Language First Learning Library

Course description: This workshop will provide an in-depth exploration of the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) scoring system, focusing on its domains and the implications of interpreter fluency at various scoring levels. Through a comprehensive review of empirical research studies, we will examine the critical threshold scores, emphasizing that a score of 3.0 is effectively a failing mark, whereas a score of 5.0 is considered optimal for educational interpreters. Despite robust evidence indicating that interpreters scoring below 4.0 should not be working with deaf children, the majority of states in the USA have set the minimum acceptable score at 3.0. This standard not only undermines the quality of education provided to deaf students but also borders on mental neglect and language deprivation. Such practices fail to align with the principles of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which mandates that deaf children should be educated in environments where they can thrive as bilingual individuals. This workshop aims to elucidate the dissonance between current EIPA scoring standards and the actual needs of deaf students. Participants will gain insights into how EIPA scores directly impact the educational outcomes of deaf children and the necessity for higher standards to ensure proper linguistic and cognitive development. Attendees will engage with the latest research findings, participate in discussions on policy implications, and explore strategies to advocate for higher interpreter standards that truly support the bilingual and bicultural development of deaf children. By the end of this workshop, participants will have a deeper understanding of the EIPA scoring system, the critical importance of higher interpreter standards, and actionable steps to promote effective educational environments for deaf students.

Agenda:

15 minutes: Introduction to EIPA Scoring 

15 minutes: Understanding the Scoring Levels: Overview of the EIPA, explanation of the different scoring domains and the importance of interpreter fluency and accuracy 

15 minutes: Empirical Research Findings on EIPA Scores: Detailed breakdown of scoring levels, what each score represents in terms of interpreter competence, case studies demonstrating the impact of different scoring levels

15 minutes: Interactive Discussion: Personal Experiences and Observations: Presentation of key research studies on EIPA scoring, discussion on the implications of scoring levels (3.0 vs. 5.0), evidence showing the inadequacy of interpreters scoring below 4.0

10 minutes: State Standards and Implications for Deaf Education 

10 minutes: Aligning EIPA Scores with LRE Principles: Examination of current state standards for EIPA scores, analysis of the discrepancies in minimum score requirements across states, impact of low EIPA score standards on deaf children’s education

10 minutes: Strategies for Advocacy and Improvement: Discussion on the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) principles, the importance of proper interpreter standards in supporting LRE, case studies on successful LRE implementation

10 minutes: Interactive Activity: Developing an Advocacy Plan: Practical steps for advocating for higher EIPA standards, how to engage with policymakers and educational institutions, building a case for the bilingual and bicultural development of deaf children

Learner outcomes:

Participants will be able to:

1. Accurately describe the EIPA scoring scale, identify the critical score thresholds, and explain the implications of different score levels on interpreter performance and student outcomes.
2. Summarize key research studies demonstrating the inadequacy of interpreters scoring below 4.0, articulate the discrepancies in state standards for EIPA scores, and discuss the impact of these standards on the education of deaf children.
3. Create actionable advocacy plans, demonstrate an understanding of LRE principles, and outline practical steps to engage with policymakers and educational institutions to promote higher interpreter standards.