Introduction
This book is a product of many long years of experience in, enlightenment about, frustration with, and hope for the education of deaf children. Several of the contributing authors began as interpreters in education. Most, like myself, have left the everyday work of educational interpreting in K–12 settings. But, some hope is clear, even for the despair felt by many. All the authors have continued to search for answers, information, and documentation to illuminate the ongoing problems with interpreted educations.
The lack of respect for interpreters in education, the disregard for language needs of deaf students, and the need to offer students schooling in their own districts at the expense of adequate services make up the rationale for this book. I first had the idea for this kind of book as an educational interpreter in 1982. At that time, I had neither the letters behind my name nor the experience and learning that those letters represent. Like most educational interpreters, I was used as a tool without regard to whether interpreting could work in providing an education. My input was not expected, and only through luck did I end up working with a teacher of the deaf (notice I do not say “for”) who, although ignorant about interpreting (even after her deaf education graduate studies), was willing to learn. I did not have the credentials, just a gut feeling that the interpreting was not working. She agreed, and together we were able to affect some small change in a few classes. Those changes almost always resulted in finding more ways to avoid spewed interpreted information and promote direct, one-to-one communication.
That same gut feeling motivated me to spend the ensuing two decades researching, asking, observing, and discussing with others—and hoping that the need for this book would go away. Fortunately, in the twenty-plus years since I began, some improvements and changes have been made. Unfortunately, in the twenty-plus years that have passed, the need for research about interpreted education has not gone away. Too many students are still being abused in classrooms that fail to provide adequate access to language, to education, and to a “normal” least restricted environment. And too little research has been done to determine whether this practice of mainstreaming has any positive effects.
Some of the other authors in this volume also have been struggling with this concept, many for longer than I have. We have endeavored to present here the results of our experience and learning. This volume’s authors also include fresher participants—some who have just begun experiencing interpreted educations and who have experienced it from the students’ perspective. Their research brings new minds to the topic.
I have tried to bring together authors who have experience as interpreters or as students, who have had to sit day after day, watching the vacant, if not sleeping, faces of deaf students who do not have adequate language to understand direct communication let alone the more challenging interpreted language. We have seen the deaf child isolated daily in the larger world, befriended by few, and limited to participation and “friendship” with the few hearing students who learn the 500 vocabulary words so frequently taught in K–12 classrooms.
Some authors have brought their experience as educators of deaf children to their knowledge of interpreting. Others have brought their knowledge of language acquisition, cognition, and language use to the book. Some have brought their own experiences as receivers of interpreted educations. All have brought years of frustration with the disregard for the serious language issues raised by interpreted educations. And, all have brought years of research, experience, study, and learning—represented by the many letters after their names—to this attempt to illuminate the issues we have identified. Perhaps, the one-hundred-and-fifty-plus aggregate years of experience and learning will be noted by those who continue to abuse deaf children in the name of education.
Part 1 of this book, Deaf Students, focuses on the subject of our research—the deaf student. Four chapters focus on their perspectives, the language myths that surround them, the accessibility of language to them, and their resulting cognition. In chapter 1, the research of Brown Kurz and Caldwell Langer provides an insightful look at the reactions and thoughts of the primary recipient of interpreted educations—deaf students. This account of their impressions and experiences is a window into a world that few in authority have experienced and that even fewer consider when making decisions about providing interpreting without thought to learning outcomes. As part of their contribution, each author has added a final section describing her own experiences with interpreted educations—Brown Kurz from her experiences as a deaf student and Caldwell Langer from her experiences as a hearing student receiving an interpreted education in graduate school. These stories add to our understanding of not only the personal but also the thoughtfully considered effect of interpreted educations.
Chapter 2 focuses on one major issue of interpreted education—the need to have adequate language first before interpreting can be an effective tool for education. Monikowski presents a clear and cohesive discussion of the fundamental essential need for deaf children to have adequate first language skills in signing. Without these skills, watching the flapping hands of an interpreter is pointless. She also addresses the second language skills of the interpreters working in K–12 settings, highlighting the often poor skills they have. Finally, she addresses the misplaced expectation of schools, parents, and educators who believe that deaf students will miraculously acquire language by watching those flapping hands. We as adults would not subject ourselves to this kind of expectation, but we are willing to pretend that it is acceptable for children. The one aspect of language addressed neither in this chapter nor, in fact, by anyone (except in whispered conversations among interpreting educators) is the native English language skills of these interpreters. We pretend that interpreters can interpret into their L2 (American Sign Language) when they often lack adequate English skills. Anecdotal accounts of some interpreters reveal that they cannot recognize the difference between active and passive utterances, for example, the difference between Mary told the story (to someone) and Mary was told the story (by someone). Unfortunately, no research yet informs this critical issue.
Stack, in chapter 3, presents an analysis of the effects of English signing, the type of signing that is often required in schools and is usually better known by most educational interpreters. In this chapter, she asks whether or not children exposed to English signing systems actually acquire competence in English and argues that the answers lie in the disconnect between the grammar of SEE II and its phonological realization, a disconnect that does not exist in natural languages. Although SEE II is a remarkably easy system for native English speakers to learn, it does not guarantee its efficacy as a target language for small children; in fact, the research suggests the opposite. And although it is quickly learned, its lack of prosody makes it difficult to produce and comprehend sentences in SEE II, rendering it ineffective for real-time interpreting. After examining the role of prosody in language acquisition and surveying research into language acquisition by children exposed to SEE II, Stack presents the case of a deaf child, “Jamie,” and her mostly unsuccessful efforts to develop language with exposure only to SEE II.
The fourth chapter, contributed by Schick, expands the discussion beyond the basic realms of language and discusses the interplay of language and cognition, investigating the interaction and reliance of learning and language for deaf children. Schick discusses the fact that language is essential for communication as being a widely understood concept. But language also serves another essential function in child development. It helps organize and stimulate cognitive development in children.
This chapter explores aspects of the interaction between language and cognition in development and the implications for learning by means of an educational interpreter. First, the development of Theory of Mind in deaf children is a major benchmark in cognitive development, but evidence indicates that some deaf children achieve this benchmark later than their hearing peers. Second, interactions with peers and with friendships positively affect cognitive development. Third, argumentation between children may positively affect reasoning and discourse skills. Fourth, for all children, learning is maximized when it is in the context of rich, scaffolded interactions that consider the cognitive understanding of the child. This chapter explores the question of whether such an important requirement for learning is achievable through the use of an educational interpreter.
Part 2 of this book, Interpreting and Interpreters, raises questions about the pivotal point of access for interpreted education—the interpreting. The authors question the support and training that interpreters have in and from the school systems, the qualifications that many interpreters bring to an interpreted education, and the accessibility of everyday classrooms for deaf students placed in these environments.
In chapter 5, Caldwell Langer explores an Internet discussion list for educational interpreters and its discourse about three current issues in educational interpreting. This discussion is informed by three similar issues in educational anthropology. The chapter begins with a discussion of the three critical issues: identity-role formation for educational interpreters in schools today, communication breakdown between teachers and interpreters, and control of bodies and spaces in classroom settings. Information and insights were gleaned from 19 interviews with members of the discussion list and from the archives for the group, which included more than four years of postings. The chapter closes with a discussion of the discussion list itself—the purposes it serves, why it is needed for this particular group of professionals, and advantages and disadvantages to meeting online.
Jones, in chapter 6, explores the demographics, interpreting competencies, as well as roles and responsibilities of sign language interpreters working in K–12 public schools in the United States. Competencies for this group are compared with competencies generally recognized by the field as necessary for sign language interpreters to produce equivalent target messages. The discussion raises serious questions and concerns that those working in regular “inclusive” education and special education should be addressing when considering not only qualifications of this important support service provider but also appropriate placement decisions for deaf and hard of hearing students in their charge. In addition, it raises questions about the education and preparation that interpreters are receiving. Current practice in the field of K–12 educational interpreter education is primarily provided within two-year associate degree programs. The model is not producing practitioners who are able to meet the needs of deaf and hard of hearing students in the mainstream educational setting. To truly allow the possibility of any access to public school education, the institutions of higher education in the United States must make a paradigm shift. Without this shift, access for deaf and hard of hearing students is a myth. The expectations should be to achieve equal access, which can be done by setting standards for skills and knowledge at the state level.
Winston, in chapter 7, investigates the interaction of interpreting and the classroom environment to analyze whether and how an interpreted classroom can be made accessible through interpreting. To understand this complex interaction, one first needs to understand those constraints of interpreting that cannot be changed: the lag time and the nature of an interpreted message. With these factors firmly in mind, Winston describes the types of activities teachers use to present content information in hearing-oriented classrooms, to consider the implicit and explicit assumptions about English-language learning that are made in hearing classrooms, and to analyze the discourse patterns of teachers that have an effect on interpreting an education—analyses that can help to address the institutional audism described by Turner (2002, 2004).
Part 3 of the book, Improving Interpreted Education, includes some of the suggestions that might be applied in deaf education. These suggestions are not presented as panaceas that so many believe in, and they will not change some of the basic problems of interpreted educations. They can, however, make some difference in the awareness of the process of interpreted educations and can perhaps improve the access currently available. Standards for interpreters and assessment of interpreters are key issues addressed in this section. Another issue not addressed in this volume is the assessment of deaf students themselves. Although an essential part of the picture, this issue is not an arena for interpreters. Deaf educators must begin to take responsibility for this challenge.
In chapter 8, Metzger and Fleetwood address a problem as old as educational interpreting—that of defining and sandardizing what educational interpreting is. They raise serious concerns about what needs to be done and why it was not done before. They present a series of suggestions that, though clear and possible, are not yet fully available, even after years of educational interpreting. They recommend that the field of interpreting (a) identify the purpose for which the job exists, (b) define standards of practice that identify job boundaries, (c) identify that corpus of knowledge and skills necessary for an individual to practice, (d) develop programs and materials that teach the identified corpus of knowledge and skills, and (e) develop a formal testing mechanism.
Although some of this work has been done, much of it has been done by teachers of the deaf and researchers while excluding or ignoring the input and expertise of those who are in the classroom everyday—deaf students and interpreters. With the input of all involved and with collaboration among them, Metzger and Fleetwood suggest that educational interpreting could provide more than illusionary access to education.
In chapter 9, Taylor presents questions with respect to assessing and supervising interpreters. These questions include a discussion of what the interpreter’s reality is when working in an educational setting; what factors need to be assessed and the reasons why interpreters need to undergo assessments; who educational interpreters are and where they come from; what elements of an effective assessment process are; why interpreters should have a written professional development plan; why external evaluators are required to assess interpreters’ skills; and how supervision of interpreters is unique and why it is necessary.
Schick and Williams present a discussion in chapter 10 about one approach that is being implemented in some school systems. As they point out, educational interpreting is an emerging profession. Despite the fact that federal oversight monitors the qualifications of teachers and paraeducators, still no requirements are in place for interpreters who work in the public schools (except that they must be qualified, without specifying how to determine this standard). Because of this lack of requirements, many states have adopted their own standards. One tool that is frequently used to specify minimum performance standards is the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment, or EIPA, a tool designed to evaluate the voice-to-sign and sign-to-voice interpreting skills for interpreters who work in public schools. Chapter 10 describes the model of assessment used with the EIPA, which incorporates stimulus videotapes of actual classroom teaching and deaf children. Although the EIPA does measure some aspects of performance, the chapter explores how the EIPA fits into a broader concept of assessment, including what other aspects of interpreter performance should be evaluated. In addition, the chapter presents the many ways that states, school districts, and interpreter training programs are using the EIPA, ranging from professional development to mandatory certification. Finally, the chapter provides information to clarify the assessment results.
The authors of chapters 8–10 present a few of the possible suggestions for addressing the concerns of interpreted educations and focus primarily on the interpreter. This focus, though essential, should not lead readers to believe that the barriers can be removed by focusing solely on interpreters. Unless and until administrators, parents, teachers, students, and interpreters themselves recognize the inherent issues of access to education through mediation, especially when that mediation is based on assumptions that remain unproven, the focus on interpreting will make very little difference to the accessibility of interpreted educations. All involved must accept that substituting interpreting for teaching and interpreters for teachers does not provide education. Many believe that interpreters should do more teaching. This focus is misguided; if teaching is the answer, then teachers need to do it. Pretending that interpreting training and interpreters should address teaching issues instead of provide qualified, competent interpreters satisfies only one need: it provides cheap, unqualified “teachers” who can become the scapegoats when educators need to place blame for the illusionary access that deaf students currently experience.
Chapter 11, by Ramsey, is the closing chapter of the book. Ramsey’s chapter is a reflection of her educational interpreting experiences that are interwoven with information and experience related to deaf education, learning, and language. Dr. Ramsey explores the goals of education for deaf children, questioning the developments that protect deaf children’s rights to access at the expense of their ability to access. Too often, “instead of seeing interpreters as a means for providing equal access, interpreters are naively seen as the end in itself” (p. 207). She provides an insightful analysis of the system and of many assumptions about it, calling for all involved to question imposing interpreting in an education when it consequently outweighs the end of providing an education. She emphasizes the need to understand the sociolinguistic factors that affect the participation of deaf students in their courses. As a former educational interpreter who has joined her experience with research, her explanation of leaving educational interpreting is especially insightful: “The situations were so complex, and the stakes so high, that I could no longer tolerate the fragmentation and my inability to figure it out” (p. 207). Unfortunately, as we see throughout the volume, most involved, whether they are interpreters, teachers, administrators, or parents, also have not spent the time necessary to understand the complex situations and the resulting loss of stakes. The questions raised throughout the book return us again and again to two simple questions. Why does this practice of interpreted education continue with so little research and information, so few standards and requirements, and so little interest in the final outcomes of the practice? And, when will this research begin?
Elizabeth Winston,
Editor