Community interpreting in educational settings: Stakeholders' perceptions and expectations

In recent years, the intensification of international migration has rapidly transformed the demographic structures of many countries into increasingly multilingual and multicultural configurations. Wars, economic factors, and natural disasters have emerged as the principal drivers of migration, bringing language barriers to the forefront—particularly in access to essential public services such as education, healthcare, and the legal system. In this context, community interpreting (CI) has become a strategic instrument for bridging communication gaps between individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and service providers. This study investigates how educational stakeholders (school administrators, teachers, psychological counselors, and parents) as well as professional and ad hoc community interpreters in the TR83 region of Türkiye (Amasya, Çorum, Samsun, and Tokat) perceive, experience, and evaluate CI. Participants, selected through purposive, maximum variation, and snowball sampling techniques, were engaged in semi-structured interviews, and the data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). The findings indicate that CI plays a pivotal role in educational settings by reducing communication barriers and fostering intercultural understanding. In schools with linguistically diverse student populations, interpreters act as key mediators between students, parents, and the school. However, in Türkiye, there is no systematic or institutionalized framework for CI in educational contexts, nor any legal documents or statutory regulations governing such practices. The quality of service is largely contingent upon the interpreter's linguistic proficiency, cultural competence, and ethical sensitivity; while non-professional interpreters may cause misunderstandings, professional interpreters' mastery of specialized terminology was found to enhance communication efficacy. CI is required in both formal procedures (enrollment, transfer, equivalency, parent–teacher meetings) and informal domains such as student–teacher communication, orientation, adaptation, needs assessment, conveying school culture, and mediation. It is also frequently utilized in guidance services, conflict resolution, special needs consultations, the reception of newly arrived students, and parental information sessions. Nonetheless, interpreter roles are often assigned to students or their siblings, which entails risks concerning confidentiality, role conflict, and accuracy. Although child interpreting is preferred for perceived advantages of speed, availability, and linguistic capability, it may compromise neutrality, and can result in secondary trauma, stigmatization, and power imbalances. Child language brokers (CLB) may be exposed to peer bullying, threats, or exclusion and, at times, transmit incomplete or distorted information. While children often accept this role willingly, the role conflict and emotional burden remain largely invisible.In the absence of professional interpreting services, technological solutions and adult intermediaries are employed, yet these frequently prove inadequate. The suboptimal use of machine translation and mobile translation tools limits communication quality, and no evidence of artificial intelligence integration was observed. The exposure of children to adult-oriented subject matter runs counter to the principle of the best interests of the child. In conclusion, CI in education should be regarded not as a temporary facilitation, but as an essential infrastructure for ensuring access, equity, and participation. Accordingly, the study recommends school-based and sustainable employment models, clearly defined job descriptions, ethical protocols, and quality assurance mechanisms; written regulations to prevent child interpreting; stakeholder awareness programs; and the integrated use of digital tools in compliance with principles of confidentiality and accuracy.