Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC

Showing 1-15 of 15 messages
Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Stephanie Feyne 7/23/12 7:54 PM
Dennis posted his response to the Board on Street Leverage. He makes excellent points.

In case you missed it, here is the link:

http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/07/sign-language-interpreters-seek-clarity-to-defend-rid-nic-certification/



Stephanie

RE: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC KPP 7/25/12 12:36 PM

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

Kathleen@SignLanguageResourcesInc.com

 

             **Like us on Facebook**

 

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephanie Feyne
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:55 PM
To: NIDG
Subject: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC

--
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.

Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Stephanie Feyne 7/26/12 5:01 AM
I agree with Kathleen.

And I want to thank Dennis for his dedication to what testing should be - an accurate reflection of our work.


I feel guilty (not unsurprising for those who know me well :)    that I have not also written the Board about this issue. I intend to do so after Region 1. 

I do think that the Board takes his comments seriously, and yet I also believe that there is power in numbers -  and if the Board receives letters from members it reflects that this is not just a single member's issue, but an organizational one.  I know that Board members do receive the postings from this group and may not be allowed to respond, but to show respect to the institution of RID we shouldn't just assume they know what we're thinking because we post it here:)

I'm happy to write a joint letter if others wish to chime in - or people are always free to send their own.

Thanks,


Stephanie
Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC judi Rocks 7/26/12 7:39 AM
I'm in on a joint letter


Judith Rackovitch CI and CT
Long Island, NY


Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Stephanie Feyne <stef...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Kathleen.

And I want to thank Dennis for his dedication to what testing should be - an accurate reflection of our work.


I feel guilty (not unsurprising for those who know me well :)    that I have not also written the Board about this issue. I intend to do so after Region 1. 

I do think that the Board takes his comments seriously, and yet I also believe that there is power in numbers -  and if the Board receives letters from members it reflects that this is not just a single member's issue, but an organizational one.  I know that Board members do receive the postings from this group and may not be allowed to respond, but to show respect to the institution of RID we shouldn't just assume they know what we're thinking because we post it here:)

I'm happy to write a joint letter if others wish to chime in - or people are always free to send their own.

Thanks,


Stephanie






On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:36 PM, SLR- Kathleen Pilus <kath...@signlanguageresourcesinc.com> wrote:

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**

 

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephanie Feyne
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:55 PM
To: NIDG
Subject: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC

 

Dennis posted his response to the Board on Street Leverage. He makes excellent points.

 

In case you missed it, here is the link:

 

http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/07/sign-language-interpreters-seek-clarity-to-defend-rid-nic-certification/

 

 

 

Stephanie

 

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.
RE: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Theresa 7/26/12 11:04 AM

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

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephanie Feyne
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:02 AM
To: ni...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC

 

I agree with Kathleen.

 

And I want to thank Dennis for his dedication to what testing should be - an accurate reflection of our work.

 

 

I feel guilty (not unsurprising for those who know me well :)    that I have not also written the Board about this issue. I intend to do so after Region 1. 

 

I do think that the Board takes his comments seriously, and yet I also believe that there is power in numbers -  and if the Board receives letters from members it reflects that this is not just a single member's issue, but an organizational one.  I know that Board members do receive the postings from this group and may not be allowed to respond, but to show respect to the institution of RID we shouldn't just assume they know what we're thinking because we post it here:)

 

I'm happy to write a joint letter if others wish to chime in - or people are always free to send their own.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Stephanie

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:36 PM, SLR- Kathleen Pilus <kath...@signlanguageresourcesinc.com> wrote:

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**

 

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephanie Feyne
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:55 PM
To: NIDG
Subject: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC

 

Dennis posted his response to the Board on Street Leverage. He makes excellent points.

 

In case you missed it, here is the link:

 

http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/07/sign-language-interpreters-seek-clarity-to-defend-rid-nic-certification/

 

 

 

Stephanie

 

--
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.

--
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.

 

--
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.

Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Diana MacDougall 7/27/12 7:39 AM
Nicely worded, Theresa. In a nutshell, indeed. Thank you. I hope his gives all of us impetuous to begin to honk what we DO want and how we go try to organize a way around DOING it. 

Diana MacDougall
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Dan 7/27/12 8:35 AM
Then I suggest we have a long face-to-face meeting -- either before the National conference or immediately following it. This gives us a year online to consider alternatives, find people with the right expertise, and bring (hopefully) a number of good proposals for how to move forward.

Not so much a plan of action as a plan of a plan of action, but there you have it.

-Dan.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Barbara Garrett 7/27/12 12:49 PM
I have very much appreciated this discussion. I too have a number of concerns about the current NIC. One area I have not seen discussed much is the ethical decision making portion of the test. I feel we are taking steps backward in ethics with the new way the questions are presented.  I could talk about this at length, but I'm short on time.  In summary it appears the test has returned to the simplest form of ethical philosophy which could be called moral absolutes, divine-command theory, or stage 1 of moral development.  (The CPC says so, or *g-od said so, my Mom says so, etc) Additionally we are pitting colleagues against one another with asking a certification  candidate to criticize or defend another interpreter's actions.

I think a meeting of some kind is a great idea.  I wonder - just a thought- if those who plan to be at CIT in Oct could begin a face to face discussion and continue the dialogue here on email then also another face to face meeting prior to the national RID conference in 2013. 

Please forgive the typos etc. I'm on the road and typing on a little phone!

Barbara Garrett


~BDG
RE: [NIDG] Discussions about what we DO want Theresa 7/27/12 6:48 PM

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

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Parvaz
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 8:35 AM

RE: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Theresa 7/27/12 6:55 PM

Yes – let’s talk about it at the CIT.  Hook me up.

Theresa

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of B Garrett
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:50 PM
To: ni...@googlegroups.com
Cc: ni...@googlegroups.com

Re: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC Sandra Bartiromo 7/28/12 8:58 AM
I'm in for a discussion at CIT, Oregon. I think we may need to start with the end product of what we want from interpreters. A clarification of "what we really do".  This would also impact how we train interpreters at the educational level as well. I think we "do so much more than formerly", such as VRS, performance, and high level academic settings.  However,  if we can redefine the basics, we can build a scaffold for discussion of where to start with all the complex items mentioned in these discussions.  These discussion items my include a topic about the goal and mission of RID.  Then we can work backward to what an organization "should" be do. My philosophy is "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

Sandy Bartiromo
Re: [NIDG] Discussions about what we DO want Dan 7/28/12 2:00 PM
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.

The status quo -- which the state chapter has a financial, if not an ethical interest in maintaining, is that the State RID chapter created and administers two state QA exams (one for educational interpreters and one for others). While officially these tests are precursors to taking the RID test, many agencies and schools accept these in lieu of certification and therefore they have de facto certification status. Did I mention these are a source of income for Florida RID?

That's right. An RID affiliate chapter administers and received income from a "competing" exam. And no, there are no validity or reliability tests to back this thing up.

Taking things Bottom-Up... is it any wonder we have similar shenanigans at the national level?

I'm a fan of taking things in both directions. Meeting before/after CIT sounds like a fine idea (I'd be tempted to do a day trip into Charlotte), will provide some Top-Down drive and unity among Interpreting instructors, who can then return and organize locally. 

I may have gotten old and cranky, but my faith in humanity has taken a nose-dive. :-)

Thoughts?

-Dan
Re: [NIDG] Discussions about what we DO want jesse...@yahoo.com 7/29/12 5:16 AM
Pennsylvania has legislation where interpreters must register with the state Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. In order to do this, they must be certified by RID (this does not include the Ed: K-12). New interpreters who have graduated from an ITP (either Associate's or Bachelor's) can provisionally register for up to three years without being certified (although they must take and pass the written test to provisionally register).

I teach at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania's ASL/English Interpreting Program. When I taught a class on taking the NIC - the students were upset - and rightly so - with the format of the test. Those students' opinions are that the test, as it appears on paper - reading the NIC handbook - will not accurately measure what they can do. Especially when there is no warm up time and when they are expected to just jump into interpreting a scenario part way into it without viewing the Deaf person signing (this does not happen in the community).  I agree with the previous statement that the NIC is more of a VRS test because it reflects what VRS interpreters do more so than community interpreters. 

I will be at CIT and I would be happy to join in on the conversation.  
 
Jesse B Sass
(Jessica Bentley-Sassaman)


From: Dan Parvaz <dpa...@gmail.com>
To: ni...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [NIDG] Discussions about what we DO want
RE: [NIDG] Discussions about what we DO want Theresa 8/2/12 2:54 PM

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.

RE: [NIDG] Dennis Cokely on Street Leverage- response to the Board on the NIC KPP 8/7/12 6:07 AM

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.

 

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

Kathleen@SignLanguageResourcesInc.com

 

             **Like us on Facebook**

 

 

From: ni...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ni...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Diana MacDougall
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 10:39 AM
To: ni...@googlegroups.com
Cc: <ni...@googlegroups.com>