Language or Cognition? Using Culturally Responsive Teaching with English Language Learners

Jatnna Acosta

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Anna Sanczyk

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

This paper looks into the population of English language learners and the benefits of culturally responsive teaching in addressing their needs. Urban schools are becoming increasingly diverse. Students from a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds are entering classrooms and being taught by White, middle class, monolingual teachers (Landsman & Lewis, 2012). Engagement and motivation are integral parts of ensuring the academic success of diverse students. Therefore, teachers must find ways to understand and relate to their students’ backgrounds in an effort to increase student achievement. Culturally responsive teaching amongst English language learners allows teachers to use students’ linguistic diversity as an asset to their learning instead of as a limitation. This paper recognizes the presence of an achievement and opportunity gap between English language learners and their peers on high-stakes tests. The increased presence of English language learners in mainstream classrooms is making it necessary for teacher preparation programs at the college/university level to address their cultural and linguistic needs. This paper explores the concept of culturally responsive teaching as a way of ensuring the academic success of English language learners.

Keywords: English language learners, culturally responsive teaching, diversity

[Title Here, up to 12 Words, on One to Two Lines]

The achievement gap is a national dilemma that holds a negative implication on students of color. According to Ladson-Billings (2006), the term ‘achievement gap’ is used to refer to the disparities in standardized test scores between Black and White, Latino/a and White, and recent immigrant and White students. As a whole, students of color are academically underperforming their White counterparts in K-12 classrooms throughout the country (Office of Civil Rights, 2018). Other than dealing with the issues of poverty, urban students are also more likely to “have difficulty speaking English, are commonly exposed to safety and health risks…have limited access to regular medical care…are less likely to live in two-parent families and more likely to have changed schools frequently” (Martinez-Cruz, 2004, p. 7). These factors negatively impact children’s physical and cognitive development by taking the focus away from learning and placing it on the stress of meeting basic needs for survival. Academic achievement gaps are inherently visible among students of color whose needs pose a challenge for educators who are not prepared to address them. Samson and Collins (2012) point out the increased influence of language as a barrier to academic achievement in schools throughout the country.

The number of 5- to 17- year-olds in this country who spoke a language other than English went up from 8.5% in 1979 to 18.7% in 2003 (Wirt et al., 2005). English language learners (ELLs) enter classrooms with a wide range in English proficiency levels as well as distinct cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Therefore, educators must help them learn academic content and skills while they are still developing their English language proficiency (Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). As a subgroup, ELLs are underperforming in the classroom (Office of Civil Rights, 2018). In 2017, ELLs demonstrated a 4^th grade reading scale score of 189 compared to 226 of non-ELLs (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1992-2017). Teacher preparation programs need to address the achievement gap between language minority and language majority students by preparing mainstream teachers to work effectively with both ELLs and fluent English speakers.

Effective teaching in diverse classrooms requires a connection between the academic content and the students’ cultural backgrounds (Pak, 2018; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Ladson-Billings (1995) coined the term culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) in terms of the impact it has on the collective empowerment of a marginalized group. Gay (2010) defines culturally responsive teaching (CRT) as the use of cultural frames of reference to filter curriculum content and teaching strategies in an effort to make the content more meaningful and manageable for students. Although the use of the term varies, there are significant similarities in both. This paper explores the use of culturally responsive teaching to meet the needs of English language learners. The cultural and linguistic backgrounds of ELLs vary significantly from student to student. A review of literature presents the needs of English language learners and the effectiveness of CRT as a strategy of differentiation to meet those needs. The purpose of this paper is to identify the achievement gap between ELLs and their English-speaking peers and look into whether or not CRT is effective in helping to close the gap.

Review of Literature

The Achievement Gap

The term ‘achievement gap’ is most often used to refer to “the differences in scores on state or national achievement tests between various student demographic groups” (Anderson, Medrich & Fowler, 2007, p. 547). Student achievement is notably higher amongst White students in comparison to their African American and Hispanic peers. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 promoted reading and math grade level proficiency and highly qualified teachers in the classrooms that would be depicted through adequate yearly progress (AYP) in schools throughout the country (Smyth, 2008). NCLB aimed to hold teachers and schools accountable for the academic performance of all students. However, state and national test results denote a fundamental flaw in the academic achievement of minority and low-income students. Since NCLB, Race to the Top (RTT) has increased “standardization, centralization, and test-based accountability in our nation’s schools” (Onosko, 2011, p. 1). Onosko (2011) describes RTT as a grant initiative started by President Barack Obama in 2009 that led to the adoption of the Common Core state standards across the nation. In regards to ELLs, the academic achievement gap becomes increasingly noticeable as they are taught “by teachers who do not know how to focus on and support ELLs in their oral and academic language development in the later grades” (Samson & Collins, 2012). Addressing the achievement gap is important because students of color are projected to make up 59% of the student population by 2024 (Hoffman, 2018). In the state of California alone, 36% of all ELLs taught in the United States are represented with more than 60 home languages spoken (Wolf, Kao, Griffin, et al., 2008, as cited by Saunders & Marcelletti, 2013). The 2009 proficiency results on California’s reading standardized test depicts a 33% gap between ELLs and non-ELLs in Grade 3, a 43% gap between ELLs and non-ELLs in Grade 5, and a 49% gap between ELLs and non-ELLs in Grade 8 (Saunders & Marcelletti, 2013). The lack of diversity in the teacher workforce makes it necessary for teachers to become more culturally responsive through instructional methods for ELLs in order to address their unique needs (Samson & Collins, 2012).

Culturally Responsive Teaching

The rise of diverse learners in schools throughout the country is influencing a need for a more culturally aware and responsive pedagogy. Ladson-Billings (1995) places an emphasis on the intellectual, social, emotional and political use of cultural references in the classroom to help develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Similarly, Santamaria (2009) and Gay (2010) describes CRT as “validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative, and emancipatory” (p. 223). Since her original definition of CRP, Ladson-Billings (2014) proposes the ‘academic death’ of students who are taught by teachers who stop growing in their understanding of addressing their students’ needs. Increasing student achievement is the focal point of utilizing students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the classrooms. By addressing issues of diversity, educators are able to maximize the potential of the most disadvantaged learners and help to sustain their prolonged educational improvement (Garcia, Arias, Harris Murri, & Serna, 2010).

Teachers instructing students that come from a variety of cultures must employ a variety of teaching practices and strategies in order to attain student engagement. CRT links intrinsic motivation with culture by accommodating to student diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, class, gender, region, religion and family (Banks, 2004; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Implementing cultural responsiveness into pedagogy requires teachers to understand the students they serve. Ladson-Billings (1995) points out the disconnect that exists between what students experience at home and what they experience at school. CRT provides a link between home and school for culturally diverse students who need self-sustained motivation to become academically successful. Through CRT, teachers are able to target and address the individualized needs of students (Gay, 2010; Santamaria, 2009).

Differentiated instruction (DI) is incorporated into the practices of CRT. DI can be referred to as a “process-oriented approach most suitable to classrooms in which students have a wide range of ability levels” (Heacox, 2001; Winebrenner, 1992 as cited in Santamaria, 2009, p. 217). Educators employ DI into their practice in order to accommodate to the individual academic needs of learners. Cultural diversity encompasses specific needs that enhance the overall benefits for minority students of low-income households. Santamaria (2009) proposes that DI and CRT share elements of research-based teaching strategies. By recognizing the learning styles of each student, teachers are able to provide them tailored instruction that will maximize their potential.

English Language Learners

The rise in immigration throughout the country has brought about a need to meet linguistic needs of diverse students in the mainstream classroom. According to NPR-ED, about one out of every ten public school students, or five million students, in the United States is an English Language Learner (Sanchez, 2017). Fry (2008) projects that ELLs “have been and will likely continue to be one of the fastest-growing student groups in the nation’s public schools” (p. 1). Studies have shown that schools with an increased presence of ELLs tend to be large, urban and serve minority students (Cohen & Clewell, 2007). Santamaria (2009) explains the support that can be offered to ELLs through bilingual, dual-language immersion, and English as a second language (ESL) programs. Slavin and Cheung (2003) conduct research on immersion and bilingual programs for ELLs. Bilingual programs demonstrate the ways in which the linguistic and academic abilities in a primary language serve as a foundation for second language acquisition (Lucas et al., 2008). However, NCLB requires that language learners demonstrate proficiency on high-stakes tests that are administered in English (Sanchez, 2017). When working with ELLs, teachers must understand what is developmentally appropriate for bilingual children in order to effectively differentiate between limited language production and limited academic or cognitive ability (De Jong & Harper, 2005).

Language plays a significant role in the ways in which students gain access to the curriculum and how they are assessed for what they have learned (Lucas et al., 2008). Students who are categorized as ELLs can be at varying levels of academic proficiency in both their native language and in English. A language learner may possess the skills related to content and be incapable of demonstrating it because of their language limitations. Therefore, the diversity of ELLs is multifaceted in terms of their primary language proficiency as well as their competency throughout second language acquisition. Teachers of ELLs require an understanding of ways to navigate the language barriers presented by their students in order to assist them in attaining academic achievement on high stakes tests (Sanchez, 2017).

Culturally Responsive Teaching and English Language Learners

The presence of ELLs in mainstream classrooms presents unique challenges for educators. The diversity in students’ linguistic backgrounds makes it critical for teachers to become prepared for their diverse educational experiences (Garcia, 2010; Portes, González Canché, Boada, & Whatley, 2018). Culturally responsive teaching begins with teachers recognizing their perspective and personal bias on diversity. A teacher who views students of color as incapable will transmit low academic expectations that will ultimately stifle their learning (Portes et al., 2018; Villegas & Lucas, 2007). On the other hand, teachers who have an affirming perspective and respect cultural differences will believe in the students’ ability to learn despite their differences from the dominant cultural norms (Villegas & Lucas, 2007).

Gay (2010) emphasizes the culturally responsive teacher’s ability to use a student’s culture to promote learning. In classroom settings where the norms enforced are different from their own, cultural diversity and inclusivity help ELLs throughout their immersion process (Samson & Collins, 2012). Mainstream teachers should be given the opportunity to explore their own cultural and personal values in regards to language diversity in order to address any implicit bias that may exist (Garcia et al., 2010). ELLs represent a diverse group of learners whose academic success can be enhanced by educators who believe in their potential despite their language limitations. Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching establishes respect and consideration for the diversity present in a mainstream United States classroom. Although addressing biases should be a continual process, the initial response should be through teacher preparation programs that are the gateway for all teachers.

Teacher preparation programs throughout the country consistently provide future educators with extensive knowledge on the content they will teach. An effective teacher preparation program for future teachers of ELLs provides authentic exposures to language and communication in community settings (Palpacuer-Lee, Curtis, & Curran, 2018). Garcia et al. (2010) proposes early exposure to ELLs within their communities and a guided experience for future teachers to develop an understanding of the connections between identity and language. However, not enough is being done at the college and university level to properly prepare teachers for the cultural and linguistic diversity of the students they will be teaching. The lack of courses being offered to address multiculturalism makes it difficult for teachers to properly address the cultural diversity in their classroom. A study conducted to identify the number of teacher education programs offered at the undergraduate level on diversity and/or multiculturalism (King & Butler, 2015) found that out of the “fourteen public institutions examined, only four required their undergraduate education majors to have 20% or more of their courses in a class with an explicit diversity/multiculturalism component” (p. 49).

A study addressing ELLs in several California urban school districts (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005) looked into the disproportionate overrepresentation of ELLs in special education programs. The language barriers of ELLs contribute to the difficulties they experience with the general curriculum. Language minority students are being increasingly diagnosed with learning disabilities due to teachers’ inexperience working with the population. A study performed to determine the impacts of ethnicity, ELL and poverty on the Nebraska State Accountability Reading Test concluded that students who are the most likely to perform the lowest on standardized, high-stakes tests are those who are ELLs and receiving free and reduced lunch (Beckman, Messersmith, Shepard, & Cates, 2012).

An effective teacher of ELLs has a strong understanding of oral language skills, academic language, and culturally inclusive practices (Samson & Collins, 2012). Villegas and Lucas (2007) describe a culturally and linguistically responsive teacher as one who is able to support a learner in filling the gaps between what they know about topic and what they need to learn about. Lucas et al. (2008) cites Vygotsky’s theory on learning through the zone of proximal development in accordance with culturally and linguistically responsive teachers of ELLs. By getting to know both the language and cognitive abilities of each individual student, an effective teacher is able to determine how much the student can achieve through the help of others and when the student will be ready to accomplish a task on their own. The scaffolding and gradual release of instruction for ELLs depicts a constructivist perspective. Villegas and Lucas (2007) describe this perspective in terms of allowing learners to use prior knowledge to make sense of new ideas and experiences.

Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching with English language learners allows educators to take the necessary steps towards closing the achievement gap experienced by this population. Good teaching strategies are not enough to address the needs of students whose limited English proficiency is paired with their academic achievement. Future and practicing teachers must reflect on their personal views and perspectives on the diversity they will encounter in their classrooms. Through the proper training, teacher preparation programs can help future educators recognize the distinctions between limited language ability and limited cognitive ability. Similarly, exposure to the ELL population will help educators recognize the connections between language and academic achievement.

A qualitative case study on a group of eight grade newcomer ELLs in a social studies classroom identified the benefits of CRT in increasing student achievement with this group of students (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). The findings of this study indicate the students’ increased emotional appeal, their enhanced academic achievement, and their higher level of comfort with the curriculum (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). The language barriers experienced by ELLs makes it difficult for them to demonstrate the full scope of their knowledge on standardized tests. Implementing elements of CRT throughout the curriculum allows teachers to strategically meet the needs of language minority students (Samson & Collins, 2012). The use of CRT with ELLs has demonstrated academic gains for the students involved.

Methodology

This paper looks into the benefits of implementing CRT in teaching ELLs. The data on the percentage of public-school students who were English language learners by state during Fall 2015 was retrieved from the National Center of Education Statistics. The figure was found within the Common Core of Data Database (2017). Similarly, the data on the percentage of public-school students who were English language learners by locale during Fall 2015 came from the National Center of Education Statistics within the Common Core of Data (2017). The data on percentages at or above each achievement level by grade 4 and grade 8 reading by status as English language learner was retrieved from The Nation’s Report Card under the Data Explorer (2017). In acquiring the data for this paper, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was used as the searchable criteria. The data on the percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools by race/ethnicity for the 1999-2000 and 2015-16 school years was gathered from the National Center for Education Statistics (2017).

Results

Figure 1 depicts a map showing the percentage of public-school students who were English language learners by state during Fall 2015. The map denotes the U.S. average as 9.5 percent for that year. The states with the highest percentage of English language learners (10.0 percent or higher) were Washington with 10.4 percent, Kansas with 10.6 percent, Alaska with 11.5 percent, Colorado with 11.6 percent, New Mexico with 15.7 percent, Texas with 16.8 percent, Nevada with 16.8 percent, and California with 21.0 percent.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of public-school students who were English language learners by locale during Fall 2015. Based on the data provided, the highest amount of English language learners was found in cities with 14.0%. The second highest amount of English language learners were in suburban settings with 9.1%. Towns had the third highest amount of English language learners with 6.5%. The lowest amount of English language learners was found in rural settings with 3.6%.

Table 1 shows the percentages at or above each achievement level by grade 8 in reading for English language learners and non-English language learners during the years 2017, 2015, 2013, 2011, and 2009. The table depicts a higher percentage of ELLs in the below Basic and at or above Basic achievement levels for each of the years presented. In 2017, there were 5% of ELLs at or above Proficient compared to 38% that were non-ELLs. In 2017, 0% of ELLs were at Advanced compared to 5% non-ELLs. In 2015, there were 4% of ELLs at or above Proficient compared to 36% non-ELLs. In 2015, 0% of ELLs were at Advanced compared to 4% no-ELLs. In 2013, there were 4% of ELLs at or above Proficient compared to 38% non-ELLs. In 2013, 0% of ELLs were at Advanced compared to 4% non-ELLs. In 2011, there were 3% of ELLs at or above Proficient compared to 35% non-ELLs. In 2011, 0% of ELLs were at Advanced compared to 4% non-ELLs. In 2009, there were 3% of ELLs at or above Proficient compared to 34% non-ELLs. In 2009, 0% of ELLs were at Advanced compared to 3% non-ELLs.

Table 2 shows the percentages at or above each achievement level by grade 4 in reading for English language learners and non-English language learners during the years 2017 and 2015. in 2017, 68% of ELLs performed below Basic compared to 28% of non-ELLs, 32% of ELLs performed at or above Basic compared to 72% non-ELLs, 9% of ELLs performed at or above Proficient compared to 40% of non-ELLs, and 1% of ELLs performed at Advanced compared to 10% of non-ELLs. In 2015, 68% of ELLs performed below Basic compared to 27% of non-ELLs, 32% of ELLs performed at or above Basic compared to 73% of non-ELLs, 8% of ELLs performed at or above Proficient compared to 39% non-ELLs, and 1% of ELLs performed at Advanced compared to 10% of non-ELLs.

Figure 3 depicts the percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools by race/ethnicity during the school years 1999-2000 and 2015-16. The figure shows the stagnant change in the teacher ethnicity percentage in schools during both school years. During the 1999-2000 school year, 84% of teachers were White, 8% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, 2% were Asian, 0% were Pacific Islander, 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 0% were two or more races. During the 2015-16 school year, 80% of teachers were White, 7% were Black, 9% were Hispanic, 2% were Asian, 0% were Pacific Islander, 0% were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 1% were two or more races.

Discussion

The rise in immigration throughout the country is increasing the number of English language learners present in U.S. mainstream classrooms. ELLs enter mainstream classrooms from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds which contribute to the academic achievement gap. Teaching ELLs requires an understanding of language development and proficiency in regards to cognition. A vast majority of ELLs are concentrated in city areas. These students are more likely to attend public schools that are reporting low standardized test scores (Fry, 2008). Classrooms throughout the country are being led by a teaching force that is lacking in diversity. The lack of teacher diversity in mainstream classrooms is not helping to adequately address the issue of ELL and academic proficiency (Pak, 2018). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching is essential when working with students from diverse backgrounds. Responsive teacher preparation allows for the academic success of marginalized groups of students throughout the country. An area of concern associated with the responsive teaching of ELLs involves the assumption that effective teachers should have training on language-specific linguistic skills. The presence of diversity throughout the country makes it a challenge for teacher preparation programs to prepare future teachers for every language they will come in contact with. However, responsive teaching of ELLs focuses more on the preparation of preservice and practicing teachers in terms of allowing them to explore their own cultural and personal bias on diversity to meet the needs of ELLs (Garcia et al., 2010).

In depth analysis of the data provided in this paper demonstrates the rise in the presence of ELLs in mainstream classrooms with a higher concentration in cities taught primarily by White teachers. Kotzin (2017) describes urban children and youth as “more dependent, more vulnerable, and more likely to be victims of their environment” (p. 2). Urban poverty is a component of urban education that places a negative impact on “childhood physical growth cognitive and social emotional development, and academic learning” (Kotzin, 2017, p. 4). The negative impact of urban education and the lack of teacher diversity can be depicted in the low academic achievement in reading by ELLs in grades 4 and 8. In comparison to non-ELLs, ELLs are significantly underperforming academically. Consequently, ELLs are not benefitting from the lack of teacher diversity in urban mainstream classrooms. The negative effects of urban poverty on the academic achievement of ELLs demonstrates a need for CRT in order to bridge the achievement gap. As depicted by Aronson and Laughter (2016), CRT amongst ELLs allows students to establish connections with the content of the curriculum and demonstrate their understandings on high-stakes tests. Culturally responsive teachers who are highly qualified to work with ELLs are needed to help students overcome the language barriers that impede their academic achievement (Sanchez, 2017).

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to look into the growing presence of ELLs throughout the country and the benefit of CRT in improving their academic achievement. As a whole, ELLs are primarily concentrated in urban city schools lacking teacher diversity and they are underperforming in comparison to their non-ELLs counterparts. Cultural responsiveness is integral to the growth and development of ELLs throughout the country as measured by student achievement. A potential solution for using culturally responsive teaching to address the needs of ELLs involves exposing pre-service teachers to ELLs in order to foster a shift in their perception of linguistic diversity. Through this proposed solution, school districts should partner with local colleges and universities within a state. The exposure should be extensive and completely immersed in the cultural experiences of students and their communities. Teachers would aim to differentiate between limited language production and limited academic/cognitive ability by interacting with students on a more personal level. These experiences would challenge teachers to recognize their implicit cultural bias and carefully examine the ways in which they can bring more cultural representation into their classrooms. Participating in guided and structured cultural experiences could establish the significant connection between identity and language.

Another potential solution for promoting the culturally responsive teaching of ELLs is a mandatory and continuous training that informs teachers on differentiated instruction through a cultural lens. This training would explore Vygotsky’s theory on learning through the zone of proximal development. Teachers could learn about the use of scaffolding and the gradual release of instruction. The implementation of these strategies should be maintained and revisited throughout the year. In order to monitor the effective use of these strategies, administration should include them as a component of their regular walkthrough feedback. Teachers could be given non-evaluative feedback on their use of comprehensible input, cultural inclusivity, and the ability to effectively facilitate the learning through scaffolding. Cultural responsiveness is integral to the growth and development of ELLs throughout the country as measured by student achievement. Educators must become aware of the best practices and strategies necessary to meet the needs of diverse learners with unique characteristics.

References

Anderson, S., Medrich, E., & Fowler, D. (2007). Which achievement gap? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 547-550. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ758190&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Artiles, A. J., 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(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100305

Banks, J. A. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~apadilla/PadillaQuantMultiCultural04.pdf

Beckman, T. O., Messersmith, K., Shepard, J., & Cates, B. (2012). Ethnicity, language and poverty predicting scores on the Nebraska state accountability reading test. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 11(1), 31-47. Retrieved from http://www.psyjournal.vdu.lt/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/201211_2.pdf

Cohen, C. C., & Clewell, B. C. (2007). Putting English language learners on the educational map the no child left behind act implemented. The Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://webarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311468_ell.pdf

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(2), 101-124. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795308.pdf

Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED502050&site=ehost-live&scope=site

García, E., Arias, M. B., Harris Murri, N. J., & Serna, C. (2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347878

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. New York, NY.

Hoffman, M. C. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching--part 1: Acknowledging culture and self-cultivation. Communique, 47(2), 5-1. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1192157&site=ehost-live&scope=site

King, E., & Butler, B. R. (2015). Who cares about diversity? A preliminary investigation of diversity exposure in teacher preparation programs. Multicultural Perspectives, 17(1), 46–52. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1053471&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kotzin, D. S. (2017). Saving urban children: Revisiting the mission of urban education in 2017. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 14(1). Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1160343&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ520877&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. Retrieved from http://hepgjournals.org.librarylink.uncc.edu/doi/pdf/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

Landsman, J., & Lewis, C. W. (2012). White teachers, diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110

Martinez-Cruz, A. (2004). Culturally responsive mathematics teaching and English language learners. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(5), 249-255. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/BEST/Symposium/2b.pdf

Office of Civil Rights. (2018). Civil Rights Data Collection for the 2015-2016 school year. [Data file]. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov

Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the top leaves children and future citizens behind: The devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes accountability. Democracy and Education, 19(2), 1. Retrieved from https://democracyeducationjournal.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=home

Pak, C. S. (2018). Linking service-learning with sense of belonging: A culturally relevant pedagogy for heritage students of Spanish. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(1), 76–95. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1161644&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Palpacuer-Lee, C., Hutchison Curtis, J., & Curran, M. E. (2018). Stories of engagement: Pre-service language teachers negotiate intercultural citizenship in a community-based English language program. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817718578

Portes, P. R., González Canché, M., Boada, D., & Whatley, M. E. (2018). Early evaluation findings from the instructional conversation study: Culturally responsive teaching outcomes for diverse learners in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 488–531. doi.org/10.3102/0002831217741089

Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED535608&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Sanchez, C. (2017). English language learners: How your state is doing. National Public Radio Ed. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/512451228/5-million-english-language-learners-a-vast-pool-of-talent-at-risk

Santamaria, L. J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing gaps between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 214-247. Retrieved from https://www.essr.net/~jafundo/mestrado_material_itgjkhnld/SP/Diferenciação%20pedagógica/culturally_responsive_differentiated_instruction-_narrowing_gaps_between_best_pedagogical_practices_benefiting_all_learners.pdf

Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712461849

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners. A best-evidence synthesis. Retrieved from https://librarylink.uncc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED483006&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Smyth, T. S. (2008). Who is no child left behind leaving behind? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 133-137. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.3.133-137

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (NAEP). Table 1: Percentages at or above each achievement level by grade 8 reading by status as English Language Learner: Selected years, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cnb.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (NAEP). Table 2: Percentages at or above each achievement level for grade 4 reading by status as English Language Learner: Selected years, 2015, and 2017. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cnb.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. (CCD). Figure 1: Percentage of public-school students who were English language learners, by state. Selected years, 2015-16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.20. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. (CCD). Figure 2: Percentages of public-school students who were English language learners, by locale. Selected years, 2015-16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 214.40. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (NAEP). 1992–2017 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnb.asp

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey. (SASS). Figure 3: Percentages distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1999-2000; and National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2015-16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.22. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 28. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.4908&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Hussar, W., Provasnik, S., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2005). The condition of education report, NCES 2005-094. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005094.pdf

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17-21. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=ehd_theses.

Appendix A

Figure 1: Percentage of public-school students who were English language learners, by state: Fall 2015

NOTE: Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2015-16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.20.

Appendix B

Figure 2. Percentage of public-school students who were English language learners, by locale: Fall 2015

NOTE: Data are based on locales of school districts.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2015-16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 21.40.

Appendix C

Table 1

Percentages At Or Above Each Achievement Level By Grade 8 Reading, By Status As English Language Learner

Year	Jurisdiction	ELL Status	Below Basic	At or Above Basic	At or Above Proficient	Advanced
2017	National	ELL	68	32	5	-
		Not ELL	21	79	38	5
2015	National	ELL	71	29	4	#
		Not ELL	21	79	36	4
2013	National	ELL	70	30	4	-
		Not ELL	20	80	38	4
2011	National	ELL	71	29	3	-
		Not ELL	22	78	35	4
2009	National	ELL	74	26	3	-
		Not ELL	22	78	34	3

Note. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant.

Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 Reading Assessments.

Appendix D

Table 2

Percentages at or Above Each Achievement Level For Grade 4 Reading, By Status As English Language Learner

Year	Jurisdiction	ELL Status	Below Basic	At or above Basic	At or above Proficient	Advanced
2017	National	ELL	68	32	9	1
		Not ELL	28	72	40	10
2015	National	ELL	68	32	8	1
		Not ELL	27	73	39	10

Note. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant.

Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015 and 2017 Reading Assessments.

Appendix E

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: School years 1999-2000 and 2015-16

Note. Data are based on head count of full-time and part-time teachers rather than on the number of full-time-equivalent teachers. Data for 1999-2000 are only roughly comparable to data for 2015-16; in 1999-2000, data for teachers of Two or more races were not collected as a separate category and the Asian category included Pacific Islanders. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although round numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” Charter School Teacher Data File,” “Public School Data File,” and “Charter School Data File,” 1999-2000; and National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2015-16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.22.