Objectives Second language learners (SLLs) in the United States--also referred to as multilingual learners (MLs)--benefit from, and are legally entitled to, specialized language instruction (Lau v. Nichols, 1974; Takanishi & Le Menestrel, 2017). Depending on how this instruction is organized, MLs may be either linguistically integrated or segregated. In this paper, we draw from studies conducted across schools in different US regions to explain how policy and contextual factors converge to create conditions for the segregation or integration of MLs. Theoretical Framework We bring together organizational and political theories to examine contextual complexities in SLL policy implementation (Burch, 2007; Honig, 2006). Such complexities mean that, while ML integration can occur in segregative policy contexts, segregation can occur in integrative policy contexts, with much variation in between (Freire & Alemán, 2021; Umansky et al., 2020). The extant literature points to four contextual dimensions that help to explain this variation: population demographics, external cultural and political forces, school and staff capacity, and organizational structures and norms (Hopkins et al., 2021; Lowenhaupt & Reeves, 2015). Methods We reanalyzed past studies of ML policy implementation conducted in different regions of the US and at different organizational levels (e.g., classroom, school, district, state) and coded for the four contextual dimensions in our theoretical framework. After examining patterns between policy and context in this cross-case analysis, we selected cases that illustrate specific relationships between policy and context and wrote within-case analytical memos (Miles et al., 2014) to better understand the connection to ML segregation and integration. Results We present four cases that highlight distinct relationships between policy and context: 1) segregative policy and segregative context, 2) segregative policy and integrative context, 3) integrative policy and integrative context, and 4) integrative policy and integrative context. Though each case is unique, we illustrate how the four dimensions converge in similar ways to create conditions for ML segregation or integration. Discussion Our findings show how local context can either exacerbate segregation, as in the case of dual language programs lacking the necessary demographics or local interest, or mitigate segregation, such as when school leaders integrate MLs despite mandates for separate language instruction. These findings have important implications for practice, given that these variations in policy implementation may be obstacles to finding solidarity around SLL policy reform and may contribute to the preservation of policies that are detrimental for MLs.

Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84-95. Freire, J.A., & Alemán Jr., E. (2021). “Two schools within a school”: Elitism, divisiveness, and intra-racial gentrification in a dual language strand. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(2), 249-269. Honig, M.I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. The State University of New York Press. Hopkins, M., Weddle, H., Bjorklund, P., Umansky, I. M., & Blanca Dabach, D. (2021). “It’s created by a community”: Local context mediating districts’ approaches to serving immigrant and refugee newcomers. AERA Open, 7. Lowenhaupt, R., & Reeves, T. (2015). Toward a theory of school capacity in new immigrant destinations: Instructional and organizational considerations. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(3), 308-340. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage. Takanishi, R., & Le Menestrel, S. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies Press. Umansky, I.M., Hopkins, M., & Blanca Dabach, D. (2020). Ideals and realities: An examination of the factors shaping newcomer programming in six U.S. school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(1), 36-59.