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., & McCormick, L. (1992).
Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 164
Sunderman, G. (2001). Accountability mandates and the implementation of Title I
schoolwide programs: A comparison of three urban districts. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 503–532.
Title I, Part A Program. (2015, October 05). Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
Tsovili, T. (2004). The relationship between language teachers’ attitudes and the state-trait
anxiety of adolescents with dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(1), 69–86.
United States Census Bureau. (2003). Retrieved from www.census.gov.
Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals:
Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International
Association.
Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards
English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and
Practice, 2(1), 130–160.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpaa, MA (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long
Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210.
White, K. K., Zion, S., Kozleski, E., & Fulton, M. L. (2005). Cultural identity and teaching.
National Institute for Urban School Improvement.
Wlodkowski, R., & Ginsberg, M. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching.
Educational Leadership, 53, 17–21.
Wooley, M., Loi, K., & Bowen, G. (2009) The social context of school success for
Latino middle school students; direct and indirect influences of teachers,
family, and friends. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1) 43–70
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 165
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Young, V. M. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team
norms. American Journal of Education, 112, 521–547.
Youngs, C., & Youngs, G. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers attitudes towards ESL
students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97–120.
Zambrana, R. E., & Zoppi, I. M. (2002). Latina Students. Journal of Ethnic And Cultural
Diversity in Social Work, 11(12), 33–53. doi:10.1300/j051v11n01_02
Zwiers, J., O’Hara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2013). Eight essential shifts for teaching common
core standards to academic English learners. Academic Language Development
Network, ALD Network.

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 166
APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

The following questions will be asking to the educators who agreed to partake in the study by
signing the informed consent form. The purpose of the semi- structured open ended interview
questions is to determine if educators have a gap in knowledge, motivation, or experience
organizational barriers that affect their competency to work with high risk LTEL middle school
students at a Title One school. The table below are separated by the KMO influences.

Assumed Knowledge Influence
Listed Below are questions that address Knowledge Influencers

Conceptual Knowledge: Teachers need to know how to use data to establish and monitor the
progress of high risk LTEL students enrolled in intervention programs.

Do you use data or benchmarking systems to help create effective interventions to support
LTELs?

How does your organization expect you to use data to increase LTEL student achievement and
what support has administration provided you to use this data as a PLC effectively?

What type of interventions can we invest into to adequately support the academic and social
success of our LTEL students?
Procedural Knowledge: Teachers need to know what instructional strategies improve the
academic and social growth of at risk middle school students

Describe the type of preparation you received before you began to work with a high-risk
student population such as LTELs.

What type of challenges do you face in your classroom and how does your knowledge about
LTELs drive your classroom instruction? How does collaborating with your peers/department
as a PLC help eliminate these barriers?

Factual Knowledge: Teachers need to have cultural knowledge of the Latino community in
order to provide proper academic and social support to LTEL Latino students

How does your knowledge about the Latino community help you build a cultural bridge
between you and your LTEL students?

What type of preparation did you receive or have recently received through your organization
to work with a large Latino student population that is at high risk?

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 167
Assumed Motivation Influence
Listed Below are questions that address Motivation Influencers

Self-efficacy: Teachers need to feel confident in their knowledge and skills to work with at-
risk LTEL middle school students

Questions:
What about your teaching practices makes you successful with LTELs?

What barriers do you believe LTEL students face that hinder academic achievement and social
stability in school and what perpetuates these barriers? Describe how confident you feel
addressing these barriers.

How do you view your role when it comes to LTEL student achievement? What type of
expertise and support do you need to carry out the role you describe correctly?

Goal Oriented Theory: Teachers believe they can influence at- risk LTEL middle school
success by creating effective interventions to increase LTEL Literacy skills.

Questions
Tell me about a time that you believed you had a positive interaction with your LTEL
students either academically or a socially in your classroom.

How do you plan to advocate for LTEL students in the future and what is your overall hope
for this high-risk student population?

Assumed Organization Influence
Listed Below are questions that address Organization Influencers

Culture impacts stakeholder’s motivation and ability to work towards a global goal

Does your organization have formal goals set for LTEL achievement and how effectively do
they communicate the set expectation to reach these goals to educators?

Stakeholders need to value the culture of the organization to adopt the policies, practices, and
procedures of the organization as their beliefs.

Describe the professional activities and additional support that your organization provides
staff to work with LTEL students effectively?

Does your organization have a sense of urgency to reclassify LTEL students and how is that
express, do you have a sense of urgency to help reclassify these students before they enter
high school?

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 168
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
The following interview protocols are to ensure the reliability of the study, protect the
confidentiality of the participant, and follow IRB requirements.
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW
Record Number

BEFORE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Invitation to participate via email sent

DATE
TIME
RECORD ON FILE
o YES
o NO
Participant Responded

DATE
TIME
RECORD ON FILE
o YES
o NO
Participant agreeing to move forward o YES
o NO
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 169
Reasoning for not participating if NO o Time Constraints
o Conflict of Interest
o Professional/ Personal Obligations
o Not Interested
o No Reason
Follow up email scheduling Interview

DATE
TIME
RECORD ON FILE
o YES
o NO
Schedule Date of Interview DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:

Did Participant sign the Informed Consent
Form?
If yes Date Received
o YES
o NO
If No have you followed up Actions Taken

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 170
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Interview start time
Did the participant acknowledge the LTEL
fact sheet sent beforehand in the invitation
email
o Yes
o No
Did the researcher review the protocols of
confidentially stated in the Informed
Consent Form?
o YES
o NO
Did the researcher review the opt-out
provisions?
o YES
o NO
Did the research address any
concerns/issues of the participant before
beginning the interview?
o YES
o NO
Was the researcher able to get a response
from the participant for every question?
o YES
o NO

If NO why:

Were there other topics discussed during
the Interview?
o YES
o NO

If YES what:
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 171
Ask the participant if they are still willing
to partake in the observation portion of the
study?
o YES
o NO

If NO why:

o Time Constraints
o Conflict of Interest
o Professional/ Personal Obligations
o Not Interested
o No Reason

Interview End Time

Did the participant ask for a copy of their
interview?
o YES
o NO
Follow Up:

o

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 172
AFTER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Did the researcher review notes and audio
after the interview to add any extra
thoughts/comments

DATE
TIME
o YES
o NO
Has the interview been transcribed?

o YES
o NO
Attach a link to the transcribed Interview
here

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 173
APPENDIX C

OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

This observation checklist will be used to guide the documentation of the observations in the
classroom. The following items will be documented throughout each classroom observation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 141).

Observation start time_____________________________ End time______________________
Location____________________________ Date_____________________________________
Staff Members Observe__________________________________________________________
LTEL Students Observe__________________________________________________________

1. The physical setting of the classroom. Arrangement of desks, classroom environment, ,
Posters, Standards, computer carts

2. The participants, how many teachers, how many students, BIA’s?

3. Activities and Interactions: Teacher interaction with students, students with students, teacher
with BIA’s

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 174
4. Conversations: Dialogue & Conversations

5. Subtle Factors: Student engagement, student participation, social interactions

6. The researcher’s behavior

7. Discussion with participant and researcher before and after the observation

8. Extra Comments

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 175
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION PROTOCOLS
The following observation protocols are to ensure the reliability of the study, protect the
confidentiality of the participant, and follow IRB requirements.

INDIVIDUAL OBSERVATION (ensure it matches the Interview Number)
Record Number

BEFORE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Reminder to participate in the observation
via email sent

DATE
TIME
RECORD ON FILE
o YES
o NO
Participant Responded

DATE
TIME
RECORD ON FILE
o YES
o NO
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 176
Follow up email scheduling Observation

DATE
TIME
RECORD ON FILE
o YES
o NO
Schedule Date of Observation DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:

Did Participant sign the Informed Consent
Form?
If yes Date Received
o YES
o NO
If No have you followed up Actions Taken

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 177
APPENDIX E

DOCUMENT AND ARTIFACT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS

Record ID

Before Analysis Protocol
Date of Analysis Time of Analysis
Item Type o Document
o Artifact
Internal or External Source
Individuals Involve o Lead Counselor
o Educator
o Administrator
o EL Coordinator
o Intervention Coordinator
o Other

Conceptual Framework KMO Alignment
Knowledge o Factual
o Conceptual
o Procedural
o Metacognitive
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 178
Motivation o Self Efficacy
o Goal Oriented
o Expectancy Theory
o Active Choice
o Mental Effort
Organizational Culture o Systems
o Policy Procedures
o Communication
o Employee Training
o Employee Engagement

Discussion Questions
Did the LTEL student make any academic
progress during Semester 1?

Is this student receiving any Title One
Intervention support?

Did the LTEL student make any progress on
their social skills?

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 179
APPENDIX F
TRAINING SURVEY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WOLVERINE
TEAM MODEL PROGRAM

Employee Name:

Date:
Module Title:

Trainer:

If applicable, please mark the number for each question that matches the corresponding emoji 1–
strongly disagree 2 – disagree 3 – agree 4 – strongly agree

Question

This program held my interest:

1 2 3 4

What I learned from this program will help me
support my teachers to work with at-risk students?

1 2 3 4

What I learned from this program will help me
create stronger systems of support to provide
adequate resources to teachers?

1 2 3 4
I found the webinar class time to interact with my
peers valuable
1 2 3 4
I found value in the artifacts created during the
modules
1 2 3 4
The feedback by my peers on the artifacts I created
provided me with insight into the direction I need to
take to make it relevant to my school site
1 2 3 4
The Leadership Program contributed to my
professional growth as an administrator?
1 2 3 4
The Leadership Program will help me build positive
relationships with teachers at my school site
1 2 3 4
I would recommend this program to other
administrators
Yes No
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 180
How can this program be improved?

What are the major concepts you learned during the program?

Which parts of the program did you find most valuable? Why?

How did the program help you better support teachers at your school site?

How would you describe your leadership style before and after the program?

LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 181
APPENDIX G
DELAYED TRAINING SURVEY FOLLOWING THE WOLVERINE
TEAM MODEL PROGRAM

Employee Name:

Date:
Module Title:

Trainer:

If applicable, please mark the number for each question that matches the corresponding emoji 1–
strongly disagree 2 – disagree 3 – agree 4 – strongly agree

Question

I found value in the program

1 2 3 4

I have had occasions in my job to use what I learned
in the Leadership Program

1 2 3 4

What I learned from this program did help me create
stronger systems of support to provide adequate
resources to teachers

1 2 3 4

I have successfully applied on the job what I learned
in training:

1 2 3 4
I have used the artifacts created during the modules 1 2 3 4

I am already seeing positive results from the training
with building positive relationships with teachers at
my school site

1 2 3 4
The Leadership Program contributed to my
professional growth as an administrator?
1 2 3 4
LONG-TERM ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 182
I would recommend this program to other
administrators
Yes No

Please give an example of a positive outcome you have experienced since attending this training

Describe any challenges you are experiencing in applying what you learned to your work and
possible solutions to overcome the challenges

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Understanding the reason for variation in high school graduation rates of Latino males

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

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

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Examining third grade English language development teaching practices

PDF

Improving the reclassification rate gap

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Staff perceptions of critical challenges faced by Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) during the transition to junior high school

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Delgado, Gwendolyn (author)

Core Title Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 05/02/2019

Defense Date 03/20/2019

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

Tag at-risk student population,building teacher competency,Clark and Estes,data,data driven decision making,English language learners,enhancing teacher competency,equity,gap analysis,interviews,Junior High School,KMO model,knowledge influences,Latino LTEL students,Latino students,long term English language learners,middle school,Middle school students,motivation influences,New World Kirkpatrick Model,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,organizational gaps,professional learning communities,providing equitable opportunities,qualitative study,teacher competency,teacher interviews,teacher leaderships roles,teacher use of data,teacher voice,Title One funds,Title One middle school,Title One school

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick (committee chair), Crop, Kathy (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email gsdelgad@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-165552

Unique identifier UC11660070

Identifier etd-DelgadoGwe-7394.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-165552 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DelgadoGwe-7394.pdf

Dmrecord 165552

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Delgado, Gwendolyn

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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