Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

Educational Interpreters: The Answer to the Removal of Barriers to Educational Opportunity? S. Jordan Wright EDU 885 Gallaudet University May 6, 2013

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

In the context of mainstreaming, Deaf individuals are most likely not to engage in meaningful interaction with their hearing peers (Ramsey, 1997 p. 34). I contend that a Deaf child as a minority in a mainstreamed setting surrounded by a culture that places utmost value upon speech, the ability to hear, and the ability to converse in spoken English is not placed in a familiar or a comfortable environment. Additional accommodations or components of special education serve to further stigmatize a Deaf child within a mainstream setting. These stigmatizations can include but are not limited to: FM systems, Hearing Aids, Self-Contained Classrooms, and perhaps the most visible accommodation of all: the educational interpreter. The educational interpreter is likely to be the sole individual relatively fluent in American Sign Language. While a good percentage of teachers and paraprofessionals may know some sign or have a functional knowledge of sign language, this does not constitute fluency and still demonstrates the need for teachers and paraprofessionals to utilize an educational interpreter (Seal, 2000). Further, in this paper I will demonstrate how the placement of an educational interpreter is not the answer to the removal of educational barriers for Deaf children. The placement of an educational interpreter is a barrier to socialization and language development in itself for Deaf mainstreamed students in effect, creating a double barrier. The Need for Accommodations: An Institutional View

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

Deaf students in mainstream settings typically use the services of an educational interpreter in order to receive access to aurally delivered information within and outside of the classroom. There exists little evidence as to whether an educational interpreter can provide access to aurally delivered information in a manner that is unequivocally tantamount to an educational experience for Deaf students that equal to hearing peers (Marschark, Pelz, Convertino, Sapere, & et al, 2005). By complying with legal mandates for accommodations, it remains to be determined whether educational systems are actually helping Deaf students integrate in mainstream settings or in essence, diminish participation and the opportunity for whole language exposure t vis--vis unfettered access on par with their hearing peers. Despite significant gains in providing Deaf mainstreamed students with educational interpreters, the paucity of research that seeks to ascertain the effectiveness of such an accommodation focuses on post-secondary settings (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, & Maltzen, 2004; Marschark, Pelz, Convertino, Sapere, & et al, 2005; Marschark, 2005) There exists even less research on the effectiveness of and effects of implementing the services of educational interpreters in the K-12 classroom (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, & Maltzen, 2004). The results from various studies that analyze interpreter effectiveness and student comprehension in the classroom are not promising. Deaf students with Deaf parents raised with American Sign Language

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

(ASL) as their native language often do not demonstrate the same understanding of an aurally delivered college lecture through an experienced interpreter (Marschark, 2005). In the majority of experiments with Deaf college students using a variety of approaches to an interpreted lecture, the comprehension rate was consistently lower (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, & Maltzen, 2004; Marschark, 2005; Wolbers, Dimling, Lawson, & Golos, 2012) It has been demonstrated that interpreters in college classrooms are not an effective resource for equal access as the law theoretically implies. Now, I would like to examine these findings in the context of K-12 education and how this implementation of access potentially affects Deaf children who are still in the developmental stages of literacy, socialization, and overall development.

Rationale for Interpreters in the Classroom: A Brief Critical Theory Look Educational placements within mainstream settings for Deaf children are seated in the notion that disabled children can and will learn best from interaction with hearing peers as opposed to specialized settings such as a residential school for the Deaf. It is believed by proponents of mainstreaming that categorizing educational institutions into binary categories based on ability and disability such as a residential school for the deaf, in fact, segregates Deaf children further from society and prevents assimilation and the notion that education for children must proceed within society, through society, and for society (Vygotsky, 1925).

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

In light of this, I will examine how this championed notion of integration may have political and moral face value, but falls short of providing an educational experience for deaf children on par with their hearing peers by the invisible placement of a double barrier. There is no question that access to a general education classroom is different for deaf students, and perhaps reduced. (Schick, Williams, & Kupermintz, 2006). Yet, integration is an idea that is perceived to be an appropriate and just treatment for society. This is accomplished by assimilating individuals with disabilities in educational settings alongside those able-bodied individuals purportedly as a measure from which cross-socialization and learning can occur in an environment that affords equal opportunity. However, the idea of inclusion is in itself, a fantastic oxymoron. Through the lens of critical Disability Theory, the very institutions that have determined mainstreaming as a fortuitous move towards social justice and equity are by nature, the very institutions that created binary notions of ableism in the first place (Devlin & Pothier, 2006 p.7) Ableism is responsible for determining on an arbitrary basis what classifies as us versus the others to illustrate: an individual with eyeglasses is not disabled, but a blind person is. An individual who is a little hard of hearing is not disabled, but a hearing impaired child is. The sociopolitical agenda of neo-liberalism demands a more inclusive society yet, the weaknesses of such an agenda, especially where Deaf children in mainstreamed

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

settings are concerned, is actually in retrograde towards more exclusionary practices as I will demonstrate in this paper. And yet, our country has gone fullspeed ahead in adopting ever-more inclusionary legislation that demands integration, which for the Deaf mainstreamed child comes to mean the provision of educational interpreters. As previously mentioned, available literature seems to indicate little or no research has been done to demonstrate the impact of whether or not an educational interpreter does, in fact help or hinder the educational process of deaf mainstreamed students. Observation and analysis of the mainstreamed classroom establishes that the mere act of placing a deaf student in a mainstreamed setting is to be more than just a simple treatment (Kluwin, 1993). That is to say applying a one-sizefits-all paradigm to deaf mainstreamed students is simply not enough, as is often the case. Furthermore, to make a bad situation even worse, educational interpreters in many ways act as end up not functioning as an interpreter because The role of the educational interpreter is often ambiguous. Per job description, Educational interpreters often are required to provide tutoring to the deaf student, serve as a counselor, disciplinarian, teach sign language to hearing students, take notes, correct assignments, and essentially serve as an assistant to the teacher for the bulk of the classroom (Jones, 1997). Kluwin also argues that the act of mainstreaming, while being a historically prolific trend, simply is an institution with no clear shape, form or direction. The practice of mainstreaming indicates that at current, we are in fact,

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

thrown back to the very basis of special education, that is, the very consideration of each child and each situation (Kluwin, 1993). In light of clear expectations in terms of legislation, it fails to clearly define an interpreter, the role of an interpreter in educational settings, nor does it differentiate between educational and other qualifications of interpreters. Blindly complying with the law by providing a perceived accommodation, I argue that the legal purview of interpreters in educational settings is a double barrier masquerading as an accommodation.

Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development The qualifications of an educational interpreter have a direct impact upon the social interaction of deaf mainstreamed students, and subsequently, the opportunity of continuous immersion in Zones of Proximal Development. By channeling all communication through one medium (the interpreter) in an attempt to engage in meaningful interactions with more skilled communication partners, Deaf students are effectively shut out of opportunities to move into their ZPD. At best, Deaf students in mainstream settings are engaging in approximations of zones of proximal development. Hearing peers in the same classroom have continuous access to adults fluent in the same language and receive instruction through adult-child dialogue that is absent of communication barriers. Without communication barriers or intermediaries, hearing children are in optimal

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

situations of ZPD in which a teacher can engage and scaffold students into more advanced milestones of language and learning. The simple act of communicating between teacher and child is the catalyst that makes ZPD so successful. The same is not true for Deaf children using an interpreter to engage in the same rich dialogue, therefore any ZPD activity is a mere approximation or at best a quasiapproach to learning. Although it is not explicit within the role (or job description) of an educational interpreter to facilitate language acquisition or social interaction, an educational interpreter by the virtue of what the job involves is ghost-written into such a role. Educational interpreters often become the sole source of communication access for the deaf mainstreamed student, as well as quasifriend/counselor/reporter (Jones, 1997). Furthermore, linguistic models for children can only be rendered in a context that is easily accessible. Given that an educational interpreter theoretically provides only access to communication with non-signers, the very act itself forces a dynamic in which the interpreter becomes the linguistic model, instead of the teacher serving as a vehicle for which deaf children can learn. This calls for a need to make closer examination of the linguistic models, which deaf students are to emulate for the duration of their schooling.

Unpacking Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

It has been established that language gains are made through socialization with peers, comfortable surroundings, and access to fluent individuals utilizing the same language. Lev Vygotsky interpreted the advancing development of children in language and learning as the Zones of Proximal Development. ZPD plays an important role in the language development of all children. Vygotsky defined the maturation of ZPD as: The zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. These functions could be termed the buds or flowers of development rather than the fruits of development (Moll, 1990). Vygotsky stipulated that the act of learning and development are not necessarily processes independent of themselves but rather, processes that are intertwined and dependent upon one another (Wink, 2002 p.86). The ZPD supposes a certain level of complexity in any situation involving dialogue with a child. Vygotsky prompts us to identify the current level of ability in a childs independent thinking process, and push just beyond the childs current abilities so as to engage him in a zone that essentially boosts the child into a higher realm of thought that he can achieve independently with some prompting from a more advanced peer. In this type of engagement, the child internalizes information independently and is able to perform critically in advanced proximate concepts that are just beyond his grasp.

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

10

Wink, in A Vision of Vygotsky (2002) has incorporated a visual description that illustrates the concept of ZPD in a concise manner using a hot air balloon as an illustrative example (pp.-87-88). This elementary illustration consists of the ground, a hot air balloon, a cloud, and the sky. The illustration purports that the ground is representative of the childs current developmental level, while the sky represents unlimited opportunity for achievement as measured by the distance between ground and sky. The clouds in question are said to represent assistance from a more capable peer, while the hot air balloon is indicative of the direction a childs development can go within ZPD. As is the nature of hot air balloons, a number of factors are necessary to control for ascent, speed, direction, and changing of winds. This is parallel to the ZPD concept: clouds can guide a hot air balloon, but cannot control the ascent. The ascent must be executed by the pilot strategically producing blasts from his burner (independent and internalized thinking). Although the exact path can not always be a vertical ascent from ground to sky, when children become active participants in their learning process of intertwined language and development, the path from ground to sky is more than the distance of proximal development a child would have gained alone. Building upon Winks hot air balloon diagram, I go further to add that the Illustration is ideal for hearing students, but is not a congruent image for Deaf students with the placement of an educational interpreter in mainstream settings. In Winks description of the idyllic hot air balloon metaphor, she states There is,

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

11

however, always an element of risk: An unexpected shift in the wind can cause the balloon to change direction, so that even the pilot cannot be absolutely certain where the balloon is headed and when it will end its flight (Wink, 2002 p.87). The risks assumed by a hearing student traversing the zone of proximal development can be accidentalbut beneficialso long as the pilot/student continues to ascend. For Deaf students, the hot air balloon ride is a different experience altogether. Imagine a mainstream classroom set out for a hot air balloon festival, each student piloting a balloon of their own. The resulting skyscape would show a veritable rainbow of balloons rising off the ground (their current zone of development) at varying rates of velocity and altitude (individualized journey of language and development) with some balloons cruising nicely at a steady ascent, while others may become static, even drifting eastward with stray winds (the risk involved in the journey). Yet, we notice one hot air balloon that is buffeting in the wind, a fixed dot of color on the horizon. Looking closer, we see that the Deaf pilot/student continually blasts hot air into the balloon to no avail, as the winds toss it maddeningly back and forth. Below the balloons basket, we see there is a tether still attached and staked firmly in the ground. The stake and tether represent the mainstream institution and the educational interpreter. Both of these dynamics together, serve to effectively trap the Deaf child in an approximation of his current zone of development while his hearing peers are free to traverse the

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

12

limitless sky. It is this concrete metaphor that demonstrates a vicious cycle of victimization and complacency that is caused by the placement of an educational interpreter, which minimizes the opportunity for adult-child engagement and barred opportunities for ZPD growth. Language Through Socialization Opportunities Language is not merely a product of rote memorization and drills of the classroom by which students regurgitate piecemeal lessons into purposefully constructed language. Rather, as Ramsey contends, language is a catalyst for socialization, which allows children to experiment and exercise among various components of language (Ramsey, 1997 p. 6). Socialization occurs within familiar surroundings, with individuals who are fluent in the same language, and provided with the opportunity to awaken a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers (Ramsey, 1997 p. 7) If language is the vehicle, which drives social interaction, which in turn fosters development in language and eventually harnessing the power of cognitive skill development, therein lies a barrier in how Deaf children in mainstreamed settings accomplish this through an educational interpreter as a sole fixture. This is taken within the context in which hearing children are able to access a veritable landscape of revolving linguistic models in dynamic breadth and depth. Hearing children in school settings are exposed to countless opportunities for advanced

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

13

adult/peer interlocutors. Not only that, the exposure offers a variety of styles, backgrounds, knowledge, demographic contexts that serve to provide a rich palette in which language and development paints upon the canvas within the minds of children. In order for children to reap the benefits of ZPD opportunities, there must exist a path for development that allows a student to engage in teacher-controlled learning while scaffolding in such a way that the student ultimately is able to engage in self-regulated performance (Dixon-Krauss, 1996). As we have previously seen in the hot air balloon metaphor, the teacher provides guided support through social interaction, which allows the student to build cooperative avenues of awareness, comprehension, and an understanding of cognitive advancement. The process unfolds further as the teacher draws the child through his current zone to the next cognitive advancement level that is just beyond his grasp. Factors Acting as Tethers to the ZPD Hot Air Balloon Learning within ZPD for Deaf children does not take place in a vacuum, absent from competing, external factors. That is to say, a teacher by merely working with the student cannot foster growth within advancing stages of ZPD but rather, this growth is dependent on a variety of factors. For instance, adultchild dialogue among hearing teachers and students is dependent upon semiotic flexibility (Dixon-Krauss, 1990). Semiotic flexibility refers to the adults nuanced

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

14

shifts in speech and language that shape and direct the responses that are uttered to a child. These nuances further direct the child in moving from explicit directives working towards vague hints until ultimately, the child is able to perform tasks independently. At the same time, the teachers responses to the child are dependent upon feedback from the child. Vygotsky has emphasized the concept of semiotic mediation, which is a key tool in unlocking the magic that occurs within dialogue between adults and children. Language, as Vygotsky put forth that semiotic mediation is essentially the use of symbols or signs that lend clarity to our actions. Through this process, people are able to create connections that turn signs into symbols. It is essentially the process in which transforming signs are used to make symbols that are meaningful (Wink, 2002 p.152). In order for this dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there presupposes an assumption that what a speaker (or signer) says make sense and all synchronous cues (contextual, body language, intonation) work in synergy to produce an equivocal understanding on the part of the listener. However, a child may have a completely different understanding of what is communicated by an adult that little, by way of understanding may take place. It is then, the role of the adult becomes critical, inferring what is needed to interpret the adults directives in essence, making the implicit explicit as an independent output of the childs thought process (Bonkowski, 2000 pp. 189-90)

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

15

In working with Deaf students, all of this dialogue must go through an interpreter. Semiotic flexibility cannot be a successful phenomenon with an interpreter acting as an intermediary through which adult-child dialogue must occur. Nuanced shifts in speech and language can be interpreted into ASL, but do not necessarily provide the same experience of direct instruction that is afforded to hearing peers. It is difficult to say whether educational interpreters lack the relevant skill in capturing the nuances of semiotic mediation used within adultchild interaction, rendering the message to a Deaf student with the same level of dialogue/inference to-and-fro pull that is used by hearing adults with hearing children in order to make the implicit explicit. (Carmel Collum Yarger, 2001; King, 2001; Wolbers, Dimling, Lawson, & Golos, 2012). Adult-child dialogue is a necessity if children are to develop literacy skills within the classroom. In essence, the Deaf child is ironically left behind by the very legislative acts that are designed not to leave children behind. Although there are several federal mandates such as IDEA and the Rehabilitation act of 1973 that purportedly provide accommodations for Deaf children attending local public schools, it is alarmingly vague and contradicts the intention of such legislature. The law only stipulates that an interpreter is an acceptable form of accommodation while saying precious little on precisely what defines an interpreter. A general study of the literature reveals that educational interpreters generally have little more than a high school diploma, lack fluency in

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

16

ASL, lack relevant training, are not nationally certified and have not scored higher than the minimal skill level (3.5) set forth by the EIPA, (King, 2001; Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, & Maltzen, 2004; Seal, 2000; Wolbers, Dimling, Lawson, & Golos, 2012). The abysmal skill level of interpreters is not the locus of the problem in constituting an additional barrier to Deaf children in mainstream education, even the most highly qualified interpreters in the nation would still constitute a double barrier to Deaf students in mainstream settings. While interpreter skill certainly plays a role in allowing Deaf children to have varying degrees of access to mainstream education, even the most skilled interpreters would not be able to provide Deaf students with the ZPD learning opportunities as conceived by Vygotsky (Wolbers, Dimling, Lawson, & Golos, 2012). Even the most skilled interpreters that have been utilized in research observations were found to focus predominantly on the content of academics, and academic language. The focus of the interpreters in these studies indicate that educational interpreters place an emphasis on academic language while ignoring, or even omitting the rich opportunities that are afforded by advanced adult-peer interaction which would engage students into ZPD opportunities to pilot their hot air balloon higher towards the clouds. This results in less student-to-student interaction and subsequently, less teacher interaction when compared to the attention hearing students receive (Shaw & Jamieson, 1997). As a result of this, a Deaf child may miss almost half of the communication that occurs within a

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

17

classroom. Subsequently, the opportunity for learning in peer-to-peer opportunities is diminished due to the fact that social interactions and built-in cultural exchanges such as the appropriate time to interrupt, or the appropriate way to play with friends result in social blunders because of the interpreter omitting information (Monikowski, 2004). When considering this information and repackaging it into the ZPD concept as applied to hearing children, it is akin to forcing a wooden square peg into a place where a circle should be. Even more alarming is that research shows 19% of Deaf students total signed expressions are voice interpreted, while 81% of expressions were either directed to the interpreter alone or were not interpreted (Wolbers, Dimling, Lawson, & Golos, 2012). With half of the communication in a classroom unavailable to a Deaf child coupled with a scant amount of their expressions voice interpreted to a teacher, further exacerbated by diminishing teacher interaction with Deaf students, it could be reasonably assumed that an interpreter is not effective in fostering the conditions necessary for ZPD and semiotic flexibility using whole language. Suppose we were to witness a scenario among a fourth grade Deaf Student Jennifer and her teacher Miss Pearl with her interpreter present. The conversation might go something like this: (Adapted from Schick, 2001) Teacher: Jennifer, do you remember last week we talked about reptiiiiles?

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

18

Jennifer: (confused) Yes? (flat interpreters voice) Teacher: Ok, which animal in this picture is a reptiiiile? Jennifer: (confused, shrugs shoulders slowly and appears to be thinking) Interpreter: (flatly) I dont know what a reptile is. Teacher: Ok Jennifer, now what book did we reaaad last week? Jennifer: A book about different animals living in water and the sun. Clearly, printed word does not allow for us to see what Jennifer has signed. Despite that, this is essential in demonstrating that a teacher does not know ASL, otherwise the interpreter would not be present. However, this transcription is similar to what the teacher may think Jennifer is saying, but in actuality she is not. As the teacher attempts to use symbiotic flexibility by raising her voice and emphasizing certain words, this does not translate into ASL. Similarly, when Jennifer signs yes in a half-sure and timid manner she is certainly not saying yes with no affect at all, which is borderline rude. Interpretation from ASL into English must also take into consideration facial expression and body movement. For example, when Jennifer shrugs her shoulders and appears to attempt recollection of last weeks lesson, she is not emphatically saying I dont know what a reptile is in a flat voice. Her expressions commonly in ASL appear to be

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

19

that of one who might remember but does not want to present the teacher with a wrong answer. Finally, because the teacher believes that Jennifer does not even understand the basic concept of the term reptile, she pushes Jennifer further out of her current ZPD and lower the level of conversation by asking: what book did we read? Jennifer may have signed crocodiles, snakes, swimming through water and basking in the sun. The interpreter has omitted the names of certain animals and makes no connection between water and sun. If Jennifer was conversing with someone fluent in ASL who did not need the services of an interpreter, this would most likely be construed as general representation of a book on reptiles and could help the teacher put her level of conversation much closer to her current ZPD and keep on going to even higher levels, reaching for the clouds, untethered in her hot air balloon by probing and challenging her with new concepts that are just beyond her current understanding. Prosody in ASL What is lacking in the above scenario is what researchers call Prosody in ASL. Prosody is a term used to describe changes in vocal pitch, volume, duration and repetition of a particular word or sound (Schick, 2001). As we can see above, prosody is used in adult-child interaction. As Schick states: Children are not miniature adults. As such, it makes sense that teachers do not talk to children like as if they were adults and conversely, children do not speak like adults when

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

20

conversing with a teacher. This equilibrium is upset by the placement of an interpreter. In order for adult-child interaction to be effective, the teacher must hear verbal utterances (from the interpreter) that are consistent with that of how a child would frame a question, elaborate upon an experience, or respond to a teachers directive. This means the interpreter must be adept at understanding developing child-like ASL. The Deaf child also needs feedback from an adult about the integrity of their messages, the mechanics of language, and directives that would assist the child in figuring out how to shape their expressions to make sense (Schick, 2001). The Deaf child needs feedback from the interlocutor, but with the placement of an interpreter such feedback becomes convoluted and preempted. The only feedback available to a Deaf child from an interpreter is often when the interpreter does not understand what the child has signed. When this feedback from the interpreter is given to the child, it is not done so in a private manner. This visual and verbal renegotiating of language can seem, from the perspective of the teacher to be a deficit that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Deaf child. This give-and-take struggle to be understood by the teacher only serves to further stigmatize the child, which further results in a severe blow to the selfesteem and psyche of a deaf child essentially battered into complacency as victims of a vicious cycle.

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

21

Victims of Complacency: A Vicious Cycle This is the start of an unfortunate cycle that commonly occurs with educational interpreters and Deaf students: 1) The interpreter does not understand the student and responds verbally in adult-like language. 2) The responses given verbally and signed to the student do not make sense to the student. 3) As this cycle continues, the student may attempt to self-rectify the situation by signing in a less complex manner (overtly simplified) , which may be uttered in a way that is perceived as incongruent by hearing people, or too simple. 4) The student may give up altogether and become complacent. The Deaf student bears the brunt of these errors by potentially exhibiting language delay which is associated with delays in some fundamental thinking skills (Schick, Hoffmeister, de Villiers & de Villiers, 2000). The model of interpretation as set froth by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) essentially assumes a one-size-fits all model (Marschark, 2005). As we have discussed, Deaf children are not miniature adults and therefore, should not be conversed with as such. In the same parallel, a one-size-fits all model of interpreting having grassroots in interpreting for adults in community settings is not appropriate for linguistic and social development of Deaf students in mainstream settings. Interpreters: Fostering Semilingualism?

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

22

The noted Dr. Jim Cummins introduced semilingual as a concept in the perspective of inquiring whether students from a linguistic minority can be legitimately characterized as semilingual, having inadequate development in both first and second languages. He also posed the question as to whether the linguistic deficits of semilinguals may have a casual relationship to poor academic achievement (Cummins, 2000). Cummins also states that there is overwhelming evidence that for both monolingual and bilingual students, the degree of language proficiency in school is a crucial intervening variable in mediating their academic progress (Cummins, 2000 p. 99). Approximately 95% of Deaf children are born to hearing parents (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004). It could reasonably be assumed that the majority of hearing parents may use a form of signed language in the home, but are likely not to be fluent in ASL. For most hearing people in the United States, the dominant language in the home is English. This calls into question the L1/L2 assignments of Deaf children as they enter mainstream settings. Provided that English is the native language in which a Deaf child is born to, it is not accurate to say that English would be the childs native language. If the same child also uses sign language with his family and attends the local public school using an educational interpreter, we could say that L1 is ASL being the language in which the student primarily functions, and may function best while L2 is English. In the case of Deaf mainstreamed students who use an interpreter, I argue that the very act of placing an interpreter in the

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

23

classroom in effect, fosters semilingualism in Deaf children. It could also reasonably be said that a Deaf child in this regard, according to Cummins may be doubly semilingual (Cummins, 2000 p. 99). Deaf children in mainstream settings, vis--vis the placement of an educational interpreter are stuck in tethered hot air balloons, as I have discussed metaphorically. As such, the exposure to English is limited in the school and arguably, at home. Exposure to ASL only occurs at the expense approximations of ZPD opportunities with a teacher that must occur through an intermediary the interpreter. As a result, the opportunity to become fluent in either English or ASL is diminished, which as Cummins states, categorizes Deaf children in mainstream settings as doubly semilingual. Deaf children are often victims of discriminatory schooling in which educational interpreters act as social and linguistic oppressors by managing the thinking of Deaf children for them, and simultaneously creating a lack of L1 instruction/submersion in L2, and thereby doubly semilingual (Wolbers, Dimling, Lawson, & Golos, 2012). Earlier, I have established that educational interpreters as a profession are lacking in fluency, training, and education. It has also been discussed that educational interpreters have difficulty understanding the ASL of developing Deaf children, which leads to a cycle of potential shutdown on the part of the student. It has also been demonstrated that adult-child interaction is overtly

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

24

difficult, if not impossible because interpreters are trained to speak like adults which further distorts communication between student and teacher, effectively pushing the Deaf student further out of her zone of proximal development. As a result, the Deaf student will experience a glass ceiling effect in which their responses are always uttered by an interpreter in a fashion that understates the students own linguistic abilities. This effectively means that Deaf students only have an interpreter who is ironically, semilingual from which to access L2, as speakers of ASL. In the absence of L1 instruction to provide immersion in English this, according to Cummins is discriminatory schooling at the sociopolitical level. A Deaf child using a semilingual interpreter to access the classroom cannot reasonably expect to have proportional development and growth in both BICS and CALP skill levels with the status quo model of the educational interpreter as the answer to removing barriers in the classroom.

Conclusion Mainstream programs attempt to provide inclusion and access by complying with various bodies of legislature that dictate what types of accommodations are necessary to satisfy said mandates. In the case of Deaf mainstreamed students who use ASL to communicate, the answer to this is often

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

25

the provision of an educational Interpreter. Ramsey, working within Vygotskys claim of social interaction as a vehicle to language development demonstrates the various barriers of a mainstream environment. Barriers such as the lack of interaction among fluent users of the same language, the diminished opportunity for meaningful social interaction with peers, and an unfamiliar environment make for a diminished experience among Deaf mainstreamed students. This is compounded by the fact that the mainstream system must be communicated with, rationalized with, and dealt with through one channel/being the interpreter. Earlier, it was established that interpreters are not effective in rendering significant comprehension among deaf students in a college classroom. Similarly, the paradigm of interpreting for adults only as a blanket model for providing services is ineffective for Deaf children which upsets the sensitive nature of adultchild dialogue and clouds where the true nature of the Deaf childs zones of proximal development. The very nature of mainstreaming for Deaf students with an interpreter have been shown to be different, foreign, and a reduced experience. This experience is reduced by omission of nearly 50% of communication that occurs around and to the Deaf child during the course of a school day. Even more alarming, it has been demonstrated that only a mere 19% of the students total signed communication was ever voice interpreted to the teacher while 81% was not voiced at all. In the absence of genuine, adult-child dialogue that is

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

26

tantamount to the Deaf childs hearing peers, it can reasonably be said that the provision of educational interpreters are not the removal of barriers to communication, but rather an additional barrier placed upon the Deaf child. Exacerbating this notion is the poorly skilled workforce of interpreters with a lack of training in the discipline whom are then expected to be catalysts for language development of a Deaf child. The placement of educational interpreters may very well constitute discriminatory schooling practices by oppressing Deaf students both socially and linguistically. Finally, to answer the question of whether an educational interpreter is the answer to the removal of barriers to educational opportunity: As a matter of opinion, based upon the information presented herein, I say no. Marschark also concludes If full access is deemed to mean exiting a course lecture with knowledge equivalent to hearing classmates, available findings clearly indicate that the answer to the above question is no (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, Seewagen, & Maltzen, 2004). As such, despite the legal demands of inclusion, an educational interpreter is a barrier that masquerades as an accommodation.

References

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

27

Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man and his cause. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Bonkowski, N. Gavalek, J., & Akamatsu, T. Education and the social construction of mind:Vygotskian perspectives on the cognitive development of deaf children (pp. 185-194). In Martin, D. S. (Ed.). (2000). Advances in cognition, education, and deafness. Gallaudet University Press.

Carmel Collum Yarger. (2001). Educational interpreting: Understanding the rural experience. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(1), 16-30.

Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated Literacy Instruction and Assessment. Addison Wesley Longman, One Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867.

Devlin, R. & Pothier, D. (2006). Introduction: Toward a critical theory of dis-citizenship. In R. & D. Pothier, eds., Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Policy, Politics, and Law. British Columbia, CAN: University of British Columbia Press, 1-22.

Jones, B. E., Clark, G. M., & Soltz, D. F. (1997). Characteristics and practices of sign language interpreters in inclusive education programs. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 257-268.

King, S. J. (2001). Administrative and consumer perceptions of interpreting services at postsecondary programs for deaf students. (Ph.D., Gallaudet University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, . (250774948).

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

28

Kluwin, T. N. (1993). Cumulative effects of mainstreaming on the achievement of deaf adolescents. Exceptional Children, 60(1), 73.

Marschark, M. (2005). Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10 (1), 38.

Marschark, M., Pelz, J. B., Convertino, C., Sapere, P., & et al. (2005). Classroom interpreting and visual information processing in mainstream education for deaf students: Live or memorex? American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 727-761.

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., Seewagen, R., & Maltzen, H. (2004). Comprehension of sign language interpreting: Deciphering a complex task situation. Sign Language Studies, 4(4), 345-368.

Monikowski, C. (2004). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 497-498. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224068421?accountid=27346

Ramsey, C. (1997). Deaf children in public schools. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press.
Seal, B. C. (2000). Working with educational interpreters. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 31(1), 15.

Schick, B. Interpreting for children: How its different. Oddysey: New directions in deaf education.Vol.2, Issue 2, (2001). Digital.

Running Head: INTERPRETERS AS BARRIERS TO EDUCATION?

29

Schick, B., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., & Hoffmeister, B. (2002). Theory of mind language and cognition in deaf children. ASHA Leader, 7(22), 6-6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218110694?accountid=27346

Vygotsky, L. (1994). Principles of social education for deaf and dumb children in Russia. In R. Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Wink, J. &Putney, L. (2002). A vision of vygotsky. Pearson Education Compan: Boston, MA.

Wolbers, K. A., Dimling, L. M., Lawson, H. R., & Golos, D. B. (2012). PARALLEL AND DIVERGENT INTERPRETING IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(1), 48-65.