The Massachusetts context for English language learner (ELL) education has evolved over the last decade, while the population of English language learners in Boston Public Schools (BPS) has increased steadily. During that time, a shift to "English Only" instruction meant that instruction in students' first language (L1) disappeared virtually overnight in K-12 public schools that were teaching ELL students with bilingual education. During the same year that Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) became the dominant mode of instruction for ELL students, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests became used for school, district, and state accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The MCAS tests also became high stakes tests for high school graduation. During the three years after the implementation of Question 2 and of MCAS as a high stakes accountability test, Limited English Proficient (LEP) identification, program participation, and outcomes plummeted (Tung et al., 2009). Since those sobering findings were released, the Boston Public School district has undergone numerous programmatic and policy changes, including the placement of new leadership, the School Committee convening of a BPS ELL Task Force, a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education with specific remedies spelled out, and the adoption of a new English learner education policy manual. Against this backdrop, and with the knowledge that many teachers and administrators within the Boston Public Schools were expert practitioners with ELL students and that many BPS ELL graduates succeed academically and professionally, the authors endeavored to document the practices in successful schools. This study uses mixed methods to answer the following research questions: (1) In which BPS schools were ELL students at intermediate to advanced English proficiency levels (MEPA levels 3 and 4 based on the pre-2009 scale) performing at a consistently high level or showing steady improvement during SY2006-SY2009?; (2) What were some of the organizational, cultural, instructional, professional development, and community engagement practices that the school's staff attributed to their success with ELL students during SY2006-SY2009?; and (3) Which of the organizational, cultural, instructional, professional development, and community engagement practices identified by school staff were shared among the selected schools? (Contains 2 tables and 4 endnotes.) [This paper was written with Eileen de los Reyes and Antonieta Bolomey. For the full report, "Learning from Consistently High Performing and Improving Schools for English Language Learners in Boston Public Schools," see ED540999.]