A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why

2.1 Predictors of advocacy

Beyond the acts of advocacy, researchers have explored the motivations behind advocacy work. Some have theorized that ESOL teachers come into this work predisposed for advocacy (Staehr Fenner, 2014), whereas others seek to explain ESOL teacher advocacy with connections to their characteristics, experiences, or beliefs. Haneda and Alexander (2015) identified intercultural experience and multilingualism as factors related to being an advocate. Similarly, teachers’ experiences with diversity (Linville, 2016), including being from outside of the United States, being a member of a marginalized group, or having experienced being “othered” (Barazanji, 2012), are factors found to impact teachers’ advocacy. Athanases and de Oliveira (2008) and I (Linville, 2016) also found that more years teaching and teaching experiences beyond P–12 ESOL predict greater advocacy actions. Contextual variables, such as administrator support (Harrison & McIlwain, 2019), can also support ESOL teacher advocacy.

Advocacy actions are also often linked to teachers’ beliefs about equity and social justice. For Athanases and de Oliveira (2007), a conviction of fairness, or understanding the need for equitable treatment of students and feeling responsible to act, underlies teachers’ advocacy actions. For Suárez and Domínguez (2015), critical caring for ELs motivates the advocacy stance. Although teachers in Suárez and Domínguez’s study “did not in any way articulate their identities or roles as advocates of social justice, or suggest that their job was to transform an unjust system for their students,” they “saw caring for their students as their central obligation and commitment…[which] meant taking on a stance of advocacy” (p. 53). Giambo (2018) also noted preservice teachers’ sense of injustice at educational policies that either ignore or harm ELs.

On the other hand, marginalization in schools, or a sense of invisibility (Trickett et al., 2012), can contribute to ESOL teachers’ lack of agency in advocating for their EL students (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Harper & de Jong, 2009). Pawan and Craig (2011) in particular note the “imbalance” in relationships between ESOL and non-ESOL teachers; general education teachers rarely initiated collaboration and saw ESOL teachers in the “service category” and not as equals (p. 307). Harrison and McIlwain (2019) similarly found the school culture can either implicitly or explicitly contain resistance to EL advocacy, and even cultural and societal norms can impede this work. Perceived professional risk can also limit teachers’ advocacy actions, especially beyond the classroom. New teachers may be especially vulnerable and, even with strong preparation, require persistence to manage the need to speak up and the potential risks that may accompany that action (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2007).

As this literature review shows, many ESOL teachers advocate as part of their professional role, yet questions remain regarding the site(s) of such advocacy and why ESOL teachers may advocate in more or less transformational ways. Advocacy frameworks, such as the one offered by the National Education Association (2015), typically assume the advocate has already made the decision to act, and offer instructions in how to do so. However, it is the space between noticing and acting that motivated the present research: between noticing an issue or problem for ELs, in the classroom, school, or beyond, and deciding to take action, along with clarifying what actions one will take. By identifying these factors, we will be better able to prepare teachers for this advocacy role.

2.2 Theoretical framework

Borg’s (2003) model of teacher cognitions, which captures “the unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching—what teachers know, believe, and think” about all aspects of teaching and learning (p. 81), provided a general framework for this study. As he points out, “Teachers are active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalised, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs” (p. 81). I relied on his framework of teacher cognition factors, including prior student and schooling experiences, teacher preparation, and the current teaching environment and classroom practices, to explore factors that can increase or lesson teachers’ engagement in advocacy (Borg, 2006).

Social justice is another guiding framework, that which “emphasizes equity of learning opportunities and outcomes for all students with simultaneous challenging of school and societal practices that reinforce inequities” (Cochran-Smith, 2010, as cited in Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2011, p. 183). I used Barazanji’s (2012) teacher social advocacy construct to develop survey items to probe teachers’ social justice beliefs in this study. It includes awareness of injustice in and beyond schools, a commitment to ensuring equal rights for all students and to speaking up for underprivileged students, and taking action in schools to enhance vulnerable students' success.

3.1 Participants

The participants (46.5% response rate; n = 511) were more racially and ethnically diverse, and less male, than the U.S. teaching population as a whole (Loewus, 2017; see Table 1). The teachers had an average of 11 years of teaching experience, and the vast majority had a regular or add-on ESOL teaching license (93%), with very few not certified (2%). The population had considerable international experience, and most spoke at least one other language well besides English (78%). The teaching contexts varied widely in background and number of ELs, as indicated above, and by number of ESOL teachers in the schools. Only 15% were the sole ESOL teacher in their school. One-third of the teachers reported membership in a professional organization, such as TESOL, while two-thirds were “somewhat” or “very” knowledgeable about the TESOL Standards.

3.2 Data collection and analysis

To answer the first research question, about how ESOL teachers advocate, I revised the Advocacy Acts Scale (Linville, 2016) to 12 survey items (Table 2). Factor analysis revealed two distinct constructs measured by the items, explaining 53% of the factor variance. From this analysis, I created two scales: the Instructional Advocacy Actions Scale (IAAS; Cronbach’s α = .738; Skewness = −.505; Kurtosis = .034) and the Political Advocacy Actions Scale (PAAS; Cronbach’s α = .846; Skewness = .106; Kurtosis = −.384). Both scales have strong reliability and internal consistency.

The first construct, measured by the IAAS, relates to advocacy acts in the immediate educational context as teachers react to or try to prevent injustice against ELs they know. The second construct, measured by the PAAS, relates to advocacy actions mostly beyond the school through which teachers try to address or change negative societal attitudes or injustices against ELs as a group beyond the immediate educational context. Correlation between the two scales is strong (.583, p ≤ .01), indicating a robust connection between these two types of ESOL teacher advocacy. Factor analysis also revealed two items that load strongly with both scales. Working cooperatively with EL families had strong factor loadings with the IAAS (.480), but loaded more strongly with the PAAS (.550), leading to its inclusion in that scale. Talking with school administrators about EL rights loaded strongly with the IAAS (.532), where it was included, but also with the PAAS (.474).

To answer the second research question, about what factors increase or limit teachers’ advocacy actions, I created or included survey items to measure teacher variables related to cognitions (Borg, 2003, 2006), including life experiences, professional experiences, school context variables, and beliefs hypothesized to be related to advocacy (Table 3). The beliefs related to advocacy were measured through five scales I created, each discussed here.

The Perceived Advocacy Support Scale has strong internal consistency (six items; Cronbach’s α = .802; Skewness = −.529; Kurtosis = .025) and measures how supportive to EL advocacy ESOL teachers find key people in their school environments. The teachers perceived the greatest support from other ESOL teachers (M = 3.78, SD = 0.469; range = 1 no support to 4 very much support), whereas they indicated administrators (M = 3.29, SD = 0.825), counselors (M = 3.24, SD = 0.782), and general education teachers (M = 3.09, SD = 0.664) offered some support for EL advocacy. The Social Justice Awareness Scale is based on Barazanji’s (2012) Social Justice Awareness subscale (Cronbach’s α = .77), with slight wording changes to reflect a focus on ELs (revised scale: five items, Cronbach’s α = .784; Skewness = −.884; Kurtosis = .355). The surveyed teachers demonstrated strong awareness of potential social justice issues for ELs (M = 5.47, SD = 0.522; range = 1 strongly disagree to 6 strongly agree).

I also created the Advocacy Cognition Scale (Cronbach’s α = .654), which factor analysis revealed to have three potential, reliable constructs explaining 51% of the total factor variance. From this analysis, I created three subscales (range = 1 strongly disagree to 6 strongly agree). The Advocacy Skill Scale has fair reliability (four items; Cronbach’s α = .607; Skewness = −.187; Kurtosis = −.556) and measures teachers’ self-reported ability to advocate, partially cognitively constructed with professional self-confidence and persistence in advocating. Responses reveal that the teachers surveyed saw themselves as skilled advocates (M = 4.721, SD = 0.784). The Advocacy Responsibility Scale has low internal consistency, at least partially attributed to its few items (three items; Cronbach’s α = .446; Skewness = −.859; Kurtosis = .927), and measures the strength of teachers’ belief in their role as advocates. The teachers’ responses indicated they believed that it is their responsibility to advocate for ELs (M = 4.989, SD = 0.754), and an impressive 98% of the surveyed teachers agreed to some extent with one scale item: “Advocacy for ELs is a part of my professional responsibilities as an ESOL teacher.” The Professional Perception Scale also has low reliability (two items; Cronbach’s α = .441; Skewness = −.739; Kurtosis = .122) and measures teachers’ sense of how they are viewed within their professional context. The mean of this scale is 4.451 (SD = 1.122), and the majority (81%) of teachers indicated they believed they were seen as ESOL professionals in their schools. However, 31% also indicated they were viewed as assistants, indicating that some respondents were perceived differently, as both language specialists and language assistants, at different times or by different colleagues.

Correlations between these scales and the IAAS and PAAS are all statistically significant. I used OLS regression with these belief scales and the life and professional experiences, and contextual variables. The exploratory nature of this research makes the inclusion of the less reliable Advocacy Responsibility Scale and the Professional Perception Scale in analysis worthwhile, but results are interpreted with caution.

4.1 ESOL teacher advocacy actions

The majority of ESOL teachers surveyed indicated they engaged in instructional advocacy actions (Table 2), from a low of 72% representing ELs in instructional teams to a high of 91% collaborating with other teachers to improve EL instruction in their schools. In terms of political advocacy, most of the surveyed teachers indicated that they taught ELs to speak up for their rights (86%) and worked with EL families to advocate (79%), the item that also strongly aligned with the IAAS. However, fewer teachers lobbied public officials on behalf of ELs (25%) or otherwise helped policymakers understand issues related to ELs (35%). As found in the literature review, these results indicate that most of the ESOL teachers viewed their advocacy as a school-based activity, working to improve the lives of ELs in their immediate care. They advocated much less often beyond their schools to influence district, state, or national policies regarding Els.

4.2 ESOL teacher variables and advocacy actions

To analyze the impact of the demographic, experiential, and contextual variables, and the belief scales on the teachers’ instructional and political advocacy acts, I estimated models with regression analysis, adding one set of variables at a time (full models in the Appendix), first to the IAAS and then to the PAAS. The final models (Model 9, Table 4) predict 39% of the instructional advocacy actions and 30% of the political advocacy actions.

No demographic characteristics or diversity experiences hypothesized to be related to advocacy are associated with the instructional advocacy actions (IAAS). However, the demographic variable race was positively and statistically significantly associated with the PAAS; those who identify as “other” (not one of the race options given in the survey) are more likely to engage in political advocacy acts. Another identity, Black, is close to the statistical significance threshold, a variable that warrants further exploration. More years of teaching is also positively and statistically significantly associated with the PAAS; teachers who had more experience were more likely to engage in political advocacy actions.

The association between knowledge of the TESOL Standards and the IAAS and PAAS is strong and statistically significant throughout the models. Knowing more about the Standards predicts greater instructional and political advocacy. The teaching context also makes a difference; teachers’ perception of support for advocacy in their schools is statistically significantly associated with the IAAS and PAAS. The greater support teachers felt for advocacy in their schools, the more likely they were to engage in these actions. In addition, teaching middle school or high school (in comparison to the elementary school reference group) is associated with greater political advocacy actions, potentially due to ELs’ growing awareness of their own social and political limitations, for example, as undocumented immigrants, when they reach adolescence.

Teachers’ beliefs about advocacy also made a difference. The Advocacy Responsibility Scale is positively and statistically significantly associated with the IAAS and PAAS. Teachers who felt they had a responsibility to advocate were more likely to do so. Additionally, the teachers’ sense of their advocacy skill had a strong positive association with the IAAS and PAAS. This analysis reveals that teachers who perceived themselves as more skillful advocates were more likely to advocate.