|
On 3/18/04, a House Committee Substitute bill for HB
1195 was voted "Do Pass" by the House Professional Registration and
Licensing Committee. At the request of Representative Roy Holand
from Springfield, language was added to the original HB 1195 that
would require MCDHH to grant a "provisional public school
certificate" to any person nominated by a local school district to
interpret in their schools if that school district indicates that it
has searched for an interpreter who meets the current certification
and licensing requirements for educational interpreters but can't
find one. While MCDHH supports the basic ideas incorporated in that
amendatory language, we believe it is totally unnecessary and
undesirable.
It is unnecessary because MCDHH implemented an administrative rule
during the past year that created a "Provisional Restricted
Certification in Education" that will assist schools in meeting
their interpreting needs. And it is undesirable because some of the
specific features of the language of HCS HB 1195 would result in
long-lasting and severe harm to deaf children who use interpreters
in our public schools. Some of those undesirable features are as
follows:
(1) Subsection 209.309.1(2) would give to the local
school district theability to decide if an interpreter "has
demonstrated the skills necessary for the assignment." This means
that the local school district could hire whomever they wanted
without any skill assessment by an independent agency (such as MCDHH).
Faced with statutory language and administrative rules implementing
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) it is only
reasonable to assume that a local public school district would hire
almost anyone if they were given the ability to do so. This is
unacceptable, as it would place deaf and hard of hearing children in
mainstreamed environments without qualified interpreters. At
absolute minimum, as required by MCDHH's new Provisional Restricted
Certification in Education rule (5 CSR 100-200.045), provisional
educational interpreters should hold at least a Novice certification
in the Missouri Interpreter Certification System (MICS). This would
mean that at least they would have demonstrated their skill level to
an independent assessment agency (MCDHH) and are able to understand
and communicate at least 50% of the message content delivered in a
class. While it is shameful to think that an interpreter would be
allowed to provide services to a young child while only
understanding 50% of what the child may be signing, and only being
able to effectively communicate to the child 50% of what the teacher
is saying, at least this common standard ensures against a situation
where every local public school district is able to set its own
performance standard, and in many instances that standard would
likely to be far below the requirements for Novice certification.
The language of HCS HB 1195 would allow every public school district
to determine its own standard for acceptable interpreting skills,
thus eliminating state-wide standards for educational interpreters.
(2) Subsection 209.309.1(4) says that a person
nominated for this special certificate must certify "that they will
begin the application process" for certification and licensure
"within ninety days." It is totally unclear what is meant by the
word "begin." Has a person "begun" the application process if they
simply call the MCDHH office and request an application form? Has a
person "begun" the process if they obtain a copy of the application
form, fill out part of the form, and leave it laying on their desk?
Does the process "begin" if the application form is mailed without a
check for the appropriate application and/or test fee? Does the
process "begin" when a person submits the application form, even
though the person may never schedule them self to take the written
test? And has the process already “begun” for a person who has filed
an application in the past, taken the MICS test, and failed it? The
ambiguity and open-ended nature of this subsection is totally
undesirable. In contrast, 5 CSR 100-200.045 solves this problem by
requiring that a person must already be certified in the Missouri
Interpreters Certification System in order to be eligible for a
Provisional Restricted Certification in Education.
(3) Subsection 209.309.2 presently indicates that
the provisional public school certificate shall "remain valid for
eighteen months or until the person obtains the certification and
licensure otherwise required by sections 209.319 to 209.339. The
person may never "obtain the certification and licensure otherwise
required by sections 209.319 to 209.339." Thus the "provisional
public school certificate" could remain valid forever. This is very
undesirable, and the problem is solved in 5 CSR 100-200.045 by
making the Provisional Restricted Certification in Education a term
certification that is good for only one year, and that can be
renewed for only one more year if and only if the holder takes the
MICS performance test and advances one level..
(4) Section 209.309.3 says that "Provisional public
school certificates may be revoked when the person ends their
employment with the school district...." But the word "may" is a
"permissive" word. If they "may" be revoked, then they also "may
not" be revoked. And who is to decide if the certificate is or is
not to be revoked? Is that decision up to the local public school
district that nominated the person for the certificate? These
ambiguities are resolved in 5 CSR 100-200.045 by stipulating that
the Provisional Restricted Certification in Education "will" be
revoked by MCDHH when the holder ends their employment with the
nominating school district.
(5) The language of HCS HB 1195 would allow an
interpreter to get a provisional public school certificate as a
nominee of school district 5 in one year and then turn around the
next year and get the certificate again as the nominee of school
district 9. And it would allow a person to get the certificate year
after year without end from the same school district. This would
mean that a given interpreter with minimal skills could continue to
work forever in the educational system simply by being nominated
repeatedly by a single school district or moving around from school
district to school district, and that is undesirable. Rule 5 CSR
100-200.045 prevents this from happening by making the Provisional
Restricted Certification in Education a "once in a lifetime"
certification.
(6) Section 209.321.8 of HCS HB 1195 says that "A
person granted a provisional certificate to interpret in a public
school shall not be subject to the regular certification or
licensure requirements of sections 209.319 to 209.339." This means
that they will have no legal obligation to either engage in further
training (obtain Continuing Education Units) or adhere to the
Ethical Rules of Conduct for interpreters. By exempting holders of
the provisional public school certificate from the requirement to
get annual CEUs, HCS HB 1195 would allow people with minimal skills
to continue interpreting in our public schools without ever
attending a workshop or doing anything to improve their skills. And
by exempting them from the requirements of the Ethical Rules of
Conduct for Interpreters, the language of HCS HB 1195 would allow
them to legally divulge confidential information that they may have
acquired from a deaf student. For example, they could discuss
information that they had acquired about a student's drug use or sex
life with teachers and school administrators without any
constraints. These problems are solved in 5 CSR 100-200.045 by
requiring that holders of a Provisional Restricted Certification in
Education obtain their annual CEUs and adhere to the Ethical Rules
of Conduct for Interpreters.
(7) No where in the language of HCS HB 1195 does it
say that an interpreter granted a "provisional public school
certificate" can only interpret in the school district that
nominated that interpreter. Therefore a holder of this certificate
could presumably interpret in any situation or setting that they
wanted (given that they would be exempt from the Skill Level
Standards rule and the Ethical Rules of Conduct). This would mean
that an interpreter with minimal skills who had obtained a
provisional public school certificate could legally interpret in a
school district clear across the state, a doctor's office, a
hospital, or even a courtroom. On the other hand, 5 CSR 100-200.045
solves this problem by restricting the holder of a Provisional
Restricted Certification in Education to interpreting only in the
school district that nominated them.
In general, the language of HCS HB 1195 that would
create a "provisional public school certificate" is deficient in a
great many respects, and if it became law it would clearly result in
some educational interpreters continuing to provide interpreting
services in Missouri public schools even though they were totally
unqualified - a situation that is completely unacceptable. It can't
be emphasized strongly enough that by trying to side-step the entire
certification and licensure system that was adopted by the Missouri
legislature nearly a decade ago, the provisions of HCS HB 1195 could
do great damage to deaf and hard of hearing children in Missouri
classrooms, and its specific language would allow that damage to be
continued year after year. For these reasons, the Missouri
Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing strongly opposes the
language of HCS HB 1195 concerning the creation of a “provisional
public school certificate.”
However, we do not want to lose the three provisions
of the original HB 1195 that would be good for the deaf community.
In particular, MCDHH strongly supports (1) an exemption from the
interpreter licensing requirements for students enrolled in
Interpreter Training Programs when they are interpreting as a part
of a supervised course of study, (2) an exemption from the
interpreter licensing requirements to allow certified out-of-state
interpreters to temporarily come into the state and interpret for a
few days at professional conferences, and (3) a requirement that
Missouri interpreters fulfill their annual continuing education
(CEU) requirements in order to get their licenses renewed.
MCDHH firmly believes that the best way to deal with
the "educational interpreters" issue is through the rulemaking
process, not by amending the law concerning licensing. The
rulemaking process (1) is a more flexible process (once codified,
the law is normally much harder to change than an administrative
rule), (2) would allow for quicker and more frequent changes to the
public policy if needed (rules can be changed at any time throughout
the year, and emergency rules can be implemented within a matter of
days if needed), (3) would allow for broad public discussion of the
issue as needed (if needed public hearings can be held in various
locations around the state involving a great many people, in
contrast to many legislative decisions which are made in private
discussions involving agreement among only a few legislators), and
(4) would allow all stakeholders to gather around the table and
discuss the issues involved openly and honestly without clouding the
solution in the partisan politics of the legislative process (where
often a law gets passed or changed not because it is the "right"
thing to do, but because it has the support of a few important
people in the party that happens to control the legislature at that
time).
Therefore, if you agree with MCDHH regarding this
matter, we urge you to contact your state representative immediately
and indicate that you fully support the sections of HCS HB 1195 that
would:
(1) Exempt from the licensing requirement students
at recognized Interpreter Training Programs who are interpreting as
a part of a supervised course of study [we support 209.321.6],
(2) Exempt from the licensing requirement certified
out-of-state interpreters who come into Missouri temporarily to
interpret for conferences [we support 209.321.7], and
(3) Require that interpreters get their required
annual CEUs in order to renew their license [we support 209.323.2].
But, please indicate that you are STRONGLY OPPOSED
to the language in 209.309.1-3 and 209.321.8 regarding the creation
of a "provisional public school certificate" as this would be
SEVERELY HARMFUL TO DEAF STUDENTS IN MISSOURI SCHOOLS.
You should also contact Representative Roy Holand
and indicate that you are STRONGLY OPPOSED to the language in
209.309.1-3 and 209.321.8 regarding the creation of a "provisional
public school certificate" as this would be SEVERELY HARMFUL TO DEAF
STUDENTS IN MISSOURI SCHOOLS. Representative Holand can be contacted
by phoning 573-751-2210, faxing to 573-522-8665, sending email to
Roy.Holand@house.mo.gov, or sending a letter to Representative Roy
Holand, State Capitol, Room 113, Jefferson City, MO 65101.
As always, MCDHH would appreciate receiving copies
of any written statements that you send to legislators regarding
this matter. |
