Updated June 10, 2015.
Each state is *supposed* to define the mimimum qualifications for interpreters in public schools. Most have not done so. Some states (IL comes to mind) have defined the minimum qualifications necessary for ALL terps in the state - except in public schools, which have been waived from the requirements. If I lived in such a state and my child were still in school, I would be organizing a class action suit against the state for failure to provide equal protection under law.
Michigan was the first state to establish standards for interpreters in public schools. Michigan has a Quality Assurance [QA] system, which awards ratings of I (lowest,) II and III (highest). It is acknowledged that the QA system is inferior to RID certification and that RID certified interpreters have demonstrated a higher level of skill than a QA III. However, because the cost of taking the RID examination is prohibitive to many, it is acknowledged that many QA III terps could pass the RID certification test if they wanted to pay the money to do so, not to mention travelling out of state at least twice. But that's a different rant.
Thus, in 1986 public hearings were held relative to qualification standards for interpreters in public schools. I, and many, many others testified and/or sent in written comments. To my knowledge there was no testimony recommending anything less than a QA-III as the minimum credential necessary to be qualified to terp in public schools. Despite the record of comment and testimony, the dept of ed recommended to the state board of education that an interpreter in public schools in MI, may be: 1) A person who has advanced training from a state-approved (there are three of these) interpreter training program; 2) A person who holds a valid MI QA II or III; 3) A person who holds valid certification from RID.
Due to a hue and cry, the dept's only concession was to clarify in a policy memo that "advanced training" means graduation from. The rule passed in 1986 and was to take effect in 1987. Note that under the first scenario, if a person graduates from an ITP, even at the bottom of his/her class, and is NEVER able to pass any kind of terp test, that person would not be allowed to terp for anyone in a state agency, a hospital, a court, etc., in MI, but they would be allowed to terp in public school. (MI defines a terp, for all other purposes, as one with a valid MI QA or RID certification.)
In 1987 the director of sped for the state asked the state board of ed to waive enforcement of terp qualifications for one year (until 1988) due to the ongoing shortage of qualified terps. The board did so. In 1988, the (then) new director of sped for the state (now retired) asked the board to extend enforcement, without a sunset clause. (Meaning, without any date at which the "waiver" would expire.) The board did so, but with the following requirements: Public educational agencies in MI could hire terps who do not meet the standards of the state, and still receive reimbursement for their employment on the condition that the terp would achieve the state standard within two years. After two years of waiver, the public agency would no longer be eligible to recover reimbursement for the employment of that person. (Note, the employment was not *forbidden* - just that after two years, the agency couldn't get any state and federal funds for employing that person. It is unclear as to whether the public agency could get Intermediate School District funds.) Additionally, during those two years of "grace" the candidate also had to either acquire six credit hours of courses from an approved interpreter training program (that's two classes) OR attend one of the state educational interpreter workshops (which is about 12 clock hours.)
I have been somewhat of a slackard. For several years after this policy passed, I sent an annual FOIA request to the state superintendent of public instruction, asking for a copy of the state monitoring procedures relative to unqualified terps in the public schools; specifically, how they monitored that unqualified terps did, indeed, perform the minimum requirements during the two year grace period, and how they monitored the attainment of a minimum standard once the grace period had expired. I also asked for a copy of the state's refusals to reimburse agencies that employed terps who did not attain minimum qualification after two years or who did not comply with the minimum required activities during the two years of grace. The superintendant responded that I was abusing FOIA, since I cannot force the state to create documents that do not exist. There's the answer! I believe that what this meas is that all agencies are reimbursed for the employment of all terps and all un-/under- qualified terps. Here we are in 2000, and it is still going on. I haven't sent one of those FOIA letters in a few years, but it's on my "to do list."
Each state is *supposed* to define the mimimum qualifications for interpreters in public schools. Most have not done so. Some states (IL comes to mind) have defined the minimum qualifications necessary for ALL terps in the state - except in public schools, which have been waived from the requirements. If I lived in such a state and my child were still in school, I would be organizing a class action suit against the state for failure to provide equal protection under law.
Michigan was the first state to establish standards for interpreters in public schools. Michigan has a Quality Assurance [QA] system, which awards ratings of I (lowest,) II and III (highest). It is acknowledged that the QA system is inferior to RID certification and that RID certified interpreters have demonstrated a higher level of skill than a QA III. However, because the cost of taking the RID examination is prohibitive to many, it is acknowledged that many QA III terps could pass the RID certification test if they wanted to pay the money to do so, not to mention travelling out of state at least twice. But that's a different rant.
Thus, in 1986 public hearings were held relative to qualification standards for interpreters in public schools. I, and many, many others testified and/or sent in written comments. To my knowledge there was no testimony recommending anything less than a QA-III as the minimum credential necessary to be qualified to terp in public schools. Despite the record of comment and testimony, the dept of ed recommended to the state board of education that an interpreter in public schools in MI, may be: 1) A person who has advanced training from a state-approved (there are three of these) interpreter training program; 2) A person who holds a valid MI QA II or III; 3) A person who holds valid certification from RID.
Due to a hue and cry, the dept's only concession was to clarify in a policy memo that "advanced training" means graduation from. The rule passed in 1986 and was to take effect in 1987. Note that under the first scenario, if a person graduates from an ITP, even at the bottom of his/her class, and is NEVER able to pass any kind of terp test, that person would not be allowed to terp for anyone in a state agency, a hospital, a court, etc., in MI, but they would be allowed to terp in public school. (MI defines a terp, for all other purposes, as one with a valid MI QA or RID certification.)
In 1987 the director of sped for the state asked the state board of ed to waive enforcement of terp qualifications for one year (until 1988) due to the ongoing shortage of qualified terps. The board did so. In 1988, the (then) new director of sped for the state (now retired) asked the board to extend enforcement, without a sunset clause. (Meaning, without any date at which the "waiver" would expire.) The board did so, but with the following requirements: Public educational agencies in MI could hire terps who do not meet the standards of the state, and still receive reimbursement for their employment on the condition that the terp would achieve the state standard within two years. After two years of waiver, the public agency would no longer be eligible to recover reimbursement for the employment of that person. (Note, the employment was not *forbidden* - just that after two years, the agency couldn't get any state and federal funds for employing that person. It is unclear as to whether the public agency could get Intermediate School District funds.) Additionally, during those two years of "grace" the candidate also had to either acquire six credit hours of courses from an approved interpreter training program (that's two classes) OR attend one of the state educational interpreter workshops (which is about 12 clock hours.)
I have been somewhat of a slackard. For several years after this policy passed, I sent an annual FOIA request to the state superintendent of public instruction, asking for a copy of the state monitoring procedures relative to unqualified terps in the public schools; specifically, how they monitored that unqualified terps did, indeed, perform the minimum requirements during the two year grace period, and how they monitored the attainment of a minimum standard once the grace period had expired. I also asked for a copy of the state's refusals to reimburse agencies that employed terps who did not attain minimum qualification after two years or who did not comply with the minimum required activities during the two years of grace. The superintendant responded that I was abusing FOIA, since I cannot force the state to create documents that do not exist. There's the answer! I believe that what this meas is that all agencies are reimbursed for the employment of all terps and all un-/under- qualified terps. Here we are in 2000, and it is still going on. I haven't sent one of those FOIA letters in a few years, but it's on my "to do list."
Source...