The rule relative to interpreter qualifications is nugatory. (That's a legal term that means worthless for lack of enforcement.) Do we have any unqualified teachers, PTs, OTs, SLPs, etc? Do we even have unqualified bus drivers? Equal protection under law? I have gone on record many times as stating that our laws ensure that Deaf felons are provided with highly skilled and credentialed terps, but our innocent Deaf children are granted no similar protection under law. Truly, ours ARE children of a lesser god.
Well, that's not entirely true. I sued my school district over terps for my daughter. Case law, not IDEA, is supported by language in the ADA and Section 504 that states regardless of credentials (neither statute requires a terp to have any credentials) the terp must be able to provide equal access to communication, both expressively and receptively, including the ability to use specialized vocabulary, if need be. Case law pursuant to IDEA also indicates (one must extrapolate, but we did) that regardless of credentials, the terp must have the skills to implement the goals and objectives. If the child is in sped, there are uniquely tailored goals and objectives written into the IEP. If the child is in the mainstream, the general curriculum under which all the students are educated has goals and objectives. If the terp lacks the skills ensure that the goals and objectives are implemented, whether they be sped or curricular g's and o's, then the assignment of that terp to the child is **not ** FAPE.
The starting point for us, toward proving that, was not only JJ's language test scores (which are essentially tests of the English language) which showed that she was NOT language impaired, as well as an ASLPI (American Sign Language Proficiency Interview) which showed that she had full blown adult level ASL skills. (JJ was 13 at the time.) It is difficult to find persons qualfied to conduct and score an ASLPI. (We hired Betty Colonomos, one of the country's most qualified terps/terp trainers, who is an expert in her own right relative to ASL, as well as being an SLP.) However, the SCPI (Sign Communication Proficiency Interview) is much more available and evaluates a person's use of sign, regardless of flavor. (ASL, SEE, PSE, etc.) The child does not have to have the high level of language JJ had, in order to need a skilled terp. One has to look at the level of language used in the respective settings in which the terp will be used, as well as the fact that when a terp is used, it is because there is no direct instruction. There may or may not be other Deaf kids there, but the fact remains that the terp becomes the child's sole language model in the settings in which the terp is necessary. Therefore, the terp must be able to also demonstrate sufficient skill to model appropriate language so that the child's language skills can develop appropriately.
It's a worthwhile fight, but from personal experience, I can tell you it is not an easy row to hoe, and thus should not be entered into lightly. BTW, I filed suit in federal court against the school district after losing the decision and state level appeal. (I refuse to say losing the hearing and the appeal, because I know we WON.) However, it never came to trial. The district settled with me. It was a much better settlement than any judge was going to give us. Additionally, at that point I was running out of money. I wanted to have a clear-cut, unequivocal win, and, in the worst way, I wanted to set a precedent for ALL Deaf kids who use terps. However, I couldn't justify going into debt for other people's kids, as well as delaying a decision for JJ, which could have taken up to 3 more years. I repeatedly asked the other parents in the program to join me in this, make it a class action, and we would all split the bill. They consistently refused to do so. If they had joined me, I would have proceeded through the courts. But they didn't, so I accepted the settlement. It really was in JJ's best interest to do so, but it broke my heart that I was not able to set a precedent for other kids.
Taking the route that I did is the only one I know, both then and now, as an advocate. I came to believe that OCR was (and I believe still remains) utterly useless - a cruel hoax at the taxpayer's expense. However, I firmly believe that we must all file complaints with OCR whenever appropriate, if for no other reason than to document its disservice to the taxpayers in general, and our children in particular.
Fighting to get "interpreter services" is not difficult to achieve. But fighting for a truly qualified terp is not for the faint of heart. Good luck.
