CART Versus TypeWell. Does a College Have the Right to Choose?
TypeWell involves transcription of the meaning of what is being said through summarization and paraphrasing, not a verbatim transcription. This is clearly explained on TypeWell's meaning for meaning page. It is similar to what an interpreter does. On the other hand, CART provides a verbatim, word-for-word transcription.
The mother wants to know if the college is required to offer CART instead of TypeWell even if the college prefers to offer TypeWell to save money. I did some research to see what I could find, and found this language on a website about the ADA and public schools:
The public entity shall honor the choice [of the deaf individual for a particular auxiliary aid] unless it can demonstrate that another effective means of communication exists
Not only that, but according to Typewell's own page on the law, "...in determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the request of the individual with disabilities." However, at the same time, "Federal Interpretive Guidance directs that schools do not need to provide the student with the exact accommodation requested. What is required is that the accommodation provided is effective."
I wrote back to the mother, "I could be wrong, but I interpret the above language to mean that the college is required to honor the request for CART, BUT if the college can prove that Typewell is "another effective means" you may be stuck with Typewell."
Was that the correct answer? Can the college be legally required to provide the more expensive CART over the less expensive Typewell?
Previous blog posts on CART:
Comments
An argument could be made that the sign language interpreter may not have the advantage of understanding the subject being interpreted; same situation as a Typewell transcriber. This affects the accuracy of the speech to print.
Theoretically, this would not affect the CART transcriber because the focus is on capturing every word, whether or not it is understood by the transcriber.
An argument could also be made for accuracy being essential to the technical subject being taught and the unavailability of a transcriber qualified to understand the technical subject.
Realistically, it sounds as if the Typewell transcriber would be better since it aims for understanding rather than for literal word for word transcribing…but we need to look at the ability and needs of the student first before considering the resources of the college and the transcriber.
I agree with everything Dianrez said.
I majored in mechanical engineering and never received CART for my classes since I was at RIT and thus they had hundreds of ASL interpreters on staff. It didn’t matter that I wasn’t fluent in ASL, they wouldn’t pay for CART. I was doing ok, and had note takers, so we didn’t try to fight them about it or anything.
By my third year, they did offer me C-Print, which is similar to TypeWell. I remember that my typists felt so bad because they couldn’t comprehend much of the engineering lectures and couldn’t keep up with all the equations. They always asked me if I “got anything at all” from having them there and were apologetic and couldn’t believe “how hard my classes” were.
So I’d say that if they can find a TypeWell typist who feels comfortable with the subject matter, then that should be a good accommodation. A pretty Big If for some subjects and I don’t know how you test, maybe ask the professor to evaluate the transcripts and see what they think.
I wouldn’t put the interpreter in the same bag as typewell simply because both carry the risk of being less adequate because they may not know the material they’re translating.
There is a powerful difference between having a person who can sign faster than what is spoken as typing does have speed limits. Also, with an interpreter, there is less of a lag and discussion is more likely to happen between the student and teacher.
I say push for Cart and tell your son to pretend that he’s not getting the gist of the assignment cause typewell abbrevates everything.
I hated it growing up when parents gave me the nutshell on everything. my encouragement is to fight for your right to full access.
Interesting topic. I personally prefer CART over Typewell for advanced courses. I want to know what they are talking about… CART is very expensive. CART is used alot in legal stuff as well as live captioning on TV news.
Many interpreters are not comfortable with very technical courses like advanced alegbra, etc… They are hard to translate…
dog food, there is no need to pretend. If the student isn’t getting the information, s/he isn’t getting the information. If the student is getting the information, then s/he doesn’t need CART.
I get embarrassed when deafies tell others to just fake it or make stuff up to get accommodations. People won’t be willing to accommodate us if they think we’re making stuff up.
i am not sure what typewell is. However i am not fluent enough in ASL or even sign language. When i had CART, i finally got A’s in my classes and made the deans list. When i got the voice cart, that was even more frustrating since most voice recognition programs arent that good. and that operator then has to go home and spend another hour to three hours fixing any typos, errors on the material before she can send it to me. With CART, i had the actual material, could follow along during class, even make my own comments. So i believe that the school has to provide what allows the student to SUCCEED. I am sorry but notetakers didnt work for me, during the time with notetakers and interpreters i was lucky to pass with C’s. just simply becuase i couldnt accurately study the material that was presented in class. True they have texts, but more and more teachers are grading you on lecture materials and attendance in college now if you want to pass with A’s or B’s. I encourage all deaf and hard of hearing people out there to expect and demand materials that will allow them to succeed. i will be going through that battle again when i go to another college this fall. I am not looking forward to it but in the long run, will be worth it.
I agree with the comment about voice CART. It is probably worse than Typewell for a class.
This means that although the school can take into consideration and attempt the child’s choice in communication device, it is not required. However, if the child also has a learning disability in addition to being deaf, there may be a real argument here. Real time caption gives everything being said, not just abridged versions. That is one of the many things missing from some forms of communication because sometimes it is the little things that can make a picture clear, especially for a student. I was stuck with notetakers for my classes and didn’t have anything else available for me. I had to end up dropping out of college because of so much that I was missing. Even though they train note takers, I could not understand the notes being taken and the notes were only some hints as to what was said in class. I love real time caption. It is definately the choice for me, but everyone is different. I just wish I had it available for me back in school.
I am deaf and have a couple of physical diiferences which makes walking, carrying or lifting, and sitting for long periods a little bit of a challenge. I completed two undergraduate degrees; the second while being merely, “profoundly hard of hearing”. By the time I could tackle grad school I was deaf. Note takers? HA! There is no such thing. Your professors have to request that other students take the responsibility of using substandard carbon type paper or you can stand in front of your peers and ask. That is not right. It violates the principalities of the legislation which is supposed to allow EQUAL access to students with differences. There should be review of each states approach to effective means to assist students with physical differences.
I am a RID certified interpreter and a TypeWell transcriber. I believe that TypeWell is an excellent “notetaker” as we are trained to provide complete sentences and complete thoughts, unlike most hearing students who voluntarily take notes. With that said, I agree that ASL provides more opportunity for a student to be involved in the class. If I had my way, complex college courses would have a transcriber and an interpreter available for the student. Then the student would be able to pay attention in class, be involved and still be able to review MEANINGFUL notes after class.
In the case above, IF the transcriber has a knowledge of the material (or the college grants them access to ALL materials for adequate prep time WELL BEFORE class), TypeWell should be just as good of an accomodation as CART.
I too am a certified interpreter (RID/SC:Legal & CSC; NAD/Master, ACCI/Master). I type 110 words a minute for a sustained speed of 10 minutes; however I can write on a stenomachine for a sustained speed of 180-200 words a minute for over an hour, with the ability to provide speaker identifiers, and a strike vocabulary of 250,000 entries. I DISAGREE that typing (with macros in MS Word or TypeWell/C-Print, which is the same as using macros) is the same as traditional CART provision, with court reporting / stenomachine technology. IT IS NOT THE SAME as providing realtime captioning/CART at near verbatim capability. Using TypeWell or C-Print is like leaving out 35% of what is said. It is presumptuous to compare ASL interpreting to summarized typing - there is very little similarity… summarized typing is access, to be sure, but at what price? ASL interpreting is interpreting from one language to another, not providing coded English from spoken English, in a paraphrased method/ If a student is getting even 70% of a classroom lecture, what is the student missing? 30% (at the discretion of the typist). If interpreters decide what to interpret or not, they would deserve decertification; an interpret is not supposed to edit or provide a summary of what is being said. It is laughable to state that summary typing is meaning for meaning, and certainly does not meet the guidelines for communications access, as described in the ADA. The only similarity I can find with a CART provider who uses court reporting technology (as I do) would be a TRAINED stenomask CART provider. A good stenomask CART provider is the equivalent of a CART provider who uses court reporting / stenomachine technology. There is an slight and incidental noise produced by the “MASKER” but mask’s baffles are designed to block out as much of the voice as possible, while rendering the near-verbatim transcription. Some students may want summary typing (TypeWell/C-Print); I would make sure, however, that it is not a coerced choice, but - as previously mentioned by the other certified interpreter who commented here - rather an augmentation of interpreting services (used as notetaking). A student may not want 20-30 pages per hour of lecture; however, MS Word (2007) as an auto summary ability, should the student want summarized notes from the captioner/CART provider.