Dear *****:
On February 18 (09-99-2078), March 10
(09-99-2095) and March 22, 1999 (09-99-2104), the
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) received complaints from students who are
Deaf and who attend Mesa College (College) at San
Diego Community College District (District). They
complained that during Fall 1998, the District failed to
provide sign language interpreters for courses such as
woodworking and racquetball, and for some other
courses.
Both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, respectively, require the District, because it is a
recipient of federal funds and because it is a public
entity, to provide reasonable accommodation to
students with disabilities. Moreover, Title II requires a
public college to provide students who are Deaf with
communication that is "as effective as" communication
provided to non-disabled students and (when
providing accommodation) to give primary
consideration to the request of the individual with a
disability [28 C.F.R. 35.160)]. The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 has been one of several
factors that has resulted in greater numbers of students
who are Deaf attending "mainstream" post-secondary
institutions (post-secondary institutions whose primary
student population is hearing).
This letter is organized to initially introduce two types
of accommodations (sign language interpreters and
steno-interpreting, also known as realtime captioning)
most commonly used to provide effective
communication in the classroom to students who are
Deaf. The second portion of this letter describes steps
taken by the District to address its own critical
shortage of sign language interpreters. Finally, this
letter highlights certain District processes which OCR
found to be a best practice in those situations when
educational institutions find that, despite all efforts,
resources beyond the institution's control are not
sufficient to meet the needs of their students with
disabilities.
Introduction to Sign Language and Steno-Interpretation
Because students who are Deaf cannot hear
information transmitted through an auditory medium,
such as speaking, methods of communicating through
visual signs (primarily using hand gestures and facial
expressions) have developed. Sign language
interpreters are hearing persons who listen to spoken
words and "translate" the contents into a visual sign
language (and vice versa), so that a person who is
using a spoken language may communicate with
someone who does not use the auditory medium for
information. There are many types of sign language,
ranging from individualized sign languages that are
highly personal to a particular Deaf person, to widely
used sign languages commonly known in the Deaf
community, such as American Sign Language. There
are many philosophies about which sign language is
"preferable." This letter will not be discussing those
philosophies, but it is important to know that a sign
language interpreter who is proficient in one type of
sign language may not be understood by a Deaf student
who uses a different sign language. In general it is
more difficult to obtain sign language interpreters for
sign languages that are used by a smaller portion of the
Deaf community.
Colleges and interpreters report to OCR that another
factor affecting the availability of sign language
interpreters is increased awareness by interpreters of
the dangers of carpal tunnel syndrome due to their
performing repeated hand motions in an uplifted
position for a sustained period of time. Today most
sign language interpreters working for multiple hours
want to pair or "team" with another sign language
interpreter so that both of them can alternate with each
other, allowing for breaks. This means that a three hour
lecture course may require two sign language
interpreters for a single Deaf student. Unfortunately,
when there is a shortage of sign language interpreters
in the academic world, the interpreters who are there
may find themselves working in "at-risk" conditions,
signing without breaks for longer periods than carpal
tunnel syndrome specialists recommend.
In the last ten years steno-interpreting (or realtime
captioning) has become increasingly popular in
academic institutions. Steno-interpreting involves a
hearing person who listens to spoken words while
typing on a machine to create a written verbatim
transcript of what is being spoken (e.g., by the
instructor). Simultaneous to the spoken word, this
written transcript usually appears either on a large
screen that can be read on the classroom wall or on a
computer monitor that sits on the Deaf student's desk.
Ordinarily, the steno-interpreter thereafter prepares a
hardcopy written transcript which is more accurate
than the text that appeared on the screen simultaneous
to the spoken word. This hardcopy text may substitute
for the handwritten notes that students who are Deaf
are frequently unable to take themselves during the
instructor's lecture. Unlike hearing students, students
who are Deaf must keep their eyes fixed on the
steno-interpreting screen (or sign language interpreter)
and cannot look down at their desks to write notes,
whereas nondisabled students can write while still
hearing the instructor's voice.
When comparing sign language interpreters to
steno-interpreters, some Deaf students report to OCR
that they prefer sign language interpreters over
steno-interpreters. Not all the reasons given by Deaf
students for this preference are related to effective
communication in the classroom. Based on years of
working directly with students who are Deaf, sign
language interpreters have traditionally been uniquely
effective in assisting Deaf students to succeed in the
hearing world of mainstream colleges. It is important
that post-secondary institutions appreciate the
importance of the informal role of interpreters outside
the classroom as advocates, tutors, and friends in an
environment where Deaf students may have limited
opportunity to interact with their hearing classmates
who do not know sign language. In contrast to the
highly interactive relationship-oriented service
provided by sign language interpreters,
steno-interpreting technology has recently developed
the capacity to provide a written screen translation to a
student who is in the classroom with the lecturer,
while the steno-interpreter is located many miles
away, listening to the lecturer over a telephone wire
and transmitting the contents of the written text by
modem to the student's desk computer in the classroom.
Recently, new technology (e.g., VisionLink) appears to
be making it possible for sign language interpreters,
via computers specially equipped with video cameras,
to be situated off-campus while interpreting to the Deaf
student in the classroom.
Training/Qualifications for Interpreters (both types)
In general, learning to be a steno-interpreter takes
significantly less time than becoming a proficient sign
language interpreter. Because even the fastest typist
(average 120 words/minute) cannot keep up with the
average speaker (average 200 words/minute),
steno-interpreters develop a shorthand method of
inputting words into their machine. This method is
taught at court reporting schools, which are a primary
source for providing steno-interpreters used by
academic institutions in the classroom. (Becoming a
certified court reporter usually takes several years.
Thus, those in court reporting schools may opt to work
as steno-interpreters in an academic setting while
continuing to progress toward, or even in lieu of,
becoming certified court reporters.) Short of
certification as a court reporter, there are no national
or state standards regarding qualifications to work as a
steno-interpreter in an academic setting. Consequently,
students sometimes report that there are so many
illegible words in the simultaneous screen translation
that they are unable to follow the lecture. This is
particularly true when the lecture involves technical
terms unfamiliar to the steno-interpreter who has not
had time to adequately prepare.
In contrast to the relative prevalence of court reporting
programs, there are only about 100 sign language
interpreter training programs in the United States.
Moreover, most states, including California, lack
licensing programs for sign language interpreters. The
majority of interpreters working at California colleges
are not certified by a national or state licensing board,
e.g., fewer than one fourth of the 100 sign language
interpreters employed by California State University at
Northridge (CSUN) are certified by the national
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). This means
that in many instances there has been no standardized
evaluation of the interpreter's skill level prior to
course assignment. (OCR notes that the District has its
own internally developed system for evaluating its
interpreters.)
Furthermore, there is ordinarily no system for ensuring
sign language interpreters have expertise in the
technical vocabulary of the particular subject matter of
the course to which they are assigned. Students who
are Deaf sometimes report that they are frustrated at
the discrepancies between the assigned sign language
interpreter's skills and the rigorous demands of
post-secondary academic courses, a discrepancy
which often places the Deaf student at a serious
disadvantage when compared to his/her hearing
classroom peers. On the other hand, some qualified
interpreters state that in light of the many years of
training required to become sign language proficient,
the average hourly wage paid by colleges is
inadequate, especially when compared to the wages
offered sign language interpreters in other fields, e.g.,
courtrooms.
Steno-Interpretation and English Literacy
For many reasons, academic institutions are
increasingly considering steno-interpreting for use in
the classroom with students who are Deaf. This
practice is raising new issues, particularly with regard
to Deaf students not proficient in English. Experts on
Deafness have identified to OCR the published
research regarding the impact of prelingual deafness
on the ability of a child to subsequently learn a
language (any language). Specifically, when a child is
born deaf to hearing parents (who usually are not sign
language proficient), often s/he is not exposed to a
language (any language) during the developmentally
critical first few years of life, a time when hearing
children are surrounded by a spoken language. This
failure to be exposed in the early years to any kind of
language is thought by some educational experts to
substantially impair the child's subsequent ability to
ever learn a language. (By comparison, linguistics
experts point out that students seeking to learn English
as a Second Language usually have had the benefit of
exposure to a primary language in the early years.)
Aside from the special issues raised by prelingual
Deafness, regardless of when Deafness is acquired,
educational experts report to OCR that one who is
attempting to become proficient in English is generally
at a disadvantage if s/he does not have access to the
sound of phonetics when learning to read. Finally,
when considering the issue of English proficiency and
Deafness, it is important to note that persons who are
Deaf are usually exposed less frequently to the English
language on a day to day basis than are hearing
persons, who often have the opportunity to be totally
immersed in an environment whose primary language
of communication is English.
Because steno-interpretation relies upon translation
into written English as the method of accommodation,
advocates in the Deaf community maintain that a
student's poor English literacy skills should be taken
into account when determining whether
steno-interpreting is appropriate as an accommodation
to a student who is Deaf. Another consideration when
determining appropriateness of the accommodation is
the suggestion by educational experts that increased
exposure to written English, as is provided by
steno-interpreting, will support Deaf students'
acquisition of the increasingly complex vocabulary that
characterizes post-secondary curriculum, especially as
students move into four year universities and graduate
programs.
Another relevant factor when determining whether sign
language interpretation or steno-interpretation is
appropriate, are any other disabilities of the student
who is Deaf. For instance, as is true in the hearing
community, the Deaf community may be expected to
have its share of persons with visual learning
disabilities, which also should be considered in
determining whether steno-interpreting is a reasonable
accommodation, e.g., when a Deaf student's dyslexia
prevents him/her from keeping up with the pace of
reading required by a steno-interpreter.
The Problem: Fall 1998 Shortage in Sign Language
Interpreters
The District in this matter has three campuses and
approximately 175 students who are Deaf, most of
whom are enrolled at either Mesa College (College)
or the Continuing Education Center. This significant
number of Deaf students in part reflects the District's
long history of, and commitment to, serving students
who are Deaf. In Fall 1998 for several reasons, the
District experienced a critical shortage in the
availability of sign language interpreters. A shortage of
sign language interpreters was similarly experienced
by some other post-secondary institutions in southern
California. For example, the Los Angeles Times
reported on March 29, 1999, that another southern
California educational institution was experiencing a
crisis in its ability to serve its students who are Deaf,
namely, the California State University at Northridge
(CSUN), which houses the National Center for the
Deaf (serving more than 250 Deaf students) and which
nationally has the second largest Deaf community
among "mainstream" universities.
Steps Taken by District to Resolve Problem (Best
Practices in Process)
The District engaged in a multiple step approach to
resolving the problems raised by its shortage of sign
language interpreters. OCR commends the District for
engaging in a process well calculated to address this
shortage. The process included a sound factual
evaluation of the factors contributing to the problem,
the input of qualified disability experts, and
participation by the affected community of disabled
students. As such, the District's actions represent a best
practices model useful to any educational institution
faced with a discrepancy between resources available
and the needs of its students with disabilities.
1) Self-Evaluation including staff, students,
interpreters, instructors
On October 1, 1998, the College's Section 504 Officer
received a large packet of complaints from 15 students
related to interpreter issues. According to her report,
after determining that the students were eligible for
services on the stated dates, she found that among the
complaints were 30 complaints that an interpreter did
not show, 8 complaints that an interpreter was late, 7
complaints that the changing of interpreters all the time
was extremely confusing, 3 complaints that the level of
the interpreter was not sufficient for the level of the
class, and 2 complaints about the inability to contact
the office for interpreting services. Following an
internal review of the complaints, she concluded that:
"Overall, an average of 92.3% of all requests for
interpreters were met. Reviewing the reasons for the
absence of interpreters, the following situations were
documented: 1) Prior to the beginning of the semester,
one 30 hr/wk contract interpreter, three 30 hr/wk
hourly interpreters and one 15 hr/wk hourly
interpreter, did not return. 2) During the semester, due
to illness and a family emergency, a total of four other
interpreters were out for various lengths of time. 3)
Outside sign language interpreter referral agencies
were unable to fill the vacancies. After contacting
other colleges in the area, it was apparent that the
[District] differ[s] from these schools in two very
important areas. First, compared to other community
colleges, there is a significantly larger (three to four
times larger) deaf population at [District] campuses.
Secondly, unlike [a nearby University] only a small
number of students enrolled at the campuses of [the
District] are able to take advantage of the real time
captioning option. These two factors contribute to [the
District's] need for a larger number of interpreting
hours." (The Section 504 Officer did not explain in her
report why the College's students were not "able" to
take advantage of steno-interpreting.)
In her report signed November 2, 1998, the College's
Section 504 Coordinator made several
recommendations, including the hiring of an Interpreter
Coordinator and a full-time clerical person, as well as
hiring more interpreters. Of particular interest to OCR
was her recommendation that "Students with the
necessary skills to benefit from real time captioning
should have this option explained to them at the
beginning of the semester as part of their orientation."
She also recommended that because interpreter
personnel problems adversely affected the students, an
outside agency should evaluate the current program.
2) Outside Experts Consulted
Pursuant to the foregoing Section 504 Officer's
recommendation, the District contracted with the
Western Region Outreach Center and Consortia
(WROCC) of the National Center on Deafness at
California State University, Northridge, to conduct an
"Interpreting Services Review" by a team of experts.
This review occurred on January 11-13, 1999, and the
results were written up in a report completed February
22, 1999. The WROCC commended the District on its
"reputation [for] having a quality program that allows
students who are deaf and hard of hearing full access
to the district and its programs and services. It has an
infrastructure that evidences a well thought through
delivery system. Already in place are procedures and
forms to ensure a smooth running operation. Examples
include: Interpreter handbooks, student policies for
obtaining services and advisement, letters to inform
faculty that will have deaf or hard of hearing students
in class."
However, in light of the District's crisis with regard to
providing sign language interpreter services, the
WROCC report recommended that an Interpreter