Educational Interpreting: How It Can Succeed

Theoretical Tools for Educational Interpreters, or “The True Confessions of an Ex-Educational Interpreter”

Theoretical Tools for Educational Interpreters, or “The True Confessions of an Ex-Educational Interpreter” Claire Ramsey When I became a sign language interpreter in the 1970s, I was deeply inspired by the politics of access and inclusion. In addition, because I was studying linguistics, I was attracted to the possibility of using my abilities in manipulating symbols to work with languages, in particular, with their meanings and structures. The unique and perhaps odd set of skills that prompts some of us to move from being everyday language users to people who analyze language forms and functions is one that also makes an excellent foundation for interpreting and translating. However, another set of strengths is needed to work as an interpreter. Without people to use them, languages can easily become abstractions, constructs that barely exist. The best interpreters not only must be able to participate in and correctly render all of the complexities of human interactions into two languages but also must be able to reflect on the effects of interpreting. I spent much of my short career as an interpreter in educational settings from elementary to college level. As an educational interpreter, my analytic skills improved and my short-term memory got a real workout, but my ability to reflect on human interaction seemed to stagnate . Interpreting situations between hearing teachers and deaf children seemed to fall apart—through my hands—for reasons I did not understand. Trying to assign blame—to myself, to the children, to the teachers—is by its nature unproductive. It did not help me account for the everyday problems I experienced . Worse, one day, I came face-to-face with the fact that some of the school activities that I was interpreting did not make sense to me. Why is it better for profoundly deaf children to attend music class instead of having another reading 206 An earlier version of this chapter was delivered as a plenary session at the National Educational Interpreting Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 5, 2000. Portions of this chapter appear in Ramsey (2001). period? Why did educational opportunity mean seating the deaf child and interpreter at a table in the back of the room with a workbook while the teacher taught addition facts to the hearing children? When these two observations came together, that I rarely felt that I was doing a good job and that some of the school activities I was interpreting for deaf students did not make sense, I had to stop interpreting. Although I was fascinated with the role of language in the social, cultural, and psychological puzzles I observed, I did not have the tools to genuinely understand it. The situations were so complex and the stakes so high, that I could no longer tolerate the fragmentation and my inability to figure it out. A common assumption is that a critical discussion of educational interpreting is “anti public schools,” a stance I have been accused of taking more than once. Well-grounded reflection, however, does not necessarily grow from opposition. I am not opposed to public school programs for deaf and hard of hearing children. Opposition would be a pointless stance because these programs are widespread, well populated, and in many cases the only available option. Some programs are excellent, others are not, and it is only fair to assume that all are doing their best. In my view, the circumstances of deaf education are so serious that they merit discussion beyond the dualistic possibilities of being either for or against it. My professional experience, my knowledge of the schooling outcomes of deaf children, and my reading of theory have led me to a cautious, somewhat skeptical perspective on elementary deaf education provided in public schools through educational interpreters. Despite the resources and knowledge available to us, too many deaf students are still not reaching their intellectual and linguistic potential during their school years. For this reason, I have formed a critical, but I hope wellgrounded , view of the ideological reorganization that placed interpreters in educational settings with deaf children. Briefly, I have come to see that, for all the resources devoted to offering education in the least restrictive environment, the primary motivation for integrating children who are deaf with those who are hearing rests on a desire to ensure equal educational opportunity and to protect deaf children’s right of access to public education. These desires are not unimportant goals. Indeed, this effort is an extremely unusual step...