Borrowing legitimacy as English learner (EL) leaders: Indiana’s 14-year history with English language proficiency standards

Abstract

English language proficiency or English language development (ELP/D) standards guide how content-specific instruction and assessment is practiced by teachers and how English learners (ELs) at varying levels of English proficiency can perform grade-level-specific academic standards in K–12 US schools. With the transition from the state-developed Indiana ELP/D standards adopted in 2003 to the World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) English language development standards adopted in 2013, this paper explores Indiana’s ELP/D standard’s 14-year history and how its district EL/Bilingual district leaders have interpreted and implemented these two sets of standards between the school years 2002–03 and 2015–16.

Using critical leadership and feminism within a narrative design, EL/Bilingual leaders illuminate distinct leadership logics as they mediate and implement ELP/D standards in their districts. Academic content standards are regarded with greater privilege, complicating how EL/Bilingual leaders can position ELP/D standards. Restricted by this standards hierarchy, EL/Bilingual leaders found limited educational venues in which to discuss the performance-based nature of ELP/D standards. Implications for assessment, policy, and leadership preparation are discussed.

Keywords

Alternative assessment educational leadership English language development standards English language proficiency assessment English language proficiency standards English learner leadership English learners narrative No Child Left Behind flexibility waiver WIDA

English language proficiency or English language development (ELP/D) standards guide how academic content instruction and assessment are practiced by teachers and how English learners (ELs) at varying levels of English proficiency can perform grade-level-specific academic standards in K–12 US schools. With the transition from the state developed Indiana ELP/D standards adopted and implemented in 2003 to the World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) English Language Development standards adopted in 2013, this study explores Indiana’s ELP/D standard’s history, how district EL/Bilingual (EL/BE) leaders led the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards, and how they are leading the WIDA ELP/D standards.

ELP/D standards are a requirement of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965) within the policy of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001). ELP/D standards provide a bridge between academic content standards that articulate how ELs can perform a given academic standard at varying levels of English proficiency (Bailey & Huang, 2011). Additionally, ELP/D assessments are related and/or aligned to ELP/D standards and measure an EL’s level of English proficiency annually in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The outcomes inform the use of ELP/D standards and how instruction is individualized in content area and EL/Bilingual (EL/BE) classrooms.

The linkage between ELP/D standards and related and/or aligned ELP/D assessment is used for identification, EL/BE program placement, and instructional differentiation in content area classrooms (Gottlieb, 2006; Morita-Mullaney, 2007), and district-level EL/BE leaders are the responsible connectors. This study of the time period from 2002–03 to 2015–16 is a retrospective analysis among Indiana’s district EL/BE leaders to understand their praxis in leading the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards and the 2013 WIDA ELP/D standards.

ELP/ELD standards serve two purposes in the instruction and assessment cycle: (1) to provide a target for teachers in the design of appropriate teaching and creation of formative and summative assessments of academic content learning (Bailey, 2007); and (2) to provide English language proficiency goals against which teachers can evaluate and document English language acquisition as required by Title III of NCLB (2001). For accountability within the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), the first purpose is tied to academic content assessments in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. The second accountability mechanism is linked to Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) under Title III of the NCLB (2001) policy that measures progress in English, reclassification as English proficient, and academic achievement on ELA and mathematics exams. Further, ELP/D standards use a criterion-referenced performance framework that honors students’ academic expressions at varying levels of English proficiency (Gottlieb, 2006). Comparatively, academic standards are assessed both formatively and summatively, and are criterion and/or norm referenced. ELP/D standards are intended to be connected to academic content standards, yet such relationships and alignments are most relevant to EL/BE leaders, as they are the responsible conveners of related instruction and English language proficiency assessments (L. Harvey, pers. comm., April 15, 2015).

Background

Indiana is a unique landscape for an ELP/D study of standards as it is a low-density, Midwestern EL state, but identified as the second fastest-growing state in the United States (Migrant Policy Institute, 2010). Moreover, no studies of ELP/D standards for ELs have been conducted in Indiana. The EL student population has increased from 9114 students in 1999–2000 to 53,912 students in 2015–16, accounting for a 492% increase (Indiana Department of Education, 2014a; Morita-Mullaney, 2014a). For the 14-year period that this inquiry entails, the EL population has grown by 165% from an EL count of 20,351 in 2002–03 to 53,912 in the 2015–16 school year (Indiana Department of Education, 2014a; pers. comm., N. Williamson, April 5, 2016). Indiana’s K–12 classrooms host 263 distinct languages (Indiana Department of Education, 2014a) and are a national resettlement state for recent refugees from around the globe (Exodus Social Services, 2014). Despite exponential EL growth, Indiana is one of 15 states with no requirement of EL preparation for pre-service teachers or leaders (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; Tanenbaum et al., 2012) and the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) has no expectation that teachers of ELs be EL or bilingual certified (Indiana Department of Education, 2010). Further, the sole criterion for reclassification of a student as fluent English proficient is English fluency on the ELP assessment, whereas other US states use multiple criteria, including parent and teacher feedback (Kim & Herman, 2010; Linquanti & Cook, 2015).

Indiana educational policy landscape

When NCLB (2001) was enacted, it was an expectation that all states have ELP/D standards and a related ELP/D assessment for English proficiency for ELs. Indiana created its own set of ELP/D standards in 2002–03 with the IDOE’s EL taskforce, which consisted of EL/BE leaders from around the state, and these standards were adopted in November 2003 (Indiana Department of Education & Indiana ESL Taskforce). The 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards were distributed throughout the state, but implementation was monitored through desk audits of districts by the IDOE. EL/BE teachers were most acquainted with the content, arrangement, and skills to employ with the ELP/D standards, yet complained about how to navigate the ELP/D standards and found that content teachers struggled even more (L. Harvey, pers. comm., April 11, 2015). NCLB was contested as too restrictive by states and flexibility applications were permitted beginning in 2011, to employ different methods of achievement and accountability. Indiana was one of the first to apply for a NCLB flexibility waiver. The ESEA’s flexibility waiver or the NCLB Indiana flexibility waiver of 2012 used the content of Indiana’s PL 221 to meet the criterion of innovative methods of accountability permissible within the NCLB flexibility waiver. Indiana Public Law (PL) 221 authorized the grading of schools and districts with an A-F system of accountability in 2011. School and district grades were now based on academic content summative in ELA and mathematics summative state tests, attendance rates, graduation rates, and overall test score growth of students compared to previous testing years (Indiana Department of Education, 2011a, 2014b). The growth and/or attainment in English language learning was absent in the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver proposal request, but was approved by the US Department of Education (Table 1) (US Department of Education, 2012). English learning growth and attainment still constituted a federal requirement of accountability within Title III AMAOs, although not explicitly linked to the Indiana’s NCLB flexibility waiver and new state A-F grading system, diminishing its centrality in the districts of study. The exclusion of ELs’ English acquisition and development demonstrates the complexity EL/BE leaders navigate as ELP/D standards are only discussed in Title III federal educational policy, but decoupled from Indiana’s NCLB flexibility waiver. Further, this exclusion points to their leadership complexities, where content academic standards are perceived as hierarchically superior to ELP/D standards.

Table 1.

NCLB and Indiana NCLB waiver comparisons.

ESEA/NCLB student subgroup performance (2001)	Indiana ESEA/NCLB flexibility waiver student growth (2012)
Performance: How many students passed in each subgroup in ELA and mathematics?	Growth: How much did students grow, particularly those in the lowest 25%?
Student subgroups: How did the following subgroups perform? • Race • Low socio-economic status • Special Education • English Learner • 95% or more participating from each subgroup	Student growth by quadrants: How much did each quadrant grow with highest expectation for growth with the super subgroup? • Quadrant 1: High achieving, high progress • Quadrant 2: High achieving, low progress • Quadrant 3: Low achieving, high progress • Quadrant 4: Low achieving, low progress (super subgroup)
Subgroup defined by student demographic characteristics	Subgroup defined by characteristics of historic ISTEP+ growth by quadrant
Schools judged by number of subgroups making AYP with an outcome of made AYP or did not make AYP by school and district	Schools judged by percentage of growth by each quadrant with the outcome of a school and district grade
AMAOs for English learning and academic achievement coupled with district accountability	AMAOs for English learning and academic achievement de-coupled from district accountability

Adapted from Burke, DePalma, Ginther, Morita-Mullaney, & Young (2014).

ELP/D standards aligned to ELP/D English proficiency assessment: The LAS Links ™ period

Another NCLB and NCLB flexibility waiver requirement of the ELP/D standards was their connection to a related ELP/D test measuring ELs’ English progress and attainment in English fluency. During the 2004–05 school year, a group of EL/BE stakeholders/leaders gathered to work with the IDOE’s Division of Language Minority and Migrant Programs to identify one standardized ELP tool for use in Indiana as required by NCLB with oversight from Title III federal offices. LAS Links™ was first administered in the 2005–06 school year, over three years after the adoption of the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards. The LAS Links™ and the Indiana ELP/D standards of 2003 were not aligned. In contrast, the Indiana ELP/D standards of 2003 were aligned to the content standards of ELA, but not science, social studies, or mathematics. In 2006–07, the first set of outcomes related to Title III AMAOs was released. Most Indiana districts accomplished the three aims of AMAOs with English progress, attainment, and academic achievement.

The ACCESS period with WIDA

Unlike the LAS Links™ ELP tool, which was a single test that six other states implemented between 2004 and 2006 (Zehr, 2006), WIDA was part of a consortium. Within a consortium, Indiana entered a network of other states with a longer standing history with their ELP/D test called Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS) as well as their ELP/D standards, the WIDA standards.

In 2012, the Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (INTESOL), the state chapter of the international organization, began discussions about WIDA’s ELP/D standards and its related ELP/D assessment, ACCESS, in lieu of the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards and the LAS Links’™ English proficiency assessment. An INTESOL leadership White paper was developed (Table 2) (Morita-Mullaney, 2012). Dissatisfied with the low benchmark of the LAS Links™ and the outdated nature of the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards, the INTESOL leadership wanted a dramatic shift that focused on rigorous exit criteria that was more consistent with the shifting and inclining academic standards and a replacement set of ELP/D standards that could be aligned by practitioners to ELA, mathematics, science and social studies. WIDA nearly met such expectations. Additionally, it met the federal requirement of the original NCLB 2001 expectation of connecting ELP/D standards to the academic content standards English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies (Burke, Morita-Mullaney, & Singh, 2014; Indiana Department of Education, 2011b, 2014a).

Table 2.

INTESOL Leadership Group White Paper (2012).

Recommendation for English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessment ACCESS: WIDA
The World Class Instructional Design (WIDA) standards are the recommended and proposed ELP/D standards for Indiana. Its coordinated and aligned ELP/D tool, ACCESS is more robust, holistic and aligned with common core standards* and has a foundation of scholarly developers. The below reflects the qualitative feedback from school and program administrators and teachers throughout the state:
• WIDA has ELP/D standards that are aligned in all Language Arts, Math, Social Studies and Science. They are currently aligning them to the Common Core. LAS Links and Indiana’s ELP/D standards are only aligned in Language Arts and are outdated.
• ACCESS and the coordinating WIDA ELP/D standards would be immediately applicable to instruction and programming.
• ACCESS focuses explicitly on academic language whereas the LAS Links focuses mostly on social and surface level language.

Indiana did not adopt the common core state standards, but at the time of this White paper, these academic standards were reflected in the ESEA flexibility waiver for implementation.

At the time of the adoption of WIDA ELP/D standards in January 2013, an increasing number of districts had not made their Title III AMAOs in English progression and/or attainment; all areas that the ELP/D standards are intended to address. Together with growth and low expectations for educator preparation, one criterion for English proficiency exit and NCLB flexibility waiver’s omission of English learning of ELs, an ELP/D standards study in Indiana is timely and significant.

Significance of the study

The EL/BE leadership role is newer in Indiana, and has a short history within educational leadership circles and their leadership enactments with the ELP/D standards. Like EL/BE teachers, EL/BE leaders experience a contingent leadership role (Harvey & Teemant, 2012), where their authority and expertise is diminished in instructional collaborations with general education educators (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011). While the leadership of standards presumptively offers credibility owing to their preeminence and federal requirements in US schools, the unequal and marginalized positioning of the EL/BE leader diminishes the role of ELP/D standards with academic standards holding greater precedent (Morita-Mullaney, 2014b). Further, the framework of ELP/D standards offers guidance to increasing students’ English proficiency, but the metric is absent from Indiana’s NCLB flexibility waiver and Indiana’s related PL 221, yet present in Title III federal accountability, diminishing the role of ELD in educational accountability. This inquiry is threefold, investigating (1) the historic role of the EL/BE district leader; (2) the EL/BE leaders’ objectives in leading the ELP/D standards; and (3) the leadership conditions EL/BE leaders negotiate in implementing ELP/D standards for the assurance of appropriate instruction and assessment for ELs.

The investigation of Indiana’s two sets of ELP/D standards addresses the following research question:

What are the leadership experiences of EL/BE leaders from 2002–03 to 2015–16, who have implemented two sets of ELP/D standards: The Indiana ELP/D standards and the WIDA standards?

Literature review

Principal and central office leaders’ implementation of academic content standards within the NCLB era has been studied with a primary focus on performance on summative exams (Borko, Wolf, Simone, & Uchiyama, 2003; Katterfeld, 2013; Lawrenz, Huffman, & Lavoie, 2005; O’ Donnell & White, 2005). Discussion and research on ELP/D standards relative to academic standards are more recent (Bailey, 2007; Bailey & Carroll, 2015; Bailey & Huang, 2011; Boals et al., 2015; Fox & Fairbairn, 2011; Lin & Zhang, 2014; Llosa, 2011; Sireci & Faulkner-Bond, 2015; Téllez & Mosqueda, 2015). The above ELP/D studies focus on the relationships between ELP/D standards, academic standards, and ELP assessments, but discussion of both implementation and leadership of standards at the school district level is absent. Historic literature will situate the study in the federal and state policy landscape by discussing the genesis of ELP/D standards and their relationship with academic content standards, ELP assessments and ELP/D standards. A discussion of leadership of and for ELs will follow.

Before NCLB: An invitation for use of ELP/D standards

The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act/Law (ESEA, 1965) governs K–12 education. Following its implementation, it was considered a relatively diffuse law, allowing local autonomy to be widely practiced among states (Tyack & Cuban, 2007). In 1994, Improving America’s School Act was instituted under the ESEA with a focus on academic standards at each grade level creating greater accountability among states to demonstrate student performance. In the subject area of English language arts (ELA), ELs were not discussed (Short, 2000).

In response to the omission, the international organization, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) developed PK–12th-grade standards (TESOL, 1997). Pre-NCLB, there was no federal requirement to use ELP/D standards, but TESOL standards were used electively by K–12 teachers and more widely in EL/BE teacher licensure programs in higher education (Fenner & Kuhlman, 2012; Varghese & Jenkens, 2005).

Implementation of NCLB (2001): ELP/D standards connected to content standards

Upon NCLB’s (2001) institution, individual student performance on ELA and mathematics summative assessments were reported by student characteristics including race, socio-economic status, EL and/or special education identifiers. The annual testing performance of each student subgroup based on individual characteristics determined school criterion benchmarks of showing adequate yearly progress (AYP). Under this federal metric for accountability, EL academic performance was clearly seen at the state, district, and school level in comparison to non-ELs. For example, the academic performance of a subgroup of EL students compared to non-EL students could be clearly distinguished.

Title III of NCLB became the federal policy of oversight of EL/BE education within the US Department of Education (USDE) (Crawford, 2002; Tanenbaum & Anderson, 2010). Title III of NCLB required the development of ELP/D standards. Additionally, an articulation of the distinctions, interrelationships, and alignments between academic content standards and ELP standards was expected, departing from a primary focus on social language (Boals et al., 2015). Further, connections to summative content assessments and ELP assessments had to be addressed, but this specific area was under-addressed in Indiana (L. Harvey, pers. comm., April 11, 2015).

Title III’s aim within NCLB (2001) was to enhance EL/BE services by providing professional development, EL/BE specialists and EL/BE curriculum materials to improve academic performance of ELs (Tanenbaum et al., 2012). The accountability metric of annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) was also was expected. Title III AMAOs expected ELs to have a proportional rate of (1) progression in English; (2) reclassification as English fluent; and (3) achievement benchmarks in summative assessments. Failure to achieve the three AMAO indicators over multiple years would result in an AMAO improvement plan with increased oversight by state departments of education (Tanenbaum & Anderson, 2010).

NCLB and the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver

As per NCLB (2001), 100% of students were expected to be academically proficient by 2014, but federal flexibility was offered within the ESEA called the ESEA flexibility waiver or NCLB flexibility waiver (used hereafter) for individual states requesting it (Center on Education Policy, 2015). In exchange for the reprieve, expectations to implement College and Career Readiness standards, statewide teacher evaluation, and different metrics for summatively assessing student performance were required. The waivers allowed states to pilot innovative models of student academic growth that had varying degrees of consideration and inclusion for ELs (Burke, DePalma, Ginther, Morita-Mullaney, & Young, 2014; Sunderman, 2006). In Indiana, the growth model was instituted, which compared students’ individual growth from year to year. A quadrant system was established, examining student growth based on low achievement/low growth, low achievement/high growth, high achievement/low growth, and high achievement/high growth. The low achievement/low growth was deemed the super subgroup or the lowest 25%, with proportionally larger expectations for annual growth compared to the other three quadrants (Table 2). EL students were clearly distinguishable within the NCLB (2001) by student characteristics, such as Hispanic and EL. Within the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver approved in 2012, a students’ quadrant was the primary identifier, diffusing their EL characteristic. For example, an EL/BE leader wanting to evaluate the performance of ELs would have to disaggregate EL students from their district data set, as ELs were reported by quadrant versus student characteristic at the district and school level. ELs were now enmeshed and hidden within student performance quadrants as a general aggregate, diminishing their language learning needs and rights. Although expectations of student subgroups, such as EL persisted, it was only done for the receipt of federal funding and not connected to student performance (Geier, C., pers. comm, May 29, 2016). The academic growth was most apparent to Indiana educators.

EL/BE leadership of ELP/D standards

Implementation of standards requires the work of district and building administrators, who are regarded as instructional leaders, devoted to understanding the local complexities of their school communities. While instructional leadership by a principal is a central ideal in improving student achievement (Baecher, Knoll, & Patti, 2013; J. S. Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Hodgins, 2007; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 2007; Menken & Solorza, 2014), the role of the EL/BE leader is also central to the implementation of ELP/D standards because EL/BE leaders specialize in second language acquisition and the performance and criterion-driven nature of ELP/D standards (K. Brooks et al., 2010).

EL/BE leadership as “less than” the building principalship

The leadership role of the EL/BE leader is a newly instituted role in Indiana schools (Morita-Mullaney, 2014a). Schools with a greater density of ELs are more likely to have an EL/BE role (Tanenbaum et al., 2012) or those who have been visited by the Office of Civil Rights for lack of provisions for ELs (Indiana Urban Schools Association, 2005). Further, the role of the EL/BE leader is hierarchically inferior to building principals and other central office leaders, complicating how EL/BE leaders are positioned among their leadership colleagues and restricting the types of leadership activities they can enact.

Power and authority is institutionally ascribed to the building principal (Fullan, 2007; Normore & Jean-Marie, 2008). Further, university preparation programs for educational administration focus solely on the building leader, homogenizing principal leadership skills to be transferrable to all conditions and positions of educational leadership (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008; Levin, 2005).

EL/BE leadership as contingent and borrowed

The degrees to which EL/BE leaders can influence instruction are largely contingent on their agreement with mainstream instructional initiatives that minimize the role of language development (Harvey & Teemant, 2012; Pawan & Ortloff, 2011). These scholars reference this phenomenon as contingent authority and leadership. This contingent circumstance drives EL/BE leaders to borrow power from Special Education programs or other more privileged educational laws to have a sense of belonging, feel like a contributor to their local districts and have access to perceived power narratives. Morita-Mullaney (2014b) references this leadership phenomenon as becoming generic or genericism, meaning their distinct leadership roles are largely reliant on pre-existing structures and knowledges ascribed into historical educational roles, such as principals and other central office administrators.

EL/BE leadership as service oriented

In addition to contingent leadership, EL/BE teachers and administrators are often conceived as primary purveyors of translation and interpretation versus instructional specialists (K. Brooks et al., 2010; Harvey & Teemant, 2012). Because many EL/BE educators and administrators are multilingual, the de facto role is service oriented, positioning the EL/BE leader as mitigators of linguistic differences, diminishing their credibility in leading instruction.

EL/BE leadership as distributive

Alternatively, EL/BE leadership can be conceived as distributive where power relationships are constructed in reciprocity (K. Brooks et al., 2010; Menken & Solorza, 2014; Morita-Mullaney, 2007). Distributive leadership posits that leadership is not contained in the roles and responsibilities of a leadership hierarchy but are “conceptually stretched” throughout the educational community (J. S. Brooks et al., 2007, p. 379).

EL/BE leadership as critical

The conceptual stretch focuses on the intersubjectivity of leadership, making roles, and identities diffuse (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012). Comparatively, a critical paradigm of leadership examines the distinct power relationships of EL/BE leaders as they negotiate their identities and positionalities in settings that privilege more general educational leadership of academic content standards (Morita-Mullaney, 2014a).

Policy changes within the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver have shifted attention at the school and district level away from the distinct academic performances of ELs by student subgroup (Table 2). Viewing student achievement based on generalized quadrants within the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver diminishes the focus on the specific English language learning and academic content needs of ELs even though Title I and Title III still requires measurement of English learning and the subgroup performance of ELs. This generalized view of EL students conditions the ways in which EL/BE leaders negotiate the meaning of the ELP/D standards within their local districts where the academic content standards are clearly positioned within policy and by policy makers as having greater credibility.

Theoretical framework

This narrative study employs a theoretical framework of critical performativity in the examination of the experiences of Indiana EL/BE leaders implementing ELP/D standards. The implementation of academic standards presumably influences educators’ curriculum and instruction and motivates educators to make academic mastery attainable. Research during the ESEA’s policy of Improving America’s School Act (1994) found that standards as a motivator for instructional improvement did little to address larger systemic issues and instructional capacity was seldom realized (Shepard, Hannaway, & Baker, 2009). Further, conceiving standards solely as a mechanism to galvanize improved instruction and related student outcomes theorize through a narrow paradigm that minimizes the role of its central actors. The lived realities of EL/BE leaders, who are commissioned to negotiate, lead and implement such standards, provide a lens through which they are interpreted and experienced (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Larson, 1997; Larson & Ovando, 2001). Specifically, critical leadership and feminism examine external and local conditions of power that EL/BE leaders negotiate as they implement ELP/D standards (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; bell hooks, 2000; Shapiro & Gross, 2008; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011).

bell hooks (2000) examines a view of power that traditionally identifies it as control (p. 88). Control suggests that power is inherently positioned within historic leadership roles and responsibilities and not conceptually stretched as J. S. Brooks et al. (2007) suggests. For example, a superintendent or building principal’s power is inherently ascribed to the role whereas an EL/BE leader lacks this attribution (Morita-Mullaney, 2014b).

Spicer, Alvesson, and Kärreman’s (2009) critical leadership promotes a particular framing and allows participants to envision future possibilities and logics for their work. Spicer et al. (2009) promotes a critical performativity that examines how researchers engage participants in questions of criticality, referenced as circumspect care, progressive pragmatism, and present potentialities (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Critical Performativity Framework.

Circumspect care is the researcher or leader’s devotion to listening to participants and understanding their lived EL/BE leadership realities. Circumspect care also pushes on participants when there are inconsistencies or fissures. Asking questions that allow participants to break away from the ascription of educational leadership as one for power and control allows for emerging logics of EL/BE leadership to be articulated. Further, it furnishes a level of care that honors the contributions of EL/BE leaders in their work (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).

Progressive pragmatism recognizes that particular ways of knowing are already embodied in EL/BE leadership. In recognition of such logics, the unique discourse of EL/BE leadership can reflect a new form of emerging educational leadership. Further, a historic accrual of EL/BE leadership experiences is instructive in understanding how daily duties are understood, shaped, and performed over time.

The imagination of how EL/BE leadership shapes ELP/D standards is theorized through a forward-thinking lens and is referenced as present potentialities, allowing leaders to articulate forms of leadership that may differ from other educational leaders. Further, the methodology of narrative inquiry allows participants to envision future enactments and serves to empower such developed actions as EL/BE leaders discuss their present realities and future possibilities (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Xu & Connelly, 2010).

Methodology

Through narrative inquiry, this study examines the experiences and performances of EL/BE leaders commissioned to implement ELP/D standards (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Creswell, 2014; Spicer, Alvesson, & Kaärreman, 2009). Narratives offer a keen focus on a unique set of characters with shared or similar experiences during a specific period of time (Riessman, 2008; Xu & Connelly, 2010). Riessman (2008) and Spicer, Alvesson, Kärreman (2009) contend that attention to the particular deepens how realities are negotiated and how social futures are imagined. Moreover, as Riessman says, “Stories function to alter the ways we view mundane everyday events. Stories can indeed accomplish change” (2008, p. 63).

Data sources and recruitment

Data were collected from eight Indiana EL/BE leaders who have served in an EL/BE leadership role since the 2002–03 school year leading the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards to the implementation of the new WIDA standards in 2013 and to the 2015–16 school year. A purposeful sample is consistent with a narrative inquiry, which focuses on cumulative narratives and in this case, how time and circumstances have shaped leadership experiences around ELP/D standards. A purposeful sample is well suited when experiences are shared (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).

Participants were recruited in two different ways. The first set of participants was recruited for a dissertation study that was conducted between 2012 and 2014 on EL/BE leadership in the Midwest, United States. The Indiana participants within the study were invited to continue their participation in this related study. Within the total group of participants, the original group constitutes four of the eight total participants.

Secondly, the Indiana EL/BE Leadership group sponsored by the Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (INTESOL) holds a monthly leadership meeting. In 2014, an overview of the study was described and a follow up email sent with the criterion of having served in an EL/BE-specific role during the implementation of the 2003 Indiana ELP standards to the implementation of the WIDA standards. Of the 74 active INTESOL leadership members, 15 people met the above timespan criterion and 8 volunteered to participate in follow up interviews, 4 of whom participated in the previous dissertation study. The newer institution of the EL/BE leadership role in Indiana precludes obtaining a more expansive pool of participants. Moreover, the design of narrative inquiry enables more immersive discussions with focal participants, which is further enhanced by my historic relationships with the eight participants as a former Indiana EL/BE leader from 2003 to 2012.

Most participants hold administrative licenses and EL/BE teacher certification. They work in rural, suburban, and urban districts that range in density and language representation (Table 3). All participants’ districts have experienced exponential district EL growth, which is reflective of Indiana’s 165% EL/BE growth between the 2002–03 and 2015–16 school years. Most participated in the development of the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards or were EL/BE teachers implementing the standards in 2003. Seven of the eight districts are on a Title III annual measurable achievement objective (AMAO) improvement plan, as their EL subgroup has not achieved appropriate benchmarks.

Table 3.

Participant and district descriptions.

Pseudonyms	Gender	Multilingual	EL/BE licensure	Years in EL/BE leadership	Years of EL/BE teaching	Type of district	No. in 2002–03 SY	No. in 2015–16 SY	% of EL growth from 2002 to 2015–16 SY	Language representation within district	Participated in 2003 ELP/D development	AMAO improvement 2014–15	Indiana District Grade For 2014
Linda	F	Yes	Yes	4	12	Urban	2002	4387	119	61	No	Yes	D
Morris	M	Yes	Yes	12	16	Rural	1174	1489	27	36	Yes	Yes	B
Elena	F	Yes	Yes	11	5	Urban	1022	1434	40	70	Yes	Yes	B
Jennifer	F	No	Yes	3	12	Suburb	683	1518	122	75	No	Yes	B
Darla	F	Yes	Yes	18	21	Rural	563	659	17	32	Yes	No	B
Leo	M	Yes	Yes	20	3	Urban	914	1673	83	27	No	Yes	C
Lucy	F	Yes	Yes	19	20	Town	288	877	205	54	Yes	Yes	A
Libby	F	No	Yes	10	16	Rural	721	855	19	9	Yes	Yes	C
Total							7367	12,892	79

As part of Indiana PL 221 and the NCLB flexibility waiver, seven of the eight districts currently have a C or higher and are regarded as meeting adequate academic achievement gains within their new growth model (Indiana Department of Education, 2011b). Only Linda’s district has a grade of D and oversight of their district has been initiated by the IDOE.

Data collection

An interview guide was created that solicited the positioning of the EL/BE leadership role in relationship to the ELP/D standards from the 2002–03 to 2015–16 school years. The same questions were asked of all participants, but there were allowances for spontaneous questions following questions as related connections were made, making the format semi-structured (Hill et al., 2005). Further, this type of interview is consistent with the iterative nature of narrative design (Clandinin, 2007).

The interviews were conducted in three different collection periods. The first collection period was from 2012 to 2014 for a larger scale study on EL/BE leadership with four participants (Morita-Mullaney, 2014b). The second set of interviews during the 2014–15 and 2015–16 school years captured four additional participants who have served in EL/BE leadership roles since the 2002–03 school years when the Indiana ELP/D standards were implemented and are still in an EL/BE leadership role, implementing the new WIDA ELP/D standards. Follow up interviews were done with the first four interviewees to examine the implementation of the 2013 WIDA ELP/D standards. A fourth stage of collection involved a co-analysis, which employed a validation process known as consensual validity among the eight participants, affirming the narratives as representative of shared truths and realities within their EL/BE leadership of ELP/D standards. Interviews lasted from 60 to 90 minutes and were audio-recorded and transcribed.

Data analysis

Data was analyzed using an open coding technique that examined consistent and diverging themes (Riessman, 1993, 2008). Axial coding followed examining the overlaps and intersections between initially themed data. The constant-comparative method was used between the two different collection periods of the 2012–14 school year and the 2014–15 and 2015–16 school years. The ongoing process is an effort to inform and reform pre-existing findings and theories of EL/BE leadership.

Validity was informed consensually with feedback among the EL/BE leaders about their respective narratives. Consensual validity refers to the agreement of two or more perspectives on a given reality, specifically, the shared experiences of EL/BE leaders during their leadership of ELP/D standards (Baer & McKool, 2009; Hill et al., 2005). Consensual validity also was affirmed following the transcriptions of interviews, which were shared with each participant to assess accuracy and interpretation. Member checking increases trustworthiness of the data ensuring that all views are chronicled and conceived as participants intended (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Further, consensual validity extends itself to future readers of the study as they negotiate their own understanding and make transference to their local circumstances (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Clandinin, 2007; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

Findings

Findings from this narrative study illuminate the marginal status of the EL/BE leader as they arbitrated their own understanding around the ELP/D standards while simultaneously conceiving their implementation with fellow educators. As they negotiated two different sets of ELP/D standards over a 14-year period, EL/BE leaders moved from an internal sense of legitimacy to one that was more externally motivated. The shifting and increasing accountability metrics for EL student performance within NCLB and NCLB flexibility waivers also shaped their negotiation and leadership of the ELP/D standards.

EL/BE leaders regularly expressed their leadership status as falling below building principals. Morris was regularly reminded by his central office supervisor in his evaluations to communicate and work more directly with principals instead of working with EL/BE and classroom teachers. He reflected about his time with teachers.

Because they are the people who are working with the students. They are my error check … I feel like I only get one shot with an administrator on an issue. Ok? … So I don’t wanna talk to an administrator and say, “This is how it is” and have them have that understanding in their head and then have to change it because I was not clear myself.

Jennifer shared, “They want me to just fix it” and make instruction better for ELs, positioning her as a technical service provider for the principals. Linda complained about her attempts to be collegial with principals that regularly dismissed the unique needs of EL students. “The principals are a pain” and Lucy added, “They seldom listen to me.”

This subordination complicated and conditioned the ways EL/BE leaders were able to negotiate their own understanding or ELP/D standards and their attempt at implementation among leadership colleagues and EL/BE and general education teachers. This positioning provides a helpful background for discussion of the study’s findings. The experiences with the EL/BE leaders with the Indiana ELP/D standards period of 2003 will be discussed first, followed by the WIDA ELP/D standards period of 2013–16.

The Indiana ELP/D standards period, 2003–2013

Findings related to the ELP/D standards demonstrate the levels of in/exclusion and types of legitimacy EL/BE leaders experienced during the Indiana ELP/D standards period. Academic standards had a more robust history and context for Indiana educators and were more widely practiced among content area teachers and understood by school and district leadership. The following narratives illustrate the experiences of EL/BE leaders during the Indiana developed ELP/D standards period.

Instructional legitimacy

Lucy reflected on her participation of the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards. As a new leader at the time, she was thrilled to work with the Indiana EL Taskforce who were commissioned to create ELP/D standards. The network offered her a legitimacy she lacked in her district.

We needed our own standards. People [educators] don’t get this … It was empowering. I listened and learned a lot and felt very privileged to be a part of this learning experience … I remember trying to cross-reference them. It was so impressionable. More so than it was in my own district.

Most EL/BE leaders met the implementation of the Indiana ELP/D standards with enthusiasm as it presumably offered equal status among other educational leaders. Morris shared,

I was glad that we finally had standards. It put us on par with other areas of study in other states to have EL standards and have it be recognized as a valid discipline. It certainly gave us a common structure to work for instruction and assessment. I have [EL] staff who still use them now.

Libby remarked on their practicality for general education teachers. “I really liked that we showed people what it would look like at each level.” Elena added,

I remember thinking that this was helpful thing to have, because I would refer people to it … the 4th grader who is a level 1. So, I’d flip to the 4th grade section. I was glad it was there. It was in writing. It’s ok to do something different.

Disentangling the legitimacy

Other EL/BE leaders shared their frustration, attempting to make sense of ELP/D standards individually and with their EL/BE staff. There was frustration that the influence on general education teachers could be limited. Darla shared,

I thought they were limiting. I thought it was a start. I knew that from beginning –it was a start. I guess it was kind of a forerunner of the Can-Do [WIDA] descriptors that level 1 students can do this all the way up to 5 … the beginning idea of using pictures, charts, and graphs and it’s kind of weird to go back and to think that was revolutionary at the time.

Leo added,

It was an overwhelming process to be able to plan for this. What I did is had it broken down by [English] proficiency level … It was confusing to be able to flip through this and tie this into whatever lesson we were trying to do.

Linda was irritated by their complex organization.

They weren’t simple. It was a layer on another layer that was just an add-on for everyone. Quite honestly, it wasn’t anything that people grasped onto… that this would help our ELs.

Implementation: The EL/BE island

Teams of general education educators strategically led academic standards. The 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards did not have the same type of cross-district team effort and the implementation was largely reliant on EL/BE departments. Leo reflected,

We didn’t share these standards with other departments … It was these ELP/D standards that were used by EL teachers, but you will have kids in other programs who are level 4s who weren’t receiving this additional support or help with the use of these standards.

Darla also shared the limited scope among EL/BE teachers: “but, they were few and far between and they never had the conversation with [general education] teachers.” Libby shared about her tentative and incremental steps at each school.

I had a dress rehearsal at the elementary level. A few elementaries and then went to high school and because I would give them scenarios, content area scenarios. You’re teaching this and you have this level student, what are you going to ask them to do?

Morris collaborated with reading and mathematics coaches, but with limited outcomes.

We had math and literacy coaches at the time, because we were doing reading and writing workshop and we were implementing a new math curriculum, so we worked with those folks as well to try to introduce these new ELP/D standards for supports with regular instruction and that was a step toward integrating them into classroom instruction.

Despite working with a coaching team that fielded the academic standards, ultimately, the small EL/BE teaching staff did the professional development. “They [content area coaches] didn’t have a deep enough knowledge about second language learning.”

Elena remembered the professional development she provided for the 2003 ELP/D standards.

I felt like it was pretty haphazard … present an in-service via request and would fold in the [academic] standards to them. We would do a comparison for them. We [EL staff] would print off the 7th grade reading standards and the ELP/D standards to show them. No one requested ELP/D standard information, but if I did an overview, then I would fold it in.

Jennifer felt a limited scope of influence, occupying two roles as EL/BE teacher leader and EL/BE coach. “Just me. I can’t think of a single person.” Despite the EL/BE solitude, Morris affirmed the curricular benefits of the 2003 standards among EL/BE teaching staff.

The first set of standards was for us. It helped guide our classroom lessons, which at the time were in separate classrooms … I was hunting around for a textbook and basically creating my own curriculum. What I had was weak and didn’t meet my students’ needs. The EL teachers were glad to have that because now we know what we can expect students to do … we became a little more congruent in our work.

Most participants remarked that their central offices and principals were mostly unaware of the 2003 ELP/D standards. Other ELA and mathematics initiatives done in response to the academic content demands of NCLB (2001) took precedent. Morris recalled, “Our district was deeply rooted in improving ELA and mathematics achievement, because test performance was so low in these areas.”

EL/BE leaders pointed to the lack of senior leadership’s understanding of the 2003 ELP standards, which led to lack of implementation among general education teachers. Leo remembered how the ELP/D standards were sent from the EL/BE department to building principals, but were rerouted to EL/BE teachers. “This information was given back to our EL teachers … so I can’t really say that the principals would look at this.”

EL/BE leaders remembered themselves as new leaders with small numbers of EL/BE staff members. Further, the EL/BE teachers pulled students out of classrooms for ELD support. Coordination with general education teachers was rare and district and building administrators were largely unaware, thus the EL/BE island.

The WIDA ELP/D standards period, 2013–2016

All EL/BE leaders supported the introduction of the WIDA standards. As articulated in the White paper (Table 1) two of the three reasons offered for the implementation of the WIDA standards were related to the ELP/D assessment, ACCESS. LAS Links™, which focused primarily on social language in the domains of listening and speaking, had undergone a significant change in cut scores in 2007–08, making it appreciably easier to exit, making the WIDA ACCESS assessment even more compelling. Unlike the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards, which had no coordinating expectation or linkages to an ELP/D assessment, the WIDA consortium offered ELP/D standards and an ELP/D assessment tool that were aligned.

EL/BE leaders now regarded themselves as savvier leaders and could articulate needs in district venues about ELP/D standards and assessments. Their maturity as leaders was strengthened by the growing metrics of accountability at the individual, school, district, state and federal level specific to EL/BE achievement on academic content tests and ELP/D assessments. The following narratives capture the experiences of EL/BE leaders during this shorter, burgeoning WIDA period in Indiana.

National and external legitimacy

The WIDA standards offered a national legitimacy by being part of a multi-state consortium. Indiana was the 36th US state to join the WIDA consortium and the national network was enticing. Leo shared,

When Indiana jumped on this consortium with 35 other states, it placed it more as a no joke, it’s out there that’s proven with Illinois being so close and whereas, and I’m not saying Indiana standards were bad … WIDA being done by so many other states, it must be proven that we are using it now have made principals and other administrators think these were important.

Morris added that support from the IDOE was helpful in establishing legitimacy beyond the EL program.

We got a lot of attention and started with a bang where the state gave us a special grant to begin the implementation and we brought in an outside presenter, which had never happened … and we spent two full days learning what was in the standards and how to put them into practical use … and it wasn’t just the EL department.

Academic content legitimacy

Libby shared her enthusiasm about the WIDA standards’ relationships to content area standards that she felt the 2003 ELP/D standards lacked.

I was really excited because I felt like they were going to be super specific and with people telling me about them and not really getting my feet wet so much, but I thought, “This is great! This is going to address the content standards,” which we were always stretching to do with the other [2003] ELP/D standards. So, it was initially about the content areas being addressed.

Legitimacy and the learning curve

Despite the national and state legitimacy and for Libby, a greater connection to the content standards, most EL/BE leaders were frustrated with the dense information in the WIDA standards. Elena shared,

“Overwhelming. I knew this was a good thing, well researched and I was like … where do I begin? There’s so much good stuff, but where do you begin?”

Darla also shared her frustration.

I thought it was complicated. It took me a while to get my head wrapped around it. They need to simplify their presentations. There’s too many books on the table. You have to open this book to look at another book.

Jennifer connected the WIDA standards to the historic Indiana ELP/D standards.

I found it to be sort of … in some ways sort of similar to the Indiana standards, overwhelming and needing to be unpacked, but better than anything else and a very practical source.

Libby chronicled her own learning and that of her EL/BE staff about the WIDA standards. “There’s some baby aha moments … change is slow.” The learning curve was steep and slow, much like they experienced with the 2003 ELP/D standards.

Implementation: From the EL/BE island to the continent

In the 2015–2016 school year, EL/BE leaders reflected that they were no longer “newbies” in their leadership roles, having experienced their second set of ELP/D standards and a related ELP/D assessment. Morris shared, “It ain’t my first rodeo.” Further, EL/BE program models had shifted from delivery EL/BE instruction outside of the general education classroom to within the general education classroom.

EL/BE and literacy coaches

All EL/BE leaders had EL/BE coaches and/or general education literacy coaches that were assisting with the WIDA standards, which differed from the 2003 ELP/D implementation. EL/BE coaches were part of professional development plans, which was an allowable role and expense within Title III and state EL funds. Leo shared,

We have some instructional coaches … four different ones at the secondary level. These teachers [coaches] are more support for the teachers at those schools. So, they’re the ones that look at Individual Learning Plans¹ and make sure they’re updated. They’re meeting with teachers to give them support. To use these [ELP/D] standards and any instructional support they need.

Darla and her EL/BE coaches had a full day scheduled to review WIDA standards with principals. Elena added that she was approaching the WIDA standards slowly and with her two EL/BE coaches.

We decided to do a slow implementation rather than get 2,000 teachers trained off to start. Coaches have been really helpful in what we’ve refined through the years with what we do with schools.

Focusing on her EL/BE coaches instead of many teachers was instructive in deepening Elena’s understanding of the new ELP/D standards. Jennifer detailed her own introspective work of starting individually and limiting her scope to coaches and a few outside experts. “As far as unpacking the standards. I did all of this by myself. I did some with coaches with outside experts, but mostly just me.”

Layers of Administrative support

Most leaders celebrated the central office and building principal support for the WIDA standards implementation. Elena shared, “There is much greater awareness to start and they understand that this is an expectation, that they are used by all teachers that have ELs.”

Leo, Lucy, Morris, Darla, Elena and Libby celebrated the direct involvement of the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), so it was now expectant of the district office administrative level to be involved with the WIDA implementation. Morris shared the larger scope of involvement with his central office leadership with the WIDA standards: “We have the IDOE, the WIDA trainers, [our] professional development director and the professional development staff all involved in the training.” Linda articulated the consequences of failing to make AMAOs and her concern about state sanctions.

Implementation driven by external accountability mechanisms

Unlike the 2003 ELP/D standards, the WIDA standards and the related ELP/D assessments coincided with the additional Title III AMAO metrics of accountability implemented in 2006–2007, that focused attention on EL/BE students and thus, the leadership of the ELP/D standards. Libby remarked on her districts’ inadequacies in serving EL/BE students, particularly at the high school that only served seven of their 400 EL/BE students. The underperformance at the high school was the primary reason her district had failed AMAOs for two consecutive years in the areas of English progress and attainment. Libby used her AMAO improvement plan as an effective mechanism to galvanize attention toward the EL/BE program and connected the plan to the WIDA standards.

“The IDOE says that all of our teachers need to be trained and they should be able to see it in every classroom, but it’s also tied to our AMAO improvement plan.” We haven’t made AMAOs and so there’s a sense of urgency that wasn’t there and how sad, that we had to get to this, by not making the AMAOs, but finally people are thinking we’re in IDOE jail … but, if that’s the case… it’s a good thing to happen.

Darla remarked on the newly minted teacher evaluation program called RISE, part of the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver and PL 221, that connected teacher performance with student test scores on summative academic exams (Indiana Department of Education, 2014c). She remarked on her preparation for a principal meeting that would connect the WIDA, ELP/D standards to classroom teacher evaluations.

RISE with the teacher evaluation with WIDA for EL and classroom teachers and everybody, really. So principals know what they are looking for when they are evaluating their staff.

Libby added that teacher evaluation created demand for her “teacher modeling” of good strategies for EL/BE students, inclusive of the WIDA standards: “Teachers don’t necessarily want any of that [modeling] … only when there’s a student in trouble or if they’ve gotten a bad evaluation comment and told to contact me.” Linda was troubled by the recent introduction of the 3rd-grade IREAD-3² test. Grade level retention was a legal expectation if a child did not pass IREAD-3, but EL students qualified for a good cause exemption (Indiana Department of Education, 2011c). Linda shared her frustration with a principal that insisted on retaining an EL/BE, despite the IREAD-3 legislation exempting EL/BE students.

I got an email from a principal about sending me IREAD-3 scores. The EL district administrator is supposed to be there … if this what the state says, I should be hearing the guidance … They’re [the principals] doing whatever what they want to do and no one is calling their bluff.

Working with the resistant principal, Linda was able to use the WIDA ELP/D standards as evidence that ELs could express their content mastery.

We are looking at the [WIDA] Can-Do descriptors … we’re looking as a resource to show whether or not, they should be retained. Some schools want to retain them because they are not at grade level. Let’s look and see based on their listening, speaking, reading and writing domains and if they’re performing in that way. It’s been transformational for principals to look at that … it’s like, “Oh, maybe we shouldn’t retain them.”

Despite Linda’s avocation for use of WIDA standards, the dominant paradigm for the principal was to privilege the academic content standards and the related testing outcomes on IREAD-3.

EL/BE program design changes

Indiana EL/BE programs had shifted from being mostly EL/BE pull-out to being integrated programs within general education classrooms. Leo remarked on their large structural shift of being completely pull-out and separate to pushing EL/BE staff into general education classrooms to support EL/BE students and lauding its inclusive merits. Alternatively, Libby problematized the slow dissolution of the EL/BE program as EL/BE students were gradually pushed into general education settings with minimal to no EL/BE support and she pointed to the NCLB flexibility waiver and PL 221 as promoting such practices. The organizational shifts to more general education instruction made it incumbent on ELP/D standards being expected of all teachers, but EL/BE leaders remained concerned that its intensity and scope would be limited by their contingent leadership in relationship to academic standards and the centralized power embedded within the role of principals.

Critical performativity analysis

Internal legitimacy: The 2003 ELP/D period

Internalized legitimacy was an important attribute for Indiana EL/BE leaders. Leaders claimed that ELP/D standards of 2003 were only for EL/BE teacher teams. Despite the narrow scope, it created a collective identity among EL/BE educators throughout the state. Darla said, “That’s when we got our EL cohesion as a group, as a state. That was it.” Internal legitimacy was the circumspect care fostered among EL/BE leaders’ growing expertise, contributing to their unique and collective identities. Within this dialogic and centered space, leaders were vulnerable and reflexive with one another, deepening their conditions for learning, introspection and imagination of future possibilities (bell hooks, 2000; Clandinin, 2007; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

External legitimacy: The 2013 ELP/D period

When the WIDA standards and related ELP/D assessment (ACCESS) were implemented in 2013, the national and state legitimacy was externally lauded based on WIDA’s national credibility, the IDOE’s direct involvement and the INTESOL group’s push for adoption. Indiana’s adopted policies within Indiana’s PL 221 and then, the NCLB flexibility waiver, including teacher evaluation, student growth models and school/district grade systems of A–F, privileged academic standards over ELP/D standards, but were additional strategies that EL/BE leaders described as enhancing their external legitimacy and access with general education teachers and building principals.

Absent from the NCLB flexibility waiver is the federal Title III AMAO policy expectation, where seven of the eight districts are failing based on English proficiency progress and/or attainment. As EL/BE leaders are most knowledgeable of this external, Title III AMAO accountability, they used it with the greatest frequency, but it was most effective with central office personnel who wanted more aggressive oversight of EL/BE programming, so they could escape the consequences of the metaphorical “IDOE jail.” Discussion around the benefits of ELP/D standards for EL/BE students was distant and obscured as the waiver polarized ‘flexibility,’ further privileging academic standards over ELP/D standards.

The progressive pragmatism that leaders use in this current ELP/D period is the inadequacies in meeting Title III AMAOs. The EL/BE leaders used AMAO failures as a primary argument with central office administrators to pay more attention to ELP/D standards. Comparatively with principals and teachers, the focus is on teacher evaluation and academic growth, instituted within Indiana PL 221 and the NCLB flexibility waiver. Teacher evaluation was an external and imminent motivator for teachers that offered EL/BE leaders some access to implement and/or improve ELP/D standards-based instruction for EL students. EL/BE leaders remained concerned that this circuitous strategy was centered on the teacher’s overall evaluation and related compensation versus improving instructional and institutional conditions for EL/BE students.

Professional development as a limiting leadership mechanism

Professional development was discussed as a secondary mechanism to harness understanding about ELP/D standards. EL/BE coaches were hired with Title III and state EL/BE funds to ensure dissemination, discussion and implementation of the new WIDA ELP/D standards. Professional development was still largely contingent on the agreement with other instructional initiatives around academic standards that were favored within the NCLB flexibility waiver. As Libby shared, only one teacher requested her professional development assistance in relationship to a poor teacher evaluation.

Participants identified present and future possibilities as they described their specific and diligent resolve to recruit teachers and principals to learn more about the WIDA ELP/D standards through professional development. Because professional development is framed as elective, EL/BE leaders knew that those participating were receptive and responsive to the content. Despite frustrations about having a limited and restricted scope, with their EL/BE teachers and EL/BE coaches there was hope and space for a deepened understanding of ELP/D standards with small groups of individuals. Slow and steady transformation of individuals was seen as possible. This small scope of leadership demonstrates that leadership does not always have broad, sweeping and grand moments. Smaller moments can occur in small spaces of willingness, openness and vulnerability among teacher educators (Shapiro & Gross, 2008).

The allure of functionalism

Indiana’s NCLB flexibility waiver does not include discussion of the Title III AMAOs within their state accountability measures, (even though they continue to be required federally), diminishing attention toward ELP/D standards (Table 2). Owing to this oversight, EL/BE leaders used professional development to impart an understanding of the federal AMAO policies and WIDA standards as a means of addressing benchmarks, but had difficulty arguing their legitimacy to other non-EL/BE educators, who primarily used the tools of the NCLB flexibility waiver and PL 221, privileging academic content standards, the outcomes of student growth, teacher evaluation, and, for the central office, avoiding any type of state sanctions. Further, EL/BE program models have moved from being siloed to becoming integrated into general education settings. Hence, EL/BE leaders find that their leadership of ELP/D standards has to include a broader audience, but principals and federal and state policies regularly limit their capacity to mere voluntary professional development. The condition of contingency makes the imagination of future leadership possibilities narrow in scope and limited to the few willing to learn how to improve the overall instructional conditions for ELs (Spicer et al., 2009).

Shapiro and Gross’ (2008) and bell hooks (2000) promotion of new leadership logics and healing were represented in the nostalgia that EL/BE leaders had for the first set of ELP/D standards that were done with EL/BE-only colleagues throughout Indiana. The earlier cross-district/EL/BE collaboration promoted a conceptual stretch that was empowering and healing for EL/BE leaders who felt isolated in their newer EL/BE roles and attended to circumspect reflection. The partnered focus with other EL/BE experts from around the state was empowering and provided a professional network of constructing expansive understandings that the participants did not previously have. Empowerment became less evident as the NCLB flexibility waiver and Indiana state policies mechanisms subverted attention away from ELP/D standards, unless there was were district penalties based on EL student performance. The narrative, retrospective technique invited participants to reach back and chronicle the contributions made to develop their expertise and professional identities and in so doing, recognizing their move from internal legitimacy of empowerment with the 2003 Indiana ELP/D standards to privileging externally sought and sanctioned state power from the IDOE for the WIDA standards.

Adhering to the federal Title III, AMAO policies related to the implementation of ELP/D standards is a minimalist goal that creates incremental and strategic steps for EL/BE leaders, but it falls within a paradigm that is restrictive in nature. This reproduces the power for domination framework that bell hooks (2000) problematizes and shows that this mechanism minimizes the impact on changing the overall institutional conditions for EL/BE students quickly, yet EL/BE leaders regularly and consciously use this technical strategy.

Concurrently, EL/BE leaders shared that the minimizing scope, allowed for a deepened influence with smaller groups of willing participants, devoted to improving the overall conditions for EL/BE students. The new schema of empowerment with a small network of teachers and coaches demonstrates the leadership logic that is gentle and persistent without coercion. Linda, Morris and Elena shared their resolve to being a part of the general conversation with her leadership colleagues. Libby added, “My role is like subtle leadership, but kind of like making people ‘glad you came’ and wanting more.” Although this may not change the institutional prominence of ELP/D standards, it can inform the performance-based pedagogy that ELP/D standards impart.

Discussion and implications

The EL/BE leaders in this study consistently negotiated the constructed power hierarchy of formative and summative assessment. ELP/D standards were connected to formative assessment and content standards to summative assessment. This binary construction that privileges academic standards over ELP/D standards focuses merely on the outcomes of summative assessments reproducing a power hierarchy. The interrelationships between formative and summative requires deeper and compelling research so educators can return to their classrooms and examine their instructional practices for language, content and its language learners.

The unique logic of EL/BE leadership of ELP/D standards has the power to inform administrative leadership programs that have a long history of preparing school leaders, but ignoring the role of the EL/BE leader (Morita-Mullaney, 2014b). As evidenced by this study, EL/BE leaders have occupied their roles for much of their educational leadership careers, which exceed the leadership length of many of their local principal colleagues. Longevity allows for an analytic scope of legitimacy and how it can be generated or imposed and offers the circumspect care that Spicer et al. (2009) assert and that Shapiro and Gross (2008) emphasize as our care for the profession and our care for students.

Critical leadership and feminism dismantle the construct of power for domination and control but often this does not extend to providing any pragmatic possibilities (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; bell hooks, 1995). The deconstruction can attract EL/BE leaders to reproduce the mantra of power for domination and control if no differing logics are discovered or availed to them. As identified in the study, alternatives to power for domination were illuminated in the context of implementing the new ELP/D-WIDA standards. Through subtle and persistent leadership, EL/BE leaders articulated a transformative space, fostered with small groups of educators. Although their narratives revealed an external and sometimes punitive technique for persuading educators to pay attention to the ELP/D standards, it helped leaders identify the spaces where individuals were negotiating understanding of the ELP/D standards in circumspect care for their EL/BE students. With the limited discussion of EL/BE students within the Indiana NCLB flexibility waiver during the time period of study, EL/BE leaders have become creative, working more expansively as policy interpreters and arbiters on behalf of EL/BE students.

Implications for the field of EL/BE leadership

EL/BE leadership preparation

Principal preparation programs with a centered focus of EL/BE students is a helpful beginning at addressing the grave institutional equities experienced by EL students in US schools (Baecher et al., 2013; Menken & Solorza, 2014). By researching principal ideologies about language learning and related ELP/D standards in programs with these foci, the EL/BE field can interpret and mitigate such lines of thinking. Further, this examination can create content and frameworks for the development of preparation programs that are uniquely designed for those aspiring to be EL/BE leaders or wanting to renegotiate their EL/BE leadership.

Educational policy

The consistent oversight of EL/BE students from federal and state educational policy reproduces an institutional hierarchy, restricting what EL/BE leaders can do with ELP/D standards and related content standards. By centering the learning needs of EL students, policy could be inclusive of their needs, which would expand the logics beyond the fixed nature of academic standards that are presumably attainable if sufficient oversight and accountability is furnished. If ELP/D standards, which are performance-based, are centered as the criterion for all students, then assessment, instruction and related educational policy could be retooled. Learning outcomes could be expansively understood as a performance framework, which the ELP/D standards of Indiana’s past and present articulate.

With the recent reauthorization of the ESEA with the new Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), Title III appropriations will continue and accountability of English learning will be a part of state, district and school accountability decentralizing the role of the federal government in education. The explicit accountability for EL/BE students at the school level, potentially brings greater local control, perhaps changing the role ELP/D standards play but will depend largely on the local conditions of EL/BE expertise and advocacy. As shown in this study, ‘waiver’ and ‘flexibility’ has subverted attention away from EL/BE programming. Articulation of how Title III funding can be spent is still forthcoming with the aspiration that monies are not restricted to professional development that limits the types of impact of EL/BE leaders can make.

Conclusion

The retrospective analysis among EL/BE leaders with the implementation of two sets of ELP/D standards demonstrates their shifting understanding about their purpose and scope of influence within leadership. The 2003 ELP/D standards and the new WIDA ELP/D standards driven by external accountabilities has given leaders a voice at the table, but because these standards are minimized in the NCLB flexibility waiver and Indiana’s PL 221, the WIDA standards are less imminent to the general education leadership and teaching contexts. Even though WIDA carries more external clout, the ultimate assessment is to examine how the role of the EL/BE leader is externally or internally transformed as a result of their leadership interpretation of ELP/D standards. As demonstrated in the study, incremental transformations are being realized in small venues as EL/BE leaders reimagine standards-based instruction and assessment for their Indiana EL students.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Lauren Harvey, former leader of Language Minority and Migrant programs and Nathan Williamson, current leader of Early Learning at the Indiana Department of Education for their feedback during the preparation of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Alvesson

Spicer

(2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367–390. doi: 10.1177/0018726711430555

Baecher

Knoll

Patti

(2013). Addressing English language learners in the school leadership xurriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8(3), 280–303. doi: 10.1177/1942775113498377

Baer

McKool

S. S

. (2009). Assessing creativity using the Consensual Assessment Technique. In Schreiner

(Ed.), Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education (pp. 65–77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bailey

A. L.

(2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bailey

A. L.

Carroll

P. E.

(2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39, 254–294. doi: 10.3102/0091732X14556074

Bailey

A. L.

Huang

(2011). Do current English language development/proficiency standards reflect the English needed for success in school? Language Testing, 28(3), 343–365. doi: 10.1177/0265532211404187

Ballantyne

K. G.

Sanderman

A. R.

Levy

(2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity roundtable report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.

hooks

bell

. (1995). Feminism: crying for our souls. Women & Therapy, 17(1/2), 265-271.

hooks

bell

. (2000). Feminist theory : from margin to center (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

10.

Boals

T. J.

Kenyon

D. M.

Blair

Cranley

M. E.

Wilmes

Wright

(2015). Transformation in K–12 English language proficiency assessment: Changing contexts, changing constructs. Review of Research in Education, 39, 122–164. doi: 10.3102/0091732X14556072

11.

Borko

Wolf

S. A.

Simone

Uchiyama

K.P.

(2003). Schools in transition: Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington state. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 171–201. doi: 10.3102/01623737025002171

12.

Brooks

J. S.

Jean-Marie

Normore

Hodgins

D. W.

(2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378–408.

13.

Brooks

Adams

Morita-Mullaney

(2010). Creating inclusive communitites for ELL students: Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 145–151. doi: 10.1080/00405841003641501

14.

Burke

DePalma

Ginther

Morita-Mullaney

Young, J. W.

(2014). Accountability lessons for Indiana schools serving English learners. Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 11(1), 10–24.

15.

Burke

Morita-Mullaney

Singh

(2014). Indiana English language learner academic and English proficiency performance: A longitudinal study – A White Paper. Indianapolis, IN.

16.

Carr

Lagunaff

(2003). Map of standards for English learners: Integrating instruction and assessment of English language development and English language arts standards in California (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

17.

Center on Education Policy. (2015). Federal education programs: NCLB/ESEA waivers. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentSubTopicID=48

18.

Clandinin

J. D.

(2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

19.

Clandinin

J. D.

Connelly

F. M.

(2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). English language learners in America’s great city schools: Demographics, achievement and staffing. Washington, DC.

21.

Crawford

(2002). The Bilingual Education Act, 1968–2002: An obituary. Advocating for English language learners: selected essays from James Crawford (pp. 124–127). Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.

22.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

23.

CTB McGraw-Hill. (2007). LAS Links: Connecting assessment, language, and learning [Brochure]. Monterey, CA: CTB McGraw-Hill.

24.

DuFour

Eaker

R.E.

(1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service: ASCD.

25.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965). Public Law No. 89–10 (1965).

26.

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. Public Law 114–95 (December 10, 2015).

27.

Exodus Social Services. (2014). The life ahead: Learn more. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from www.exodusrefugee.org/news.html

28.

Fenner

D. S.

Kuhlman

N. A.

(2012). Preparing teachers of English language learners: practical applications of the Pre K–12 TESOL professional standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.

29.

Fox

Fairbairn

(2011). Test review: ACCESS for ELLs®. Language Testing, 28(3), 425–431. doi: 10.1177/0265532211404195

30.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

31.

Gottlieb

M. H.

(2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

32.

Gottlieb

M. H.

Nguyen

(2007). Assessment and accountability in language education programs: A guide for administrators and teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.

33.

Harvey

Teemant

(2012). Who does what and why?: ESL administrators’ perspectives on the roles of ESL specialists and mainstream teachers. INTESOL Journal, 9(1), 35–50.

34.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

Hess

S. A.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196–205. doi: 10.1037/0022–0167.52.2.196

35.

Improving America’s School Act. (1994) Public Law No. 103–382 (1994).

36.

Indiana Code (2011) Public Law 221, 511 IAC 6.2–2 (2011).

37.

Indiana Department of Education. (2010). Indiana developmental standards for school educators. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Deparment of Education.

38.

Indiana Department of Education. (2011a). ESEA flexibility waiver application. Indianapolis, IN.

39.

Indiana Department of Education. (2011b). ESEA flexibilty request. Indiana Department of Education, Indianapolis, IN.

40.

Indiana Department of Education. (2011c). IREAD-3: Public law 109 and good cause exemptions Retrieved January 20, 2016, from www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/assessment/iread-3–14–15participation-good-cause-exemption-eligibility_1.pdf

41.

Indiana Department of Education. (2014a). English Learner and Title III Director’s Meeting. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from https://learningconnection.doe.in.gov/Library/FilingCabinet/ViewFileDetail.aspx?lfid=74370&et=USER_GROUP&eid=317&clid&ret=~/UserGroup/GroupDetailFileBookmarks.aspx?gid%3D317%26ugfid%3D11345

42.

Indiana Department of Education. (2014b). ESEA flexibility request. Submitted to the US Department of Education. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from www.cep-dc.org/documents/StateWaivers/Indiana.pdf

43.

Indiana Department of Education. (2014c). RISE Evaluation and development system: Evaluator and teacher handbook version 2.0. Indianapolis, IN.

44.

Indiana Department of Education & Indiana ESL Taskforce. (2003). Indiana’s English language proficiency standards. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education.

45.

Indiana Urban Schools Association. (2005). Report on ESL funding from general fund (pp. 1–2). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis.

46.

Katterfeld

(2013). Setting instructional expectations: Patterns of principal leadership for middle school mathematics. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 337–373. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2013.792935

47.

Kim

Herman

J. L.

(2010). When to exit ELL students: Monitoring success and failure in mainstream classrooms after ELLs’ reclassification. CRESST Report 779. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

48.

Larson

C. L.

(1997). Is the land of Oz an alien nation? A sociopolitical study of school community conflict. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 312–150. doi: 10.1177/0013161X97033003004

49.

Larson

C. L.

Ovando

C. J.

(2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in mulicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

50.

Lawrenz

Huffman

Lavoie

(2005). Implementing and sustaining standards-based curriculum reform. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 2–16.

51.

Levin

(2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.

52.

Lin

C. K.

Zhang

(2014). Investigating correspondence between language proficiency standards and academic content standards: A generalizability theory study. Language Testing, 31(4), 413–431. doi: 10.1177/0265532213520304

53.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

54.

Linquanti

Cook

H. G.

(2015). Re-examining reclassification: Insights from a National Working Session on Policies and Practices for Exiting Students from English Learner Status (pp. 1–47). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

55.

Llosa

(2011). Standards-based classroom assessments of English proficiency: A review of issues, current developments, and future directions for research. Language Testing, 28(3), 367–382. doi: 10.1177/0265532211404188

56.

McMillan

J. H.

Schumacher

(2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

57.

Menken

Solorza

(2014). Principals as linchpins in bilingual education: The need for prepared school leaders. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2014.937390

58.

Migrant Policy Institute. (2010). ELL information center: Fact sheet series (Vol. 1). Washington, DC.

59.

Morita-Mullaney

(2007). Assessment: Collaboration in assessment: Secondary and ELL teachers teaming together In Pawan

Sietman

(Eds.), Helping English language learners succeed in middle and high school (pp. 85–101). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

60.

Morita-Mullaney

(2012). English language proficiency standards and assessments: WIDA and ACCESS proposal. In Indiana Teachers of English to speakers of other languages (Ed.), English language proficiency White Paper. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana teachers of English to speakers of other languages.

61.

Morita-Mullaney

(2014a). In/Exclusion of English Learners in longitudinal research: A historical review of Indiana’s school accountability for English Learners. Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 11(1), 61–84.

62.

Morita-Mullaney

(2014b). Leading from the periphery: Collective stories as told by English language learner leaders. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

63.

No Child Left Behind, Pub.L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).

64.

Normore

Jean-Marie

(2008). Female secondary school leaders: At the helm of social justice, democratic schooling and equity. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 29(2), 182–205. doi: 10.1108/01437730810852515

65.

O’ Donnell

R. J.

White

G. P.

(2005). Within the accountability era: Principal’s instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56–71.

66.

Pawan

Ortloff

J. H.

(2011). Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-language, and content-area teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 463–471. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.016

67.

Riessman

C. K.

(1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

68.

Riessman

C. K.

(2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

69.

Shapiro

J. P.

Gross

(2008). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times: (Re)solving moral dilemmas. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

70.

Shapiro

J. P.

Stefkovich

J. A.

(2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

71.

Shepard

Hannaway

Baker

(2009). Standards, assessment and accountability: Education policy White Paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

72.

Short

(2000). The ESL standards: Bridging the academic gap for English language learners. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

73.

Sireci

S. G.

Faulkner-Bond

(2015). Promoting validity in the assessment of English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39, 215–252. doi: 10.3102/0091732X14557003

74.

Spicer

Alvesson

Kärreman

(2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4), 537–560. doi: 10.1177/0018726708101984

75.

Sunderman

G. L.

(2006). Unraveling No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

76.

Tanenbaum

Anderson

(2010). Title III accountability and district improvement efforts: A closer look. In US Department of Education (Ed.), (pp. 1–21). Washington, DC.

77.

Tanenbaum

Boyle

Soga

Le Floch

K.C.

Golden

Petroccia

. . . Taylor

(2012). National Evaluation of Title III Implementation: Report on State and Local Implementation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

78.

Téllez

Mosqueda

(2015). Developing teachers’ knowledge and skills at the intersection of English language learners and language assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39, 87–121. doi: 10.3102/0091732X14554552

79.

TESOL. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K–12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.

80.

Tyack

Cuban

(2007). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

81.

US Department of Education. (2012). Indiana ESEA flexiblity request. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

82.

Varghese

Jenkens

(2005). Challenges for ESL teacher professionalization in the US: A case study. Intercultural Communications, 1, 85–95. doi: 10.1080/14636310500061948

83.

Connelly

F. M.

(2010). Narrative inquiry for school-based research. Narrative Inquiry, 20(2), 349–370. doi: 10.1075/ni.20.2.06xu

84.

Zehr

M. A.

(2006). New era for testing English-Learners begins. Education Week, 25(42), 28–29.