(T6D)School’s family engagement plan/EL Technology

PLEASE SEND THEM BACK ON SEPARATE PAGES in the same document……..

QUESTION 1(PAGE ONE 250 WORDS)

Describe an example of a school’s family engagement plan, whether formal or informal, specific to working with families of ELLs. What do you think will work well? What suggestions do you have to improve this plan?

QUESTION 2(PAGE TWO 250 WORDS)

What should be considered in the selection and use of technology for ELLs? Justify your responses with research.

POSSIBLE RESOURCES:

-Read “Creating and Sustaining Inclusive Instructional Settings for English Language Learners: Why, What, and How,” by Lopez and Iribarren, from Theory Into Practice (2014).(ATTACHED)

-Read “Teacher Leadership to Support English Language Learners,” by Russell and Von Esch from The Phi Delta Kappan (2018).(ATTACHED)

-Read “Discouraging Partnerships? Teachers’ Perspectives on Immigration-Related Barriers to Family-School Collaboration,” by Soutullo, Smith-Bonahue, Sanders-Smith, and Navia, from School Psychology Quarterly (2016).

(ATTACHED)

Theory Into Practice, 53:106–114, 2014
Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2014.885810
Francesca López
Jacqueline Iribarren
Creating and Sustaining Inclusive
Instructional Settings for English
Language Learners: Why, What,
and How
In this article, we provide an empirically based
framework for school leaders to support the
replacement of separate means of providing services for English learners (ELs) with more inclusive learning supports. The framework encompasses evidence on cultivating language proficiency, ensuring access to a high-quality curriculum, and promoting socio-cultural integration.
To illustrate the ways that research has informed practice to better meet the needs of ELs, we also present initiatives by the Wisconsin Department Francesca López is an associate professor at The University of Arizona and Jacqueline Iribarren is with
the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Correspondence should be addressed to Francesca
López, Educational Psychology, College of Education,
The University of Arizona, 1430 E. Second Street,
P.O. Box 20069, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail: falopez@
email.arizona.edu.
of Public Instruction that have helped propel a
vision of equity and diversity at both the school
and district level. We conclude by providing addi-
tional resources that leaders can use to promote
the professional growth of the school.
DESPITE A LONG HISTORY of education
reform efforts, culturally and linguistically
diverse students remain among the most
marginalized in schools. Among them, English
learners (ELs) are significantly less likely than
other students to score at or above a basic
level of achievement regardless of the subject
(Fry, 2007). ELs are also less likely to have
access to high-quality teachers, resources, and
assessments that are appropriate (Alemán, 2007;
Gandara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Calla-
106
López and Iribarren Inclusive Instructional Settings for English Language Learners
han, 2003). Indeed, the language assessments
commonly used with ELs are suspected to incorrectly
identify language abilities (MacSwan
& Rolstad, 2006), which contributes to ELs
being overrepresented in special education (Artiles,
2003; Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda,
2005). Exacerbating the issues of inequitable
access to education for ELs is the fact that this
population is growing at dramatically faster rates
than in recent history (García & Frede, 2010),
whereas teacher training to ensure that ELs have
access to an equitable education is pervasively
lacking and outdated (Ballantyne, Sanderman, &
Levy, 2008).
Although many obstacles limit ELs’ access
to equitable educational opportunities, there is
a large body of evidence indicating that school
leaders can make an impact on student achievement.
Indeed, school leaders are often the vanguards
of promoting inclusive environments,
given their capacity to modify organizational
structures and build the capacity of the school by
fostering professional growth (Boscardin, 2005;
Drago-Severson, 2007; Hallinger & Heck, 1998;
Waters & Grubb, 2004). For example, pullout
practices and the teaching of English language
as a separate subject hinder continuous learning
(Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012). In contrast, when
leaders promote inclusive learning environments
that replace traditional means of providing services
(which tend to sustain the segregation and
marginalization of ELs), student achievement is
enhanced (Scanlan & López, 2012). ELs are
more likely to succeed in inclusive contexts that
include coteaching strategies in heterogeneous
general education classrooms.
In this article, we provide an empirically
based framework for school leaders to support
the replacement of separate means of providing
services for ELs with more inclusive learning
supports. To illustrate the ways that research has
informed practice to better meet the needs of
ELs, we also present initiatives by the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction that have helped
propel a vision of equity and diversity at both
the school and district level. We conclude by
providing additional resources leaders can use to
promote the professional growth of the school.
Effective School Communities for ELs
Brisk (2006) identified three domains characterizing
school communities that effectively
educate ELs by promoting inclusive learning environments:
(a) cultivating language proficiency
to academic grade level; (b) ensuring access to
high-quality curriculum within effective teaching
and learning environments; and (c) promoting the
sociocultural integration of all students. Using
Brisk’s (2006) domains as a theoretical framework,
Scanlan and López (2012) conducted a narrative
synthesis of the body of empirical research
and identified specific evidence pointing toward
ways leaders can ensure each of the domains are
met. Here, we summarize their findings for each
of the domains.
Cultivating Language Proficiency
The first way school leaders can create equitable
educational opportunities for ELs is by
ensuring that their schools cultivate language
proficiency (Brisk, 2006). Although there are
numerous language model programs from which
to choose (e.g., Structured English Immersion,
bilingual education, dual language), school leaders
are often limited by state requirements that
specify the kinds of language model programs
that are allowed, which are in turn also limited by
criteria that must be met by schools and districts.
For example, bilingual education is mandated
in Wisconsin—but only once a threshold of
20 students sharing the same native language
within a school is met (see López, McEneaney,
Nieswandt, & Geronime, 2012). Regardless of
the language instruction model programs supported
by each state,1 however, all share the
goal of developing proficiency in English. Contrary
to what some believe, only two of the
programs have the additional goal of developing
proficiency in a language other than English:
developmental bilingual and two-way immersion
(see Scanlan & López, 2012). Even in states
with policies that prohibit the use of bilingual
language instruction models, two-way immersion
programs exist (see Combs, Evans, Fletcher,
Parra, & Jiménez, 2005). This highlights the
107
Inclusive Schooling and Leadership for Social Justice
degree to which school leaders can play a central
role in shaping programs, policies, and school
climate.
One way empirical research guides school
leaders to ensure that ELs develop language proficiency
is the overwhelming evidence in favor of
practices that view students’ native language as
an asset rather than a deficiency (see Scanlan &
López, 2012). When instructional practices build
upon students’ native language while promoting
the development of both English language proficiency
and content knowledge, ELs not only
acquire English, but do so more effectively than
when their native language is not integrated into
instruction (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005;
Slavin & Cheung, 2005). Content that is taught
in students’ native language not only promotes
more equitable opportunities to learn content,
but has also been shown to transfer to English
(MacSwan & Rolstad, 2005).Moreover, ELs tend
to have stronger beliefs regarding their academic
abilities (one of the strongest predictors of future
performance) in settings where their native
language is considered an asset when compared
to their EL counterparts in settings where their
language is considered a deficiency (i.e., Englishonly
settings; see López, 2010). As such, it is
imperative for school leaders not only to be
more aware of the research supporting additive
contexts, but also to be more forceful in the
approach they choose for ELs to acquire English.
Although the optimal way to cultivate language
proficiency is via language instruction
models that promote bilingualism, in many
school settings this is not a feasible option.
Nevertheless, even in schools where a myriad
of languages are represented or where there is
a paucity of teachers who are qualified to teach
in bilingual settings, school leaders have the
capacity to promote English proficiency while
still affirming bilingualism. For example, monolingual
approaches such as sheltered instruction
and content-based English as a second language
(ESL) strategies maximize use of English in the
classroom and scaffold linguistic and content
development through various types of support
(Gandara et al., 2003; Ovando, 2003; Slavin &
Cheung, 2005;Wright, 2010), but do not prohibit
the use of students’ native language. Here, we
are not referring to the more prevalent pullout
ESL strategies that remove students from their
classroom to provide them with focused English
instruction in a small group setting (Wright,
2010). Rather, we refer to content-based ESL
strategies that support ELs as they learn both
content and English by, for example, “engaging
students in purposeful activities, ensure that
students experience multiple examples of language
in use, and call students’ attention to the
ways in which language is used to communicate
meaning” (Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2012). Thus,
approaches that view students’ native languages
as scaffolding tools are but one example of many
ways school leaders can promote inclusivity in
settings that are not conducive to bilingualism as
an instructional model.
Ensuring Access to High Quality
Curriculum
To create equitable learning environments for
ELs, it is imperative that school leaders look
beyond the acquisition of English alone (Gándara
& Rumberger, 2009). Thus, attending to
Brisk’s (2006) second criteria, empirical research
suggests that school leaders must ensure that all
students have access to high quality curriculum,
which in turn requires that all teachers foster
their pedagogical skills in developing students’
content knowledge, as well as their language
skills (Scanlan & López, 2012). That is, research
points toward evidence that teachers must not
only understand language development for ELs
in general, but also have knowledge about supporting
the specific vocabulary that is unique in
their content areas (Janzen, 2008).
For ELs to be successfully integrated, school
leaders must create contexts that promote teachers’
acceptance of the responsibility for teaching
language in each content area. In mathematics,
for example, it has been found that
even when teachers had limited fluency in both
students’ native language and bilingual methodologies,
they can still be successful scaffolding
students’ meaning-making in content areas
(Gutierrez, 2002). In these settings, teachers used
content language explicitly, used students’ prior
knowledge to build on mathematical knowledge,
108
López and Iribarren Inclusive Instructional Settings for English Language Learners
and valued students’ native language as a resource
that could be used by students—thus
creating contexts where “individual students were
active agents in the classroom” (Gutierriez, 2002,
p. 1079). In settings such as these, teachers
promote the integration of ELs into the broader
school context.
Promoting Sociocultural Integration
The final component that is necessary to ensure
equitable education for ELs is to ensure the
sociocultural integration of all students (Brisk,
2006). Researchers have found that students’
sense of belonging is a critical factor contributing
to educational success in any subject (Osterman,
2000). Namely, in consideration that self-efficacy
is among the most robust predictors of academic
achievement and that creating a sense of
belonging improves self-efficacy across subjects
(McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2009), school
leaders who promote sociocultural integration
are, in essence, improving the likelihood that a
high quality curriculum is accessed successfully
by all students.
One way that leaders can promote inclusive
classroom environments for ELs is by ensuring
that teachers provide instructional activities that
place importance on students’ lives and interests
(Antrop-Gonzalez, Velez, & Garrett, 2005).
Teachers who provide students with authorship
opportunities that allow for self-expression, for
example can create educational experiences that
bridge the perceived disconnect between some
students’ personal lives and school (Bernhard
et al., 2006). Another way leaders can foster
a sense of belonging is by creating school experiences
that bridge students’ home lives with
their school lives (Gonzalez, Rosi, Civil, & Moll,
2001). Partnerships between home and school
are particularly important to create these environments,
given that there is often a disconnect
between academic practices and their applicability
to students’ lives (Lee & Luykx, 2005;
Orellana & Reynolds, 2008; Ro & Cheatham,
2009).
School leaders play a key role in assessing and
shaping the cultural competence within a school
community to cultivate belonging across these
dimensions. Unfortunately, a barrier to fostering
the sociocultural integration of all students is the
limited knowledge and skills of school leaders in
fostering cultural competence across the school
community. A study by Bustamente, Nelson,
and Onwuegbuzie (2009) suggested that “school
leaders did not view cultural competence development
as an essential leadership function, nor
did they believe it was important” (p. 814). Specific
tools, including cultural audits (Bustamante
et al., 2009) and equity audits2 (Johnson & La
Salle, 2010;McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004; Skrla,
Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004), however, can
help school leaders attend to inequities that ELs
experience in their schools.
Another way school leaders can create inclusive
school environments is by promoting culturally
responsive instruction in their schools. Culturally
responsive instruction addresses the needs
of all students, affirms each student’s cultural
identity, and draws upon students’ backgrounds
as an asset. Culturally responsive instruction also
entails being mindful that certain pedagogical
approaches privilege linguistic heritage and background
knowledge and that one must provide appropriate
variation in approaches and scaffolding
to students (Parks, 2010; Pawan, 2008). To create
a culturally responsive environment, leaders must
ensure teachers incorporate instruction that gives
linguistically and culturally diverse students the
kind of knowledge that can ameliorate issues
with access and power that perpetuate inequalities
among ELs (Gandara et al., 2003; Mora,
Wink, & Wink, 2001). School leaders facilitate
culturally responsive settings by attending to the
structure (e.g., the curriculum, instruction, and
assessment) and service delivery (e.g., building
professional capacity of teachers and staff as well
as cultivating strong school/community relations;
Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton,
2010).
Initiatives That Bridge Research With
Practice: A Vision of Equity
and Diversity
Efforts aimed at cultivating language proficiency
to academic grade level and ensuring
109
Inclusive Schooling and Leadership for Social Justice
access to high-quality curriculum are, in part, met
with the kinds of initiatives and support structures
that are arguably found in most school settings.
For ELs to access the curriculum, however, much
more than practices associated with good teach-
ing is necessary (de Jong & Harper, 2005).
The initiatives we detail in the following
sections all stem from the Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction. In Wisconsin, schools
within a school district are required to design a
program, prepare a formal plan of services, and
staff respective classrooms with licensed bilingual
teachers when there are at least 10 ELs who
share the same native language in grades K–3, or
20 in Grades 4 and higher, within a single school
building (Wisconsin Revised Statutes, 2002). Our
first example, however, highlights a partnership
formed between local universities and a group
of parochial school leaders that, although not
required to adhere to the statute, sought to find
ways to ensure that they could meet the needs of
ELs.
Meeting the Needs of ELs in
Parochial Schools: Efforts Facilitated by
School Leaders
The successful completion of secondary
school for Latino youth in many local parochial
schools in the state is challenged by the limited
background that many teachers have regarding
best practices for ELs. In part, this is due to the
fact that the parochial schools were traditionally
self-supported and did not have a substantive
number of ELs; however, a voucher system (see
Cowen, Fleming, Witte, & Wolf, 2012) contributed
to marked changes in school demographics,
which included a surge in the enrollment of
EL Latino students. In response to the expressed
need in providing training and support to teachers
who had not had prior experience working with
ELs by school leaders, a consortium was formed
to provide academic resources and professional
expertise from five local universities. The consortium
has established a network among scholars
in the various participating universities, who
collectively provide professional development to
school leaders and teachers on a regular basis so
that the schools are better able to address all three
components of the theoretical framework. As
such, training in language development, differentiation
of instruction, and culturally responsive
teaching practices are part of an ongoing effort to
ensure teachers and leaders have the information
necessary to ensure the success of their students.
Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction: Initiatives to Create
Inclusive Settings
Our next example highlights initiatives directed
by the Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction that also address the three components
of the theoretical framework, but with a
markedly different focus. Given that districts and
schools in WI must adhere to the statute that
explicitly recognizes the use of native language
as a scaffold for ELs, the growth in the EL
population has contributed to an increase in
the demand for bilingual teachers across the
state. This, in turn, has prompted many teacher
preparation programs to add bilingual licensure
to their existing licensure programs. There is also
a growing proliferation of Dual Language Immersion
(DLI) programs in the state, particularly
in the larger urban settings with large numbers
of Latino students. Notably, the growth of DLI
programs underscores the support for language
cultivation and maintenance in the state.
Although the use of native language is one
way to sustain inclusive strategies for ELs, the
ongoing battle for many schools is to ensure that
ELs have access to a high-quality curriculum at
the classroom level when the threshold for the
minimum number of students is not met (and DLI
is not available). As addressed earlier, traditional
pullout ESL models have caused fragmentation
and reduced classroom learning opportunities for
these students. Moreover, the typical classroom
discourse has not paid attention to the particular
needs of students learning both English and content,
thereby limiting accessibility to instructional
content for ELs in mainstream classrooms.
To encourage access to high quality curriculum
for all students, the Wisconsin Department
110
López and Iribarren Inclusive Instructional Settings for English Language Learners
of Public Instruction established a statewide Response
to Intervention (RtI)3 initiative to address
achievement disparities. The state’s disaggregated
student level data revealed a significant academic
achievement gap between White students
and other student groups—gaps that were among
the worst in the country. In fact, results from
the 2007 National Assessment of Educational
Progress placed the state as the only one with
an achievement gap between White and Black
students that was larger than the national average
in fourth and eighth grades for both mathematics
and reading achievement. Given this harsh reality,
the state agency responded to their long-standing
educational inequities by investing in the implementation
of RtI across the state to give all
students a chance to succeed both academically
and behaviorally. Although other states also use
RtI, the state’s RtI framework is unique in that it
places culturally relevant practices at the center
of the three main dimensions of this studentcentered
support system: high quality instruction,
balanced assessment system, and collaboration.
One major outgrowth of the states’ commitment
to closing the achievement gap and increasing
success for all students was the creation of
the state’s RtI Center. The core mission of the
center is to help districts through the phases
of implementation, sustaining the framework,
providing high-quality professional development,
and providing technical assistance to districts
across the state.
Our last example shows ways school leaders
can meet the third component of Brisk’s
(2006) framework: promoting the sociocultural
integration of all students. This example highlights
the efforts of the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction that used a statewide initiative
to address the achievement gap of students of
color. As part of the initiative, the state hired
a consulting group from the West Coast, the
Pacific Educational Group (PEG). PEG offers
Beyond Diversity training, which is aimed at
promoting awareness about the sources of disparities
with activities that highlight, for example,
ways that racism is institutionalized, as well as
understanding the concepts of White privilege
and color-blindness. A main outcome of these
trainings is to place race at the center of conversations
among staff so they can understand
better how educational contexts can become more
inclusive.
To channel the success of the training to
schools, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
has created initiatives and professional
development opportunities. One major outcome
of these efforts was the creation of a statewide
center called Culturally Responsive Education
for All: Training and Enhancement (CREATE).
This center, housed away from the education
agency, is a resource center for educators with
the main objective “to identify strategies that
contribute to eliminating the achievement gap
and utilize those approaches through professional
development, training and technical assistance”
(CREATE, n.d.). The center offers various trainings
and technical assistance for educators and
community members at large to carry out the
mission, which includes concerted efforts to support
culturally responsive practices.
According to outcomes from their year 2
evaluation report (Hoogstra, Tanyu, Tucker, &
Loignon, 2011), the center received positive feedback
for their assortment of activities from both
teachers and administrations. Case studies and
respondent feedback suggest that both policy
and classroom-level practices have been changed
after participating in the CREATE array of activities.
For example, one respondent from a district
with substantial Latino and Hmong populations
commented:
We have seen at some of our schools a specific
intent to reach out to different communities of
color within [the district] to do partnerships
and mutual learning activities. We have had
principals rethink or challenge staff on certain
disciplinary measures that were clearly racist
: : : toward students of color. (Hoogstra et al.,
pp. 76–77)
Respondents also reported the changes in their
school buildings, including a significant decrease
in out-of-school suspensions at the middle school
and elementary school levels; a decrease in office
disciplinary referrals; a significant decrease in
111
Inclusive Schooling and Leadership for Social Justice
student expulsions as a result of the change in
the district’s expulsion policy; an increase in the
attendance rates of some disenfranchised youth;
and an increase in the number of culturally
diverse student clubs and activities within the
district.
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
also supported the creation of the Refugee
Education and Integration Service Center, a center
established to meet the needs of newly arrived
refugee students and families into the state. With
more than 5,000 refugee families and students
resettling, the center was created to develop,
share, and distribute resources regarding refugee
education and resettlement; develop a network of
refugee providers and school systems to build a
system of support for refugee children and families;
provide training, professional development,
and educational programs for service providers
and educators to enhance and improve refugee
accessibility to education and support (including
services that are explicitly designed to meet
the needs of linguistically diverse students); and
exchange refugee concerns and best practices to
improve and enhance existing refugee support
programs and services.
Conclusion
Although much research points to the need
to address discrepancy views of education for
ELs and other students of color, there are also
a great number of educational contexts where
teachers and leaders want very much to meet
the needs of their students, but are limited in
terms of resources to meet those needs. School
leaders can address the needs of ELs, however,
by ensuring that teachers are provided with the
necessary knowledge to support their students. In
addition to collaborative efforts between schools
and universities, as well as targeted efforts by
education agencies, school leaders can identify
and use resources that have been developed
specifically for teachers of ELs. We provide some
examples of available resources at the end of
this issue, which address all three components
of the theoretical framework presented here. The
resources we recommend are not meant to supplant
any other resources leaders find useful, but
rather, provide an accessible means to research
focused on ways to improve educational outcomes
for students. Practitioners may also want
begin a conversation about incorporating the theoretical
framework into schools via book discussion
groups amongst faculty. Guadalupe Valdés’
(2001) Learning and Not Learning English and
Eugene García’s (2005) Teaching and Learning
in Two Languages: Bilingualism and Schooling
in the United States, for example, are both books
that touch on all three of the components of the
theoretical framework and provide much needed
context for understanding the specific needs of
ELs.
Although web sites and readings are invaluable
resources, practitioners can also find resources
in collaborations with local universities
and state agencies, such as those highlighted
here. A search of a university’s expert directory,
or faculty research interests, for example, is one
way to identify potential collaborators.
In closing, the theoretical framework we
present is evident in both the examples of
the initiatives—both in the state agency and
parochial schools—and access to additional resources
leaders can use to promote the replacement
of separate means of providing services for
ELs with more inclusive learning supports. We
hope that the examples and resources can encourage
school leaders to be the catalyst, bridging
research to practice in their schools.
Notes
1. States that do not have an explicit mandate default
to NCLB requirements, which allow any language
model program that has empirical support, which
has contributed to issues of inequitable educational
access for ELs given the flexibility of what is
considered to be empirical support.
2. Both cultural and equity audits involve the collection
of information from various sources that is then
scrutinized to identify areas that need improvement.
3. RtI is a framework used by schools that “includes
a combination of high quality, culturally and linguistically
responsive instruction; assessment; and
evidence-based intervention” (National Center on
Response to Intervention, n.d.).
112
López and Iribarren Inclusive Instructional Settings for English Language Learners
References
Alemán, E. (2007). Situating Texas school finance policy
in a CRT framework: How “substantially equal”
yields racial inequity. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 43, 525–558.
Antrop-Gonzalez, R., Velez, W., & Garrett, T. (2005).
¿Donde estan los estudiantes Puertorriquenos/os
Esitosos? [Where are the academically successful
Puerto Rican students?]: Success factors of highachieving
Puerto Rican high school students. Jour-
nal of Latinos and Education, 4, 77–94.
Artiles, A. (2003). Special education’s changing identity:
Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and
space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164–202.
Artiles, A., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I.
(2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate
representation: English language learners
in urban school districts. Exceptional Children,
71, 283–300.
Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy,
J. (2008). Educating English language learners:
Building teacher capacity roundtable report.Washington,
DC: National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition.
Bernhard, J., Cummins, J., Campoy, I., Ada, A. F.,
Winsler, A., & Bleiker, C. (2006). Identity texts
and literacy development among preschool English
language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities
for children at risk for learning disabilities.
Teachers College Record, 108, 2380–2405.
Boscardin, M. L. (2005). The administrative role in
transforming secondary schools to support inclusive
evidence-based practices. American Secondary
Education, 33, 21–32.
Brisk, M. E. (2006). Bilingual education: From
compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu,
S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Bustamante, R., Nelson, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J.
(2009). Assessing schoolwide cultural competence:
Implications for school leadership preparation. Ed-
ucational Administration Quarterly, 45, 793–827.
Combs, M. C., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E.,
& Jiménez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the
children: Implementing a dual-language program
in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19,
701–728.
Cowen, J. M., Fleming, D. J., Witte, J. F., & Wolf,
P. J. (2012). Going public: Who leaves a large,
longstanding, and widely available urban voucher
program? American Educational Research Journal,
49, 231–256.
CREATE. (n.d.) Wisconsin RtI Center. Retrieved
from http://www.wisconsinsinrticenter.org/parentsand-
family/resources/html.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing
mainstream teachers for English language learners:
Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher
Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124.
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn:
Principals as professional development leaders.
Teachers College Record, 109, 70–125.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading
are English language learners? Washington, DC:
Pew Hispanic Center.
Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2009). Immigration,
language, and education:How does language policy
structure opportunity? Teachers College Record,
111, 750–782.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., &
Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California
schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 1–54.
García, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two lan-
guages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United
States. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
García, E., & Frede, E. C. (Eds.). (2010). Young En-
glish language learners. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Gonzalez, N., Rosi, A., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2001).
Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating
zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Ed-
ucation for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 115–132.
Gutierrez, P. (2002). In search of bedrock: Organizing
for success with diverse needs children in the
classroom. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1,
49–64.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the
principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:
1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Im-
provement, 9, 157–191.
Hoogstra, L., Tanyu, M., Tucker, N., & Loignon, A.
(2011). Wisconsin CREATE initiative: Year 2 eval-
uation. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2012). Co-teaching
and other collaborative practices in the EFL/ESL
classroom: Rationale, research, reflections, and
recommendations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners
in the content areas. Review of Educational Re-
search, 78, 1010–1038.
Johnson, R., & La Salle, R. A. (2010). The Wallpaper
effect: Data strategies to uncover and eliminate
hidden inequities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
113
Inclusive Schooling and Leadership for Social Justice
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling
up innovations in elementary science instruction
with nonmainstream students. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 42, 411–438.
López, F. (2010). Identity and motivation among Hispanic
English language learners in disparate educational
contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
18, 1–33.
López, F., McEneaney, E., Nieswandt, M., & Geronime,
L. (2012, April). Language acquisition poli-
cies as bridges into science for ELLs. Paper presented
the 2012 Annual Meetings of the American
Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting
the success of Latino language-minority students:
An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard
Educational Review, 60, 315–340.
MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2005). Modularity and
the facilitation effect: Psychologicalmechanisms of
transfer in bilingual students. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 27, 224–243.
MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language
proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications
for English language learner placement in
special education. Teachers College Record, 108,
2304–2328.
McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity
traps: A useful construct for preparing principals
to lead schools that are successful with racially
diverse students. Educational Administration Quar-
terly, 40, 601–631.
McMahon, S., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. (2009).
The relation of classroom environment and school
belonging to academic self-efficacy among urban
fourth- and fifth-grade students. Elementary School
Journal, 109, 267–281.
Mora, J. K., Wink, J., & Wink, D. (2001). Dueling
models of dual language instruction: A critical review
of the literature and program implementation
guide. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 435–460.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (n.d.).
What is RTI? Retrieved from http://www.rti4
success.org/whatisrti.
Orellana, M., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Cultural modeling:
Leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing
tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 43,
48–65.
Osterman, K. (2000). Students’ need for belonging
in the school community. Review of Educational
Research, 70, 323–367.
Ovando, C. (2003). Bilingual education in the United
States: Historical development and current issues.
Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 1–25.
Parks, A. N. (2010). Explicit versus implicit questioning:
Inviting all children to think mathematically.
Teachers College Record, 112, 1871–1896.
Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded
instruction for English language learners. Teaching
and Teacher Education: An International Journal
of Research and Studies, 24, 1450–1462.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012, April).
Language demands and opportunities in relation to
Next Generation Science Standard for English lan-
guage learners:What teachers need to know. Paper
presented the 2012 Challenges and Opportunities
for Language Learning in the Context of Common
Core State Standards and Next Generation
Science Standards Conference, Stanford University.
Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers.
Ro, Y., & Cheatham, G. (2009). Biliteracy and bilingual
development in a second-generation Korean
child: A case study. Journal of Research in Child-
hood Education, 2, 290–308.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005).
The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness
research on English language learners.
Educational Policy, 19, 572–594.
Scanlan, M., & López, F. (2012). ¡Vamos! How school
leaders promote equity and excellence for culturally
and linguistically diverse students. Educational Ad-
ministration Quarterly, 48, 583–625.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G.
(2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool
for developing equitable and excellent schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 133–
161.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of
research on language of reading instruction for
English language learners. Review of Educational
Research, 75, 247–284.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English:
Latino students in American schools. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Waters, J. T., & Grubb, S. (2004). Leading schools:
Distinguishing the essential from the important.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning.
Wisconsin Revised Statutes. (2002). Ch. PI 13.
Wright, W. (2010). Foundations for teaching English
language learners: Research, theory, policy, and
practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
114
Copyright of Theory Into Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.