The policy–practice gap in the street-level bureaucracy framework

The Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) framework, rooted in Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of Individuals in Public Service (1980), examines policy implementation as the study of “policy-as-produced” and the mechanisms and “sources of influences” (Gofen et al., Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019) shaping it. In this framework, street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) are frontline workers who interact directly with policy beneficiaries. Applying this to education, teachers are conceptualized as street-level bureaucrats-SLBs (Lipsky, Reference Lipsky1980; Tummers et al., Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015). The article adopts this perspective since it helps identify policy–practice gaps or compliant practices and the factors, influences, and mechanisms that underpin these practices, in teachers’ experiences and perspectives.

A central concept in SLB literature is discretion – the autonomy SLBs have in applying policies (Lipsky, Reference Lipsky1980; Van der Leun, Reference Van der Leun2003). This discretion allows SLBs to adopt practices that may diverge from official policy goals, potentially creating tensions between policy frameworks and actual practices. In this research, teachers’ practices are analysed to determine whether teachers put in place practices that align with intercultural principles and goals – that is, compliant intercultural-oriented practices – or whether they exercise discretionary power to adapt, modify, or even contradict these goals – that is, divergent discretionary practices. Widespread divergence is interpreted as evidence of an intercultural policy–practice gap (Van der Leun, Reference Van der Leun2003).

Unpacking teachers’ discretion: contextual factors, mechanisms, and different extents of discretion in daily practices

The existing literature presents a fragmented understanding of the elements and factors that may influence how street-level bureaucrats exercise discretion, as scholars differ in their perspectives and findings (Meyers and Vorsanger, Reference Meyers, Vorsanger, Peters and Pierre2003; Brodkin, Reference Brodkin2011; Meyers and Nielsen, Reference Meyers, Nielsen, Peters and Pierre2012; Gofen, Reference Gofen2014; Hupe and Buffat, Reference Hupe and Buffat2014). To navigate this complexity and integrate the diverse theoretical, methodological, and analytical approaches, this article draws significantly on the recent systematic review by Gofen et al. (Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019). This study offers a comprehensive and integrative overview of the extensive body of literature on the topic, providing valuable insights into the interplay of discretion and contextual influences in street-level bureaucratic practices, looking especially at teachers, policemen, and social workers. To the end of the present research, I will focus especially on the key aspects and findings pertaining to teachers as SLBs.

Based on a comprehensive review and synthesis of existing SLB research, Gofen et al. (Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019) emphasize the pivotal role of context and contextual elements in shaping how teachers (as well as other SLBs) exercise their discretion. To provide a theoretical and analytical framework, the authors categorize these various contextual elements across multiple levels of analysis (micro/individual, meso, and macro), reflecting the complexity of the bureaucratic environment. For clarity, Table 1 in Supplementary Appendix 2 provides a concise summary of contextual factors that impact teachers’ practices and use of discretion at the different levels of analysis. The table is not found like that in Gofen’s chapter, but consists of my own elaboration, based on the findings reported by Gofen’s review study, which in turn incorporates findings from various relevant studies, offering a comprehensive overview of factors influencing teachers’ autonomy and discretion.

As street-level bureaucrats (SLBs), like teachers, engage with diverse contexts, their discretionary practices may adapt and evolve, leading to different mechanisms of discretion. Among the scholars who have explored these issues, the studies of Gofen et al. (Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019), Bruquetas-Callejo (Reference Bruquetas-Callejo2014), and Tummers et al. (Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015) are particularly relevant and insightful for the purposes of this research. As before, I will focus especially on the key aspects and findings from those studies pertaining to teachers as SLBs.

The first mechanism, coping discretion, emerges when teachers face one or more types of constraints like the ones illustrated in Table 1 in Supplementary Appendix 2 (e.g., resource and/or financial shortages, organizational deficiencies, unclear policies, etc.). The presence of one or more of these constraints creates action dilemmas, forcing teachers to balance strict policy adherence with practical adaptations that address immediate challenges. In such cases, teachers may modify policies to deal with challenges and pressures and to improve their working conditions (Lipsky, Reference Lipsky1980; Hargreaves, Reference Hargreaves, Hargreaves and Woods1984; Bruquetas-Callejo, Reference Bruquetas-Callejo2014; Gofen et al., Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019). The second mechanism, ethical discretion, arises when teachers’ values or beliefs conflict with official policies. Here, teachers adapt policies to align with their ethical commitments (Osborn and Broadfoot, Reference Osborn and Broadfoot1992; Woods, Reference Woods1994; Bruquetas-Callejo, Reference Bruquetas-Callejo2014).

Tummers et al. (Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015) further deepen the study of coping strategies during public service delivery. They conduct a systematic review of the main contributions in the field, leading to the development of a classification of coping strategies. This classification identifies five families and nine ways of coping in public service delivery. To synthesize and present the key findings in a concise manner, I include in Supplementary Appendix 2 the original summary table provided by the authors (cf Table 2 in Supplementary Appendix 2). Interestingly, the review also reveals that frontline workers frequently resort to the coping strategy of “moving towards clients” (Tummers et al., Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015, p. 12), demonstrating a strong commitment to providing meaningful public service even under stressful conditions.

Finally, the SLB literature provides tools to explore the extent of discretion and the intercultural policy–practice gap in teachers’ practices, building on the work by Evans and Harris (Reference Evans and Harris2004). By synthesizing Lipsky’s views with those of his critics (e.g., Howe, Reference Howe and Davis1991), they argue that discretion is not an “all-or-nothing” phenomenon. Instead, it operates on a spectrum, influenced by various contextual factors and elements, such as the one highlighted in the relevant literature (e.g., Gofen et al., Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019 – also see Tables in Supplementary Appendix 2). Therefore, the exercise and extent of discretion must be evaluated contextually and, on a case-by-case basis, acknowledging varying degrees of discretion (Evans and Harris, Reference Evans and Harris2004). This nuanced understanding informs the present analysis.

Normative context in Italy and Trentino

Since 1999, Italian schools have gained greater autonomy under Decree No. 275/1999, allowing them to adapt structures and practices to local needs. This makes school principals key leaders, tasked with strategic and operational decisions to balance local needs with institutional effectiveness. Key regulatory frameworks for intercultural education are the 2007 Ministry of Education’s Guidelines, The Italian Way for Intercultural Schooling and the Integration of Foreign Students (MIUR, 2007). They emphasize democratic values, social inclusion, and a cross-curricular approach to intercultural education. The document does not specify how teachers should achieve these goals but grants schools’ autonomy to adapt strategies to diverse social and educational contexts, consistent with the 1999 framework.

The 2022 report by the National Observatory for the Integration of Foreign Students, Intercultural Guidelines: Ideas and Proposals for the Integration of Students from Migrant Backgrounds (National Observatory for the Integration of Foreign Students, 2022), reaffirms these principles and highlights two key roles in intercultural education: the linguistic facilitator, who teaches Italian to recently arrived pupils and aids with subject-specific content, and the intercultural mediator, who bridges communication between students, families, and educators. Facilitators are trained internal teachers,Footnote ³ while mediators are external figures. The report also outlines two essential actions for intercultural education. First, targeted linguistic support for recently arrived pupils, limited to the initial 3–4 months after their arrival, was carried out primarily by linguists. Native language courses are likewise encouraged, highlighting their role in improving second-language acquisition and fostering cultural/linguistic diversity. Second, multilateral, inclusive activities for all students, migrants, and natives alike, organized by both standard teachers and facilitators, and aimed at fostering intercultural skills, appreciation of diversity, and dialogue.

The normative framework for intercultural education in Trento is established by Provincial Law 5/2006, which governs the Educational and Training System. Article 75 focuses on the enrolment and integration of foreign students. This law aligns with the EU, the Council of Europe, and national guidelines, reflecting similar principles, strategies, and objectives (Legge provinciale 7 agosto, 2006).

Methodological approach

This study adopts an interpretivist research perspective. Accordingly, the purpose of this research is not to identify objective, causal, and generalizable explanations, but rather to interpret and highlight the individual experiences and meaning-making processes of participants (Maxwell, Reference Maxwell, Bickman and Rog2009), and to explore what these accounts reveal about how intercultural education policies are implemented in practice – through the lived experiences of frontline school practitioners such as teachers and headmasters.

The research approach is initially inductive, supported by qualitative methods. That is, the research does not begin with structured hypotheses, but instead it allows patterns and themes to emerge spontaneously from the analysis, based on what teachers themselves report. This is also done considering the full complexity of people’s experiences and diversity. Thereafter, the teachers’ experiences, understandings, and meaning-making processes that emerge inductively for analysis are “theoretically redescribed”, that is, read and interpreted in light of the conceptual resources and relevant findings offered by SLB literature.

The analysis relies on semi-structured interviews (between September 2023 and March 2024), structured around three macro-topics. First, teachers are asked about their familiarity with the intercultural education paradigm. Second, they are questioned on its relevance to their daily work, particularly in addressing linguistic and cultural diversity in classrooms, and how it informs their practices (first and second RQs). Third, teachers are asked about how and why they adopt certain practices, whether compliant with or divergent from the paradigm, to uncover the processes and mechanisms underpinning their choices, rooted in teachers’ own understandings and meaning-making (third RQ). The two headmasters are also interviewed to assess their familiarity with and endorsement of the intercultural paradigm.

Using a purposive selection strategy (Barglowski, Reference Barglowski, Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz2018; Patton, Reference Patton1990), I chose 42 participants (details in Supplementary Appendix 1), including headmasters and teachers across various subjects, reflecting intercultural education’s cross-curricular emphasis. Thereafter, interviews are analysed using Braun and Clarke (Reference Braun and Clarke2006)’s six-step reflexive thematic analysis (familiarization, initial coding, theme generation, theme review, definition and naming, and writing up). That has ensured theoretical sensitivity and critical engagement (Braun and Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006).

As a white, Italian female researcher conducting this study from a position of relative institutional privilege and from outside the immediate school communities studied, I recognise that my social location may have influenced both access to participants and the way data were interpreted. My identity as an external observer—non-local, non-educator, and based abroad—may have shaped how participants chose to represent their practices and perspectives during interviews. At the same time, my shared linguistic and national background with participants may have created a sense of familiarity that facilitated open dialogue. Throughout the research process, I aimed to remain reflexive about these dynamics, aware of how my positionality intersected with power relations and meaning-making in the field.

Access to human resources: shortage vs. availability of linguistic facilitators

Access to human resources, and notably linguistic facilitators, emerges as a significant element in teachers’ understandings of their own experiences, particularly in relation to their ability to carry on actual intercultural activities. Drawing on existing literature, this issue can be understood as a meso-level organizational characteristic (Gofen et al., Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019) – that is, as structural and functional elements inherently embedded within schools as institutions. Linguistic facilitators are important due to the growing number of migrant pupils requiring cultural and linguistic support in all classrooms.

The main languages spoken in classrooms include Arabic, Albanian, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, and several languages from Pakistan. Recently arrived pupils often struggle significantly with basic oral and written communication. Those born in Italy or settled for several years likewise still face challenges in understanding and using the specialized language of school subjects, both orally and in writing, as used by teachers and textbooks. Due to pupils’ varying language difficulties, teachers report difficulties in communicating with them, teaching subject content, ensuring all students can follow lessons, assigning meaningful homework, and effectively assessing student work.

While facilitators are supposed to help with all that, by providing language support, many teachers complain about the insufficient number of these resources (only two per school), compared to the actual number of foreign students and language diversity in classrooms. As a result, it becomes difficult for teachers to ensure that migrant pupils can effectively follow lessons and efficiently communicate with them and their families. Against this background, many teachers report increasing difficulty in prioritizing and implementing activities aligned with broader intercultural objectives. Instead, teachers’ main priority often becomes to find immediate solutions to the challenges arising from language barriers and limited human resources, to improve their daily working conditions.

While still an important element in teachers’ experiences and understandings across both institutes, the shortage of human resources is perceived as less problematic – and it is, in fact, less pronounced – in School 2, in both the primary and the middle schools. Although the number of linguistic facilitators in School 2 remains insufficient to fully meet the schools’ needs, the situation is perceived as manageable. This is largely attributed to the presence of a higher (although still not sufficient) number of facilitators compared to School 1, in both the primary and the middle schools. This is due in turn to the headmaster’s proactive attention and sensitivity to the issue. The headmaster indeed engages in the promotion of multiple calls for linguistic facilitators, including hiring private facilitators. The discussion section elaborates further on the relevance of this challenge and the differences between the two contexts.

Policy characteristics: vagueness and unresponsiveness vs. improved clarity

Another key factor shaping teachers’ capacity to implement intercultural initiatives is the very formulation of the intercultural policy framework itself. For many teachers, the vagueness, inadequacy, and unresponsiveness of intercultural policy frameworks represent a significant challenge to the implementation of intercultural activities. This finding is consistent with key insights from the SLB literature, which highlights policy characteristics as a meso-level influencing element shaping teachers’ practices and use of discretion – distinct from school-level organizational factors, such as those discussed previously (cfr Gofen et al., Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019 and Table 1 in Supplementary Appendix 2).

Several teachers reported that existing intercultural policies – whether at the European, national (Italian), or local levels – limit the role of linguistic facilitators to supporting only newly arrived pupils with minimal Italian proficiency. These regulations, however, fail to reflect the realities of the classroom, particularly overlooking the needs of students who were either born in the country to migrant parents or who have been settled in the country for a considerable period. As previously mentioned, many of these students still face significant challenges with Italian and would benefit from specialized language support.

Policy vagueness likewise emerges. Indeed, teachers point out that supranational and national legal guidelines and school programmatic documents lack detailed clarification and concrete examples for organizing intercultural practices. Additionally, according to teachers’ responses, this lack of training leaves the guidelines ambiguous and open-ended, failing to clarify how and to what extent, in practice, unilateral activities (Italian language learning) carried out by facilitators should be daily balanced with multilateral activities (such as intercultural exchanges) carried out jointly by teachers and facilitators. Both facilitators and teachers openly say that they would need clearer strategies on how, when, and how much they should work jointly to allocate time and resources between these activities, in empirical terms. Moreover, teachers note that existing guidelines remain ambiguous regarding their role in unilateral language-learning activities for recently arrived foreign pupils. While such involvement is not explicitly encouraged, it is not discouraged either – especially when deemed necessary.

As for the previous findings, policy vagueness and unresponsiveness are perceived as more problematic – and are in fact more pronounced – in School 1. While teachers in School 2 also report such issues, they seem overall less concerned and worried by them. Several teachers in School 2 highlight that the headmaster has organized training courses on intercultural education, by hiring specific personnel to conduct them. These courses are designed to offer practical explanations and examples of intercultural-oriented methods and activities. They likewise provide guidance on how to balance material resources and time between unilateral language learning activities (by facilitators) and multilateral activities (by teachers and facilitators jointly). They also explicitly suggest that, while teachers should collaborate with facilitators on multilateral activities that promote intercultural exchange, they should preferably leave unilateral language-learning activities exclusively to facilitators, as these professionals are more adequately prepared and are specifically designated for this role under the current multi-level intercultural framework. Most teachers tell me that after attending such courses, they generally feel they have a clearer and more precise understanding of how intercultural education could be effectively applied in practice and of how to balance the different types of activities in their classrooms. In contrast, such training initiatives have not been organized in School 1.

Clients’ pressures: complaints and pressures from parents

A further challenge reported by teachers across all schools is that they occasionally face complaints from parents – both migrant and, particularly, Italian – who view intercultural education as an “extra” that detracts their children from core learning objectives. An additional concern raised by some Italian parents is that the presence of non-native speakers in the classroom slows down the educational progress of their own children. This finding aligns with the general SLB theory individual level contextual factor (e.g., Lipsky, Reference Lipsky1980; Gofen et al., Reference Gofen, Sella, Gassner and Hupe2019), although its relevance to teachers is less pronounced and less commonly emphasized compared to other professions. In this context, parents can be considered clients.

Parents’ pressure presents a dilemma for teachers: whether to integrate intercultural education into lessons, risking conflict, or avoid it to prevent confrontation. Again, this challenge is highly context-dependent. Teachers in both institutions acknowledge the presence of this issue, although those in School 2 report feeling less pressured. They attribute this to the training courses, which equip them with strategies to manage conflicts with parents and enhance their confidence and optimism. As previously mentioned, such training initiatives have not been organized in School 1.

Coping strategies deviating from the goals of intercultural education policies

When the aforementioned dilemmas and challenges become particularly acute, teachers often report a pervasive sense of frustration and a feeling of being overwhelmed by excessive workload demands. In such contexts, the need to identify immediate solutions and practical strategies to cope with stressful working conditions – and to avoid conflicts with parents (particularly Italian parents) – becomes especially pressing, even at the expense of pursuing intercultural objectives. In light of existing literature, this can be interpreted as an instance of a coping mechanism of discretion (Bruquetas-Callejo, Reference Bruquetas-Callejo2014; Tummers et al., Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015). That is, the adoption of pragmatic solutions that ultimately lead teachers to deviate from the intended goals of intercultural education policy.

Across the schools, in both the primary and the middle schools of School 1, a common coping strategy is for teachers to use their personal resources – particularly their own time and availability (Tummers et al., Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015, cfr also Table 2 in Supplementary Appendix 2) to tackle the problem of the shortage of available linguistic facilitators helping with language barriers. Specifically, many teachers increasingly take on roles alongside linguistic facilitators in the delivery of Italian language instruction by volunteering extra afternoon hours to organize Italian language classes for non-Italian speakers to further help them with the language (students and parents).

In these same schools, several teachers go even further. In order to devote more time and resources to these extra afternoon teaching hours, they deliberately forgo the implementation of inclusive activities targeting the entire student body – activities intended to cultivate intercultural competencies, mutual understanding, and dialogue. Consequently, such initiatives are largely absent from everyday classroom practice. Teachers who do that explicitly tell me this type of strategy becomes almost inevitable, given the vagueness of intercultural policy guidelines – particularly regarding how to balance unilateral language instruction for foreigners by linguistic facilitators with inclusive, intercultural activities carried out jointly by facilitators and standard teachers. In this context, it is often considered more efficient to abandon such activities altogether and to redirect time and energy towards more urgent goals, such as teaching Italian to newly arrived foreign students, rather than investing resources in figuring out how to interpret vague intercultural indications. Additionally, for several teachers, cutting off intercultural activities also serves to minimize potential tensions with parents, by signalling that instructional time is not being diverted from the standard curriculum by intercultural activities.

This strategy can be interpreted as a form of rule-breaking coping strategy. That is, it entails a deliberate disregard for intercultural policy directives that emphasize the importance of balancing language learning activities for non-Italian speakers with intercultural activities for all students. Similarly, linguistic facilitators tend to concentrate almost exclusively on teaching Italian. By contrast, they do not engage in other types of language-related activities that are strongly encouraged by the schools’ programmatic documents and by the relevant provincial legislation on intercultural education, such as organizing courses in pupils’ native languages.

Finally, another common strategy observed among teachers at the primary school within School 1 is to extend the support of linguistic facilitators to pupils who are not officially entitled to it, thereby bending formal intercultural policy rules (“rule-bending” coping strategy, cf Tummers et al., Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015). This includes students no longer classified as “recently arrived” under existing guidelines – such as those born in Italy who continue to face language difficulties, or those who have lived in the country for an extended period but whose eligibility for such support has expired. Teachers tell me this can be a strategy to overcome the lack of linguistic facilitators and the generalized responsiveness of existing guidelines regarding this topic (cfr previous paragraph).

Coping strategies tend to emerge less extensively in School 2. Unlike in School 1, none of the teachers interviewed reported neglecting the implementation of multilateral inclusive activities for all pupils, including both migrants and natives. On the contrary, most teachers prioritize promoting these activities over focusing solely on addressing immediate challenges. Moreover, teachers explicitly state that, when carrying out these activities, they strive to draw inspiration from the intercultural paradigm and reproduce some of the intercultural practices outlined in the documents mentioned above. Some teachers in the school the primary school within School 2 volunteer extra hours, often in the afternoons, to organize Italian language classes (rule-bending coping). Finally, the rule-bending strategies previously illustrated (extending the supervision of linguistic facilitators to students who are not officially designated for support) do not occur in these schools.

Overall, the coping strategies identified here are consistent with previous research on frontline workers, which shows that professionals like teachers tend to cope by “moving towards clients,” even under conditions of stress (Tummers et al., Reference Tummers, Lars, Vink and Musheno2015). In other words, they often pragmatically adjust – or bend – formal rules to prioritize students’ needs and well-being, particularly in the case of migrant students facing language barriers.

Interculturally oriented practices

For several other teachers, implementing the principles and objectives of intercultural education takes clear precedence over addressing existing dilemmas and challenges, especially in School 2.

Most of the Italian language teachers interviewed in School 2 report organizing specific classroom activities to explore linguistic and cultural diversity, encouraging students to reflect on the importance of dialogue and mutual respect. These activities include structured debates and discussions on culturally significant or controversial topics, such as the role of women in society and diverse cultural and religious practices, aimed at fostering understanding and preventing prejudice. An example:

Furthermore, several teachers organize group work to bring together students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, fostering a positive approach to embracing diversity. For example, a linguistic facilitator at the middle school within School 2 encourages recently arrived students from various countries to learn basic greetings and common phrases from one another, despite challenges posed by differing language levels.

Other activities, particularly by religious education and Italian language teachers, focus on exploring family traditions across cultures. An Italian language teacher at the primary school within School 2 asked some of her students (ages 9–10) to investigate their family’s typical meals, holidays, and ceremonies and present their findings through short presentations. Similarly, at the middle school within School 2, another Italian language teacher is organizing (at the time the interview is conducted) a group project involving students of diverse backgrounds to explore and share traditional music and dances from their respective regions.

Practical adaptations fostering intercultural goals

An additional interesting and unexpected finding emerges consistently in School 1. In their efforts to address existing constraints and challenges, several teachers and facilitators adjust their daily practices in ways that ultimately produce alternative and often unintentional means of achieving intercultural objectives.

Three out of four linguistic facilitators interviewed, working in School 1, report that, since roughly 1 year, they have started to occasionally ask some people belonging to the same minority communities as the migrant pupils they are teaching to assist in teaching Italian to recently arrived pupils. These community members can be pupils’ relatives (siblings, uncles, etc.) but also non-family members. Since they have been living in Italy since more time, they are able to support by serving as translators for those pupils. The facilitators tell me that their views on these activities have changed over time. When they started doing it, they saw it primarily as a pragmatic response to the insufficient number of facilitators available. Over time, they started to understand that communities’ involvement can even support the implementation of interculturally oriented activities and objectives. Specifically, by involving community members, facilitators feel encouraged and better able to organize and carry out additional activities that would otherwise be difficult to implement. For instance, they have initiated courses not only for teaching Italian but also for strengthening pupils’ native languages. These courses are designed and planned by the facilitators, while community members are primarily involved in the practical implementation.

These practices closely reflect and align with the measures and intercultural goals strongly recommended by the relevant national and provincial legislation, reflected in the schools’ programmatic documents. Indeed, these documents explicitly encourage teaching native languages alongside the host country’s language, recognizing that proficiency in the former enhances the latter while fostering flexibility, curiosity, and an appreciation of diversity – key goals of intercultural dialogue. Thus, these adaptations – though driven by necessity – end up not only tackling practical challenges and dilemmas but also fostering the intercultural objectives embedded in the relevant intercultural policy guidelines at multiple levels. Consequently, at the beginning of the new academic year, the facilitators have requested that school principals formalize these collaborations through temporary paid contracts for community members involved.

Moreover, some general education teachers also implement similar strategies. During regular classes, some teachers rely on students to serve as peer tutors, assisting by translating and helping classmates who struggle with basic Italian or more advanced academic language. Peer tutors can be Italian students or Italian-born students with foreign parents who possess stronger language skills. While the explicit intention of these practices is to address language barriers and compensate for resources and policy limitations, they frequently promote unintended intercultural benefits and goals. They often create new, unexpected spaces for promoting veritable dialogue and exchange among students that go beyond purely academic exchanges and support. This dynamic is illustrated by the following quote.

Other teachers reported similar activities, although not all. Others continued to carry out merely language-centred practices, like the ones illustrated above.