That EIPA!
m nolin
I have often read information on this site with disbelief. I have
started several posts in response to what I saw, but never was able to
make my point to my satisfaction. This week I came up with an idea.
Here goes...
With all respect and honor to Dr. Seuss...
That EIPA!
That EIPA!
I do not like that EIPA!
You do not like it.
So you say.
Try it!
Try it and you may!
I would not take it if it were free.
I would not take it so you see?
Not if it were free,
So you say.
Try it!
Try it, anyway!
Not a test, but an assessment.
Not worthy of my time
Or investment.
Try it try it and you’ll see.
The feedback’s great.
Honestly!
The feedback’s wrong, many say.
We are better than those ratings weigh.
Try it, try it, you will see.
The psychometrics were validated -
Independently!
Interpreters say they are certified.
Behind ED K-12 the unqualified hide.
Try it!
Try it!
You will see.
4.0 is not easy!
The jobs!
The jobs!
Those ED:K12 will steal.
With their terrible skills and hearts that don’t feel!
Give Deaf folks the credit they deserve,
Lousy interpreters will not serve.
Deaf folks will notice and take action
To weed out those who can’t handle the transaction.
RID did not ask me!
Though a member I be.
RID asked and asked and asked.
Via email, and snail mail,
And website tasks.
RID!
RID!
Can't you see?
RID didn't listen to me!
10,000 members are hard to hear.
Affiliate chapters are so near.
Chapter presidents were asked.
To summarize AC members' feedback was their task.
RID!
RID!
Can’t you see?
CI/CT is enough for me!
Legal interpreters get their own test
To make sure that only the best
Work in a high-stakes atmosphere
Shouldn't the children's needs be held just as dear?
The EIPA!
The EIPA!
So many tests, why do they need
To have so many assessments
To guarantee?
Business, Legal, Medical, Mental Health begin the list
Of skills needed to get the gist.
Could the EIPA have it right?
Is specialization more forthright?
That EIPA!
That EIPA!
I do not like that EIPA!
Try it!
Try it!
You will see.
Try it,
Give your complaints validity!
Taking the test is not for me.
I want to complain and not to see
How I rank numerically.
Try it!
Try it!
You will see.
Your skills validated with clarity.
Your needs assessed neutrally.
I am certified.
I am CERTIFIED!
Can’t you see?
I have no need to test repeatedly.
As a professional,
One could say
Lifelong learning is the way
The EIPA is not for me.
Pass or fail is the way to be
Feedback is wrong,
They don’t know!
I have been interpreting for so long
What would they show?
How could it be wrong
For you to see
Your skills assessed neutrally?
The feedback is detailed
And covers a lot.
Could it be helpful
To know what you’ve got?
Freelance interpreting
Is what I call real.
Educational interpreting
Is not real, I feel.
At least half of the members
Of RID say
That educational interpreting is part of their day
Shouldn’t we use the EIPA
To make sure folks can do what they say?
That EIPA!
That EIPA!
I do not like that EIPA!
I will not take it.
Don’t you see?
I will not take it.
Even for free!
Your loss is apparent.
Your fear is evident.
One day, I hope, your errors you’ll see.
All this energy could be spent productively.
To mentor, support, teach, and amend.
And not to destroy, undermine, and offend.
Optimistic, I will remain, and keep doing my job
As an ED:K12 professional who loves their job.
Maura Nolin, MA, CI/CT, EDK12
Maine
Dan Parvaz
I have often read information on this site with disbelief.
Did you? Read what people posted, I mean.
m nolin
respect usually made me give up before I read most posts.
Dan Parvaz
First off, props where they are due. You definitely rock the green-eggs-and-ham format. Gotta respect that. :-)
> The feedback's great.
Has anyone argued that it isn't a good diagnostic test?
> The feedback's wrong, many say.
> The psychometrics were validated
Again, who said they weren't? What was said is that no psychometrician has established that the EIPA is equivalent to the generalist exams.
> Deaf folks will notice and take action
> Lousy interpreters will not serve.
> To summarize AC members' feedback was their task.
> Shouldn't the children's needs be held just as dear?
> How could it be wrong
> For you to see
> Your skills assessed neutrally?
Oh, wait... I know.
> Educational interpreting
> Is not real, I feel.
-Dan.
Amanda H.F. Mueller
Your approach has inspired me to become a part of this dialogue. It is my
hope that my questions are received with the honesty in which they are
written: no hidden agenda, understandings still being formed.
"The feedback's wrong, many say.
We are better than those ratings weigh."
My understanding is that the feedback is not being deemed 'wrong' - it is a
diagnostic tool that provides feedback to assist those taking it. (Which is
fantastic!) My question is how does this diagnosis amount to an evaluation
that is deemed equal to the generalist credential? (I'm not stating that
the NIC is perfect, my question goes to how the EIPA became an evaluation
that grants certification.)
If the information I have received is correct, the term certified was
granted to comply with the terminology that had been used for the EIPA all
along, not because anyone deemed it to be the same as the general testing
system.
"The jobs!
The jobs!
Those ED:K12 will steal.
With their terrible skills and hearts that don't feel!"
I'm sad that educational interpreters feel that others in the profession
think this way. There are skilled interpreters with integrity that work in
the educational systems (thank God!) Yet, we all know the reality that many
who are hired are not skilled and, unfortunately, there are those out there
already misrepresenting themselves as certified - yes, I know some
personally, it's not just an urban legend.
I have no fear of jobs being stolen and have yet to hear this from anyone
else. What we are afraid of is further oppression and abuse of power by
those who have a slightly skewed moral compass.
"Give Deaf folks the credit they deserve,
Lousy interpreters will not serve.
Deaf folks will notice and take action
To weed out those who can't handle the transaction."
Ok, on this one I will ask your indulgence as I playfully use some sarcasm -
Do you really think it's so easy for Deaf folks to fight for qualified
interpreters day after day after day after day ... ?
I have a good friend that is an ADA lawyer. He takes cases at no cost to
the Deaf community and only receives payment if they win. Even with no
cost, it's not easy to get folks to fight the doctor or the attorney or the
theater for an interpreter. Sometimes it's easier to find another service
provider or get a friend or go without. If Deaf people were truly empowered
and made the decisions on who was qualified and who wasn't, then I'd agree
with you. However, at least in our neck of the woods, that's not yet the
case.
" Legal interpreters get their own test
To make sure that only the best
Work in a high-stakes atmosphere
Shouldn't the children's needs be held just as dear?"
Can I get an "amen-sistah?!" I couldn't agree with you more! Yet, don't
those in the legal setting have to pass the NIC first? Then they have to
take the legal evaluation, right? Ok, I'm not seeing the similarity here.
You don't have to take the NIC to take the EIPA, which, again, is not an
evaluation.
"How could it be wrong
For you to see
Your skills assessed neutrally?
The feedback is detailed
And covers a lot.
Could it be helpful
To know what you've got?"
Are folks stating that feedback and knowing their strengths and areas that
need to be worked on is not helpful? I missed that. Lifelong learning and
growing is certainly something I support and many others I work with, in
every setting, do as well.
"Freelance interpreting
Is what I call real.
Educational interpreting
Is not real, I feel."
We all serve the Deaf community in different ways. Interpreting in the
educational environment is as real as any other place. I think the issue is
historically, those in the educational system have not always been of the
caliber one would want with any deaf person, let alone a child. Even with
the interpreters with excellent language, cultural and interpreting skills,
there is still an internal conflict for many. Do deaf children get the best
education and have equal opportunity to grow and flourish in an interpreted
environment? If we interpret in these settings, does that perpetuate what
many in the Deaf community feel is oppression? If we do not interpret in
these settings, do we abandon the children? If we can admit the concerns
and the values that lie deep beneath this topic, we might see that we are on
common ground. Our values might be identical, our approach to honoring them
might be where the difference lies.
"One day, I hope, your errors you'll see.
All this energy could be spent productively.
To mentor, support, teach, and amend.
And not to destroy, undermine, and offend."
I would like to see us working, mentoring, supporting, and teaching each
other. I'm not sure how the desire for a term that will not confuse the
hearing public, who still control when/how interpreting services are
provide, or for the diagnostic tool to be called exactly that, is an attempt
to destroy, undermine or offend.
I look forward to your response. While I would enjoy it, please do not feel
obligated to follow your wonderful Dr. Seuss format. :o)
Namaste,
Amanda Mueller
Hoosier Interpreter (CI/CT)
Sarah
me laugh with that joy that only the classroom brings.
I have great respect for the EIPA. I've taken it. CASTLE Worldwide
was good enough for the NIC.....
Thank you,
Sarah Moberly
m nolin wrote:
> My name is Maura Nolin and this is my first post to this group.
>
> I have often read information on this site with disbelief. I have
> started several posts in response to what I saw, but never was able to
> make my point to my satisfaction. This week I came up with an idea.
>
> Here goes...
>
> With all respect and honor to Dr. Seuss...
>
>
>
> That EIPA!
> That EIPA!
> I do not like that EIPA!
>
> You do not like it.
> So you say.
> Try it!
> Try it and you may!
>
> I would not take it if it were free.
> I would not take it so you see?
>
> Not if it were free,
> So you say.
> Try it!
> Try it, anyway!
>
> Not a test, but an assessment.
> Not worthy of my time
> Or investment.
>
> The feedback?s great.
> Honestly!
>
> The feedback?s wrong, many say.
>
> Try it, try it, you will see.
> The psychometrics were validated -
> Independently!
>
> Interpreters say they are certified.
> Behind ED K-12 the unqualified hide.
>
> Try it!
> Try it!
> You will see.
> 4.0 is not easy!
>
> The jobs!
> The jobs!
> Those ED:K12 will steal.
> Give Deaf folks the credit they deserve,
> Lousy interpreters will not serve.
> Deaf folks will notice and take action
> RID did not ask me!
> Though a member I be.
>
> RID asked and asked and asked.
> Via email, and snail mail,
> And website tasks.
>
> RID!
> RID!
> Can't you see?
> RID didn't listen to me!
>
> 10,000 members are hard to hear.
> Affiliate chapters are so near.
> Chapter presidents were asked.
> To summarize AC members' feedback was their task.
> RID!
> RID!
>
> As a professional,
> One could say
> Lifelong learning is the way
>
> The EIPA is not for me.
> Pass or fail is the way to be
> Feedback is wrong,
> What would they show?
>
> How could it be wrong
> For you to see
> Your skills assessed neutrally?
> The feedback is detailed
> And covers a lot.
> Could it be helpful
> Freelance interpreting
> Is what I call real.
> Educational interpreting
> Is not real, I feel.
>
> At least half of the members
> Of RID say
> That educational interpreting is part of their day
>
> That EIPA!
> That EIPA!
> I do not like that EIPA!
> I will not take it.
> Even for free!
>
> Your loss is apparent.
> Your fear is evident.
>
Karen Beth Staller
everything . . . BUT . . . plainly put . . . **AGAIN** . . .
the issue **HERE AND NOW** is NOT the validity of the EIPA or whether
it's an assessment or a certification exam (it's an issue, but a
seperate one and not the one we're discussing here) . . .
the issue **HERE AND NOW** is NOT whether educational interpreting is
"real" interpreting (I do it and it IS and no one has said otherwise) .
. .
the issue **HERE AND NOW** is NOT whether those working as educational
interpreters are qualified to be educational interpreters (some are,
some aren't) . . .
the issue **HERE AND NOW** is NOT whether we individually have taken the
EIPA or are familiar with it (some have, some haven't, some aren't, some
are) . . .
THE ISSUE **HERE** . . . **RIGHT NOW** . . . IS THAT THE BOARD MADE
THESE DECISIONS WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE CERTIFIED MEMBERSHIP.
Sarah, I don't know what you're smokin' (and I don't want any), but as
much as the kids are a hoot and I enjoy working with (most of) my
colleagues and my job is (mostly) fun, I LOVE
FFFRRREEEEEEDDDOOOMMM!!!!!!!!
Karen
Steven Hess
referenced in my earlier post. It speaks to the issue of bias and respect,
among many other issues.
There was a time when RID was criticized as being an "exclusive"
organization, and so the pendulum swung in the other direction and we became
an organization with a culture of "inclusion." The goal was to "bring them
into the fold." We strove to "correct" perceived disenfranchisement. We
avowed that "every associate counts here." In short, we forgot that a
certifying body/professional organization is, BY DEFINITION, exclusive. The
major purpose of a certifying body/professional organization is to exclude
those who are not qualified to practice the profession. By moving away from
"exclusivity" and toward "inclusion and acceptance" we have moved away from
being a true profession.
Recently, there has been an artificial delineation made between "certified
member" and "RID certified." This delineation means nothing to the
layperson. We must remember that it is the layperson that should directly
benefit from certification. Certification is not for the professional.
Certification serves the interests of the public. It only serves the
interests of practitioners in an indirect way and then only if it is done
with integrity and engenders the public trust
Over the years we have watered down and confused the definition of
"certified" and "professional" in the field of interpreting to the point
where it is now utterly meaningless to the layperson. The recent EIPA
decision is just another in a long series of decisions which have led to a
situation where the public cannot trust that RID is acting wisely in
granting certification (or certified member status).
RID has often acted in haste to address concerns about the "interpreter
crisis" by increasing the number of members and increasing the number of
credentialed interpreters. This does nothing to increase the number of
qualified interpreters. It only serves to add an artificial air of
credibility to the status quo.
There are many who are working to radically change the way we train
interpreters in this country. Such a change is the only way to truly
address the "interpreter crisis." We cannot continue to have interpreter
training programs in community colleges with open enrollment and expect
only the best and the brightest to join our ranks. We cannot continue to
expect people to learn a language and concurrently learn how to interpret
between this newly acquired language and English. We cannot expect people
to become competent in two, three, even four years of schooling. We cannot
expect people to interpret before they have a wealth of general education
and world knowledge, and are able to put information into a larger context
and understand it fully. We must graduate interpreters who are able to
meet the minimum standard of competency known as generalist certification.
It would be in the best interest of RID, the profession, and the public, if
RID put more energy into supporting such a change, rather than adding to
the alphabet soup of credentials and further watering down the meaning of
"certified interpreter."
There has been much talk about the disenfranchisement of educational
interpreters, and the "bias" against them as a group. There is bias against
the delivery of substandard services by interpreters who are not competent
to do their job. That bias holds true whether it be in educational
interpreting or any other setting. The sad truth of the matter is that
there are far too many incompetent educational interpreters, so this bias
against the delivery of substandard services therefore seems to be directed
more acutely towards those in educational interpreting.
There are, however, many highly-skilled, competent interpreters in the
educational field. They are not the ones who feel disenfranchised. They can
prove their competence by passing a generalist certification test. I
believe that feelings of disenfranchisement come from feelings of doubt
about one's own ability and the fear of being excluded from a profession
that holds its practitioners up to standards of minimal competency.
The real bias against the field of educational interpreting is evidenced by
those who wish to hold educational interpreters to a different standard. To
say that educational interpreting requires different skills is to demean
the work of the educational interpreter. Like legal interpreting,
educational interpreting requires additional skills, not different skills.
One must be a competent general practitioner before one can acquire the
additional skills required for educational interpreting. One must be fluent
in the language of Deaf adults to be a language model for Deaf children.
To say anything less is to be biased against the field of educational
interpreting. Yes, we need certification for educational interpreters, but
it must be a specialist certification with a generalist certificate as a
pre-requisite.
Not everyone who is currently practicing the profession should be
practicing the profession. This is more true within the educational
specialty, but is true throughout the profession. Further, not everyone who
wants to be an interpreter can/should be an interpreter. We, as a
professional association/certifying body, must take a stand and agree that
a large part of our role is to exclude, for the benefit of the public and
the profession, those who cannot meet the minimum standard of competence
agreed on by the profession.
Steve Hess
Karen Beth Staller
I see in your post some questions and then quite a bit of agreement with
those of us who are unhappy with the current situation. I'll try to
answer the questions (and of course, anyone else, please provide your
perspective, as well) . . .
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:49 pm, Amanda H.F. Mueller wrote:
> My understanding is that the feedback is not being deemed 'wrong' - it
> is a diagnostic tool that provides feedback to assist those taking it.
> (Which is fantastic!) My question is how does this diagnosis amount to
> an evaluation that is deemed equal to the generalist credential?
It doesn't but it's now being accepted as such . . . and that's one of
the points many of us are trying to make. In my opinion, RID would have
to have the EIPA videotapes evaluated by experienced, **RID-Certified
(read: NIC, CI/CT)** educational interpreters (AFTER the candidate had
taken and passed the CI **AND** CT) to have an Ed:K-12 specialist
certificate awarded.
> If the information I have received is correct, the term certified was
> granted to comply with the terminology that had been used for the EIPA
> all along, not because anyone deemed it to be the same as the general
> testing system.
The information you've received is incorrect. The EIPA was originally
referred to as a "diagnostic assessment" - the 'A' **stands for**
"assessment" - and was used as such, i.e. to give educational
interpreters information on which skills they needed to work. The tape
is even evaluated at the EIPA **Diagnostic** Center. Until the RID-EIPA
agreement, it couldn't be referred to as "certification" because the
only certifying body was RID (they still are; they're just accepting
other testing instruments . . . and there were others, but many places
only recognized RID).
> I'm sad that educational interpreters feel that others in the
> profession think this way (With their terrible skills and hearts that
> don't feel!).
I used to be embarrased and feel that others looked down on me because
I'm an educational interpreter . . . not anymore. Actually, there are
some highly skilled certified interpreters working in our district . .
.
> Yet, we all know the reality that many who are hired are not skilled .
> . .
. . . and, unfortunately, there are some of these, too, who have been
working for the district for over 20 years and have nary a letter after
their name.
> What we are afraid of is further oppression and abuse of power by
> those who have a slightly skewed moral compass.
Bingo!!!
> Do you really think it's so easy for Deaf folks to fight for qualified
> interpreters day after day after day after day ... ?
Bingo!!! I can't tell you how many situations I encounter where the deaf
client/patient/customer is told to bring their own "interpreter". More
and more are saying, "No, no . . . it's your responsibility under the
ADA" . . . but not nearly enough. And one of my clients, who has been
using interpreters for DECADES, just told me she never knew she could
request a specific interpreter, but thought she had to "take whoever
they sent".
>> Shouldn't the children's needs be held just as dear?"
> Can I get an "amen-sistah?!" I couldn't agree with you more! Yet,
> don't those in the legal setting have to pass the NIC first? Then they
> have to take the legal evaluation, right? Ok, I'm not seeing the
> similarity here. You don't have to take the NIC to take the EIPA,
> which, again, is not an evaluation.
Bingo!!
Karen
Amanda H.F. Mueller
I was not clear on what I meant by the term certified being used...
I heard that those that took the EIPA prior to it being part of RID, would
use the term certified at a specific level - certified at 4.0 - or something
like that and the governing body said no one "owns" a specific term and if
the term "certified" was not to be used, the deal was off.
It seems many people believe this is what happened behind closed doors. If
it's not true, that would be a great piece of info to share with others.
In regards to an assessment vs. an evaluation, as much as I'd like to state
I've always known there was a difference, I haven't. It wasn't until
recently that I came to understand there is a SIGNIFICANT difference.
Unfortunately, many people may still not understand their true definition
and purpose and, therefore, be using them as synonyms.
Any word from the task force on this issue?
Thanks again - to everyone here for the continued dialogue.
Be well!
-----Original Message-----
From: national...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:national...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Beth Staller
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:29 PM
To: national...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [RID-EIPA group] Re: That EIPA!
Angela Myers
Karen Beth Staller
help myself).
In all seriousness, excellent point, Angela. Can you imagine the uproar?
Playing with people's lives like that? And diminishing the profession of
nursing in the process?????
Karen
Dan Parvaz
Karen Beth Staller
called certified and I'm pretty sure they weren't . . . bcause prior to
the RID agreement, it was always used as a diagnostic assessment, NEVER
as something to "allow" people to do . . . anything.
I'm not sure who you mean by "the governing body", but apparently, the
goal of the RID-BoysTown agreement *was* to "certify these
interpreters.
Dan Langholtz said a couple of weeks ago there would be info published
for the members . . . still waiting.
Karen
m nolin
Your comments on RID Certified or certified member made me think of
another problem we face in Maine.
Last year there were proposed legislative changes to our Interpreter
Licensing law in Maine. When testifying at the legislature, then
talking with Legislators, we found there is a problem with the terms
Licensed and Certified. For interpreters, Certified is the highest
standard. For Legislators and the general public Licensure is the
standard, Certified has no meaning. Plumbers and Electricians are
Licensed after literally thousands of hours of classroom, and
practical experience. Until they meet these requirements for
classroom hours and supervised work, they are not licensed. In Maine,
Interpreters can be licensed after 100 clock hours of ASL instruction
and 100 clock hours of Interpreting instruction. (Not the highest
standards, I know.)
So, we can play with semantics within our organization, but as
professionals, we should also keep in mind that whether we are RID
Certified or Certified members, it means nothing to a person outside
of the interpreting field. If your state has licensure, that is what
the majority (OK, maybe some?) of hiring folks pay attention to.
Just a few thoughts....
Maura
m nolin
Thanks for joining the discussion. The above post was my first, as
well.
The line about feedback being wrong was directed at those people who
take the EIPA and are not satisfied with their scores. When being
evaluated in the interpreting field, many interpreters are used to a
pass/ fail system. I have heard from interpreters who were unhappy
with their EIPA results. Instead of taking the feedback into
consideration and making changes in their interpreting, they disparage
the test, and say the test is wrong and invalid. It is a
disappointing response.
I have taken the EIPA and it was significantly more challenging than
either the CI or the CT. To me, assessment and test are
interchangeable terms. I feel is is playing with semantics to argue
the EIPA is an assessment, therefore, inferior to the RID tests.
I know experienced (read good) interpreters who hold CI/ CT
certifications who did not score a 4.0 on the EIPA. Some may have
been uncomfortable being evaluated, others had a bad day, but a 4.0 is
not an automatic thing if you are a CI/CT.
My understanding of how the EIPA came under the RID umbrella is that
since the EIPA was up and running, and was judged by independent
evaluators to be a vaild test of interpreting skills, (my
understanding is the same company, or type of company, who deemed the
CI/ CT and NIC as a valid test, psychometrically, evaluated the EIPA
and said it was a valid test) RID decided to use the EIPA instead of
paying thousands of dollars to create their own educational
interpreter evaluation test. It made sense to me then, and makes
sense now. If there is already a valid test out there, then why create
a new one?
As far as the comment about losing work to EIPA certified
interpreters, I have seen the sentiment in posts here over time.
There are unqualified interpreters of all kinds, certified and not,
educational and not, out there. The CI/ CT/ NIC provides an assurance
that interpreters "have met or exceeded a nationally recognized
standard of minimum competence" (RID website). To argue that the
EIPA, at a 4.0 level, does not provide that same assurance, is
incorrect. To make that argument, having not experienced the test, is
interesting to me.
I hope I clarified for you and answered some of your questions.
Please ask me if you have more.
Happy Saturday,
maura
On Jul 8, 11:49 pm, "Amanda H.F. Mueller"
Karen Beth Staller
The question is NOT the validity of the EIPA. The question is its
EQUIVALENCE to the CI/CT/NIC. The EIPA may be as valid a test as the
SC:L . . . but one needs to take the Generalist test first.
At their core, "assessment" and "test" may be interchangeable.
"Diagnostic assessment" and "certification test" are not.
Lastly, AGAIN . . . you said, "to argue that the EIPA, at a 4.0 level,
does not provide that same assurance [as the CI/CT/NIC], is incorrect".
It MAY . . . in an **educational** setting, just as the SC:L provides
that assurance . . . in a **legal** setting. One must be a generalist
before one can be a specialist.
Karen
Karen Beth Staller
what are the laws that say doctors/lawyers/CPAs must have X, Y and Z
before being able to practice? Is this a federal law? State by state?
Why can't we get a similar law sponsored? We hold people's
medical/legal/educational/financial/etc lives in our hands almost as
directly as these other professionals.
Karen
Bill Moody
medical degrees, etc.... Knee-jerk questions may be part of a polemic, but
they are not helpful in finding answers.
Bill Moody
bill...@nyc.rr.com
Karen Beth Staller
are . . . and why a similar law can't be written for interpreters.
Instead of vastly different state-by-state requirements, have
interpreters legally required to meet the same kind of high standards
other professionals do.
Karen
Bill Moody
me.
Dan Parvaz
Theresa B. Smith
The message below pertains to the broader questions of qualifications and
control or our own profession (not just EIPA and not just RID)
Background: I am currently preparing a workshop for our state RID on the
topic "Thinking about Money". Interpreters in Washington are paid about 2/3
of what comparable professionals are paid. Please don't ask me how I
decided on comparable professionals etc. - that's all a part of the
workshop. For now, assume you accept this premise.
The major barrier to equitable pay is 'the competition'. Who is the
competition? Signers acting as interpreters i.e. non-certified people.
Logistics is also a factor. Much as I am not thrilled to admit it, the
Sorenson model is helpful. Sorenson hires people who are not qualified but
trains the heck out of them and gives them a lot of support. My
understanding (never worked for them myself) is that they offer language
mentoring as well as interpreting mentoring.
Meanwhile, I checked to see how many RID members there are in WA as of today
- 210. Certified: 145. Apparently there are quite a few (especially in
public schools) who are not certified (we know this to be true) but also not
members of a professional association.
In the past, some states (again, excuse my sloppy argument - not stating
which states etc.) have tried to require certification but have been
sidestepped by administrations which a) can't find enough certified people
to take the jobs and b) can't afford to pay the aforementioned equitable
salary. There are other logistical problems as well such as distribution of
certified interpreters in rural areas etc.
Several people have mentioned some kind of 'control' (Anna W-M re induction
procedures) and Karen below.. and I'm sure others. How could this happen -
considering where we are now and moving forward?
Perhaps we could get state laws/policies that all 'interpreters' working for
public entities have to 1) have graduated from an ITP or have the equivalent
experience e.g. from Deaf signing families, 2) have passed the RID written
test AND 3) be under the supervision of a 'master interpreter' TEAM -
specifically: an ASL mentor with teacher training and a working certified
interpreter with both full certification from RID and some ... kind of
teaching background/training.. UNTIL they are, themselves RID certified for
at least a year.
We could then move forward towards specialist certifications such as an
educational, legal, medical interpreter. These specialist certifications
could be awarded on different criteria and through different processes
depending on the demands of the specialty. Clearly this is 20 years from
now but..
What do you think?
Theresa
Amanda H.F. Mueller
Many of us are victims of our educational history. We have heard the terms
assessment and evaluation used as though they are synonyms. What we have
typically experienced has not been anything near assessment - we've been
evaluated and given grades. We have had little experience with genuine
feedback and information that can help us grow. I am not trying to play the
semantics game, as an educator I understand the terms to be two different
animals in the real world. An assessment should be a tool used to educate
and improve a student's performance; to help them look at their strengths
and weaknesses (formative). An evaluation, which is summative, places value
on the final product based on standards and criteria. My question about the
EIPA being an assessment vs. an evaluation is genuine and no attempt at a
game. If the EIPA is meant to assess and evaluate, that is something that
has not been made clear to me. I will continue to research the subject and
appreciate the dialogue here.
You stated: "To argue that the EIPA, at a 4.0 level, does not provide that
same assurance, is incorrect. To make that argument, having not experienced
the test, is
interesting to me."
I have two responses of different angles to this. The first is, you make
the argument beautifully as to why so many folks have their panties,
rightfully, in a bunch. This is one of the reasons those that are "RID
certified" do not want those that are "certified by RID" to be voting on the
generalist certification test.
My other response to this is - I am not sure that my not having taken it
precludes me from discussing the merits of how the decision was made to
categorize those that have taken it and what it was advertised to be used
for vs. what it is now being used for.
I have not read anything that has stated that it is equivalent to the NIC.
If that were proven and the RID membership decided it wanted to have two
generalist tests (though I'm unclear as to why or how that would benefit us
or the community that we claim to serve) I could better support it. I could
even understand it to be a specialized test that one takes after having
passed the generalist test. However, as it stands, my understanding is that
the EIPA was created to assess and support those in the amazingly difficult
educational system and it is not a generalist test.
I humbly ask, admitting to not having taken it, why the bait and switch?
I would not assume to get a 4.0 on the EIPA just because I'm RID certified.
In fact, I don't do educational interpreting because I don't feel I am a
language model, nor do I feel that my skills are up to snuff with what it
would take to truly create an environment that is rich with educational and
peer interactions on par with those that are not using an interpreter. On
the flip side, do those that are passing at a 4.0 assume they can pass the
generalist test? In fact, if they all did, wouldn't that be a great way to
squelch this debate? :o) In reality though, I doubt that all 4.0 would
pass just as I know all those that pass the generalist test would not get a
4.0. Which goes directly to the problem, they are not equal. Not that it
means one is better than the other, they are just not the equal.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Maura. Have a great week!
Amanda
Karen Beth Staller
When I started thinking about this more in depth, I realized exactly
what you say at the end of your post . . . this is way down the road. By
the time I'm ready to retire, I may see interpreting being recognized as
a REAL profession, i.e. by **the public**, not just by the people we
serve, those who are doing the hiring, etc. By the time the degree
requirements kick in (don't even start me on the extension), by the time
states recognize the seriousness of what we do and why there have to be
more stringent standards, start passing laws . . . yes, we're talking at
least 15, 20 years, if not more. It's possible things could be speeded
up, of course . . .
Incidentally, Sorenson does not offer language mentoring, except under a
specific program. A full-fledged VI (video interpreter) is hired on the
premise that he or she is qualified and is then trained to work in the
VRS venue, i.e. is trained in the technology, regulations, etc. If an
interpreter meets Sorenson's qualifications and actually doesn't have
the signing skills, Sorenson relies on the consumers to complain in
order for that interpreter to be "weeded out", much as in the community.
The only time I would talk to a trainee about his/her signing is to
explain why we do or don't do something **in VRS**, e.g. "use 'this'
sign for 'birthday' because the local sign that you're using screams
your location to the vp user".
Karen
Karen Beth Staller
second response to, "To make that argument, having not experienced the
test, is interesting to me.".
One point, which any other time or in any other realm would be so small,
it wouldn't even be worth discussing, but in this case, one of the key
points . . . OK, *the* key point of the argument . . . the two terms
being used are "RID-certified" (which is the same as "certified by
RID"), i.e. CSC/CI/CT/NIC; and "certified member of RID", i.e.
NAD/ACCI/EIPA, assessed by an outside instrument and considered
certified under RID criteria.
Karen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: national...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:national...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of m nolin
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:17 AM
> To: National RID EIPA
> Subject: [RID-EIPA group] Re: That EIPA!
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: national...@googlegroups.com
>>
Theresa B. Smith
So given Dan's comments on how old these other professions are, how long
they've been 'organizing themselves' - including nursing, the question is
"How do we get from where we are to where we want to be?" And that assumes
the answer to.. "Where do we want to be?"
Yes, yes, we want to have standards and have them mandated, but what would
those standards be and how would aspiring interpreters achieve those
standards (training?) and how would both progress and maintenance of
standards be monitored / upheld, and what is the first step towards that
end? What is the role of RID in all this? The colleges? CIT?
One of the biggest barriers to progress seems to be complexity of the issues
COUPLED WITH our inclination to dash from point to sentiment or argument to
feelings. For example, we go from the need for standards and who should set
them to people's feelings about not meeting those standards (but having the
job). And then the feelings (and imputed good intentions) of those people
(some of us) who do not meet the standards (but want to) seems to trump the
primary issue of standards.. so we're left without any standards, going
round and round. For example, if we say 'uncertified, unqualified blah
blah' the response is likely to be 'but they are trying' or 'don't be
insulting' or... etc. Sheesh!
Then, of course, there is the question of what those standards should be
(e.g. generalist before specialist?) and then jump to the reality of too few
qualified people to fill the demand and again, we're pulled to the 'other
side' of the argument which is fixing the other guy's problems again. In
the example above we were fixing the problem of people's FEELINGS about
being uncertified and in this instance the organization (RID) is trying to
solve the problem of 'deaf education' BEHAVIOR of not meeting the law and
not truly providing access. In each instance there is probably self
interest. In taking care of other people's feelings we can nurse our own
and in taking care of deaf ed 'we' can fill our coffers.
I guess I'm commenting on the quality of argument and its direction. The
issues are complex for sure but there seems to be a hopeless, helpless cycle
to much (not all) of our discussion. What do you think?
Amanda H.F. Mueller
can't keep it straight. :o) Thanks for pointing out my error. Hopefully my
sentiment in the response was clear.
Ugh, ok, RID-certified vs. certified member of RID. As someone else
mentioned, have we seen this clarified in ASL? I'd love to see it
interpreted by a CDI to a monolingual ASL audience. Perhaps then I would
understand it myself.
Off to romp with my kids in the pool., which always helps put the world in
perspective! ;O)