Okay, seriously, she wrote rules. And numbered them! Also, Rodriguez.

To simplify: Collier stands for "public" bilingualness and Rodriguez does not.

Santa Anna's reading of Collier leads him to aver the following: "Code-switching by (ELL) students should be accepted, and not penalized" (230).  This statement presumes an external activity - an outward expression, in which language is used to understand how the surrounding world looks to the speaker.  For Rodriguez, the analogous process exists as a means of understanding how the speaker looks to the world.

Santa Anna makes a point about the difference between learning and acquiring.  I think his differentiation lies along social lines, in that grammar and spelling are taught/learned, whereas idioms and cadence are transmitted/acquired.

Santa Anna again says that the best bilingual education is "bi-dialectalism" (227) and succeeds when grounded in "...the true appreciation of the different linguistic and cultural values that students bring into the classroom" (224).  Though it may be the encapsulation of a very effective model of ELL education, I find the statement itself nebulous and quixotic.  For him, "appreciation" seems to be code for "awareness" in a ribbon-campaign sort of way.  He later seems to shore up the argument when he elaborates on Collier's finding that the home language is best for initial literacy, but in a subsequent sentence he quotes her again as saying that the self-worth that a successful home-language literacy can build statistical, transitive success in second language acquisition (233).  Regarding this, Rodriguez would say that the self-worth that leads to successful second-language acquisition was built into him and needed no reinforcement in his own language by his "public" language teachers.          

Rodriguez, despite writing wistfully about his loss of language, has very little to say academically about ELL instruction.  This is fitting and expected as his piece is autobiographical and entertaining.  The point he does elegantly concluded, however, is that his transformation from a Spanish speaker to an English speaker came through sound first, and meaning second.  Moreover, the subject of his writing is not simply the slipping away of his language, or even the rift it created in his family, rather, it is an ornamented account of the pain of transitioning out of an idyllic childhood.