It is rare for one to not only find her passion in the first year of college, but also to begin working in that field while still in college. During my practicum semester of my ITP, my placements were in education and religious settings where I found my niches without any real effort. I love educational interpreting, in part, simply because I love to learn and have that opportunity on a daily basis as an educational interpreter.

In fifteen years in this field, I’ve encountered some negative attitudes about educational interpreting that need to be addressed. The first is that educational interpreting is where you start out to improve your skills so you can go on to some other, better, interpreting work. The other is that educational interpreting is where you get stuck if you aren’t good enough to do other types of interpreting. These views have led to an unfavorable perspective of educational interpreting that is pervasive in the interpreting community—-that educational interpreting is lesser than other fields of interpreting. 

New interpreters tend to start in educational interpreting because it is one of the few places they can get hired with a level I or II state certification and still work. They might be able to sign up with an agency but aren’t likely to get much work at that level. This is unfortunate because it’s led to the belief that educational interpreting is just a starting place, the first rung on the ladder to bigger and better assignments. But why is educational interpreting viewed in such a way? 

There could be a number of reasons:
Some people just don’t really care to work with children. Additionally, districts with many deaf students may put an interpreter in a situation in which they aren’t comfortable, such as in special education with a severely disabled student, or with a student that doesn’t really sign much and the interpreter is simply backup for when the student misses something. In settings like this the interpreter’s skills can decline dramatically; though losing skills can be combated by remaining involved in the Deaf Community, working with a mentor, and/or doing supplemental interpreting work.  Placements like these can make the interpreter feel superfluous. Working in a large district may mean that the interpreter doesn’t really have control of where they end up working. They may prefer working with younger children and end up in high school or vice versa. So while education is often seen as a good starting place, it can sometimes lead to the new interpreter leaving the job relatively quickly or leaving the field of interpreting due to more difficult content or situations than they expected.

Another reason for the negative view of educational interpreting is that many interpreters feel that educational interpreting is the dumping ground for inferior interpreters. Let’s be honest: many educational interpreters, especially those who have been in the field for twenty plus years, can’t pass their state certification. But does that mean they aren’t skilled? Not necessarily. State and national certifications don’t test what interpreters do in education and aren’t really a good measure of the skills needed for working with children or in an educational setting. The EIPA has somewhat filled that gap but doesn’t do enough to keep  interpreters accountable for improving their skills or maintaining ethical practices. Some people just don’t test well or have severe test anxiety and so don’t do well on assessments, but they are perfectly fine when actually working. Test anxiety has prevented me from going for national certification and nearly prevented me from attaining a level 5 in my state certification, so I understand the difficulty. I continue to improve my skills by studying, attending workshops and learning new content for specific classes I interpret, as well as attending Deaf social events and interpreting at church. I’ve also recently taken the EIPA—still awaiting my results.

Educational interpreting is a specialized field and should be viewed and taught as such. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) published a standard practice paper outlining some of the differences in expectations for educational interpreters, and at the state level, our ethical standards are beginning to reflect this as well. Educational interpreters have to interpret everything—from kindergarten phonics to Shakespeare to computer coding to Spanish to algebra to calculus—accurately enough for the student to learn the information and perform well on tests. This can’t be done without extensive work on the part of the interpreter. There’s the old mantra: ‘You can’t interpret what you don’t understand.’ You can skate by, and many educational interpreters do so, doing minimal prep work and faking their way through a class, but is that what Deaf students deserve? It could also be seen as unethical. The second tenet of the RID Code of Professional Conduct states: ‘Interpreters possess the professional skills and knowledge required for the specific interpreting situation.’ Tenet seven is also relevant: ‘Interpreters engage in professional development.’ Both of these should mean that the educational interpreter should always be learning specific content relevant to classes they interpret. Teachers are supposed to know their material and be able to effectively teach it. Shouldn’t educational interpreters be held to a similar standard? 

Interpreter training programs have to cram a lot of information into a fairly short amount of time, and educational interpreting is usually just a very small part of a class that discusses a variety of special settings or it’s a class that primarily focuses on teaching Signing Exact English (SEE) as if that is all an interpreter needs to know to interpret in a classroom. My own program had an entire class on educational interpreting, but it was optional. That may be the best way to handle giving all special areas of interpreting the time they need. Most interpreting interns I work with seem to have a pretty good idea of what area of interpreting they want to work in, so having classes where they could delve further into their preferred areas would be beneficial.

There is a new organization called the National Association of Interpreters in Education (NAIE) that is working to support educational interpreters by providing relevant professional development and developing professional guidelines specifically addressing the unique aspects of educational interpreting. These can be found at http://naiedu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NAIE-Professional-Standards-and-Guidelines-4.19.pdf.

There are certainly individuals who are in educational interpreting who shouldn’t be, others who are using educational interpreting as their jumping off point and still others who have been sidelined because they aren’t able to pass state or national certifications. Schools don’t help matters by hiring unqualified interpreters. How can the interpreting profession bring these interpreters along and help them improve their skills? Oklahoma has a law detailing minimum requirements for educational interpreters, but many states do not. In my opinion, Oklahoma’s requirements still are not good enough. The levels accepted still allow for a significant percentage of vital educational information to be lost by the interpreter, the lack of which will and does have a life-long impact on the Deaf child. 

Students deserve to have the best education possible, but this requires communication access. Deaf students are often disadvantaged in several areas already: early language deprivation, being expected to learn two languages at the same time as trying to learn educational material, dealing with assistive technology, being pulled out of regular class for speech or other services. In addition, the Deaf student can have an interpreter who may be a benefit or a detriment to their education—and they, and their parents, may not know if there are better options available. 

A good interpreter can be a good language model for a Deaf student. If no one at home signs, the interpreter may be the only language model they have, for both ASL and English. For this reason, it is vital that educational interpreters are skilled in both languages. Unfortunately, most parents are still guided by so-called professionals into using a signing system like Signing Exact English or Pidgin Signed English rather than introducing them to American Sign Language and setting the Deaf child up for success with an actual language. Because of this influence on parents, most Deaf children start school with very basic communication ability and educational interpreters usually end up following what the child has learned to sign at home and transliterating throughout their careers. The interpreter generally isn’t given a choice in the language mode used, but it is possible to introduce ASL features and concepts while transliterating. It does take practice and keeping up with ASL skills. This should be a part of every educational interpreter’s continuing education through conferences, workshops and interaction with the Deaf Community.

The way interpreters are viewed in the school setting by our colleagues – by teachers, by administrators and by other ‘support staff’ – can also influence how educational interpreters feel about their own field. We fall into an odd place in the hierarchy of the school district. Much depends upon how we are categorized as far as contract days, pay, etc. In my district, Edmond Public Schools (a large district with many students utilizing interpreters), we are grouped with support staff such as teacher’s assistants. This causes some confusion about what our role actually is and what we should be expected to do in certain settings, especially in special education classes. 

When we are in regular classes, teachers are sometimes uncomfortable having another adult in the room who isn’t there to help them out by watching the class for a second or making copies, etc. This can be especially difficult with substitute teachers, who have little to no understanding of the interpreter’s role. We’re called the ‘signer’ or the ‘sign language person.’ We’re asked, ‘Oh, you help so-and-so, right?’ That word ‘help’ is part of the problem; it lends credence to the idea that we’re teacher’s aides with a few extra skills. That is so far from the truth and is compounded when the school doesn’t recognize the difference between a teacher’s assistant who knows sign language and a certified sign language interpreter. This is why educational interpreters shouldn’t be grouped with teacher’s assistants. In reality, we should be categorized as student service providers just as occupational and physical therapists and speech pathologists are. We spend more time with the students, but the service we provide and our level of education, including degrees, certifications and training, are more in line with those fields. Our training and certification requirements should be recognized. 

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to educate the entire staff of a district about the role of interpreters in education, what we do and what should and should not be expected of us. It is also difficult to change the ingrained views and policies of a district. Perhaps the best we can do is try to educate in whatever school we are in with the teacher and administration we currently work with.

It may be an entirely new idea to educators and other interpreters to treat educational interpreting as a specialized field requiring specialized skills. The way educational interpreters are viewed and treated can vary from state to state and district to district. Educating our teachers and administrators about our field and ensuring they understand and respect our expertise will take time and patience. It is important to build a respected view of educational interpreting, both within educational institutions and the interpreting community, and bring those who need help up to a level to provide Deaf students with the services they deserve, and to which they have a right.