SIMILAR AND CONTRASTING FACTORS AFFECTING ACADEMIC ...

SIMILAR AND CONTRASTING FACTORS AFFECTING

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF NEWLY ARRIVED

AND SECOND GENERATION FILIPINO

AND MEXICAN HIGH SCHOOL

ENGLISH LEARNERS

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty

of

California State University, Stanislaus

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

By

Marcel Maly

May 2014

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

SIMILAR AND CONTRASTING FACTORS AFFECTING

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF NEWLY ARRIVED

AND SECOND GENERATION FILIPINO

AND MEXICAN HIGH SCHOOL

ENGLISH LEARNERS

by

Marcel Maly

Dr. Dennis Sayers

Professor of Advanced Studies in Education

Dr. John Borba

Professor of School Administration

Dr. Kay Vang

Principal, Fresno Unified School District

Date

Date

Date

Signed Certification of Approval Page is

on file with the University Library

© 2014

Marcel Maly

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iv

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation in loving memory of my parents Irena Malá and

Š tefan Malý.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Dennis

Sayers for his ongoing support as my dissertation chair. Your assistance has made my

dream come true. Thank you very much for everything you have done for me.

To the rest of my dissertation committee, Dr. John Borba and Dr. Kay Vang,

thank you for your assistance in helping me complete my dissertation. I appreciate the

time each of you took to review my dissertation and provide constructive feedback.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Dedication ............................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. v

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... x

Abstract ................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .......................................................... 6

Research Questions ................................................................... 10

Purpose of the Study ................................................................. 12

Definition of Terms................................................................... 13

Limitations ................................................................................ 28

Significance of the Study .......................................................... 29

Summary ................................................................................... 32

II. Review of Research and Literature ....................................................... 35

Second Language Acquisition .................................................. 35

Teacher Quality Equity, Programmatic Equity and ..................

Achievement Equity........................................................ 38

Teacher Quality Equity ......................................... 39

Professional Preparation of Teachers of .....

English Language Learners............... 41

English Language Learners Under the ........

Federal Law ...................................... 42

Programmatic Equity ............................................ 45

Social Justice Curriculum ........................... 46

Achievement Equity .............................................. 48

Student Centered and School Centered Factors Affecting .......

Academic Performance of Newly Arrived and ...............

Second Generation English Language Learners ... 51

Student Centered Factors ............................ 52

English Language Proficiency .......... 52

Mother’s Education and Years in the

United States ........................... 54

English Language Support System .. 56

vii

Behavioral Engagement ................... 58

School Problems and Violence ........ 60

Relational Engagement .................... 61

Cognitive Engagement and ..............

Academic Self-Efficacy ......... 62

Gender ............................................... 63

Academic Performance Pathways................................... 64

Family ................................................................... 65

Emotional Well-Being .......................................... 67

Health Status ......................................................... 67

Parental Involvement ............................................ 69

Ethnicity in Relation to Parental Involvement ...... 71

School Centered Factors ............................. 73

Level of School Racial Segregation .. 75

A Theory of Human Motivation ..................................... 79

Segmented Assimilation of Families of ....................................

English Language Learners and its Determinants .......... 81

Assimilation Pathways .......................................... 83

Human Capital ...................................................... 84

Effects of Undocumented Immigrant Status on ........................

Academic Performance of English Language Learners .. 87

Summary ................................................................................... 90

III. Methodology ......................................................................................... 93

Sample....................................................................................... 95

Urban High School Profile.............................................. 99

Instrumentation ......................................................................... 101

First Qualitative Component ........................................... 102

Second Qualitative Component ...................................... 104

Third Qualitative Component ......................................... 105

Quantitative Component ................................................. 106

Procedures ................................................................................. 108

First Qualitative Procedure ............................................. 108

Second Qualitative Procedure ......................................... 112

Third Qualitative Procedure ............................................ 113

Quantitative Procedures .................................................. 114

Data Analysis ............................................................................ 115

Methodological Limitations ............................................ 116

Summary ................................................................................... 117

viii

IV. Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 120

Quantitative Findings ................................................................ 122

Qualitative Findings .................................................................. 127

El Shadowing and Observation Tool .............................. 127

Equity Audits .................................................................. 131

Teacher Quality Equity ......................................... 131

Programmatic Equity ............................................ 134

Achievement Equity .............................................. 135

Student-centered and School-centered ............................

Qualitative Findings .............................................. 137

Coding Process...................................................... 138

Frequency of Applied Codes ...................... 140

Rank Order of Code Co-occurrence Findings .......................... 148

Lack of English Skills ..................................................... 149

Preparedness to Teach ELLs ........................................... 151

Lack of Academic Support for ELLs .............................. 153

Value Placed on Education ............................................. 156

Academic Experiences in the United States ................... 157

Obstacles to Learning English ........................................ 158

Importance of Learning English ..................................... 160

Summary ................................................................................... 162

V. Discussion, Implications and Recommendations ................................. 168

Purpose of the Study ................................................................. 168

Research Questions ................................................................... 168

Discussion of Findings .............................................................. 169

Discussion of Quantitative Findings ............................... 169

Discussion of Qualitative Findings ................................. 172

El Shadowing and Observation Tool .................... 172

Equity Audits ........................................................ 184

Student-centered and School-centered Factors ..... 186

Implications............................................................................... 188

The First Qualitative Component.................................... 188

The Second Qualitative Component ............................... 189

The third Qualitative Component ................................... 190

Recommendations for Future Research .................................... 192

Summary ................................................................................... 194

References ............................................................................................................... 197

ix

Appendices

A. EL Shadowing and Observation Tool ......................................................... 211

B. Target Student Questionnaire ..................................................................... 212

C. Target Student Survey................................................................................. 213

D. Target Student Interview Questions............................................................ 226

E. Follow up Target Student Interview Questions .......................................... 227

F. Focus Group Target Student Interview Questions ...................................... 228

G. Target Teacher Questionnaire ..................................................................... 229

H. Target Teacher Survey ................................................................................ 230

I. Target Teacher Interview Protocol ............................................................. 231

J. Follow up Target Teacher Interview Protocol ............................................ 232

K. Second Follow up Target Teacher Interview Protocol ............................... 233

L. Parent Informed Consent in English ........................................................... 234

M. Parent Informed Consent in Spanish........................................................... 235

N. Parent Informed Consent in Tagalog .......................................................... 236

O. Student Informed Consent in English ......................................................... 237

P. Student Informed Consent in Spanish......................................................... 238

Q. Student Informed Consent in Tagalog ........................................................ 239

R. Final Code Tree List ................................................................................... 240

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Percent of CELDT Levels for English Learners ............................................... 9

2. UHS’ Academic Performance Index (API) for 2012 ........................................ 10

3. Target English Language Learners’ CSTs in ELA for 2011-2012 ................... 99

4. Target English-Only Students’ CSTs in ELA for 2011-2012 ........................... 100

5. Descriptors of the Participating Target Teachers.............................................. 111

6. Filipino ELLs and English-only Students’ CSTs in ELA ................................. 124

7. Mexican ELLs and English-only Students’ CSTs in ELA ............................... 125

8. Filipino and Mexican ELLs’ CSTs in ELA ...................................................... 126

9. Filipino and Mexican ELLs and English-only Students’ CSTs in ELA ........... 127

10. EL Shadowing: Percentage of 5-Minute Intervals Observed .......................... 129

11. Example of Tenured Teacher Schedule at UHS ............................................... 134

12. Example of Mobile Teacher Schedule at UHS ................................................. 134

13. Percentage of Filipino and Mexican ELLs in Special Education at UHS ........ 135

14. Percentage of Filipino and Mexican ELLs in AP Classes at UHS ................... 136

15. Filipino and Mexican ELLs and English-only Students’ API for 2013 ........... 137

16. Rank Order of Code Applications: First and Second Generation

Filipino ELLs .................................................................................................... 144


Filipino and Mexican ELLs .............................................................................. 145


Mexican ELLs ................................................................................................... 146

xi

19. Rank Order of Code Applications: Teachers and First and Second

Generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs ........................................................... 148

20. Rank Order of Code Co-occurrences ................................................................ 149

xii

ABSTRACT

This sequential explanatory mixed-methods design study researched (a) first and

second generation participating target Filipino and Mexican English language

learners’ (ELLs), daily behavioral engagement, with special emphasis on their oral

and written English language use in daily academic settings that promote English

language acquisition and literacy skills, (b) teacher quality equity, programmatic

equity, and achievement equity, in regards to ELLs having equal access to academic

and support services as their English-only counterparts, and (c) role of student-

centered and school-centered factors in predicting the academic performance of first

and second generation participating target Filipino and Mexican ELLs. The

conceptual framework of the study drew from research related to (a) second

language acquisition, and utilized the EL Shadowing and Observation Tool to gather

data in regards to the first and second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs’

academic classroom experience, (b) research of McKenzie & Skrla (2011) and Skrla,

McKenzie & Scheurich (2009) on equity and social justice in schools, and (c)

theoretical regression model for predicting the academic achievement of ELLs

developed by Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008). Findings of this

study revealed that participating ELLs (a) had minimal linguistic opportunities in

daily academic settings, (b) had inequitable access to highly qualified experienced

teachers and academic programs, and (c) their academic performance was being

influenced by mixture of similar student-centered and school-centered factors.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Demographic changes in the United States pose new educational challenges in

the nation’s schools. Children of immigrant families who are not proficient in English

are being classified as English Language Learners (ELLs). The most unsettling

debates related to first generation ELLs are associated with English-language learning

and undocumented immigration (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco & Todorova, p. 6).

The first generation of ELLs share many challenges related to English language

learning with the second generation of ELLs. Although second generation ELLs, who

form the majority of ELLs in the nation’s schools, were born in the United States,

their English language skills have many times not been developed yet for a variety of

reasons. Cummins (2001) suggested that it takes an average of five to ten years of

systematic high quality training to develop cognitive academic English language

skills.

Scholastic challenges that ELLs have to overcome on a daily basis are equally

shared by their content area teachers. Many educators are frustrated by their own

inability to teach the academic content in a manner appropriate for ELLs. The passing

of Proposition 227 in June 1998 limited bilingual education in California, eradicating

the use of primary language as an instructional tool. The initiative was intended to

significantly alter the ways in which the California’s ELLs are taught. Proposition

227 requires that ELLs be taught “overwhelmingly in English” through

2

sheltered/structured English immersion (SEI) programs during a temporary transition

period not normally intended to exceed one year, and then transferred to mainstream

English-language classrooms. However, although the intentions of Proposition 227

were to give ELLs increased opportunities to learn English, the implementation of

Proposition 227 produced mixed results.

In addition, the major shifts in American school politics over the past several

years aim to increase the overall academic performance of students while thinning the

academic GAP among an assortment of student ethnicities. The No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandates schools that receive Title I funding improve students’

academic performance. Under the NCLB, public schools must satisfy Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. In

addition, NCLB mandates that by 2014 all students achieve proficiency in ELA and

mathematics. Public schools that do not manage to meet mandated AYP in the same

content area subject for two consecutive years for any numerically significant

subgroup are forced to participate in mandatory Program Improvement (PI).

Moreover, the penalty for falling short is loss of federal funding for schools

serving low-income children. Hence, in California, the largest numerical subgroup

under the NCLB is ELLs. However, although NCLB places additional pressure on

ELLs, this numerically significant subgroup is largely unable to meet what NCLB

Acts mandates, because ELLs’ educational needs have mostly been inadequately

addressed by educational institutions. Schools have a responsibility to educate all

children regardless of their cultural, ethnic, national, or linguistic background and to

3

provide them with the necessary tools to reach their full potential (Sosa, 2008).

Hence, it is essential that schools provide ELLs with the same educational

opportunities as their mainstreamed counterparts.

Furthermore, assessing the academic progress of ELLs seems to be a difficult

task. Previous research has suggested that the mandatory high-stakes testing is unfair

to ELLs (Coltrane, 2002). Many times ELLs are being subjected to high-stakes

testing at the time when their academic English language skills are still largely

undeveloped, resulting in lower test scores. In addition, culturally biased mandatory

high-stakes testing further diminishes ELLs’ academic performance due to their

unfamiliarity with the mainstream American culture. Hence, a meaningful assessment

of ELLs seems to be unattainable due to ELLs’ limited English language proficiency.

Therefore, these test results cannot be relied on to deliver an accurate assessment of

ELLs’ academic skills, and have a harmful effect on ELLs and their teachers (Wright,

2002).

According to the California Department of Education (CDE), all K-12

students whose home language is not English are mandated to take an annual

California English Language Development Test (CELDT). In addition, students who

have been previously identified as ELLs and who have not been reclassified as Fluent

English Proficient (RFEP) are also required to take CELDT once a year. Local

educational agencies (LEAs) are required to administer CELDT to their ELLs within

thirty days of enrollment at school. The requirement to test ELLs once a year is

mandated by Federal law (Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

4

[ESEA]) and state law (Education Code [EC] sections 313 and 60810 through

60812). Results of this annual test assist schools and individual educators in

identifying ELLs in need of help with their listening, speaking, reading and writing

English language skills. The CELDT results are reported as five performance levels,

hence, level one = beginning, level two = early intermediate, level three =

intermediate, level four = early advanced, level five = advanced. Individual student

test results and pertaining information are sent to the school district. Districts are

required by law to notify parents of test results within thirty calendar days from

receiving the test results. However, if a student has been enrolled in a language

instruction program after the beginning of the school year, then the parents have to be

informed within fourteen calendar days. The CELDT data provides districts and

individual schools with valuable information regarding the status of the individual

student’s progress in English language acquisition and overall academic progress.

The CELDT data help California Department of Education (CDE) monitor the

accountability of individual school districts.

Likewise, the additional measurement of academic achievement in California

is the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 that established the

Academic Performance Index (API), a summary of a school’s academic performance

and progress on statewide assessments. The primary objective of PSAA is to assist

schools with academic improvement and to quantify the academic achievement of all

students. The API summarizes a state’s individual school performance and growth on

a variety of academic measures. The API is a valuable tool that individual schools or

5

districts can utilize for comparison with similar schools or districts.

Conversely, the academic complexity of issues in America’s public school

system is heightened by underlying “non-academic” variables such as poverty, race,

ethnicity, discrimination, issues related to immigration status, and the understanding

and respect of different cultures which have a direct impact on ELLs’ educational

attainment. Chih and Harris (2008) argued that poverty has minimized educational

opportunities for the poor, marked by unequal educational opportunities and an

overall decrease in accessing higher education. Hence, predicting academic

achievement of ELLs seems to be a national priority in addressing the educational

challenges America’s schools are obligated to face today. Consequently, whether this

new generation of Americans bolsters the homeland or deepens its social problems

hinge on the shared and economic trajectories of this immigrant populace (Portes &

Rumbaut, 2001, p. xvii).

Researchers who study second language acquisition and ELLs largely agree

that the first and second generation ELLs share many similar challenges that prevent

them from reaching their full academic potential. Coincidently, the multiple negative

environmental stresses such as families with single parents as well as living in

poverty reflect on the educational achievement and growth of both generations of

ELLs. “Thus multiple family disadvantages experienced by ethnic and language

minority children, and the associated accumulation of lower levels of skills,

knowledge, and behavioral controls, from birth to age five, are central to the lower

school readiness of these children” (Chih & Harris, 2008, p. 126).

6

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) developed a theoretical

regression model for predicting academic achievement for upper elementary, middle

school, and high school ELLs from both a student-centered perspective and a school-

centered perspective. Authors suggested that the student-centered perspective

embraces English proficiency (predisposed by mother’s education and years in the

United States); behavioral engagement (influenced by school problems and violence,

relational engagement, cognitive engagement, gender); and family structure (referring

to whether the family has two parents, one parent or another other caregiver, whether

father was present and working). The school-centered perspective embodies for

example the percentage of students at or above proficient on the state English-

language exam, school attendance rates, school poverty rates, and level of racial

integration in schools. In essence, this conceptual data-based theoretical regression

model can serve as a theoretical basis for the comparison between the first and second

generation factors influencing the academic performance of ELLs, since both

generations of ELLs have to face a multitude of the same challenges related to their

academic success in the United States. Consequently, schools need to look at the

ELLs’ educational needs through the lens of psychological anthropology, cultural

psychology, and cultural health psychology, when predicting their academic

attainment.

Statement of the Problem

The Urban High School (UHS - pseudonym given to the school where this

study took place to protect its confidentiality) selected for this study is one of the

7

many low-income, racially and linguistically diverse public schools within the Bay

Area of California, designated as a Title I school. Analysis and review of the data

presented by the California Department of Education for the 2012-2013 year indicates

that the total enrollment at UHS was 1,850 students. Six hundred forty-one Hispanic

students represented 34.64% of the school’s enrollment, 616 African American

students embodied 33.29% of the total school population; 334 Filipino students

formed 18.05% of the school’s student body; and 159 White students denoted 8.59%

of the entire school student enrollment. In addition, smaller ethnic and linguistic

subgroups also supplemented the cultural diversity of this high school’s students.

Hence, 31 Pacific Islanders represented 1.67% of pupil conscription; 29 students

claimed two or more races, embodying 1.56% of school population; 23 students were

of Asian ancestry, representing 1.24% of school's enrollment and twenty-three Native

Americans denoting 1.24% of UHS students. Finally, five students who did not report

their ethnic background represented 0.02% of the entire student body.

Consequently, 170 students were identified as ELLs at this school, denoting

9.18% of entire school enrollment. A multitude of the languages spoken at this high

school consisted of 126 students who identified Spanish as their home language,

representing 74.12% of total ELL population at school, followed by 31 Filipino

students, embodying 18.24% of the school’s ELLs. Other languages spoken at UHS

were Mandarin 1.18%; Hindi 1.18%; Tongan 1.18%; Tamil 0.59%; Punjabi 0.59%;

Samoan 0.59%; Thai 0.59%; Arabic 0.59%; French 0.59%, and Portuguese 0.59% of

the student body.

8

Annual CELDT results in the last five years presented in Table 1 indicate that

the majority of ELLs at this high school fall under the category “Intermediate.” This

trend seems to be a district-wide problem, indicating that there is a great need to

address the educational needs of ELLs with the overall goal of increasing their

academic achievement as measured by CELDT, and move them to the next “Early

Advanced” level. In accordance with NCLB, this school is legally bounded to

increase students’ academic performance, including the academic performance of

ELLs who form a large portion of school’s student body. In addition, current school’s

Program Improvement (PI) status and the sanctions accompanying it underline the

need to address all aspects of ELLs’ educational needs and to scrutinize their daily

academic endeavor.

In addition, the UHS API report for 2012 in Table 2 shows that the school’s

ELLs did not meet the growth target for 2011-12. The huge GAP in API scores

between ELLs and rest of the school’s ethnic subgroups further indicates that UHS

needs to monitor all aspects of ELLs’ education, and closely examine their English

language acquisition and performance in all core curriculum subjects. Although UHS

provides teachers with training on the effective teaching of ELLs, the training is

optional; therefore, not all faculty members are getting trained. Hence, the school

needs to implement school-wide mandatory training for all teachers in effective

instructional strategies and best practices to improve ELLs’ second language

acquisition that focuses on acquiring academic English. In addition, UHS needs to

implement a system that can predict the academic achievement of ELLs, taking into

9

consideration a variety of school-centered and student-centered predictors of

academic achievement.

Table 1

Percent of CELDT Levels for English Learners at Urban High School

Early Early

Beginning intermediate Intermediate advanced Advanced

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

2008-09 10 24 45 18 2

2009-10 13 24 48 14 0

2010-11 10 20 54 16 1

2011-12 9 20 41 27 2

2012-13 11 22 39 25 2

10

Table 2

2012 API Base Score (Scale 200 to 1,000) at Urban High School

Numerically

Significant 2012-13 Met

Target 2012 Growth 2013 Growth

Groups Base Target Target Target

Schoolwide 663 7 670 Yes

African American 591 10 601 Yes

Filipino ELLs 791 5 796 Yes

Mexican ELLs 638 8 646 No

White 748 5 753 Yes

English learners 599 10 609 No

Research Questions

The participants in this research study were two subgroups of Filipino and

Mexican ELLs, and one group of certificated participating target teachers whose

classrooms were observed. The Filipino ELL subgroup consisted of two first

generation participating target Filipino ELLs, one male and one female, and two

second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, one male and one female.

Likewise, the Mexican ELL subgroup consisted of two first generation participating

target Mexican ELLs, one male and one female, and two second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs, one male and one female. This study was a

mixed-method design comprising qualitative and quantitative components.

11

The qualitative component was based on EL Shadowing and Observation Tool

developed and used by Los Angeles Unified School District several years ago (see

Appendix A); participating target ELLs Likert-type attitude scale attitude

questionnaires (see Appendix B), participating target ELLs surveys (see Appendix C),

interviews with individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix D), follow-up

interviews with individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix E), focus group

interviews with participating target ELLs (see Appendix F), target teacher Likert-type

attitude scale attitude questionnaires (see Appendix G), target teacher surveys (see

Appendix H), individual target teacher interviews (see Appendix I), follow-up

interview with individual target teachers (see Appendix J), and, finally, second

follow-up interviews with participating target teachers (see Appendix K).

The EL Shadowing and Observation Tool is a momentary time-sampling

method used to track students in the classroom environment without revealing

student’s identity either to the teacher where the student will be observed, or to the

student who will be observed. The student is observed for about three hours a day and

the teacher observer records every five minutes everything what the observed student

is doing at that specific moment of time. The El Shadowing and Observation Tool

was partially based on the works of Pauline Gibbons, co-authored with Jim Cummins,

Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning (2002), adapted by Joan Wink in 2008,

author of Critical Pedagogy (2011), and utilized by Dr. Kay Vang and Dr. Dennis

Sayers, while overseeing the implementation of this method at a variety of California

schools. All EL Shadowing observations and interviews with participating

12

individual target ELLs and participating individual target teachers were conducted by

this researcher.

The teacher observer was provided with professional development on specific

ELL strategies, including strategies to increase opportunities for students to use oral

language in promoting academic language. More specifically, this study investigated

the following research questions based on the results of previously mentioned criteria

delineated at the beginning of this chapter:

1. In what ways are Filipino and Mexican ELLs behaviorally engaged in a

representative classroom environment?

2. What are the teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement

equity differences between target ELLs and English-only students?

3. What roles do student-centered and school-centered factors play in predicting

the academic performance of first and second generation Filipino and

Mexican ELLs?

The theoretical foundation of this study was the explanatory data-based

conjectural model framework that focused on the research topic through the lens of

linguistic anthropology and socio-cultural psychology.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to gain more information about a variety of

factors affecting the academic performance of first generation and second generation

ELLs at UHS. The student body where 12 different languages are spoken, a large

percentage of students scoring at the Intermediate level on the CELDT, and ELLs’

13

API Growth Score for 2011-12, the lowest in comparison with other ethnicities

warranted the need for scrutinizing the factors affecting the academic performance of

ELLs at UHS. To capture the school experience of ELLs and to document the level of

their productive oral and listening engagement in classrooms, as well as their overall

academic commitment, a method termed EL Shadowing and Observation Tool was

adopted, as discussed previously in this chapter. The high school where the study

took place utilized EL Shadowing to observe four tenth grade students and four

eleventh grade students, designated as ELLs performing at the CELDT intermediate

level. The EL Shadowing and Observation Tool is a direct observation, time-sampling

method, structured into four language domains, hence, listening, speaking, reading,

and writing (see Appendix A).

To capture the personal experiences of ELLs related to factors affecting their

academic performance, this researcher conducted structured interviews with each

individual participating target ELL in this study and follow-up participating target

ELLs focus group interviews. Finally, in order to gain meticulous information

regarding what factors affect the academic performance of ELLs, this researcher

conducted structured interviews with individual participating target teachers whose

ELLs were observed in the target teachers’ classrooms, complementing the

qualitative component of this study.

Definition of Terms

Academic Performance Index (API) – The cornerstone of California’s Public

Schools Accountability Act of 1999; measures the academic performance and growth

14

of schools on a variety of academic measures.

Accommodations – Tools and procedures that provide equal access to

instruction and assessment for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities

(those covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act) must be provided the appropriate accommodations

necessary to participate in the state and district assessments as required for reading

and math under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

Accountability - The notion that people (e.g., students or teachers) or an

organization (e.g., a school, school district, or state department of education) should

be held responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or

sanctioned for their success or lack of success.

Achievement Test - A test to measure a student’s knowledge and skills.

Active Cognitive Engagement (ACE) - Cognitive engagement in academic

work has been defined by Marks (2000) as “A psychological process involving the

attention, interest, investment, and effort students expend in the work of learning”

(pp. 154-155). Newmann et al. (1992) defined cognitive engagement in academic

work as “The student’s psychological investment in and effort directed toward

learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic

work is intended to promote” (p.12). Both of these definitions involve psychological

investment and effort. The Newmann et al. definition is the more specific one stating

that the construct involves engagement for the purpose of mastering knowledge,

skills, or crafts; whereas, Marks’ definition does not address the issue of purpose for

15

engagement.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) - An individual state’s measure of yearly

progress toward achieving state academic standards. Adequate Yearly Progress is the

minimum level of improvement that states, school districts, and schools must achieve

each year, according to federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. This

progress is determined by a collection of performance measures that a state, its school

districts, and significant subpopulations of students within its schools are supposed to

meet if the state receives Title I federal funding. In California, the measures include

(1) specified percentages of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced” on California

Standards Tests in English/language arts and mathematics; (2) participation of a least

95 percent of students on those tests; (3) specified API scores or gains; and (4) for

high schools, a specified graduation rate or improvement in the rate.

Advanced Placement (AP) - A series of voluntary exams based on college-

level courses taken in high school. High school students who do well on one or more

of these exams have the opportunity to earn credit, advanced placement, or both for

college.

Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) – Language skills needed

to interact in social situations, for example, when speaking to a friend on the

telephone. BICS refers primarily to context-bound, face-to-face everyday social

communication. This term is credited to Cummins’ research related to language

acquisition and learning.

16

Benchmarks - A detailed description of a specific level of student

achievement expected of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels;

academic goals set for each grade level.

Bilingual Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development (BCLAD) –

A teacher authorization that provides ELLs with instruction for English Language

Development (ELD), instruction for Primary Language Development (PLD),

Specially Designed Academic Instruction Delivered in English (SDAIE), and Content

Instruction Delivered in the Primary Language (CIDPL).

Bilingual Education - An in-school program for students whose first language

is not English or who have limited English skills. Bilingual education provides

English language development plus subject area instruction in the student’s native

language. The goal is for the child to gain knowledge and be literate in two

languages.

California Achievement Test (CAT) - A standardized test that helps to assess

a student’s progress. The test includes various language arts and mathematics areas.

The CAT has been in existence since the 1950s and is given in most grade schools

across the US. The test is called a norm-referenced test. This means the child is

compared against other children. Instead of a regular grade, he receives a percentage-

based score. For example, if the child gets a 90 percent, that means he scored higher

than 90 percent of all children who took the test.

California Basic Education Skills Test (CBEST) - This test measures basic

educational skills and must be passed before a person can become a teacher or

17

administrator in California.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) – An independent

agency created in 1970 by the Ryan Act and is the oldest of the autonomous state

standards boards in the nation. The mission of the CCTC is to facilitate the

credentialing of California's teachers. The commission issues and renews teaching

credentials as well as substitute teacher credentials.

California Academic Content Standards - The official definitions from the

state Board of Education of what children need to know and learn at a particular

grade level.

California Department of Education (CDE) - An agency within the

government of California that oversees public education. Its headquarters are located

in Sacramento. The department oversees funding and testing and holds local

educational agencies accountable for student achievement. Its stated mission is to

provide leadership, assistance, oversight, and resources (via teaching and teaching

material) so that every Californian has access to a good education.

California English Language Development Test (CELDT) - A test for students

whose primary language is not English (as reported by their parents). The test is

administered 30 days after initial enrollment and then annually until it is determined

that the student has mastered English. At that point, the student is classified as Fluent

English Proficient (FEP).

California Education Code (Ed Code) - A collection of all the laws directly

related to California K-12 public schools. Ed Code sections are created or changed by

18

the governor and legislature when they make laws.

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) - A state exam that California

public high school students, beginning with the class of 2006, must pass in order to

graduate. Its purpose is to test whether students have mastered the academic skills

necessary to succeed in the adult world. It is a pass-fail exam divided into two

sections: English/language arts (reading and writing) and mathematics. Sophomores,

juniors, and seniors can take the test. Once students pass a section of the test, they do

not have to take that section again.

California Standards Test (CST) - Tests in English/language arts,

mathematics, science, history/social science, and other topics comprising items that

were developed specifically to assess students’ performance on California’s academic

content standards. The CST is part of the STAR testing program. Students at different

grade levels take different tests, depending on the courses they are taking.

California Teachers of English Learners (CTEL) – A certificate that allows

the holder to provide specialized instruction to English language learners (ELLs).

Charter Schools - Publicly funded schools that are exempt from many state

laws and regulations. They are run by groups of teachers, parents, and/or foundations.

Certificate/Credential - A state-issued license certifying that the teacher has

completed the necessary basic training courses and passed the teacher exam.

Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) - Theory proposed by Cummins

(2000) that knowledge of a concept in a primary language promotes the transfer of

that knowledge into a second language (Freeman & Freeman 2004). Beyond

19

promoting knowledge transfer, Freeman and Freeman argue that there is an

interdependence between knowledge in a first language and learning a second

language. The CUP is a cognitive approach to L2 acquisition, supports the idea that

being bilingual is a cognitive advantage, and that knowledge in a primary language

provides a foundation for learning a second language (Díaz-Rico & Weed 2010).

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) - refers to the highly

abstract, decontextualized communication that takes place in the classroom. Hence, it

is a language-related term which refers to formal academic learning.

Criterion Referenced Test - A test that measures how well a student has

learned a specific body of knowledge and skills. The goal is typically to have every

student attain a passing mark, not to compare students to each other.

Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) - An

authorization to provide specialized instruction to individuals for whom English is a

second language. Specifically, it authorizes instruction for 1) English Language

Development (ELD) in preschool, K-12 and adults (restrictions apply to holders of

Children's Center Permits, Child Development Permits, and Designated Subjects

Teaching Credentials) and 2) Specially Designed Academic Instruction Delivered in

English (SDAIE) in the subjects and grade levels authorized by the prerequisite

credential or permit.

Curriculum - The courses of study offered by a school or district. California

has developed a set of standards that are intended to guide curriculum and

instruction. The final decisions about school curriculum are the responsibility of the

20

local school board.

Differentiated Instruction - “Individualized” or “customized” instruction. The

curriculum offers several different learning experiences within one lesson to meet

students’ varied needs or learning styles. For example, different teaching methods for

students with learning disabilities.

Dropout - A grade seven through twelve student who left school prior to

completing the school year and had not returned by Information Day (a day in

October when students throughout the state are counted and enrollment is

determined). This does not include students who receive a General Education

Development (GED) or California High School Proficiency Examination (CHSPE)

certificate, transfer to another high school or to a college, move out of the United

States, are suspended or sick that day, or enrolled late.

EL Shadowing and Observation Tool (ELSOT) – A tool for examining

specific areas of an ELL’s school experience and gaining insight into the student’s

perspective about school. Shadowing involves the selection of a student (often at

random) and following him/her from 2-3 hours, noting the types of listening one-way

(lecture) or two-way (dialogue) - as well as academic speaking opportunities, at every

five-minute interval. The purpose of student shadowing is to gather information about

the daily life of an ELL student in order to participate in a larger conversation on

improving the educational experiences for this group of students.

English as a Second Language (ESL) - Classes or support programs for

students whose native language is not English.

21

English Language Learner (ELL) - A student who is not proficient enough in

the English language to succeed in the school’s regular instructional programs and

who qualifies for extra help (Formerly referred to as Limited English

Proficient/LEP).

English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) - A group that consists of

parents and school staff who work together to address the academic needs of students

still learning English. Variations include “English Language Advisory Council,” and

“English Language Learner Advisory Committee/Council.”

English Language Development (ELD) - Instruction designed to teach English

learners to understand, speak, read and write English and acquire the linguistic

competencies that English speakers already possess when they enter school and

continue developing throughout life.

Fluent English Proficient (FEP) - A designation that means a student is no

longer considered as part of the school’s English learner population. It refers to

students who have learned English.

Formative Assessment - Any form of assessment used by an educator to

evaluate students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then to

adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student achievement in

that area.

Free/Reduced-Price Meals - A federal program that provides food for students

from low-income families.

22

Highly Qualified Teacher - According to No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(NCLB), a teacher who has obtained full state teacher certification or has passed the

state teacher licensing examination and holds a license to teach in the state, holds a

minimum of a bachelor’s degree, and has demonstrated subject area competence in

each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches.

Immersion Education - A program that teaches children to speak, read, and

write in a second language by surrounding them with conversation and instruction in

that language. Note that English immersion may differ from other immersion

programs.

Inclusion - The practice of placing students with disabilities in regular

classrooms, also known as mainstreaming.

Individual Education Program (IEP) - A written plan that is created for a

student with learning disabilities by the student's teachers, parents or guardians, the

school administrator, and other interested parties. The plan is tailored to the student's

specific needs and abilities, and outlines goals for the student to reach. The IEP

should be reviewed at least once a year.

Language Arts - Another term for English curriculum. The focus is on

reading, speaking, listening, and writing skills.

Mainstreaming - The practice of placing students with disabilities in regular

classrooms, also known as inclusion.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) - The reauthorization of various

federal programs that strive to improve academic performance in elementary and

23

secondary schools by increasing accountability and academic standards in all states.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is the current version of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - the principal federal law

affecting public education from kindergarten through high school in the United

States. The ESEA was originally passed in 1965. NCLB is important legislation for

students with learning disabilities (LD), because it ensures that they reach high levels

of academic standards, just like other children in America's public schools today.

Norm-referenced assessment - An assessment in which an individual or

group’s performance is compared with a larger group. Usually the larger group is

representative of a cross-section of all US students.

Parent Teacher Association (PTA) - A national organization of parents,

teachers, and other interested persons that has chapters in schools. They rely entirely

on voluntary participation and offer assistance to schools in many different areas.

Primary Language (PL) - A student’s first language or the language spoken at

home.

Proficiency - Mastery or ability to do something at grade level. California

students receive scores on the California Standards Tests (CST) that range from “far

below basic” to “advanced.” The state goal is for all students to score at “proficient”

or “advanced.”

Program Improvement (PI) - A multistep plan to improve the performance of

students in schools that did not make adequate yearly progress under No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) for two years in a row. Only schools that receive federal Title I funds

24

may be entered Program Improvement. The steps in PI can include a revised school

plan, professional development, tutoring for some students, transfer to another school

with free transportation and at the end of five years, significant restructuring.

Proposition 227 - A Proposition 227 that eliminated bilingual education in

California, eradicating the use of primary language as an instructional tool. May be

employed at a grade levels if parents petition. The initiative was intended to

significantly alter the ways in which the California's ELLs are taught. Proposition 227

requires that ELLs be taught “overwhelmingly in English” through

sheltered/structured English immersion (SEI) programs during “a temporary

transition period not normally intended to exceed one year,” and then transferred to

mainstream English-language classrooms. The intentions of proposition 227 were to

give ELLs increased opportunities to learn English.

Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) – A comprehensive system in

California to hold students, schools, and districts accountable for improving student

performance. The PSAA was passed in California in 1999 as the first step in

developing a comprehensive system to hold students, schools, and districts

accountable for improving student performance. The program now includes a

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system, testing at the elementary levels,

known as the California Achievement Test (CAT), and a high school exit exam

(CAHSEE), both aligned with academic content standards, plus an Academic

Performance Index (API) for measuring progress. These comprehensive

accountability standards put California in a good position to meet the provisions of

25

the 2001 federal law known as No child Left Behind (NCLB) and are the components

the state uses for measuring Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) - A process whereby an English

Learner is reclassified as a Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) student after meeting

various linguistic and academic criteria set by the state and district. Students in grades

7-12 must meet the CELDT and four of the five other criteria. Parent signatures are

required in order for a student to be reclassified. When the form is signed and

returned to the district office, students’ coding will be changed from LEP to RFEP.

Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) – The SAT is the most widely used

standardized test for college admissions. The exam is created and administered by

College Board. It covers three subject areas: critical reading, mathematics and

writing. Students have 3 hours and 45 minutes to complete the exam. Each section is

worth 800 points, so the highest possible score is 2400. The exam is offered seven

times a year: January, March, May, June, October, November and December. The

SAT is designed to measure critical thinking and problem solving skills that are

essential for success in college.

Structured English Immersion (SEI) - A technique for rapidly teaching

English to English language learners (ELLs). The term was coined by Keith Baker

and Adriana de Kanter in a 1983 recommendation to schools to make use of Canada’s

successful French immersion programs. More recently, SEI has been defined as a

methodology in which ELLs learn English through structured and sequential lessons.

Specially developed for ELLs, these lessons are based, to a large degree, on the

26

mainstream curricula. (Haver, Johanna J., Structured English Immersion, Corwin

Press, 2002)

Socioeconomic Status (SES) - An economic and sociologically combined total

measure of a person's work experience and of an individual's or family’s economic

and social position in relation to others, based on income, education and occupation.

Specially Designed Academic Instruction Delivered in English (SDAIE) - An

approach to teaching academic courses to English Learner students, in English. It is

designed for non-native speakers of English and focuses on increasing the

comprehensibility of the academic courses typically provided to Fluent English

Proficient (FEP) and English-only students.

School Accountability Report Card (SARC) - California public schools

annually provide information about themselves to the community allowing the public

to evaluate and compare schools for student achievement, environment, resources and

demographics.

School Improvement Program (SIP) - A state-funded program for elementary,

intermediate, and secondary schools to improve instruction, services, school

environment and organization at school sites according to plans developed by School

Site Councils.

Single-Subject Credential - A credential that is required to teach middle or

high school in California. It authorizes a teacher to teach in a single subject area such

as English or a foreign language.

27

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged - Students whose parents do not have a

high school diploma or who participate in the federally funded free/reduced price

meal program because of low family income.

Special Education - Instruction provided for students with educational or

physical disabilities, tailored to each student’s needs and learning style.

Standardized Test - A test that is in the same format for all who take it. It

often relies on multiple-choice questions and the testing conditions - including

instructions, time limits, and scoring rubrics—are the same for all students, though

sometimes accommodations on time limits and instructions are made for disabled

students.

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program – The STAR Program

that evaluates how well schools and students are performing. Students take tests in

mathematics, reading, writing, science, and history. Teachers and parents can use test

results to improve student learning. The STAR Program includes four tests: the

California Standards Tests, the California Modified Assessment, the California

Alternate Performance Assessment, and the Standards-based Tests in Spanish.

Title I - A federal program that provides funds to improve the academic

achievement for educationally disadvantaged students who score below the 50th

percentile on standardized tests, including the children of migrant workers.

Tracking - A common instructional practice of organizing students in groups

based on their academic skills. Tracking allows a teacher to provide the same level of

instruction to the entire group.

28

Williams v. California - A lawsuit filed in 2000 that argued that the state has a

constitutional duty to ensure basic educational equality and contended that California

has failed in that duty by not providing thousands of students in public schools with

“bare minimum necessities,” defined as textbooks, trained teachers, and safe, clean,

uncrowded facilities. The lawsuit further argued that low-income students and

students of color are the most likely to bear the burden of inadequate resources.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study was the small sample of target students

who were shadowed to complete the task at hand. Eight target ELLs were observed to

complete the qualitative component of this study. Four of the observed target ELLs

were Filipinos and four were Mexican ELLs. The Filipino ELL subgroup consisted of

two first generation Filipino target ELLs, one male and one female; two second

generation Filipino target ELLs, one male and one female. Likewise, the Mexican

ELL subgroup consisted of two first generation Mexican target ELLs, one male and

one female; two second generation Mexican target ELLs, one male and one female.

This small sample impacted the scope to which the outcomes of the study can be

generalized to a larger school population. Taking into consideration that the UHS

student body consists of largely Filipino and Mexican ELL subgroups, the

generalization of this study could be augmented by enlarging the size of the sample

with additional Filipino and Mexican ELLs. Moreover, the EL Shadowing and

Observation Tool involved the use of a five-minute interval time-sampling method

that prevented the teacher observer from spotting happenings between the interludes.

29

Two other limitations of this study were the amount of teacher observers and

the time limitation allocated to this study. The effectiveness of the EL Shadowing

Observations could be further improved by increasing the number of teacher

observers participating in this study. Furthermore, one of the two planned shadowing

observations took place during the fall semester, and the other one during the spring

semester, with a six week break between the individual events. Consequently, the

study could be further improved by scheduling two additional observations during the

spring semester. Finally, the study could be also enhanced by including all UHS

teachers in the study, and by sharing the data gathered during the student shadowing

with all the district’s schools. Moreover, this study could also benefit from amplifying

the endeavor by adding a second year of school and district-wide EL Shadowing and

Observation, significantly increasing the applicability and generalizability of the

results of the study for the larger audience.

Significance of the Study

The ever-increasing immigration to the United States results in monumental

demographic changes in the nation’s educational institutions which warranted the

need for researching factors affecting academic performance of newly-arrived and

second generation high school ELLs. New arrivals and numerous second generation

ELLs have to face many academic challenges that hinder their ability to understand

the content of the lesson. Scholastic challenges that ELLs have to overcome on a

daily basis are equally shared by their content-area teachers. Many educators are

frustrated by their own inability to teach the academic content in a manner

30

appropriate for ELLs. Therefore, ELLs are constantly being deprived of full access to

the mainstream curriculum due to linguistically narrowing down the curriculum.

Consequently, ELLs generally achieve lower scores on mandatory high-stakes tests

administered in English only, due to a long-term deprivation of the full access to the

mainstream curriculum. This situation merited an investigation of academic

classroom engagement and the role of English language and literacy skills in

predicting the academic performance of ELLs. The multitude of “non-academic”

variables and factors that have an additional impact on ELLs’ educational attainment

needed also to be researched because they also play a significant role in the overall

academic achievement of ELLs. Hence, poverty, race, ethnicity, discrimination,

issues related to immigration status, social justice and equity within the educational

environment, as well as understanding and respecting different cultures at school, are

all factors that influence the academic performance of ELLs. Consequently, the

improved predictability of the academic success of ELLs can result in a higher

educational accomplishment on their part, resulting in better academic, social and

economic incorporation into the mainstream American society.

Hence, the findings of this study also supplemented information regarding the

daily academic experiences of ELLs at school and brought to the foreground a

multitude of “non-academic” variables and related factors that also have an impact on

academic performance. The emphasis of the EL Shadowing and Observation Tool

was on the academic engagement of ELLs in classroom settings. In contrast, the

qualitative data gathered from the individual and focus group interviews with

31

participating ELLs focused primarily on the “outside-the-classroom” experiences of

new arrivals and second generation ELLs, in relation to having an additional impact

on their academic performance. Moreover, the qualitative data collected from

participating target teachers brought to the foreground a variety of additional

academic challenges that ELLs have to face on a daily basis. The information gained

from this study is equally valuable for new arrivals and second generation ELLs and

could also be applied to increase the learning accomplishments of native English

speakers. The data suggested that EL Shadowing and Observation can be a treasured

academic tool for enhancing the attentiveness of teacher scholastic methods,

embracing new strategies for increasing ELLs’ involvement in communicative and

interactive activities.

This study also reviewed scholarly literature pertaining to the research topic

at hand, and updated literature in the arena of factors affecting academic performance

of newly-arrived and second generation ELLs. Therefore, additional academic

enlightenment gathered from the reviewed scholastic literature also contributed to the

quality of ELLs’ education by increasing the knowledge regarding the predictors that

affect their academic performance. Subsequently, the findings of this study have

practical applicability that can be utilized and applied at any school with a high

density of ELLs, in order to help schools meaningfully predict their academic

performance, and to better address their educational needs.

32

Summary

Chapter I discoursed the necessity to scrutinize ELLs’ daily academic

engagement and interaction in classroom settings using the EL Shadowing and

Observation Tool, and debated a multitude of “non-academic” factors that also

influence scholastic attainment of newly-arrived and second generation high school

ELLs. This awareness could help educational institutions improve their teachers’

instructional pedagogy and methodology, and better address the academic needs of

newly-arrived and second generation ELLs. Additionally, the knowledge of the

mentioned factors could also enhance the predictability of the academic performance

of ELLs. Consequently, gained knowledge could help dramatically increase the

probability of ELLs and English-only students’ didactic achievement; hence, it could

expedite the nation’s efforts to close the achievement GAP between ELLs and an

assortment of other groups of students who require additional resources in order to

experience academic success.

Chapter II reviewed the literature related to: (a) second language acquisition,

(b) teacher quality equity, programmatic equity and achievement equity in regards to

ELLs having equal access to academic and a variety of support services as their

English-only counterparts, (c) student-centered and school centered factors affecting

the academic performance of newly arrived and second generation ELLs, (d)

segmented assimilation of families of ELLs and its determinants, and (e) effects of

undocumented immigrant status on the academic performance of ELLs.

33

Chapter III examined and explained the research methods and procedures

employed in this study. This study was a mixed-method design comprising qualitative

and quantitative components. The qualitative components were based on EL

Shadowing - observing and analyzing ELLs’ daily behavioral engagement at school,

with special emphasis on their oral and written academic English language use in

daily academic settings that promote English language acquisition and literacy skills.

The EL Shadowing results complemented the qualitative component of this study,

providing additional qualitative data about ELLs’ instructional classroom

experiences. The observation of the participating target ELLs were followed by

participating target ELLs and participating target teachers Likert-scale type attitude

questionnaires, surveys, interviews with individual participating target ELLs and

individual participating target teachers whose classrooms were observed, and by

focus group interviews with participating target ELLs and additional follow up

interviews with individual participating target teachers. All EL Shadowing

observations and interviews with participating target ELLs and participating

individual target teachers were conducted by this researcher. The quantitative

component of this study consisted of comparing and analyzing California Standards

Test (CST) composite scores in ELA between a focus group consisting of eight

participating target Filipino and Mexican ELLs, and a comparison group comprised

of eight participating target English-only students.

Chapter IV analyzed and discussed the findings of the procedures detailed in

chapter III, in relation to the research questions. This study also involved a

34

triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data that were gathered from eight

participating target ELLs and ten participating target teachers within a six-week

period.

Chapter V stated the findings, implications, and recommendations for further

studies. The importance of academic English and a variety of student-centered and

school-centered factors that affect the academic performance of ELLs were already

well established in the research literature. Additional predictors and influences in

relation to ELLs’ scholastic performance were also included in this study.

35

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND LITERATURE

This conceptual data-based theoretical framework draws on five bodies of

literature: (a) second language acquisition, (b) teacher quality equity, programmatic

equity and achievement equity in regards to ELLs having equal access to academic

and a variety of support services as their English-only counterparts, (c) student-

centered and school-centered factors affecting the academic performance of newly

arrived and second generation ELLs, (d) segmented assimilation of families of ELLs

and its determinants, and (e) effects of undocumented immigrant status on academic

performance of ELLs.

The conceptual framework first examines research related to second language

acquisition, while the second section of the conceptual framework addresses research

related to teacher quality equity, programmatic equity and achievement equity in

regards to ELLs having equal access to academic and a variety of support services as

their English-only counterparts. The third part of the conceptual framework draws on

the research of Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) and their

theoretical regression model for predicting academic achievement for newly-arrived

immigrant students, and on the research of Portes and Rumbaut (2001) in regards to

factors affecting the academic performance of the second generation of ELLs. In

addition, the third part of the conceptual framework will review research related to

student-centered and school centered factors affecting the academic performance of

36

newly arrived and second generation ELLs. Furthermore, the forth section of the

conceptual framework focuses on the segmented assimilation of families of ELLs into

the mainstream American society and its determinants. Finally, the fifth section of the

conceptual framework concentrates on the effects of undocumented status on the

academic performance of ELLs.

Second Language Acquisition

According to Krashen (1987), there are two distinct way to develop

competence in a second language. Students can either acquire language or they can

learn it. Krashen suggested that the language acquisition is a process where children

acquire the language subconsciously, without being aware of the fact that they are

acquiring the language. Grammatical structures are not explicitly taught or

emphasized; rather the learners develop a “feel” for the language correctness.

Generally, second language learners who are acquiring the language are aware of the

fact that they are using the language for communication, without being aware of the

rules of the language they are acquiring. Hence, Krashen claimed that children are

acquiring a second language in a similar way as they were acquiring their first

language. Consequently, Krashen suggested that language acquisition requires

meaningful interaction or natural communication in the target language, in which the

learners are focused not in the form of their language, but in the communicative act

(p. 10). On the other hand, language learning is a process where learners are

explicitly taught grammatical structures of the language and all its rules. Krashen

affirmed that “Error correction has little or no effect on subconscious acquisition,

37

but is thought to be useful for conscious learning” (Krashen, 1987, p. 11).

The Natural Order Hypothesis suggests that the acquisition of grammatical

structures follows a predictable natural order (Dulay & Burt, 1974, 1975; Fathman,

1975; Makino, 1980). Hence, some grammatical structures are acquired early and

others later. However, Krashen rejected grammatical sequencing when the language

acquisition is an objective. Krashen argued that the language acquisition precedes

utterances in a second language and is credited for language fluency. Monitor serves

as a grammar editor or a “corrector” of what has been said. According to Krashen

“The Monitor hypothesis implies that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a

limited role in second language performance” (Krashen, 1987, p. 16). Hence, the

Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between language acquisition and

language learning.

The Input Hypothesis attempts to explain how the learners acquire second

language. According to this hypothesis, the learner progresses from one stage to

another along the natural order. Krashen affirmed that if the learner is at stage

i where i represents current competence, after being exposed to a comprehensible

input in a second language, than the learner should progress to the next stage, thus,

i + 1 where 1 represents the next level. In addition, according to Input hypothesis,

speaking fluency cannot be taught directly because it emerges over time on its own.

Consequently, the Input hypothesis is concerned only about language acquisition, not

the language learning. Krashen proposes that “If the Monitor hypothesis is correct,

that acquisition is central and learning is more peripheral, then the goal of our

38

pedagogy should be to encourage acquisition” (Krashen, 1987, p. 20).

According to the Affective Filter Hypothesis, many affective variables play a

role in a second language acquisition process. Krashen argued that the most important

affective variables in relation to second language acquisition are motivation, self-

confidence and anxiety. Hence, learners with high motivation and self-confidence and

a low-level of anxiety are much better equipped to be successful in acquiring second

language. Pedagogical implications of the Affective Filter Hypothesis are to provide

students with a comprehensible input in a positive, encouraging, low-affective filter

environment that fosters second language acquisition.

Cummins (2001) distinguished between social and academic language

acquisition. According to Cummins, basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS)

are needed in social situations, such as daily informal conversation on any given

topic, for example, informal conversations that take place during the school’s lunch

break and so on. Hence, social interactions are usually context embedded and are not

very demanding cognitively. Therefore, immigrant students usually develop BICS in

about 2 years after arrival in the U.S. In contrast to BICS, cognitive academic

language proficiency (CALP) refers to formal academic learning, including listening,

speaking, reading and writing. In addition, academic language tasks are generally

context reduced and include skills such as comparing, classifying, synthesizing,

evaluating, and inferring. Cummins claimed that it takes about five to ten years for

ELLs to acquire CALP that is crucial for understanding academic nuances of

cognitively demanding core curriculum school subjects. This claim has been well

39

supported by research findings of Thomas and Collier (1995), which suggested that if

children have no prior schooling or have no support in native language development,

it may take seven to ten years for them to catch up to their peers. However, in school

settings, ELL proficiency in social English may result in premature exit from English

support programs. Consequently, misplacement of ELLs into the mainstream

cognitively demanding context reduced core curricular courses results in Ells’ lower

academic performance in comparison with English-only students.

According to the research findings of Oller (1979), all individual differences

in language proficiency could be accounted for by just one underlying factor, which

he termed global language proficiency. In response to this claim, Cummins (1979,

2001) advanced the theory that there is a common underlying proficiency (CUP)

between two languages. Thus, skills, concepts and ideas that ELLs learn in their first

native language will be transferred to the second language. Pedagogical implications

of this theory are that educators need to take into consideration the previous education

and literacy skills of ELLs when addressing their academic needs.

Teacher Quality Equity, Programmatic Equity and Achievement Equity

Despite the tremendous pressure that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Mandate of 2001 puts on schools that receive Title I funding to improve their

students’ academic performance, the educational needs of ELLs, ethnic minorities

and economically disadvantaged students largely have not been adequately addressed

by educational institutions. The lack of financial resources compels administrators to

balance classes by randomly assigning students to courses that are not appropriate for

40

them due to linguistic and a variety of other reasons. This creates educational havoc

where many linguistically, racially, culturally, and economically diverse students are

frequently denied equal access to highly qualified teachers and a variety of programs,

resulting in unequal achievement equity. Therefore, it is immensely important that

schools conduct a series of equity self-assessment audits at their sites in order to

identify the areas in need of improvement, with the overall goal of changing academic

culture over time, and increasing the academic output of all students. Ultimately,

meaningfully addressing areas in need of improving should expedite the nation’s

efforts in thinning the academic GAP among an assortment of student ethnicities.

Skrla, McKenzie and Scheurich (2009) suggested that “Closing the gap means

overcoming many complex issues, such as low expectations for students,

underdeveloped language skills, and lack of equity in teacher quality, program

participation, and resources” (p. ix). Hence, the cultural, attitudinal and structural

changes within schools are needed to foster change. The authors further suggested

that “The equity self-assessment process is focused in three major areas for schools

and school systems: teacher quality equity, program equity, and achievement equity”

(Skrla, McKenzie & Scheurich, 2009, p. x).

Teacher Quality Equity

McKenzie and Skrla (2011) argued that there is considerable evidence that

student access to high quality teachers is usually not distributed on an equitable basis

to all students within individual schools, particularly high schools. Students of color,

ELLs, and students from low-income homes more often have teachers with less

41

experience, with less education and training, and without certification (Ingersoll,

2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). According to theoretical framework

developed by Skrla, McKenzie and Scheurich (2009), teacher quality equity plus

programmatic equity equal achievement equity (p. 24). Hence, placing teacher quality

equity at the beginning of this formula recognizes the critical role of teachers in

students’ academic achievement. Tyler (1949) also supported the idea that the teacher

plays a critical role in a child’s education by stating that “Finally, the actual teaching

procedures involve a considerable number of variables including variations in

individual students, the environmental conditions in which the learning goes on, the

skill of the teacher in setting the conditions as they are planned, the personality

characteristics of the teacher and the like” (Tyler, 1949, p. 105).

ELLs have to face many academic challenges that hinder their ability to

understand the content of the lesson. However, scholastic challenges that ELLs have

to overcome on a daily basis are equally shared by their content-area teachers. Many

educators are frustrated by their own inability to teach the academic content in a

manner appropriate for ELLs. Boyer (1992) suggested that “Educating students in a

multicultural world surely means affirming the sacredness of every individual” (p. 1).

Theoharis and Brooks (2012) also advocated for additional support of ELLs by

stating that “In the early stages of English acquisition, ELLs need the special support

of the ESL teaches, who have the training in first and second language acquisition as

well as teaching the content areas” (p. 166). Therefore, professional preparation and

training of teachers are crucial for the academic success of their ELLs.

42

Professional Preparation of Teachers of ELLs. Numerous studies have

been conducted in regards to preparation policies, teachers’ role in the academic

achievement of ELLs and the importance of multicultural education, and

individualized differentiated instruction. Bales (2006) examined the current education

policy changes that affect teachers who educate ELLs in regards to recruitment,

preparation, licensing and professional development. The author argued that the new

educational policies are largely just another attempt of policy makers to control how

today’s teachers are trained to meet new challenges. Therefore, Bales recommended

that the new educational policies ought to reduce barriers to becoming a teacher by

reinventing and updating the outdated traditional teacher preparation programs.

Likewise, according to Bales’ suggestions, state and local educational policies

should ensure that effective qualified teachers serve the neediest students. The author

concluded that current teacher training is not adequate and does not reflect cultural

changes on national and state levels, and recommended that new teacher training

policies should take place that would reflect cultural changes within society. Hence,

according to Bales, today’s policy makers should invest in improving the teacher

preparation, support and retention of good teachers. Bolman and Deal (2008)

supported this idea by advocating that the basic human resource strategies imply

rewarding teachers by protecting their jobs, promoting from within, investing in them,

and empowering them.

Samson and Collins (2012) proposed that all teachers of ELLs in K-12 system

should be appropriately trained to meet ELLs’ academic needs. With the upcoming

43

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and increased teachers’ accountability, there

is an imminent need for better trained teachers of ELLs. Although there are many

bilingual teachers and educational specialists in the United States trained to teach

English as a second language, there are still many teachers who teach ELLs without

having proper credential authorization. Tellez and Waxman (2005) suggested that

pre-service teacher education, recruitment and selection, in-service training, and

retention are the areas that are crucial for improving effectiveness of teachers of

ELLs. Drawing from the literature on ELLs and on what English as a second

language teachers should know, Tellez and Waxman (2005) argued that the training

of teachers of ELLs should emphasize the importance of oral language development

and academic English, and should also encourage cultural sensitivity to the

backgrounds of their students.

English Language Learners Under the Federal Law. Federal law mandates

states to provide ELLs with appropriate English language development support

services until they meet a state’s criteria for proficiency in English on specific

language tests. Only after passing required tests, ELLs will stop being considered as

English learners. However, there are many inconsistencies across states in the

required knowledge and skills regarding ELLs for all teachers as part of the initial

certification. California, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York require

specific coursework, while seventeen states require only a general reference to the

special needs of ELLs. Sadly, fifteen states have no requirement whatsoever to meet

specific needs of ELLs, and rest of the states have only minimal requirements for

44

teachers to meet the special educational needs of ELLs.

In the United States, California leads the way in preparation of teachers of

ELLs and in support of ELLs. California’s teachers have to meet specific teacher-

performance expectations that address the needs of ELLs. Hence, California teachers

are required to meet a specific “Developing English Language Skills” requirement.

The widely used certifications available in California to teachers of ELLs are

Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) certificate that

authorize teachers to provide instruction in English Language Development (ELD),

and Specially Designed Academic Instruction Delivered in English (SDAIE).

Bilingual Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development (BCLAD) authorizes

teachers to provide ELLs with instruction in English Language Development (ELD),

instruction for Primary Language Development (PLD), Specially Designed Academic

Instruction Delivered in English (SDAIE), and Content Instruction Delivered in the

Primary Language (CIDPL).

In Florida, teachers of ELLs have to take at least three semester hours of

teaching English as a Second Language (ESL). However, Florida teachers providing

primary literacy instruction have to take 15 semester hours in ESL. Similarly, New

York requires only six semester hours in general language acquisition and literacy to

satisfy requirements to teach ELLs and native English speakers. Pennsylvania

requires teachers to complete only three credits of coursework that targets the needs

of ELLs. The rest of the states have even lesser requirements for teachers of ELLs to

meet ELLs’ specific needs. Finally, the rest of the states have either extremely limited

45

requirements to meet ELLs’ academic needs, and many states have no requirements.

Hence, the lack of appropriate teacher training and/or deficiency in the application of

appropriate teaching strategies results in ELLs’ diminished cognitive engagement.

Consequently, ELLs display lower academic achievement in comparison with

English-only students. McKenzie and Skrla (2011) stated that “We believe that for

students to learn, they have to be engaged.” Thus, “Explicitly, they need to be

cognitively engaged, that is, engaged in thinking” (p. 41).

Equity audits in the classroom can address professionalism of teachers of

ELLs, as well as students’ active cognitive engagement (ACE). McKenzie and Skrla

(2011) affirmed that “To audit how much ACE there is in a classroom, teachers need

to know which students are and are not engaged in thinking about the instructional

objective being taught” (p. 43). Darling-Hammond (1999) stated that “Teacher

qualifications, teachers’ knowledge and skills, make more difference for student

learning than any other single factor” (p. 27).

Vang (2009) shared her personal experiences of a Hmong ELL during her

schooling years and delineated some of her familiarities regarding teacher perceptions

and attitudes within the multicultural lens. She stressed the importance of on-going

teacher training that would facilitate addressing the needs of ELLs in the classroom.

Vang segmented her experiences through three different conceptual lenses to provide

a better view on how teachers can address the academic needs of ELLs. Vang

apportioned her views through the lens of Stein and Nieto’s model, Wood and

Sheehan’s assimilationist model and Nodding’s carrying theory. Vang’s writing is a

46

lucid demonstration of the inseparable relationship between the subject area content

and academic English.

Programmatic Equity

McKenzie and Skrla (2011) argued that programmatic equity is crucial in

respect to ELLs due to the ever increasing number of immigrant students in the

nation’s schools. In addition, experts in the field largely agree that our schools have a

poor track record in terms of providing quality for English language learners, and

suggest that bilingual programs (currently programs for ELLs) all too often have been

low-expectation settings into which students were segregated where they did not learn

English at the level needed for on-grade-level academic progress (Moll, 1992).

Skrla, McKenzie and Scheurich (2009), claimed that “Though it may make

many of us educators uncomfortable to admit it, there are huge variations in quality

among different programs within the same schools” (p. 41). There are many

indicators of programmatic inequities within schools in regards to students having

equal access to a variety of programs. However, according to Skrla, McKenzie and

Scheurich (2009), there are four key program areas that research consistently has

shown to be likely sites for inequity: special education, gifted and talented education,

bilingual education (currently programs for ELLs), and student discipline (p. 41).

Previous research has suggested that ELLs and variety of historically

disadvantaged student ethnic subgroups are disproportionally overrepresented in

some programs, while at the same time, some equally disadvantaged student

subgroups are overrepresented. For example, ELLs and African American students

47

are two major ethnic subgroups that are frequently disproportionally overrepresented

in special education classes in comparison with the overall student population. At the

same time, these two large ethnic subgroups of students are generally

underrepresented in variety of advanced placement (AP) classes. Thus, these students

are potentially deprived from access to advanced classes, or many times also from

support services for which they qualify.

Social Justice Curriculum. Many experts on programmatic equity agree that

the implementation of social justice curriculum in the nation’s schools facilitates the

equitable access to a variety of programs for ELLs and other disadvantaged student

subgroups. Landreman, Edwards, Garma-Balon and Anderson (2008) supported this

idea by ascertaining that in order to promote the social justice curriculum in the

nation’s schools, one has to see the world through different lenses. The authors

offered a framework for social justice curriculum facilitation with additional

information on multicultural learning. The suggested framework consists of four

competencies that social justice teachers should possess and/or strive to achieve:

knowing ourselves, knowing students, ability to design outcomes-base activities, and

co-creating facilitation. The authors claimed that the combination of these

competencies allows teachers to create multicultural learning experiences through

integrative progression that combines cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and

intrapersonal domains. In addition, Landreman, Edwards, Garma-Balon and

Anderson (2008) argued that becoming a competent social justice educator requires

more than an application of techniques; it also requires a more just and equitable

48

society to effectively foster that learning.

Quaye and Harper (2007) underscored the importance of the social justice

by suggesting that teachers have the obligation to interweave a multicultural

perspective in classroom discourse in order to challenge the preconceived notions

and learn about the unique knowledge that students of diverse backgrounds bring to

the table. The authors’ sense of reality regarding the importance of social justice

educators and inclusion of culturally inclusive pedagogy and curricula reflect the

demographic changes the nation experienced during the last few decades. The authors

concluded that faculty members need to be trained to seek out and infuse diverse

pedagogical methods into their courses to increase teachers’ cultural engagement and

multicultural consciousness.

Black and Reed (2006) advocated for learning at school through a

reconstruction of social-political-historical knowledge. The authors argued that

teachers should value diversity in the classroom. Therefore, educators should

embrace culturally responsive curriculum that promotes cross cultural understanding.

Consequently, Black and Reed view the multicultural learning as the inner process

that every individual has to encompass. The authors further suggested that the critical

inquiry and self-reflection form an essential part of the learning process. Boyer

(1992) argued that in the multicultural world, education should not be based only

on the core curriculum, but rather on the human commonalities and universal

experiences that are found in all cultures.

49

Achievement Equity

Skrla, McKenzie and Sheurich (2009) argued that “achievement equity is not

possible without equity in other parts of the system, specifically teacher-quality

equity and equity in the instructional programs to which children have access” (p. 6).

This claim is well supported by the findings of the LISA study that revealed that new

arrivals who were “attending a school where other students were learning the skills

necessary to perform well on the high stakes literacy exam seemed to provide an

academic milieu in which newcomer students were also likely to do well on an

achievement test” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 52). In

addition, experts on achievement equity largely agree that equitable achievement on

relatively low-level state tests is not true achievement equity when large gaps remain

on other, higher-level measures of student performance (Skrla, McKenzie &

Scheurich, 2011; Skrla & Scheurich, 2001; Skrla, Scheurich & Johnson, 2000; Skrla,

Scheurich & Johnson, 2001; Skrla, Scheurich, Johnson & Koschoreck, 2001a,

2001b;).

The previous statement is well supported by many expert researchers on

second language acquisition. Hence, a variety of research findings have suggested

that the mandatory high-stakes testing is unfair to ELLs (Coltrane, 2002; Skrla,

McKenzie & Scheurich, 2011). Many times, ELLs are being subjected to high-stakes

testing at the time when their academic English language skills are still largely

undeveloped, resulting in lower test scores. In addition, culturally biased mandatory

high-stake tests further diminish ELLs’ academic performance due to their

50

unfamiliarity with the mainstream American culture. Due to the variety of linguistic,

environmental, social and cultural shortcomings, ELLs may attain lower test scores in

comparison with the mainstream student body. As a result, educational institutions

may misinterpret ELLs’ lower test scores and deny them access to rigorous courses

and enriched mainstream curriculum, further diminishing ELLs’ academic

opportunities for equal education. The test results reflect on ELLs’ academic English

language skills, rather than measuring their content area knowledge (Menken, 2000).

Hence, the validity of test scores is weakened due to ELLs’ inability to demonstrate

their academic knowledge in areas of their linguistic deficiencies. Nevertheless,

educational institutions use tests results to make decisions regarding students’

academic future. Students’ test scores may be used to determine which curricular

track they will follow in school and whether or not they will have access to college

preparatory courses. Moreover, students’ test scores may also be used to determine

ELLs’ promotion to the next grade level or whether or not they will graduate.

Therefore, these test results cannot be relied on to deliver an accurate assessment of

ELLs’ academic skills.

Mandatory high-stakes standardized testing administered in English only has

resulted in a narrowed curriculum that ELLs are exposed to and has harmful effects

on ELLs and their teachers (Wright, 2002). Consequently, educators are obligated to

make perilous decisions regarding how to administer mandatory high-stakes tests to

ELLs in an appropriate manner that would be fair to them, and, would in fact,

measure ELLs’ true academic achievement. The researcher suggested that the

51

educational institutions contemplate also linguistically appropriate alternatives to

high-stakes testing when assessing ELLs’ academic performance. Finally, educational

institutions should sensitively and accurately interpret the test results of ELLs, taking

into consideration a multitude of linguistic, cultural, sociological and other factors

affecting their performance on mandatory high-stakes tests that are administered only

in English.

In summary, McKenzie and Skrla (2011) and Skrla, McKenzie and Scheurich

(2009) challenged educators to use equity audits to create equitable schools by self-

evaluating and meaningfully addressing persistent academic inequities based on

ethnicity, linguistic background, culture, gender, disability and other variables

embedded in school structures and practices of schooling that are based on views of

the members of the dominant society. In addition, Sanders and Sullins (2006)

supported the importance of the self-evaluation of the school program as a means for

improvement by stating that “An internal evaluation, which is conducted internally

by staff who is working in the program, is usually formative in nature. Its purpose is

to gather feedback on aspects of the programs that are undergoing review and

possible revision” (p. 9). Both authors also argued that “Evaluation gives direction to

everything that we do when changing and improving school programs” (Sanders &

Sullins, 2006, p. 2). Moreover, Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen (2010) advocated

for program evaluation as a means for improvement by stating that “An evaluation is

considered to be formative if the primary purpose is to provide information for

program improvement” (p. 20). Conversely, Tyler (1949) argued that “Evaluation is

52

an important operation in curriculum development” (p. 104). Finally, Tyler (1949)

suggested that “As a result of evaluation it is possible to note in what respects it needs

improvement” ( p. 105).

Student-Centered and School-Centered Factors Affecting

Academic Performance of Newly Arrived and Second Generation ELLs

The 5-year Longitudinal Immigrant Student Adaptation (LISA) study of 400

recently-arrived minority language immigrant students from five different national

backgrounds conducted by Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008)

attempted to build a data-based theoretical model of major factors affecting the

academic performance of first generation ELLs. The LISA study establishes

correlations between two outcomes at a time to build up links between variables.

Once these initial relations between variables have been established, the researchers

apply regression analysis, merging multiple variables, and ranking their association

with a single distinct fundamental outcome. For example, grade point average (GPA)

has been used to measure scholastic attainment. Having the knowledge of variables

that influence the academic achievement of the recently arrived immigrant

adolescents facilitated the development of a theory of the influences on the academic

achievement of the first generation ELLs. Taking into consideration that the second

generation ELLs share with new arrivals many similarities in regards to factors that

affect their academic performance, the regression model developed by Suárez-

Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) largely applies to both generations of

ELLs.

53

This conceptual data-based theoretical regression model of major factors

affecting academic performance of recently arrived immigrant adolescents is

applicable for upper elementary, middle, and high school ELLs. It points out

influences on academic achievement from student-centered and school-centered

perspectives that could be widely applied to today’s educational institutions. In

essence, this conceptual data-based theoretical regression model can serve as a

theoretical basis for the comparison between first and second generation factors, as

second generation ELLs comprise the vast majority of ELLs in public schools, and

both generations have to face a multitude of the same challenges related to their

academic success in the United States.

Student-Centered Factors

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) ranked the English

language proficiency (influenced by mother’s education and years in the United

States) followed by behavioral engagement (influenced by school problems and

violence, relational engagement, cognitive engagement and gender) as the most

robust student-centered explanatory variables that affect academic performance of

new arrivals as measured by GPA or achievement tests. In addition, LISA places the

family structure variable third (referring to whether the family has two parents, one

parent or another caregiver) closing the chain of student-centered variables that affect

academic performance of new arrivals.

English Language Proficiency (influenced by mother’s education and years

in the United States). Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) affirmed

54

that the “English skills have triple the predictive value of all the other student

variables combined for the achievement score” (p. 53). Nevertheless, various research

findings also indicate that the new arrivals fall short behind the second generation of

ELLs in sophistication of their English skills. Initially, English language skills of the

first generation ELLs are generally limited to conversational English, while their

academic English skills are lacking behind the second generation ELLs who were

born in the United States hence, they are native English speakers. This phenomenon

is largely due to the fact that newcomers have to face many academic, social and

cultural challenges related to their acculturation process to a new country that hinders

their ability to master academic English.

First-generation ELLs clearly have strong motivation for learning English.

LISA reported that 56% of new arrivals were identified as “not knowing English” as a

greater obstacle than discrimination, few resources or not being documented (Suárez-

Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 149). However, research suggested

that various English language support programs that would address new arrivals’

learning needs vary widely in quality. Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova

(2008, p. 163) explained that

By and large, in most cases, there was not clear strategy to place students

into a progressive program of instruction that would (1) identify the student’s

incoming literacy and academic skills, (2) provide high-quality English

instruction, (3) continue to provide instruction in academic subject areas such

math, science, and social studies in the students’ native languages, so that they

55

would not fall further behind their English-speaking peers, and (4) offer

transition academic supports, e.g., tutoring, continued language instruction,

homework help, and writing assistance, as the language learners integrated

into mainstream programs.

Learning English is a lengthy and very difficult task. According to Cummins

(1979), it takes an average of five to ten years of systematic high quality training to

develop cognitive academic English language skills. However, in high school

settings, ELLs generally do not have enough time to adequately master their English

skills, and their English skills are primarily limited to social and conversational level,

rather than to academic English. This is the similarity that equally affects new arrivals

as well as second generation ELLs. Therefore, both generations of ELLs are

constantly being deprived of full access to mainstream curriculum due to

linguistically narrowing down the curriculum to which ELLs have access.

Consequently, ELLs generally achieve lower scores on mandatory high-stakes tests

administered in English only, due to a long-term deprivation of the full access to the

mainstream curriculum.

Mother’s Education and Years in the United States. The authors of the

LISA study asserted that “One of the most consistent findings in the developmental

literature is the positive association between parental education and children’s ability

to do well in school” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 37). In

addition, findings of the LISA study further indicated that ELLs’ English skills are

directly influenced by level of their mother’s education, years in the United States and

56

whether father is present and working. “The higher the level of education a mother

attains, the better her children are likely to do academically” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-

Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, pp. 37-38).

LISA’s claim is further supported by research findings of Unmuth (2012) who

argued that “ELLs whose mothers had a bachelor’s degree or higher and who reached

English proficiency by spring of their kindergarten year scored better on math and

reading exams as eighth-graders than children whose mothers had less than a high

school education” (p. 1). In addition, the longitudinal data released by the U.S.

Department of Education in 2012 further indicated that children with the most highly

educated mothers generally score best on math, reading and science assessments. In

contrast, ELLs who were living in poverty with less-educated mothers needed much

longer time to reach English proficiency than their counterparts whose mothers were

better educated. Consequently, ELLs with less-educated mothers struggled much

more with mandatory assessments than ELLs whose mothers had higher education.

The longitudinal study delineated previously grounded English language

proficiency on the Oral Language Development Scale (OLDS), which measured

listening comprehension, sophistication of the vocabulary, and ability to comprehend

and create English. Additionally, findings of this study further indicated that ELLs

whose mothers were highly educated commonly had the highest scores in all tested

subjects, while ELLs with less-educated mothers scored lower on all tests, regardless

of English proficiency or home language. Ultimately, findings of Unmuth (2012)

57

further underscored LISA’s claim in regards to correlation of mother’s education with

ELLs’ academic performance.

English Language Support System. Research consistently indicates that the

availability of English support classes for immigrant students compared to the influx

of newcomers at educational institutions has been recognized as one of the most

important variables that affect their intellectual growth (Hale, 2001). Nevertheless,

sparse resources and the increasing number of immigrant students enrolled at nation’s

schools pressure administrators to limit the English language support services for

ELLs. Hence, the lack of an English support system for immigrant students results in

their lower academic achievement. In addition, educational institutions are

continuously encountering a variety of issues and obstacles related to the lack of

properly trained teachers of ELLs, who deliver the content area lessons in a manner

appropriate for ELLs.

A variety of studies have been conducted in regards to the implementation and

effectiveness of high school programs for ELLs. Cohen (2007) described his tutoring

experience with Mario, one 12th grade EL student and his efforts to become an

effective reader in English. According to Cohen, Mario’s reading deficiency was

based primarily on the fact that he had not found an internal purpose for reading.

When asked to read a passage, he read it without any emotion or interest. When

Cohen asked about what Mario had just read, he was not able to answer the question.

These reactions occurred whether Mario read aloud or silently. At every occasion,

Mario had to re-read the section to come up with a response. Cohen concluded that

58

Mario had not learned to read strategically, thus, reading context to figure out what

had been read and did not find a purpose for reading. Apparently, for Mario, being a

struggling reader meant reading without emotion or interest. As an instructional

remedy, Cohen asked Mario to attempt to create images in his mind when reading, in

order to visualize the essence of what has been read. After reading each section of the

assigned book, Mario summarized what he read in a form of a dialogue journal. This

activity provided an opportunity for Mario to share with his tutor in writing what he

has read. At the end of each week, Mario made poster-board presentations to his

classmates participating in this program and turned in finished reports to his tutor.

Barrat and Crane (2011) obtained from the Utah State Office of Education the

student-level data sets of all tenth and eleventh grade students who took the language

proficiency test in 2008/09. The language proficiency datasets included overall scaled

scores. In addition, the scores were further categorized as pre-emergent, emergent,

intermediate, and advanced. Furthermore, the content assessment datasets included

the number and percent of correct responses by content standard for each student. The

authors of this study linked student records across assessments by an anonymous

numerical identifier. The purpose of this study was to provide the information to the

Utah State Office of Education regarding when English learners should be moved out

of English support classes and be mainstreamed into regular content area classes.

Findings resulting from the data analysis performed by Barrat and Crane (2011)

showed that ELL students were outscored by native English speakers by an average

of 1.3–1.6 standard deviations in both grades on the English language arts test and by

59

an average of 0.4–0.7 standard deviations on the mathematics test. This study

suggested that continuing demographic growth of ELLs in educational institutions

warrants the need for greater support of ELLs in a variety of content areas.

Behavioral engagement (influenced by school problems and violence,

relational engagement, cognitive engagement and gender). LISA places behavioral

engagement right after English language proficiency as the second most important

variable that affects the academic performance of ELLs. The researchers frequently

used terms academic engagement and behavioral engagement interchangeably.

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Todorova (2008) defined “behavioral

engagement” as conduct that “specifically reflects students’ participation and efforts

to perform academic tasks” as measured “when students do their best on classwork

and homework, turn in assignments on time, pay attention and behave appropriately

in class, and maintain good attendance” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 48). Boyer (1992) also supported this idea by suggesting that

students should be educated regarding their responsibility to acquire education

in relation to academic production and outcome. Hence, it is safe to assume that the

engagement occurs when students make a cognitive investment in learning.

According to Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Todorova (2008, p. 48),

“Teachers often reported that they found newcomer immigrant students to be more

behaviorally engaged in their studies than nonimmigrant students.” The authors

explained this phenomenon by giving new arrivals credit for working harder and

more diligently than their second generation counterparts, because they, the new

60

arrivals, view the education in America as an opportunity for advancement. In

contrast, “the second generation immigrant students tend to take things for granted,

are less motivated to study hard, and as a result, they lack in educational attainment

behind the new arrivals” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 48).

Findings of the LISA study suggested that the behavioral engagement of new

arrivals and second generation ELLs has been equally influenced by a school’s

environment. Karatzias et al. (2002) suggested that this similarity in behavioral

engagement between both generations of ELLs has been well supported by a variety

of research findings. The authors argued that “A stressful school climate, in which a

student experiences academic pressure, danger, discrimination, and/or the absence of

supportive relationships, can undermine well-being, taxing the student’s ability to

cope” (Karatzias et al., 2002). In contrast, it is fair to assume that safe and supportive

educational climate promotes students’ well-being and educational attainment.

Consequently, school context is extremely important in predicting the academic

achievement of ELLs.

Furthermore, LISA suggested that there is a discrepancy in views between the

parents of first generation ELLs and their teachers’ view on how they perceive

behavioral engagement of the first generation of ELLs. The authors of the LISA study

explained that “While teachers tended to be positive about immigrant students, they

did not think much of immigrant parents” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 136). The authors claimed that this phenomenon is largely due to

teachers’ assumptions that “For them (parents of new arrivals) coming to the U.S. is

61

the goal. Once they get here, it is ‘mission accomplished’ for them” (Suárez-Orozco,

Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 137). This discrepancy in the system is further

highlighted by the fact that children of immigrant parents adopt their values mainly

from their parents.

School Problems and Violence. Ample research has demonstrated that

effective schools have strong, determined and positive leadership, caring “highly

qualified” teachers, while maintaining a safe and orderly school climate. In contrast,

highly segregated schools with weak leadership, less qualified teachers and toxic

environments that obstruct learning without the respect for linguistic, cultural

and ethnic differences of multicultural students generally result in lower

academic achievement of all enrolled students. Low academic expectations, scarce

educational resources, school violence and high drop-out rates are all significant risk

factors for educational access. Sadly, newly arrived and many second generation

immigrant ELLs are forced by economic circumstances to attend schools that

undermine the capacity to concentrate on their education. LISA reports that

“When we asked students to tell us about their perceptions of school problems and

violence, an alarming number of them spoke of crime, violence, feeling unsafe, gang

activity, weapons, drug dealing and racial conflicts” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-

Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 91). Similarly, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) also

reported that second generation students attending unsafe schools plagued with gangs

academically achieved significantly less than their counterparts attending better

schools and equally experienced lower self-esteem and higher depressive symptoms

62

(p. 210).

Relational Engagement. The findings of the LISA study have pointed out the

existence of close relationships between numbers of key variables. The LISA

recognized relational engagement as the most important contributor to the behavioral

engagement of new arrivals, followed by attitudes toward school, emotional well-

being and academic self-efficacy as having a direct impact on predicting academic

achievement of newcomers to the U. S. Research further suggested that new arrivals

lack behind the relational engagement of the second generation ELLs. Hence, first

generation ELLs are mostly “lost” in their unfamiliar environment, and generally

have lower self-esteem than their second generation counterparts. Due to the

relatively short time of living in the United States, new arrivals are struggling to

establish their sense of belonging in a new country. In addition, lacking sufficient

English skills, new arrivals are in a position of “passive recipients” of information,

instead of actively seeking help at school. This assumption is supported by LISA’s

claim that “Self-esteem, a close correlate of emotional well-being, is often

compromised for disoriented, recently arrived immigrant youth” (Suárez-Orozco,

Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 46). In contrast, the second generation ELLs

feel “at home” in the United States and their personal self-esteem and educational

confidence translates into higher academic achievement.

Previous research has suggested that the relational engagement of new arrivals

lacks behind the relational engagement of second generation ELLs. The first

generation ELLs are mostly “lost” in their unfamiliar environments, in contrast to

63

their American-born counterparts who have first-hand knowledge of American

society. Due to the relatively short time living in the United States, new arrivals are

struggling to establish their sense of belonging in a new country. The findings of the

LISA longitudinal study suggested that the “emphasis on social networks makes

sense – the presence of family members, friends, and friends of friends in the new

destination lowers costs associated with one’s arrival, and eases the transition in

myriad ways” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 56).

Cognitive Engagement and Academic Self-Efficacy. Authors of the LISA

study defined academic self-efficacy as “the belief that one is competent and in

control of one’s learning at least to some degree” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 46). Research suggested that academic self-efficacy positively

contributes to students’ engagement at school. Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and

Todorova (2008) suggested that “immigrant children and their families arrive eager to

face any challenge, but too seldom have all the resources and skills to achieve

academic success on their own” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008,

p. 53). Therefore, it is fair to conclude that in order to be academically successful,

immigrant students need to adapt to American society as soon as possible. The

authors of the LISA study asserted that “Most immigrant students recognize the

sacrifices their parents have made for them” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 31).

However, new arrivals’ parents are largely unable to help their children with

social, academic and cultural assimilation because the lack of familiarity with

64

American mainstream society prevents them from being helpful to their children in

this regard. In contrast, the second generation of immigrant students is American

born; therefore, they do not have to face the adaptation hurdle of new arrivals. They

are fully “adapted” to American mainstream society, although they still may have to

face a variety of academic and social obstacles due to a lesser level of adaptation of

their foreign born parents. Finally, by the third generation, most students are English

dominant; hence, they are fully “adapted” to American society and their academic

achievement is not being inhibited by hurdles that first and second generation of

ELLs have to face.

Gender. According to Werner (1989), gender has been frequently confirmed

as a correlate of resilience. In addition, the author further suggested that longitudinal

studies find that women are generally more skilled in accessing and using social

supports and resources. This hypothesis is well supported by LISA that reported 13%

of boys were perceived by their teachers demonstrate very poor or poor behaviors

compared to 9% of girls, whereas 61% of boys compared to 77% of girls were rated

as demonstrating good or very good behaviors (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 140).

In addition, teachers also reported that “boys were more likely than girls to

demonstrate poor or very poor motivation and effort, whereas girls were more likely

than boys to demonstrate good or very good motivation and effort” (Suárez-Orozco,

Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 139). One teacher summarized the opinion of

all teachers in relation to gender having an effect on academic performance by stating

65

that “Girls, in general … tend to be more willing to buckle down, do their work, get

all of their homework in.” In contrast, this teacher reported that “With boys, lots of

times, there is more of a tendency to get distracted, to take as a role some anti-social

types of behavior” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 140).

Therefore, it is safe to assume that majority of female ELLs are generally perceived

by their teachers as higher achieving students than their male counterparts.

Academic Performance Pathways. In order to gain a better understanding of

the similarities and differences between students, the authors of the LISA study

classified students into five performance pathways, thus, high achievers, low

achievers, slow decliners, precipitous decliners and improvers, taking into

consideration samples of individual trajectories of academic performance. The

findings of the LISA study revealed that two thirds of all the participating students in

this study demonstrated a decline in their academic performance over a period of five

years. This disturbing trend has been further magnified by academic

underperformance of slow decliners, representing 24.7% of the sample, also

experiencing steady decline of half a grade over the period of five years, thus, their

average GPA declined from 2.96 to 2.53. The precipitous decliners (27.8% of the

sample) showed the decline in their average GPA from 2.9 to 1.67 during the same

time. Furthermore, GPA of low achievers (14.4% of the sample) dropped from an

average GPA of 2.08 to 1.44 during the course of study. However, in contrast to this

declining trend of academic achievement of immigrant students, high achievers,

(22.5% of the sample), maintained their average GPA of 3.5, and the last group, thus,

66

improvers (10.6% of the sample) even managed to raise their average GPA from 2.29

to 3.11 over the course of the LISA study. Finally, the findings of the LISA study also

revealed that female participants significantly outperformed male students and that

the Asian subgroup of the participants outperformed other ethnicities participating in

this study (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, pp. 34-35).

Family (referring to whether the family has two parents, one parent

or other caregiver, father working and present). Generally, parents with higher

education are better prepared to enter a more sophisticated job market in their

new adoptive country. Therefore, immigrant parents with a higher education and a

father present and working are in a better economic position to enroll their children in

more advantaged schools that have rigorous curriculum and a better English language

support system. Hence, parents with higher educational background can provide their

children with more sophisticated literacy opportunities and meaningful parental

support when compared with less educated immigrant parents. Therefore, it is fair to

conclude that higher education of immigrant parents and a father present and working

elevates their family’s socio-economic status, and that in turn, allows them to provide

their children with better educational opportunities, and access to educational

technology and paid tutoring services. Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Todorova

(2008) also supported this assumption by stating that “Parents who are earning an

income are better able to buffer their children from the risks associated with poverty”

(p. 38).

67

Similarly, the family composition of the second generation immigrants plays

also an important role in the acculturation and overall assimilation and process of

families of the second generation immigrants. Many times, immigrant families consist

of some family members who are legally in this country, while other members of the

same family are undocumented. This contextual variable may extend beyond the first

generation and could potentially result in role reversal, where American-born children

are fully acculturated in this country, while their parents have difficulties learning

English and American way of live. Alba and Waters (2011) argued that the

institutional prevention of citizenship rights has negative effects into adulthood and

rigid tracking in education disadvantages young people from immigrant backgrounds.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is clear evidence of disparities in

the four “academic performance pathways” in those cases when family support

systems became dysfunctional. For example, “long separations followed by

complicated reunifications were reported to be a serious problem most frequently by

students who demonstrated a precipitous pattern of decline in academic performance;

26% of the group defined as “precipitous decliners” reported that this was a serious

problem, in contrast to only 2% of the “high achievers” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-

Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 63). In terms of “family tension,” LISA reported that

“high achievers reported the least family tensions, while low achievers and

precipitous decliners reported the most” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 72).

68

Emotional Well-Being. Other findings of the LISA displayed astonishing

near unanimity. For example, it is reported that “85% of the [400] youth in the sample

had been separated from one or both parents --either biological or adoptive--during

the process of migration” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 60).

The long-term separation from one or both of their parents negatively influences the

emotional well-being of first generation immigrant adolescents. According to LISA,

“Well-being (or the relative absence of psychological symptoms) influences a

student’s ability to focus on his or her studies” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 45). First generation immigrant students do not display the

ambivalence in valuing their families’ support as second generation immigrant

students often do. In addition, LISA further reported that “recently arrived immigrant

adolescents, by and large, were emotionally dependent on their families” (Suárez-

Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 73). A large percentage of new arrivals

named their family members as people they “have fun with (52%), “feel loved by”

(83%), and “feel respected by” (85%) (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova,

2008, p. 73).

Health Status. LISA suggested that second generation ELLs exhibit lower

health status in comparison with new arrivals. This contrasting factor is supported by

LISA findings, suggesting that “in several areas of well-being and health, immigrants

are better off than the second generation” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 5). Findings of the LISA study further revealed that “babies born

to immigrant mothers tend to be healthier than second-generation babies, and

69

immigrant children are less likely to be obese, to experiment with drugs and alcohol,

or to engage in a host of other risky behaviors” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 5).

Consequently, the multiple adverse environmental stresses negatively reflect

on educational achievement and growth of ELLs. Chih and Harris (2008) also

supported this hypothesis by stating, “Thus multiple family disadvantages

experienced by ethnic and language minority children, and the associated

accumulation of lower levels of skills, knowledge, and behavioral controls, from birth

to age five, are central to the lower school readiness of these children,” (p. 126).

Likewise, the authors of the LISA study asserted that environmental stresses such as

families with single parents as well as living in poverty have an adverse impact on the

academic achievement of ELLs.

In addition, Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, and Todorova (2008) supported

this claim by stating that “The process of migration, however, inflicts tremendous

stress on family members” (p. 56). The authors of the LISA study further suggested

that families often must endure long separations due to a variety of migration-related

issues, adding stresses to immigrant families. Consequently, “The pressure to survive

economically in the new land while sending back remittances to the family in the

country of origin often lead parents to work multiple jobs and long hours” (Suárez-

Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, pp. 56-57). Coincidently, the socio-

economic status and direct parental involvement in a child’s education have been also

identified as additional important variables that affect the academic performance of

70

ELLs (Hale, 2001).

Parental Involvement. A variety of studies have been conducted in regards to

the effectiveness of parental involvement in child’s education apropos overall

increase of academic achievement of students. Review of the substantial research

literature consistently indicates that parental involvement is the most significant

factor contributing to a child’s academic achievement and success in school

(Henderson & Berla, 1994; Ballen & Moles, 1994; Epstein, 1995). It is also an

essential aspect of an adolescent’s educational development. Over the years, parental

involvement has been defined in many different ways. Traditionally, parental

involvement has been seen by many as attending school functions, volunteering on

field trips and in classrooms, helping with fund-raising, and with other various school

projects. At home, parents can support their children by monitoring homework,

tutoring, encouraging, and reinforcing their academic achievement and by allocating

them enough study time to complete their school assignments. Additionally, parents

can also help by providing their children with a safe study space (Cotton & Wikelund,

1989).

Furthermore, research indicates that parental involvement in a child’s

education improves his/her academic performance which in turn reduces potential

behavioral problems at school. A parental proactive approach to school nourishes the

environment which promotes learning. It also helps reduce, and potentially even

eliminates problems such as inattention and aggression that are commonly linked to

students’ low academic achievement (Hill, 2004). Moreover, it has been documented

71

that active parental involvement extends its benefits beyond the school environment

and results not only in a higher positive attitude towards the school personnel but

congregates positive community support (Becher, 1984).

Harper and Pelletier (2010) examined a variety of issues related to ELLs and

their parents’ involvement in education, as well as an awareness of their children’s

abilities related to English and mathematics skills. Findings from the analysis of the

data pointed out that the native English speaking parents were in contact with

teachers more frequently than parents who were English learners. Nevertheless,

teachers did not perceive any linguistic group differences in parent engagement in

their children's schooling. Parents who were native English speakers as well as

parents who were English learners did not foresee correctly their children’s

capabilities in reading. Additional analysis conducted by the authors of this study

concluded that this phenomenon was neither attributed to parent involvement nor

their English language proficiency skills. Harper and Pelletier (2010) suggested that

the English learning parents were more accurate regarding the assessment of their

children's mathematical abilities because of a better understanding of and the

emphasis on mathematics learning.

Ward and Franquiz (2004) discussed in their descriptive report a case study

that elaborates on the family literacy model for migrant families. This comprehensive

approach to educating migrant students consists of the following four components:

a) adult basic education that addresses English language literacy and GED

preparation; b) parent education about their children’s language development

72

and the importance of reading and story-telling and parental teaching strategies;

c) early childhood education to improve the language and emergent literacy skills of

children; and finally d) parent and child “together time,” during which parents play

with their children and practice skills learned in the parent education component of

this undertaking. The identified core components of the case study are primarily

based on different service models that concentrate on the family unit rather than

individuals. The authors suggested that the home-based model in combination with

individualizing literacy lessons in culturally meaningful ways are the most effective

approach applied to address the migrant families’ educational needs.

Ethnicity in Relation to Parental Involvement. Research indicated that the

ethnicity and the level of parental education relate to aspiration and academic

achievement of students. Parental involvement might be perceived differently along

the various demographic, social, cultural, linguistic and ethnic lines. While the higher

academic achievement of African American students has been directly linked to the

level of their parents’ involvement at school, it has not been the case with White

students. Moreover, parental involvement of parents with lower levels of education

was linked more to aspirations and not to students’ academic achievement or

reduction of behavior problems (Hill, 2004).

Espinosa (1995) affirmed that Hispanic parents/families are very involved in

their children’s educational lives, though they do not participate in their children’s

schooling in traditional ways. The author suggested that educators in general must

identify new ways to involve parents/families while respecting and validating the

73

culture of their children. Educational leaders need to be culturally, racially, and

ethnically sensitive to promote cooperative, collaborative, and mutually respected

comprehensive partnerships between schools and communities. Rutherford and

Billing (1995) claimed that in order to promote these comprehensive partnerships,

educators must provide a variety of opportunities for the schools, families, and

communities to work together. Cooperation among schools, parents, and communities

must be based upon mutual respect and interdependence.

LISA findings indicated that the teachers’ views in regards to parental

involvement differ from views of children of immigrant parents. Teachers expect

parents to come to school to “get involved” in their children’s education. The findings

also revealed that “Parents who came to school and helped with homework were

viewed as concerned parents, whereas parents who did neither were thought to be

disinterested and parents of poor students” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 76). In contrast, LISA reported that 71% of new arrivals stated

that for their parents, the education of their children is “very important” and another

22% indicated that education was “important.” In a similar fashion, 83% of new

arrivals stated that for their parents finishing high school is “very important” and yet

another 11% stated that it is “important” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, &

Todorova, 2008, p. 76). In sum, findings of the LISA study revealed that “the vast

majority of immigrant parents, regardless of whether they had girls or boys, and

independent of which country they came from, wanted their children to do well in

school and go on to college” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p.

74

77).

Research further indicated that parental involvement is an important factor

that influences academic achievement. School administrators need to recognize the

value of increased parental involvement and its relationship to academic success, and

support all forms of parental involvement at their sites. Positive working relationships

between parents and educators benefit students in unexpected, stressful, and difficult

situations (Collins, Cooper & Whitmore, 1995). Furthermore, research implies that

while parent/family participation improves student academic outcomes, variations

have been found according to students’ family cultures, ethnicity, and/or

socioeconomic backgrounds. Educational leaders need to take into consideration

these differences when utilizing parent involvement at schools. Due to a large

Hispanic population in California, educators should take a closer look at the ways in

which Hispanic parents/families are involved in their children’s education. Due to

cultural differences, involvement may be different for those of “traditional” American

families but are nonetheless valuable and should be both respected and considered

when educators are planning parent/family involvement programs at schools.

School-Centered Factors

The regression model of Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008)

rank the percentage of students at or above proficiency on the state English Language

Arts exam as number one out of four school-centered explanatory variables that affect

the academic achievement of ELLs. Hence, LISA suggested that “attending a school

where other students were learning the skills necessary to perform well on the high

75

stakes literacy exam seemed to provide an academic milieu in which newcomer

students were also likely to do well on an achievement test” (p. 52). The school

attendance rate has been ranked second, followed by school poverty rate, and ending

with the level of school racial segregation. LISA findings revealed that “The lower

the average daily school attendance rate, the less well our participant was likely to do

on the achievement test” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, p. 52).

A review of the research literature suggests that poverty has a direct negative

impact on students’ academic achievement. In a recent study, a group of

underprivileged immigrant Californians reported, “Nothing can replace an

education…It’s the best thing anyone can do…Education provides the greatest access

to the pathway out of poverty…I [don’t] just want a job, I want a future, a career, a

life for my daughter-attending college will give me that” (Shaw, Goldrick-Rab,

Mazzeo, & Jacobs, 2009, p. 8). Hence, the immigrant families are fully aware of the

importance of education. However, the environmental stressors such as families with

single parents who live in poverty, and experience other hardships, diminish the

educational achievement growth of immigrant children. This means that ELLs are

less academically prepared to face a multitude of educational academic challenges. If

resources are not available, it will be more difficult to develop their academic English

language skills needed to be successful on mandatory high-stakes content area tests.

A variety of research findings indicate that on average, immigrants to the

United States are socio-economically disadvantaged (Anderson, 1999). In addition,

poor immigrant children are usually attending high-poverty schools where a high

76

percentage of students are ELLs, limiting their opportunities to have direct contact

with native English speakers that would provide newcomers with appropriate

linguistic modeling opportunities. In addition, the lack of educational opportunities

within the high-poverty schools with many teachers lacking credentials and

appropriate training further hinder ELLs from achieving academic success. Finally,

the lack of relevant curriculum and rigorous classes available for ELLs in high-

poverty schools further undermine their academic preparedness for mandatory high-

stakes testing.

Level of School Racial Segregation. LISA findings linked poverty and level

of racial segregation to lower academic achievement of immigrant students by

suggesting that “the poorer the students in the school and the more racially segregated

the school, the less well our participants were likely to do on the achievement test”

(Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 52). This grim situation is

magnified by the fact that about 85% of immigrant students migrating to the United

States come from Spanish speaking countries; therefore, Latinos are the subgroup that

is most significantly underachieving at schools. Chih & Harris (2008) reported that

according to U.S. Census Bureau 2007, “In the United States, one of every four

Latino children lives in poverty” (Chih & Harris, 2008, p. 1). During the last two

decades, American schools became increasingly segregated, although the courts in

1960s intended to reduce the segregation of schools. This trend of “voluntary” school

segregation resulted in negative educational outcomes, primarily among immigrant

students who generally attend mostly underfunded low achieving inner city schools,

77

due to their overall lower socio-economic status. The racial and linguistic inequality

resulting in limited access to educational opportunities has been a major topic of

interest in the past few years. The socioeconomic disadvantages that plague

immigrant and other minorities stem from faulty policies that serve as roadblocks to

progress. Finally, a review of research literature supports the idea that poverty and

discrimination have many shades of colors and forms that contribute to racial,

economic and educational inequality.

The segregation by race in public schools was declared illegal in 1954 by the

landmark court decision Brown v. Board of Education. Nevertheless, the legal

desegregation in public institutions did not accomplish the “desegregation” of the

variety of equity and equitability issues in public schools related to immigrant

students, different races and ethnicities. The persistent poverty within the

underfunded inner city schools results in continual unequal educational opportunities

for linguistic, ethnic and minority students. This unpleasant didactic situation in

public schools is primarily due to the “institutionalized” educational discrimination of

linguistic, ethnic and racial minorities within the public educational system,

(underfunded public schools), contributing to the ever widening of the achievement

GAP among different immigrant, cultural, racial and ethnic groups from the nation’s

underprivileged population.

Chih and Harris (2008) shed a new light on what poverty entails. The authors

argued that racial inequalities within the society still exist in respect to the

78

socioeconomic disadvantages that plague minorities resulting from faulty policies that

serve as roadblocks to progress. Chih and Harris (2008) discussed that discrimination

at different levels is one of the main causes of racial inequality. Although, poverty has

many causes, the authors defined it as cumulative disadvantages. According to Chih

and Harris (2008), poverty is the culprit. The authors claimed that poverty results in

cumulative disadvantages that if left unchecked will trigger more negativity that can

impede a long and healthy life. Poverty has minimized educational opportunities for

the poor, marked by unequal educational opportunities at the high school level and an

overall decrease in accessing higher education. In their book, Chih and Harris (2008)

provide a breakthrough analysis of the complex mechanisms that connect poverty and

race. They concluded that a kaleidoscope of factors contribute to widening racial

gaps, including education, racial discrimination, social capital, immigration, and

incarceration. This book is very important in explaining the variety of non-academic

barriers the immigrant and ELL students have to face on a daily basis.

However, in contrary to findings of the LISA study and substantial body of

research literature that also supports LISA’s findings linking poverty and level of

racial segregation to lower the academic achievement of immigrant students, there are

powerful controversial political figures that present opposing views on academic

underachievement of the disadvantaged school population. In Class Warfare: Inside

the Fight to Fix America’s Schools, Brill (2011) presented a series of discussions on

major shifts in American school politics over the past several years and related

complexities, trials, attempts, triumphs, fights, failures and inevitable controversies.

79

The central theme of Brill's book is the presentation of different points of view about

how the new “restructured” public educational system should look like in the future.

Most of the new educational policy proposals presented in Brill’s book are based on

the No Child Left Behind mandate of 2001 (NCLB). Brill seems to take into

consideration other variables affecting students’ academic performance and overall

didactic success, rather than students’ limited English skills, low socio-economic

status, living in an unfamiliar culture, immigration, and assimilation problems.

The most controversial political figure introduced in Brill’s book is John

Schnur, who is currently a prominent member of president Obama’s cabinet. Schnur’s

ideas regarding the school reform in America attracted tremendous hate-love

affiliations on both sides of the issue. In 1990s, while researching the educational

issues America has to face, Schnur came to the conclusion that the students' academic

success or failure has to do primarily with the quality of instruction in the classroom,

rather than with parental disengagement and poverty, level of school racial

segregation or whether or not the school had enough educational resources. Schnur

suggested that the academic success of some schools, for example, charter schools,

was primarily due to the long hours teachers were expected to put in their work day

and due to the overall grueling work load of teachers. Finally, Brill (2011) suggested

that teachers should stop using the non-school factors such as poverty, hunger,

frequent changing of schools, lack of English skills of immigrants, disabilities, major

attendance issues, crime related stress and the like, as an excuse to justify low

academic achievement of the current population of students.

80

A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow’s (1943, pp. 370-396)

motivational and humanist theory that focuses on human freedom, dignity, and

potential, contradicts Brill’s assertions suggesting that in order to reach a person’s

potential, it is necessary to study the individual as a whole. In addition, Maslow

(1943) affirmed that learning should be student-centered and personalized, and the

educator‘s role should be that of a facilitator. Maslow asserted that the affective and

cognitive needs of students are crucial, and that the goal is to develop self-actualized

people in a cooperative, supportive environment. Most importantly, Maslow believed

that the lower level needs of the individual have to be satisfied before higher-order

needs can influence behavior (Maslow, 1943, p. 370).

Knowing the facts and assumptions related to Maslow’s five-level pyramid

called the “Hierarchy of Needs” is one of the basic requirements of educators.

However, the educational policy makers simply choose to ignore most of the

variables listed under the first four deficiency or deprivation need levels of Maslow's

motivational and humanist theory (poverty, safety, equal access to resources and

alike) and demand that the students reach the highest Growth level need of Maslow’s

pyramid, (cognitive problem solving stage) thus, academically “equally” perform on

standardized tests as their wealthy counterparts. The first four levels of Maslow’s

pyramid of needs are considered to be deficiency or deprivation in that, as Maslow

(1943, p. 370) stated, “Their lack of satisfaction causes a deficiency that motivates

people to meet these needs.” The highest, or the fifth level of Maslow’s pyramid

consists of the Growth Needs that include behavior that is driven by “one’s desire for

81

personal growth and the need to become all the things that a person is capable of

becoming" (Maslow, 1943, p. 382).

At the bottom of the Maslow’s pyramid is the physiological level that should

satisfy the very basic necessities for life, such as air, food, water, sleep, and other

factors towards homeostasis. At many poor inner city schools, there are many

immigrant students who are homeless; thus, they do not have a place to sleep and the

availability of food for them is rather scarce. Yet, according to the Brill’s theory,

these clearly underprivileged students are expected to “equally” perform well on

standardized tests with their more affluent counterparts. Furthermore, Maslow’s

safety level on his pyramid of needs is the next stage that warrants attention. Safety

levels include security of environment, employment, resources, health, property and

alike. Safety and security of environment are two words that are practically unknown

at many inner city schools with a high concentration of poor, disadvantaged

immigrant students. The LISA study indicated that “most of the children in this study

attended schools that not only obstructed learning and engagement but also were, in

many ways, toxic to healthy learning and development” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-

Orozco, & Todorova, 2008, p. 89).

“Belongingness” is the third level of Maslow’s pyramid and includes love,

friendship, family and so on, while “self-esteem” forms the fourth level of Maslow’s

pyramid of needs that includes confidence, self-esteem, achievement and respect.

Lastly, “self-actualization” is the fifth and highest level of Maslow’s pyramid. This

stage consists of morality, creativity and problem solving. Sadly, very few immigrant

82

students at the nation’s inner city schools ever reach the highest level of Maslow’s

pyramid due to circumstances beyond immigrant students’ control. Most of the

academic and/or non-academic happenings at many inner-city schools are geared

towards raising the scores on mandatory high stakes tests to satisfy NCLB mandates.

Under these circumstances, many low achieving immigrant students and ELLs who

do not possess adequate academic English are overwhelmed because the instructors

are teaching “above their heads,” clearly disregarding ELLs’ linguistic disadvantages.

The LISA study unmistakably linked “negative educational outcomes – including

climates of low expectations and academic performance, reduced school resources,

lower achievement, greater school violence, and higher drop-out rates” to a new trend

of “voluntary” racial segregation, “where more than three quarters of their

(immigrant) peers were of color” (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008,

p. 89).

Segmented Assimilation of Families of

ELLs and its Determinants

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) suggested that there is not just one immigrant

experience, but rather there are many immigrant experiences depending where the

immigrants come from, and how the American mainstream society accepts them. For

some immigrants, the assimilation in the mainstream American society is smooth

because the society chooses to welcome and privilege them (e.g., Cubans in the

1960s). In contrast, for some others, the assimilation and acculturation process is

extremely long and difficult, and results in broken dreams and long-term poverty.

83

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) argued that there are many factors that influence

assimilation success or failure of a new generation of Americans.

The authors claimed that “Immigrants even those of the same nationality, are

frequently divided by social class, the timing of their arrival, and their generation” (p.

45). Although the assimilation of immigrants over time in the mainstream American

society still presents the master concept of the “melting pot,” experiences of different

groups of immigrants and individuals vary depending on individual circumstances.

Alba and Waters (2011) supported this hypothesis by suggesting that the experiences

of the second generation immigrants should be examined from the sociologist’s point

of view, and should include second generation immigrants’ educational, economic,

social, and political impact on American society. Portes and Rumbaut (2001)

concluded that “not everyone is chosen” (p. 44).

Both authors suggested that the second generation of immigrants is

undergoing a process of segmented assimilation, where individuals and a variety of

ethnic subgroups assimilate to different segments of American society. Hence,

success or failure of the second generation immigrants depends on timing of their

arrival, and context of their reception by host country that can lead to a number of

different outcomes (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that

academic achievement of immigrant students largely depends on how their families

were accepted in the mainstream American society. The decisive factors that

underline success or failure of the second generation immigrants depends on the

economic success of the first generation, pace of acculturation among parents and

84

their children, legal status of parents of the second generation in the United States,

learning English and mainstream culture, and a variety of other reasons. Rumbaut and

Portes (2001) suggested that the skills that parents of the second generation bring to

their adoptive country represent human capital that plays a decisive role in their

economic adaptation.

Assimilation Pathways. According to Portes and Rumbaut (2001),

assimilation pathways consist of upward assimilation, downward assimilation,

upward mobility and persistent biculturalism. Upward assimilation corresponds to

consonant acculturation. This assimilation generally occurs when the children and

parents learn American culture and gradually abandon their home language and “old

country” at the same pace. Downward assimilation corresponds to dissonant

acculturation and occurs when children learn English and the American ways outstrip

that of their immigrant parents. Both authors suggested that the second generation

immigrant children do not experience downward assimilation because being born in

the United States implies that they are fully acculturated to this country. The last

portion of the theory consists of the immigrant families with upward mobility and

persistent biculturalism. This form of assimilation corresponds to consonant

acculturation. This upward mobility occurs when parents and children learn American

ways gradually, while embedded, at least in part, in the ethnic community.

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) suggested that patterns of acculturation, school

and family life, challenges related to English language skills, cultural identity, self-

esteem, ambition, academic achievement and experiences of discrimination are all

85

factors that equally affect first and second generation of immigrants. A Salvadorian

parent interviewed in California offers a suitable example of the challenges some

immigrant parents are coping with: “I really live in El Salvador. I work and earn

money in Los Angeles, but my thoughts are always there” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001,

p. 43). Finally, authors considered race as an important personal trait in America that

affects immigrants’ acceptance in the mainstream society and affirm that, “A racial

gradient that the darker a person’s skin is, the greater is the social distance from

dominant groups and the more difficult it is to make his or her personal qualifications

count” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, p. 47).

Human Capital. Ultimately, results of the analysis presented in Legacies

suggested that the human capital is the most important factor that affects

socioeconomic mobility of immigrant parents regardless of their nationality. In

addition, possession of credentials seems to help to move ahead but does not

guarantee success in an adopted country. The authors illustrated this situation on the

example of the well-educated Colombian lawyer who was not able to transfer his

credentials to this country. Without the support of his countryman of the same ethnic

group, he was destined to work only odd jobs that resulted of his family’s downwards

mobility. In contrast, the Vietnamese individual who came to this country uneducated

was able to pull together resources from his other relatives and countrymen that

allowed him to move to a better neighborhood with better schools for his children.

Hence, the human capital and socioeconomic achievement of the first generation has

an additive effect on the academic and socioeconomic achievement of their second

86

generation immigrant children.

Throughout the Legacies, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) further explored

immigrant parents’ characteristics, situations, and perceptions, with the emphasis on

their experiences in raising their children in the United States. The authors suggested

that “Income largely determines the extent to which immigrant families can guide the

education of their children and open career opportunities for them” (Portes &

Rumbaut, 2001, p. 76). Finally, the results of the data analysis presented in Legacies

also indicated that parents’ English language skills and education are also part of the

human capital that is a strong predictor of economic success.

In Legacies, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) also discussed children and language

issues in respect to their increased English language proficiency and children’s

preference to use English over time, instead of using their parents’ native tongue. The

authors also tackled the issues related to bilingualism and language assimilation and

acculturation over time. Portes and Rumbaut discussed the positive associations

between bilingualism and cognitive flexibility in relation to the academic

performance of the second generation of immigrant students who have foreign-born

parents. In addition, Portes and Rumbaut also advocated the advantages of

bilingualism for individual development and national competitiveness suggesting that

“Children of immigrants would thus do well to preserve what they have received as a

cultural gift from their parents” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, p. 118).

The authors of Legacies analyzed the evolution of different types of ethnic

self-identities, and provided a detailed explanation on how these ethnic self-identities

87

are shaped by individuals’ personal experiences, experiences of discrimination and in

relation to other variables. The result of adolescence became less patterned by

individual demographic or family characteristics. The authors asserted that “Length

of U.S. residence and use of English at home continue to be strongly associated with

a plain American identity in late adolescence (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, p. 167).

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) extensively explored throughout their book

parent-child conflict, self-esteem, aspirations for the future, cumulative experiences in

growing up, and differences in self-esteem. Researchers largely agreed that what the

immigrant children think and feel is a reflection to the hopes, desires, and purposes of

the parents who brought them to the United States, no matter how precocious and

independent the children may be (Antin, 1912).

Portes and Rumbaut asserted that there are many factors that affect academic

achievement of the second generation of immigrant children and evaluate their

chances for educational success. The authors of Legacies claimed that their academic

and cultural adaptation in school is a strong predictor of their future economic

success. Quy, a Vietnamese student living in San Diego pointed out that “The key

thing to doing well academically is not whether you’re gifted or really bright, but it’s

more just how studious you are. I think sheer ability matters only to a very small

extent but everything else comes down to that you have to work at it” (Portes &

Rumbaut, 2001, pp. 244-245).

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) saw a significant danger of assimilation problems

for young people coming from underprivileged backgrounds, both in terms of their

88

parents’ socioeconomic status and resources and the way they are received in the

United States. Authors see the “downward assimilation path” as most unsettling

because it traps certain segments of immigrant minority population in low-performing

inner-city schools that provide their children with inadequate education, lessening

their future marketability in the mainstream American society.

Effects of Undocumented Immigrant Status on

Academic Performance of ELLs

López and López (2009) affirmed that “The children of undocumented

migrants in the United States are trapped at the intersection of two systems in crisis:

the public education system and the immigration law system” (p. 1). These

undocumented immigrant students who came to the United States illegally with their

parents have to face many legal, linguistic, educational and cultural challenges

peculiar to them, along with racial prejudices, institutionalized discrimination and a

long-term low socio-economic status. In 1982, the United States Supreme Court made

an epic decision that made it possible for undocumented children to receive a public

education. This landmark decision in the case of Plyer v. Doe was a significant

movement in the history of immigration rights. The US Supreme Court ruled that

immigration status would not play a role in undocumented children attending K-12

public schools, who have come to the U.S. “through no fault of their own.” However,

Dillon (2009) argued that these undocumented immigrant students continue to suffer

inequities of high-stakes testing mandated by NCLB Act of 2001, as well as

challenges of re-segregated schools.

89

Gándara and Contreras (2008) suggested that K-12 public schools failed to

meet linguistic and a variety of other educational needs of undocumented students. In

addition, the constant fear of being deported many times prevents parents of

undocumented children from sending their children to school. Hence, persons who

live in the U.S. without proper authorization are forced by their unpredictable

immigration situation to be elusive. Passel and Cohn (2009) estimated that there are

about two million undocumented children of the twelve million undocumented

persons living in the United States. Constant fear of deportation is augmented by

issues related to economic survival and lack of needed health care. Research

suggested that most of the undocumented children living in the United States come

from Mexico. Persistent educational and other inequalities undocumented students

have to face on a daily basis result in a situation that prevents them from reaching

their full academic potential.

López and López (2009) argued that the “NCLB presents unique challenges

for both the undocumented students and the schools they attend” (p. 110). The

authors brought to light that undocumented students have to face academic challenges

related not only to learning English and grueling mandatory testing but they also have

to face the psychological pressure of being members of undocumented minority.

López and López (2009) claimed that recently arrived students have to be identified

and tested to determine their level of limited English proficiency (LEP) under NCLB.

This process itself can potentially force students and their parents to disclose their

immigration status to school officials that may result in their deportation. Moreover,

90

the authors argued that NCLB “places enhanced demands on culturally and

linguistically diverse students not only to master the English language in an

unrealistic amount of time – but to perform well in specific content areas irrespective

of the support or accommodations offered by the school” (López & López, 2009, p.

111).

According to Pérez (2012), “Another major obstacle (undocumented) students

face in school is having their academic capabilities questioned by school personnel”

(p. 44). The author further suggested that low teacher expectations were a persistent

risk factor of undocumented students that many times resulted in denying them access

to rigorous advanced classes. Olivas (2012) supported this idea by suggesting that the

disparities that undocumented K-12 students had to face prior to Plyer continue. The

institutionalized discrimination of undocumented immigrant students continues

beyond high school graduation. According to Pérez (2012), undocumented students

with high academic skills and levels of performance in American schools are not able

to smoothly continue their education beyond high school because they are

undocumented, and therefore ineligible for traditional means of higher education

funding available to citizens. Pérez (2012) pointed out some shortcomings of the

Plyer decision suggest that it did not address government funding for higher

education for the 65,000-80,000 undocumented students who graduate from high

school each year.

Finally, according to Pérez (2012), learning English is not the only obstacle

that undocumented students have to face in American K-12 schools. They have to

91

face many instances of prejudice and discrimination, and they have to face

unsupportive teachers who question their academic talents and counselors

who refuse to place them in rigorous college preparatory academic classes. Generally,

many undocumented students experience a sense of isolation and high level of

anxiety due to their uncertain legal future and legal marginalization by the American

society.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the studies related to (a) second language acquisition,

(b) teacher quality equity, programmatic equity and achievement equity in regards to

ELLs having equal access to academic and a variety of support services as their

English-only counterparts, (c) student-centered and school centered factors affecting

the academic performance of newly arrived and second generation ELLs, (d)

segmented assimilation of families of ELLs and its determinants, and (e) effects of

undocumented immigrant status on academic performance of ELLs.

A substantial part of the research literature review suggested that English

language skills and the speedy learning of academic English have decisive predictive

value in forecasting scholastic attainment of ELLs, followed by behavioral, relational

and cognitive engagement. In addition, a student’s family structure, such as educated

mother, having two parental figures and father present and working, were also robust

contributors to ELLs’ educational upbringing and strong predictors of their academic

performance. Moreover, school context and safety were also correlated to the

educational success of newly arrived and second generation ELLs. Finally, the large

92

portion of the research literature review indicated that the academic achievement of

ELLs depends not only on their enthusiasm and academic effort, but also on their

ability to quickly adapt to their new environment, have a positive attitude towards

teachers, peers and mentoring acquaintances, establishing, maintaining and utilizing

network of relationships and academic support opportunities, ability to circumvent

perilous circumstances such as undocumented status and personal traits.

93

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The methodology of this study focused on (a) EL Shadowing - observing and

analyzing first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and first and

second generation participating target Mexican ELLs’ daily behavioral engagement at

Urban High School (UHS - pseudonym given to the school where this study took

place to protect its confidentiality), one of the many low-income, racially and

linguistically diverse public schools within the Bay Area of California, designated as

Title I school, with special emphasis on oral and written academic English language

use in daily academic settings that promote English language acquisition and literacy

skills, (b) teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity at

UHS, in regards to ELLs having equal access to academic and support services as

their English-only counterparts, and (c) role of student-centered and school-centered

factors in predicting the academic performance of first and second generation

participating target Filipino ELLs, and first and second generation participating target

Mexican ELLs.

This researcher first drew on the research of Krashen (1987, 1992, 1993,

2003), and his second language acquisition theory and also utilized the EL

Shadowing and Observation Tool to gather data in regards to the first research

question, which was “In what ways are Filipino and Mexican ELLs behaviorally

engaged in a representative classroom environment?” The EL Shadowing

94

observations consisted of classroom observations of participating target ELLs (see

Appendix A). This researcher/observer observed and analyzed ELLs’ daily behavioral

engagement at UHS, with special emphasis on their oral and written academic

English language use in daily academic settings that promote English language

acquisition and literacy skills. During the El Shadowing observation this

researcher/observer recorded ELLs’ academic behavior in five minute intervals,

capturing a “precise snapshot moment” at the end of each five-minute interval (see

Appendix A). This researcher/observer documented all data on the EL Shadowing and

Observation form specially designed by Los Angeles Unified School District and

adapted by Joan Wink in 2008 for the purpose of recording ELLs’ speaking, reading,

writing and listening behavioral engagement. The observation of the participating

target ELLs was followed by interviews with individual participating target ELLs

(see Appendix D), and individual participating target teachers whose classrooms were

observed (see Appendix I). All EL Shadowing observations and interviews with

participating target ELLs and participating individual target teachers were conducted

by this researcher.

The second part of the methodology focused on the teacher quality equity,

programmatic equity, and achievement equity at UHS, in regards to ELLs having

equal access to educational and support services as English-only students, in order to

seek answers to the second research question, which was “What are the teacher

quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity differences between

target ELLs and English-only students?” Hence, this researcher conducted a series of

95

equity audits in the classrooms of participating target ELLs, and also gathered and

analyzed related data that was available from the school’s data base ARIES.

The third part of the methodology of this study drew on the research of

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) and their theoretical regression

model for predicting the academic achievement for ELLs to seek answers to the third

research question, which was “What roles do student-centered and school-centered

factors play in predicting the academic performance of first and second generations of

Filipino and Mexican ELLs?” This third qualitative component of this study included

participating target ELLs Likert-type attitude scale attitude questionnaires (see

Appendix B), participating target ELLs surveys (see Appendix C), interviews with

individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix D), follow-up interviews with

individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix E), focus group interviews with

participating target ELLs (see Appendix F), target teacher Likert-type attitude scale

attitude questionnaires (see Appendix G), target teacher surveys (see Appendix H),

individual target teacher interviews (see Appendix I), follow-up interview with

individual target teachers (see Appendix J), and, finally, second follow-up interviews

with participating target teachers (see Appendix K).

Furthermore, in addition to gathering qualitative data, this researcher also

collected quantitative data by analyzing and comparing the performance between the

first and second generation participating target ELLs and participating English-only

students, as measured by UHS’ composite scores in ELA. Both the qualitative and

quantitative data assisted this researcher in closely examining the daily classroom

96

behavioral happenings of participating target ELLs in relation to second language

acquisition within the classroom. Moreover, the results of the analysis of the

qualitative data in regards to student-centered and school-centered factors that affect

the academic performance of target ELLs further enriched this study with additional

valuable information in regards to factors that also affect the academic performance

of both generations of target ELLs. Likewise, data gathered from the equity audits

that were conducted at UHS aimed at the differences in equal access to educational

and support services between participating target ELLs and participating English-only

students. Hence, the data collected from equity audits enhanced this study by

identifying additional areas in need of improvement concerning equal access to

educational and support services at UHS. Ultimately, the information gathered from

the qualitative and quantitative data analysis may assist educators in improving

instructional strategies for ELLs, and may provide a basis for meaningful staff

development for teachers that focus on effective teaching and pedagogical strategies,

techniques and methods to improve the academic performance of ELLs.

Sample

This study was a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design with both

quantitative and qualitative components. “The overall purpose of this design is to use

a qualitative strand to explain initial quantitative results” (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2003). The qualitative components involved EL Shadowing observations of target

ELLs in regards to their oral and written academic English language use in daily

academic settings that promote English language acquisition and literacy skills (see

97

Appendix A). In addition, the qualitative component of this study was further

enhanced by the results of participating target ELLs Likert-type scale attitude

questionnaires (see Appendix B), participating target ELLs surveys (see Appendix C),

individual participating target ELLs interviews (see Appendix D), follow-up

participating target ELLs interviews (see Appendix E), focus group interview with

participating target ELLs (see Appendix F), target teacher Likert-type scale attitude

questionnaires (see Appendix G), participating target teacher surveys (see Appendix

H), individual target teacher interviews (see Appendix I), follow-up individual target

teacher interviews (see Appendix J), and finally, second follow-up individual target

teacher interviews (see Appendix K). Moreover, the interviews sought answers to the

mentioned ELLs and their teachers’ perceptions regarding the role student-centered

and school-centered factors play in predicting the academic performance of ELLs.

The quantitative component of this study compared CST composite scores in

ELA between a focus group consisting of participating target ELLs and a comparison

group comprised of participating target English-only students. The general design of

this sequential explanatory mixed-methods design study involved two subgroups of

students. Hence, a focus group consisted of participating target ELLs and a

comparison group was comprised of participating target English-only students. Each

group contained eight students. The focus group consisted of two first generation

participating target Filipino ELLs, one male and one female ELL, and two second

generation participating target Filipino ELLs, one male and one female. The primary

language of all four participating target Filipino ELLs was Tagalog, one of the 175

98

languages spoken in the Philippines. Likewise, the Mexican ELL subgroup consisted

of two first generation participating target Mexican ELLs, one male and one female,

and two second generation participating target Mexican ELLs, one male and one

female. The primary language of all four Mexican ELLs was Spanish. The target

ELLs’ focus group consisted of four tenth and four eleventh graders. The age of the

students in the target ELLs’ focus group ranged between fifteen and sixteen years of

age.

The focus group of participating target ELLs and comparison group of

participating target English-only students consisted of a selective convenience

sample. All participants in this study attended the UHS where this research took

place, but were enrolled in different classes. In order to maintain confidentiality of

individual participants and to protect their anonymity, the pseudonyms were used

when referring to individual students. Table 3 provides additional information in

regards to individual target ELLs participating in this study. In addition, this

researcher provided the parents of target ELLs with an informed consent form in

English (see Appendix L), Spanish (see Appendix M) and Tagalog (see Appendix N)

that described the study. Moreover, this researcher also sought the consent of

participating target ELLs, and provided them with an informed consent form in

English (see Appendix O), Spanish (see Appendix P), and Tagalog (see Appendix Q).

Furthermore, this researcher chose participants in the focus ELL subgroup who

remained at the CELDT Intermediate level for the last two years; thus, they did not

improve to qualify for the next level. The ELLs designated as CELDT Intermediate

99

level formed the largest group at UHS. Therefore, this researcher selected ELLs from

this group to observe because of the greatest need to improve, and advance to the next

achievement level in English.

Table 3

Target Filipino and Mexican English Language Learners

2011-12

Generation CST

Name Home language Grade level in the US ELA

Ryan Tagalog 10 First 372 Proficient

Nicole Tagalog 10 First 384 Proficient

Justine Tagalog 11 Second 342 Basic

Nikki Tagalog 11 Second 346 Basic

Diego Spanish 10 First 267 Below Basic

Irma Spanish 10 First 310 Basic

Romario Spanish 11 Second 312 Basic

Elsie Spanish 11 Second 307 Basic

The English-only comparison group consisted of eight students, four males

and four females, in order to eliminate gender as a potential factor in this study. The

ethnic diversity of the comparison group was assured by selecting participants from

major racial groups enrolled at school in order to mirror the diverse student

population at UHS where this study took place. Furthermore, this researcher selected

participants for this comparison group with similar academic abilities by researching

100

their previous CST composite score in ELA, in order to reflect the academic

performance levels of the ELLs’ focus group. Hence, this researcher eliminated high-

achieving and low-achieving students from the English-only student sample.

Table 4 provides additional information in regards to individual target students

comprising the English-only comparison subgroup.

Table 4

English-Only Target Students

2011-12

Home Grade CST

Name language level Gender Ethnicity ELA

John English 10 Male White 344 Basic

Jennifer English 10 Female White 339 Basic

Paul English 11 Male Black 340 Basic

Stacey English 11 Female Black 341 Basic

George English 10 Male Asian 337 Basic

Katrina English 10 Female Asian 325 Basic

Ringo English 11 Male Hispanic 334 Basic

Britney English 11 Female Hispanic 331 Basic

Urban High School Profile

This study took place at Urban High School (UHS - pseudonym given to the

school where this study took place to protect its confidentiality) located within the

Bay Area, of California. This is a low-income, racially and linguistically diverse

101

public, designated as a Title I school. This school was chosen because this researcher

is employed at this site as a teacher; therefore, had access to participating students

in this study. Hence, this researcher had access to most of the data needed for this

study through the school’s data base ARIES.

Analysis and review of the data reported by the California Department of

Education for the 2012-2013 year indicates that the total enrollment at the researched

urban school was 1,850 students. Six hundred forty-one Hispanic students represented

34.64% of the school’s enrollment; 616 African American students embodied 33.29%

of the total school population; 384 Filipino students formed 18.05% of the school’s

student body; and 159 White students denoted 8.59% of the entire school’ student

enrollment. In addition, smaller ethnic and linguistic subgroups also enriched cultural

diversity of the researched UHS’ students. Hence, 31 Pacific Islanders represented

1.67% of student enrollment; 29 students claimed two or more races, embodying

1.56% of school population; 23 students were of Asian ancestry, representing 1.24%

of school's enrollment; and 23 Native Americans denoted 1.24% of students. Finally,

five students who did not report their ethnic background represented 0.02% of the

entire student body. Overall, 28.2% of ELLs were Fluent English Proficient (FEP),

and 9.4% were redesignated FEP.

In 2012-13, this school employed 105 full time teachers, with one principal,

one vice principal, one director of ninth grade academies and four assistant principals.

Ten teachers (9.5%) identified themselves as Hispanic, one teacher (0.09%)

American Indian or Alaska Native (not Hispanic), four (3.8%) Asians, ten (9.5%)

102

Filipinos, 16 (15.23%) African American, and 59 (56.19%) White. In addition, 59

(56.19%) were females and 46 (43.80%) were males. Teachers had an average of 15.4

years of teaching experience. Moreover, 53 teachers held Baccalaureate degree, four

held Master’s degrees, and one held a doctorate. Furthermore, 30 teachers completed

30 university credits in addition to their Baccalaureate degree, with five teachers

designated as part time ELD teachers, and one teacher who did not possess any

university degree. Finally, this school employed four student counselors, one school

psychologist, two resource teachers, one reading specialist, and one part-time speech

therapist.

Instrumentation

The qualitative component of this study included: (a) the EL Shadowing -

a structured document that describes in detail all activities to be observed and

recorded (see Appendix A), (b) equity audit - the observation of the classroom

environment in regards to teacher quality equity, programmatic equity and academic

equity between target ELLs and English-only students, and (c) Likert scale attitude

questionnaires with open-ended questions that were completed by all participants in

this study (see Appendices B and G), and student and teacher surveys (see

Appendices C and H). Likert scale attitude questionnaires provided relevant data that

addressed research questions. A Likert scale attitude questionnaire uses a question

format that gives subjects a chance to articulate the strength of their feelings to the

question asked, using replies such as strongly agree to strongly disagree. The

interviews with individual target ELLs (see Appendix D) and participating target

103

teachers (see Appendix I), followed by focus-group interviews with target ELLs (see

Appendix F), and follow up individual interviews with participating teachers (see

Appendix J), and second follow up interview with individual participating target

teachers (see Appendix K), ended the third qualitative component of this study.

Finally, the instruments for collecting relevant data were developed by this researcher

(see Appendices B-R).

First qualitative component - EL Shadowing was used to seek answers to the

first research question, which was “In what ways are Filipino and Mexican ELLs

behaviorally engaged in a representative classroom environment?” The EL

Shadowing is a structured protocol document that is organized into four domains,

hence, listening, speaking, reading and writing. All four domains include additional

details in regards to what the teacher observer should concentrate on when observing

students. Thus, the speaking domain has been divided into a social and academic

subsection, providing the teacher observer with a better tool to distinguish a student’s

speaking regarding social or academic language. Generally, social language is used

for informal communication among students, while academic language is applied

when a student performs required classroom activities. Similarly, the EL Shadowing

and Observation tool divides the reading domain into two parts, delineating whether

the student has been engaged in reading activities in groups or independently. For

example, independent reading may include silent individual reading, or reading out

loud in class when called upon by the content area teacher. Group reading is usually

applied when a small group of students or the entire class reads aloud an academic

104

passage from the required reading pertaining to the lesson content. In addition, the

writing domain has been also divided into group writing or independent writing,

similarly as the reading domain.

Moreover, the EL Shadowing and Observation Tool also divides the listening

domain into One-Way Listening and Two-Way Listening, while both domains are

further divided into social and academic listening. Hence, One-way Listening has

been divided into social and academic listening, while two-way listening has been

divided into social and academic sections, giving the observer greater control to

record the actual happenings in a classroom, in more detail. Moreover, One-Way

Listening is in place when a student is involved in listening to a teacher’s lecture,

without expecting the student to respond to a question. Two-Way Listening is

involved when a student not only listens to a teacher but also asks questions to clarify

the information. The last two sections of the listening domain include Listening and

Not Listening. When a student is listening without showing any interest in what has

been said in the classroom either by the teacher or other students, the EL Shadowing

and Observation Tool recognizes this as Listening, or passive listening. However, if

the student is obviously off-task and not paying any attention to what is happening in

class, then the student is Not Listening, according to the EL Shadowing and

Observation Tool requirements.

The EL Shadowing and Observation Tool was developed and used by Los

Angeles Unified School District several years ago. It was partially based on the works

of Pauline Gibbons, co-authored with Jim Cummins of Scaffolding Language,

105

Scaffolding Learning (2002), adapted by Joan Wink in 2008, author of Critical

Pedagogy (2011), and utilized by Dr. Kay Vang and Dr. Dennis Sayers, while

overseeing the implementation of this method at a variety of California schools.

The EL Shadowing and Observation Tool is a momentary time-sampling method used

to track students in the classroom environment without revealing a student’s identity

either to the teacher where the student will be observed, or to the student who will be

observed. The student is observed for about three hours a day and the teacher

observer records every five minutes everything what the observed student is doing at

that specific moment of time. This tool could be used by individual teachers or

teachers working in pairs. The data collected provides valuable qualitative and

quantitative information about the ELLs’ behavioral engagement in class. The EL

Shadowing and Observation Tool provides meaningful data about ELLs that could be

used by individual teachers, schools, or districts to improve the teaching methods of

teachers of ELLs with the expected outcome of increasing second language

acquisition and their overall academic performance.

Second qualitative component - Equity Audit sought answers to the second

research question, which was “What are the teacher quality equity, programmatic

equity, and achievement equity differences between target ELLs and English-only

students?” Equity audits consisted of teacher quality equity, programmatic equity and

achievement equity at UHS where this study took place, in regards to ELLs having

equal access to educational and related support services in comparison with English-

only students. Specifically, in regards to teacher quality equity, this researcher

106

investigated the teacher quality equity that ELLs had access to by conducting a series

of observations of a classroom environment to discover the level of teacher equity

consciousness when delivering high-quality direct instructions to ELLs in comparison

with English-only students. Moreover, this researcher gathered and analyzed data

from the school’s database ARIES, in regards to ELLs having equal access to

experienced high qualified teachers in comparison with English-only students.

Hence, this researcher gathered and analyzed data related to the level of individual

teacher’s education, and length of teaching experience of teachers that are educating

ELLs in comparison to English-only students. In addition, in regards to programmatic

equity, this researcher compared data from school’s data base ARIES to investigate

the level of disproportionality and the overrepresentation of ELLs in some programs,

such as special education, while at the same time, being underrepresented in other

programs, for example AP classes or challenging college preparatory courses.

Qualitative data gathered helped this researcher’s endeavor to evaluate the

overall quality of classroom instruction available to ELLs, as well as the effectiveness

of the ELL curriculum presented on a daily basis and gain detailed access to ELLs

and their content area teachers’ perceptions in regards to what student-centered and

school-centered factors affect the academic performance of ELLs. Finally, the results

of the equity audit helped this researcher to assess the programmatic equity, teacher

quality equity and achievement equity at school in relation to target ELLs and

English-only students.

107

The third qualitative component sought answers to the third research

question, which was “What roles do student-centered and school-centered factors

play in predicting the academic performance of first and second generations of

Filipino and Mexican ELLs?” The third qualitative component of this study included

Likert scale attitude questionnaires, where target ELLs (see Appendix B), and

participating target teachers (see Appendix G) had an opportunity to present

their opinion in regards to their perceptions regarding the role of student-centered and

school-centered factors in predicting the academic performance of ELLs. In addition,

the third qualitative component of this study also included surveys with individual

participating target ELLs (see Appendix C), surveys with individual participating

target teachers (see Appendix H), individual interviews with participating target ELLs

(see Appendix D), individual interviews with participating teachers (see Appendix I),

followed by focus-group interviews with participating target ELLs (see Appendix F),

and, finally, follow up individual interviews with participating teachers (see

Appendix J) and finally, second follow-up individual target teacher interviews (see

Appendix K), ended the third qualitative component of this study.

Quantitative component. This component included an analysis and

comparison of CST composite scores in ELA between the first and second generation

target Filipino and Mexican high school ELLs and participating target high school

English-only students. This researcher compared CST composite scores for the last

two years in order to find out if there was a difference in the CST composite scores in

ELA between the target focus group comprised of ELLs and the comparison group

108

consisting of target English-only students. The school district where this study will

take place does not utilize benchmarks for measuring students’ performance.

Therefore, the latest available CST results in ELA were utilized to measure and

compare the academic performance of first and second generation target

Filipino and Mexican ELLs with target English-only students.

In summary, all information gathered by this researcher was confidential,

and was used solely for the purpose of this study. In-class observations were

conducted with the appropriate permission of all parties involved. This researcher

sought permission to collect data from school’s administrators, students, parents or

legal guardians of the target ELLs, and participating target teachers. The final

approval for collecting data was sought from CSU Stanislaus’ Human Subjects

Review Committee.

The expected outcome of this study was to analyze and compare all

available data to make curricular and pedagogical improvements at school where this

research took place, and other schools with similar demographics. According to

Sanders and Sullins (2006), “Evaluation gives direction to everything that we do

when changing and improving school programs” (Sanders & Sullins, 2006, p. 2). The

importance of program evaluation at schools and its effectiveness further underlines

Tyler (1949), who suggests that “As a result of evaluation it is possible to note in

what respects it needs improvement” (Tyler, 1949, p. 105). Tyler further asserted that

“Evaluation is also an important operation in curriculum development” (Tyler, 1949,

p. 104). All qualitative data gathered were formative in nature because this researcher

109

is a teacher at the high school where this study took place and no outside agency was

involved in evaluating this data.

Sanders and Sullins (2006) asserted that “An internal evaluation, which is

conducted internally by staff who is working in the program, is usually formative in

nature. Its purpose is to gather feedback on aspects of the program that are

undergoing review and possible revision” (Sanders & Sullins, 2006, p. 9). In addition,

Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen (2010) also claimed that “An evaluation is

considered to be formative if the primary purpose is to provide information for

program improvement” (Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen, 2010, p. 20).

Procedures

First qualitative procedure. This researcher-observer was trained in all of

the nuances of the EL Shadowing and Observation process before its implementation

at UHS where this research took place. The first qualitative procedure sought answers

to the first research question, which was “In what ways are Filipino and Mexican

ELLs behaviorally engaged in a representative classroom environment?” This

researcher obtained a Power point presentation from the Stanislaus County Office of

education in order to learn what to look for when conducting EL Shadowing

observations. In addition, this researcher sought additional “hands-on” training

assistance on how to use the EL Shadowing and Observation Tool from Dr. Kay

Vang, an elementary school principal, and Dr. Dennis Sayers, a professor of school

administration, who successfully used and oversaw the application of the EL

Shadowing and Observation Tool at Heaton Elementary and other California schools.

110

The training established what to scrutinize in the listening, speaking, reading and

writing domains while conducting the EL Shadowing and observations, and how to

set norms when analyzing what was observed. This researcher-observer carefully

recorded exactly every five minutes all happenings regarding the academic

engagement of the observed ELLs. After each observation this researcher analyzed

the collected data gathered during the EL Shadowing and Observations and calculated

the frequency of happenings in all four observed domains. The second round of EL

Shadowing and Observations followed six weeks later. At that time, this researcher-

observer analyzed and compared data gathered from both rounds of EL Shadowing

and Observations. Table 5 shows descriptors of the participating target teachers

whose classrooms were observed. In order to maintain confidentiality of all the

participating teachers, pseudonyms listed in Table 5 were used for all publications.

After each EL Shadowing Observation, this researcher-observer conducted

an interview with individual participating target teachers whose classrooms were

observed, as a part of the qualitative component of this study. This researcher asked

the same questions during the interviews as to debrief and get feedback from the

participating target teachers in regards to what was observed in the classroom during

the EL Shadowing Observation. All questions asked of the participating target

teachers are listed in Appendix I, follow up individual participating target teacher

interview questions are listed in Appendix J, and finally, second follow-up individual

target teacher interview questions are delineated in Appendix K. Consequently, the

interviews with target teachers amplified the qualitative component of this study by

111

getting first-hand information about classroom activities that participating teachers

implemented during the EL Shadowing and Observation. Moreover, the new

information gained from these interviews helped this researcher-observer to conduct

the follow-up EL Shadowing Observations with increased precision in regards to

effectiveness of the implementation of the planned activities during the time of EL

Shadowing Observation.

Table 5

Participating Target Teachers

Teaching Years

Name Credential Education Language(s) ELD teaching

Dylan CLAD BA English No 12

Abbey CLAD BA English No 15

Beatrice CLAD BA English No 3

James CLAD BA English No 13

Madelyne CLAD MA English No 22

Richard CLAD MA English No 9

Christine CLAD MA English No 11

Charles CLAD Ed.D. Engl./Span. Yes 26

All teachers whose classrooms were observed possessed a CLAD

certification. Four of the teachers had a Bachelor’s degree, three possessed Master’s

degrees and one teacher had a doctorate. The teacher with a Doctoral degree spoke

112

fluent Spanish, while two other teachers had a working knowledge of Spanish.

However, none of the participating target teachers spoke Tagalog, one of the

languages spoken in the Philippines. This researcher conduct a second follow up

interview with participating target teachers (see Appendix K) after the CST

composite scores in ELA of the participating target ELLs became available. The

comparison of the quantitative data with the qualitative data clarified any

discrepancies.

Participating target ELLs were interviewed individually after the first

El Shadowing Observation. After the second EL Shadowing Observation, all

participating target ELLs were interviewed as a group. The students themselves

selected respondent to answer a subsequent question. These randomized interview

questions increased validity and reliability of those asked by eliminating any

potentially extreme answers. All teacher and student interview questions were test-

piloted before their administration. The intent of the test-piloting questions was to

make sure that the questions were clear and relevant to the task at hand. In case there

was a need to modify questions to make them more meaningful, this researcher made

all the necessary changes to reflect the feedback from the participating target ELLs

and target teachers who were interviewed.

This researcher recorded all interviews using a Sony digital mini tape recorder

to maintain detailed information, allowing for a detailed transcription of the

interviews. In addition, this researcher also took field notes during the interviews that

facilitated the recording of non-verbal cues of the person responding to the questions.

113

After the interview transcription, all participants were asked to review the

transcription of their interview to increase reliability and validity of the information

and triangulation of data. The combination of EL Shadowing Observations and

interviews with all participants in this study along with quantitative CST composite

scores in ELA provided multiple sources of data to triangulate and increase reliability

and validity of the information.

After each EL Shadowing Observation this researcher-observer shared the

results of the observations with a target teacher whose classroom was observed. The

feedback and reflective conversation between this researcher-observer and the teacher

whose classroom was observed fostered a discussion regarding how to improve

ELLs’ educational needs. The results of the professional conversation with

participating target teachers may be presented to school’s administrators with a

recommendation to put development training sessions in place for teachers aimed to

support the second language acquisition and overall academic endeavor of ELLs.

The second round of EL Shadowing and Observations was repeated one

more time six weeks after the initial Shadowing. After the second round of the EL

Shadowing Observations, this teacher-observer again shared the results of the

observations with participating target teachers. The feedback from all participants in

this discussion promoted professional conversation among all participants and

fostered their awareness and academic preparedness in regards to second language

acquisition of target ELLs.

114

Second qualitative procedure. This researcher gathered additional

qualitative data in order to seek answers to a second research question which was:

“What are the teacher quality equity, programmatic equity and academic equity

differences between target ELLs and target English-only students?” Therefore, this

researcher conducted an equity audit at UHS to assess teacher quality equity of the

teachers of ELLs, programmatic equity that ELLs had access to and achievement

equity in relation to participating target ELLs and target English-only students. The

theoretical framework and research of McKenzie & Skrla (2011) and Skrla,

McKenzie & Scheurich (2009) on equity and social justice in schools, school

leadership and qualitative methodology served as a basis to seek answers to the third

research question. Furthermore, the theoretical framework and research of Sanders

and Sullins (2006) on the formative evaluation of school programs was implemented

as a supplement of the planned classroom audits. According to these authors,

“Evaluations can be conducted for formative purposes; that is, for further developing

and improving the program, or summative purposes, such as major decisions

regarding accountability and consequences” (Sanders & Sullins, 2006, p. 9).

Third qualitative procedure. This researcher gathered additional qualitative

data to seek answers to the third research question which was: “What roles do

student-centered and school-centered factors play in predicting the academic

performance of first and second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs?” The

theoretical regression model for predicting the academic achievement of ELLs

developed by Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) served as a basis

115

for predicting the academic achievement of participating target ELLs. This researcher

addressed factors affecting the academic performance of target ELLs from both a

student-centered perspective and a school-centered perspective. Suárez-Orozco,

Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) suggested that the student-centered perspective

embrace the mother’s education and years in the United States; behavioral

engagement – including school problems and violence, relational engagement,

cognitive engagement, gender; and whether the father is present and working. The

school-centered perspective embodies for example the percentage of students at or

above proficient on the state English-language exam, school attendance rates, school

poverty rates, and the level of racial integration in schools. All instruments needed to

answer the second research questions were mentioned previously (see Appendices B-

R).

Quantitative procedures. This researcher gathered CST composite scores

results in ELA from school’s database ARIES and compared and analyzed the

performance on mentioned CSTs between a focus group consisting of participating

target ELLs and a comparison group comprised of participating target English-only

students. Once this researcher had results of CST composite scores in ELA mentioned

above, this researcher compared the CST composite scores between a focus group

consisting of participating target ELLs and comparison group comprising of

participating target English-only students, to determine the difference in achievement

on the CST composite scores in ELA between both subgroups. This researcher then

analyzed the results of this comparison, and shared its results with the participating

116

target teachers whose classrooms were observed and may pass the information on to

school’s administration.

Data Analysis

All qualitative data gathered during this study were coded using web-based

Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) software Dedoose. Hence, this researcher coded the

EL Shadowing Observations, notes taken from the Likert-type scale questionnaires,

transcripts from the participating target ELLs and participating target teachers’

surveys, interviews, as well as notes taken during the review of all related documents.

According to Saldaña (2011) “A code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word or

short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or

evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 3). The author

further stated that “The data can consist of interview transcripts, participant

observation field notes, journals, documents, literature, artifacts, photographs, video,

websites, e-mail correspondence, and so on” (Saldaña, 2011, p. 3). Saldaña (2011)

defined the process of codifying as “arranging things in a systematic order, to make

something part of a system or classification, to categorize” (p. 8). Hence, the author

further stated that “Coding is thus a method that enables you to organize and group

similarly coded data into categories or ‘families’ because they share some

characteristic – the beginning of a pattern” (Saldaña, 2011, p. 8). Trustworthiness of

interpretations was established by proving with participants concurrently as this study

advanced and by experts in the field not involved in this study.

117

This researcher visually compared and analyzed data gathered from CST

composite scores results in ELA between a focus group consisting of participating


students to determine the difference in achievement on the CST composite scores in

ELA between both subgroups. Both qualitative and quantitative data were tangled in

triangulation of mentioned data of this sequential explanatory mixed-methods design

study. The triangulation of qualitative data included the EL Shadowing Observations,

Likert-scale questionnaires and surveys of all participants, interviews with individual

participating target ELLs and individual participating target teachers, follow up

focus-group interviews with participating target ELLs, follow up interviews with

participating target teachers, and the second follow up interviews with individual

participating target teachers whose classrooms were observed. Furthermore, the

triangulation of qualitative data also included the quantitative data that compared

CST composite scores in ELA between a focus group consisting of participating


students. Denzin (1978) defined triangulation as “the combination of methodologies

in the study of the same phenomenon.” According to Creswell and Plano Clark

(2008), the term triangulation originated as a military term indicating multiple

reference points to locate an object’s exact position. In social sciences, the

triangulation is used as “a vehicle for cross validation when two or more distinct

methods are found to be congruent and yield comparable data” (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2008, p. 108).

118

Methodological Limitations

The methodology of this study was limited by the convenience sample of only

eight participating target ELLs selected from the school’s student body by this

researcher-observer conducting the EL Shadowing Observations, limiting its

generalizability for other settings. This was a sequential explanatory mixed-

methods design study with both qualitative and quantitative components. This

researcher first gathered quantitative data by comparing and analyzing the

performance between the focus group consisting of participating target ELLs and

comparison group consisting of participating target English-only students, as

measured by school’s CST composite scores in ELA. According to Creswell, Plano

Clark, et al. (2003), “We know that qualitative data provide a detailed understanding

of a problem while quantitative data provide a more general understanding of a

problem” (p. 8). Hence, this researcher used results of the analysis of the quantitative

data to tailor Likert-scale attitude questionnaires, surveys and interview questions that

were a part of the qualitative component of this study. However, the results of the

analysis of the quantitative data gathered from the small convenience sample

consisting of only eight participating target ELLs partially limited the design of the

qualitative strand of this study, by lessening the amount and type of questions that

could be asked of participants in this study during the qualitative strand of this

sequential explanatory mixed-methods design study.

119

Summary

ELLs and educators at UHS located in the Bay Area of California, and other

interested schools with similar demographics may benefit from this study by learning

about the importance of a two-way oral behavioral engagement of ELLs in increasing

their academic English and literacy skills. Additionally, the awareness of all aspects

of academic and support services may serve educators as a starting point when

addressing programmatic equity, teacher quality equity and academic equity at any

school with similar demographics in regards to ELLs having an equal access to

educational and support services as their English-only counterparts. Consequently,

the increased awareness of student-centered and school-centered factors that affect

the academic performance of ELLs may enhance educators’ effectiveness in

addressing all aspects of academic needs of ELLs. Ultimately, addressing all

academic and support service aspects mentioned previously may assist educators in

addressing the academic achievement GAP between ELLs and English-only students,

as mandated by the NCLB Act of 2001. Chapter III explained the methodology and

design of this study that was used during the implementation of this study, including

the sample, the procedures, and the instruments used to analyze the data. Chapter IV

presented the results of inferential and descriptive analysis of collected data.

120

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

The purpose of this study was to gain more information about (a) first and

second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and first and second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs’ daily behavioral engagement at Urban High

School (UHS - pseudonym given to the school where this study took place to protect

its confidentiality), with special emphasis on their oral and written academic English

language use in daily academic settings that promote English language acquisition

and literacy skills, (b) the teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and

achievement equity at UHS in regards to ELLs having equal access to educational

and support services as English-only students, and (c) role of student-centered and

school-centered factors in predicting the academic performance of first and second

generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and first and second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs. The UHS selected for this study is one of the

many low-income, racially and linguistically diverse public schools within the Bay

Area of California, designated as Title I school.

This researcher-observer utilized the EL Shadowing and Observation Tool to

gather data in regards to the first research question, which was “In what ways are

Filipino and Mexican ELLs behaviorally engaged in a representative classroom

environment?” The EL Shadowing observations consisted of three hours classroom

observations of participating target ELLs. During the El Shadowing observations this

121

researcher-observer recorded ELLs’ academic behavior in five minute intervals,

capturing “precise snapshot moments” at the end of each five-minute interval. This

researcher-observer documented all data on the EL Shadowing and Observation form

specially designed by Los Angeles Unified School District and adapted by Joan Wink

in 2008 for the purpose of recording ELLs’ speaking, reading, writing and listening

behavioral engagement (see Appendix A).

The EL Shadowing observations of the participating target ELLs were

followed by interviews with individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix D),

interviews with individual participating target teachers (see Appendix I), focus-group

interviews with participating target ELLs (see Appendix F), and finally, second

follow-up individual target teacher interviews (see Appendix K). All EL Shadowing

observations and interviews with participating target ELLs and participating

individual target teachers were conducted by this researcher.

The purpose of the second part of this study was to expand the knowledge

about the teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity at

UHS in regards to ELLs having equal access to educational and support services as

English-only students. Hence, in order to gather data in regards to seeking answers to

the second research question, which was “What are the teacher quality equity,

programmatic equity, and achievement equity differences between target ELLs and

English-only students?,” this researcher-observer conducted a series of equity audits

in the classrooms of participating target ELLs, and also gathered and analyzed related

data that was available from the school’s data base ARIES.

122

The purpose of the third part of this study was to increase the amount of

information about the role of student-centered and school-centered factors in

predicting the academic performance of first and second generation Filipino and

Mexican ELLs. Therefore, in order to gather data in regards to seeking answers to the

third research question, which was “What roles do student-centered and school-

centered factors play in predicting the academic performance of first and second

generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs?,” this researcher included in this component

of the study participating target ELLs Likert-type scale attitude questionnaires (see

Appendix B), participating target ELLs surveys (see Appendix C), interviews with

individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix D), follow-up interviews with

individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix E), focus group interviews with

participating target ELLs (see Appendix F), target teacher Likert-type attitude scale

attitude questionnaires (see Appendix G), target teacher surveys (see Appendix H),

individual target teacher interviews (see Appendix I), follow-up interview with

individual target teachers (see Appendix J), and, finally, second follow-up interviews

with participating target teachers (see Appendix K).

This chapter IV analyzed and discussed the findings of the procedures detailed

in chapter III in regards to seeking answers to the research questions presented earlier

in this study. This study involved the triangulation of both quantitative and qualitative

data that were gathered from a focus group consisting of eight participating target

Filipino and participating target Mexican ELLs and a comparison group comprised of

eight participating target English-only students within two, six-week time periods.

123

The quantitative component of this study compared California Standardized Test

(CST) composite scores in English Language Arts (ELA) between a focus group

consisting of eight participating target Filipino and Mexican ELLs, and a comparison

group comprised of eight participating target English-only students to determine the

difference in achievement levels between both subgroups of students. The qualitative

component of this study involved EL Shadowing observations, transcripts from

interviews, Likert scale attitude questionnaires, surveys, field notes, equity audits,

and, finally, notes taken during the document review.

Quantitative Findings

For the quantitative component, Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 report relevant aspects of

this study and statistical analysis. Comparison of the CST composite scores in ELA

between participating target Filipino ELLs and participating English-only students

revealed that the participating target Filipino ELLs outperformed English-only

students by 25 points, as shown in Table 6. These results suggested that many first

and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs learned English prior to

entering the United States, and had a high level of academic support at home, as

indicated by statements of participating target Filipino ELLs during the individual,

follow-up, and focus group interviews. Findings shown in Table 6 were further

supported by results gathered from participating target Filipino ELLs’ Likert-scale

attitude questionnaires and surveys.

124

Table 6

Difference in CST Composite Scores in ELA Between

Target Filipino English Language Learners and Target English-Only Students

CST Composite Scores in ELA Difference

Filipino English

Language Learners English-only students

361 336 +25

One of the first generation participating target Filipino ELL stated that “I

learned English in Philippines before moving to the United States. That helped me a

lot, once I came to America. I did not have to start learning English from

scratch to understand what teachers asked me to do” (Nicole, first generation Filipino

ELL, December 6, 2013). In addition, another first generation participating target

Filipino ELL declared that “In Philippines, most of the students are learning English

as a second language” (Ryan, first generation Filipino ELL, December 6, 2013).

Moreover, yet another second generation participating target ELLs stated that “In

Philippines, parents usually make sure that their children learn proper English before

coming to the United States” (Nikki, second generation Filipino ELL, December 9,

2013).

Thus, statements of participating target Filipino ELLs suggested that the

knowledge of English prior moving to the United States and a meaningful support of

their families may have contributed to this participating Filipino subgroup’s higher

academic achievement in CST composite scores in ELA in comparison with English-

125

only students. Another participating target Filipino ELL concluded that “Schools are

facilities for children to learn what is necessary to succeed in American life. That is

why, we all have to work real hard not to disappoint our parents” (Justine, second

generation Filipino ELL, December 9, 2013).

Data presented in Table 7 indicated that participating target English-only

students outperformed participating target Mexican ELLs by 37 points. These rather

grim academic results on the part of participating target Mexican ELLs suggested that

first and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs had insufficient

academic support at school, as well as at home.

Table 7


Target Mexican English Language Learners and Target English-Only Students


Mexican English

Language Learners English-only students

299 336 -37

This assumption was further reinforced by statements of participating target

Mexican ELLs during the individual and focus group interviews, and by results

gathered from participating target Mexican ELLs’ Likert-scale attitude questionnaires

and surveys. For example, 73% of participating target Mexican ELLs indicated that

they “have too many chores at home,” therefore, they did not have enough time to

spend doing homework. In addition, one first generation participating target Mexican

126

ELL claimed that “When I get home from school, my parents expect me to help with

my younger siblings, and to do chores that do not allow me to do my homework, or

any other school work at home” (Diego, first generation Mexican ELL, December 12,

2013). Another participating target Mexican ELL suggested that “I am going to

school in the United States only because I have to go; otherwise my parents would

have problems in America” (Romario, second generation Mexican ELL, December

12, 2013).

Data presented in Table 8 clearly showed that first and second generation

participating target Filipino ELLs outperformed first and second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs by 62 points on CST composite scores in ELA.

Table 8


Target Filipino English Language Learners (ELLs) and Target Mexican ELLs


Filipino Mexican

ELLs ELLs

361 299 +62

This phenomenon may be partially due to the differences in cultural

background between participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target

Mexican ELLs; knowledge of English language prior entering the United States;

mother’s education, and years in the United States; unequal level of academic support

at home and at school between both participating target Filipino ELLs subgroup and

127

participating target Mexican ELLs subgroups, as well as vastly different geographical

origin of both participating target ELLs subgroup.

Findings shown in Table 9 revealed that English-only students outperformed

first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs and first and second

generation participating target Mexican ELLs by 6 points on CST composite scores in

ELA. Hence, the data indicated that in general, English-only students outperformed

first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, as well as first and

second generation participating Mexican ELLs.

Table 9

Difference in CST Composite Scores in ELA Between all Target

Filipino and Mexican English Language Learners, and Target English-Only Students


Filipino & Mexican English-only

English ELLs students

330 336 -6

Although the results of the data analysis shown in Table 9 suggested that there

was a difference in achievement on CST composite scores in ELA between a focus

group consisting of eight first and second generation participating target Filipino and

participating target Mexican ELLs, and a comparison group comprised of eight

participating target English-only students, it was not large enough to yield significant

results because of the size of the groups involved in this study. In other words, there

was some positive development for participating target Filipino ELLs, but the

128

substantial gap in academic achievement between both ELLs subgroups and English-

only students continued to be an issue.

Qualitative Findings

For the qualitative component of this study that consisted of three parts, this

researcher gathered results of El Shadowing observations of participating target

English Language Learners (ELLs) (see Table 10), transcripts from interviews with

individual participating target ELLs (see Appendix D) and participating target

teachers whose classrooms were observed (see Appendix I), focus-group interviews

with participating target ELLs (see Appendix F), follow up individual interviews with

participating target teachers whose classrooms were observed (see Appendix J), and

second follow up interview with individual participating target teachers whose

classrooms were observed (see Appendix K). In addition, this researcher also

collected relevant information from field notes, notes taken during the document

review, and, finally, Likert scale attitude questionnaires and surveys completed by all

participating target ELLs and participating target teachers in this study.

El Shadowing and Observation Tool

The first qualitative component, using the El Shadowing and Observation

Tool (see Appendix A), sought answers to the first research question, which was “In

what ways are Filipino and Mexican ELLs behaviorally engaged in a representative

classroom environment?” The El Shadowing data shown in Table 10 revealed that

one-way-listening (social or academic - first observation = 28% and second

observation = 27% occurred most frequently, demonstrating that participating target

129

Filipino ELLs, and participating target Mexican ELLs passively listened to their

teacher to provide them with a specific information related to the content area subject.

Table 10

Percentages of 5-Minute Intervals Observed in Each Domain for

First and Second Generation Target Filipino and Mexican English Language

Learners

First Second

Domain observation (%) observation (%)

Speaking social 6 8

Speaking academic 0 6

Reading 18 13

Writing 24 20

One-way listening social 2 1

One-way listening academic 26 26

Two-way listening social 0 1

Two-way listening academic 2 1

Listening 15 11

Not listening 7 13

Hence, participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican

ELLs had only a passive role in the process of learning content area curricula.

Furthermore, two-way listening, (social or academic), which involved listening and

asking for clarification on the part of participating target Filipino ELLs and

130

participating target Mexican ELLs occurred only 2% during the first EL Shadowing

observation, and remained constant at 2% during the second EL Shadowing

observation.

Similarly, all through the first EL Shadowing observation, participating target

Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican ELLs spent only 6% of the

observation time speaking (socially or academically), while during the second EL

Shadowing observation speaking time (social or academic) of the same participating

target Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican ELLs slightly increased to

14%. At the same time, they spent 24% writing during the first EL Shadowing

observation, with a slight decrease in writing time at 20% during the second EL

Shadowing observation. Finally, participating target Filipino ELLs, and participating

target Mexican ELLs spent 18% of their observed time reading during the first EL

Shadowing observation, either in groups, or individually, while during the second EL

Shadowing observation participation in reading slightly decreased to 13% for both

participating target ELLs subgroups. Table 10 illustrates the percentages of five

minute time intervals that each coded event occurred in a given time period during

both EL Shadowing observations conducted by this researcher-observer.

The low levels of oral academic engagement of participating target Filipino

ELLs, and participating target Mexican ELLs illustrated that both subgroups of ELLs

were given lessen amount of linguistic opportunities to express themselves

academically within the classroom environment, in comparison with English-only

students. This researcher-observer noticed during all EL Shadowing observations that

131

teachers whose classrooms were observed gave participating target Filipino ELLs,

and participating target Mexican ELLs inequitable, lower-level academic attention, in

contrast with English-only students. Hence, the previously mentioned participating

teachers in this study asked participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target

Mexican ELLs only simple, low-level questions requiring “yes” or “no” answers,

clearly demonstrating the inequitable academic status of ELLs within the classroom.

The high percentage of listening required from participating target Filipino

ELLs, and participating target Mexican ELLs resulted in many of ELLs losing

interest in classroom happenings, and they seemed to be frequently “off task.” This

researcher-observer noticed that participating target teachers whose classrooms were

observed were fully aware of this situation, but did not take any corrective action to

bring “off-task” ELLs back on track. In addition, data presented in Table 10 also

revealed that not listening (social or academic) at 29% overpassed speaking (social or

academic) with only 19% during the first EL Shadowing observation. In contrast,

during the second EL Shadowing observation, not listening (social or academic)

decreased to 21%, and speaking (social or academic) remained constant at 19%.These

findings raise many questions in terms of implications for designing the classroom

instruction that is inclusive, and produce desired language acquisition results in order

to improve academic achievement of all ELLs with the overall aim to decrease the

achievement gap between ELLs and English-only students.

132

Equity Audits

The second qualitative component, using the equity audits, sought answers to

the second research question, which was “What are the teacher quality equity,


English-only students?”

Teacher quality equity. Previous research has suggested that access to

experienced high quality teachers has a direct impact on student academic

achievement (Cohen & Hill, 2000, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Ferguson, 1998;

Heck, 2007). However, student access to high quality teachers is usually not

distributed on an equitable basis to all students. McKenzie & Skrla (2011) have

supported this idea by suggesting that “student access to high quality teachers is

usually not distributed on an equitable basis to all students within individual schools,

particularly high schools” (p. 32).

Frequently, ELLs and students from economically disadvantaged families,

different ethnic, cultural, and linguistic background, have access only to

inexperienced new teachers, or mobile teachers who frequently change schools. On

the other hand, students from dominant culture and middle class families typically

have an unrestricted access to well-educated experienced teachers. This phenomenon

is largely due to the fact that responsible parties at individual schools are placing

underprivileged students in low level classes assuming that the classification as ELL

or low socio-economic status automatically makes these students unsuitable for

higher level academic classes.

133

Analysis of the available data (UHS’s master schedule for 2013-2014)

revealed that the introductory courses at UHS were generally being taught by new

inexperienced teachers and/or by mobile teachers that were frequently changing

schools. Due to the learning curve, every new teacher has to experience the high

mobility of teachers transfers into a vicious catch-22 circle, where ELLs and other

underprivileged subgroups are constantly being under taught which prevents them

from accessing high level of cognitive material. In addition, Hill, Rowan, & Ball,

(2005) linked the amount of content knowledge that teacher has about his or her

subject area to level of academic accomplishment of his or her students. For example,

Ms. Johnson (pseudonym) who is one of few UHS’ teachers who is teaching only

advanced classes exemplifies an inequitable distribution of human capital and

academic resources within the school. Ms. Chaney holds a Master’s degree in English

and has many years of teaching experience. However, ELLs have only minimum

access in her classes because of lack of English language skills and insufficient

academic support.

Table 11 shows Ms. Johnson’s teaching schedule that she maintained with

minor changes over a period of many years. This researcher knows from personal

experience, that Ms. Johnson teaches only advanced classes that are practically

inaccessible to ELLs and a variety of disadvantaged students for the reasons

described earlier in this research study.

134

Table 11

Example of Tenured Teacher Schedule at UHS

Per. 1 Per. 2 Per. 3 Per. 4 Per. 5 Per. 6

English AP Engl. English Planning AP Engl. Yearbook

12 Lit. 12 Lit.

Ms. Johnson

In contrast, Table 12 shows a typical schedule of a mobile UHS teacher that

frequently changes schools.

Table 12

Example of Mobile Teacher Schedule at UHS

Per. 1 Per. 2 Per. 3 Per. 4 Per. 5 Per. 6

Math Math Math Math Pre Planning

Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling Algebra

Mr. Brown

The teacher quality equity audit that this researcher conducted at UHS

revealed that the high quality experienced teachers were inequitably distributed across

the range of educational settings within the UHS. Therefore, the UHS administration

should re-evaluate its teacher placement policy with the aim of giving ELLs,

socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and students of color, equal access to

highly qualified, well-educated, and experienced teachers.

135

Programmatic equity. Analysis of the available data revealed that in 2013-

2014, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs at UHS were disproportionally

overrepresented in some programs, while at the same time they were

underrepresented in other programs. For example, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs

were disproportionally overrepresented in special education classes in comparison

with English-only students. At the same time, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs were

underrepresented in variety of higher-level Advanced Placement (AP) classes,

indicating that they were deprived of equitable access to higher-level education in

comparison with English-only students. Table 13 illustrates the inequity in special

education placement rates in 2013-2014 at UHS. In 2013-2014, Filipino ELLs and

Mexican ELLs were grossly overrepresented in special education classes in

comparison to what would be proportional to their representation in the overall

student population as shown in Table 13.

Table 13

Representation of Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs in Special Education at UHS

UHS Population Special Education Difference

Student Groups (%) (%) (%)

Filipino ELLs 29.45 32.18 +2.73

Mexican ELLs 33.39 40.48 +7.09

English-Only Studs. 37.16 27.34 -9.82

In contrast, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs were noticeably

underrepresented in higher-level AP classes in comparison to what would be

136

proportionally appropriate to their representation in the overall UHS’ student body as

shown in Table 14.

Table 14

Representation of Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs in AP Classes at UHS

UHS Population AP Classes Difference

Student Groups (%) (%) (%)

Filipino ELLs 29.45 28.34 -1.11

Mexican ELLs 33.39 26.44 -6.95

English-Only Studs. 37.16 45.22 +8.06

A programmatic equity audit conducted at UHS by this researcher revealed

that Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs were disproportionately overrepresented in

special education classes in comparison with English-only students, taking into

consideration what would be proportionally appropriate to their representation in the

overall UHS’ student body. At the same time, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs were

underrepresented in AP classes, indicating that the UHS’s academic placement policy

in particular programs mentioned previously needs a major revision to remedy the

programmatic inequity at UHS in regards to inequitable placement of Filipino ELLs

and Mexican ELLs in a variety of academic programs and support services at UHS.

Achievement equity. For the achievement equity audit at UHS, this

researcher compared and analyzed the 2013 API Base Score of Filipino ELLs,

Mexican ELLs and English-only students, utilizing targeted API score of 1,000 as a

basis for the inquiry. Data shown in Table 15 revealed that within this school there

137

was a large academic achievement gap between Filipino ELLs, Mexican ELLs and

English-only students. The largest academic achievement gap was noted between

Mexican ELLs and English-only students, followed by Filipino ELLs, and English-

only students. Mexican ELLs were also a largest student subgroup that academically

lacked behind English-only students. This unacceptable academic gap between

Filipino ELLs, Mexican ELLs, and English-only students indicated that in 2013-2014

there was a chronic academic disengagement at UHS that needed to be meaningfully

addressed.

Table 15

2012 API Base Score (Scale 200 to 1,000) of Filipino ELLs, Mexican ELLs, all

English learners and Schoolwide Students at UHS

Numerically

Significant 2012-13 Met

Target 2012 Growth 2013 Growth

Groups Base Target Target Target

Filipino ELLs 791 5 796 NA

Mexican ELLs 638 8 646 NA

English learners 599 10 609 NA

Schoolwide 663 7 670 NA

The analysis of the available data revealed that at UHS, academic needs of

participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican ELLs have not

been adequately met, resulting in their overall lower academic achievement in

comparison with English-only students. Therefore, the UHS should employ within its

boundaries a variety of academic support services that would meaningfully address

138

the academic essentials of Filipino ELLs subgroup, and Mexican ELLs subgroup in

order to better incorporate them into the mainstream academic student body at UHS.

School administration should make available to teachers of Filipino ELLs, and

Mexican ELLs at UHS appropriate ongoing training in regards to academic equity,

and on how to better address didactic needs of both subgroups of participating target

Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican ELLs, as well as to better meet the

variety of didactic and cultural needs of all ELLs at UHS.

McKenzie & Skrla (2011) suggested that “without equity, there can be no

excellence, at least no excellence for all our students” (p. 97). Therefore, all students

regardless of their socioeconomic status, linguistic background, culture, country of

origin, or any other variables that may affect the students’ academic achievement

should be scrutinized and a multicultural curriculum should be implemented within

the UHS, and all teachers of ELLs should be trained on how to differentiate their

instruction to make them cognitively accessible to Filipino ELLs, Mexican ELLs,

and to all other numerically smaller ELLs subgroups enrolled at UHS.

Student-centered and School-centered Qualitative Findings

The third qualitative component of this study sought answers to the third

research question, which was “What roles do student-centered and school-centered

factors play in predicting the academic performance of first and second generation

Filipino and Mexican ELLs?” Previous research has suggested that the first and

second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs share many similar academic and

cultural challenges that prevent them from reaching their full scholastic potential.

139

Understanding the multitude of social, cultural, linguistic, ethnic and other variables

affecting the academic performance of first and second generation Filipino and

Mexican ELLs may facilitate Urban High School’s (UHS) endeavor in increasing the

predictability of academic performance, as applied to the first and second generation

Filipino and Mexican ELLs.

For the third qualitative component of this study, this researcher utilized

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova’s (2008) theoretical regression model

for predicting academic performance of high school ELLs from student-centered and

a school-centered perspective. The purpose of the third part of the qualitative

component of this study was to discuss the applicability of the above-mentioned

theoretical regression model for predicting academic performance of first and second


participating target Mexican ELLs. In addition, similar and contrasting factors

affecting academic performance of newly arrived and second generation Filipino and

Mexican ELLs were also scrutinized.

The theoretical foundation of this third qualitative component of this study

was the explanatory data-based theoretical model framework that focused on the

research topic through the lens of linguistic anthropology and socio-cultural

psychology. For the third qualitative component of this study, Tables 16 through 21

report relevant aspects of the study and statistical analysis.

Coding process. The third qualitative component of this study amplified this

researcher’s endeavor to convey a new light to the third qualitative component of this

140

study, by emphasizing important aspects of student-centered and school-centered

factors that affect academic performance of the first and second generation

participating target Filipino ELLs, and the first and second generation participating

target Mexican ELLs. The increased predictability of the academic performance as

applied to both ELLs subgroups mentioned previously, may contribute to the quality

of their education at Urban High School (UHS).

This researcher started a coding process by identifying, extracting, labeling,

grouping and analyzing excerpts identified from a relevant data set that consisted of

interview transcripts of the participants in this study. Topics identified in two or more

interviews were added to a list of codes by this researcher. Afterwards this researcher

applied identified codes to selected excerpts. After that, this researcher applied the

identified codes to selected excerpts. A code co-occurrence developed when two

codes were applied to the same excerpt. Subsequently, this researcher grouped all

coded and labeled excerpts into mutual categories that provided a basis of this

researcher’s thematic framework. A thematic framework applied to the third

qualitative component of this study consisted of four major themes and relevant codes

applied to specific excerpts (see Appendix S for Final Code Tree/List).

The researcher developed a thematic framework by analyzing individual

codes that represented an issue related to the research topic at hand, and were

previously grouped and labeled by this researcher. Afterwards, the researcher

generated a code tree (see Appendix S for Final Code Tree/List) that consisted of all

codes applied to address the issue raised in the third qualitative component of this

141

study, and themes derived from coding. Final stage of the coding process consisted of

development of the code dictionary that included four major themes stemmed from

codes utilized to seek answers to the third research question, which was “What roles

do student-centered and school-centered factors play in predicting the academic

performance of first and second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs?” The

individual codes that were part of the code dictionary were developed from topics

discussed in thirty-four interviews. All codes that were smeared to specific excerpts

more than once were branded as code co-occurrence. Consequently, code co-

occurrences, proposed categories and leitmotifs were crucial in development of

themes and patterns.

The four major themes included in the thematic framework developed by this

researcher were a) student-centered factors affecting academic performance of

English language learners (ELLs), b) school-centered factors affecting academic

performance of ELLs, c) learning English, and d) obstacles and future plans (see

Appendix S for Final Code Tree/List).

Frequency of applied codes. This researcher utilized the web-based

Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) software Dedoose to code all qualitative data

gathered to seek answers to the third research question, which was “What roles do

student-centered and school-centered factors play in predicting the academic

performance of first and second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs?” This

researcher started the process of identifying themes by reviewing the frequency of

each code application as pertained to individual codes by the Dedoose software

142

program. For the purpose of detecting the highest frequency codes a graph was

created using the QDA software Dedoose. The thematic findings identified by the

Dedoose software that stemmed from the discussion during the interview process

revealed a variety of influences that were recognized by participants in this study as

being influential for the academic performance of first and second generation


Mexican ELLs. The perspective of teachers of ELLs was also ranked by the Dedoose

software in regards to what factors influence the academic performance of both ELLs

subgroups mentioned previously, adding a new angle to the research topic at hand.

The researcher continued the procedure of identifying specific themes by

reviewing the frequency of code application, and the frequency with which codes

were marked as code co-occurrence in the QDA software Dedoose. A graph was

created using the QDA software Dedoose, in order to detect the highest frequency of

codes and code co-occurrences. For the third qualitative component of this study,

Tables 16 through 21 report relevant aspects of the study and statistical analysis.

This researcher identified six codes that ascended from first and second

generation participating target Filipino ELLs, as the highest frequency of applied

codes, as shown in Table 16.

For the first generation participating target Filipino ELLs, the top six codes

applied were: academic experiences in the United States, value placed on education,

school problems and violence, teachers’ perspective on learning English, influence of

school and teachers, and academic achievement and self-efficacy. For the second

143

generation target Filipino ELLs, the top six codes utilized were: value placed on

education, academic experiences in the United States, academic achievement and

self-efficacy, opinion on school, influence of school and teachers, and opinion on

teachers.

The codes that appeared in both generations of Filipino ELLs are: academic

experiences in the United States, value placed on education, influence of school and

teachers, and academic achievement and self-efficacy. The first generation Filipino

ELLs also spoke of school problems and violence, and teachers’ perspective on

learning English, while the second generation Filipino ELLs likewise spoke about

their opinions on school, and their opinions on teachers.

144

Table 16

Rank Order of Code Applications:

First and Second Generation Target Filipino English Language Learners

Code Application 1st Generation

Rank Order Filipino ELLs

1 Academic experiences in the United States

2 Value placed on education

3 School problems and violence

4 Teachers’ perspective on learning English

5 Influence of school and teachers

6 Academic achievement and self-efficacy

Code Application 2nd

Generation





4 Opinion on school

5 Influence of school and teachers

6 Opinion on teachers

In addition, the researcher equally identified six codes that arose from first

and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs, as the highest frequency of

applied codes, as shown in Table 17.

For the first generation participating target Mexican ELLs, the top six codes

utilized were: value placed on education, academic experiences in the United States,

academic achievement and self-efficacy, opinion on school, opinion on teachers, and

ELLs’ perspective on obstacles to academic performance. For the second generation

target Mexican ELLs, the top six codes utilized were: academic experiences in the

United States, value placed on education, academic achievement and self-efficacy,

145

their opinions on school, teachers’ perspectives on learning English, and lack of

academic support.

Table 17


First and Second Generation Target Mexican English Language Learners

Code Application 1st Generation

Rank Order Mexican ELLs




4 Opinion on school


6 ELLs’ perspective on obstacles to academic performance

Code Application 2nd

Generation





4 Opinion on school


6 Lack of academic support

The codes that appeared in both generations Mexican ELLs are: value placed

on education, academic experiences in the United States, academic achievement and

self-efficacy, and opinion on school. The first generation Mexican ELLs also spoke

about the opinion on teachers, and ELLs’ perspective on obstacles to academic

performance. The second generation Mexican ELLs also spoke about teachers’

perspective on learning English, and lack of academic support.

146

Table 18 gives a comparison of the rank order of codes for both generations of

participating target Filipino ELLs, and both generations of participating target

Mexican ELLs. This researcher identified six codes that arose from first and second

generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and six codes that ascended from first

and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs, as the highest frequency of

applied codes, as shown in Table 18.

Table 18


First and Second Generation Target Filipino English Language Learners and

First and Second Generation Target Mexican English Language Learners

Code Application 1st and 2

nd Generation





4 Opinion on school

5 Influence of school



nd Generation





4 Opinion on school



For the first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, the top

six codes applied were: value placed on education, academic experiences in the

147

United States, academic achievement and self-efficacy, opinion on school, influence

of school, and teachers’ perspectives on learning English. For the first and second

generation target Mexican ELLs, the top six codes employed were: academic

experiences in the United States, value placed on education, academic achievement

and self-efficacy, opinion on school, opinion on teachers, and teachers’ perspective

on learning English.

The codes that appeared in both generations of participating target Filipino

ELLs, and both generations of participating target Mexican ELLs are: value placed on

education, academic experiences in the United States, academic achievement and

self-efficacy, and opinion on school. The first and second generation participating

target Filipino ELLs also spoke about the influence of school and teachers’

perspectives on learning English. Additionally, the first and second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs similarly spoke about teachers’ perspectives on

learning English, and lack of academic support.

Moreover, this researcher further identified six codes as the highest frequency

of applied codes that ascended from teachers, first and second generation


Mexican ELLs as shown in Table 19. The comparison of the rank order of codes for

participating target teachers, both generations of participating target Filipino ELLs,

and both generations of participating target Mexican ELLs are presented in Table 19.

For the participating target teachers, the top six codes applied were:

preparedness to teach ELLs, lack of English skills, lack of academic support for

148

ELLs, teachers’ perspectives on importance of learning English, teachers’

perspectives on obstacles to learning English, and opportunities to use English in

class. For the first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and first

and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs, the top six codes employed

were: academic experiences in the United States, value placed on education,

academic achievement and self-efficacy, their opinions on school, teachers’

perspectives on learning English, and ELLs’ perspective on obstacles to academic

performance.

Table 19


Teachers and First and Second Generation Target Filipino ELLs;

Teachers and First and Second Generation Target Mexican ELLs

Code Application

Rank Order Teachers

1 Preparedness to teach ELLs

2 Lack of English skills as perceived by teachers of ELLs

3 Lack of academic support for ELLs

4 Teachers’ perspective on importance of learning English

5 Teachers’ perspective on obstacles to learning English

6 Opportunities to use English in class


nd Generation Filipino ELLs and

Rank Order 1st and 2

nd Generation Mexican ELLs




4 Opinion on school



149

There was no overlap of codes between participating target teachers, first and

second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and first and second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs. Teachers and ELLs spoke entirely about different

topics. On one hand, teachers were concerned with their ability to teach ELLs, and

expressed their concern for the lack of English skills on the part of ELLs. However,

in contrast to teachers, ELLs themselves did not consider themselves to have any

English language skills deficiencies that would influence their academic performance

at Urban High School (UHS). Consequently, rank order of code applications shown in

Table 19 revealed that the two top choices for discussion were the academic

experiences in the United States, and value placed on education.

Rank Order of Code Co-occurrence Findings

Table 20 presents the rank order of six most frequent code co-occurrences. A

code co-occurrence is defined as two codes applied to a single excerpt.

Table 20

Rank Order of the Six Code Co-occurrence Findings

Rank Order Code Co-occurrence

1 Lack of English skills and preparedness to teach ELLs

2 Lack of English skills and lack of academic support for ELLs

3 Value placed on education and acad. experiences in the U.S.

4 Learning English and preparedness to teach ELLs

5 Obstacles to learning English and preparedness to teach ELLs

6 Lack of English skills and importance of learning English

150

Lack of English skills

Lack of English skills code co-occurred with other codes most often. The

codes that co-occurred with learning English skills code, beginning with the most

frequent one were: preparedness to teach ELLs, lack of academic support, importance

of learning English, learning English, and opportunities to use English in class. One

of the first generation participating target Filipino ELL responded to this

interviewer’s question “In what ways does learning English affects you as a student?”

by stating that “Learning English affects me in many ways as a student. For example,

English pronunciation is hard. Sometimes I can’t pronounce the word correctly”

(Ryan, first generation Filipino ELL, December 6, 2013). In contrast, a second

generation Filipino ELL responded to the same question by stating that “Learning

English does not affect me at all. I feel comfortable speaking English at school.

Students need to learn how to speak English to be successful in America, and parents

push us real hard” (Justine, second generation Filipino ELL, December 6, 2013).

In addition, first generation Mexican ELL answered the previously mentioned

question by claiming that “Learning English does not really affect me because I came

to the United States so early. I kind of developed my English by learning new things

and right now I think I am normal, like any other English speakers” (Diego, first

generation Mexican ELL, December 6, 2013). Nevertheless, later on this student

revealed that although he felt comfortable speaking English at school, he recognized

having some difficulties in pronunciation of English words. “I feel comfortable

speaking English at school. Well, I do get kind of nervous when I am reading

151

something for example, and a word comes up that I don’t know and don’t know how

to pronounce it” (Diego, first generation Mexican ELL, December 6, 2013). This

student continued by stating that “However, I do have problems with learning

adjectives, verbs and some grammar, but otherwise I am just like anybody else”

(Diego, first generation Mexican ELL, December 6, 2013).

Another first generation Mexican ELL answered the previous question related

to English having effect on ELLs’ academic performance by affirming that “Learning

English does not affect me at all as a student” (Irma, first generation Mexican ELL,

December 11, 2013). However, later on this first generation Mexican ELL responded

to a similar question related to English skills with a contradicting statement,

acknowledging some difficulties in regards to English skills by stating that “The

hardest thing about learning English is pronunciation, and sometimes I do not know

what some word means, and writing essays is also hard” (Irma, first generation

Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014). In a similar fashion, a second generation Mexican

ELL first affirmed that “I read, write, speak and understand English very well,”

(Romario, second generation Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014), but subsequently

acknowledged having some difficulties with English by stating that “The hardest

thing about learning English is grammar, pronunciation and writing essays”

(Romario, second generation Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014).

Contradictory statements of participating target Filipino and participating

target Mexican ELLs suggested that these ELLs were advanced in regards to their

language skills needed to interact in daily social situations, hence, Basic Interpersonal

152

Communication Skills (BICS). Nevertheless, at the same time, these ELLs lacked in

more advanced English language skills, to be able to effectively decontextualized

communication that takes place in the classroom, hence, these ELLs lacked in

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), which refers to the highly

abstract, decontextualized communication that takes place in the classroom as formal

academic learning.

Preparedness to teach ELLs

The second most frequently co-occurred code with other codes was

preparedness to teach ELLs. All teachers expressed their frustration for not being able

to meet academic challenges of ELLs. All participating target teachers responded to a

question about their preparedness to teach ELLs by claiming to have a credential

authorizing them to teach ELLs. However, all teachers also claimed that the

credential that authorized them to teach ELLs did not sufficiently prepare them to

address academic needs of ELLs.

Dylan, who is an experienced history teacher at Urban High School (UHS)

stated that “I have ELD credential, but I don’t know if I am fully prepared to meet

academic challenges of ELLs. I am doing the best I can” (Dylan, history teacher at

UHS, December 12, 2013). In addition, Dylan further claimed that “I did not attend

anything at this school district, nothing that would specifically target ELLs” (Dylan,

history teacher at UHS, December 12, 2013). Dylan further expressed his frustration

in regards to lack of training to address academic needs of ELLs by asserting that

“Right now I have several very motivated and hard-working ELLs, but they just

153

don’t know the language, and I just don’t know what to do with them” (Dylan,

history teacher at UHS, December 12, 2013).

The inability to effectively teach ELL also suggested UHS’ teacher Beatrice

by stating that “I don’t really provide my ELLs with any additional opportunities to

practice their English skills with native English speakers. I don’t have time to

prepare any additional assignments for ELLs. They practice more listening skills

than speaking skills” (Beatrice, English teacher at UHS, December 17, 2013).

Beatrice further affirmed that “There is very little support at our school for EL kids.

We need to support them more but we also need more time to prepare our lessons”

(Beatrice, English teacher at UHS, December 17, 2013). Abbey, another English

teacher at UHS likewise expressed her frustration in regards to teaching ELLs by

asserting that “Many ELLs struggle to read and write in English. Therefore, it is very

hard to provide ELLs with equitable opportunities to speak English in class” (Abbey,

English teacher at UHS, January 6, 2014).

James, English and Drama teacher at UHS, similarly expressed his concerns

in regards to his inability to teach ELLs by suggesting that “We also need some

training how to address needs of ELLs in our classes, and what to do with them once

we have them in our classes” (James, English and Drama teacher at UHS, February

7, 2014). James also criticized school’s placement policy in regards to ELLs by

affirming that “We need better placement practices how to place ELLs in classes. It

is a complete nonsense to put somebody in my advanced English class, if the student

can’t say a word in English” (James, English and Drama teacher at UHS, February 7,

154

2014). In regards to providing ELLs with some support services after school James

replied “I don’t do anything after school. I don’t know what I could possibly do for

ELLs after school when I don’t speak their language, and they don’t speak English”

(James, English and Drama teacher at UHS, February 7, 2014).

Lack of academic support for ELLs

The third most frequently co-occurred code with other codes was lack of

academic support. Teachers of ELLs and ELLs themselves articulated their

dissatisfaction concerning the lack of academic support for ELLs, by pointing out

variety of shortcomings in regards to lack of academic support of ELLs. The

overlapping statements of teachers and ELLs underlined the dismayed situation

related to deficiencies of academic support for ELLs.

Ryan is a first generation Filipino ELLs who responded to the question related

to “What can school do to help you to increase your academic performance?” by

suggesting that

Schools could do many things to help me to increase my academic

performance. I think that one thing that schools could do to help me to

increase my academic performance would be if school would give us better

teachers so that they would understand Filipino, so that they could help me to

understand the subject that I am learning. (Ryan, first generation Filipino

ELL, February 7, 2014)

Justine, second generation Filipino ELLs expressed his concerns in regards to lack of

academic support for ELLs by affirming that “I do not know what school can do to

155

help me to increase my academic performance, but some teachers do not help us with

anything” (Justine, second generation Filipino ELL, February 7, 2014). In addition,

Diego, first generation Mexican ELLs responded to previously mentioned question by

firmly suggesting “We need some after-school tutoring” (Diego, first generation

Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014).

Irma, a first generation Mexican ELL asserted that “We need some after

school programs, and also some classes before school starts. I think that schools

should also help somehow parents to learn English because learning English should

be a family thing” (Irma, first generation Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014). Romario,

a second generation Mexican ELL, also suggested that there is a need for adequate

support for ELLs at UHS by claiming that “After-school tutoring for English

Learners would help to increase my academic performance” (Romario, second

generation Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014).

Teachers’ point of view on the subject presented in this discussion is being

very well represented by Dylan’s statement, who is a history teacher at UHS. Dylan

asserted that

There is more what we could do to address academic needs of ELLs, I mean,

there is much more that District could do, I thought that we are legally bound

to provide them for a year with instructions in their own language, but I think

that is not enough, and I don’t even know if we do it as school. (Dylan,

History teacher at UHS, December 17, 2013)

156

Abbey, a Biotech Academy teacher at UHS, expressed her frustration by

stating that “I just hope that we would be giving ELLs more support; in this school,

they are expected to ‘sink of swim’ and they don’t have almost any support”

(Abbey, Biotech Academy teacher at UHS, December 19, 2013). Richard, a

Biology teacher at UHS, declared that

We need to allocate as much resources to ELLs as we allocate to special

ed. kids. We have a whole department of special education teachers,

with huge support system and money, but we have nothing for ELLs. We

need the same support for ELLs as we have for special education kids. We

need a department that would be taking care of ELLs. Thus, we need 10 full

time teachers that would help us with ELLs as they do with special ed. kids.

Special ed. kids have IEPs, and we need to have same thing also for ELLs,

thus, we need to design individual learning plan for specific ELLs, in a

similar fashion as we do it for special ed. kids, and that would be equitable

approach on how to address needs of ELLs. (Richard, Biology teacher at

UHS, December 16, 2013)

Richard further suggested that

It is real frustrating that ELLs are just thrown in the class and the

administration does not even notify me about them; I don’t know at what level

they are as for their English skills are, and I have to figure out everything on

my own. That is the part where people (teachers) are really losing it. It is

really extremely difficult to differentiate everything for everybody. If I really

157

would have to differentiate everything for everybody and to do “in depth

differentiated lesson,” it would take me more than 24 hours to do so, thus, it is

never going to happen. (Richard, Biology teacher at UHS, December 16,

2013)

Value placed on education

The code co-occurrence of value placed on education code and the academic

experiences in the United States code suggested that both generations of Filipino and

Mexican ELLs similarly value their academic surroundings and experiences in the

United States. This is a significant finding in regards to similarities between both

subgroups of participating ELLs, and their view concerning value placed on

education. This salient similarity between the first and second generation

participating target Filipino ELLs and first and second generation participating target

Mexican ELLs was highlighted by many statements excerpted by this researcher.

Ryan, a first generation Filipino ELL, responded to question “What are your

plans for the future?” by asserting “I want to go to college and become a nurse”

(Ryan, first generation Filipino ELL, December 6, 2013). Similarly, Diego, a first

generation Mexican ELL, expressed his desire to attend college by revealing his

plans for the future by stressing “In future I want to go to college to get a degree

in something I like to do” (Diego, first generation Mexican ELL, December 12,

2013). Likewise, Nikki, second generation Filipino ELL, confidently announced her

plans by revealing that “In future I would like to either join the USAF, or to be a

flight attendant, or an actress” (Nikki, a second generation Filipino ELL, December

158

9, 2013). Elsie, a second generation Mexican ELL, equally confident in her future,

affirmed that “I plan to go to college, major in business, and become a business

woman” (Elsie, second generation Mexican ELL, December 11, 2013). Hence, both

generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs similarly expressed their confidence in

their academic future in the United States, confirming that they value education and

their academic experiences in America.

Academic experiences in the United States

The code co-occurrence of academic experiences in the United States and

value placed on education code is interchangeably similar in its content with the

previously delineated code co-occurrence. Hence, similarly to the previously

discussed code co-occurrence, both generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs valued

their academic experiences in the United States, as evidenced by discussion excerpts.

The similarity between both subgroups of first and second generation participating

target Filipino ELLs and first and second generation participating target Mexican

ELLs brings an additional equally shared layer of confidence in the American

educational system between Filipino and Mexican subgroups of ELLs, as evidenced

by their testimonials.

Ryan, a first generation Filipino ELL, responded to question “What are your

academic/school experiences in the United States?” by uttering “My

academic/school experiences in the United States are good. I am getting good grades

but pronunciation of some English words is very difficult for me” (Ryan, first

generation Filipino ELL, January 8, 2014). Justine, second generation Filipino ELLs

159

affirmed “I learned a lot in the United States” (Justine, second generation Filipino

ELL, January 17, 2014).

Participating target Mexican ELLs similarly expressed their similarly positive

attitude pertaining to their academic experiences in the United States as evidenced by

their statements. Diego, a first generation Mexican ELL affirmed

I’d say that my academic/school experiences in the United States have been

pretty good. I am doing pretty good, and my experiences are kind of good

and also bad because sometimes I have too much homework. Like I have 2-3

home works and there is not enough time to finish everything in one day.

That’s why sometimes it is hard to keep up with the school work and staff.

(Diego, first generation Mexican ELL, January 8, 2014)

Irma, a first generation Mexican ELL, expressed her point of view concerning

academic experiences in the United States by holding as true that

Most of my academic experiences in the United States are good, because

people always talk to me, because I always achieve a little bit higher than

most. But I see also teachers helping other students who don’t have good

grades. They try to help them, and that’s nice to see that they get help too.

But in some classes, teachers don’t want to help students. (Irma, first

generation Mexican ELL, January 16, 2014)

Obstacles to learning English

The code co-occurrence of obstacles to learning English and preparedness to

teach ELLs code is similar in its core, being an important obstacle to academic

160

performance of both generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs. Preparedness to

teach ELLs code was discussed previously, therefore its co-occurred code, thus,

obstacles in academic performance of ELLs warrants a need for an equal discussion.

Debate of this matter may bring additional light in regards to seeking answers to the

third research question, which was “What roles do student-centered and school-

centered factors play in predicting the academic performance of first and second

generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs?”

Both generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs brought to light variety of

similar concerns they shared regarding the obstacles that in their opinion prevent

them from learning English, and getting ahead in the United States. Ryan, a first

generation Filipino ELL, answered the question “What is the hardest thing about

learning English?” by explaining that “The hardest thing about learning English is

that if you do not know the other words, and what they mean, and how do you

pronounce them. And also writing essays is very difficult” (Ryan, first generation

Filipino ELL, February 7, 2014). Nicole, a first generation Filipino ELL, suggested

that “The hardest thing about learning English is the grammar” (Nicole, first

generation Filipino ELL, February 14, 2014).

In contrast, Justine, who is a second generation Filipino ELL, asserted that

“Nothing is hard about learning English” (Justine, second generation Filipino ELL,

February 7, 2014). Justine shared the confidence in his English skills with Romario, a

second generation Mexican ELL, who also claimed not having any difficulties with

learning English by suggesting that “I read, write, speak and understand English very

161

well” (Romario, second generation Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014).

Nevertheless, Irma, who is a first generation Mexican ELL suggested that

“The hardest thing about learning English is pronunciation, and sometimes I do not

know what some word means, and writing essays is also hard” (Irma, first generation

Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014). Elsie, a second generation Mexican ELL, brought

an additional aspect to this debate about obstacles to learning English by affirming

that “The hardest thing about learning English is speaking without an accent” (Elsie,

second generation Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014).

The variety of statements of first and second generation Filipino and Mexican

ELLs presented by this researcher indicated that both generations and ethnicities of

ELLs admitted to have some difficulties learning English, although some of them

may have not be able to critically evaluate their own English language skills.

Importance of learning English

As noted previously, lack of English skills code co-occurred with other codes

most frequently. Lack of English skills code was discussed earlier in this writing.

Therefore, this section of the manuscript aimed to discuss the importance of learning

English code. All participants in this study recognized the importance of learning

English as a decisive factor for academic achievement and overall success of both

generations of participating target Filipino ELLs, as well as participating target

Mexican ELLs. Participating target teachers in this study equally considered

importance of learning English as critical factor for academic success of both

subgroups of participating target ELLs.

162

Ryan, a first generation participating target Filipino ELL, answered the

question “In your opinion, why is learning English important?” by stating that

“Learning English is important, because in the United States everybody speaks

English. And if you want to go to college, and get a well-paying job, you have to

speak English” (Ryan, first generation Filipino ELL, January 8, 2014). Nicole, a first

generation Filipino ELL, also confirmed the importance of learning English by

affirming that “Learning English is important because it’s the language that almost

everyone knows – globally” (Nicole, first generation Filipino ELL, January 7, 2014).

Diego, a first generation Mexican ELL, asserted that

Learning English is important. Since we are living here in the United States,

you kind of have to learn English, if you want to advance in your school, or if

you would like to get a job or something, you kind of need that. That’s why it

is important to learn English so that people can understand each other, and it

is mostly here, in the United States. But, for example, Filipinos are much

better prepared to speak English like Mexicans, because they take English in

the Philippines and we don’t have any English in Mexico. (Diego, first

generation Mexican ELL, January 8, 2014)

Irma, a first generation Mexican ELL, also advocated that

Learning English is important because it is becoming a global language. It is

everywhere now, it is an international language, America has great colleges

and everything else, but it is all in English. You can’t just come here and

speak Spanish. They would not just accept you for college. You need English

163

to get job in America. (Irma, first generation Mexican ELL, January 16,

2014)

All above quotes demonstrate that both generations of participating target

Filipino ELLs and both generations of participating Mexican ELLs value very highly

the importance of learning English.

Summary

This chapter IV discussed results of specific procedures that were delineated

in chapter III, and were utilized for data collection and analysis during the course of

this research study. For the quantitative component of this study this researcher

compared and analyzed the California Standardized Test (CST) composite scores in

English Language Arts (ELA) between a focus group consisting of eight participating

target Filipino and Mexican ELLs, and a comparison group comprised of eight

participating target English-only students, in order to determine the difference in

achievement level between both subgroups of students.

The results of the analysis of the quantitative component of this study revealed

that there was a substantial difference in achievement on CST composite scores in

ELA between both previously mentioned subgroups of students. However, the

difference in achievement on CST composite scores in ELA between both subgroups

of students was not large enough to yield significant results, because of rather small

size of groups of students involved in this study, where each subgroup group

consisted of only eight participating target students. In other words, there was some

positive development for participating target Filipino ELLs, but the substantial gap in

164

academic achievement between a focus group consisting of eight participating target

Filipino and Mexican ELLs, and a comparison group comprised of eight participating

target English-only students continued to be an issue.

For the qualitative component of this study that consisted of three parts, this

researcher analyzed results of (a) El Shadowing observations of participating target

ELLs, (b) equity audits consisting of teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and

achievement equity, and (c) role of student-centered and school-centered factors in

predicting the academic performance of first and second generation of Filipino and

Mexican ELLs.

The analysis of EL Shadowing data (first qualitative component of this study)

revealed that participating target ELLs were most frequently engaged in one-way

listening (social or academic), while speaking (social or academic) occurred the least

amount of time on the part of ELLs. Hence, participating target teachers were

promoting teacher-center instructions, where teachers were lecturing students, while

at the same time, participating target ELLs were limited to a role of passive listeners.

Further analysis of EL Shadowing data also suggested that participating target

teachers gave inequitable lower level academic attention to participating target ELLs,

in comparison with English-only students. Participating target teachers asked ELLs

only simple, low-level questions requiring “yes” or “no” answers. In contrast,

participating target teachers generally asked English-only students questions that

required higher level thinking and problem solving capabilities.

165

The analysis of equity audits data, (second qualitative component of this

study) hence, teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity, as

well as analysis of related data available from the UHS’ data base ARIES revealed

that the introductory courses at UHS that ELLs had access to were primarily being

taught by less educated, new inexperienced teachers, and/or by mobile teachers that

were frequently changing schools. In contrast, English-only students had access to

experienced tenured teachers who possessed Master’s degrees, with one exception,

where a teacher with a Doctorate in Multicultural Education who also spoke fluent

Spanish, French and was learning how to speak Filipino, was teaching ELLs at UHS.

Nevertheless, analysis of the data collected from equity audits revealed that high

quality experienced teachers were inequitably distributed across the range of

educational settings within the UHS, and were inequitably less available to ELLs, in

comparison with English-only students.

The analysis of data related to the role of student-centered and school-

centered factors in predicting the academic performance of the first and second

generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs (third qualitative component of this study)

revealed that the dominant and reoccurring student-centered factors and themes

impacting the academic performance of first and second generation participating

target Filipino ELLs, and first and second generation participating target Mexican

ELLs were: academic experiences in the United States, value placed on education,

and academic achievement and self-efficacy, as shown in Table 19. The dominant and

reoccurring school-centered factors and themes impacting the academic performance

166

of first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and first and second

generation participating target Mexican ELLs were: preparedness to teach ELLs, lack

of English skills as perceived by teachers of ELLs and lack of academic support for

ELLs, as observed by teachers, as illustrated in Table 19.

Additionally, Table 20 shows that the top three code co-occurrences consist of

a mixture of student-centered and school-centered factors, hence, lack of English

skills and preparedness to teach ELLs, lack of English skills and lack of academic

support for ELLs, and, finally, value placed on education and academic experiences

in the United States. Thus, data presented in Table 20 suggest that the academic

performance of both generations of participating target Filipino ELLs and

participating target Mexican ELLs are influenced by a mixture of student-

centered and school-centered factors. Therefore, all student-centered and school-

centered factors affecting academic performance of both subgroups of Filipino and

Mexican ELLs should be equally considered, when addressing their academic needs.

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova (2008) suggested that English

proficiency, cognitive engagement, relational engagement, and behavioral

engagement are the most important variables that affect ELLs’ academic

performance. Data presented in the third qualitative component of this study

suggested that the conceptual theoretical regression model of Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-

Orozco and Todorova’s (2008) is equally applicable to first and second generation


Mexican ELLs. In essence, both generations of participating target Filipino ELLs, and

167

participating target Mexican ELLs have to face a multitude of the same student-

centered and school-centered challenges related to their academic obstacles in the

United States.

Chapter IV analyzed and discussed the findings of the procedures detailed in

chapter III, in relation to the research questions. This study also involved a

triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data that were gathered from eight

participating target ELLs and ten participating target teachers within a six-week

period.

Chapter V stated the findings, implications, and recommendations for further

studies. The importance of academic English and a variety of student-centered and

school-centered factors that affect the academic performance of ELLs were already

well established in the research literature. Additional predictors and influences in

relation to ELLs’ scholastic performance were also included in this study.

168

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of the Study


second generation participating target Filipino English language learners (ELLs), and

first and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs’ daily behavioral

engagement at Urban High School (UHS - pseudonym given to the school where this

study took place to protect its confidentiality), with special emphasis on their oral and

written academic English language use in daily academic settings that promote

English language acquisition and literacy skills, (b) the teacher quality equity,

programmatic equity, and achievement equity at UHS in regards to ELLs having

equal access to educational and support services as English-only students, and (c) role

of student-centered and school-centered factors in predicting the academic

performance of first and second generation participating target Filipino ELLs, and

first and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs. The UHS selected for

this study is one of the many low-income, racially and linguistically diverse public

schools within the Bay Area of California, designated as a Title I school.

Research Questions

This study investigated the following research questions based on the results

of previously mentioned criteria delineated at the beginning of this chapter:

169

1. In what ways are Filipino and Mexican ELLs behaviorally engaged in a

representative classroom environment?

2. What are the teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement

equity differences between target ELLs and English-only students?

3. What roles do student-centered and school-centered factors play in predicting

the academic performance of first and second generation Filipino and

Mexican ELLs?

These research questions guided the data collection and analysis process.

Discussion of Findings

Discussion of Quantitative Findings

The California Standards Test (CST) composite scores in English language

arts (ELA) was analyzed and compared to determine the difference in achievement

level between a focus group consisting of eight participating target Filipino and

participating target Mexican ELLs, and a comparison group comprised of eight

participating target English-only students. The results of the analysis of the data of the

quantitative component of this study presented in Table 6 (see chapter IV) revealed

that the participating target Filipino ELLs outperformed participating target English-

only students by 25 points. In contrast, participating target English-only students

outperformed participating target Mexican ELLs by 37 points, as shown in Table 7

(see chapter IV). In addition, the first and second generation participating

target Filipino ELLs outperformed first and second generation participating target

Mexican ELLs by 62 points, as shown in Table 8 (see chapter IV).

170

However, English-only students outperformed first and second generation


Mexican ELLs by 6 points as shown in Table 9 (see chapter IV), when participating

target Filipino ELLs and participating Mexican ELLs were considered to be a shared

focus group of ELLs, and as such, they were compared with a comparison group

comprised of eight participating target English-only students.

Conversely, the results of the data analysis suggested that there was a

difference in achievement on CST composite scores in ELA between a focus group

consisting of eight participating target Filipino and participating target Mexican

ELLs, and a comparison group comprised of eight participating target English-only

students; however, the sample was not large enough to yield significant results.

Results of the quantitative data analysis consisting of comparison of the CST

composite scores in ELA between a focus group consisting of eight participating

target Filipino and Mexican ELLs, and a comparison group comprised of eight

participating target English-only students revealed, that participating target English-

only students outperformed participating target ELLs by 52 points, as previously

shown in Table 9, although initially, participating target Filipino ELLs outperformed

English-only students by 6 points as shown in Table 6. This was partially due to the

fact that the first generation of participating target Filipino ELLs came from well-

educated backgrounds that served them well upon their entry in the United States.

Nevertheless, this initial academic advantage of participating target Filipino ELLs

faded away when comparing the CST composite scores in ELA between all

171

participating target Filipino and Mexican ELLs with participating English-only

students.

The educational system in the Philippines is usually more readily available to

general public than it is in Mexico. Hence, Filipino ELLs as a subgroup have largely

more education at the time of entering the United States than the Mexican ELLs. This

situation seems to give an initial advantage to Filipino ELLs over the Mexican ELLs

as showed in Table 8. One of the first generation participating target Filipino ELLs

mentioned that her parents planned a very long time to come to America. Therefore,

this Filipino ELL stated that “In Philippines, my parents enrolled me in school where

English was a language of instruction. My parents knew that I would need to be real

good in English to be successful in America” (Nicole, first generation Filipino ELL,

January 7, 2014).

In contrast, a first generation participating Mexican target ELL stated that “I

have completed only four years of school in Mexico prior entering the United States”

(Diego, first generation ELL, January 8, 2014). In addition, this Mexican student also

stated that “I had to learn English on my own from my friends because my parents did

not speak any English. Moreover, most of my friends are Mexicans, thus, I don’t

really speak much English besides at school” (Diego, first generation ELL, January 8,

2014). Other participating Mexican target ELLs suggested that frequent moving

between the United States and Mexico hinders their ability to learn English. One of

the participating Mexican target ELLs mentioned that there are many holidays in

172

Mexico and his family has a lots of relatives there. Therefore, this Mexican ELL

stated, “My parents always take me to Mexico, so I miss a lot of school days in

America. Mexico is so close to California that we can drive there in few hours”

(Elsie, second generation Mexican ELL, January 9, 2014).

Discussion of Qualitative Findings

EL Shadowing and Observation Tool. The results of the analysis of the data

related to the El Shadowing and Observation (first qualitative component of this

study that sought answers to the first research question, which was “In what ways are

Filipino and Mexican ELLs behaviorally engaged in a representative classroom

environment?”) shown in Table 10 (see chapter IV) revealed that one-way-listening

(social or academic - first observation = 28% and second observation = 27% occurred

most frequently, demonstrating that participating target Filipino ELLs, and

participating target Mexican ELLs passively listened to their teacher to provide them

with a specific information related to the content area subject.

The importance of oral English participation in academic classroom activities

has been well established in the research literature, as having a decisive impact on

ELLs’ academic English language acquisition. Producing language (output) pushes

learners to process the new language at deeper and more lasting levels than just

listening to it (Swain, 1995). In addition, Swain affirmed that ELLs need more

opportunities to produce longer stretches of academic talk for the positive effects

to take place. Swain further noted that positive effects can happen only when

the overall linguistic goal of a group task requires ELLs to produce more complex

173

language than they would use on their own (Swain, 1995). Moreover, Zwiers (2008)

asserted that “A listener focuses on meaning, which is recoded into the brain in a

simpler syntactic form than the original message” (Zwiers, 2008, p. 42). Therefore,

according to Rivers (1994), the fundamental difference between listening and

speaking is that the listener can bypass much of the grammar by focusing on

meaning. In contrast, speaking requires ELLs to develop control of grammar and

syntax to a level that would enable them to clearly re-tell the message in a proper

way.

In addition, reading is a similar process as listening, where reader is focusing

on meaning, which is recorded into the brain in a simpler form, than the original

message. In contrast, writing requires an ELL to produce a language in more formal

and sophisticated way, in a similar fashion, as the speaking process that requires a

higher level of academic proficiency and erudition. Hence, it is crucial that high

schools and other educational institutions accentuate the oral English language

participation of ELLs in order to increase their overall academic performance.

The importance of oral language development for ELLs has been well

established in research literature on second language acquisition. August and

Shanahan (2006) suggested that oral language development is the foundation of

literacy. Soto (2012) also supported this idea by stating that “If the benefits of

academic oral language development structure are expansive, then as educators we

must find ways and opportunities for students to talk in a linguistically rich

environment” (Soto, 2006, p. 99). Pressley (1992) has suggested that English

174

language learners’ learning is enhanced when they have the opportunities to elaborate

on ideas through talk. Discussing variety of topics presented by the teacher helps

ELLs make sense of the ideas as they talk. Pimm (1987) asserted that the teachers of

ELLs should implement in their teaching methods the Think-Pair-Share strategies to

increase ELLs’ personal communications necessary for second language learners to

internally process, organize, and retain ideas. Pimm (1987) further suggested that

Teachers of ELLs may scaffold the Think-Pair-Share strategy to include the use of

metacognition via teacher think alouds, ample modeling via fishbowls, and the

scaffolding of each step in the process using specific techniques.

Benefits of Think-Pair-Share have been well established in research literature

on academic language development. According to Soto (2012), Think-Pair-Share is

“one of the best ways to begin to embed more academic oral language development in

a classroom setting” (p. 98). Soto (2012) further suggested that the Think-Pair-Share

is an oral language scaffold that creates accountability for ELLs. Therefore, teachers

of ELLs should incorporate Think-Pair-Share in their lesson designs, because this

oral language scaffold creates “accountability for talk” on the part of ELLs (p. 98). In

addition, August and Shanahan (2006) also supported this idea by asserting that ELLs

are more comfortable presenting ideas to a group, especially if they have the support

of a partner. Moreover, according to the National Literacy Panel (2006), ELLs benefit

from extra time and practice with content, because the Think-Pair-Share process

allows ideas to become developed over time. Furthermore, Pressley (1992) has

suggested that learning of ELLs is enhanced when they have many opportunities to

175

elaborate on ideas through talk. However, experts on second language acquisition

largely agreed that ELLs should never be expected to effectively speak on a given

topic until the strategy has been scaffolded for them to age and content appropriate

levels.

This researcher-observer noted during all EL Shadowing observations largely

passive academic engagement on the part of most of the participating target Filipino

ELLs, as well as participating target Mexican ELLs. Overall academic passivity

within the observed classrooms seemed to be a norm, with few, rather rare

exceptions. ELLs were mostly involved in passive listening to teacher’s lecture,

without showing any interest in the academic happenings in class. Quite a few ELLs

were not only completely “off- task,” but were engaged in texting, or using phone or

other electronic devices to play games, or “entertain” themselves in some way. Most

of the observed teachers seemed to notice this situation, but strangely enough, none of

them took any decisive action to stop these non-academic activities, that many

participating target Filipino ELLs, as well as participating target Mexican ELLs were

involved in during the class. It was extremely rare to see any ELL raise a hand to ask

a question for clarification.

When this researcher-observer asked a participating target chemistry teacher

about the situation he observed in his class, this teacher stated that “My Filipino

students always finish the work somehow. I do not really know how they do it, or if

they are learning anything, but they are finishers; they always finish the work on

time” (Richard, Biology teacher at UHS, December 16, 2013). Another teacher

176

responded to the same question by stating “I think that some of my Filipino ELLs are

working together after school on their assignments. I do not speak any Filipino.

Hence, I can’t help them” (Dylan, History teacher at UHS, December 17, 2013). This

researcher-observer noticed that all participating target Filipino ELLs and

participating target Mexican ELLs were largely academically disengaged in class, but

seemed to be quiet, making sure that they did not draw any attention to them.

One of the school’s leading Biology teachers stated that “Most of my Filipino

ELLs would like to become nurses. They all know that in order to become nurses,

they need to be good in Biology. Hence, Filipino ELLs are working real hard and do

not have any behavioral problems” (Abbey, Biotech Academy teacher at UHS,

December 19, 2013). This researcher-observer noted that almost none of the Filipino

or Mexican ELLs raised a hand to ask questions during the EL Shadowing

observations. This situation corroborated with findings of August and Shanahan

(2002), who asserted that ELLs spend less than 2 percent of their school day in

academic oral language development.

In terms of type of credential that participating target teachers possessed, this

researcher-observer noted that the teacher with a Doctoral degree in Multicultural

Education seemed to be well aware of academic happenings within his classroom. In

his class, all participating target Filipino ELLs and all participating target Mexican

ELLs were actively engaged in one-way and two-way listening (social or academic),

speaking (social or academic), as well as in reading and writing. This teacher spoke

fluent Spanish. Therefore, many Mexican ELLs utilized him as an academic and

177

cultural resource in variety of ways. This teacher who himself was Mexican

American possessed Bilingual Crosscultural Language and Academic

Development (BCLAD) certification that served him well while educating

participating target Filipino ELLs, participating target Mexican ELLs, as well as

ELLs who came from Africa and other countries.

This highly educated teacher also spoke French. Thus, he was able to

communicate with ELLs from former French African colonies, and he also started to

learn Filipino in order to be able to communicate with a majority of Urban High

School’s (UHS) ELLs. When asked about his success working with ELLs and about

the academic challenges of participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target

Mexican ELLs, this teacher stated that “At our UHS we have a large population of

ELLs. Therefore, I am always looking for ways to expand my knowledge in regards

how to better educate ELLs” (Charles, ELD, Spanish and French teacher at UHS,

December 18, 2013).

In addition, this teacher further suggested that “All teachers should participate

in workshops tailored to educating ELLs” (Charles, ELD, Spanish and French teacher

at UHS, December 18, 2013). In addition, this highly educated teacher also suggested

that “UHS should make available to teachers at least some basic Spanish and Filipino

language classes, so that our teachers could better communicate with our school’s

Filipino and Mexican ELLs that form the two largest ELLs groups at UHS” (Charles,

ELD, Spanish and French teacher at UHS, December 18, 2013).

178

The length of teaching service and earned advanced academic degrees of

teachers of ELLs seemed to play a role in level of academic engagement of

participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican ELLs. This

researcher-observer noted that participating target teachers who seemed to have most

difficulties educating ELLs were new teachers with only Bachelor’s degrees, and

teachers with only few years of service to their credit. One first year math teacher

stated that “I do not know what to do first. I have 4 preps; therefore, I have to come to

school every day before six o’clock in the morning, just to prepare my lessons”

(Beatrice, English teacher at UHS, December 17, 2013).

This overworked teacher also stated that she is teaching only basic math

classes, and many of her students have major behavioral problems. Thus, she has to

make a lot of phone calls every day, in addition to attending parent conferences.

Moreover, this teacher mentioned that she also has to take part in a mandatory

training for new teachers, and of course, she has to correct papers, and so on. “When I

am supposed to do all this? I have a family, and I don’t get practically any support

from the school administration. Thus, I do not really have time for ELLs. I am just

happy that they are quiet” (Beatrice, English teacher at UHS, December 17, 2013).

Gibbons (2002) has suggested that listening, like speaking, is an

underdeveloped domain in most classrooms. This statement is in accordance with this

researcher-observer’s experience during a majority of EL Shadowing observations.

Soto (2012) asserted that “Historically, we have overly emphasized reading and

writing as the heavy-hitting domains that will be tested, making them somehow

179

academically more important” (p. 36). However, for the academic benefits of large

student body consisting of ELLs, teachers of ELLs should give equal attention to all

four language domains, hence, listening, speaking, reading and writing. Soto (2012)

has suggested that for ELLs, learning how to actively listen is an important learning

scaffold. According to Soto (2012), “listening is connected to reading, just as

speaking is a scaffold for writing” (p. 36).

Nevertheless, EL Shadowing observation data regarding academic speaking

and listening demonstrated that ELLs had few opportunities for academic oral

language development. Therefore, Urban High Scholl (UHS) should make a

meaningful effort to train teachers of ELLs to systematically embed academic oral

language development into classrooms, without sacrificing the content. Equity and

academic excellence can be achieved if all teachers of ELLs are properly trained to

address specific needs of ELLs, and if school administrators facilitate such

undertaking. Consequently, merely exposing ELLs to content classrooms, is not an

adequate response on how to meet ELLs’ linguistic challenges. Mohan (2001)

asserted that placing ELLs in the mainstream classroom “cannot be assumed to

provide optimal language learning opportunities as a matter of course” (p. 108).

Therefore, school’s administrators should facilitate an ongoing training for teachers

of ELLs, on how to better address specific English language development needs of

ELLs.

Students spoke of teachers’ cultural insensitivity in regards to ELLs’

background. In their interviews, many participating target Filipino ELLs and

180

participating target Mexican ELLs reinforced this researcher-observer’s findings in

regards to low academic engagement of ELLs within the classrooms of participating

target teachers whose classrooms were observed. One participating target Mexican

ELL stated that “When I ask a question, my teacher starts making faces, pretending

that he did not understand what I just said. However, I am sure that he did understand

my English, because all my friends understand what I am saying” (Romario, second

generation Mexican ELL, January 17, 2014). This ELL further expressed his

frustration by stating “What can I say? This teacher is just being mean to me;

therefore it is better not to ask any questions” (Romario, second generation Mexican

ELL, January 17, 2014).

Another participating target Mexican ELL indicated that “When I ask my

Mexican friends in Spanish for help during class, my teacher always gets upset. She

thinks that we are just socializing and not doing any work” (Irma, first generation

Mexican ELL, January 16, 2014). Hence, this Mexican ELL expressed her frustration

by suggesting that “The best way is to be quiet in class and ask friends for help after

class” (Irma, first generation Mexican ELL, January 16, 2014).

Many ELLs spoke of being academically disengaged in class and felt being

ignored by their teachers. Participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target

Mexican ELLs largely confirmed during the interviews that they were mostly

academically disengaged during classes mainly because of lack of English skills or

because of cultural and/or academic ignorance on the part of teachers. This

researcher-observer noted during all of the EL Shadowing observations that

181

participating target teachers seemed to be more concerned with “going through” the

prescribed material, than making sure that ELLs actually did understand the content.

Participating target teachers in this study could greatly benefit from training on

second language acquisition, English language development strategies, and

importance of one-way and two-way active academic listening for ELLs. Soto (2012)

defined one-way listening as an “interaction where students take in information, such

as a lecture.” In contrast, “two-way listening is when your ELL asks for clarification

or engages in a dialogue” (p. 62).

Job security issues appeared to affect teachers in addressing ELLs’ needs.

During the follow-up interviews with individual participating teachers, most of them

seemed to be somewhat more relaxed than they were during the initial interview.

However, the new teachers with less than 3 years of teaching service seemed to be

more concerned with keeping their jobs, pleasing administration, and getting tenure,

rather than with educating ELLs. In addition, one second year teacher stated that

“Although credential program taught me to certain degree how to teach ELLs, daily

realities of real-life teaching greatly overpassed even my wildest dreams what I

expected. Sometimes I feel as if the skies were falling on my head” (Abbey, Biotech

Academy teacher at UHS, January 6, 2014).

The statements of this teacher pointed out that California Commission on

Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) should perhaps extend its curriculum in regards to

training teachers to address all ELLs’ academic and cultural needs. In addition,

schools should also provide teachers with adequate support to new teachers in regards

182

on how to educate ELLs. Since most of the ELLs come from Spanish speaking

countries, primarily from Mexico, schools should make available to teachers at least

basic classes in Spanish so that teachers may improve communicating with Spanish

speaking ELLs. Likewise, at schools with high densities of Filipino ELLs such as

UHS, school administrators should make available to teachers at least basic classes in

Filipino so that teachers can improve their communicating skills with Filipino ELLs.

Students spoke of difficulties of group work due to their teachers’ mistrust and

disinterest in ELLs. Most of the participating target Filipino ELLs and participating

target Mexican ELLs indicated that they would prefer to have more “hands-on”

activities and group work in class. One of the participating target Mexican ELLs

stated that “I like to work in groups. My friends who also speak Spanish could help

me with the assignments. Some of them live in America for a long time. Therefore,

they do know exactly what teachers want us to do” (Romario, second generation

Mexican ELL, February 7, 2014). Another participating target Filipino ELL

expressed his frustration by stating that “We all know that teachers have to cover a lot

of things in a short period of time. However, we do not want to be left behind just

because it may be convenient for them to forget about us” (Justine, second generation

Filipino ELL, February 7, 2014).

Drawing on theoretical constructs advanced by Vygotsky (1986) concerning

the nature of learning and by Halliday (1975) in regards to registers of language,

Gibbons (2002) argued that teachers and students should work together, and through

their classroom interaction, develop new skills, concepts and levels of understanding

183

(p. vii). Therefore, teachers of ELLs should implement variety of ELL “friendly”

academic teaching strategies and techniques designed to meet ELLs’ specific

academic needs, such as Think-Pair-Share activities, where ELLs can interact with

each other, share, discuss and negotiate ideas presented by the teacher. In addition,

graphic organizers may also greatly enhance lessons presented to ELLs, by

facilitating visualization of concepts with context reduced language.

This researcher-observer conducted a series of second follow-up interviews

with individual participating target teachers to elicit additional insight on the

participating target teachers’ perspectives in regards to increasing behavioral

engagement of participating target Filipino ELLs and participating target Mexican

ELLs.

Teachers spoke of obstacles of utilizing the information they learned in their

teaching credential program. One of the participating target teachers expressed her

frustration by stating that “Although my credential program at the university gave me

some glimpse of what to expect in the real world, I do not feel that I am well prepared

to meet multitude of academic and cultural challenges of ELLs” (Madelyne, English

teacher at UHS, February 6, 2014). Madelyne’s frustration in regards to not being

sufficiently prepared to meet mounting academic and cultural challenges of ELLs has

been well supported by Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos

(2009) who have suggested that teacher education and pre-service programs are not

doing enough to train teachers of ELLs to meet their linguistic and cultural needs.

Additionally, findings from Learning Forward have also suggested that “Teachers are

184

not getting training in teaching special education or limited English proficiency

students” (Wei et al., 2009, p. 6).

Another teacher expressed his fear to allow ELLs to work in pairs, such as

Think-Pair-Share activity by suggesting that “I don’t speak Filipino, nor do I speak

Spanish. Therefore, I do not know if ELLs working on a Think-Pair-Share activity

and/or in groups are simply socializing or if they are really working” (James, English

and Drama teacher at UHS, February 7, 2014). Gibbons (2002) recognized this fear of

some teachers of ELLs by stating that “Despite the many language benefits, teachers

may still be wary of allowing talk in the classroom for fear of management issue, or

that the wrong kinds of conversations may ensue” (p. 27).

Equity audits. The results of the analysis of the data correlated with the

equity audits (second qualitative component of this study that sought answers to the

second research question, which was “What are the teacher quality equity,


English-only students?”) shown in Tables 11 and 12 (see chapter IV) revealed that the

high quality experienced teachers were inequitably distributed across the range of

educational settings within the UHS. Therefore, the UHS administration should re-

evaluate school’s teacher placement policy with the aim of giving ELLs an equal

access to highly qualified, well-educated, and experienced teachers.

Moreover, results of the analysis of the data presented in Table 13 (see chapter

IV) exposed that in 2013-2014, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs at UHS were

disproportionally overrepresented in some programs, while at the same time; they

185

were underrepresented in other programs. Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs were

disproportionally overrepresented in special education classes, in comparison with

English-only students. At the same time, Filipino ELLs and Mexican ELLs were

underrepresented in variety of higher-level Advanced Placement (AP) classes,

indicating that they were deprived of equitable access to higher-level education, in

comparison with English-only students. In addition, in 2013-2014, Filipino ELLs, and

Mexican ELLs were grossly overrepresented in special education classes in

comparison to what would be proportional to their representation in the overall

student population.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 mandates schools that receive

Title I funding improve all students’ academic performance. In addition, under the

NCLB, schools, school districts and states are also held accountable for ensuring that

all students have access to “highly qualified teachers,” as defined by NCLB. Findings

of this study revealed, that during the course of this study, UHS was in “compliance”

with NCLB mandates hence, school was employing only “highly qualified” teachers.

Hence, teachers working at UHS were credentialed to teach students, they held a

college degree, and had demonstrated the content knowledge in subjects they taught.

Nevertheless, the results of the analysis of the data presented in Tables 11, 12 and 13

indicated that at UHS, participating target Filipino ELLs, and participating target

Mexican ELLs had inequitable access to “highly qualified teachers” and some school

programs, resulting in their overall lower academic achievement in comparison with

English-only students. Although school officials at UHS were “in compliance” with

186

the NCLB mandates, teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement

equity at the school needs to be revised and updated to meet the academic needs of

Filipino and Mexican ELLs.

McKenzie & Skrla (2011) suggested that “Equity and excellence can be

achieved if each and every teacher commits to and then ensures that each student is

taught all day every day” (p. 23). Both authors further claimed that

Classrooms that are equitable and excellent are ones in which all students,

regardless of factors external to the classroom such as race, ethnicity, culture,

gender, learning differences, economic level, and so forth, are respected, and

students are provided the instructional support necessary for them to be

successful. (McKenzie & Skrla, 2011, p. 21)

This discussion has pointed out the need for the equitable treatment of ELLs

within the school environment. Providing ELLs with an unbiased access to high

quality experienced teachers and Advanced Placement (AP) courses may foster their

scholastic performance, and expedite UHS’ efforts in thinning the academic

achievement GAP among an assortment of the school’s ethnicities.

Student-centered and school-centered factors. The outcomes of the analysis

of the data presented in Tables 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 (see chapter IV) related to the

role that student-centered and school-centered factors do play in predicting the

academic performance of first and second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs

(third qualitative component of this study that sought answers to the third research

question, which was “What roles do student-centered and school-centered factors

187

play in predicting the academic performance of first and second generation Filipino

and Mexican ELLs?”) illustrated that in essence, both generations of participating

target Filipino ELLs, and participating target Mexican ELLs had to face a multitude

of the same challenges related to their academic performance at UHS.

Previous research has suggested that ELLs’ English language skills are

directly influenced by their mother’s education, and length of her residency in the

United States (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova, 2008, p. 51).

Therefore, second generation ELLs tend to have somewhat higher grasp of English

language skills. However, many times their English language skills are limited to

conversational English, while the academic English language skills are widely

lacking behind those of native English speakers, as evidenced by variety of

statements of the second generation participating target Filipino and participating

target Mexican ELLs presented earlier in chapter IV.

Consequently, outcomes of the data analysis presented in the third qualitative

component of this study (see Tables 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 in chapter IV) suggested

that the conceptual theoretical regression model of Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco

and Todorova (2008) was equally applicable to the first and second generation


Mexican ELLs.

188

Implications

The First Qualitative Component

The findings of the first qualitative component of this study that were based

on the EL Shadowing Tool expanded our knowledge regarding the first and second


participating target Mexican ELLs’ daily behavioral engagement at mainstreamed

high school classrooms, with special emphasis on their oral and written academic

English language use in daily academic settings that promote English language

acquisition and literacy skills. The analysis of the related data shown in Table 10 (see

chapter IV) suggested that the participating target Filipino ELLs and participating

target Mexican ELLs passively listened to their teacher to provide them with specific

information related to the content area subject. Largely passive behavioral

engagement of both subgroups of ELLs in the mainstreamed classroom resulted in

their lower academic achievement on the California Standardized Test (CST)

composite scores in ELA in comparison with English-only students as previously

shown in Table 9 (see chapter IV).

These CST results corroborate with the finding of Zwiers (2008), who

suggested that the minority language speakers, such as immigrants, score lower on

standardized tests and fail in school because they lack the valued skills of school

literacy and language use (Zwiers, 2008, pp. xiv-xiv). In addition, this researcher

noticed during all El Shadowing Observations that teachers typically focused their

lessons on content learning and less, if at all, on academic English language

189

development. Teachers themselves confirmed this researcher’s El Shadowing and

Observation results during the interviews, as evidenced by excerpts of their

interviews in chapter IV.

Moreover, scholars largely agreed that teachers need more practical awareness

of the academic language development, which is a core of ELLs’ learning in all

classes (Fillmore & Snow, 2002; Valdés, Bunch, Snow, Lee, & Matos, 2005).

Likewise, academic English language is frequently cited as the main factor that has a

power to address the “achievement gap” between ELLs and mainstream student body

(Wong Fillmore, 2004). Consequently, ELLs need more after school tutoring

sessions, extra visual realia in classroom, rich classroom experiences that accelerate

the academic English language development, and support their content knowledge,

problem solving skills, thinking skills, and literacy skills (Zwiers, 2008).

The second qualitative component

The outcomes of the equity audits, the second qualitative component of this

study, extended our understanding regarding the teacher quality equity, programmatic

equity, and achievement equity at high school level, in regards to ELLs having equal

access to academic and support services as their English-only counterparts. The

results of the analysis of the data gathered from equity audits shown in Tables 11, 12,

13, 14, and 15 (see chapter IV) revealed that high quality experienced teachers were

inequitably distributed across the range of educational settings within the UHS, and

were inequitably less available to ELLs, in comparison with English-only students.

These systematic differences contribute to the academic achievement gap

190

between ELLs and English-only students at UHS.

The results of the analysis of the data related to the equity audits shown in

Tables 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (see chapter IV) substantiated the theoretical framework

developed by Skrla, McKenzie and Scheurich (2009), discussed earlier in chapter II.

Hence, teacher quality equity plus programmatic equity equal achievement equity

(Skrla, McKenzie & Scheurich, 2009, p. 24). Consequently, outcomes of the analysis

of the data related to equity audits conducted at UHS revealed that at the previously

mentioned high school, both generations of participating target Filipino ELLs and

both generations of participating Mexican ELLs had inequitable access to “highly

qualified teachers” as defined by NCLB.

Subsequently, the academic achievement gap in CST composite scores in

ELA between a focus group consisting of eight participating target Filipino and

Mexican ELLs and a comparison group comprised of eight participating target

English-only students shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8 (see chapter IV) may have been

partially caused by ELLs having inequitable access to teacher quality, equity, and

programmatic equity at UHS. Successively, previous research findings have indicated

that the above delineated factors affect students’ academic achievement (Rice, 2003;

Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002).

The third qualitative component

The outcomes of the analysis of the data related to the applicability of the

Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova’s (2008) theoretical regression model

for predicting academic performance of first and second generation high school ELLs

191

from student-centered and a school-centered perspective shown in Tables 16 through

21 (see chapter IV) contributed to our knowledge of similar and contrasting factors

that affect the academic achievement of both generations of ELLs. Suárez-Orozco,

Suárez-Orozco and Todorova’s (2008) affirmed that although “there are similarities

between the experiences of immigrants (first generation) and those of the second

generation, their realities are distinct and must be separately understood” (Suárez-

Orozco, Suárez-Orozco & Todorova, 2008, p. 4).

According to Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova’s (2008), the

principal similarity between the first and second generation immigrants/ELLs is that

they share foreign-born parents. Therefore, both generations of ELLs grow up in

families with somehow mixed cultural values and generally attain a rather lower

socio-economic status in comparison with the mainstream American population.

One of the differences between both generations of ELLs is an initial disorientation of

first generation ELLs upon their arrival to the United States, while, in contrast, the

second generation immigrants/ELLs are usually well seasoned to live in the American

society.

The mastery of English language is yet another difference between the first

and second generation of ELLs. On one hand, while new arrivals (first generation) of

ELLs usually have to learn English from scratch, their second generation peers speak

English fluently, although they may lack the academic English skills. In addition, the

applicability of the Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova’s (2008) theoretical

regression model for predicting academic performance of first and second generation

192

high school ELLs from a student-centered and school-centered perspective has been

further underscored by numerous excerpts from interviews with first and second

generation Filipino and first and second generation Mexican ELLs (see chapter IV).

Recommendations for Future Research

The research findings derived from EL Shadowing Observations should be

scrutinized in more complexity, and should embrace loftier first and second

generation Filipino ELLs first and second generation Mexican ELLs, and a

numerically greater teacher population. A longitudinal study should follow both

generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs, in regards to probins whether they

progressed in their CELDT level. The longitudinal study would further magnify our

understanding of academic language acquisition of the first and second generation


Mexican ELLs, by exposing the way both generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs

spent in instructional settings over longer stretches of time. The results of the

longitudinal study may become a valuable source of data associated with second

language acquisition and academic English language acquisition.

Teachers’ educational level, credentialing, years of teaching experience and

teacher mobility should be further researched in regards to having impact on the

academic achievement of the first and second generation participating target Filipino

ELLs and the first and second generation of participating Mexican ELLs. Research

findings of this matter may have provide valuable data for high school administrators

in regards to having influence on academic achievement of both generations of ELLs

193

and may assist them in strategically placing teachers where they could have a biggest

positive impact on overall academic achievement of both subgroups of previously

mentioned ELLs.

In addition, the effectiveness and availability of the teacher professional

development workshops related to the academic needs of ELLs should be researched,

in regards to having a positive impact on the academic English language acquisition

of the first and second generation participating Filipino ELLs and first and second

generation participating target Mexican ELLs. The research findings on this matter

may become a rich source of data that could assist the school’s administrative team to

appropriately schedule teacher training workshops throughout the year, in order to

help teachers better address a multitude of academic challenges that both generations

of Filipino and Mexican ELLs have to face on a daily basis.

Moreover, the role of student-centered and school-centered factors in

predicting the academic performance of first and second generation participating

target Filipino ELLs and first and second generation participating target Mexican

ELLs should be further researched with a larger number of participants. In addition,

a longitudinal study should follow both generations of Filipino and Mexican ELLs, in

regards to inquire what additional student-centered and school-centered factors may

have influence on academic performance of the first and second generation of


Mexican ELLs. The research findings of the longitudinal study would further

augment our perceptions of student-centered and school-centered factors that affect

194

academic achievement of both subgroups of participating ELLs and may serve as a

valuable source of data for school administrators when addressing ELLs’ academic

needs.

Summary


second generation participating target Filipino ELLs and first and second generation

participating target Mexican ELLs’ daily behavioral engagement at UHS, with special

emphasis on their oral and written academic English language use in daily academic

settings that promote English language acquisition and literacy skills, (b) the teacher

quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity at UHS in regards to

ELLs having equal access to educational and support services as English-only

students, and (c) role of student-centered and school-centered factors in predicting the

academic performance of first and second generation participating target Filipino

ELLs and first and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs. The UHS

selected for this study is one of the many low-income, racially and linguistically

diverse public schools within the Bay Area of California, designated as a Title I

school.

The EL shadowing observations provided this researcher-observer with a

wide-range of experiences in regards to ways Filipino and Mexican ELLs were

behaviorally engaged in a representative classroom environment. Having personally

conducted 12 pilot and 48 formal observations at UHS, this researcher-observer

developed a high level of sincere compassion for the Filipino, Mexican, and other

195

subgroups of ELLs. This researcher-observer shared his EL Shadowing experiences

with a majority of UHS teachers and administrators, with the intention of increasing

awareness and accountability of the schools’ educators in regards to academic

challenges and needs of Filipino and Mexican ELLs.

In addition, findings of this study also revealed systematic differences in the

teacher quality equity, programmatic equity, and achievement equity as applied to

Filipino and Mexican ELLs at UHS. Increased awareness of mentioned inequities

may facilitate and foster schools’ endeavor in providing an equal access to services

and academic program for all students. Moreover, outcomes of this study likewise

increased our awareness of the similar and contrasting factors that affected the

academic achievement of the first and second generation participating target Filipino

ELLs and first and second generation participating target Mexican ELLs.

Furthermore, the applicability of the Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco and Todorova’s

(2008) theoretical regression model for predicting academic performance of the first

and second generation high school ELLs from a student-centered and school-centered

perspective was confirmed. This new knowledge may assist educators at UHS in

addressing a variety of student-centered and school-centered factors that affect

academic performance of first and second generation Filipino and Mexican ELLs.

REFERENCES

197

REFERENCES

Alba, R., & Waters, M. (Eds.) (2011). The next generation: Immigrant youth in a

Comparative perspective. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Antin, M. (1912). The promised land. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners:

Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bales, B. L. (2006). Teacher education policies in the United States: The

accountability shift since 1980. Teaching & Teacher Education: An

International Journal of Research and Studies, 22.

Becher, R. (1984). Parent involvement: A review of research and principles of

successful practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Black, D. & Reed, J. (2006). Toward a pedagogy of transformative teacher

education: World Educational Links. Multicultural Education, 34-39.

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations (4th

Ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. (1992, November). Curriculum, culture and social cohesion.

CELEBRATIONS, an Occasional Publication of the National Institute for

Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD). Austin, TX: University of

Texas, College of Education.

198

Brill, S. (2010). Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools. New

York, NY: Brill Journalism Enterprises LLC.

Byrk, A., Sebing, P. Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S. & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing

Schools for Improvement Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University

of Chicago Press.

Chih, L. A., and Harris, D. (2008). The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic

Disparities Exist. New York, NY: Sage.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Instructional policy and classroom performance:

The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2): 294-

343.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform

works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cohen, J. (2007). A case study of a high school English-language learner and his

reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Oct. 2007, Vol. 51 Issue 2,

pp. 164-175.

Collins, A., Cooper, J. L., & Whitmore, E. (1995, August). Enhancing local

involvement in education through quality leadership. Texas Education

Agency. Retrieved from

http://www.cppp.org/files/10/Microsoft%20Word%20-

%20Parental%20Involvement.pdf

Coltrane, B. (2002). English Language Learners and High-Stakes Tests: An Overview

of the Issues. Retrieved from

199

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0207coltrane.pdf

Cotton, K., and Wikelund, K. (1989). Parent involvement in education. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Crane, Eric W.; Barrat, Vanessa X.; Huang, Min (2011). The Relationship between

English Proficiency and Content Knowledge for English Language Learner

Students in Grades 10 and 11 in Utah. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-

No. 110.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning, 2nd

edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Creswell, J. W., and Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cummins, J. (1979). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the Distinction. (ED438551)

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a

Diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: California Association for

Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J., (2001). Instructional conditions for trilingual development.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(1), 61-75.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of

state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and

200

Learning.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of

state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), Available

at http://www.epaa.asu.edu/

Denzin, N. K., (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

Methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dillon, S. (2009). No Child Law Is not Closing a Racial Gap. New York, NY: N.Y.

Times, April 29.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language

acquisition. Ann Arbor, MI: Language Learning, 24, 37-53.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1975). A new approach to discovering universal strategies of

child second language acquisition. In D. Dato (Eds.) Developmental

Psycholinguistics: Theory and Applications. Washington: Georgetown

University Press.

Fathman, A. (1975). The relationship between age and second language productive

ability. Ann Arbor, MI: Language Learning, 25, 245-266.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White

test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score

gap (pp. 318-375). Washington, DD: Brookings Institution Press.

Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C.

A. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian. (Eds.), What teachers need to know

about language (pp. 7-54). McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems

201

and Center for Applied Linguistics.

Fitzpatrick, J. L.; Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B.R. (2010). Program evaluation:

Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th

ed.) Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners. American Educator,

32(2), 8-44. Retrieved from

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf

Heck, R. H. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an

organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth

rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399-432.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children

we share. Phi Delta Kappa, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., and Simon, B. S. (1997).

School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fitzpatrick, J. L.; Sanders, J. R., and Worthen, B.R. (2010). Program evaluation:

Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2010). The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences

of Failed Social Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hale, J. (2001). Learning While Black. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

202

Hale, A., Snow-Gerono, J., & Morales, F. (2008). Transformative education for

culturally diverse learners through narrative and ethnography. Teaching and

Teacher Education. Available at

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/science/article/pii

/S0742051X07001515

Halliday, M. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of

Language. London: Arnold.

Harper, S. N. & Pelletier, J. (2010). Parent involvement in early childhood: a

comparison of English language learners and English first language families.

International Journal of Early Years Education. Jun 2010, Vol. 18 Issue 2,

pp. 123-141.

Hare, W., and Portelli, J. (2007). Key questions for educators. San Francisco, CA:

Caddo Gap Press.

Henderson, A. T., and Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is

critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for

Citizens in Education.

Hill, N. E. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior,

achievement and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence.

Durham, NC: NIH Public Access.

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical

knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational

Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.

203

Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why Do High-Poverty Schools Have Difficulty Staffing

Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers? Philadelphia, PA: Center for

American Progress.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of

Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis. Stanford, CA: Center for Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., Flemming, J., & Lennan, F. (2002). The Role of

Demographics, Personality Variables, and School Stress on Predicting School

Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: Review of the Literature and Research findings.

Educational Psychology, 22(1): 33-50.

Landreman, L., Edwards, K., Garma-Balon, D. & Anderson, G. (2008, Sept/Oct).

Wait! It takes time to develop rich and relevant social justice curriculum.

About Campus, 2-10.

López, M., and López, R. (2009). Persistent inequality: Contemporary realities in the

education of undocumented Latino students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Makino, T. (1980). Acquisition Order of English Morphemes by Japanese

Adolescents. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),

370–96. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

McKenzie, K. and Skrla, L. (2011). Using Equity Audits in the Classroom to Reach

204

and Teach All Students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Menken, K. (2000). What are the critical issues in wide-scale assessment of English

language learners? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual

Education.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent

trends. Educational Researcher, 20(2), 20-24.

Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational

Leadership. 63(1), 8-13.

Ohio State Dept. of Education (1996). Windows of Opportunity: Changes from

Within. Available at

http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/PDFS/ED399692.pdf

Olivas, M. (2012). No undocumented child left behind: Pyler v Doe and the education

of undocumented schoolchildren. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London:

Longman.

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Educational Promise of

Opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learner. Long Beach, CA:

Californians Together.

Passel, J. S., and Cohn. D. (2009). A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the

United States. Pew Hispanic Center. April 14 at ii.

Pérez, W. (2009). We are Americans: Undocumented students pursuing the American

Dream. New York, NY: Stylus Publishing.

205

Pérez, W. (2012). Americans by heart: Undocumented Latino students and the

promise of higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics

classrooms. London, England: Routledge.

Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. (2006). A Portrait of Immigrant America. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. (eds.) (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant

Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pressley, M. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading

comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 513-555.

Quaye, S. J. & Harper, S. R. (2007). Faculty accountability for culturally inclusive

pedagogy and curricula. Teaching and Teacher Education.

Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher

attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Rivers, W. (1994). Comprehension and production: The interactive duo. In R.

Barasch & J. Vaughn, (Eds.), Beyond the monitor model: Comments and

current theory and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 71-96)

Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells

us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects

Study of Elementary Schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.

Rutherford, B., & Billing, S. H., (1995). Parent, family and community involvement

206

in the middle grades. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on elementary and

Early Childhood Education.

Saldaña J. (2011). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing All Teachers to Meet the Needs of

English Language Learners. Retrieved from

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/pdf/ell_report.pdf

Sanders, J. R., & Sullins, D. S. (2006). Evaluating School Programs: An Educator’s

Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Shaw, K., Goldrick-Rab, S., Mazzeo, Ch., and Jacobs, J. (2009). Putting Poor People

to Work: How the Work-First Idea Eroded College Access for the Poor. New

York, NY: Sage.

Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL

Quarterly, 27(4), 627- 656.

Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., and Scheurich, J. (2009). Using Equity Audits to Create

Equitable and Excellent Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sosa, A. S. (2008). Engaging Hispanic Students and Families. San Antonio, TX:

University of Texas.

Soto, I. (2012). El Shadowing as a Catalyst for Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steptoe, S. (2004, November). Closing the gap. Time, 54-56.

Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M., and Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a new

land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

207

University Press.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook

& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp.

125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tellez, K., and Waxman, H. C. (2005). Quality Teachers for English Language

Learners. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

The Education Trust – West (2010, May). Keeping the Promise of Change: Why

California’s chronically underperforming schools need bold reforms.

Available at

http://www.edtrust.org/west/publication/keeping-the-promise-of-change-why-

californias-chronically-underperforming-schools-n

Theoharis, G., and Brooks, J. S. (2012). What Every Principal Needs to Know to

Create Equitable and Excellent Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, IL:

The University of Chicago Press.

Unmuth, K. L. (2012). English Language Learners with ore Educated Mothers Fare

Better on Assessments. New Journalism on Latino Children. Available at

http://latinoedbeat.org/2012/04/27/english-language-learners-with-more-

educated-mothers-fare-better-on-assessments/

Valdés, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., Lee, C., & Matos, L. (2005). Enhancing the

development of students’ language(s). In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford

208

(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn

and be able to do (pp. 126-168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Vang, K. (2009). Do I look up or do I look down? Reflections of a Hmong American

English Learner and Educator. Journal of Southeast Asian American

Education and Advancement, 4, 1-7.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Ed. and trans. A. Kozulin. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Ward, P., & Franquiz, M. (2004). An integrated approach: Even start family literacy

model for migrant families.

Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study

from birth to 32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72-81.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on

teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National

Staff Development Council.

Wong Fillmore, L. (2004). The Role of Language in Academic Development.

Keynote address given at Closing the Achievement Gap for EL Students

conference. Sonoma, CA.

Wright, W. E. (2002). The effects of high stakes testing in an inner-city elementary

school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners.

Current Issues in Education [On-line], 5(5). Available at

http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number5/

209

Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their

Young children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

APPENDICES

211

APPENDIX A

EL SHADOWING OBSERVATION TOOL

212

APPENDIX B

TARGET STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

How much do you agree with each of the following statements? Please circle

the numbered response which most clearly matches your own opinion.

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral

4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

1. Teachers are interested in students 1 2 3 4 5

2. The teaching is good 1 2 3 4 5

3. There is real school spirit 1 2 3 4 5

4. Teachers are familiar with my culture 1 2 3 4 5

5. Teachers enjoy working with English

Language Learners (ELLs) 1 2 3 4 5

6. Learning English is challenging 1 2 3 4 5

7. I have plenty of opportunities to speak

English in class 1 2 3 4 5

8. I have many opportunities to practice my

English skills with native English speakers 1 2 3 4 5

9. Students are graded fairly 1 2 3 4 5

10. Student make friends with students of

other racial and ethnic groups 1 2 3 4 5

11. Discipline is fair 1 2 3 4 5

12. I do not feel safe at school 1 2 3 4 5

13. Disruptions by other students get

in the way of my learning 1 2 3 4 5

14. There are many gangs at school 1 2 3 4 5

15. Fights often occur between different

racial or ethnic groups 1 2 3 4 5

213

APPENDIX C

TARGET STUDENT SURVEY

Family Structure

Describe how true the following statements are for your family:

You live in a household with both your parents present.

You live in a household with only one parent present. Specify if you live with

mother, or father.

You live in a household without your parents present. Hence, you live with

your relatives, such as aunt, and uncle.

You live in a different household arrangement. Specify.

You were separated from your parents for some time and it has taken

a while to get used to each other.

New people joined your family (like a stepparent or new kids ...).

Your parents work long hours and are not around much.

Your parents are upset about your grades.

Your parents do not understand what it is like to grow up in another country.

Your parents don’t like your friends.

You disagree with your parents about curfews.

You have too many responsibilities around the house.

You want to do one thing in the future and your parents want you to do

something else.

214

What was your family’s motivation for coming to the United States?

Who in the family had come first to the United States?

In what kind of living situation you were residing upon your arrival to the

United States? (new arrivals)

In what kind of living situation are you currently residing? (second

generation)

Which of the following people, (in addition to your parents or guardians)

live with you, that is in the house where you spend most of the time? Check

all that apply.

a. Brothers or step-brothers How many?

b. Sisters or step-sisters How many?

c. Grandfather or grandmother How many?

d. Uncles o aunts How many?

e. Other relatives How many?

f. Non-relatives How many?

In total, how many people, beside you, live in the same house with you?

Number:

Parental Occupation

Which one of these best describes your parents’ present situation?

1. Employed full-time

2. Employed part-time

3. Unemployed and looking for work

215

4. Unemployed and not looking for work

5. Attending school full-time

6. Retired

7. Disabled

8. Keeping home (home maker)

9. Other Specify:

Which one of the following categories comes closest to describing your

parents’ present job?

1. Clerical such as bank teller, bookkeeper, secretary…

2. Craftsperson such as carpenter, plumber, automobile mechanic,

machinist, painter…

3. Farmer, Farm Manager

4. Homeworker (without other job)

5. Laborer such as construction worker, farm laborer, sanitary

worker…

6. Manager, Administrator such as sales manager, office manager,

school administrator, government official, restaurant manager…

7. Military such as career officer, enlisted man or woman in the Armed

Forces

8. Operative such as welder, machine operator, assembler, meat cutter,

bus or truck driver

9. Professional such as registered nurse, accountant, social worker,

216

engineer

10. Professional such as physician, lawyer, dentist, college instructor.

11. Proprietor or Owner such as owner of a small business, contractor…

12. Protective Service such as fire fighter, police officer, detective or

guard.

13. Sales such as salesperson, real estate broker…

14. School teacher such as elementary or secondary.

15. Service such as janitor, waiter, barber…

16. Technical such as computer programmer, medical or dental

technician…

Parental Educational Attainment

What is the highest level of education that your parents completed?

Mother Father

1. Eight grade or less

2. Beyond eighth grade,

but not high school graduation

3. High school graduation

Vocational, trade or business school after High School.

1. Less than one year

2. One to two years

3. Two years or more

College program

217

1. Less than two years

2. Two or more years

3. Finished a four or five-year program

4. Master’s degree or equivalent.

5. Ph.D., M.D., Ed.D.,

or other advanced degree

English Language Proficiency, Language

What is the language spoken mostly at your home?

1. English Other (specify language)

2. Spanish Mixed (specify language)

3. Tagalog

(First generation students, born in the foreign country). In what year did you

come to the United States?

Year: Never came (I was born in U.S.):

How long have you lived in the United States?

a. All my life b. Ten years or more

c. Five to nine years d. Less than five years

Are you a U.S. citizen?

a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know

How well do you speak English?

a. Not at all b. Not well

c. Well d. Very well

218

How well do you understand English?



How well do you read English?



How well do you write English?



What is the hardest thing about learning English?

Educational Experiences

What were you’re your educational experiences in your country of origin?

(new arrivals)

What are your educational experiences in the United States? (new arrivals)

What are your educational experiences in the United States? (second

generation)

What were your initial impressions and challenges (new arrivals) in

a) Your school?

b) Your neighborhood?

c) The United States?

219

School Safety and Violence

During the current school year how many times did any of the following

things happen to you at school?

a. never b. Once or twice c. More than twice

1. I had something stolen from me at school

2. Someone offered to sell me drugs at school

3. I got into a physical fight at school

Plans for the Future

What is the highest level of education that you would like to achieve?

1. Less than high school

2. Finish high school

3. Finish some college

4. Finish college (bachelor degree)

5. Finish a graduate degree (masters, doctors, lawyer, etc.

6. Other (specify)

Realistically speaking, what is the highest level of education that you think

you will get? Why?





220

5. Finish a graduate degree (masters, doctors, lawyer, etc.

6. Other (specify)

What is the highest level of education that your parents want you to get?

Why?





Finish a graduate degree (masters, doctors, lawyer, etc. Other

(specify)

If you do not plan to go to college, what is the main reason why you do not

plan to go?

Which of the jobs listed below comes closest to the job that you would like to

have as an adult? Why?

1. Laborer/factory worker

2. Office clerk

3. Salesperson

4. Computer programmer/technician

5. Nurse

6. Business manager

7. Engineer

8. Teacher

221

9. College professor

10. Lawyer

11. Doctor (Physician)

12. Other (specify)

Realistically speaking, how do you see your chances of getting this job?

Why?

1. Very poor

2. Poor

3. Good

4. Very good

How important is each of the following to you in your life? Please circle the

numbered response which most clearly matches your own opinion, and tell me why?

a) Not Important b) Somewhat Important c) Very Important

1. Being rich/having lots of money

2. Being well-educated

3. Being rich and well educated

4. Having lots of friends

5. Having strong friendships

6. Being able to find steady work

7. Living close to parents and relatives

8. Getting away from this community

222

Discrimination

Do you feel that you have been discriminated against because of your race

or your ethnicity in the United States?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Other

4. Specify:

If yes, how often have you been discriminated against?

1. Often

2. Occasionally

3. Rarely

Sentence Completions

A good student is someone who…

Learning English is important because…

Schools are…

Teachers are…

In five years from now I will…

In ten years from now I will…

Most Filipinos/Mexicans (use your own heritage) are…

Most Americans are…

Most Americans think that Filipinos/Mexicans (use your own heritage)

are…

223

Experiences in the United States

Describe are your experiences living in the United States (new arrival-born

in another country).

Describe your experiences living in the United States (second generation of

immigrants – born in the U.S.).

Network of Relationships

Do you have a mentor at school, such as coach, teacher, church member or

community advocate who helps you to keep up being academically engaged

in school?

a) If yes, describe how this person helps/motivates you to stay

academically engaged in school.

b) If not, tell me why?

224

Life Story

Your Life Story is an essay about your life since the day you were born

until now. In your essay describe everything about yourself, your family/relatives

and anything else you would like to share with me. I am interested in knowing

everything about

a) the reasons why your family had decided to immigrate to the United States,

such as looking for better life for the children and family, economic improvement,

education and so on

b) detailed information about your educational and other experiences in the

United States and in the old country (if you remember anything)

c) your educational experiences in the United States as an English language

learner, including everything good and bad about it. Second generation students

please kindly describe any obstacles you might have in regards to learning

academic English

d) your honest opinion about your teachers, especially if they give you enough

opportunity to express yourself on any academic subject as an English learner

e) your opinion about support system of English language learners at school

f) your opinion what should be improved and/or added to school program to

support English language learners

g) your experiences in regards to possible educational and/or other kind of

discrimination

h) possible cultural conflict between you as a first or second generation

225

student and your foreign born parents

i) your dreams, academic plans for the future, such as if you would like to

become a doctor, actor/actress or whatever it might be

j) your worries and obstacles you have to overcome on a daily basis

k) any topic mentioned in questionnaire or survey you would like to elaborate

or expand on

l) anything else that I forgot to ask but you see as important for me to

know - about anything at all

Your life story should be at least 5 pages long and should include specific

details about everything mentioned in your essay. Finally, I want to reassure you

one more time that whatever you will share with me will be kept strictly

confidential and nobody in the entire world beside myself would ever see what you

have shared with me. All information you would kindly provide me with will be

used strictly to support my dissertation research and from my dissertation results

will benefit future generation of immigrant students and English learners.

226

APPENDIX D

TARGET STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

What is the language spoken mostly at your home?

What language do you speak when talking to your friends?

Do you feel comfortable speaking English at school?

In what ways does learning English affects you as a student?

What do you think influences your academic performance in school?

What do you think influences your academic performance at home?

Do you think that your teachers are academically challenging you at school?

What do you think are the main obstacles to getting ahead in the United

States?

What are your plans for the future?

Is there anything else you would like to share with me?

227

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP TARGET STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

In your opinion, why is learning English important?

What are the characteristics of a good student?

What do you think about teachers at school?

What are your academic/school experiences in the United States?

Do you have a mentor at school, such as coach, teacher, or a mentor outside

the school, such as church member or community advocate who helps you

stay academically engaged in school?

What are your experiences living in the United States (new arrival-born in

another country)?

What are your experiences living in the United States (second generation of

immigrants – born in the U.S.).


228

APPENDIX F

FOCUS GROUP TARGET STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

How well do you read, write, speak and understand English?

What is the hardest thing about learning English?

What can school do to help you to increase your academic performance?

Does school prepare you to get ahead?

Do you plan to go to college?

Do you feel safe at school?

What were your educational experiences in your country of origin? (new

arrivals)

What are your educational experiences in the United States? (new arrivals)

What are your educational experiences in the United States? (second

generation)


229

APPENDIX G

TARGET TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

How much do you agree with each of the following statements? Please circle

the numbered response which most clearly matches your own opinion.

1. Strongly Agree 2. Somewhat Agree 3. Neutral

4. Somewhat Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

1. I am well trained to meet academic

challenges of ELLs 1 2 3 4 5

2. I don’t know how to meet

academic challenges of ELLs 1 2 3 4 5

3. I am taking advantage of training

opportunities offered by school/district

aimed to address academic challenges of

ELLs 1 2 3 4 5

4. I am familiar with culture of my ELLs 1 2 3 4 5

5. ELLs are excellent students 1 2 3 4 5

6. I give my ELLs equal opportunity

to speak English in class 1 2 3 4 5

7. I frequently differentiate lessons for ELLs 1 2 3 4 5

8. I provide additional after-school

support/tutoring for ELLs 1 2 3 4 5

9. I provide ELLs with additional opportunities

to demonstrate the mastery of content. 1 2 3 4 5

230

APPENDIX H

TARGET TEACHER SURVEY

What do you think about English Language Learners (ELLs) in general?

What do you think influences ELL’s academic performance in school?

What do you think influences ELL’s academic performance at home?

What are your expectations from parents of ELLs?

What do you think are the main obstacles that hinder academic performance

of ELLs?

To what extent are you familiar with cultural background of your ELLs?

To what extent are you academically challenging ELLs?

How do you differentiate your lessons to make them accessible for ELLs?

To what extent are you familiar with cultural background of your ELLs?

Do your ELLs have equitable opportunity to speak English in class as their

English-only counterparts?

Do your ELLs have an opportunity to practice their English skills with native

English speakers?

Do you provide ELLs with additional opportunities to demonstrate the

mastery of content?

Do you provide ELLs with additional after-school support services to foster

their English language skills?

What is the hardest thing about your job?

What is the hardest thing about teaching ELLs?

What is the easiest thing about teaching ELLs?

Whom do you consider better students, boys or girls? Why?

Sentence Completions:

A good student is someone who…

231

APPENDIX I

TARGET TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

How do you know that you are fully prepared to meet academic challenges of

English Language Learners (ELLs)?

What certification do you possess that prepared you to address educational

needs of ELLs? a) CLAD b) BCLAD c) Other (Specify)

What degree(s) do you possess? (Circle)

a) Less than BA b) BA

c) MA d) Doctorate

What training workshops have you taken that are offered by your

school/district aimed to address academic challenges of ELLs?

What do you think about ELLs as students?

What activities do you implement in your lessons to cognitively engage

ELLs?

To what degree are you familiar with the cultural backgrounds of your ELLs?

How do you know if your ELLs have equitable opportunities to speak English

in class as compared to their English-only counterparts?

With what kinds of opportunities do you provide ELLs to practice their

English skills with native English speakers?


232

APPENDIX J

FOLLOW-UP TARGET TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

How do you differentiate lessons for ELLs?

With what additional opportunities do you provide ELLs to demonstrate the mastery

of content?

How do you abundantly engage ELLs in daily school activities?

Are you familiar with the cultural background of your ELLs?

With what kind of equitable opportunities do you provide ELLs to speak English in

class with their English-only counterparts?

How do you provide ELLs with additional after-school support services to foster their

English language skills?

What kind of access do your ELLs have to academic and a variety of support

services?

To what extent are you academically challenging ELLs?

What do you think influences ELL’s academic performance in school?

What do you think influences ELL’s academic performance at home?

What are your expectations from parents of ELLs?

What do you think are the main obstacles that hinder academic performance of ELLs?

What is the hardest thing about your job?


233

APPENDIX K

SECOND FOLLOW-UP TARGET TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

With what additional opportunities do you provide ELLs to demonstrate the mastery

of content?

What kinds of additional after-school support services do you provide for ELLs to

foster their English language skills?

How do you provide an equal access to academic and a variety of support services for

ELLs as compared to their English-only counterparts?


234

APPENDIX L

INFORMED CONSENT

Dear parent of student participant:

I am asking your child to participate in a research project that is being done to

complete a Doctor of Education degree in Educational Leadership at CSU Stanislaus.

We hope to learn more about English Language Learners in California high schools.

If you let your child volunteer, he/she will participate in interviews and to answer a

questionnaire about their academic experiences. I will be sure to conduct interviews

during the academic day. In addition, your child will be observed by Mr. Maly in

various classes during the regular school day two (2) times, with a six (6) weeks

interval between your child’s participation.

Your child’s time commitment for this dissertation research will consists of about 40

minutes. He/she will be asked to participate in this dissertation research two (2) times,

with a six (6) weeks interval between your child’s participation. The focus group of

eight (8) target English language learners (ELLs) and comparison group of eight (8)

English-only (EO) students will consist of Vallejo High School (VHS) students.

All volunteering student participants in this study will attend VHS and enrolled in

different classes. In order to maintain confidentiality of individual student

participants, “nick names” will be used when referring to individual students. There

are no known risks to your child for your participation in this study, and your child’s

participation will likely benefit future students.

The information collected will be protected from all inappropriate disclosure under

the law. All data will be kept in a secure location. There is no cost to your child

beyond the time and effort required to complete the procedure(s) described above.

Participation of your child is voluntary. Refusal to participate in this study will not

affect your child’s grade. You may withdraw your child at any time without penalty

or loss of benefits.

If you agree, please indicate this decision by signing below. If you have any questions

about this research project please contact me, Marcel Maly, at 707-556-1700 Ext.

50606 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Dennis Sayers at 209-499-2822. If you have any

questions regarding your and your child’s rights and participation as a research

subject, please contact the UIRB Administrator by phone (209) 667-3784 or email

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Marcel Maly

Participant signature Date

mailto:[email protected]

235

APPENDIX M

CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO

Estimado padre de estudiante participante:

Estoy pidiendo a su hijo a participar en un proyecto de investigación que se está realizando

para completar un título de Doctor en Educación en Liderazgo Educativo en CSU Stanislaus.

Esperamos aprender más sobre aprendices del idioma Inglés en las escuelas secundarias de

California.

Si deja que su hijo voluntario, él/ella va a participar en las entrevistas y para responder a un

cuestionario acerca de sus experiencias académicas. Voy a estar seguro para realizar

entrevistas durante el día académico. Además, su hijo/a será observado por el Sr. Maly en

varias clases durante el día escolar regular de dos (2) veces, con un intervalo de seis (6)

semanas entre la participación de su hijo/a.

Compromiso de tiempo de su hijo/a está a voluntad tesis doctoral consiste en unos 40

minutos. Él/ella se le pedirá participar en esta investigación de tesis de dos (2) veces, con una

(6) semanas de intervalo entre la participación de seis de su hijo. El grupo de enfoque de ocho

(8) objetivo estudiantes del idioma Inglés (ELL) y el grupo de comparación de los ocho (8)

Inglés solamente (EO) estudiantes consistirá estudiantes Vallejo High School (VHS).

Todos los estudiantes que participan como voluntarios en este estudio participarán en VHS y

se inscribió en clases diferentes. Con el fin de mantener la confidencialidad de los

participantes individuales de los estudiantes, "apodos" se utilizarán cuando se refiere a los

estudiantes individuales. No hay riesgos conocidos para su hijo por su participación en este

estudio, y la participación de su hijo probablemente se beneficiarán los futuros estudiantes.

La información recogida será protegida de toda revelación inadecuada de la ley. Todos los

datos se guardan en un lugar seguro. No hay ningún costo para su hijo más allá del tiempo y

el esfuerzo necesarios para completar el procedimiento(s) descrito anteriormente.

La participación de su hijo es voluntaria. La negativa a participar en este estudio no afectará

las calificaciones de su hijo. Usted puede retirar a su hijo en cualquier momento sin sanción o

pérdida de beneficios.

Si está de acuerdo, por favor indicar esta decisión de firmar a continuación. Si usted tiene

alguna pregunta acerca de este proyecto de investigación, por favor póngase en contacto

conmigo, Marcel Maly, al 707-556-1700 ext. 50606 o mi patrocinador de la facultad, el Dr.

Dennis Sayers al 209-499-2822. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca de su visita y su hijo de

derechos y la participación como sujeto de investigación, por favor póngase en contacto con

el Administrador UIRB por teléfono (209) 667-3784 o por correo electrónico

[email protected].

Atentamente,

Marcel Maly

Firma del participante Fecha


236

APPENDIX N

PAGPAPALAM NG PAGSANG-AYON

Mahal na magulang ng kasaping estudyante,

Humihingi ako ng tulong sa inyong anak na makilahok sa pananaliksik na proyekto na

isasagawa upang maging matagumpay na Doktor sa Edukasyon ng antas sa Edukasyonal na

Pamumuno sa CSU Stanislaus.Nais namin matutunan pa ang Ingles sa California High

School.

Kung papayagan ninyo ang iyong anak na siya ay makilahok sa panayam at sumagot sa mga

akademya na tanong ng karanasan.Sisiguraduhin ko na ako ay magsasagawa ng panayam sa

araw ng akademya.Dagdag pa dito, ang iyong anak ay oobserbahan ni Mr. Maly sa bawat

klase kada regular na pagpasok sa paaralan, dalawang beses sa anim na lingo sa pagitan ng

palahok ng inyong anak.

Ang oras na dapat niyang ilaan ng inyong anak dito ay apat na put minuto.Siya ay tatanungin

na makilahok sa desertasiyon na pananaliksik kada dalawang beses, at may isang agwat na

anim na linggo sa pagitan ng paglahok ng inyong anak.Ang pokus ng pangkat ay may walong

kabilang na tao.ang pinatutuunan ng panahon ay ang mga taong hindi marunong mag ingles o

sila ay nahihiapan mag ingles tsaka maeron din walong taong fluent sa ingles ang mga

istudyante ay binubuo ng Vallejo High School mag-aaral.

Lahat ng magboboluntaryong istidyante ay dadalo sa VHS at mag e-enorolled sa ibat ibang

klase. Upang mapanatili ang pagiging kompidensyal ng isa isang istudyanteng kalahok sa

poyekto na ito “palayaw” ay gagamitin nila sa pag tawag sa bawat istudyante.Walang

panganib na dadatnan ang inyong anak kapag siya ay nakilahok sa proyektong ito, at ang

iyong anak ay mabibilang sa isa sa mga mag-aaral na mataas ang hinaharap.

Ang impormasion na makokolekta ay magiging protektado sa lahat ng hindi kanais nais na

pagbubunyag sa ilalin ng patakaran.Ang lahat ng data ay maitatabi sa ligtas na lugar.Walang

gastos na magaganap sa inyong anak pag lumagpas sya sa oras at sa pagsisikap na kanyang

ginagawa base sa kailangan na kompetong tagagawa ng mga naka larawan sa itaas.

Ang partisipasyon ng inyong anak ay kusang-loob.Ang pag tanggi sa pag-aaral na ito ay hindi

makakaapekto sa grado ng inyong anak.Pwede nyong kunin ang anak nyo kahit anong oras

kahit walang parusa o pagkawala ng mga benepisyo.

Kapag ikaw ay sang-ayon, paki sigurado ang iyong disiyon at paki pimahan ang nasa ibaba.

Kapag ikaw ay may tanong tungkol ditto sa pananaliksik na proyekto paki tawagan ako,

Marcel Maly, sa numerong 707-556-1700 EXT. 50606 o ang aking faculty isponor na si Dr.

Dennis Sayers at 209-499-2822. Kapag ikaw ay may iba pang tanong tungkol sa karapatang

ng inyong anak at pati narin sayo at sa paglahok sa pananaliksik na paksa , paki tawagan ang

URB Aministrator gamit ang cellphone/telephono sa numerong (209) 667-3784 o kontakin

sya gamit ang email [email protected].

Lubos na gumagalang,

Marcel Maly

Lagda ng Mag-aaral Petsa


237

APPENDIX O

INFORMED CONSENT

Dear Student Participant:

I am asking you to help me with a research project. It is focused on English Language

Learners.

If you decide to volunteer, you will be asked to answer questions related to your

academic experiences at school and at home. I will conduct interviews during the

academic day. In addition, I will observe you in various classes during the regular

school day two (2) times, with a six (6) weeks interval between observations.

Your time commitment for this research will consists of about 40 minutes. The group

interviews of eight (8) target English language learners (ELLs) and the comparison

group of eight (8) English-only (EO) students will consist of Vallejo High School

(VHS) students.

All volunteering student participants in this study will attend VHS but will be

enrolled in different classes. In order to maintain confidentiality of individual student

participants, “nick names” will be used when referring to individual students.

There are no known risks to you for your participation in this study. All data will be

kept in a secure location so that no one sees it. There is no cost to you or your family

for participating.

Your participation is voluntary. Your parents have already agreed that you can

participate. If you decide not to participate in this study, it will not affect your grade.

You may withdraw at any time from

If you agree to participate, please indicate this decision by signing below. If you have

any questions about this research project, your parents may contact me, Marcel Maly,

at 707-556-1700 Ext. 50606 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Dennis Sayers at 209-499-

2822, or my university at (209) 667-3784 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,

Marcel Maly

Participant signature Date


238

APPENDIX P

CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO

Estimado Estudiante:

Les pido que me ayude con un proyecto de investigación educativo. Se centra en los

estudiantes del idioma Inglés

Si usted decide ser voluntario, se le pedirá que conteste preguntas relacionadas con

sus experiencias académicas en la escuela y en casa. Voy a realizar entrevistas

durante el día académico. Además, voy a observarles en varias clases durante el día

escolar regular y dos (2) veces, con seis (6) semanas de intervalo entre las

observaciones.

Su compromiso de tiempo para esta investigación se compone de unos 40 minutos.

Las entrevistas de grupos de ocho (8) se dirigen a los estudiantes del idioma Inglés

(ELL) y el grupo de comparación de los ocho (8) solamente (EO) estudiantes

consistirán en estudiantes de Vallejo High School (VHS).

Todos los estudiantes que participan como voluntarios en este estudio participarán

son de VHS pero serán inscritos en las diferentes clases. Con el fin de mantener la

confidencialidad de los participantes individuales de los estudiantes, “apodos” se

utiliza para referirse a los estudiantes individuales.

No hay riesgos conocidos para ustedes por su participación en este estudio. Todos los

datos se guardan en un lugar seguro para que nadie lo vea. No hay ningún costo para

usted o su familia por participar.

Su participación es voluntaria. Sus padres ya han convenido en que se puede

participar. Si usted decide no participar en este estudio, no les afectará su grado.

Usted puede ser retirado cualquier momento que usted desea.

Si está de acuerdo en participar, favor de indicar esta decisión al firmar a

continuación. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca de este proyecto de investigación,

se contactan conmigo sus padres,

Marcel Maly 707-556-1700 ext. 50606 o mi patrocinador de la facultad, el Dr. Dennis

Sayers 209-499-2822, o mi universidad y (209) 667-3784 o por correo electrónico

[email protected].

Atentamente,

Marcel Maly

Firma del participante Fecha


239

APPENDIX Q

PAGPAPALAM NG PAGSANG-AYON

Mahal na kasaling mag-aaral,

Humihingi ako ng tulong para sa pagsasaliksik na isinasagawa ko. Ito ay patungkol sa

mga nag-aaral ng English Language.

Kung mapagpasiyahan mong kusang makilahok,may sasagutan kang mga tanong

tungkol sa mga pang-akademyang karanasan mo sa paaralan at tahanan.

Magsasagawa ako ng mga panayam sa klase. Bilang karagdagan dito, oobserbahan

din kita ng 2 beses sa klase sa loob ng anim na linggong pagitan.

Ang oras na dapat mong ilaan para dito ay 40 minuto. Ang pangkatang panayam na

binabalak para sa walong (8) mag-aaral ng English Language at ang pangkat ng mag-

aaral ng “English-only” ay mangagaling lahat sa Vallejo High School.

Ang lahat ng mag-aaralna kusang makikilahok sa pag-aaral na ito ay dapat sa

VallejoHigh School pumasok ngunit sa iba’t-ibang klase magpapatala. Para

mapangalagaan ang mag-aaral, ang palayaw lang niya ang gagamitin.

Walang dapat ipangamba sa pagsali dito. Lahat ng impormasyon ay ilalagak sa ligtas

na lugar na walang ibang makakakita. Wala kang dapat bayaran maging ang iyong

pamilya sa pakikilahok mong ito.

Ang pagsali mo ay kusang loob.Pumayag na ang iyong mga magulang. Hindi

makakaapekto ng iyong marka ang di mo pagsali. Maari ka ring kumalas ano mang

oras.

Kung ikaw ay makikilahok, pakilagdaan mo ang ibaba.Maari akong tawagan ng

iyong mga magulang kung may mga katanungan sa pag-aaral na ito: Marcel

Maly,707-556-1700 Ext. 50606 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Dennis Sayers at 209-499-

2822, or my university at (209) 667-3784 or email [email protected].

Lubos na gumagalang,

Marcel Maly

Lagda ng Mag-aaral Petsa


240

APPENDIX R

FINAL CODE TREE/LIST

Theme Codes

STUDENT-CENTERED FACTORS

AFFECTING ADEMIC PERFORMANCE

OF ELLS

Academic achievement and self-

efficacy

Academic experiences in home

country

Academic experiences in the United

States

Academic support services

Influence of family

Influence of friends

Influence of teachers

Languages spoken at home

Mentoring

Networking

Opinion on school

School problems and violence

241

Value placed on education

SCHOOL-CENTERED FACTORS

AFFECTING ADEMIC PERFORMANCE

OF ELLS

Degrees and credentials

Differentiation of the lessons for ELLs

Expectations from parents of ELLs –

teachers’ perspective

Familiarity with the cultural

background of ELLs

Hardest thing about teaching ELLs

Lack of administrative support

Obstacles that hinder academic

performance of ELLs – teachers’

perspective

Opinion about ELLs

Opportunities to demonstrate the

mastery of content

Opportunities to use English in class

Participation in training workshops

Preparedness to teach ELLs

242

LEARNING ENGLISH Academic challenges at home

Academic challenges at school

Characteristics of a good student –

ELLs’ perspective

Importance of learning English –

ELLs’ perspective

Languages spoken at home

Languages spoken at school

Languages spoken with friends

OBSTACLES Lack of academic support services

Lack of English skills

Lack of money

Learning English

Obstacles to academic performance –

ELLs’ perspective

Obstacles to academic performance –

teachers’ perspective

Obstacles to getting ahead in the

United States – ELLs’ perspective

Obstacles to learning English – ELLs’

perspective

243

Undocumented status of ELLs

FUTURE PLANS Academic plans of ELLs

Occupational plans of ELLs

SIMILAR AND CONTRASTING FACTORS AFFECTING ACADEMIC ...

Documents

Transcript of SIMILAR AND CONTRASTING FACTORS AFFECTING ACADEMIC ...