TAcommunities

Opening question

• Posted by Jon Harding on Friday, 2009-12-18 at 18:08:54

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cynthia Glimpse on Saturday, 2009-12-19 at 16:05:57

One thought that comes to mind right away for parent awareness is making sure the Regional and National Parent Technical Assistance Centers and the Parent Training and Information Cetners recieve information about information on Interveners. I know several people in this system that could help disseminate information.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by D. Jay Gense on Monday, 2009-12-21 at 18:03:16

I absolutely agree that this is critical. Even more broadly, it speaks to the importance of providing information and resources to parents that clearly articulates the benefits of quality intervention for some children. As a foundation I believe that we must continue the national conversations that support appropriate ASSESSMENT that can guide individual team's decisions regarding interveners, based on identified student needs. I applaud the efforts extended toward establishing some common understandings about quality intervention, and very much support such continuing.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cynthia Glimpse on Tuesday, 2010-03-16 at 17:51:50

Could I take some of the major elements from Jon's original question, my comments, and Jay's reply - have you both review what I compile/write - and then send the resulting document to the people within the Parent Training and Information network who I think would assist with spreading information about the Intervener community to parents and families?

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Donna Riccobono on Tuesday, 2010-03-16 at 03:06:02

The term "Intervener" is being used in Maryland (a little more each year). We are excited about this. I agree with what has already been said/posted about how to "spread the word" and would like to add to that and say also that it would be benficial to have information at early childhood centers, including but not limited to pre-schools for D/HOH, and VI, plus parent/infant programs/services. Happy Spring! Donna from Maryland

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cynthia Glimpse on Tuesday, 2010-03-16 at 17:54:38

I agree - what could we get out to some of TA&D's early childhood Centers ( http://tadnet.org/matrix_centers?id=5 ) that would "spread the word"?

• Reply to this

Spreading the Word

• Posted by Jon Harding on Tuesday, 2010-03-16 at 22:05:25

Hi Cynthia. Just this week, a packet of information on Interveners is being disseminated to all of our State Deaf-Blind Projects. The comprehensive packet includes multiple Intervener publications and a PowerPoint presentation. Once the packets have been released to state projects, this content can be made available to others on the CoP site.
Thanks for keeping the conversation percolating. :)

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cynthia Glimpse on Wednesday, 2010-03-17 at 10:54:41

Jon,
Could you mention the information packet on the call today (3-17-2010)? I would also like to make sure the Regional Parent Training Assistance Centers (RPTACs) are aware of the packets so they can make sure the Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) know about the packet. How does that sound?

• Reply to this

Intervener Packets

• Posted by Cheryl Levasseur on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 17:21:02

Hey Jon,

Could you please clarify about the Intervener packets for others on the list? One packet being released to Deafblind Projects that you are referring to is intended for presenting to administrative and special education audiences. It is for the projects to use for an overview of Deafblindness and the Intervener. The second packet is the one NDBII is creating for the Deafblind projects to disseminate to parents. Ours is "parent friendly" and intended for parents to receive the packet of information for their self-education, learning about the Intervener and using as they choose. It is my understanding that the Deafblind project packets, while informative are intended for a different audience other than parents.

Linda, can you clarify on this?

Cheryl Levasseur

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Linda Alsop on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 19:05:20

The packet that Jon referred to earlier is being sent to each state deafblind project to support their efforts to inform administrators, teachers, service providers, parents, and others at state and local levels about the role of interveners with children and youth who are deafblind in educational settings. The materials in the packet include a PowerPoint presentation that addresses content issues related to the disability of deafblindness, the role of the intervener in effective intervention practices, and systemic issues around the recognition and evolution of this practice, including considerations of FAPE and LRE for children who are deafblind.
As you mentioned Cheryl, there is another packet of materials being developed by our National Intervener Parent group (NDBII), which will be intended for parents of children who are deafblind, and which will provide them with information and resources about interveners as they participate in educational programming for their children. It's projected that these packets will be available by late summer of this year.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cheryl Levasseur on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 21:50:49

Thanks for clarigying Linda. Your explanation definately helps me to understand the difference in the packets. I wasn't aware that the one being disseminated to the Deafblind projects included parents in their target audience as well. I know we had discussed that it did not fulfill the requirements to be used as a training tool for Interveners, but I don't think I had a complete understanding of how it would be used. I do now. Thanks

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Karen Goehl on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 17:58:01

In Indiana (say that three times fast), the term Intervener is becoming more familiar. We also support two discussion lists where we will be sharing more information about interveners. One is for Indiana teachers who serve students who are blind/low vision and one is for teachers who serve students who are deaf/hard of hearing. In addition, we provide copies of "Interveners in the Classroom: Guidelines for Teams Working With Students who are Deafblind" to LEA Directors of Special Education whenever a child who is deafblind is referred to the Project.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Marsha Gunderson on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 20:01:21

Does any state require a license for an intervener? Iowa has an interpreter licensing law and we are not sure how interveners would be affected. Our law states:

154E.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE.
On or after July 1, 2005, every person providing interpreting or transliterating services in this state shall be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

154E.1 DEFINITIONS.
5. "Interpreting" means facilitating communication between individuals who communicate via American sign language and individuals who communicate via spoken English.
7. "Transliterating" means facilitating communication between individuals who communicate via a manual form of English and individuals who communicate via spoken English.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Dawn Saunders on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 21:28:00

Florida does not have interpreter licensure as of yet. However, in past drafts of the licensure bill, language was included about deaf-blind interpreting, since it is a specialized skill. Additionally, our past versions of the bill also included educational interpreters and just about anyone who provides a service that can be described as interpreting among those that needed to pursue licensure. Newer bills are not so specific, so I am assuming that, if it passes, all of the information included in past versions of the bills will be made into rule. Some intervenors might be included in that group of individuals providing services that could be described as interpreting, but some may not. It would really depend on the services needed by the student. In my classroom life, I had one student with a one-to-one paraprofessional (who I would call an intervenor) who did not need the sign language interpreting. I had another student for whom a paraprofessional who was deaf was hired, as he definitely needed the sign language. I would call them both intervenors, but only one would have needed to obtain licensure, if Florida had required it at that time.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cheryl Levasseur on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 22:19:57

The whole issue of states requiring anyone who signs or facilitates communication to seek licensure is very concerning. My experience as an Intervener and having trained serveral Interveners is that there is so much more to it than just interpreting and/or facilitating information. The roles are very different. And by looking at the standards that interpreters are held to it becomes evident that the interverner role and interpreter role conflict in many areas.

Yes, Interveners may use sign language with their students and yes they may facilitate communication BUT they do so much more than that. They also carry over recommendations of several other specialists. So, for example, if an Intervener carries over prompting their student to use their cane as instructed by the O&M outside of direct O&M instruction doesn't mean the Interveners need to become liscensed as an O&M instructor to do so.

The Intervener is a conduit or an intermediary service in likely a much more intense way than an interpreter is. The level of support requires strategies and techniques that are not common practices in the realm of "interpreting". And, if a child has the cognitive, physical and mental ability to participate fully in the regular ed curriculum and only requires access to auditory and visual information then perhaps they only need access to a deafblind or ASL interpreter. Perhaps that same student may need an Intervener early on, and then a deafblind interpreter as they mature and are ready and able to utilize that model of support. It is very individual based on student need. But Interveners and Interpreters should not be lumped into the same category and interveners should not be forced to seek licensure based on the Interpreter model. If a child needs support from an Intervener and uses signed language at a level requiring an interpreter then hire a certified interpreter and train them to function as an Intervener. But do not require everyone and anyone to become licensed just because they can communicate in sign or facilitate communication via sign on a basic level.

I don't think that the initial group that advocated nationally for all educational interpreters to seek licensure realized the implications of the language that they put forth to complete their goal. There needs to be clarification of other support models for Deafblind children and adults that use sign language (i.e., SSP, Intervener, etc..) There is a website on educational interpreters if anyone would like to see the information. Please let me know and I will go look it up and pass it along.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Dawn Saunders on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 22:36:10

I agree that the role of an intervener can vastly differ from that of an interpreter. However, IDEA included "specialized interpreting for students who are deaf-blind" as part of the definition of "interpreting services." Since this is the case, there will be times when the person providing communication access will be viewed as an interpreter. As I said above, I had two very different cases in my classroom. One person would clearly have been considered more of a paraprofessional-type intervener and the other would have been a para-interpreter type intervener. They provided very different services for very different students. The job description varies, depending on the student. For example, if it had been written in stone that the para for the one student had to have ASL skills, that would have been a mismatch in services. This particular student needed someone who could speak Spanish at times. With his hearing aids or FM system, the hearing loss was in the mild/moderate range. The student rarely used sign language, although, at times, the student would reach for my hands or his para's hands to receive signs, especially with new vocabulary. But I digress...

As I mentioned before, we don't have licensure in Florida as of right now. At this point, it is hard to say if an intervener who does not provide communication access would need to obtain that licensure. I am thinking that they might not.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cheryl Levasseur on Thursday, 2010-03-18 at 23:44:18

Thought this might be helpful. This is a quote form the Interveners for Students with Deafblindness in Texas:
http://www.tsbvi.edu/Outreach/deafblind/intervener.htm#differ

Contrasting an intervener with a sign language interpreter
1.A child with deafblindness may or not need the services of a certified interpreter, based on factors such as language ability, instructional arrangement, and IEP goals. For example, a student who uses sign fluently in an academic program requires an interpreter, while a student whose use of sign is emerging is served appropriately with a staff member proficient in sign, but not necessarily certified. Some students with deafblindness use communication forms other than sign altogether, such as speech or tactile symbols.
Please note: In cases when a certified interpreter is required, the student's needs related to deafblindness may require the use of skills and strategies in addition to those of a typical interpreter in order for the child's IEP to be fully implemented. In these cases, an interpreter with additional training, skills, roles, and responsibilities is acting as an intervener.
2.Rather than relying on one uniform communication form or language, such as sign, an intervener must know the individual student's unique communication system. Students who are deafblind may use sign, tactile sign, speech, braille, picture symbols, tactile symbols, objects, gestures, signals, or some combination of these and other communication forms. The intervener must be well versed in the student's individual forms of communicating both receptively and expressively.
3.When a student who is deafblind uses sign language, it may be modified from sign typically used for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Signs may need to be presented within a few feet from the student in order to remain within the his or her visual range. The signs used may need to be reduced so they can be entirely seen within a very narrow visual field. The student may need to receive sign tactually. Signs may need to be paired with other communication forms for clarity. Making these modifications may be unfamiliar to a typical interpreter.
4.A student with deafblindness may miss a significant amount of environmental information in addition to what is being said by others. For this reason, the intervener does much more than interpret what is being said. The intervener supplies additional information about what is happening around the student.
5.Because a student who is deafblind misses significant environmental information, he or she may not have as complete a conceptual understanding of topics being discussed as someone who has complete use of one or both distance senses. Consequently, the intervener supplies conceptual background information to supplement what is being said in class.
6.An intervener must be familiar with basic orientation and mobility strategies such as sighted guide, and take responsibility for assisting the student in moving from place to place when necessary.
7.Students who are deafblind have difficulty trusting and understanding new people, so interveners are not interchangeable. One intervener consistently works with a student across different settings, and over a long period of time.
8.The intervener is present and participates in all staffings and IEP meetings related to the child with deafblindness. This may involve preparing reports, as well as participating in discussions to formulate and evaluate programming with the team. Interpreters do not typically have this role.
9.In contrast to a typical interpreter, the intervener needs preparatory time which may be used in the following ways: observation of general education classes to prepare for the inclusion of the student; making or purchasing materials; lesson planning, reviewing and recording data; telephone follow-up related to the student's needs; preparing reports; reviewing training materials; or meeting with related service staff and IEP team members.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Marsha Gunderson on Friday, 2010-03-19 at 13:49:14

Thanks, Cheryl & Dawn. I appreciate your commments.The area of interpreter licensing also deeply concerns me. I am relatively new to learning about interveners and have lots more experience with interpreters in educational settings. If there was an "Intervener license" or national certification for someone who has completed training, perhaps it would not become an issue. I am not a lawyer, however, those who interpret the law would say that under our current law, interveners fall under the licensing law. The licensing bureau would not want to police those to say who needs an interpreting license and who does not. I'm looking for an alternative to interpreter licensing as I don't believe that is most appropriate. An alternative would be easier than changing the law.I appreciate any and all ideas.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Cheryl Levasseur on Friday, 2010-03-19 at 15:29:25

Marsha, crudentialing for Interveners is underway through the ACVREP. I believe that licensure and certification were considered but the thought was that it would not be a reasonable option, so a crudentialing process for Interveners was chosen instead.

Again, I don't have all of my notes in front of me from our discussions around this. Linda, could you clarify on this topic as well? I, and I'm sure others, would love to hear more along with an update as to where we are in the process of crudentialing Intervners. Thanks.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Dawn Saunders on Monday, 2010-03-22 at 19:15:03

Wow! I have been so wrapped up with Orientation and Mobility issues and ACVREP, I had no idea that they were going to be credentialing interveners!

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Tammi Morgan on Sunday, 2010-03-21 at 21:08:58

I agree with so much of what you wrote and I am also very concerned with Interveners having the same interpreting requirements as Interpreters. In the area of Pennsylvania that I work, our local schools require that an Intervener be working towards or needing to obtain a 3.5 on the EIPA. There are several problems with this, the first being that 1) we (Interveners) do not solely interpret the classroom instruction in the same manner as an Interpreter. 2) Interveners I have come in contact with do not have “fast paced” interpreting background experience and would not do well taking a classroom interpreting performance test. Having said this, they are sufficiently above their students skill levels and continue to strive to do better 3) many of the Interveners that I have come in contact with do not have the strong voicing skills that are needed to pass the exam but can voice for their student absolutely fine. 4) Merging the requirements further confuses the inaccurate statements that an Intervener and Interpreter are interchangeable which is something I continually hear and have to correct. 5) qualified and skilled people with a heart for Intervention are being turned away because they cannot pass Interpreting performance testing regardless that they far exceed the needs of the child they would be working with. The ones who come out hurting are the children. In a field that is struggling to gain national recognition and reach out to those that need access to information it becomes further crippled by requirements that do not fit across all situations. We already have a need for more Interveners, this type of restriction will greatly increase that need.
I fully understand and agree with needing qualified Interveners. Having said that, I believe there are many qualified Interveners that would not necessarily be competent to become certified Interpreters and to me that is OK. I also know many Interpreters who would not qualify to be competent Interveners and that also is OK. Interveners and Interpreters are two separate positions.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Tammi Morgan on Sunday, 2010-03-21 at 20:20:10

I would like to see children given access to information as early as possible. In addition to the suggestions provided I would also recommend information packets for hospitals that could be given to parents of newborns with deafblindness. Additionally at pediatric or family doctors offices. The earlier the parents are made aware of these services and their child’s needs, the better for all involved and the best start for the child.

• Reply to this

Re: Opening question

• Posted by Dinell Stuckey on Tuesday, 2010-04-13 at 03:19:13

I totally agree about trying to get the information out as early as possible. Another resource that comes to my mind, in my state of KS, would be the TA Waiver Program. This is a Community Based Service by the SRS that allows children that have significant medical issues and are using medical technology, to access the medical card but the income is waived in order to be eligble based just on medical need. Many states have this waiver program in place and it may be called something like a Technology Assisted Waiver, Technology Based Waiver or Katie Becket (or Beckett?) Waiver. This waiver works differently in each state but the basis remains the same that these kids are the ones that are more medically involved. My experience is that the majority of these kids would qualify for DB Census. Just another untapped resource.

• Reply to this