[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48068-48072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22775]
[[Page 48067]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of
Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 1, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 48068]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of
Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and
subsequent fiscal years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final funding priorities for fiscal
year (FY) 2000 and subsequent fiscal years under the Training of
Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Individuals Who Are Deaf-
Blind program. The Secretary takes this action to assist with the
establishment of interpreter training programs or to assist ongoing
programs to train a sufficient number of skilled interpreters
throughout the country to meet the communication needs of individuals
who are deaf and individuals who are deaf-blind by--(a) Training
manual, tactile, oral, and cued speech interpreters; (b) ensuring the
maintenance of the skills of interpreters; and (c) providing
opportunities for interpreters to raise their level of competence.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities are effective October 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lovley, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3217 Mary E. Switzer
Building, Room 3217, Washington, DC 20202-2736. Telephone: (202) 205-
9393. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you
may call the TDD number at (202) 401-3664. Internet address:
Mary__L[email protected].
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Training of Interpreters for Individuals
Who Are Deaf and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program is authorized
under section 302(f) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
On May 10, 1999 the Secretary published a notice of proposed
priorities for this program in the Federal Register (64 FR 25140). This
notice of final priorities contains three changes from the notice of
proposed priorities. All three changes are to Priority 1--National
Project with Major Emphasis on Distance Education as a Medium for
Interpreter Training. The first change added Hawaii to the list of
States that have no degree-granting interpreter training program. The
second change added a requirement that a project must ensure that
curricula are developed or modified with input from a culturally
diverse, consumer-based consortium. The third change added a
requirement that the project must evaluate the effectiveness of
training interpreters using the distance education curricula. The
changes are fully explained in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
located elsewhere in this notice.
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. In any year in which the Secretary chooses to use
these priorities, the Secretary invites applications through a
notice in the Federal Register. A notice inviting applications under
these competitions is published in a separate notice elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities, 27 parties submitted comments on or before the June 9, 1999
deadline. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the
priorities since publication of the notice of proposed priorities
follows. Please note that we address only those issues on which
substantive comments were received. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes--and suggested changes the law does
not authorize the Secretary to make.
General Comments
Comments: Two commenters suggested that a priority to train
educational interpreters be added.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of training interpreters to
work in the educational environment. We support projects to train
educational interpreters through the Personnel Preparation to Improve
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities, Preparation of
Special Education, Related Services, and Early Intervention Personnel
to Serve Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Low-Incidence
Disabilities competition (CFDA 84.029A) in the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP). In addition, in fiscal year (FY) 1990 we
supported a national project under the Training of Interpreters for
Individuals Who Are Deaf and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program in
the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to focus on the
development of a curriculum on interpreting in the educational
environment. This curriculum is currently being used by OSEP
educational interpreter training grantees and continues to be
distributed by Northwestern Connecticut Community-Technical College and
the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials.
Feedback received from the field is that this curriculum is still
current and appropriate. Further, Priority 2 requires the use of model
curricula developed by recent and current RSA-funded national
interpreter training projects, including the curriculum that emphasizes
interpreting in educational settings. Finally, the training conducted
by the regional programs may have an impact on educational settings in
addition to other settings.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters supported the two proposed funding
priorities, but also recommended that the Department support research
on the value of educational interpreting for students who are deaf and
hard of hearing at all educational levels. One commenter recommended
that research be conducted to investigate the problem of how best to
remedy the need for interpreters. Another commenter recommended
numerous research questions regarding interpreter training and
interpreter ethics and suggested that this research would best be done
by a national center committed to research.
Discussion: We appreciate this support and note that the
regulations in 34 CFR 396.1 define the Training of Interpreters for
Individuals Who Are Deaf and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program as
a training program. Research is beyond the scope of this program. We
will share these comments with the appropriate individuals in OSEP and
the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter supported the two proposed funding
priorities, and two commenters recommended that the Department
establish an additional priority to support the cost of establishing
additional distance education sites and enhance existing technologies
to allow for quality skill-based training via video technologies.
Discussion: As previously stated, the regulations for this program
define it as a training program. Developing and enhancing the
technological infrastructure is beyond the scope of this program.
Changes: None.
Comments: Three commenters recommended that the priorities include
the provision of stipends to students.
Discussion: Training stipends are not authorized under the Training
of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are
[[Page 48069]]
Deaf and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter indicated that there is a need for small,
centrally located programs that are nationally funded to help train new
interpreters and upgrade the skills of the persons working in the
field.
Discussion: We recognize the need for centrally located interpreter
training programs and plan to continue to support 10 regional
interpreter training programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that funding needs to go to an
organization or company to ensure that interpreters are current with
their training and are receiving training in all aspects of
interpreting and that more stringent renewal of interpreters'
certification is needed.
Discussion: We believe that it is the role of the professional
interpreter certifying organizations to monitor the training activities
and certification requirements of the professionals in the field and
not the role of the Federal Government.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--National Project with Major Emphasis on Distance Education
as a Medium for Interpreter Training
Comments: Two commenters indicated that Hawaii has no degree-
granting interpreter training program.
Discussion: The interpreter training program currently offered
through the Office of Continuing Education and Training at Kapiolani
Community College on the island of Oahu is a 2-year, non-credit, non-
degree-granting program. Therefore, Hawaii should be listed among those
States that do not have a degree-granting interpreter training program.
Changes: Language in the priority has been changed to include
Hawaii.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed priority lacked
formal recognition of the need for various stakeholders to collaborate
and work together effectively to make needs known and devise methods or
provide feedback about the appropriate technology to meet the needs in
any given locality.
Discussion: We note that Priority 2--National Project with Major
Emphasis on Training Interpreter Educators requires that the curricula
be developed with input from a culturally diverse, consumer-based
consortium. Priority 1--National Project with Major Emphasis on
Distance Education as a Medium for Interpreter Training does not have
such a statement, and we recognize the value of stakeholders'
participation in funded activities.
Changes: We have added a statement to Priority 1 requiring that
curricula be developed or modified with input from a culturally
diverse, consumer-based consortium.
Comment: One commenter supported Priority 1 and recommended placing
an emphasis on a specific brand of video conferencing equipment and
providing general information on the most advanced and appropriate
equipment.
Discussion: We refrain from making reference to specific technology
or from providing descriptions of the most advanced equipment in this
priority because the rate of technology advancement may render those
statements obsolete prior to the start of the project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported Priority 1 and recommended the
inclusion of a statement requiring the development and implementation
of strategic planning approaches focusing on collaborative working
relationships between two or more higher education institutions.
Discussion: One of the requirements of the priority is to provide
technical assistance, and the commenter's recommendation is one action
that could fall under the required technical assistance. We do not wish
to dictate any specific technical assistance activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported both funding priorities, but
questioned the necessity of requiring the National Project with Major
Emphasis on Distance Education as a Medium for Interpreter Training to
be national in scope. The commenter stated that having the training
project regionally or locally based may be a more effective way of
recruiting, developing, and maintaining interpreters in underserved
areas.
Discussion: We recognize the need for regionally based interpreter
training programs and plan to continue to support 10 regional
interpreter training programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters supported both priorities, but questioned
whether the technology of video conferencing is an adequate tool for
teaching the signing skills necessary for quality interpreting and
cautioned against replacing the mentor-student interaction needed to
provide comprehensive interpreter training through practicum and
fieldwork experiences.
Discussion: We recognize that video conferencing, if it were used
alone, may not be an adequate tool for teaching sign language and
interpreting. However, as with any distance education instruction,
distance interpreter education is not limited to video conferencing
technology. While the priority requires technical assistance on the
proper use of the most current and available technologies, such as
video conferencing, videotaping, Internet web classes and chat rooms,
e-mail, and voice mail, this does not preclude the simultaneous use of
non-technical approaches to distance education such as on-site
mentoring, use of printed or videotaped material, association with
deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind individuals or groups, and
practicum experiences.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the computer and
technology literacy of individuals who would be engaged in distance
learning and recommended providing funds to employ geographically
proximate ``circuit riders'' to address this concern.
Discussion: We recognize that the use of ``circuit riders'' is one
possible approach to improving or ensuring the computer and technology
literacy of individuals interested in participating in distance
interpreter education opportunities. We expect that proposals will
address this, among other concerns, and do not wish to prescribe any
one method or approach.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that there is no discussion of any
type of evaluation or methods of measuring the effectiveness of
training interpreters using the distance education curricula prior to
its dissemination.
Discussion: There is a requirement to provide technical assistance
to interpreter training programs on the feasibility and effectiveness
of distance interpreter education. We agree with the importance of
evaluating the effectiveness of training interpreters using the
distance education curricula.
Changes: We have added an evaluation requirement to the priority.
Comment: One commenter stated that dissemination is a critical
issue and that having the information in several different formats or
ways would be beneficial.
Discussion: There is a requirement that the packaged distance
education curricula be disseminated to interpreter educators
nationwide. The proposals would identify how the potential projects
plan to carry out this requirement.
[[Page 48070]]
Changes: None.
Priority 2--National Project with Major Emphasis on Training
Interpreter Educators
Comments: Two commenters supported Priority 2, with one commenter
requesting that this priority be weighted more heavily than Priority 1
and the other commenter requesting that the mentoring portion of this
priority be given sufficient weight and earmarked funding to ensure
that it is addressed.
Discussion: We appreciate this support, but note that these
priorities are not assigned weights.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported both priorities including the
focus on identifying and updating or developing a model mentor training
curriculum and training experienced interpreters or interpreter
educators to serve as mentors, but only if the rural and island areas
of Hawaii will have effective use of them.
Discussion: The priority requires that the mentor training program
train mentors to serve in a variety of situations or environments,
including various regions and culturally diverse environments. We
believe that this requirement will allow Hawaii, and other States with
unique needs, to make effective use of the curriculum and the trained
mentors.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters supported both priorities, but suggested
that Priority 2 also include curriculum for training interpreters in
mental health, educational, medical, legal, and other environments
requiring specialized training.
Discussion: We recognize the need for training interpreters to work
in environments requiring specialized training and believe that the
priority is broad enough to permit the development of curriculum, or
training of interpreters, in specialized settings. However, there is no
basis to require the grantee to include the settings requested by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported both priorities, but asked that
steps be taken to ensure that members of the deaf, hard of hearing, and
deaf-blind communities are afforded the opportunity to participate in
the training programs and, for those who are qualified, to become part
of the interpreter educator staff. This commenter also requested that
the material adaptation and interpreter educator training not overlook
the regional and often local diversity in sign language and cultural
backgrounds.
Discussion: We agree that consumer involvement is crucial to a
successful program and note that the priority specifically requires
that the curricula be developed with input from a culturally diverse,
consumer-based consortium. We also note that the priority requires that
training be available to culturally diverse audiences and be sensitive
to the needs of all audiences. These culturally diverse audiences would
include, among the many other forms of diversity, training available to
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind.
Changes: None.
Priorities
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the Secretary gives an absolute
preference to applications that meet one of the following priorities.
The Secretary funds under these competitions only applications that
meet one of these absolute priorities:
Priority 1--National Project with Major Emphasis on Distance Education
as a Medium for Interpreter Training (84.160B)
Background: Historically interpreter training programs have been
located in colleges and universities in metropolitan areas or in areas
of high population. While demand for interpreter services exceeds the
supply of interpreters even in metropolitan areas, the dearth of
interpreters in rural areas is marked. A Study of Interpreter Services
for Persons Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, published in 1993,
concluded that ``there is sufficient work/need for additional
professional interpreters in every state and many major communities.''
Organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and
the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) have also identified
the shortage of qualified interpreters. Some States, such as Alaska,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and West Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific other than Guam, have
no degree-granting interpreter training program. Due to the relatively
sparse population in large geographical areas, student enrollment may
not be sufficient to support interpreter training programs should they
be established in these areas. As a result, individuals living in these
States or areas who are interested in obtaining interpreter training
must seek that training at a great distance from their homes. Further,
the few working interpreters living in these States or areas who wish
to maintain or upgrade their skills often find it difficult to locate
nearby sources for continuing education. Distance education can help
fill this void. The challenge, however, is to effectively deliver the
interpreter training curricula, which is a skill-based, visual-based
curricula rather than a knowledge-based or text-based curricula.
Therefore, it is of critical importance that interpreter-training
curricula be modified to make the best use of a blend of all of the
available technologies, such as video conferencing, Internet web
classes and chat rooms, e-mail, and voice mail. With proper curricular
modifications, interpreter training can be provided via distance
education to rural areas, remote locations, and areas with low
populations in a cost-effective manner.
RSA has determined that a national project is needed that will
focus on adapting existing model interpreter training curricula used by
2-year and 4-year interpreter training programs for delivery via
distance education. In addition, there is a need for technical
assistance to, and coordination and cooperation with, interpreter
training programs across the Nation on matters related to the use of
distance education as a medium for interpreter training.
Priority: A project must--
Be national in scope;
Adapt or modify existing model interpreter training
curricula or develop new appropriate interpreter training curricula for
delivery via distance education and package it for easy use by the RSA-
funded regional interpreter training projects and other trainers and
interpreter training programs;
Ensure that the curricula are developed or modified with
input from a culturally diverse, consumer-based consortium;
Evaluate the effectiveness of training interpreters using
the distance education curricula;
Develop detailed instruction manuals to accompany each
packaged curriculum;
Provide technical assistance to interpreter training
programs on the feasibility and effectiveness of distance interpreter
education;
Establish cooperative working relationships with the RSA-
funded regional interpreter training projects;
Furnish technical assistance to the RSA-funded regional
interpreter training projects in developing and using distance
education as a mechanism for training interpreters to meet the
communication needs of
[[Page 48071]]
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind in their
regions;
Provide technical assistance and professional development
opportunities for interpreter trainers across the Nation on the
development and use of distance education as a mechanism for training
interpreters to meet the communication needs of individuals who are
deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. The technical assistance must
address matters such as the proper use of the distance interpreter
education curriculum; the proper use of the most current and available
technologies, such as video conferencing, videotaping, Internet web
classes and chat rooms, e-mail, and voice mail; the technical
infrastructure needed to successfully conduct distance interpreter
education; and the policy implications and barriers that exist in
providing distance interpreter education across a State or across State
lines (e.g., classification of distance education students as in-State
or out-of-State, the geographic area the institution is designed to
serve, etc.); and
Disseminate the packaged distance education curricula to
interpreter educators nationwide.
Priority 2--National Project with Major Emphasis on Training
Interpreter Educators (84.160C)
Background: In order to train qualified interpreters, interpreter
educators must be both sufficient in number and current in knowledge
and best practices. There are, however, very few programs that prepare
interpreter educators to teach the interpreting process and the skill
of interpreting. As a result, many faculty teaching at the 100-plus
interpreter training programs have had little or no opportunity to
study how to teach interpretation. Further, over the last 10 years RSA
has funded the development of model curricula emphasizing the
interpreting needs of culturally diverse communities, deaf-blind
interpreting, and interpreting in educational and rehabilitation
environments. Due to the low number of programs to train interpreter
educators, this curriculum is not being shared widely and, as a result,
is not being used extensively.
The model curricula on interpreting in educational environments and
interpreting in rehabilitation environments is available at the
National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials at Oklahoma
State University, 5202 Richmond Hill Drive, Stillwater, OK 74078-4080.
The model curricula on the interpreting needs of culturally diverse
communities and interpreting for individuals who are deaf-blind are
being developed under currently funded projects. These curricula will
be available at the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training
Materials once these projects have completed their activities. The
project developing the model curriculum on the interpreting needs of
culturally diverse communities ends on December 31, 2000, and the
project developing the model curriculum on interpreting for individuals
who are deaf-blind ends on September 30, 2000.
Another aspect of training a sufficient number of qualified
interpreters is the practice of mentoring. Mentors are experienced
interpreters and interpreter educators who provide one-on-one technical
assistance to novice interpreters or to working interpreters who wish
to improve or expand their skills or work toward certification. While
``mentoring is not a substitute for comprehensive interpreter education
or for the internships and practicums associated with such formal
training'' (RID Standard Practice Paper on ``Mentoring''), it supports
and augments the training received in those settings. While the field
of interpreting embraces the use of mentoring, there is no established
uniform mechanism for training individuals to serve as mentors.
In order to train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters
throughout the country, there is a need to increase the number of
highly trained interpreter educators and mentors. A national project is
needed to address these issues.
Priority: A project must--
Be national in scope;
Develop a new curriculum, or update a former or existing
curriculum, to prepare interpreter educators and, once this is
developed, use it to train both working interpreter educators who need
to obtain, enhance, or update their training and new interpreter
educators. This newly developed or updated curriculum must include all
issues pertinent to the training of interpreters and the use of the
model curricula developed by recent and current RSA-funded national
interpreter training projects that emphasize the interpreting needs of
culturally diverse communities, interpreting for deaf-blind
individuals, and interpreting in educational and rehabilitation
environments;
Identify and update or develop a model mentor training
curriculum that includes elements such as diagnostic assessment, goal
setting, discourse analysis, and effective feedback provision and, once
this is developed, train experienced interpreters or interpreter
educators to serve as mentors. This mentor training program must train
mentors to serve in a variety of situations or environments (i.e., in
urban and rural settings; in various regions; in culturally diverse
environments; in situations in which various modes of communication
(deaf-blind, oral, cued speech, etc.) are present; in specialized
settings (legal, medical, educational, etc.); and with interns at
varying skill levels, etc.);
Provide technical assistance to organizations or bodies
establishing mentorship programs and to existing mentorship programs on
all aspects of mentoring, including the identification of trained
mentors;
Ensure that the curricula are developed with input from a
culturally diverse, consumer-based consortium;
Ensure that training is available to culturally diverse
audiences and is sensitive to the needs of all audiences;
Use innovative as well as traditional approaches to the
provision of training (i.e., distance education, short-term intensive
training sessions or seminars, delivering training to communities in
need, etc.); and
Establish cooperative relationships with the regional
interpreter training projects the Secretary plans to propose in fiscal
year 2000.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new
partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain
information needed to achieve the goals.
These priorities support the National Education Goal that, by the
year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and
exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The priorities
further the objectives of this Goal by focusing available funds on
projects that train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters
throughout the country to meet the communication needs of individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.
Training and improving the manual, tactile, oral, and cued speech
interpreting skills of interpreters working in vocational
rehabilitation environments will improve the ability of individuals who
are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind to
function successfully in their vocational pursuits.
[[Page 48072]]
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC,
area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.160, Training of
Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf and Individuals Who Are
Deaf-Blind)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(f).
Dated: August 27, 1999.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 99-22775 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P