Jennifer O'Day

Good Instruction is Good for Everyone—Or Is It? English Language Learners in a Balanced Literacy Approach

Prior research suggests that many of the elements of effective instruction for native speakers are beneficial for English learners as well. But are specific strategies that appear effective for native speakers equally so for nonnative speakers? Are other companion efforts necessary? This article explores these questions by examining the comparative effects of selected literacy instructional practices on reading comprehension for English learners and non-English learners, using data from a 3-year study of the implementation and effects of a balanced literacy approach in San Diego City Schools. Then, using qualitative data gathered over 2 years from 133 teachers, as well as school administrators and instructional coaches in 9 case study elementary schools, the article considers what might have been missing in the districts approach to its over 24,000 elementary English learner students and how the strengths that were developed during the districts literacy reforms might be used to address continuing weaknesses.

Assessing Instructional Reform in San Diego: A Theory-Based Approach

This article provides an overview of the approach, methodology, and key findings from a theory-based evaluation of the district-led instructional reform effort in San Diego City Schools, under the leadership of Alan Bersin and Anthony Alvarado, that began in 1998. Beginning with an analysis of the achievement trends in San Diego relative to other California urban districts during this period, we then examine the theory of action that guided the San Diego effort, including the focus on instructional change as the primary means to improve student achievement and on the role of site-based instructional leadership and teacher professional development as central strategies for moving instructional practice. The article outlines the study design and introduces the set of papers in this special issue of JESPAR. Reviewing key findings and themes across the article, we conclude that although the reform demonstrated that instructional improvement at scale is possible, sustaining that reform may be more elusive.

Conclusion: Partnership, Accountability, and Standards-Based Reform: Reflections on the Baltimore City-State Partnership

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, with its requirements for annual testing of all children in Grades 3–8, establishment of a 12-year timeline for all students reaching proficiency on state standards, and stringent sanctions for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (as defined in statute) toward that goal. It seems fitting, in the climate of heightened accountability engendered by NCLB, that JESPAR devote an issue to one of the boldest experiments in accountability of the past decade: the City–State Partnership in Baltimore, Maryland. Baltimore’s City–State partnership, established in 1997, derived from a confluence of events, including two legal suits against the district1 and the state designation of a large number of Baltimore City schools as “reconstitution eligible.”2 Taken together, these developments, along with the historical poor performance of Baltimore’s students, pointed to long-term deficiencies in the city’s school system and the need for a radical form of intervention. That intervention took the shape of JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS PLACED AT RISK, 8(1), 149–163 Copyright