School leaders' efficacies and perceptions on the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) and the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) in bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms
MetadataShow full item record
The purpose of this sequential mixed method study was to determine if there were differences between central office administrators', school administrators', and bilingual and English as a second language (ESL) teachers' overall and levels of action, self-regulation, and means efficacies, when controlling for years of experience with bilingual and ESL classrooms and hours of training on the English language proficiency standards (ELPS) and the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) training and their schools' TELPAS composite scores. Additionally, the study focused on the leaders' perceptions about the implementation of the ELPS and TELPAS in their bilingual and ESL classrooms. In the explanatory sequential mixed method design, the quantitative data collection phase included the data survey analysis from a purposeful sample of 150 leaders in a large urban school district in Texas. The qualitative phase involved data analysis from face-to-face interviews from a purposeful sample of 24 leaders. Results indicated that there were significant differences among the leaders' overall efficacies and the leaders' different efficacies: action, means, and self-regulation when controlling for leaders' hours of ELPS training, but not when controlling for years of experience. Leaders' perceptions on the ELPS and TELPAS professional development revealed the importance of the ELPS and TELPAS trainings as support for teachers and students; value of integrating and implementing trainings; the positives of revisiting ELPS training; the value of professional learning communities; TELPAS isolation; and positive district support. The ELPS and TELPAS, professional learning communities, district systems, and objectivity of rating with the new online TELPAS tests were positives. Areas for growth included developing teachers' knowledge on the ELPS, need for school administrators' instructional leadership; their advocacy for ELPS and TELPAS; need for differentiated instruction; the need for more objective rating with TELPAS; the logistics and format of the new TELPAS online testing; and teachers' fear and stress with TELPAS. Recommendations included long-range strategic planning; the implementation of a two-way dual language program model; hiring for ELPS and TELPAS school instructional leadership; implementation of shared learning goals and linguistically accommodated instruction as part of a viable curriculum; professional development with systemic follow-up and coaching of teachers; monitoring of goals through the English language learners' talks, portfolio-based assessment, and instructional rounds.