Model and invite students to dissect the trajectoriesand histories of texts that may be read as academicand/or in English only. Text trajectories and histories can function as a telling case for how bilingualproductions often face erasure because of monolingualist views of language (Alvarez, Canagarajah, Lee,Lee, & Rabbi, 2017; Peters, 2013).

multilingual writersmeet and exceed the demands of the new form ofwritingthat Brandt (2015) highlighted in her work. Multilingualwriters are, as they always have been, making significant contributions to the rise of writing—as a mass literacy. More simply put, cultural and linguistic pluralismis a crucial and critical necessity for academic writing

multilingual writers represent a diverse group of localand transnational individuals (in their majority, peopleof color), they often encounter academic structures ofpower that prescribe particular links of academic valuebased on racialization

Multilingual writers are then often framed asunique and in need of language, specifically an ideologized form of academic English that does not change,as language does. In this way, their writing is often subjected to a hypersurveillance of difference, informed bydominant monolingual ideologies of what counts as different or appropriate to the writing classroom (BakerBell, 2017; N. Flores & Rosa, 2015).

In this way, multilingual writers in college contextscontinue to face the detriment of long-held English-onlyideologies, which view writing pluralism and difference as an error to penalize and fix (Horner & Kopelson,2014).

Multilingualstudents may doubt the translanguaging skills theybring with them because the school imposes itsmonolingualist ideologies on them

lessonof this study is that students have to always iden-tifyfavorable ecologies for translanguaging andnegotiate competing ideologies to achieve theircommunicative interests

teachers can model codemeshingfor their students and scaffold students' attemptsin classrooms

It is also important for teachers to providesafe spaces in classrooms and schools for studentsto practice translanguaging

Students have to takethe dominant conventions seriously and negoti-ate critically and creatively to find suitable meansof translanguaging

Multilingual students bring fromtheir homes and communities funds of knowl-edge that are valuable for themselves and others(Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005

Readers,especially native English speakers, may feel com-pelled to lay their biases aside, relax their judg-mentalism, and adopt a more egalitarian multi-lingual orientation to the reader/writer relation-ship. Tim, an Anglo-American, confirms this re-alignmen

THE ABILITY OF MULTILINGUAL SPEAKERSto shuttle between languages, treating the diverselanguages that form their repertoire as anintegrated system- labeled translanguaging- hasreceived recent scholarly attention

I began to seriously engage the themesof 1.5 generation and "freedom for knowing.

represents herself as a "functional bilingual

iswhen I get a "green light" from a professor, that Iwould writeinthewayI presented myautobiography

adopted the term codemeshing

Translan-guaging cannot be completely restrained bymonolingual educational policies

teachers have provided safe spaces forstudents

studies we have are product-oriented (i.e., textual interpretation) and do notexplore the process

In fact, in many of thesecases, translanguaging occurs surreptitiously be-hind the backs of the teachers in classes thatproscribe language mixing

treating the diverselanguages that form their repertoire as anintegrated system

Bilingual families in a globalized world simplytranslanguage

Adopting a translanguaging lens when dis-cussing language policy in education means threethings: (a) abandoning a definition of languageas simply what speakers of the same cultural ornational affiliation have, and instead seeing lan-guage as a speaker’s ability to freely deploy allhis or her linguistic resources, both lexical andgrammatical, without trying to adhere to sociallyand politically defined language boundaries, (b)giving up on teaching an additional language asa linear process that students eventually acquireand, instead, adopting a position that language isto be ‘done,’ performed in particular situations,and thus, always emerging, and (c) relinquish-ing the idea of only using the target language ininstruction in favor of leveraging the entire stu-dent linguistic repertoire

translanguagingas “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguis-tic repertoire without regard for watchful adher-ence to the socially and politically defined bound-aries of named

notions of‘standard’ language, and stable group identitiesare disrupted by the processes of transformationof late modernity

As No Child Left Behind silenced the term‘bilingualism’ to focus on English language acqui-sition (Wiley & Wright, 2004), bilingual educationprograms in the United States that aimed to pro-mote bilingualism and biliteracy were mostly rela-beled as ‘dual language’

Transitional bilingual education programs(TBE), in which students who are acquiringEnglish are taught some content throughtheir home language and other subjects inEnglish, in addition to Language Arts, butonly temporarily until students are deemedfluent in English.

educational institutions have functionedmainly to promote the development of ‘standard’English among the masses and the acquisition ofEnglish among immigrants.

Lau is sometimes pre-sumed to have sanctioned the use of bilingualeducation, but it merely established the right ofnon-English-speaking children to receive accom-modations in learning English given its role asthe medium of instruction. Lau did not prescribebilingual education or a method of accommo-dation

y 1919, some 34 states had passedrestrictions on the teaching of ‘foreign’ languagessuch as German, despite the widespread presenceof German and other immigrant languages in thegeneral population.

Status planning also has implicationsfor which varieties or registers of a language aretaught. In essence it involves the ‘privileging’ ofa language variety, typically as a written standard.

hey may also be distinguishedin terms of their goals or orientations rang-ing from (a) promotion-oriented policies, (b)expediency-oriented accommodations, (c) tole-rance-oriented policies, (d) restriction-orientedpolicies, (e) repression-oriented policies, (f)polices aimed at erasing the visibility and even his-torical memory of various languages, and (g) nullpolicies, which refer to the significant absencesof policies

Explicitlanguage planning and policy making in the United States−when it does occur−tends to be done at thestate, local, or institutional levels

one striking feature is the absence of a guiding overarching explicit national edu-cational language policy.