Rule2021-15915
Final Priority and Requirements-Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are DeafBlind Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 26, 2021
Effective
August 25, 2021
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are DeafBlind program, Assistance Listing Number 84.160D. The Department may use the priority and requirements for competitions in Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 and later years. We take this action to provide training to working interpreters in order to develop a new skill area or enhance an existing skill area. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0018.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39965-39978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15915]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2021-OSERS-0003]
Final Priority and Requirements--Training of Interpreters for
Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are
DeafBlind Program
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
and requirements for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who
Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are DeafBlind program,
Assistance Listing Number 84.160D. The Department may use the priority
and requirements for competitions in Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 and
later years. We take this action to provide training to working
interpreters in order to develop a new skill area or enhance an
existing skill area. This notice relates to the approved information
collection under OMB control number 1820-0018.
DATES: This priority and requirements are effective August 25, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5094, Potomac
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6103.
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11202721555174753f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1e0e7e19591b4b5ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The Training of Interpreters for Individuals
Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are DeafBlind
program is designed to establish interpreter training programs or to
provide financial assistance for ongoing interpreter programs to train
a sufficient number of qualified interpreters throughout the country in
order to meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind by--
(a) Training interpreters to effectively interpret and
transliterate between spoken language and sign language and to
transliterate between spoken language and oral or tactile modes of
communication;
(b) Ensuring the maintenance of the interpreting skills of
qualified interpreters; and
(c) Providing opportunities for interpreters to raise their skill
level competence in order to meet the highest standards approved by
certifying associations.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 772(a) and (f).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 396.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP)
for this competition in the Federal Register on March 2, 2021 (86 FR
12136). That document contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the priority and requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 71
parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and requirements.
Most of the commenters expressed support for the specialty areas in the
priority, which included increasing skills of novice interpreters,
trilingual interpreting (including Spanish), advanced skills for
working interpreters, as well as field-initiated projects such as
interpreting in healthcare (including hard-to-serve populations),
interpreting for individuals who are DeafBlind, and atypical language
interpreting. Commenters expressed that the specialty areas are
relevant, critical, and appropriately value remote learning, field
work, mentorship, and coaching experiences.
We group major issues according to subject and discuss substantive
issues under the title of the priority or requirement to which they
pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised
concerns not related to the proposed priority or requirements.
Analysis of the Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
and of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication
of the NPP follows.
Interpreting in Specialty Areas
Comment: One commenter referenced Specialty Area (1) (increasing
skills for novice interpreters) and reiterated that, according to the
National Interpreter Education Center (NIEC), challenges facing
interpreter training and education programs are prevalent. The
commenter asserted that interpreter education programs fail to produce
enough American Sign Language (ASL) fluent graduates and further stated
that there needs to be an emphasis on recruiting individuals from
underrepresented groups for interpreter training programs. The
commenter also stated that retention of novice interpreters from
[[Page 39966]]
underrepresented groups is vital to the success of the specialty area.
The commenter noted that there are currently gaps in knowledge about
the interpreting process and ethical decision-making among novice
interpreters. The commenter also stated that training programs should
include curriculum that is accessible for students who are deaf and
hard of hearing.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the comments about the
importance of training and education for, and retention of,
interpreters, including interpreters from underrepresented groups.
Applicants are encouraged to formulate curriculum for novice
interpreters from underrepresented groups, novice interpreters who are
deaf or hard of hearing, and other groups of novice interpreters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters expressed support for Specialty Area (2)
(trilingual interpreting (including Spanish)) and explained that the
demand for trilingual interpreters grows every year as more diverse and
Spanish-speaking individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and
DeafBlind enter higher education and the workforce. One commenter noted
that expanding interpreter training to individuals from a variety of
backgrounds would increase the availability of interpreters with skills
in third languages. The same commenter explained that interpreters will
benefit from this specialty area by expanding their skills in
trilingual interpreting and the recipients of services will benefit
from the diverse range of interpreter skills available to them.
Furthermore, commenters explained that this specialty area will help
interpreter training participants to unlearn bias, develop problem-
solving skills, and be more open-minded. A final commenter recommended
adding a third language requirement to interpreter training programs so
that interpreters may assist individuals who do not use ASL as their
primary language.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments. In the
background section of the NPP, we explained that there may be parts of
the country where multiple languages are spoken by individuals who are
deaf and hard of hearing. Therefore, applicants may propose projects
with multiple language combinations, which may include individuals who
use signed languages other than ASL as their primary language.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters expressed support for Specialty Area (3)
(advanced skills for working interpreters). One commenter stated that
interpreters with advanced skills and knowledge of highly specialized
terminology, discourse, and emerging areas of ASL are drastically
needed to assist individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing and
pursuing highly specialized areas of education. Commenters stated that
knowledge and awareness of the ethical implications in the field of
interpreting are vital for interpreter training programs. Lastly, one
commenter emphasized that heritage signers would greatly benefit from
gaining advanced skills in interpreting and that heritage language
interpreters should be explicitly included within the specialty area.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments and agree that it is crucial
for interpreters, including heritage signers who are working as
interpreters, to improve their working knowledge and skills and stay up
to date on ethical considerations in interpreting. Applicants who
identify a need for advanced skills for working interpreters are
encouraged to apply under this specialty area.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters expressed support for Specialty Area (5),
topic area (a) (interpreting in healthcare including interpreting for
hard-to-serve populations). Two commenters emphasized the severe lack
of qualified interpreters within the healthcare profession and the
barriers this creates for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing,
and DeafBlind. The commenters referred to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and stated that effective communication is
vital to ensure individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and
DeafBlind receive quality healthcare. The same commenters explained
that a delay in effective communication can lead to a delay in direct
patient care, including care coordination, and can ultimately produce
poor patient outcomes. Two commenters expressed the increased need for
interpreters who are proficient in telehealth and telemedicine settings
and that training in this area should be incorporated within the
specialty area.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees that
effective communication is vital for individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, and DeafBlind to receive quality healthcare services.
Furthermore, the Department agrees that the demand for telehealth
appointments has grown due to the COVID-19 pandemic and accommodations
for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind are
necessary. Applicants under this specialty area may incorporate skills
training for interpreting in telehealth settings to best facilitate
telehealth medical appointments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Nine commenters expressed support for Specialty Area (5),
topic area (b) (interpreting for individuals who are DeafBlind).
Commenters highlighted the essential connection between access to
skilled interpreters and autonomy for individuals who are DeafBlind.
Within Specialty Area (5), topic area (b), many commenters stated
support for training in and awareness of protactile interpreting
because it is critical for the success, autonomy, and opportunities for
employment of individuals who are DeafBlind. Commenters asserted that
the traditional means of communication for individuals who are
DeafBlind, such as manual ASL and print-on-palm, lack the fullness and
richness of expression found in protactile ASL. Three commenters stated
that grantees focused on protactile ASL should commit to following
evidence-based practices as a result of baseline data collected over
the past five years and should recruit experienced DeafBlind language
experts to assist in the formulation of the project. Another commenter
referenced survey results from multiple training cohorts of Deafblind
interpreters that recognized protactile interpreting as a language
separate from ASL with its own grammatical rules. Finally, one
commenter shared that the extreme lack of protactile interpreters has
created a compounding negative effect for individuals who are
DeafBlind, such as a lack of educational opportunities, isolation, and
mental health issues.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments. We agree with the
commenters who recommended that projects be based on evidence-based
practices and note that the priority addresses the use of evidence-
based practices. Under Application Requirements, ``Significance of the
Proposed Project,'' paragraphs (a)(3)(i)-(ii), applicants must identify
competencies that working interpreters must demonstrate in order to
provide high-quality services in the identified specialty area using
practices that demonstrate a rationale or are based on instruction
supported by evidence, when available, and demonstrate that the
identified competencies are based on practices that demonstrate a
rationale or are supported by evidence. Additionally, under Application
Requirements, ``Quality of Project
[[Page 39967]]
Services,'' paragraph (c)(6), applicants must describe how the project
will incorporate adult learning principles and practices that
demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence for
adult learners.
In response to the commenter's suggestion that experienced
DeafBlind language experts should assist in the formulation of the
project, the Department notes that the priority addresses how
interpreters, interpreter educators, and others will be involved in the
formulation of the project. Under Application Requirements, ``Quality
of Project Design'' paragraph (b)(3), applicants must describe how the
proposed project will provide skilled, diverse, and experienced
leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and subject matter experts, as
appropriate for the specialty area, to participants, as needed. Lastly,
the Department recognizes the need for training and awareness of pro-
tactile American sign language (PTASL). As we noted in the background
section of the NPP, projects under Specialty Area (5), topic area (b),
may include various techniques for interpreting for individuals who are
DeafBlind, including print on palm (POP), tactile sign language,
tracking, tactile fingerspelling, Tadoma, PTASL, and others.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters stated support for Specialty Area (5),
topic area (c) (atypical language interpreting). With regard to the
background information provided in the NPP on topic area (c), one
commenter noted that while Specialty Area (5), topic area (c),
acknowledges the senior deaf population, the specialty area should be
expanded to include training for interpreters needed as the result of
an injury or sudden change in verbal communication. The commenter
stated that although the inclusion of the senior deaf population is
positive for those who can communicate easily with an interpreter, it
may be difficult for an individual who is not used to working with an
interpreter. The commenter explained that having the skillset in
atypical language interpreting is essential, but the ability to meet an
individual at their level of understanding is also essential.
Additionally, the commenter stated that individuals who demonstrate
non-verbal communication would also benefit from interpreters trained
in this specialty area. Another commenter asked if grantees are
permitted to expand atypical language interpreting services to deaf
seniors who may not be receiving VR services.
Discussion: To expand on the background information provided in the
NPP, we support the inclusion of individuals who may become deaf as a
result of injury, illness, or sudden change from verbal to non-verbal
communication (late-deafened individuals) as those who may seek
services from interpreters trained in atypical language. According to
the NIEC trends report (2015), the late-deafened population is growing
swiftly and includes a growing population of returning veterans with
hearing loss. According to the Hearing Health Foundation, 60 percent of
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have a hearing loss, and
the Department of Defense identified hearing loss as the most prevalent
war wound. Lastly, in response to a question posed by a commenter about
expanding atypical language interpreting services to deaf seniors who
may not be receiving VR services, atypical language interpreting
services can be extended to all participants supported by the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), even if they are not
actively seeking VR services.
Changes: None.
Eligibility Requirements
Comment: Many commenters expressed a desire that we expand the
specialty areas to include training for interpreters to meet the needs
of students who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind from pre-
Kindergarten (pre-K) to grade 12 and increase the number of highly
qualified interpreters in the classroom. Two commenters referred to
Universal Design (UD) for Learning, which provides the opportunity for
all students to access, participate in, and progress in general-
education curriculum by reducing barriers to instruction. The same two
commenters also referred to the least restrictive environment, which
requires that students with disabilities receive an education to the
maximum extent appropriate, with nondisabled peers, and that special
education students are not removed from regular classes unless
education in regular classes with the use of supplemental aids and
services cannot be achieved. Commenters stated that training
interpreters and increasing standards will positively affect how
students receive an education and how students develop the skills they
need to succeed in life. Further, commenters noted that interpreters
trained in specialized areas are needed for high school students taking
advanced classes such as calculus, physics, and STEM.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments describing the need for
highly qualified interpreters for students from pre-K to grade 12,
including interpreters trained in specialized areas needed for high
school students, and the information about UD and the least restrictive
environment. The Department funds grant awards to train interpreters to
work with children from pre-K to grade 12 under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Personnel Preparation in Special
Education, Early Intervention, and Related Services program. It would
be duplicative to include training for interpreters to work with
children and students from pre-K to grade 12 in this priority. The
purpose of this priority is to fund projects that provide training to
working interpreters in one of five specialty areas to effectively meet
the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing
and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving VR services and/or services
from other programs, such as independent living services, under the
Rehabilitation Act.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding a requirement that
eligible applicants possess Commission on Collegiate Interpreter
Education (CCIE) accreditation because CCIE is the only recognized
external reviewing body to provide assurance that interpreter education
programs have met standards of quality. One commenter noted that, under
Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project Design,'' paragraph
(b)(1), applicants may be required to develop a new training program or
stand-alone modules that can be incorporated into existing ASL/English
or ASL/other spoken language interpreter education programs. The
commenter stated that if the grantee does not hold CCIE accreditation,
these potentially high-impact deliverables may be of insufficient
quality.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments. We recognize
that CCIE is the only entity in the field of interpreter education that
measures the standards of interpreter education programs. We also
understand CCIE was founded to promote professionalism in the field of
interpreter education through the process of accreditation. We are
concerned about budgetary and other constraints that may limit
institutions pursuing CCIE accreditation. Additionally, requiring
applicants to possess CCIE accreditation would limit the pool of
eligible applicants. At this time, there are 58 identified
baccalaureate (BA) interpreting programs nationwide representing full
interpreting BA programs or a BA with interpreting
[[Page 39968]]
combined with another study. Of those, according to the CCIE website,
16 BA programs are CCIE accredited. By not requiring CCIE
accreditation, we are broadening the applicant pool, especially for
novice applicants, and ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion among
all prospective applicants.
Changes: None.
Other Areas
Comment: Two commenters recommended expanding the non-
discrimination categories included under Application Requirements,
paragraph (c)(1) and (e)(1), which state that applicants must
demonstrate how the project will ensure equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups who have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. One commenter commended the
Department for its inclusion of ``gender'' within the list of non-
discrimination categories, which safeguards transgender individuals or
those otherwise impacted by gender identity. The commenter further
noted that ``sexual orientation'' should be included within the list of
non-discrimination categories. The commenter explained that the
inclusion of ``sexual orientation'' is important for the protection of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LBGTQ)
individuals, as members of a group that has traditionally been
underrepresented. Another commenter urged the Department to expand the
list of non-discrimination categories to include gender identity or
expression, racial identity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status, deaf or hard of hearing status, disability
status, age, geographic locale, sign language interpreting experience,
certification status and level, and language basis. The commenter asked
that applications be evaluated based on a commitment to ensuring
participation from the widest variety of society.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments regarding the
groups of people that have been traditionally underrepresented
described under Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project
Services,'' paragraph (c)(1) and ``Adequacy of Project Resources,''
paragraph (e)(1). In these requirements, the groups of people that we
have identified as historically underrepresented mirror the identified
groups in the Department's general selection criteria for discretionary
grant competitions in 34 CFR 75.210. We recognize that this list is not
exhaustive. However, as we intend to use the selection criteria in 34
CFR 75.210 in combination with these application requirements in the
competition for this program, it is important that the lists of groups
align to help ensure clarity and consistency.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that trained interpreters need to
have background checks before working with individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, and DeafBlind.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges the importance of safety
for individuals with disabilities who are deaf, hard of hearing, and
DeafBlind. However, background checks for program participants are not
required under this priority due to the potential costs and time
associated with conducting background check investigations, interest in
protecting the privacy of participants, and concern about potentially
limiting trainee participation. Applicants are encouraged to follow
their organization's policies and procedures to determine if there is a
need for participant background checks based on the type of specialized
training.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that the Application Requirements
would be easier to understand if they were organized into shorter
sections.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment. We did not receive any
further comments or recommendations regarding the organization and
clarity of the Application Requirements. We are following the typical
structure we have used for priorities under this program.
Changes: None.
Cost-Share
Comment: Several commenters requested reduction or removal of the
cost-share requirement. One commenter emphasized that discretionary
grant projects require significant effort with support needed across
multiple areas of the university to process, support, and effectively
manage the project. Another commenter asserted that institutions of
higher education (IHEs) have been preparing for a sharp decrease in
student enrollment, budget cuts, and the elimination of academic
programs due to COVID-19. Commenters explained that for eligible
applicants, the expected cost-share percentage may be a barrier to
prospective applicants as IHEs may not be in position to meet the cost-
share requirement.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the concerns raised by the
commenters and acknowledges hardships in meeting the cost-share
requirement, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department is
concerned about the ability of grantees to effectively meet the cost-
share requirement given uncertainties due to the COVID-19 pandemic
while also ensuring the delivery of high-quality training. Interpreter
training programs are generally smaller programs within IHEs, and they
may not fully benefit from the financial support available during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a cost-share requirement may discourage
eligible applicants, especially first-time applicants. To address these
concerns, and as reflected in the notice inviting applications (NIA)
for this program, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, the Department is not requiring any cost-share for the
Federal Fiscal Year 2021 competition.
Changes: None.
Working Interpreters
Comment: Five commenters raised concerns about the requirement that
interpreter training in specialty areas focus on working interpreters
(i.e., interpreters with a baccalaureate degree in ASL-English who
possess a minimum of three years of relevant experience as an
interpreter) stated in the background section of the NPP. One commenter
stated that, while the priority defines working interpreters as those
who have graduated from four-year bachelor's degree programs in
interpreting, the Registry for Interpreters of the Deaf (RID) requires
a bachelor's degree but it does not have to be in interpreting. A
second commenter asserted that in the NPP, the definition of ``working
interpreters'' does not align with current industry standards. For
example, the industry accepts life experience, years of professional
experience, and years of education (credit hours) not totaling a formal
degree and accepts continuing education units in addition to the
aforementioned in order to satisfy the educational equivalency
application. The commenter urged the Department to establish similar
education equivalency standards. A third commenter noted that becoming
a qualified interpreter is very difficult and that it is important to
help interpreter students obtain the necessary qualifications needed to
meet the needs of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and
DeafBlind. A fourth commenter remarked that this requirement appears to
be inconsistent with the goals of the program. The same commenter
asserted that requiring three years of experience in order to receive
training defeats the purpose of all interpreters nationwide having the
capabilities to develop specialized
[[Page 39969]]
skills. A fifth commenter noted that there are many novice and
experienced interpreters who would not qualify to participate in the
program under the definition of ``working interpreter.'' The commenter
also stated that associate and certificate interpreter programs
continue to exist and are a critical entry point for many Black,
Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) interpreters, who are often
first-generation college students and that requiring a bachelor's
degree before participating in specialized training excludes a viable
group of participants in the program. Conversely, one commenter
supported requiring three years of experience and a diploma for ASL
because it would raise the standards and quality of interpreters across
the Nation.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters who contended
that the education and experience requirements were too limiting and is
expanding the definition of ``working interpreter'' to avoid
unnecessarily limiting the pool of qualified participants to those who
have a baccalaureate degree in ASL-English and promote participation
within projects. To address the commenter's suggestion to recognize
educational equivalence for participants who may not meet the
definition of working interpreter, educational equivalence may be used
in place of the baccalaureate degree on a case-by-case basis and in
consultation with the RSA project officer. Grantees should apply the
definition of working interpreter when identifying participants for
their respective projects to the extent possible.
We disagree with the commenter who asserted that requiring three
years of experience to receive training defeats the purpose of all
interpreters nationwide having the capabilities to develop specialized
skills. The Department believes that interpreting experience is
necessary for participants to be successful in the program. According
to the National Interpreter Education Center (NIEC) Trends Report
(2015), interpreter education programs generally do not produce
graduates who demonstrate fluency in American Sign Language (ASL). As a
result, recent graduates from interpreter training programs with little
or no work experience are limited in the range of populations and
settings in which they can begin to gain work experience. Two to four
years of academic study of a language is generally insufficient to
acquire fluency in any language, much less a modality-different
language. Based on information gathered from the FY 2016 grant cycle,
the success of interpreter training in specialty areas requires a solid
foundation in ASL fluency and interpreting experience. The specialty
areas are rigorous, and require self-discipline, commitment, and time
management. Therefore, we have established that three years of
experience for working interpreters is needed to demonstrate language
proficiency in ASL and experience interpreting for individuals with a
range of communication skills.
Finally, we agree with the comment that associate and certificate
interpreter programs continue to exist and are a critical entry point
for many BIPOC interpreters. Therefore, we have expanded the list of
locations for information dissemination to include associate degree
level ASL-English programs.
Changes: We have expanded the definition of ``working interpreter''
in the first paragraph of the final priority to reflect that
interpreters who are considered for training in specialty areas
outlined in this priority must possess a baccalaureate degree and a
minimum of three years of relevant experience as an interpreter. On a
case-by-case basis and in consultation with RSA, educational
equivalence may be used in place of the baccalaureate degree. We also
expanded the language under Application Requirements, ``Quality of
Project Design,'' paragraph (b)(1), and ``Quality of Project
Services,'' paragraph (c)(10)(ix), to include associate degree level
ASL-English programs.
Program Design
Comment: One commenter asked the Department to modify the
Application Requirements under ``Significance of the Project,''
paragraph (a)(1), which requires applicants to demonstrate that data
signifies a need for interpreters in the designated specialty areas.
The commenter stated that there is limited data available regarding
interpreting in specialty areas. The commenter explained that the lack
of data makes it difficult to demonstrate a need for interpreting in
specialty areas that are mentioned in the priority, especially for
field-initiated topic area (d) (other topics). The commenter asked the
Department to allow applicants to demonstrate need without relying
solely on data.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment and recognizes
that baseline data for interpreter training in specialty areas is
limited. We account for this under Application Requirements,
``Significance of the Project,'' paragraph (a)(2). The section states
that, in the event that an applicant proposes training in a new
specialty area that does not currently exist or for which there are no
baseline data, the applicant should provide an adequate explanation of
the lack of reliable data and may report zero as a baseline.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters asserted that the majority of sign
language interpreters are non-native users of ASL. Commenters explained
that, as a result, most interpreter training programs focus on second
language learners (L2) instead of native signers, heritage signers, and
lifelong fluent signers. One commenter explained that, while each of
these groups is different in terms of formative experience and language
development trajectory, they have much more in common with each other
than they do with L2 signers. The commenter specified that training
programs should prioritize these groups and consider pedagogical
implications. The commenter stated that signers with strong ties to the
Deaf community are an untapped pool of potential interpreters that can
be quickly and effectively trained. The commenter further stressed the
urgent need for high-quality interpreters as more States pass licensure
requirements. One commenter noted that recruitment is not enough and
that interpreter training programs should develop programming that
addresses the needs of this frequently overlooked population. To this
end, one commenter recommended adding the recruitment and training of
native signers, heritage signers, and lifelong fluent signers as an
additional specialty area. Another commenter proposed a modification
under Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project Services,''
paragraph (c). The commenter recommended the addition of a requirement
that supports interpreters who come from heritage signing backgrounds,
Deaf and child of a Deaf adult (CODA) backgrounds, and interpreters who
have not engaged in structured interpreter training programs.
Discussion: The Department agrees that native, heritage, and
lifelong fluent signers have much to contribute to the profession of
interpreting. The Department also recognizes the benefit of the
increased inclusion of Deaf interpreters and has supported interpreter
practice and training for Deaf interpreters in prior grant cycles (see
<a href="https://ncrtm.ed.gov/">https://ncrtm.ed.gov/</a> for more information). In the NIEC 2015 Trends
Report, 61 percent of service providers responding to the trends survey
reported an increase in the demand for the services of Deaf
interpreters and 81 percent reported difficulty finding qualified Deaf
interpreters. Specialty
[[Page 39970]]
area (5)(d), other topics, allows for field-initiated topics in a new
topic area or in areas for which there is existing training that is not
adequately meeting the needs of interpreters working in the field of
VR. Under specialty area (5)(d), applicants may propose a project that
addresses the inclusion, training, and recruitment of Deaf signers. We
agree with the recommendation to include outreach for individuals who
come from heritage signing, deaf, and CODA backgrounds in the ``Quality
of Project Services.''
Changes: We are revising Application Requirements, ``Quality of
Project Services,'' paragraph (c)(3), to include individuals who come
from heritage signing backgrounds, deaf, and CODA backgrounds.
Comment: One commenter noted that the Application Requirements do
not mention language planning in the development or delivery of the
project. The commenter recommended that a section be added under
Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project Services,'' paragraph
(c)(7) to require that educational content and related discussions/
activities be developed in both English and ASL. According to the
commenter who had developed a bilingual curriculum, the ability to
engage with the content in both languages has improved engagement from
participants and learning outcomes for all participants.
More specifically, Deaf and CODA participants in the commenter's
project reported that being able to learn in their native language made
learning more fun and engaging. Hearing participants reported that
having the opportunity to discuss complex topics in ASL increased their
language flexibility and fluency. The commenter noted that while the
development of a bilingual curriculum was time consuming and costly, it
led to a positive retention rate and successful outcomes.
Discussion: We agree that interpreter training in specialized areas
could benefit from a bilingual curriculum to maximize engagement and
outcomes for all participants, and applicants are encouraged to
consider creating a bilingual curriculum. However, we have concerns
about time and costs associated with this effort. Creating video
content requires more and different resources than educational content
that is only available in English/print material. We also want to
ensure grantees are in a position to complete pilots by the end of the
first year and begin training in the second year of the project.
Accordingly, due to cost and timing considerations, we do not think it
is appropriate to require a bilingual curriculum.
Changes: None.
Comment: Regarding Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project
Design,'' paragraph (b), one commenter stated that the priority aims to
address the shortage of working interpreters but does not give enough
attention to the shortage of skilled and experienced educators and
mentors from diverse backgrounds available to support interpreter
training in specialty areas. The commenter requested that we require
applicants to describe how they will build and support the skills of
educators who are also experienced and comfortable with remote
delivery. The commenter reflected on their own experience, stating that
it took about three years and a large part of a project to train, build
capacity, and support a small number of educators. The commenter
concluded that investing in skilled and experienced educators and
mentors would lead to meaningful experiences for participants and long-
term impacts for interpreter education.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to provide participants
with a high-quality training experience and for applicants to identify
skilled and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and
subject matter experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, and to
develop the necessary training for them to improve and enhance
interpreting skills in their respective areas and deliver instruction
remotely, as needed. The remote learning environment must be accessible
to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, as applicable. We also recognize that there may be a
limited pool of skilled and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators,
coaches, and subject matter experts. Applicants are strongly encouraged
to consider train-the-trainer models and other relevant models to
increase their capacity, as well as create opportunities for
participants to advance as mentors, coaches, and facilitators in the
program.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, we are revising ``Quality
of Project Design,'' paragraph (b)(3), to address providing skilled,
diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and
subject matter experts, as needed. Under Application Requirements,
``Quality of Project Services,'' paragraph (c)(5), we are adding a
requirement that applicants describe how they will identify skilled,
diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and
subject matter experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, and
develop necessary training for them to improve and enhance interpreting
skills in their respective areas, as well as in remote delivery, as
needed. Applicants must also describe how they will grow the pool of
experienced personnel and create opportunities for participants to
advance as mentors, coaches, and facilitators in the program.
Induction Experience
Comment: We received a number of comments with respect to the
requirements related to the induction experience described under
Application Requirements, paragraph (c)(7)(iii). Commenters observed
some challenges with offering a small number of high-quality induction
experiences versus a large number of induction experiences that may be
of lower quality. Some commenters noted that induction experiences
would lead to better qualified interpreters in specialized areas while
some other commenters noted that participants may not be in a position
to commit to an induction experience and, as a result, potential
participants may decide not to participate in the program, leading to
programs serving fewer participants. Additionally, commenters shared
that for field-initiated projects, the interpreter training specialty
area may be brand new or in early development and, as a result, there
may be limited opportunities for induction experiences. Commenters
noted limited availability of educators, mentors, and supervisors
necessary to support the newly developed induction experiences. One
commenter encouraged induction experiences to be fully and equally
accessible to deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Finally, commenters
noted that classroom instruction alone is not enough, indicating that
inductions offer participants a deeper learning experience and may
offer opportunities for employment.
Discussion: We agree that induction experiences are critical and
necessary for interpreters to raise their skill level to effectively
meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, and DeafBlind. The proposed priority included a requirement
that participants receive an induction in each specialty area as part
of successful completion in the program. We recognize that in-person
inductions may need to occur remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. We
acknowledge limitations regarding available induction opportunities and
trained personnel necessary to support them. We also acknowledge that
not all
[[Page 39971]]
potential participants are in a position to participate in an induction
but would still benefit significantly from participating in the
program. Finally, we agree with the comment that inductions must be
fully and equally accessible to deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind
participants.
Changes: We are revising the Application Requirements, ``Quality of
Project Services,'' paragraph (c)(8)(iii), to clarify that, to the
extent possible, the proposed project will establish induction
experiences in the specialty area for participants as part of
successful completion in the training program. We are also revising
this requirement to clarify that applicants must be prepared to pivot
between in-person and remote inductions during the grant, as needed,
throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also provide that
the number of participants completing inductions may be based on
availability of opportunities and trained personnel necessary to
support them. Applicants must work to increase the availability of
inductions in their respective specialty area, where possible. Finally,
we are expanding the requirements under paragraph (c)(8)(iii) to
indicate that the induction environment must be designed in such a way
that meets the communication preferences of individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, and DeafBlind.
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Remote Learning
Comment: A number of commenters noted that the COVID-19 pandemic
has changed or impacted interpreter education. Several commenters
raised concerns about the training being offered remotely during the
pandemic and described challenges regarding access, delivery, and
participation, particularly for individuals located in rural areas.
Another commenter noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has made the process
of becoming a qualified interpreter more challenging. One commenter
indicated that the transition to a virtual classroom and hiatus of
onsite practicum opportunities has left an entire cohort of
interpreting students behind. The commenter noted that many students
took a leave of absence and will struggle to return, practicums were
cancelled, and in-person quality assurance screenings were suspended.
Another commenter focused on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the
learning environment for students nationwide and recommended that the
priority address this issue. One commenter asserted that training for
interpreters in the specialty areas and under Application Requirements,
``Quality of Project Design,'' paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (4), should
not be implemented entirely online. The commenter contended that online
training is exclusive and only accessible to individuals who have
access to the equipment needed to participate. Conversely, three
commenters asserted that projects must continue virtually during the
COVID-19 pandemic. One commenter stated that even with the challenges
of COVID-19 and the changes to the learning environment, this project
can be done virtually. Another commenter shared that funding could help
create a program that functions well under current conditions in the
COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, one commenter stated that preparing
interpreters to work in a nearly exclusive virtual platform is
necessary and nearly non-existent in most interpreter education program
curricula.
Discussion: We agree the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially
impacted all aspects of interpreter education and training from design
to delivery of services. We also agree that access to high-quality
training is essential for all participants in this program, regardless
of location and financial status. The Department appreciates the
concerns about remote learning. As stated in the background section of
the NPP, remote learning may include online, hybrid/blended learning,
or non-technology-based learning. Applicants may decide when to safely
offer in-person training and must be prepared to pivot between in-
person and remote learning during the project, as needed, throughout
the duration of the pandemic. Additionally, under the Application
Requirements, ``Quality of Project Design,'' paragraphs (b)(1), (2),
and (4) offer flexible options for implementing both in-person and
remote learning. Because the Department has defined ``remote learning''
broadly, we believe it is inclusive and accessible for the majority of
participants. Further, given the restrictions on gatherings caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic, remote learning is a viable option for many
programs and participants. Applicants are strongly encouraged to access
the Department's COVID-19 resource page at: <a href="http://www.ed.gov/coronavirus">www.ed.gov/coronavirus</a>.
Changes: The Department has revised Application Requirements,
``Quality of Project Design,'' paragraph (b)(2), to convey that
applicants may decide when to safely offer in-person training and must
be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote learning during the
project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
To ensure consistency with the Department's Administrative Priority and
Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published on December 30,
2020 (85 FR 86545), we have added to Application Requirements,
``Quality of Project Design,'' paragraph (b)(1), that the remote
learning environment must be accessible to individuals with
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
applicable.
Comment: One commenter noted that the priority and requirements do
not mention interpreting services provided over the technological
medium of video (i.e., Over Video Interpreting) and recommended the
incorporation of Over Video Interpreting in the priority and
application requirements. The commenter explained that Over Video
Interpreting occurs through video conferencing software/equipment and a
high-speed internet connection and can be either Video Relay Service
(VRS) or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). The commenter shared that
VRS, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, employs
thousands of interpreters to provide service to tens of thousands of
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind to support
their telecommunication needs for daily living. The commenter noted
that VRI has been a growing platform for interpreting services for
several years in a wide variety of settings, including medical
establishments, mental health settings, police stations, schools, and
the workplace. The commenter further stated that video interpreting has
seen a steep increase with physical distance protocols in place during
the COVID-19 pandemic. The commenter emphasized that increased use of
VRI and VRS is likely to continue even after pandemic protocols are
relaxed, especially in areas where there is limited access to on-site
interpreters or a need for interpreters with a specialty. The commenter
asserted that with rapid growth in technology and service provision
across various settings, there is a need for adequate training and
standardized practice for over video interpreting. Under Application
Requirements, ``Quality of Project Design,'' paragraph (b), the
commenter recommended that we require practice and training
opportunities for interpreting in specialty areas that do not require
physical touch to include both in-person and over video settings. The
commenter shared that there is a shortage of skilled interpreters,
which has a significant impact on the needs of VR consumers who are
seeking and maintaining education, training, and
[[Page 39972]]
gainful employment. The commenter further explained that the lack of
specialized training available creates a gap in skill and readiness for
interpreters looking for VRS employment. The commenter also recommended
adding a specialty area to the priority focused on VRS interpreting and
training interpreters to use virtual and hybrid settings.
Discussion: We appreciate the comment and agree that the
incorporation of Over Video (i.e., VRI and VRS) services is an
important aspect of interpreting. We also agree that video interpreting
has seen a steep increase with physical distance protocols in place
during the COVID-19 pandemic and that increased use of VRI and VRS is
likely to continue even after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we
disagree with the recommendation that applicants should be required to
include practice and training opportunities in Over Video settings. We
believe applicants should have the option to determine what practice
and training is necessary for their respective specialty area and may
consider Over Video settings, as appropriate. Additionally, we
acknowledge the recommendation to create a new specialty area focused
on VRS interpreting. We believe this content area is more appropriate
for Specialty Area (5) (field-initiated), under topic area (d) (other
topics). As described in the priority, applicants under Specialty Area
(5) must demonstrate the need for the training in a proposed new topic
area or, in areas for which there is existing training, demonstrate
that the existing training is not adequately meeting the needs of
interpreters working in the field of VR.
Changes: None.
Cultural Competency Training, Outreach, and Recruitment of Interpreters
From Multicultural Backgrounds
Comment: The Department received a large number of comments focused
on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field of interpreter
training. Commenters identified gaps, disparities, and inequities in
the recruitment, education, training, testing, assessments, employment,
and advancement of interpreters from minority backgrounds. Commenters
reported that in 2018, 88 percent of interpreters certified by RID
identified as White and only 3.6 percent identified as African
American/Black. To expand the pool of qualified interpreters from
diverse backgrounds, commenters recommended a new specialty area
focused on the recruitment and training of interpreters from diverse
backgrounds. Commenters explained that linguistic research demonstrates
that there are significant dialectical differences between Black ASL
(BASL), indigenous varieties of ASL, and standard ASL, and that
interpreters with novice to advanced skills need to be familiar with
these variations. Another commenter noted that BASL is not the same as
atypical language, although it is often misconstrued as such. Finally,
commenters stated the importance of culture, values, and language
within the field of interpreting and the necessity for individuals who
are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind to have the option to work
with interpreters who are of the same race or ethnicity as themselves
and to increase representation of interpreters from traditionally
underrepresented groups in the field. Commenters recommended the
incorporation of a cultural competency training component within the
priority. Commenters recommended that topics such as BASL, Black deaf
culture, graduation rates of diverse interpreters, bias, and practices
that support diversity be included in cultural competency training.
Discussion: The Department agrees that a new specialty area is
needed to develop cultural competency training in the field. A new
specialty area will increase the number of qualified interpreters from
multicultural backgrounds so that individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, and DeafBlind have access to a culturally competent, diverse,
and qualified pool of interpreters. This recommended specialty area
aligns with Executive Order 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government''
(86 FR 7009), issued January 20, 2021, which provides that
affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal
opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government. It
also provides that because advancing equity requires a systematic
approach to embedding fairness in decision-making processes, Federal
agencies must recognize and work to redress inequities in their
policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal opportunity.
Further, this recommended specialty area recognizes the fact that, at
present, a disproportionately high number of interpreters identify as
Euro-American/White while the demographics of the deaf, hard of
hearing, and DeafBlind individuals mirror that of the general
population. This specialty area addresses the need for more diversity
among interpreters in order to meet the social, cultural, and
linguistic needs of the deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind
individuals they serve.
Under this specialty area, projects may contain cultural competency
training for interpreters at all skill levels and could include, for
example, exploration of unconscious and conscious biases, privilege,
stereotypes, prejudicial attitudes, and the dynamics of oppression on
interpreters from multicultural backgrounds, as well as heritage and
native signers; examination of microaggressions within the interpreter
training field; and gaps, disparities, and inequities in the
recruitment, education, training, testing, assessments, employment, and
advancement of interpreters from minority backgrounds. The specialty
area may also provide training to associate, bachelor's, and advanced
degree ASL-English interpreting programs to increase and support
outreach and recruitment of interpreters from multicultural
backgrounds. When preparing outreach and recruitment materials,
selection criteria for training programs, and criteria for selecting
trainers employed under the grant, applicants must cast a wide net for
participants of all races and not preclude participation based on race,
color, or national origin.
Changes: To adequately address the breadth and scope of comments
received about diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field of
interpreting, the Department is adding a specialty area under the final
priority, titled Specialty Area (4) (cultural competency training,
outreach, and recruitment of interpreters from multicultural
backgrounds). We are also making revisions under Application
Requirements, described elsewhere in the analysis of comments, to
incorporate cultural competency under all specialty areas within the
priority.
Comment: Many commenters described prevalent bias within the field
of ASL interpreting and indicated a strong need to recognize and
address implications of this bias through the priority. Commenters also
explained the importance of promoting representation by exposing
interpreters to trainers who are of the same race, ethnicity, and
background as themselves.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the comments that it is
important to expose interpreters to trainers who are of the same race,
ethnicity, and background as themselves. We agree that it is of the
utmost importance that all interpreter training projects funded through
this priority take steps to eliminate barriers and reduce biases.
Therefore, we believe it is necessary to
[[Page 39973]]
incorporate cultural competency into each of the respective specialty
areas.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project
Design,'' paragraph (b)(1), we are adding that applicants must consider
cultural competency as it relates to their respective specialty area.
Applicants must describe how training and accompanying materials
developed for interpreting practice and application, especially video
content, will include diverse and inclusive models and perspectives.
National Certification
Comment: Two commenters highlighted the need for interpreters to be
certified. One commenter strongly encouraged the Department to require
the attainment of national certification as the minimum standard that
all ASL interpreters should strive for. Another commenter noted that
without certification it is difficult to guarantee the skillset of an
interpreter.
Discussion: Part of the purpose of this program is to provide
opportunities for interpreters to raise their skill level in order to
meet the highest standards approved by certifying associations and to
effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. In FFY 2016, the Department funded a
national project to provide experiential learning to novice
interpreters to successfully attain national certification and reduce
the length of time between graduation and certification. More
information about this project may be accessed through the
Rehabilitation Services Administration's NCRTM at <a href="http://ncrtm.ed.gov">ncrtm.ed.gov</a>. We also
recognize that the specialty areas may not yet have certification in
place or a relevant metric of success because they are new or in the
early stages of development.
Changes: None.
Technical Changes
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon further review, the Department noted that it had
included the definition of ``remote learning'' in the background
section of the NPP but omitted it in the requirements.
Changes: We have added the definition of ``remote learning'' to the
requirements where the term first appears, under ``Quality of Project
Services,'' paragraph (b)(1) of the Application Requirements.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Department is interested in exploring whether an
induction experience contributed to greater or more robust outcomes for
working interpreters compared to those that did not complete an
induction.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, ``Quality of the
Evaluation Plan,'' paragraph (d)(3), we have added a requirement that
applicants must describe an approach for measuring outcomes for
participants that completed an induction compared to those who did not
complete an induction prior to successfully completing the program.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Under Application Requirements, ``Significance of the
Proposed Project,'' we identified duplication between paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) and (ii) and made technical changes needed to improve
clarity.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, ``Significance of the
Proposed Project,'' we have combined paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) and
made technical changes to reflect that applicants must describe the
competencies working interpreters must demonstrate in order to provide
high-quality services in the identified specialty area and explain how
those competencies are based on practices that demonstrate a rationale
or are supported by promising evidence.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We are adding an assurance statement to the application
requirements to comply with 34 CFR 396.20(d), which requires an
assurance that any interpreter trained or retrained under this program
will meet the standards of competency for a qualified professional
established by the Secretary.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, we have added paragraph
(g)(3), which requires applicants to assure that any interpreter
trained or retrained under this program will meet the standards of
competency for a qualified professional, as defined in 34 CFR 396.4(c).
Comment: None.
Discussion: We inadvertently included the definition of ``working
interpreter'' and listed the specialty areas in the background to the
priority, rather than the text of the priority. We are moving those
provisions into the priority, with the changes and clarifications
discussed in this Analysis of the Comments section.
We are removing language about the project outcomes from the
priority because we have modified and incorporated this data into the
performance measures, which will be included in the NIA for this
program. The performance measures accurately reflect the goals and
purpose of this program and the priority, and therefore additional
outcome measures are no longer needed.
Changes: In the text of the final priority, we have added the
revised definition of ``working interpreter'' and listed the specialty
areas, including a new specialty area focused on cultural competency,
outreach, and recruitment of interpreters from multicultural
backgrounds. We have removed from the priority language about the
project outcomes.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on the current and prior grant cycles, we have
seen that participants benefit from gaining a foundational
understanding of the VR program. Further, this information aligns with
the purpose of the priority, which is to meet the communication needs
of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are
DeafBlind receiving vocational rehabilitation (VR) services and/or
services from other programs, such as independent living services,
under the Rehabilitation Act.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, ``Quality of Project
Design,'' paragraph (b)(1), we have added that training materials may
include information to ensure participants have a foundational
understanding of the VR program.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Under Application Requirements, ``Quality of the
Evaluation Plan,'' paragraph (d)(4), we determined that the requirement
to gather information from participants about their knowledge of VR can
be satisfied under paragraph (d)(2), which requires an approach for
measuring knowledge, skills, and competencies before and after
successful completion of training. We also determined that paragraph
(d)(4) needed to align more closely with the priority and the
performance measures that will be included in the NIA for this program.
Changes: Under Application Requirements, ``Quality of the
Evaluation Plan,'' paragraph (d)(4), we removed the requirement to
gather information from participants about their knowledge of VR. We
also modified paragraph (d)(4) to require an approach for gathering
information from participants about their estimated percentage of
workload interpreting for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing
and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving VR services and/or services
from other programs, such as independent living services, before and
after specialty training.
[[Page 39974]]
Final Priority
Interpreter Training in Specialty Areas
The purpose of this priority is to fund projects that provide
training to working interpreters in one of five specialty areas to
effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving vocational
rehabilitation (VR) services and/or services from other programs, such
as independent living services, under the Rehabilitation Act. For the
purposes of this priority, working interpreters must possess a
baccalaureate degree and a minimum of three years of relevant
experience as an interpreter. On a case-by-case basis and in
consultation with RSA, educational equivalence may be used in place of
the baccalaureate degree.
The specialty areas are--
(1) Increasing skills of novice interpreters;
(2) Trilingual interpreting (including Spanish) (i.e., language
fluency in first, second, and third languages with one of the three
languages being ASL);
(3) Advanced skills for working interpreters;
(4) Cultural competency training, outreach, and recruitment of
interpreters from multicultural backgrounds; and
(5) National projects in a field-initiated area, in topic areas
such as-
(a) Interpreting in healthcare, including interpreting for hard-to-
serve populations;
(b) Interpreting for individuals who are DeafBlind;
(c) Atypical language interpreting; and
(d) Other topics in new areas for which applicants demonstrate that
the existing training is not adequately meeting the needs of
interpreters working in the field of VR.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)), or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Application Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this priority. We may apply these requirements in any year in which
this priority is in effect.
Application Requirements
The following application requirements apply to all specialty areas
under this priority. The Department encourages innovative approaches to
meet these requirements. Applicants must--
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the
application under ``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed
project will address the need for sign language interpreters in a
specialty area. To address this requirement, applicants must--
(1) Present applicable data demonstrating the need for interpreters
in the specialty area for which training will be developed by the
project and delivered in at least three distinct, noncontiguous
geographic areas, which may include the U.S. Territories;
(2) Present baseline data for the number or estimated number of
working interpreters currently trained in the specialty area. In the
event that an applicant proposes training in a new specialty area that
does not currently exist or for which there are no baseline data, the
applicant should provide an adequate explanation of the lack of
reliable data and may report zero as a baseline; and
(3) Describe the competencies that working interpreters must
demonstrate in order to provide high-quality services in the identified
specialty area and explain how those competencies are based on
practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising
evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of Project Design,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Develop a new training program or stand-alone modules and
conduct a pilot by the end of the first year of the project. Applicants
must provide justification in their application if they believe
additional time may be necessary to fully develop and pilot the
curricula before the end of the first year. The training program or
stand-alone modules must contain remote learning \1\ experiences that
advance engagement and learning (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous
professional learning, professional learning networks or communities,
and coaching), which could also be incorporated into existing
associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree ASL-English (or ASL-other
spoken language) programs, as appropriate. The remote learning
environment must be accessible to individuals with disabilities in
accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applicable. Applicants
may choose to award continuing education credits (CEUs) or college or
master's level credits to participants in the training program.
Applicants should note that while pre-service training is not the focus
of this program, a variety of resources may be considered (such as
available pre-service training material) that may inform, support, or
strengthen the development of training for ASL-English interpreter
training in specialized areas. Training materials may include
information to ensure participants have a foundational understanding of
the VR program. Finally, applicants must consider cultural competency
as it relates to their respective specialty area. Applicants must
describe how training and accompanying materials developed for
interpreting practice and application, especially video content, will
include diverse and inclusive models and perspectives;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Remote learning means programming where at least part of the
learning occurs away from the physical building in a manner that
addresses a learner's educational needs. Remote learning may include
online, hybrid/blended learning, or non-technology-based learning
(e.g., lab kits, project supplies, paper packets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Deliver the training or stand-alone modules remotely to at
least three distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of these application requirements in years two, three,
four, and five of the project. Applicants may deliver in-person
training, as appropriate, to support participants' application of
knowledge, skills, and competencies gained through online training.
Applicants may decide when to safely offer in-person training and must
be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote learning during the
project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic;
[[Page 39975]]
(3) Provide skilled, diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors,
facilitators, coaches, and subject matter experts, as appropriate for
the specialty area, to participants, as needed. This may include, but
is not limited to, one-on-one instruction to address specific areas
identified by an advisor as needing further practice, and providing
written feedback from observed interpreting situations and mentoring
sessions, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors, and from others,
as appropriate;
(4) Develop a self-directed track and make it available to the
public for independent remote learning by the end of the second year of
the project. Applicants must develop a curriculum guide for each module
and make available relevant materials from the training program.
Applicants may offer CEUs to participants who successfully complete the
self-directed track;
(5) Be based on current research and make use of practices that
demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence. To meet
this requirement, applicants must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising
evidence in the development and delivery of training and in the
development of products and materials;
(ii) How the proposed project will ensure interaction between
project participants and individuals with disabilities who are deaf,
hard of hearing, and DeafBlind and have a range of communication
skills, from those with limited language skills to those with high-
level, professional language skills, as appropriate.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
Project Services,'' applicants must--
(1) Demonstrate how the project will ensure equal access and
treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups
who have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color,
national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe the criteria that will be used to identify applicants
for participation in the program, including any pre-assessments that
may be used to determine the skill, knowledge base, and competencies of
the working interpreter;
(3) Describe how the project will conduct outreach \2\ to working
interpreters, especially working interpreters from rural areas, Indian
Tribes, traditionally underrepresented groups, and individuals who come
from heritage signing, deaf, and CODA backgrounds;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When preparing outreach and recruitment materials, selection
criteria for training programs, as well as criteria for selecting
trainers employed under the grant, applicants must cast a wide net
for participants of all races and not preclude participation based
on race, color, or national origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Describe how the project will provide feedback, resources, and
next steps to applicants who may not be accepted into the program due
to insufficient skills, knowledge base, and competencies;
(5) Describe how the program will identify skilled, diverse, and
experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and subject matter
experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, and develop necessary
training for them to improve and enhance interpreting skills in their
respective areas, as well as in remote delivery, as needed. Applicants
must also describe how they will grow the pool of experienced personnel
and create opportunities for participants to advance as mentors,
coaches, and facilitators in the program;
(6) Describe the approach that will be used to enable more working
interpreters to participate in and successfully complete the training
program, specifically participants who need to work while in the
program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live in
geographically isolated areas;
(7) Describe how the project will incorporate adult learning
principles and practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported
by promising evidence for adult learners;
(8) Demonstrate how the project is of sufficient scope, intensity,
and duration to adequately prepare working interpreters in the
identified specialty area of training. To address this requirement,
applicants must describe how--
(i) The components of the proposed project will support working
interpreters' acquisition and enhancement of the competencies
identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of these application requirements;
(ii) The components of the project will provide working
interpreters opportunities to apply their content knowledge in a
variety of practical settings;
(iii) The proposed project will establish induction experiences in
the specialty area for participants as a requirement for completion in
the training program, to the extent possible. The induction environment
must be designed in such a way that meets the communication preferences
of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. Applicants
must be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote inductions
during the project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19
pandemic. The number of participants completing inductions may be based
on availability of opportunities and trained personnel necessary to
support them. Applicants may determine the appropriate scope and length
of time for the induction and must work to increase the availability of
inductions in their respective specialty area, where possible;
(9) Demonstrate how the proposed project will actively engage
representation from consumers, consumer organizations, and service
providers, especially State VR agencies and their partners,
interpreters, interpreter educators, and individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, and DeafBlind, in all aspects of the project; and
(10) Describe how the project will conduct dissemination,
coordination, and communication activities. To meet this requirement,
the applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Disseminate information to working interpreters about training
available in specialized areas and to State VR agencies and their
partners, American Job Centers, and other workforce partners about how
to locate specialized interpreters in their State and local areas;
(ii) Establish a state-of-the-art website or modify an existing
website for communicating with participants and stakeholders and ensure
that all material developed by the grant and posted on the website are
accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act and title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, as applicable. The website must provide a central
location for all material related to the project, such as reports,
training curricula, audiovisual materials, webinars, communities of
practice, and other relevant material developed by the grantee;
(iii) Disseminate information about the project, including, but not
limited to, products such as training curricula, presentations,
reports, effective practices for training working interpreters in
specialized areas, and other relevant information through the NCRTM;
(iv) In the final year of the budget period, ensure that all
training materials have been provided to the NCRTM and the website and
IT platform can be
[[Page 39976]]
sustained, or coordinate with RSA to transition the website to the
NCRTM;
(v) Establish one or more communities of practice in the specialty
area of training that focuses on project activities and acts as a
vehicle for communication and exchange of information among
participants in the program and other relevant stakeholders;
(vi) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with other relevant
Department-funded projects, as applicable;
(vii) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer
and other RSA staff as required;
(viii) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, as appropriate,
with key staff in State VR agencies, such as the State Coordinators for
the Deaf; State and local partner programs; consumer organizations and
associations, including those that represent individuals who are deaf,
hard of hearing, and DeafBlind; and relevant RSA partner organizations
and associations; and
(ix) Disseminate to associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree
ASL-English programs, as well as to relevant Department-funded programs
and Federal partners, as applicable, the training material and products
for incorporation into existing curricula, as well as products,
effective practices for training working interpreters in specialized
areas, challenges and solutions, results achieved, and lessons learned.
To satisfy this requirement, the grantee must develop participant
guides, implementation materials, toolkits, manuals, and other relevant
material for interpreter educators and others, as appropriate, to
incorporate or build into existing programs.
(d) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the Evaluation Plan,'' include an evaluation plan. To meet this
requirement, the evaluation plan must describe--
(1) Standards and targets for measuring the effectiveness of the
program;
(2) An approach for measuring knowledge, skills, and competencies
before and after successful completion of training;
(3) An approach for measuring outcomes for participants that
completed an induction compared to those who did not prior to
successfully completing the program;
(4) An approach for gathering information from participants about
their estimated percentage of workload interpreting for individuals who
are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving
VR services and/or services from other programs, such as independent
living services, before and after specialty training;
(5) An approach for incorporating oral and written feedback from
trainers and deaf consumers and any feedback from coaching or mentoring
sessions conducted with the participants;
(6) Methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods,
and analyses that will be used to evaluate the project and how the
methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data to
demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended
outcomes;
(7) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to
which the project activities and products have reached their intended
recipients, measures of intended outcomes or results in order to
evaluate those activities, and how well the goals and objectives of the
proposed project, as described in the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR
77.1), have been met;
(8) How the evaluation will be coordinated, implemented, and
revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at
least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, demonstrated
experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to coordinate
and conduct the evaluation. This may include, but is not limited to,
making revisions post award in order to reflect any changes or
clarifications, as needed, to the model and to the evaluation design
and instrumentation with the logic model (e.g., designing instruments
and developing quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit
collecting of progress data and assessing project outcomes); and
(9) How evaluation results will be used to examine the
effectiveness of the training. To address this requirement, applicants
must provide an approach for determining--
(i) What practice(s) was most effective in training working
interpreters in the respective specialty area and what data
demonstrates the practice(s) was effective; and
(ii) What practice(s) was most effective in narrowing working
interpreters' skill gaps and what data demonstrates the practice(s) was
effective.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
with the project from persons who are members of groups that have
historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe any proposed consultants or contractors named in the
application and their areas of expertise and provide a rationale to
demonstrate the need;
(3) Describe costs associated with technology, including, but not
limited to, maintaining an online learning platform, state-of-the-art
archiving and dissemination platform, and communication tools (i.e.,
Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Google, Amazon Chime, Skype, etc.), ensuring all
products and services are accessible to individuals with disabilities
in accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applicable, including costs
associated with captioning and transcription services, and
cybersecurity; and
(4) The applicant and any identified partners have adequate
resources to carry out the proposed activities.
(f) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how applicants will ensure that--
(1) The project's intended outcomes, including the evaluation, will
be achieved on time and within budget, through--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities of key project personnel,
consultants, and contractors, as applicable;
(ii) Procedures to track and ensure completion of the action steps,
timelines, and milestones established for key project activities,
requirements, and deliverables;
(iii) Internal monitoring processes to ensure that the project is
being implemented in accordance with the established application and
project plan; and
(iv) Internal financial management controls to ensure accurate and
timely obligations, drawdowns, and reporting of grant funds, as well as
monitoring contracts, in accordance with the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards at 2 CFR part 200 and the terms and conditions of the Federal
award.
(2) The allocation of key project personnel, consultants, and
contractors, as applicable, including levels of effort of key personnel
that are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended
outcomes, including an assurance that key personnel will have enough
availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;
[[Page 39977]]
(3) The products and services are of high quality, relevance, and
usefulness, in both content and delivery;
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives; and
(5) Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal
civil rights laws.
(g) Address the following application requirements. Applicants
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and short and long-term
outcomes of the proposed project;
(2) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative; and
(3) Provide an assurance that any interpreters trained or retrained
under this program will meet the standards of competency for a
qualified professional, defined in 34 CFR 396.4(c) as an individual who
has: (i) Met existing certification or evaluation requirements
equivalent to the highest standards approved by certifying
associations; and (ii) successfully demonstrated interpreting skills
that reflect the highest standards approved by certifying associations
through prior work experience.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority or these requirements we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing this final priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business
Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small
businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a
population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect,
that is, public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations
including institutions of higher education, are eligible for assistance
under this program. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant
by the final priority and requirements would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of the
final priority and requirements would outweigh any costs incurred by
the applicant. There are very few
[[Page 39978]]
entities that could provide the type of technical assistance required
under the final priority and requirements. For these reasons, the final
priority and requirements will not impose a significant burden on a
substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The priority and requirements
contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1820-0018; the priority and requirements do
not affect the currently approved data collection.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Katherine Neas,
Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-15915 Filed 7-22-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 26, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.