Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
(USC Thesis Other)
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT: CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
FOR HISPANIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS USING THE GAP ANALYSIS
MODEL
by
Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband. Thank you for loving me every day
and standing by me even when I did not see it. We met at USC 19 years ago and here we
are 19 years later. Life has not always been easy but IT HAS been worth it. This was not
your choice for our family but I appreciate you always allowing me the freedom to be
courageous and the opportunity to pursue my dreams. And despite the stress and
challenges it created, I knew that I could always count on your encouragement. I am
eternally grateful. The time this dissertation took from our lives was a huge sacrifice that
I hope one day will not weigh so heavy on your heart. I look forward to spending the rest
of my life making it right. Thank you for being my best friend on this journey that you
did not sign up for yet graciously walked with me. Jesse, I love you and, from the bottom
of my heart, thank you.
Thank you to my children, Gabriela, Andrés, and Alessandra for their genuine,
unconditional love and understanding when ―mom‘s dissertation‖ made everything
complicated. Gaby, you are a smart and beautiful young lady that is blossoming with
each passing day. I always knew I could count on you when I needed you. You are my
reason to be great! Andrés, you always knew when I needed just a little extra love to
cheer me on. You are one of my favorite rewards! There is no other place I‘d rather be
then on a field watching you. Ali, you were my reminder to hurry up and finish because
you were all waiting for me. Your fiery spirit inspires me and fills my soul! Thank you!!
I could not have done it without the three of you. I love each one of you so much!
ooxxooXoXXx
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge a special group of people who have made this
dissertation possible. First, I would like to thank my inquiry teammates, Alberto Alvarez
and Lesette Molina-Solis. Thank you for your expertise and insight throughout this
project. I would also like to thank the entire Marsh/Rueda 2011 thematic dissertation
group for their professional advice and contributions to the work on this alternative
capstone project. I express my sincere gratitude to Rowland USD for graciously allowing
us to come into their district. I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Robert
Rueda, Dr. David Marsh, and Dr. Michael Escalante, former superintendent of Glendale
USD. I am deeply grateful for the time and dedication that Dr. Rueda and Dr. Marsh
provided me as co-advisors on this project. Their guidance and encouragement made this
dissertation a success!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………….… iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………….. vii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………….... viii
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………….......... x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………….. 1
Background & Importance of the Problem…………….……............... 1
Problem Analysis………..………………………………………....…. 5
Inquiry Purpose……….………………………………………….…… 7
Project Significance…...……………………………………………… 8
CHAPTER TWO: THE INQUIRY PROCESS & FINDINGS …………….… 10
Review of Literature………………………………………… …………..…… 10
Introduction ……………………….……………………………...…... 10
Historical Perspective of the Achievement Gap ……….…..………… 10
Proposition 227 ….………………………………..…….….………… 13
TIMSS ……………………...……………………..……..…………… 14
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)………………..……….…..…….…… 15
ELs as an Underperforming Subgroup…………………………....…... 16
Hispanic Students………………………………………………....…... 17
English Language Learners (ELs)…….…...………………….………. 19
Socioeconomic Status (SES)..…………..…….………………………. 20
Long-Term English Language Learners.……….…….………………. 20
Methodology……..…….………………………...…………………...……….. 22
Inquiry Project Purpose……………………………………………….. 22
Gap Analysis Overview ………………………………...……………. 23
Project Design...………………………………………………………. 26
Unit of Analysis…………………...………………..………………… 27
Data Collection Tools ………………………………………………... 28
Procedures…………………………..………………………………… 29
Human Subjects Considerations………………………………….…... 33
Executive Summary…………………………….…………………….. 35
Culminating Presentation.....................………...…………...………… 35
Group PowerPoint….….……………………………………... 35
v
Possible Solutions Presentation…….…………………..…………….. 36
Additional Presentation to District Groups…………...……...……….. 36
Analysis of Root Causes of the Performance Gaps……………….…………... 37
Introduction ….……………………….………..……….…………….. 37
Strengths……………….……………………………………………… 40
Clear Vision for Reform……………………………………... 41
English Language Learner Advocacy ……………………….. 41
Bilingual Education Office …………...…………...………… 42
Master Plan for English Learners …………..……...………… 42
Support for Implementation……….………..……...………… 43
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes …...…………...……….… 44
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District on the
Hispanic EL Subgroup ………………..……….……..……… 44
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for the
Progress of ELs …..………………………………………..… 45
Perception of Professional Accountability for the Progress of
Hispanic ELs …..…………………………………………..… 48
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students‘ Backgrounds and
Experiences …..…………………………………..………..… 50
Cautions and Limitations …………………………...………………... 52
CHAPTER THREE: A FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS…………………………... 54
Review of Literature Related to Solutions……………………………………. 54
Introduction…………….………………….…………………………... 54
Process of Change………...…….……………………………………... 56
Turnaround Change…..…………………..…………………... 56
Transformational Theory….……………….…………….……….…… 58
Educational Equity……...………………….…………….……….…… 60
District Office Support...………………….…………….……..….…… 62
The Role of the District Office….……………………….……….…… 63
Cultural Proficiency…….………………….…………….……….…… 66
Attribution Theory……...………………….…………….……….…… 68
―Funds of Knowledge‖…....….…………….…………….……….…… 68
Cultural Modeling…………….………………………….……….…… 71
―Third Space‖………..…....……….……….…………….……….…… 73
Conclusion……...…………….………………………….……….…… 75
Solution Summary…………..……………………………..…….……………. 76
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 76
Change Processes.………...…….…………...………………………... 77
District Support.…………….…………...…..………………………... 80
vi
Cultural Proficiency …………….…………...…...…………………... 82
Conclusion ……………………...…………...…...…………………... 84
GLOSSARY OF TERMS……...………………………………………........... 85
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………........... 101
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………... 113
A: Inquiry Project Timeline……........................…………………….... 113
B: Scanning Interview Guide ………….…….………………………... 114
C: One Month Interview Questions……………………………............ 115
D: Round Two Interview Questions ………………………….…......... 116
E: Triangulation of Data……………...……………………………….. 117
F: Executive Summary ……………...……………………………..….. 118
G: Proposed Solution PowerPoint .………………….……………..….. 138
H: Hispanic English Language Learner Table ………...…………..….. 156
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table A-1: Inquiry Project Timeline: Project Overview…………….…………. 113
Table E-1: Triangulation of Data Sources………...…………………………… 117
Table H-1: Hispanic English Language Learner Table………………………… 156
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure G-1: Title Slide…………………………………………………………. 138
Figure G-2: Introduction Slide – Project Design………………………………. 138
Figure G-3: The Gap Analysis Process...………………………………………. 139
Figure G-4: Inquiry Methods…………………………………………………... 139
Figure G-5: Project Timeline…………………………………………………... 140
Figure G-6: Possible Gaps Identified by All Three Teams…...………………... 140
Figure G-7: Gaps Organized by Dimensions of Gap Analysis………...………. 141
Figure G-8: Comprehensive School Reform Team – Title Slide……………….. 141
Figure G-9: Positive Findings………………………...………………………... 142
Figure G-10: Possible Gaps………………………………………….………… 142
Figure G-11: Current RUSD Reform Initiatives…………………………..…… 143
Figure G-12: Considerations: Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure…... 143
Figure G-13: Recommendations……………………………………………….. 144
Figure G-14: Clark & Estes (2002) Goal Alignment…...……………………… 144
Figure G-15: Comprehensive School Reform Team – Conclusion Slide ……… 145
Figure G-16: High School Team – Introduction Slide...……………………….. 145
Figure G-17: Positive Findings at the High Schools…...………………………. 146
Figure G-18: Possible Gaps Affecting the High Schools……………………… 146
Figure G-19: Goals: Create Work Goals Aligned to the Global Goal……..…... 147
Figure G-20: Goals: Facilitate Perspective Building Around Practices………... 147
Figure G-21: Goals: Celebrate Accomplishments Toward Goals……………… 148
ix
Figure G-22: Resources……………………………...………………………… 148
Figure G-23: Implementation & Accountability………..……………………… 149
Figure G-24: Culture Settings…………………………………….……………. 149
Figure G-25: High School Team – Conclusion Slide…………………….……. 150
Figure G-26: Hispanic English Language Learner Team – Introduction Slide... 150
Figure G-27: Positive Findings for ELs………………….…………………….. 151
Figure G-28: Possible Gaps……………………………………………………. 151
Figure G-29: Processes of Change………...…………………………………… 152
Figure G-30: Effective District Support…………...…………………………… 152
Figure G-31: Cultural Proficiency…..…………………………………………. 153
Figure G-32: Recommendations……………………………………………….. 153
Figure G-33: Hispanic English Language Learner Team – Conclusion Slide….. 154
Figure G-34: Sustainability of the Reform Effort……………………………… 154
Figure G-35: Final Conclusion Slide…………………………………………... 155
Figure G-36: Special Thanks…………………………………………………... 155
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to conduct a gap analysis for the
pervasive underperformance of Hispanic English Language Learner (EL) students in
Rowland Unified School District (RUSD). This alternative capstone project developed
from a partnership between the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California and RUSD. This qualitative inquiry project looked at educational practices
utilized in elementary and middle school levels of instruction throughout the district and
how these aligned to district initiatives for narrowing the gap. We gathered data through
interviews, observations and surveys. We used the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis to
identify performance gaps, model as our analytical framework to develop perceived root
causes, and then formulate solutions to present to the District Superintendent and her
executive board. The process of change, district support, and cultural proficiency all
contributed to the existing Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background & Importance of the Problem
Academic excellence has always been part of the ―American Dream‖. Education
in the United States, historically, has been the gateway to economic success and the path
to personal freedom. Although the Dream has not changed over the years, the faces of
those pursuing it have. As the Hispanic population continues to grow in the United
States, so too, does the need to be able to help Hispanic students achieve academic
success.
Our society has relied heavily on the public education system to educate the
masses and produce quality citizens who can, in turn, significantly contribute to the
economic success of this country. Schools in the United States have long been the
stepping stone for generations of Americans and the key to the ―American Dream‖ for all
immigrants. Although America is young relative to its European neighbors, its school
system has attained considerable success. Marzano (2003) cited that ―the research on the
effectiveness of (American) schools considered as a whole paints a very positive image
of their impact on student achievement‖ (p. 6). Historically, U.S. schools have produced
a workforce capable of successfully maintaining the U.S. as a world leader.
This expectation of academic excellence has been a contributing factor to the
success of the American public school system. However, it is critical to acknowledge
and address several very important exceptions to the celebrated academic progress in
public education. The American school system has not been able to successfully meet
2
the needs of students for whom English is not their first language. These students are
commonly referred to as English Language Learners (ELs). In the United States, the
majority of the student population who are ELs are also Hispanic. ―By far, the majority
of ELLs--80%--are Spanish speakers‖ (Goldenberg, 2008, p. 10). An achievement gap is
defined as the discrepancy of academic achievement between sub-populations of
students. Not being able to close the Hispanic EL achievement gap is a profound
dilemma in public education that, without a resolution, stands to discredit the long-
standing belief that the ―American dream‖ can be reached by all.
The federal government authorized its newest iteration of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 with the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001. This reform acknowledged the existence of achievement gaps and required
accountability measures to close the gaps. This new legislation led educators to develop
a sense of urgency that previously did not exist. Educators found themselves fast
approaching the 2014 deadline with dismal chances ensuring 100% proficiency for their
students. Prior to this initiative, A Nation at Risk (1983) and the TIMSS Report brought
into perspective the state of the United States public educational system, placing pressure
upon the federal and state governments to improve upon the current educational
outcomes. As a result, states implemented accountability systems to ensure their districts
were working toward meeting the demands established by NCLB and initiated efforts to
create a schooling system where their students graduated high school better prepared for
today‘s professional expectations. In turn, districts have developed innovative sets of
3
measures to ensure their schools more adequately meet the diverse needs of their
students.
Although these efforts appeared effective, not all students demonstrated the
expected academic progress. Furthermore, when district data is disaggregated, time and
time again, the subgroups that continue to demonstrate the widest achievement gaps are
the Hispanic, African-American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and
other Pacific Islander populations (KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnick, 2007).
The persistent achievement gap amongst the Hispanic population is of considerable
concern as this subgroup is projected to become the majority within the next decade in
California (Garcia, 2002). Williams et al. (2007) estimates that nearly 1.6 million, or one
out every four students enrolled in California schools, are currently designated as [an]
English Language Learner (p. 1). Estimates suggest that in the last twenty-five years, the
EL subgroup population has steadily grown from 8% to 25% enrolled (Williams et al.,
2007, p. 1).
In its quest to promote equality in education, NCLB delineated federal
requirements for the education of all children, and specifically for minority and
underrepresented students. Implementation of the federal guidelines in NCLB yield
identification of significant achievement gaps within minority subgroup populations in
American schools. Gaps in student performance are increasingly becoming more
common in public education (Williams et al., 2007). Consequently, public concerns
surrounding American schools‘ effectiveness in educating minority students have steadily
increased. Salamon (1991) concluded that the need to effectively address issues of
4
inequality is essential for the wellness of our nation‘s democratic philosophy, economic
strength, and world status.
Statewide studies consistently show disproportionate patterns of specific student
subgroup achievement levels in California (NCLB, 2001). Specifically, patterns of EL
students‘ underperformance have increased and become increasingly more evident. The
numbers continue to rise. As a result, the number of schools and districts entering
Program Improvement (PI) status also continue to rise. As more ELs enroll in California
public schools, their continual academic underperformance, if it remains unaddressed,
carries potentially damaging effects to the state and to American society. This trend also
jeopardizes our collective well-being as the resulting gaps extend into local, state, and
national economics.
Garcia (2002) and Williams et al. (2005). indicated that in California, the
connection between student achievement and social status have become a hot topic
platform in education. Goldenberg (2008, p. 10) points out:
Spanish speakers in the U.S. tend to come from lower economic and educational
backgrounds than either the general population or other immigrants and language-
minority populations. For example, nearly 24 percent of immigrants from Mexico
and Central America live below the poverty level, compared with 9 to 14 percent
of immigrants from other regions of the world (and 11.5 percent of U.S. native-
born populations.
California has a high EL student enrollment; ensuring educational equity is
especially critical when all these facts are taken into consideration. Many districts that
serve large percentages of Hispanic, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and EL students
have been severely impacted with all the requirements and deadlines to attain academic
success in closing this achievement gap.
5
Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) in California recently entered PI status
under NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) guidelines. This status is due primarily to
its Hispanic and EL subgroups performance levels falling short of proficiency levels
required by NCLB (California Department of Education, 2010). RUSD, like numerous
other school districts in the nation, struggles to improve student performance, especially
within the minority-language student population. In effect, mandated cost-cutting
measures have made it challenging for RUSD to effectively employ previously planned
interventions. As a result, the district has endured numerous challenges in effectively
maintaining programs to adequately address the needs of its students, with the bulk of its
challenges affecting its Hispanic EL students. Consequently, Hispanic EL students have
consistently experienced challenges in meeting national and state educational targets and
benchmarks.
Admirably, RUSD has successfully promoted overall student performance levels
in the positive direction. Consequently, the district has earned a distinctive reputation as
a high-performing district, an achievement of which the district is very proud. RUSD
plays a critical leadership role in the quality of education that is practiced in its schools.
That role is crucial to the success of its students and, consequently, to the wellness and
health of the greater community which it serves.
Problem Analysis
The district has a multitude of responsibilities in its role as the educational
organization. According to Clark & Estes (2002), organizations will ultimately face
organizational barriers. Clark & Estes (2002) defines organizational barriers as "missing
6
tools, inadequate facilities, or faulty processes or procedures," (p. 44). This inquiry
project focuses on the identification of such organizational barriers, which may contain
the underlying causes for the existing gaps. Because it is the responsibility of a local
educational agency (LEA), also known as the district office, and its schools to safeguard
educational equity and to promote equal opportunities for all students, successful student
preparation is a key responsibility for both the district office and its schools.
School and district funding in RUSD are dependent on Average Daily Attendance
(ADA). This is also important because the academic performance of minority-language
students renders school districts to receive fiscal sanctions from federal NCLB and state
legislature. Perhaps most costly is the consequence of the district entering Program
Improvement (PI) status as a district. From a social perspective, this problem becomes an
incentive issue as residents in the community may become disappointed and disinterested
in the school district‘s services such that parents may exercise their right of school choice
(Marzano, 2003) and ultimately disenroll their child from RUSD because of its PI status.
By identifying the root causes for the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD, the
district will be able to use research-based strategies to help mitigate gap. By closing the
achievement gap for Hispanic students, every stakeholder in the district will benefit.
Schools will reap the rewards of increased API scores and meeting AYP target, and as a
result, Hispanic students will be better served. This is very important because a district's
ability to maintain an adequate performance standing as measured by PI rankings has
economic impacts on the school and community. A school's PI status is connected to the
market value of homes within the district's local area. In addition to economic effects,
7
the resulting findings will help enrich the academic performance of the local youth and
therefore increase their likelihood of successfully reaching their potential.
Inquiry Purpose
The purpose of this inquiry project is to identify factors that enable the existing
student achievement gaps in RUSD to persist. For the purpose of this inquiry project, the
achievement gap is defined as the disparaging academic performance based on state
standardized test scores between Hispanic English Language Learners and White and/or
Asian students within RUSD. Thus, this inquiry project addresses the question: Despite
implemented district-wide reforms efforts, what are the root causes to the persistent
achievement gap amongst Hispanic students in RUSD? Identifying such factors will
allow for the application of a problem-solving framework proposed by Clark & Estes
(2002) in which potential factors affecting organizational goals and objectives are
investigated. The Clark & Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Model will enable the inquiry team
to use a framework to identify the reasons underlying within the persistent levels of
underperformance that impact RUSD's current educational system.
We will also support the Clark & Estes (2002) framework by drawing on theories,
of learning, motivation, and organizational structure to inform our analysis. The use of
these theories will provide the project team with two basic supports: (1) to act as a lens
through which the team views the observations; and (2) provide scientific background &
support the inquiry project and its findings. Finally, the project will generate
recommendations for the LEA to implement aiming to improve student performance,
targeting the Hispanic student population. The project and its results will provide a
8
platform of considerations for areas of future research in the quest of educational equity
and the improvements in the education of Hispanic EL students in RUSD.
This chapter presented the background and the importance of the inquiry team‘s
focus on the Hispanic EL achievement gap. It also provided a brief overview of the
scope of the project. Chapter Two will provide 1) a review of the literature on the
elements that contribute to the Hispanic EL achievement gap; 2) the methodology used
by the inquiry team; and 3) analysis of root causes of the performance gaps. Lastly,
Chapter Three will provide an additional literature review focused on the proposed
solutions and a detailed solution summary that outlines our recommendations.
Project Significance
The opportunity for doctoral students to work in dissertation teams with a
thematic commonality is the hallmark of the Ed.D. Program at USC Rossier; this singular
opportunity is of great significance. This particular alternative capstone project was of
further importance because of its novel structure and process. As an alternative capstone
project, this inquiry project has greatly contributed to the further development of the
Ed.D dissertation in differentiating it from the traditional dissertation model used across
the nation.
This alternative capstone project was formed from a partnership between RUSD
and USC Rossier School of Education. The superintendent of RUSD is an enthusiastic
supporter of the thematic dissertation process. She saw the benefits of having doctoral
students explore real-world problems in her district. The doctoral students explored areas
of particular interest and value to RUSD by applying the gap analysis framework as the
9
problem-solving mechanism. This was the basis of the inquiry projects conducted by the
Marsh/Rueda Thematic Dissertation Group in Spring 2010.
Students worked as cohesive teams of three to explore the problems selected by
the district and mutually agreed upon by the team. The teams reviewed a broad body of
literature and developed a methodology to conduct the inquiry project. The inquiry teams
worked together throughout the entire dissertation process to develop the tools of inquiry,
to conduct the inquiry, to code & analyze data, to develop findings, and to suggest
research-based solutions to present as recommendations to the district. The extensive
amount of collaboration among the inquiry team members was another unique attribute of
this alternative capstone project.
This alternative capstone project afforded the inquiry team the opportunity to step
beyond the traditional role of doctoral students and become more like expert consultants,
immersing themselves in the district, its culture, and its expectations. Like consultants,
the inquiry team engaged in an ongoing dialogue with district employees to better
understand the culture, beliefs, and practices of the district. The inquiry team then
applied a research-based, problem-solving framework and other theoretical constructs in
coming up with possible solutions to enhance the work of the district. Possible solutions
developed by the doctoral students extended far beyond a research study report or a
summary of findings. The goal of the inquiry team was to present solutions that would
be implemented by the district with the sole purpose of helping the district make changes.
10
CHAPTER TWO
THE INQUIRY PROCESS & FINDINGS
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Research related to student achievement revealed increasing disparities between
groups of students, specifically with regards to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
The academic difference between these identified subgroups and their white peers is
referred to as the achievement gap. This achievement gap is of great concern to
educators, policymakers, and the general public.
Historical Perspective of the Achievement Gap
Federal legislation upheld the disparity between populations in American society.
Before the term achievement gap was coined as a term to define disparity, the U.S.
Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld a separate but equal policy that
reinforced segregation in schools, permitting disparity in resources, facilities, and quality
of education (Verdun, 2005). This policy was reinforced until 1954. Hispanic students
have trailed behind their White and Asian counterparts in academic achievement, literacy
rates, and college or university enrollment for decades.
In 1954 Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson. Brown
v. Board of Education made segregation of students illegal, finding that segregated
institutions were not equal and that non-White institutions provided inferior programs to
African-American children (Carroll et al., 2004; Reed, 2002). When schools were
initially desegregated an increase in graduation rates and a concurrent decrease in dropout
11
rates for African-American students were observed. Yet, in spite of the initial positive
impact desegregations appeared to have had on the academic success of minority
students, gaps in academic achievement persisted. White and Asian students continued to
outperform African-American, Hispanic, EL, and SED students, as measured by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is a periodic assessment
that serves to measure national academic progress.
In 1964, when desegregation failed to be the great equalizer to the disparity in
academic achievement, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and commissioned
a report to supply the U.S. Congress with information about ―the lack of availability of
equal educational opportunity for individuals by reason of race, color, religion, or
national origin‖ (Coleman, 1966, p. 10). The Equality of Education Study, more
commonly known as the Coleman Report, examined data from 570,000 students, 60,000
teachers, and 4,000 schools. It concluded that family background accounted for most of
the disparities in children‘s performance and that the effects of schools were relatively
small. The Coleman Report also found that school efforts to increase student
achievement could not overcome the impact of these student socioeconomic
characteristics. Policymakers, acting on President Johnson‘s efforts to implement the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, cited the report and created programs to counteract the
purported negative effects of the home in order to raise student achievement. Programs
such as Head Start, started in 1965 to ameliorate the deficits in social and cognitive
development of poor children, utilized the findings of the Coleman Report to gain
political and funding support (National Head Start Association, 2009). In 2008, over one
12
million children were served by the program. Another program resulting from the
Coleman Report, the Equal Opportunity Program (EOP), now in its fortieth year, helps
impoverished minority college students to persist in colleges and universities through
funds, tutoring, and admission accommodations (Caroll et al., 2004).
The achievement gap narrowed in the 1970s and early 1980s as a result of
compensatory funding and programs (Haycock, 2001). The disparity between Hispanic
and White students from 1970 to 1988 decreased by one third, attributed to increased
funding for teacher training, materials, and curriculum (Haycock, 2001). However, other
research attributed the narrowed achievement gap to the emphasis on basic skills rather
than higher standards, and to changes in cut scores of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), which tests specific grade levels and provides a national
snapshot of academic progress (Barton & Coley, 2008). Changes to the NAEP resulted
in a small rise in indicators of achievement in minority and poor students without raising
scores of those already achieving proficiency. NAEP (1990) results in the 1980s
indicated that school achievement by both African-American and Hispanic ethnic
minorities increased.
In 1983 the U.S. Department of Education‘s National Commission on Excellence
in Education (NCEE) published the report A Nation at Risk. The goal of this document
was to promote educational goals of high standards, high expectations, and graduates
who could compete in a global economy. A Nation at Risk raised the academic
expectations of schools, yet NAEP results indicated that the gap continued to widen
(Barton & Coley, 2008). The 1990s also saw a shift from evaluating the effectiveness of
13
schools based on funding to evaluating the effectiveness of programs based on student
outputs. This served as a precursor to NCLB standards-based testing (Barton, 2006).
Proposition 227
In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, impacting ELs and the
feasibility of access to Bilingual Educational Programs (Gold, 2006). ELs continued to
perform below their White peers. This continued underperformance provided the
impetus for the efficacy of bilingual education to become a strong political debate in
California (Gandara et al., 2000). During this time only one-third of all EL students had
access to a bilingual program (California Department of Education, Language Census,
1997).
The passage of Proposition 227 in California was a landmark decision. California
was the first state to ever make a decision regarding pedagogical strategies for instructing
students (Gandara et al., 2000). Proposition 227 prohibited schools from being able to
offer bilingual education as an option to students. The only way a school could provide
bilingual education was if parents requested a waiver from primarily-English or all-
English instructional programs. Parents had to ―opt-in‖ to a program and then wait and
see if enough requests from other parents were made so that a separate class could be
offered. Since the passage of Proposition 227, over 92 percent of ELs have been
enrolled in primarily-English programs (Gold, 2006). In effect, ―1.6 million English
learners in California, with a wide range of language and academic needs…are
overwhelmingly taught in English‖ (Gold, 2006, pg. 7). A large number of ELs have
14
limited proficiency in English and struggle with their academics as early as the first grade
(Gold, 2006).
TIMSS
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides
reliable and timely data on the mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth and
eighth grade students compared to that of students in other countries. TIMSS data was
collected in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 by the National Center for Education Statistics.
Since its first collection in 1995 the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) became the most inclusive study conducted by IEA (International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).
Fierros (1999) presented his findings from the Third International Math and
Science Study, now renamed the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), at their annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
This study presented important findings as students who were in the fourth grade for the
original TIMSS study were now in the eighth grade (TIMSS, 2003). The TIMSS study
found disparities in mathematics and science achievement amongst males and females,
primarily as they reached senior high school (Fierros, 1999). Minimal differences were
found amongst the students in eighth grade; however, significant discrepancies were
noted during the twelfth grade year, favoring males over females when assessing
mathematics literacy, including application of mathematics to everyday problems
(Fierros, 1999). These disparities widened as more advanced mathematical concepts
were assessed.
15
In 2003, a third cycle of data collection adding to the TIMSS Study was
administered at the fourth and eighth grades (TIMSS, 2003). This study analyzed the
rigor and effectiveness of math and science instruction within the participating countries.
This TIMSS Report indicated that for mathematics, U.S. fourth graders performed better
than their peers representing thirteen of the twenty-four countries involved in the study.
In science, the U.S. students outperformed students from sixteen of the twenty-four
countries. The data also presents three countries outperforming U.S. students in both
mathematics and science: Chinese Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore (TIMSS, 2003).
Although notable improvements were presented in the TIMSS 2003 Report, the U.S.
continued to lag behind at least eleven of the participating countries.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The reauthorization of ESEA in 2001, known as NCLB, charged public education
with one of the most significant challenges in the history of the nation: to be accountable
for ensuring that every student achieve mastery level by 2014 (NCLB, 2002). NCLB
requires that all students be proficient on grade-level standards as measured by the state
accountability system tests by the year 2014. Advocates of NCLB contend that it
strengthened the role of assessment, requiring every state to implement assessment plans
in all public schools, set strict guidelines for accountability, focused public attention on
accountability, and highlighted performance by specific student groups. Its critics
contend that NCLB overemphasizes tests that may not be a valid reflection of learning,
unfairly tests Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, does not fund required elements,
labels schools as failing even though year-to-year growth in individual students is
16
evident, and labels other schools as successful even though students do not show growth
but maintain proficient status (Darling-Hammond, 2007). States complying to NCLB are
required to utilize comprehensive assessment of students and disaggregate findings to
reveal achievement by specific student groups such as EL students, ethnic/racial groups,
special needs, and socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED).
ELs as an Underperforming Subgroup
The results of statewide testing in California as well as other states indicate that
Hispanic, EL, and SED groups have benefited from instruction and curriculum
improvements as a result of NCLB (Koehler, 2004). These benefits however, have
impacted all subgroups, resulting in a continued gap amongst all of them. While some
gains in achievement have been documented since the inception of NCLB, the gap
continues to widen as rates for White and Asian student performance continues to
increase and rates of underachieving groups fail to rise at a comparably high rates
(Koehler, 2004). Reardon & Galindo (2009) report that Hispanic students compared to
their White and Black peers have lower levels of school readiness at the start of
kindergarten. A WestEd study (2004) reported that, despite gains reflected in both CST
results in Mathematics and the NAEP Mathematics scores, the overall student population
of fourth-grade reaching proficiency was only 45% and was much lower for Hispanics
(24%), low SES (24%), and EL (15%). The Governor‘s Committee on Education
Excellence (2007) released a report stating that California school systems ranked sixth-
lowest in eighth-grade mathematics according to the 2007 NAEP, with almost two-thirds
17
of its seventh and eighth graders scoring below proficient on the 2007 CST Mathematics
test.
Hispanic Students
At both the state and federal levels, Hispanic students are not making sufficient
progress to close the achievement gap (Lee, 2002). The term ―Hispanic‖ was first
adopted by the United States government in the early 1970s; it has been used in the U.S.
Census since 1980. The term ―Hispanic‖ is used to define a region of origin, not a
person‘s race. It refers to a person of Latin American descent living in the United States.
Lee (2002) compared Hispanic student academic performance on the NAEP,
graduation rates, and college entrance rates with socioeconomic factors such as poverty
and single-parent status. He determined that social policies and improved educational
practices had an effect on improving performance by lower-achieving students but did
not raise the upper-performing Hispanic students significantly (Lee, 2002). Performance
by Hispanic students were compared to White and Asian students on the NAEP,
graduation rates, advanced course enrollment, SAT results, and college entrance rates.
He compared these measurements of the gap with factors such as socioeconomic
condition, youth culture (e.g., self-reported alcohol or drug use, television viewing time),
and school factors. He found the gap measured by the performance indicators had gone
up and down over three decades and seemed not to be related to stable but low
socioeconomic factors or to youth culture factors. Lee (2002) found that the gap
remained wide in performance on the NAEP but that the gap as measured by enrollment
in advanced courses and college entrance narrowed. Although the lowest-performing
18
Hispanic students, according to NAEP results continued to improve slowly, the middle-
and-upper performing Hispanic students did not improve. This contributed to widening
the gap as White students continued to climb from 1980 to 1999. This study emphasizes
the complexity of determining factors that seem to contribute to closing the achievement
gap. In fact, the factors that would seem to be obvious, including socioeconomic status
(ses), single-parent household, and television viewing time, did not seem to correlate to
rises and falls in student performance (Lee, 2002).
Haycock (2001) explored factors that inhibit or contribute to achievement by
ethnic minority and English Learner students and found that school factors were pro-
foundly different for Black and Hispanic students and compared to their White and Asian
peers. Haycock (2001) concluded that, while family factors play a role in achievement,
school factors have a more profound influence, including differences in teacher
preparation, rigor of the curriculum, and teacher expectations. Haycock‘s (2001) study
found noticeable differences in these factors in high-poverty schools and affluent schools
with more teachers without proper subject authorization, less rigorous assignments, and
lower teacher expectations than in more affluent schools (Haycock, 2001). School
factors that may contribute to achievement of minority students include leadership
(Fullan, 2005), standards-based curriculum (Williams et al., 2007), teacher collaboration
(Cobb, 2004; DuFour et al., 2006), and using assessment data to make instructional
decisions (as cited in Haycock, 2001).
19
English Language Learners (ELs)
According to the California Department of Education (CDE) (2008), almost one
of every four students in California is an English learner. Of the almost five million EL
students in the nation and 1.5 million EL students in the state, of California, about 85%
speak Spanish. EL students make up roughly 25% of the student population in California
(Gandara et al., 2003) and a majority live below the poverty level, qualifying them for
free/reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). EL
students perform poorly on state CST and national tests such as NAEP (Freeman et al.,
2002). This fact has contributed to the sense of urgency in addressing this issue in school
districts with 100 or more EL students, as federal NCLB proficiency targets increased to
over 50% in 2010. The number of districts in California with Year 3 PI status rose from
92 in 2008 to 97 in 2009, meaning that increased sanctions and decreased autonomy are
likely. Data from the CDE (2008) revealed that districts in Los Angeles County in PI
status have EL populations that are not making adequate progress, a fact that is probably
true for the majority of districts in PI. About 66% of EL students are not meeting federal
proficiency targets, resulting in more PI-designated districts each year. Ironically, when
schools are labeled as failing, keeping a highly-qualified staff and maintaining levels of
funding through high enrollment are difficult, impacting learning and student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
The high-stakes tests measure proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) and
Math, but EL students by definition are not proficient in English, therefore low test
performance seems logical. Standardized tests in English undermeasure EL students‘
20
learning because these students lack the fluency skills to adequately demonstrate their
content knowledge (Collier, 1992).
Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Socioeconomic status is an additional subgroup defined by NCLB. Rothstein
(2004) states that family socioeconomic status is the determinant with the strongest
impact on achievement gaps. Over the past 30 years, from 1980 to 2010, the
socioeconomic condition of EL students has remained persistently low in income live in
low-income housing and have two parent households with low levels of parental
educational attainment (Lee, 2002). ―Consequently, most ELLs are at risk for poor
school outcomes not only because of language, but also because of socioeconomic
factors‖ (Goldenberg 2008, p. 10)
Long-Term English Language Learners
Many English Language Learners have attended schools in the United States for
several years. These students are referred to as Long-Term English Language Learners
(LTEL). LTELs have been in U.S. schools for more than 5 years. They meet
complicated obstacles to learning, including low literacy in primary language, feeling of
marginalization, and limited academic English (Freeman et al., 2002). Although 85% of
California‘s EL students are Spanish-speaking, the homogeneity of primary language
masks very important variations in family composition, economic and social resources,
proficiency in primary language, and academic readiness (Freeman et al., 2002). Up to
64% of all EL students in 2006 were not immigrants but were born in the United States
(NCELA, 2006). The number of students designated LTEL varies by grade level; about
21
75% of elementary school ELs and about 57% of secondary school EL students born in
the United States (Freeman et al., 2002). EL students are classified as a single subgroup,
but distinct characteristics within each group exist that create specific instructional issues
and challenges with regard to student achievement. Freeman et al. (2002) identified
differing characteristics by classifying ELs in three groups: newly arrived with adequate
schooling, newly arrived with limited formal schooling, and LTEL.
LTEL students, also referred to in the literature as ―heritage speakers‖, Generation
1.5, and native-born EL students (Capps et al., 2005) do not conform to the standard
transition to English and normal assimilation of second language learners within three
generations (Freeman et al., 2002). Of the non-immigrant EL subgroup, 56% do not
demonstrate enough academic gains to accomplish grade-level standards nor meet the
criteria for demonstrating English proficiency even after seven years of schooling in the
United States (Capps et al., 2005). Suggested factors include linguistic isolation, ongoing
ethnic and racial segregation, and attendance in low-performing schools in high-poverty
neighborhoods. In California, most LTEL students test at the Intermediate or Early
Advanced Level of English Proficiency on the California English Development Test
(CELDT) (CDE, 2008) and indicate a preference for English in communicating in their
daily lives (Portes & Hao, 1998, as cited in Capps et al., 2005). This contradicts the
assumption that these students do not want to learn English. On the contrary, LTEL
students display negative association with the home language, low literacy in the home
language (L1), and limited academic vocabulary as well as literacy in English labeled L2
(Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001). Cobb (2004) described in depth the characteristics and
22
instructional issues of three EL subgroups: newly-arrived EL with adequate schooling,
newly arrived EL with limited formal schooling, and LTEL. LTEL needs are
significantly different from those of new immigrant students with strong schooling in L1
or recent immigrants without schooling in L1. The differences are evident in literacy
ability, schooling history, goal orientation, socioeconomic conditions, and student
motivation (Cobb, 2004).
This chapter reviewed literature on topics related to Hispanic ELs and the
academic achievement gap that persists in RUSD. The chapter presented a historical
outline of the achievement gap in the United States as well as specific literature on
underrepresented subgroups. This chapter also explored literature on Hispanic students
and ELs. The following chapter will present the methodology used by the inquiry team
in completing this alternative capstone project.
METHODOLOGY
Authors: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, & Lesette Molina-Solis
Inquiry Project Purpose
The purpose of this alternative capstone was to examine the impact of the inquiry
project was to examine related to current educational reform efforts on closing the
achievement gap for the Hispanic EL student population in RUSD. Three distinct
purposes drove this alternative capstone inquiry project. The first purpose was to
examine the impact of the district‘s current educational reform efforts on closing the
achievement gap for the Hispanic EL student population in RUSD. The second purpose
23
was to utilize the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis model as a problem-solving
framework for analyzing the Hispanic EL achievement gap by exploring the
motivational, organizational, and knowledge-based barriers that impact the achievement
gap. The third purpose was to examine the current state of the various reform efforts
implemented in RUSD to address the achievement gaps (as noted by API (Academic
Performance Index) and AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress)) amongst the Hispanic EL
student population.
Gap Analysis Overview
The gap analysis is a systematic, problem-solving approach to help improve
performance and achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis
model is an effective tool to explicitly communicate the problem statement using goals,
measures/performance indicators, standards, and gaps. The gap analysis model is
designed to assist organizations in identifying goals with the purpose of gaining a deeper
understanding of any possible root causes that could be impeding the organization from
achieving its goal(s). In order to be able to accurately develop a problem statement, a
thorough analysis of knowledge, motivation, and organizational/cultural barriers must be
considered. The gap analysis model functions from the premise that performance gaps
derive from one or more of the following: a lack of knowledge and/or skills, a lack of
motivation, and/or a lack of tools, facilities, or some type of barrier in the organizational
culture. Once the root cause(s) are identified, effective solutions and performance
indicators are established. The last step in this model is the incorporation of an
24
evaluation plan to assess the success of the solution after the implementation cycle. Due
to the limited timeframe of our inquiry, the inquiry team does not present an evaluation.
The Gap model has five steps to ensure a systematic application of the model.
The first step is to Define Goals: this step is a guide in how to write performance goals
and how to create a plan to achieve those goals. In this step the goals will be examined at
three levels: long term goals, intermediate goals, and day-to-day goals. Goals are
reviewed to ensure they are aligned at all levels, they are measurable, and that goals fit in
within each other. The goals that are set need to be measurable and supported by all the
stakeholders because they are ‗C
3
Goals‘ (Clark & Estes, 2002). ―The best work goals
are C
3
Goals: Concrete, Challenging, and Current‖ (Clark & Estes 2002, p. 26). A
concrete goal is easy to understand and can be measured. A challenging goal would be a
feasible next step. A current goal can be attained in a shorter amount of time (weeks or
months) versus years.
The second step is to Determine Gaps. The current level of performance is
compared to a standard that represents a desired level of performance. This comparison
would involve collecting benchmark data from other organizations that are currently
meeting the desired goal. The gap is determined by subtracting the organization's current
performance in comparison to the achievement of the other organization that has
achieved the desired goal. The difference between the current performance and desired
performance becomes the gap. (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The third step in the Gap analysis model is to Investigate Causes. Causal analysis
consists of listing all the possible causes that may be the root cause of a less than desired
25
performance. A root cause is defined as the underlying factor(s) contributing to the gap
between achieved and desired goals. This analysis is specifically done by examining the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational/cultural for the potential causes of the
gap. The organization using the gap analysis model will examine all stakeholders in the
organization and examine them in each area. Knowledge refers to education,
information, and professional development. Motivation refers the willingness of a person
to participate as well as effort. Organizational gaps refer to the climate of the
organization, its practices, and its norms. Potential cause(s) in these three areas are
assessed and are either validated as a root cause or eliminated. By using this process of
elimination, a clearer picture can be obtained of what is likely causing the performance
gap(s).
Once all plausible root causes of the determined gap are investigated, eliminated
or accepted, solutions can be identified, leading to the fourth step: Proposed Solutions.
Emphasis here is placed on providing solutions that target the areas of learning,
motivation, and organization. Solutions are research-based, contemporary, and address
problems that are directly tied to the root causes identified in Step 3.
The fifth step is to Evaluate Outcomes. An important step in ensuring program or
solution effectiveness is to evaluate the results. Results from solution implementation are
evaluated and modified as needed. The evaluation process itself has four levels
according to the gap analysis model. The four levels are: reactions, impact during the
program, transfer, and the bottom line. This is an ongoing process; at this point, the
solutions may be modified and re-implemented until the desired goals are
26
achieved. Without this key component of the gap analysis model, true program
effectiveness may not be determined, thus the gap(s) may not be narrowed. Due to time
limitations, it is noteworthy to mention that this inquiry project did not include this final
step in the gap analysis process. However, it is a very crucial step in the overall analysis.
Project Design
Given that the data was collected via interviews and observations and that the
ultimate purpose of this inquiry project was to provide RUSD board members plausible
solutions to their dilemma, it was the determination of the inquiry team that a qualitative
design was the best method to conduct this project. ―A qualitative design needs to remain
sufficiently open and flexible to permit exploration of whatever the phenomenon under
study offers for inquiry‖ (Patton, 2002, p. 255). From this perspective, solutions were
presented. Given our analytical framework, we looked at the achievement gap in RUSD
through the lenses of student/teacher motivation, organizational barriers, and knowledge-
based factors of both students and educators.
The inquiry team agreed upon conducting a formative inquiry project since the
purpose of this project was to ―judge the processes and outcomes aimed at attempted
solutions‖ (Patton, 2002, p. 218). RUSD has implemented various district-wide reform
efforts to address the mandates articulated by the federal legislation of NCLB and their
recent designation as a PI Year 1 District. This is due primarily to their Hispanic
population not meeting the state testing proficiency guidelines. Thus, this inquiry project
analyzed the current reform efforts, how these compared to research based literature, and
27
the degree of impact the reform efforts have on the educational outcomes for the Hispanic
EL student population.
Additionally, at the conclusion of data collection and analysis, the inquiry team
presented findings to the RUSD Board of Education so as to suggest improvements upon
their current reform efforts, staff development, and organizational support with respect to
the Hispanic EL subpopulation. It was the intent of the inquiry team to provide fiscally
responsible and empirically-based solutions to the current Hispanic EL achievement gap
in RUSD as well as to provide suggestions for further inquiry as every possible reason
leading to the Hispanic achievement gap may not be answered given the time limitation
of the inquiry project. However, it was also the intent of the inquiry team to attempt to
provide sufficient answers so that RUSD may continue on its quest for continued student
academic achievement. The inquiry team began the project in the Fall of 2009 and
concluded in the Fall of 2010 (see Appendix A).
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis of this inquiry project was Rowland Unified School District.
The purpose of this inquiry project suggested the use of a qualitative methodology to
investigate findings for proposal to the RUSD Board of Education. The focus was to
understand the Hispanic achievement gap despite districtwide reform efforts. Therefore,
this inquiry project used purposeful sampling methods to gather data. A lead district
level participant provided additional resources, leading to the use of chain sampling, an
approach for locating information-rich informants by asking well-situated people for
leads (Patton, 2002). Strategically chosen interviews were the primary source of data
28
collection. In addition, data was gathered by conducting detailed site observations and
distributing surveys and questionnaires. For the purposes of this project, a naturalistic
inquiry approach was exercised.
Data Collection Tools
Given the nature of this project, utilization of data collection sources such as
observations, interviews, and questionnaires were considered most appropriate to provide
answers to the guiding questions (see Appendix B). The observation protocol included
sections to examine posted classwork, evidence of use of district reform strategies,
visuals, district EL materials, and resources.
In addition, the inquiry team conducted three levels of interviews: Phase I, II and
III (see Appendices B, C, and D). The first level of interviews (see Appendix B)
consisted of questions regarding the achievement gap, perceived reasons for the gap, and
desired outcomes for the district regarding Hispanic EL achievement. The second level
of interviews (see Appendix C) consisted of questions regarding teacher implementation
of reform efforts, knowledge of the EL reform strategies, and perceived districtwide
support for addressing EL educational needs.
The questionnaires provided information regarding collaboration, student needs,
and knowledge about diverse teaching strategies. During this phase the inquiry team
utilized the Stages of Concern model to gather a deeper understanding for the current gap
(Bailey & Palsha, 1992) (see Appendix D). Additionally, given the problem-solution
framework we employed in our project, it was decided by the team that this would be the
optimal method to examine the Hispanic achievement gap holistically. The team not only
29
looked at the responses of individual participants, but also looked at RUSD as an
organization, its people, and the greater community it serves, which is of great influence
among the Hispanic population.
Lastly, the team conducted Phase III interviews to gain a deeper understanding of
the unique problems associated with the Hispanic EL achievement gap. The informants
provided the depth needed to analyze the presented problem. Validity and confidence for
the project was improved by implementing the use of data triangulation. As stated in
Patton (2002), ―a rich variety of methodological combinations can be employed to
illuminate an inquiry question‖ (p. 248). Patton (2002) also states that using triangulation
allows for testing of consistency, increasing the credibility of a study or project.
Procedures
Entry to RUSD was facilitated by the inquiry team‘s university dissertation
advisors. The district superintendent agreed to the alternative capstone inquiry project
design of inquiry projects conducted by doctoral students. Areas of inquiry were
provided by the Superintendent Board of Education approved the areas of inquiry as
being essential for continued districtwide improvement. The initial meeting was
facilitated by the university dissertation advisors and RUSD representatives. At this
meeting, the thematic dissertation group doctoral students received information specific
to the areas of inquiry in addition to learning about the district‘s vision and mission
statements. The district also presented current reform efforts that have been a part of
RUSD's strategic plan for improvement. A significant part of their presentation focused
on information regarding the district's partnership with the Ball Foundation. It was
30
crucial that the inquiry group become knowledgeable about the foundation and the work
implemented in RUSD as a result of their partnership (see Appendix A).
The project commenced in the fall of 2009 with a presentation conducted by the
Board of RUSD to the Marsh/Rueda thematic dissertation group in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California (see Appendix A). The Board
presented areas of concern for their district, one of which included the Hispanic EL
achievement gap. In the late winter of 2010, the inquiry team began initial interviews
with key district-level members from the district‘s office of Bilingual Education. These
Phase I interviews provided an overview for the context of the gap in addition to some
document analysis (see Appendix B). These participants also provided school-based
leads as potential participants.
The inquiry team made contact with RUSD‘s Director of Bilingual Education for
an initial interview. During this interview, one of the group's objectives was to establish
a professional working relationship based upon a high level of mutual trust and respect.
In order to establish this relationship, it was imperative that the inquiry group be
transparent in its intent and processes. The inquiry team introduced itself quickly to the
district, emphasizing that the intent of the inquiry team was to help the district with their
effort in addressing the learning needs of their Hispanic EL subgroup.
The inquiry team proceeded to explain the gap analysis model and the rationale
for its use with enough detail to build a coalition of support. At this point the inquiry
team asked the Director of Bilingual Education for a summary of where RUSD currently
stood with addressing the Hispanic achievement gap in their district. The inquiry group
31
also requested any additional district documents that would provide more information.
As a conclusion to the initial interview, it was imperative to ask for guidance in
suggesting nine people that would help us most effectively gain a greater understanding
of the Hispanic achievement gap in RUSD. The inquiry group also established the
models of communication with the Director of Bilingual Education and confirmed the
best modes of contact for these nine suggested stakeholders.
This initial interview served as the official initiation to the data collection that
transpired over the next few months. A letter indicating our project intent was sent to the
Director of Bilingual Education for review and acceptance. Once the approval was
received it was sent to the principals at the school sites recommended by the district-level
contact. The inquiry group proceeded to make contact with school administrators via
telephone and email. Once the respondents acknowledged their willingness to participate
in the project interviews, the interviews were conducted. At the conclusion of these
interviews, follow-up interviews and observation dates were set with classroom teachers.
A set of Round One and Round Two interviews with K-8 classroom teachers
followed our observations. Round One interviews consisted of gathering an overview of
information regarding possible root causes to the achievement gap in RUSD. This
interview also included an overview of the participants‘ Stages of Concern (SOC),
understanding and conceptualizing professionals‘ concerns regarding innovation (Bailey
& Palsha, 1992). In this project, the concern for innovation included district initiatives to
address EL instruction. Additionally, a scanning interview was conducted where
educators were asked about their understanding of the problem, instructional tools used to
32
address the problem, and reasons for the existing problem (see Appendix B). These
interviews were conducted in person by a single person or two-person team or over the
phone. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed by the project team members. The
main purpose of the interviews was to gather data in the subject‘s own words and have
them express their own perceptions as to what they felt the gaps were.
Round Two interviews of classroom teachers included a ―one-month‖ survey of
instruction (Appendix C). These in-person interviews, conducted by a single or two-
person team, involved gathering further information to support or refute possible gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. Interviews were recorded and later
transcribed for accuracy. During the interview, inquiry team members scanned the
classroom environment for evidence of using instructional materials or tools presented by
interviewees during the interview process. For the purposes of practicality and respect
of the participants‘ time, Round One and Round Two interviews did not exceed forty
minutes.
The inquiry team began the second phase of the interview process with the use of
the Hall & Loucks (1979) Stages of Concern (SOC) methodology. The inquiry team
contacted the school leads provided by the district level members. Once contact was
made, interviews were established with principals, classroom teachers, and EL Leads.
These interviews were conducted either in person or over the phone by one to three
members of the inquiry team. The team then continued with Phase III level of
interviews, including classroom observations, distribution of surveys and questionnaires
33
to follow up on unique issues that continued throughout the Spring 2010 semester (see
Appendix D).
The inquiry team began analyzing the data and identifying the performance gaps
with their root causes in the summer of 2010. These findings were compared with
empirically-based literature. Additionally, the team prepared for a presentation of
findings with present and future recommendations to the RUSD Superintendent and
executive board. During the early Fall 2010 semester, the inquiry team presented an
executive summary of its findings to the Superintendent and her Leadership Cabinet. The
team, along with two other inquiry groups from the university, attended a meeting with
the Superintendent and related staff. At this meeting, the district presented new
information regarding changes in the district and other relevant information to provide
further insight to the findings presented in the executive summary. At this point, the
inquiry team looked at the gathered data, included the information from this meeting and
established more coherent findings. Then, the team continued to work on its empirically-
based review of literature aligned with the findings and prepared for a presentation to the
Superintendent and her Leadership Cabinet. In November 2010, the team presented its
findings to the district in a PowerPoint presentation (see Appendix G). At the conclusion
of the meeting, the team was invited to present its findings to the Board of Education and
school principals. This presentation was scheduled for early Spring 2011.
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by district administration. The
34
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
Federal Regulations define research as ―a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
‖ (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
―...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that objective.
―Research‖ generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g.,
routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal
management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality
improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted-for
services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However,
some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge. (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)
Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless there
is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data derived
from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of an
institutional practice (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4).
1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to
populations or situations beyond that studied.
2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human
subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
35
Executive Summary
Once our initial data analysis was complete and the inquiry team had a more
authentic understanding of the root problems we met with our dissertation advisor. As a
group we agreed that the best way to communicate our progress with the leadership team
at RUSD was to provide them with an executive summary. The executive summary gave
a brief background of our work as well as a summary of the identified performance gaps.
It also provided what the inquiry team found to be the root causes of the identified
perceived problem by the district. All three RUSD inquiry teams created individual
executive summaries for their particular areas of focus.
After the executive summary was made available to the leadership team at RUSD,
the inquiry teams met with the RUSD Superintendent and her Leadership Cabinet
comprised of her assistant superintendents and directors to field any questions
surrounding the executive summary.
Culminating Presentation
Group PowerPoint
As a team of nine we met with our advisor to brainstorm and decide what our
final presentation to the district would be and how it should be presented. We agreed
that, before we moved forward, we as a team of nine needed to understand the findings,
solutions, and recommendations of all three groups to ensure that we were consistent in
what we would be presenting. Inconsistencies in our presentation could potentially
discredit all of our work. Once we were able to align the common findings among the
three inquiry teams we then focused on the unique differences as an additional area of
focus.
36
We agreed to develop and deliver a streamlined PowerPoint. Every inquiry team
was assigned the responsibility to produce three to five slides that would convey the
information that their team wanted to present. This assignment was undertaken with the
understanding the there would be an initial set of slides that would frame the inquiry
project and highlight the commonalities among the three groups. The group was very
clear that the PowerPoint should be cohesive and connected in its presentation. Although
three inquiry teams examined three different topics we did not want three different styles
to come across in the PowerPoint. We wanted the focus to be on RUSD and the inquiry
work that was conducted in their district. We sought to provide a way to present our
proposed solutions as a way to support the work currently in place while at the same time
addressing their pre-identified areas of concern.
Possible Solutions Presentation
The presentation of our collective work was also strategically planned. One
member from each inquiry team presented the main slides pertaining to their group‘s
work. In addition, the entire group had one additional member open and close the
presentation to provide a coordinated introduction and conclusion. The other team
members provided support during the question and answer session that immediately
followed each inquiry team presentation.
Additional Presentations to District Groups
At the closing of the presentation the RUSD superintendent made a formal request
to our dissertation advisor for our district team to make this formal presentation two more
times: once to all the school site principals and once to their School Board of Education.
37
The three inquiry teams were honored by the request and unanimously agreed to return
on February 16
th
, 2011, to present at a special study session for the RUSD Board of
Education.
ANALYSIS OF ROOT CAUSES OF THE PERFORMANCE GAPS
Authors: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, & Lesette Molina-Solis
Introduction
Hispanics in the United States have historically struggled academically as a
subgroup. This has been especially true in large urban school districts that have high
percentages of EL students. Further compounding the challenge of how to help these
students become academically successful are the current stressors that the accountability
requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation has added. NCLB has raised
the stakes for both schools and districts, requiring them to disaggregate data to
demonstrate that their statistically significant subgroups are making adequate yearly
progress. RUSD is no exception to the accountability pressures of this reform.
In its efforts to meet mandated state and federal benchmarks for student
performance, RUSD has made the underperformance of its Hispanic EL subgroup a
priority. Among the different schools we visited, it was evident that the NCLB
requirements have significantly changed the academic course of RUSD. These changes
have fundamentally influenced the way the district and the school sites make decisions
for instructing ELs. Two areas that have been greatly influenced are the allocation of
funds and selection of instructional programs. These two areas both directly and
38
indirectly support the progress of the district EL reform. The Leadership Cabinet at
RUSD understands the spotlight that NCLB has placed on the Hispanic and EL
subgroups. Although these accountability measures have been imposed by NCLB, the
RUSD Leadership Cabinet has found a way to capitalize on this situation and used it at as
an opportunity to support the district in its reform effort and help to ensure all students
succeed.
This alternative capstone project focused primarily at looking at the achievement
gap of Hispanic ELs in RUSD. The inquiry team reviewed existing district documents
including, but not limited to: the Strategic Plan, Master Plan for English Learners, School
Single Action Plans for Student Achievement, School Accountability Report Cards. A
series of semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with the intent of
gaining a better understanding of why the underperformance of the Hispanic EL
subgroup continues to persist within the district.
After collecting and analyzing the data gathered from the scanning interviews
conducted in Spring 2010, several themes emerged. From these themes a number of
factors surfaced that hindered the positive impact of programs and/or initiatives and
diverted both attention and resources from the goal of improving teaching and learning
for ELs. These areas of focus were evident across multiple data sources. The documents,
surveys, interviews, and observations supported the following factors as areas of focus:
1. Curriculum - what programs were being used to address the needs
of Hispanic EL students;
2. Collaboration – how did teachers work together as professionals to
39
support Hispanic EL Students;
3. Communication – how was key information transmitted from the
district office to the teachers at the school sites;
4. Professional Development (PD) – what PD was offered to teachers
to support the needs of ELs, the selection process for the teachers
attendance, and who was actually attending;
5. Teacher Efficacy – what responsibilities did teachers believe they
had to the Hispanic EL students they serviced; and
6. Leadership – how did school principals ensure the academic needs
of the Hispanic EL students became a schoolwide focus.
These six areas of focus provided the context for all Round Two interviews,
completed at a variety of schools, K-8, within the district. The team used these areas of
focus as interview probes when speaking with classroom teachers in both elementary and
intermediate level sites.
After the team conducted Round Two of interviews, reviewed documents, and
analyzed the data collected from both rounds of interviews, the team found that some
work/performance goals are being met towards accomplishing the organizational goal to
close the Hispanic EL achievement gap. The team found that other performance
goals/objectives have not yet been made clear or had yet to be identified. This has
resulted in essential performance goals not being met. These performance gaps stem
from deficiencies in knowledge & skill, motivation, and organizational processes and
resources. The team analyzed the interview responses to see how they related to the three
40
aforementioned dimensions of the gap analysis as well as how they contributed to the
identified performance gaps.
What follows is a summary of the findings collected through document analysis,
the interview process, and observations. First are our findings of the positive activities
that currently take place at the district and school levels that support the organizational
goal of closing the Hispanic EL academic achievement gap. This is followed by a more
in-depth discussion of key concepts for analyzing data. We then present a summary of
the root causes of the performance gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture that we believe has impeded RUSD from more effectively closing
the Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Strengths
RUSD is a high-performing district. The respect RUSD has earned is evidenced
by the countless honors and accolades it has received on local and national levels. RUSD
has earned four National Blue Ribbons, sixteen California Distinguished Schools, and
several Golden Bell Awards. Currently, RUSD has a number of exceptional practices
already in place that, collectively, provide an excellent launching pad for propelling their
efforts to close the EL Hispanic achievement gap.
As an organization, RUSD fosters a culture of professionalism and high
expectations amongst all the staff that contributes to the academic success of their
students. Every stakeholder encountered by the inquiry team expressed a deep personal
pride not only for working in RUSD but for the children they serve. Many of those
interviewed were also proud and eager to share that they are RUSD alumni and that they
41
have enrolled their own children in RUSD. All employees interviewed had positive
attitudes about RUSD.
Clear Vision for Reform
Great support seems to exist in RUSD for the advancement of a clear and unified
vision of the district‘s reform efforts. This process to establish this vision and rally
support behind district goals created the necessary buy-in to make the reform
implementation successful. RUSD‘s shared vision for reform has signaled a district
commitment to systemwide change.
From the very first interaction with the district it was evident that, through their
partnership with the Ball Foundation, substantial work had been done to create a clear
vision. The entire district Leadership Cabinet was able to articulate how their respective
departments contributed to the overall district vision.
English Language Learner Advocacy
RUSD has very dedicated and effective advocates for the improvement of EL
instruction and services. These advocates have helped to guide and advance the district‘s
EL reform agenda. One of these advocates in particular is the Director of Curriculum and
Bilingual Education. All interviewed stakeholders spoke of the positive support for the
changes in the EL reform from the school board, the Superintendent, and the Director of
Bilingual Education. The Superintendent and the Director of Curriculum and Bilingual
Education have both the needed expertise and the level of commitment required for
improving the quality of EL instruction in RUSD. The Director of Curriculum and
Bilingual Education has taken proactive steps to build a culture of collaboration. She
42
understands the importance of setting high standards for EL achievement. The bilingual
education director also makes every effort to provide the tools and curriculum support
that schools may need to meet these high standards. The director believes in the
importance of research-based strategies and supporting the use of data to improve
instruction and services for ELs.
Bilingual Education Office
When RUSD made EL achievement a priority it also empowered the Office of
Bilingual Education. Throughout the interviews conducted in the district, consistent
feedback was shared about how significant the role of the Curriculum and Bilingual
Education department has been in making the needs of ELs a districtwide focus area.
The bilingual education office also works collaboratively with other districts office
departments to support instructional improvement for ELs by making the EL focus an
integrated part of all support offered from all district departments. It was also repeatedly
mentioned how the Department of Curriculum and Bilingual Education is included in the
highest levels of decision-making; its director is on the Leadership Cabinet. This helps to
keep the needs of Hispanic EL students on the district agenda.
Master Plan for English Learners
RUSD created a districtwide Master Plan for English Learners. This plan
includes specific efforts to systematically build the capacity of its school sites to instruct
and support ELs. Communication with, and involvement of, school staff and the
community were essential in the formulation of this plan. The district actively engaged
43
teachers, principals, and other stakeholders in the adoption of organizational and
instructional strategies.
RUSD identified both a deliberate policy and specific supporting practices for the
English Language Development (ELD) of ELs. The district strategies and practices
signal an implicit understanding of the dual academic challenge of ELs; to acquire
proficiency in English and the literacy skills to comprehend academic content. RUSD
supports ELs by providing both Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education
throughout the district.
Support for Implementation
In response to emerging achievement deficits, RUSD took the initiative to
implement reforms needed to improve student achievement. With respect to the ongoing
needs of ELs, RUSD created the EL Lead position at each school site with the intent to
improve the quality of the EL program and to better coordinate district resources in order
to meet its organizational goals. For example, each school site was assigned an EL lead
teacher who provides information and coaching on the newly adopted collaborative
model of instruction, conducts presentations for staff, facilitates meetings, and works
with school personnel to facilitate professional development activities. These lead
teachers act as liaisons between the school and the district, ensuring that schools had the
support they needed in meeting the needs of EL students. The EL Leads are trained and
supported through the office of Bilingual Education. Regardless if a school has a
Structured English Immersion Program or a Bilingual Education Program, the Office of
Bilingual Education is ready to support every individual site. Through the
44
implementation of the EL Leads, each site is able to access the resources necessary to
meet the needs of the Hispanic EL students at their site.
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes
As the team reviewed the interviews and observations, four themes emerged. One
or more of these four themes repeatedly found their way to the center of every
conversation held in the interview process of the inquiry project. These themes first
surfaced in the initial scanning interviews and continued to reappear during both the
follow-up interviews and school visits with site administrators and teachers. The four
emergent themes that were identified were: 1) the academic impact of a decentralized
district on the Hispanic EL subgroup; 2) the absence of a clearly identified plan and
support for the progress of ELs; 3) the perception of professional accountability for the
progress of Hispanic ELs: and, 4) a gap in the cultural knowledge of students‘
backgrounds and experiences.
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District on the Hispanic EL Subgroup
The inquiry team found that, with specific regard to Hispanic EL achievement, the
advantages of decentralization seem to have created some unintended disadvantages for
Hispanic ELs. The explicit accountability for student progress seems to be the biggest
hurdle to overcome in trying to close the Hispanic EL achievement gap in a decentralized
setting. For example, among the interviews that were conducted, the feeling that no two
schools addressed the needs of ELs in the same way was widely expressed.
Furthermore, within each site, every classroom was like an ―island‖ unto its own. Many
site administrators and teachers expressed they feel explicit goals or targets for Hispanic
45
EL student progress in place. There also existed the belief that no system was in place to
support or monitor the implementation of adopted programs because stakeholders
expressed that they felt that "everyone is doing something different." This perceived lack
of support and oversight has led to inconsistency in the implementation of the curriculum
and support programs for ELs. Any and all decisions regarding curriculum and levels of
implementation is left at the discretion of the leadership of the individual school sites.
The byproduct of all these decentralized decisions is the delivery of an ELD academic
program that potentially can vary not only from school to school but also from classroom
to classroom.
Although many teachers appreciate the autonomy entrusted to them by the district
in having to make decisions for their classrooms, some teachers specified they would
prefer the district to impose more structure when it came to issues surrounding EL
instruction. Teachers and administrators that expressed this felt that not enough was
being done at the district level to effectively implement the EL instructional reform at the
school sites. They feel they do not have the curricular knowledge nor the content
expertise to make decisions for EL students. Through this lens, the teachers perceive this
lack of structure from the district to mean the district may not value certain reform
activities nor does it provide enough follow-up support.
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for the Progress of ELs
Some interviewed stakeholders expressed that the district had not effectively
articulated or communicated a vision for the kind of instructional program it wants to
provide for their ELs. Many administrators and teachers interviewed stated that the
46
district had not clearly communicated their goals for ELs. Some teachers expressed their
awareness of the district‘s general expectations for ELs, but shared their collective
frustration over the absence of clear performance goals. In absence of clear performance
goals, people tend to focus on tasks they deem important instead of working to achieve
the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). The perceived lack of a comprehensive
and concrete district plan to meet the needs of ELs is an example of how some
respondents feel the district seemingly has no clear performance goals or expectations for
schools with regard to the EL instruction.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed they are
working as ―hard as they can‖ for their students but they really do not know nor
understand what the district preferences are for EL instruction. During one interview, a
Lead EL teacher at a site was asked what the districts goals were for Hispanic EL
students. The teacher responded, ―I didn‘t know there were any. If there are, I would
love to know what they are.‖ A frustration was also voiced that not all lead teachers are
allowed the time or forum necessary to effectively communicate the district message that
they were entrusted in ―taking back‖ to their respective sites. One veteran lead teacher
stated, ―It all depends if your site principal values what you are bringing back. Some
principals make room for you on the agenda while others just put you off by saying that
the staff knows where to find you if they have EL questions.‖
The degree of the gap in knowledge of the districts EL goals ranged from teachers
that were extremely knowledgeable in the goals and forms of support the district
provided to teachers that did not know they even existed. The knowledgeable teachers
47
were able to articulate the best instructional practices for ELs and how to access support.
At the other extreme, some teachers did not know who the Lead EL teacher was at their
site or that the position even existed. Many teachers across the board expressed that EL
trainings were only for EL teachers and not really accessible to all.
The theme of follow-through repeatedly surfaced in all of the interviews. Many
teachers commented that any ideas and plans proposed for ELs at the district or site
administrative level rarely makes it into the classrooms. The example that was repeatedly
given was that of the English Learner Program. This partial implementation of an
organizational goal reflects the perception of a practice of strong verbal commitment but
a lack of faithful implementation. Other perceptions include that EL instruction is a
separate curricular area. It is not perceived as an integrated part of the core curriculum
nor is it monitored to ensure consistency. Although the district does mandate specialized
language support for ELs, no system is in place for guidance and oversight of the EL
instructional program component. Individual schools end up adopting different
approaches for implementation. Sites vary in the time they allocate for ELD. They also
vary in how ELD groups are formed, the size of the formed groups, how many
instructional levels are in a particular group, and how teachers are assigned to teach these
groups. The most common variation of the ELD program consisted of having EL
students leave the homeroom class during core instruction to receive a pullout ELD
intervention. This is not very effective as students are forced to miss core instruction to
provide ELD in a supplemental setting.
48
Some of the teachers interviewed explained that they were not involved in
selecting the ELD programs or materials nor have they been trained on how the program
components should be integrated into the core curriculum. In addition, many general
education teachers have not received any specialized training in English Language
development strategies or differentiated instruction from the district. Another layer of
frustration expressed by some teachers was the perception that for EL instruction
resources were not equal between school sites nor even within departments. These
perceived inequalities create feelings of isolation for ELD teachers and departments.
Perception of Professional Accountability for the Progress of Hispanic ELs
One significant common finding was the consistent belief that ELD teachers were
ultimately responsible for all EL students. Many teachers reported that no conversations
nor collaboration times centered on how to meet the specific needs of EL students
throughout the day or across the curriculum. There was little evidence of collaboration
between teachers at a site and even less evidence of any collaboration between or
amongst school sites. Working in isolation can be considered an organizational barrier.
It can negatively impact motivation because teachers feel that not everyone is held to the
same level of accountability. Teachers who serve EL students expressed they feel they
carry a heavy burden of responsibility and moral obligation for this specific student
population. They also believe that the teachers who don‘t service EL students ―wash
their hands‖ of that ―problem‖ because those are ―not their kids‖.
Some interviewed teachers and administrators felt there is little professional
development (PD) targeted specifically to help teach literacy to ELs. Even fewer
49
professional development opportunities exist for teachers to learn how to effectively
address the needs of ELs during core curriculum instructional time. Teachers need PD to
show them how to effectively teach their students the core content while helping them
acquire the academic English necessary to be successful in the content area. Those
interviewed explained that teachers who have not been selected or have self-selected to
work with EL students feel that they are not adequately prepared to work with EL
students. This feeling of inadequacy perpetuates the unspoken practice of not taking
ownership for the underachievement of EL students by teachers who feel they are not
qualified to support them.
Conversely, many ELD teachers feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of the
responsibility placed on their shoulders to have ―success with those students‖. The belief
also exist that the majority of the staff who are not ―responsible‖ for ELs are ―allowed‖ to
put some distance between themselves and the problem of closing the Hispanic
achievement gap. There is a collective sense of low teacher efficacy. In other words, the
teachers have a shared perception that their efforts as a group will not positively impact
student achievement. This is important since a low collective efficacy affects persistence
and can create a culture of low expectations.
Given the importance of access to quality teachers for student achievement
particularly among ELs-it comes to no surprise that access to high-quality
professional development for general education teachers and EL teachers alike
was (is) instrumental in the reform initiatives of improving districts (The Council
of the Great City Schools, Oct. 2009, p. 22).
All the interviewed administrators and EL leads understood the importance of PD;
however, they expressed that RUSD does not have a coherent strategy in place to build
50
EL staff capacity through targeted professional development. Professional development
is largely voluntary in RUSD. In the absence of centrally-defined, supported, and
monitored professional development, each school determines and provides for its own
professional development needs. Those interviewed reported that the focus and quality
of professional development varies from school to school. Most PD opportunities offered
in RUSD do not integrate EL-specific content into their offerings nor address strategies
for differentiated instruction of these students.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When a middle school teacher was asked about English Learners
taking core curriculum with ‗English Only‘ students, the teacher responded, ―I don‘t
know how to help them sometimes. I am not trained to teach these kids. So when they
struggle I send them back to the ELD teachers.‖ Several teachers felt that they could not
help ―those‖ students. Some teachers felt that the causes for low student achievement
could not be connected to their professional effort. With this type of external attribution,
some teachers may feel that their efforts are pointless and instead focus on other work
goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). Further complicating the matter is the potential difficulty in
addressing such a sensitive issue. Many times teachers are unaware that their own
attitudes or perceived lack of effort can severely impact student achievement (Rueda,
Monzo, & Arzubiaga, 2003).
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students’ Backgrounds and Experiences
By the time a student arrives at a school they have already been impacted by their
environment. The environment that they come from is defined by (but not limited to):
51
home, culture, language, and any previous schooling. In order to be effective, educators
must understand and value the diverse backgrounds their students come from and use that
information as a resource in designing instruction. Acknowledging that students come to
school with unique experiences necessitates an acceptance that there is no simple, one-
size-fits-all-solution.
In observations and interviews, the inquiry team found a significant gap in
knowledge about the Hispanic culture within the school district and the community. This
lack of knowledge includes the knowledge of oneself and ethnic/cultural group as well as
the perceptions and knowledge of other cultural groups. Almost all administrators and
teachers interviewed commented on the cultural differences between their students and
the community. One staff member stated that, ―Students do not feel it is important to
learn English because they do not use it at home or even at school when they are with
their friends.‖ A general perception also exists that the parents of these students are more
concerned with the ethnic demographics of the schools rather than the academic
standings of their children. Some teachers believe that Hispanic parents are content with
knowing that their children are safe at school and not causing any problems. One teacher
stated that, ―For the most part, the Hispanic parents do not really value their children
learning English as long as they are in a school where the majority of the students look
like them and there are no (social) problems.‖
One teacher explained that Hispanic parents are comfortable living amongst
themselves and only speaking Spanish. This was further supported when a middle school
teacher stated the transition to their school (from the elementary schools) is difficult
52
because the Hispanic kids that come in from all-Hispanic elementary schools ―do not like
going to school with the Asian students‖. While these ideas can also be attributed to
other root causes such as motivation and organizational culture, they stem from a basic
lack of factual knowledge about the students‘ culture.
Cautions and Limitations
It should be noted that the patterns reported here are based on a limited number of
conversations and interviews with a limited number of respondents within the district. In
addition, the time period over which the information was collected was relatively short.
Finally, these patterns are based on self-reported information and reflect respondents‘
perceptions.
For the most part, the patterns reported were widespread among those with whom
we spoke. In addition, while perceptions may or may not reflect objective reality, they
can significantly influence behavior and the ultimate achievement of overall
organizational goals. Therefore, we hope to work with the district in the next phase of
the work as we begin to assess our findings and formulate appropriate and helpful
recommendations for next steps in addressing these gaps in performance.
This chapter provided a detailed definition of the gap analysis model. It then
provided a detailed account of the inquiry process used by the inquiry team to conduct its
work. Additionally, this chapter presented the inquiry team‘s findings. These findings
consisted of the district‘s strengths as well as emergent themes related to their root
causes. The following chapter will focus on the proposed solutions made by the inquiry
team to the district. A review of the literature that supports the inquiry team‘s solutions
53
and presents a more detailed discussion of possible solutions for consideration. Chapter
three also will provide an in-depth summary of solutions.
54
CHAPTER THREE
A FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS
REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO SOLUTIONS
Authors: Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, & Lesette Molina-Solis
Introduction
RUSD has worked diligently over the past decade to become a nationally-
regarded high-performing school district. RUSD has earned a reputation of being one of
the premier staff development districts in Southern California. In its quest to provide
educational equity, the district has implemented significant districtwide reforms by
providing staff development on the use of Thinking Maps, a graphic organizing strategy
to improve literacy performance in students. This districtwide adoption seemed
promising to more effectively enhance student learning. In addition, RUSD has
attempted to adequately address its persistent achievement gap that seems to affect its
Hispanic ELs more negatively as compared to its Asian ELs, according to state (API) and
federal assessment indicators (AYP). It is the districtwide focus for instruction.
In addition to Thinking Maps, RUSD has taken significant strides in trying to exit
PI status by seeking a partnership of support through the Ball Foundation Grant. The
focus of this grant is to improve student performance in literacy as measured by state
(API) and federal (AYP) indicators. Finally, RUSD is currently phasing in a districtwide
push for teacher and professional development by providing teacher preparation and
workshops in the effort to more effectively address the needs of ELs.
55
Holistically, RUSD‘s attempts to address their EL students‘ educational needs
seem to miss their intended target. As a result, the current implementation of two
instructional strategies, Thinking Maps, and Pictorial Math, has yielded modest gains to
support the district‘s performance goals. Specifically, as a result of RUSD‘s instructional
focus, Asian ELs have made greater gains in academic performance as compared to gains
made by Hispanic ELs as measured by proficiency levels on the CSTs and other district
benchmarks and indicators. As a result, the achievement gap between ELs and non-EL
students in RUSD seems to be widening. This is of great concern for it renders RUSD at
high risk of remaining in PI status.
The purpose of this inquiry project was to explore potential root causes that may
be contributing factors to maintaining the current achievement gap that negatively
impacts RUSD‘s EL student population. By using the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis
model, this inquiry project team attempted to identify knowledge/skill, motivational,
and/or organizational barriers that may be actively preventing the academic advancement
of the Hispanic EL subgroup districtwide.
As a result of the project team‘s inquiry, three critical factors were identified as
areas of concern within RUSD‘s instructional framework and vision. The first factor
contributing to the persistence of the Hispanic EL achievement gap is inconsistent
implementation of and the level of fidelity to the districtwide EL strategies, namely
Thinking Maps and Pictorial Maps. The second factor impeding progressive attempts by
RUSD to mitigate the widening achievement gap is two-fold: since the inception of the
inquiry project, mandated federal and state policies (and their indicators/benchmarks)
56
have caused RUSD to amend their English Learner Master Plan (ELMP). This event has
caused RUSD to file a state-required ELMP Amendment, clearly outlining the district‘s
systemic approach to address its current efforts at eliminating the EL achievement gap.
The third factor that actively impedes successful mitigation of the Hispanic EL
achievement gap is the absence of culturally proficient pedagogy that effectively
addresses minority students‘ academic needs. As a result, the majority of teachers who
teach ELs perceive those who do not teach ELs as self-detaching from the responsibility
to teach ELs.
This chapter presents some possible areas that the district may want to consider in
its effort to provide an optimal learning experience for all students it serves. The areas
considered here include work related to cultural proficiency in instructional practices and
work related to bringing about change in educational organizations. Each is discussed in
greater detail below.
Process of Change
Turnaround Change
Based on current research, deep and sustainable change needs to occur at RUSD
and its stakeholders. The type of change that may benefit RUSD is called turnaround
change. According to Reeves (2009), Marzano (2003), and others, turnaround change is
not only possible but it is effective in addressing the performance gaps that have long
plagued educational organizations similar to RUSD. However, turnaround change is
costly and takes a significant amount of time to implement. Research shows that
57
meaningful effective instructional and organizational change must be nurtured,
monitored, and consistently supported.
Reeves (2009) contends that change processes that are initiated by school-level
leaders must be reinforced throughout the process. The new research contrasts faculties
that implemented the same change initiatives and claimed the same initiative labels but
had vastly different levels of implementation (p. 16):
The results are striking: when 90 percent or more of a faculty was actively
engaged in the change initiative, student achievement results in reading, science,
and math were dramatically higher than when the same initiative was introduced
with only 10 percent of the faculty actively engaged. Therefore the variable is not
simply the program, the label, the guru, or the conference. The variable is
implementation.
Further, Reeves (2009) cites that effective leaders gain buy-in from stakeholders
by obtaining results that demonstrate the effects of the change process makes the process
itself is in the best interest of all stakeholders. While proposing practical strategies aimed
at improving grading, teaching, and leadership practices, Reeves (2009) warns that
leaders will likely be met with opposition and resistance (p. 93):
You will not close the implementation gap with another set of three ring binders
or announcements about the latest initiatives to close the gap with immediate
wins, visible recognition of what works, a focus on effectiveness rather than
popularity and a direct appeal to the values that brought us all into this profession
in the first place.
Pappano (2010) contends that school turnaround is about rapid and dramatic
improvement-- not just in test scores, but also in culture and student aspirations.
Appropriately, Pappano (2010) implies a much more direct, no-nonsense, holistic
approach at readily and effectively addressing a school‘s culture. However, ―culture‖ can
take on several different meanings in a school setting. For example, school sites develop
58
their own educational culture there are also cultures that hold students to certain levels of
expectations hence breeding a culture of excellence or mediocrity, and various levels in
between. Schools also host cultures of teacher collaboration; school staffs host cultures
of behavior expectations from different groups of students. Pappano (2010) urges
turnaround leaders to commit and lobby to establish and maintain a consistent culture of
no excuses and high expectations. She further calls for turnaround leaders to establish a
culture of capacity building throughout their teaching staff.
Transformational Theory
Rickey (2008) presents a potentially useful model of elementary school reform.
In her dissertation, Rickey (2008) explored ways in which adult learning and
transformational learning theory can empower school leaders to guide their teachers to
improve the quality of their instructional practice. Strategies presented as part of
Rickey‘s (2008) model include, ―the challenging of assumptions, use of questions to
support reflection and personal growth, exercising patience with the process, and the
realization that individuals needed supportive pressure over time to help the change
process work‖ (p. 5). Rickey (2008) suggests that any successful approach at school
reform should include: ―examination of how school leaders prepare for and facilitate
change as they work with individual teachers‖ (p. 16).
At the conclusion of her study, Rickey (2008) found ―that professional
development had not been as effective in helping teachers make lasting change,‖ (p. 186).
Gordon (2004) concurs that ―it is time to take the principles of adult learning seriously‖
59
(p. 1). He also acknowledges that school personnel have not used any of the principles of
adult learning theories to their full capacity to better prepare teachers.
Rickey (2008) proposed a model which captures adult learning theory processes
to help school leaders deal with better preparing teachers. The process begins with a
dilemma that affects student learning or performance. Flow then proceeds to pinpointing
an individual‘s concerns, what is not working, and what is different from the current
course of action. Flowing through the process helps individuals identify specific needs to
address the dilemma, to identify which members of their department, if any, have been
consulted about the dilemma, and if there has any literature addressing the dilemma has
been read. Answers to these probing questions funnel into the action phase, and probe if
the individual is ready to try the change process. If answered ―yes‖, the action phase
begins and flows into examining results. At this stage, three general questions are posed
regarding the following areas; is assistance needed to help think about the results, nature
of the evidence provided, and what should be looked for. Once results are secured, the
model asks individuals if they are prepared to share out results. A ―yes‖ answer guides
the individual through the third phase: sharing results. A ―no‖ answer at this stage
provides two possible courses: try again, or try something else. A ―yes‖ response to
willing to try again leads individuals back to the action phase and the process begins all
over again. A ―no‖ response to wanting to try something else leads to the individual
receiving encouragement and support from the leader.
The flowchart proposed by Rickey‘s (2008) research provides a non-linear
process to help individual teachers make change. Rickey (2008) suggests that leaders
60
working with their teachers through this change process should use a supportive and
collaborative approach. One key factor that Rickey‘s (2008) model poses is the
opportunity for leaders and teachers to reflect on their practices. As leaders and teachers
work through the model, taking opportunities to reflect on progress made and objectives
met are encouraged. Finally, the model gives flexibility to participants to enter at any
point in the model and to progress through at the rate of speed that is most comfortable
and/or most appropriate for specific dilemmas.
Educational Equity
The Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training in Education (CREATE)
(Guthrie, 2009) is currently analyzing data results from an intensive program instituted in
the Garden Grove Unified School District. The program focused specifically on middle
school Hispanic ELs. CREATE‘s aim was to increase long-term ELs‘ success rate at the
high school level. The program is structured in a linear and sequential fashion: thus far it
has encouraging results for researchers as its preliminary results seem to indicate it has
helped to effectively close the educational equity gap for ELs.
CREATE‘s (Guthrie, 2009) program is designed to engage long-term EL students
with school, by providing them with the academic language and skills they need to
succeed in middle school, high school, and beyond. The program‘s strategies targeted
improvement of ELs‘ skills primarily in building academic vocabulary, while at the same
time developing fostering students‘ skills in note-taking, time management, and study &
social skill development. Throughout the coursework, ELs received targeted rigorous
61
instruction in the development of academic English literacy, reading, writing, and
vocabulary as well.
Through the course of two calendar years, the schools involved in the pilot
program identified strong EL candidates from the program. It involved 115 seventh-
grade students in multiple school sites. Implementation fidelity was ensured by
implementing standardized recruiting techniques and procedures and by conducting
consistent and continuous regular school visits.
The program included a prescribed seventh-grade curriculum in addition to the
state mandated seventh grade curriculum, a college readiness path composed of middle
school English language development courses for intermediate ELs. The goal was to
accelerate both academic language acquisition and entrance to college-preparatory high
school coursework. ELs in the program registered for Spanish Speakers courses that
were made available starting in middle school as a pathway to AP Spanish in high school.
During summer bridge sessions in sixth and seventh grades, language
development courses overlay college preparatory coursework, preparing students for the
rigors of ninth-grade college preparatory coursework. Content area teachers and the pilot
program instructors received support through special release time to collaborate and to
plan instruction and activities for the pilot program students. These supportive sessions
proved critical for teachers‘ needs to help them meet their students‘ specific academic
needs. An additional key support that benefited students was the use of academic tutors
in their pilot courses. The tutors met regularly with students to help academic skills, and
build social capital. In addition, teachers involved in the pilot received instructional
62
support and curriculum coaching throughout the program. Perhaps most importantly,
teachers received continuous training and staff development support. Teachers were
actively involved in yearly curriculum training, specific periodic curriculum articulation
sessions with regular content teachers, regular visits from program coaches, and other
training, articulation, collaboration as necessary. Content area-specific training sessions
were refined to ensure that students received instruction that allowed student access to
academic rigorous coursework.
As discussed above, the preliminary data show promising results for the college
readiness program. Under this instructional model, the Hispanic ELs consistently
outperformed their white counterparts, based on grade point averages, district
benchmarks in math, English, science and social science, and CST test scores in math,
English, science, and social science. Following the pedagogical model as proposed by
Guthrie (2009) should empower RUSD replicate similar results in their Hispanic EL
student population. Increasing academic rigor while simultaneously scaffolding
academic instruction in ways that minority students are provided access to the curriculum
will yield increased student performance. The lessons learned from the college readiness
model are that EL students need both scaffolds and support to gain access to rigorous
content classes in order to actively participate in American education.
District Office Support
The expectation placed on classroom teachers to close the achievement gap
cannot be accomplished without the consistent support of the district office:
63
A district‘s ability to support ambitious instructional reform is viewed primarily
as a capacity to learn the substantive ideas at the heart of the new reform and to
help teachers and others within the district to learn these ideas. (Spillane &
Thompson, 1998, p. 5).
In an era of high stakes accountability RUSD must find a way to stand by its
belief in decentralization while facilitating the necessary support needed to close the
Hispanic achievement gap.
The Role of the District Office
Improving education usually involves deep conversation about what teachers are
or are not doing or what the school does or does not provide. What is usually not part of
the discussion on improving education is the role the district office plays in supporting
the teachers and school sites with closing the achievement gap. Traditionally, the district
office is likened to a management machine. The district office is viewed as bureaucratic
and not at all connected to the daily academic practices of the school sites. It is also seen
as ―Big Brother‖, ensuring compliance to policies and procedures but not necessarily a
champion of professional growth and student-centered decision-making. The district
office is a fundamental component to what makes student achievement possible and
consequently, what makes schools successful.
Elmore (2000) examined how standards-based reform has impacted policy and
practice, addressing the role of the central district office. He states that, ―Organizations
that improve do so because they create and nurture agreement on what is worth
achieving, and they set in motion the internal processes by which people progressively
learn how to do what they need to do in order to achieve what is worthwhile (Elmore,
2000 p. 25). Elmore (2000) also defines the term ―loose coupling‖ when describing the
64
lack of attention to daily curricular issues by the district office. ―Loose coupling‖ is the
idea that the power of educational decision-making ―resides in individual classrooms, not
in the organizations that surround them‖ (Elmore 2000, p. 6). Elmore (2000) suggests
that ―loose coupling‖ is the reason why the role of the district office is often overlooked.
In ―Bringing the District Back In: The Role of the Central Office in Improving
Instruction and Student Achievement,‖ Mac Iver & Farley (2003, p. 6) reported that:
More recent studies of districts identified as high performing, relative to the
poverty level of their students, have been conducted in Texas (Ragland, Asera, &
Johnson, 1999; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000) and North Carolina (Public
Schools of North Carolina, 2000). The common themes emerging from these
studies in relatively high-performing or improving districts included: 1) a climate
of urgency regarding improved achievement for all students; 2) a sense that
achievement was the primary responsibility of every staff member in the district;
3) a shared sense of the central office as a support and service organization for the
schools; 4) a primary focus on improving instruction, accompanied by a high
level of resources devoted to coherent professional development linked to
research-based practices; 5) focused attention on analysis and alignment of
curriculum, instructional practice and assessment; and 6) professional
development for principals in interpreting data to make good instructional
decisions.
These findings are critical to emphasize the importance of the district office in supporting
schools in their efforts. This is necessary for student achievement and the closing of the
achievement gap.
Massell (2000) provides a policy brief reviewing research conducted by the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) that examines the role of districts
in building capacity. Over a two-year time period CPRE conducted observations in
twenty-two school districts within eight states including California. Massell‘s article
outlines the four major strategies for capacity building that came from the CPRE
researchers. The four major strategies include; interpreting and using data; building
65
teacher knowledge and skills; aligning curriculum and instruction; and targeting
interventions on low-performing students and/or schools‖ (Massell, 2000, pg. 1).
Massell (2000) provides a solid argument for why the district office should not be
overlooked. Massell (2000) points out that although schools are the focal point of
accountability measures, districts should not be dismissed as they (p. 6):
...are the major source of capacity-building for schools-structuring, providing, and
controlling access to professional development, curriculum and instructional
ideas, more and more qualified staff, relationships with external agents and so on.
What districts do influences how schools as organizations address the
performance goals set by states, whether or not they have the necessary capacity
to do so.
Foley (2001) published a report titled ―Contradictions and Control in Systemic
Reform: The Ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia Schools‖. Foley provides
a detailed report of a five-year evaluation by The Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE) of a comprehensive reform effort put in place by staff development.
This report examines the role of the district office and the capacity of the district to
support such a reform. As part of this report, Foley (2001) provides a section offering
lessons for reforming Foley‘s report points out how the role of the district office is vital
in building a school sites capacity and could highly influence the choices that individual
school sites make to improve academic achievement. Foley (2001) states that the
direction a central office decides to go is ―…influenced by the central‘s office capacity to
support the reforms and their perceptions of school capacities‖ (p. 25)
Additional research by Anderson (2003) reviews the role of the district office over
the years in educational change. The role of the district office has become more and
more important as ―…the realization that district influence is unavoidable if not
66
desirable‖ (Anderson, 2003, p. 4). Anderson (2003) sums up his historical overview by
stating that ―… the evidence that districts do matter, and that at least some districts
―matter‖ in powerfully positives ways for student performance in large numbers of
schools and for students of all sorts of backgrounds‖ (p. 5).
The potential power to influence student achievement by a district office is critical
to acknowledge. Once the importance of the district office is recognized and embraced,
the district office will be better able to serve and support its schools. The district office
has an immense level of responsibility to improve education and close any and all
achievement gaps, including those of Hispanic EL learners.
Cultural Proficiency
Rowland Unified has offered training in English Language Development and
English Learner strategies to its teachers. It established EL Leads at every school site to
serve as the key site liaison to assist classrooms with addressing EL student needs. The
Bilingual Department at the district level has made a consistent effort to implement a
Master Plan that complies with state law and addresses various EL instructional needs at
school sites. Despite these efforts, Hispanic ELs continue to lag behind their non-
Hispanic EL counterparts. According to the responses received from some of the
interviewees, some of the teachers attributed this achievement gap to a lack of interest on
the part of the Hispanic students‘ families. ―It‘s obvious, the parents don‘t care; they
don‘t come to parent meetings or take interest in their kids‘ learning. Yet you do see the
parents of our other EL group participating and interested.‖ The inquiry team found both
a cultural knowledge gap and negative teacher attributions toward Hispanic EL students
67
as identified in the previous quote; these both impact the Hispanic EL academic
achievement in RUSD. Cultural proficiency is defined as ―a way of being that enables
both individuals and organizations to respond effectively to people who differ from
them‖ (Lindsey, Robins, & Terrel, 2003, p. 5).
Current literature identifies the importance of educators understanding
sociocultural theories of learning in order to adequately address diverse learning needs--
in this particular instance, Hispanic EL student needs. RUSD is implementing research-
based, effective teaching practices to enhance Hispanic EL lesson delivery. However, the
inquiry team recommends not only the alignment of these instructional efforts by
increasing educators‘ sociocultural competence so that strategies and pedagogy are
increased, but also address teachers‘ negative attributions about Hispanic EL students. It
is essential that instructional and pedagogical factors be considered in light of cultural
practices in the homes of these students as well as of the greater community.
Interesting examples are found in the literature that document how some schools
have been able to integrate cultural considerations into meaningful pedagogy. An
overview will be presented in the following section as possible models for the district to
examine. These include work on attribution theory, approaches in ―funds of knowledge‖,
cultural modeling, and notions of ―Third Space‖, all of which involve understanding the
Hispanic EL cultural perspective to enhance the students‘ educational experiences at
school with the ultimate goal of increasing their academic achievement.
68
Attribution Theory
Teacher attribution knowledge suggests that teachers attempt to explain low or
unexpected academic achievement outcomes of their students by looking at potential
causes such as students‘ prior achievement, the difficulty of the current task, or effort
placed towards the completion of a task (Weiner, 1986). Additionally, according to
Weiner (2000), success and failure in achievement occurs within a social context
comprised of teachers, peers, and family. Motivation to do well or not to do well is
attributed to the perceptions these individuals hold about the student‘s ability to succeed
or fail. Moreover, ―teachers‘ emotional and behavioral reactions to their students‘
academic outcomes have a direct impact on the behavior of their students, influencing
children‘s future actions and self perceptions‖ (Clark & Artiles, 2000, p. 77). It is crucial
that teachers understand the impact their perceptions of students have on student
motivation and, in turn, student achievement. Once this concept is addressed and
understood, educators can then move toward increasing their cultural knowledge and
more effectively address the needs of Hispanic EL students in RUSD. Therefore, it is
important that the district provide professional development for increasing teachers‘
cultural knowledge of their students within the context of the profound impact their
personal perceptions have on student academic achievement.
“Funds of Knowledge”
Work on ―funds of knowledge‖ began as a response to deficit views of students
from diverse language and cultural backgrounds. This perspective considers the
everyday knowledge of families and communities are resources, which can be used in
69
instruction rather than as deficits to be overcome. Gonzalez et al. (1993) have argued that
some schools generally view working-class minority households as not being able to
provide students with socially-and intellectually-rich resources. Thus, educators have
used this disadvantage as a means to justify lowered learning expectations. These
researchers also suggest that overall, educators negate the knowledge these students bring
to school from their homes by emphasizing what these students lack in terms of language
and knowledge. By understanding the accumulated knowledge base from each home,
teachers can form curricular units that tap into their students‘ ―funds of knowledge‖
(Gonzalez et al., 1993).
―Funds of knowledge‖ are developed and accumulated skill set of abilities, ideas,
or practices that enable a family to function (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).
Thus, the goal of using ―funds of knowledge‖ is to connect classroom instruction to the
communities in which students live with the end goal of providing ―classroom instruction
that far exceeds in quality to the rote-like instruction that children commonly encounter
in schools‖ (Hattam et al., 2007, p. 2). Hattam et al. (2007) suggest accomplishing this
task by having educators conducting an analysis of student‘s households, providing
educators with the time needed to think about their findings, determine how to utilize the
knowledge pedagogically, and incorporate opportunities within the classroom setting that
connect student home life with school life. The ultimate goal of this research is to
maximize student learning, particularly that of minority SED students by ensuring they
can engage and identify with the curriculum content which will lead to increased student
interest and motivation for learning (Hattam et al., 2007).
70
One avenue to comprehend students‘ ―funds of knowledge‖ was through
conducting home visits with emphasis on understanding the sociopolitical and economic
contexts of the households and analyzing their social history (Gonzalez et al., 1993).
These home visits served as one important way to gain insight into the household history
as it provided information regarding their origins, development, and labor history--all of
which reveal some of the home‘s ―funds of knowledge‖. Another purpose of these home
visits by teachers was to determine how families developed social networks, connected
them with other households, built trust and thus exchanged resources, including ―funds of
knowledge‖ (Gonzalez et al., 1993). An important factor of these social exchanges was
found to be their reciprocity. ―Reciprocity presents an attempt to establish a social
relationship on an enduring basis. Whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, the exchange
expresses and symbolizes human social interdependence‖ (Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg,
1992, p. 142). In essence, these interactions are based on the foundation of mutual trust
―confianza”.
Gonzalez et al., (1993) state that a transformative effect of the ―funds of
knowledge‖ is to supplant the idea that working-class minority students lack worthwhile
knowledge and experiences with the idea that these households can foster a child‘s
cognitive development with a wide range of diverse skills. ―Any of the numerous funds
of knowledge found within the households could form the basis for curriculum units in
science, math, language arts, and other subjects‖ (Gonzalez et al., 1993, p. 8). It is vital
that educators not simply learn about their students‘ ―funds of knowledge‖, but use it
within the classroom pedagogy (Moll et al., 1992). This is not an easy task. This is why
71
Gonzalez et al. (1993) suggest providing teachers with time and support to collaborate so
that theory can more readily become practice. These sessions of teacher collaboration
can maximize student learning by conceptualizing the pedagogical connection between
classroom standards students must master and the foundational knowledge base of their
households.
While the original work focused on 1) teacher visits to homes and 2) collaborative
meetings for teachers where the information was integrated into instruction, there may
actually be a multitude of ways to accomplish the same goals. The overall idea, however,
is first to focus on actual cultural practices of students and families rather than on
assumptions about generalized traits; and, second, to use the cultural resources of
students and families as vehicles to promote instructional goals. Familiarity with this
work may be of assistance to RUSD in devising a way to develop and target more
effective professional development to address the cultural issues in RUSD schools.
Cultural Modeling
Another potentially useful way to think about cultural issues is based on cultural
modeling. Cultural modeling attempts to increase students‘ comprehension of subject
matter by connecting new concepts to the knowledge they have formed in their homes
and communities. The aim of cultural modeling is to facilitate students‘ learning
generative concepts in academic subject matters by helping them to make connections
between the target knowledge and ―funds of knowledge‖ they have constructed from their
home and community (Lee, et al., 2003, p. 42). Instructional design should involve a
combination of the academic curricular task and daily practices familiar to students.
72
Similar to the funds of knowledge approach, the ultimate goal of cultural modeling is to
make more recognizable the connections for students between the home and school
content. Orellana & Eksner (2005) define cultural modeling as a framework for
curriculum design that builds explicitly on non-dominant students‘ resources by making
connections between disciplinary constructs and their cultural funds of knowledge. In
effectively doing so, it is essential for educators to understand the academic content well
enough to determine how to incorporate cultural perspectives effectively so that the
social, conceptual, and linguistic backgrounds of their students are well-addressed within
the curriculum.
It is noteworthy to mention that cultural modeling is not cultural matching.
Cultural matching attempts to align discourse, norms, and values of the home with school
(Orellana & Eksner, 2005). This approach is not only difficult but often done
superficially. True cultural modeling, according to Orellana & Eksner (2005), involves
modeling highlights of the generative role of the cultural ―funds of knowledge‖ and the
targeted ways in which a particular skill set can be utilized in another setting. It is key to
incorporate students‘ everyday experiences into the curriculum. This is referred to as
cultural data sets. Examples of such data sets include dialogues or rap lyrics. By using
these familiar data sets, students can draw upon their habits of mind into an academic
setting and make explicit connections to classroom instruction. ―Students identify
strategies for meaning-making as they move from analyzing personally meaningful texts
to canonical works of literature‖ (Orellana & Eksner, 2005, p. 55).
73
Cultural modeling, as ―funds of knowledge‖ research, draws upon the rich
resources non-dominant students bring to the classroom, of which is often undermined or
diminished. Lee et al. (2003) stress the importance of challenging deficit framings of
immigrant minority students. Additionally, cultural modeling examines the benefits of
bilingualism, considering code-switching as a fundamental language and literacy skill for
English Learners, a skill often discouraged within classroom settings (Orellana & Eksner,
2005). When cultural modeling is done effectively, classrooms become learning
environments where students can make an explicit connection to the content being taught;
they use personal knowledge gained from their home to develop disciplinary knowledge
and problem solving skills (Lee et al., 2003). Cultural modeling approaches may
represent another fruitful way that the district might consider with respect to cultural
factors in the classroom by providing teachers time to understand the community,
collaborate on findings in grade level/subject teams, and develop lesson plans that align
cultural modeling practices into the standards-based curriculum across content areas.
“Third Space”
The third approach the inquiry team suggests the district may consider to address
the Hispanic EL cultural factors in the classroom is Gutierrez‘s (2008) social construct of
―Third Space.‖ ―Third Space‖ challenges traditional conceptions of academic literacy
and instruction for minority students and replaces these with forms of literacy that
involve students‘ sociohistorical lives (Gutierrez, 2008). The ―Third Space‖ construct
attempts to transform the current educational system into a more equitable system for all
students. The key idea of ―Third Space‖ is that learning environments are socially
74
constructed through interactions between all participants: teachers and students. An ―in-
between‖ social space for learning, bridging everyday knowledge with academic
knowledge can be socially constructed, even when teachers and students do not share
cultural understandings and practices (Gutierrez, 2008). This allows for building on
students‘ existing knowledge and cultural practices while attaining key academic goals.
Gutierrez (1995) defines sociocultural knowledge as an understanding of the
contexts in which students learn: ―…that is, what students learn, how that knowledge is
transmitted, who is present in the learning activity, and which goals and motives drive the
learning; the acquisition of academic discourse is a socially mediated process‖ (p. 22).
To maximize learning, Gutierrez (1995) argues that a degree of reciprocity must exist
between the teacher and students in terms of roles held in the classroom context, social
roles, and classroom activities. In doing so, planned lessons and activities should
consider the following factors: who, what, goals/values, how, and purpose/motives
(Gutierrez, 1995). Additionally, these oral interactions should take the form of varied
structures such as tutorials, comprehension circles, writing conferences, theater, mini-
lessons, and whole-group discussions (Gutierrez, 2008).
A second factor influencing learning is classroom discourse. Gutierrez (1995)
defines classroom discourse as an ―instantiation of culture, where the classroom discourse
is considered constitutive of classroom culture, an instantiation of the culture of the
classroom‖ (p. 26). Thus, classroom activities become examples of the type of discourse
within a classroom setting, revealing the connection between the student and classroom
culture. Therefore, in order for students to effectively participate in classroom discourse,
75
they must understand how to participate in the classroom community‘s activities.
Gutierrez (1995) suggests that Latino children require knowledge on the nature of the
classroom discourse. Thus, children need to be taught the social and physical
arrangement of classroom activities and be socialized through instruction as to the forms
and uses of language and behaviors associated with successful participation in these
activities.
―Variance in competence might be understood to be the result of students‘ access
to and participation in varying activities, classroom participation structures, and forms of
classroom discourse. Of importance then, is the degree to which students have access to
both linguistic and social knowledge embedded in and transmitted by the discourse of the
classroom‖ (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 27). Therefore, Gutierrez (1995) states that student
learning is dependent upon students‘ understanding of how they can participate within the
classroom setting, including the role they hold, their membership within the classroom
environment, the types of interactions held, and their use of oral and written language.
This understanding is developed through participation in meaningful classroom discourse
where ―competence is bidirectional, involving both students and teacher‖ (Gutierrez,
1995, p. 29).
Conclusion
Educators have direct impact on student achievement. At the same time,
educators face obstacles in education, including understanding the various cultural
backgrounds of their students well enough so that all students can gain better access to
the curriculum. Additionally, it is vital for educators to understand their impact on
76
student learning, including how their perceptions of students and their subsequent
attributions can affect student motivation for learning. Teachers thus require support to
face these challenges and effectively educate the diverse students in their classrooms.
Addressing the cultural knowledge gap of educators within RUSD by initially addressing
teachers‘ negative attribution of students is essential to close the Hispanic EL
achievement gap in the district.
SOLUTION SUMMARY
Introduction
The expectation placed on classroom teachers to close the achievement gap
cannot be attained without the targeted effort and consistent support of the district office.
Decentralized and centralized districts alike are being called upon to find ways to provide
guidance and on-going sustainable support to their schools and their staffs. RUSD is a
decentralized district that prides itself in the achievements gained by the independent,
free-thinking freedom that decentralization fosters.
Our inquiry team indentified three distinct areas in which to propose possible
solutions that can be addressed by and are compliant with the decentralized
organizational decision-making structure of RUSD. The first solution focuses on the
research that explains the importance of the time it takes to see a district pursue a reform
strategy through from a strategic start to a successful finish. A second solution area
focuses on understanding what the most current literature and case studies say about the
beneficial contributions to a school site when the district office is the common source of
77
support. The third possible solution area explores understanding the importance of
academic cultural proficiency in a district with a large population of Hispanic ELs.
Change Processes
Districts throughout California are trying to find the one-size-fits-all, ―quick fix‖
to the Hispanic EL achievement gap that, with every passing year, becomes a more
insurmountable task. As the clock ticks closer to 2014 the struggle of educational leaders
to find solutions grows more desperate. What many districts do not understand is that,
what seems to be a logical choice of trying something new is actually detrimental and
counterproductive to the goal of closing the achievement gap. Any district taking on a
reform effort must do two things: They must 1) do their due diligence in researching the
actual reform effort that has been selected; and 2) research & understand the amount of
time they must commit to give to that particular reform in order to see the fruits of their
labor.
Turnaround change is a highly effective systemic approach that creates
disruptions in failing educational processes. By introducing disruptive events to
everyday practices and decision-making processes, turnaround change aims to alter an
organization‘s direction. It brings about dramatic, notable changes within struggling
school districts. By purposefully altering the course of underperforming school districts,
turnaround change alters existing procedures, causing dramatic shifts in organizational
structures and pedagogy to increase student performance. Reeves (2009) acknowledges
that turnaround change is costly, takes time, commitment, and is not always immediately
visible. ―Significant returns in turnaround were most notable in schools that committed
78
to changes, invested with fidelity aiming at long term results, and made change possible
at the district level‖ (Reeves, 2009). In addition, Boyne (2006) states it best when he
proposes that ―a firm in a turnaround situation faces a stark choice between strategic
change that may lead to recovery and strategic persistence that is likely to result in
outright failure‖ (p. 6).
In addition, Pappano (2010) states that ―school turnaround is about rapid and
dramatic improvement, not just in test scores, but also in culture, and student
aspirations.‖ Rueda, Monzo, & Arzubiaga (2003) contend that the real issues affecting
various schools can best be described as ―a problem of fit‖. Rueda, Monzo & Arzubiaga,
(2003) explain that to generate any type of reaction from the students, parents, or other
stakeholders, the pressing issues must be perceived as immediate and concretely
impacting their community. Rueda, Monzo & Arzubiaga (2003) argue that all families‘
possess cultural and social capital, however, it does not always line up to that set of
values that schools value. Rueda, Monzo & Arzubiaga (2003) propose that parental
perceptions of home literacy practices and schools‘ literacy demands must be negotiated
between the families and educators to maximize buy-in. This research supports the call
for RUSD to focus on improving the connections between the home culture and the
school culture. Enriching the relationships between RUSD and the greater community it
serves will foster a more positive learning environment. Enabling students, parents, and
staff to share the responsibility of improving student outcomes, will enable stakeholders
to take ownership of student performance progress.
79
Rickey (2008) presents a practical model for systemic change grounded in
supportive coaching and reflective practice focused on the promotion, development, and
nurturing of teacher leadership. One key characteristic is the minimal cost required to
operate and sustain the model. A key factor while considering Rickey‘s (2008) model is
its potential to enhance the current ―communities of practice‖ model currently in place in
RUSD. Additionally, Rickey‘s (2008) model of a reflective, inquiry-based coaching
model process could have a strong implementation in RUSD for two major reasons.
First, Rickey‘s (2008) model seems like a natural extension of RUSD‘s current reflective
work with the Ball Foundation. The Ball Foundation has already established the
philosophical groundwork for Rickey‘s (2008) model and subsequent work in RUSD.
Because the work with Ball has been overwhelmingly accepted by RUSD stakeholders,
staff resistance to Rickey‘s (2008) approach will be minimal. Secondly, fiscal impacts to
RUSD would be minimal because RUSD already has in place the changes to
organizational structure suggested by Rickey (2008). RUSD‘s employment of EL Leads
should facilitate a smooth adoption and transition into the implementation phase of
Rickey‘s (2008) model. The additional coaching responsibilities placed on EL Leads will
produce rich professional experiences.
An EL college readiness pilot is in numerous local districts throughout California.
Currently, Garden Grove, Montebello, and Whittier USDs are implementing versions of a
highly strategic curriculum that has produced significant results with long-term ELs.
Although successful, it is costly (due to teacher training and professional development).
However, this inherent requirement in the turnaround and change processes supports the
80
calls for effective leadership, constant teacher collaboration, and continuous data analyses
of student outcomes, (Boyne, 2006; CDE, 2010; DuFour, 2004; Marzano 2003; Reeves,
2009; Rueda, Monzo & Arzubiaga, 2003,). The successful approaches described by these
scholars highlight the level of commitment and fidelity that turnaround change requires.
An additional consideration that must be taken with this model is its need to sustain
effective, consistent implementation. Though faithful implementation requires a
significant level of commitment, the results seem to validate this level of commitment.
This EL model is grounded in the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
philosophy. AVID models have been significantly successful in closing achievement
gaps within minority student subgroups.
The key to AVID‘s success in promoting student achievement is rooted in the
uniform approach of combining a rigorous academic curriculum, with extensive student
scaffolds and accessible supports to all students. All students are held accountable to
higher expectations for their academic preparation. Students receive consistent and
continuous academic support from their teachers, tutors, and their peers. Classroom
instruction is delivered using research-based strategies that promote critical thinking in a
collaborative classroom setting. AVID empowers students, teachers, and schools to alter
the culture of academic underperformance that persists in many failing American public
schools.
District Support
More recent school reforms necessitate the development and implementation of
pedagogy that focuses on teaching, learning and content. These reforms, borne from
81
NCLB (2001), are based on the premise that teaching requires deep content knowledge.
These underlying assumptions therefore make these reforms more heavily dependent on
the local capacity of districts to create and implement policies that will not only support
but, more importantly, sustain instructional improvement towards closing the
achievement gap. This shift in the level of instruction has created the need for school
districts to self-reflect on their contributions to their own ability to increase and sustain
high-quality instruction.
Traditionally, district offices have not previously been highlighted as the point of
origin for instructional change and academic growth. Elmore (1993) attributes this lack
of recognition of the role of the district office to the concept coined ―loose coupling‖.
―Lose coupling‖ states that the core of educational decision-making ―…resides in
individual classrooms, not in the organizations that surround them‖ (Elmore, 1993, p 5).
This perception is what hinders district offices from assuming outright the key leadership
role needed to gain full control of the decision-making process.
As the deadline for NCLB looms and the current sense of urgency to raise student
achievement increases, districts in California have been placed in a unique situation to
evaluate the one area that is usually looked over--itself. Districtwide reform has been the
preferred plan of action as of late throughout the country. As districts search for how to
support and build the capacity within their schools towards academic growth, these tasks
are a reform effort in and of itself. Mac Iver & Farley (2003) found that the role of a
district was critical in building a school‘s capacity. It is important to explore the
82
literature that describes how central offices go about creating systemic change and
building capacity.
If, as history has previously shown, school districts have not been the focus of
attention when looking at closing achievement gaps among students, then a decentralized
school district would be an even less likely candidate for focused attention. As a
solution, we suggest that the RUSD office become the primary focal point for any district
reform, irrespective of its decentralized structure. When examining the powerful
contributions of a district office to the individual success of a school site, it becomes
evident that providing coherent and sustainable support with district guidance contributes
to the individual success of school sites.
Mac Iver & Farley (2003) reviewed literature on the impact of district support on
school achievement. They found that in our current educational system, schools are in
need of an effective intermediary between themselves and the state. In addition, a study
by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) found that the district‘s role
was vital in building a school sites capacity and could highly influence the choices that
individual school sites made to make to improve academic achievement (Massell, 2000).
Cultural Proficiency
As a third solution, we suggest that the district office explore possibilities to
enable both individuals and organizations to respond effectively to people who differ
from them culturally. RUSD is implementing research-based, effective teaching
practices to enhance Hispanic EL lesson delivery. However, the inquiry team is
recommending the alignment of these instructional efforts by increasing educators‘
83
sociocultural competence so that not only their instructional strategies but also pedagogy
are improved. It is essential that instructional and pedagogical factors are considered in
light of cultural practices in the students‘ homes and the greater community which RUSD
serves. The literature presents examples of how some schools have been able to integrate
cultural considerations into meaningful pedagogy. These models, ―Funds of
Knowledge‖, cultural modeling, and ―Third Space‖ are briefly described as possible
models for the district to examine.
―Funds of Knowledge‖ research considers the everyday knowledge of families
and communities be viewed positively as resources which can be used in instruction
rather than seen as deficits needing to be overcome. Gonzalez et al. (1993), have argued
that some schools generally view working-class minority households as not providing
students with socially- and intellectually-rich resources. In the original work, home visits
were conducted to gain insight into the household history, social networks, connections to
other households, trust building and exchanging resources, including ―funds of
knowledge‖ (Gonzalez et al., 1993).
Cultural modeling presents another potentially useful method for considering the
effect of cultural issues. The aim of cultural modeling is to facilitate students‘ learning of
academic concepts by helping them make connections between the knowledge they have
constructed from their home and community with the knowledge presented in the
classroom (Lee et al., 2003, p. 42). Instructional design should involve a combination of
the academic curricular task and daily practices familiar to students. By linking the
familiar with the new, students are better able to process information they learn to a
84
deeper level of understanding that supports comprehension, analysis, and critical thinking
(higher levels of cognition).
Lastly, ―Third Space‖, as presented by Gutierrez (1995) involves a classroom
setting that explicitly reveals the connection between the student and classroom culture.
Gutierrez (1995) states that student learning is dependent upon students‘ understanding of
how they can participate within the classroom setting, including the role they hold, their
membership within the classroom environment, types of interactions held and their use of
oral and written language. This understanding is developed through participation in
meaningful classroom discourse where ―competence is bidirectional, involving both
students and teacher‖ (Gutierrez, 1995, p. 29).
Conclusion
This section of the current literature focused on empirically-based educational
strategies that may assist in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap. The purpose of
this literature was to present solutions of effective, sound educational practices to address
the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD. Additionally, this literature presented
pertinent information that educators should consider in order to understand the basis for
the Hispanic EL gap and utilize this information to adequately differentiate Hispanic EL
instruction in RUSD.
85
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Academic Language: The language and vocabulary associated with education and
requires use of higher-order thinking skills. It is the language of texts and formal
language. It mostly consists of the language functions needed for academic
content.
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California‘s standardized tests. A
school‘s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same type
and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in terms of
students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held responsible for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their
success or lack of success in doing so. In education, accountability is currently
thought to require measurable proof that teachers, schools, districts, and states are
teaching students efficiently and well, usually in the form of student success rates
on various tests. In recent years, most accountability programs have involved
adoption of state curriculum standards and required state tests based on the
standards. Many political leaders and educators support this approach, believing
that it brings clarity of focus and is improving achievement. Others argue that,
because standardized tests cannot possibly measure all the important goals of
schooling, accountability systems should be more flexible and use other types of
information, such as dropout rates and samples of student work.
86
Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students‘ lack of academic
success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is not unique to
any ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among African Americans and
Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are multifaceted. They do to some
degree stem from factors the children bring with them to school; however, other
factors contribute to the gap stem from students‘ school experiences.
Achievement Test: Most students take several standardized achievement tests, such as
the California Achievement Tests and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. These
norm-referenced, multiple-choice tests are intended to measure students'
achievement in the basic subjects found in most school districts' curriculum and
textbooks. Results are used to compare the scores of individual students and
schools with others—those in the area, across the state, and throughout the United
States.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives funding
under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional development,
87
and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational program‘s
objective and standards.
Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for testing and
evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.
At-risk Students: Students who have a higher-than-average probability of dropping out
or failing school. Broad categories usually include inner-city, low-income, and
homeless children; those not fluent in English; and special needs students with
emotional or behavioral difficulties. Substance abuse, juvenile crime,
unemployment, poverty, and lack of adult support are thought to increase a
youth's risk factor.
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement expected
of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
Bilingual Education: The use of two or more languages for instruction. In the United
States, students in most bilingual classes or programs are those who have not
acquired full use of the English language, so they are taught academic content in
their native language (usually Spanish) while continuing to learn English.
Brown v. Board of Education: The case heard by the United States Supreme Court in
1954 in which racial segregation in public schools was held to be
unconstitutional.
California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program and are based on the state‘s academic content standards.
88
Cohort: A particular group of people with something in common. For instance, a cohort
might be a group of students who had been taught an interdisciplinary curriculum
by a team of junior high school teachers. Researchers might want to track their
progress into high school to identify differences in success of students in the
cohort compared with students who had attended conventional classes in the same
school.
Collaboration: A relationship between individuals or organizations that enables the
participants to accomplish goals more successfully than they could have
separately. Educators are finding that they must collaborate with others to deal
with increasingly complex issues. For example, schools and school systems often
form partnerships with local businesses or social service agencies. Many schools
teach students how to work with others on group projects. Some educators call
this collaborative learning, although it is more commonly known as cooperative
learning.
Comprehensive School Reform: An approach to school improvement that involves
adopting a design for organizing an entire school rather than using numerous
unrelated instructional programs. New American Schools, an organization that
promotes comprehensive school reform, sponsors several different designs, each
featuring challenging academic standards, strong professional development
programs, meaningful parental and community involvement, and a supportive
school environment.
89
Continuous Progress: A system of education in which individuals or small groups of
students go through a sequence of lessons at their own pace, rather than at the
pace of the entire classroom group. Continuous progress has also been called
individualized education or individualized instruction and is one version of
mastery learning. In continuous-progress programs, able and motivated students
are not held back, and students take on new lessons only if they show they have
the prerequisite skills. A criticism, however, is that unmotivated students often
progress more slowly than they would in regular classes.
Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Core Curriculum: The body of knowledge that all students are expected to learn. High
schools often require a core curriculum that may include, for example, four years
of English, three years of science and mathematics, two or three years of history,
one or two years of a foreign language, and one year of health studies. Courses
that are not required are called electives.
Critical Thinking: Logical thinking based on sound evidence; the opposite of biased,
sloppy thinking. Some people take the word critical to mean negative and
faultfinding, but philosophers consider it to mean thinking that is skillful and
responsible. A critical thinker can accurately and fairly explain a point of view
that he does not agree with.
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district. Curriculum documents
often include detailed directions or suggestions for teaching the content.
90
Curriculum may refer to all the courses offered at a given school, or all the
courses offered at a school in a particular area of study. For example, the English
curriculum might include English literature, literature, world literature, essay
styles, creative writing, business writing, Shakespeare, modern poetry, and the
novel. The curriculum of an elementary school usually includes language arts,
mathematics, science, social studies, and other subjects.
Data Driven Decision Making: The process of making decisions about curriculum and
instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and data and standardized test
data. Data driven decision-making uses data on function, quality, and quantity of
inputs and how students learn suggest educational solutions.
Decentralization: The deliberate reassignment of decision-making authority from states
or districts to local schools based on the beliefs that people who are closest to a
situation make better decisions and that people work hardest when implementing
their own decisions. The primary vehicle for school decentralization in recent
decades has been site-based management, under which decision-making authority
has been delegated to local schools, often accompanied by a requirement that
schools establish representative school councils.
Disaggregated Data: Test scores or other data divided so that various categories can be
compared. For example, schools may break down the data for the entire student
population (aggregated into a single set of numbers) to determine how minority
students are doing compared with the majority, or how scores of girls compare
with those for boys.
91
Educational leadership: Leadership in formal educational settings. It draws upon
interdisciplinary literature, generally, but ideally distinguishes itself through its
focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human development. In contemporary
practice it borrows from political science and business. Debate within the field
relates to this tension.
Educational organization: Organization within the scope of education. It is a common
misconception that this means it is organizing educational system; rather, it deals
with the theory of organization as it applies to education of the human mind.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): U.S. legislation passed in 1965
that provided large amounts of federal aid to states and local districts as part of
the larger War on Poverty. ESEA must be reauthorized periodically by the
Congress. The most known-known provision of ESEA is Title I, which targets
funding to schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged
children in order to improve their educational opportunities. The 2002 version
requires that states administer annual tests in math and reading for all students in
grades 3 through 8; schools failing to produce sufficient improvements in student
test scores will be subject to sanctions. Advocates of these testing provisions
argue that they are necessary to ensure that all children receive a quality
education; others argue, however, that such tests are not an accurate measure of
educational quality and that the accountability provisions will compel teachers to
teach to the test, narrowing the curriculum and focusing on rote learning.
92
English as a Second Language (ESL): Teaching English to non-English-speaking or
limited-English-proficient (LEP) students to help them learn and succeed in
schools. ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) has generally the same
meaning as ESL.
English Language Learner (EL): A student whose first language is other than English
and who is in a special program for learning English (which may be bilingual
education or English as a second language).
Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students‘ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student achievement
in that area.
Hispanic: The term Hispanic was first adopted by the United States government in the
early 1970s, during the administration of Richard Nixon, and has since been used
in local and federal employment, mass media, academia, and business market
research. It has been used in the U.S. Census since 1980. Hispanic defines a
region of origin, not a person‘s race. It‘s a term referring to a person of Latin
American descent living in the United States. Historically, areas conquered by
the Spaniards were considered part of a region originally called Hispania.
Modern countries which can trace their history to Spain are now considered to be
Hispanic, and include Mexico, Central America, and most of South America
where Spanish is the primary language. The only exception to this Hispanic
designation is Brazil, which was settled by Portugal, not Spain. Any citizen of
93
those countries originally colonized by Spain can be considered Hispanic. People
from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and other areas south of the
American border would all be considered Hispanic. Often the term "Hispanic" is
used synonymously with the word "Latino", and frequently with "Latin" as well.
Even though the terms may sometimes overlap in meaning, they are not
completely synonymous. (Also see Latino)
Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.
Instructional Leadership: Actions or behaviors exhibited by an individual or group in
the field of education that are characterized by knowledge and skill in the area of
curriculum and instructional methodology, the provision of resources so that the
school‘s mission can be met, skilled communication in one-on-one, small-group
and large-group settings, and the establishment of a clear and articulated vision
for the educational institution.
Latino: Latinos are speakers of romance languages (Spanish) and by definition are
Latins. Because of the popularity of "Latino" in the western portion of the United
States, the government adopted this term in 1997, and used it in the 2000 census.
"Latino" is very close in meaning to Hispanic, but it also includes other countries
such as Brazil. The regional description "Latin America" now refers to the
countries where Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese) are spoken. (Also see
Hispanic)
94
Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) Students: Students who are reasonably fluent in
another language but who have not yet achieved comparable mastery in reading,
writing, listening, or speaking English. LEP students are often assigned to
bilingual education or English-as-a-second-language (ESL) classes.
Low-Performing Schools: Schools, almost always located in urban or low-income rural
areas, in which an unacceptably low proportion of students meet established
standards, as indicated by test scores. Also called failing schools. Some
observers believe it is unfair to call such schools failing because, they say, the real
failure is society's for allowing the social conditions that hamper student learning.
Others point out that some schools, called effective schools, succeed in teaching
low-income children, so others could do it too. Because policies increasingly
focus on such schools, and because test scores usually vary from year to year
rather than going steadily up or down, state and national officials have devoted
considerable attention to procedures for deciding which schools should be
declared low-performing.
Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure a
student‘s academic strengths and weaknesses.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs
provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools. (Also see ―Elementary and
Secondary Education Act‖)
95
Mentoring: A developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a less
experienced partner referred to as a mentee or protégé. Usually - but not
necessarily - the mentor/protégé pair will be of the same sex.
Pedagogy: The art of teaching—especially the conscious use of particular instructional
methods. If a teacher uses a discovery approach rather than direct instruction, for
example, she is using a different pedagogy.
Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it from a
set of possible answers provided for them. A form of assessment that is designed
to assess what students know through their ability to perform certain tasks.
Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully. Also known as
staff development, this term refers to experiences, such as attending conferences
and workshops that help teachers and administrators build knowledge and skills.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.
Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a row
they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of having all
students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
96
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to improve
student performance. USLI has identified ten key change levers that are worthy
of study: curriculum, assessment, professional development, human resource
system and human capital management, finance and budget, communications,
governance/board relations, labor relations/contract negotiations, family and
community engagement, and strategic plan.
Rigor: Academically challenging.
Sampling: In education research, administering a test to and analyzing the test results of
a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics of the entire student
population. Based on their analysis of the data of the representative sample, 22
researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer important trends in the
academic progress of an individual or group of students.
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members, who
set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The governing
board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the district
superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee unions.
School Climate: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational
structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular ways.
Some schools are said to have a nurturing environment that recognizes children
and treats them as individuals; others may have the feel of authoritarian structures
where rules are strictly enforced and hierarchical control is strong. Teaching
practices, diversity, and the relationships among administrators, teachers, parents,
97
and students contribute to school climate. Although the two terms are somewhat
interchangeable, school climate refers mostly to the school's effects on students,
whereas school culture refers more to the way teachers and other staff members
work together.
School Culture: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and organizational
structures within a school that cause it to function and react in particular ways.
Some schools are said to have a nurturing environment that recognizes children
and treats them as individuals; others may have the feel of authoritarian structures
where rules are strictly enforced and hierarchical control is strong. Teaching
practices, diversity, and the relationships among administrators, teachers, parents,
and students contribute to school climate. Although the two terms are somewhat
interchangeable, school climate refers mostly to the school's effects on students,
whereas school culture refers more to the way teachers and other staff members
work together.
School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
relevant to educational activities.
Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to
98
produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (however
accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect.
Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English Learner
status, and special education designation. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged:
Students whose parents do not have a high school diploma or who participate in
the free/reduced price meal program because of low family income.
Site-Based Decision-making: A system of school governance by which most decisions,
including staffing and spending decisions, are made at the level of the individual
school, rather than at district or other agency level. Also known as school-based
or site-based management.(Schools or sites are not necessarily whole buildings.
In some cases, a building may house several schools.) Site-based decision-
making is frequently confused with participatory or shared decision-making.
Some schools have teams composed of administrators, teachers, and parents;
some include student representatives, community members, and one or more
business partners. Team members share responsibility for educational, leadership,
and administrative functions. In fact, site-based decision-making does not depend
on any particular arrangements for governance at the school level. Some highly
successful programs assign authority to school principals, who are responsible for
deciding how best to involve others. And shared decision-making tends to be
more successful when local administrators use it voluntarily.
99
Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions. Tests that are administered and scored
under uniform (standardized) conditions.
Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum. In
current usage, the term usually refers to specific criteria for what students are
expected to learn and be able to do. These standards usually take two forms in the
curriculum:
Content standards (similar to what were formerly called goals and
objectives), which tell what students are expected to know and be able to do in
various subject areas, such as mathematics and science.
Performance standards, which specify what levels of learning are
expected. Performance standards assess the degree to which content standards
have been met. The term "world-class standards" refers to the content and
performances that are expected of students in other industrialized countries. In
recent years, standards have also been developed specifying what teachers should
know and be able to do.
Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and evaluated by the
district‘s board of education and responsible/accountable for all school district‘s
operations and management.
Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged students
based on the number of low-income students in a school. Refers to Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which is intended to
100
improve education in high-poverty communities by targeting extra resources to
schools and school districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. These are
areas in which academic performance tends to be low and the obstacles to raising
performance are the greatest. First enacted as part of the War on Poverty, Title I
was known for a while as Chapter I. ESEA must be periodically reauthorized.
The most recent reauthorized version of the law, named No Child Left Behind,
requires states to administer annual assessments in reading and math for all
students in grades 3–8. Schools will be expected to demonstrate that all students
are making adequate yearly progress in achieving proficiency on state standards,
as measured by test scores. Schools not making adequate yearly progress will be
targeted for improvement and they will receive additional assistance from the
state. Schools continuing to not achieve adequate yearly progress will be subject
to sanctions, including reconstitution of staff or conversion to a charter school.
101
REFERENCES
American Education Act (1974)
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature. Ontario, Canada: International Center for Educational Change, Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revisión of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority representation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.
ASCD, (2010). Educational Terms Defined in ASCD, A lexicon of learning, what
educators mean when they say... Retrieved on December 1, 2010, from
http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Lexicon-of-Learning/Lexicon-of-Learning.aspx
Atkinson, J. W., (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior.
Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to
teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
Bailey, D. B. & Palsha, S. A. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire
and implications for educational innovations. The Journal of Educational
Research, 85 (4), 226-232.
Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language
learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/EducatingELsBuildingTeacherCapacity
Vol 1.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Barton, P. (2006). “Failing” or” succeeding” schools: How can we tell?. (Item No. 39-
0468). Washington D.C; American Federation of Teachers.
Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2008). Windows on achievement and inequality. Retrieved
from http://www.ets.org on 4/20/2010.
102
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bensimon, (2004). The report card. Phi Delta Kappan. University of Southern
California.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bosniak, Linda S. (1996). Opposing Prop. 187: Undocumented immigrants and the
national imagination. Connecticut Law Review, 28(3), 555-571.
Boyne, G. A. (2006). Strategies for public service turnaround: Lessons from the private
sector? Administration and Society, 38(3)3: 365-388.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Calderon, Margarita. (2008). Preparing teachers, chapter 21, Continuing to understand
how to teach children from diverse backgrounds, 413-429. Corwin Press,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Office of Policy and Programs. (1998).
Proposition 227: A fact sheet that focuses on CLAD/BCLAD. Teacher
Preparation. Sacramento: CTC.
California Department of Education. (1999). Proposition 227, Survey, Interim Report.
Sacramento: CDE.
California Department of Education. (2008). Taking center stage. Retrieved on August
14, 2010, from http://www.cde.gov
California Department of Education. (2009). Testing and accountability. Retrieved on
August 14, 2010, from http://www/ced.ca.gov/ta/
California Department of Education. (2010). Retrieved on August 14, 2010, from
www.cq.cde.dataquest.gov
California Department of Education. (1997). Language Census
California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English learners:
Research-based approaches.
103
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J. S., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind
Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Carroll, T. G., Fulton, K., Abercrombie, K., & Yoon, I. (2004). Fifty years after Brown
v. Board of Education: A two-tiered system. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Teaching and America‘s Future.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-
Hill
Clark, M. D., & Artiles, A. J. (2000, February). A cross-national study of teachers‘
attributional patterns. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 77-89.
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cobb, C. (2004). Improving adequate yearly progress for English language learners.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Wood, A. M., Weinfield,
F. D., et al.. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, National
Center for Education. United States Government Printing Office.
Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority
student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2),
185-212.
Council for the Great City Schools. (2009). Succeeding with English language learners:
Lessons learned from the great city schools. Washington DC. Retrieved August
9, 2010 from www.cgcs.org
Curran, B. (2005). Graduation counts: A report to the national governor‘s association
task force on state high School graduation rates. Retrieved on 4/28/2010 from
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007, May). Evaluating ―no child left behind.‖ The Nation.
Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond on:
4/27/2010.
104
Datnow, A., Park , V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Achieving with Data: How High-
Performing School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary
Students.‖ Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California. Available at:
http://www.newschools.org/viewpoints/AchievingWithData.pdf
DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a ―Professional Learning Community‖? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In
S. Fuhrman, (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the System
(pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert
Shanker Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 15, 2008 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf
Fierros, E. G. (1999). Examining gender differences in mathematics achievement on the
third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Boston College.
Foley, E. (2001). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the
central office in Philadelphia schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy and
Research in Education.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Research-based
recommendations for instructional ad academic interventions: Practical
guidelines for the education of English language learners. Houston: TX. Center
on instruction
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to
reach limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Lewes:
Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
105
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Stritikus, T., & Curry,
J. (2000). The Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the Instruction of English
Learners. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners
in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Educational Policy
Analysis Archives, 11(36).
Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B. T, & Scribner, K .P. (2009). The demographic imperative:
English language learners represent a growing proportion of U.S. students. To
meet these students‘ needs, we must understand who they are. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 8-13.
Garcia, E. E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the
challenge (3
rd
Ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Garcia, E., Curry-Rodriguez, J. E., & Stritikus, T. (2000). The education of limited
English proficient students in California schools: An assessment of the influence
of Proposition 227 in selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal,
24(1-2), 15-36.
Giuliani, R. (2002). Leadership, Chapter 4. New York: Hyperion.
Gold, N. (2006). Successful bilingual schools: Six effective programs in California. San
Diego: San Diego County Office of Education.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners: What the research-does
and does not-say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44.
Goldenberg, C, Rueda, R., & August, D. (2006). Sociocultural contexts and literacy
development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-
language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth. (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., &
Amanti, C. (1993). Teacher research on funds of knowledge: Learning from
households. (Report from National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and
Second Language Learning). Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5tm6x7cm.
Gordon, S.. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering
learning communities. Boston: Pearson Education; Allyn and Bacon.
106
Governor‘s Committee on Education Excellence (2007, November). Students first:
Renewing hope for California’s future. Sacramento, CA: Governor‘s Committee
on Education Excellence
Guthrie, L. F. (2009). Research on AVID’s college success path (csp) project for English
Learners. (In progress). Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training in
Education. (CREATE).
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N., M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A. &
Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and
comprehension. The Journal of Education Research, 99(4), 232-246.
Gutiérrez, K.D. (1995, June). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the urban
classroom: Constructing a Third Space. Paper presented at the Fourth
International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on Learning,
Townsville, QLD, Australia.
Gutierrez, K.D. (2008). Developing a sociocultural literacy in the third space. Reading
Research Quarterly. 43(2). pp. 148-164.
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the
innovation: a manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The
University of TX at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton
University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Hattam, R., Lucas, B., Prosser, B., & Sellar, S. (2007). Researching the ―funds of
knowledge‖ approach in middle years. The World of Educational Quality, AERA
annual Meeting and Presentation, Chicago, April 2007.
Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.
Hochschild, J. & Scovronic, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools.
Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY.
Huston, A .C., McLoyd, V., & Coll, C. G. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in
contemporary research, Child Development, 65, 275-282.
Interview with Ms. Okiishi, Bilingual Education Services, Program Director. January 15,
2009.
107
Jack O'Connell, Superintendent of Schools. "State of Education Address." California
Department of Education. Sacramento: California Department of Education,
January 22, 2008.
Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity
in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press, Inc.
Karoly, L. A. & Panis, Constantijn W. A. (2004). The 21
st
Century at work: Forces
shaping the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation.
KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., & Provasnick, S. (2007). Status and trends in
the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-39). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. U.S.
Department of Education.
Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and
available educational programs and services: 2000-2001 summary report.
Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
Koehler, P. (2004). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, more
improvement needed. Retrieved from www/wested.org
Lee, C. D., Rosenfeld, E., Mendenhall R., Rivers, A., & Tynes, B. (2003). Cultural
modeling as a frame for narrative analysis. In C. L. Daiute and C. Lightfoot
(Eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development if individuals in society.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrel, R. D. (2003). Cultural Proficiency: A manual
for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M., (2008). Linguistically responsive
teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-371.
Mac Iver, M .A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (CRESPAR No.
65). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 10,
2010, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu
108
Marzano, R .J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies (Policy
Briefs). Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy research in Education.
Retrieved September 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and
race and sex differences in managerial promotions. University of Cincinnati.
May 11, 2010 http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results03_fourth03.asp
McGraner, K. L., & Saenz, L. (2009). Preparing teachers of English language learners.
Washington, D.C., National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992, Spring). Funds of Knowledge
for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory into Practice,( 31)2,132-141.
Monzo, L., & Rueda, R. (2009). Passing as English fluent: Latino immigrant children
masking language proficiency. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 20-
40.
Mora, J. K. (2009). From the ballot box to the classroom. Educational Leadership.
66(7), 14-19.
Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from
organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of Educational
Administration. (46)1, 74-98. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Nation at Risk (1983). Washington D.C. 20 USC 1233 a.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2005, June). The condition of
education 2005. Washington, DC: U.S.; Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004, August). English language
learner students in U.S. public schools: 1994 and 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.;
Department of Education.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs (NCELA). (2006). NCELA Frequently asked questions.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.
National Education Association (NEA) (2008). English language learners face unique
challenges. Center for Great Public Schools: Washington, DC.
109
National Head Start Association. (2009). About the national Head Start Association.
Retrieved from www.NHSA.org/about_nhsa on: 5/1/2010.
Newsweek Magazine. (2009). One of top high schools in the nation. Retrieved from
http://rhs.rowlandschools.org/index.jsp on August 9, 2010.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002).
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational
opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Californians Together
Orellana, M. F., & Eksner, H. J. (2005). Power in cultural modeling: Building on the
bilingual language practices of immigrant youth in Germany and the United
States. Retrieved from: http://er.aera.net
Padilla, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-born
Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/ESL
instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 727-742.
Pappano, L. (2010). Scenes from the school turnaround movement: Passion,
frustration, mid-course corrections make rapid reforms. Harvard Education
Letter.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearson, P., & Raphael, T. (1999). Toward a more complex view of balance in the
literacy curriculum. In W.D. Hammond & T.E. Raphael (Ed.), Early literacy
instruction for the new millennium (pp. 1-21). Grand Rapids: Michigan Reading
Association.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Reardon, S. F. & Galindo, C. (2009, April). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in
math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research
Journal September 2009, (4)3 853-891 @ 2009 AREA retrieved on 11/17/10.
Reed, D. (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact and what is left undone.
Retrieved from www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF23A.pdf on: 4/20/2010.
110
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.
Research and Policy. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together Research and Policy.
Rickey, D. L. (2008). An action research study of the use of adult and
transformational learning theory to guide professional development for
teachers. Dissertation: Capella University.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. Using social, economic, and educational
reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Rowland Unified School District. (2010). Retrieved from
www.rowlandschools.org/apps/pages on July 5, 2010.
Rueda, R. (2006). Motivational and cognitive aspects of culturally accommodated
instruction: The case of reading comprehension. In D.M. McInerney, M.
Dowson, & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Effective schools: Vol. 6: Research on
sociocultural influences on motivation and learning. (pp. 135-158). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Rueda, R., & Yaden, D. (2006). The literacy education of linguistically and culturally
diverse young children: An overview of outcomes, assessment, and large-scale
interventions. In B. Spodek & O.N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the
Education of Young Children, 2
nd
Ed., (pp. 167-186). Mahwah, NF: Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc., Pub.
Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. In P. Pedraza &
M. Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: Setting an agenda. (pp. 185-204). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003). Academic instrumental knowledge:
Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic intervention approaches.
Current Issues in Education, 6(14).
Rumberger, R.W., & Gandara, P. (2005, Winter). How well are California‘s English
learners mastering English? UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute
Newsletter, 14(2), 1-2.
Rumberger, R. and Gandara, P. (2000). The schooling of English learners. In G.
Hayward and E. Burr (Eds.) Crucial issues in California education (pp. 23-44).
Berkeley CA: University of California, Policy Analysis for California Education.
111
Salamon, L. M. (1991). Overview: Why human capital? why not? In David and
Hornbeck and Lester M. Salamon (eds.), Human capital and America’s Future.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, pp. 1-28.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective perspective. Fourth Edition.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman Publishing.
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to
acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language
learners- a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap between black and
white students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 9-18.
Spillane, J. P. & Thompson, C. L. (1998). Looking at local school districts’ capacity for
ambitious reform. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
The Council of the Great City Schools (2009, Oct.). Succeeding With English Language
Learners: Lessons Learned from the Great City Schools. (1992). Washington DC
20004
Tienda, M. (2007). Hispanic demographics and implications for schools [Keynote
speech]. Washington DC: Office of English Language Acquisition Summit.
TIMSS (2003). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
Velez-Ibanez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds
of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 23, 313- 335.
Verdun, V. (2005). Big disconnect between segregation and integration. Negro
Educational Review, 56(1), 67.
Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L. et. al. (2010, May). What are we doing to
middle school English Learners: Findings and recommendations for change from
a study of California EL programs. (Narrative Summary). San Francisco:
WestEd.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
112
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an
attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.
WestEd. (2004). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, faster
improvement needed. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/753
Wikipedia. (2010). Hispanic Latino In Wikipedia. Retrieved on December 19, 2010,
from http://en.wikipedia.org
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs,
expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through
adolescence. In a. Wigfied & J. S. Eccles (eds.), The development of achievement
motivation. (pp. 91-120). San Diego: Academic Press.
Williams, B. (2003). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and
practices. 2
nd
edition. ASCD.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2005) Similar students, different results: Why do
some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Williams, T., Kirst, M. W., Haertel, E., et al. (2007). Gaining ground in the middle
grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Wong, K. K., & Nicotera, A. C., (2004). Brown v. Board of Education and the Coleman
Report: Social Science Research and the Debate on Educational Equality.
Peabody Journal of Education, (79)2, 122-135
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers‘ sense of efficacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education. 6(2), 137,
148.
113
APPENDIX A
INQUIRY PROJECT TIMELINE
Table A-1: Project Overview
Semester Steps taken in Inquiry Process
Fall 2009
Inquiry Team Formation
Context of District Need
Understanding District Priorities
Narrowing inquiry focus
Spring 2010
Exploring the Roots
Data Collection
Summer 2010
Data Analysis
Identification of Performance Gaps & their Root Causes
Development of Findings & Recommendations / Considerations
Fall 2010
Presentation of Findings & Recommendations/considerations to
District Groups
114
APPENDIX B
SACNNING INTERVIEW GUIDE
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:
Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We‘d like to focus on (topic). You comments
will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to
anyone outside the USC team.
1. Please give me an overview of (topic)?
What is the current situation?
o What is being done about it?
o Is the situation a ―problem‖—in what sense?
2. Now, I‘d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding (topic)?
Has the district tried to address the (topic) in specific ways? Please
describe.
Was there any success with these efforts?
Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?
3. Regarding the (topic), are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the
district are trying to accomplish?
What is the goal(s) of this effort?
What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
How will you/the district know if it is successful?
Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get details)
How big is the gap b/w where you are now and where you aspire to be?
4. Let‘s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I‘d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district from
achieving perfect success on (topic)? Is the problem linked to many role groups or one?
Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of politics or
what?
Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture/structure
Probe by role group
5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to better
understand the (topic) here in the district—any suggestions?
115
APPENDIX C
ONE MONTH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:
Our dissertation is going to focus on ELL Hispanic Students, and your thoughts on this
topic would be helpful. We‘d like to know what things you have done in your class the
past month to help your ELL Hispanic students learn.
1. What were your goals for your Latino ELL students?
2. What were your strategies to help your students achieve these goals?
What/When/How? What kinds of things did you do in the classroom to help your
ELL Hispanic students learn?
3. To what extent were you successful?
116
APPENDIX D
ROUND TWO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Themes
1. Expectations for ELL students
2. Decentralization
3. Goals
4. Perceptions
Stages of Concern
1. What are some things you are doing in your classroom to address the needs of EL
learners?
(Behavior/Experiences)
2. How is it going?
(Feelings/Emotions)
3. What does it take to make this intervention a successful one?
(Knowledge/Skills)
4. What do you see as the pros and cons for your own involvement in the instruction of
EL learners? (Perceptions)
(Opinion/Value)
5. What are the measures of success? (Goals)
(Knowledge/Skills)
6. What is your opinion on having an ELL Lead Teacher? (Decentralization)
(Opinion/Value)
7. What is you role in working with the ELL Lead Teacher?
(Beahvior/Experiences)
117
APPENDIX E
TRIANGULATION OF DATA
Title of dissertation: An Alternative Capstone Project: Closing the Achievement Gap for
Hispanic English Language Learners
Chairs: Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda
Methods
Table E-1: Triangulation of Data Sources
RQs Interview Observation
Document
Analysis
(1) What do key role groups in the RUSD
perceive to be the root causes of the
Hispanic ELL achievement gap?
X
X
(2) What do key role groups in the RUSD
perceive s possible solutions to closing the
Hispanic ELL achievement gap?
X
X
(3) What does the project team identify as
root causes of the Hispanic achievement
gap?
X
X
X
(4) What does the project team identify as
possible solutions to closing the Hispanic
ELL achievement gap?
X
X
X
(5) How will the district respond to the
project team‘s suggestions?
X
X
118
APPENDIX F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Examining the Effectiveness of Reform Implementation Through Gap Analysis:
Hispanic EL Academic Achievement Gap
Alberto Alvarez, Maurita De La Torre-Rubalcava, and Lesette Molina-Solis
Background
In its quest to adequately perform its role as an effective and responsible school
district, the Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) tries to deliver sound, quality
educational programs for all of its students. Following the vision of educational equity for
all, RUSD consistently searches for best-current educational practices and strategies that
promote academic excellence throughout its student body. For example, RUSD has
gained local respect in its efforts to provide educational excellence. Currently, RUSD
boasts of numerous accolades in education including numerous Blue Ribbon schools,
several Title 1 Academic Achievement Performance recognitions, and it‘s partnership
with the Ball Foundation, and one high school has been deemed as one of the nation‘s top
high schools by Newsweek Magazine, (RowlandSchools.org, 2010).
On a national level, NCLB mandates that all students attending public schools
must meet the same academic standards in reading and math, (National Education
Association, 2008). As a result, the NCLB accountability demands placed on districts
and schools have increased the scrutiny given to various subgroups including, among
others, English Learners (ELs). In order for schools to meet their adequate yearly
progress (AYP) growth targets, each one of four specifically designated subgroups,
119
(economically-disadvantaged, students of color, students with disabilities, and students
with limited English proficiency) must meet their expected growth targets, as established
by the federal guidelines in NCLB, (NEA, 2008).
NCLB, (2001) has brought educational issues affecting previously unexamined
student populations to the forefront. One consequence of the current increase in
accountability efforts is that, an academic achievement gap has surfaced within the
RUSD. Specifically, despite its consistent and continual efforts at educational reform to
maximize levels of student academic performance, RUSD has entered Program
Improvement (PI) status (CDE, 2010).
The Hispanic and the EL subgroups‘ academic performance indicators
persistently show a gap when results are compared to academic levels of other subgroups
in the district. In 2008, all subgroups within RUSD met NCLB growth targets, with the
exception of two subgroups, Hispanic students and ELs. The Hispanic subgroup and the
EL subgroups scored lowest in academic attainment in English Language Arts and Math.
Achievement and attainment gaps between these subgroups are evident at the elementary
and middle school levels.
The current Hispanic achievement gap is of concern to RUSD students, educators,
and administrators. Increasingly severe sanctions will continue to accumulate and
negatively impact RUSD if the current patterns of student performance gaps persist.
Federal and state sanctions, including mandates to reorganize and/or eventual takeover of
school and/or district operations loom in the realm of possible future sanctions. In order
to avoid negative consequences such as the ones outlined above, all national public
120
school districts, including RUSD must prepare all their student subgroups to meet the
mandatory academic growth targets.
The Current Project
The current project is an inquiry project which is based at the University of
Southern California (USC). It is part of an alternative dissertation project which involves
teams of students working with two school districts, one being RUSD. The faculty
leaders of the project approached the district with a request to identify areas that the
district would like to receive feedback on. The present inquiry team has focused on the
achievement gaps for Hispanic students at the elementary and middle school levels. The
overall intent is to help, in a consultant role, uncover the root causes of the achievement
gaps in RUSD and pose possible solutions and next steps.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to identify root causes of the academic
achievement gaps in RUSD, specifically for Hispanic EL students at the elementary and
secondary levels. Specifically, the goal was to implement the Clark and Estes ‗GAP
Analysis‘ mode to help RUSD close the existing and widening achievement gap between
Hispanic EL students and their elementary and middle school peers. The GAP Analysis
framework became the lens by which the inquiry project team examined potential roots to
student performance problems and root causes of the Hispanic students and EL students‘
achievement gaps within RUSD.
The GAP Analysis process helped identify root causes of current problems around
existing issues in knowledge, motivation, and organizational structure within the district.
121
This inquiry project‘s focus was to determine positives and negatives of the numerous
reform efforts instilled in RUSD to address the achievement gaps as noted by API and
AYP amongst Hispanic and EL student populations and to provide RUSD with
suggestions for closing the persistent gap. The research-based literature review helped
the USC inquiry project team to consider potential solutions to current performance
inequities issues as mentioned above, which will help close the persistent achievement
gaps in RUSD.
The inquiry team opted to implement the Clark and Estes, (2002) gap analysis
model as a framework to inquire into potential root causes for the gaps in academic
performance. An explanation of the gap analysis and its process is described below.
The Gap Analysis Model
According to Clark and Estes, (2002), a gap analysis is a systematic problem-
solving approach to help improve a team‘s performance and achieve its goals,‖ (Clark
and Estes, 2002). According to the authors, the gap analysis process can be instrumental
in helping organizational teams, such as school districts, measure existing gaps resulting
from the discrepancies between the organization‘s desired performance targets and actual
levels of current performance. Clark and Estes‘ (2002) systemic observational process
can help organizations identify potentially successful strategies to help bridge gaps
between desired and actual disparities in performance thus helping RUSD meet their
growth goals and objectives. The gap analysis process can also help teams identify
potential root causes for performance problems, and potential solutions to effectively
address their performance gaps. By measuring gaps between their desired and actual
122
goals and objectives, teams strategize to effectively address and close the gaps. The gap
analysis process involves a five-step approach, (Clark and Estes, 2002).
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process
The Gap model has five steps to ensure a systematic application of the model. The
first step is to Define Goals: this step is a guide in how the performance goals should be
written and how to create a plan to achieve the goals. In this step the goals will be
examined at three levels: long term goals, intermediate goals, and day to day goals. Goals
are reviewed to ensure they are aligned at all levels, they are measurable, and that goals
fit in within each other. The goals that are set need to be ‗concrete‘ goals that are clear,
measurable and supported by all the stakeholders because they are ‗C3 Goals‘ (Clark &
Estes 2002). ―The best work goals are C3 Goals: Concrete, Challenging, and Current‖
(Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 26). A concrete goal is one that is easy to understand and can be
measured. A challenging goal is one that would be a feasible next step. A current goal is
one that can be attained in a shorter amount of time (weeks or months vs. years).
The second step is to Determine Gaps. The current level of performance is
compared to a standard that represents a desired level of performance. This comparison
would involve collecting benchmark data from other organizations that are currently
meeting the desired goal. The gap is determined by subtracting the organization's current
performance in comparison to the achievement of the other organization who has
achieved the desired goal. The difference between the current performance and desired
performance becomes the gap.
123
The third step in the Gap analysis model is to Investigate Causes. Causal analysis
consists of listing all the possible causes that may be the root cause of a less than desired
performance. This analysis is specifically done by looking at the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational/cultural for the potential causes of the gap. The
organization using the gap model will look at all of the stakeholders in the organization
and examine them in each area. Knowledge refers to things such as education,
information, and professional development. Motivation refers to such things as
willingness to participate and effort. Organizational gaps refer to things such as: climate
of the organization, its practices and its norms. Each potential cause in these three areas is
assessed or ruled out. By using this process of elimination, a clearer picture can be
obtained of what is likely causing the performance gap(s).
Once all the plausible root causes of the determined gap are investigated,
eliminated or accepted, solutions can be identified leading to the fourth step: Propose
Solutions. An emphasis is placed on providing solutions that target the areas of learning,
motivation, and organization. Solutions are research-based and address problems that are
directly tied to the root causes from the previous step.
The fifth and final step is to Evaluate Outcomes. Outcomes and results of the
implemented solutions are evaluated and modified as needed. The evaluation process
itself has four levels according to the gap model. The four levels are; reactions, impact
during the program, transfer, and the bottom. This is an ongoing process and the solutions
can be modified and re-implemented until the desired goals are achieved.
124
The Inquiry Process
USC professors and students formed inquiry teams and developed a plan to
interview key district office level administrators who could offer critical background
information to begin the inquiry process. Almost simultaneously, district personnel
prepared informational presentations for the USC teams. USC professors helped students
develop an interview protocol and assigned teams to perform inquiry at three levels:
elementary, high school, and district levels.
The three doctoral students made contact with RUSD‘s Director of Bilingual
Education for an initial interview. This individual provided guidance in suggesting nine
people with whom the team could conduct "next interviews" with the purpose of getting a
further understanding of the Hispanic EL achievement gap in RUSD. The inquiry group
at that time established the most convenient way to communicate with the Director of
Bilingual Education and confirmed the best way to get in contact with the nine suggested
interviewees.
The inquiry team sent the Director of Bilingual Education a letter indicating the
intent of the project. Once the approval was received, it was sent to the nine principals at
the school sites recommended by the district level contact. The inquiry group proceeded
to make contact and actually interviewed 2, district level administrators and 8 school
administrators. Contact was also made via telephone and email. At the conclusion of
these interviews, follow-up interview and observation dates were set with 17 classroom
teachers recommended by the school administrators.
125
Interviews were held in three phases: phase 1 included district level interviews,
phase 2 included school site level interviews, and phase 3 included interviews after one
month of the initial contact with teacher/administration. During the interviews, the data
collected was coded and later examined by USC teams, looking for root causes for the
existing gaps.
Findings
RUSD has made their Hispanic EL subgroup a district priority in efforts to meet
state and federal benchmarks for student performance. RUSD cited NCLB as an
important factor in understanding the context of what has put a spotlight on this particular
subgroup. There is a determination in RUSD to capitalize on the opportunity to further
advance the districts reform efforts. Among the different schools that were visited, it
became clear that in RUSD certain steps have served to create the foundation necessary
to advance EL reform district wide.
What follows is a summary of the findings collected through the review of
documents and the interview process. First, is a summary of RUSD‘s strengths currently
operating at the district and school levels towards meeting the organizational goal of
closing the Hispanic EL achievement gap. This is followed by a summary of the
emergent themes as to what the team found to be hindering RUSD from closing the
Hispanic EL achievement gap.
Strengths
RUSD is a highly successful district as evidenced by countless honors and
national respect it has received. RUSD earned four National Blue Ribbon, sixteen
126
California Distinguished Schools, and several Golden BEL Awards. There are numerous
exceptional practices that RUSD already has in place that are an excellent launching pad
for propelling their efforts to close the EL Hispanic achievement gap.
Rowland has a culture of professionalism and high expectations among the staff
that contribute to the academic success of students. Every person that the inquiry team
encountered expressed personal pride they had in working for Rowland and for the
children they serve. Many of those interviewed were also proud to share that they are
alumni of RUSD and that they have placed their own children in the Rowland school
district.
Clear Vision for Reform
In RUSD, there seems to be a great support for the advancement of a clear and
unified vision of the district reform efforts. The process of establishing this vision and
rallying support behind district goals created the necessary buy-in to make the reform
implementation successful. RUSD‘s shared vision for reform has signaled a district
commitment to system-wide change.
From the very first interaction with the district is was clear that through their
partnership with the Ball Foundation their had been substantial work on creating a clear
vision. All the district leadership was able to articulate how their particular department
contributed to the overall district vision.
English Language Learner Advocacy
RUSD has very dedicated and effective advocates for the improvement of EL
instruction and services. These advocates have helped guide and advance the district‘s
127
EL reform agenda. One of these advocates in specific is the Director of Curriculum and
Bilingual Education. Everyone interviewed spoke about the positive support for the
changes in the EL reform from the school board, the superintendent, and the bilingual
education director. The superintendent and the director of Curriculum and Bilingual
Education not only have the expertise needed but also the commitment required for
improving the quality of EL instruction in RUSD. The Curriculum and Bilingual
Education Director has taken proactive steps to build a culture of collaboration. The
bilingual education director understands the importance of setting high standards for EL
achievement. The bilingual education director also makes every effort to provide the
tools and curriculum support that schools may need to meet these high standards. The
director believes in the importance of research based strategies and supporting the use of
data to improve instruction and services for ELs.
Bilingual Education Office
When Rowland USD made EL achievement a priority it also empowered the
office of Bilingual Education. Throughout the interviews conducted in the district, there
was consistent feedback about how important the role of the Curriculum and Bilingual
Education department has been in making the needs of ELs a district-wide focus area.
The bilingual education office also works collaboratively with other districts office
departments to support instructional improvement for ELs in making the EL focus an
integrated part of all support offered from all the departments. It was also mentioned
repeatedly how the department of Curriculum and Bilingual Education is included in the
128
highest levels of decision-making, which helps to keep the needs of Hispanic EL students
on the table.
Master Plan for English Learners
RUSD has created a district wide Master Plan for English Learners. This plan
includes specific efforts to systematically build schools‘ capacity to instruct and support
ELs. Communication with, and involvement of, school staff and the community were
essential in the formulation of this plan. The district actively engaged teachers,
principals, and other school administrators in the adoption of organizational and
instructional strategies.
RUSD identified a deliberate policy and specific practices for the English
Language Development (ELD) of ELs. The district strategies and practices signal an
implicit understanding of the dual academic challenge of ELs: to acquire both proficiency
in English and the literacy skills to comprehend content. RUSD supports ELs by
providing both Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education throughout the
district.
Support for Implementation
In response to emerging achievement deficits, RUSD has taken the initiative to
implement reforms needed to improve student achievement. With respect to the ongoing
needs of ELs, RUSD has created the EL lead position at each school site with the intent
to improve the quality of the EL program. RUSD has also taken major steps to better
coordinate district resources in order to meet its organizational goals.
129
For example, each school site was assigned an EL lead teacher who provides
information and coaching on the newly adopted collaborative model of instruction,
conducts presentations for staff, facilitates meetings, and works with school personnel to
facilitate professional development activities. These lead teachers essentially act as
liaisons between the school and the district, ensuring that schools had the support they
needed in meeting the needs of EL students. Also, depending on if a school has a
Structured English Immersion program or a Bilingual Education Program, the Office of
Bilingual Education is ready to support every individual site.
Emergent Themes Related to Root Causes
As the team reviewed the interviews and observations, four themes emerged. One
or more of these four themes repeatedly found their way to the center of every
conversation held. These themes first surfaced in the initial scanning interviews and
continued to come up during the follow-up interviews and school visits with site
administrators and teachers. The four emergent themes that were identified were: 1) the
academic impact of a decentralized district on the Hispanic EL subgroup, 2) an absence
of a clearly identified plan and support for the progress of ELs, 3) the perception of
professional accountability for the progress of Hispanic ELs, and, 4) a gap of cultural
knowledge of students‘ backgrounds and experiences.
The Academic Impact of a Decentralized District on the Hispanic EL Subgroup
The inquiry team found that for the specific topic of Hispanic EL achievement the
advantages of decentralization seem to have created some unintended disadvantages for
Hispanic ELs. The explicit accountability for student progress seems to be the biggest
130
hurdle to overcome in trying to close the Hispanic EL achievement gap in a decentralized
setting. For example, among the interviews that were conducted there was a widely
expressed feeling that no two schools addressed the needs of ELs in the same way.
Furthermore, within each site, every classroom was an island unto its own. Many site
administrators and teachers believe there are no explicit goals or targets for student
progress in place. There was also a belief that no system was in place to support or
monitor the implementation of adopted programs because "everyone is doing something
different". This perceived lack of support and oversight leads to inconsistency in the
implementation of the curriculum, and programs for ELs. Any and all decisions
regarding curriculum and levels of implementation is left at the discretion of the
leadership of the individual schools sites. The byproduct of all these decentralized
decisions is the delivery of an ELD academic program that potentially can vary not only
from school to school, but from classroom to classroom.
Although many teachers like the ability to make independent decisions, some
teachers specified that they would prefer the district to impose more structure when it
came to issues surrounding ELs. Teachers and administrators that stated this felt that not
enough is being done at the district level to effectively implement the EL reform at the
schools. They added that they did not feel they had the curricular knowledge or the
content expertise to make decisions for EL students. Through this lens, the teachers do
not see the district valuing certain reform activities nor providing enough follow-up
support.
131
Absence of a Clearly Identified Plan and Support for the Progress of ELs
Through interviews with administrators and teachers, it became clear that some
people interviewed believe that the district has not effectively articulated or
communicated a vision for the kind of instructional program it wants for their ELs. Many
administrators and teachers interviewed stated that the district had not clearly
communicated their goals. Some teachers expressed their awareness of the district‘s
general expectations for ELs, but shared their frustration over the absence of clear
performance goals. In absence of clear performance goals, people tend to focus on tasks
they deem important, instead of helping achieve the organizational goal (Clark & Estes,
2008). The perceived lack of a comprehensive and concrete plan to meet the needs of
ELs is an example of how some respondents feel that the district seemingly has no clear
performance goals or expectations for schools.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the teachers interviewed expressed feeling that
they are working as hard as they can for the best of their students but they really do not
know what the district preferences are. During one interview, a lead ELD teacher at a
site was asked what the districts goals were for Hispanic EL students, the teacher
responded, ―I didn‘t know there were any. If there are, I would love to know what they
are.‖ There was also a voiced frustration that not all lead teachers are allowed the time or
forum necessary to effectively communicate the district message that they were entrusted
in ―taking back‖ to their respective sites. One veteran lead teacher stated, ―WEL it all
depends if your site principal values what you are bringing back. Some principals make
132
room for you on the agenda, while others just put you off by saying that the staff knows
where to find you if they have EL questions.‖
The degree of the gap ranged between teachers that were extremely
knowledgeable in the goals and forms of support the district provided to teachers that did
not know they existed. The knowledgeable teachers were able to articulate the best
instructional practices for ELs and how to access support. At the other extreme, some
teachers did not know who the Lead EL teacher was at their site or that the position even
existed. Many teachers expressed that EL trainings were only for EL teachers and not
accessible to all.
The topic of follow-through repeatedly surfaced in all of the interviews. Many
teachers commented that any ideas and plans proposed for ELs at the district or site
administrative level rarely makes it into the classrooms. The example that was repeatedly
given was that of the English Learner Program. This partial implementation of an
organizational goal reflects the perception of a practice of strong verbal commitment but
a lack of faithful implementation. Other perceptions include that EL instruction is a
separate curricular area. It is not perceived as an integrated part of the core curriculum
nor is it monitored to ensure consistency. Although the district does mandate specialized
language support for ELs, there is no system in place for guidance and oversight of the
EL program component. Individual schools end up adopting different approaches for
implementation. Sites vary in the time they allocate for ELD. They vary in how ELD
groups are formed, the size of the groups, how many levels are in a group, and how
teachers are assigned to teach these groups. The most common variation of the ELD
133
program consisted of having EL students lave the homeroom during core instruction to
receive a pull-out ELD intervention. This is not very effective as students are missing
core instruction to provide ELD in a supplemental setting.
Some of the teachers interviewed explained that they were not involved in
selecting the ELD programs or materials, nor have they been trained on how the program
components should be integrated with the core curriculum. Many general education
teachers have not received any specialized training in English language development
strategies or differentiated instruction.
Another layer of frustration by some teachers was the perception that resources
were not equal between school sites or even within departments. These perceived
inequalities create feelings of isolation for ELD teachers and departments.
Perception of Professional Accountability for the Progress of Hispanic ELs
One significant common finding was the consistent belief that ELD teachers were
ultimately responsible for all EL students. Many teachers reported that there are no
conversations or collaboration around how to meet the needs of EL students throughout
the day and across the curriculum. There was little evidence of collaboration between
teachers at a site and even less evidence of any collaboration between amongst school
sites. Working in isolation can be considered as an organizational problem. It can also
negatively impact motivation because teachers feel that everyone is not held accountable.
Teachers who serve EL students voiced feeling that they carry a heavy burden of
responsibility and moral obligation for the student population. They also believe that the
134
teachers who don‘t service EL students wash their hands of that ―problem‖ because those
are ―not their kids‖.
Some of the teachers and administrators that were interviewed felt that there is
little professional development for teaching literacy to ELs. There are even fewer
professional development opportunities for teachers to learn how to address the needs of
ELs during core curriculum. Teachers need PD to show them how to effectively teach
their student the core content while helping them acquire the academic English necessary
to be successful in the content area. Those interviewed explained that teachers who have
not been selected or have self-selected to work with EL students' feel that they are not
adequately prepared to work with EL students. This feeling of inadequacy perpetuates
the unspoken practice of not taking owne3rsip of EL students by teachers who feel they
are not qualified to support them.
Conversely, many ELD teachers feel overwhelmed with the magnitude of
responsibility that is placed on them to have ‗success with those students‘. There is also
a belief that the majority of the staff who are not ―responsible‖ for ELs are ―allowed‖ to
put some distance between themselves and the problem of closing the Hispanic
achievement gap. There is a collective sense of low teacher efficacy, or teachers‘
perceptions that their efforts as a group will not positively impact student achievement.
This is important, since a low collective efficacy affects persistence and can create a
culture of low expectations.
―Given the importance of access to quality teachers for student achievement-
particularly among ELs-it comes to no surprise that access to high quality professional
135
development (PD) for general education teachers and EL teachers alike was (is)
instrumental in the reform initiatives of improving districts‖ (Great City Schools, Oct.
2009 pg.22). All the administrators and EL leads interviewed understood the importance
of PD, however, they expressed that Rowland does not have a coherent strategy for
building EL staff capacity through targeted professional development. In Rowland USD,
professional development is largely voluntary. In the absence of centrally-defined,
supported, and monitored professional development, each school determines and
provides for its own professional development needs. Those interviewed reported that
the focus and quality of professional development varies from school to school. Most
professional development opportunities that are offered in Rowland USD do not integrate
EL-specific content into their offerings or address strategies for differentiated instruction.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When a middle school teacher was asked about English Learners
taking core curriculum with ‗English Only‘ students, the teacher responded, ―I don‘t
know how to help them sometimes. I am not trained to teach these kids. So when they
struggle I send them back to the ELD teachers.‖ Several teachers felt that they could not
help ―these‖ students. Some teachers felt that the causes for low student achievement
were not connected to their professional effort. With this type of external attribution,
some teachers may feel that their efforts are pointless, and instead focus on other work
goals. Further complicating the matter is the potential difficulty in addressing such a
sensitive issue. Many times teachers are not aware that their attitudes or lack of effort
impact student achievement.
136
A Gap of Cultural Knowledge of Students’ Backgrounds and Experiences
By the time a student arrives at a school they have already been impacted by their
environment. The environment that they come from includes home, culture, language,
and any previous schooling. In order to be effective, educators must understand and
value the diverse backgrounds their students come from and use that information as a
resource in designing instruction. Acknowledging that students come to school with
unique experiences necessitates an acceptance that there is no simple, one size fits all
solution.
In conversations and interviews, the inquiry team found a significant gap in
knowledge about the Hispanic culture within the school district and the community. This
lack of knowledge includes the knowledge of one‘s self and group and the perceptions
and knowledge of other cultural groups. Almost all administrators and teachers
interviewed commented on the cultural differences between their students and the
community. One staff member stated that, ―Students do not feel it is important to learn
English because they do not use it at home or even at school when they are with their
friends.‖ There is also a general perception that the parents are more concerned with the
ethnic demographics of the schools, than the academic standings of their child. One
teacher stated that, ―For the most part, the Hispanic parents do not really value their
children learning English as long as they are in a school where the majority of the
students look like them and there are no (social) problems.‖
One teacher explained that Hispanic parents are comfortable living amongst
themselves and only speaking Spanish. This was further supported when a middle school
137
teacher stated the transition to their school (from the elementary schools) is difficult
because the Hispanic kids that come in from all Hispanic elementary schools do not like
going to school with the Asian students. While these ideas can also be attributed to other
root cause such as motivational and organizational, they stem from a basic lack of factual
knowledge about the students culture.
Cautions and Limitations
It should be recognized that the patterns reported here are based on a limited
number of conversations and interviews with a limited number of respondents within the
district. In addition, the time period over which the information was collected was
relatively short. Finally, these patterns are based on self-report information, and reflect
respondents‘ perceptions.
It is important to keep in mind however, for the most part the patterns reported
were widespread among those with whom we spoke. In addition, while perceptions may
or may not reflect objective reality, they do have an important influence on behavior and
the ultimate achievement of overall goals. Therefore, we hope to work with the district in
the next phase of the work as we begin to assess our findings and formulate appropriate
and helpful recommendations for next steps in addressing gaps.
138
APPENDIX G
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS POWERPOINT
Figure G-1: Title Slide
Figure G-2: Introduction Slide – Project Design
139
Figure G-3: The Gap Analysis Process
Figure G-4: Inquiry Methods
140
Figure G-5: Project Timeline
Figure G-6: Possible Gaps Identified by All Three Teams
141
Figure G-7: Gaps Organized by Dimensions of Gap Analysis
Figure G-8: Comprehensive School Reform Team – Title Slide
142
Figure G-9: Positive Findings
Figure G-10: Possible Gaps
143
Figure G-11: Current RUSD Reform Initiatives
Figure G-12: Considerations: Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure
144
Figure G-13: Recommendations
Figure G-14: Clark & Estes (2002) Goal Alignment
145
Figure G-15: Comprehensive School Reform Team - Conclusion Slide
Figure G-16: High School Team – Introduction Slide
146
Figure G-17: Positive Findings at the High Schools
Figure G-18: Possible Gaps Affecting the High Schools
147
Figure G-19: Goals: Create Work Goals Aligned to the Global Goal
Figure G-20: Goals: Facilitate Perspective Building Around Practices
148
Figure G-21: Goals: Celebrate Accomplishments Toward Goals
Figure G-22: Resources
149
Figure G-23: Implementation & Accountability
Figure G-24: Cultural Settings
150
Figure G-25: High School Team – Conclusion Slide
Figure G-26: Hispanic English Language Learner Team – Introduction Slide
151
Figure G-27: Positive Findings for ELs
Figure G-28: Possible Gaps
152
Figure G-29: Processes of Change
Figure G-30: Effective District Support
153
Figure G-31: Cultural Proficiency
Figure G-32: Recommendations
154
Figure G-33: Hispanic English Language Learner Team – Conclusion Slide
Figure G-34: Sustainability of the Reform Effort
155
Figure G-35: Final Conclusion Slide
Figure G-36: Special Thanks
156
APPENDIX H
HISPANIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER TABLE
Table H-1: TEAM: Hispanic English Learners
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale Evidence/
Literature
The
implementation
of a relatively
new district plan
for supporting
the progress of
ELs
Turnaround Change:
The description of a
school‘s or LEA‘s
efforts and resources to
direct their student
performance outcomes.
Transformational
Theory:
Focusing on adult
learning.
Educational Equity:
Change the current
practice and
organizational structure
to prepare ALL teachers
to effectively address
ALL students‘ needs.
Implementation:
Costly, and takes
time/possible, effective
turnaround change must
be nurtured, monitored,
and supported
consistently.
Proposes a linear,
inquiry-based frame for
leaders to practice
reflective coaching as a
guide in promoting
instructional and
organizational change via
a reflective skill gap
analysis process to alter
adult pedagogical beliefs.
Focus of district
should include a rigorous,
college-ready, curriculum
for all RUSD students.
CREATE (2009) model
provides a framework for
emulation.
Reeves
(2004)
Pappano
(2010)
Rickey
(2010)
Rickey
(2008)
Guthrie, L.F.
(2009)
157
Table H-1: TEAM: Hispanic English Learners Continued
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale Evidence/
Literature
The academic
impact of a
decentralized
district on the
Hispanic EL
subgroup
District Role
*Establish instructional
& curricular focus
*Consistent &
coordinated
instructional activities
*Strong leadership from
Superintendent
*Emphasis on
monitoring instruction
& curriculum
In our current state
educational system, schools
are in need of an effective
intermediary between the
schools and the state.
Massell describes 4
approaches to school
improvement:
1. Interpreting and using data
2. Building teacher
knowledge & skills
3. Improving curriculum and
instruction
4. Targeting interventions for
low performing students
Consortium for Policy
Research in Education
(CPRE) study found that the
district‘s role was vital in
building a school sites
capacity and could highly
influence the choices that
individual school sites made
to make to improve
academic achievement.
Model implementation
is directly related to the
leadership provided by
administrators.
There is a need for
professional development
for principals to become
instructional leaders.
Mac Iver &
Farley (2003)
Massell
(2000)
Foley (2001)
McDougall,
Saunders, &
Goldberg
(2002) as cited
in Gordon, S.
(2004)
Anderson
(2003)
158
Table H-1: TEAM: Hispanic English Learners Continued
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale Evidence/
Literature
A perception of
professional
accountability by
teachers for the
progress of
Hispanic ELs
AT THIS TIME SAME
AS CULTURAL
PROFICIENY
RECOMMENDATIONS
By providing direct
guidance to teachers,
districts play a role in
bridging the gap between
existing practice and a more
challenging pedagogy.
Large scale reform now
necessitates focused
attention on how to motivate
teachers to change practices.
Elmore
(1996)
Mac Iver &
Farley (2003)
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale Evidence/
Literature
A gap of cultural
knowledge of
students‘
backgrounds and
experiences
Cultural Proficiency:
a way of being that
enable both
individuals and
Organizations to
respond effectively to
people who differ
from them
Funds of Knowledge:
considers the
everyday knowledge
of families &
communities as
resources to be used in
instruction
Cultural Modeling:
goal is to connect
students‘ knowledge
from the home with
knowledge presented
at school
By increasing
sociocultural competence,
instructional and
pedagogical factors can be
considered in light of
cultural practices in the
homes and community.
By responding to
deficit views of students
from diverse language and
cultural backgrounds,
educators consider the
everyday knowledge of
families and communities as
resources which can be used
in instruction.
By connecting
classroom instruction with
communities, student
interest will increase as will
student motivation.
Lindsey,
Robins, &
Terrel
(2003)
Gonzalez,
Moll, Floyd-
Tenery,
Rivera,
Rendon,
Gonzalez, &
Amanti
(1993)
159
Table H-1: TEAM: Hispanic English Learners Continued
Possible Gap Recommendations Rationale Evidence/
Literature
Third Space:
establish a connection
between the student and
classroom culture so
that students understand
how to participate in the
class
By making
recognizable connections
between the home & school
content for students,
students better understand
the content presented.
By incorporating
students‘ everyday
experiences into the
curriculum, students are
better able to identify
strategies for meaning-
making as they move from
analyzing personally
meaningful texts to
canonical works of
literature.
To transform the
current educational system
into a more equitable system
for all students by
establishing a connection
between the student &
classroom culture so that
students understand how to
participate in the class.
By developing a rich
curriculum with various
methods of interaction,
students begin to understand
who they are what they may
accomplish academically
and beyond.
Lee,
Rosenfeld,
Mendenhall,
Rivers, &
Tynes
(2003)
Gutierrez
(1995)
160
APPENDIX H REFERENCES
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature. Ontario, Canada: International Center for Educational Change, Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Foley, E. (2001). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the
central office in Philadelphia schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy and
Research in Education.
Goldenberg, S. (2004). Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching
and learning. New York: Teacher College Press: Allyn Bacon.
Gordon, S.. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering
learning communities. Boston: Pearson Education; Allyn and Bacon.
Guthrie, L. F. (2009). Research on AVID’s college success path (csp) project for English
Learners. (In progress). Center for Research, Evaluation, and Training in
Education. (CREATE).
Gutiérrez, K.D. (1995, June). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the urban
classroom: Constructing a Third Space. Paper presented at the Fourth
International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on Learning,
Townsville, QLD, Australia.
Gutiérrez, K., & Larson, J. (2007). Discussing expanded spaces for learning [Profiles
and Perspectives]. Language Arts, 85, 69–77.
Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or
repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Horwitz, A. R., Uro, G., Price-Baugh, R. et al., (2009). Succeeding with English
Language Learners: Lessons learned from the great city schools. The Council of
the Great City Schools, Washington, DC.
Kowal, J., Hassel, E. A., and Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful school turnarounds: Seven
steps for district leaders. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and
Improvement. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from www.centerforcsri.org.
Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese: A cultural modeling activity system for
underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–
142.
161
Lee, C. D., Mendenhall, R., Rivers, A., & Tynes, B. (1999). Cultural modeling: A
framework for scaffolding oral narrative repertoires for academic narrative
writing. Paper presented at the Multicultural Narrative Analysis Conference at
the University of South Florida, Tampa.
Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrel, R. D. (2003). Cultural Proficiency: A manual
for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mac Iver, M .A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (CRESPAR No.
65). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved September
23, 2010, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies (Policy
Briefs). Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy research in Education.
Retrieved September 7, 2010, from http://eric.ed.gov/
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Pappano, L. (2010). Scenes from the school turnaround movement: Passion,
frustration, mid-course corrections make rapid reforms. Harvard Education
Letter.
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project
PDF
Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources
PDF
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools
PDF
Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...
PDF
An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...
Asset Metadata
Creator
De La Torre-Rubalcava, Maurita
(author)
Core Title
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/18/2011
Defense Date
01/19/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,Alternative Capstone Project,English language learners,gap analysis model,Hispanic,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(counties),
school districts: Rowland Unified School District
(geographic subject),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Marsh, David D. (
committee chair
), Rueda, Robert S. (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mdelator@ggusd.us,mdelator@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3751
Unique identifier
UC1232392
Identifier
etd-TorreRubalcava-4374 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-446098 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3751 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-TorreRubalcava-4374.pdf
Dmrecord
446098
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
De La Torre-Rubalcava, Maurita
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
achievement gap
Alternative Capstone Project
English language learners
gap analysis model
Hispanic