• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Principals' ethical and social justice leadership in serving English language learners: English as a second language and Bilingual teachers' perceptions

Dissertation
Author: Teresa M. Carranza
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to examine ESL and Bilingual teachers' perceptions of principals' ethical and social justice leadership in promoting equity and achievement for English language learners in Wisconsin. Over 140 teachers responded to this mixed- methods survey. Findings from the study indicated that while teachers viewed their principals as caring and concerned about their students, they also described principals as lacking in knowledge about leading schools with English language learners. Some areas that were perceived negatively include principals' lack of cultural awareness, lack of support for bilingual instruction, and lack of knowledge of quality instruction for English language learners. Recommendations were made for requiring coursework related to English language learners as part of principal licensure.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Contextual Orientation .................................................................................................................... 2 Theoretical Model ....................................................................................................................... 5 Ethical Leadership Resulting In Social Justice For ELLS...................................................... 6 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 7 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................... 8 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 14 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 14 Legal Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 14 Federal Laws/Policies .......................................................................................................... 15 Wisconsin State Laws/Policies .............................................................................................. 18 Landmark Case Law ............................................................................................................. 20 Utilitarian Rationale .................................................................................................................. 23 Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 23 ELL Academic Achievement ................................................................................................. 26 Economic Impact of ELL Student Success ............................................................................ 31 Ethical Rationale ....................................................................................................................... 36 Social Justice Leadership and English Language Learners ................................................. 45 Teacher Perception Research ............................................................................................... 53 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 61 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 61 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 63 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 63 Sample....................................................................................................................................... 64

vii

Survey Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 65 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 67 Human Participants Review Board ........................................................................................... 67 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 69 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................... 69 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 69 Review of Purpose .................................................................................................................... 69 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 69 Review of Method..................................................................................................................... 70 Survey Instrument and Timeline ............................................................................................... 71 Overview of Sample Population ............................................................................................... 72 Response Rates...................................................................................................................... 72 Respondent Demographics ................................................................................................... 73 Principal Demographics ....................................................................................................... 77 Quantitative Question Results....................................................................................................... 79 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................... 79 Modes and Means ................................................................................................................. 80 Teacher Subgroups: Lowest Rated Items ................................................................................. 85 Teacher Subgroups: Highest Rated Items ................................................................................. 87 Principal Subgroups: Lowest Rated Items ................................................................................ 89 Principal Subgroups: Highest Rated Items ............................................................................... 91 Programmatic Subgroups: Lowest Rated Items ........................................................................ 92 Programmatic Subgroups: Highest Rated Items ....................................................................... 94 Summed Frequency Categories ................................................................................................ 95 Most Positively Rated Questions ............................................................................................ 106 Qualitative Results ...................................................................................................................... 109 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 111 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................... 112 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 112 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 112 Relationship Between Studies................................................................................................. 113 Discussion of Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................ 117 Positive Results ................................................................................................................... 118

viii

Negative Results .................................................................................................................. 121 Research Implications and Recommendations ....................................................................... 130 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 135 Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 137 Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 138 References ................................................................................................................................... 142 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 150 Questionaire of Ethical and Social Justice Principal Leadership of ELL Programs ............... 150 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 153 Letter to Survey Respondents ................................................................................................. 153 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 154 Human Participants Research Approval: Review Board ........................................................ 154

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page

Table 1 2007 WKCE Limited English Proficient and English Proficient Student Achievement…………………………………………………………………….

28 Table 2 2007 Wisconsin Student Habitual Truancy Rate Summary……………………. 30 Table 3 2007 Wisconsin Student Dropout Rate Summary…………………………….... 31 Table 4 Extra Lifetime Total Tax Payments Per Expected High School Graduate……... 32 Table 5 Extra Lifetime Public Health Savings per Expected High School Graduate…… 33 Table 6 Extra Lifetime Public Economic Benefit per Expected High School Graduate…………………………………………………………………………

34 Table 7 Extra Lifetime Economic Benefits: Expected High School Graduates in Wisconsin………………………………………………………………………..

35 Table 8 Survey Question Alignment to Main Research Questions and Ancillary Questions………………………………………………………………………..

66 Table 9 All Respondents Results Questions 9-27: Modes and Means………………...... 81 Table 10 All Respondents Results Questions 9-27: Mode-Mean Pairs, Lowest to Highest Values…………………………………………………………..............

82 Table 11 Teacher Subgroups (Membership ≥ 15): Question Results: Modes and Means <3 Ranked by Mean (Lowest to Highest ……………………………………….

85 Table 12 Teacher Subgroups (Membership ≥ 15): Question Results: Modes and Means ≥ 3 Ranked by Mean (Highest to Lowest)………………………………………

87 Table 13 Principal Subgroups (Membership ≥15): Question Results With Modes and Means <3 Ranked by Mean (Lowest to Highest)……….....................................

90 Table 14 Principal Subgroups (Membership ≥15): Question Results With Modes and Means ≥ 3 Ranked by Mean (Highest to Lowest)……………………………...

91 Table 15 Programmatic Subgroups (Membership ≥ 15): Question Results With Modes < 3 (Ranked by Mean Lowest to Highest)…………………………………….......

93 Table 16 Programmatic Subgroups (Membership ≥ 15): Question Results With Modes and Means ≥ 3 (Highest to Lowest)………………………………. ………….....

94 Table 17 Highest To Lowest General Disagreement Frequency: Questions 9-27………...

98 Table 18 Highest To Lowest General Agreement Frequency: Questions 9-27…………..

99 Table 19 Lowest Rated Questions Across All Subgroups: Mode and Means < 3………... 102

x

Table

List of Table (Continued)

Title

Table

Page

Table 20 Highest Rated Questions Across All Subgroups: Modes and Means ≥ 3……….

106 Table 21 Negative Themes Most Frequently Mentioned………………………………… 110 Table 22 Positive Themes Most Frequently Mentioned………………………………….. 111 Table 23 Brown, Irby, &Yang Study (2008) and Carranza Study (2010) Frequency Comparisons ……………………………………………………………………

114 Table 24 Wisconsin Public Higher Education Institutions-Administrator and Teacher Certification Programs: ELL Course Requirement……………………………..

131 Table 25 Wisconsin Private Higher Education Institutions-Administrator and Teacher Certification Programs: ELL Course Requirement…………………………….

133

xi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page

Figure 1 Theoretical Model………………………………………………………........ 6

Figure 2 Wisconsin Limited English proficient Student Enrollment Growth 1995-2006……………………………………………………………………..

25 Figure 3 Links Between Ethics, Leadership Practice, and Social Justice in Schools.... 44 Figure 4 Mixed Methods: Concurrent Triangulation Strategy………………………... 62

Figure 5 Participant’s Race/Ethnicity…………………………………………………. 73

Figure 6 Participant’s Gender………………………………………………………….. 74

Figure 7 Participant’s Fluency in Languages Other Than English ……………………. 75

Figure 8 Participant’s ELL-Related Certification Status………………………………. 76

Figure 9 Reported Race/Ethnicity of Principals ……………………………………….. 77

Figure 10 Principals’ Fluency in Languages Other Than English ………………………

78 Figure 11 Individual Question Survey Results by Levels of Agreement and Disagreement………………………………………………………………….

96 Figure 12 Research Studies Comparisons……………………………………………… 116

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was made flesh. It was so in the beginning and it is so today. The language, the Word, carries within it the history, the culture, the traditions, the very life of a people, the flesh. Language is people. We cannot even conceive of a people without a language, or a language without a people. The two are one and the same. To know one is to know the other.” Sabine R. Ulibarri (1964) El Alma de la Raza, Ch. 3, “Language and Culture”

One of the primary responsibilities of each state is to provide a sound and basic education for all children of school age, including students who are linguistically and culturally diverse (U.S Department of Education; Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations, Chapter 115; Boals, 2005). This responsibility is further clarified through several federal statutes (1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VI; 1974 Equal Educational Opportunities Act; 2001 No Child Left Behind Act). In addition, within Wisconsin, under specifically defined circumstances, linguistically diverse students who are limited in their ability to speak, understand, read, and write in English have an additional statutory right to bilingual instruction (Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1968). As Wisconsin’s Bilingual–Bicultural Statute does not specify the design and/or quality of such programs, it is critical that school principals, in their day-to-day implementation of these requirements breathe life into the educational opportunity such programs provide. It is the principal who must ethically and effectively provide instructional leadership at the building level.

2

PURPOSE The purpose of this mixed- methods study was to examine English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual teachers’ perceptions of principals’ ethical and social justice leadership in promoting equity and achievement for English language learners in Wisconsin. As well, through this work, from an advocacy perspective, a parallel purpose was to positively impact bilingual educational opportunities and achievement for English language learners (ELLs). There has been limited research into principal leadership related to English language learners from the perspective of ESL and bilingual teachers. Work done by Genevieve Brown, Beverly Irby, and LingLing Yang (2008) who studied teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership related to ethics and social justice, in serving ELLs in schools in Eastern Texas (Brown et al,) , provided a an initial foundation for this study. Contextual Orientation

Nationally and locally, the number of English Language Learners continues to grow. In a 2007 report from the PEW Hispanic Center, (Passel, 2007) authors estimated that the population of school-age children who have immigrant parents and are likely to need ELL services is projected to increase from 12 million in 2005 to 14 million in 2010. National census data (2000) confirms that children of immigrants make up 20% of all students in grades K–12. In the 2008 Wisconsin Limited English Proficient (LEP) student census, 5% of all K-12 students in Wisconsin were identified as LEP (Sanabria, 2008). The following school district’s enrollments demonstrate the potential significance of the LEP population in Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public schools report 8% LEP enrollment; Madison Metropolitan School District reports 17% LEP enrollment; Green Bay Area Schools report 15% LEP enrollment, and Sheboygan reports 22%

3

LEP enrollment. Given these trends, it is essential that educational leaders carefully examine the impact of school leadership on linguistically and culturally diverse student achievement and develop the skills necessary to meet the educational needs of the present and future students in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, under the Wisconsin Quality Educator Initiative (PI 34), administrators are recommended for licensure based on their knowledge of, and ability to, demonstrate competency in 7 administrative standards. Two of these standards in particular, standards 6 and 7, have significance when related to bilingual education. Wisconsin administrative licensing standard 6, states that, “The administrator acts with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.” The knowledge, dispositions, and performances that fall under this standard include, fulfilling legal and contractual obligations, applying laws and procedures fairly, wisely, and considerately, bringing ethical principles to the decision-making process and demonstrating appreciation for and sensitivity to the diversity in the school community (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, PI-34, 2004). Wisconsin administrative licensing standard 7, states that, “The administrator understands, responds to, and interacts with the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context that affects schooling.” The knowledge, dispositions, and performances that fall under this standard include, but are not limited to, working within the framework of policies, laws, and regulations enacted by local, state, and federal authorities and shaping public policy to provide quality education for all students (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Educator Licensing Standards: Administrators, 2004). Most would agree that principals must promote equitable educational opportunities and social justice for linguistically and culturally diverse students through every action and responsibility they exercise, because it is ethical to do so, not simply to meet their licensing

4

requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, the selection and supervision of staff, the acquisition of quality curriculum and instructional materials, and the creation and nurturance of a school climate that is responsive to diversity in all its forms. This must be accomplished through informed leadership leading to a more socially just community. Leading for social justice is becoming a very popular term in educational leadership discourse. For the purpose of this study, the researcher defined educational social justice for ELLs as an education which requires that leaders (a) provide high quality, research-based educational opportunities that maintain and further develop English language learners’ home languages; (b) raise the academic achievement of ELLs in their

schools to a level which meets or surpasses state proficiency levels as measured on state achievement tests; (c) prepare

ELLs to live as empowered citizens in their communities; (d) advocate for inclusive bilingual classrooms that provide

all students access to a rich and engaging curriculum; and (e) involve ELL s’ parents as decision-makers and partners in their children’s lives. Well-respected researchers and authors such as McKenzie et al. (2008) and Theoharis (2008) as well as others write about social justice leadership and propose that administrative preparation programs begin to prepare leaders to lead with these goals at the forefront of their efforts: (a) They

must raise the academic achievement of all the students in their

school, that is, high test scores do matter; (b) they must prepare

their students to live as critical citizens in society; and

(c) both of these goals can only be achieved when leaders assign

students to inclusive, heterogeneous classrooms that provide

all students access to a rich and engaging curriculum. (McKenzie et al., p.1)

5

Theoretical Model

While the rationale for the education of a populace may seem to be inherently obvious, historically, an equitable education for some groups of children has nonetheless been called into question (Gordon, Keleher, & Piana, 2000). This lack of equity has resulted in a socially unjust educational experience for marginalized groups of students (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Kozol, 1991; Apple, 2006). The contextual framework from which this research took place is one that viewed three essential rationales for the equitable education of linguistically and culturally diverse students in Wisconsin. The first, a legal rationale was based on federal and state statutory requirements as well as landmark case law in this area (Boals, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2009; Wisconsin Bilingual/Bicultural State Statute, Chapter 115, 2009). The second rationale was one of utility, which was supported by both demographic data and economic impact data related to linguistic minorities in Wisconsin (Boals). Finally the third rationale, related to the first two, and the most relevant to this research, was the ethical rationale- the basis from which school principals do or do not make ethical and socially just decisions about the equitable education of linguistically diverse children in the schools they lead (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, PI-34, 2004; Begley & Johansson, 2003; Shapiro & Gross, 2008). Figure 1 illustrates this model.

6

Figure 1. Theoretical Model ________________________________________________ Ethical Leadership Resulting In Social Justice For ELLS

______________________________________________________________________________ The theoretical model (Figure 1) describes both the research foundation and processes which guided this study from its beginning through conclusions and recommendations. The primary impetus for this study was to call attention to the need for educational equity for ELLs, supported by legal, utilitarian and ethical rationales. By surveying ESL and bilingual teachers about their perceptions of their principals’ ELL related leadership and analyzing these findings, Ethical Rationale

Legal Rationale

Utilitarian Rationale

Educational Equity English Language Learners ESL/Bilingual Teachers’ Perceptions

Mixed Methods Survey

WI School Administrator Standards

Perceptions Principals’ ethical leadership in promoting social justice, equity and achievement for English language learners in Wisconsin. Compare results with similar research in Texas Compare results with administrator behaviors in quality bilingual programs research

Analysis and Recommendations for Wisconsin Administrators

Provide Feedback and Insight

7

the researcher gained insight into current practices, drew conclusions and offered potential recommendations. Research Questions

The central question of this study was, “What are English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual teachers’ perceptions of principals’ ethical and social justice leadership in promoting equity and achievement for English language learners in Wisconsin?” Ancillary questions included: 1. Is there a difference in ESL and bilingual teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ ethical and social justice leadership related to ELLs? 2. Does the race/ethnicity of the ESL and Bilingual teachers and/or the principals relate to the teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ ethical and social justice leadership for ELLs? 3. Do the linguistic skills of the principals relate to ESL and Bilingual teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ ethical and social justice leadership for ELLs? 4. Which ethical framework(s) do teachers use to explain the ethical and social justice leadership of their principals (critique, justice, care, profession, and community)? 5. Do teachers relate ethical and social justice leadership of programs for ELLs to the use of home language as an instructional tool (bilingual instruction)? 6. Do teachers relate ethical and social justice leadership of programs for ELLs to the inclusion of ELLs in mainstream English classrooms?

8

Definition of Terms

The terms used in this study are given the following definitions: AMAO Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives; Annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) are three benchmarks that are established (annually) to measure and report on progress toward and attainment of English proficiency and academic achievement standards. They are designed to hold school districts accountable for meeting Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) targets for English language proficiency (ELP) for their ELLs over time (NCLB, 2002). In Wisconsin, ELLs’ English proficiency progress is measured using the state mandated assessment ACCESS for ELLs. Three specific AMAO target areas have been established under NCLB and include: AMAO 1: Progressing in English language acquisition requiring annual increases in the number or percentage of students making progress in learning English AMAO 2: Exiting or reaching English language proficiency requiring annual increases in the number or percentage of students attaining English language proficiency by the end of each school year AMAO 3: ELL-Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Annual yearly progress (AYP) for the ELL subgroup (under Title I) in meeting grade- level academic achievement standards in English Language Arts (Reading) and Mathematics. (WI DPI, 2010)

9

AYP: Annual Yearly Progress: State and federal laws require the annual monitoring of school performance and student academic achievement. Each year, based on No Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), all Wisconsin public schools and districts must meet the state’s four Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives. The 2008-2010 AYP objectives include: 1. Graduation or Attendance — Elementary and middle schools must have an attendance rate of at least 85% or show growth over the prior year. High schools that graduate students must have graduation rates of at least 80% or show growth over the prior year. 2. Test Participation — 95% of all students enrolled in the tested grade(s) during the testing window must participate in the Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS), which includes the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations (WKCE) and the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD). 3. Reading — A school or district must achieve a proficiency index of 74%. 4. Mathematics — A school or district must achieve a proficiency index of 58% (WI DPI, 2009) Bilingual Education: The use of two languages, the student’s first language and a second language for instruction

10

Culture:

The sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another. Culture is transmitted, through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, and art, from one generation to the next (The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, 2005).

ELL: English Language Learner: An ELL is a student whose first language is not English and who is in the process of learning English. ESL: English as a Second Language: Programs, methodology and curriculum designed to teach ELL students English language skills, including listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Instruction is in English with limited use of first language support. Ethical School Leadership: Conscious, internal integrity which results in policies and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to treat people with the dignity and respect they are due as valuable human beings and members of our communities. In addition, in school settings, this can be further clarified by Standard 5 of the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) 2008 as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Standard 5 states, An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. These include:

11

1. Ensuring a system of accountability for every student’s academic and social success, 2. Modeling principles of self-awareness, reflective practice, transparency, and ethical behavior, 3. Safeguarding the values of democracy, equity, and diversity 4. Considering and evaluating the potential moral and legal consequences of decision-making, and 5. Promoting social justice and ensuring that individual student needs inform all aspects of schooling. (CCSSO, 2008) Educational Social Justice Leadership for ELLs: Educational Social Justice Leadership for ELLs requires that leaders (a) Provide high quality, research-based educational opportunities that maintain and further develop ELLs’ home languages (Churchill, 1986; Corson, 1993, 2001; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002); (b) raise the academic achievement of ELLs in their

schools to a level which meets or surpasses state proficiency levels as measured on state achievement tests (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2009; Wisconsin Department of Public instruction, 2009); (c) Prepare

ELLs to live as empowered citizens in their communities (Apple, 2006; Freire,1970; Levin, 2008); (d) advocate for inclusive bilingual classrooms that provide

all students access to a rich and engaging curriculum (Capper & Frattura, 2007; Irby & Brown, 2002;Theoharis, 2008); and (e) involve ELLs’ parents as decision-makers and partners in their children’s lives (Furman, 2003; Polnick, Edmonson & Fisher, 2003;

12

Shapiro & Gross, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2009; Wisconsin Department of Public instruction, 2009). Home Language: The language(s) spoken regularly or most often in the home by significant others (e.g., family members, caregivers). Language Proficiency: The level of competence at which an individual is able to use language for basic communicative tasks and academic purposes; includes the domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing. LEP: Limited English Proficient: In Wisconsin this is statutorily identified as students whose ACCESS for ELLs English proficiency composite scores fall within the range of 1-5. A level of 6 is determined to be fully English proficient, while a level 7 is assigned to students whose only home language is English. (WI DPI, Bulletin 07.01, 2009) Linguistic Minority: An individual whose home language or primary language is a language other than the majority language (English in the U.S.). Significance of the Study

As mentioned previously, there exists a legal or statutory rationale, a utilitarian rationale, and an ethical rationale for ethical and socially just leadership of quality ELL (ESL and bilingual) programs by school principals. In particular, given the current political environment, which is charged with immigration related rhetoric and English-only movements, it is critical that school principals make decisions from an informed ethical, socially just framework.

13

To make informed decisions, educational leaders need to ensure that ELL students benefit from what research indicates is most effective (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm- Leary, 2005). The ethic of critique demands no less (Starratt, 1991; 2003; 2004). Using the ethic of justice (Starratt, 1991; 2003; 2004) as a framework for decision making about what is statutorily and legally required; and what Noddings (2005) and Zimmerman (2000) would say honors students’ cultural backgrounds and identities is also part of socially just leadership. Through the ethic of community (Furman, 2003) school leaders are able to meet personal and professional obligations (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005) to ELL students and successfully navigate communities that at times are politically polarized. As mentioned previously, there has been and will continue to be significant demographic changes in public school populations. Given this change, school leaders can only benefit by gathering data from those who daily act as cultural brokers and institutional translators for ELL students and their families. Learning from ESL and bilingual teachers' perceptions provided information that principals can use to become more effective, impacting ELL student achievement, and improving the morale/working conditions of ESL and bilingual teachers, who are in short supply. Finally, this research provided information that has the potential to improve principal preparation programs, resulting in more socially just leaders for our schools.

14

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

As mentioned in chapter one, the contextual framework from which this research took place was one that viewed three essential rationales for the equitable education of linguistically and culturally diverse students in Wisconsin. The first, a legal rationale, was based on federal and state statutory requirements as well as landmark case law in this area and is discussed in the initial section of the literature review. Following this is an overview of literature related to the second rationale, utility, which is supported by demographic data, ELL achievement data, and economic impact data related to the education of linguistic minorities. A literature review of pertinent research related to the third rationale, the ethical and social justice rationale, follows and forms the basis from which this research developed. Finally this chapter ends with a review of teacher perception research methods, which guided methodological decision-making for the study conducted by the researcher. Legal Rationale

One of the expectations of all school principals as they develop programs, hire staff and, lead their schools is compliance with both federal and state statutes for serving students with limited English proficiency (LEP). To do this, it is necessary that principals consider both federal and state statutory requirements as well as related landmark case law. As leaders, knowledge of these laws and the implementation of the requirements that address the needs of English language

15

Federal Laws/Policies

Perhaps the most basic of laws that influences if and how we educate English language learners (and all students) is the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution that states, “. . . No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S.Const.amend.XIV, §1.) While the U.S. Constitution may provide a mandate that all people be protected equally under the law, we know from a historical perspective that this has not always been the case. Over the past 141 years additional laws were needed (with impetus from litigation), as well as clarification of current laws (through litigation and judicial rulings) to ensure that all people, including women, children, diverse races, etc. were equally protected under the constitution. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), states that “. . . No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Title VI established the mandate forbidding states and public schools from denying students their right of access on the basis of race, national origin, alien status, and gender. Title VI specifically relates to the education of ELLs because through litigation, the courts have established a relationship between national origin and limited English proficiency. Due no doubt to the momentum of the civil rights movement, as well as an increase in immigration during the 1960s, the federal government moved forward to provide federal funding to encourage local school districts to try approaches incorporating native-language instruction, enacting the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. The bill was introduced in 1967 with the purpose of providing school districts with federal funds to establish educational programs for students

Full document contains 166 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine ESL and Bilingual teachers' perceptions of principals' ethical and social justice leadership in promoting equity and achievement for English language learners in Wisconsin. Over 140 teachers responded to this mixed- methods survey. Findings from the study indicated that while teachers viewed their principals as caring and concerned about their students, they also described principals as lacking in knowledge about leading schools with English language learners. Some areas that were perceived negatively include principals' lack of cultural awareness, lack of support for bilingual instruction, and lack of knowledge of quality instruction for English language learners. Recommendations were made for requiring coursework related to English language learners as part of principal licensure.