After the introduction of the chapter/article’s content, the authors go into the real essence of the content. They talk about what is effective in terms of academic instruction, things such as clear goals and directions. As said before, many of their academic instructions are effective for both ELLs and native speakers alike. They also talk about Sheltered Instruction Strategies in English, most importantly targeting content and English language objectives in every lesson.

They then draw comparisons between different ways of learning English, normally called ESL teaching (English as a Second Language) or, more formally, ELD (English Language Development). ELD is teaching English through different content (with less emphasis on the actual content), and Sheltered Instruction. In the end it shows how Sheltered Instruction is a more effective strategy in instructing ELLs. This is because content-based ELD, while providing an effective means to teach the English language, is ineffective in teaching content, thus the students will fall behind academically. 

My intellectual reaction to this article is positive. I can really make sense of what the authors were trying to convey, the biggest item being the differences between content-based ELD and Sheltered Instruction. It makes sense, as the authors pointed out, that if the objective of ELL students to simply learn English, then content-based ELD is an effective means of which to go about that. But that is not the objective here. The objective is to teach every student that walks into my classroom the content for which they are required to know in order to become educated young adults. Thus content-based ELD will not do.

Sheltered Instruction (SI), as the article implies, is the way to go. The primary focus with SI is content, with language development coming second. It can be a difficult path, for student and teacher alike, with SI, but in the end will be more beneficial for the ELLs. I remember having difficult moments in high school, and could not imagine how much more difficult they would be if my comprehension of the language was still being developed, like many ELLs. I have no personal experience of this from a teacher's perspective yet, but I am sure to run into at least a handful of ELLs in my future classrooms, and I hope at that time I am able to employ effective academic instruction for them, using Sheltered Instruction in order for them to learn the content, same as their peers.

There are a few questions that I walk away from after reading this article (which is good). I’d like to know to what extent Sheltered Instruction is successful in teaching content to ELLs, while still also being able to develop their English language skills. I know at the bottom there is a short bit about how in science classes ELLs are relatively at the same level as their native English speaking peers in learning content, most likely due to much of the science vocabulary being as foreign to the native speakers as to the ELLs. So I suppose that’s a partial answer for my question of how effective Sheltered Instruction could be.

As a future teacher the implications this article has on my future policy and practice are very similar to what my intellectual reaction was. This article has shown be the beginning path of what I should do in terms of practice for my classroom. Scaffolding may be necessary for any ELLs in my class, as much of the work could prove difficult for them at first. However by creating objectives for both content and language developments, I think I could help them overcome the language hurdles they experience.

Differentiated instruction has been stressed on myself and my fellow cohorts since day one of this program, and I can see why. Differentiated instruction is an effective way to go about our future practices in order to accommodate for any future challenges we may be facing, be they ELLs or learning disabilities. I would hope the policy of schools whom have ELLs is more in line with Sheltered Instruction and less of content-based ELD, because if it does happen to have a content-based ELD policy, that could potentially be unconstitutional as the education they are providing is not equal, but rather, segregated.