Category Archives: Interpreters

MI Interpreter Proposed Rules and Regs

Posted on by

The Michigan Division on Deaf and Hard of Hearing last month finally released their proposed rules and regulations for the PA 204 Act, or known as the Deaf Persons’ Interpreters Act.

Unfortunately, many K-12 interpreters are opposing the proposed rules and regulations because they will be required to obtain a 4.0 (Advanced Intermediate) on the EIPA test, which I fully support. We need interpreters who sign and voice well, and I’m very disappointed with these interpreters who oppose the EIPA standard. The EIPA standard of 4.0 should stay! The Michigan Deaf Community should inform DODHH and the interpreters that the EIPA 4.0 needs to remain.

With that in mind, I have copied and pasted my public comment that I submitted to DODHH on March 8, 2013, listing my concerns with these proposed rules and regulations. There is far more to this than just the EIPA matter, and these issues deserve just as much attention as the EIPA. And these concerns are shared by many, hence the fierce backlash from many interpreters, unfortunately. (Here’s my DODHH Public Comment_redacted in PDF format, if you don’t want to read the copy and paste below).

—

Dear Director Emery:

My name is Jeannette K. Johnson and I am a Deaf Michigan citizen who’s proficient in American Sign Language. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Administration from Grand Valley State University and this document is my public comment on the PA 204 2007 amendments’ proposed rules and regulations, pursuant to the PA 206 Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. As a consumer of interpreters for the deaf, while I overall support the PA 204 amendments, I have numerous concerns with the rules and regulations. They are the following:

Issue One:

Under the definitions section (R 393.5003 Definitions) it states the following:

  • (x) “Quality assurance certification” or “QA” means an interpreter certificate granted under the division’s quality assurance certification interpreter testing system, which will phase out.
  • (s) “Michigan BEI” or “MI-BEI” means the Michigan board for evaluation of interpreters test which this state leases from the state of Texas to evaluate interpreters in this state.

The definition of the Quality assurance certification, especially the portion about being phased out, seems to conflict with the PA 204 law, since it does not give any provisions for the QA certification to be phased out or even be replaced. A direct quote from the PA 204 regarding this matter:

393.508d Possession of Michigan quality assurance certification; expiration; renewal.

Sec. 8d. Any person possessing a Michigan quality assurance certification at the level of I, II, or III, on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, shall be considered a qualified interpreter for purposes of this act until that certification status expires.

Thus, resolution is needed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Division has already phased out the QA prior to the promulgation of these rules, without any input from the public and stakeholders. A comprehensive investigation should be held and corrective action should be taken against these individuals whom (whether they’re still employed by the State or not) are responsible for this egregious conduct, and the QA reinstated with input from stakeholders. 

Issue Two:

The definition of the MI-BEI makes it explicit that it is leased from the State of Texas. However, in the PA 204 law, it does not make provisions for the State to use or recognize another State’s interpreting certification as its own. The PA 204 law appears to give the Division authority to recognize Michigan and national certifications only – not other states. Therefore, all mentions of the MI-BEI should be stricken, and all mentions of the QA being phased out should be stricken as well.

Issue Three:

Under the R 393.5021, it states the following:

  • (b) A certification from another state which has a reciprocal agreement with this state.

Again, the PA 204 law does not appear to give the Division authority to have a reciprocal agreement with another state. Furthermore, in my opinion, this is akin to Michigan having a reciprocal agreement with Texas for attorneys’ bar exams and licensure, which does not happen for a good reason. Each state is different, thus their certification and its procedures must reflect such reality. Therefore, I believe the Division is evading its duty in this matter, and R 393.5021 (b) should be stricken.

Issue Four:

Under the R 393.5032, it discusses the matter of reciprocity and states the following:

An applicant for certification by reciprocity shall do all of the following: …

(c) Hold a current, valid license or certificate in good standing to practice interpreting in a state with which this state has a reciprocal agreement.

(d) Have no report of disciplinary action pending in another state, …

The same issue arises as in Issue Three. The PA 204 law does not appear to give the Division authority to recognize other states’ certifications – only its own and national certifications. Thus the R 393.5032 in its entirety needs significant editing, (c) needs to be stricken and (d) needs to be edited.

Issue Five:

Under R 393.5022, it states the following:

  • (c) Endorsements are required to interpret for a proceeding involving a deaf-blind person, medical, and legal situations. Endorsement requirements shall be required 2 years from the effective date of these rules.

Endorsements are not defined in the Definitions section. Who provides the endorsements, and how will it be provided? This needs to be defined and clarified then R 393.5022 and R 393.5028 edited to accurately reflect the endorsements definition.

Issue Six:

The matter of R 393.5054, covers the matter of the interpreter practicum experience.

I do not believe that the student interpreter practicum should be regulated by the Division. Rather, I believe that student practicums should be regulated and monitored by the Michigan Department of Education. Thus, R 393.5054 should be stricken. If not stricken, then have the supervising interpreter hold either a state or national certification, and a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree along with a year of professional interpreting experience.

Issue Seven:

Under the R 393.5026, it states the following:

  • (3) Interpreters meeting the certification requirements of subrule (1) of this rule may interpret for a proceeding for children and youth only in the following settings, if effective communication is achieved: ….

I believe this exceeds the Division’s authority and should be instead regulated and monitored by the Michigan Department of Education. Thus, R 393.5026 (3) and its subsections should be stricken.

Issue Eight:

Under the R 393.5058, it states the following:

  • (4) A written waiver shall be initiated only by a D/DB/HH person and retained by the appointing authority with a copy sent to the division. ….
  • (5) All waivers must be completed on a division created waiver form.

This rule makes it clear that only a Deaf, Deaf-Blind or a Hard of Hearing person can fill out the waiver (which I’m fine with). However, is there a reason for the (5) regulation? Why cannot a D/DB/HH adult create their own waiver? These rules and regulations should only regulate interpreters, not us D/DB/HH. I believe this exceeds the Division’s authority, thus R 393.5058 (5) should be stricken.

Issue Nine:

I believe that the R 393.5094 conflicts with the PA 204 law, since the PA 204 law already outlines fees and does not give provisions for the Division to impose additional fees. Therefore, I believe that R 393.5094 should be entirely stricken.

Issue Ten:

Under the R 393.5052, it states the following:

  • (1) … NAD-RID “Code of Professional Conduct,” effective July 1, 2005 is adopted by reference. …

I recommend changing that line to: “Interpreters shall follow the most recent official version of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct.”

Issue Eleven:

The R 393.5023, R 393.5024 and R 393.5025 discuss the minimum for each level. I have many, many concerns with these rules. I do not see how it is possible for anyone, deaf or hearing, to remember these extraordinarily nuanced restrictions for each level. This reeks of micromanagement. Furthermore, interpreters must be allowed to exercise their own independent judgment, so there should be a provision somewhere in this section regarding that. (It also should be noted that even in Texas these restrictions are only recommended, not codified). Instead, I would have the following in the respective section of the rules and regulations (phased in within 6 years of these rules and regulations taking effect):

  • A Level I interpreter must hold a minimum of an Associate’s degree from an accredited institution and interpret at the most, in non-complex, low risk environments. They may interpret in moderate and high risk environments only if partnering with a Level II, III or national certified interpreter, respectively.
  • A Level II interpreter must hold a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution and interpret, at the most, in moderately complex environments such as government; employment; or finance. They may interpret in a high risk environment if partnering with a Level III or national certified interpreter or if they have obtained legal/medical interpreting endorsements from the State or NAD-RID.
  • A Level III interpreter must hold a minimum of a Master’s degree from an accredited institution, may interpret in all environments, including high risk environments such as medical or legal situations.
  • Nationally certified interpreters, with prudent judgment and compliance with the most recent, official version of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct, may interpret in any environment.

I would also add definitions of low, moderate and high risk environments in the Definitions section (R 393.5003).

Issue Twelve: 

I question whether R 393.5026 (3) and its subsections fall under the authority and scope of the Division. I believe that rather, these detailed regulations on what educational interpreters may and may not interpret, falls under the domain of the Michigan Department of Education.

Issue Thirteen:

In the Part 4. Procedures for Testing section, I strongly feel that there should be a regulation stating that the Division shall establish a permanent QA committee that will be composed of, at the minimum, interpreter trainers and Deaf individuals who are fluent in both ASL and English, to monitor and review the QA certification process. This will ensure that the stakeholders are included in the process on an equitable basis. In the best case scenario, a NCCA* expert should be on the QA committee as well, or at the least, be a consultant with the DODHH and its QA committee.

*National Commission for Certifying Agencies.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeannette K. Johnson

cc: Mary McLellan, Michigan Civil Rights Department
Michigan Representative MacGregor
Michigan Senator Jansen

Is It Really About Parental Choices?

Posted on by

Naomi Horton, the executive director of Hear Indiana, in interviews with the media about the Indiana School of the Deaf protests said, “The discussion right now is about parent choices.”

Supporters of Ms. Horton and the Hear Indiana organization has rallied around this position. Given how central the rights of parental choices are in education, it’s to be expected. However, there has been some who have drawn upon this position to argue that all publicly funded schools, such as the Indiana School of the Deaf, has to serve all communication modalities, in order to ensure choices for parents remain available.

Hmm. Really?

Now, I didn’t particularly explore this issue in my ‘Death to Deafness’ series, because first and foremost, I am not an attorney, nor an expert on Special Education law. However, given the fact that ignorance is the the root of audism, something that is far too prevalent in the field of Deaf Education, I decided to consult someone who is an expert. Armed with facts and relevant opinions from experts, the foundation of ignorance can only but crumble away, making it difficult to perpetuate such bigotry and discrimination.

This expert whom I consulted with, authored a document that is widely considered as the bible on how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], applies to deaf and hard of hearing children.

Full disclosure: The expert that I am quoting here, also happens to be my mother.

And so, this is her opinion on this matter.

—–

-begin-

IDEA’s implementing regulations require at 34 CFR § 300.115: “Continuum of alternative placements:

(a) Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.

(b) The continuum required in paragraph (a) of this section must—

(1) Include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education under § 300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions);” [Emphasis added.]

“Institutions” includes residential Schools for the Deaf, as does “special schools.”  Most often, D/HH students are placed at schools for the deaf because they require placement in an environment that provides immersion in the language that is fully accessible to them. [Emphasis added.]

Congregation at such a special school provides the critical mass of ASL language users needed by their students.  Oral children are immersed in English in their own homes and communities as well as the media, being that English, unlike ASL, is the language of American and Canadian communities.

Thus, unlike ASL using D/HH children, oral D/HH children do not need to congregate within a specially created community of users. Not all ASL using D/HH students need to be placed in a school for the deaf, particularly if they have sufficient access to other ASL users.

Language learning abilities and needs vary among children. What suffices for language learning for one child may be insufficient for another child. The schools for the deaf meet these language needs as well as the cultural needs of ASL using D/HH students.

The Policy Guidance for Deaf Students Education Services from the US Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights informs us:

“. . . deafness often results in significant and unique educational needs for the individual child. The major barriers to learning associated with deafness relate to language and communication, which, in turn, profoundly affect most aspects of the educational process. . . .”

Compounding the manifest educational considerations, the communication nature of deafness is inherently isolating, with considerable effect on the interaction with peers and teachers that make up the educational process. This interaction, for the purpose of transmitting knowledge and developing the child’s self-esteem and identity, is dependent upon direct communication.

Yet, communication is the area most hampered between a deaf child and his or her hearing peers and teachers. Even the availability of interpreter services in the educational setting may not address deaf children’s needs for direct and meaningful communication with peers and teachers.

“. . . it is important that State and local education agencies, in developing an IEP for a child who is deaf, take into consideration such factors as:

  1. Communication needs and the child’s and family’s preferred mode of communication;
  2. Linguistic needs;
  3. Severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing;
  4. Academic level; and
  5. Social, emotional, and cultural needs including opportunities for peer interactions and communication. [Emphasis added.]

. . . The Secretary is concerned that the least restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA and Section 504 are interpreted, incorrectly require the placement of some children who are deaf in programs that may not meet the individual student’s educational needs. [Emphasis added.]

Meeting the unique communication and related needs of a student who is deaf is a fundamental part of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. Any setting, including a regular classroom, that prevents a child who is deaf from receiving an appropriate education that meets his or her needs including communication needs is not the LRE for that individual child.”

The communication and cultural needs of D/HH students who use ASL are substantially different than the communication and cultural needs of oral deaf students.  Their needs for direct communication in their own language are at cross-purposes when provided in the same place. [Emphasis added.] 

The schools for the Deaf were established to meet the unique needs of ASL using D/HH students who, unlike their hearing and oral deaf peers, cannot have their linguistic, cultural, social and direct communication needs met in the mainstream and in the general community.

Their right to continue to have their unique communication, linguistic, social and cultural needs met in the very institutions that were designed for them, must remain undisturbed.

-end-

—–

Indeed… it is about parental choices – the lack of it. I think there is enough evidence now, to demonstrate that Hear Indiana and like-minded organizations does not truly care about parental choices, nor about what’s the best interest for deaf children on an individualized level.

If this information presented here isn’t enough, then consider this. The National Association of the Deaf recently discovered a substantial piece of information, which was then announced on their website:

… HEAR Indiana in a recent e-newsletter about the Indiana School for the Deaf Board appointments explains that the ISD budget has more than $18 million then asks its members, “Do you feel like local school districts should have a piece of the pie?”

Still think this is really about ensuring the availability of all parental choices?

More Crises With The Deaf Community

Posted on by

Note: This blog is more than just a transcript for the vlog above.

Last week, it was announced here in Michigan that the top Interpreter Training Program [ITP], located at the Lansing Community College [LCC], was being considered for suspension and reduced to an one year program. Not only is LCC the top ranked ITP in the state, it is ranked number 5 in the United States. LCC’s rationale for this suspension is due to almost no ITP graduates passing the Board for Evaluation of Interpreters [BEI].

The fact is, almost none of any ITP graduates in the entire state are passing the BEI. It is exceedingly difficult to pass the BEI due to several reasons:

  • The BEI was only very recently implemented, in the last year and half. The BEI replaced the Michigan Quality Assurance [QA] test.
  • The BEI itself is notoriously exceedingly difficult to pass. It was developed in Texas, and even the interpreters in Texas have difficulty passing it. As of 2009, according to the BEI’s website, only 39% passed the basic level, and it was even worse in the previous years before 2009.
  • There is a lack of 4 year ITPs here in Michigan. 2 years is simply just not enough to produce well-educated, fully-rounded and competent interpreters upon graduation.
  • The Division on Deafness and Hard of Hearing [DODHH] has one of the most strict rules in the country about how and where the ITP students can practice their skills in the community. At this time of writing, their ability to do so, is functionally non-existent. This is part of the reason why there is currently a bitter, profound divide between the DODHH and interpreters, ITPs and the deaf service providers.

This is on top of the Michigan State University closing its Deaf Education program, leaving no future Deaf Education teachers in the state that will be able to use American Sign Language with deaf students here in Michigan. Not only that, but also recently the Michigan School of the Deaf’s property was sold to private developers for $1.3 million. No appraisal or assessment was done on the property or buildings to see the true value or how much it would cost to renovate the buildings. The property was labeled as a brownfield, meaning it is considered to be vacant or polluted. That obviously is not the case.

Furthermore, the lease the private developers now have, requires the State of Michigan to pay rent to them for $2 million per year, for 7 years. After 7 years, the private developers can either sell back the land to the State, or sell it to someone else.  For these reasons, the Deaf Community considers the sale to be very suspicious and disturbing. And needless to say, the odds of MSD existing after 7 years aren’t very good. The future of deaf children’s education here in Michigan is very, very bleak.

As people can imagine, the announcement of the LCC ITP potential’s closure (because let’s face reality – once you suspend a program, it’s exceedingly difficult to get it back up and running again), has caused a deep upheaval with the state Deaf Community. The LCC ITP provides 51% of the interpreters in the state, and many of them work in the public schools interpreting for deaf children. If the LCC ITP goes, what’s left for us and our future?

Mind you, the LCC ITP graduates are passing the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment [EIPA] just fine. And that is a national certification test with a solid research basis to it. It is my understanding that the EIPA has not met with heavy criticism as the BEI has.

I find this whole thing disturbing on many levels, because I have noticed a trend of things beginning here in Michigan, then spreading to the rest of the country. So I would be watchful for problems in other states with their ITPs. The national Deaf Community should be concerned about this issue. I understand the State Schools of the Deaf crises is taking precedent, but I think this is also very important.

Now, last Monday I attended the LCC Board of Trustees meeting, along with dozens of other Deaf Community members, interpreters, ITP faculty and students. Approximately 10-12 of us spoke to the Board, and we did make a positive impact on them. The media was extremely interested, and covered this event very well.  And during the break, the Provost approached someone who was there. The provost was very nervous, basically saying she didn’t expect this kind of pressure, and emphasized that she did not want to do this, but was only doing this because of the DODHH and BEI situation.That situations is a convoluted and heavily political situation. So I’m not going to go in-depth here in this blog post, and many of you in Michigan already know about this anyway.

So I think it is very important for the Michigan Deaf Community, and other stakeholders such as RID, NAD and state interpreters, etc., to continue sending emails to the LCC president and provost. They are listening to us, and I, along with others, are cautiously hopeful that the LCC ITP will not be closed. But only if we keep up the pressure on LCC and start a meaningful dialogue with DODHH regarding the BEI. Because it is clear that the BEI is not helping the interpreter crisis, and is the main rationale of why LCC is deciding on whether to suspend the ITP. I hope the Deaf Community and interpreters can come together to have a conversation about how to approach this with the DODHH.

Please email the LCC President and Provost to share why keeping the ITP open is so crucial to the future of the Deaf Community here in Michigan. Their emails are: knightb4@lcc.edu and shanbls@lcc.edu.

Thank you for your support, and let’s fight for our rights, so we all can have a better future!

CSI: A Step Forward For The Deaf Community

Posted on by

For those who haven’t viewed the CSI episode “The Two Mrs. Grissoms”, don’t read any further. There are a lot of spoilers in this blog post.

Now, onwards to the episode itself. Overall, I thought it was an excellent episode. Could it have been better? Yes, definitely and we’ll get to that part soon, but considering the history of how the community has been portrayed in television shows like CSI, this episode was just outstanding and phenomenal progress was made.  I was especially relieved that this episode didn’t involve cochlear implants, because that was so overplayed in the past.

The Things That Could Improve

There were some things that could have been improved, such as Marlee Matlin’s tendency to overact. Her ASL skills has definitely improved, but overacting is still a problem for her. I also had to smirk at the contrived plot device: the fire alarm bed shakers. I don’t use them, and nor do most Deaf persons I know. We just use the strobe lights for the fire alarm, so that part was not realistic to me. Nor was the part where they tested Sean’s brain ability to respond to sounds. I have never seen a test with such spectacular graphics of the brain’s responses. Not even a MRI of the brain has that kind of cool graphics!

And Sean being supposedly able to fool so many people for so long on his lack of deafness? Like other bloggers and commenters elsewhere have noted, it is exceedingly difficult to pull off something like this for so long and not raise suspicion. Hearing people react involuntarily to certain sounds, and there are just too many situations where he would have tipped himself off. All of this on top of the notion that we’re freely given money all the time? Puhleeze! I wish! If that was true, there would be at least several solid, healthy professional organizations that promotes and protects our linguistic rights, scholarship and so on. Sadly, as far as I can see, that’s still sorely lacking.

The Things That Were Awesome

Phyllis Frelich particularly shone in this episode  – she was perfectly cast. The character was a vibrant, brilliant and opinionated woman who knew exactly what she’s doing and made sure everyone else knew it too!  And I deeply appreciate the fact that she was given the opportunity to explain to mainstream America that ASL is a full language in its own right. A lot of hearing viewers who have no exposure to Deaf Culture and American Sign Language, most likely learned something from this episode. They saw us Deaf living normal lives, just like them. Deaf college students, amongst other things, play their music too loud just like hearing college students do. Most hearing people probably are astounded at the fact that we DO enjoy music.

The Deaf Community was portrayed in a very positive light. A variety of Deaf professionals were shown: a college professor, a college chair/businessman, and a college student studying to become an electrical engineer. They had full, enriching lives with all kinds of entanglements just like the hearing. We weren’t portrayed as crazed killers or objects of pity like we historically have been, but rather we were portrayed as normal human beings who just happen to be deaf and speak a different language. This kind of details may seem minor to many in the Deaf Community, but it’s little details like these that goes a long way in raising awareness with the hearing. These kind of details interwoven in the episode was truly unprecedented, and I applaud the CSI producers and writers for making it happen. I look forward to more episodes like this, but with further  improvements and even more richer and authentic details!

And oh, the ending? KISS-FIST! ;)

Complaint Filed Against Sorenson

Posted on by

Three Video Relay Services [VRS] companies – Purple Communications, SnapVRS and CSDVRS has filed a complaint with the Federal Communicatons Commission [FCC], against Sorenson Communications, Inc.

They are requesting that the FCC order Sorenson to halt their alleged non-compliance with the 10 digit number mandate, and degradation of service quality.  In their legal brief to the FCC, they state the following:

Sorenson has knowingly and willfully taken action to degrade its videophone [VP] equipment’s ability to fully connect with the services and equipment of other providers.  Sorenson’s actions are plainly anti-competitive and, and among other things, present a serious risk to the ability of providers effectively to connect consumers to emergency services.

They accuse Sorenson of hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data, to ensure that only Sorenson will get the Caller ID.

In addition, called parties from the Sorenson VP do not receive caller ID — even when making a VRS call through Sorenson — the lone exception being when there is a point-to-point call between two Sorenson VPs.

What does this mean? It means two things – other VP users and VRS providers will only be able to see the IP address, not the 10 digit number.  By allegedly doing this, Sorenson is preventing the deaf consumers of having equivalent access to telephone features that hearing persons are able to use. Furthermore, this also means that when Caller IDs are not shown to other VRS providers (that are not Sorenson), this will cause potentially delayed and even refusal of 911 calls.

If true, this not only violates the FCC’s mandates, but also violates the American Disabilities Act and puts VRS users at risk.

The three VRS companies believe Sorenson is deliberately doing this based on two reasons:

  • Sorenson is allegedly hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data.
  • Sorenson has ignored repeated requests for clarification from other companies on this matter, with the exception of responding once, pointing to a still pending proposal, ‘Relay Provider Interface’.

In the legal brief, the plantiffs state that while it is true that the proposal will resolve this matter, it is still awaiting FCC’s response.  The VP consumers cannot afford delays on the Caller ID matter, especially when it comes to being able to make emergency calls.

Not only that, but ironically in response to the plantiffs’ concerns, Sorenson clearly exhibited knowledge of industry standards and protocols, which gives them no excuse for not complying.

This is going to be very interesting to watch as it unfolds. If the allegations are true – which I believe to be – their conduct is absolutely deplorable and not only does Sorenson deserve this complaint, but they also deserve a mass exodus of their consumers.

Note: I contacted Sorenson this morning asking for comments on this. So far I have not gotten any.

UPDATE: Sorenson responded to my email and said they had no comment on this matter.