Abstract
This article reports findings of a collaborative research project examining and seeking to improve the schooling experiences of a small but growing population of Latina/o students in a small-town secondary school over a 4-year period. The school was studied through ethnographic methods and surveys in 2005 and 2008. Initial findings were shared with the principal who proceeded to make substantial changes in school curriculum and climate, targeting an improved academic climate for Latinas/os. The story of the choices he made, the changes he and his staff implemented, and the consequent results regarding school climate for Latina/o students is the central narrative of this article. The theoretical framework of critical race theory and critical studies in Whiteness contextualizes this examination of change and enables analysis of why some changes were made rather than others as well as subsequent results for Latina/o students.
The United States today is more diverse than at any other time in its history, with Latinas/os accounting for at least 15% of the U.S. population and 21% of its school population (Snyder, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008). Most students receiving English language assistance services in the United States are Latina/o (Kindler, 2002). Although most Latinas/os still reside in the “traditional” immigration gateways states of California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas, they also account for large and growing populations in Arizona (30.2% of state population), Colorado (20.1%), Washington (25.9%), Connecticut (12.1%), and Utah (11.8%), among other “nontraditional” immigration states (Bump, Lowell, & Pettersen, 2005; Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). The Latina/o population in every state in the United States has grown since the 1990s, with growth in the less traditional states most rapid (Bump et al., 2005). As a result, smaller communities across the United States, from Faribault, Minnesota, to Winchester, Virginia, to Park City, Utah, are experiencing large numbers of Latina/o immigrants and school children for the first time (Godziak & Martin, 2005). Many teachers and administrators in these towns are learning how to work with Latina/o students, many of whom are English language learners (ELLs), for the first time in their careers.
Although Latinas/os account for the largest ethnic minority group in the United States and they reside in every state, accounting for 1 in 5 schoolchildren, their academic needs as a group continue to be unmet. Latinas/os have the highest status drop-out rate of the largest American ethnic groups (White, Black, Asian or Pacific Islanders) at 22.4% (Laird, DeBell, Kienzl, & Chapman, 2007). 1 Latinas/os born outside the United States, and thus less likely to be fluent in English than their U.S.-born counterparts, had a drop-out rate of 38% in 2005 (KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnik, 2007). Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) have found that “only 29% of ELL students in Los Angeles high schools are still in school four years after entering the 9th grade” (p. 2). Of these students, 85% are Latina/o (Gándara et al., 2005). In addition to these alarming school drop-out rates, Latinas/os in the United States are more likely that their White counterparts to test poorly in core school subject matter assessments and to live in poverty; they are less likely to attend and graduate from college.
In the largely rural region of Utah where the authors of this article reside, the drop-out rate for its growing Latina/o population has been as high as 50%. It is within this context that we situate this article. In 2004, Sherry was an assistant professor at Utah State University (USU) looking for a site in which to conduct research on multicultural issues in schooling. Larry was the principal of Valley Secondary School (VSS), a junior high school of about 1,000 students in a rural area of the same county as USU. 2 His school was experiencing a rapid increase in Latina/o and ELL students for the first time in his career, and Larry did not feel well prepared to work with this population, which now composed about 5% of an otherwise predominantly White student body. Frustrated about the poor achievement and linguistic and social isolation of these students, he called Sherry’s department one day, looking for a professor who might be able to help him “deal with” what he called “the Latino problem” at his school. Sherry eagerly accepted the invitation to help. In fall 2004, she entered the school as a researcher exploring how the new and growing Latina/o population was influencing and being influenced by the school (Marx, 2008a).
Over time, the research project initially intended to better understand the Latina/o experience at VSS turned into a collaborative venture between the researcher and the principal that endured more than 5 years, until Larry retired at the end of the 2008–2009 school year. Sherry’s early findings and recommendations were shared with Larry, who took them to heart and implemented major changes based on her recommendations, his own strong feelings about what he wanted to see occurring at VSS based on his experience and agency as a principal, and input from his staff. In this article, we tell the story of our collaboration, which started out as a traditional researcher-driven examination of a school, but over time evolved into a nontraditional collaborative project seeking to make and measure positive change in school climate for Latina/o students. Our project is laid on a foundation provided by literature, including some history of Latina/o education in the United States, and theory, which we discuss below.
Situating Context
Latinas/os in the United States share a long history of seeking to have their educational needs met in a system that has often rejected them. After the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848, “Mexicans became Mexican Americans with the stroke of a pen” (Moll & Ruiz, 2009, p. 364). However, lingering animosity regarding Mexicans and the Mexican-American War contributed to the poor educational opportunities offered Mexican Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Spring, 2010). Contemporary educational inequities grow out of these early injustices but are also augmented by present-day biases and systemic inadequacies that characterize everyday schooling for many Latinas/os.
Education Policies and Practices
Many scholars of Latinas/os and language policies in the United States view U.S. schooling in the 1800s as a form of “social control” used to “preserve the status quo by denying the Mexican population the knowledge necessary to protect its political and economic rights and to advance economically in society” (Moll & Ruiz, 2009, p. 364, citing Spring, 1997; also see Guajardo & Guajardo, 2004; Liebowitz, 1982; Wiley, 2007). This was effectively achieved by not enforcing compulsory school attendance laws for Mexican American children, a practice Spring (2010) calls “one of the most discriminatory acts against the children of Mexicans” (p. 95). Mexican American children who did attend school were typically isolated socially and academically. Oftentimes, they attended “Mexican schools,” where “they could be controlled and indoctrinated–so that they could be ‘Americanized,’ learn English, and rid themselves of their native language and customs, which the officials deemed detrimental to assimilation and to the maintenance of a unified nation” (Moll & Ruiz, 2009, p. 364; also see Ovando, Combs, & Collier, 2006; Wiley, 2007).
Like African Americans, Mexican American and other Latina/o schoolchildren historically have been segregated in their educational pursuits. Orfield and Lee (2004) note, “The data show no substantial gains in segregated education for Latinos even during the civil rights era” (p. 3). Although Tatum (2003) reminds us that self-selected social segregation in the cafeteria and at other nonacademic times of the day can be psychologically beneficial to students, Orfield and Lee (2004), Toohey (2000), and others note that there is no evidence that academic segregation benefits ethnic groups. 3 In the present time, however, most Latina/o students attend schools where most students are Latina/o. Nearly 40% also “attend high schools in which graduation is not the norm”; this is the case for “only 11% of [W]hite students” (Balfanz & Legters, 2004, p. iv). Although segregation is most common in urban centers, “rural and small town school districts are, on average, the nation’s most integrated for both African Americans and Latinos” (Orfield & Lee, 2004, p. 2).
Although the numbers of Latinas/os in rural and suburban areas are growing across the United States and students of color are better integrated with White students and teachers in rural and small-town school systems (Orfield & Lee, 2004), Latinas/os are often isolated and resegregated within schools in English as a second language (ESL) classes, special education programs, and lower tracked coursework (Ek, 2008–2009; Guiberson, 2009; Lucas & Berends, 2007; Oakes, 1985, 1995; Toohey, 2000). Thus, Latina/o and White students in the same schools often have little contact with one another. These everyday forms of racial segregation and inequality have many detrimental effects on students of color that have been documented for decades, including a sense of inferiority acquired through experiencing lesser schools, materials, and programs (Spring, 2010) and the lack of “critical form[s] of cultural” (Vásquez, 2007, p. 122) and social capital imparted to students in stronger educational programs with more integrated and advanced educational opportunities (Valenzuela, 1999). Latina/o students and other students of color also continually deal with the stigmas brought about by society’s tenacious embrace of deficit thinking, thinking that makes sense of these students through perceived deficits rather than strengths regarding language, education, intelligence, native culture, home life, and more (Marx, 2006; Valencia, 1997).
A key contributing factor to the marginalization of Latina/o schoolchildren is language assistance. In the early years of Mexican American citizenship and Latina/o immigration, the school system routinely refused to accommodate children who did not speak English (Moll & Ruiz, 2009; Ovando et al., 2006; Spring, 2010; Wiley, 2007), leaving Spanish-language education largely to Catholic and other private schools (Spring, 2010). Schools that did accommodate non English speakers usually insisted “on a monolingual, multicultural curriculum” (Vásquez, 2007, p. 127) that focused on the goal of “deculturalization,” which Spring (2010, p. 8) defines as the erasure of “a people’s” language and culture, with subsequent replacement by the dominant language and culture.
These issues remain alive today as the controversies surrounding language assistance and accommodation policies in the public schools evidence. Bilingual education, the approach to language assistance most commonly supported by second language acquisition research (e.g., Krashen, 1999; Ovando et al., 2006; Thomas & Collier, 2002), has often been described as “un-American” and unpatriotic for its apparent lack of focus on assimilation and deculturalization (e.g., Blanton, 2007; Crawford, 2000; Nieto, 2005); it has been decimated across the country in recent years. In its place is ESL pullout education, the most common model of language assistance in the United States, but one known to be less effective (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Poor and/or absent language assistance programs continue to hinder the achievement of Latina/o schoolchildren, as does a strong focus on monoculturalism and monolingualism in schools (Arias, 2005; Nieto, 2005; Vásquez, 2007). Language programs beyond ESL pullout and sheltered language instruction are uncommon and not well studied. Nontraditional approaches are rarely taught in ESL teacher education programs, are not found in the literature, and are practiced eclectically in schools as many teachers work with little training, a lack of materials, and children with diverse language needs and abilities.
Whiteness as a Predominant Characteristic of U.S. Educators and Schooling
Latinas/os now account for 20% of U.S. schoolchildren, and people of color, together, account for more than 44% of the U.S. student body (Planty et al., 2009). Both these numbers continue to grow. At the same time, the teacher workforce is predominantly White, at 87% (National Education Association [NEA], 2010), and an estimated 97% speak only English (Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996). In 2006, only 4% of American teachers were Latina/o, and the percentage of African American teachers had fallen from 8% in 1991 to 7% in 2006 (NEA, 2010). Although White teachers dominate the profession, only 23% of them work in “urban” schools with large numbers of students of color. In contrast, 58% of teachers of color work in such settings (NEA, 2010, p. 45). Similarly, more than 84% of all public school principals are White (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). As Evans (2007) writes, “Diversity in the principalship is virtually nonexistent” (p. 164).
White educators and students, most of whom spend the majority of their educational careers primarily with White children, also suffer from their lack of contact with diversity. Vásquez (2007) writes that this system “deprives middle-class White children of multiple linguistic and intercultural skills that are becoming increasing[ly] critical in the global” (p. 128). Frankenberg (2008) adds that “a majority of [W]hite students [are] virtually bereft of teachers of color . . . [which] reinforces the isolation of [W]hite students in their schools and neighborhoods and takes away professionals of color who can serve as role models” (p. 32). Whites and people of color are all deprived when schools and school systems are segregated. This lack of meaningful contact adds to the misunderstandings, low expectations, and deficit thoughts affecting Latina/o school children across the United States (Marx, 2009).
Theoretical Framework
In conceptualizing and analyzing this study, Latina/o students were understood as racial and ethnic beings who, although unique individuals, have a shared history of experiencing racial discrimination in the American education system, including segregation, unequal opportunities, the lack of quality language assistance, and the burden of society’s low expectations and deficit thinking. White students and teachers were similarly understood as racialized beings, though it was recognized that they benefit from their Whiteness systematically (e.g., Tatum, 2003). VSS was conceptualized as a predominantly White school, with White cultural conventions (and those of northern Utah where it is located) that have been normalized and, thus, become largely invisible to its faculty, its staff, and the majority of families it serves (e.g., Landsman, 2009; Marx 2006; Pollock, 2004).
In making these conceptualizations possible, a theoretical framework of critical race theory (CRT) and critical studies in Whiteness anchors this research. In this framework, racism is understood as “a system of advantage based on race” (Tatum, 2003, p. 11), rather than “a series of isolated acts” based on individual feelings of hatred (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 52). In CRT, racism is considered “endemic in American life, deeply ingrained legally, culturally, and even psychologically” (p. 52). In addition to understanding racism as embedded and normal in society, “not aberrant” (Delgado, 1995, p. xiv), CRT has several other key tenets including the importance of storytelling and counterstorytelling, critique of liberalism, and belief in interest convergence, which is the concept that civil rights for people of color tend to come about only when “they converge with the self interests of Whites” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). In addition, CRT views Whiteness as a property right. Harris (1993) discusses this concept in depth, noting that Whiteness takes the form of property in “rights of disposition,” “right to use and enjoyment,” “reputation and status property,” and “the absolute right to exclude” (pp. 1731-1737). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) give examples of various ways these rights play out in education in the United States, including rewarding students for “conformity to perceived ‘[W]hite norms,’” offering more effective and pleasant educational experiences in predominantly White schools to predominantly White children, offering more prestigious curriculum choices in such schools, and excluding children of color from “‘gifted’ programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes” (pp. 59-16). One could also add the lack of effective language assistance programs for ELLs to this list of examples. “More pernicious and long lasting then the victimization of people of color,” assert Ladson-Billings and Tate, “is the construction of whiteness as the ultimate property” (p. 58).
Color blindness, the avoidance of talking about race, racism, and systematic inequity, contributes to racial inequality by preventing useful conversation about race and racism from taking place; as a result, it is also critiqued by CRT (e.g., DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Marx, 2006, 2009; Pollock, 2004). Given all these qualities maintaining racism, another key component of CRT is the belief that “racism is a permanent component of American life” (Bell, 1992, p. 13). However, this dire statement is mitigated by the overarching, idealistic goal of CRT to dismantle racism.
Critical studies in Whiteness complement CRT by drawing attention to the privileged racialized position of Whiteness and situating this privilege historically and into the present (e.g., Marx, 2006; Leonardo, 2009, Pollock, 2004). Although White privilege may have been more obvious on a daily basis in times of slavery and the following nadir of race relations associated with Jim Crow (Loewen, 2006), in contemporary times Whites often do not recognize the privileges they receive each day. However, much of U.S. society has been and continues to be constructed on “White cultural norms, thus privileging and serving the self interest of the dominant White race” (Chubbuck, 2004, p. 304, citing Omi & Winant, 1994, and Tate, 1997). In these ways, Whites still benefit from and often perpetuate the system of racism ingrained in society, no matter their or our conscious intensions.
As Whites entangled within the Whiteness of the dominant American culture, the two authors of this article realize that we are limited by our Whiteness in examining a school environment for Latina/o schoolchildren. At the same time, we mean to act as White allies in our efforts to examine, critique, and improve a school with well-meaning leaders, teachers, and practices that passively and perhaps unconsciously worked against the successes of its Latina/o students (Titone, 1998). Sherry brought her background as a race scholar and antiracist, multicultural, and ESL educator to her role of ally. Larry brought his skills and agency as principal and lead decision maker at VSS, his lengthy experience as a public school teacher and principal, and his deep dedication to helping all students in his school succeed to his role as ally. We are both strengthened and limited by our skills and backgrounds in this project. As we share our findings with a larger audience, we draw attention to our own efforts to understand, reveal, and improve aspects of schooling that do not, typically, seem disadvantageous to White educators, students, parents, and community members, but that consistently work against the successes of Latina/o schoolchildren.
Study Genesis
Our project started out as a fairly traditional study undertaken by the researcher (Sherry) to examine the school’s climate for its Latina/o students. The initial study utilized mixed methods, combining ethnographic and survey data, and was conducted during the 2004–2005 school year. The findings of this initial study can be found in Marx (2008a). At the conclusion of the study, Sherry shared her results with Larry, the principal of VSS, in a final report and offered several recommendations for improving the school’s climate to enhance the educational experience it offered its Latina/o and ELL students.
Sherry and Larry did not meet for the next 2 years. Pregnant at the time of data collection, Sherry spent the next few years getting to know her new son and small daughter and attending to the many responsibilities of being an assistant professor. In fall 2007, she returned to VSS to supervise a student teacher. She stopped by the principal’s office to say hello and was shocked to learn Larry had made major changes as a result of the report she had shared. In the 2 years since the report, Larry had implemented new programs, policies, and philosophies at the school that changed the school climate and seemed, to him, to be having a positive effect on Latina/o achievement and happiness at VSS. Intrigued and excited, Sherry offered to collaborate with Larry in examining these changes and gauging their results. Enthusiastic about the changes made, Larry eagerly accepted the invitation.
At this point, our project became quite untraditional and more clearly aligned with the present “call for action” in education research that highlights the importance of moving “beyond interpretation and Verstehen, or understanding, toward social action” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 201). This “new-paradigm” (p. 202) of research recognizes that “knowledge must be enacted—understood at the level of human beings’ affect and intellect” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005, p. 315) to be meaningful work that is not conducted simply for its own sake. Related to this notion is the goal of having “catalytic validity” (Lather, 1991) in research that can move “those it studies to understand the world and the way it is shaped in order for them to transform it” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005, p. 324). In our new approach to this project, Larry was transformed from a principal whose school and leadership were studied to a collaborator who explained his efforts to make change or resist recommendations, offered insights into Sherry’s interpretations, and thoughtfully considered theoretical critiques of his leadership and school. Sherry was transformed into a documentarian of change and sharer of information, as well as researcher. She regularly received from Larry practical critiques of her theoretical recommendations and insights. Because of this new, much more collaborative approach to research, Sherry invited Larry to coauthor this article, another invitation he eagerly accepted. As the practitioner member of the partnership, Larry opened all doors to his school for Sherry, inviting her to frequently observe, attend meetings, and offer programmatic input. He also met with Sherry frequently to share his perspectives and offer feedback on her interpretations of process and change. He read, offered input, and approved each draft of this article. As the academic member of the partnership, Sherry situated the article academically and crafted the narrative. The final version of this article is a product crafted collaboratively but written by the academic author.
The untraditional nature of this project makes it a challenge to present. Given that the first study is more traditional and published in detail elsewhere (Marx, 2008a), it is discussed just briefly below. We follow this with more detailed attention given to the shared report, including recommendations for change, Larry’s reaction to the report, the changes he made as a result, and a final evaluation of changes to the VSS school climate for Latina/o students. Because this new project took place over time, it is told in a narrative style that highlights its unfolding nature, with key background and methodology literature woven in where necessary. In addition to adding to the “readable” quality of this article, this style of writing is a key component of CRT methodology, which values the lived stories of individuals and represents them in ways that are accessible to a wide audience, including those outside academia, who might benefit from the information (Delgado, 1995; Marx, 2008b). This accessible, reflective style is also encouraged by critical qualitative researchers such as Foley (1998, 2002), Scheurich (1997), Tierney (2002), and the first author of this article (Marx, 2008b), who all advocate that research be presented in an engaging way that can, again, be accessible to a wide audience and convey some of the “juice of the lived experience” shared by participants (Scheurich, 1997, p. 63).
Initial Project
The first part of the study began in 2004 when Sherry entered VSS as a researcher studying the school’s climate for a general sense of the educational experiences Latina/o students were having and to learn more about how these new students were affecting the school. She conducted ethnographic fieldwork during the 2004–2005 school year, which included numerous interviews with teachers and the principal; observations of classes with Latina/o students, including various subject areas, ESL, and special education; frequent observations of public spaces such as hallways, lobbies, the library, and the cafeteria; the collection of demographic data such as student ethnicity information, students enrolled in ESL and special education classes, and so on; and yearly end-of-level, criterion-referenced test scores for students in the school (see Glesne, 2006; Patton, 2001). Two surveys were given at the end of this first school year, in spring 2005. One survey was given to adults and examined teachers’ impressions of Latina/o students. The second survey was given to students and examined students’ impressions of school climate.
Survey Details
Through 23 questions written in the format of a Likert-type scale with answers ranging from 1 to 5, indicating strongly agree to strongly disagree, and one open-ended question regarding the impact of race/ethnicity on schooling, students were asked to rate how welcome they and their families felt at the school, whether they felt they fit in, their thoughts about blending into U.S. culture, the importance of speaking English, and whether or not they felt the school valued their home cultures and languages. These questions probed for varying aspects of student happiness, satisfaction, and feelings that their needs were being met by VSS. The teacher and administrator survey included 22 questions also in the format of a Likert-type scale, followed by five questions that prompted open-ended answers regarding impressions of Latina/o students and Latina/o cultures, strengths and weaknesses of Latina/o students, and impressions of Spanish language use. All questions on the 2005 surveys were based on foundational research on school climate for diverse students (e.g., González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1994), beliefs and attitudes of teachers regarding diverse students and ELLs (e.g., Marx, 2006; Sleeter, 1993), feelings about assimilation (e.g., Blanton, 2007; Crawford, 2000; Nieto, 2005; Sleeter, 1992), and additive and subtractive approaches to native languages and cultures (e.g., Valenzuela, 1999).
Surveys were distributed to all 1030 VSS students in English or Spanish, but no Spanish-language surveys were returned. A total of 825 surveys were returned, representing 80% of the student population. Of these, 36 surveys were returned by Latinas/os and 692 by Whites. Of the survey respondents, 84% were White and 4% were Latina/o. Overall, Whites accounted for about 95% of the school population and Latinas/os accounted for 5%. Students from other ethnic groups combined accounted for less than 1% of students. Students who marked more than one race/ethnicity on the survey were discounted, as were those who marked no race/ethnicity. Teacher and administrator surveys were distributed to all 53 teachers and administrators, and 26 (49%) were returned. All respondents, except for the 1 Latino teacher in the school, were White. Responses of the Latino teacher are discussed in depth in Marx (2008a). All student and teacher responses were anonymous.
To compare the experiences of White and Latina/o students as reflected in their responses to the survey, mean item responses were compared using a series of independent-sample t tests. Descriptive statistics were computed for items that differed significantly across ethnic groups. Mann–Whitney U tests were also performed for each question to compute differences between White and Latina/o responses. The internal consistency reliability of the responses to the items on the survey was calculated to be .95.
For every item in the 2005 questionnaire, White students responded more positively than Latina/o students, with more positive thoughts about the school and their own experiences in the school. The differences between White and Latina/o responses were statistically significant (p < .05) for 15 of the 23 questions. These results offered clear evidence that there were differences in Latina/o and White students regarding the quality of their schooling at VSS. The differences in responses indicate that Latinas/os and their families felt less welcome at VSS than White students and that they liked their teachers and school less than White students. In addition, Latina/o students felt less prepared for and confident about their school success than White students; they saw less cultural connection to their school situation and less appreciation of their native culture(s) by teachers and administrators than White students; they saw fewer similarities between their teachers and themselves than White students; and, perhaps as a result of these feelings, they disliked the administrative leaders at the school. Overall, it was clear that Latinas/os at VSS were less academically successful and less happy in their school experiences than their White counterparts. More details regarding the initial survey instrument can be found in Marx (2008a).
In response to the open-ended question on the survey, “Do you think that being a member of your particular ethnic group (White, African American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, etc.) affects your education here? How?” most White students, 68%, answered “no” or responded with color-blind language such as, “It doesn’t matter what race you are to pay attention.” Just 4% answered simply “yes,” and another 4% described Whiteness as an advantage in the school. Also, 5% mentioned the advantages of speaking English and/or the disadvantages of not being able to do so. Although the number of Latina/o respondents was small compared to those of White respondents, proportionately, 25% of them commented on the racial and ethnic inequality they perceived in their school experience and 43% responded that their ethnicity had no impact on their education. Teacher and administrator surveys showed that although White teachers professed to enjoy working with Latina/o students, they did not know the students very well, could not relate to them, held many negative stereotypes and misconceptions about them, did not feel prepared to teach them, and rejected the use of Spanish language and Latina/o students’ home cultures in their classrooms.
Ethnographic Data
Ethnographic data strongly complemented the survey findings by providing more evidence, particularly through interviews, that most teachers wanted Latina/o students to more actively assimilate into VSS so that their presence as an identifiable group would disappear. To this end, teachers refused to make adjustments for Latina/o students, believing this disrupted the assimilationist purpose of the school, called unwanted attention to Latina/o students, and marked them as different from the norm. When two or more Latinas/os walked the hallways or sat together in the lunchroom, many teachers were concerned these students were self-segregating by race/ethnicity. They did not notice when Whites did the same thing. Teachers associated this lack of “fitting in” with a sense of elitism, loneliness, and unhappiness among Latinas/os. Ironically, educators in the school were unconcerned about academic segregation and isolation of Latinas/os at VSS but highly concerned about social segregation, the opposite of what research recommends (e.g., Orfield & Lee, 2004; Tatum, 2003). Larry shared this concern; it was part of the reason he had welcomed Sherry into the school to research the climate for Latina/o students. Although ethnographic data did not include interviews with students (no parents or guardians gave permission for interviews), interviews with teachers and observations of the school gave further evidence for the overall marginalization of Latina/o students at VSS.
Communicating Findings
Sherry crafted a report on these research results for Larry and shared it with him in the early summer of 2005. The report described the purpose of the study and communicated the findings detailed above. It was clear from the research that Latina/o students were less successful and happy at VSS than White students; these were the main findings presented. However, there were also many positive aspects of the VSS climate described in the report, including the warmth and friendliness of teachers interviewed and observed and the positive, “can do” climate of the school, which seemed to come directly from the principal. In the years previous to this study, Larry had led successful, nationally award-winning efforts to improve attendance, tardies, and behavior among VSS students through positive reinforcement.
In addition to reporting strengths and weaknesses, Sherry also provided a list of recommendations based on educational research for improving the VSS school climate for racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse school children in the 2005 report. This list is presented below. Recommendations are numbered to help the reader keep track of them, but no recommendation was considered more important than any other, and they were not recommended to be undertaken in any particular order.
Create an additive school climate where the ideas, perspectives, information, values, cultural knowledge, and language skills of Latina/o students are recognized and then added to, rather than replaced by, the school (e.g., Valenzuela, 1999)
Adopt a more “loving,” supportive school climate for Latina/o schoolchildren (Scheurich, 1998)
Get to know and better understand the strengths Latina/o children bring with them into the classroom through funds of knowledge for teaching (FKT), anthropologically inspired home visits meant to help teachers better know their students, including their families and cultural histories (González et al., 2005)
Encourage culturally relevant teaching at VSS by making use of the children’s home cultures and interests in curriculum and teaching strategies (Ladson-Billings, 1994)
Actively reach out to Latina/o parents to make them feel welcome and respected by the school (e.g., Banks, 2003)
Carefully examine VSS’s Latina/o representation in special education courses to ensure they are not overrepresented, as has been common throughout the history of U.S. schooling (Guiberson, 2009; Lucas & Berends, 2007); reduce this number if necessary
Value the needs of Latina/o students to come together during social times in the school to share personal experiences and develop solidarity (e.g., Tatum, 2003).
Change the ESL pullout program at VSS, as research does not support its effectiveness as an English language assistance program (e.g., Thomas & Collier, 2002)
See Figure 1 for an illustration of these eight overall recommendations for improving school climate.
Recommendations for change
To specifically address the needs of VSS’s Latina/o English language learning students, the following recommendations based on literature in second language learning were made: offer “Spanish for native speakers” class(es) for Spanish-speaking Latina/o students that build on their native language skills (e.g., Carriera, 2000) and eliminate pullout ESL courses, as research does not support their effectiveness (e.g., Thomas & Collier, 2002). Although it was emphasized in the report that social segregation could be interpreted as a positive behavior of Latinas/os (e.g., Tatum, 2003), academic segregation was characterized as a hindrance to equal education at VSS (e.g., Orfield & Lee, 2004; Toohey, 2000).
The following replacements for pullout ESL courses for all but the most recent newcomers to English were recommended: (a) offer core-curriculum courses taught bilingually in Spanish and English so that students do not miss out on content (Thomas & Collier, 2002); (b) offer sheltered classes where the core subject matter is taught in a hands-on, easy-to-understand way in English by a teacher with an ESL endorsement (Thomas & Collier, 2002). If ESL courses could not be eliminated altogether, it was recommended that (c) classes align with state standards for English Language Arts so that ESL teachers could follow a developmental curriculum over the course of a trimester. ESL teachers often have no prescribed curriculum or standards, so lessons are commonly eclectic and erratic, which clearly disadvantage students. Sherry knew of no literature supporting this approach but recommended it as a possible alternative based on her numerous years preparing ESL teachers and working with practicing ESL teachers, teachers who often felt that their ESL classes were their hardest, despite the typically small class sizes. The lack of an available developmental curriculum seemed to directly affect these teachers’ effectiveness, especially in their early years of teaching.
Along with these recommendations, the report included complete chapters and/or articles on developing a loving school environment for Latina/o schoolchildren (Scheurich, 1998), FKT (González et al., 2005), culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994), and discussion of ELL achievement based on type of language program (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Sherry also gave Larry a copy of Beverly Tatum’s (2003) book “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” and Other Conversations About Race as a tool for better understanding social segregation among students of color at the school. Sherry shared the report with Larry in person, highlighting the findings and going over the recommendations. She gave him a copy of the report to keep. At the end of this meeting, she felt satisfied that potentially helpful findings were shared with the principal in a positive, constructive, and professional way.
Larry’s Reaction
Although Sherry walked away from the meeting feeling very positive, Larry, in contrast, felt as if he had been “whacked in the head.” As someone with a conscious focus on excellence, he was offended and hurt by the study findings, stunned that the results, he felt, were so negative. In 2005, Larry had been a principal at VSS for 6 years, and although he experienced many successes, he felt that he was still growing into the position. He had been a science teacher in the school for the 22 years previous to taking over the principalship and, as his numerous state and national awards attest, he had “been recognized as being one of the best science teachers in America.” He explained, “So when you came on site and said, ‘Wow, I see some weaknesses here,’ It hurt. It hurt me because I’m saying [to myself], ‘I must be a terrible principal dealing with ESL.’” Reflecting on these feelings 3 years later, Larry realized,
I think part of that was because I wasn’t very knowledgeable [about ESL]. . . . You gave me articles to read. You gave me things to be aware of because I don’t have my ESL endorsement and all of a sudden I’m saying, “OK, this is something I can learn. This is something I can do.” And, once I got past feeling like I’d been spanked. . . . That’s when I started to think, “What can I do differently?”
As Larry’s comments attest, it is not possible for school principals to have expertise in every subject area. ESL is still a growing credentialized area in the United States, and few principals are knowledgeable of the field before taking on their leadership roles. Although Larry equated ESL with Latinas/os in his comments, the two groups are not synonymous. The school had many more Latina/o students than it did those who were receiving ESL services. However, Larry did not have much experience with either group, Latinas/os or ELLs, and he took this as an opportunity to learn about both.
Understanding the relationships between schools and the ELLs they serve, students who are very often people of color, requires educators to have a strong understanding of not only ESL services but also the sociocultural issues affecting ELLs, including racial inequality. However, scholars who focus on educational leadership and race note that
most school leaders are not taught or trained to deal with sociopolitical or sociocultural matters; nor are they knowledgeable of their role and influence in shaping and defining meaning on issues of race, class, gender, and other areas of difference for and with other school members. (Evans, 2007, p. 160, citing Giroux, 1992, and Young & Laible, 2000)
Much like the principals Evans (2007) studied, Larry and his staff neither were trained nor had background knowledge that enabled them to recognize and address the sociocultural inequalities occurring in their school. Only Mr. Delgado, the one Latino teacher in the school, seemed to have a strong sense of the inequity experienced by Latina/o students at VSS. Despite the growing Latina/o population at VSS, school leaders and most teachers sought to maintain a color-blind school environment. Although poor achievement among Latinas/os at VSS offered hints that this approach was not working, responsibility for improving achievement was left to the students and their families.
Latina/o students were characterized by adults at VSS as low-achieving children whose families did not support education. This is a common deficit perception of Latinas/os and other people of color held by many White educators (e.g., Marx, 2006, 2009; Ryan, 2003; Valencia, 1997; Valencia & Black, 2002). Few people of color are in positions of power in the educational system to challenge such misperceptions, and it is true that some people of color believe them as well (Tatum, 2003). Larry and many members of his staff consciously or unconsciously believed that if Latinas/os would better fit into the VSS climate of assimilation and achievement, they would be less likely to stand out as an isolated, racialized group of students (Marx, 2008a). As a result, they were “rendered invisible” (Ryan, 2003, p. 150) in the school. As one of the teachers wrote on the 2005 survey, invisibility is “something I think they want.”
Sharing the 2004–2005 study results, recommendations for change, and supplemental reading materials with Larry gave him enough information to rethink his perspectives on Latina/o and ELL students as he studied the 2005 report over several months. To corroborate study findings, he also examined 5 years of “end-of-level testing data,” otherwise known as yearly criterion-referenced tests (CRTs), at the district office. By doing this, he “came to the conclusion that inaction on my part would be something I would regret professionally for the rest of my life.” As the key change agent in his school with a powerful drive toward excellence, he began making changes. The first thing he did was “share the report in faculty meetings over a period of at least six months.” Larry explained that he addressed the report by breaking it into three topics: “(1) the research findings in our school and interpretations of the data, (2) what this means for us as a staff professionally, and (3) what actions are we going to take as a school, if any?”
Initially, many teachers were resistant to the focus on Latina/o students, and the ESL teacher was concerned she was being targeted as a failing teacher. Larry had to assure her and the ESL coordinator for the district that he was not targeting the ESL program but looking more broadly at the issue of Latina/o achievement across all dimensions of VSS. As he said, “I would not describe the first response as being eager to act, but rather a tentative hesitation to see what I was going to do as the principal.” Larry believed that “over time, the faculty had come to trust my judgment and wanted to see what direction I was going to give them.” So “with my vice principal on board, we decided to focus our efforts on the idea that there had to be something we could do collectively as a staff that would make a difference” in the education of Latina/o students.
For 6 months, it became routine that
[a]t the end of each faculty meeting, I would have the faculty break into smaller discussion groups and ask each group to come up with at least one suggestion for improvement in their individual classrooms as to how to better address the issues we were facing.
Together, Larry and the VSS staff began addressing the report recommendations they could most easily address, separately and collectively, given their own expertise and experience and the resources available to them. These changes did not all happen at once. However, many of the changes prompted further changes that subsequently addressed other recommendations.
Taking Action
In looking at the general recommendations geared toward school climate, it was easy for Larry to address Recommendation 6, examine Latina/o representation in special education/reduce if necessary. Several years earlier, VSS’s school district had been reviewed by the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and found to be out of compliance regarding its Latina/o and ELL students under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thereafter, in meeting compliance, all schools in the district were required to keep careful records of their students of color, ELLs, and students receiving special education services. Larry looked at his records and saw that although there were many Latinas/os receiving special education services at VSS, the numbers were within the acceptable range mandated by the OCR.
In examining Recommendation 1, create an additive school climate, Recommendation 2, adopt a more loving school climate, Recommendation 3, get to know and better understand the strengths of Latinas/os through funds of knowledge for teaching, and Recommendation 4, encourage culturally relevant teaching, Larry and the faculty felt at a loss. First, they felt that their school did value and support all their students. Believing in the power of assimilation through schooling (e.g., Arias, 2005; Moll & Ruiz, 2009; Nieto, 2005; Vásquez, 2007), Larry and the faculty wanted the Latinas/os in the school to rise to their expectations. It seemed counter to the purpose of the school to center Latina/o home lives and native cultures in the curriculum, which, along with the school culture, was very “traditional” and White-centric. Second, these recommendations were highly abstract in the practical world of the school. How does one implement such change in school climate with limited budget and time constraints, not to mention a generally successful staff of virtually all White teachers who felt that they were doing their best? The faculty felt they could not work with these recommendations, so Larry reexamined the list.
Recommendation 5, actively reach out to Latina/o parents, made a strong impression on Larry. He knew this was a recommendation the school could implement. The northern Utah region where VSS is located can be characterized by its strong emphasis on family, which is directly related to the predominant religion in the area, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Its followers are commonly known as Mormons. Most of the VSS student body and faculty, including Larry, are members of the LDS faith. The LDS religion and its related culture are such an influential factor in the state of Utah that it would be an omission to not mention it in some aspect of the article. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to examine the influences of the LDS church on VSS in depth, it can be stated that the LDS context has a strong impact on the values held by a majority of the local population (see Buendía, Ares, Juarez, & Peercy, 2004; Huerta & Flemmer, 2005; Solorzano, 2005; also see www.lds.org). Larry, a dedicated principal, leader in his local church, father of 7 children, and grandfather to 23, enthusiastically welcomed the recommendation to reach out to Latina/o parents and began taking action. 4
Reaching Out to Latina/o Families
Larry’s first priory became helping Latina/o parents to become more aware of and involved with their children’s education at VSS. He took a number of steps to do this, the first of which was hiring a local university student, fluent in Spanish, to call every Latina/o parent or guardian before each parent–teacher conference session or school open house and invite them to attend, emphasizing that entire families were welcome. Larry also arranged for dinner to be provided for attending Latina/o families in a hospitality room specifically set aside for this purpose. During the first conference session, one person served as a translator for the evening. By the end of the school year, the sessions had become so popular with Latina/o families that four translators “going nonstop for 3 hours” were necessary. It was important to Larry that Spanish-speaking parents not have to wait in their efforts to communicate with teachers or administrators. Observations showed that these lively events were well attended by Latinas/os.
Larry also purchased an autodialer that enabled typed school messages to be verbally broadcast to every child’s home phone number in English or Spanish. When first using this device, he found that most Spanish-speaking families served by the school were unreachable, as they did not have phones at home. When he learned that these parents most often relied on cell phones, he bought an augmentation to the device that allowed it to call cell phones. Larry was proud to share, “Now they are getting the messages in Spanish on their cell phones.” The autodialer also allowed him to send messages to parents through email in many languages, including Spanish. It provided a tidy report on who was and was not reached through its efforts, enabling the lack of communication with Latina/o families to be highlighted. This communication limitation contributed to the divide between school and Latina/o homes in that VSS relied on the Internet to share a great deal of information with parents beyond email, such as student progress reports, school schedules, handbooks, policies, improvement plans, lunch menus, teacher websites, and even student of the month announcements.
To help parents take advantage of the information available on the Internet, Larry implemented free weekly technology classes at VSS held in the evenings, specifically aimed to Latinas/os. Bilingual fliers advertising the classes were posted in numerous businesses, grocery stores, factories, and government buildings around the county. To develop the class, he contacted a well-known activist for the local Latina/o community who is a native of Mexico and has implemented a number of English and Technology classes in local schools. The class relies on a computerized English language learning program and is facilitated in Spanish by a local university student. Students in the class learn English as they learn computer skills, including navigating the Internet. When they complete the 12-week program, they earn a technology certificate from a Mexican university, not only improving their own skills but also making them more marketable. The class has grown from 8 to 19 students meeting weekly since it was initially developed in 2008.
Actively reaching out to Latina/o parents, Larry discovered just how wide the information gap between school and home could be. Frustrated by a student who received all Fs one trimester, he called her parents in for a meeting. With the help of a translator, he expressed his disappointment with Sofia, who also attended the meeting. Very concerned, the parents responded, “This is not acceptable. Why didn’t we know about this before?” Larry, buying in to one of the many deficit stereotypes White educators believe about Latinas/os (Marx, 2009; Valencia, 1997; Valencia & Black, 2002), had assumed that they did not value education, given their lack of participation in Sofia’s schooling. He was stunned to learn these parents had no knowledge of report cards or informal grade reports sent home every 3 weeks, both of which required a parent signature. He explained to the parents when to expect these frequent reports and, through further conversation, discovered that the parents had no Internet access. He thus encouraged them to call him whenever they liked. Looking up Sofia’s grades as he shared this story, Larry found that they had improved from all Fs to just one F over two trimesters. Although room for improvement remained, the changes brought about by her parents’ new knowledge of VSS were tangible.
Larry shared other stories about Latina/o parents who did not know the significance of letter grades or the differences between grade point averages of 1.0 and 4.0. Over time, he began personally meeting with new Latina/o students and their parents at the beginning of the school year, introducing himself, explaining how the school worked, and articulating his expectations for students and parents. Responses from Latina/o parents have been unanimously positive to this meeting. “You’ve got to get the parents more knowledgeable about how the school works,” Larry shared. “Then they [can do the rest].”
Valuing the Social Self-Segregation of Latinas/os
The next change Larry made was to adjust his own thinking about the ways Latinas/os were segregated during the school day. Reading “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” and Other Conversations About Race (Tatum, 2003), he thought of the Latina/o kids eating together in the cafeteria and tried to believe that the situation did not need his attention, thus addressing Recommendation 7, value the needs of Latina/o students to come together during social times. Instead, he turned his attention to better integrating Latinas/os in academics. These changes were directly tied to the English language services offered by the school and came in response to the recommendations made to address the language needs of Latina/o students at VSS.
Addressing Language Services
In examining Recommendation 8, change the ESL pullout program at VSS, Larry assessed the first recommendation, offer Spanish for native speakers class(es) as a low priority. Believing in the assimilationist purpose of schooling, he was not convinced of the value of helping students develop their Spanish language skills. He was also concerned about the expense the development of such classes would involve. He was open-minded to the next recommendation, eliminate pullout ESL courses, but he assessed the first replacement option, offer core-curriculum classes bilingually in Spanish and English, as simply too expensive for VSS, a school that did not receive supplemental funding, such as that provided by Title I. VSS also had few bilingual teachers and none trained in bilingual education. Bilingual education at the secondary level requires teachers in every subject area to have academic sophistication in two languages, something that could not exist at VSS without a large change of staff. The school could not afford to make these changes and was satisfied with the teachers it had. In addition, Larry realized that bilingual education at the secondary level would be a radical change for the district, something that likely would not receive support from the district or community (see Krashen, 1999; Nieto, 2005). Also, less than 5% of the student body needed such services. Regarding the second option, offer core-curriculum in sheltered classes, Larry noted that the school had begun offering a sheltered geography class taught by the ESL teacher, who had a geography credential. He had also hired math and science teachers with ESL endorsements, so more sheltered classes could be developed over time.
It was the third recommendation, align ESL classes with state standards for English language arts, that seemed the most practical to Larry. At the same time, Ms. Strong, the ESL instructor; Ms. Spain, an English teacher with an ESL endorsement; a Spanish teacher; a special education teacher; and a math teacher together approached Larry with concerns about student reading skills across ethnicity and language skill at VSS. They agreed that many White, native-English-speaking students had struggles similar to those of many Latinas/os and ELLs. Together, they crafted literacy classes that would integrate native and nonnative speakers of English who were tested as reading at least two levels below grade level. To do this, they adopted a literacy curriculum aimed toward struggling readers in the mainstream classroom. 5 Ms. Strong and Ms. Spain tested all students in the two schools feeding into VSS who scored a 1 or 2 (on a scale of 1 to 4) on the previous year’s CRT in reading with the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading and the assessment tool provided by the adopted literacy curriculum. Students assessed as reading two grades or more below grade level were placed into literacy classes at VSS their first year in the school; thus, English-fluent and limited-English-proficient kids, Latina/o and White, were integrated in these classes.
The literacy classes were team taught by Ms. Spain and Ms. Strong to improve the teacher–student ratio and allow individual students more guidance. The classes were longer than typical VSS classes, 90 minutes rather than 50, and students were enrolled for a year rather than a trimester. Classes counted as students’ English language arts classes. “As the results from weekly testing and teacher reports started to trickle in, I knew we had stumbled onto something remarkable,” said Larry. In addition to improved achievement, “What we began to notice, during those first few weeks, was that our tardy rates and office referral rates began to drop, not just a little, but dramatically.” In addition, the team teachers reported that “students who normally failed most of their classes began to experience success for the first time.” Larry explained, “The pacing in these team-taught classes was slower and there was more personalized help, as there were at least two adults, and sometimes three or four,” including teacher aides, in the classroom. Enthusiasm apparent in his words, Larry said, “The first year of this program was, in my opinion, really earth-shattering in nature. We were doing something no one, to our knowledge, had ever tried in Utah.”
The team-taught classes seemed so successful to the teachers and principal based on student achievement in various formal and informal assessments, as well as improved behavior and attendance, that the next year they offered a similarly structured algebra class for low-achieving math students, taught by the math and ESL teachers. This class followed the regular algebra curriculum. Larry explained,
By the time we began our second year of team teaching these groups of students, we began to receive multiple requests from White parents wanting their children in the slower paced classes. The word had gotten out that we were providing extra assistance to some students and they wanted “in.”
During the second year of changes, the high school VSS students went on to attend studied the VSS efforts and “during our third year of implementation, they agreed to offer a team-taught geometry class for incoming 10th graders for the very first time.” Thus, the efforts at VSS moved from the single school and started to be implemented at a wider level. During the writing of this article, the school district was experimenting with similar team-taught classes in multiple schools.
Although ESL pullout classes were largely eliminated, newcomers who spoke very limited English were still able to spend one class period each day with the ESL teacher, Ms. Strong. Students in this category numbered just 2 in the 2007–2008 school year, whereas 40 students in total were categorized as ELL, up from 31 in 2005. A university student pursuing his secondary Spanish teaching credential was hired part-time to examine a centralized database of student assignment scores each day. Any student classified as ELL who scored poorly on a given assessment was called by this tutor to receive pointed help during the school’s morning announcements and Channel One time, about 20 minutes each morning. These various methods ensured that no student with limited English skills missed any core classes, nor fell through the cracks academically.
Other Recommendations Addressed
Although VSS did not intentionally address many of the recommendations made by Sherry in the 2005 report, the changes made indirectly addressed many of them to some degree. By actively reaching out to the parents of VSS’s Latina/o students, Larry and many members of his staff got to know these Latina/o families much better. By getting to know them, they discovered that parents were genuinely interested in their children’s education and eager to gain tools that enabled them to better monitor and enhance their children’s progress. The VSS climate became much more additive (Recommendation 1) for its Latina/o students as a result of this effort. As an aspect of this change, Larry, a fluent speaker of French, began studying Spanish. He was delighted to surprise kids in the hallways by asking, in Spanish, if they had finished their homework.
Through these changes, the school environment seemed to become more loving (Recommendation 2) for Latinas/os. They were not purposefully ignored as they had been by many adults in the school in 2004–2005 (Marx, 2008a). Rather, they were seen as a group of students who likely needed academic help, so attention was given to their needs. When they excelled, their strengths were recognized and praised, as evidenced by many of Larry’s stories and comments by teachers in faculty meetings. Similarly, although the funds of knowledge for teaching (Recommendation 3) method was not attempted, getting to know the students better by better knowing their families was an important step in the right direction. Another positive change was that although the number of ELLs receiving special education services had initially been within the parameters set by the OCR, this number was substantially lower by the end of the 2007–2008 school year (Recommendation 6). See Figure 2 for an illustration of targeted and by-product changes.
Changes made
Resulting Changes in the School
To make sense of the changes Larry initiated, including the impact they had on Latina/o student achievement and happiness at VSS, Sherry continued gathering ethnographic data in the forms of interviews with faculty, the principal, and the two Latina/o students whose parents gave permission for their participation in 2007–2008. She also conducted observations of the new team-taught literacy and math classes, evening events for parents and families, and public school spaces. In addition, she participated in meetings Larry conducted with district personnel and faculty members as he sought to improve the educational achievement of Latina/o students in the school.
Improved School Climate
During 2007–2008 observations, Sherry noticed right away that Latinas/os and Whites were not self-segregating in the school hallways or in classes. Her observations corroborated Larry’s assessment:
We saw a change in the pattern of socialization during lunch. We found more Latino students eating with their White counterparts. We found them commingling in the lunch lines. We found them visiting more with each other before and after school. We found them doing their homework together in the media centers.
Integrating Latina/o and White students in academic classes seemed to influence the social patterns of these students, a surprising finding we had not anticipated. Through observations, it was clear that Latinas/os and Whites routinely talked together and helped one another. Because their classes in reading and/or math were open to anyone struggling, Latina/o kids struggling in these areas now spent one or more class periods integrated with White kids also struggling. Very often, the most knowledgeable student in a given lesson was Latina/o and/or an ELL. Larry shared several stories of hearing White kids praise their Latina/o classmates, making such comments as, “Oh man, José is so good at algebra!” As he shared these incidents with Sherry, Larry choked up. He was so proud of his kids and this “unintended result” of integrating the native and nonnative speakers of English.
Improved AYP Proficiency
Larry’s observations that the school climate for Latina/o students had improved are verified by VSS’s annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) reports that show remarkable gains among Latinas/os from 2005 to 2008. In 2005 just 23% of Latinas/os scored proficient or above in science, 37% in language arts, and 32% in math. By 2008, these numbers had increased to 41% in science, 71% in language arts, and 61% in math, with the numbers of those reaching proficiency in all subjects nearly doubling. Students categorized as ELL improved as well. In 2005, 22% of ELLs reached proficiency or above in science, 29% in language arts, and 30% in math. In 2008, these numbers had climbed to 35%, 70%, and 53%, respectively, indicating that curricular changes in language arts and math were working for Latina/o and ELL students. “The data were unmistakable,” said Larry. “What we were doing was making a difference. During the second and third year it was almost fun to have our report of test results” at faculty meetings. See Table 1 for an illustration of these improved passing rates.
Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) Scores in 2005 and 2008
2008 Survey Results
In the spring of 2008, a survey identical to that conducted in 2005 was given to the VSS student body following a protocol similar to the 2005 survey. Surveys were distributed by teachers during morning announcements and Channel One time. Spanish copies of the surveys were given to all teachers to distribute as necessary, and one completed Spanish survey was returned. In total, 1,015 surveys were distributed to students. A total of 867 surveys (85%) were returned, 728 from Whites and 55 from Latinas/os, representing 84% and 6% of respondents. The same inclusion criteria used in 2005 were used in 2008. Once again, mean item responses were compared using a series of independent-sample t tests, and descriptive statistics were computed; Mann–Whitney U tests were performed for each question to compute differences between White and Latina/o responses. In addition, Mann–Whitney U tests were performed for each question, by ethnicity, for the 2005 and 2008 surveys, to calculate differences in responses over time. The internal consistency reliability of the responses to the items on the survey was calculated to be .94. As VSS is a 2-year school, no students who took the 2005 survey took it again in 2008. Importantly, the demographics of the school did not change during this time, except that the Latina/o population continued to grow.
For the 2008 survey, Latina/o mean scores were lower (more positive) than on the 2005 survey for 20 out of 23 questions measured. The 3 questions that exacted statistically significant charges in Latina/o mean scores from 2005 to 2008 were all related to feeling successful in school: “I feel well prepared for school” (from 3.03 to 2.38), “I am confident that I am doing what it takes to succeed in school” (2.83 to 2.24), and “I know what I need to do to be successful in my classes at VSS” (2.97 to 2.13). Median answers for Latinas/os became more positive, moving from 3 on the Likert-type scale to 2 for these three questions as well as for three questions dealing with liking school, “I like attending VSS,” “I like my teachers,” “I feel welcome at VSS,” and the statement related to English language use, “An important part of succeeding in school is speaking English.” Latina/o students’ more positive impression of this statement possibly indicated that students’ English education was more successful than in years previous. Future research can shed more light on this possibility. In 2008, Whites and Latinas/os both answered “My teachers can relate well to me,” with identical means in 2008 (3.00 and 3.00). See Table 2 for descriptive statistics of significant changes in surveys from 2005 to 2008 for Latinas/os.
Significant Survey Response Changes Between 2005 and 2008 for Latinas/os
Note. A Mann–Whitney U test was performed for each question between scores for time on each ethnicity. p values were obtained for each score.
p < .05. **p < .01.
In contrast to their Latina/o classmates, White students’ mean responses were largely consistent in 2005 and 2008, with 7 of the 23 questions measured in 2008 more negative than in 2005. These differences were statistically significant but relevantly small for all but two questions. Responses to “I like the administrators (principals, etc.) at school” were appreciably more negative in 2008 (moving from 2.51 to 2.93). It is interesting that Whites’ and Latinas/os’ response means to this question were nearly identical in 2008 (White = 2.93, Latina/o = 2.98), indicating more negative experiences for Whites but improved experiences for Latinas/os since 2005 (White = 2.51, Latina/o = 3.36). This is the only question on the survey that indicated significant, divergent changes for both groups. The negative change for Whites may indicate that they felt less privileged by their Whiteness as Larry and his staff initiated school changes particularly targeted at Latinas/os. Whites were also significantly more supportive of the statement “An important part of succeeding in school is speaking English” in 2008 (2.06) than in 2005 (2.37). This change may point to some backlash among Whites sharing classrooms with increasing numbers of Latinas/os who received more positive attention from school leaders than in the past (Marx, 2006). At the same time, the change may indicate recognition of the effective literacy classes many Whites and Latinas/os were sharing. Further study of this topic must be conducted before clear conclusions can be made. The only statistically significant positive change for Whites concerned the question “I feel that I fit in well at school,” which moved from 2.30 in 2005 to 2.13 in 2008. All in all, the mostly steady White responses from 2005 to 2008 and the contrasting positive changes in Latina/o student responses indicate that the targeted attention to Latina/o students was having a positive effect on its intended audience. See Table 3 for descriptive statistics of significant changes in White responses from 2005 to 2008.
Significant Survey Response Changes Between 2005 and 2008 for Whites
Note. A Mann–Whitney U test was performed for each question between scores for time on each ethnicity. p values were obtained for each score. Responses to all questions except “I feel that I fit in well as school” were more negative in 2008 for Whites.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Despite the largely positive changes for Latinas/os, for all questions and statements except “My teachers can relate well to me,” Latina/o responses remained more negative (higher) than White responses in 2008. Just three questions or statements showed more negative results for Latinas/os in 2008 than 2005, and all these changes were slight. One, “I feel that my teachers know my family well,” merited a slight change in mean (3.46 to 3.50) but a larger change in median (from 3 to 4) from 2005. It is interesting that a similar statement, “I feel that my teachers know me well,” merited more positive mean responses in 2008 (from 3.23 to 2.94). The other two statements eliciting more negative mean results in 2008 concerned home culture and language in the classroom, including “My teachers include my home culture and language in their classes” (from 3.17 to 3.36) and “My home culture and home language are valued by the school” (from 3.11 to 3.20).
One explanation for these three slightly more negative responses by Latinas/os in 2008 may be that Mr. Delgado, the only Latino teacher at VSS in 2005, who was dedicated to Latina/o students and incorporated Latina/o cultures and the Spanish language into his classroom (Marx, 2008a), left the school by 2008 after he was recruited by a local secondary charter school. The absence of this one teacher could have influenced Latina/o student thought about how much their own culture and language were valued by the school. Although VSS made many remarkable changes to the school between 2005 and 2008, embracing Latina/o cultures and the Spanish language was not a part of these changes.
When examining Latina/o responses to the one open-ended question on the survey, “Do you think that being a member of your particular ethnic group affects your education here? How?” it was evident that 2008 responses were more nuanced and more positive than those in 2005. In all, 18 (33%) Latinas/os answered “no,” with 4 students augmenting this answer with positive comments about the school such as, “No, por qué nos enseñan muchas cosas” (“no because they teach us many things”) and “Nope because it’s my choice and because it’s VSS.” Several of these students pointed out that they had “White friends and Latino friends.” The two Latina/o students who were interviewed expressed these thoughts as well.
A total of 12 students (22%) answered “yes” to this question and discussed some form of inequity ranging from “everyone looks at you weird” to “there are people that don’t like me because of my color and they start to distract me.” Just 4 of these students mentioned the word racism, typically in thoughtful ways such as, “Yes, I don’t know how, but being a certain race can change your education—there is racism anywhere.” A total of 4 students (7%) responded “yes” and discussed their native language, and 2 students (4%) responded “yes” and then described academically positive effects such as “Yes, I am more pressured to do better because my parents want me to succeed since they could not in their country” and “Yes, because you can get a better education [and] understand more & it will help 2 get a better career.” An additional 3 students (5%) reported mixed feelings, such as,
Yes, because the principal, vice principal and cop think that every Hispanic or something other than White are troublemakers. And we are, but we’re also interested in making our family proud and interested in graduating and having a good education.
A related response was, “Well, some people are rasiest [sic] but I don’t care. I have Brown Pride!” In all, 16 Latina/o students (29%) did not respond to this question or offered comments seemingly unrelated to race, ethnicity, or language. Overall, many examples of resilience and determination came through in the open-ended responses of Latina/o students. These answers contrast sharply with the angry and frustrated tone of many 2005 respondents.
Discussion
Because this is a naturalistic study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of school change, examined holistically rather than incrementally, it is impossible to assess exactly which changes initiated at VSS brought about these positive results in school climate to what degree. However, looking at the study holistically, taking into account the ethnographic data, AYP reports, and survey results, an informative picture emerges that indicates that, through its varied efforts, VSS was much more successful at reaching out to Latina/o students and improving the school climate for them by 2008. Overall, the 2008 survey indicates that Latina/o students were happier at VSS than in 2005, particularly in regard to liking school, teachers, and administrators and feeling welcome. It is interesting that these feelings were correlated with more positive responses about feeling confident in school, knowing how to be successful, and acknowledging the importance of speaking English to succeed in the school. Much improved AYP proficiency in language arts, math, and science showed that Latina/o students were having a better academic experience at VSS in 2008 than in 2005.
Although Latina/o students were expected to “blend in” with their White classmates in 2005, by 2008 Latinas/os in the school were recognized as possibly struggling members of a cultural, racial, and linguistic group making up a small but growing presence in the school. Rather than ignoring or denying the presence of these students and their cultural and racial group in a color-blind manner, Larry initiated efforts to meet the needs of these students through a more color-conscious perspective. Getting to know Latina/o students by better getting to know their families and integrating students in their academic coursework seemed to strongly affect these changes. As a result, Latinas/os were no longer thought of as a largely invisible, occasionally troublesome population at VSS. Instead, they became recognized by adults at VSS as important members of the school community with devoted families and much potential. They began to thrive in their VSS school experience.
Challenges of Mingling Theory and Practice
Through our collaborative research project examining change in school climate for Latinas/os, we matched theory with practice in some instances and found that theory did not easily fit with practice in other instances. As discussed earlier, some theoretical aims seemed too vague and idealistic to target, such as creating an additive, loving school climate. However, these important schooling qualities were accomplished as by-products of other efforts. Two well-known approaches to multicultural education that were not attempted, FKT (González et al., 2005) and culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994), proved too daunting for VSS. FKT, in particular, requires a substantial investment of time and resources, as educators must be trained in ethnographic data collection methods and subsequently conduct fieldwork in the lives of students and their families (González et al., 2005). At the same time, by better getting to know the Latina/o students in the school and their families, some aims of FKT were achieved, namely, better knowing students and their families and building on their strengths.
Although culturally relevant teaching requires no extra funding, it does require familiarity with and appreciation of student cultures that are outside the White mainstream. After Mr. Delgado left VSS, the remaining all-White faculty had no native familiarity with Latina/o cultures in the United States. Like teachers across the United States, most educators at VSS held an assimilationist perspective that expected students from non-White, nonlocal cultures to “blend in” to the dominant White, English-speaking culture reflected in the school (Arias, 2005; Marx, 2008a; Dicker, 2008; Moll & Ruiz, 2009; Sleeter, 1992; Spring, 2010; Vásquez, 2007). Recommending culturally relevant teaching as a schoolwide approach to working with Latina/o students seemed, to Larry and his colleagues, vague, hard to achieve, and contrary to the assimilationist climate of the school.
In addition to these explanations, Sherry has found that White educators are often resistant to making home visits to the families of their students of color because of the fears and stereotypes they hold about people of color (Marx, 2009). White educators who have never been to the home of a person of color sometimes assume the worst and lose sight of the humanity of their own students. This is more evidence of the persistence of racism (Bell, 1992; Delgado, 1995). FKT home visits can dismiss these fears, but educators must be willing to undertake them to achieve positive results. Similarly, White teachers must be knowledgeable of and confident in their own ethnic/racial/cultural identities to embrace those of others (Marx, 2006; Titone, 1998). It is safe to say that most White educators at the K–12 level are not cognizant of their Whiteness, nor that of the curriculum and schools within which they work. Rather than recognizing that they work in a cultural/racial/linguistic milieu, many educators believe their own school settings are culture free (Marx, 2006; Spindler & Spindler, 1982). With this mind-set, adopting the cultures of students of color seems radical, inappropriate, and a threat to the core curriculum (Blanton, 2007; Crawford, 2000; Nieto, 2005). We suggest this is an important and impactful limitation of a predominantly White teacher and school administrator workforce.
Similarly, bilingual education and Spanish for native speakers classes were considered too costly and too radical for this secondary school in northern Utah with little history of working with ELLs. It is important to note that, despite its known effectiveness, bilingual education is a controversial approach to educating linguistic minorities throughout the United States (e.g., Blanton, 2007; Crawford, 2000; Dicker, 2008; Krashen, 1999; Nieto, 2005); VSS would have been outside the norm to quickly embrace the notion. In addition, bilingual education is rarely implemented at the secondary level in the United States; it is most common in the first 3 years of education (K–2). Classes in Spanish for native speakers are similarly controversial and not as well known, especially in areas with fewer nonnative speakers of English. To implement these approaches to education at the secondary level, VSS, its district, and its community would have to buy into the value of supporting Spanish language for the purpose of education, something those with an assimilationist agenda are not likely to do (Arias, 2005; Moll & Ruiz, 2009; Spring, 2010; Vásquez, 2007).
Theoretical Insights
Considering our theoretical framework of CRT and critical studies in Whiteness, we note that FKT, culturally relevant teaching, bilingual education, and Spanish for native speakers classes can be perceived as threatening to the White-dominant school culture and curriculum that characterize not only VSS but also schools throughout the United States. Through the examples we share, Whiteness and racism are revealed in the VSS study. Strategies for improving schooling for Latina/o students that required embrace of their culture(s) and language(s) were resisted as unnecessary by VSS. These are examples of Whiteness as a property right that was protected and maintained by VSS, even as it sought to better address the needs of its Latina/o students (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Harris, 1993; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). That is, the White students in the school (who composed the majority of the student body population) were not perceived as needing or benefiting from these changes in curriculum and teaching. At the same time, White teachers did not have the skills needed to teach to these changes in curriculum. To begin a bilingual program, teachers in place would have to be replaced, most likely by teachers of color, who were scarce in the district. Replacing Whites with teachers of color is the ultimate rejection of Whiteness as a property right.
At the same time, the CRT concept of interest convergence gives similar insights into the changes VSS chose to make and not make. By integrating White students, students of color, and ELLs in literacy and math classes, it was apparent that White students benefited from the extra teacher attention and the slower pace of information. White parents made sure their children got into these courses. Parents and teachers appreciated them and acknowledged their usefulness. The interests of parents, teachers, and the Latina/o children at VSS converged on this change. Similarly, better getting to know Latina/o families and receiving their support and input on their children’s education enabled VSS’s policies and expectations to be better accommodated by Latina/o students. Once again, the interests of VSS and the Latina/o student body converged.
FKT, culturally relevant teaching, Spanish for native speakers classes, and bilingual education are not typically promoted as approaches to education that benefit White students. Thus, in schools seeking consciously or unconsciously to maintain White cultural norms through assimilationist practices, these approaches may be rejected as not benefiting “all” students, and thus assessed as not feasible for anyone (Kubota, 2004; Pollock, 2004). To local school administrators Sherry has talked with about similar projects, these changes to the standard curriculum seem needlessly disruptive to schools that are working well overall for the majority of students, even though such changes might benefit students of color and ELLs. In these cases, the interest of the White majority population—or the White norms and culture of the school, if the school is majority of color—are thought not to converge with the needs of the of color and ELL population.
In reflecting on these findings, we wonder if FKT, bilingual education, and culturally relevant teaching, in particular, might be more readily adopted by more White-dominant schools if they are reframed as benefiting White students and the overall culture of the school, in addition to the students of color and nonnative speakers of English for whom they are intended. Proponents of these programs, classes, and strategies likely agree that White monolingual children benefit from more pointed efforts toward bilingualism and multiculturalism in their classrooms. Educators and the public, however, often see these approaches to education as drastic, counter to the core curriculum, and even unpatriotic (e.g., Blanton, 2007; Crawford, 2000; Nieto, 2005). If these well-studied approaches to teaching are marketed in ways that are more amenable to the White majority, as advantageous in a global economy, for example, perhaps they will not be considered so radical. Although we believe this is an intriguing avenue to explore, we also note the danger of “Whitewashing” curricular approaches traditionally targeted to children of color and ELLs. Future study of such change is the only way to learn more.
Another factor contributing to the Whiteness of VSS and the changes it pursued was the Whiteness of the most active change agent in the school, the principal, Larry. A strong believer in collaborating with and accessing the expertise of others, Larry reached out to faculty members for help improving the VSS school climate for Latina/o students. All these teachers were native-English-speaking Whites. Larry also reached out to the school district, the Utah State Office of Education, and the local university for help on the same topic. All those who came to meetings and shared ideas were native-English-speaking Whites. The researcher who came to study the process, Sherry, was another native-English-speaking White. The college students who worked part-time monitoring grades, inviting parents to attend school functions, and translating for Spanish-speaking families were also native-English-speaking Whites. In his admirable efforts to reach out for help, Larry relied on his own network of contacts and amassed a group of well-intentioned Whites with varying areas of expertise but little to no meaningful experience with Latinas/os. The absence of Latinas/os (and other people of color) as empowered faculty and employees in the school, district, and extended academic community contributed to this reliance on an all-White network.
In her interesting study of desegregation and integration in a Northern California school district, Arias (2005) found that education for Latina/o school children improved most rapidly and beneficially when significant numbers of Latinas/os were represented in the district administration, on the school board, in the state, and in the community, as well as on “the litigation team” that demanded change (p. 1993). She writes that early efforts to desegregate the district had resulted in numerical integration of Latinas/os and Whites but also a severe lack of language assistance programs that hindered many Latina/o students’ achievement, unequal representation of Latinas/os bussed for longer periods of time than Whites, and unequal numbers of Latina/o-majority schools closed as compared to White-majority schools. “Latinos were not involved in developing the remedy that was imposed on them,” she writes (p. 1995).
Although improvement efforts and results at VSS were impressive between 2005 and 2008, it must be noted that Latinas/os were not involved in the change efforts, though they were pointedly welcomed in the school as students and parents. The only exception to this omission regarded the computer skills class offered after school at VSS. A prominent Mexican immigrant in the community set up the program. However, it was administered each week by a White college student. As a White ally, Larry’s efforts were limited by his Whiteness and the Whiteness that characterizes the great majority of educational professionals in northern Utah, as well as in many school districts across the country. Such all-White efforts are necessarily limited by a “possessive investment in whiteness” (Lipsitz, 2006), unconscious though it may be. Although all-White efforts can effect positive change, as this study indicates, such change efforts will necessarily be limited by Whiteness.
As we examined and reexamined our data and revised and reread our article, we realized that the most profound and possibly most enduring changes that resulted from our efforts were the changes that took place in Larry beginning in 2005 and continuing on through today. Although he initially characterized Latinas/os in his school as “a problem” that needed to be “dealt with,” through the process of our collaboration, Larry recognized the Latina/o students in his school as kids with much potential. Rather than feeling relief when they left his school, he became concerned with their achievement beyond VSS and worked closely with the district, helping to set up classes similar to the literacy and math classes that worked so well at VSS. Although he was initially concerned that parents and guardians of Latina/o students did not value education, Larry grew to see these adults as critical assets who strongly supported and affected their children’s achievement. During his last year in the principalship of VSS, Larry experimented with getting more Latina/o parents involved in after-school activities. He also wanted to learn more about culturally relevant teaching and became less focused on assimilation as a main purpose of education. It seemed that the most active change agent in the school became the most actively changed agent as a result of these efforts. His change, in particular, gives evidence for the catalytic validity of this project (Lather, 1991).
Conclusion
This study provides one example of a researcher and principal working together to enact positive change in school climate for Latina/o students in a real-world setting. Through this process, VSS greatly improved the educational experience it offered its Latina/o students and transformed some aspects of its White-centric climate. By recognizing its Latinas/os and ELLs as students who might need help accessing the curriculum and other services offered by the school, VSS rejected color blindness and made the “can do,” success-oriented culture of the school, as well as the social and cultural capital it offered, available to these students. In-school segregation and Latina/o underachievement were other signifiers of everyday racism that were pointedly addressed and positively affected by the changes made at VSS.
At the same time, through our project, we found evidence of other dimensions of Whiteness and racism that resisted or inhibited change efforts at VSS. The property rights of Whiteness and the seeming lack of interest convergence impeded the implementation of possibly more effective, research-based recommendations for change that are well understood in the academy but are little known by those outside it, such as FKT, bilingual education, Spanish for native speakers classes, and culturally relevant teaching. The pervasiveness of the Whiteness of VSS and the community it serves influenced all dimensions of the changes undertaken and achieved by VSS.
What we learned through our efforts to understand and positively change some aspects of VSS gives evidence for the messiness that characterizes real life and real schools. VSS is a predominantly White school in a predominantly White region. Although Latinas/os have been moving into the region in relatively large numbers for the past 20 years and although their numbers have steadily grown, local schools did not recognize Latinas/os as a substantial proportion of the children they serve until very recently. As Evans (2007) points out, demographic change, even when it happens quickly, tends to be recognized very slowly by school leaders. Most school administrators and teachers in the United States are products of and proud reproducers of traditional, White-centric school experiences, curricula, and ideologies. They are often quite proud of the “color-blind glasses” they wear and believe these glasses prevent them from seeing any differences among children of varying racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.
The change project at VSS shows that positive results can come from taking off the color-blind glasses and recognizing children for who they are: diverse people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, strengths, and weaknesses, qualities that can be built on only when they are recognized. Once Larry did this, he went on to make a real difference in his school. At the same time, he made a real difference in himself. In highlighting the successes we experienced, as well as the limitations, we offer a model of collaboration across the academy and public school settings that might benefit others scholars seeking to provide “real answers to real practical problems” (Apple, 2001, p. 227) and, as a result, directly contribute “to the flourishing of human persons” (Reason & Torbert, 2001, p. 2).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback in helping this novel approach to research come to publication.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.