Central New York Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf PO Box 461 Camillus, New York 13031

Central New York Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf PO Box 461 Camillus, New York 13031 ___________________________________________________________...
Author: Amberly Rogers
0 downloads 3 Views 75KB Size
Central New York Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf PO Box 461 Camillus, New York 13031 _____________________________________________________________________________________ October 17, 2011 Mr. David Staehle ESAD Dear

David:

The Central New York RID Chapter met on Friday, October 14, 2011 and discussed the proposed ESAD legislative draft for licensing sign language interpreters in New York State. More than 40 people attended our meeting. First, the individuals present expressed their appreciation and applauded ESAD for taking the initiative to propose state requirements in order to provide quality interpreter services. Please be assured that the members of the CNYRID share in that admirable goal. We also have suggestions listed as to what ESAD could do now to facilitate the improvement and/or quality of interpreting services that would not need legislative approval or could be done concurrently while working on this proposed draft for licensure. As we began our meeting, we had the draft projected onto a screen and each individual a hard copy. We had every intention of submitting the feedback as you asked for—line by line using the page and line numbers. However, as we started, we found the proposal awkward to read. Some sections were unclear and others seemed to be contradictory. The participants at Friday’s meeting appreciated the time, effort and energy ESAD has put into the writing of this draft. The input from our members was such that it could not be specifically inserted into a line by line feedback format. Therefore, we strongly believed that it would be much more beneficial to ESAD to submit our recommendations, questions and feedback in a different manner. The comments and input below are more general but still have the intention of providing ESAD with valuable information. Also, there were specific questions relating to the document that are written following the page and line numbers. *

NYS Grant for the Assessment and Training of Educational Interpreters

This grant was funded by the NYS Department of Education several years ago in order to provide quality interpreter services for deaf and hard- of-hearing children in mainstream education programs across NYS. The grant funded an individual assessment of each educational interpreter, recommendations for training, and the opportunity to actually take the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment and the Educational Interpreter Knowledge Assessment. (the EIPA and EIKA) The committee and later the Task Force under this grant deemed the EIPA and EIKA to be a valid and appropriate testing tool for interpreters in education. Training was provided for several years across NYS at no charge to educational interpreters. The committee worked long and hard to make its recommendations to the NYS Department of Education.

The proposal was then presented at the state level and there it has stayed. No progress has been made to bring this proposal to certify educational interpreters through the NYS Department of Education’s process of approving this legislation. The process broke down. For interpreters in the educational setting, the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) is the standard skill assessment tool that was recommended to the NYS Department of Education and used in many states across America, yet no mention of it was seen in this ESAD draft. Recommendation: Therefore, we ask that ESAD utilize the work and recommendations already developed through the Assessment and Training of Educational Interpreters grant and funding of the Task Force and build on what has already been developed. We believe ESAD will find it to be very impressive. With the support from ESAD, this proposal for educational interpreters can move forward and come to fruition. It is long overdue. Note: •

Several members at this meeting said:

“Why reinvent the wheel?”

NAD-RID Certification and Code of Professional Conduct

Several places in the draft proposal, beginning on page 4, paragraph (iv), it mentions certification by the ESAD. Individuals at the meeting were not aware that ESAD had a certification offered to sign language interpreters. In the past NAD offered a certification for sign language interpreters using levels 1-5; however, later NAD and RID worked together to develop the National Interpreter Certification (NIC). Both organizations also collaborated to develop the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct. From the RID Website: “From the beginning of the test development process, under the mandate of the NAD-RID National Council on Interpreting (NCI), the subject matter experts on the test development committee were given the task of developing a test that “raised the bar” for ASL/English interpreting and transliterating standards. This resulted in the development of a challenging NAD-RID NIC test.” Recommendation: Therefore, we ask that ESAD utilize the certification process currently used by NAD and RID in addition to accepting all the RID certifications, with the approval of these two organizations. NAD interpreters with level 4 or 5 interpreting skills were welcomed into RID as having a comparable level of skills and knowledge as required by RID for certification. Note:

Again, members said:

“Why reinvent the wheel?”

The NAD-RID developed National Interpreter Certification, RID certifications, and the EIPA are valid testing tools. The process of making a proposal for the certification of educational interpreters is still viable. ESAD can use it and build on it; thus saving much groundwork, time, and money. In addition, the Code of Professional Conduct developed jointly by RID and NAD is what RID certified interpreters must follow. It also addresses interpreting in an Educational Setting. •

Comparison to the license of music therapists

One member shared her experiences when NYS began the long process of licensing music therapists, which took between three and five years.

Suggestion: We suggest that ESAD set up a professional task force with representatives from both the Deaf Community and the interpreting community. Then this task force could meet with the writers of the proposal. •

State regulations for sign language interpreters

We have been researching the requirements of other states and noticed that requirements are set up according to the venue in which an interpreter works; for example, educational setting, medical setting, legal setting, etc. Suggestion: Try http://www.360 translations.com/burnsat/stateregs.htm While this website has some very old information, it is a place to begin researching what other states require and how they have set up their certification venues. There may be other sites with licensing/certification information also. •

Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI)

The concept of a certified Deaf Interpreter is not clear in this draft. In order to promote the use of CDI’s, the draft needs to be explicitly clear about what the professional CDI does and what requirements are mandated to become an RID CDI. The test of skill cannot be different for a hearing interpreter and a deaf interpreter. The form can be but not the testing procedure. Recommendation: RID already has a valid/reliable test for CDI’s. It would not be necessary to develop this criteria when RID already has standards and testing tools in place. From the RID website: “CDI (Certified Deaf Interpreter) Holders of this certification are interpreters who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and who have completed at least eight hours of training on the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct; eight hours of training on the role and function of an interpreter who is deaf or hard-of-hearing; and have passed a comprehensive combination of written and performance tests. Holders of this certificate are recommended for a broad range of assignments where an interpreter who is deaf or hard-of-hearing would be beneficial. This test is currently available.” Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of CNYRID,

Joanne W. Dermody Joanne W. Dermody, President

Additional feedback on ESAD’s proposal to licensure interpreters in NYS from CNYRID October 17, 2011 Note: The information below was emailed to me from a CNYRID member to be included in this response. This individual was present at the meeting and reviewed all the points and questions below. Therefore, I left it in the original form I received; it is in the page and line number format we discussed. Feedback: I would like to see/hear some rationale for wanting to propose a NYS Interpreter License? A few comments were shared with us at a meeting that I attended. However, much of what was said is not stated in the First Draft document I read. I would like to know which Legislator(s) is Sponsoring this Bill? On Page 3 of the document: Lines 1, 2, 3: How are these people qualified to know who is an appropriate choice to choose to be on the State Board for sign language interpreting. The person who chooses Board Members needs to be deeply knowledgeable about ASL, Deafness, and the profession of interpreting. Page 3, Lines 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: Are these Board positions Paid Positions? Where will the money come to pay them? Is the Executive director of the Office of Professions.....knowledgeable about ASL, Deafness and the field of interpreting? Is this meeting going to be conducted in ASL? If not will interpreters be provided? Who will pay for these interpreters? Board Members nominated by the Governor: Does the Governor understand the issues around ASL, Deafness and the profession of interpreting to be able to make appropriate appointments? Why the consent of the "temporary" president of the senate and the speaker of the assembly? Do these people understand the issues around ASL, Deafness and the profession of interpreting to be able to make appropriate appointments? Page 3, Lines 12, 13, 14, 15, 16: This Board make up is for Licensing of sign language interpreters, yet; 14% of this proposed Board is a Commissioner who knows nothing about ASL, Deafness and field of interpreting. 14% a hearing person who runs an interpreter referral agency. Many people running interpreter referral agencies know nothing about ASL, Deafness or the field of interpreting. How will you be sure you have a person who is a knowledgeable selection? 43% of this Board is made up of Deaf Consumers. What qualifications, besides not being able to hear and having used an interpreter do these 3 people have to determine what makes a skilled interpreter? In theory these people can be high school drop outs with no knowledge of what it takes to interpret between two languages. Only 28% of this Board is suggested to be made up of actual interpreters. And no listing of qualifications for these two people is suggested. There is something seriously wrong with this make up.

Page 3, Lines 17, 18, 19: The renewable License requirement has its own issues, which will be addressed farther down.

Page 3, Lines 20, 21, 22, 23: Does this person know anything about ASL, Deafness or the field of sign language interpreting?? Page 3, Lines 24, 25, 26, 27 and Page 4, Lines 1, 2: The Board will make recommendations to the Dept.? What Dept.? The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf has a Code of Professional Conduct. Why would this group develop a new different Code of Ethics? What makes this Board expert to develop Code of Ethics? My understanding this is a very specialized field of study. What would make this Board expert in knowing what is required for developing a license and its exemptions? If the License procedure is worth its salt then there should be no need for exemptions? What kind of exemptions is anticipated? Page 4, Lines 6, 7, 8: Why does the License need to be renewed? There is already a system in place for those who hold RID certification to keep that certification current with CEUs. How accessible will this application form be? A person needing one will get it where? How? Submit it where? How long will the process take? Page 4, Lines 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: These fees are just one more way to tax working people. How were these costs developed? What will these fees be used for? What will prevent these fees from continually increasing? One of these fees is for an examination? What examination? Who developed this examination? Is it proven that the examination is valid? How often does one need to be reexamined? Why would some people receiving an initial License not need to be examined? Would they have to be examined at a later date? Why is there a triennial registration period fee? Who is required to take the exam vs. those do not have to take the exam? Does one have to be retested at the end of each triennial registration period? Page 4, Lines 15, 16, 17, 18: RID already requires its certified interpreters to hold a BS/BA Degree. Why would this system choose to lower an advanced standard? Is it a degree that is required or just a certificate of completion? Can this be a certificate of completion of education and training program regarding interpretation for as little as six weeks (these do exist)? Why must the degree be in sign language interpretation? Many, many interpreters, certified by RID or not, who started out their training by being born to Deaf families or living among Deaf people have degrees in many other fields besides, Interpretation. Page 4, Lines 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29: If a person getting a NYS License is required to have RID certification and RID certification already requires higher levels of education than this proposed Bill and RID certified interpreters already have a Code of Professional Conduct to which they adhere and they have a system of CEUs to maintain their skills and certification then why have this bureaucracy of a NYS License which only costs working interpreters more money...which will lead to increased rates charged to consumers using interpreting services. ESAD has a certification process?? Since when? What makes this test valid? Who decides what other organization's certifications are valid? What makes the "Dept.?" (what Dept.?) expert at what certifications are equivalent to RID's or the non existent ESAD's? Has anyone asked RID about this? I doubt very much they will agree to let outside bodies determine what is equivalent to their certification testing system. RID in conjunction with NAD has spent decades and millions of dollars on verifying their

test's validity. Has anyone run this idea past NAD? proposal.

I imagine NAD would take issue with this

Page 5, Lines 1, 2, 3: Much of this section is redundant without any explanation of what is different? Where is the definition of "renewable license"? Page 5, Lines 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: Redundant from earlier sections.

Why is it here?

Again?

Page 5, Lines 10, 11: Why reinvent the wheel? Page 5, Lines 12, 13: The interpreters must prove they are Deaf?

What?

Makes no sense!!!

Page 5, Lines 14, 15, 16: Out of State interpreter applicant? Those of us in who live near the borders of states with NY such as: PA, Mass, VT, Ohio function as if we live in one state, as we are back and forth across boarders multiple times a day. The kind of requirements being suggested here will reduce the number of available interpreters. Page 5, Lines 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: Again this section is redundant. Except for reference to the out of state interpreter, who most likely will simply stop providing services to NYS clients additionally taxing the availability of interpreters for assignments. Page 5, Lines 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28: What length of time does it take to establish residency? Then can this person work without a License for up to 24 months? Again all the concerns mentioned above apply to this section. What about those interpreters who will never have residency in NYS, but live on the borders and cross back and forth multiple times a day? Page 6, Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: More redundancy with the same concerns as already mentioned. Do not understand Lines 4 and 5. Page 6, Lines 6, 7, 8: Where is the definition of a Restricted License? Why would this exist? Page 6, Lines 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: Redundant with the same concerns and questions as previously mentioned. Page 6, Lines 15, 16, 17, 18: Redundant with same concerns and questions as previously mentioned. Page 6, Lines 19, 20, 21: What Dept. is being referred to here? What is the Board of 7 people doing, where do they come into this? What makes ESAD, and who from ESAD, qualified to make this determination? Level 2 or higher of ESAD's nonexistent test and certification process? Up to now I thought we were talking about interpretation. Now the term transliterate comes into this proposal?

Page 6, Lines 22, 23, 24: Now the applicant only needs to have passed RID's written exam, but not the full testing process which includes a performance section? Page 6, Lines 25, 26: Now student members of RID can get a NYS License? Page 7, Lines 1, 2, 3: I assume this part (b) relates to Page 6. Lines 25, 26 part (a)? Page 7, Lines 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: Taxation! Redundant from early sections. Same concerns. Page 7, Lines 10, 11: Again? Proof of being Deaf?

Who are we talking about here?

Why?

Page 7, Lines 12, 13, 14, 15: Previously this proposal was asking interpreters who have RID Certification, where they abide by the CPC (which has a grievance procedure when not followed), which requires a BS/BA or more and at least 8 (80 hours) of CEUs every 4 years, to have only an AS in the field of interpreting. Now you are only requiring 8 hours of training sponsored by RID? Only on the role and function of a deaf interpreter? Up to this point there has been no mention of Deaf interpreters. RID has a certification process for Deaf people to become Certified Deaf Interpreters. Page 7, Lines 16, 17, 18, 19: Again what dept. are we talking about here? Where is this Board of 7 people we started out talking about? Previously this proposal was asking interpreters who have RID Certification, where they abide by the CPC (which has a grievance procedure when not followed), which requires a BS/BA or more and at least 8 (80 hours) of CEUs every 4 years, to have only an AS in the field of interpreting. Now you are only requiring 8 hours of training sponsored by RID? Only, as stated above, on DIs and now professional ethics? Page 7, Lines 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26: Again relying on the expertise of RID Certified interpreters. So why are you looking to recreate the wheel? What do you want these letters of recommendation to say? And now this section talks about 40 hours of mentoring. How does this jive with the above two sections that ask for 8 hours each of RID sponsored training? How does 20 hours of observing a professional work and 10 hours observing a Certified Deaf interpreter equal 40 hours? What about hands on interpreting? Page 8, Lines 1, 2, 3: Again redundant and recreating the wheel as well as conflicting with previously stated expectations and requirements. Page 8, Lines 4, 5: Students can be Licensed? Page 8, Line 6: With only a HS diploma? Page 8, Line 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: So a student can interpret in NY with a Restricted License for 6 years as long as they pay the taxes imposed by this process?

And if said student's "certification? What certification? and "Membership", what Membership? are revoked or invalidated and said student does not notify the dept. (what department?) and continues interpreting what happens? Who is going to monitor and supervise these things? Page 8, Line 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: Exempt persons? Who can be exempt? Exempt from what? I assume Licensure? Again talks about a nonexistent certification issued by ESAD. Grant two 20 days temporary exemptions per year to a non resident of NYS. Refer back to my comments related to interpreters who live on the borders of NYS to understand the problem with this supposition. Page 8, Line 20, 21, 22: The Dept.??? Temporary/permanent exemption? How? No fees? No requirements? All the same concerns previously mentioned. Without a Rationale for this Proposed Amendment it is hard to speak clearly to this. But, it seems to me that energies are being put into the wrong places. As this proposal stands it increases the cost of RID Certified interpreters and simply makes them jump through a lot more bureaucracy and hoops for no added value. If the concern is the many interpreters who work in the field who are not members of RID and are not certified by RID, then put your focus there and not on those who have already proven themselves by getting degrees and certification. NYS had a process to get many of these non professionally affiliated and non certified interpreters "up to speed". NYS poured millions of dollars into free training with the idea that these interpreters would be required to pass the EIPA and RID tests. There was no oversight to make sure these interpreters of concern took advantage of the training. And when the training money ran out, NYS Regents simply dropped the ball and did not follow through the requirements for these non professionally affiliated and non certified interpreters being tested and getting certified. Perhaps ESAD needs to go back and make sure NYS completes what it starts? There are many people who support the testing process developed by Boys Town (EIPA). Again NYS just stopped participating and dropped the ball. It is possible that if NYS had followed through, the concerns this proposal is attempting to address might be moot. There are many States who have licensure. Perhaps you want to look at what has worked and not worked in those states and borrow the best from those systems? Although the one website of which I am aware that lists some of these state license systems is VERY out of date, lists proposals before they became law, refers to people who are now dead and doesn't even list some of the best systems, such as the one in Texas. I applaud ESAD wanting to look out for Deaf people and how they are affected by interpreters. But, I think a lot of research needs to be done first so that you are knowledgeable about what has been done in the past. What has worked and not worked. What is currently in existence. RID's certification process is in conjunction with NAD. ESAD might want their national office of NAD to guide them in what is being attempted here.