University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving the reclassification rate gap

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving the reclassification rate gap

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Improving the Reclassification Rate Gap
by
Leah Bass-Baylis

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

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Leah Bass-Baylis

ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Louise L. Bass, lifelong educator, who
refused to allow any child to fail, and my family and friends who never stopped saying, “You
can do this.”
Susan Casey, Jennifer Williams, Angela Consolo, and Armelia McQueen, you have never
left my side and your spirits gave me the will to go on in the midst of life’s challenges. RIH my
sisters.

iii
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Lucia Monzon and Reginald Ryder for their unwavering guidance,
encouragement, and support throughout this long process.
Special thanks to Elizabeth Cervantes and Deara Espinoza who never said “no” to my
constant requests, all hours of the day and night, for them to proofread and help me work through
my analysis of my topic. Each of you agreed and disagreed with me eloquently and often! You
helped me understand my biases and see my topic from different perspectives. I am eternally
grateful to you.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms Pertaining to English Language Learners .....................1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................7
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................12
Organizational Performance Status ....................................................................................16
Related Literature ...............................................................................................................20
Three Key Factors that Impact ELL Program Effectiveness and
Reclassification ..........................................................................................23
Preparedness and Training of the Instructor ..............................................24
Quality of Instructional Delivery ...............................................................26
Program Design .........................................................................................28
Importance of Addressing the Reclassification Rate Gap .................................................33
Organizational Performance Goal ......................................................................................34
Description of Stakeholder Groups ....................................................................................35
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................38
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................39

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..........................................................................40
Key Terms that Relate to Reclassification .........................................................................40
The Reclassification Process ..................................................................................42
ELL Misidentification ............................................................................................44
Barriers to Reclassification ....................................................................................46
Instruction for ELLs ...........................................................................................................47
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) ...............................................48
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) ............................49
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Framework ......................................................49
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ..............................................50
Knowledge Influences ...............................................................................51
Teacher Understanding of the Reclassification Process ................54
Teacher Understanding of their Own Pedagogical
Skills and Attitudes ............................................................55
Dynamics of a Culture that Affects School and Student
Achievement ......................................................................56
Motivational Influences .............................................................................59
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Competence Beliefs ............................59
Utility Value and the Importance of Reclassification ....................61
Goal Orientation.............................................................................62
Organizational Influences ..................................................................................................64

v
Cultural Models .....................................................................................................64
Cultural Settings.....................................................................................................65
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................68

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................................73
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................73
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................................73
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................74
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................75
Documents and Artifacts........................................................................................76
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................77
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................78
Ethics..................................................................................................................................79
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................80

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS .........................................................................82
Knowledge Results ............................................................................................................83
Terminology ...........................................................................................................83
The Reclassification Process ..................................................................................84
Instruction to Improve English Language Proficiency ..........................................90
Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Skills and Attitudes ......................................91
Motivation Results .............................................................................................................95
Organizational Influences That Impact Reclassification .................................................100
Professional Development and Reclassification ..............................................................102
Parental Support ...............................................................................................................104
Time .................................................................................................................................105
Synthesis ..........................................................................................................................107

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................110
Implications and Recommendations for Practice ............................................................111
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................112
Motivation Influences and Recommendations .....................................................115
Organization Influences and Recommendations .................................................118
Summary ..............................................................................................................122
Future Research ...............................................................................................................125
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................127

References ....................................................................................................................................130

Appendix A: ELPAC Task Types................................................................................................147
Appendix B: Summaries of Influences and Recommendations ..................................................152
Appendix C: Outcomes & Critical Behavior Recommendations ................................................156
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................158

vi
List of Tables

Table 1: 2017-2018 Current Performance Data on SBAC by VDV Students ...............................18
Table 2: 2017-2018 Current Performance Data on ELPAC by VDV Students .............................19
Table 3: Multilingual Program Descriptions .................................................................................29
Table 4: Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholders .......................................37
Table 5: Knowledge Influences, Types and Assessments for Gap Analysis .................................58
Table 6: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis ........................63
Table 7: Organizational Influences and Assessments Gap Analysis .............................................68
Table 8: DIBELS Next Overview of Task Types ..........................................................................88
Table 9: Required Daily Minutes of Designated English Language Development Instruction ....94
Table B1: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ......................................152
Table B2: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .......................................154
Table B3: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations .................................155
Table C1: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes Summary .....156
Table C2: Recommended Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ....157

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Reclassification Measures and Criteria ..........................................................................43
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge,
Motivation and Organizational Goals ................................................................................70
Figure 3: ELPAC Task Types Reported by the Participants .........................................................85
Figure 4: Subjects Assessed on the SBAC Reported by Participants ............................................87
Figure 5: DIBELS Measures Identified by Participants ................................................................89
Figure 6: Frequency of Reflection on English Language Acquisition Among ELLs ....................92
Figure 7: Challenges to the Delivery of Instruction to ELLs .........................................................93
Figure 8: Characteristics of LTELS Identified by Participants .....................................................97
Figure 9: Implications of Growing Numbers of LTELs in Secondary Schools ............................99
Figure 10: Contributors to Improvement of School-wide Reclassification Rates .......................101
Figure 11: Recommendations for Professional Development Topics .........................................104
Figure 12: Participant Perception of Instructional Competencies ...............................................108
Figure 13: The Reflection Cycle ..................................................................................................115

viii
Abstract
Students whose first language is not English are the fastest growing demographic group in
United States public schools, and these students currently have the lowest high school graduation
rates of all subgroups. Public education must effectively address the needs of these students.
The conceptual framework model was used to conduct a gap analysis examining knowledge,
motivation, and organizational elements that motivate or hinder the selected elementary school’s
ability to improve rates among ELLs. The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons for
the reclassification rate gap that exists between the current reclassification rate of 17.4% and the
district goal of 22%. Factors that influence reclassification rates were examined in a
kindergarten through fifth-grade elementary school in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
For the purposes of this study, seven participants were interviewed individually via an online
platform. Participants selected provided instruction to students designated as English language
learners. An assessment of teachers’ factual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge was
conducted to identify and address knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
serve as barriers or facilitators to improving current reclassification rates. Throughout data
collection the lack of coherence and fidelity in addressing the needs of ELLs was apparent. The
study found that there is a need to build staff capacity to consistently deliver coherent and
effective instruction by providing high quality, relevant, focused, research-based professional
development for teachers. This professional development must include systematic observation,
collaboration and self-reflection among teachers and administrators.

Keywords: English Language Learners, reclassification, professional development

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
There are a multitude of terms that are essential to understanding the information in this
document. In an effort to facilitate understanding of the ideas and concepts presented, the
glossary has been provided at the beginning of Chapter One.
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms Pertaining to English Language Learners
Additive Bilingualism—This refers to students being provided with the opportunity to use both
their home language and English inside and outside of school. It has been known to result
in fluency in more than one language.
Bilingual Cross-Cultural Language in Academic Development (BCLAD)—The authorization and
training process that prepares teachers to address the needs of ELLs in all instructional
settings in the state of California. It is required for teachers who provide target language
instruction in DI programs.
Bilingualism—The ability to orally communicate and be understood by others in two languages.
Biliteracy—The ability to read and write in two languages.
California English Language Development (ELD) Standards—California state standards
designed for students whose primary language is not English. The CA ELD standards
support English learners in the purposeful use of English. These standards integrate
reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language and are designed to enable ELLs in
utilizing language as a resource for communicating and learning.
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)—A specialized language commonly used in
the classroom in content areas and characterized by being abstract and content reduced.
California Common Core State Standards (CCCSS)—The education standards for all students
from kindergarten through high school mandated by the California State Board of

2
Education and adopted in 2010. What all students should know upon graduation from a
California high school. Common Core Standards refers to a set of high-quality academic
standards in math and English language arts that carefully outline what a student should
know and be able to do at the end of each grade. They have been adopted by 41 states
and are an attempt to implement consistent learning goals across states. The standards
are research and evidence based and were created and designed by teachers,
administrators, and other educational experts. Basically, the standards define knowledge
and skills students need to successfully complete their K-12 education and graduate from
high school college and career ready.
California English Language Development Test (CELDT)—The CELDT is a formal assessment
of English language proficiency and was administered to any student who has a home
language other than English. It has been replaced in California with the ELPAC.
Designated English Language Development (dELD)—dELD is a protected time of the regular
school day when teachers provide lessons that assist English learners in achieving
English language proficiency. Teachers focus on the development of language skills
needed by ELs to access and achieve mastery of grade level content and are taught in
English. The teachers use the CA ELD Standards in conjunction with the content
standards.
Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS Next)—A basic skills assessment given
three times per year to students in grade K-5. It a measure of critical skills that are the
basis for early reading success.
Dual-Language (DI) Two Way Immersion—Instructional programs that provide literacy
instruction to students through English and a target language. The goal of this program is

3
acquisition of full language proficiency and academic achievement in both the target
language and English coupled with cross-cultural competencies for ELLs and the English
proficient students.
English Language Arts (ELA)—The study of a combination of reading, writing, speaking,
listening, and viewing.
English Language Development (ELD)—ELD is a component of all program options for ELs. It
is complementary to English language arts instruction and addresses all four domains of
language and is designed to speed up English language learning in strategic ways by
explicitly focusing on the language demands required to access and achieve mastery of
core. It is comprised of Integrated ELD (iELD) and Designated ELD (dELD).
English Language Learners (ELLs)—Students whose first language is not English and who has
not developed listening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiency in English.
English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC)—The ELPAC is a mandated
state test that must be given to students whose primary language is one other than
English. It is used to determine English language proficiency and is aligned with the
2012 California English Language Development Standards and is comprise of two
separate English language proficiency assessments: The initial ELPAC and the
Summative ELPAC.
English As A Second Language (ESL) pull out—A segregated instructional program design for
ELLs.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)—The most recent reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act is the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). It establishes
the federal government’s expanded role in oversight of U.S. public educational services.

4
Heritage Language Maintenance—Heritage language maintenance refers to the preservation of
the ELL’s native, home, or ancestral language. It plays a key role in honoring and
reaffirming students’ home languages and helping teachers understand the linguistic
capital that ELLs bring to school.
Home Language Survey—A survey given to all students enrolled in school to determine the
primary or home language of that student.
Integrated English Language Development (iELD)—A component of ELD instruction in which
teachers provide instruction to ELs in regular content area lessons. Teachers address the
state-adopted English Language Development Standards and provide language
clarification and language acquisition support during content area core instruction. The
teachers use the content standards (CSS for ELA/Literacy) in conjunction with the CA
ELD standards.
Instructional Core—The Instructional core refers to three interdependent components: teachers’
knowledge and skill, students’ engagement in their own learning, and academically
challenging content. For the purposes of this study it includes access to grade level
curriculum in all subjects addressed in the California Common Core State Standards.
Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)—A tool that provides resources for local
educational agencies to develop action plans, set goals, and evaluate progress in the quest
to improve student achievement.
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)—Legislation that changed how all local educational
agencies in California are funded, how they are measured for results, and the services and
supports they receive allow all students to achieve their greatest potential.

5
L2EAP—formerly known as SEI or Structured English Immersion. It is designed for ELLs in
grades K-12 to acquire English language skills and access to core content, including
primary language support for clarification and instruction throughout the day so that they
are able to succeed in a mainstream English classroom.
Local Educational Agency (LEA)—a school district and/or county office of education.
Long-term English Learners (LTELs)—For the purposes of this study and in the state of
California, Long-term English Learners are all ELLs in 6
th
through 12
th
grade who have
completed six full years in U.S. schools without successfully reclassifying to RFEP
status.
Reclassification—The process by which English Language Learners achieve Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient status due to the successful completion of required assessments that
demonstrate proficient in English.
Reclassified Fluent English Proficient students (RFEPs)—English learners who are considered
English proficient based on successful completion of and multiple criteria that align with
the California Education Code and the State Board of Education recommendations.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)—A standardized test consortium that creates
assessments that are aligned to the Common Core State standards. For the purposes of
this dissertation, this term refers to an assessment that assesses mastery of Common Core
State Standards for English Language Arts and Math. It consists of two components:
computer adaptive questions and performance tasks and measures student knowledge of
subject matter, critical thinking, analytical writing, and problem-solving skills. It also
provides performance data that can be used to determine whether students are on track to
pursue college and career at the end of high school.

6
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)—A series of strategies designed to
be used across the curriculum to enhance comprehension of core concepts while
providing grade-appropriate academic content in English to ELLs. SDAIE is
characterized by learner-centered instruction with the teacher as facilitator and
opportunities for students to build on existing knowledge and make meaningful
connections to the material represented.
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)—An instructional strategy that is most
effective with upper elementary students and focused on making content comprehensible
to students while promoting English language development through instruction in
academic English skills in reading, writing, listening and speaking. It is characterized by
the use of limited native language in conjunction with cooperative learning, reading
comprehension strategies, differentiated instruction and language objectives in content
area classes.
Subtractive Bilingualism—This refers to a student learning a second language at the expense of
their first language and usually results in gaining skills in one language while
simultaneously losing proficiency in another language.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)—The largest professional
organization for teachers of English as a second or foreign language.
Transitional Bilingual Education—The most common ELL program in the United States and, as
currently practiced, ELL students are usually assigned to a self-contained class with
minimal opportunity to interact with native English speakers (Ballantyne et al., 2008;
Bialystok, 2001; “California English Language Development Standards,” 2019;
“Common Core State Standards,” 2013; “Common Core State Standards Initiative,”

7
2020; EdSource, 2020; Hollie, 2012; Hollingsworth, 2019; Keheller, 2010; Lee, 2012;
Lee & Oxelson, 2006; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018; Moughamian et al., 2009; Thomas
& Collier, 2002; Wolf, Banks, & LaFors, 2014; Ybarra & Hahnel, Shydlo, 2017).
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Students whose first language is not English are the fastest-growing demographic group
in our public schools (Bialik, Scheller, & Walker, 2018). The U.S. Census predicts that by 2030,
this group of students will comprise 40% of the school-age population in U.S. public schools
(Collier & Thomas, 2002) According to the Fall 2018 California Language Census, 1.96 million,
19.3 % of the total enrollment in California public schools was made up of English language
learners (ELLs). 70.2 percent of these children attend elementary schools. Teachers working
with this large group of students will need guidance to identify and provide the necessary support
to ensure their academic success.
With the November 2016 passing of The California Non-English Languages Allowed in
Public Education Act (Senate Bill 1174), also known as Proposition 58, the spotlight has been
focused on bilingual education. Schools are required to provide instruction that ensures that
students attain English language proficiency as rapidly and effectively as possible (Padilla,
2016). Proposition 58 authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs
for both native and non-native English speakers (Padilla, 2016) and gives public school systems
the right to make appropriate choices for students to swiftly learn English. Choices include being
taught in an English-only environment or in a bilingual environment, with instruction provided
by a person of the student's native language (Padilla, 2016; Ulloa, 2016). The priority, regardless
of the environment, is graduation from high school, college, and career ready. While English
language proficiency is not an explicit high school graduation requirement, almost all states

8
require 3 to 4 units of English for graduation and most ELLs do not have the academic language
needed to succeed in their English classes or other required classes like chemistry or algebra
(Klein, 2016).
Public education must equip students to succeed in a range of post-secondary settings
(“LCFF Priority 4 Statement of Model Practices,” 2018). Reclassification is the process by
which ELLs achieve Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) status due to the successful
completion of required assessments that demonstrate proficiency in English (Hahnel, Wolf,
Banks, & LaFors, 2014). According to the Public Policy Institute of California English Learners
Reclassification Survey and CALPADS (California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
System), RFEPs (Reclassified Fluent English Proficient students) have significantly higher
outcomes related to the completion of A-G courses and the achievement of a diploma. Research
has shown that a graduation gap exists between English Language Learners (ELLs) and their
English proficient peers. The same survey shows ELLs have the highest percentage of students
leaving high school before graduating (Hill, 2012; Hill, Weston & Hayes, 2014; Saunders &
Marcelletti, 2013; Warren & Hough, 2013). In California, only 65 % of ELLs graduated from
high school in 2014-2014 compared to 81% for all students (Klein, 2016). In fact, RFEPs
achieve at higher levels in English and Spanish and close the achievement gap with native
English speakers (“LCFF Priority 4 Statement Model Practices,” 2018; Lindholm-Leary &
Hernández, 2011).
Reclassification is based on multiple criteria for VDV students. An overall score of level
3 on the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) is required.
Students in kindergarten through grade 6 must achieve an ELA composite progress report score
of 3 or higher for reclassification. ELLs must score benchmark or above on all grade level

9
assessed skills on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (DIBELS Next).
Students in grades 3-5 only must achieve a score of standard met or exceed on the ELA section
of the SBAC. Parent notification and acknowledgment in writing of the change in the student’s
classification to Reclassified English Proficient must be secured (Gipson & Stephens, 2018).
Students who have been enrolled in US schools for six years or more and are making
inadequate progress toward English proficiency or have remained at the same California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) or English Language Proficiency Assessments for
California (ELPAC) level for several years and have not reclassified, are defined as Long Term
English Language Learners (LTELs) (“LCFF Priority 4 Statement Model Practices,” 2018;
Olsen, 2010). Almost half of the ELLs that enroll in California schools in kindergarten will
become LTELs and remain at a very basic level of English skills, never achieving proficiency in
English language arts (ELA) needed to participate and succeed in school (Olsen, 2010). ELA
refers to the study of a combination of reading, writing (composition), speaking, listening, and
viewing (“California Common Core State Standards,” 2013).
Secondary schools provide instruction to 20.8 % of the aforementioned ELLs (“Facts
About English Learners in California,” 2019) and more than half of these students are LTELS
who have not achieved the English proficiency to reclassify. The academic performance of
LTELS is significantly lower than that of other student groups (Burr & Chen-Gaddini, 2016;
Klein, 2016) for a number of reasons. A statewide survey conducted by the coalition
Californians Together, collected data from forty school districts and provided performance data
on almost one-third of California’s secondary school ELLs (“English Learner State and Federal
Accountability Systems Survey Results,” 2008; Olsen, 2010;). A review of student educational
histories revealed the following contributing factors to becoming an LTEL: elementary school

10
curricula and materials not designed to meet the needs of ELLs, poorly implemented EL
programs, narrowed curricula and only partial access to the full curriculum, and long periods of
time in which the students received no ELD instruction at all (“English Learner State and Federal
Accountability Systems Survey Results,” 2008; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010; Olsen, 2010).
Primary language instruction plays an important role in achieving English proficiency,
but the study found that the number of ELLs receiving primary language instruction or
development was just five percent coupled with an increase in the number of ELLs placed into
mainstream classes (English Learner State and Federal Accountability Systems Survey Results,”
2008; Olsen, 2010). The cumulative records of many LTELs indicated histories of inconsistent
placements and programs characterized by movement in and out of programs resulting in gaps in
language development and academic content access. The survey also found that large numbers of
ELLs had increased time for English and math coupled with limited time for science, arts, and
social studies contributing to knowledge gaps and limited opportunities to develop academic
language in these subjects (English Learner State and Federal Accountability Systems Survey
Results,” 2008; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010; Olsen, 2010). A recent study found that
LTELS appear to have the lowest graduation rates and, over the last seven years, the percentage
of LTEL students, among the total ELL population in secondary schools, has increased by 20
percentage points (Burr & Chen-Gaddini, 2016; Klein, 2016).
As the ELL enrollment rises throughout the United States, school districts recognize that
additional services are needed to ensure that ELLs acquire English proficiency that will result in
achievement of RFEP status, significant improvement of English language proficiency, and
skills that will lead to graduation and college and career readiness (Burr & Chen-Gaddini, 2016;
“LCFF Priority 4 Statement of Model Practices,” 2018). Upon achieving RFEP status, The Every

11
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to adhere to state and
federal laws that require four years of monitoring these students (20 U.S.C. Section
6841(a)(4)(5); California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 11304). Monitoring the academic
progress of RFEPs ensures that students have not been prematurely exited, academic deficits
have been effectively addressed, and they are successfully participating in the standard
instructional program at a level comparable to their never-EL peers (Neville-Morgan & Gregson,
2019).
It is important that school districts identify and provide the additional services needed for
schools to effectively address the needs of students with persistent language barriers that may be
the cause of academic difficulties when general education and remediation services have been
unsuccessful (“LCFF Priority 4 Statement of Model Practices,” 2018; Neville-Morgan &
Gregson, 2019). ESSA requires LEAs to take to assess the student with a valid and reliable
grade-appropriate test to determine if a persistent language barrier exists. Additional language
assistance services must be offered (i.e., Integrated and Designated English-language
development, reading intervention, etc.) as needed.
Reclassification is an important predictor of academic success. RFEP students who have
reclassified substantially outperform all other subgroups at VDV (“Single Plan for Student
Achievement,” 2018). Reclassification. RFEP students have much better academic outcomes
than ELLs and reclassifying ELs more quickly might help close the state’s persistent
achievement gap between EL and non-EL or English only (EO) students (Hill, Weston, & Hayes,
2014). The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons for the gap that exists between the
current reclassification rate of 17.4% and the stakeholder goal of 22% or more by the end of the
2019-2020 school year at VDV.

12
Organizational Context and Mission
The mission of VDV is to create a community school where students take part in
constructing their own learning and become critical thinkers who are well-rounded, civic-minded
scholars (“Single Plan for Student Achievement,” 2018). VDV, a pseudonym for an elementary
school located in California, is home to a dual language immersion (Two-Way Immersion)
instructional program (DI) and Language and Literacy English Acceleration Program (L2 EAP)
(formerly known as structured English immersion instructional program).
Dual-language Immersion (Two-Way Immersion) “refers to programs that provide
literacy instruction to all students through two languages-in the US. This means in English and a
target language” (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018, p. 31). The primary goals of dual-language
immersion programs are language proficiency and academic achievement in all native speakers
of English and all native speakers of the target language coupled with cross-cultural
understanding (“Facts About English Learners in California,” 2019). The target language at
VDV is Spanish.
The L2EAP program is designed for ELLs in grades K-12 to acquire English language
skills and access to core content, including primary language support for clarification and
instruction throughout the day so that they are able to succeed in a mainstream English
classroom. “ELLs that are less than reasonably fluent” are placed in this program (“LAUSD
Master Plan,” 2018, p.35) unless the DI program option has been requested by the parent or
guardian. The DI program provides scaffolded and differentiated high-quality instruction
enabling ELLs to meet English Language Development and grade-level core content standards.
Clustering and differentiated instructional support are available for Newcomer students
(“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018). Monolingual English-speaking teachers or teachers who do not

13
speak the home languages of the students in their classrooms are provided with instructional
materials and support to incorporate students’ home languages in the classroom (Lucas, 1994).
At the secondary level, the core content is differentiated and scaffolded in English with primary
language support for clarification only throughout the instructional day. Interventions,
supporting core content instruction, are provided to ensure mastery of grade-level content to
students not yet proficient in English. L2EAP at both secondary and elementary levels is focused
on “accelerated instruction to minimize any academic deficits that may occur as students are not
yet proficient in the language of instruction (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018, p.36).”
The student population at VDV reflects the largely Hispanic neighborhood in which the
school is located. Total enrollment at the school is currently 428, and 40.9% of the student body
are ELLs (“California Dashboard,” 2019). The school serves students in preschool through fifth
grade, including a special day program for third through fifth-grade students. VDV operates on a
traditional calendar and has a highly qualified teaching staff. The federal government defines
highly qualified teachers as those who hold at least a bachelor’s degree, a state teaching
credential and who demonstrate competence in the subject areas they teach. VDV has been
identified as having school-wide Title I status. According to the United States Department of
Education, Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act, provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers or high
percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet state and
federal academic standards. Allocations of federal funds are primarily based on census poverty
estimates and the cost of education in each state. Eligibility for schoolwide Title 1 status
requires that 40 percent of the enrolled children are from low-income families (“US Department
of Education, Title 1, Part A Program,” 2018). The United States Department of Housing and

14
Urban Development (2018) describes "low-income" families as 80 percent of the median family
income for the area, subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or
housing costs. A family of four with a modified gross income of $35,535 or less is considered
low income (“California Department of Health Federal Poverty Guidelines,” 2019). 87.55% of
the students at VDV are designated as low-income.
Current school demographics are as follows: 95.1% Hispanic/Latino, 2.9% White, 0.68%
Black, 0.9% Asian, 0.9% Other, and 0.6% Multiracial. Educational achievement of the
surrounding community among people 25 years or older is the following: 35.2% less than 9th
grade, 24.5% 9th - 12th grade, 18.7% High school graduate, 12.9% some college, 3.5%
Associate degree, 3.5% Bachelor degree, 1.6% Graduate/Professional (“Single Plan For Student
Achievement,” 2018).
The target population of the Dual Immersion program consists of students who are
effective communicators performing at a high academic level. The program builds bridges
between English and non-English speakers and is an essential part of the goal of creating an
effective learning community (“Single Plan for Student Achievement,” 2018). There are two
Dual Immersion classes at each grade level from kindergarten to fourth grade. Teachers
providing instruction in Spanish hold a Bilingual Cross-cultural Language in Academic
Development (BCLAD) credential and are fluent in Spanish. Teachers providing instruction in
English may or may not have a BCLAD or be fluent in Spanish (“Single Plan for Student
Achievement,” 2018). It is a 50/50 two-way immersion program. Fifty percent of the instruction
is in the target language of Spanish taught by a teacher with a BCLAD, and the remaining 50%
of instruction is in English. The target language and English are used equally for instruction.
ELLs in this program are expected to meet grade-level standards in both English and Spanish.

15
They also receive designated English language development. Most students enter this program
in kindergarten and continue through grade 5. Participation beyond grade 5 is dependent on
program availability at the secondary level and parental choice (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018).
Administrative staff members include a full-time principal and assistant principal
elementary instructional specialist (an average of 1.5 days a week). Other certificated staff
members include one Coordinator (Title I/TSP), one Intervention/Prevention Support
Coordinator, one Title III Coach, 23 self-contained classroom teachers, one Resource Specialist
Program teacher, one Psychologist (2 days a week), one Psychiatric Social Worker (one day a
week), a Pupil Services and Attendance Counselor (one day per week), one Limited Contract
Teacher (one day per week), a Community Representative, and other itinerant support providers
(Speech, Foster Care Advocate, Adaptive Physical Education, and Homeless Advocate). A total
of ten part-time Teacher Assistants, Campus Aides, and Supervision Aides provide additional
instructional support and supervision throughout the school day.
VDV is organized around four key instructional approaches: a dual language program, a
project and inquiry-based learning approach to instruction, a technology-infused, standards-
based curriculum, and a problem-solving process to create a community of scholars. Teachers
engage in ongoing professional development designed to improve their ability to deliver
instruction coupled with integrated and designated English language development instruction
across all the content areas (“Single Plan for Student Achievement,” 2018). Integrated ELD
refers to instruction that is focused on student achievement of the Common Core State Standards
for English Language Arts/Literacy (CCSS ELA/Literacy) coupled with the California English
language development standards (CA ELD). Designated English language development refers to
instruction that is focused on student achievement of CA ELD coupled with CCSS ELA/Literacy

16
(“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018). Stakeholders at VDV work together to create a community
school where students take part in constructing their own learning. The school fosters an
environment where students engage in bilingualism, bi-literacy, and cultural diversity (“Single
Plan for Student Achievement,” 2018). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and cultural diversity play an
integral role in the development of a community school environment that supports student
construction of their own learning.
Organizational Performance Status
All stakeholders at VDV work together to create a community school where students take
part in constructing their own learning. The school environment is characterized by bilingualism,
bi-literacy, and cultural diversity. All stakeholders and community partners actively collaborate
to prepare students to be college prepared and career ready (“Single Plan for Student
Achievement,” 2018). Student achievement of academic proficiency is essential for graduation
from high school as well as college and career readiness. Proficiency refers to whether students
are learning what they need to succeed and progress to the next schooling level and eventually to
college and career readiness at the high school level. In order for students to achieve
proficiency, they must be able to demonstrate skills in ELA that meet or exceed the benchmark
target established by the school district (“CA Education for a Global Economy Initiative, 2019;
“LCFF Priority 4,” 2018). At VDV, academic proficiency is measured by Smarter Balanced
assessments for students in grades three to five; achievement of proficiency in ELA for
kindergarten through second grade is measured by student performance on the DIBELS.
The California Department of Education (CDE) transitioned from the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) to the English Language Proficiency Assessments for
California (ELPAC) as the state English language proficiency assessment in 2018 (“Comparison

17
of the CELDT to the ELPAC,” 2018). The ELPAC is the required state test for English language
proficiency that is given to students whose primary language is not English (“English Language
Proficiency Assessments,” 2018). To achieve RFEP status students must achieve a score of level
3 or above to reclassify. The ELPAC is aligned to the 2012 California English Language
Development Standards whereas the CELDT was aligned to the 1999 California English
Language Development Standards (“Comparison of the CELDT to the ELPAC,” 2018).
After opening in 2010, VDV provided a Language and Literacy English Acceleration
Program (L2EAP) for ELLs who scored at levels one to three on the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) and considered “less than reasonably fluent” in English.
These students had limited access to grade-level standards due to their limited level of academic
English proficiency. Teachers of these students were provided extensive training to deliver
designated and integrated English language development instruction. Students learn all academic
subjects in English with help in their primary language if needed. The focus of L2EAP is to
promote teaching and learning English as rapidly and effectively as possible (“LAUSD Master
Plan,” 2018). Parents are given the option to enroll their children in VDV’s Dual Immersion
instructional program for ELLs and English proficient students. In this program, students learn
standards-based academic content in English and Spanish. The goal is for students in the
program to develop bilingualism and biliteracy (“Single Plan for Student Achievement,” 2018).
An important measurement of organizational performance status is data provided by the
administration of the SBAC, DIBELS, and ELPAC. Meeting the end of year benchmark on
DIBELS is considered to be an indicator of literacy proficiency that leads to readiness for high
school, college and career success (“School Report Card 2015-2016,” 2016). Student scale
scores for all students in grades 3 through 8 are calculated based on the average distance each

18
student is from the lowest possible scale score within the standard met SBAC performance level
of 3. Achievement of Level 3 indicates student achievement of the knowledge and skills
necessary to be on track for college and career readiness at their grade level. RFEP students who
have reclassified substantially outperform all other subgroups at VDV (“Single Plan for Student
Achievement,” 2018). A review of data on the current California School Dashboard is provided
in Table 1 below.
Table 1
2017-2018 Current Performance Data on SBAC by VDV Students
Students Points Below Standard Subject
ELLs 80.1 English
RFEPS 6.9 English
EOs 13.2 English
ELLs 69.9 Math
RFEPs 17.9 Math
EOs 29.3 Math

Table 2 (on the following page) provides a review of current VDV student performance data on
the ELPAC (“ELPAC Test Results for VDV,” 2019).

19
Table 2
2017-2018 Current Performance Data on ELPAC by VDV Students
Grade Level Percent Achieved ELPAC Level
Kindergarten 45.95% 4
First Grade 51.43% 4
Second Grade 50% 4
Third Grade 56.52% 3
Fourth Grade No Data
Fifth Grade No Data

There was no data reported for students in grades 4 and 5 due to the low number of students
achieving a 3 or 4 on the ELPAC (“California Dashboard,” 2018).
An important goal of VDV is to significantly improve the academic achievement of ELLs
resulting in higher reclassification rates, thereby increasing the number of students successfully
matriculating to secondary as RFEPs and decreasing the number of LTELs. LTELs are students
who have not reclassified despite the fact that they have been enrolled in U.S. schools for six full
years or more (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018; “School Review”, 2018). The increase or decrease
in LTELS matriculating to secondary schools is directly related to reclassification rates at
elementary schools. The expectation is that a child with limited English entering kindergarten
will attain English proficiency within five to seven years. The growth of stronger accountability
policies is bringing attention to the underachievement of ELLs, a contributing factor to the
growing population of LTELs (Olsen, 2010). When LTELs move on to secondary school, there
are significant gaps in their academic backgrounds and significant deficits in reading and writing
skills (Olsen, 2014). The general profile of an LTEL is a student with a grade point average of

20
less than 2.0. The public school system has failed to effectively address the complex academic
and linguistic challenges that are characteristic of this population. Distinct language issues such
as imprecise and inadequate language due to a lack of vocabulary, syntax, and grammar, severely
limited oral and literacy skills, significant deficits in writing, and ineffective use of home
language are all characteristics of LTELs (Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2002; Kinsella, 2005;
Menken, Kleyn, & Chae, 2007; Olsen, 2010; Olsen & Jaramillo, 1999). As a result of the
aforementioned issues, many LTELs develop habits of non-engagement and non-participation
demonstrated by silence throughout the school day (Olsen, 2014).
Related Literature
Hispanics form the largest group of ELLs in California. Nationwide, in 2009, the dropout
rate for Hispanics was significantly higher than the rates for other groups. The demographic
profile of young Hispanic children is characterized by poverty, low parental educational
attainment, and a higher percentage of foreign-born parents (Hahnel et al., 2014; Olsen, 2014).
More than 28% of Hispanic students live in poverty and more than 34% have parents who have
not completed high school. Seventy-one percent of the Hispanic students born in the United
States reside with immigrant parents (American Community Survey, 2006). Forty-seven percent
of US-born Hispanics of any race, age 25 and older, have only attained a high school diploma or
less. 33% of this population have attended some college or earned a 2-year degree. Twenty
percent have earned a bachelor’s degree. Twenty percent of US-born Hispanics live in poverty.
Seventy-one percent of foreign-born Hispanics of any race, age 25 and older, have attained only
a high school diploma or less. Seventeen percent of this population have attended some college
or earned a 2-year degree. Twelve percent have earned a bachelor’s degree or more. Eighteen

21
percent of foreign-born Hispanics live in poverty (Noe-Bustamante & Flores, 2019; Radford &
Bustamante, 2017).
Legislation has had an impact on educational opportunities for ELLs. In 1998,
Proposition 227 banned schools from offering classes taught in a language other than English.
On September 28, 2014, California Senate Bill 1174 removed barriers to offering instruction in a
language other than English, making it easier for schools to offer traditional bilingual programs
or dual language immersion programs (Mongeau, 2014). A national study conducted by Thomas
and Collier (2002) from 1985 to 2001 analyzed a variety of education services provided for
language minority students in United States public schools. The study focused on the long-term
academic achievement of ELLs. The study found that bilingually-schooled students outperform
comparable mono-lingually-schooled students in academic achievement in all subjects after four
to seven years of dual language schooling. When ELLs are in segregated, remedial programs,
the achievement gap remains and widens in later years (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
LTELs have not achieved English proficiency at a level that enables them to fully
participate in a global economy despite being in U.S. schools for many years and being close to
high school graduation age. In 2009-2010, research literature and survey data collected from 40
school districts throughout all regions of California, including information on 175,734 ELLs in
grades 6-12, provided a clear picture of the challenges LTELs are facing (Californians Together
Survey, 2010; “English Learner State and Federal Accountability Systems Survey Results,”
2008; Olsen, 2010). This study became known as the Californians Together Survey. The
majority (59%) of secondary ELLs are LTELs who arrive at secondary schools in academic
jeopardy. This means they demonstrate very weak academic language coupled with high
functioning social language, significant deficits in reading and writing skills, and are not

22
prepared to successfully attend college (Menken, Kleyn, & Chae, 2007; Olsen, 2010; “The
Language of Reform,” 2014). LTELs remain at intermediate levels of English language
proficiency or below. Even when they reach higher levels of proficiency they struggle to achieve
the academic language necessary to reclassify and become habitually unengaged, passive, and
disinterested in school (Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Olsen, 2012; Olsen, 2014). College is a goal for
the majority of LTELs, but they are unaware that their courses and academic skills have not
prepared them for college (Olsen, 2014). While 32% of all Americans receive a bachelor’s
degree or more, 20% of all Hispanics receive a bachelor’s degree or more (American
Community Survey, 2017; Noe-Bustamante & Flores, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
Multiple studies have shown that English language acquisition that is rapid and void of
the necessary scaffolds and support is ineffective (Adams & Jones 2006; Hakuta, 2000; Thomas
& Collier, 2002). Students who receive little or no support in their first language tend to struggle
more and more as academic demands increase after fourth grade (Thomas & Collier, 2002). The
performance of previous generations of immigrants does not provide an accurate model of
success for current ELLs (Gil & Bardack, 2010). Industrial jobs during this time required a lower
level of education and fewer English skills of early immigrants (Haynes, 2002). The U.S. labor
market has changed, and today the level of education and English skills needed to succeed has
increased along with the competition for jobs (Haynes, 2002). Proponents of English immersion
programs believe that having ELLs and native English speakers together in a class in which the
instruction is primarily in English forces ELL students to learn English quickly, but this has been
proven to be a misconception (Gil & Bardack, 2010). Studies have shown that ELLs who
participate in English-only mainstream programs exhibit large deficits in reading and math
achievement by grade five (Adams & Jones, 2006; Haynes, 2010; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

23
Students in Dual Immersion (DI) programs are a sharp contrast and outperform their
counterparts in monolingual programs in academic achievement (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Current research indicates improved linguistic, academic, and emotional outcomes for ELLs
participating in DI programs (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Valentino & Reardon, 2015)
and increased opportunities for students to gain multilingual and sociocultural skills to achieve
success in a global economy (LAUSD Master Plan, 2018). Proficiency in multiple languages is
important to the national interest and economic robustness of the United States (Title VI, IEP,
Sec. 601 (a); Brecht, 2007), and the goal of DI programs is biliteracy and bilingualism
accompanied by high levels of oral fluency. Research, including five meta analyses and multiple
studies, indicates that DI programs are more successful than SEI or English only programs for
ELLs (Greene, 1997; McField & McField, 2014; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Thomas & Collier,
2002; Willig, 1985). Research has also shown that there are cognitive advantages to participation
in bilingualism and multilingualism (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson & Ungerleider, 2010;
Bialystok, 2007). Finally, students in DI programs are more likely to reclassify, take Advanced
Placement courses in high school and successfully graduate from high school (DeJong & Bearse,
2011).
Three Key Factors That Impact ELL Program Effectiveness and Reclassification
Three key factors that impact the effectiveness of ELL programs and the development of
English language proficiency are the training and preparedness of the instructor, the delivery of
instruction, and the program design (Tabatadze, 2015; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Umansky,
Reardon, Hakuta, Thompson, Estrada, Hayes, Maldonado, Tandberg, & Goldenberg, 2015).
These factors will comprise the focus of this study and are profoundly impacted by budgetary
constraints. Funding is a factor in the ability of a school and school district to purchase

24
differentiated instructional materials, provide professional development focused on ELL needs,
and provide adequate human resources to ensure differentiated and trained support of ELLs
(Flink & Molina, 2016). A discussion of the impact of funding follows an overview of the
aforementioned three key factors impacting the effectiveness of ELL programs.
Preparedness and Training of the Instructor
Teacher training and preparedness to effectively serve this population are imperative for
students to achieve English proficiency and reclassify (Bostad, Cwikla, & Kienzle, 2015;
Umansky et al., 2015). There is a need for capacity building among teachers that includes access
to training and certification programs focused on instructional delivery to ELLs, understanding
second language acquisition and development and the interrelationships between language and
content, and the importance of heritage language maintenance (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy,
2008; Bunch, 2013; Darling-Hammond, & Cheuk, 2012; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018;
Umansky et al., 2015).
Only 26% of teachers with ELLs in their classes have had training and preparation for
providing instruction to this population. Moreover, less than one-sixth of colleges offering
teacher training programs and certification includes training on working with ELLs (Ballantyne
et al., 2008). Teacher surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education found that 57%
of teachers felt they needed more training in order to provide effective education for ELLs
(Ballantyne et al., 2008).
Attitudinal surveys and interviews conducted with K-12 teachers in California public
schools revealed that teachers were indifferent toward heritage language maintenance (Lee &
Oxelson, 2006). Heritage language maintenance is the preservation of the ELL’s native, home,

25
or ancestral language (Keheller, 2010; Lee, 2012). It is crucial for teachers to understand the
linguistic capital that ELLs bring to school and to honor and reaffirm students’ home languages
(Bialystok, 2001; Hollie, 2012). The surveys also indicated that teachers felt the responsibility
for heritage language maintenance was primarily the responsibility of the parents and
demonstrated no understanding of the value of additive bilingualism (Lee & Oxelson, 2006).
Additive bilingualism results in fluency in more than one language and enables students to use
both languages in many contexts and to have a desire to maintain both languages (Shydlo, 2017).
This strategy is preferable to subtractive bilingualism in which knowledge of one language is
replaced gradually with knowledge of another that results in gaining skills in one language only
while simultaneously losing proficiency in another (Shydlo, 2017; Vallance, 2015).
There is a profound need for well-trained educators who can effectively deliver
instruction to ELLs that will result in the attainment of English language proficiency that will
lead to reclassification. Teachers are operating with a variety of misconceptions that have either
been disproven or seriously contested. Teachers are unable to differentiate between cognitive
academic language (CALP) and oral communication skills (Ballantyne et al., 2008). Some
teachers do not realize the importance of providing students ongoing opportunities to develop
both while simultaneously teaching literacy and other content areas (Richards-Tutor, Aceves, &
Reese, 2016). CALP is a specialized language commonly used in the classroom in content areas
characterized by being abstract and context reduced (Ballantyne et al., 2008). As ELLs achieve
academic language competence, they develop skills such as comparing, classifying, synthesizing,
evaluating, and inferring (Breiseth, 2014). To be effective, the ELL teacher must have
knowledge of content and language development. Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) PreK-12 English language proficiency standards require pedagogical

26
content knowledge that is highly discipline-specific and includes collaboration across cultural
boundaries (Ballantyne et al., 2008).
Quality of Instructional Delivery
Instructional delivery is impacted by the knowledge and training of the teacher providing
instruction (Collier, 2002; Gersten, 1995; McGraner & Saenz, 2009; Villarreal & Solis, 1998),
the quality of the school’s instructional environment (Thomas & Collier, 2002), and ELLs
access to core content (Umansky et al., 2015).
Quality instructional delivery, characterized by multiple opportunities for ELLs to engage
in discussion and speak and hear academic vocabulary, facilitates the development of oral
language skills (McGraner & Saenz, 2009). The application of the interplay of first and second
language acquisition creates a classroom climate that encourages ELL participation and
communicative competence (Ballantyne, 2008). When teachers can identify the need for
differentiation and provide appropriate accommodations and modifications in instructional
delivery, student engagement increases (Ballantyne, 2008). Effective instructional delivery
increases access to subject matter content by the daily implementation of research-based methods
that teach ELLs through the contextualization of content in meaningful ways (Ballantyne et al.,
2008).
A quality instructional environment is an additive language learning environment that
includes parental engagement and supports students in the acquisition of a second language
without any loss of their primary language (Thomas & Collier, 2002). This assets-based
environment encourages students to bring their experiences and rich backgrounds into the
school. The connection between family, culture, and language is valued in quality instructional
environments (Cummins, 2001; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018). Another important aspect of

27
instructional delivery is the effective use of time. An effective instructional environment
provides a significant amount of time for students to receive comprehensible instruction that is
driven by students’ academic cognitive, and linguistic developmental needs, and is characterized
by ELLs interacting together rather than being isolated and segregated is (Collier, 2002). A
growing body of research has shown that ELLs benefit from quality instruction regardless of the
language. In this instructional environment, students develop age-appropriate proficiency in
their first and second languages (August, 2006; Gil & Bardack, 2010; Hill et al., 2014;
Moughamian, Rivera, & Francis, 2009).
Access to the instructional core is essential to an effective instructional environment. The
instructional core refers to three interdependent components: teachers' knowledge and skill,
students' engagement in their own learning, and academically challenging content. It is the
relationship of the teacher and the student in the presence of content (Elmore, 2008). For the
purposes of this study the instructional core includes access to grade level curriculum in all
subjects addressed in the California Common Core State Standards. Research suggests that
despite California and Federal law that requires schools to provide ELLs with services to meet
ELA and content learning goals, ELLs experience limited access to core content (Umansky et al.,
2015). This inequity is reflected by weak and inappropriate instruction provided to many ELLs
in mainstream classes (Bunch, 2013). Teachers and administrators have noted that core content
classes targeted to ELLs and designed to make content more accessible are “less rigorous,
slower-paced, and use more alternative curricula compared to mainstream core content classes”
contributing to the limited access to core content (Estrada, 2014b; Estrada & Wang, 2013, 2015a;
Umansky, 2015, p.5). ELLs have limited access to “meaningful, abundant, and authentic use of
English in an academic setting” due to their limited exposure to high-achieving non-ELL peers

28
(Umansky et al., 2015, p.5). It is interesting to note that studies have shown that ELL status and
classification can reduce access to core courses, advanced courses, and mainstream classrooms,
resulting in students being placed in classrooms with fewer English proficient students, former
ELLs, and low performing non-ELLs (Estrada, 2014a, 2014b; Estrada & Wang, 2013, 2015a;
Thompson, 2015b; Umansky, 2013; Umansky et al., 2015).
Program Design
A third key factor in the success of bilingual education is program design. There has been
increasing debate centered on instructional programs for ELLs. The California Department of
Education identifies the following programs: Dual-Language Two -Way Immersion, Transitional
Bilingual, Developmental Bilingual, One-Way Immersion, Heritage Language or Indigenous
Language, Foreign Language Elementary Experience, Foreign Language in Elementary Schools
and Native Speakers Courses (“Multilingual Education,” 2019). Table 3 (on the following page)
provides descriptions of each of the aforementioned programs.

29
Table 3
Multilingual Program Descriptions (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018; “Multilingual Education,”
2019)
Name of Program Program Characteristics
Dual-Language
Two-Way
Immersion
• Primarily found in Kindergarten through 8th grade
• Native English speakers and speakers of another language receive
academic instruction in both languages
• A mix of first language Spanish-speaking and English-speaking
students would learn in both languages. The goal of this program
is language proficiency and academic achievement in both
languages coupled with cross-cultural understanding.
Transitional
Bilingual
(no longer an
option in LAUSD)
• Primarily found in kindergarten through 3rd grade
• ELLs receive academic and literacy instruction in English with
native language support. The goal of this program is English
language proficiency and academic achievement.

Developmental
Bilingual
• Primarily found in kindergarten through 8th grade
• ELLs receive academic and literacy instruction in English and
their native language. The goal of this program is language
proficiency and academic achievement in students’ first and
second languages.
One-Way
Immersion
(formerly known
as Maintenance
Bilingual)
• Primarily found in kindergarten through 8th grade
• ELLs receive instruction in English and another language for
non-speakers of the other language. Students participating in the
program are from only one of the two languages used in the
program model. The goal of this program is language proficiency
and academic achievement in English and another language
coupled with cross-cultural understanding.
Heritage Language
or Indigenous
Language
• Primarily found in kindergarten through 12th grade
• Non-English speakers or students with limited literacy skills are
provided instruction in English and their first language. These
programs support students who may have “limited receptive and
no productive skills” and often serve American Indian students.

30
FLEX: Foreign
Language
Elementary
Experience
• Primarily found in kindergarten through 8th grade
• Instruction is provided for non-native speakers of a target
language during a designated period of the school day or after-
school program. Exposure, enrichment, and language experience
are the goals of this program.
FLES: Foreign
Language in
Elementary School
• Primarily found in kindergarten through 8th grade
• Language study is provided for non-native speakers of a target
language during a designated period of the school day or after-
school program.
Native Speakers
Courses
• Primarily found in grades 7 through 12
• Language study is designed for native speakers of a target
language to develop proficiency in that language.

Research has shown that ELL reclassification is significantly impacted by the type of
instructional program ELL students participate in (Baker, 2006; Tabatadze, 2015; Umansky &
Reardon, 2014). According to Colin Baker (2006), weak bilingual programs ignore the
importance of students’ native language and are characterized by a focus on majority language
mastery, assimilation, and a subtractive mindset. Strong programs value the students’ native
language and are characterized by a focus on minority and majority language mastery, the
achievement of biliteracy, and an additive mindset (Baker, 2006). There are variations of the
instructional programs throughout California.
Segregated programs include ESL pull out and transitional bilingual education; these
programs are the least effective in addressing the needs of ELLs to achieve English language
proficiency. ESL pull out, though most expensive, does not provide instruction in the student’s
native language (Umansky & Reardon, 2014). Transitional bilingual education is the most
common ELL program in the United States; as currently practiced, ELL students are usually
assigned to a self-contained class with minimal opportunity to interact with native English
speakers (Collier & Thomas, 2002). The integrated programs are decidedly more effective in
reclassification. The evidence strongly supports the efficacy of dual immersion for ELLs and

31
students in these programs outperform monolingual students (Thomas & Collier, 2002). These
are primarily two-language programs such as dual language, maintenance bilingual, and an
alternative transitional bilingual program and there appears to be a long-term advantage that
pertains to both academic and linguistic outcomes that surpass reclassification (Umansky &
Reardon, 2014).
In addition to instructor training and preparedness, the delivery of instruction, and the
program design, all previously summarized, budgetary allocations for bilingual education also
play a part in effectively addressing the educational needs of ELLs. ELLs are part of a growing
population that does not yield the political clout to ensure budgetary support for minority
targeted policies (Flink & Molina, 2016). Although bilingual education has been integral to
serving this population and increasing educational opportunities (Wiese & Garcia, 1998), it was
not until the Bilingual Education Act of 1968-Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act that the federal government issued a mandate requiring services to this population
and allocation of federal resources to improve English language proficiency by supporting
teacher training and other activities (Lyons, 1990; Secada, 1990). Federal mandates are just one
piece of the funding puzzle.
School district politics are the primary predictors of how bilingual education programs
are funded and implemented (Berkman & Plutzer, 2005; Meier & Stewart, 1991; Meier, Stewart,
& England, 1991). Increased bilingual expenditures appear to be directly related to the greater
percentages of school board seats held by Latinos. Research has shown that the percentage of
Latino students in a school district has minimal impact on budgetary support for bilingual
programs (Leal & Hess, 2000). Research suggests that growth in the numbers of minority
groups has not resulted in improved policy environments whereas political representation, by

32
minority groups, on committees that determine policies and make budgetary decisions can
improve policy environments (Flink & Molina, 2016).
Federal law clearly states that bilingual education programs are not reserved for Spanish-
speaking students only, but Latinos are often at the center of debates regarding bilingual
education and funding. Native English speakers are currently enrolling in bilingual education
programs with the goal of mastering a second language to address the growing globalization of
business and commerce and remain competitive in the multicultural economies (Genesee, 2004).
Some non-Latino groups have expressed opposition to bilingual education and others argue that
bilingual education is biased against Latino communities and diminishes attachments to Spanish-
speaking countries (Spring, 1994).
Despite the aforementioned debates, Latino students benefit from bilingual education
programs (Theobold, 2007). Growing immigration rates have resulted in an increase in minority
communities and an increase in the minority presence among policymakers, but this has not
alleviated the issues that surround the need for equity and efficiency in delivering public services
(education) to this population (Flink & Molina, 2016). A variety of environmental forces impact
the availability and decision to provide funding for bilingual education in schools. The most
impactful factor is the unique governance structures and budgetary processes that characterize
public education (Flink & Molina, 2016). Hill (2012) states that federal funding for ELLs comes
with accountability requirements mandating schools to periodically monitor the progress of their
ELLs (Hill, 2012). The hierarchical structure and high level of autonomy that school districts
have over budgetary decisions is a determining factor in the quality of bilingual programs (Flink
& Molina, 2016). Efficient spending must be meaningfully connected to student performance
outcomes to provide data that can inform decisions pertaining to bilingual education (Hill, 2012).

33
Importance of Addressing the Reclassification Rate Gap
The goal of California Education for a Global Initiative (Proposition 58) is to ensure that
all children in California public schools receive a high-quality education that prepares them to
fully participate in a global economy. An essential component of Proposition 58 is the
authorization of school districts and county offices of education to develop and establish
language acquisition programs to meet the needs of both native and non-native English speakers
to ensure mastery of the English language (“California Education for a Global Economy
Initiative,” 2019). Students are expected to graduate from high school, be college and career
ready, and be equipped to succeed in various post-secondary settings. Reclassification for ELLs
is an essential aspect of this goal (“LCFF Priority 4 Statement of Model Practices,” 2018).
Research has shown that, on average, reclassified students outperform current ELLs and
sometimes outperform students who only speak English at home, as measured by test scores,
completion of college preparatory courses and graduation rates (Betts & Tang, 2019).
ELLs comprise the fastest growing student population in public schools today and
makeup 19.3% of the total enrollment in California public schools today (“Facts about English
Learners in California,” 2019). As of 2015, 10% or more of public school students in eight states
were designated ELLs (NCES, 2018). No English learners scored at or above the standards for
ELA and math on the SBAC assessments administered in a relatively large number of California
schools during the 2014-2015 school year (Hill, 2016). Effectively addressing the instructional
needs of this population is of paramount importance.
As more students reclassify in elementary school, there is a decrease in the percentage of
LTELs matriculating to middle school. While English language proficiency is not an explicit
requirement for graduation from high school in any state, lack of English proficiency has a

34
profoundly negative impact on student performance in all curricular areas (Menken & Kleyn,
2009; Olsen, 2010; Olsen, 2014). Researchers have noted that California’s ELLs are far behind
other students in the state based on academic measures such as graduation rates, dropout rates,
and college attendance. The overall national high school graduation rate is 82% while only 63%
of ELLs graduate from high school (Sanchez, 2017). When LTELs arrive in secondary schools
they have weak academic language and deficits in reading and writing skills (Olsen, 2014;
Umansky & Reardon, 2015). Despite having advanced oral English proficiency, LTELs require
support in reading and writing to improve access to content instruction (Umansky & Reardon,
2015).
According to Hill (2012), poverty rates for ELLs range from 74% to 85% while the
overall poverty rate for California school-aged children is only 21%. Nationwide, nearly 60% of
ELLs are from families with limited levels of education living at the poverty level (Breiseth,
2015). Significant improvement of long-term academic outcomes for ELLs must occur to
address this gap and increase the proportion of California’s youth that are prepared for college
and the labor force and poised to end the “intergenerational transmission of low educational
attainment and socioeconomic status” (Hill, 2012, p. 2).
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2020, the goal is for reclassification rates to improve to 22% or higher from the
current 17% indicated in the 2018-2019 school plan. VDV Performance data indicates that ELLs
who have been reclassified as fluent are among the highest performing in the state of California.
Academic outcomes are significantly better for reclassified students, and in many cases these
students even outperform native English speakers on measures such as standardized tests and on-
time grade progression (Hill et al., 2014). A review of the data for VDV is consistent with this

35
statement and clearly shows the RFEPs as the highest performing students in the school (“Single
Plan for Student Achievement,” 2018).
Public schools are currently faced with competition for student enrollment; as a result,
marketing becomes a challenge for schools like VDV. Until recently, public schools delivered
services and modified those services based on governmental guidelines at the state and federal
levels. With the growth of charter schools, online schools, private schools, and public schools
are faced with the challenge of marketing themselves to attract students (Gagne, 2014). The
59% increase in student enrollment in charter schools and the rapidly growing school choice
movement represent a threat to enrollments and revenue (Holley et al., 2013). Student
performance data is readily available to the general public and can be an incentive for enrolling
in a particular school. When this data indicates large percentages of students performing below
average on state assessments it can have a detrimental effect on enrollment. There are financial
and non-monetary costs that occur when students enroll in other schools (Gagne, 2014). It is
important for VDV to focus on the reclassification goal set forth by the school’s leadership and
thereby improve student performance data.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Teachers are the stakeholder group of focus for this study. They will directly contribute
to and benefit from the achievement of VDV’s mission and performance goal. For the purposes
of this study, two groups of teachers who provide instruction to students in kindergarten through
fifth grade have been selected. Both groups of teachers provide instruction to ELLs. One group
of five teachers provides a Literacy English Acceleration Program (L2EAP) (formerly known as
structured English immersion instructional program). Twelve teachers provide instruction in the
Dual Language Two-Way Immersion Program (DI). The teachers are integral to student

36
achievement and the ability of the school to deliver challenging and rigorous standards-based
curriculum that results in ELLs acquiring sufficient proficiency in English to succeed
academically without English language development support (“Single Plan for Student
Achievement,” 2018). Both groups of teachers administer the DIBELS, SBAC, and the ELPAC
which are all required to measure student proficiency as it pertains to English language
proficiency and the reclassification process. Teachers also provide the student report card grades
in ELA that are essential for meeting the reclassification criteria.
The academic achievement of students participating in L2EAP and DI programs is an
important aspect of this study. The students in L2EAP are unable to meet the criteria to
reclassify and are considered “less than reasonably fluent” (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018, p. 36).
If these students do not reclassify within five years of their enrollment in school, they become
LTELs and contribute to the gap in reclassification rates that is the basis of this study. Currently,
ninety-eight percent of the students in SEI are Latino (California Department of Education,
2015). The DI program is made up of ELLs who speak the target language and English
proficient students from diverse backgrounds. The DI class composition is 50% Latino ELLs,
some who have reclassified and some who have not, and 50% English proficient students. The
students in both groups are currently in kindergarten through fifth grades in both the DI and
L2EAP programs. Student achievement in English language arts and reclassification rates are
integral to the basis of this study. Table 4 describes the organizational mission, performance
goal and stakeholders identified for the purposes of this study.

37
Table 4
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholders
Organizational Mission
The mission of VDV is to create a community school where students take part in
constructing their own learning and become critical thinkers who are well-rounded, civic-
minded scholars.
Organizational Performance Goal
VDV’s goal is that by June 2020 reclassification rates for ELLs will improve to 22% or
higher from the current 17.4% as reported on the 2017-2018 School Dashboard.
ELL students
in kinder through
fifth grade who
have not reclassified
Administrative &
out of classroom
instructional staff
that focuses on the
delivery of services
to ELLs in kinder
through fifth grade
Teachers of ELLs in
kinder through fifth
grade who have not
reclassified
Parents of ELL
students in kinder
through fifth grade
who have not
reclassified by 5th
grade
By June 2020,
ELLs will
improve their score
on all subtests of
DIBELS as a result
of the modification
of the delivery of
instruction.

By June 2020, the
schoolwide
reclassification rates
for the percentage of
ELLs will show an
improvement from
17.4% to 22% or
more as a result of
improved and
focused delivery of
instruction to ELLs.

By June 2020,
ELL performance on
the SBAC in ELA
and reclassification
rates will
significantly improve
as a result of
effective
implementation of
research-based
instructional
strategies
designed to address
the needs of ELLs.
By June 2020, the
percentage of ELLs who
have become LTELs will
decrease from 3% to 0 as
a result of parents as
partners in the
instructional process.

Administrative and out of classroom personnel comprise another stakeholder group that
plays a role in ELL academic achievement and reclassification. This group includes the school
principal, assistant principal, Title III coach, targeted student population coordinator,
intervention support coordinator, and the parent center director. These individuals are integral to

38
the development, communication, and implementation of school-wide goals in the “Single Plan
for Student Achievement, 2018-2019”. This plan includes the improvement of reclassification
rates by June 2020. These staff members review achievement data pertaining to ELLs and
strategize intervention and modification of instructional delivery to improve student outcomes.
Parents are important stakeholders and their impact on student achievement is well
documented in the research literature (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2000; Gonzalez & Jackson, 2016;
Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Redding, Murphy, & Sheley, 2004). The
cumulative effect of meaningful relationships among students, parents, and school personnel,
characterized by frequent and high-quality interactions, has proven to increase social capital
among students and create a more supportive school community ensuring each child’s success
(Redding et al., 2004). Parent involvement programs that engage families, recognize culture and
class differences and support children’s learning at home have been linked to improved student
achievement (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2000). Engaged parents and families, regardless of cultural
background education and income levels, have a positive impact on student achievement (Ho Sui
Chu & Williams, 1996; Shaver & Walls, 1998). The Single Plan for Student Achievement,
developed with the involvement of parents, explicitly states the goal of improvement of
reclassification rates for ELLS and includes goals and objectives for all students.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation and organizational elements that interfere with VDV’s ability to improve
reclassification rates among ELLs. The analysis will first generate a list of possible or assumed
interfering elements and then examine these systems, focusing on the suspected interfering
elements. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes,

39
the stakeholder group focused on in this analysis was teachers. The questions that guided this
study are as follows:
1. What knowledge, skills, and motivation do teachers at VDV need, related to the
reclassification process and instructional delivery, to improve reclassification rates among
English language learners (ELLs)?
2. At VDV, what is the interaction between organizational culture and context and
teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to improving reclassification rates for ELLs?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice at VDV in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable the teachers to significantly
improve reclassification rates for ELLs?
Organization of the Project
This study is organized in five chapters. The first chapter provides the reader with the
problem of practice. The organizational mission, goals, and stakeholders are identified and
described. The second chapter presents a review of the current literature as it relates to the
problem and scope of practice. The chapter also defines related terminology and explains
motivation, organizational elements, and assumed interfering knowledge. Important topics
addressed in the second chapter include long-term implications of not reclassifying, limited
academic proficiency, the impact of culture and poverty, and the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analytic Framework. The third chapter provides the research design and methods, and the fourth
chapter presents the data, results, and analysis. Solutions and recommendations for closing the
student achievement gaps are the basis of the final chapter. Chapter five also includes
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation metric for the solutions.

40
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature review will discuss the factors that impact reclassification rates among
English language learners (ELLs). First, the chapter will define key terminology related to ELLs
and the reclassification process. Second, the long-term implications of not reclassifying will be
addressed with a special focus on knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational issues
that relate to the role of the teacher in the reclassification process. Third, the chapter will present
research that outlines the characteristics of successful ELL instructional programs, barriers to
success, and research-based strategies for improving ELLs’ English language proficiency.
Chapter 3 reviews the framework of Clark & Estes’ (2008) gap analysis and the evaluation of the
influences of knowledge, motivation, and organization as they pertain to reclassification rates at
VDV. There is a need to move beyond the deficit orientation that is characteristic of programs
that do not value the culture or home language of ELLs. The challenge is to identify and
implement instructional strategies that will build English proficiency skills while embracing the
strengths and abilities of second language learners (August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2006).
Key Terms That Relate to Reclassification
Research indicates that few districts have formal definitions and processes for identifying
and monitoring the progress of English language learners (Olsen, 2014); thus, it is important to
understand terms that relate to reclassification. The ELL population is diverse, complex, and
heterogeneous. In California, ELLs speak more than 60 different languages, including dozens of
Asian and Pacific Islander languages (Hahnel et al., 2014; Hakuta, 2018). These newest
immigrants and children of immigrants come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and rich
social and linguistic experiences (“California English Learner Roadmap,” 2017). This
population includes “newcomers, long-term English learners, students with interrupted formal

41
education, students with disabilities, and gifted and talented students and students continually
exiting from the EL category” (“California English Learner Roadmap,” 2017, p.10). Definitions
that pertain to ELLs and reclassification can vary from state to state and sometimes from district
to district. The challenge of developing consistent language that applies to ELLs is ongoing
(Education Commission of the States, 2018; Gil & Bardack, 2010). As students change schools
or transfer between districts there is a lack of continuity related to program placement and
instruction that impacts the reclassification process. As a result, teachers have difficulty placing
students in the appropriate programs and ascertaining their progress in the reclassification
process (Gil & Bardack, 2010; Hill et al., 2014; Linquanti, 2001; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018;
Rios, 2015). The most commonly used definitions pertaining to the reclassification process are as
follows: English language learners (ELLs) refers to a heterogeneous and complex group of
students who are not proficient in English, have limited speaking, reading and writing skills in
English and come from homes in which a language other than English is used (Bardack, 2010;
Linquanti, 2001; National Council of English Teachers, 2008). Long-term English language
learners (LTELS) - ELLs who have been enrolled in US schools for more than six years and have
not achieved English proficiency (Olsen, 2010).
Structured English Immersion (SEI) is a classroom setting for ELLs who are not
reasonably fluent that is designed to accelerate English language development and acquisition of
English language skills by providing instruction in English designed for children who are
learning the language (Bardack, 2010; “Facts About English Learners in California,” 2019; Hill
et al., 2014; LAUSD, 2012). Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) is a student who
was first designated as an ELL, but who has successfully completed the required assessments
and demonstrates proficiency in English (Hahnel et al., 2014). RFEP varies within states and

42
districts and is based on students’ performance on standardized, norm-referenced achievement
assessments, portfolios of student work, and a variety of multiple measures designed to indicate
proficiency and academic achievement at or above grade level (Boyle et al., 2014; Linquanti, R.,
2001). Dual immersion (DI) or two-way bilingual education (TWI) is an integrated program in
which grade-level curriculum is coupled with language learning and taught in English and in a
partner language (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin, etc.) (Tran, 2015; Boyle et al., 2014). The
aforementioned terms are used throughout the literature pertaining to ELLs and reclassification.
The Reclassification Process
The steps in the reclassification process must be clearly defined and understood to
effectively address the problem of improving reclassification rates. Reclassified ELLs who
become RFEPs have been shown to perform better than ELLs and sometimes outperform native
English speakers (EdSource, 2008; Gandara & Rumberger, 2006; Hill, 2012; Saunders &
Marcelletti, 2013). California school districts are allowed to determine their own reclassification
policies (Hill et al., 2014). Criteria California school districts use to reclassify ELLs varies;
however, decisions must include four criteria: assessment of English proficiency, evaluation of
basic skills in English, teacher evaluation of the student, and parent input [Education Code
313(f)]. Additionally, the district level English Learner Master Plan (2018) outlines the
reclassification requirements for English Learners.
Figure 1 provides a detailed list of reclassification criteria (Gipson & Stephens-Acosta,
2018). The variance in reclassification processes and ELL identification among districts makes it
important to specify the requirements that are currently implemented at the school in this study.
When teachers lack clarity regarding the reclassification process, errors in student program
placement result.

43
Figure 1
Reclassification Measures and Criteria

44
ELL Misidentification
ELL misidentification refers to students who are erroneously identified as English
learners. Misidentification results in students not receiving the necessary language supports and
interventions to improve their language skills (Bedolla & Rodriguez, 2011). This
misidentification contributes to the lack of a clear definition of what an ELL is (Bedolla &
Rodriguez, 2011). The use of the CELDT and Home Language Survey to identify ELLs has
been blamed for misidentifying and overidentifying children as ELLs (Bedolla & Rodriguez,
2011; Stokes-Guinan & Goldenberg, 2011; Zacarian, 2011). It can also result in over-
identification of ELLs for special education services and for the administration of assessments
that are excessively challenging (Severns, 2011). Following ELL identification, the kindergarten
and 1st-grade teachers must administer a formal test to measure students’ ability to speak English
proficiently when most cannot read or write. The screening test includes reading and writing
assessments, and test administration can take up to 2 hours (Bedolla & Rodriguez, 2011;
Severns, 2011). Bedolla and Rodriguez (2011) reported that only 12 percent of the children
taking the California screening test qualified as English proficient. Research indicates that the
home language survey does not focus on the current dominant home language or the level of
English exposure in other settings (such as preschool). These are factors that are relevant in
accurately identifying English language learners. Information on the home language survey is
provided by parents, and accuracy is critical to the validity of the completed survey. Parents
often report inaccurately or are reluctant to report at all (Bailey & Kimberly, 2012). Home
language surveys are often poorly constructed, characterized by ambiguous wording, and
composed of too few items to identify potential ELLs (Bedolla & Rodriguez, 2011). The

45
research shows that the Home Language survey should not be the primary factor in determining
ELL classification (Zacarian, 2011).
The CDE transitioned from the CELDT to the ELPAC in 2018. The validity and
reliability of the CELDT have been disputed due to the very low percentages of students
classified as English language proficient. One study concluded that being administered the
CELDT almost guarantees an ELL classification (Bedolla & Rodriguez, 2011). The CELDT is
used to measure English language proficiency. The construct validity for the CELDT is
questionable due to the lack of absolute criteria and a tenuous definition of language proficiency
(Stokes-Guinan & Goldenberg, 2011). A review of CELDT scores indicated additional problems.
Reliability and validity are impacted by the non-standardized administration of the assessment.
Ultimately, research has found the CELDT to be invalid and unreliable as a predictor of ELL’s
English proficiency levels (Stokes-Guinan & Goldenberg, 2011). The CELDT became
inoperative on June 30, 2018 (“English Language Proficiency Assessments for CA -
CalEDFacts,” 2018).
The ELPAC assessment is required for ELLs. The assessment is aligned with the 2012
California English Language Development Standards (“2019-2020 ELPAC Information Guide,”
2019; “English “Language Proficiency Assessments for California,” 2019). ELPAC field tests
were conducted in 2017. The Initial ELPAC became operational on July 1, 2018, and the
Summative ELPAC became operational on February 1, 2018 (“English Language Proficiency
Assessments for CA - CalEDFacts,” 2018). For this reason, there is limited data available to
support its validity and reliability to date (Martin, 2016). It is evident that there is a need for
further research regarding the relationships that exist between the reclassification process,
policies, rates, and criteria across the state (Hill et al., 2014).

46
Barriers to Reclassification
There are many wide-ranging factors that influence reclassification. Improving the
English language skills and proficiency of all children is a primary educational goal in most
schools (Lindholm-Leary, 2015). The consistent growth in ELLs who are classified as Limited
English Proficient (LEP) has made improving English proficiency in this population a
nationwide concern (Halle, Hair, Wandner, McNamara & Chien, 2012). This culturally,
linguistically, and socially diverse student population is lagging behind monolinguals (who speak
the dominant language) in academic tasks and are even at risk of losing their home language
(Halle et al., 2012; Oller & Jarmulowicz, 2007; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). English language
acquisition, proficiency, and reclassification are impacted by the following: ELL personality
characteristics, immigrant and socioeconomic status, first language written and oral skills,
number of years in the United States, differences between the first and second languages, and the
home and school environment (Frances & Rivera, 2007; Genesee et al., 2006; Rueda et al., 2006;
Tabors & Snow, 2002).
Recent research has shown that English proficiency rather than academic criteria serves
as a barrier to reclassification at the elementary level (Robinson, 2011; Thompson, 2012;
Umansky & Reardon, 2016). Reclassification is based on meeting the requirements for English
proficiency and academic achievement that ensure students are prepared for success in
mainstream classes without English language support (Linquanti, 2001). Students’ English
reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills, rather than academic criteria, are assessed to
determine English proficiency (Umansky & Reardon, 2016).
At the secondary level, academic criterion serves as a barrier to reclassification
(Robinson, 2011; Thompson, 2012; Umansky & Reardon, 2016). Regardless of the instructional

47
program, reclassification rates slow as ELLs reach secondary school for several reasons.
Students with the highest English proficiency levels and academic skills have reclassified in
elementary school. Thus, the ELL population in secondary schools have lower levels of English
proficiency and limited academic skills (Hopkins et al., 2013; Saunders & Marcelletti, 2012).
Several studies indicate that ELLs are tracked into lower-level academic classes in secondary
(Callahan, 2005; Callahan et al., 2008, 2010; Kanno & Kangas, 2014). ELLs find themselves
isolated in classes, characterized by few native English speakers and a preponderance of low-
level academic English; these classes do not enable them to meet English proficiency
reclassification criteria (Umansky & Reardon, 2016).
In the classroom context, teachers’ lack of knowledge about the cultural backgrounds of
ELLs has been cited as a major barrier to improving English language proficiency and thus
serves as one barrier to reclassification. It has been noted that many teachers do not understand
key cultural terms and concepts that relate to ELLs. Also, the linguistic instructional
environment that ELLs are exposed to has a profound impact on their academic achievement and
English language proficiency (Umansky & Reardon, 2016).
Research indicates that students in dual language programs demonstrate significantly
higher academic gains than those in English immersion programs (Umansky & Reardon, 2014).
Dual language students outperform their counterparts in reading, writing, speaking, and listening
proficiency (Palmer, 2007; Umansky & Reardon, 2014).
Instruction for ELLs
The primary goal of instruction for ELLs is the achievement of English language
proficiency to successfully participate in mainstream classroom instruction and demonstrate
basic skills comparable to that of a native speaker in the same grade level (LCFF Priority 4

48
Statement of Model Practices, 2018). ELLs rarely receive the needed additional instructional
supports, regardless of their placement in Structured English Immersion programs or Dual
Language Programs (Goldenberg, 2008; O’Day, 2009; Gil & Bardack, 2010). ELLs are often in
segregated settings, receiving minimal language development instruction, and partial access to
the full curriculum. Instruction is based on poorly implemented ELL programs and elementary
school curricula that are not designed to effectively address their needs (Olsen, 2010; Olsen,
2014; Hahnel et al., 2014). These students move on to secondary as LTELs, they find themselves
in intervention classes that do not meet their needs and denied access to college prep classes
which places their goal of college out of reach (Olsen, 2010; Olsen, 2014).
In order for ELLs to reclassify and achieve academic success they must have access to
high-quality instruction characterized by high engagement, rigor, and appropriate interventions
to improve language acquisition. Teachers need to enhance their delivery of instruction to ELLs
and this will require knowledge as it relates to job aids, professional development and training
(Ballentyne et al., 2008; Bostad et al., 2015; Echeverias et al., 2008). The two most well-known
instructional approaches for ELLs are the Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP)
and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) (Echevarria et al., 2012;
Hanson & Filibert, 2006; Moughamian et al., 2009).
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)
SIOP has been very effective in improving student achievement among ELLs. Studies
have shown that students with teachers implementing SIOP showed significantly higher
academic performance than their counterparts in non-SIOP programs (Echevarria, 2013). The
focus in SIOP is on making content comprehensible to students while promoting English
language development through instruction in academic English skills in reading, writing,

49
listening, and speaking. SIOP, characterized by limited native language use, cooperative
learning, reading comprehension strategies, differentiated instruction and language objectives in
content area classes, is most successful with upper elementary students (Moughamian et al.,
2009).
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)
The goal of SDAIE is to help ELLs, with intermediate fluency or higher, access to
complex academic content. SDAIE strategies are used across the curriculum to enhance
comprehension of core concepts while providing grade-appropriate academic content in English
to ELLs with intermediate-level knowledge of English listening, speaking, reading, and writing
(Moughamian et al., 2009). Students attain the tools for decoding language while learning
content (Jimenez, 1992). SDAIE is characterized by learner-centered instruction with the teacher
as facilitator and opportunities for students to build on existing knowledge and make meaningful
connections to the material presented. It is useful for all grades. (Moughamian et al., 2009). In
SDAIE the emphasis is on developing effective use and proficiency in academic language of the
content areas (Sadek, 2019).
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Framework
In this study the researcher applied the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework:
a problem-solving model that identifies effective solutions to performance gaps. The model
identifies knowledge/skill gaps, motivation gaps, and organizational barriers. The framework
examines stakeholder knowledge and motivation and organizational influences on the
stakeholders’ performance in improving reclassification rates. Assessment of teachers’ factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge informs the development of a plan that
effectively addresses the knowledge gaps that influence the ability of teachers to address the low

50
reclassification rates among students of VDV. This study will determine the gaps that impede
reclassification and will also focus on the motivational influences of self-efficacy theory, utility
value, and goal orientation that influence the stakeholders’ choice to build their capacity in
providing high-quality instruction. The assumed influencers of knowledge, motivation, and
organization, although presented separately in this section, do not operate in isolation of each
other. Knowledge and motivation work in tandem to close the gap between success and failure
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational influences include cultural models and settings, characterized by values,
beliefs, and attitudes (Krathwohl, 2002). Clark and Estes (2008) describe the importance of
efficient and effective organizational work processes supporting change that is deeply rooted
within the organizational vision, mission, and goals. Performance improves when processes and
resources are aligned. To effectively address the gap due to organizational barriers, cultural
model influences, and cultural settings, influences must be in alignment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) conceptualize knowledge and motivation as key causes of
performance gaps. In order to close the gaps and achieve organizational goals, the first step is to
identify the cause of the gap. The issue of improving reclassification rates is directly related to
teacher knowledge and skills related to the reclassification process. Too often, teachers are not
adequately trained to effectively identify, classify, and teach ELLs (Linqanti, 2001). Teachers
administer the required English Language proficiency assessments that ELLs must successfully
pass for reclassification. A teacher evaluation providing a review of the ELLs curriculum
mastery is required for reclassification. ELLs must score at benchmark or above on a basic skills
assessment that is administered by teachers. Teachers provide instruction for ELLs to

51
successfully reclassify (Gipson & Stephens, 2018; “Reclassification,” 2019). Preliminary
analysis indicates that certain knowledge and skills are necessary to close the performance gap
between English language learners (ELLs), RFEPs and English only (EOs). To effectively
address this issue, determining the knowledge and skills of teachers of ELLs is necessary.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are three measures of motivated performance. Those
facets are an active choice, persistence, and mental effort. A key concept of motivation is that it
results from experiences and beliefs that workers have about themselves. In this instance, the
beliefs and experiences of the stakeholders have a profound impact on their confidence and
efficacy (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Influences
The four types of knowledge are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Conducting an assessment of the teachers’ knowledge enables
the development of a plan that addresses gaps that pertain to knowledge influences. These gaps
impact a teacher’s ability to address the low reclassification rates of students of VDV.
Factual knowledge refers to knowledge that is basic to specific disciplines (Rueda, 2011).
An example is the terminology used to differentiate ELLs. Few school districts have formal
definitions of English language learners (Olsen, 2014). Many states (Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho,
Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and
Vermont) utilize the department of education’s ELL guidebook or federal law to define English
language learners. The remaining states define ELLs in state policy with a state-created
definition (“How is an “English language learner” defined in state policy?” 2014). The variance

52
of ELL definitions and reclassification procedures amongst districts results in students being
assigned to inappropriate classrooms and programs (Bardack, 2010; Linquanti, 2001).
To move forward in improving reclassification rates, teachers must understand the key
terms for differentiating ELLs and addressing their needs to ensure reclassification: English
language learners, long-term English language learners, structured English immersions,
reclassified fluent English proficient, and dual immersion or two-way bilingual education
(Ballantyne et al. 2008; Hill et al., 2015). Teachers must begin the process of improving
reclassification rates by understanding terminology, contexts, details, and elements specific to
the problem of reclassification rates among ELLs (Hill & Hayes, 2014). Understanding basic
terminology such as LTELs, ELLs, RFEPs, and EOs is essential for identifying the population
that the stakeholder group is interacting with (Hahnel et al., 2014; Hill & Hayes, 2014). The lack
of consistent and current language that accurately applies to ELLs can result in an assessment
that is ineffective and inappropriate. ELLs are a heterogeneous group with diverse needs and the
definitions serve as descriptors that indicate where students are on the reclassification continuum
(Bardack, 2010). To be effective, teachers must receive pre-training in the definitions and
characteristics of important concepts relating to reclassification (Hahnel, 2014; Olsen & Wan,
2010).
Conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge pertaining to the interrelationships among
elements within a larger structure that enable them to effectively work together (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011; Wilson, 2016). Principles, models, categories, classifications,
theories, or structures related to a particular area make up conceptual knowledge (Rueda, 2011).
An example of this is the knowledge that teachers need to demonstrate effective implementation
of the most effective research-based methodologies for delivering instruction to ELLs. Particular

53
methodologies such as Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) and Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) have been shown to be especially effective
with ELLs. Both SDAIE and SIOP are based on developing students’ use of English and the
development of reading, writing, speaking, and listening (August & Shanahan, 2006;
Moughamian, 2009). Cultural and content scaffolding strategies, graphic organizers, visual aids,
and total physical response have all been successful in improving English language acquisition
among ELLs and are often utilized in SIOP and SDAIE (Rubenstein-Avila & Fink, 2013). Both
methodologies require factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge on the part of the teacher
(Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Jimenez, 2011). Language acquisition theories, or knowledge,
and principles of learning, or knowledge, are the concepts upon which SIOP and SDAIE are
developed. These instructional strategies provide teachers with tools for teaching English
learners, including cooperative learning, differentiated instruction, and reading comprehension
strategies. The SIOP method encourages teachers to “enunciate clearly, use visuals, target
vocabulary words [and] promote peer interaction” (Echevarria et al., 2008, p.13). Regardless of
the language of instruction, SIOP and SDAIE are valuable instructional methodologies that are
effective in teaching English learners (Echevarria et al., 2008). Effective implementation of both
SIOP and SDAIE requires teachers to possess factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge.
For the purposes of this study conceptual knowledge will not be a focus area.
Procedural knowledge refers to very specific skills that are required to complete specific
activities (Rueda, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002). An example would be the steps of the
reclassification process as well as the identification and misidentification of ELLs. Criteria
California school districts use to reclassify ELLs varies; decisions that determine program
placement for ELLs include four criteria: an assessment of English proficiency, evaluation of

54
basic skills in English, teacher evaluation of the student and parent input [Education Code
313(f)]. Teacher understanding of the reclassification process is essential to improve
reclassification rates (Hill et al., 2014).
Teacher Understanding of the Reclassification Process. The complexity of the
reclassification process is better understood when it is presented in manageable parts. Learning
refers to the outcomes and reclassification rates that are the result of effective implementation of
language acquisition (Alexander et al., 2009). The process of reclassification in California, and
specifically at VDV, is prescribed and based on district, state and federal mandates and
guidelines. Procedural knowledge is required to improve the reclassification rates from the
current 17.4% to 22% or higher. The reclassification process that requires English learners to
score proficient in speaking, listening, and writing on the CELDT/ELPAC, pass ELA with a
report card grade of ‘3’ or better, and score at Benchmark on all subtests of DIBELS (Hill et al.,
2014). The stakeholders must effectively navigate through a set of operations through time that
results in changes in student achievement.
The fourth and final dimension of knowledge is metacognitive. This refers to one's
awareness of one’s own cognition. Metacognition is an important aspect of strategic behavior in
solving problems (Krathwol, 2002; Rueda, 2011). This dimension of knowledge enables teachers
to ascertain their effectiveness at providing instruction that enables ELLs to achieve academic
skills and reclassify. Research shows that the strategic and reflective aspects of metacognitive
knowledge support a teacher’s ability to deliver high-quality instruction and increase student
learning (Haukus, Bjorke & Dypedahl, 2018; Krathwol, 2002; Wilson, 2016). Teachers need to
reflect on their effectiveness in the delivery of instruction to ELLs and then utilize this
information to monitor progress and plan an approach moving forward. Another example of

55
metacognitive knowledge among teachers of ELLs is self-reflection to assess the demands of
effective instructional delivery that will culminate in English language proficiency and
reclassification. Although all types of knowledge are important in learning, some types of
knowledge are more effective than others in differentiating instruction to address the needs of
ELLs and to address the needs of their teachers.
Teacher Understanding of Their Own Pedagogical Skills and Attitudes.
Metacognitive knowledge enables teachers to know when and why to do something (Rueda,
2011). Training certainly impacts problem solving as it relates to pedagogy and choices related
to instructional delivery (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018; Wilson, 2016). Knowledge followed by
the effective application of appropriate research-based instructional strategies most effective with
ELLs is needed to address the problem of low reclassification rates (Gersten, Baker, Shanahan,
Linan-Thompson, & Collins, 2007; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018). Improving English language
proficiency among ELLs is the basis of pedagogy designed to improve reclassification rates
(“California ELA/ELD Framework,” 2015; Gersten et al., 2007; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018).
Teachers with little or no training in language acquisition, other than English, often express
negative or indifferent attitudes towards the heritage language maintenance and do not
understand the important role it plays in the “personal, academic, and social trajectories of
language minority students” (Lee & Oxelson, 2006, p. 453). The nature of personal experience
with languages other than English and teacher training significantly impacted teacher attitudes
toward maintenance of ELLs’ heritage language. Teachers with little or no training in language
acquisition, other than English, often express negative or indifferent attitudes towards heritage
language maintenance. As a result, they do not understand the important role heritage language
maintenance plays in the “personal, academic, and social trajectories of language minority

56
students” (Lee & Oxelson, 2006, p. 453). Heritage language maintenance is an important
component of an asset-based approach to teaching ELLs that honors the cultural and linguistic
backgrounds of students and incorporates what students already know into teaching (Gonzalez,
Moll, & Amanti, 2006; “LAUSD, Master Plan,” 2018). This assets-based approach is essential to
provide the most effective services to ELLs (“LAUSD, Master Plan,” 2018). Heritage language
maintenance is instrumental in fostering stronger family bonds, more respect for elders and
parental authority. It nurtures identity development and social and emotional health (Santana,
2018). Research has shown that cultivating and supporting proficiency in heritage language and
academic excellence alleviates the disjointedness that ELLs encounter between their home and
school environments and improves student achievement (Chu, 2011; Crawford, 2000; Vallance,
2019).
Through self-reflection, teachers examine their own cultural values, beliefs, and
perceptions. This reflection can provide teachers with critical multicultural awareness that can
encourage the development of better interpersonal skills, greater awareness of others, greater
self-awareness, and appreciation of other cultures’ history, values, experiences, and lifestyles
(Aceves & Orosco, 2014; Banks, 2004).
Dynamics of a Culture That Affects School and Student Achievement. Effective
schools are positive, orderly, safe, and are characterized by a culturally responsive environment
with a warm and caring community (Gay, 2010; Hollie, 2015; Howard, Lindholm-Leary, Rogers,
Olague, Medina, Kennedy, Sugerman, & Christian, 2018; Staehr, 2014). Research has shown
that perceptions of poor performance and language differences in children are caused by a failure
of communication as a result of cultural differences and not child deficits (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Figuratively stated by Sarason in Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), “The

57
very fabric of its existence is what must be changed” (p. 46). Similarly, to change reclassification
rates the culture of the school must change (Sarason, 1971). The achievement of ethnic minority
students can be improved if schools identify differences and appropriately adapt curriculum and
instruction to be culturally relevant (Cazden, 1986; Tharp, 1989). School culture should promote
inclusion, empathy, and support. It should be an environment that reflects the diverse
experiences of all students including ELLs. Ideally, it should be culturally and linguistically
responsive reflecting students’ backgrounds, assets, and strengths with meaningful connections
to students’ families and communities (“LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018).
Table 5 (on the following page) shows the stakeholder goal and knowledge influences,
types, and assessments that are the focus of this study. This table demonstrates the relationship
between the factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge that
enables the stakeholders to effectively address and overcome the gaps in knowledge that must be
addressed to improve reclassification rates among ELLs.

58
Table 5
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Gap Analysis
Stakeholder Goal
VDV’s goal is that by June 2020, reclassification rates for ELLs will improve to 22% or higher
from the current 17.4% as reported on the 2017-2018 School Dashboard.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Teachers need knowledge of
terminology pertaining to ELLs
and the implications of the
increasing number of LTELs
entering secondary school.
Factual Interview:
1. Define the terms below:
EL, RFEP, EO, LTEL.
2. Describe the implications of the
growing numbers of LTELs in
California.
Teachers need to know how to
effectively deliver instruction to
improve English language
proficiency among ELLs.

Teachers need to know how
students reclassify.
Teachers need to know how
reclassification assessments are
administered and how students
are assessed for reclassification.
Procedural Interview:
1. How do you improve English
language proficiency for ELLs? Be
specific.
2. What must students do to reclassify?
3. What is your understanding of how
the ELPAC is administered?
4. What task types comprise the
ELPAC?
5. What does the SBAC assess?
6. What skills are measured with
DIBELS Next?
Teachers must be aware of their
limitations related to
implementing effective
instructional strategies for ELLs.
Metacognitive Interview:
1. Tell me about the last time you
reflected upon your instruction for
English language acquisition among
ELLs.
2. What instructional strategies did you
find most successful and why?
3. Describe the challenges that you
experienced during your instruction
of ELLs.

59
Motivational Influences
Motivation is what pushes individuals to move forward, persist, and ultimately achieve a
goal (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Motivation provides the impetus for learners to engage in the
intellectual processes required to understand what needs to be learned and to resolve the problem
at hand. It is personal, activating, energizing, and directed (Mayer, 2011). Without motivation,
individuals lack direction, persistence, and effort to achieve goals that are set. The motivational
processes of active choice, persistence, and mental effort combine with effective knowledge to
achieve goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge and motivation work in tandem to close the gap
between success and failure. The challenge is to identify the experiences and beliefs that will
contribute to successful performance. Research has shown that people who are positive and
believe in their ability to achieve will be more successful than those who are equally capable but
doubt their abilities (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997).
This study will focus on the motivational influences of self-efficacy, utility value, and
goal orientation. Stakeholders persist and put forth mental effort when they are confident that
they can make a difference (Clark & Estes, 2008). The aforementioned influences will be used to
examine teacher motivation to implement effective instructional strategies resulting in the goal of
reclassification for ELLs.
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Competence Beliefs. A growing body of research shows that
high self-efficacy in teachers leads to more effective instruction and improved student learning
outcomes. Teachers with high self-efficacy credit their own resourcefulness with their ability to
detect students’ challenges and effectively modify instructional delivery (Gordon, 2013). Higher
self-efficacy for teaching ELLs correlates with more favorable attitudes towards ELLs and a
mastery approach to instruction that enhances student-learning outcomes (Karabenick & Noda,

60
2010). According to Alexander, Heaviside & Farris (1999), a survey of over 1,200 mainstream
teachers of ELLs found that 57% believed they need more training in order to effectively deliver
instruction to ELLs (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2001). Furthermore, research on
teacher training and preparation indicates that those who do not hold bilingual credentials or ESL
certifications are not adequately prepared to deliver instruction to ELLs (Karabenick & Clemens
Noda, 2004; Zehler et al., 2003). Staff development, pertaining to instructional delivery to ELLs,
is underrepresented at the state and district levels. As a result, “teachers are uneasy with their lack
of knowledge in this area,” and only 27% felt that they were “very well prepared” to meet the
needs of ELLs (Ballantyne et al., 2008, p.10).
The most successful teachers of ELL students have a sense of self-confidence and self-
efficacy directly related to the quality and extent of teacher professional development and
preparation they have engaged in (Gandara et al., 2005). When teachers of ELLs have
differentiated professional development with specialized pedagogy, they develop competence and
a higher sense of efficacy in working with ELLs (Telles & Waxman, 2005). Ultimately,
motivation is increased with higher self-efficacy, greater belief in one’s own competence, and
higher expectancies for favorable outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008). This motivation is
demonstrated by high engagement, persistence, and working hard at a task or activity (Rueda,
2011).
Teachers can make a profound difference in the achievement of ELLs (August et al.,
2009) and their attitudes play a significant role in student achievement (Karabenick & Noda,
2004; Lee & Oxelson, 2006). Attitudes and beliefs among teachers pertaining to ELL’s first
language have shown a great deal of variability with large proportions of teachers demonstrating
less supportive beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Teachers of ELLs who demonstrate a strong belief

61
that the ELL’s first language proficiency enhances student achievement and does not impede
learning a second language tended to focus on the mastery approach to instruction and had a
higher self-efficacy (Karabenick & Noda, 2010). Rueda (2011) asserts that as individuals gain
competence, expertise, and skill, their self-efficacy increases. In order for ELL teachers to
increase self-efficacy, they will need to receive training in SIOP, SDAIE, and a host of other
strategies that incorporate ELLs’ first language and include instructional strategies that have been
proven effective for monolingual students (Moughamian et al., 2009). Furthermore, educators of
ELLs will have to develop an understanding of the benefits of cross-language transfer in literacy
and move beyond the orientation that cast monolinguals as “normal” and language minority
students as “other than normal” (August & Shanahan, 2009, p. 450).
Utility Value and the Importance of Reclassification. Research has shown that when
ELLs enter secondary school as LTELs, they arrive with significant gaps in their academic
backgrounds, deficits in reading and writing, and limited English proficiency (August &
Shanahan, 2006; Menken, Kleyn, & Chae, 2007; Olsen, 2010). LTELs present distinct language
issues characterized by high functioning social language and weak academic language. They
remain at intermediate levels of English proficiency. EL students want to attend college but are
totally unaware that their skills, record, and courses will prepare them for successful
matriculation at the college level (Olsen, 2010). Reclassification is essential for achieving the
goal of career and college readiness that the entire ABC School District is working towards. The
expectancy of teachers is that students will achieve college and career readiness and reap the
benefits that come with achieving the goal of a high school diploma followed by a college
degree.

62
Goal Orientation. Teachers are committed to improving their delivery of instruction to
ELLs. They are focused on mastering research-based instructional strategies that have been
shown to be successful in improving ELL academic achievement (Gandara et al., 2005).
Teachers focus on gaining improved competence in pedagogy. Simultaneously, teachers are also
focused on the performance goal of their students achieving reclassification. There is
recognition connected to high reclassification rates reported on the California Dashboard that is
available to the general public. This is also a way to avoid negative judgments pertaining to low
reclassification rates and higher school rankings (Rueda, 2011). Table 6 (on the following page)
identifies the motivational constructs of self-efficacy and utility value. These constructs
effectively demonstrate the relationship between motivation and attainment of the goal of
improving the reclassification rates at VDV.

63
Table 6
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivational Influences Assessment
Teachers need to feel
competent in delivering
instruction that will
enable all English
language learners to
reclassify prior to
becoming LTELs.
(Self-efficacy)
Please rate your level of competency as it relates to providing
instruction to ELLs.
Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to
100 using the scale given below:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do
Confidence (0-100)
Instructional Self-Efficacy
Incorporate heritage language maintenance in the classroom ____
Create opportunities for students to practice their oral
English ____
Create opportunities for students to practice their written
English ____
Implement SDAIE ____
Implement SIOP ____
Provide appropriate accommodations based on student’s language
proficiency ____
Use culturally responsive teaching ____
Use instruction of home language cognates to reinforce vocabulary
comprehension ____
Language acquisition theory and principles inform my
instructional delivery ____
Establishment of a strong home school connection ____
Teachers must
understand the long-term
impact of becoming an
LTEL and thus
understand why it is
imperative to provide
appropriate instruction
that will result in
reclassification. (Utility)
Interview:
What are the characteristics of LTELS?”
What do you think happens to secondary students who do not
reclassify?
What are the long-term implications for students who do not
reclassify?
Is it important that students reclassify?

64
Organizational Influences
Cultural Models
According to research on teacher preparedness, a majority of teachers of ELLs believe
they need more training to provide effective instruction to ELLs that will improve English
language acquisition and result in reclassification. Less than 30% of the teachers surveyed feel
they have had adequate training to provide instruction for ELLs despite having ELLs in their
classroom (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Faltis & Valdés, 2016). According to a survey of attitudes
and feelings of teachers of ELLs conducted by NCES, only 27% felt they were “very well
prepared” to effectively address the needs of ELLs (U.S. Department of Education, NCES,
2001). Additional research indicated that 81.7% of teachers of ELLs surveyed felt they did not
have adequate training to address the needs of ELLs (Reeves, 2006). Given that focused
professional development on the needs of ELLs is associated with higher levels of student
achievement outcomes (Master et al., 2012), a majority of teachers feel that they cannot
significantly improve English language acquisition among ELLs, thus improving reclassification
rates. The effort of the organization and the stakeholders determines success or failures in
improving reclassification rates and raising student proficiency in ELA (Anderman & Anderman,
2009). The recommendation made by the Anderman study is to select several school sites with
similar demographics and facilitate benchmarking and teacher review of reclassification data that
demonstrates higher rates of success. It is also recommended that the organization provide
opportunities for teachers to analyze school reclassification data and increase awareness of the
percentage of students who are reclassifying. One way in which districts and schools attempt to
support teachers in providing high-quality instruction is by providing opportunities for educators
to collaborate in reviewing disaggregated ELL achievement data that is readily available on the

65
new California Department of Education Dashboard system. This data review increases
awareness of long-term ELL outcomes and provides a basis for making instructional decisions
and moving beyond attitudes of helplessness and hopelessness (Hahnel, 2014).
Cultural Settings
Tools and resources for supporting teachers of ELLs must be consistent and systematic.
Time and funding must be allocated for differentiated professional development that provides
how-to training for teachers to provide effective instruction to ELLs (Tran, 2014). Each level of
the school system must provide adequate resources for building teacher capacity to effectively
address the needs of ELLs. Professional learning and collaboration should be prioritized in
professional development scheduling and budget development (“California English Learner
Roadmap,” 2017). According to Scott and Palincsar (2006), providing targeted training and
instruction between the individual’s independent performance level and their level of assisted
performance promotes optimal learning for the educator. The recommendation is for the
organization to provide sufficient scaffolding and tools to facilitate learning instructional
strategies that appear to be most successful with ELLs’ improvement of English language
acquisition.
Allocating time and budget to support teacher training and improve learning outcomes of
ELLs can be problematic. LCFF and LCAP can provide funding and support to improve the
availability of time and budget. Enacted during the 2013-2014 school year, the Local Control
Funding formula (LCFF) replaced the previous kindergarten through grade 12 finance systems.
LCFF establishes base, supplemental, and concentration grants in place of a number of
previously existing K-12 funding streams (“Local Control and Accountability Plan Overview,”
2019; “Local Control Funding Formula,” 2019). The Local Control and Accountability Plan

66
(LCAP) is a three-year plan comprised of goals, services, and expenditures to support positive
student outcomes (“Local Control and Accountability Plan,” 2019). Local educational agencies
(schools, county education offices, school districts, etc.) utilize the LCFF and LCAP to address
the needs of the whole child and ensure that “ALL students are healthy, safe, engaged,
challenged, and supported (“ LCFF Priorities/Whole Child Resource Map,” 2019, p. 1).
Differentiated professional development for teachers that addresses the needs of ELLs
requires attention to pedagogical content knowledge and program evaluation that assesses
teachers’ knowledge and skills in working with ELLs and fosters a deep understanding of the
diversity among ELLs (Ballantyne et al., 2008). “Teaching English language learners requires
preparation above and beyond training required of teachers in an English-only setting” (Menken
& Antunez, p.10). Differentiated professional development must include knowledge of
linguistics, knowledge of pedagogy, and knowledge of cultural and linguistic diversity to
effectively address the needs of teachers of ELLs (Lopez & Santibanez, 2018). Lucas, Villegas,
and Freedson-Gonzalez (2008) have identified “six essential understandings of second language
learning for linguistically responsive teachers” (p. 363). The essential understandings are the
following: (1) differentiating between conversational language and academic language and the
time it takes for both to develop; (2) the relationship between comprehensible input and
production opportunities and language development; (3) the relationship between language
development and social interaction; (4) the role of native language and maintenance of that
language in developing English language skills; (5) interpersonal and affective features of
language; (6) and a focus on formal English. Educational leaders argue that professional
development should include these understandings for all teachers due to the sudden influx of
second language learners in school but most researchers agree that teachers of ELLs should

67
definitely receive professional development that addresses each of the understandings (Faltis &
Valdes, 2016; Lopez & Santibanez, 2018; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008; Menken
& Atunez, 2001). Essential to differentiated professional development for teachers of ELLs is
“Pedagogical Language Knowledge” (Lopez & Santibanez, 2018, p. 11). This refers to teaching
practices related to language, language acquisition, bilingualism, language practices and
language demands across the curriculum, scaffolding strategies with the goal of engaging ELLs
in vocabulary and language building through communication interaction (Lopez & Santibanez,
2018). High-performing school districts utilize the Local Control and Accountability funding to
provide increased differentiated professional development to improve teachers’ understanding of
ELD standards and instructional strategies for ELLs. These districts consistently provide
professional development that will equip teachers with the strategies and skills needed to
effectively support English learners (Hahnel et al., 2014).
According to Scott and Palincsar (2006), social interaction, cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships (such as reciprocal teaching) facilitate the construction of new
knowledge. The context in which teachers demonstrate growth in the ability to implement
instructional strategies designed to enhance ELL achievement is one characterized by ongoing
collaboration, time engaged in training to support language development within the context of
the core curriculum and not just in targeted ELD classes, ongoing and systematic coaching and
support for integration of language development strategies in core curriculum (Hahnel et al.,
2014). In one of the most successful school districts, coaching was extremely effective in
accomplishing improved instructional delivery to ELLs coupled with improved student
achievement. Coaching included classroom observation, lesson study, instructional rounds, co-
teaching, and ongoing analysis of student data. Teachers, with the support of the district and

68
school leadership, then create common strategies for teaching content, developing language
skills, and supporting ELLs in ELD and mainstream classes (Hahnel et al., 2014). Table 7
Illustrates organizational influences and assessments to be studied in this gap analysis.
Table 7
Organizational Influences and Assessments Gap Analysis
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs to develop a culture
in which teachers feel they can significantly
impact the ability of students to reclassify.
Interview
Please describe the progress or lack of
progress your school has made in terms of
reclassification rates. What would you
attribute this progress or lack of progress
to?
Please describe the progress or lack of
progress your classroom has made in terms
of reclassification. What would you
attribute this progress or lack of progress
to?
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide
differentiated professional development that
includes training in pedagogy, linguistics,
and knowledge of cultural and linguistic
diversity, to build teacher capacity to
provide effective instruction to ELL
students.
Interview
Please describe the nature of professional
development the organization provides for
you to provide effective instruction for
ELLs.
How could professional development be
improved?

Conceptual Framework
The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that contribute to the improvement of
reclassification rates among elementary school students. This will include communicating the
system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that are integral to the
problem of practice. In this section, I will provide the conceptual framework that will guide this

69
study and lead to answers to the research questions, which identify the influences of knowledge,
motivation and organization. The questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What knowledge, skills, and motivation do teachers need, related to the
reclassification process and instructional delivery, to improve reclassification rates
among English language learners (ELLs)?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and teachers’
knowledge and motivation to significantly improve reclassification rates for ELLs?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that will enable the teachers to significantly
improve reclassification rates for ELLs?
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to identify and communicate the system of
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support the research pertaining to
the problem of practice (Maxwell, 2005). The conceptual framework is a tentative theory of what
is going on and why. This model is used to inform the research pertaining to ELL
reclassification rates and is useful in helping the researcher assess and refine goals, develop
research questions and select appropriate methods to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions
(Maxwell, 2005). The influences of knowledge, motivation, and organization, although presented
separately in this literature review, do not remain in isolation of each other. Figure 2 is a graphic
representation of how teachers’ knowledge and motivation interact with organizational factors to
influence teachers’ ability to reach the organizational goal of significantly improving
reclassification rates resulting in a decrease in the number of LTELs.
The large blue circle represents the organization in its entirety and surrounds the
stakeholder group. It includes the cultural model influences and cultural setting influences that

70
have been shown in the literature to influence the ability of the stakeholder to reach the goal of
improving reclassification among ELLs. The smaller circle within the large circle represents the
teachers of ELLs and the knowledge and motivation needed to reach the goal of improving
reclassification rates among ELLs through high-quality instructional delivery.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation and
Organizational Goals

71
Research has shown that there is a close relationship between teacher quality and student
outcomes (Agaro-Fernandez & de Guzman, 2006; Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a
Profession, 1986; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). Special skills and training are essential to
effectively increase English language proficiency to a level that will result in the reclassification
of ELLs (Gandara et al., 2004).
Teachers are motivated by their belief that students have the ability to reclassify, and self-
efficacy further motivates them to believe that they can impact the ability of students to
reclassify (Tran, 2014). It is important that they are supported in this belief by the organization.
If the organization believes that all students can reclassify and all teachers can impact the ability
of students to reclassify, then the cultural setting influence must support that belief by providing
the resources and tiered support to build the capacity of teachers to provide effective instruction
for ELLs (“California English Learner Road Map,” 2017). A study found that 43% of teachers
with 50% or more ELLs had received no more than one in-service focused on the instruction of
ELLs during the last five years (Gandara et al., 2004).
Research indicates that self-efficacy is characterized by self-confidence in the teachers’
ability to deliver instruction to ELLs, fueled by deep content knowledge of teaching and learning
to increase English language proficiency in ELLs coupled with full certification in ELL
pedagogy (Gandara et. al, 2004). The commitment to engage in training to improve the delivery
of research-based instructional strategies designed to improve English language acquisition
among ELLs connects with the organizational commitment to improving student achievement
reclassification rates.
Knowledge is crucial to effectively address reclassification rates. Factual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge are represented in the figure. Attaining the factual knowledge related

72
to ELLs serves two functions. This knowledge can motivate teachers because it informs them of
the urgency of the issue of ELL reclassification. Factual and procedural knowledge are important
to effectively address the goal of improving reclassification rates. Teachers must understand the
process of reclassification as well as the key terms related to reclassification because they are the
primary drivers in the process (Hill et al., 2014). They administer the majority of the
assessments that determine reclassification and complete most of the documentation related to
reclassification. To successfully complete these tasks, they must understand the key terms in the
process that identify and classify ELLs (Hill et al., 2014). Additionally, they must know how to
deliver instruction in ways that will maximize ELL learning. The knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences operate within the school culture to influence the achievement of the
goals of the teachers in improving student achievement and reclassification rates among ELLs.

73
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The researcher conducted a qualitative study to identify the performance gaps that pertain
to ELL reclassification. Chapter three will explain the research design and methods that were
used in this study. The chapter will begin by describing the selection of participating
stakeholders. Then the process for data collection and instrumentation will be reviewed, followed
by the data analysis. The chapter will close with a review of credibility and trustworthiness,
ethics, limitations, and delimitations for the study.
Participating Stakeholders
I conducted an analysis of teachers, in terms of their knowledge and skills, their
motivation to improve reclassification rates, and the organizational barriers that are impeding
their progress toward improving reclassification rates (Clark & Estes, 2008). The organizational
goal of improving reclassification rates is directly connected to the goal of improving teachers’
ability to deliver instruction that effectively addresses English language proficiency. The
knowledge and skills and motivation that interfere with the teachers’ ability to improve
reclassification rates for ELLs is not comprised of a “linear, one-directional relationship with one
another” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 7). This interconnection and interaction of different components
that characterize the successful reclassification of ELLs lends itself to the qualitative research
approach (Maxwell, 2013).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
I will use purposeful sampling to identify participants and achieve representativeness and
typicality of settings and participants (Maxwell, 2013). I will identify teachers of classes
composed of 50% to 100% English language learners (ELLs) to participate. The goal of this
purposeful selection is to ensure that conclusions drawn represent the entire range of variation in

74
ELL programs offered at VDV. The purpose of the study is to determine the reasons for the gap
that exists between the current reclassification rate of 17.4 % and the stakeholder goal of 22% or
more by June 2020. For this reason, the teachers that are selected should be those who provide
instruction to ELLs in L2EAP or DLP. Purposeful selection may also enable the researcher to
observe differences between teachers in different settings (Creswell, 2002; Maxwell, 2013). The
teaching staff, excluding special education teachers, totals 19. I conducted research with six to
eight teachers who provide instruction to ELLs.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
At the beginning of the school year, I obtained permission from the principal for this
meeting to occur. The principal granted me permission to present to teachers following her
general staff meeting. The researcher distributed informational flyers, with an overview of the
study and RSVP information, to school staff via email. The researcher displayed the same
information on the main office counter and in staff mailboxes. To recruit participants for my
study, I began by providing staff members with an overview of the study, including my
expectations, and information for them to contact me by email if they wished to participate. I
immediately responded to those who indicated an interest in participating. Those who responded
via email were sent an email reminder. The meeting also included an overview of district-wide
reclassification data and LTEL data to create a sense of urgency. The presentation to teachers
was followed by a question and answer session to clarify teachers’ participation in the study and
I then distributed commitment forms. A review of the commitment forms provided a list of
participants that were then reviewed to ensure that participants met the requirements.

75
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The researcher collected data to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to improving
reclassification rates among ELLs. Data, collected over a one-month period, included interviews
and document review. Methodologists describe the interview method as the most effective
process to explain and explore the interviewees’ opinions and experiences pertaining to the topic
of study (Kvale,1996). The interview method is appropriate for uncovering an interviewees’
factual knowledge and conceptual understanding of information pertaining to the research topic.
In qualitative studies, the questions are generally open-ended in order to gain in-depth
knowledge from the participants’ point of view. When using a semi-structured approach,
interviews are especially beneficial for follow-up questions or to further investigate participant
responses (McNamara,1999). The interaction between knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors is multifaceted and the interview process enabled me to fully understand
teachers’ knowledge, skills, and motivation as it relates to the reclassification process and
instructional delivery to ELLs and recommendations for organizational practices that will result
in significant improvement in reclassification rates for ELLs. The interaction between
organizational culture and context and the teachers’ knowledge and motivation were also
addressed in the interviews.
Individual interviews were conducted with 6 to 8 participants for the purpose of
exploring professional development needs and perception of program efficacy (Casey &
Krueger, 2009). Each interview took 20 to 30 minutes and was conducted after work hours at an
office in the school. The researcher used a tape recorder to audio record the interviews. The
interviews were designed in a standardized open-ended format with exact wording and sequence
of questions determined in advance. This was designed to increase the comparability of

76
responses and reduce interviewer bias while facilitating organization and analysis of data
(Patton, 2002). The researcher developed the interview questions through pilot testing with
teachers at a school with comparable demographics and an ELL instructional program. A
standardized open-ended in-person interview format was used. Participants answered the same
questions, and this facilitated comparison of responses and organization and analysis of data. A
tape recorder was used notes were taken to ensure accurate data collection. Appendix D is the
interview protocol that was utilized.
An assessment of teachers’ factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge had to be conducted to develop a plan to effectively
address the knowledge gaps that impact the ability of teachers to address the low reclassification
rates among students of VDV (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). I was a key instrument in this
study and collected data in a natural setting (Creswell, 2014). Data collection took place at the
site where participants were employed using the interviews to ascertain teachers’ procedural
knowledge of the reclassification process, appropriate credentialing specific to ELLs, and factual
knowledge pertaining to ELLs such as terminology related to English language proficiency,
current reclassification, and LTEL rates, and long term implications of entering secondary as an
LTEL. Interviews by the researcher were also used to ascertain teachers’ metacognitive
knowledge as it relates to self-efficacy and motivation.
Documents and Artifacts
The study began with a detailed document review in order to enable the researcher to
become more familiar with the school site. The documents that were reviewed included
standardized testing data, California Department of Education Dashboard, particularly ELL
progress, single plan for student achievement, staff professional development agendas and

77
schedule, school website, and School Accountability Record Card (SARC). Reviewing these
documents enabled a deeper understanding of current school practices related to ELL student
achievement and teacher professional development. This data review enabled exploration of the
research questions and facilitated insight on the school’s progress pertaining to reclassification,
ELL student achievement, topics and frequency of professional development, teacher
credentialing, and allocation of resources to address ELL English language proficiency.
Data Analysis
Upon the completion of data collection, the researcher had the interviews professionally
transcribed and then closely analyzed them inductively and deductively to identify patterns,
categories, and themes (Creswell, 2014). The researcher identified emergent insights recorded
during all data collection, as this is an important part of qualitative analysis (Patton, 2009).
Throughout this process, the researcher made a concerted effort to maintain an emergent design,
characterized by ongoing learning from the participants, about the problem of improving
reclassification rates. This required the researcher to be flexible throughout the research process
(Creswell, 2014).
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. Analytic memos were written
after each interview. The researcher’s thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data
in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions were recorded. Once interviews
were complete, the recordings were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, open
coding was used, in which the researcher looked for empirical codes and applied a priori codes
from the conceptual framework. The researcher conducted the second phase of analysis
aggregating empirical and a priori codes into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data
analysis, pattern codes were identified as well as themes that emerged in relation to the

78
conceptual framework and study questions. Document and artifact analysis occurred to evidence
consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.
Member checking and peer review were utilized upon the completion of data collection.
This ensured the accuracy and reliability of the transcriptions from the interviews. The data was
analyzed to ascertain weaknesses and strengths in current instructional practices and to make
recommendations for further research and implementation to address the reclassification gap.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
There are a number of strategies that were used to enhance the trustworthiness and rigor
of this study. Peer review and examination was utilized to increase credibility and
trustworthiness. The researcher engaged in discussions with teachers and administrators
regarding the study and the emerging themes and preliminary findings with raw data. An audit
trail was maintained by keeping a detailed record of procedures and methods utilized throughout
the research. The goal was to provide rich descriptions of the information collected in interviews
to enable readers to contextualize the study and determine the extent to which findings can be
transferred and generalized (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Internal validity refers to the way research findings match reality (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The researcher conducted interviews and investigated the constructions of reality based
on the perceptions of classroom teachers. This was followed by communication with study
participants so that they understood the important role they play in uncovering “the complexity
of human behavior in a contextual framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is
happening” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 244). Research findings and my commitment to
maintaining confidentiality to classroom teachers were communicated. The teachers were
informed of my position as a retired principal of a school that currently hosts a dual language

79
program and our mutual commitment to improving student achievement. The data collection was
focused on information provided by classroom teachers who allowed me to enter into their
perspective.
Ethics
Written consent forms were provided to all potential participants. Through the informed
consent forms, potential participants learned that their confidentiality was ensured. All data was
carefully stored to ensure participants' confidentiality. The consent form specified that
participation was voluntary and that they were able to choose to end their participation at any
time. Any aspects of the research that might affect their well-being was noted as suggested by
Glesne (2011). Prior to all interviews, participants were verbally reminded of this information
and their permission was secured to audio record before recording. To ensure that participants
felt respected and that all study promises were honored, participants were provided with
transcripts of the interviews and were given the opportunity, both to verify that their words had
not been changed, and to allow for the opportunity to correct errors in transcripts (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012).
The study took place at VDV, an elementary school in ABC School District. For some
participants, anxiety and concern regarding confidentiality and the right to privacy may have
been an issue. To assuage this concern, a paragraph was included in the informed consent
statement that clearly stated my position as a researcher and my commitment to respecting the
privacy rights of the participants and their confidentiality. Participants were informed that
fictitious names would be used to protect the anonymity of research participants and that was
discussed with participants and what was seen and heard during the fieldwork would be kept
confidential (Glesne, 2011).

80
Limitations and Delimitations
A major limitation of this study is the combination of the small number of participants,
resulting in a very small sample size, and time factors making generalizing to larger populations
problematic and inappropriate. A larger sample size reviewed over a longer period of time might
allow for other themes to emerge.
Time was a key factor in this study. Teachers were in the midst of the rollout of new
instructional programs including science, social studies, and language arts curriculum, a
relatively new assessment instrument (ELPAC) for ELLs, a revised Bilingual Master Plan, and a
series of district-wide initiatives, collectively designed to improve student achievement. The
study is not longitudinal and only provides a snapshot of ELLs, teachers, and the reclassification
process. The data collected only reflects events that occurred in a specific context. My research
will represent a specific setting as it existed at one time and place. As a result, the findings may
not apply beyond the limited setting to different contexts.
The self-reported design of this study means that honesty by all participants cannot be
ensured. I am monolingual and a newly retired administrator, and although interviews were
conducted in English, this may have impacted the interpretation of the interviews and the level of
candor and honesty of the participants’ responses for whom Spanish is their first language. Even
with the promise of confidentiality, there were likely some participants who censored their
comments because they felt uncomfortable and feared retaliation by ABC District leadership.
Policies play a profound role in the reclassification process and district, state, and federal
policies were intentionally not addressed by this study. Teachers facilitate reclassification
primarily through instructional delivery. The choice was made to closely examine barriers at the
school site that impact reclassification because school staff can more readily address these. This

81
study focused on ascertaining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact
reclassification at the school site. These are thus some of the delimitations of this study.
Finally, another delimitation is in the kind of participants chosen. Students, parents, and
administrators are important stakeholders, but the limitation of time and the lack of control over
these stakeholders resulted in the selection of teachers as the stakeholder focus group.
Recommendations can be made to students and parents, but it is difficult to monitor them to
ensure implementation.

82
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine knowledge,
motivation, and organizational elements that motivate or hinder VDV’s ability to improve
reclassification rates among ELLs. This chapter provides an overview of the study, followed by
an explanation of knowledge, motivation, and organization results. The chapter closes with a
synthesis of the findings and discussion of the relationship between the results from the
interviews and the qualitative findings. This study addressed three questions:
1. What knowledge, skills, and motivation do teachers at VDV need, related to the
reclassification process and instructional delivery, to improve reclassification rates among
English language learners (ELLs)?
2. At VDV, what is the interaction between organizational culture and context and
teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to improving reclassification rates for ELLs?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice at VDV in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable the teachers to significantly
improve reclassification rates for ELLs?
The researcher used transcriptions to develop codes for each interview question,
assigning frequency counts to the number of participants that referenced a code. Preliminary
analysis of the codes suggested three predominant themes; time, professional development, and a
basic understanding of concepts related to ELL reclassification. The codes were analyzed
alongside frequency counts engaging a process of constant comparison to determine whether the
initial codes and themes derived were substantiated throughout the data. This quality assurance
approach ensured the appropriate themes were extracted from these qualitative data. Codes are
statements, words, and quotes from participants; themes are overarching ideas represented by

83
codes, and categories are themes that come together into a story or larger category. Comparing
codes with frequency counts revealed additional themes for a total of nine: Basic Understanding,
Coherence and Fidelity, Competency, Lack of Urgency to Address Concerns, Lack of
Opportunities, Time, Validity of Assessments, Teacher Confidence in Assessments Administered,
and Lack of Effective Professional Development. These nine themes were further aggregated into
three categories: Knowledge, Motivational, and Institutional Barriers. For quality assurance,
there was a second coder engaged in the data analyses.
Knowledge Results
Terminology
Interview questions were designed to assess teachers' factual and procedural knowledge
related to the reclassification process. Teachers must accurately apply the terminology used to
differentiate ELLs by EL, RFEP, EO, and LTEL (Olsen, 2014). The use of consistent language
that applies to ELLs can impact the reclassification process (Education Commission of the
States, 2018; Gil & Bardack, 2010; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018). Teachers’ responses
indicated the use of consistent language and thorough knowledge of the terminology pertaining
to ELLs with the exception being the term LTEL. Responses varied regarding the meaning of
LTEL. Two participants responded correctly with the phrase Long-term English Learner. The
remaining participants were not sure exactly what the phrase meant or indicated no knowledge of
the phrase. Participant 2 provided the following response:
Lifelong Learners. They are students who are classified as English language learners and
they’re never able to reclassify in spite of the fact that they actually were born in this
country and never really technically a non-English speaker. For many reasons they stay
in as an English Language Learner for life. We call them lifers.

84
Among the participants interviewed, most were unable to accurately define the term LTEL or
Long-term English Learner as an English language learner who has completed six full years of
instruction in U.S. schools without meeting the criteria for reclassification.
The Reclassification Process
In order for students to achieve RFEP status, students must achieve a score of level 3 or
above on the ELPAC, an ELA Progress Report Composite score of 3 or 4, and a score of
Benchmark or Above Benchmark on all grade level assessed skills on the DIBELS Next or a
score of Standard Met or Standard Exceeded on the ELA Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC) (grades 3 to 5 only). Teachers were able to accurately identify the
assessments for reclassification and describe how they are administered. 100% of respondents
knew grades were to be used, 85% (6 respondents) knew to use DIBELS, 85% knew to use
ELPAC, but only 28.6% (2 respondents) demonstrated knowledge of the SBAC. Only one
(14.3%) person mentioned the CELDT, which has not been utilized since the 2018-2019 school
year. Also, 85.7% of participants identified fluency as a component of DIBELS and likewise
understood the primary domains of the assessments. Most teachers interviewed exhibited a basic
understanding of skills assessed in the ELPAC and DIBELS Next; however, participants
confused “task types” with “domains.” Five of the participants clearly demonstrated accurate
knowledge of the domains while two participants were able to accurately describe several of the
task types. No teachers were able to accurately describe all the task types that comprise the
ELPAC. Figure 3 provides a picture of participant responses describing the task types that
comprise the ELPAC. See Appendix A for a complete description of the task types in the
ELPAC.

85
Figure 3
ELPAC Task Types Reported by the Participants

The SBAC is a summative and formative assessments annually administered to students
in grades three through eight and grade eleven. This assessment is a computer-based
comprehensive system that assesses students’ progress in achieving mastery of California’s
content standards in English language arts/literacy and mathematics as well as progress in
developing critical thinking, analytical writing, and problem-solving skills (“Smarter Balanced
Summative Assessment,” 2019). It is comprised of two sections: a computer adaptive test and
performance tasks. Item types such as selected and constructed response, table, fill-in, and
graphing comprise the item types in the computer-adaptive section. The performance task section
is made up of extended activities that require the student to integrate knowledge and skills across
multiple standards. English learners who are in their first twelve months of attending a school in
the United States are exempt from participation (“CAASP Description,” 2020). The interim and

86
summative assessments are designed to improve teaching and learning by providing educators,
students, and parents with “meaningful results with actionable data” to help students reach their
full potential (“Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium,” 2020).
Participant responses clearly indicated that teachers are unclear regarding the
composition of the SBAC and what it assesses. The teachers identified the following sections of
the SBAC: writing (57.1%, N = 4), reading (57.1%, N = 4), math (28.6%, N = 2),
communicating reasoning (14.3%, N = 1), research inquiry, (42.9%, N = 3), science (14.3%, N =
1), and English language arts (14.3%, N = 1). The primary teachers attributed their lack of
knowledge of the SBAC to the fact that they do not administer the SBAC in the primary grades.
Participant 2 stated, “Primary grades don’t take the SBAC. I’m assuming it assesses the same
things as the ELPAC. I believe it’s also language arts...the same components because they are
standards, reading, writing, and listening.” Participant 1 clearly assumed the SBAC included
science, and the remaining participants expressed a lack of confidence in the validity of the
SBAC and assessments in general. Participant 5 stated, “Overall I’m not a fan of big tests
because they do not feel like they help very much in the specifics.” Figure 4 provides a picture
of the teachers’ perceptions of the subjects that comprise the SBAC. Refer to the Appendices for
a complete description of the task types that comprise the SBAC.

87
Figure 4
Subjects Assessed on the SBAC Reported by Participants

DIBELS Next is a revision of the original DIBELS assessment that was designed to
provide an accurate, timely benchmark and progress-monitoring information for teachers to
provide focused instructional support. It retains the best of the original but has been revised to
create easier administration and improved accuracy of results. This standardized assessment
measures the indicators of early literacy skills, also known as core components or foundational
skills in students. DIBELS Next serves as a benchmark assessment, progress monitoring, and
universal screening to identify students in need of intervention and to evaluate the effectiveness
of interventions students are receiving (Good & Kaminski, 2010). Scores on DIBELS provide
the school with information that indicates if a student is on track for grade-level reading success
(“Parents Guide to DIBELS Assessment,” 2018). Six measures make up DIBELS Next and they
are designed for students in grades K - 6. The measures that comprise DIBELS Next are
described in Table 8.

88
Table 8
DIBELS Next Overview of Task Types (Good & Kaminski, 2018)
DIBELS Next Measures Basic Literacy Skills
Measured
Grade
Administered
First Sound Fluency (FSF)
The test administrator says words and the student
says the first sound for each word.
Phonemic Awareness K
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
The test administrator presents the students with
a sheet of letters and asks the student to name the
letters.
LNF is not directly linked
to any basic early literacy
skill, however, it is an
indicator of risk and a
predictor of future reading
success in young children
K,1
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)
The test administrator says words then the
student says the individual sounds for each word.
Phonemic Awareness K,1
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)
The test administrator presents the student with a
list of vowel-consonant and consonant-vowel-
consonant nonsense words that the student reads
aloud.
Alphabetic Principle &
Basic Phonics
K,1,2
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF)
The test administrator presents the students with
a reading passage. The student is directed to
read the passage aloud and then retell what
he/she just read.
Advanced Phonics &
Word Attack Skills
Accurate & Fluent
Reading of Connected
Text & Reading
Comprehension
1-6
Daze
The test administrator presents the student with a
reading passage where a multiple-choice box
including the original word and two distractors
replaces some words. The student is directed to
silently read the passage and select the word in
each box that best fits the meaning.
Reading Comprehension 3-6

Although descriptions of the measures were not exactly the same as the descriptors in the
DIBELS Next Administration manual, teacher responses to this question indicated a basic

89
knowledge of the measures that make up DIBELS Next (Good & Kaminski, 2010). This test is
administered at least once throughout the school year, and the data collected from this
assessment is used to inform instruction and to develop and implement interventions to improve
academic achievement among the entire study body including ELLs. Professional development
pertaining to the test administration and the composition of the test are provided throughout the
school year. Student performance on this assessment provides evidence of adopted grade level
basic skills. To achieve RFEP status, students in kindergarten through second grade must score at
benchmark or above. Students in grades 3 to 5 can replace this assessment with an ELA score of
Standard Met or Standard Exceeded on the SBAC (“Reclassification of English Learners,”
2018). Figure 5 provides an overview of teachers’ descriptions of the tasks that comprise
DIBELS Next.
Figure 5
DIBELS Measures Identified by Participants

Although teachers demonstrated a basic understanding of the skills assessed with
DIBELS and the ELPAC, none were able to accurately describe all domains of either

90
assessment. Considering the role these assessments play in the reclassification process it is of
concern that teachers only have a basic understanding of its components.
Instruction to Improve English Language Proficiency
English language proficiency is an important educational goal at the elementary school
level (Lindholm-Leary, 2015). Research has shown that it is English proficiency rather than
academic criteria that is a barrier to reclassification (Robinson, 2011; Thompson, 2012;
Umansky & Reardon, 2016). High-quality instruction is an essential component in the
improvement of English language proficiency among ELLs. Teachers’ descriptions of their
instruction to improve English language proficiency were varied but focused primarily on
aspects of language arts instruction such as the use of visual supports, oral language, SDAIE
strategies, vocabulary building, constructive conversation, and phonemic awareness.
Participants described their focus on literacy activities to improve English language proficiency.
Participant 2 stated, “I focus a lot of my instruction in literacy, and if kids are literate, they do so
much better in everything...they’re the kids that transition.”
Teachers also identified systems and structures that they felt were necessary for effective
instructional delivery to improve English language proficiency in ELLs. These included the
following: intervention, explicit and systematic instruction, designated ELD time, ELP
Academies, heterogeneous grouping, homogeneous grouping, integrated ELD time, and ongoing
access to CORE. There was no system or strategy that every teacher identified as essential for
improving English language proficiency among ELLs. This lack of fidelity and coherence is
demonstrated in the descriptions that teachers provided about effective instructional strategies.
Several participants felt it was best to teach ELLs in a homogeneous block while others felt
instruction for ELLs should be integrated throughout the CORE instruction. Participant 5 stated,

91
“...it seems like if you put these kids together and really address specific needs they have as
English Learners, we might be doing better.” Participant 7 stated,
I personally feel they need to be exposed to more English speakers who are either at a
fluent level or are English native speakers. What I tend to see are the English Learners
who are one through three clustered together. They don’t get to participate with those
other English Learners who are fours and fives or RFEPs or even EOs ...they need those
models.
Teacher Perceptions of Pedagogical Skills and Attitudes
An important aspect of strategic behavior in solving problems is the teacher’s awareness
of his or her own cognition (Krathwol, 2002; Rueda, 2011). According to the research, strategic
and reflective knowledge enhances a teacher’s ability to deliver high-quality instruction and
increase student learning (Haukus, Bjorke & Dypedahl, 2018; Krathwol, 2002; Wilson, 2016).
This reflection on instructional delivery effectiveness enables teachers to monitor student
progress and know when and why to do something and how to plan to improve reclassification
rates.
One hundred percent of the teachers indicated that they reflected on instructional delivery
for ELLs; however, frequency was sporadic at best. Two teachers, participants 1 and 2, reported
that with the pandemic and teaching from home the focus had changed. “We’re just focusing on
reading, just literacy and math and not really ELD.” Several others commented on instructional
differentiation for ELLs, reclassification, and training for ELPAC. Three teachers described
discussions pertaining to the need for specificity and focus in instruction for ELLs. Participant 6
stated, “We really need to dissect what the particular needs are... I would imagine that really
specifying more, really looking at what kids need not as a big giant umbrella, but specifically…”

92
Participant 1 stated, “We had a discussion as to how we can best meet the needs of those
students. Even though they were all English Learners, they all needed different supports. We had
a really good discussion on how we were going to break up classes and focus instruction.”
Figure 6 indicates the frequency with which teachers reflected on instruction for ELLs.
Figure 6
Frequency of Reflection on English Language Acquisition Among ELLs

Consistent implementation, coherence, and fidelity are essential characteristics of
effective ELL instructional programs (Horwitz, Uro, Price-Baugh, Simon, Uzzell, Lewis, &
Casserly, 2009). Participant reflections pertaining to instructional efficacy and challenges to
their instructional delivery to ELLs were varied and reflected very little consistency, coherence,
or fidelity. It is interesting to note that there was not one instructional strategy that all
participants indicated as the most successful. All participants indicated instructional strategies
that are literacy-based or related to literacy development. Most of the strategies mentioned are
characteristics of both English-only and bilingual models that are considered effective for all
students (Goldenberg, 2013; Moughamian, Rivera, & Francis, 2009; Saunders et al., 2013).

93
This quote by Participant 3 captures an idea expressed by all participants:
...scaffolding is a must with English learners. You need to simplify things; you need to
make it relevant for them to understand and easy to comprehend. My teaching shifted
more visual and I tried to make everything more understandable to the learner. It
wasn’t just English learners; it was all learners.
Participants indicated time and parental support as the primary challenges faced when
providing instruction to ELLs. Figure 7 below demonstrates the major challenges to instruction
identified by study participants.
Figure 7
Challenges to the Delivery of Instruction to ELLs
The challenge of time was described in several ways. Several teachers described limited time
due to participation in the Dual language program at VDV. Table 9 provides a picture of the
time required for ELD instruction per The LAUSD Master Plan, 2018.

94
Table 9
Required Daily Minutes of Designated English Language Development Instruction
Number of
Minutes
ELPAC Level or grade level Program Type
60 Expanded transitional/
Transitional Kindergarten
60 1-3 Mainstream
45-60 3-4 Mainstream
30-45 “Although instructional time in ELA
and ELD is reduced the design of the
program allows for metalinguistic
learning across both languages within
the instructional day.”
Dual Language Two-way
(50/50, 90/10, or 70/30)

Participant 7 stated, “In our program, I can only provide 30 to 45 minutes, depending on
the day, of ELD instruction. I wish I could have more time with them…” Participants
complained about the lack of time to effectively address the limited vocabulary that ELLs arrive
at school with. Others discussed time in terms of the amount of instructional time needed to
impact students’ achievement of English language proficiency over the long term. Student
achievement of English language proficiency is the culmination of multiple people providing the
appropriate instruction and support over years.
The challenge of adequate parental support is of great concern to teachers. Participant 2
stated, “...the lack of parental support where you feel like they’re not practicing, or they’re not
doing their homework, and they’re not getting that support that will help my instruction in the
classroom.” Teachers attribute the lack of parental support for ELLs to a lack of English
language role models. Participant 3 described a lack of English models, “They don’t have that
model support, they might have an older sibling or an aunt and uncle that might speak English

95
that can help them, but other than that their role models might be limited.” Furthermore,
teachers feel that the lack of English models contributes to a lack of vocabulary that impacts the
progress that ELLs make towards English language proficiency. Participant 6 stated, “The lack
of vocabulary they don’t come in with catches up with them.” One teacher communicated that
even parents feel that their support is inadequate. Participant 4 said, “...parents often say, ‘but
teacher, I don’t know English. How can I support my child?’ or the student says, “Nobody at
home speaks English. How can I do my homework when I don’t understand?’”
Teacher responses to interview questions indicate a basic understanding of terminology
relating to ELLs, the reclassification process and the assessments administered during that
process however there is a lack of coherence and fidelity regarding actual delivery of instruction.
The two areas that most teachers cite as challenges to instruction are a lack of time and the nature
of parental support, or lack thereof. Furthermore, teachers indicate only a basic understanding of
the assessments that are essential for reclassification.
Motivation Results
Teachers need to feel competent in delivering instruction that will enable all English
learners to reclassify before they become LTELS. Knowledge and motivation work together to
close the gap between success and failure. Research has shown that people who are positive and
believe in their ability to achieve will be more successful than those who doubt their abilities
(Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997.) Teachers were asked to rate their overall instructional self-
efficacy and use of a variety of strategies that have been proven effective for improving English
language proficiency among ELLs. The strategies were as follows: incorporate heritage language
maintenance in the classroom, create opportunities for students to practice their written English,
implement SDAIE, implement SIOP, provide appropriate accommodations based on student’s

96
language proficiency, use culturally responsive teaching, use instruction of home language
cognates to reinforce vocabulary comprehension, use language acquisition theory and principles
to inform my instructional delivery, and establish a strong home-school connection. The
Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) and Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English (SDAIE) are well known instructional approaches for ELLs and both are
characterized by language arts activities that include reading, writing, listening, and speaking
(Echevarria et al., 2012; Hanson & Filbert, 2006; Moughamian et al., 2009).
Teachers used a scale from 0 to 100 for rating their confidence and competency with 0
being “Cannot do at all” and 100 being “Confident.” Six of the participants rated themselves
confident in overall instructional self-efficacy, use of SDAIE, providing appropriate
accommodations based on students’ language proficiency, use of culturally responsive teaching,
use of home language cognates, and establishment of a strong home-school connection. Scores
indicated that only one teacher felt highly certain that he or she could implement SIOP. The use
of SIOP had the lowest scores. All participants scored themselves “confident” and “highly
certain can do” in establishing strong home-school connections and the use of culturally
responsive teaching. The scores for creating opportunities for students to practice their oral
English and written English were high, with the exception of one participant who provides no
opportunities for students in English but provides opportunities in Spanish. The responses to the
interview questions related to self-efficacy indicate that the teachers have a strong sense of self-
confidence and self-efficacy.
An additional factor in the development of motivation in teachers is the understanding of
the utility value of reclassification. Students are expected to leave secondary, college, and
career-ready. Research has shown that this is almost impossible when students enter secondary

97
classified as LTELs. Motivational influences that impact teachers’ perception of their ability to
increase reclassification rates are directly related to understanding the relationship between the
achievement of college and career readiness and the characteristics of students entering
secondary as LTELs. The characteristics of LTELS, reported by study participants, are described
in Figure 8 below. The inability to reclassify was cited by most participants and that is the most
obvious characteristic of LTELS. Other responses related to academic struggles such as low
grades, difficulty writing, difficulty reading, and language issues such as code-switching, limited
English, and Spanish dominance.
Figure 8
Characteristics of LTELS Identified by Participants

Teachers’ responses regarding ELLs who were unable to reclassify prior to reaching
secondary were overwhelmingly negative and included bullying, discrimination, segregation,

98
shame, limited opportunities to access grade level, or advanced curriculum and extracurricular
activities. Participant 3 went on to say, “Often they are put in ESL classes that are designed for
newcomers...they’re not being taught grade-level standards, they are not given the rigor, they are
not challenged.” Teachers described a system in which students continue to take ESL classes
and would be denied access to extracurricular classes, and this denial results in a loss of self-
confidence and overall feeling of inadequacy. Participant 1 became emotional when describing
his personal experience, “...it’s like a shame and it made me a little emotional because growing
up... I remember in high school, it’s like a little cluster that is all the time, just Spanish speaking
kids.”
When participants were asked about long-term implications, the concerns continued to be
very negative and several were actually repeated (shame, bullying, segregation, no graduation,
and lack of opportunities). Teachers communicated a belief that these students would face a very
difficult future characterized by no success, no graduation, no college, dropping out, and
difficulty understanding job applications. Teachers clearly felt the impact on the future of these
students would be profound. Several participants felt that students were just not being prepared
to effectively participate in society due to their limited English language proficiency and limited
access to more advanced classes with high performing college-bound students. Ultimately, this
would limit the LTEL’s ability to successfully participate in the workforce and provide for his or
her own children. Figure 9 provides a picture of the participants’ perceptions of the future for
LTELS in secondary schools.

99
Figure 9
Implications of Growing Numbers of LTELs in Secondary Schools

According to research, LTELs perform significantly lower than that of other student
groups and more than half of the ELLs in secondary have not achieved the English proficiency
necessary to reclassify (Burr & Chen-Gaddini, 2016; Klein, 2016). Teachers’ responses to the
importance of reclassification prior to entering secondary indicated an awareness of the problems
previously described. Furthermore, Participant 2 voiced a sentiment shared by several
participants describing a tracking system that segregates LTELs on non-collegebound tracks:
Absolutely...it’s more like a tracking system and the kids that reclassify tend to do well.
They tend to do very well because they are competent, they are at grade level. The kids
that do not usually have those other issues and end up put on a different route. They’re
not given the same opportunities, they’re not given the same opportunities, they’re not
given the same rigor, they are not introduced to the college prep courses, they’re not.
They’re just in EL and ESL classes.

100
Interview responses indicate that a large number of ELLS had increased time for English and
math coupled with limited time for other subjects contributing to knowledge gaps and limited
opportunities to develop academic language in science, arts, and social studies.
Interview responses indicated that all teachers felt a high level of competency in their
knowledge and ability to provide instructional delivery that would enable students to reclassify.
Teachers, while expressing a commitment to reclassification, did not express strong feelings of
urgency related to student reclassification prior to secondary. This correlates with the lack of
understanding of the term LTEL or Long-term English Language Learner.
Organizational Influences That Impact Reclassification
Cultural Model and Cultural Setting Influences significantly impact the ability of students
to successfully reclassify. Improving student proficiency rates in ELA and improving
reclassification rates is dependent upon the effort of the organization and the stakeholders
(Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Lack of adequate professional development, time, and parental
support were all cited as challenges to the effective delivery of instruction to ELLs. All the
teachers reported that school-wide progress was made; however, 57.1% felt they had made
minimal progress in their classroom. Two mentioned the COVID-19 pandemic and the profound
impact it had on teachers’ ability to administer the assessments pertaining to reclassification
(SBAC, ELPAC, and DIBELS Next). While there was little consensus on exactly what
contributed to the progress or lack of progress, a variety of literacy-related activities were
indicated by all participants. Participant 7 stated,
I think it’s a combination of teachers and one of those things that you can’t really
pinpoint. I think it’s a combination of a lot of newer teachers, not like younger teachers,

101
but newer to our school. I think that has an impact on who is teaching ELs. I can’t really
tell you what’s the reason we are moving up, but we are slowly, moving up.
Three participants credited the coordinator for the school-wide progress. They cited ongoing
support provided in terms of resources, professional development, one-on-one mentoring, and
continually sharing information to keep teachers “abreast of what is happening with their
students and providing a breakdown of why and what things mean.” Figure 10 provides a
picture of the significant contributors to the improvement of school-wide reclassification rates
identified by the teachers.
Figure 10
Contributors to Improvement of School-wide Reclassification Rates

Teacher responses regarding classroom progress were very similar to school-wide
progress with a focus on a variety of literacy-based activities. Four teachers, participants 1,2,3,

102
and 7, indicated minimal progress in improving reclassification rates in their classrooms. The
remaining three teachers indicated adequate progress. Probing resulted in teachers sharing
additional strategies that they felt contributed. Those strategies included “speaking with parents
often, creating and using a ‘goal sheet,’ grouping students homogeneously, working with
students one-on-one, constructive conversation and integrating the conversational norms in all
subjects.” Several also mentioned the lack of parent support as a major factor in reclassification.
Participant 6 stated, “There is some progress, but I wish it was more. I have some students who
don’t have a lot of language support at home. Sometimes the parents don’t know how to help
them.”
Professional Development and Reclassification
The role of professional development in improving reclassification rates is profound. It is
essential that differentiated professional development that provides how-to training be provided
in a consistent and systematic manner (Tran, 2014). The descriptions of professional
development were varied. Most teachers communicated that professional development was
ongoing and focused on improving ELLs’ academic achievement. One participant expressed
very strong feelings regarding the professional development provided by LAUSD. Participant 2
stated, “...awful...LAUSD, awful...they don’t have any support and when it comes to dual
language we end up doing a lot of our own lessons and we kind of figure it out on our own.”
Most participants felt that ongoing professional development was essential for a good teacher,
and a lot of time and effort had been put into “making sure that PDs will assist us with our EL
students and English Learners are the ones we’re always struggling with” (Participant 7).
Most teachers want more professional development, but there is no consensus regarding
topics. Although two teachers expressed their need for more professional development on the

103
ELD portion of the Benchmark series, they also expressed their general displeasure with the
curriculum. Participant 4 stated, “The curriculum we’re supposed to use now is so dry. How can
I make this fun and enthusiastic for them if it’s already boring for me to read it?” Participant 6
stated,
We had the practicum, where we had chants, we worked on our stories, we had
vocabulary, we had thinking maps, and from there we wrote. Now they expect them to
talk, how are they going to use a language they don’t know. I think [LAUSD] need[s] to
work on those lessons and give us more.
One teacher noted the need for professional development for upper grades that
specifically relate to LTELS. Three teachers expressed a desire for professional development
that includes modeling and video. “I think live, seeing live EL instruction, then us doing it, then
receiving feedback would help.” Participant 5 stated, “I think we definitely need to have classes,
lessons, more PDs that specifically deal with LTELS in the progression...maybe they should be
more focused on the upper grades.” Although teachers clearly indicated a need for more focused
professional development, the topics that were needed were varied. Figure 11 (on the following
page) demonstrates that variety.

104
Figure 11
Recommendations for Professional Development Topics

Parental Support
Participants noted that parental support is a factor that impacts reclassification. Parental
support is a factor listed as a challenge to instructional delivery, contributor to school and
classroom improvement of reclassification rates, and a recommended topic for professional
development. Participant 6 stated,
...we don’t always get support from the parents to help us and connect with us. I think
parental support contributes to both the progress and lack of progress. There are some
parents who, even though they don’t speak the language, they want to know how they can
help. Then you have the parents who really don’t support, and you can see that in the
student. I think parents have a lot to do with reclassification and how successful students
are.

105
Participant 3 stated,
I don’t speak Spanish. The language barrier is sometimes an issue. They might not have
as much support at home as somebody else would and that hinders their ability to
understand as well. They don’t have that model support that might speak English
that can help them. Their role models might be limited.
Participant 5 commented on a parent who completed the home language survey and mistakenly
identified his child as an ELL student.
I will get an ELL student who is really an EO. I’ll be talking to the child in Spanish and
he or she has no or limited verbal skills in Spanish. Somebody has made a mistake and
then it’s like how can we switch them? You can’t get them out.
Several participants described the importance of keeping parents involved via workshops and
sharing information pertaining to student progress. Participant 4 described the role of the parent
in the reclassification process and the responsibility of the organization to keep parents informed.
“There’s also sharing that information with the parents so that parents can support as well.
...speaking with parents, making a goal sheet, and a lot of feedback to them.” Participant 4 goes
on to credit the coordinator for improving school-wide reclassification rates by “holding a lot of
EL parent workshops and meetings to provide them with information.”
Time
According to several participants, there is a lack of time to effectively address the needs
of ELLS. Participants 7 and 2 commented on the time it takes to administer the ELPAC. “It
took me quite a while, a good half an hour just to test one kid at first…” Participant 7
commented on the lack of time to provide instruction due to the presence of the Dual Language
Program.

106
In our program, because we’re dual language, I only provide 30 to 45 minutes, depending
on the day, of ELD instruction. I wish I could have more time with them, but we try to
integrate it and embed it within all disciplines.
Participant 1 stated,
...I do find it very difficult to get that vocabulary from them, so with the dual program it
is more challenging because the time is crunched...to have ELD lessons and SLD lessons
we have to split up so they are not getting support from the EOs that they would if they
were with me during ELD instruction.
Organizational influence was measured by examining Cultural Model Influence and
Cultural Setting Influence. Cultural Model Influence questions related to the progress or lack of
progress in terms of reclassification rates school-wide and in the classroom. Teacher responses
pertaining to school-wide reclassification rates and classroom reclassification rates indicated the
perception that, despite the pandemic and school closure, minimal progress was made. Progress
was largely attributed to the ongoing work of the coordinator in providing relevant professional
development and disseminating information to keep all teachers abreast of district policies and
procedures. Several teachers expressed regret and sadness because, with the closing of the
school, the assessments became unavailable and instruction took on a different focus. This
became a barrier for students who were very close to reclassification.
Cultural Setting Influence questions pertained to the nature and efficacy of professional
development. Teachers expressed a strong desire for ongoing, systemic, differentiated
professional development that would significantly improve their capacity to deliver instruction
that would improve English language proficiency among English language learners.
Interestingly, their responses were varied and exhibited little commonality in topics.

107
Synthesis
The overall data from this study indicates a lack of coherence and fidelity in addressing
the needs of ELLs as it is related to achieving English language proficiency, thereby improving
reclassification rates. Teachers understand the terminology (EL, RFEP, & EO) pertaining to
ELLs; however, there is some confusion as to the definition of an LTEL. Despite the confusion,
it was clear that all of the teachers had a basic understanding of the profound implications of the
growing number of LTELs in California but only one participant seemed to realize that multiple
teachers contribute to successful reclassification. Participant 3 stated, “It won’t just be you. It’s
going to be multiple people that are going to impact their instruction and get them that support
they need to reclassify.”
All teachers have a basic understanding of the reclassification process and can list the
requirements and assessments required for reclassification. When asked to describe the
assessments and administration, teachers could provide a basic description of the administration
but nothing more than an overview of the topics that comprised the assessment. None of the
teachers could accurately describe the domains that comprise the SBAC. This basic
understanding contributes to a lack of coherence in teacher knowledge of the assessments
administered for reclassification. This lack of coherence emerges in the variety of responses
given when teachers were asked to identify the SBAC, ELPAC, and DIBELS Next measure. A
contributing factor to this lack of coherence may be the lack of teacher confidence in the
assessments. Participant 7 stated, “I still have issues with the whole testing of English language
learners. I’ve always wondered if a native speaker of English was tested how well would they
do?” Participant 1 expressed concern about the ELPAC:
I feel like it is kind of intimidating ...you know some of the things, especially at the

108
beginning of the year we do the Initial ELPAC and many of them haven’t gone to
school… and if they haven’t gone to school obviously they can’t do it… and if they
haven’t been exposed to school they don’t know… even if they are EO’s they wouldn’t
pass.
All of the teachers felt competent in delivering instruction to ELLs and utilizing a variety
of research-based strategies. Figure 12 provides a picture of teachers’ perceptions of their own
competency as it relates to these strategies.
Figure 12
Participant Perception of Instructional Competencies

Despite these high competency ratings, the lack of coherence and fidelity is also
apparent in the teacher descriptions of effective instructional delivery for ELLs to improve
English language proficiency. Responses of participants regarding these strategies indicated no
single strategy selected by all teachers. Several strategies are selected by at least two
participants, but the remaining participants reported implementing different strategies to address
the needs of their ELLs. Although fidelity is lacking in terms of exact strategies, most
participants indicate literacy-based activities.

109
According to Ballyntyne (2008), differentiated professional development that addresses
the needs of ELLs is essential. To be effective and improve English language proficiency among
ELLs, differentiated professional development must include knowledge of linguistics, pedagogy,
and cultural and linguistic diversity (Lopez & Santibanez, 2018). These topics are not noted in
the review of topics that teachers identified as preferences for professional development and
demonstrate a lack of clarity and coherence regarding professional development. Participant 5
stated,
These students keep falling and falling behind and the longer that this continues, the more
difficult it is for them to be successful. A lot of kids struggle, give up, drop out, and
aren’t prepared to really enter the workforce in anything but entry-level positions. The
greater implication is that then they’re not able to provide for their own children.
Teachers are clear in their desire for more professional development but unclear as to what
should comprise the professional development. Despite the realization by teachers that not
reclassifying has profound implications for the futures of these students, there is a lack of
coherence and fidelity related to instructional delivery and professional development that
impacts the ability of the organization to improve the reclassification gap.

110
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The fastest-growing group in our public schools is English language learners (Bialik,
Scheller, & Walker, 2018). School districts have struggled with the challenge of teaching English
language learners, ELLs, for decades (Horwitz et al., 2009). Successful reclassification,
culminating in the move from ELL status to Reclassified Fluent English Proficient, is a priority
for these students. Regardless of the environment, the goal is for all students to graduate from
high-school, graduate from college, and be career-ready. English language proficiency is
essential for this to occur. This study analyzed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements that interfere with the improvement of reclassification rates among ELLs at VDV. The
study was guided by the following questions:
1. What knowledge, skills, and motivation do teachers at VDV need, related to the
reclassification process and instructional delivery, to improve reclassification rates among
English language learners (ELLs)?
2. At VDV, what is the interaction between organizational culture and context and
teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to improving reclassification rates for ELLs?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice at VDV in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable the teachers to significantly
improve reclassification rates for ELLs?
In Chapter Five, the implications for practice based on the findings will be identified.
This will be followed by recommendations for practice. Future research will be discussed
focusing on further evaluation of the implementation of solutions and findings that warrant
additional investigation.

111
Implications and Recommendations for Practice
Based on transcript review from participant interviews as well as examination of school
data available on the school website, the California Department of Education website, and the
School Plan for Student Achievement, it is clear that two factors that impact reclassification rates
are not adequately addressed in professional development. Teachers have only a basic
understanding of the assessments related to reclassification. Each assessment has characteristics
in administration and content that are unique to the assessment. Primary teachers had little
understanding of the SBAC content and the DIBELS Next tasks that are only given at the upper
elementary level. Teachers in the upper elementary had very limited knowledge of the tasks that
comprise DIBELS Next at the lower elementary. Instructional delivery to ELLs should reflect a
deep understanding of skills and concepts that are measured in these assessments at all grade
levels.
The elementary teachers had limited knowledge of the reclassification assessments at the
middle school level and limited understanding of the middle school reclassification process.
While teachers understand that reclassification is important, the interconnectedness and
articulation between elementary school and middle school and between lower elementary and
upper elementary in the organization is missing. According to the California English Learner
Roadmap Principle #4, 2020 alignment and articulation are essential for continuity across grade
levels. This alignment begins with a strong foundation in early childhood continuing through
elementary and secondary. Partnerships must be built between all grade levels to provide
focused support to improve English language proficiency and thereby improve reclassification
rates.

112
Knowledge Recommendations
It is problematic that few districts have formal definitions for identifying English
language learners. The effective educator must know who their students are so that they can
identify their needs (Olsen, 2014). According to Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge that is
composed of major facts and terminology will help in the attainment of a goal. Teachers must
have a thorough understanding and knowledge of the terms relevant to the reclassification: Long
Term English Language Learners (LTELs), English language learners (ELLs), Reclassified
Fluent English Proficient (RFEPs), Structured English Immersion (SEI), and Dual Immersion
(DI), and the Reclassification Process. This factual knowledge will assist teachers in the
attainment of the goal of improving English language proficiency, thereby improving
reclassification rates. Knowledge pertaining to ELL terminology directly relates to the social and
cultural context that schools create for students. Learning is profoundly impacted by this
context. The terms related to ELLs provide information that can be essential in the
reclassification process and in the attainment of the goal of reclassification. Providing teachers
with a glossary of important terms in a format that is easily understood and readily available
including a graphic representation of the reclassification process in its entirety would be
invaluable.
If students are to successfully reclassify, classroom teachers must have a thorough
knowledge of the assessment components that comprise the reclassification process. Procedural
knowledge is required to effectively guide students through the process of moving from ELL
status to RFEP status, thereby improving reclassification rates. Teachers must effectively
navigate the complex reclassification process that includes administration of the SBAC, ELPAC,
and DIBELs Next assessments. The classroom teacher administers the majority of these

113
assessments that enable students to successfully reclassify. A lack in clarity regarding the
reclassification process and administration of these assessments results in errors in student
program placement. Teacher understanding of the reclassification process is essential to improve
reclassification rates (Hill et al., 2014).
Procedural knowledge also includes teacher identification and implementation of
instructional strategies that are most effective with ELLs. Teachers must make content
challenging, relevant, and comprehensible (Echevarria, 2013). To meet the unique needs of
ELLs, teachers must identify instructional strategies that are most effective with ELLs and then
develop and improve their ability to effectively implement those strategies. “Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships (such as reciprocal teaching) facilitate
construction of new knowledge” (Scott & Palincsar, 2006) and can improve a teacher’s ability to
effectively deliver instruction that addresses the needs of ELLs. Research findings indicate that
effective instructional models must include modifications with regards to pacing, the complexity
of the vocabulary, and comprehension supports. Teachers of ELLs will benefit from the support
of a job aid on effective strategies to use, including how, what, when, and why to use particular
strategies. School administration will need to focus on the development of a community of
learners dedicated to mastery, learning, effort, progress, and self-improvement (Pintrich, 2003).
Teachers must understand and be able to apply the science of learning, instruction, and
assessment to improve ELL student achievement and thereby improve reclassification rates. The
recommendation is that instruction is focused on language and literacy needs, oral language
development, including the use of graphic organizers, with a focus on academic language
(Moughamian et al., 2009). Guidance through the process of connecting new knowledge to prior
knowledge is necessary for teachers to apply this information and develop mastery in the

114
delivery of instruction for ELLs. School leadership will need to create collaborative grade-level
teams for teachers to engage in the steps of guided self-monitoring, self-assessment, and
assessment of strengths and weaknesses. The instructional leadership team will need to
systematically review reclassification data to ascertain which strategies are most effective and
then attempt to replicate the steps of those strategies. Teachers must understand and be able to
apply the science of learning, instruction, and assessment to improve ELL student achievement
and thereby improve reclassification rates. According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), the
manner in which individuals organize knowledge impacts learning and application of what is
learned. Furthermore, to develop mastery, they must acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and demonstrate knowledge of when to apply what has been learned. School
administration will need to facilitate the construction of new knowledge, social interaction,
cooperative learning, and cognitive apprenticeships, such as reciprocal teaching (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Metacognitive knowledge is necessary for teachers to know when and why to do
something (Rueda, 2011). Pedagogy designed to improve English language proficiency is the
basis of effective instructional delivery to ELLs (“California ELA/ELD Framework,” 2015;
Gersten et al., 2007; “LAUSD Master Plan,” 2018). Self-reflection is an essential tool for
teachers to examine their own cultural values, beliefs, and perceptions related to ELLs. It is
through self-reflection that teachers become aware of their limitations related to implementing
effective instructional strategies for ELLs. Self-reflection that is systemic and focused on
evaluation of instructional delivery successes and challenges related to ELLs is essential. Figure
13 provides a picture of a reflection process that would enable teachers to systematically engage

115
in self-reflection to effectively identify, address, and overcome the gaps in metacognitive
knowledge that must be addressed to improve reclassification rates among ELLs.
Figure 13
The Reflection Cycle (Cambridge-CommunityCommunity.org.uk, 2018)

To improve reclassification rates school administration must guide teachers in this process of
reflection and create systems for evaluating instructional effectiveness and engaging in a system
of improvement for instructional delivery to ELLs. For a summary of knowledge influences and
recommendations, see Appendix B, Table B1: Summary of Knowledge Influences and
Recommendations.
Motivation Influences and Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are three facets of motivated performance:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Motivation results from the experiences and beliefs
that workers have about them. In this instance, the beliefs and experiences of the stakeholders
have a profound impact on their confidence and efficacy. Clark and Estes (2008) go on to state

116
that stakeholders will choose, persist, and exert mental effort only when they are confident that
they will make a difference. Stakeholders must demonstrate a belief that ELLs can reclassify
and that they themselves have the ability to provide the instruction necessary for ELLs to
improve their English language acquisition and thereby improve reclassification rates. The
identified motivation influences were validated and have a high priority for achieving the
stakeholders’ goal of improving reclassification rates.
Teachers must have confidence that all ELLs can achieve English language arts
proficiency and reclassify if provided with appropriate instruction. Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006). Higher
expectations for success and perceptions of confidence can positively influence learning and
motivation (Eccles, 2006). Goals motivate and direct students (Pintrich, 2003). Reclassification
rates are one measure of teacher effectiveness that is readily available on the new California
Dashboard website that reports school performance on a variety of measures of student success.
Teachers want to be effective and are further motivated by their belief that students have the
ability to reclassify. The recommendation is to facilitate systematic teacher review of research
and school data that makes it clear that students are capable of reclassification.
Knowledge and motivation work together to close the gap between success and failure
related reclassification. Self-efficacy is characterized by self-confidence in one’s ability to teach
ELLs, fueled by deep content knowledge of teaching and learning that increases English
language proficiency in ELLs (Gandara et al., 2004). Self-efficacy further motivates them to
believe that they can provide high-quality instruction that can effectively address the needs of
ELLs. High self-efficacy is directly related to teacher resourcefulness and the ability to detect
students’ challenges and effectively modify instructional delivery (Gordon, 2013). According to

117
Clark and Estes (2008), motivation results from “experiences and beliefs about ourselves, our
coworkers, and our prospects for being effective.” According to this theory, increasing teacher
self-efficacy would result in significant improvement in reclassification rates. Teachers must
have self-efficacy in providing instruction that will enable all ELLs to reclassify prior to
becoming LTELS. Focusing on mastery, individual improvement, learning, and progress
promotes positive motivation (Yough & Anderman, 2006). According to Alexander, Heaviside,
& Farris (1999) and the U.S. Department of Education (2001), teachers of ELLs believe they
need more training in order to effectively deliver instruction to ELLs. The most successful ELL
teachers are characterized by a sense of self-confidence and high self-efficacy, the result of
engagement in quality teacher professional development and preparation (Gandara et al., 2005).
Differentiated professional development with specialized pedagogy develops competence and a
higher sense of self-efficacy in working with ELLs (Telles & Waxman, 2005). Study participant
comments demonstrate a desire and need for professional development that is focused on
addressing the needs of ELLs. Professional development for teachers of ELLs must include
training in SIOP, SDAIE, incorporating ELLs first language, and other research-based
instructional strategies that have been proven effective (Moughamian et al., 2009).
The recommendation is to develop and implement organizational and management
structures that foster the creation of a collaborative community of learners who periodically
engage in instructional rounds and lesson study with a focus on reflection and immediate
feedback to improve instructional delivery to improve proficiency in ELA. Furthermore, the
organization must provide opportunities for teachers to be observed and receive immediate
feedback during the implementation of research-based instructional strategies that are successful
with ELLs.

118
According to Eccles (2006), higher expectations for student success and teachers’ own
perceptions of confidence positively influence learning and motivation. Teachers must have
confidence that all ELLs can reclassify. Teachers must also have confidence that students can
achieve proficiency in English language arts if provided with appropriate instruction. High self-
efficacy can have a positive impact on motivation (Pajares, 2006); consequently, teachers must
feel efficacious to provide instruction that will enable all ELLs to reclassify prior to becoming
LTELS. According to Yough and Anderman (2006), focusing on mastery, individual
improvement, learning, and progress promotes positive motivation. This motivation is
demonstrated by high engagement, persistence, and working hard at a task or activity (Rueda,
2011), and this can enable teachers to make a profound difference in the achievement of ELLs
(August et al., 2009). A summary of motivation influences and recommendations can be
reviewed in Appendix B, Table B2: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations.
Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) describe the importance of efficient and effective organizational
work processes supporting change that is deeply rooted within the organizational vision, mission,
and goals. Performance improves when processes and resources are aligned. To effectively
address the gap due to organizational barriers, cultural model influences and cultural settings
influences must be in alignment. Tools and resources to support professional learning and
collaboration must be consistent and systematic and reflect a commitment to training in
pedagogy, linguistics, and cultural and linguistic diversity. According to the “California English
Learner Roadmap” (2017), professional learning that addresses ELLs and the achievement of
English language proficiency should be prioritized in allotment of time and budget. High
performing school districts utilize the Local Control and Accountability funding to provide

119
increased differentiated professional development to improve teachers’ understanding of ELD
standards and instructional strategies for ELLs. These districts consistently provide professional
development that will equip teachers with the strategies and skills needed to effectively support
English learners (Hahnel et al., 2014). The recommendation is for the organization to develop a
comprehensive plan that is based on a shared vision and comprised of language development
goals, services, and expenditures to support positive student outcomes and effectively utilize
revenue streams such as LCFF, LCAP, and general funding provided at the county, state, and
federal levels.
The context in which teachers demonstrate growth in the ability to implement
instructional strategies designed to enhance ELL achievement is one characterized by ongoing
collaboration, time engaged in training to support language development within the context of
the core curriculum and not just in targeted ELD classes, ongoing and systematic coaching and
support for integration of language development strategies in the core curriculum (Hahnel et al.,
2014). In one of the most successful school districts, coaching was extremely effective and
included classroom observation, lesson study, instructional rounds, co-teaching, and ongoing
analysis of student data. Teachers, with the support of the district and school leaders, identify
and then create common strategies for teaching content, developing language skills, and
supporting ELLs in ELD and mainstream classes (Hahnel et al., 2014). It is essential that the
organization provide the support for teachers that will enable them to provide the appropriate
instructional supports along with knowledge pertaining to the importance of using native
language, the use of differentiation to adjust literacy instruction, a focus on diverse academic
language development, and enough knowledge of second language acquisition to anticipate and
address potential barriers to ELL students’ comprehension (Gil & Bardack, 2010).

120
The teachers must first participate in professional development focused on ELL
achievement. Improving the delivery of instruction job aids is essential. The Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) and Specially Designed Academic Instruction (SDAIE)
are the two most well-known instructional approaches for ELLs (Echevarria et al., 2012; Hanson
& Filibert, 2006; Moughamian et al., 2009). Both of these approaches have been very effective
in improving student achievement among ELLs (Echevarria, 2013; Moughamian et al., 2009).
Including these instructional approaches in professional development with a focus on fidelity and
coherence in instructional delivery would improve the delivery of instruction to ELLs and
improve student academic achievement, thereby improving reclassification rates. The second
critical behavior is an ongoing systematic review of ELL reclassification data by stakeholders to
ascertain their success or failure in improving reclassification rates among ELLs. The third
critical behavior is the application of learning demonstrated by the delivery of research-based
English language arts instruction to ELL students. To ensure improvement and mastery, teachers
must engage in the steps of guided self-monitoring, self-assessment, and assessment of strengths
and weaknesses. The fifth critical behavior consists of teachers working in grade-level
collaborative teams with a focus on mastery, learning, effort, progress, and self-improvement
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to achieve the goal of improved reclassification rates among
ELLs. Accountability is an important part of this focus. This critical behavior must include
ongoing assessment of teacher progress and continual feedback and periodic review of
reclassification data to ensure change. Teachers and administrators must be held accountable for
the progress or lack of progress that English language learners make; however, they must have
the necessary autonomy, support and resources to effectively address these areas. When teachers
exhibit a lack of progress and improvement in this arena, the administration must be willing to

121
consider a change in assignment. A summary of organizational influences and recommendations
can be reviewed in Appendix B in Table B3.
Research has shown that intensive professional development on teachers’ use of
sheltered instruction with ELLs resulted in increased use of this technique’s overall effectiveness
in instructional delivery to ELLs (Crawford, Schmeister & Biggs, 2008). Ongoing practice
accompanied by feedback given by experts and colleagues during lesson study, instructional
rounds, and during grade-level meetings, encourages stakeholders to apply what they have
learned to improve the delivery of instruction to ELLs. Ongoing, structured, and intensive
professional development were found to correlate with ELLs’ academic outcomes including
expressive vocabulary, oral reading fluency, and retell fluency (Tong, Luo, Irby, Lara-Alecio &
Rivera, 2017). One professional development structure combined lesson study with SIOP and
reported a positive change in teacher cognition about teaching ELLs and second language
acquisition, demonstration of effective sheltered instructional teaching skills, and
implementation of SIOP (Honigsfeld & Cohan, 2006). A review of reclassification data and
acknowledgment of improvement provides further encouragement and reward for teachers.
Monitoring the progress of teachers in reaching mastery in instruction delivery to ELLs is an
integral part of lesson study and instructional rounds.
It is important that the organization allocates time for teachers to analyze school
reclassification data and data that pertains to school sites with similar demographics. An analysis
of reclassification data will require the creation, dissemination, and maintenance of a
professional development schedule coupled with reporting and discussion about collected data.
The organization will also have to provide the resources (master teachers, research-based
instructional materials, quality collaborative time, etc.) needed to effectively implement

122
instructional strategies designed to enhance achievement among ELLs: sufficient scaffolding and
tools to facilitate learning instructional strategies that are successful in improving English
language acquisition in ELL students, and allocations of funding and time. This can be
monitored by reviewing the professional development schedule and agendas for the school year.
Summary
Upon completion of the recommended solutions, primarily the extensive professional
development and training related to the delivery of instruction to ELLs, the teachers will be able
to:
1. Apply the steps for accurate review of school reclassification data
2. Develop attainable reclassification goals for classrooms
3. Effectively apply relevant terms related to ELL reclassification
4. Effectively implement all of the steps in the reclassification process
5. Connect new knowledge to prior knowledge and improve their delivery of instruction to
ELLs
6. Participate in self-assessment and self-monitoring of instructional delivery
7. Identify instructional strategies that are most effective in achieving reclassification
among ELLs
8. Achieve mastery with the ability to make appropriate judgments regarding the delivery of
research-based instructional strategies with ELLs
9. Achieve a high level of coherence and fidelity in the successful delivery of instruction
that will improve English language acquisition among ELLs
The learning goals delineated above will be achieved with a focused professional
development series, led by experts, that will begin with the stakeholders’ mastery of key terms

123
pertaining to ELLs and the reclassification process. To improve reclassification rates, this
knowledge is essential and enables stakeholders to have a basic understanding of the skills their
students must have to achieve reclassification. Experts will then provide key information to
stakeholders regarding second language acquisition as they engage in workshops designed to
improve pedagogy and instructional delivery to ELLs. Through instructional rounds, lesson
study, and professional collaboration, teachers will engage in practice and receive feedback to
ensure mastery of research-based instructional strategies that are most effective with ELLs.
The declarative knowledge related to reclassification is necessary to effectively apply
procedural and metacognitive knowledge to solve the problem of improving reclassification
rates. It is important to systematically evaluate declarative, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge that are all being taught in the professional series led by experts. Stakeholders must
be confident that they can impact reclassification rates. They must value the knowledge that they
have gained and be committed to applying their knowledge and skills in improving the delivery
of instruction to ELLs.
According to Ballantyne et al. (2008), only 26% of teachers of ELLs have had training
related to ELLs, and 57% of teachers surveyed believe they need more training to effectively
provide instruction for ELLs. Systematic evaluations are very important because they provide an
immediate assessment of the effectiveness of the professional development that is the key to
improving instructional delivery related to reclassification. The evaluation should begin by
measuring attendance at sessions by merely counting the number of sessions attended by each
participant. Participants provide feedback pertaining to relevance and value of the content and
job aids, efficacy in applying the content to their current practice, level of confidence utilizing
ELL terminology in class organization, and their ability to effectively implement the

124
reclassification process by the end of the workshop series. An evaluation will be administered at
the end of each workshop session. Upon receipt, the administrative team and presenter will
review the data and ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the workshops and, in some cases,
revise and improve upcoming workshops.
The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) provides the framework for
the creation and implementation of an integrated plan to ensure the achievement of the
stakeholder goal of improving reclassification rates among ELLs. Prior to creating an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan, it was necessary to conduct research to identify the gap
between the organizational goal and the stakeholders’ attainment of the goals.
Interviews were conducted with stakeholders during the 2019-2020 school year to
determine the reasons for the gap that exists between the current reclassification rate of 17.4%
and the goal of 22%. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that impact and
influence the ability of the organization to achieve the aforementioned stakeholder goal were
examined. Further research was conducted, and preliminary recommendations were developed,
based on both education-based and business-based organizational principles that have been
effective. Clearly stakeholder confidence, knowledge, organizational support, and structures to
enable collaboration, self-assessment and monitoring are all essential for closing the gap and
achieving success in terms of the identified stakeholder goal. This information formed the basis
of the application of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016). This model
provides a structure for evaluating the performance effectiveness of systems designed to change
stakeholder behaviors to ensure goal achievement. Evaluating each level to identify negative and
positive results is critical, and this framework provides a structure for backward planning, a

125
process that educators use to design instruction achieve specific learning goals (Wiggins &
McTighe, 1990).
Critical behaviors that enable stakeholders to work with colleagues to put elements
together to create a plan for addressing the needs of ELLs and improving reclassification rates
are assessed. Performance improvement transfer is measured along with the ultimate impact of
changes on organizational goals. Application of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World
Model (2016) provides a way to ascertain the effectiveness of improvement efforts. It provides
valid and reliable information that can inform decisions related to behavioral change efforts. A
summary of Expected Internal and External Outcomes and Recommended Critical Behaviors,
Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation can be found in Appendix C, Tables C1 and C2.
Future Research
The impact of parents on academic achievement is documented in the research literature
(Chrispeels & Rivero, 2000; Gonzalez & Jackson, 2016; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies,
2007; Redding, Murphy, & Sheley, 2004). All participants in the study discussed the importance
of parent involvement in the reclassification process, but, with the exception of one participant,
there did not appear to be a system for engaging parents in a systematic and meaningful manner.
Participants complained about the lack of parent involvement, but most attributed it to limited
English skills on the part of the parent. Regardless of cultural background, education, and
income levels, engaged parents and families have a positive impact on student achievement (Ho
Sui Chu & Williams, 1996; Shaver & Walls, 1998). The collected data suggest that there is a
need to develop a system for parents to be actively involved in student learning and increase
social capital among students and create a more supportive school community (Redding et al.,
2004).

126
The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a
pandemic on March 12. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), 862 million children were affected when by March 18 an estimated
107 countries implemented national school closures (Viner, Russell, Croker, Packer, Ward,
Stansfield, Mytton, Bonell, & Buoy, 2020). All K-12 students in LAUSD are currently missing
face-to-face instruction and have been doing so for the last 6 months. The estimate is that
students will begin fall 2020 with only 70% of learning gains in reading from the prior year
relative to a typical school year (Soland, Kuhfeld, Tarasawa, Johnson, Ruzek, & Liu, 2020).
Schools closed in March and as a result, many students were unable to complete the assessments
required for reclassification. SBAC is administered each spring during a 12-week window
between March and June (EdSource, 2016). The administration window for the ELPAC was
July 1-June 30 (About the ELPAC, 2020). DIBELS Next is administered throughout the school
year. The administration windows were from Beginning of the Year Assessment August 12 thru
September 27, Middle of the Year Assessment December 2 thru February 7, and End of the Year
Assessment May 4 thru June 12. To improve reclassification rates while students do not have
face-to-face instruction will be challenging. If DVD teachers and administrators are going to
improve their reclassification rates and reach their goal, it will require examining strategies to
address this newest issue.
VDV is host to a Dual Immersion (DI) program and RFEP students in the program
outperform all subgroups at the school in all subjects. Dual Immersion programs are multiplying
throughout the school district. Several issues related to DI were noted by participating teachers.
The lack of fully credentialed teachers with Spanish language proficiency was noted. The
manner in which the stipend is provided to selected teachers, providing instruction in the DI

127
program, is based on several factors that do not take into consideration the amount of additional
work it requires to effectively provide instruction in the program. As a result, some teachers,
with appropriate credentialing, prefer not to participate in the DI program. Another participant
noted a lack of engaging, challenging, and interesting materials for the program and the lack of
time to provide adequate time for English language development instruction and intervention for
struggling students in the program. Despite all the concerns noted, the fact cannot be ignored
that students in the DI program outperform students in all other subgroups and reclassify at a
higher rate than ELLs in other programs at the school. This certainly warrants additional
research.
Conclusion
Educational success is often measured by a readiness to enter college and career.
Students who have successfully completed reclassification to achieve Reclassified Fluent English
Proficient status have significantly higher outcomes related to the completion of A-G courses
and the achievement of a diploma (California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data, 2019; Hill,
Weston, & Hayes, 2014). These students substantially outperform all other subgroups and have
the potential to help close California’s persistent achievement gap between ELL, non- ELL, or
English only students (Hill, Weston, & Hayes, 2014).
A very different future appears to be in store for ELLs who do not reclassify prior to
secondary and become Long Term English Learners or LTELs. Research has shown that LTELs
academic performance is significantly lower than that of other student groups (Burr & Chen-
Gaddini, 2016; Klein, 2016). These students are plagued by inconsistent placements and
programs resulting in gaps in language development and academic content access. Contributing
factors are inadequate elementary school curricula and materials, poorly implemented ELL

128
programs, only partial access to the full curriculum and long periods of time in which students
receive no ELD instruction (“English Learner State and Federal Accountability Systems Survey
Results, 2008”; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010; Olsen, 2010;). LTELs arrive in secondary
schools in academic jeopardy, demonstrating weak academic language, significant deficits in
reading and writing skills, and graduate unprepared to successfully attend college (Olsen, 2010;
Menken, Kleyn, & Chase, 2007; “The Language of Reform,” 2014). Finally, LTELs have the
lowest graduation rates of all student groups.
The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons for the gap that exists between the
current reclassification rate of 17.4% and the stakeholder goal of 22% or more by the end of the
2019-2020 school year. The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap analysis framework was applied to
examine teachers’ knowledge and motivation and organizational influences that act as barriers to
improving reclassification rates. Districts all over the country are concerned about ELLs but
struggle with effectively advancing their achievement (The Council of Great City Schools,
2009). The data that was collected revealed the lack of coherence and fidelity in addressing the
instructional needs of ELLs. Teachers demonstrated limited knowledge of the challenges faced
by LTELs upon entering secondary without reclassifying and did not express a strong sense of
urgency to improve reclassification rates. Elementary school teachers are unaware of their
importance in the future of students who do not reclassify. There is a need to build staff capacity
to deliver effective instruction to ELLs by providing high quality, relevant, focused, research-
based professional development for teachers. Quality professional development with systematic
observation, collaboration, and self-reflection among teachers and administrators will build
teacher capacity to effectively deliver instruction to ELLs. Improving reclassification rates will
require the development of a coherent vision and shared goals that define expectations for

129
achievement that inform the development of a strategic plan to identify and effectively address
the needs of the ELLs, the teachers, and the parents at VDV. It will require creating an
environment that is conducive to developing, implementing, and sustaining meaningful reform.
It will require administrators to be educational leaders, allocating adequate funds and time to
provide ongoing, systemic, and focused professional development coupled with observation and
meaningful feedback to ensure coherence and fidelity. It will require teachers and administrators
to engage in learning that includes review of the reclassification and required assessments,
language acquisition theory, culturally responsive and relevant educational strategies, heritage
language maintenance strategies, and continual review of research related to ELLs and English
language proficiency. It will also require teachers to engage in meaningful collaboration across
grade levels and from elementary to middle school to develop a deep understanding of the
interconnectedness of the reclassification process. It will require teachers and administrators to
develop a systemic and coherent plan for engaging parents in the education of their children.
Reclassification is essential for achieving the goal of career and college readiness.
English Language Learners will make up 40% of the school-age population by the 2030’s (US
Census, 2019). The level of education and English skills needed to succeed in the current U.S.
labor market has increased. Job competition has likewise increased (Haynes, 2002). ELLs
deserve the opportunity to achieve English proficiency at a level that enables them to fully
participate in a global economy.

130
References
Adams, M., & Jones, K. M. (2006). Unmasking the myths of structured English immersion:
Why we still need bilingual educators, native language instruction, and incorporation of
home culture. Radical Teacher (75), 16-21.
Adreon, D., & Durocher, J. S. (2007). Evaluating the college transition needs of individuals with
high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(5),
271-279.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474. Doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L. & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway?
A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176-192.
August, D. & Shanahan, T., Eds. (2006). English language learners: Developing literacy in
second-language learners—Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority
children and youth. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008c). Educating English language learners:
Building teacher capacity. Roundtable report. National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs.
Bandura, A. (2006). Chapter 14: Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Self-Efficacy
Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
Barreto, R. M. (1997). Reform in teacher education through the CLAD/BCLAD
policy. Multicultural Education, 5(2), 11-15.

131
Baseggio, K. (2018). A silent crisis: The misidentification of English language learners as
students with learning disabilities (865) [Bachelor’s thesis/All Regis University] All
Regis University Theses. https://epublications.regis.edu/theses/865.
Batalova, J., Fix, M. & Murray, J. (2007) Measures of change: The demography and
literacy of adolescent English learners: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New
York. Migration Policy Institute.
Bostad, B., Cwikla, Stephanie A., and Kienzle, Jacob L. (2015). Success of English language
learners: Barriers and strategies. [Action research project, St. Catherine University].
Sophia. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/134
Boyle, A., Golden, L., Le Floch, K. C., O'Day, J., Harris, B., & Wissel, S. (2014). Building
teacher capacity to support English language learners in schools receiving school
improvement grants. NCEE Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2015- 4004. National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Brecht, R.D. (2007). National language educational policy in the nation’s interest:
Why? How? Who is responsible for what? The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 264-
265.
Breseith, L. (2014). Academic language and ELLs: What teachers need to know ...
https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/academic-language-and-ells-what-teachers-need-
know
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41229013

132
Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.
3102/00028312042002305
Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2008). School context and the effect of ESL
placement on Mexican-origin adolescents' achievement. Social Science Quarterly, 89(1),
177-198.
Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking
among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational
evaluation and policy analysis, 32(1), 84-117.
California Department of Education, (2018, October). LCFF Priority 4 Statement of Model
Practices.
California Department of Education, (2019, September). Multilingual Education.
California Department of Education, (2019, April). Facts about English Learners in California–
CalEdFacts.
California Department of Education. 2019-2020 English Language Proficiency Assessments for
California Information Guide.
California Department of Education, (2020). 2020 California English Learner Roadmap.
Californians Together (2014). California is the first state in the nation to define and identify
English learners who after many years are struggling to succeed. https://www.
californianstogether.org/tate-reports-data-on-long-term-english-learners-and-students-at-
risk-of-becoming-long-term-english-learners/#more-926
Carlson, R., & Walton, P. H. (1994). CLAD/BCLAD: California reforms in the preparation and
credentialing of teachers for a linguistically and culturally diverse student population.

133
Cazden, C. (1986). ESL teachers as language advocates for children. Children and ESL:
Integrating Perspectives, 7-21.
Chrispeels, J. H, & Rivero, E. (2000). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent
education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their children.
Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119-169.
Chu, S.Y. (2011). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from
culturally and linguistically diverse background. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
38(3), 201-209.
Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Collier, V. & Thomas, W.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education,
Diversity & Excellence.
Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (2002). Reforming education policies for English learners means
better schools for all. The State Education Standard, 3(1), 30-36. National Association of
State Boards of Education.
Cortina, R., Makar, C., & Mount-Cors, M. F. (2015). Dual language as a social movement:
Putting languages on a level playing field. Current Issues in Comparative
Education, 17(1), 5-16.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety.
Multilingual Matters Ltd.

134
Crawford, J. (2004). No child left behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for
English language learners. Center on Educational Policy’s Forum on Ideas to Improve
the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690746-016
Crawford, L. Schmeister, M. & Biggs, A. (2008) Impact of intensive professional development
on teachers' use of sheltered instruction with students who are English language learners.
Journal of In-Service Education, 34(3), 327-342. Doi:10.1080/13674580801950816
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual
children. In E. Bialstoyk (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89).
Cambridge University Press.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. http://www.education.
com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dennis, T. (2016). Eight language program models: Four linguistic roads. Insight: A
Newsletter for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Issue (7).
Espinosa, L. (2013). Challenging common myths about dual language learners: An
update to the seminal 2008 report. Foundation for Child Development, Policy Brief No.
Ten.
Estrada, P. (2014a). English learner curricular streams in four middle school: Triage in the
trenches. The Urban Review, 46(4), 535-573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-
0276-7
Estrada, P., & Wang, H. (2015). Making English learner reclassification to fluent
English proficient attainable or elusive: When meeting criteria is and is not enough.
Manuscript submitted for publication.

135
Estrada, P., & Wang, H. (2013). Reclassifying and not reclassifying English learners to fluent
English proficient, year 1 findings: Factors impeding and facilitating reclassification
and access to the core. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Fensterwald, J. (2015). EdSource highlighting strategies for student success. https://edsource.
org/2015/report-calls-for-big-changes-in-educating-states-english-learners/89369
Flink, C. M., & Molina, A. L. (2016). Politics or professionalism? Budgeting for bilingual
education. Urban Affairs Review, doi:1078087416652732
Francis D. J., Rivera, M.O. (2007). Principles underlying English language proficiency tests and
academic accountability for ELLs. In J. Abedi (Ed.), English language proficiency
assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 13-31). University of
California, Davis.
Gagne, J. (2014). The Next Challenge for Public Schools: The Skill to Market Themselves to
Attract Students. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-next-challenge-for-pu_b_5491782
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English
language learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and
professional development needs. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (NJ1).

136
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language
students? In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism and
Multiculturalism, (pp. 547-567). Newbury House.
Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C. Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships.
In D. August & T. Shanahan, (Eds.), Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language
minority youth and children ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gersten, R. (1995). The double demands of teaching English language learners.
Educational leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum
Development, N.E.A 53(5).
Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007).
effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the
elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.
Gil, L., & Bardack, S. (2010). Common assumptions vs. the evidence: English language
learners in the United States—A reference guide. American Institutes for Research.
Gipson, F. & McGrath, K. (2016). Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin, BUL-
2332.5, Elementary School Progress Report Marking Practices and Procedures,
Attachment A Structured English Immersion (SEI) Program.
Gonzalez, A. (2016). 10 assumptions to rethink about English-language learners. Education
Week Teacher.

137
Gonzalez, R., & Jackson, C. (2016). Engaging with parents: The relationship between school
engagement efforts, social class, and learning. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 316-335.
Gordon, T. R. (2013). Attitudes regarding inclusion among general education teachers at the
elementary level (UMI No. 3560670) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Greenwood, M. (2016). Keeping long-term English learners from getting stuck. https://www.
smartbrief.com/original/2016/01/keeping-long-term-english-learners-getting-stuck
Hahnel, C., Wolf, L., Banks, A., and LaFors, J. (2014). The language of reform: English
learners in California’s shifting education landscape. The Education Trust West.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G, & Witt, D. (2000) How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu/publications/00_hakuta.pdf
Hakuta, K. (2018). The California English learner roadmap: Strengthening comprehensive
educational policies, programs, and practices for English. California Department of
Education.
Halle T., Hair E., Wandner L., McNamara M., Chien N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of
early vs. later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early
Child Res. Q. 27(1) 1–20. Doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004
Haukus, A., Bjorke, C., Dypedahl, M. (Eds.) (2018). Metacognition in language learning and
teaching. Routledge.
Haynes, J. (n.d.). Myths of Second Language Acquisition. http://www.everythingesl.net/
downloads/myths_SLA02.pdf

138
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis, 2002. Southwest
Educational Development Lab.
Henderson, A., Mapp, K., Johnson, V., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale:The essential
guide to family-school partnerships.The New Press.
Hidden curriculum (2014). In S. Abbott (Ed.) The glossary of education reform. http://edglossary
.org/hidden-curriculum
Hill, L. E., Weston, M., & Hayes, J. M. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in
California. Public Policy Institute of California. www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp
Hill, L. (2012). California's English learner students. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-english-learner-students/
Holley, M., Egalite, A. & Leuken, M. (2013). Competition with charters motivates districts.
Education Next, 13(4). https://www.educationnext.org/competition-with-charters-
motivates-districts/
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., & Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for dual language education. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Kanno, Y., & N., S. E. (2014). I’m not going to be, like, for the AP: English language
American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848–878. https://doi.org/10.3102
/0002831214544716.
Karabenick, S. & Clemens Noda, P. (2010). Professional development implications of teachers’
beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. The Journal of the National
Association for Bilingual Education, 28(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.
2004.10162612

139
Keheller, A. (n.d.) What is a heritage language? Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).
http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/faq-1.html.
Klein, A. (2016). For stalled ell students, graduation is often an elusive goal. Edweek, 35(30), 18-
23. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/05/11/for-stalled-ell-students-graduation-
isoften.html.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
La Rocque, M., Kleiman, I., Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental involvement: The missing link in
school achievement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 55(3), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903472876
Leal, D. L., & Hess, F. M. (2000). The politics of bilingual education expenditures in urban
school districts. Social Science Quarterly, 81(4), 1064-72. https://www.jstor.org/stable
/42864040
Lee, J. S. (2012). Literacy and heritage language maintenance. https://doi.org/10.1002/97
81405198431.wbeal0728
Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It's not my job”: K–12 teacher attitudes toward students'
heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477.
Lindholm-Leary, K. & Hernández, A. (2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino
students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous
ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(6),
531-545, doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.611596.

140
Lindholm-Leary, K.J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K.
Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders & D. Christian (Eds.), Education English language
learners (pp. 157-179). Cambridge University Press.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). English Learner Master Plan.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). Single Plan for Student Achievement
Implementation 2018-2019.
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 66-80.
Martin, C. (2016, February 6). ELPAC to replace CELDT: What to expect and when to expect it.
EGUSD EL Blog-Supporting English Learners. http://blogs.egusd.net/win/2016/02/26
/elpac-to-replace-celdt-what-to-expect-and-when-to-expect-it/
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Conceptual framework: What do you think is going on. Qualitative
Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 41, 33-63.
Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McGraner, K. & Saenz, L. (2009). Preparing Teachers of English Language Learners. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543816.
pdf
Meier, K. J., Stewart, J. Jr., & England, R. E. (1991). The Politics of Bureaucratic Discretion:
Educational Access as an Urban Service. American Journal of Political Science, 35:155-
77.
Meier, K. J., Stewart, J. Jr. (1991). The Politics of Hispanic Education: Un Paso Pa’Lante Y
Dos Pa ‘Tras. State University of New York Press.

141
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2007). Meeting the needs of long-term English language
learners in high school (A report for the Office of English Language Learners of the New
York City Department of Education). Research Institute for the Study of Language in an
Urban Society.
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.
Mongeau, L. (2014, July 29). Bilingual education could make a comeback. Ed Source.
https://edsource.org/2014/bilingual-education-could-make-a-comeback/65474
Moughamian, A. C., Rivera, M. O., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Instructional models and strategies
for teaching English language learners. Center on Instruction. National Center for
Educational Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517794.pdf
Okhremtchouk, I. S. (2017). The politics of schools and money: Building awareness about
channeling practices for supplemental resource allocations to serve English language
learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(17). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.
2819.
Oller, D. K., & Jarmulowicz, L. (2007). Language and literacy in bilingual children in the early
school years. In E. Hoff, & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language
development education. Blackwell.
Olsen, L., & Wan, Y. (2010). A closer look at long-term English learners: A focus on new
directions. The Starlight, 7. http://www.laurieolsen.com/uploads/2/5/4/9/25499564
/a_closer_look_at__long_term_english_learneres_olsen_color_eng.pdf

142
Olsen, L. (2014). Meeting the unique needs of long-term English language learners: A
guide for educators. National Education Association. https://www.rcoe.us/educational-
services/files/2012/08/NEA_Meeting_the_Unique_Needs_of_LTELs.pdf
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of education opportunity for
California’s long-term English learners. Californians Together. http://www.cali
fornianstogether.org/
Palmer, D. (2007). A dual immersion strand programme in California: Carrying out the
promise of dual language education in and English-dominant context. The
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(6), 752-768.
https://doi.org/10.2167/beb397.0
Redding, S., Langdon, J., Meyer, J., & Sheley, P. (2004). The Effects of Comprehensive Parent
Outcomes. Harvard Research Family Project. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Redding, S., Murphy, M., & Sheley, P., (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on Family and
Community Engagement. Academic Development Institute. http://www.school
communitynetwork.org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf
Ricento, T. (2005). Considerations of identity in L2 learning. Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning, 895-910.
Richards-Tutor, C., Aceves, T., & Reese, L. (2016). Evidence-based practices for English
learners (Document No. IC-18). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective
Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. http://ceedar.education
.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

143
Robinson, J. P. (2011). Evaluating criteria for English learner reclassification: A causal-effects
approach using a binding-score regression discontinuity design with instrumental
variables. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 267–292.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Rueda, R., August D., Goldberg, C. (2006). The sociocultural context in which children acquire
literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing Literacy in second language
learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth
ed. Erlbaum.
Sanchez, C. (2017, February 23). English language learners: How your state is doing. NPREd.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/512451228/5-million-english-language-
learners-a-vast-pool-of-talent-at-risk
Santana, D. (2018). Heritage language maintenance is key to family bonding and identity.
Embracing Diversity. https://embracingdiversity.us/heritage-language-maintenance-kay-
family-bonding-identity/
Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of
reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 35(139), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373712461849
Sarason, S. B., Zitnay, G., & Grossman, F. K. (1971). The creation of a community
setting. Syracuse University Press.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. http://www.education.
com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Secada, W. G. (1990). Research, politics, and bilingual education. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 81-106.

144
Searns, M. (2011, September 26). Are too many students being identified as English language
learners? New America. https://www.newamerica.org › education-policy › early-ed-
watch › are-too...
Shydlo, I. (2017, September 15). The Key to Reaping Awesome Benefits of Bilingualism.
Bilingual Parenting. https://polyglotparenting.com/blog/the-key-to-reaping-the-
awesome-benefits-of-bilingualism/
Short, D. (2017). Making content comprehensible for elementary English learners: the SIOP
model. Pearson.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading
instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247–
284. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002247
Spring, J. (1994). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education dominated cultures in the United States. McGraw-Hill.
Tabatadze, S. (2015). Factors influencing the effectiveness of bilingual educational programs:
The prospects of pilot programs in Georgia. English Teaching, 12(2), 93-109.
doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2015.02.003.
Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy development.
In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for early literacy research (pp.
159-178). Guilford.
Tellez, K., & Waxman, H. (2005). Quality teachers for English language learners. The
laboratory for Student Success at Temple University Center. http://www.temple.edu/lss

145
Theobold, N. A. (2007). Muestreme El Dinero! Assessing the Linkage Between Resources. In
R. Espino, D. L. Leal, & K. J. Meier (Eds.), Latino Politics: Identity, Mobilization, and
Representation (pp. 249-264). University of Virginia Press.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity
& Excellence.
Tran, Y. (2014). Professional development and teacher efficacy: contexts of what, when and how
in serving ELLs. Faculty Publications–School of Education. http://digitalcommons.
georgefox.edu/soe_faculty/119
Tran, Y. (2015). ESL pedagogy and certification: Teacher perceptions and efficacy. Journal of
Education and Learning, 4(2), 28-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n2p28
Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English
learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028
31214545110
Valentino, R.A., & Reardon, S.F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed
to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612-637.
Vallance, A. L., (2015). The Importance of Maintaining a Heritage Language While Acquiring
the Host Language. [Honors college thesis, Wayne State University]. https://digitalcom
mons.wayne.edu/honorstheses/34.

146
Warren, P., & Hough, H. (2013, August). Increasing the usefulness of California’s education
data. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. http://www.ppic.org/
publication/increasing-the-usefulness-of-californias-educationdata/
Wiese, A., & Garcia, E. (1998). The bilingual education act: Language minority students and
equal educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(1), 1-18.
Zhang, D., Hsu, H., Kwok, O., Benz, M. & Bowman-Perrott, L. (2016). The impact of basic-
level parent engagements on student achievement: Patterns associated with race ethnicity
and socioeconomic status. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(1), 28-39.
Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003).
Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students. US
Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition.
Zong, J. & Batalova, J. (2015, July 8). The limited English proficient population in the United
States. The Online Journal of The Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migration
policy.org/article/limited-english-proficient-population-united-states-2013

147
Appendix A: ELPAC Task Types
Listening Domain Task Types
“Listen to a Story”
Initial - Picture or Written options - Kindergarten (K) - grade 2 Summative - K- grade
1
Written option only – grades 3 – 5 Summative – Written option only – grades 2-5
The student listens to an audio recording of a story that includes a conversation that is
provided using direct or indirect speech or both. The test administrator then asks a
series of multiple-choice questions.
“Listen to an Oral Presentation”
Initial – Picture or Written options - K– grade 2 Summative – K - grade 1
Initial - Written option only – grades 3-12 Summative - Written option only - grades
2 - 12
The student listens to an oral presentation and answers detailed multiple-choice
comprehension questions.
“Listen to a Short Exchange”
The student listens to an audio recording of an exchange between two classmates or
one student and one teacher. The student then answers multiple-choice comprehension
questions posed by the test administrator.
“Listen to a Classroom Conversation”
Initial & Summative – Picture or Written options - grade 1
Initial - Written options only – grades 3-12 Summative - Written option only - grades 2
- 12
The student listens to an audio recording of two students or a student and a teacher
engaged in a discussion. The student answers a series of multiple-choice
comprehension questions
“Listen to a Speaker Support an Opinion”
Initial – grades 9-12 Summative – grades 6-12
The student listens to an audio recording of a conversation pertaining to a grade-
appropriate topic between two students in which one student is supporting an opinion.
The student then answers detailed multiple-choice comprehension questions that are
available as text and as audio recordings.

148
Speaking Domain Task Types
“Talk About a Scene”
Initial & Summative - all grades and grade spans
The test administrator shows the test taker a school scene or a familiar place and asks
the student questions about the scene. The student responds to the questions.
“Speech Functions”
Initial – grades 3-12 & Summative grades 2 – 12
The test administrator describes a situation using language to inform, persuade, make a
request and asks the student what he or she would say in the situation.
“Support an Opinion”
Initial - K & Summative - K - 12
The test administrator introduces two activities, events, or objects and asks the student
to provide his/her opinion, with appropriate support, which is better.
“Retell a narrative (integrated skills: speaking with listening)
Initial - K-2 Summative K-5
The test administrator tells a story that follows a series of pictures. The student gives a
brief oral presentation to the class about and listens to a story that follows a series of
pictures.
“Retell a Narrative (Integrated Skills: Speaking With Listening)”
Initial - K-2 Summative K- grade 5
The test administrator tells a story that follows a series of pictures. The student gives a
brief oral presentation to the class about a series of events based on the pictures.
“Present and Discuss Information (Integrated Skills: Speaking with Reading)”
Summative - grades 6-12
The test administrator provides the student with a graph, chart, or image that provides
information from the school or community. The student is directed to read the
information. The test administrator then asks the student to summarize the information
and state his/her opinion about a false statement related to the information provided.
“Summarize an Academic Presentation (Integrated Skills: Speaking with
Listening)”
Initial - grades 1 - 12 Summative - K - grade 12
The test administrator provides an academic presentation with a related picture or
pictures. K-2 the test administrator reads the presentation from a script. Grades 3 - 12
an audio recording of the presentation played. The test administrator then asks the
student to summarize the main points and key terms that are provided.

149
Reading Domain Task Types
“Read-Along Story with Scaffolding”
Initial - K Summative - K
The test administrator reviews foundational literacy skills items and helps the student
decode words. The student and the teacher read together. The student listens to a word and
reads along while looking at three picture options. The test administrator then asks the
student to decode a word and then match the word to a picture.
“Read-Along Information”
Initial - grade 1 Summative - K
The student listens and reads along as the test administrator reads an informational text
aloud. The student selects the correct answer from a set of three written and spoken
choices.
“Read and Choose a Word”
Initial - grades 1 & 2 Summative - grade 1
The test administrator presents a picture to the student then reads three words aloud and asks
the student to select the word that matches the picture presented.
“Read and Choose a Sentence”
Initial - grades 2 - 12 Summative - grades 1-5
The test administrator presents a picture to the student then reads three sentences aloud and
asks the student to select the sentence that best describes the picture presented.
“Read a Short Informational Passage”
Initial - grades 2 -12 Summative - grades 1 - 12
The student reads a short informational passage about a science, math or social science topic
and then answers questions pertaining to the passage.
“Read a Student Essay”
Summative - grades 3-12
The student reads a student essay and answers a set of multiple-choice questions that include
main idea comprehension, language use, and word choice.
“Read a Literary Passage”
Initial - grade 2 Summative grades 1 - 12
The student reads a literary passage and answers a series of questions pertaining to the
passage.
“Read an Informational Passage”
Initial - grades 3 - 12 Summative grades 1 - 12
The student reads an informational passage and answers a series of questions pertaining to
the passage.

150
Writing Domain Task Types
“Label a Picture - Word with Scaffolding”
Initial - K & 1 Summative - K
The test administrator provides the student with a picture and directs the student to label the
picture. The test administrator provides prompting for letter output followed by prompting
for full words.
“Write a Story Together with Scaffolding”
Initial - K - 2 Summative - K - 2
The test administrator provides the student with a picture and the initial sentence of the story
along with a sentence frame. The test administrator supports the student by providing
prompts for letter level output, progressing to word level., and then to a sentence.
“Write an Informational Text Together”
Summative - grades 1 & 2
The test administrator presents a picture and the first sentences of an informational text.
The test administrator says a sentence and asks the student to write it as dictation. Then the
student is directed to compose and write a sentence to complete the story.
“Describe a Picture (Integrated Skills: Writing with Reading”
Initial - grades 2 - 12 Summative - grades 1-12
The test administrator provides students in grades 1 & 2 a picture and asks the student to
describe what is happening in the picture. Students in grades 3-12 are provided with a
description written by a classmate and then revises and expand on those ideas.
“Describe a Picture (Integrated Skills: Writing with Reading”
Initial - grades 2 - 5 Summative - grades 1 - 12
Grade 1 & 2 students write a description of what is happening in a picture. Grade 2 & 3
students revise and expand on the ideas of another student.
“Write About an Experience”
Initial - grades 6 -12 Summative grades 1 - 12
The test administrator provides the student with a common topic to write about his/her own
personal experience. The student then writes a paragraph about the topic.
“Write About Academic Information (Integrated Skills: Writing with Reading)”
Summative grades 3 - 12
The test administrator provides the student with a graphic organizer created for a group
project. The student is then asked to review the information and respond to two questions
about it. The first question requires the student to write one sentence giving a general
interpretation of the information or an important detail about the information. The second
question requires the student to respond to another student with an opinion or to complete
another student’s academic paragraph.

151

“Definitions of Task Types for English Language Proficiency Assessments for California,” 2020.

“Justify an Opinion”
Initial - grades 3-12 Summative - grades 3 - 12
The student is asked to write a paragraph to communicate his/her opinion about a
school-related topic along with details to support the opinion.

152
Appendix B: Summaries of Influences and Recommendations
Table B1
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers must have a
thorough understanding and
knowledge of the terms
relevant to the
reclassification: Long Term
English Language Learners
(LTELs), English language
learners (ELLs), Reclassified
Fluent English Proficient
(RFEPs), Structured English
Immersion, and Dual
Immersion, and the
Reclassification Process.

“Factual knowledge,
composed of major facts
and terminology will
help attainment of a
goal” (Krathwohl, 2002).

Provide teachers with a glossary
of important terms in a format
that is easily understood and
readily available including a
graphic representation of the
reclassification process in its
entirety.
Teachers need to identify
instructional strategies that
are most effective with ELLs
and then enhance their
ability to effectively
implement these strategies.
“Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(such as reciprocal
teaching) facilitate
construction of new
knowledge” (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Provide a job aid on effective
strategies to use, including
“how” and “when” to use
particular strategies.

Focus on the development of a
community of learners
dedicated to mastery, learning,
effort, progress, and self-
improvement.

153
Teachers must understand
and be able to apply the
science of learning,
instruction and assessment to
improve ELL student
achievement and thereby
improve reclassification
rates.
“How individuals
organize knowledge
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know” (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
“To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply
what they have learned.”
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006)
Guide teachers through the
process of connecting new
knowledge to prior knowledge
and applying this information to
instructional delivery.
Create collaborative grade level
teams for teachers to engage in
the steps of guided self-
monitoring, self-assessment,
and assessment of strengths and
weaknesses.
Systematically review
reclassification data to ascertain
which strategies are most
effective and then attempt to
replicate the steps of those
strategies.

154
Table B2
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers must have
confidence that all ELLs
can achieve English
language arts proficiency
and reclassify if provided
with appropriate
instruction.
Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).
Higher expectations for
success and perceptions of
confidence can positively
influence learning and
motivation. (Eccles, 2006)
Goals motivate and direct
students (Pintrich, 2003).
Facilitate teacher review of
research and school data that
makes it clear that students are
capable of reclassification.

Teachers must have self-
efficacy that they have the
ability to provide
instruction that will enable
all ELLs to reclassify prior
to becoming LTELS.
Focusing on mastery,
individual improvement,
learning, and progress
promotes positive
motivation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006).
High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006).
Develop and implement
organizational and
management structures that
foster the creation of a
collaborative community of
learners who periodically
engage in instructional rounds
with a focus on providing
immediate feedback to
improve instructional delivery
to improve proficiency in ELA.
Provide opportunities for
teachers to be observed and
receive immediate feedback
during implementation of
research based instructional
strategies that are successful
with ELLs.

155
Table B3
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organizational
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Teachers do not think that they
can impact the ability of
students to reclassify
Success or failures in
improving
reclassification rates and
raising student
proficiency in ELA
should be attributed to
effort (Anderman &
Anderman, 2009).
Select several school sites
with similar demographics
and facilitate benchmarking
and teacher review of
reclassification data that
demonstrates higher rates of
success.

Provide opportunities to
analyze school
reclassification data.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Lack of differentiated
professional development that
provides the how-to training for
providing effective instruction
to EL students.

Targeting training and
instruction between the
individual’s independent
performance level and
their level of assisted
performance promotes
optimal learning (Scott
& Palincsar, 2006).
Providing scaffolding
and assisted
performance in a
person’s ZPD promotes
developmentally
appropriate instruction
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006).
Provide sufficient scaffolding
and tools to facilitate learning
instructional strategies that
appear to be most successful
with EL students’
improvement of English
language acquisition.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Lack of organizational support
for the use of effective research
based instructional strategies
designed to enhance
achievement among EL
students.
Social interaction,
cooperative learning,
and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as
reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction of
new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Provide teachers with the
resources (master teachers,
research based instructional
materials, quality
collaborative time, etc.)
needed to effectively
implement instructional
strategies designed to
enhance achievement among
EL.

156
Appendix C: Outcomes & Critical Behavior Recommendations
Table C1
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes Summary
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase in the % of
students reclassifying
percentage of
reclassifying ELLs
Review of California Department of
Education reclassification data illustrated
on the California Dashboard
Internal Outcomes
Teachers engage in
articulation activities
with the neighboring
middle school and
between grade levels
focused on the
reclassification
process
Number of professional
development sessions
dedicated to articulation
of ELLs
Allocation of time and funding to enable
teachers to meet and collaborate with
teachers from neighboring middle schools
and across grade levels to deepen
understanding of the reclassification
process at all levels, develop plans for
addressing the needs of ELLs, and
improve reclassification rates.
Teachers participate in
more differentiated
professional
development focused
on ELL achievement
number of professional
development sessions
dedicated to ELL
instruction
Allocation of time and funding to enable
experts to provide “how-to training” and
in-depth training on the reclassification
assessments for teachers of ELLs
Teachers experience
increased self-efficacy
as it is related to ELL
reclassification
When surveyed, 80% or
more of the teachers
describe themselves as
proficient in
reclassifying ELL
students
Systematic review of data pertaining to
ELL reclassification
Teachers increase
their use of effective
research based-
instructional strategies
designed to improve
English language
acquisition among
ELLs
Attainment of “meets or
exceeds” in all areas
pertaining to Delivery of
Instruction on the
Educator Development
and Support evaluation
system
ongoing and systematic observation with
feedback from master teachers
at least 1 lesson study cycle, per school
year, with feedback
at least 1 cycle of instructional rounds, per
school year, with feedback

157
Table C2
Recommended Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1) Teachers participate
in differentiated
professional
development focused
on ELL achievement
# of professional
development sessions
teachers successfully
complete throughout the
school year
based on the
attendance sheet and
the end of session
evaluation survey
Once each
month
2) Teachers engage in
ongoing systematic
review of data
pertaining to ELL
reclassification
# of data analysis
sessions throughout the
school year
Systematic review of
data pertaining to ELL
reclassification
Every other
month
3) Teachers deliver
research-based English
language arts
instruction designed to
improve language
acquisition among
ELLs
Attainment of “meets or
exceeds” in all areas
pertaining to Delivery
of Instruction on the
Educator Development
and Support (EDST)
evaluation system
Ongoing and
systematic observation
with feedback from
master teachers

At least 1 lesson study
cycle, per school year,
with feedback

At least 1 cycle of
instructional rounds,
per school year, with
feedback
At least twice
per week
Once within
the first
semester of
school
Once at the
start of the
second
semester
4) Teachers engage in
the steps of guided
self-monitoring, self-
assessment, and
assessment of strengths
and weaknesses.
Attainment of “meets or
exceeds” in all areas
that pertain to reflection
on the EDST evaluation
system
Review of EDST
evaluation system
areas that pertain to
reflection
Weekly for the
2018-2019
school year
5) Teachers work in
grade level teams and
engage in collaborative
activities to focus on
mastery, learning,
effort, progress, and
self-improvement.
Grade level team
agendas, notes and
schedule of activities
that indicate at least 4
hours or more per
month involvement in
the aforementioned
activities.
Review of grade level
team agendas, notes
and schedule of
activities
Biweekly for
the 2020 -
2021 school
year

158
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
1. What grade do you teach?
2. Which program are in? Dual Immersion or Structured English Immersion/ L2EAP
3. How long have you been teaching?
4. Define the following terms: EL, RFEP, EO, LTEL
5. Describe the implications of the growing numbers of LTELs in California.
6. Please describe the reclassification process that must occur for students to move from
limited English proficient to reclassified fluent English proficient.
7. Describe the skills that are required by students to reclassify?
8. What instructional strategies do you use in your classroom to improve English language
proficiency in ELLs? Identify strategies that are most successful and least successful.
9. Tell me about the last time you reflected upon your instruction for English language
acquisition among ELLs and describe your level of competency as it relates to providing
instruction to ELLs.
10. Describe the challenges that you experienced in your delivery of instruction to ELLs.
11. Please describe the progress or lack of progress your classroom has made in terms of
reclassification rates. What would you attribute this progress or lack of progress to?
12. Please describe the progress or lack of progress your school has made in terms of
reclassification rates. What would you attribute this progress or lack of progress to?
13. Please describe the nature of professional development the organization provides for
you to provide effective instruction for ELLs.
14. How could professional development be improved?

159
15. How many ELLs do you have in your current classroom and how many do you anticipate
will reclassify prior to leaving elementary school and/or prior to promoting to the next
grade?

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

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program

PDF

Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care

PDF

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

PDF

Reforming student discipline policies in elementary schools: an improvement study

Asset Metadata

Creator Bass-Baylis, Leah Louise (author)

Core Title Improving the reclassification rate gap

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/13/2020

Defense Date 11/09/2020

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

Tag English language learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,reclassification

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Adibe, Bryant A. (committee chair)

Creator Email Bassbayl@Usc.edu,Lbdance@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-394082

Unique identifier UC11665954

Identifier etd-BassBaylis-9112.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-394082 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BassBaylis-9112.pdf

Dmrecord 394082

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bass-Baylis, Leah Louise

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