Thread by @naomicaselli

Check out this paper @wyattehall and @jmhenner and I wrote about using sign language interpreters in #deafed with children who have experienced or are at risk for language deprivation. link.springer.com/article/10.100… Here is a summary: 1/18

tl;dr Deafness ≠ language deprivation. Educating kids who are deaf ≠ educating kids with language deprivation. We argue that sign language interpreters are not a good accommodation for kids at risk for language deprivation, and may actually do more harm than good. 2/18

Deafness is an audiological status. Language deprivation is an acquired consequence of limited language input during early childhood. Deaf kids need access to education in whatever language(s) they know. Kids with or at risk for language deprivation need language education. 3/18

Sign language interpreters *may* be an effective way of providing access to education for deaf children (i.e., who have a language foundation). We argue interpreters are not an effective way of providing language education for children with/at risk for language deprivation. 4/18

First and foremost, interpreters are generally
not trained in language education, and are not afforded
the time or authority to provide such services. 5/18

Some states require classroom interpreters have a minimum score on the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA). 6/18

Interpreters with a 3.5 have "knowledge of basic vocabulary, but lack vocabulary for more technical, complex, or academic topics" and need repetition or assistance to understand ASL. Interpreters with a 4.0 "have difficulty with complex topics or rapid turn taking." 7/18

Nicodemus and Emmorey found that expert interpreters had a 25.8% error rate, and novice interpreters had a 58.3% error rate in interpreting three-minute personal narratives
and informational texts. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… 8/18

We also know that accuracy rates steeply decline after about 30 minutes of interpreting, but educational interpreters often work continuously all day. 9/18

There is no empirical evidence that children with language deprivation can learn a first language 1) without explicit, immersive language instruction, 2) from a single language model, 3) from (stilted and error-filled) interpreted language. 10/18

The longer a child spends with limited access to language, the worse their outcomes. Using interpreters in lieu of more appropriate educational environments may prolong the time a child spends with limited access to language, thereby worsening outcomes. 11/18

Some might argue (we agree) using interpreters is better than nothing, but the legal standard ( Endrew v. Douglas County) is greater than de minimus. IEPs must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." 12/18

We are calling for systemic change in practice. Schools should consider using educational interpreters only in exceptional circumstances (i.e., when there is clear benefit and no risk of exacerbating language deprivation). 13/18

Interpreters should not accept work in educational contexts without evidence that doing so would not hamper students’ ability to thrive. Interpreters should counsel those requesting their services about safer alternatives. 14/18

Professional organizations for sign language interpreters should openly condemn the practice of educational interpreting except in rare circumstances. Professional organizations could lobby for legislation to minimize use of educational interpreters. 15/18

Certifying bodies could cease to offer credentials for educational interpreters, which lend credence to this harmful practice. 16/18

Instead we suggest schools provide immersive language-learning environments staffed with teachers who are experts in language education and fluent in ASL. Congregate deaf students so they have a social system with deaf peers & adults who can communicate directly in ASL. 17/18

Such environments play a crucial role in language and social development, and can affirm students’ socio-cultural identity. 18/18

Lastly, we focused here on ASL and the US educational system, but we suspect many of the arguments would also apply elsewhere.

Here is an open access version of the paper: sites.bu.edu/lexlab/files/2…