A larger, continual problem seen throughout a lot of ESOL books and training is that even though Wright clearly states that these are school or district programs, the onus is still being placed clearly on the teachers to receive sufficient training, find the time, the resources, and put the practices into place, with little mention of administrative support or funding for this extra time and resources required (except for specifically mentioning the lack of on p 108) such as the list of PD and training needed in order to make SIOP an effective model, p 93. Although its great that some textbook manufacturers are providing translated version, are teachers supposed to find and buy them on their own? Do schools provide a stipend for that? Do teachers know and access to that? Or do schools find and acquire translations of textbooks automatically so that the resources are ready to access immediately? Even though this is specifically mentioned for In-Class instruction, surely there are similar problems for teachers in some of the other ESL programs? As usual, the practical concerns about making these programs work well goes undiscussed, although this may be too big of a problem to address in this book. However, I do wonder where these practical problems of teaching get brought up, or do they not, and teachers just discover these problems on their own, without knowing how to resolve them? 

As Wright covers each program he is clear about strong problems or issues with the program style, especially if it is backed by research and time, which is very helpful. That helps keep the information relevant to our future careers and will influence our choices of what kind of school we want to work in. 

Although I’d heard the term ‘Heritage programs’ before, I hadn’t known what it was, and I think the growth of students being able to learn and bring back their heritage language is a very good development in American educational systems, hopefully it becomes more widespread throughout the country. 

I think the author points out relevant information that aligns with my thinking. In my opinion these models are broad and do not speak to unconventional strategies for ELLs. The SIOP model and its eight components seems to favor all content- areas. I was under the impression  ESL and SIOP were the same thing. Table 5.2 gives a great illustration between the two ( Wright 2015). I like the idea of Development Bilingual Education programs being implemented, expediting the process and giving ELLs that extra support needed. 

Overall these strategies and models are pretty typical to what I’ve seen in a school environment. It’s standard to have multiple collaborating entities for support. ELLs rely on community engagement, support and resources to navigate ESL instruction. 

I really like the concept of dual language programs, but I also recognize that these programs can still end up catering to English speakers and devaluing their ELL students. I recall such an instance from an ESOL course reading, where a dual language program did really well under their non-white principal, but then after he moved to another school, they hired a bilingual white principal and it ended up changing the successful dynamics that had been cultivated so most of the non-white bilingual teachers left and were then replaced by white bilingual teachers. Because the white teachers/principal did not understand the euro-centric dynamics that they had introduced, it caused a lot of issues surrounding white privilege within the school. In the end, the school became an oppressive place for the ELL students and parents which eventually led to the school’s closure. I think these programs can be successful, but the decentering of eurocentric ideals is an important component.

One thing that particularly stood out to me about these models is how much of the onus of teaching EBs is solely placed on the teachers, whether they have training or not. At one point, Wright puts the responsibility of advocating for these programs on the teachers as well, when he says: “There are many excellent and experienced mainstream teachers with no training in ESL who regularly have ELLs placed in their classrooms, and who try their best to meet their needs. These teachers should take the initiative to complete ESL certification and other training to better meet the needs of their students...in addition, they should advocate for the creation of one or more of the models described in this chapter and insist their schools and districts provide the materials and support necessary to do so.” (p.112-113) While I agree,  teachers should get as much training as possible to help meet the needs of their students, these are not new problems that teachers and districts are facing. Administration should be focused on helping teachers meet their student’s needs and finding how best to support EBs at the district level. Teachers shouldn’t have to advocate for these things along with getting certified and teaching and being a social worker and everything that comes along with being a teacher.