As always, not only thorough, but eloquent. Job well done!
Thank you,
Kathleen P. Pilus
Managing Partner/RID Certified Interpreter
Hours: 8am-4pm (M-Th)
Phone: 888-964-5553 ext. 3
Fax: 845-566-7471
Kath...@SignLanguageResourcesInc.com
**Like us on Facebook**
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
I think “the issue” is very complex and systemic – in a nutshell:
· There is clear demand for an ‘entry-level’ certificate which the NIC is
· Deaf people as represented by the NAD have consistently asked for an entry level certificate and a tiered system
· The RID is not member-driven it is market driven (witness the Oral Transliterating Certificate [AGBell]; the EIPA (public school demands), and the current NIC [VRS demand] – this is not an entirely bad thing but it is not honestly represented – the RID proclaims loudly that it is member-driven and repeatedly demonstrates that it is not
· Entry level means the person is ready to move from an academic setting to a work setting where they will then receive internship type mentoring (a serious gap in our profession) – when will this ladder be established and who will pay for it?
· Finally, the test itself is poorly designed as demonstrated by the results –
· Clearly the words ‘advanced’ and ‘master’ are both misleading and misapplied (again – results). This has been explained at length elsewhere)
My point is the problem is much deeper and broader than the test itself. It is systemic to our profession
AND
As a group, we are re-active, not pro-active. It makes sense – our daily work is responding, not initiating. But as a professional group we ask to be led by the nose by others since we do not set our own direction.
Hopefully this is changing for the better as we move to universities and have more faculty members with advanced degrees and additional skills.
So --- people --- what is the direction WE DO want to go (as opposed to just [appropriately] criticizing the actions of the RID? How would we do that?
Theresa
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
In response to Dan Parvaz – a discussion.
I suggest a bottom-up approach instead of a top-down one. In other words, I suggest we forget about the RID and the national scene for a bit (well not forget about it but shift our focus and energy) and look at our local / state situation(s). Where is the energy, the passion? Work on that with focus, commitment, collaboration and accountability.
In Washington state we currently have a lot of energy around the following issues:
· Interpreter training (the Seattle Community College Program is closing and the Spokane Falls program is focused on training Educ. Interps). In any case, it’s past time to move towards a BA. Where should the next generation of interpreters come from? Given the opportunity to design a program from scratch, how can we be creative about the plan and still learn from the wisdom of the CIT? What about serving the significant local population of deaf-blind people who need SSPs (as well as specially trained interpreters) and who have depended heavily on SCC students to fill this role? Really, this is more a Seattle issue than a Washington issue.
· Second, “interpreting” in medical settings is a mess right now – pay for Medicaid patients is unacceptably low, the quality of even certified interpreters (yes back to the NIC) is not acceptable in most instances, and the quantity / distribution (scheduling can be a problem) may be another issue (this needs study). This is definitely a state issue and the effort includes state leaders from multiple ‘groups’.
· There are other issues:
o the qualifications for Educ. interpreters (K-12),
o the recently raised issue of qualifications for the entrepreneurial referral services
BUT there isn’t the same energy behind them right now and we have to focus.
Of course, these issues have been ‘created’ to some extent by others – in other words the market place – but we’re really trying to respond, not react by
· taking advantage of the energy (of both deaf, hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind people and interpreters)
· to pick the top concerns (focus)
· ask ourselves what we want – given these changes – set goals and priorities.
We have a one committee or Task Force for each of these two top issues. Each group is forging new alliances (with university faculty, legislators, state agencies, local non-profits, and others) looking for places our concerns connect, developing a scheme (vision of what we want) and a strategy for getting there. “We” is WSAD and WSRID.
Unfortunately, we are not yet ‘futurists’ or even proactive, we’re still just responding, but we are talking about what we want to happen, building coalitions around these directions and because is it at the state level it’s so much more do-able than anything we could accomplish on a national level. So – the point I’m trying to make is that while the issues are national, I think the solutions will best come from the bottom up. Locally we have time to talk and listen to each other regularly and then act.
We can also hold each other accountable on a local level in a way that does not seem possible on the national level. The RID acted outside their policy by certifying people based on the EIPA w/o bringing it to a vote of the certified members - listened to all our concerns and……….. nada. They went through this huge process re the new certification (NIC) and……..when it turned out badly….. nada.
The RID is too few people (the volunteer board) trying to handle problems that are too big with not enough time to think and talk things through thoroughly and to act iteratively. They make a decision – it ends badly, they are criticized then they give up (bitterly?) and we elect new officers who again…..
What do you think?
Theresa
Yes – let’s talk about it at the CIT. Hook me up.
Theresa
Ahhh Dan, (as always?) I agree with you. Right after writing my piece about how bottom up was (perhaps) a better strategy – I did some work on our Medical Interpreting Task Force and of course, if the RID certification is junk then how will we ever write anything about qualifications? As you say, a two-pronged approach is necessary (both bottom up and top down).
So, yes, let’s talk and strategize at the CIT.
Theresa
From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Parvaz
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:01 PM
To: ni...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] Discussions about what we DO want
Theresa, I'd lie to think that a pure bottom-up approach would have some emergent intelligent solution. Part of me would love something that elegant. However, I've seen the hackwork that can go on locally as well as nationally. For instamce, right here in Florida, one of the supposed priorities is to have a state division of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing services, licensure for interpreters, and so forth. The reality is that this state governor and legislature claims to not have the money -- I assume we're spending the cash on drug-testing welfare recipients.
Yes, Theresa, nicely worded!
I have been involved with several different political issues and there is strength in numbers. Although I appreciate the idea of the group letter…many letters will have a stronger impact. That isn’t to say that several of us could write a letter and then each individually send it to the Board AND the more letters that are received, the better the chances of our voices being heard.
Stephanie, please lmk how I can help in this effort.