65 Develop Legislation and Mechanism to Prohibit Unqualified K12 Educational Interpreters

Video description: A person is describing the solution titled Develop Legislation and Mechanism to Prohibit Unqualified K12 Educational Interpreters. The transcript is provided below.

Issue: School districts, particularly in Greater Minnesota, may be hiring “Langauge Facilitators” and “ASL Paraprofessionals” who are functioning in the role of an interpreter. While a Paraprofessional with ASL competency may be a valid need, oversight is needed to ensure that school districts are not hiring unqualified individuals to serve as working interpreters.

Proposed Solution: Commission in partnership with MDE pursue legislation or rulemaking to ensure that school districts are not renaming the interpreter job description to a different title and thereby avoiding hiring only professional interpreters to fill an interpreting function.

Expected outcome: Higher quality interpreting services resulting in better educational outcomes for DDBHH students.

Who is impacted: DDBHH children in mainstream educational settings, educational interpreters, school districts, educational interpreters

Timeline: 6 months

Video description: A person is summarizing the level of support that this solution received.

Summary of Support

Of the 117 responses, the majority supported ensuring that school districts are not renaming the interpreter job description to a different title and thereby avoiding hiring only professional interpreters to fill an interpreting function. A large minority, nearly a fifth of respondents across all groups remained neutral or opposed on this solution.

Summary of Support Image Description

The stacked bar charts show how respondents rated their level of support and the total number of responses. The percentage for the five support levels is shown from left to right: Strongly Oppose (Dark Red), Oppose (Light Red), Neutral (Yellow), Support (Light Blue), and Strongly Support (Dark Blue).

Respondents may identify with multiple subgroups. The overall level of support is:

Overall
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 3%
Neutral: 14%
Support: 33%
Strongly Support: 49%

Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.

Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 3%
Neutral: 16%
Support: 31%
Strongly Support: 50%

Greater Minnesota
Strongly Oppose: 4%
Oppose: 8%
Neutral: 12%
Support: 28%
Strongly Support: 48%

DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 3%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 8%
Support: 33%
Strongly Support: 54%

System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 10%
Support: 44%
Strongly Support: 41%

Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis

After indicating their support level, 8% of the 117 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (10 respondents), 60% supported the solution, 30% were neutral on the solution, and 10% opposed the solution.

The remaining 107 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 84% support the solution, 12% were neutral on the solution, and 3% opposed the solution.

Reviewer Evaluation of Solution Effectiveness

Solution Effectiveness Image Description

The stacked bar charts show how respondents assessed the effectiveness of this solution based on five metrics. For each metric, the percentage of respondents is shown from left to right: Worsens (Red), Improves (Blue), No Impact (Gray).

DDBHH Quality of Life
Makes It Worse 8%
Makes It Better 91%
No Impact 0%

Interpreter Satisfaction
Makes It Worse 9%
Makes It Better 90%
No Impact 0%

Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 9%
Makes It Better 90%
No Impact 0%

Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 37%
Makes It Better 50%
No Impact 12%

Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 10%
Makes It Better 90%
No Impact 0%

Reviewer Feedback and Insights

Interpreter

Comments from Interpreters highlight the importance of clearly differentiating between qualified interpreters and para-professionals during the hiring process. One comment expresses support support for legislation to ensure that schools hire only qualified K12 interpreters and do not misuse job titles such as “para-professional with ASL.”

Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing

One comment from DDBHH Consumers emphasize that involving parents and teachers in the conversation about improving interpreting services is a crucial step toward enhancing educational outcomes for DDBHH students. One comment suggests collaboration with organizations like the Beacon Center to prevent the renaming of interpreter positions.

System Stakeholder

Comments from System stakeholders support efforts to clarify the use of “language facilitators” and prohibit the posting of job positions such as “Para-professional with ASL skills” or “ASL Communication Facilitator”. One comment suggests monitoring postings state-wide to identify school districts that may need further awareness and education. Another comment suggests working with existing interpreters in school districts to improve their skills, develop a registry of interpreters, and require CEUs.