West Virginia Interpreter’s Coalition
VOLUME #1 ISSUE #3
OUR MISSION: Our mission is to unite the signing and foreign language communities for the advancement of the interpreting profession and the advocacy for interpreter professionals.
OUR OBJECTIVES: We’re here for you!
ANNOUNCEMENTS: WVIC wishes to apologize for the long delay since our last newsletter. Collectively, we have decided to have quarterly newsletters in order to allow all spoken and sign language interpreters in West Virginia to have sufficient time in submitting their articles. The next newsletter will be distributed December 2011. Deadline for submitted articles will be November 15th. Submissions may be emailed to: email@example.com We welcome submissions from all spoken and sign language interpreters. You may be a seasoned interpreter or a newly graduated student of interpreting. Even inactive interpreters are welcome to share their experience. When submitting your articles, please include any references or links to share. Each article should be no more than 500 words. For your first submission, include a short biography of yourself. Pictures are optional.
Connect and unite WV interpreters (signed and spoken language)
Propose legislation pertaining to interpreter professionals
Emphasize advocacy for interpreter professionals
Lay ground work for building a WV RID Chapter
Collect data, research and other informational resources pertaining to the interpreting profession
If you are interested in WVIC membership or wish to be included in our mailing list, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Professional Development Opportunities: NAI National Workshop • St. Paul, Minnesota, November 8–12, 2011 • Hampton, Virginia, November 13-17, 2012 • Reno, Nevada, November 6–9, 2013 www.interpnet.com
ATA 52nd Annual Conference October 26-29, 2011 Boston, Massachusetts www.atanet.org
September 30 - October 2, 2011 The Joseph B. Martin Conference Center at Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts USA http://www.theconfcenter.hms.harvard.edu/
CEUs from home: www.signs-of-development.org www.ceusonthego.com www.imiaweb.org www.interculturaldiversity.com
ELIZA GORDON ALLISON, BA, EIPA, IL-T3 Editor
P.O. Box 1236 Barboursville, WV 25504 304-972-6465 • 304-733-5436 fax email@example.com
West Virginia Interpreter’s Coalition
VOLUME 1# ISSUE #3
Least Restrictive Environment: One Choice Doesn’t Fit All Written by Antonia Vaughan, MA, Ed: K-12
The arguable issue of mainstreaming has been a hot topic since the establishment of the No Child Left Behind. Throughout time and history, many arguable issues have presented Many educators believe that the Least Restrictive themselves within the educational system. One arguable issue is the concept of Least Environment (LRE) means placing the child in the regular Restrictive Environment (LRE) and the correct placements of deaf and hard of hearing educational classroom with a full time interpreter as a related service. With the services of the interpreter, this will allow children. As an Educational Interpreter and a Language Developmental Specialist of the student access to all means of education and therefore thirteen years, I consider this debate an astronomical issue. There have been with decreasing the workload and the misunderstandings of many theories but with limited scientific research providing factual documentation. communication and educational activities. The related As educators within the educational setting, we agree based on the scientific service provider enables accessibility throughout the regular documentation that language acquisition starts at birth. How many of us have toppled educational mainstream setting. Labeled as mentally over ourselves to babble at an infant? impaired; the Deaf/H.H. or child with a C.I. continues to I too have been guilty of such babbling and cooing. I am amazed at the function with limited language.
number of hearing parents with hearing children who are teaching their children sign language! On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are of course, hearing parents with deaf children with lack of support; who never learn or teach their deaf child sign. For Deaf/Hard of Hearing children this acquisition of language may never occur, if there is not a language foundation established at home. Language foundation is determined among the custodial parents. Such language for Deaf/H.H. children can range from American Sign Language, Manually Coded English, Signing Exact English, Cued Speech, and Pidgin Signed English, Spoken English or a mix there of. Some parents choose Cochlear Implants (CI). CI’s can be successful if the parents work to establish a language foundation first in order to support the CI and language process. The important factor to remember is that a child with a CI may never have the hearing equivalent to their normal peers. Problems arise when the Deaf/H.H. child enters school with no or limited language. The lack of communication and support at home, results in limited language. This aspect leads me to my arguable issue; Due to the language barrier, the public mainstream setting may not be a suitable placement serving as the LRE because an unequal access to education is not provided and the Deaf/H.H. or child with a C.I. can be labeled incorrectly. Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals have a right to an equal access to education in all settings. However, the availability of an equal access to education for the Deaf/H.H. is scarce. Deaf literacy has been on the back burner for way too long. Educators are at a loss as to how to teach literacy to Deaf/H.H. individuals due to the lack of support in deaf education. During an interview involving two Teachers of the Deaf (TOD), the teachers were asked, how long they have been teaching; the first response “I have been teaching for forty-eight years and I have only been given training in my specialized field twice. Cochlear Implants and Visual Phonics”; another (TOD) stated, “We are not given ample time to prepare our lessons that Deaf/H.H. children need because we are required to attend meaningless staff training that is not in our specialized field. It takes time and effort to prepare language based criteria from a second language and changing it into the child’s first language”. Continued on right panel
References Stuckless, E.R., & Marks, C. H., (1996). Assessment of the written language of deaf students (USOE Cooperative Research Project 2544). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Baddeley, A. D., (1990). Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cardoza, D., & Rueda, R. (1986). Educational and Occupational Outcomes of Hispanic Learning-Disabled High School Students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 111-126. Hanna, P. R., Hodges, R. E., & Hanna, J. S. (1971). Spelling: Structure and Strategies. Boston: Houston Mifflin.
Claim Educators claim that the LRE is in the mainstream setting allowing the student access in all areas including socialization. Educators believe that socialization is a vital part of development. Without socialization; the child would not properly develop to their full potential. Once falling behind in academics and social skills, the child is viewed as the stereotype of being mentally impaired, (MI) or learning disabled (LD). Educators claim that an educational interpreter, when placed in the mainstream setting, is the key to the success of the Deaf/H.H. or child with a C.I.
Logic The above claims are incorrect. The LRE states:”…. that the child be placed accordingly and in the least restrictive environment”. If the child has no language upon entering school, the child upon entering kindergarten is already six to seven years behind in language; then mainstream settings are not the correct placement. The child cannot gain full access through an interpreter because there has never been a language foundation established. In this child’s scheme, assimilation is not achievable. The language development professional or interpreter must have the opportunity and time to work with the child in order to establish a language foundation. In addition, socialization cannot be successful because the child has not had the opportunity to develop two of the four domains in psychosocial development. The four domains are as follows: symbolic tools, phylogenetic, ontogenetic and microgenetic.
References continued Kayser, H. (1989). Speech and Language assessment of Spanish-English Speaking Children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School, 20, 226-241. Marschark, M., & Harris, M. (1996). Success and Failure in Learning to Read: The Special Case of Deaf Children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 279-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sterne, A., & Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological Awareness of Syllables, Rhymes and Phonemes in Deaf Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 609-625.
West Virginia Interpreter’s Coalition
VOLUME #1 ISSUE #3
Least Restrictive Environment: One Choice Doesn’t Fit All continued The answer to deaf literacy is not embedded into the curriculum; however, the answer lies within the cognitive domains of the Deaf/H.H. child or child with a CI. A student who displays inadequate skills in understanding and speaking English is considered having Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Unfortunately, some students with LEP are misdiagnosed as having learning impairments because of their poor academic performance or difficulty on standardized tests (Cardoza & Rueda, 1986). When students exhibit normal production of their own primary language, they should not be identified as having a language problem. The importance of having a certified interpreter during the testing process is a crucial factor in determining learning impairments and language barriers. Although phonetic approaches are used to teach spelling and are used frequently, Hanna Hodges, and Hanna (1971) note that only about 50 percent of spellings follow regular phonetic rules. Sitting in a room of phonics instruction only creates more chaos and frustration for the Deaf/H.H. student or student with C.I. as well as the educational interpreter. Phonics instruction may not be the appropriate or the LRE for Deaf/H.H. children or children with CIs. Furthermore, dactylology in American Sign Language does not rely on phonics at all, rather only the beginning and the end of the word. Currently, there is not any successful sign system that incorporates phonics instruction. Unfortunately, most educational systems still implement phonics instruction to Deaf/H.H. students on a daily basis. Many educators have reverted to the use of Cued Speech, Visual Phonics, Manipulative Visual Language, and others have even made up their own methods. The journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education concluded that there was no clear evidence that Deaf/H.H. children were using phonological coding. The case study indicated that “overall the results provided support for the view that deaf children place little reliance on phonological coding” (Marschark & Harris, 2000). Baddeley continues to add that for “obvious reasons, much of the research on the abilities of deaf children has focused on the recall of visual stimuli (Baddeley, 1990). This leads to the hypothesis that Deaf/H.H. children can learn correct grammatical structure with their L1, which is visual, dactylology.
I love teaching people of all ages, but most of all I love to learn. I believe we learn something new every day. My philosophy is “practice makes permanent; perfect practice makes perfect.” We cannot un-do yesterday, but we can re-do tomorrow. Keeping a positive outlook especially in difficult circumstances will allow us to succeed in all endeavors. ~Antonia Vaughan
Ontogenetic domain: Where focus is on how children appropriate and integrate primary language into their thinking activities as they mature. For a deaf child, this domain is not possible unless a language has been established starting at birth. Microgenetic domain: Interests occur in the reorganization and development of mediation over a short span of time. For example, learning a sound or grammatical feature of a language even the smallest unit of language (morpheme/phonics) in English or (morpheme/classifier) in American Sign Language (ASL). To hinder the process of the microgenetic domain even further, providing a Deaf/H.H. or child with C.I. with inappropriate placement and services only leads to signing errors and non-conceptuality in ASL syntax and grammatical structure. The accessibility is only as good as the educational interpreters’ skills, knowledge of deaf cultural awareness, and professional appearance as well as the equal access to the environment. The environment must be visually accessible at all times. Communication should not be limited to instructional activities only; instead, it should be inviting and involving at all times and should not be limited or interrupted. Therefore, it is crucial that the interpreter be in the class at all times for social interaction, not just instructional activities. It is vital to the student’s achievement that the educational staff recognizes the importance of the interpreter and limit interference with the language development and communication process. Symbolic tools: Represented in mathematics and computer technology. If the Deaf/H.H. child or child with a C.I. lacks these two aspects as well, then the child cannot fully rise to their potential vegetating in the regular educational setting. Phylogenetic evolution: The genetics and mental process. If the child does not present any family history of mental inabilities and the child does and can express their want and need to communicate and they can follow gestural cues. These traits signify that the child should is not mentally impaired. Establishing repetition and reinforcement, helps the child fully understands the concept of directives.
Antonia L. Vaughan-has been involved with the Deaf community for 25 years. As the older sister of two deaf brothers, Antonia Vaughan has had her life center around deafness, American Sign Language, Deaf culture, and interpreting. Mrs. Vaughan has been a freelance community interpreter for 12 years and an educational interpreter for 13 years. Mrs. Vaughan has met state requirements and national requirements of interpreting. With an EIPA (Educational Interpreters Proficiency Assessment) score of 4.3, Mrs. Vaughan is a certified member of RID (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf) which lead her to the position as a Video Relay Interpreter (VRS) employed through Sorenson Communications. She also serves as a mentor for new coming VRS interpreters. In addition, Mrs. Vaughan has provided the staff development for the educational interpreters and sign language specialists, worked with the West Virginia State Department of Education as an Educational Interpreter Mentor for Central West Virginia, designed the Deaf Child Bill of Rights for West Virginia, and proposes the enforcement of federal law for professional status of educational interpreters. She is the cofounder of the Interpreter Training Program (ITP) located at Kanawha Valley Community and Technical College (KCVTC) and is currently a professor for prospective educational interpreters. Mrs. Vaughan has her Master of Arts in Teaching and Learning with Technology. Mrs. Vaughan is known as an inspirational leader and an understanding teacher and role model. She is very positive in her work habits as well as her teaching and mentoring ethics. In her spare time, she enjoys spending time with her family.
News from the Editor: Hello Fellow Interpreters! As a community ASL interpreter, I am always glad to share my experience and in turn, learn from my peers. I strive to grow and become a better interpreter every day. I do so by attending workshops, online discussions with colleagues, and trainings. I am excited to share with you my most recent training experience that I had the end of August. I traveled to Birmingham, Alabama for a one week, 40 hour, in depth Mental Health Interpreter Training (MHIT). This training was set up in 2003, due to a lawsuit settlement in Bailey vs. Sawyer and Chapter 580/3/24 of Administrative Code of Alabama (www.mhit.org). We, ASL interpreters, should be grateful that this training is available in order to ensure we are qualified to interpret in mental health settings. I encourage all ASL interpreters to attend this weeklong training, even if you do not plan to become a QMHI (Qualified Mental Health Interpreter) or already have knowledge in mental health settings. There are a variety of topics such as Communication Impairment, Psychopharmacology and Treatment Approaches, just to name a few. After attending this training, I feel that I can better work with mental health professionals. I also have many more resources to reference to.
Stay tuned: www.mhit.org for online discussions and information for MHIT 2012! “Hearing psychologists faced with a client with whom they cannot communicate have been described as entering a „Shock-WithdrawalParalysis‟(Schlesinger & Meadow, 1972) in which fears of incompetence regarding deaf people (shorthand here for „prelingually profoundly deaf people who use sign language‟) lead to a diminishing ability to use existing clinical skills. Obviously, this is disabling. In addition, the relief felt when this paralysis is apparently resolved can be so tangible that the extent to which it truly is resolved can be grossly overestimated. Just as a hearing aid will amplify but not correct distortion, so booking an interpreter is a necessary but not sufficient step towards business as usual. Though difficult to admit, it is likely that when de-skilled in this fashion we reach for tools which appear to rely less heavily on our ability to properly connect with our clients – tools which have a validity that appears inherent, tools which have a heavy mass of „evidence‟ to support them”. There is a small but admirable literature on working with deaf people in psychological contexts (Austen & Crocker, 2004; Hindley & Kitson, 2000)
Must a covered health care provider obtain an individual’s authorization to use or disclose protected health information to an interpreter? WHEN THE INTERPRETER IS A MEMBER OF THE COVERED ENTITY’S WORKFORCE (I.E., A BILINGUAL EMPLOYEE, A CONTRACT INTERPRETER ON STAFF, OR A VOLUNTEER) AS DEFINED AT 45 CFR 160.103; WHEN A COVERED ENTITY ENGAGES THE SERVICES OF A PERSON OR ENTITY, WHO IS NOT A WORKFORCE MEMBER, TO PERFORM INTERPRETER SERVICES ON ITS BEHALF, AS A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, AS DEFINED AT 45 CFR 160.103. A COVERED ENTITY MAY DISCLOSE PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION AS NECESSARY FOR THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATE TO PROVIDE INTERPRETER SERVICES ON THE COVERED ENTITY’S BEHALF, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN WRITTEN SATISFACTORY ASSURANCES SET FORTH IN 45 CFR 164.504(E). FOR INSTANCE, MANY PROVIDERS -- INCLUDING THOSE THAT ARE RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND ARE REQUIRED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO PERSONS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY -- WILL HAVE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH PRIVATE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS, OR TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE LINES TO PROVIDE SUCH LANGUAGE SERVICES. IF A COVERED ENTITY HAS AN ONGOING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AN INTERPRETER SERVICE, THAT SERVICE ARRANGEMENT SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE PRIVACY RULE BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE OBLIGATION OF RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT, SEE GUIDANCE TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS REGARDING TITLE VI PROHIBITION AGAINST NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION AFFECTING LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT PERSONS AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.HHS.GOV/OCR/LEP/