Educational Interpreters: Certification in Minnesota

Minnesota’s educational interpreting law was passed in 1994. It took close to ten years for it to be fully implemented. If the goal of the law was to get certified interpreters into the classroom, it has been a success. When the bill first passed, there were only four certified interpreters working in educational settings; now there are over 300.

Much has changed in the eleven years since the bill was passed in 1994 and amended in 2001. The 1994 bill allowed only certifications offered by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) and the National Association of the Deaf (NAD). Since that time NAD and RID joined forces and created the National Interpreter Certification The group that previously administered the NAD test split from NAD and created the American Consortium of Certified Interpreters (ACCI) examination. The Minnesota Department of Education began to accept the ACCI in 2003.

What is current law in Minnesota? Currently ACCI and NIC are accepted by the state as certification, as are old RID and NAD certifications. An interpreter has two years to obtain certification after he/she graduates from an Interpreter Training Program. The school district assists by providing a mentor who works with the provisionally certified interpreter to develop an educational plan that will help them to become certified within the two year time frame. A one time extension is included in the law that gives more time to the interpreter due to extraordinary circumstances.

What’s Happening on a National Level?
The Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) has been developed over the last fifteen years to evaluate the interpreting skills of interpreters working with deaf children. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf recognized the EIPA test as a psychometrically valid and reliable test and entered into partnership with the EIPA in 2005 . The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf is moving toward acceptance of those educational interpreters who pass the EIPA at a level that is in keeping with NIC’s measurement levels.

Should the law be changed?
The ACCI and NIC measure interpreting skills for adult sign language interpreters working with adults. Now that a test exists that evaluates the ability to interpret effectively to children should the EIPA be used in Minnesota?

What MCDHH is doing
The MCDHH Education Committee has been discussing the EIPA for years. In 2003 Brenda Schick, co-creator of the EIPA presented information to interpreters, administrators, teachers and members of the Deaf community at the invitation of MCDHH and the Minnesota Department of Education. MCDHH has been meeting with the Minnesota Administrators for Special Education and the Minnesota Department of Education to discuss whether the EIPA should be accepted by Minnesota as a test for educational interpreters.

How Can I learn more?
Here are some articles about the EIPA and about educational interpreting. These are PDF files. Other more accessible formats are available upon request from mncdhh.info@state.mn.us

How Might Learning Through and Educational Interpreter Influence Cognitive Development

Presentation by Brenda Shick on the EIPA to the RID Convention July 2005

Questions that MCDHH is discussing:

1. Should the EIPA be added as a test to the state ?
2. Should we continue to offer the ACCI and NIC for educational interpreters?
3. Should we use the EIPA exclusively and grandfather/grandmother in ACCI, NAD, RID and NIC certified interpreters?
4. Now that EIPA has been accepted by RID, should interpreter training programs start teaching a separate adult track that would lead to ACCI or NIC certification and one that is specifically designed for children and teens that would lead to EIPA certification?

We (MCDHH) are in the process of taking a position: help us to decide.
Let us hear from you, mncdhh.info@state.mn.us Please let us know if you are a student, administrator, interpreter, educational interpreter , academician, or member of the community (deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, hearing) or any combination. Thanks!