|
Today (4/15/04) the Missouri House of
Representatives passed HSC HB 1195, and sent it to the Senate for
their consideration. HSC HB 1195 contains the language added in the
House by Representative Roy Holand from Springfield 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 is sympathetic to the problem some school districts face
in finding qualified interpreters, we believe that the creation of a
"provisional public school certificate" 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
the ability 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). 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 be certified 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). 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," and there is no authority given
to MCDHH to revoke the certificate if the holder should fail to
initiate the process for certification.
(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.
(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?
(5) 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.
(6) The language of HCS HB 1195 would allow a given interpreter with
minimal skills 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.
(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 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), including a doctor's office, a hospital, or a police
station.
(8) The language of HCS HB 1195 is totally unfair to all educational
interpreters who have worked hard to achieve their required skill
level, and take seriously their responsibility to obtain a license
and maintain their
skills through continuing education activities.
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.”
Therefore, if you agree with MCDHH regarding this matter, we urge
you to contact your state Senator immediately and indicate that you
are STRONGLY OPPOSED to the language in 209.309.1-3 and 209.321.8 of
HCS HB 1195 regarding the creation of a "provisional public school
certificate" as this
would be SEVERELY HARMFUL TO DEAF STUDENTS IN MISSOURI SCHOOLS.
As always, MCDHH would appreciate receiving copies of any written
statements that you send to legislators regarding this matter.
|
