Comprehensive School Reform in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Contexts: Implementation and Outcomes from a Four-Year Study

Abstract

This article presents findings from a 4-year study of 13 culturally and linguistically diverse elementary schools implementing comprehensive school reform (CSR) models. The study focused on: (a) the actions at the state and district levels that facilitated or inhibited reform implementation; (b) the adaptability of the various reforms in multicultural, multilingual contexts; and (c) the student achievement outcomes associated with reform, for schools as a whole and for language minority students in particular. Some schools implemented reforms and bilingual education programs in mutually supportive ways; others had difficulty adapting reforms to suit the needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. Reforms generally helped educators meet goals for multicultural education, but in some cases, educators’ beliefs about student ability, race, and language served as constraints to reform. Students from CSR schools had achievement outcomes that were generally equivalent to those for students from matched comparison schools. Under some circumstances, though, LEP students and their English-speaking peers from CSR schools outperformed their comparison school counterparts.

English Language Learners, Comprehensive School Reform, and State Education Agencies: An Overlooked Opportunity to Make Comprehensive School Reform Comprehensive

“…More recently, some tantalizing data have emerged that suggest some models may work favorably with ELLs (e.g., Datnow et al, 2003;Datnow et al, 2002). According to a recent report by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (2004), 8 of the 26 models that they include in the CSR catalog that they maintain claimed a positive impact on ELLs.…”

“…Gándara (1994) and Yonezawa and Datnow (1999) both noted that another model-Success for All-has been reproduced in Spanish translation (Éxito Para Todos). Datnow et al (2002) documented one school's claim that the Comer School Development Program model had encouraged their school to be more responsive to ELLs.…”

“…Wilde et al's (1999) study stands out as an important but modest exception. Moreover, as Datnow et al (2003), Datnow et al (2002), and Hamann and Lane (2004) pointed out, there is little in the CSR literature that looks at the SEA role in CSR (indeed, an important reason for assembling this issue of the Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk is to help remedy this knowledge gap). Because CSR and ELL responsiveness have been conceptualized as separate issues, the concerns of ELL education have often not been on the table when concerns regarding CSR have been broached, except as part of broad and nonspecific language promising responsiveness to "all" students.…”

“…However, it is important to note that these rationales were unavailable back in 1998 when SEAs were initially sharing their CSRD plans with the U.S. Department of Education and drafting requests for proposals (RFPs) for schools. Moreover, the Datnow et al (2003) and Datnow et al (2002) example is from a sustained study in a single urban district, which raises the possibility that the measured effect may have been a product of alignment between school reform initiatives and district policies, rather than an effect of CSR on its own. Also, at least 2 of the 13 CSR schools in that study had dual-immersion bilingual programs.…”

“…This study shows that in the plans describing their proposed CSRD implementation that were submitted to and approved by the U.S. Department of Education, SEAs paid little overt attention to ELLs. This nonattention to ELLs was problematic for at least two reasons: (a) the schools that received CSRD funding enrolled a disproportionately high number of ELLs and (b) CSR efforts have too often failed to include ELLs (Datnow et al, 2003;Datnow & Stringfield, 2000;Gándara, 1994;Miramontes et al, 1997;Stringfield et al, 1998;Valdez, 1989;Yonezawa & Datnow, 1999). Moreover, there is a substantial, long-established research base regarding successful school strategies for ELLs that could have been referenced and tapped but was not (e.g., Berman, Minicucci, McLaughlin, Nelson, & Woodworth, 1995;California State Department of Education, 1981, 1986Cummins, 1989;Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990;Walquí, 2000).…”