Carolyn Ball Dissertation 2007

THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING EDUCATION
by
Carolyn Ball
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
April 2007
UMI Number: 3258295
Copyright 2007 by
Ball, Carolyn
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 3258295

Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Carolyn Ball, 2007
THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING EDUCATION

by
Carolyn Ball
has been approved
April 2007
APPROVED:
MARSHA E. COVINGTON, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
GORDON C. GRAHAM, Ph.D., Committee Member
CAROL J. PATRIE, Ph.D., Committee Member
ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:
__________________________________________
MARSHA E. COVINGTON, Ed.D.
__________________________________________
Harry McLenighan, Ed.D.
Interim Dean, School of Education
Abstract
The American Sign Language Interpreter education field has a rich history that is largely
undocumented. Although other educational programs such as nursing and teaching have recorded
histories, American Sign Language interpreter education in the United States does not. This
study will provide a chronological history, drawn from the records of several organizations
dating back as far as the eighteenth century, and information obtained during interviews with key
practitioners. Ultimately, it will provide the profession of interpreter education a full review of
the key theories and people, and the social, political and legal perspectives that have influenced
the development of the interpreter education field. Recommendations for changes in curricular
design are included.
Dedication
To my wonderful family
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my family for all of their support during this process of writing my
dissertation. To Kelley, my life partner, you helped me make charts and you listened to all of the
discoveries regarding interpreter education that I felt were so important. I could not have
accomplished this life long goal without you. Additionally I would like to thank Charlotte Rose
Hamilton for her friendship and support. I wish she were still alive to see the final document. I
miss you CR. Another person I would like to thank is Dr. Tracy Steen, my dissertation coach.
Our weekly phone calls helped me to set realistic writing goals and to celebrate the successes,
whether large or small. You were the best cheerleader I could ever have and you never let me get
away with anything. Additionally, I would like to thank the members of the Conference of
Interpreter Trainers and other interpreters and interpreter educators for helping me find historical
documents that I thought would never be found. You searched your attics, basements and offices
to help me each time I asked for information regarding the history of interpreter educators. To
Anne K. Robey, you are the best editor in the world. And finally, I would like to thank my
mentor Dr. Marsha Covington for her leadership in guiding me through this process. It was
because of her support along with Dr. Gordon Graham and Dr. Carol Patrie that I was able to
write this history.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
iv
List of Tables
xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Research
Research Questions
Methodology
Dissertation Chapter Organization
CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF INTERPRETING EDUCATION (1800-1900)
11
Gallaudet Sails to Europe
12
Gallaudet Meets Laurent Clerc
12
The Trip to America: Learning French Sign Language
13
The First Interpreter Trainer
13
The Impact of Clercs Speech
14
The First Federal Law: The Enabling Act
15
A Growing Need for Interpreters
15
17
Dr. Lottie Riekhof
17
Validity Regarding Sign Language Training at CBI in 1948
18
College Bulletin Describes Sign Language Class
19
Formal Research of American Sign Language
20
Second Federal Law Passed
22
v
Vocational Rehabilitation Training for Deaf People
23
The Need for Trained Interpreters Expands
24
Summary
25
26
The Babbidge Report
27
The First Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf
29
The Secret Deaf Weapon
30
The Impact of VRA and Boyce Williams
32
Ball State Workshop Results: Training of Interpreters
33
Parameters of Interpreting Programs
34
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
35
Second Workshop on Interpreting & Education for the Deaf
35
Third Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf
36
Fourth Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf
37
A Program for Training Interpreters
38
Fifth Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf
40
LTP Established a Conference for Interpreters
41
Interpreter Training Program Established at NTID
43
Summary
44
46
Wisdom from JADARA in 1974
48
The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID)
50
Screening of Students
50
vi
Training
51
Curriculum
52
St. Paul Technical College (TVI)
53
54
Training
55
Curriculum
55
The First Published Curriculum for Interpreter Training
56
Deafness Research & Training Center of New York University
58
58
Training
59
Curriculum
60
California State University-Northridge
60
60
Training
61
Curriculum
61
Gallaudet College
62
62
Curriculum
62
Conference on the Preparation of Personnel in the Field of Interpreting
64
The Impact of Federal Legislation
65
The Impact of PL 94-142 on Deaf Children
67
The National Interpreter Training Consortium
68
Federal Aid for Interpreter Training Programs Continues
70
vii
Training Provided for Interpreter Training Programs
71
Interpreter Training in the 1980s
73
The Conference of Interpreter Trainers
76
First Board of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers
76
Summary
78
80
Mission of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers
82
The Resource Guide of Interpreter Training Programs 1980
83
The Second Conference of Interpreter Trainers
84
The Third Conference of Interpreter Trainers
84
The Texas Interpreter Training Consortium
86
The Fourth Conference of Interpreter Trainers
87
Proposed End Product of Interpreter Program
89
The Fifth Conference of Interpreter Trainers
91
The Sixth Conference of Interpreter Trainers
92
Western Maryland Masters Program
93
The Seventh Conference of Interpreter Trainers
95
CIT/RID Program Assessment Package
96
1989 FIPSE Grant
98
Summary
100
103
Lessons Learned From Pilot Study
113
CIT and RID Established Committees for Self-Study Process
113
viii
CIT Board Established the Educational Standards Committee (ESC)
115
The ESC Established Plan to Recruit Programs for SSR
117
SSR Funding
119
CIT Board Immobilizes SSR Process
121
Confusion Regarding SSR
122
The ESC and the CIT Board had Philosophical Differences
122
CIT Membership Vote Regarding Continuation of SSR
124
CIT/ASLTA Taskforce
124
SSR Coordinator Hired
125
Establishing the CCIE
126
Contract Signed with the DO-IT Center
126
CIT Standards Committee and CCIE Joint Face-to-Face Meeting
128
The Reality of the CCIE
129
Summary
130
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
131
Summary
131
Recommendations
132
Conclusion
134
REFERENCES
136
APPENDIX A: CIT NATIONAL CONVENTIONS
145
APPENDIX B: CIT ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 1979-2006
146
APPENDIX C: HISTORY OF CIT BOARD MEMBERS
147
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Historic Timeline of Interpreter Education Program Standards
106
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Interpreter educators are the products of a unique history, yet no comprehensive
chronological record describes key theories and key players in the history of interpreter
education. Although studying the past is not necessarily predictive of the future, it may provide a
deeper understanding of the past and bring wisdom. For example, studying the history of the
nursing profession provides a comprehensive documentation of information in terms of nursing
politics, trends, and policies of the profession. This history provides nurses with a chronological
record and recognition of key theories, as well as people who have influenced the nursing
profession (Bullough & Bullough, 1984).
The nursing profession has benefited from comprehensive documentation. First, nurses
can look back, read nursing policies from the 1800s, and understand how current politics were
influenced from the past. Second, nurses can understand these politics and their influence on
nursing policies. Third, understanding the key players in nursing history in a chronological
record provides a deeper awareness of the nursing profession.
Another way to illustrate the importance of documenting a chronological record of key
theories and players throughout history is illustrated in the story of Ms. Catharine Beecher who,
in 1843, played a vital role in encouraging women to become teachers in a male-dominated
profession (Dubline & Sklar, 2002). In the summer of 1843, Ms. Beecher traveled to New York
City to visit a family who was sympathetic to her views that women needed to become teachers.
Ms. Beecher also lectured all over the United States. Through these lectures, Ms. Beecher was
1
able to convince many women to become teachers and she also secured funding from the
wealthiest people in each town. In fact, 35 women were inspired by Ms. Beechers lectures and
chose to become teachers. These women left their homes in the east and moved to the west to
teach. Ms. Beecher continued contact with these women through letters. Ms. Beecher kept these
letters as historical documents and kept written copies of her formal speeches encouraging
women to become teachers.
Documenting a chronology of interpreter education and recognizing key theories and
people is vital in understanding the important historical events of the discipline of American Sign
Language interpreter education. In addition, those who teach interpreting can benefit from
knowing how the practices of interpreter education were developed.
A documented, chronological history of the interpreter education profession can provide
the field with a valuable comprehensive study of the key theories and practices, key people, and
key developments of interpreter education over time. This research can benefit the field by
guiding future developments in interpreter education. It also provides a way to acknowledge
people in the profession as well as the political laws that have influenced interpreter education.
Statement of the Problem

This research documents the history of the interpreter education profession in a
longitudinal manner and seeks to address the following problem: the field of interpreter
education has no documentation to guide its future development. The problem will be addressed
by seeking answers to the following questions. What have been the formational issues pertaining
to this field? When was the first interpreter education program established? What social and
political events and perspectives have influenced the development of this field? Who were the
2
key players in establishing the interpreter education profession? Can the result of this research
guide future curricular development?
Significance of the Research

The reason it is vital to understand and document the history of interpreter education is to
illuminate practices that represent the best thinking of the times in which they were developed,
even though ultimately they may not have been very useful. These faulty beginnings are
delineated here in order to avoid the use of similar approaches in the future; it will also provide
the basis for guiding interpreter education in the future. This historical data will provide
documentation of the chronology of the profession, pivotal theories and key people who have
influenced interpreter education, key events that have influenced the development of the
interpreter education profession, and finally, state and federal laws that have influenced the
development of the interpreter education profession. The lessons learned from documenting the
history of American Sign Language interpreter education will be an invaluable resource for
current and future interpreter educators.
Research Questions
Four research questions will be addressed. They are as follows:
1. Who were the key people in the ASL interpreter education profession between 1900
and the present?
2. What were the key events that influenced the development of the interpreter education
profession?
3
3. What are the state and federal laws that have influenced the field of interpreter
education?
4. Can the results of this research guide future curricular development in the field of
interpreter education?
Methodology
The researcher documented the history of ASL interpreter education and provided a
complete chronological history of events, key people, and federal laws that have influenced the
interpreter education profession. The data was collected in the following manner through an
extensive literature review and interviews. The data was documented in chronological order. If
there were different written versions of the same events, they were noted by the researcher. A
coding process was used to organize the historical documents in chronological order. Some
decades have more information than others do, which the researcher noted. Each decade was
organized chronologically and highlighted key people and important events in interpreter
education.
The researcher noted one of the first workshops on Interpreting for the Deaf on June 147, 1964. The proceedings from this meeting documented key people in the ASL interpreter
education profession. The proceedings also documented key events from the first national
workshop ever convened to develop guidelines for interpreting for the deaf. These proceedings
provided the researcher with knowledge of how interpreter and interpreter education began.
The researcher described the second workshop on interpreting, which was held at the
Governor Baxter State School for the Deaf in Portland, Maine, July 7-27, 1965. The proceedings
4
from this workshop also documented the key people in the interpreter education profession. The
key event which emerged from this workshop was the development of a manual to provide
curriculum development for interpreter training programs.
The researcher delineated a follow-up workshop after the Governor Baxter meeting,
which was held in Washington, D.C. on January 28-29, 1965. This workshops function was to
move the interpreting profession from its low profile to become a profession of prestige and
increasing value. The workshop also outlined what may have been the first general discussion by
key people who were interpreter trainers regarding curriculum and training ideas for interpreter
education programs.
The researcher documented a workshop, held in Washington, D.C. on March 28-30,
1972, which continued the focus of gaining knowledge and skills essential to interpreter
education and curriculum for interpreter trainers.
The researcher reviewed articles and convention proceedings from the Professionals
Networking for Excellence in Service Delivery with Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of
Hearing (ADARA). These articles were found in the archives that covered the organizations
founding in 1960 to the present. ADARA was sponsored by vocational rehabilitation and
published the Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf (JADARA) from 1968-1979. JADARA
recorded the chronic shortage of interpreters in the United States and started a detailed
chronological history of the first interpreter training programs. JADARA also provided detailed
information of programs and the people involved in the National Interpreter Training Consortium
(NITC), which played a seminal role in establishing interpreter-training programs in the United
States. In 1974, the entire JADARA journal focused on interpreter education, documenting
5
programs that taught interpreters with a detailed description of the programs written by their
current directors.
The researcher contacted the National Technical Institute of Technology for the Deaf
(NTID). NTID compiled a national index to help researchers locate articles, papers, publications,
and information on interpreting, interpreting issues, sign language, Deaf studies, Deaf History,
and other materials that were available or were no longer in print. Many of these out-of-prints
were difficult to find, but NTIDs index provided a resource for finding these articles.
The researcher consulted the Journal of Interpretation (JOI), which began in 1985 and
continues to be published today. JOI included current literature and research about the
interpreting profession and the skills needed to become a proficient interpreter. Although JOI did
not specifically focus on interpreter education, it documented pertinent information regarding
language and federal laws that influenced interpreter education, which in turn, had a significant
influence on federal funding for interpreter education.
The researcher reviewed minutes of the proceedings from the Conference of Interpreter
Trainers (CIT), which were first published in 1979 and continued to 2004, biannually. The CIT
proceedings provided a chronological review of interpreting programs, research, key theories,
and people that have influenced interpreter education.
The researcher also reviewed the newsletters of the CIT beginning in 1986 to present.
These newsletters provided a rich history of CIT. They documented issues surrounding
interpreter training standards and the academic progress of the profession. Although the various
contributing writers biases may have influenced the validity of the newsletters due to their
religious background, they were one of the few written resources to draw upon for the
6
chronological history of interpreter education. In fact, the key theories and key people involved
in the development of interpreter education were documented in each newsletter. Each newsletter
contained a column written by the current president of the organization along with important
information documenting curriculum ideas and key people in interpreter education.
The researcher reviewed a grant proposal from the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) written by CIT in 1989. This proposal, which was later given
funds by FIPSE, provided a brief background of the interpreter education field and a description
of its beginnings. The grants objectives focused on educational standards and, therefore, may
have been limited in the scope of specific historical information. The focus of the FIPSE grant
was not to document the history of interpreter education, but rather to seek funds to establish
curriculum standards for interpreter training programs. Although there was a brief history of
interpreter education in the grant proposal, the names of presidents of the Conference of
Interpreter Trainers were different from those noted in the newsletters of the same organization.
Therefore, the reliability of the historical information may or may not have been accurate. If
there were two conflicting documents of the same event, an effort was made by the researcher to
see if a living person could corroborate the facts.
The researcher conducted interviews with four key people who were involved in the
beginning of interpreter education. The researcher selected these four people because their names
surfaced repeatedly in several of the documents and key events referred to in the history of
interpreter education. The interviews were tailored to tap the expertise of each interviewee. The
first four interviews included such interpreter education pioneers as: Dr. Lottie Riekehof from
the Central Bible Institute in Springfield, MO; Ms. Betty Colonomos second president of the
7
Conference of Interpreter Trainers in Frederick, MD; Ms. Virginia Lee Hughes from the
California State University at Northridge in Northridge, CA; and Ms. Anna Witter-Merithew cofounder of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers in Overland Park, KS.
Many of the key events and traditions of ASL interpreter education have been orally
transmitted. The researcher recognized the urgency of conducting interviews with those who had
lived the history of interpreter education while many of the leaders who began the profession
were still alive. Many were retired or near retirement age. Dr. Riekehof was the dean of women
in the first interpreter-training program in 1948. Fant (1990) believes that Dr. Riekehof may have
offered the first interpreter program, which was housed at the Central Bible Institute in
Springfield, Missouri. Dr. Riekehof was also instrumental in establishing RID in 1964. Interview
questions were centered on methods of interpreter training at that time, which also revealed an
understanding of the structure of the interpreter education field in 1948.
Ms. Colonomos was the second president of the CIT. Questions from this interview
sought clarification of the first board members that established CIT. The documentation from the
CIT newsletters, FIPSE grant proposals and CIT website provided conflicting information
regarding the first board members of CIT. Documenting the first board activity created an
authoritative history of interpreter educators.
Ms. Hughes was one of the original interpreter educators of the National Interpreter
Training Consortium (NITC). Ms. Hughes also helped establish the Registry of Interpreters for
the Deaf and provided insight into the events that were left out of the written reports in the
1960s, as they may have omitted certain vital information.
Ms. Witter-Merithew was the co-founder of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (CIT)
and formerly the Director of the National Technical Institute of Technology (NTID) interpreter
program in Rochester, NY. NTID was one of the original programs in the NITC and perhaps the
first interpreter-training program in the United States in 1969. Ms. Witter-Merithews
involvement in interpreting and interpreter education was noteworthy because of her
involvement in establishing the CIT and her historical knowledge of the key people involved.
Ms. Witter-Merithews name was found in most of the documentation related to interpreting and
interpreter education. Interviewing Ms. Witter-Merithew offered unique opportunities since she
not only established CIT and retained a historical knowledge of the key people involved, but she
was still involved in the interpreter education profession. Her insight was invaluable to the past,
current and future trends of interpreter education.
This combination of collecting data through document review and interviews provided
the foundation for the study.
Dissertation Chapter Organization
This dissertation consists of eight chapters. Chapter 1 provides the reader with an
understanding of the importance of the research and the resources used in documenting the
history of interpreter education.
Chapters two through seven consist of a comprehensive chronological history of
interpreter education. Each chapter highlights the key theories and key people that have
influenced interpreter education. The chapters are organized as follows: chapter 2 (1800-1900),
chapter 3 (1900-1960), chapter 4 (1960-1970), chapter 5 (1970-1980), chapter 6 (1980-1990),
chapter 7 (1990-2006).
9
Chapter 8 presented conclusions and recommendations for the field of interpreter

education.
10

To fully understand the role and importance of interpreting in the deaf community, it was
important to first understand how its antecedents were rooted in deaf education. Laurent Clerc,
who was deaf, and a non-deaf man and Reverend Thomas Gallaudet established the first
residential school for the deaf in America in 1817. It is likely that Gallaudet served as an
interpreter for Clerc in many formal and informal settings.
The 1800s were largely shaped by the founding of deaf education. Two key players
emerged, Laurent Clerc and Thomas Gallaudet. The first federal law was passed to promote deaf
education and the need for interpreters was recognized.
No formal documentation explains when the first deaf interpreting training programs
started in the United States. However, there was documentation about the first interaction
between a deaf man, Laurent Clerc and a non-deaf man, Reverend Thomas Gallaudet and how
they established the first deaf school in America in 1817. For example, in 1816, Dr. Mason Fitch
Cogswell was the wealthy father of a deaf child named Alice Cogswell (Lane, 1984). Mr.
Cogswell desperately yearned for his daughter, Alice, to be able to have an education similar to
other non-deaf children. Dr. Cogswell requested that Gallaudet try to teach language to Alice.
Gallaudet used a process of writing letters in the sand to teach Alice the alphabet and later, to
read. During this era, the prevailing attitude regarding deaf education was negative. In fact, many
people supported Aristotle who stated that if a child is born deaf they become senseless and
11
incapable of reason (Gannon, 1981, p. XXV). In spite of this attitude people in the community
were amazed that a deaf child could learn to read.
Gallaudet Sails to Europe

Encouraged by the progress of Gallaudet teaching Alice, Cogswell employed Gallaudet
to sail to England to investigate the methods used at the Braidwood School for the deaf. England
was well known for their education of deaf children. They did not support using sign language to
teach deaf children. Braidwood used a method referred to as oralism, which meant that children
were forced to learn to speak. The Braidwood School for the deaf would not share their teaching
strategies with Gallaudet. Despite Gallaudets discouragement, he continued his search for
educating deaf children by going to France to meet with the deaf educator, Abbe Siccard. Siccard
did not use the same method of teaching as the Braidwood School for the deaf. Siccard supported
the use of French Sign Language and had published Instructions of Deaf and Dumb by Means of
Methodical Signs (Gannon, 1981). This method of instruction used sign language to teach deaf
children. During Gallaudets visit to France, he witnessed several deaf students who were from
the deaf school in Paris. He was impressed with these students ability to discuss politics, math,
art, and science in French Sign Language. Because Gallaudet was so impressed, he decided to
stay with Siccard and be trained regarding education for deaf children using Siccards methods.
Gallaudet Meets Laurent Clerc

During Gallaudets visit to the deaf school in France, he met Laurent Clerc, a deaf
student who had graduated under Abbe Siccards teaching methods. At the time, Clerc was head
of the very successful Paris Royal Institution for the Deaf (Lane, 1984, p.XXV). Gallaudet and
12
Clerc became friends and had many discussions regarding methods of teaching deaf children.
Gallaudet shared his dream of establishing a deaf school in America. Gallaudet believed in the
methods of the school for the deaf in France and knew that he needed assistance to take these
methods back to America. Gallaudet convinced Clerc to travel to America and help him establish
a school for the deaf in Hartford, Connecticut. Clerc wrote in his journal that he wanted to go to
America and help Gallaudet establish a school for the deaf (Cleve & Crouch, 1995). Clercs
decision to come to America led to a life long friendship with Gallaudet that continued until
Gallaudets death in 1851 (Krentz, 2000).
The Trip to America: Learning French Sign Language

During the long journey to America, Clerc and Gallaudet discussed their plan to establish
the first deaf school in America. The communication between the two men was very interesting.
Clerc became deaf at the age of one and did not speak, but he could write well enough in English
to communicate with Gallaudet. When they ventured out on their voyage, Clerc was not fluent in
English, but over the month and a half on the voyage from France to America, he spent time with
Gallaudet improving his written English. Gallaudet spent time learning conversational French
Sign Language from Clerc.
The First Interpreter Trainer

This event of teaching each other language may have been the first documented event of a
deaf man teaching a hearing man how to sign. Hence, Gallaudet became Clercs interpreter to
facilitate communication during the voyage to America. On the boat, Clerc and Gallaudet
constantly worked together designing the plan to establish the first deaf school in America. The
13
school that Clerc and Gallaudet established was called The Connecticut Asylum for the
Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons in Hartford and began classes on April 15,
1817 (Lane, 1984, p. 222).
The Impact of Clercs Speech

Clerc and Gallaudet set out not only to establish one deaf school in Connecticut but to
also establish other deaf schools across the United States. Funding became critical, and an
example of the fund raising process is found in a second documented event where Gallaudet
interpreted for Clerc. First, Clerc wrote the addresses given to the audiences and Gallaudet read
them aloud to the audience. Gallaudet may have functioned as the first interpreter between a deaf
person and a hearing audience for fund raising. Second, Clerc and Gallaudet addressed the
Governor of Connecticut and both houses of the legislators. Clerc wrote the speeches that would
be presented to this audience and Gallaudet read them aloud to the audience. As recorded by the
Connecticut legislation in 1818,
The following address is entirely the original production of Mr. Laurent Clerc,
who was born Deaf, and has never heard a sound or uttered the simplest phrase of
speech. He was eight years a pupil of the celebrated Abbe Sicard, who now
presides over the Royal Institution for the Deaf and Dumb in Paris, in which Mr.
Clerc has been eight years a teacher. The Connecticut Asylum for the relief of
these children of misfortune, held a public examination of the pupils on the 28th of
May, and at the request of the Directors, Mr. Clerc prepared this address, which
was delivered by his friend Mr. Gallaudet, who takes this mode of informing
those who may peruse it, that a very few alterations have been made in some
idiomatic expressions, but nothing which can affect the originality of its thought,
language or style. (Clerc, 1818, p. 2)
The governor and legislators were very impressed by the speeches from Clerc and Gallaudet.
The government gave their full support to the Connecticut Asylum. Additionally, Clerc and
14
Gallaudet wanted to gain support from the United States Congress and Senate (Krentz, 2000). As
usual, Clerc wrote the address that was to be delivered. However, that morning Gallaudet
became quite ill and was unable to attend the event. In his place, Gallaudet sent Henry Hudson
to facilitate communication. Clerc addressed the President, Senate and Congress of the United
States in sign language. This was the first documented time that a deaf person had addressed
these bodies of government directly using sign language. While Clerc signed to them, Henry
Hudson spoke the words so the President and the Senators could hear and understand what Clerc
was saying. When Clerc concluded his address, the chambers were silent out of respect for him.
In response to Clercs address funds were bestowed to them for the Connecticut Asylum for the
Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb (Krentz, 2000).
The First Federal Law: The Enabling Act

Clerc worked for forty-seven years to continue his dream to establish deaf schools in
America. Clerc witnessed in 1864 President Abraham Lincoln signing the Enabling Act. This
Act gave the Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb and Blind the authority to confer
college degrees. This was the first college in the world expressly established for people with
disabilities. A year later, the institutions blind students were transferred to the Maryland
Institution at Baltimore, leaving the Columbia Institution with a student body made up entirely of
deaf students. The institution would eventually be renamed Gallaudet College and then Gallaudet
University (Federal Transit Administration Civil Rights & Accessibility).
A Growing Need for Interpreters
During the inauguration speeches of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb and
Blind educators attested to the fact that soon there would be deaf lawyers, statesmen, ministers of
15
religion, orators, poets and authors (Krentz, 2000, p.219). As a result, the establishment of a deaf
post secondary institution increased professional working opportunities for deaf people in
America. In order for deaf professionals to have communication, accessibility in the work place
the need for interpreters first became apparent.
During the historical review of this decade presented in this chapter, the founding of deaf
education was explained and the emergence of two key players, Laurent Clerc and Thomas
Gallaudet, was described. The passing of the first federal law to promote deaf education was
noted and the need for interpreters was recognized. These significant events continue to affect
the field of interpreter education today.
16

During the 1900-1960s several important events occurred. The first interpreter-training
program was established and documented. The second Vocational Rehabilitation Act was passed
in 1954, which provided significant federal money for training interpreters. The federal
government hired Boyce Williams, the first deaf man to work full time for the VRA. Williams
influence was significant in interpreter education and the need for interpreters was made known
in a five-year grant written specifically for training interpreters. The grant helped establish ASL
and interpreting classes in colleges and universities. One of the first people to teach ASL in a
college setting was Dr. Lottie Riekhof.
Dr. Lottie Riekhof

Dr. Riekhof was a key person who began teaching ASL and interpreting classes at
Central Bible Institute (CBI) in 1948. Riekehof stated that, When I taught at CBI it was the first
time sign language was offered for credit (Lottie Riekehof, personal interview, December 4,
2005). A college willing to provide credit for ASL and interpreting classes added validity to the
profession. Later in 1970 when Riekehof started teaching at Gallaudet University in 1970, sign
language had never been offered for credit even at Gallaudet. She was instrumental in
establishing ASL courses at Gallaudet. Riekehof noted, I was kind of a pioneer, but credit goes
to both schools for being willing to offer it on a credit basis (Riekehof, 2005).
17
At CBI Riekehof interpreted for deaf students who were also taking classes at CBI.
Riekehof affirmed that the purpose of the sign language classes at CBI was for her students who
would become full-time missionaries and interpreters for deaf people in hearing churches. At that
time there were not many churches that offered services for deaf people. Riekehof and CBI felt it
was very important to provide spiritual experiences for the deaf. Later, people who became
interpreters for church purposes were involved in the establishment of a professional
organization for interpreters.
Validity Regarding Sign Language Training at CBI in 1948

Lou Fant wrote in 1990 that the profession of interpreting did not know where the first
interpreter training classes or programs taught for credit had begun. Fant talked to Riekehof
regarding this question and she mentioned the classes she was teaching at CBI in 1948. Fant
(p.15) mentioned this in his written history of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. However,
the validity of CBI being the first college to teach ASL and interpreting for credit was debatable.
Ms. Betty Colonomos, second president of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers did not feel
that CBI was the first interpreter-training program. Colonomos felt that it was oriented to
teaching hearing people how to sign and communicate with deaf people only in religious settings
(Betty Colonomos, personal interview, December 6, 2005).
Following the interview with Riekehof, it became evident that further investigation was
needed to find documents that would confirm that sign language and interpreting courses she
described being taught at CBI for credit in 1948. Further inquiry regarding these classes led to a
former student of Riekehofs, Edgar Lawrence. He explained that there were several newsletters
and memos that he had kept while taking classes from Riekehof in 1949. These newsletters
18
described the program and activities regarding interpreter education at CBI. Lawrence also
provided copies of memos and the college catalogs that listed sign language and interpreting
courses at CBC. The memos from Lawrence to the Dean of the school provided documentation
regarding the number of students that received diplomas from the sign language and interpreting
program at CBC (Edgar Lawrence, personal interview, December 6, 2005). These catalogs
described in detail the sign language and interpreting classes offered at CBC. The information in
the newsletters and catalogs further verified that sign language and interpreting classes were
taught at CBI in 1948.
College Bulletin Describes Sign Language Class

A primary source that verified the existence of CBCs sign language instruction is from
the CBC university catalog from 1957-1965. This catalog described sign language classes as, A
study of the language used by the deaf, with purpose of teaching the student to use signs with
fluency, both in preaching and interpretation. Opportunity for expressions is given in local
services, outstations and visitation with the deaf (Central Bible College Bulletin 1957-58, p.
14). The courses were three credit hours per semester and were not counted toward requirements
for graduation, but were offered for elective credit only during the fall and spring semesters.
Another verification of CBC teaching ASL and interpreting courses was found in the
1972-1973 Central Bible College Bulletin. The bulletin stated,
A sign language course for hearing students has been offered since 1948 for those
students who wish to train to be ministers to the deaf, interpreters, Sunday school
teachers, or to be of assistance to the deaf persons in the community. (Central Bible
College Bulletin 1972-73, p. 106)
19
Signing classes were housed in the mission department until 1964-65 when the classes
were officially moved to the language department. This move demonstrated the institutions
legitimization of sign language and interpreting classes. However, there was no other
documentation to show that other colleges were also teaching sign language and interpreting
classes for credit.
Formal Research of American Sign Language

Another important event in this era was that formal research of American Sign Language
(ASL) began in 1957. This linguistic research had a strong and positive influence on interpreting
education. Interpretation by definition required the transfer of a message between two languages.
Therefore, it was important to establish that ASL was a language. This research established that
ASL was a natural language rather than some variant of English. Before this linguistic research
began, many educators did not feel that ASL should be taught in colleges and universities. Over
time, more and more higher education programs have accepted ASL for academic credit. The
availability of sign language classes in colleges allowed more students to study sign language
and develop fluency in ASL. A strong sign language foundation formed the basis for interpreting
which led to the establishment of sign language interpreting programs.
If a language had status then its interpreters also had greater status. Thus, when formal
research of American Sign Language (ASL) occurred in 1957 legitimacy of ASL and interpreters
grew. Formal research of ASL began with William C. Stokoe (known as the Father of ASL)
when he began the task of analyzing ASL as a legitimate language. Stokoe was a faculty member
at Gallaudet College in the English Department. He had a strong inclination that sign language
needed to be studied and documented as a true language. Stokoe discussed his thoughts and
20
presented this to the college so that he could formally study sign language. During this time
faculty members, hearing and deaf, ridiculed the idea of Stokoes research idea. Faculty and
students felt this would be a crazy project (Maher, 1996). Stokoe ignored the negative feedback
he was given and set out to begin the first stage of sign language research. For the first time ASL
was being studied as a language and signs were seen as a part of that linguistic system.
In 1957, Stokoe started the Linguistics Research Laboratory (LRL), an after-hours and
summer research project at Gallaudet College (Gannon, 1981, p. 365). He was the first linguist to
subject sign language to the tests that would verify ASL as a true language. Those tests included
all the components required for language, such as phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.
Stokoe found that writers had been compiling sign vocabularies as early as 1776. However, there
had been no sign language research looking at ASL as a system of language (Lucas, 1990).
After about a ten-year span of studying sign language, Stokoe published the first
Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Publication of Stokoes ASL
dictionary was the beginning of the acceptance of ASL as a language. Then, linguists all over the
world began to study sign language and recognize it as a truly legitimate language (Lucas, 1990).
The outcome of Stokoes research provided evidence that sign language is a valid
language. Language was the heart of every culture. ASL was the heart of deaf culture and was a
way for deaf people to bond to each other using this language. ASL was a symbol of social
identity and a way for deaf people to interact and to store cultural knowledge (Bahan,
Hoffmeister & Lane, 1996). Deaf sociolinguist Barbara Kannapell, a pioneer in the American
Deaf Rights movement, wrote of ASL: It is our language in every sense of the word. We create
it, we keep it alive and it keeps us and our traditions alive. To reject ASL is to reject the deaf
person (Bahan, Hoffmeister & Lane, 1996, pp. 67-68).
21
Second Federal Law Passed

Soon after Stokeos research was published regarding the validity of ASL, the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act Amendment (P.L. 83-565) was passed. This amendment recognized people
working in vocational rehabilitation as professional rehabilitation counselors. This Act provided
money for training rehabilitation professionals, including counselors. It also supported research
and demonstration projects to develop and extend new knowledge. Despite years of developing a
professional association and additional years working as rehabilitation providers, it took the 1954
Act to provide the foundation for the profession of vocational rehabilitation counseling. This law
enacted extensive revisions to the vocational rehabilitation government system. These changes
included financing improvements, establishment of research and demonstration project funding,
funding for counselor education, and funding for construction of rehabilitation facilities.
Financing improvements provided for allocation of funds to states based on a formula reflecting
population and per-capita income. The law also authorized services for more severely disabled
people, graduate training and improving facilities at workshops and other rehabilitation settings
for people with disabilities (The Legal Language, 2006). Although this law mandated the
provision of interpreting services, it did not provide corresponding funding sufficient for
interpreter education. Nevertheless, interpreter education tried to keep pace with the increasing
demand.
The need for more interpreters meant that interpreter educators would be needed, but the
necessary funding for training was not provided.
22
Vocational Rehabilitation Training for Deaf People

Perhaps the outcome of Stokoes research led the federal government to consider services
for deaf people. Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) had not considered the language needs that were
not being met through VR. Therefore, Vocational Rehabilitation Services hired Boyce Williams,
a deaf man, to consult with VR and the lack of programs for deaf people. In 1955, Williams led a
research and demonstration project, which established a groundbreaking mental health program
for deaf people. Previously, accessibility to mental health services had never been available to
deaf people. Thereafter, Williams used the statistics from mental health programs to find out
what services were needed by deaf people and used the funding available to get those services
for deaf people.
Later, VR hired Williams to work at the federal VR office in Washington, D.C. He was
the first federal deaf employee. Williams saw the need for other organizations to be established
to support the deaf community. Because of this, he was instrumental in establishing the National
Theater of the Deaf (NTD), the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), the American
Deafness and Rehabilitation Association (ADARA) and post secondary programs for deaf people
at existing colleges (Adler & Romano, 1999).
In 1957, Williams established and managed over 100 short-term training projects and
workshops regarding deaf people. These workshops prepared many professionals who worked
with deaf and hard of hearing people. In the past deaf people were never invited to attend
workshops regarding their own services. However, Williams always invited deaf people to these
workshops so that this would provide leadership development for deaf people. Before these
trainings, there were no VR counselors that were trained to meet the academic and vocational
23
needs of deaf people. Many deaf people did not have jobs and were not receiving any kind of
training from the federal government. Williams played a large role in establishing VR counselors
to work with deaf people. Before Williams influence, the deaf population had been disregarded.
Without a doubt, through the training William provided VR counselors were becoming more
knowledgeable about ASL and deaf culture. Williams also provided workshops and trainings to
ensure that VR counselors possessed the communication skills necessary to build effective
relationships with deaf clients. Building effective relationships provided excellent services to the
deaf population.
The Need for Trained Interpreters Expands

Because Williams made sure that deaf people attended workshops and trainings
regarding VR there was a persistent need for interpreters. At this time, the only people who could
interpret were teachers of the deaf or children who had deaf parents (CODAs). Interpreting was
not considered a profession. People were not paid to interpret and interpreting was looked upon
as a service that deaf people needed. Additionally, people who learned sign language at their
churches were asked to also interpret at the VR meetings. Some of the VR counselors who
attended the meetings were also asked to interpret. Few people could be called upon to interpret.
Those who had the skills to interpret had full time jobs that were in other professional areas.
These jobs did not allow people who could sign to leave their responsibilities to interpret at a VR
meeting. As a result, Williams saw the need for skilled interpreters and wrote a five-year training
grant to try and quickly increase the supply of trained interpreters. This grant was the beginning
of a new decade of interpreter training and the beginning of a new profession called the
interpreter. Ms. Virginia Lee Hughes, a child of deaf parents and one of the original interpreter
24
educators of the decade noted that Williams was the catalyst in establishing interpreter educator
training in 1957 (V. L. Hughes, personal communication, November 6, 2005).
Summary
In this time period the first interpreter-training program was established. The second
Vocational Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1954, which provided significant federal money for
training interpreters. The federal government hired Boyce Williams, the first deaf man to work
full time for the VRA. Finally, one of the first people to teach ASL in a college setting was
documented. These events led to the awareness that interpreters were needed and the
development of training was the next step. These next steps in the development of interpreter
education are described below.
25

During the 1960s, key people who influenced interpreter education become part of the
professions chronology. One example was William Homer Thornberry, a friend and colleague
of President Lyndon B. Johnson and perhaps the person who influenced Johnson to support
federal legislation which influenced interpreter education. Another example was Mrs. Hettie
Shumway, who convinced the Rochester Institute of Technology to establish the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) in Rochester, NY. NTID later became one of the leading
institutions in interpreter education.
One of the key events that influenced the development of the interpreter education
profession in the 1960s was The Babbidge Report, which was written in 1965. The Babbidge
Report investigated current deaf education trends and provided recommendations to the
Department of Education that would improve the status of deaf education. This investigation
provided evidence that deaf people were limited in attending higher education. Many higher
education institutions did not provide auxiliary aids such as interpreters and note taking to
provide support to deaf students. One of the most prominent auxiliary aids needed for deaf
people to succeed in higher education was a sign language interpreter. Hence, the
recommendations from the Babbidge report led to the provision of sign language interpreters for
deaf people who enrolled in higher education classes.
Because the need for interpreters in higher education was considered a priority, five
consecutive workshops were set up to help train interpreters for the deaf. During these five
26
workshops, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) was established. The first entrance
requirements regarding specific criteria that students should have before entering an interpretertraining program were documented and the first formal curriculum was written for sign language
classes. Also during the 1960s, four federal laws were passed that influenced the field of
interpreter education. They were: (a) the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965 (Section 9) PL
89-833; (b) The Higher Education Act of 1968; (c) The Amendment of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act in 1968 and (d) the Education of the Handicapped Act in 1968. More detail on
the Babbidge Report follows.
The Babbidge Report

In March 1964 the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare appointed an
advisory committee regarding deaf education. A history of deaf education had not been
documented; hence there was a need to determine the best means of meeting the educational
needs of the deaf. This committee was to prepare deaf people to play a more active role in
society in the decades ahead and to permit each deaf person to develop his or her talents; thus
enriching not only their own life but also providing additional scarce skills required for the
Nations economic growth and cultural advancement. The Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare appointed members to the committee who were not affiliated with the Federal
Government so committee members could express their feelings freely without fear of losing
their jobs. The objectives of the report were to produce recommendations to guide Federal and
non-Federal program planning and policy development in the field of the education of the deaf.
There is no explanation given in the report regarding the rationale for choosing eleven committee
members rather than another number. The chair was Dr. Homer D Babbidge, Jr, former
27
President of the University of Connecticut, and the current assistant U.S. commissioner of
education and director of the Division of Higher Education. Consequently, the committees
recommendations became known as the Babbidge Report (V. L. Hughes, personal
communication, November 6, 2005).
The Babbidge report noted that the only post-secondary program in the United States
other than Gallaudet University was Riverside City College in Riverside, California. This
program was implemented for the deaf in the fall of 1961. There may have been other colleges
that offered post-secondary opportunities for the deaf; however, there is little documentation to
attest to this fact. Riverside College was one of the documented post-secondary schools that
provided deaf students assistance. This assistance was in the form of hearing-student tutors,
instructors notes and interpretation in the classroom in the language of signs. The interpreters
who were asked to interpret at the college were also at the same time teachers of the deaf. Hence,
this gave further evidence of the lack of people willing or able to interpret for the deaf. However,
this may have been evidence of the undifferentiated state of the interpreting profession.
The Babbidge Report acknowledged the following: (a) post-secondary educational
opportunities for the deaf were limited; (b) deaf people need to have full access to a full range of
post-secondary, occupational and adult education options; (c) the federal government needs to
authorize funds for programs to help states establish plans for the improvement of secondary
education of the deaf; (d) the Office of Education needs to implement services for deaf people in
post-secondary institutions with an emphasis on programs that are generally not available, for
example, engineering, architecture and other such professions and (e) a selection of six to eight
junior colleges should be initiated to begin establishing these professional programs. The report
also showed that statistics should be kept to provide data that could be used to increase other
28
post-secondary educational programs for deaf people (Babbidge, 1965). Accordingly, five major
workshops were held to implement the recommendations of the Babbidge Report as detailed
below in this chapter.
The First Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

In the fall of 1963, Ball State Teachers College in Muncie, Indiana, received a grant
from the Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Administration to conduct a workshop on
interpreting for the deaf. The purpose of the workshop was to identify settings in which deaf
persons would need an interpreter, suggest training curriculum, establish criteria for admission to
training courses for interpreters and develop a manual or guidelines for interpreters. The project
director was William J. McClure (Smith, 1964). On November 14-15, 1963, a planning meeting
was held at Ball State Teachers College for the purpose of laying out an agenda and deciding
whom to invite for the first national interpreters convention. During the planning meeting, the
committee decided that the workshop for interpreters would be held on June 14-17, 1964 at Ball
State Teachers College.
The focus of the workshop was: (a) to examine training materials for interpreters, (b) to
discuss concepts of interpreting in different situations, and (c) to determine the location and
recruitment of training interpreters (Smith, 1964). As a result, a manual was produced to record
the lectures from the many different sessions held at the workshop. This manual was the
beginning of formal interpreting curriculum and standards. The foreword of the manual
illustrated the strong connect between VR and the training of sign language interpreters. Dr.
Boyce Williams (1965) states the following.
29
The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration is pleased to make available herewith the

report of the first national workshop ever convened to develop guidelines for interpreting
for deaf people. This document is another milestone in the Vocational Rehabilitation
Administrations mission to promote in all possible ways the occupational adjustment of
deaf people. Through the years, we have encouraged and supported similar meetings of
experts to pool their thinking in developing better understanding of the deaf and patterns
for more effective public services to them. We expect that these guidelines on
interpreting will help deaf people share in the thinking and activities of their associates
and thus reduce the handicapping aspects of their deafness. Readers will note that this
workshop gave birth to a long needed organization, the Registry of Professional
Interpreters and Translators for the deaf. (p. iii)
The Secret Deaf Weapon
The outpouring of financial support from the federal government was due to the support
of President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. President Kennedy had a mentally
retarded sister and gave funds freely to vocational rehabilitation for this reason. President
Johnson provided money and the support of legislation that has affected deaf people and their
lives. Why did President Johnson feel such an inclination to support deaf peoples rights? Further
investigation showed that one of President Johnsons dear friends and Congressional colleagues
was William Homer Thornberry. Thornberry was born and raised in Austin, Texas and was
fluent in American Sign Language. His parents were both deaf and had graduated from the Texas
School for the Deaf in Austin. When Thornberry was born, his parents would take shifts to sit by
his cradle every night to keep watch since they could not hear if the baby cried (The Odyssey of
Homer, 1968).
Thornberry became interested in politics at 14 and served as a pageboy in the Texas
legislature. He later went to law school at the University of Texas and worked his way through
college as a deputy sheriff. He was elected to the state legislature in 1936 and later became
Travis County District Attorney. After serving 3 years in naval intelligence, Thornberry
30
opened a private law practice in Austin and served on the city council. Later, he became mayor
of Austin pro tem. In 1948, Johnson ran for the U.S. Senate in Texas. He won by 87 votes and in
1948 Thornberry succeeded Johnson into the House. Johnson and Thornberry became very good
friends. When Johnson had a massive heart attack in 1955, Thornberry went to his hospital room
and played dominoes frequently (The Odyssey of Homer, 1968).
During Thornberrys visits to the hospital, the two men must have had a lot of time to
discuss their personal lives. This could have been one of the times that Thornberry talked about
his life and his deaf parents. Perhaps Thornberry explained to the President the frustrations deaf
people faced in the work place. Thornberry had grown up seeing and experiencing these
frustrations first hand (The Odyssey of Homer, 1968).
The two men became very close. When President Kennedy was shot, Thornberry was by
the side of Johnson at the Parkland Memorial Hospital as Kennedy was pronounced dead. At that
time the new President Johnson, turned to Thornberry and declared gravely that this was a time
for prayer if there ever was one, Homer (The Odyssey of Homer, 1968, p. 2).
In 1963, Kennedy appointed Thornberry to a judgeship in the Western Texas Federal
District Court. Two years later, Johnson promoted him to the Circuit Court and even had him
sworn in on the front porch of his very own ranch. Later, Johnson nominated his friend and
colleague Thornberry to the Supreme Court. Many saw the nomination as a result of friendship
and did not feel that Thornberry had the judicial experience to be on the Supreme Court. The
nomination was later nullified when the Supreme Court seat was no longer vacant.
The impact that Thornberry had on Johnson regarding deaf people was evident when on
June 6, 1964 President Johnson made these remarks at the Gallaudet College Centennial
Banquet.
31
Mr. Chairman, Mr. President, Senator Hill, members of the Board of Trustees of
Gallaudet College, ladies and gentlemen: I am pleased to be able to join personally
tonight in honoring Gallaudet College. Tonight, too many of our people are unschooled,
untrained and underemployed. Too many are physically handicapped. Too many are
mentally handicapped, too many more are handicapped for life by the environments and
the experiences of their childhoods. America needs these talents. We must not and we
cannot let them go to waste. Here at Gallaudet we have a proud example of what
education and compassion have achieved. This was the first-and is still the only college
in the world for the deaf. But since President Lincoln signed Gallaudets charter, no boy
or girl has been turned away because of the poverty of his or her parents. Our rich society
will be a mockery if we permit it to become a callous society or an uncaring society. It
has been a great pleasure for me to make this appearance tonight. I feel close ties with
this great institution. One of the real influences in my life as a young man and later in my
public life, a lady whose intense interest in this college first brought the school to my
attentionMrs. Mary Thornberrywhose son later served in Congress and now sits with
distinction on the Federal bench. I am very proud that I could come and my
congratulations to all of you. (Woolley & Peters, n.d.)
The influence of President Johnsons support of deaf education helped to began the
implementation of several federal laws regarding VR and deaf people. Funding was made
available for deaf education, interpreters and interpreter training. The impact of the funding by
the federal government and President Johnsons support is described below.
The Impact of VRA and Boyce Williams

Another key player in this era was Boyce Williams. Dr. Boyce Williams took advantage
of the federal VR funds to establish a variety of workshops and activities directed towards deaf
people. The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965 (Section 9) PL 89-333 was passed. This law
made provisions for sign language interpreting services for deaf clients who used vocational
rehabilitation services. The interpreting services would be provided for deaf people regardless of
economic need. This was the first time that interpreters who interpreted for VR were paid for
their work (Alcorn and Humphrey, 2001).
32
In 1968 the Higher Education Act was passed. This law PL 93-380 made the provision
for student special services including interpreting services. Another law was passed in 1968,
which was an amendment to the Vocational Education Act of 1963 which mandated 10% of
federal funds are allocated to vocational education of the handicapped. And finally, in 1968 the
Education of the Handicapped Act provided federal money to develop four regional postsecondary program with special services for deaf students at Delgado Community College; New
Orleans, Louisiana, St. Paul, TVI; Minneapolis, Minnesota, Seattle Community College; Seattle
Washington and California State University; Northridge California (Vidrine, 1981). The federal
laws made a huge impact on training for deaf education and interpreter training. The outcome of
the funding for workshops is described below beginning with a brief description of the Ball State
Workshop.
Ball State Workshop Results: Training of Interpreters

During the interpreting workshops at Ball State Teachers College, attention was given
specifically to three main concepts: (a) training materials, books and films; (b) concepts of
interpreting, situations and occasions; and (c) personnel, location, recruitment and training.
Those who attended the workshop were divided into small discussion groups. Each group was
given a topic linked to the three main concepts. A person from each group was designated as the
official note taker. For this reason, the discussion groups were well documented. The group
selected to discuss the training of interpreters was, Dr. Elizabeth Benson from Gallaudet College,
Reverend Roy Cissna of Missouri Baptist Missions to the Deaf and Ms. Lottie Riekehof of
Central Bible Institute.
33
Parameters of Interpreting Programs

During the group discussion regarding interpreter training it was noted that there was not
a specific amount of time required to train interpreters. In fact, the group felt that two semesters
of interpreting classes would be adequate. They felt that classes meeting three times a week for
one-hour periods should be considered the minimum amount of time required for training
classes. Without a doubt, offering interpreting courses for college credit would provide more
incentive for students to learn more quickly. In addition, the ideal number for interpreting classes
was considered fifteen. It was noted that classes currently being taught were larger (Smith,
1964).
The preferred methodology of teaching would be to teach finger spelling first and then
signs. Expressive skills of the students would become mastered before receptive skills.
Interpreting practice could be done with fellow students, deaf or hearing. First, the students
started working with familiar materials, such as books and then were trained later with
sophisticated tape recorded material (Smith, 1964, p. 8. In addition, it was noted that there
were no training materials dealing with the teaching or training of interpreters to be found.
Therefore, four groups of future workshops for training interpreters were recommended: (a)
workshops for trainers of interpreters to develop a curriculum, (b) workshops to be taught in
various areas of the country to improve the skills of local interpreters, (c) workshops providing a
sophisticated level for upgrading of already capable interpreters, and (d) workshops and teacher
training programs already under way in colleges and universities throughout the United States
that were funded by federal grants and included courses in the use of manual communication for
the possible development of interpreters (Smith, 1964, p.2).
34
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

At this meeting in Muncie, Indiana the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) was
founded (Fant, 1990). The only record of this meeting is from Fant (1990) reporting that the
participants of the national workshop in Muncie, Indiana thought it would be a good idea to set
up a national organization for interpreters. They did not realize they were part of a historic
moment. The original name of the organization was not the RID but rather, the National Registry
of Professional Interpreters and Translators for the Deaf (Fant, 1990).
Second Workshop on Interpreting & Education for the Deaf

The second workshop for interpreters was held, October 18-22, 1964, in Knoxville,
Tennessee, sponsored by the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. Topics explored by the different committees were assessment and
evaluation of existing vocational training programs, needed expansion in vocational training
programs, recruiting and preparing staff for these expanded programs and supplementary
services for expanded vocational training (Ott, 1964).
After four days of discussion regarding the state of vocational rehabilitation for deaf
people, the committee agreed that a national vocational-technical school for the deaf needed to
be established. This school would improve vocational opportunities for the deaf people and
would replicate Gallaudet College. One of the strongest supporters of the establishment of a
national technical college for the deaf was Hettie Shumway in Rochester, NY. Mrs. Shumway
was the wife of RIT benefactor F. Ritter Shumway and she was the most vocal and charming
supporter of having the National Institute for the Deaf brought to RIT in the 1960s. When
35
Shumway heard from a government official that plans were underway to select a host institution
for NTID she marched into RIT President Mark Ellingsons office and boldly declared that RIT
should be the host of NTID. Ellingson told Shumway that he would investigate the idea. This did
not satisfy Shumway and she recruited and educated civic leaders, educators, and Board of
Trustees members about the many benefits that having NTID at RIT would bring. If it had not
been for Hettie Shumway, NTID would not be in Rochester, NY (Smith, 2003). NTID would
become the second college to establish interpreter training. In addition, three other regional
postsecondary education programs (Seattle Community College, Delgado, New Orleans and St.
Paul Technical College for the Deaf) were established (Lauritsen, 1997). Explanations of these
colleges and services to deaf students will be explored later in this chapter.
Because of the workshops and training that were taking place regarding rehabilitation for
deaf people, it became apparent to the participants of the workshops that interpreters were an
important piece of the puzzle. If deaf people were going to be taking college courses an
interpreter would be the bridge for communication. Thus, if deaf people were to succeed in post
secondary institutions, interpreters for the deaf needed to be provided. In addition, if interpreters
needed to be provided, they also needed to be trained (Ott, 1964). However, training of
interpreters had not been completely determined and further workshops were needed to
accomplish this task.
Third Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

The third workshop regarding interpreters and interpreter training was held January 2629, 1965 at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. The focus of this workshop
36
was to determine methods for identifying professionally qualified interpreters and to design
programs for the training of interpreters (Huff, 1965).
Near the end of the two-day workshop, the participants made a motion to postpone
discussion and action regarding interpreter training until the curriculum workshop. The
curriculum workshop was expected to make a substantial contribution in the direction of
standardization of teaching sign language and interpreting. The date of the workshop was not
determined, but a decision was made to hold a three- week workshop in Maine to write a manual
and/or curriculum on interpreting. There was not enough time in the current workshop to focus
the attention on the standards and curriculum for interpreter training. The members of the group
voted and agree that a future workshop would be needed to accomplish this task (Huff, 1965).
The workshop would be held at the Governor Baxter State School for the Deaf in Portland,
Maine and the outcome of the meeting is described below.
Fourth Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

The fourth workshop regarding interpreter training was held on July 7-27, 1965 at the
Governor Baxter State School for the Deaf in Portland, Maine. This workshop was sponsored by
the Institute for Research on Exceptional Children at the University of Illinois, with support from
the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. The participants of this workshop stayed for more
than three weeks and produced what was then considered the bible of interpreting. The manual
was named, Interpreting for Deaf People. This manual provided guidelines, suggestions and
curriculum ideas to be included in interpreter-training programs (Quigley, 1965).
37
Participants of the Governor Baxter Workshop were regarded as specialists in the area of
interpreting and interpreter training. Participants included: Edna P. Adler, Supervising Teacher at
the Adjustment Training Center for Deaf Men, Michigan; Association for Better Hearing,
Lansing, Michigan; Barbara E. Babbini, Vice President of the California Association of the Deaf
in Sherman Oaks, California; Roger M. Falberg, Clinical Psychologist for the New England
Rehabilitation-for-Work Center in Boston, Massachusetts; Kenneth F. Huff, Superintendent of
the Wisconsin School for the Deaf in Delavan Wisconsin and President of RID; Ralph H.
Neesam, Supervising Teacher at the California School for the Deaf in Berkeley, California;
Stephen P. Quigley, Professor at the Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University
of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois; Edward L. Scouten, Principal at the Louisiana State School for the
Deaf, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jess M. Smith, Vice President of the National Association for
the Deaf, Editor of the Deaf American at the Indiana School for the Deaf in Indianapolis,
Indiana; Lucile N. Taylor, Teacher at the Wisconsin School for the Deaf in Delevan, Wisconsin;
McCay Vernon, Clinical Psychologist and Researcher at the Institute for Research on
Exceptional Children, University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois; and Joseph P. Young,
Superintendent of the Governor Baxter State School for the Deaf in Portland, Maine (Quigley,
1965).
A Program for Training Interpreters

Because interpreters were in short supply at this time, it was important that training be
established to reduce the shortage. Due to the shortage of interpreters and the lack of formal
training, the Governor Baxter Manual recommended the following standards for interpreter
training programs. First, interpreter-training programs can be formal or informal. The lack of
38
course credits may influence a lack of motivation to attend courses. Thus, a formal class with a
trained professional interpreter instructor is ideal for interpreter training courses (Quigley, 1965).
The Manual went on to say that the institution sponsoring the course should obtain
training materials. At that time there were only twelve books that could be used for training and
six 8mm & 16mm films specifically made for interpreter training. These books and movies were
listed in the Governor Baxter Manual in Appendix A & B.
The Governor Baxter Manual stated that the qualifications of interpreter instructors were
very important. The instructor should be familiar with all aspects of interpreting. Two teachers
(one hearing and one deaf) should be hired for each class. This was viewed as the best solution to
ensuring that the needs of the students were being met. If the instructors were not qualified, they
would pass on bad habits to the students and this would proliferate the unqualified interpreters
inappropriate teaching (Quigley, 1965).
The manual also listed entrance requirements for students to be accepted into interpreting
courses. These requirements were the responsibility of the instructors to control. If a student was
not qualified, the instructors were not hesitant to discourage the student from continuing learning
to interpret. The prerequisites for entering interpreting programs were: (a) students must have
good basic sign language skills, understand finger spelling at a rate that is slower than a deaf
adult; (b) students should not require repetition to comprehend signed and finger spelled
sentences when delivered at a normal rate by a deaf adult; (c) students should have knowledge of
the communication problems of deaf people; (d) students should have motivation to become an
interpreter and if the students do not have the required motivation, they should be discouraged
from taking courses; (e) students should have an intellectual background to enable them to learn
interpreting with ease; (f) students should have adequate hearing to be able to understand the
39
speaker; and (g) until satisfactory tests are written the instructor should have the final authority
to determine who is admitted into the interpreting courses (Quigley, 1965). The Governor Baxter
Workshop provided the first formal manual promoting standards for interpreter training. These
standards were limited and quickly became out of date. Yet, standards for interpreter training
programs were not officially adopted.
The interpreter-training classroom should be a well-lighted classroom and sponsored by
an educational institution or an agency that can arrange classroom facilities and compensation
for the instructors. The institution or agency should be responsible for obtaining appropriate
training materials for the classroom. Sponsoring agencies may include: city boards of education,
colleges and universities, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, churches, schools for the deaf,
and state organizations of the deaf. The agency or institution that sponsored the course would be
responsible to pay the instructor. If the interpreting courses were offered under an adult
education program the going rate of pay was to be given to the instructors.
Fifth Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

The fifth workshop on interpreting for the deaf was held on July 9-11, 1966 in San
Francisco, California as a community program for identification, training and utilization of
interpreting services for deaf persons. This meeting was also sponsored by a training grant from
the VRA.
The workshop in San Francisco reported on the groundbreaking program called the
Leadership Training Program (LTP). This program was established with the support of Williams
and VR Services. The purpose of the LTP was to provide training to deaf leaders regarding
leadership needs within the deaf community. It was noted by deaf leaders that a training program
40
was needed to train current and future leaders for the deaf community. The report regarding the
LTP operated on the campus of the San Fernando Valley State College at Northridge, California.
The members of the LTP were chosen through applications, which were distributed to deaf
people in the Los Angeles and Riverside areas. Those who were given applications were people
whom the leaders of the training saw as potential leaders in the deaf community. Sixteen people
applied and were accepted into the LTP classes.
Each of the sixteen people chosen was encouraged to take adult education classes in
college while interpreters were provided. One member of the LTP wrote that it would be
impossible for her to begin education classes without an interpreter (Babbini, 1966).The evident
solution was to hire interpreters. With the provision of interpreters, more deaf leaders from the
LTP began to take college classes in post-secondary education. The need for qualified
interpreters became ever more important. The LTP classes were twelve weeks in length and if
there were not qualified interpreters already available, there was not time for inexperienced
interpreters to learn on the job. One of the secondary goals of LTP was to train interpreters as
quickly as possible to meet its own need for classroom interpreters. To begin the development of
interpreter training the LTP established a conference for interpreters.
LTP Established a Conference for Interpreters

On April 3, 1965, the LTP sponsored a conference for interpreters at San Fernando
Valley State College, Northridge California. The workshop was established because of the urgent
need among deaf people in Southern California for trained personnel to serve as interpreters for
them in the courts, in post-secondary classes, in community agencies, at religious services, at
public events and wherever there was a need for their services (Jones, 1965).
41
The conference on April 3, 1965 was to identify existing interpreters and potential
interpreters and explore the wide variety of needs in the field of interpreter training. The goals of
the workshops were to establish guidelines for interpreters. Courses taught during the one day
workshop were: Interpreting and the Legal Rights of Deaf Persons, Interpreting in the Large
Group Setting, Interpreting in the Educational Setting, and Interpreting in the Agency Setting.
The beginning of the workshop began with a keynote lecture from Kenneth Huff, President of
the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Two hundred thirteen people attended the
workshop. As a result of this one-day conference, the first suggested content for a four-semester
curriculum in manual communication was written. This curriculum was implemented at San
Fernando Valley State College in January of 1966. An outline of the curriculum was:
I.
Beginning Class-Fingerspelling and Language of Sign I (no prerequisite)

A. Psychological Implications of Communicating with the Deaf
B. Fingerspelling (expressive and receptive)
C. Introduction to the Language of Signs
II.
Intermediate Class-Fingerspelling and Language of Signs II (Prerequisite:

Successful completion of Beginning Courses or approval of instructor)
A. Language of Signs
B. Increasing Vocabulary
C. Introduction of idiomatic signs
D. Speed (receptive and expressive)
E. Poems and Songs
III.
Advanced Class-Fingerspelling and Language of Sign II (Prerequisite: Successful

completion of Intermediate Course or approval of instructor)
A. Introduction to conversational signs
B. Platform signing
C. Introduction to one-to-one interpreting
D. Small Group interpreting
E. Advanced idiomatic language
F. Low verbal sign language
IV.
Interpreting Class (Prerequisite: approval of Instructor)

A. Orientation to the problems of the deaf
42
B. Interpreting situations: courtroom, church, medical, employment and testing,

classroom
C. Interpreting as a profession
D. Code of ethics for interpreters
(Jones, 1965, p. 62)
During the Conference for Interpreters, instructors of interpreters were introduced to a
new series of 8 mm films in fingerspelling. The filmed courses provided the learner with
systematic instruction, beginning with individual letters of the alphabet and continuing through
words and sentences. The lessons were to be used in conjunction with formal class instruction,
but could also serve as a self-teaching device for those unable to attend classes.
Hence, interpreter training had begun in full swing with many curriculum ideas and
standards suggested. This was the beginning of formal interpreter training programs in the
United States.
Interpreter Training Program Established at NTID

Many deaf students began taking classes at federally funded colleges that were
established for deaf students. The colleges were NTID, Seattle Community College, Delgado
College, and St. Paul Technical College. Stangarone (1971) explains that while he was working
at NTID a deaf student came to him and asked if an interpreter could be provided for him during
the first few days of his new job. This student also discussed that he wanted to further his
education in the evenings by taking courses at NTID. It must be noted that the establishment of
NTID was predicated upon the presence of interpreters working in the classroom. Dr Robert
Frisina was the director of NTID in 1968 when it opened. Just prior to the beginning of classes,
he hired three full-time interpreters, two of whom were Carol Patrie and Sharon Neumann.
Although neither had formal training as interpreters they began interpreting based on their
43
experiences of interpreting for family members. Within a year they began teaching other
interpreters at NTID as described below. (Carol Patrie, personal communication, March 15,
2007)
Students who were chosen to interpret needed to have some interpreter training so in the
summer of 1969 NTID began their first training program for interpreter in the classroom. Six
hearing students from the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) were chosen to be in the
training. Some of these six students knew a few signs and could fingerspell. These six students
lived in the dormitories at NTID with deaf students during the summer. This experience provided
cultural as well as real life exposure to sign language which allowed these students to become
better interpreters.
After living in the dorms for the summer, these same six students were placed in the
classroom at NTID as interpreters. Stangarone (1971) felt that the students were doing a good job
interpreting in the classroom. The biggest strength of training these interpreters at RIT was the
ability of students to learn from their deaf peers. Using the language daily and understanding the
vocabulary used in the classroom played a huge role in the students success as an interpreter
(Stangarone, 1971).
Summary
During the 1960s, key legislation was passed to support federal laws, which influenced
interpreter education. The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) was established in
Rochester, NY and became one of the leading institutions in interpreter education. The Babbidge
Report written in 1965 documented the lack of higher education institutions, which served deaf
people. The recommendations of the Babbidge Report led to the establishment of NTID and the
44
need of sign language interpreters for deaf people who enrolled in higher education classes. Five
consecutive workshops were set up to help train interpreters and the Registry of Interpreters for
the Deaf (RID) was established. Additionally, the first entrance requirements for students
entering interpreter-training programs were documented. The first formal curriculum was written
for sign language classes and finally, four federal laws were passed that influenced the field of
interpreter education.
These events led to the federal government establishing funds for a National Interpreter
Training Consortium (NITC). The NITC managed 12 interpreter-training programs funded by
the federal government. Establishing programs led to the need for standards, curriculum and
training materials for became interpreter educators. The outcome of these events was described
below.
45

The 1970s began a new era for interpreter training. Many interpreter training programs
were being established in the United States due to federal legislation. Key leaders in sign
language training began to contribute to curricular parameters for interpreter training programs.
In order to share the ideas from the current interpreter training programs, these leaders described
their screening of prospective interpreting students, training ideas and curriculum materials in the
1974 Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf (JADARA). This group included (a) Mr. James
Stangarone, past president of RID; (b) Mr. Richard C. Nowell, coordinator of the NTID
Interpreter Training Program; (c) Dr. Lottie Riekehof, Dean of Women at Gallaudet College and
interpreter trainer; (d) Mr. Martin Sternberg, Director of the Deafness Research and Training
Center of New York University, and (e) Mr. Loui J. Fant, JR, director of interpreter training at
the Center for Deafness at CSUN.
The first Conference on the Preparation of Personnel in the Field of Interpreting was held
at Gallaudet College on March 28-30, 1972. This conference was to prepare current and future
teachers for interpreter training programs. The National Training Consortium was established.
The first Curriculum Guide for interpreter trainers was written and published by Gallaudet
College in 1979. In addition, The Conference of Interpreter Trainers was established in 1979 and
the first national board appointed at the first CIT Convention at TVI in St. Paul, Minneapolis.
Co-founders Anna Witter-Merithew and Becky Carlson designed the convention.
46
In 1973 Riekehof, Mrs. Carol Tipton, Sternberg and Jerome Schein wrote the first
published curriculum for interpreter training. The curriculum was recommended for interpreter
training programs to use in their colleges and universities.
Several federal laws were passed during this time. The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (PL 93-112), Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 furthered the implementation
of 12 sign language interpreter training programs funded by the federal government. The All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975 which mandated that deaf children could have an interpreter,
however no funding was provided to school districts. In 1978 the Comprehensive Rehabilitation
Services Amendments Act (CRSA) Section 112 authorized funds for interpreter training
programs to serve all states and territories in the United States.
Concern for standardized curriculum and student outcomes had become a great concern
for interpreter educators. The first formal attempt to establish interpreter training curriculum was
documented. Gallaudet College held the first conference to prepare personnel in the field of
interpreting. The National Training Consortium was formed and federal law was passed to
establish 12 interpreter training programs. The Curriculum Guide for interpreter trainers was
written and Gallaudet published Interpreter Training the State of the Art in 1979. Also, The
Conference of Interpreter Trainers was established in 1979. The state of interpreter training was
beginning to grow and along with it was a growing need for educators to be able to document
what was going on in their interpreter training programs. If information was documented this
would be one more step into the profession of interpreter training becoming recognized as a valid
profession throughout the United States and Canada. Subsequently, the 1974 Journal of
Rehabilitation of the Deaf (JADARA) documented several interpreter-training programs and the
screening, curriculum and training of these programs was explored below.
47
Wisdom from JADARA in 1974

Stangarone (1971) recommended that interpreter-training programs should be established
in various areas of the country, and a good place was in areas where interpreters were already
being hired as full time employees. Stangarone noted that full time jobs for interpreters would
become more prevalent where deaf people had access to professional positions.
Additionally, Stangarone also encouraged flexibility in interpreter-training programs,
offering both short-term and long-term trainings. This variety in training would provide avenues
for people to achieve certificates, diplomas and degrees. Stangarone suggested that it was not
necessary for interpreter-training students to obtain a four-year degree, as he believed that an
AAS in interpreting would be adequate for those who wished to become interpreters.
The length of an adequate training program was and still remains controversial. There
was no data at this time to support whether short or long-term training programs were better.
However, later in this decade interpreter training program educators realized that short-term
trainings were not enough to adequately prepare qualified interpreters. This debate has not
ended. There are still more two-year interpreter training programs than four year or master
degree programs in the United States and Canada. The lack of documentation regarding the
differences in the outcomes of the different degrees has caused much of the confusion. The need
for interpreters is so great and the schools, agencies and work places that need interpreters want
to provide a quick fix to the inadequate number of interpreters. Therefore, potential interpreters
wanted to attend a college where they can get their degree as quickly as possible. History has
shown that community colleges have traditionally been the place to get a degree in a relatively
short period of time. However, the quick fix was not always the best. Nevertheless, there was no
48
research or proof that showed that staying and obtaining a four year degree would yield greater
earning power for the graduate than obtaining a two-year degree. Another confounding factor
was that there is no reliable uniformity in the skills of graduates regardless of how many years
they had spent obtaining a degree. Further, there were still no entrance or exit standards
established for interpreter training students. Entrance criteria would provide a sound foundation
for interpreter education and exit criteria would provide greater quality control.
Stangarone believed that training programs should be offered in larger cities. He felt that
this was where the main deaf population would be. Hence, those students who were being trained
to become interpreters would be able to practice their interpreting skills in settings where there
were deaf people. Practicing with deaf people rather than with fellow hearing students provided
real life experience for the future interpreter. These settings for interpreter training students to
practice interpreting with deaf people later became known as practicums or internships.
Currently, most interpreter-training programs require a practicum or an internship.
Stangarone also suggested that interpreters could practice interpreting in adult education
programs for the deaf. He strongly suggested that in order to make interpreting a profession it
was necessary to require training and research, processes which were just beginning to take
place. The following is a description of five institutions and documentation of their screening,
training and curriculum trends at the time: the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, St. Paul
Technical College, the Deafness and Research Center of New York University, California State
University Northridge and Gallaudet College.
49
The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID)

NTID continued training interpreters throughout the 1970s and still does to this day. In
the summer of 1970, NTID trained 17 students in the second program that they offered. Many of
the students did not know how to sign or fingerspell, so their training began from scratch.
Stangarone (1971) notes that students caught on quickly to learning sign language because
students who were fully immersed with deaf students in the dorms and classes seemed to pick up
on the language quickly. Fluency in ASL, like any other second-language, could be promulgated
by immersion in a culture that uses the language with ready access to native users of the
language. The need for interpreters was so great that if students showed talent for using the
language with proficiency then they were encouraged to be trained as interpreters.
Equally important, Mr. Richard C. Nowell, coordinator of the Interpreter Training
Program at NTID felt that there were two questions that needed to be answered when anyone
wanted to establish a program for interpreter training. First, who do you accept as students in
the program and second, once you have the students, how do you train them (Nowell &
Stuckless, 1974, p. 69). A description of how NTID answered these questions was described
below.
NTID felt that it was essential for students selected to be in the interpreter-training
program to have the following characteristics: (a) the student should be able to sign before
entering an interpreter-training program; (b) the student must be motivated; (c) the student must
be able to work with others, and (d) the student should have a quick mind and physical
50
endurance. Interpreters may be working in an environment where they will be working alone for
hours and it was necessary to know that they had the physical endurance to do this.
The administrators of the interpreter-training program at NTID felt that it was important
to choose students who had the aforementioned characteristics before accepting them into the
interpreter-training program. NTID sensed that the best way to screen potential students would
be to interview anyone interested in training. The people who were involved in the interview
process were NTID staff members and deaf students. Although the interview process was
subjective, NTID believed they were successful in choosing potential students for the
interpreting program.
Training
Once the students were chosen for the training, the next important steps were to choose
what material to teach the students. The department needed to determine how the classes should
be taught and how many classes they would offer. One of the most important things was to hire
teachers who were qualified to teach the interpreting classes. Many times the interpreter training
programs were limited by the time available for the training, qualified instructors and adequate
funding. This could have had an affect on the standards of the program. Students were accepted
into programs and then an instructor was found. Because the classes were already established,
the necessity of finding an instructor was urgent. The urgency may have influenced the college to
hire an instructor that did not have the qualifications to teach. This problem remains in the field
of interpreter training today. Many colleges set up an interpreter training program and cannot
find qualified staff to teach. The program does not get cancelled, but rather, rather instructors are
51
hired that may not have the appropriate qualifications and therefore cannot provide quality
instruction.
Curriculum
There were many different ways that interpreting courses might be taught. Generally, the
curriculum used depended on how long the program was. If three-day training were offered then
the curriculum was very different from a four-year program at a college.
NTID incorporated the following principles, processes, and activities in their curriculum
design.
1. A class covering basic principles of interpreting was included to help the students
understand the role of interpreters and the skills needed for specific situations. Also discussed
were ethical decision-making and what kind of ethics students should follow in interpreting
situations.
2. The non-verbal aspects of interpreting, collectively known as expression was taught.
The associated skills included facial expression, body movements and various inflections of the
hands used when interpreting.
3. A class in sign language vocabulary was offered. This class taught and reiterated the
importance of knowledge and skill in sign language. Specific vocabulary words were introduced
to students for specific setting such as courtrooms, educational classrooms, and doctors offices.
4. A class in reading sign language and reverse interpreting was offered. Nowell (1974)
stated that, the greatest weakness in most interpreters work is that of reading the signs of deaf
52
people and interpreting those signs to hearing people. This skill is a difficult one to teach and
acquire (p. 73).
In order to help students become proficient in the area of reading signs and interpreting
those signs to hearing people, students from NTID were asked to participate in the classes to
train interpreters. Inviting deaf people in the classroom was very significant as this experience
provided prospective interpreting students real time practice. This created an environment where
the students could feel as though they were doing on-the-job interpreting.
Another creative way of training voicing skills, which is the ability to see what the deaf
person is signing and translate what they are signing into spoken English, was with the use of
videotapes that had been made of deaf people signing. These videotapes could be used in the
classroom by rewinding them over and over to provide the students with guided practice.
5. Related knowledge associated with signing was taught. Students were expected to
know about deaf people in terms of basic knowledge about audiology, psycho-social aspects of
deafness, and educational opportunities for the deaf. This class enabled the students to learn
about the deaf community and the population of people that they would be working with
6. A class devoted to practice sessions was offered. This class provided the opportunity
for students to practice their interpreting skills. The use of videotapes was recommended as they
were an effective learning tool for self-evaluation and criticism.
St. Paul Technical College (TVI)

St. Paul Technical Vocational Institution (TVI) began employing interpreters in 1969
because they were one of three federally funded secondary education programs for the deaf. In
1972, with over 200 deaf students attending classes, it became evident that there was a shortage
53
of qualified interpreters. It was unusual for one college program to have such a large deaf
population, however, TVI was one of the three federally funded secondary education programs
for the deaf so the appeal to deaf students was great. These students knew that they would have
the services that they needed to succeed in college. Other colleges that were not aware of deaf
students educational needs may not have provided the student with an interpreter or other
auxiliary aids.
The pool of interpreters was limited. In spite of this, TVI organized a program for
referring candidates to interpret and finally to establish a six week Summer Interpreter Institute
(Carter &Lauritsen, 1974). TVI felt that students who completed the summer program would
have minimum entry-level qualifications for interpreting
In March and April of 1972, announcements were sent to all of the organizations, schools
and agencies that were serving deaf people in Minnesota. TVI also sent announcements to junior
colleges and other individuals who had specifically asked for information regarding how to
become an interpreter. Each person who wanted to attend the institute was asked to submit a
letter of application and to attend a career night. The career night provided the opportunity for
TVI to explain the role of the interpreter, what the institute would be like and future career
opportunities for those who attended. During the career night applicants were interviewed and
selection of participants was based on the following criteria: (a) above average literacy, 1.0 pts;
(b) appropriate social service drive, 2.0 pts; (c) appropriate motivation, 3.0 pts; (d) maturity and
sophistication, 4.0 pts; (e) flexible personality, 5.0 pts and (f) availability for employment, 6.0
54
pts. Persons with the highest numbers from the interviews were asked to be part of the Interpreter
Institute (Carter & Lauritsen, 1974, p. 54).
Training
TVI began their six-week summer institute on June 26, 1972. It was determined that
selecting the instructors for the training would be very important as well as what curriculum
would be used to teach the training. The recommendations for the instructors were that they had
signing and interpreting skills. The instructors must be the master of many skills in addition to
signing and interpreting (Carter & Lauritsen, 1974, p. 60). There is no definition given as to
what the many skills were that an interpreter trainer should be mastering. Perhaps these skills
were the same criteria that were being evaluated for the prospective students. Because there were
no national standards for interpreter training programs and no standardized curriculum, it was
difficult to find qualified instructors. Faculty was usually found by asking someone in the area
that had good interpreting skills to teach a class at the college. There was no curriculum that was
written so the practioners would come up with what they thought would be the best way to learn
the skill of interpreting. However, not having skilled instructors did not stop the establishment of
interpreter training programs. This may have been seen as a natural progression for interpreter
trainers as they moved from being a practioners to a teacher. However, the lack of qualified
instructors still exists today.
Curriculum
The students were given, several reference books including Interpreting for Deaf People
(HEW), A Basic Course in Manual Communication (ORourke) and Talk with Your Hands
55
(Watson). A reference library was also available that included all known (and available) books
on Sign Language, plus numerous reference books and publications on various facets of
deafness (Carter &Lauritsen, 1997, p. 58). The basic pattern used to teach interpreting skills
was: (a) principles of interpreting; (b) ethics of interpreting; (c) sign language vocabulary; (d)
reverse interpreting; (e) related knowledge and (f) opportunity for extensive practice. TVI also
followed the curriculum suggested in the preliminary draft of the 1973 publication, Interpreter
Training: a Curriculum Guide, from the Deafness Research and Training Center at New York
University. Further examination of this training manual was described below.
The First Published Curriculum for Interpreter Training

After Dr. Lottie Riekehof left the Central Bible Institute (now College) in 1968, she went
to New York University to get a PhD. While at New York University (NYU), she continued her
passion for teaching interpreting and began a series of workshops. These workshops were
established specifically to develop an interpreter-training curriculum. After obtaining her PhD,
Riekehof became the Dean of Women at Gallaudet College (now University). After she moved
on, the curriculum that had begun to be written at NYU needed to be completed, so Mrs. Carol
Tipton, Mr. Martin Sternberg and Dr. Jerome D. Schein continued the project. Schein was the
Director of the Deafness Research and Training Center at NYU.
When the NYU curriculum was completed it was recommended that interpreter-training
programs include specific areas of study in their programs. The curriculum designers agreed that
the participants of any interpreter-training program or course would be expected to already have
proficiency in manual communication (sign language). Being proficient in sign language was a
goal for all students who entered interpreter-training programs; however, still today it is not a
56
requirement in most programs. The need to train as many students as possible became the focus
rather than pre-requisite skills for students to posses before entering a program. This remains
problem today as many interpreter training programs do not require proficiency in ASL before
entering an interpreter training program. The curriculum also included the following: (a) ethics;
(b) interpersonal relations; (c) compensation; (d) physical settings; (e) vocabulary and (f)
bibliographical resources. This curriculum strategy was deemed pedagogically sound. These
same six principles could then be used to teach courses for specific situations such as educational
settings, legal settings, and medical settings (Schein, 1974, p. 191).
This was the first formal attempt to establish a curriculum that could be used in
interpreter training programs, trainings and classes. Many people who were teaching interpreting
did not have a curriculum that was considered up to standard for training. Many interpreter
training programs wanted a copy of this curriculum. It was through a grant from the Social and
Rehabilitation Services, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, that the Curriculum
Guide for Interpreter Training was published. The authors stated, This interpreter training
curriculum guide has been prepared with maximum flexibility and adaptability in mind. The
whole area of interpreter training is today a very new and relatively undeveloped field.
Considerable leeway is therefore afforded to permit the instructor to make changes and
modifications, as circumstances and experience dictate (Schein, Sternberg, &Tipton, 1973, p. i).
The following section described the short-term training program at the Deafness Research and
Training Center of New York University.
57
Deafness Research & Training Center of New York University

In 1973, the Deafness Research & Training Center at NYU developed a short-term,
intensive training program for interpreters. The goal of the interpreter-training programs were to
alleviate the chronic shortage of interpreters, improve the quality of interpreters for deaf people,
open up new job opportunities in the field of interpreting for the deaf, and to develop an
academically feasible training program for interpreters (Sternberg, 1974, p. 63). Since there
was not a national organization for interpreter trainers, many colleges established programs
without the help of outside sources. Hence, each program struggled to find the best way to teach
on their own.
Students who wished to be in the interpreter program in New York had to be intelligent,
have good attitudes, have visual and hearing acuity, and have good manual dexterity and eyehand coordination. There were no tests that would evaluate the attributes which made a good
interpreter. The 1970s was a time of great interest in all kinds of tests to give students before
entering an interpreter training program. These tests were given because there were no specific
standards set by the profession, the leaders of the research center assumed certain attributes
which interpreters should possess. As an illustration of how the Deafness Research & Training
Center screened the students for these attributes the following tests were used: (a) the Otis
Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Tests; (b) the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule; (c) the
Stanford and Metropolitan Achievement Tests; (d) the Purdue Pegboard and Crawford Dexterity
Tests and (e) Minnesota Paper Form Board. Fifteen students were chosen based on their test
58
scores and their interviews with the deafness center staff. There are no statistics as to how the
tests were graded or how the interviews were measured.
Training
The training program was divided into two parts. The first was a three-week highly
intensive daily training from 9-5 every day for the participants to learn sign language. As
previously noted in other interpreting programs, most students did not have to have fluency in
ASL before entering the interpreting programs. The solution of this for students in New York
was to have them in these highly intensive language classes before interpreting. The idea of
teaching ASL before interpreting is sound. However, three weeks of learning a language 8 hours
a day does not mean that someone could be called proficient in the language.
The second was a seven-week training that involved the students going to a variety of
locations in New York and practicing their interpreting skills. Some of the areas where students
were able to interpret included: social welfare, education, vocational rehabilitation, mental
health, medicine, and religion. Those students chosen by the staff as more experienced and
skilled were taken to the legal arena to practice interpreting with experienced mentors. Sternberg
(1974) states that, an interesting and valuable part of the program involved the utilization of
videotape to demonstrate trainee growth. All trainees underwent formal and informal videotaping
sessions before, at midpoint and at the end of the training program (p. 66). The students also
met with a supervisor once a week in the afternoon to discuss and share their experiences.
59
Curriculum
The new curriculum that had been developed at the New York City Dearness Center at
NYU was utilized for training. The report described how the components of the curriculum were
incorporated into the training. The students were given readings from a comprehensive
bibliography on deafness, interpreting and related skills (these are included in the curriculum
guide) (Sternberg, 1974). Another exemplary program was established at California State
University at Northridge and was described below.
California State University-Northridge

California State University-Northridge (CSUN) had been providing training workshops
for interpreters. These workshops were to upgrade the skills of current interpreters and provide
training for inexperienced interpreters working in the field. Mr. Louie J. Fant, Jr. was the director
of interpreter training at the Center for Deafness at CSUN. Fant (1974) felt that providing shortterm training programs was not adequate. He felt that there should be college courses established
and long-term training put into practice.
Fant met with the foreign language department at CSUN and discussed the vision of
establishing a long-term interpreter-training program. The foreign language department
supported Fants assertion that those who wanted to be in an interpreter training program should
have the prerequisite skill of mastery of sign language. Once the student had mastery of the
language then they could be accepted into their interpreter-training program. Fant (1974) stated,
60
It seems so obvious that one feels embarrassed, almost to mention it, yet I fear it is too often not
given sufficient attention. It does not seem ludicrous to suggest that anything less than fluency
can be accepted, yet it happens and none too rarely (p.44). Again, the notion that students
should be proficient in ASL was documented. However, the interpreter training programs were
not rising to this standard. Perhaps CSUN felt moving their ASL classes into the Foreign
Language Department in the fall of 1972 would assistance in solving this problem. Many
colleges ASL classes were housed in the communication disorders department or special
education classes, so, CSUN having their ASL classes in the foreign language department gave
the language the legitimacy that it needed. With the classes housed in the foreign language
department, CSUN began their interpreter training courses.
Training
Four courses equaling fourteen credit hours in ASL were taught at the college. The
courses were set up in a sequence that spanned four semesters. The first ASL class did not have
any prerequisite and there was no mention of teacher requirements.
Curriculum
The courses that CSUN implemented into their training program were: (a) The Deaf
Adult in Todays World; (b) Introduction to Linguistics; (c) The Structure of ASL; (d)
Comparative Studies of Sign Languages; (e) Teaching ASL; (f) Sign Language in Drama and (g)
The Art of Interpreting (Fant, 1974).
61
Gallaudet College
Since 1972, the office of Sign Language Programs of Gallaudet College had been
offering evening courses for people who wanted to become interpreters. The courses were
established for beginners in the profession (Riekehof, 1974). These classes were non-credit
courses and were held twice a week for two hours and continued for two semesters.
No screening was detailed in the report given by Riekehof in 1972.
Curriculum
The curriculum used at Gallaudet College was Interpreting for Deaf People (Quigley,
1965). Students also studied ethics, behavior and nuances of interpreting in various settings such
as legal, educational, vocational, religious and medical. Riekehof noted there should be one
hearing person and one deaf person used to teach the interpreting classes (Riekehof, 1974).
The reverse interpreting course taught at Gallaudet was considered one of the first in the
nation as there is no documentation of any other course like it. The course was outlined as A
study of the principles and problems of interpreting the manual, oral and written communications
of deaf persons into their spoken or written equivalents. Main emphasis will be upon constant
practice in reverse interpreting through interclass discussions. Deaf speakers will be invited to
provide situational practice and role-playing will be utilized as part of the course practicum in
legal, social and vocational settings (Riekehof, 1974).
62
Riekehof felt there were several courses teaching interpreting students to sign and how to
interpret with sign language. The study of reverse interpreting had not been the focus of many
interpreter training workshops or programs. Gallaudet established a two-semester course in
reverse interpreting beginning in the fall of 1972 (Riekehof, 1974).
The time had come for interpreter training program faculty to standardize the screening
of students, faculty criteria and curriculum. A conference on the preparation of personnel in the
field of interpreting was established at Gallaudet College. Gallaudet had become the new home
of the RID. The federal grant that RID and the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) wrote
together in 1966 expired in 1972 and there were no other funds to continue paying for the RID
head office. For awhile it seemed that the office would be closed and another interpreting
organization would have to start over again just as it had in 1964. However, in 1972 RID moved
their home office to Gallaudet College. While there was no money to pay a full time staff,
members of RID supported the organization with such passion that they came from all over the
country to volunteer their time to maintain the RID home office. There is no other information
that could be found regarding the status of RID and what happened after the organization was
moved to Gallaudet. So, in 1972 it made sense for a Conference on the Preparation of Personnel
in the Field of Interpreting be held at Gallaudet. The conference was highly significant as there
had never been a conference for the training of interpreter training personnel. However, very few
people who were interpreter trainers were aware of the conference. Many interpreter trainers
today are not aware that this conference occurred. The outcomes of the conference are not
documented and there is no reference to this convention for interpreter trainers again.
63
Conference on the Preparation of Personnel in the Field of Interpreting

During March 28-30, 1972 at Gallaudet College in Washington, DC, a conference was
held to prepare personnel in the field of interpreting. Eleven professionals with expertise in the
area of interpreting for deaf people were asked to attend the training. The goal of the conference
was to determine the kinds of programs needed to make certain there would be a continued
supply of trained interpreters for the nation (Pimentel, 1972). However, even though RID had
lost their grant and were now housed at Gallaudet College there is no reference in the conference
minutes. The only history of RID does not address this issue and the author could find no
reference to it.
The conference focused on: (a) the nature of the knowledge and skills essential to
interpreters; (b) the curricula for interpreter trainees; (c) the possible need for high professional
level of training to produce teachers of interpreters and (d) recommendations for program
development priorities for the consideration of appropriate institutions of higher learning. Mr.
Emil Ladner, Executive Director of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, gave the keynote
address. He recommended that the group needed to focus on the future needs of the interpreting
profession. He stated that there were not enough people to teach all the courses required to train
the many interpreters needed for the field. Ladner also mentioned that this group needed to focus
on the development of curriculum, research, certification standards, evaluation procedures,
publicity and recruitment (Ladner, 1972).
After the opening address by Ladner, the group was divided into sub groups that would
conduct brainstorming sessions on the specific goals of the conference. Each group made
recommendations that they felt were important for their working group. At the end of the
64
convention, all of the recommendations were analyzed and placed into priority by the conference
participants. The participants recommended the following as priorities for the profession: (a)
educational specifications of courses with behavioral objectives; (b) design instructional
materials (including appropriate media); (c) training of teachers of interpreting education; (d)
training of interpreters; (e) training of evaluation personnel and (f) research into the effectiveness
of certification classifications and into the effectiveness of instructional methods.
When or how these recommendations were to be accomplished was not specified in the
report. Because short-term training programs were easier and the demand for interpreters was so
great there were no existing certified interpreter training programs. Interpreter training programs
were being established at colleges and universities across the nation. It is of particular interest that
while programs were being proliferated there were no set perceptions regarding what qualities and
skills interpreter training faculty should possess. There were no set standards as to the selection of
faculty members, the screening of potential students in a program, or what curriculum was to be
used. Nevertheless, interpreter-training-programs continued to be created because it was hoped that
establishing more programs would end the shortage of interpreters. The government continued to
understand the need for training and the impact of federal legislation began to play a huge role in
the establishment of standards for training programs and will be described in the next section.
The Impact of Federal Legislation

It was the passage of federal laws that provided funding for interpreter training from the
federal government. One of the first federal laws passed on September 26, 1973 was the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112). Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (P.L.93-516), 93rd Congress, H.R. 17503, was passed on December 7, 1974 (Rehabilitation
65
Act of 1973). Section 501, Employment of Handicapped Individuals, deals with developing
affirmative action programs for employment of the handicapped in departments and agencies of
the Federal government and is administered by the Civil Service Commission.
Section 503 of P.L. 93-112, Employment under Federal Contracts, established an
affirmative action program covering recruitment, hiring, transfer and promotion of handicapped
workers by employers who have received a government contract exceeding $2,500. This section
is administered by the Department of Labor through the Employment Standard Administration.
Section 504, Nondiscrimination under Federal Grants, covers organizations having Federal
grants (as opposed to contracts) and requires the establishment of nondiscrimination programs
regarding employment of the handicapped. This section applies to most schools and colleges,
hospitals, nursing homes, facilities, state vocational rehabilitation agencies and others, which are
recipients of Federal Funds. Another federal law that made an impact on interpreter training was
the All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (History in Educating Children with Disabilities
Through Idea, n.d.)
The education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142) guaranteed a free,
appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the
country. The four purposes of the law were to: (a) assure that all children with disabilities have
available to them a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and
related services designed to meet their unique needs; (b) assure that the rights of children with
disabilities and their parents are protected; (c) assist states and localities to provide for the
education of all children with disabilities and (d) to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts
to educate all children with disabilities (History in Educating Children With Disabilities Through
Idea, n.d.).
66
The Impact of PL 94-142 on Deaf Children

PL 94-142 had a massive negative impact on the way that deaf children were being
educated in the United States. Before PL 94-142 most deaf children attended state residential
schools for the deaf. These residential schools used ASL as the primary language of instruction
and deaf students were, in turn, graduating and becoming teachers of the deaf. Residential
schools for the deaf have been described as offering a complete educational program for students
who were deaf. The residential facility offered the students the opportunity to be educated in
classrooms with deaf students, teachers, cafeteria workers and librarians that could sign.
Dormitory facilities were also available to the students. Sports programs, student government
and extra-curricular activities were all geared to meet the students linguistic and social needs.
Students attending a residential facility had built-in ties to the deaf community. Because ninety
percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not know how to sign they attended
residential schools for the deaf. This provided deaf students with the same opportunities that
hearing students had in hearing schools. The residential school experience served as the primary
socializing and assimilating agent and is the prerequisite for academic success (Nieto, 1999, p.
35). The success of education in residential schools for the deaf was based on the following
principles; acceptance and usage of ASL, student participation in every aspect of their academic
careers, deaf role models, teachers who use ASL and who have high academic expectations of
students, and the student's ability to socialize with peers (Lane, 1992).
When PL 94-142 was passed many parents and relatives felt that they wanted their deaf
children to stay in the school districts near their perspective families homes. Deaf children were
being pulled out of deaf state residential schools. Because each states deaf residential school
could be quite a distance from the childs home, parents wanted their children to stay close to
67
them and not go to the deaf school. As more deaf children were placed into the school systems,
the auxiliary aid deemed to be necessary by law was an interpreter.
The interpreter was to maintain that deaf students placed into hearing classrooms would
be in the least restrictive environment. Ironically, pulling deaf students out of residential schools
for the deaf began the epidemic of isolation for many deaf children. Learning in this isolated
way did not occur for deaf children. Instead of having deaf students together at the residential
school, many deaf children were placed into the public school system. Most of the time they
were the only deaf child in their classroom and school. Since there was already a lack of
interpreters for deaf people, with the passage of this law many deaf students were being placed
into public education. This meant that the school would need to hire interpreters for the children.
There was already a chronic shortage of interpreters in secondary education, but with the passage
of 94-142 the chronic need for educational interpreters increased drastically (Seal, 1998). The
establishment of these federal laws and the continued need for trained interpreters influenced the
creation of the National Interpreter Training Consortium (NITC) in 1974. The NITC will be
described below.
The National Interpreter Training Consortium

To help alleviate the shortage of interpreters in the United States federal funding from the
Department of Rehabilitation Services established the NITC. The six members of the NITC were
NYU, Gallaudet College, the University of Tennessee, the University of Arizona, California
State University at Northridge and the St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute. The Deafness
Research and Training Center, NYU served as the administrative unit for the NITC (Lauritsen,
1975). The reason that these institutions were chosen to house the first programs for the NITC
68
was due to a vocational rehabilitation meeting that was held in 1974 in Tucson, Arizona. The
push for vocational rehabilitation had been very successful. With Boyce Williams working in the
federal Vocational Rehabilitation office the momentum was strong.
The idea of establishing the NITC began during a poolside conversation (Lauritsen,
1997). One night after the meetings were over for the day representatives from NYU (Jerry
Schein), Gallaudet College (Lottie Reikof), CSUN (Ray Jones), The University of Tennessee
(Bill Woodrick), Seattle Community College (Ron Lafayette) and St. Paul TVI (Bob Lauritsen)
sat around the hotel pool relaxing and discussing that days workshops. Jim Buress from RSA
and Boyce Williams were there also. During the discussion the idea of a national interpretertraining consortium was born. The timing of the NITC was very beneficial to deaf people as the
government was addressing the chronic need for interpreters. Lauritsen (1975) described the six
major objectives of the NITC as a means to: (a) relieve the chronic shortage of interpreters for
deaf people; (b) improve the skills of persons presently interpreting; (c) recruit and train people
who have had no previous experience as interpreters; (d) train a group of interpreters having the
special skills necessary to interpret for low verbal, severely handicapped, deaf individuals; (e)
prepare interpreter trainers and (f) assist state agency personnel and other service workers in
understanding the role and function of interpreters and in utilizing available interpreting
resources maximally while developing new interpreting resources in each state (p. 90).
The NITC was the first national training programs that were given funding to
establish interpreter training programs. The Deafness Research and Training Center, at
NYU served as the administrative unit. The representatives from the colleges in the NITC
proposed to set standards for interpreter trainers by setting teacher criterion. The directors
of the programs in the NITC discussed criterion for those who wished to teach
69
interpreting. Some of the criterion discussed were that any person who wished to teach
interpreting must have teaching experience in sign language and/or interpreting,
experience as an interpreter or with an interpreter and have a basic commitment to the
field. Next, the NITC decided that training interpreters should be the financial
responsibility of the colleges that were hosting the trainings. The federal grants that were
being given to colleges and universities by the federal government were to establish the
NITC. This money would not be permanent. Therefore, one of the main goals of the
NITC was to help establish interpreter training programs in other colleges and
universities. Many colleges and universities that were not in the NITC did not have
interpreter training programs.
Federal Aid for Interpreter Training Programs Continues

In 1978 the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services Amendments Act (CRSA), Section
112 authorized funding to be given to establish programs for the purpose of training interpreters
to meet the communications needs of deaf individuals. Section 112 required the Commissioner to
develop a long-term rehabilitation plan designed to target resources of personnel shortages. This
law provided funding for 12 interpreter-training programs to serve all states and Territories of the
United States (Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services Amendments Act of 1978, n.d.).
Therefore, twelve interpreter-training programs were established. They were: (a) Delgado
Community College, New Orleans, LA; (b) University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; (c) Ohlone
College, Fremont, CA; (d) Denver Community College, Westminster, CO; (e) University of
South Florida, Tampa FL; (f) Johnson County Community College, Overland Park, KS; (g) St.
Paul Technical Vocational Institute, St. Paul, MN; (h) University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN;
70
(i) Seattle Central Community College, Seattle WA and (j) University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
WS (Vidrine, 1981). There is no documentation as to why these schools were chosen as the ten
federally funded interpreter-training programs.
Training Provided for Interpreter Training Programs

During the 1978 RID Convention in Rochester, NY several of the papers presented at the
convention focused on interpreter education. Finch (1978) felt that even though the interpreting
profession had been up and running for several years, interpreter training was still in its infancy.
Finch described a systematic design for those programs which were establishing interpretertraining programs. He believed if interpreter-training programs had more of a standardized
system of being established then the programs would have more validity. Finch (1978) stated,
that there were about twenty four interpreter training programs across the nation with the
primary intent of preparing interpreters. There was not a list of how many teachers there were in
these programs and most of the programs were less than five years old and were developing in an
ongoing manner (p. 82).
Because interpreter-training programs were so new it would be vital for programs to
establish standards that would be prevalent in all programs. Finch (1978) suggested the following
standards should be used while establishing and running an interpreter training program. First, it
was important to have a clear admissions process by selecting students who would have a high
probability of successfully completing the program. Finch (1978) stated, It seems obvious that a
prerequisite to becoming an interpreter is fluency in the languages to be interpreted. Applicants
with good qualifications but inadequate sign skills could be accepted to a preliminary sign
language program (p.90).
71
This statement was not new and had been stated for many years regarding the prerequisites for students to enter an interpreter-training program. This pre-requisite could not or
was not enforced due to the chronic shortage of interpreters. Despite the fact that research
validated prospective interpreter training students should be fluent in ASL, training programs
were not able to follow this standard. The lack of adherence to requiring fluency in ASL skills
before a student was allowed to be accepted into a program was not documented. Perhaps
information from the workshops and training programs were not being disseminated to program
directors. If the directors were receiving the information regarding the pre-requisite requirements
there was no one who was mandating fluency in ASL for students. The sense of urgency to train
as many interpreters as possible may have been the reason that pre-requisites of students being
fluent in sign language were never maintained. In fact, to this day most programs do not require
students to be fluent in ASL in order to be accepted into interpreter training programs.
Finch further suggested that, none of the programs have validated test material or
evaluation procedures and advised that they are very subjective measurements (p.88).
Therefore, it became apparent that instructional curriculum and activities needed to be designed.
Thereafter, the Curriculum Guide for Interpreter Training was written and published in 1973 by
the Deafness Research & Training Center at New York University in New York, NY. The
curriculum was written to be flexible and was meant to meet the needs of most interpretertraining programs.
While at New York University, Dr. Lottie Riekehof did most of the preliminary work to
write the curriculum guide. After Riekehof left, the remainder of the guide was an accumulation
of materials that were presented at workshops held every Saturday from January through April of
1972 in New York (Sternberg, 1974). Once the guide was drafted it was proposed at a two-day
72
meeting in August, 1972 in Long Beach, California. Many national experts that attended the
meeting examined the curriculum guide in detail and their suggestions were incorporated into the
final draft by the staff at the Deafness Research and Training Center in New York. The
interpreter training curriculum guide was a cooperative endeavor between many interpreters and
interpreter trainers. This guide was one the first to be published and was the beginning of many
proposed curriculum guides that would be used in interpreter training programs (Sternberg,
1974).
Another example of a curriculum guide written for interpreter training programs was
developed in 1979. At the request of the Office of Handicapped Individuals, the Department of
Health, the Education and Welfare (DEHW) Gallaudet College published the manual, Interpreter
Training the State of the Art. The manual was designed to bridge the gaps between interpreter
training programs that were being established all over the United States and the absence of
standards for teaching credentials, curriculum and screening of interpreter training students
(Yoken, 1979). The manual written by Gallaudet will be described below.
Interpreter Training in the 1980s

On June 6, 1979, forty-seven individuals with expertise and experience in the field of
interpreter training convened for a conference in Atlanta Georgia. The conference members were
divided into six working groups and asked to discuss areas of concern that they felt needed to be
addressed in interpreter training programs across the nation (Yoken, 1979).
The conference participants brought their own materials they were using in their
interpreter training programs. These materials were on display for everyone to review and
73
discuss. Evaluation forms were available near the displayed materials for participants to leave
feedback or ask specific questions (Yoken, 1979).
At this conference it was revealed that there were many interpreter-training programs
spread out across the country. Most of the programs were still in progress of developing
curriculum and developing teaching methods of teaching that would be successful in their
perspective programs. The discussions with the convention participants revealed that there was
much diversity among interpreter educators regarding standards for these programs. The field of
interpreter training was new and still growing, yet the field had made significant progress and
needed to continue with standards for interpreter training programs (Yoken, 1979).
The conference topics discussed were (a) the interpreter; (b) the interpreter trainer, (c)
policies and administration, (d) research and (e) materials. Interpreter training programs and
interpreter trainers were discussed at length. The types of programs that were in operation at the
time were not identified but the conference members felt that there was a future trend towards
BA and MA degree interpreter training programs rather than non-degree and AA programs. This
was a natural process as interpreting was becoming a recognized profession. This would elevate
the profession and also provide instructors with appropriate teaching credentials. In order to have
interpreter training programs in colleges and universities the instructors needed to have the
necessary qualifications. Most colleges and universities required that faculty have a MA degree
or higher in order to teach.
The conference participants identified topics that needed to be covered in interpreter
training materials. The specific training materials needed included learning activities in
developing skills in short term memory, textbooks covering topics such as: an introduction to
interpreting, language skills, interpreting in a variety of settings, ethics and attitudes. Program
74
guides for practicum and internships were also needed along with a variety of videotapes
produced for use in the classroom in order for students to see examples of master interpreters.
The interpreter trainer, previous to this convention was referred to as instructor, played a
vital role in the success of interpreter training programs. During the convention, it was noted that
there were no formal standards of background performance that existed for interpreter trainers. It
was noted that interpreter trainers were expected to be competent in interpreting, teaching in
general, teaching sign language and having good managerial skills. The group discussing the
competencies needed for interpreter trainers could not agree whether the trainers should hold
interpreting certification and, if so, at what level. It was determined that there needed to be future
discussions regarding specific credentials for employment at different institutions housing
interpreter-training programs. The future discussions regarding trainer credentials would include
topics such as assessment of resumes, recommendations on the types of personalities, skills, and
behaviors necessary for trainers to possess.
Also, the members of the convention felt that future approaches in establishing
curriculum also needed to be addressed. Trainers needed to have a manual that provided them
with materials, curriculum guides and methods of instruction for the classroom. At the end of the
proceedings of the conference, there was a list of printed and audiovisual materials that were
presented at the conference. These materials were suggested resources for trainers to use. In
addition, a list was provided of articles, workshop proceedings, dissertations and books that were
references for interpreter trainers. This was the first time that such a variety of books, videos,
research and teaching methods had ever been created. Without reservation, it was noted that an
annual fair was needed where trainers could come together and exchange ideas. This annual fair
would be achieved with the establishment of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (CIT).
75
The Conference of Interpreter Trainers

During the 1978 RID Convention in Rochester, New York, interpreter trainers informally
met to discuss the need for unifying as a group of professional interpreter trainers. They
discussed interpreter educator professional development, a proposed structure for information
exchange among trainers, and the establishment of a network for future communication. This
collaboration between interpreter educators led to the initial developmental stages of the First
National Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
The first CIT Convention was held at the St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute (TVI) on
October 4-6, 1979. The goals of the conference were to generate (a) a product that would be
submitted to the RID requesting recognition of interpreter trainers as the first special interest
group within the organization, (b) guidelines for certification of interpreter trainers that would be
submitted to the RID, and (c) opportunities to interpreter trainers for professional development
activities (Carlson & Merithew, 1979).
First Board of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers

During the first CIT Convention, a motion was made to establish an organization for
interpreter trainers, called The Conference of Interpreter Trainers, known as CIT. In order to
form this organization the interpreter trainers in the meeting elected an organizational committee
to explore the following: (a) whether or not CIT should be affiliated with RID or another
appropriate organization, (b) writing a set of by-laws for the newly formed CIT, (c) devising a
dues structure for people who wished to be members of CIT, (d) conducting a mail ballot on
ratification or rejection of the bylaws written by the organizational committee and whether or not
76
to be affiliated with the RID and (e) reporting to the participants at the convention the outcomes
of the votes on the proposals from the CIT members made at the convention.
After discussing the logistics of running the organization, a motion was made and
seconded that an organizational structure of interpreter trainers be established. These members
were elected from a list of 21 nominees. These nominees represented different geographical
regions and program types. The following were elected as the first official organizational
committee of CIT: (a) Dan Burch, Southeast, AA degree program; (b) Becky Carlson, Midwest,
Certificate/Technical/Vocational; (c) Mel Carter, East, Communication Skills Program, NAD;
(d) Betty Colonomos, East, Certificate-Large Institution for the Deaf; (e) Rita DeVries,
Southwest, Free Lance trainer; (f) Eileen Forrestal, Northwest, Associate degree-Community; (g)
Barbara Garrison, Southeast, AA degree- Four Year College; (h) Lyle Hinks, West, AA degreeCommunity College; (i) Julie McNeilly, Northwest, Certificate-Community College and (j)
Linda Siple, East, Certificate-Large Institution for the Deaf (Carlson and Witter-Merithew,
1979).
These members were considered the first board of the CIT. The following seven items
were recommendations requested of the Board: (a) provide professional development
opportunities for interpreter trainers regarding administrative, linguistic and teaching skills; (b)
develop criteria for interpreter training program accreditation; (c) provide members with a
comprehensive bibliography of printed and software resources from which materials may be
rented, purchased or previewed by individual interpreter training programs; (d) develop a process
for liaison with other disciplines which interact with interpreter training programs; (e) become
familiar with political procedures in order to advocate current and future legislation affecting
deaf persons; (f) To assist in grant writing, locating potential funding sources and determining
77
quantifiable supportive statistical data and (g) provide a central location for information about
job opportunities (Carlson & Witter-Merithew, 1979).
Summary
The 1970s began a new era for interpreter training. Key leaders reflected on standards for
interpreter training programs. Colleges with sign language interpreting programs shared their
screening of prospective interpreting students, training ideas and curriculum materials in the
1974 Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf (JADARA). Key players included: (a) Mr. James
Stangarone, past president of RID; (b) Mr. Richard C. Nowell, coordinator of the NTID
Interpreter Training Program; (c) Dr. Lottie Riekehof, Dean of Women at Gallaudet College and
interpreter trainer; (d) Mr. Martin Sternberg, Director of the Deafness Research and Training
Center of New York University and (e) Mr. Loui J. Fant, JR, director of interpreter training at the
Center for Deafness at CSUN. In 1973 Riekehof, Mrs. Carol Tipton, Sternberg and Jerome
Schein wrote the first published curriculum for interpreter training.
The first Conference on the Preparation of Personnel in the Field of Interpreting was held
at Gallaudet College on March 28-30, 1972 and The National Training Consortium was
established. The first Curriculum Guide for interpreter trainers was written and published by
Gallaudet College in 1979. Additionally, The Conference of Interpreter Trainers (CIT) was
established in 1979 at TVI in St. Paul, Minneapolis.
The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112) was passed. Further,
amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 furthered the implementation of 12 sign language
interpreter training programs funded by the federal government. The All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975 mandated that deaf children could have an interpreter and finally, in 1978 the
78
Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services Amendments Act (CRSA) Section 112 was passed. This
law authorized funding for interpreter training programs to serve all states and Territories in the
United States. These factors led to the renaissance of interpreter training which occurred in the
1980s and was described below.
79

The decade of 1980 to 1990 had several key players who influenced the field of
interpreter training. In 1980 Anna Witter-Merithew, Becky Carlson, and Linda Siple compiled
the first survey regarding information about interpreter training programs in the United States.
The results of the surveys became known as The Resource Guide. The CIT began to host annual
national conventions, which provided direction for teachers of interpreter training programs.
During the 1982, CIT national convention in Tucson, Arizona, research became one of the
focuses of the organization. Also, during the 1982 CIT Convention the first business meeting
was held and CIT members discussed and voted that an Endorsement Package (Standards)
needed to be written for sign language interpreter educators and interpreting programs. In
addition, the CIT Board tried to compile information regarding curriculum, course descriptions,
and program requirements in order to write a national curriculum for sign language interpreting
programs.
Research regarding assessment of the skills of students in interpreter training programs
began. Dr. Dennis Cokely and Dr. Cynthia B. Roy began the quest for a theoretical base for
interpreter training programs. In 1983 at the fourth CIT Convention on February 20-25 in
Monterey California CIT, members knew that task analysis of the interpreting process needed to
be devised and documented.
In 1984 at the fifth CIT Convention, the CIT Board chose seven highly qualified trainers
to begin the process of documenting a theoretical base or task analysis for sign language
interpreters. The key members who influenced task analysis were, Theresa B. Smith, Kenneth
80
Rust, Donald G. Renzulli, Sharon Neumann Solow, Janice H. Kanda, Betty M. Colonomos and
Dennis R. Cokely.
From the documentation of task analysis, the next step was curriculum development. In
1984 at the sixth CIT Convention, the focus was on discovering the order of tasks of teaching
interpreting through curriculum. In 1986 Western Maryland implemented two masters degree
programs; one in teaching ASL and the other in teaching interpreting. The goal of these
programs was to provide better teachers and write a curriculum that would be available to all
sign language interpreter trainers and interpreting programs.
Another curriculum was being written in Canada at the University of New Brunswick in
Fredericton, New Brunswick in 1988. Key interpreter trainers involved in writing this curriculum
were several of the same people who wrote the task analysis. The key people included, Dennis
Cokely, Charlotte Baker-Shenk, M.J. Bienvenu, Betty Colonomos, Jan Kanda, Sharon Neuman
Solow, and Anna Witter-Merithew. At about the same time, the University of Arkansas at Little
Rock was writing another publication in 1989. This publication provided materials and
curriculum guides for sign language interpreter trainers.
Additionally, the 1978 CIT/RID Program Assessment Package was established. Notable
individuals involved in the beginning of writing standards for interpreter training programs were
Jan Kanda and Anna Witter-Merithew. These two continued the work of RID members, Leo
Dicker, Marina McIntire, Jona Maiorano and Eve West. Later in 1989, McIntire and BakerShenk representing CIT wrote a grant to implement the RID/CIT Endorsement package for
interpreter training programs. The grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary
Education (FIPSE) was granted to CIT for a two-year pilot study. The program directors to
implement the pilot study for sign language interpreting programs was Marina McIntire, Anna
81
Witter-Merithew, Linda Siple, Eve Dicker, Jona Maiorano, Phyllis Wilcox, and Eve West.
Finally, five programs were accepted as pilot studies and began to review their programs
according to the standards of the Endorsement Package.
CIT had become a well-known organization for sign language interpreting programs and
they were communicating through newsletters and conventions. Additionally, the CIT became
more organized as members elected a Board that wrote the CIT mission statement, philosophy,
and began a regular CIT newsletter. The newsletters and conventions were the beginning of
interpreter trainers communicating and networking together as professionals.
Mission of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers

The mission of the CIT acknowledged that deaf people still held minority status in the
broader culture with a long history of linguistic and cultural oppression inflicted on the deaf
population. Members of CIT publicly proclaimed their respect and support for deaf people's right
to self-determination and true communication access. The mission of CIT continues to promote
quality education for interpreters working with American Sign Language and English influenced
forms of signing. As a professional association of interpreter educators, CIT: (a) provides
opportunities for the professional development of interpreter educators, (b) serves as a vehicle
for sharing information among interpreter educators, (c) promotes high standards in institutions,
faculties, programs and curricula for the education of interpreters, (d) advocates for research
relevant to the practice and instruction of interpretation and (e) encourages collegial relationships
with professionals in other related disciplines and organizations.
One of the most important questions that members of CIT asked was how many
interpreter-training programs there were in the United States. A survey was sent out and the
82
results were published and titled, The Resource Guide of Interpreter Training Programs. The
content of the Resource Guide is described below.
The Resource Guide of Interpreter Training Programs 1980

A survey was sent out by Anna Witter-Merithew and Becky Carlson with the results
compiled by Linda Siple. The survey asked the directors of the interpreter training programs the
following questions: (a) who was the contact person, (b) when the program was established, (c)
the sources of funding for the program, (d) the type of program offered, (e) a brief description of
the programs goals, (f) the practicum opportunities available for students in their program, (g)
the entry requirements required to enter the program, (h) the application procedures, (i) how
many staff members were in each program, (j) the tuition costs, (k) how many people were
enrolled in the program, (l) the special services offered in the program, (m) the total number of
graduates to date (n) and how many graduates were RID certified (Carlson,, Dirst Siple, &
Witter-Merithew,1980).
The responses from the directors of the interpreter training programs were compiled and
published in a booklet in January 1980 titled the Resource Guide which was the first detailed
publication of 53 interpreter-training programs available in the United States. The Resource
Guide was published again in 1982 with 61 interpreter-training programs available in the United
States (Siple, 1982). The final Resource Guide was published in 1986 with only 48 interpretertraining programs available in the United States. Although the number of interpreter training
programs seemed to be rising the resource guides did not show these numbers. The low numbers
could have been due to the fact that the questionnaires were sent out only to the programs that
the authors were aware of. This is an ongoing dilemma in the field of interpreter training: how
83
many interpreter-training programs there are and where are they located. Even the CIT does not
have a count of how many interpreter training programs there are in the United States and
Canada. However, the National Alliance of Black Interpreters has a list of approximately 144
interpreter training programs on their website. This number may or may not be accurate.
The Second Conference of Interpreter Trainers

The CIT conventions were a significant way for interpreter educators to network
regarding interpreter education issues. CIT held its second national convention on March 12-15,
1981 in Rochester, New York. There was not a theme documented for the convention but an
overview of the workshops presented provided direction for teachers of interpreter training
programs. For example workshop titles included: recommendations on how to be an effective
trainer, how to deal with the open door policy of community colleges, how to deal with the need
for research and curriculum for interpreter training programs, how to provide students with
feedback, how to design goals and objectives for interpreter training programs, how to develop
confidence in interpreting students and how to cope with stress. The convention coordinator was
Linda Siple from the National Technical Institute of Technology (NTID) and the convention was
held at NTID. The keynote presenter was Dr. Japes Decaro, Associate Professor and curriculum
specialist at NTID (Decaro, 1981).
The Third Conference of Interpreter Trainers

CIT held its third national convention from February 17-20, 1982 in Tucson, Arizona,
hosted by University of Arizona. Dr. Amos P. Sales, Director of the Rehabilitation Department at
the University of Arizona presented the keynote address where he talked about the need to
84
establish a four-year degree-interpreting program that graduates from a two-year AA interpreting

program could transfer (Sales, 1982). Previously, the University of Arizona had been the host
site for the first federally funded planning effort of the National Academy of Gallaudet in
October of 1980. The conference title was, Interpreter Research: Targets for the Eighties. The
goals of the conference were to prioritize research needs and to develop research strategies to
address these needs. The five research areas that were identified were (a) profile of the
competent interpreter; (b) evaluation/certification; (c) entrance and exit criteria for interpreter
trainees; (d) labor market analysis; and (e) curriculum and materials. Sales suggested that as an
organization, CIT should write position papers regarding the five research areas (Sales, 1982).
The outcomes of this earlier conference influenced the CIT convention in Arizona in
1982. Sales recognized that interpreter educators needed more information regarding these areas
of research. Sales acknowledged CIT members for already having the knowledge and expertise
in these five research areas. He stated that it was imperative for them to give themselves credit
for all of the hard work they had done. Additionally, he encouraged members to share
information in written form for the future needs of the interpreter-training field. At that point,
there was not much research in the field and Sales felt that if members would begin this research,
much could be accomplished. He encouraged the organization to work collectively and to be a
major influence on the education of interpreters (Sales, 1982).
During the 1982 CIT convention the first documented business meeting was held and the
members of CIT felt that the current standards, written by the RID/CIT Endorsement package
needed further input. Members at the convention wanted CIT members not attending the
convention to have the opportunity of providing input to the standards that were being
established for interpreter training programs.
85
CIT members also wanted to bring together curriculum from all of the interpreter training
programs. They hoped the outcome of this compilation of information would lead to a national
curriculum for the education of interpreter trainers. The CIT Region II Representative, asked
members to send a copy of: (a) course titles; (b) course descriptions; (c) course credit hours; (d)
degree credit hour requirements (total number) and (e) program-responsible credit hours (total
number). The CIT Region II Representative would compile all of the information from programs
that responded, send it out to all contributing programs and finally to the CIT Newsletter
(Burch,1982 May, p. 6).
In order to accomplish this outcome of successful graduates who could work as
interpreters, standards needed to be written and implemented. It is evident that establishing
standards were an important concern for CIT members. There were many interpreter-training
programs being established with no standardized standards or curriculum for these programs.
This pattern had been going on for many years and even with the establishment of CIT the
problems persisted. Standards needed to be written and implemented. Interpreter-training
programs were not producing consistent graduates who could pass RID certification. Many states
were trying to train interpreters as fast as they could. An example of a training offered was the
Texas Interpreter Training Consortium described below.
The Texas Interpreter Training Consortium

Similar to all states, Texas had a chronic shortage of interpreters and interpreter trainers.
Funded by the Texas Education Agency, on April 22, 1983, Eastfield College in Dallas
established the Texas Interpreter Training Consortium (TITC) to come up with a solution to this
chronic shortage. The project was entitled, Developing a Statewide Community/Junior College
86
Consortium to Enrich Interpreting for the Deaf-Networking. Specific project objectives included:
(a) planning a workshop for interpreter instructors, (b) facilitating communication and
organization among Texas Interpreter Instructors, (c) developing a resource center of materials
and bibliography of information on manual communication training and interpreter training for
dissemination and (d) developing a brochure of information on the eight community/junior
college interpreter-training programs in Texas (Texas Establishes Interpreter Training
Consortium, 1983).
The Fourth Conference of Interpreter Trainers

CIT held its fourth national convention, New Dialogues in Interpreter Education, from
February 20-25, 1983 in Monterey, California at the Asilomar Conference Center. The keynote
presenter was Etilvia Arjona from the Translators and Interpreters Educational Society. Arjona
(1983) shared her thoughts and insights into curriculum design and how content, evaluation,
assessment and task analysis can be used for developing educational framework. Her goal was to
help CIT develop models of interpretation and improve courses of study for training interpreters
in their field (Arjona, 1983).
In response to Arjonas comments on evaluation, Dr. Dennis Cokely (1983) made the
following assessments. First, Cokely reiterated the fact that the topic of assessment continued to
be one that was very important in the field of interpreter training. Before skills could be assessed,
an interpreter trainer needed to know the specific skills they were assessing. The field of
interpreter training had not decided what skills were required in the processes of interpreting.
The process of the work of interpreters needed to have a theoretical base in order for the skills to
be taught and then assessed. Cokely also made the following statement.
87
Unfortunately, most Interpreter Training Programs function on the unshared, unexplored

and unverified ideas of individual trainers. The result is a lack of theoretical consistency
in programs and an inability, on the part of a program, to clearly state goals, develop and
modify curriculum and design and implement meaningful evaluations. (p. 140)
Also in response to Arjonas speech, Dr. Cynthia B. Roy (1983) stated that curriculum
design must be based on the skills that the instructor taught. However, what skills, ideas, notions,
knowledge and experience the students needed to have before they graduate needed to be
clarified. Roy suggested that the interpreter training profession needed to agree on what specific
skills were required of the interpreting process. Breaking down the tasks of what it takes to
interpret was called task analysis (Roy, 1983). Many interpreter educators had wonderful ideas
of the skills necessary for students to possess. However, a large part of the problem regarding the
knowledge and theoretical base of sharing these skills as a profession was that they were not
documented. Roy (1983) stated, One of our main difficulties in establishing professional
training is that we have not shared through writing or correspondence what we individually and
collectively theorize about interpreters and the interpreting process (p. 37).
The second issue in response to Arjonas (1983) opening speech by Cokely is the fact
that interpreter-training programs did not have program entry requirements. Cokely (1983)
states, It is obvious that before an individual can interpret between two languages and cultures
they must be bilingual and bicultural. However, most programs do not have bilingual/bicultural
entry requirements (p. 140). Program faculty must understand and be able to teach ASL and
also Deaf Culture. If students do not learn or understand that ASL and Deaf Culture affect the
interpreting processes then they are not a bilingual/bicultural program. Roy (1983) also
supported the notion that once the task analysis of interpreting skills had been accomplished
there must be strict requirements for students who wish to enter interpreter-training programs.
88
If an interpreter-training program wishes to establish entry and exit level requirements of

students there must be specific skills required before allowing them in or out of their program.
When the student does possess the necessary entry or exit level skills it is then the responsibility
of the interpreter-training program instructor to assess the skills of the student. The skills that
were to be evaluated were the skills included in the task analysis process. The skills needed to be
documented regarding the interpreting process, which interpreters go through, must be
documented (Cokely, 1983).
Once the skills are documented, it then becomes the responsibility of the interpreter
educator to evaluate the skills of the students. This means that the interpreter-training instructor
must be qualified to make these assessments. Roy (1983) suggested that it is vital that just as
other professions have strict requirements of their faculty so must interpreter trainers. Dr.
Theresa B. Smith (1983) reiterates this by stating, we must know our biases, our failings, our
strengths, our values, have people skills, be assertive, show confidence in our own skills, have
dignity and know the importance of the Deaf persons message (p. 73-74). It is evident from the
1983 CIT Convention that people in attendance at the convention felt that it was necessary for
the interpreter training profession to (a) conduct a task analysis of the work of interpreters; (b)
establish entry and exit standards for interpreter training programs and (c) require high standards
for interpreter educators.
Proposed End Product of Interpreter Program

Burch (1983, November) recommended that after the discussions during the 1983 CIT
Convention there should be an end of program survey for educational programs of interpreters,
transliterators and translators for the deaf. Burch proposed the following end of program
89
questions that interpreter trainers needed to evaluate of their students. Many of the criteria listed
by Burch were the same items from the 1983 CIT Proceedings. He proposed asking the
graduating students if they could: (a) render a routinely accurate interpretation of a spoken or
signed message at a minimum level of 75%, (b) render a routinely accurate transliteration of a
spoken or signed message at a minimum of 80%, (c) render a routinely accurate translation of
printed text to American Sign Language or a manually coded system of English at a minimum
level of 90%, (d) render a routinely accurate transcription of a signed message at a minimum
level of 90%, (e) demonstrate a general knowledge of the multi-cultural aspects of
deafness/hearing impairment, (f) demonstrate a level of professionalism that can be identified as
such by persons both within and outside the field of interpreting/transliterating/translation for the
deaf/hearing impaired and (g) demonstrate a well rounded, educational and experiential
background (p. 8).
These suggested outcomes from Burch (1983) were a great place to start a professional
dialogue regarding exit standards. However, they were not officially adopted by CIT. Burch
wrote the suggested outcomes in the CIT newsletter for discussion purposes. Members were
encouraged to read the proposed end of program outcomes and send written feedback to Burch.
No further information could be found regarding these ends of program outcomes suggested by
Burch or the feedback he was given by CIT members. Perhaps the reason that there was no
feedback regarding the end of program outcomes was, as Cokely and Roy stated, that the
interpreting profession did not know what their tasks were, and had not yet formed a theoretical
base for the task analysis. There may have been discussions going on regarding end of program
outcomes but they were not documented. Also, feedback could have been so negative that Burch
tabled the project. The discussion never really materialized. This lack of knowledge would soon
90
change as the infamous 1984 CIT Convention focused on task analysis would change interpretertraining theory forever (A. Witter-Merithew, personal communication, August 23, 2005).
The Fifth Conference of Interpreter Trainers

CIT held its fifth national convention, New Dimensions in Interpreter Education: Task
Analysis-Theory and Application, from March 25-30, 1984 in Monterey, California at the
Asilomar Conference Center. To rectify the lack of a theoretical base and task analysis for
interpreter trainers the CIT Board appointed a group of seven highly qualified trainers. They
were, Theresa B. Smith, Kenneth Rust, Donald G. Renzulli, Sharon Neumann Solow, Janice H.
Kanda, Betty M. Colonomos and Dennis R. Cokely to begin work on documenting the tasks
involved in the interpreting process (McIntire, 1984).
The group assembled at Madonna University in October of 1983 with high hopes and
optimism for finally sitting down and hammering out task analysis and theoretical bases for
interpreter training. This conference had been long in coming with other conferences and
meetings leading up to this very critical need. Hence, the beginning of having a theoretical base
as a reference for interpreter-training had begun. They met for two and one-half days and
brainstormed what they felt was the task analysis of interpreting. The group discussed,
questioned, clarified and developed, a rough draft which outlined several possible task and subtasks within the interpretation and transliteration processes (McIntire, 1984, p. 29). In order to
solidify the tasks outlined the group felt that they needed to have feedback from other members
of the profession and sent the rough draft to 20 other people in the field. These 20 individuals
read the draft and made recommendations of what they thought needed to be changed regarding
the draft (McIntire, 1984).
91
The original seven members then took the recommendations from the 20 people and
revised the draft. The draft was then presented to the CIT membership at the 1984 CIT
Convention. The participants of the convention divided into several different working groups and
focused on one or more of the tasks that was in the task analysis draft. The notes from all of the
working groups were documented and were the first theoretically based task analysis of
interpreting. The task analysis document became the proceedings of the 1984 CIT Convention
and became the basis for interpreter training curriculum from then on (McIntire, 1984).
The Sixth Conference of Interpreter Trainers

Interpreter educators were in a new place after the CIT Convention in 1984. They were
beginning to understand the theoretical basis of their profession. New ideas for curriculum were
being published. Most interpreter educators were focused on discovering the order of the tasks of
teaching interpreter training that would be measured. To help understand this teaching process
better the CIT Board invited Dr. Roger Shuy, a linguist from Georgetown University as the
keynote speaker at the sixth national CIT Convention, New Dimensions in Interpreter Education:
Curriculum and Instruction held from November 6-10, 1986 in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Dr. Shuy, compared the field of linguistics to interpreter training and explored their
similarities. He noted that in the beginning of teaching linguistics, linguists were focused on the
easy task of defining what language was. The hard part was determining what that language
meant and how it fit into the culture of those who used the language. Shuy (1986) noted that the
field of interpreter education was going through a very similar process. In the beginning of
teaching interpreting trainers taught what they thought would work. Then, it became evident that
instructors needed to know and examine the tasks which were to be included in interpreter
92
training. The order of when these skills should be taught was articulated in the task analysis
document from 1984. The task analysis document proved to be very valuable. Hence, the next
step for interpreter educators would be to develop curriculum that supported the task analysis
theories (Shuy, 1986).
CIT members were excited and invigorated that interpreter education training was
progressing. Standardizing curriculum should be the next step. An example of CIT trying to
develop standard curriculum is from the CIT Newsletter. The editor, Christine Monikowski
(1987, July) suggested, that a section be added to the newsletter regarding teaching techniques,
creative ideas, and tips that work when teaching interpreting (p. 9). The idea of sharing teaching
techniques was wonderful and would be a great resource for instructors. Since task analysis was
so new and many interpreter trainers did not feel confident in their teaching skills it may have
been too intimidating for them to share teaching techniques. No further evidence was given as to
whether these teaching techniques were ever implemented or documented.
To this point, many instructors did not have masters degrees and there had never been a
degree in how to teach interpreting or ASL. However, in the summer of 1986 a masters degree
program was established at Western Maryland College in teaching interpreter training and
teaching ASL. These programs are described below.
Western Maryland Masters Program

In the summer of 1986 Western Maryland College in Western, MD implemented a pilot
program designed to establish two masters degree programs in teaching ASL and teaching
interpreting. The purpose of these programs was to provide state of the art training to interpreter
educators. As a result, the students who obtained a masters degree would be better teachers in
93
interpreter training programs. The pilot program was very successful and in the summer of 1987
the official program began (Bienvenu, 1987).
The Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) provided funding
through a federal grant for writing the curriculum and developing materials for both masters
programs. After the grant finished its course the curriculum and materials were available to all
interpreter trainers and interpreter training programs. The goal was to have a more mainstreamed
curriculum that would provide successful student outcomes (Bienvenu, 1987).
There were also other colleges writing interpreter training curriculum. The University of
New Brunswick in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada received funding from the Secretary of
State under the Centres of Specialization Fund to write a Sign Language Interpreter Training
Curriculum. This curriculum provided the most up-to-date approach to training interpreters. The
curriculum included a detailed outline for the first two years of a sign language interpreter
training program. The publication was 260 pages in length and consisted of 19 course outlines
which would provide the framework for interpreter training programs. The trainers who wrote
the curriculum were coordinated by Dennis Cokely and assisted by: (a) Charlotte Baker-Shenk,
(b) M.J. Bienvenu, (c) Betty Colonomos, (d) Jan Kanda, (e) Sharon Neuman-Solow and (e) Anna
Witter-Merithew (Sign Language Interpreter Training Curriculum University of New Brunswick,
1988). All of these trainers were members of CIT at the time and had been pivotal in the process
of documenting the task analysis process of interpreting.
Simultaneously, other publications were developed and made available to all interpreter
training programs from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Materials included curriculum
guides for interpreter educators and trainers for legal interpreting, interpreting for deaf and blind
people, educational interpreting, telephone interpreting, interpreting in the Rehabilitation setting,
94
code of ethics, interpreting in medical settings, oral interpreting, and how to design and organize
interpreter workshops. There were also university interpreter course curriculum guides for
instructors at the college or university level (Publications for Interpreter Educators/Trainers,
1989). All of these publications were advertised by CIT and members were provided copies.
Since the 1984 CIT Convention which laid the foundation for task analysis each convention after
that focused on an aspect of task analysis. Accordingly, the next CIT Convention would focus on
evaluation and critique in interpreter training. The seventh CIT convention is described below.
The Seventh Conference of Interpreter Trainers

CIT held its seventh national convention, New Dimensions in Interpreter Education:
Evaluation and Critique, on July 13-17, 1988 in Sugarloaf Resort, Michigan. Dr. John W. Oller,
Jr. from the University of New Mexico was the keynote presenter. In his speech, Oller stated, It
seems to me that you folks rank right at the top in terms of the level of success achieved. Not
only are you forward looking in curriculum ideas and in approaches to evaluation, but, more
importantly, you aim higher than almost any other segment of the broad class of educators
involved in language instruction (Oller, 1988, p. 2).
Aiming higher for interpreter educators meant that educators not only needed to be
concerned with curriculum and standards, but also the learning outcomes of what they were
teaching. It had been five years since Burchs request for the membership of CIT to discuss what
learning outcomes should be evident in interpreter-training programs. These learning outcomes
had finally been addressed in what had become known as the program endorsement (or
standards). The issues regarding program endorsement continued to concern interpreter
95
educators. These concerns were addressed in the CIT/RID Educational Standards Endorsement
System described below.
CIT/RID Program Assessment Package
In summary, in 1978 RID recognized the need for interpreter training program
assessment and began an initial process of establishing such a system. In 1979, CIT was
established and the organization recognized that establishing program standards was a critical
mission for the organization to complete. In 1980 Jan Kanda, asked Anna Witter-Merithew to
develop a preliminary application process for implementation of the standards written by RID
(Dicker, McIntire, Maiorano, West & Witter-Merithew, 1990). The CIT/RID Endorsement
System (ESE) was a joint effort by CIT and RID to develop standards for successful interpreter
training programs. The ESE was developed for programs to engage in self-examination with a
more formalized and comprehensive set of proposed standards and guidelines for interpreter
training programs. The ESE guidelines focused on four components: (a) institution, an institution
seeking endorsement through the CIT/RID process gained recognition if the college or university
had appropriate regional accreditation and offered degrees; (b) program, the program received
endorsement if it was in the academic hierarchy, reported to a dean, had a secretary, the name of
the major reflected the intent of the program, and exit evaluations of students for competency in
English, sign language, interpretation and transliteration; (c) faculty, the vitae of all full time or
part time faculty were assessed, points were accrued for faculty members that had certificates
from RID, SIGN and membership in CIT, and (d) curriculum, quality course content was vital,
coherency of the material taught and if it followed an appropriate outline were examined
(Dicker, McIntire, Maiorano, West & Witter-Merithew, 1990).
96
In 1981, the CIT Standards Committee identified the need for program standards as a
priority and began an extensive effort to review and revise the RID-generated document. After a
number of revisions and attempts to develop a working system, the CIT and the RID worked
together to revise the current draft. It took approximately two years for the committees to draft
the revised program standards and then they were circulated to CIT members. In 1983 the CIT
Standards Committee reported that the majority of the CIT membership approved of the current
draft of the Program Standards. Included with the report were twelve pages of recommendations
which the membership wished to make to the current draft.
In 1983, the CIT/RID Endorsement Committee collected all of the comments from the
Standards Committee and established a joint committee in 1984 to continue developing a
working endorsement system (McIntire, 1991). The joint committee developed a more
formalized and comprehensive set of proposed standards and associated guidelines for interpreter
training programs. These guidelines were distributed to a wide number of individuals in the
professional community and to educational institutions for review and critique. After revisions
from the community and institutions the committee revised document was titled the CIT/RID
Educational Standards Endorsement System.
After the CIT Convention in 1986, President JoAnn Dobecki Shopbell informed the CIT
Members that the committee to develop evaluation standards for interpreter training programs
was thrilled with the support of the membership during the convention. Shopbell appointed Jan
Kanda, MJ Bienvenu and Jona Maiorano to investigate funding options for the evaluation
standards committee. Shopbell also stated that RID would be establishing the same committee to
seek funding for the endorsement package. Shopbell explained, plans are underway to establish
a means by which programs may obtain preliminary drafts of the endorsement package in order
97
to become familiar with the contents and criteria which will be used in the final evaluation
process. It is hoped that the draft copies will be available in the fall at a nominal cost (Shopbell,
1987, July). The Endorsement System was approved by both the CIT and RID Boards in 19871988 (McIntire, 1989). While members of CIT and RID were thrilled to have the evaluation
standards package, the implementation of the endorsement package faced another barrier in the
process of establishing standards which was funding (Shopbell, 1988, February, p.2). Ultimately,
a grant would need to be written. The process of receiving funding for the Endorsement Package
is described below.
1989 FIPSE Grant

In 1988, the CIT/RID committee received a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of
Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) for a first year pilot. The CIT/RID committee Chair and
Project Director was Marina McIntire along with Anna Witter-Merithew, Linda Siple, Eve
Dicker, Jona Maiorano, Phyllis Wilcox and Eve West as committee members. Charlotte BakerShenk and McIntire collaborated together to write the grant proposal for funding from FIPSE to
field test the standards. FIPSE awarded CIT an initial grant of $30,641 for the first year of a
pilot. Once the pilot study was completed a second they were awarded an additional $35,053.
The goals of the grant were to field-test, evaluate, revise and ultimately implement the
Endorsement System (McIntire, 1991). The FIPSE grant helped the CIT /RID committee: (a)
refine and revise the endorsement package, (b) develop scoring forms, (c) develop evaluation
procedures for process and the package, (d) select test sites, (e) select and train raters, (f) send
questionnaires to students and recent graduates of the five test-sites and (g) revise the application
from and the application process.
98
The CIT/RID Endorsement Committee also established criteria for those who would
become raters. Potential raters had to be (a) a member of RID for at least three years, (b) a
member of CIT for at least three years, (c) have a Bachelors degree, (d) have a Masters degree,
(e) hold valid and current RID certification, (f) must have at least three years programmatic and
or teaching experience in an interpreter preparation program at a regionally accredited institution
of higher education and (g) must submit a letter of recommendation from a colleague attesting to
their commitment to the goals of educational standards as established by the CIT/RID
committee, and a resume.
Approximately twenty-five people submitted initial applications. The CIT/RID
Committee screened the applications. Each applicant was sent a mock case study to evaluate
based on the current standards. The committee reviewed the evaluations by these applicants and
selected nine people to be trained as raters for the pilot study. The nine raters chosen by the
committee were: (a) Cathy Cogen (MA), (b) Dr. Nancy Frishberg (CT), (c) Sally Koziar (IL), (d)
Christine Monikowski (NM), (e) Mary Mooney (TX), (f) Pat Stawasz (CT), (g) Laurie Swabey
(MN), (h) Betsy Winston (DC) and (i) Dr. Sherman Wilcox (NM). These nine raters met prior to
the 1990 CIT convention for four days of training to learn how to use and apply the current
program standards and rating forms (McIntire, 1991).
Next, the CIT/RID Endorsement Committee chose the field test sites that would be
evaluated. Recruitment for sites was made through the CIT and RID newsletters and all
programs listed in the CIT Program Directory. Fourteen programs made an initial application and
five were chosen to be included in the pilot study. The five programs accepted were Los Angeles
Pierce College (Woodland Hills, CA); National Technical Institute for the Deaf (Rochester, NY);
Northcentral Technical Institute (Waubonsee, WI); Tulsa Junior College (Tulsa, OK) and
99
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Milwaukee, WI). The program directors participated in a

group meeting during the November 1990 CIT convention where details were given regarding
the institutions participation in the pilot study. In November 1990, each program director
received a copy of application materials to complete and return to the committee by the
beginning of February 1991 (McIntire, 1991).The outcome of the FIPSE grant along with the
recommendations will be outlined in the section devoted to the next decade.
The CIT/RID Endorsement Committee wanted to have a pilot study of the current
standards and complete a field test of interpreter training programs. Funding was needed and in
1988, Charlotte Baker-Shenk, Jan Kanda and Marina McIntire collaborated on a proposal for
field test funding from the Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of PostSecondary Education (FIPSE).
Summary
The decade of 1980 to 1990 had several key players who influenced the field of
interpreter training. The results of the first survey sent to sign language interpreter training
programs became known as the Resource Guide. CIT hosted annual national conventions, which
provided direction for teachers of interpreter training programs.
Research regarding assessment of the skills of students in interpreter training programs
began. Dr. Dennis Cokely and Dr. Cynthia B. Roy began the quest for a theoretical base to be
established for interpreter training programs. In 1983 at the fourth CIT Convention on February
20-25 in Monterey California CIT, acknowledged that task analysis of the interpreting process
was needed.
In 1984, the CIT Board chose seven highly qualified trainers to begin the process of
documenting a theoretical base or task analysis for sign language interpreters. The key members
100
who influenced task analysis were, Theresa B. Smith, Kenneth Rust, Donald G. Renqulli, Sharon
Neumann Solow, Janice H. Kanda, Betty M. Colonomos and Dennis R. Cokely.
From the documentation of task analysis, the next step was curriculum development. In
1984 at the sixth CIT Convention, the focus was on discovering the order of tasks of teaching
interpreting through curriculum. In 1986 Western Maryland implemented two masters degree
programs in teaching ASL and teaching interpreting.
A variety of different curricula for sign language interpreting programs were written. Key
interpreter trainers involved in writing curriculum were several of the key people who involved
in writing the task analysis. The key people included, Dennis Cokely, Charlotte Baker-Shenk,
M.J. Bienvenu, Betty Colonomos, Jan Kanda, Sharon Neuman Solow and Anna WitterMerithew. Another publication was being written by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in
1989. This publication provided materials and curriculum guides for sign language interpreter
trainers.
Additionally, the 1978 CIT/RID Program Assessment Package was established. Key
people involved in the beginning of writing standards for interpreter training programs were Jan
Kanda and Anna Witter-Merithew. Later in 1989, McIntire and Baker-Shenk representing CIT
wrote a grant to implement the RID/CIT Endorsement package for interpreter training programs.
The grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) was granted
to CIT for a two-year pilot study. The program directors to implement the pilot study for sign
language interpreting programs was Marina McIntire, Anna Witter-Merithew, Linda Siple, Eve
Dicker, Jona Maiorano, Phyllis Wilcox and Eve West. Finally, five interpreter training programs
were accepted as pilot studies. And finally, CIT became a well-known organization for sign
language interpreting programs.
101
102

This chapter provided detail and insight into one of the most complex and productive eras
in sign language interpreter education. The various iterations of program standards were
discussed and important people who were associated with these landmark events were noted.
This era culminated in the establishment of the Collegiate Commission on Interpreter Education,
which was the official accrediting body for the sign language interpreting profession.
After a decade of work to organize program endorsement, momentum continued into the
1990s. The pilot endorsement system ended on October 14, 1991 and the results of the study
were very much anticipated by the CIT membership. Overall, the process of rating five colleges
using the endorsement system was a valuable experience to the evaluators of the five colleges
and to the colleges themselves. Two important factors became evident upon the completion of
the pilot study. First, interpreter training programs were eager to have program feedback, so
there were no problems finding programs that wanted to be part of the pilot study. Second, the
kind of feedback those programs wanted to have from the pilot study varied. The program
directors wanted to know if their programs had passed or failed and what would be done
with their scores. These factors were documented in the recommendations for the final report of
the FIPSE grant and later used by the Standards Committee. Ultimately, the pilot study was a
learning process. The recommendations by the Standards Committee are described later in this
chapter.
This was significant because it had taken three decades of conferences, meetings, debates
and discussions for this to finally happen. CIT continued the endorsement package without RID
103
and changed the name of the process to self study review (SSR). Because of this change CIT
established an ad-hoc committee to establish standards for interpreter training programs. The
standards were approved by the membership in 1994 at the CIT Convention in Charlotte, NC. In
March 1998 these standards were made available on the CIT website. The first program to go
through an SSR is successful and an SSR coordinator is hired. The CCIE is finally established
after 29 years of hard work. Interpreter-trainers anxiously awaited the outcome of the pilot
endorsement system from CIT and RID programs that were involved in the FIPSE grant.
According to the pilot study, the standards were found to be lofty but not unachievable
(McIntrie, 1991, p. 19).
The pilot endorsement system ended October 14, 1991. Two important factors were
evident from the completion of the pilot study. First, interpreter training programs were eager to
have program feedback, so there were no problems finding programs that wanted to be part of
the pilot study. Second, the kind of feedback those programs wanted to have from the pilot study
varied. The program directors wanted to know if their programs had passed or failed and what
would be done with their scores. These factors were documented in the recommendations from
the final report of the FIPSE grant and later used by the Standards Committee. The
recommendations by the Standards Committee are described further in the chapter.
Overall, the process of rating five colleges using the endorsement system was a valuable
experience to the evaluators of the five colleges. However, the pilot study was a learning process
and five changes based on the pilot study needed to be implemented for future endorsement
systems. First, the application forms needed to be revised as the responses from the colleges did
not always portray the intent of the endorsement package. Second, the function of the rating
system needed to be determined either as a descriptive or a numerical function. The current
104
rating system did not accurately portray the programs strengths and weaknesses. Third, articles
about the endorsement system needed to be submitted in various educational journals to seek
responses from a broader academic community. This would allow further interpreter education
programs to understand the process of endorsement. Also, other professions would recognize the
complexity of the interpreter training profession. Fourth, a position paper needed to be written
regarding a competency - based curriculum. Fifth, the development of how to establish
curriculum and the order of interpreting courses would be helpful for the self-assessment process
of other interpreter training programs. And finally, the endorsement system needed to be
changed from an endorsement system into a self-study process. The CIT & RID Boards were
encouraged to establish committees from both organizations to enable the self-study process to
happen. This process of establishing standards would be useful for interpreter educators to ensure
successful interpreter education programs were being established (McIntire, 1991, p. 19).
Ultimately, the self-study for interpreter training programs would be would become
accreditation for interpreter training programs. CIT and RID Boards continued to update the
endorsement process with the ultimate goal to advance the process into the self-study review
(SSR) and to encourage interpreter training program directors to analyze their programs by the
standards written by the CIT/RID Endorsement Committees. The (SSR) and accreditation
process became the complete focus of the CIT (McIntire, 1991).
105
Table 1
Historic Timeline of Interpreter Education Program Standards
1978
RID Produces First Attempt at Program Standards
1979
CIT is Established and Recognized that Program Standards was a Critical Task
for the Organization
1980
Jan Kanda, President of CIT requests Anna Witter-Merithew to develop a

preliminary application implementation of the standards written by RID
1981 & 1982
Mary Stotler, Chair of CIT Standards Committee developed draft of Program

Standards and circulated them among CIT Members
Committee Members: Theresa Smith, Judie Husted, Sharon Neumann Solow,
Mark Hoshi, Doug Baynton and Maddy Hartwell
February, 1983 Stotler sends letter to CIT Board recording the vote tally of CIT
members response to suggested Standards for the Accreditation of Interpreter
Training Programs. Stotler reports that on a whole the Standards received
affirmative votes.
There were 70 total votes. 36 members wanted modification or deletions of some
of the standards, 13 members were opposed to prerequisite of one year ASL skill
prior to entry into Interpreter Training Program, 15 members were opposed to
having degrees in deafness as a credential for administrators and 8 members
voted no.
All comments from the members were typed and were twelve pages long, these
were the comments given to the 1983 Committee Chair, Cathy Cogen.
1983
Cathy Cogen named Chair of Joint CIT/RID Committee. This was the first time
the two organizations had officially collaborated on anything. to work on
standard draft and collect all the comments
Committee Members were: Susan Arneson, Rick Hernandez and Betty
Colonomos
106
Table 1 Continued
1986
CIT President Jan Kanda asks CIT Vice President Marina McIntire to become
co-chair of committee. At the same time Dennis Cokely (then President of RID)
appointed Gary Mowl as the second co-chair
Members were: Susan Areneson, Rick Hernandez, Betty Colonomos and Anna
Witter-Merithew
The committee acquired the forms from Cogen and made preliminary revisions
to the package. A revised set of Standards was circulated to fifteen individuals in
the field and the ten federally-funded Interpreter Training Programs
1986
During the 1986 CIT Convention the Board presented the revised standards to
CIT Membership for a voted to endorse (approve) the package of standards
A few months later the RID Board also approved the package
1987
RID Board voted to accept joint responsibility with CIT to find ways that the
standards could become a reality
The joint CIT/RID Joint Committee on Educational Standards was established
and asked to develop an endorsement process for programs
Chair of Joint Committee was Lindsay Antle
Members of Committee were: Phyllis Wilcox, Jona Maiorano, Jan Kanda,
Charlotte Baker-Shenk, Linda Siple and Eve Dicker
1988
Marina McIntire, Jan Kanda and Charlotte Baker-Shenk collaborate on proposal

to the Department of Education through FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of
Post-Secondary Education)
FIPSE Grant purpose to field test the standards package
1989
CIT received FIPSE funds to proceed with field test

CIT/RID Committee established: Marina McIntire, chair and project director,
Anna Witter-Merithew, Linda Siple, Eve Dicker, Jona Maiorano, Phyllis Wilcox
and Eve West
In November the CIT/RID Committee establishes criteria for field test sites
107
Table 1 Continued
Eleven Raters chosen for Pilot Endorsement:
Cathy Cogen (MA), Dr. Nancy Frishberg (CT), Sally Koziar (IL), Christine
Monikowski (NM), Mary Mooney (TX), Pat Stawasz (CT), Laurie Swabey
(MN), Betsy Winston (DC) and Dr. Sherman Wilcox (NM)
1990
Raters met at California State University Northridge (CSUN) four days prior to
the 1990 CIT Convention for training on how to use and apply the standards and
rating forms
Five sites were chosen geographically to participate in pilot endorsement
program
Representatives from the five sites met in group meeting during the 1990 CIT
Convention where details of the field test were explained
1990
All five programs were sent application materials in November to complete and
return by the beginning of February 1991
1990
Raters met in Washington, DC in March 1990 working together in teams to

understand rating procedure
1991
Recommendations from FIPSE Grant proposed to CIT/RID Endorsement

Committee
CIT & RID Boards Meet to discuss the future of the Endorsement system.
August, 5,
1991
March, 1991
September,
1994
October 2629, 1994
July, 1995
CIT takes over the Endorsement Process and changes name to Self Study
Review (SSR)
CIT Board establishes Ad Hoc Committee on Educational Standards (ESC)
CIT Board & ESC propose draft of Educational Standards for Interpreter
Training Programs to CIT Membership.
During the CIT Convention in North Carolina the membership votes to accept
the proposed Educational Standards.
Educational Standards made available to all members and non members of CIT
108
Table 1 Continued
August, 1995
ESC Committee meets and establishes timeline to convert Interpreter

Educational Standards into a working document that could be used for
evaluation of Interpreter Training Programs (SSR)
ESC predicts that the SSR could begin self-study pilot program at the 1996 CIT
Convention
January 1214, 1996
ESC meets in Washington, DC and prepares SSR process for implementation.

Specific recommendations made to the CIT Board for selecting initial sites for a
pilot SSR study.
April, 1996
ESC declares May 1996-May 1997 as Charter Year and outlines SSR process
May 1, 1996
Deadline for all applications from Interpreter Training Programs to be submitted

to the ESC for pilot study
July, 1996
CIT Board commits $27,000.00 to SSR Process

CIT Board commits $40,000.00 to SSR Process in 1997
CIT Board commits $65,000 to SSR Process in 1998
July, 1996
CIT Board hires part-time SSR Consultant & Rents office space from consultant
to coordinate ESC and SSR Process
April, 1997
Part-time consultant suspended by CIT Board due to lack of participation of

Interpreter Training Programs and lack of funding for SSR Process
September,
1998
CIT Board announces no outside funding for SSR Process

CIT Board applies for second FIPSE grant and fails
Applications for SSR Process still sent out to Interpreter Training Programs and
due to the CIT Board by end of September, 1997
January, 1998
CIT Board reports that the SSR Process will continue for one more year
109
Table 1 Continued
March, 1998
National Interpreter Education Standards made available on CIT website and

ESC reports that SSR application materials would be accessible on-line
First Interpreter Training Program Begins SSR Process
April-May,
1998
First training of SSR reviewers prepared by ESC and occurred on-line
November,
1998
ESC reports at CIT Convention in Salt Lake City that the SSR Process had
become formal accreditation process
December,
1998
ESC meets in Washington, DC to produce strategy and timeline for further

plans regarding accreditation of Interpreter Training Programs
April, 1999
ESC reports that the CIT Board needs to hire an accreditation executive
director and administrative assistant immediately
May, 1999
ESC states will draft proposal of job description to the CIT Board regarding
job description for Director of CCIE
July, 1999
ESC submits proposal Toward a Commission on Collegiate Interpreter

Education (CCIE) to CIT Board
October 7-10,
1999
CIT Board meets with American Sign Language Teachers Association

(ASLTA) regarding SSR Process
November 1-3,
1999
ESC completes and passes first on-site visit at the University of New
Hampshire-Manchester
August, 1999
CIT Board tables ESC proposal regarding full time SSR staff position
January, 2000
ASLTA & CIT write joint letter regarding working together on accreditation of
Interpreter Training Programs
July, 2000
CIT Board wishes to involve ASLTA in accreditation process

CIT Board announces they will bring accreditation vote to membership at the
2000 CIT Convention in Portland, Oregon
110
Table 1 Continued
October, 2000
Several Motions passed by CIT membership regarding accreditation and

standards
ASLTA-CIT Taskforce Established
November 8,
2000
SSR Coordinator position advertised to work with CIT Secretary to complete

three colleges in SSR procedures
March, 2001
Co-chairs of ASLTA-CIT Taskforce meet in New York to develop tentative

agenda and budget
August 6,
2001
First ASLTA-CIT Taskforce Meeting held in Orlando, Florida at the RID

National Convention
October, 2001
SSR Coordinator Hired-took one year to fill this position
January, 2002
First ASLTA-CIT Taskforce Report in CIT News
March, 2002
Second ASLTA-CIT Taskforce Meeting held in Denver, Colorado
May, 2002
SSR Rater Training held at NTID-CIT Board confirms that 8 Deaf individuals
were invited to the SSR rater training
October, 2003
CIT Board places an official job description and job announcement on the CIT
listserv to recruit someone to establish the CCIE
January, 2004
SSR link made available on CIT Website

SSR Coordinator encourages programs to wait to submit documentation for the
SSR process until revisions on application are made available on CIT website
April, 2004
CIT Board finishes 5-10 year plan to present to the CIT membership during the
2004 CIT Convention in Washington, DC
April, 2004
CIT Board signs a letter of agreement signed with the Distance Opportunities
for Interpreter Trainers (DO-IT Center) to implement the CCIE
July, 2004
CCIE Activities Plan of Action Report specified to the CIT Membership in the
July, 2004 CIT News
111
Table 1 Continued
October, 2004
CIT Membership approves 5-10 year strategic plan presented by CIT Board at
Washington, DC CIT Convention Business Meeting
February 2527, 2005
Joint meeting between CCIE & CIT Standards Committees led by Dr. Marty
Taylor, Project Coordinator in Denver, Colorado
This was the second Face to Face Board Meeting for CCIE Committee and the
first Face to Face Meeting for CIT Standards Committee
October, 2005
CCIE Seeks Nominees for Commissioners

CCIE Seeks financial assistance from CIT Members
CCIE Announced that during the RID National Convention in San Antonio,
TX over 100 RID Members pledged over $2,700.00 to the CCIE
December 1,
2005
January, 2006
Deadline for Receipt of CCIE Nominations
April 15, 2006
Screening of Nominated commissioners by CCIE Nominations Committee
May 1, 2006
Selected Commissioners selected, contacted and officially appointed
October, 2006
Newly appointed commissioners meet together for the first time in San Diego,
CA before CIT Convention
CCIE Nominations deadline extended to January 31, 2006
CCIE gives presentation during 2006 CIT Convention on the current progress
of the SSR/Accreditation Process
112
Lessons Learned From Pilot Study

Five changes based on the pilot study needed to be implemented for future endorsement
systems. First, the application forms needed to be revised as the responses from the colleges did
not always portray the intent of the endorsement package. Second, the function of the rating
system needed to be determined either as a descriptive or as a numerical function. The current
rating system did not accurately portray the programs strengths and weaknesses. Third, articles
about the endorsement system needed to be submitted in various educational journals to seek
responses from a broader academic community. This would allow interpreter education programs
to understand the process of endorsement. In addition, other professions would recognize the
complexity of the interpreter training profession. Fourth, a position paper needed to be written
regarding a competency-based curriculum. Fifth, the development of how to establish curriculum
and the order of interpreting courses would be helpful for the self-assessment process of other
interpreter training programs. Finally, the endorsement system needed to be changed from an
endorsement system into a self-study process.
CIT and RID Established Committees for Self-Study Process

The CIT and RID Boards were encouraged to establish committees from both
organizations to enable the self-study process to happen. This process of establishing standards
would be useful for interpreter educators and could help to ensure successful interpreter
education programs were being established (McIntire, 1991, p. 19). Ultimately, the self-study for
interpreter training programs would become accreditation for interpreter training programs. CIT
113
and RID Boards continued to update the endorsement process with the ultimate goal to advance
the process into the self-study review (SSR) and to encourage interpreter training program
directors to analyze their programs by the standards written by the CIT/RID Endorsement
Committees.
Because of the recommendations from the FIPSE grant the CIT and RID Boards met
August 5, 1991 and discussed the logistics of continuing the joint endorsement process project.
During this meeting recommendations from the pilot study were considered. After the CIT and
RID meeting, CIT determined to continue the self-study process independently of RID. The
reasons for RID not continuing in the endorsement process could not be found. Perhaps the RID
felt that the process would cost too much money and they did not want to financially support the
endorsement package. Another reason may be that the CIT Board felt that it was ultimately
CITs responsibility as an organization and not the RIDs responsibility. RIDs mission was to
further the national certification of interpreters and not training interpreters. The CIT Board felt
strongly that the endorsement process should become a self-study review (SSR) evaluation
process and not continue as an endorsement package. The ultimate goal of the self-study process
was to raise the standards of interpreter education in the United States. Interpreter training
programs were being established without the guidance of program standards. The CIT Board
voted to continue the process of program endorsement with the proposed changes from the
CIT/RID Endorsement Committees (Patrie, 1991, p.1).
Because CIT was working independently of RID and the FIPSE grant had ended, funding
was the main concern for the CIT Board. Also, revisions of the current endorsement system
needed to be changed to a self-study review. The goal of the self-study process which was to be
written and implemented by the CIT membership was to recognize that there were standards
114
regarding Interpreter Training Programs. These standards needed to be followed in order for
programs to succeed in training interpreters. Referring back to the ESC timeline it was evident
that members of CIT had been working on writing standards for interpreter training programs
since 1981. The process of writing the proposed standards took ten years. In 1991,the CIT Board
established an Ad Hoc Committee to address revisions of the standards that had been written by
the SC. The Ad Hoc Committee that was named to revise the standards was the Educational
Standards Committee (ESC) (Patrie, 1991, p. 1).
The ESC continued revising standards for interpreter training programs under the
direction of the CIT Board. In September, 1994 the ESC drafted proposed revised standards
based on the standards written from the FIPSE grant. The draft was made available to CIT
members for review and recommendations. CIT Members obtained copies of the proposed
standards from Cathy Cogen, Co-Chair of ESC. The proposed standards were also sent to faculty
members of interpreter training programs and administration of programs that had interpreter
training programs. The directors and administrators reviewed and made recommendations
regarding the proposed Interpreter Education Standards (Wright, 1994, pp. 1-2). The National
Interpreter Education Standards were approved at the Charlotte, NC CIT Convention in 1994 and
made available to all CIT Members at the 1994 CIT Convention Proceedings. (Convention
Reflections, 1995 p. 5).
CIT Board Established the Educational Standards Committee (ESC)

The ESC committees goals were to: (a) develop standards which would encourage selfstudy and self-improvement by programs, (b) be stated in broad enough language to be satisfied
by a variety of educational approaches, (c) be implementable in realistic financial terms; and (d)
115
lead interpreter education toward accreditation and find a range of support from within CIT,
professional interpreter organizations, employers and consumer-based organizations. Members
of the ESC committee were: (a) Judith Lee Carson, (IN); (b) Cathy Cogen, (MA); (c) Jeffrey
Davis, (FL); (d) Janet Dobecki, (OH); (e) Nancy Frishberg, (CA); (f) Sally Koziar, (IL); (g)
Peggy Mahar, (TX); (h) Elisa Maroney, (OR); (i) Marilyn Mitchell, (NY); (j) Geri MU, (MD);
(k) Joann Dobecki Shopbell, (ID); (l) Pat Stawasz (MA); (m) Sherman Wilcox, (NM) and (n)
Betsy Winston, MD (Cogen & Frishberg, 1995 p. 4).
In September 1994, a draft of the proposed standards from the ESC was sent to
interpreter training program faculty and administrators. Recommendations were made and the
finalized version of the National Interpreter Education Standards was approved at the Charlotte,
North Carolina CIT Convention in 1994 under the direction of CIT President, Mary Wright.
Now that the Interpreter Education Standards were approved by the membership the ESC
needed to begin the process of implementing a process for SSR. To accomplish this task the ESC
met in August 1995 and set future goals for the ESC. A timeline was established regarding how
and when the goals of the committee would be accomplished. In order to accomplish these tasks
the committee co-chairs, Betsy Winston and Lynn Pena began working to convert the Interpreter
Education Standards into a document that could be used for evaluation of interpreter education
programs. The recommendations included: (a) criteria for calling for and selecting initial sites for
a pilot self-study; (b) a proposed timeline for the pilot self-study; (c) a committee structure for
administering the pilot self-study and (d) documentation for implementing the self-study at the
sites. This documentation included the questionnaires and guidelines for a self-study report
(Cogen, January, 1996, p. 4).
116
The document contained criteria for the SSR pilot study, which began in the 1996-1997
academic year. The ESC committee members evaluated the self-study documents and reported
that the self-study pilot would be ready at the 1996 CIT Convention. Members of CIT were
excited that the pilot study was ready to begin. The implementation of the SSR would provide
the stamp of approval for interpreter education programs. This stamp of approval would be used
by the colleges to recruit students, enable more funding by the institution and provide feedback
to the educators regarding their current curriculum status (Report from the CIT Educational
Standards Committee, 1995, October).
The ESC Established Plan to Recruit Programs for SSR

The ESC established a program to encourage interpreter training programs to apply for
SSR. The program the ESC established was called The Charter Year. The Charter Year started in
April 1996, and was the beginning of a selection of interpreter training programs that applied to
go through an SSR. This in-depth process continued for one year until May 1997. There were
three important stipulations in relation to the beginning of this charter year. First, materials and
direction for the review had been designed by the Educational Standards Committee after
extensive discussion with Martha OConnor (Director of Accreditation, American Occupational
Therapy Association), the consultant who had been working with the ESC regularly on the
project. Second, although CIT intended to initiate onsite programs reviews as part of the process,
they would not be implemented during the Charter year of the SSR (Winston, 1996 April, p. 6).
The fee for the Charter year review would be $3,000 for programs that wished to take
advantage of signing up for a review. The fee was expected to go up after the charger year and
would be determined later. It was expected that on-site visits would begin during the second year
117
of the review system and continue into the third year. Due to logistical limitations during the first
year, the Educational Standards Committee reported they would review a limited number of
programs (10-12). After the first year, the goal was to review 15-25 programs per year. This
scheduled allowed for the review of all 130-150 interpreter education programs to occur within 5
years (Winston, 1996 April, p. 6). The initial cost for a program to go through an SSR was
$3,000. The fees for years after the first year of the SSR were determined based on the cost to
operate the self-study program. All applications were to be received by May 1, 1996 (Self-Study
Review Charter Year Call for Applicants, 1996, April, p. 7).
Interpreter Training Programs that applied for the SSR were assigned a liaison from the
ESC who was available to answer the program directors questions regarding the SSR process. In
May 1997, the programs that submitted a report of self-study were reviewed by the ESC. After
the self-studies were reviewed, a final decision would be made regarding whether the program
was considered, in compliance of the standards or not in compliance (Winston, 1996, April, p.
6).
If interpreter training programs were found not to be in compliance of the standards, they
were given an in-depth report from the raters regarding specific areas where the programs needed
improvement. Programs that were found in compliance with the standards had the opportunity of
advertising themselves as a program in compliance with the CIT standards and were required to
submit a report to the CIT every two years. The SSR would be repeated every five years and a
program that passed would remain in good standing as long as the improvement plans given by
the committee were followed. In order for a program to undergo, an SSR there was an initial fee
that would be charged per program. This fee would help pay for on-site reviews, training and
payment for the reviewers (Winston, 1996 April, p. 6).
118
SSR Funding
In July 1996, the CIT Board committed $27,000 to the ESC SSR process. The Board also
estimated that the ESC budget would increase to $40,000 in 1997 and $65,000 in 1998. It
became evident that CIT could not make these major financial commitments based solely on the
insufficient amount of funding that CIT had each year. Accordingly, the Board made a plan to
establish a budget that would reflect the funds needed for the ESC and the SSR process. In
addition, the CIT Board hired Betsy Winston in July, 1996 as a part time consultant to coordinate
the ESC. In addition, CIT rented office space to run the SSR process. Ultimately, the goal of the
CIT Board was that the part time consultant position would become a full time position. The full
time person would become the director of the SSR process and ultimately the director of
accreditation of interpreter training programs. The funding for the SSR process was to come
from the CIT to begin the process. As the process was up and running and programs were paying
to go through the SSR it would then become self-sufficient. The CIT would no longer be the sole
funding source for the SSR process (Maiorano, 1996 July, p. 1).
In April 1997, President Jona Maiorano explained to the membership that although the
SSR process remained a priority to the board interpreter training programs and the limited funds
temporarily suspended the contract with the SSR consultant due to the lack of participation.
Additionally, Maiorano encouraged all CIT members to persuade their institutions to participate
in the SSR process. It was vital that members supported standards by participating in the process.
If members did not become involved in the process, the SSR would not be funded. Perhaps the
lack of programs signing up for the SSR was a sign that there was a lack of interest in the
119
process. However, it seemed that program directors wanted to have the SSR process but were not
willing or unable to get the funding (Maiorano, 1997 April,).
In September 1997, Maiorano announced that there had still not been any outside funding
sources found to provide funding to promote the SSR process. This was even after the CIT Board
had presented and had a CIT booth at the RID Convention in 1997 regarding the SSR process.
Because of the lack of interpreter training programs applying for the SSR, the CIT Board applied
for a FIPSE grant and it was not funded. Even with the bleak financial outlook, the applications
for the CIT SSR process were mailed out. The applications were due back to the board at the end
of September 1997. Maiorano reminded the membership that they had voted in support of the
SSR process and there were still no programs applying for the SSR process. This was a low point
for CIT. The CIT board was communicating with its members via newsletter regarding the
process and still there were no applicants (Maiorano, 1997 September).
In January 1998, President Maiorano reported to the CIT membership that CIT would
provide funding for the SSR process for one more year. There were no outside funding sources
available and still a low response to the call for programs to go through the SSR process.
Maiorano states,
Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the program response to date. I keep hearing
from new programs who want copies of the Educational Standards to use as a guide in
establishing their programs, but we are not hearing from already established programs
indicating a willingness to go through the Self Study Review. In my heart of hearts, I
dont think that all the work to date, that brought us to this place in time has been wasted.
I do not know what is holding programs back. This type of self-study can only make us
stronger as a field and give us the support we need to do our job the best we
can.(Maiorano, 1998 January, p. 1)
Perhaps this was a sign that the directors of interpreter training programs did not want to
participate in the SSR process. The lack of programs applying for the process could also show
120
that the program directors did not trust the process. In addition, maybe the interpreter training
program directors did not understand the process of applying for an SSR.
Even without outside funding ESC continued to work on the progression of the SSR
process. At the end of March 1998, the National Interpreter Education Standards were made
available on the CIT website. Additionally, one program began the SSR process. Because a
program had applied, training was necessary for reviewers. The first training of SSR reviewers
was prepared and took place on-line during April and May of 1998. The training was expected to
give the ESC committee an idea of how effective the SSR tool would be from the committees
perspective (Winston, April 1998, p. 19). The first onsite SSR visit was on November 1-3, 1999,
at the University of New Hampshire-Manchester. Director, Jack Hoza completed the first SSR
review and the program passed by the review team.
CIT Board Immobilizes SSR Process

The CIT Board decided to stop the progression of accepting applications for interpreter
training programs to apply to go through the SSR process. This decision was made due to an
oversight by the CIT Board. The oversight was not including CITs sister organization, the
American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA). ASLTA should have been included in
the program accreditation process. Since sign language, fluency was the foundation for
interpreter training programs it became imperative that ASLTA should be included in the SSR
process.
The CIT Board felt that involving ASLTA was imperative to the future success of SSR
and accreditation of Interpreter Training Programs. Although holding up the process of
accreditation to involve other stakeholders in the SSR process would take more time the CIT
121
Board felt it was essential to the success of the SSR process. The decision to involve ASLTA
was a political move to ensure that deaf people were included in the accreditation process. The
CIT Board began to collaborate with the ASLTA Board beginning in October 1999 at the
ASLTA national convention in Rochester, NY. The CIT Board met with the ASLTA Board to
discuss the SSR process. The momentum of the SSR process was delayed and this caused
confusion regarding the progress of the SSR process.
Confusion Regarding SSR

There was much confusion among the members of CIT regarding the SSR and
accreditation process because there seemed to be little communication from the CIT Board
regarding the SSR logistics. The confusion between the ESC and CIT Board continued.
Members were confused by the conflicting information from the ESC and CIT Board. Even
though the CIT Board had delayed the process by including ASLTA, the ESC continued to push
for the establishment of accreditation to begin immediately.
The ESC and the CIT Board had Philosophical Differences

The ESC felt it was imperative that in order to move forward in establishing accreditation
for interpreter training programs, that the structure of how this would be done needed to be
explained to the membership. In July 1999, the ESC proposed an administrative structure with
policies and procedures to be placed on the CIT website asking for member feedback. The ESC
submitted a report titled, Toward a Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE), to
the CIT Board. The CCIE proposal included the following: (a) the charge to carry out the
responsibilities inherent in the accreditation process; (b) an autonomous organizational and
122
policy-making structure in accord with recognition criteria of the Council on Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA) and the Department of Education (DOE); (c) a board of commissioners
responsible for policymaking and accreditation decisions composed of the best thinkers in
policy, finance, interpreter education, interpreter services administration provisions and
consumer perspective; (d) teams of evaluators trained to conduct paper and on-site reviews; (e)
committees to carry out policy development, personnel training and fundraising and (f) an
accreditation office and staff to facilitate the functions and services of the commission (Cogen,
Pena, Maroney, Monikowski and Winston, July 1999, p. 6).
This meant that if the CCIE were established it would be an autonomous organization and
not under CITs jurisdiction. The ESC wanted to post the policy and procedure manual draft the
committee had drafted regarding CCIE on the CIT website.
The Board reviewed the ESC report regarding establishing the CCIE in great length.
There had been almost a two-year delay between the ESCs proposal for the establishment of the
CCIE. The delay in the CIT Boards response to establishing the CCIE was due to the ongoing
collaboration with ASLTA. While collaborating with ASLTA it became apparent that if
decisions were to be made regarding a collaboration that the CIT membership needed to be
involved. One of the most important reasons for member involvement was to take a step back
and assess what the membership wanted regarding accreditation.
The CIT Board felt that the decision to halt the SSR process and include ASLTA was
vital. In order to resolve these philosophical differences the Board decided that the CIT
membership should ultimately make the decision as to whether or not the SSR process should be
stopped to include ASLTA. During the 2000 CIT Convention in Portland, OR the CIT Board
presented a public forum regarding accreditation. During the forum the Board explained the
123
background of the accreditation issues and brought the CIT members up to speed regarding SSR
and accreditation.
CIT Membership Vote Regarding Continuation of SSR

During the 2000 CIT Convention in Portland, Oregon, the following motions were passed
at the CIT Business Meeting regarding accreditation. The motions were that the CIT Board
establish a Task Force and charge it with the following: (a) identify specific ways that Deaf
ASLTA members can be actively involved in all processes meant to create standards for our
profession, (b) explore viable ways of elevating the standards of the profession including, but not
limited to, the Self Study Review, forms of accreditation, teacher certification and the possible
inclusion of multi-level approaches, (c) make recommendations regarding financial and
organizational management for the future of CIT and project line through 2010. The results of
the motions made by the membership are described below (CIT 2000 Convention Business
Minutes, 2001, April, p. 15-24).
CIT/ASLTA Taskforce
The first motion mandated CIT and ASLTA to establish a taskforce. The members of the
CIT/ASLTA taskforce were co-chair Betty Colonomos from CIT and Carole Lazorisak, co chair
from ASLTA. The Co-chairs chose Rachel Naiman and Anna Witter-Merithew as committee
members. Carolyn Ball was the liaison to CIT and President of CIT. Leslie Greer was the liaison
to ASLTA and President of ASLTA.
The taskforce was asked to investigate the SSR and the accreditation process to find ways
that ASLTA and CIT could work together. The ASLTA/CIT Taskforce met five times during the
124
two-year period from 2001-2002. Topics that were addressed were: (a) Deaf involvement, a joint
website between ASLTA and CIT; (b) an ASLTA/CIT Joint Journal of teaching; (c) elevating
standards for interpreter training programs through SSR, accreditation and teacher certification;
(d) Expanding membership services with a strategic plan and (e) ASLTA and CIT creating joint
links on their perspective websites (CIT/ASLTA Taskforce on Standards Report, CIT News July
2003, p. 4).
One of the most important outcomes of the taskforce was a survey that was sent to all
CIT and ASLTA members. The survey was designed to collect information from ASLTA and
CIT members regarding their knowledge about the CIT SSR Process, accreditation and teacher
certification. Additionally, 1,228 surveys were sent out on April 22, 2002 and 344 completed
surveys were returned by the required postmarked date. CIT had a 34% return rate and ASLTA
had a 26% return rate. The knowledge gained from the surveys were: (a) that members were
interested in seeing advancement in the field of interpreter education; (b) there was a high degree
of commitment toward students and toward the profession; and (c) the SSR and accreditation
process were supported. Members noted that they wished to have more information regarding the
SSR and accreditation process and how they were connected (Taylor, 2002). The CIT
membership also voted that the ESC would complete the three interpreter training programs that
had already applied for the SSR process. In order to complete this task an SSR coordinator
needed to be hired.
SSR Coordinator Hired

In 2001 the CIT Board hired Luce Aubrey as the SSR coordinator to complete the
accreditation process for three interpreter training programs that were already in progress from
125
the current SSR process. Aubry coordinated the SSR rater training that had been mandated by the
members (CIT Convention Minutes, 2001 April, p. 18). The training was to expand the pool of
reviewers for the SSR Process and include deaf people. CIT members had mandated that deaf
individuals were invited as raters. The CIT Board confirmed that eight deaf individuals had been
invited to the SSR rater training and seven responded that they would attend. The rater training
was held at NTID in May 2002 and conducted by Marilyn Mitchell. Mitchell was a former board
member of CIT and a well-known interpreter educator. She had been involved with the ESC and
with the SC for many years. Her expertise and understanding of the CIT Standards made her the
most qualified to be the rater trainer (CIT Board Minutes, 2002 January, p. 24).
Establishing the CCIE

Next, the CIT Board instituted a plan to establish the CCIE. In June 2003, the Board
moved to hire a coordinator to fulfill the requirements of establishing the CCIE. The job
description and announcement were sent out by the Board in October 2003 and put an official
job description and job announcement on the CIT listserv. The Board was contacted by the
Distance Opportunity for Interpreter Trainers (DO-IT Center) to establish the Working Group
that immediately preceded the establishment of CCIE. A letter of agreement was signed with the
DO-IT Center in April 2004 and an explanation of the role of the DO-IT Center was described
below.
Contract Signed with the DO-IT Center

The Distance Opportunity for Interpreter Trainers (DO-IT Center) furthered CITs work
towards the establishment of an independent corporation and the associated infrastructure that
126
administered and implemented a system of accrediting Interpreter Training Programs. The DOIT Center performed the following duties: (a) Established in collaboration with the CIT
Standards Committee and with the identified stakeholder organizations, from the CIT, Board a
self-supporting autonomous body that will oversee and grant accreditation; (b) implement a
formal accreditation process using the timeline recommended by the ASLTA-CIT Taskforce on
Standards Report, October 2002; (c) gain CIT copyright on all present and future accreditation
materials, CIT should be identified as the owner of the materials; (d investigate a variety of
accreditation models that will foster an inclusive and representative approach that will
commiserate with the diversity of programs and educators in the field including programs with
specialization, programs delivered through distance education, or private schools of
interpretation; (e) thoroughly investigate a mechanism to expand the SSR and proposed
accreditation system to a multilevel model that is inclusive of entities not currently served by the
CIT Standards; (f) evaluate the current accreditation proposal and establish a mechanism for
allowing stakeholder contribution and definition of the composition, structure and
operation/policies and procedures of the proposed CCIE; (g) secure the necessary legal structure
501(c)(3) status to create the separate accrediting commission; (h) secure appropriate liability
insurance for all stakeholders/investors; (i) establish a clear conflict of interest policy for all
individuals who will be appointed as CCIE members and (10) explore the desirability of creating
a tie into the Department of Education (DOE) (Exciting Announcement from the CIT Board,
2004, p. 11).
127
CIT Standards Committee and CCIE Joint Face-to-Face Meeting

On February 25-27, 2005, the working group to establish the CCIE and the CIT
Standards Committee met face to face to further the work outlined above in the contract with the
Do-It Center. The tasks completed by the CIT Standards Committee during this meeting were:
(a) worked with SSR Coordinator, Luce Aubry to streamline the SSR process based on rater
input and observation; (b) conducted a thorough line by line review of the CIT National
Interpreter Education Standards to be included in the CCIE Manual; (c) drafted a glossary of
terms related to the SSR process and (4) provided feedback to the CCIE work group regarding
the CCIE Manual (CIT-CCIE and Standards Committees Progress Report, CIT News April,
2005, p. 16 & 17).
Members of the Standards Committee included: (a) Jeffrey Davis, Tennessee; (b) Eileen
Forrestal, New Jersey; (c) Rachel Naiman, Colorado; (d) Ray Parks, New York; (e) Theresa
Smith, Washington and (f) Kevin Williams, Florida. During the face-to-face meeting, much
progress was made in furthering the efforts for establishing accreditation. Members of the
working group to establish the CCIE Committee were: (a) Carolyn Ball, CIT Representative; (b)
Persis Bristol-Dobson, NAOBI Representative; (c) Judy Kegl, CIT Representative; (d) Richard
Laurion, RID Representative; (e) Jona Maiorano, CIT Representative; (f) Tom Riggs, ASLTA
Representative; (g) BJ Wood, NAD Representative; (h) Ellie Savidge, CIT Representative and (i)
Denise Smith, AVLIC Representative (Moore, J. (2005). CIT-CCIE and Standards Committees
Progress Report, CIT News April, 2005, p. 16 & 17).
The tasks accomplished by the CCIE working group were that: (a) The CCIE was now
complete and the bylaws of the new corporation were developed. The CCIE was incorporated in
Maryland and the interim executive committee was formed. President: Carolyn Ball, Vice
128
President: Jona Maiorano, Treasurer: BJ Wood and Secretary: Persis Bristol-Dobson. The other
members of the CCIE committee served as interim CCIE commissioners. They were: Judy Kegl,
Richard Laurion, Tom Riggs, Ellie Savidge and Denise Smith; (b) Marketing committee and
fundraising committee, BJ Wood & Richard Laurion gathered an initial list of possible funding
sources and their contact information; (c) Denise Smith and Judy Kegl prepared a report that
outlined the requirements for becoming members of accrediting organizations; (d) Persis BristolDobson, Ellie Savidge and Carolyn Ball completed a comprehensive revision of the
Accreditation Manual; (e) Jona Maiorano and Tom Riggs prepared the portions of the
Accreditation Manual regarding the transition plan for changing over from the current CCIE
Committee to the first independent CCIE Board of Commissioners (Moore, J. (2005). (CITCCIE and Standards Committees Progress Report, CIT News April, 2005, p. 16 & 17).
One of the final pieces in completing the infrastructure for the CCIE was the recruitment
of thirteen commissioners to represent various stakeholders in the accreditation of interpreter
education programs. Nominations were sought to represent interpreter educations (4), Deaf ASL
faculty (2), interpreter practioners (2), deaf consumers (1), employers of interpreters (1),
fundraiser or other finance expert (1), academic administrator (1) and an accreditation expert (1).
The number in ( ) reflects the number of commissioner positions designated for each stakeholder
category. The CCIE members have been actively involved in recruiting nominations for
commissioners during the past ninety days.
The Reality of the CCIE

As of April 2006, twenty nominations were received with more than sufficient
representation for all stakeholder categories except one, that of an accreditation expert. However,
129
nominations for this category came in the near future, as well as additional nominations for one
other category. Various work demands delayed completion of the application process by several
interested individuals and extensions on the deadline were granted by request. The nominations
committee was to complete the nominations process by March 31, 2006. The nominations
committee, comprised of Carolyn Ball (CIT), Denise Smith (AVLIC, Nominations Chair), Persis
Bristol-Dobson (NAOBI), Ellie Savidge (CIT) and Jona Maiorano (CIT), reviewed the
nominations and recommend a slate of thirteen individuals to be elected as the CCIE board. The
commissioners were contacted and officially appointed in May, 2006.At that point the transition
from the current board to the elected board of commissioners began (Commission on Collegiate
Interpreter Education Update, CIT News, April 2006, p. 7 & 12). The transition from the acting
CCIE to the new commissioners was led by the DO-IT Center in October 2006 in San Diego,
California before the CIT Convention. The establishment of the CCIE had finally come true after
29 years.
Summary
In conclusion, this era in interpreter education saw much activity from many individuals,
all of whom were striving toward a common goal: to improve the quality of interpreter education
programs by establishing program standards and an accreditation process.
130
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
In summary, the first seven chapters in this document highlighted the important events
and people in interpreter training from 1948 to the present. Chapter 1 showed us that the initial
steps toward beginning interpreter training were well-founded but not well-funded, a trend that
continues to today. The events outlined in chapter 1 led to the awareness that interpreters were
needed and the realization that development of training was the next step. Chapter 2 covered
1800-1900 and found that the most significant trend or series of events in this era were that
interpreters were recognized for the first time and the government was influenced to support deaf
interpretation. Chapter 3 covered 1900-1960, and found the development of the first documented
sign language and interpreting classes laid a significant foundation for future courses for
interpreter trainers. Chapter 4 covered 1960-1970 and highlighted two salient events, the passage
of federal laws which influenced sign language interpreting, and the Babbidge Report, which laid
the ground work for the changes that occurred in the field in the era which followed. Chapter 5
covered 1970-1980 and showed that the trend toward establishing associate level programs
without national standards for curriculum had become widespread, and the need for interpreter
training programs was immediate. Chapter 6 covered 1980-1990 and chronicled the events that
led up to establishing standards and beginning the critically important accreditation process.
131
Chapter 6 also explored the key people who influenced the profession of interpreter training and
the training practices of established interpreter training programs.
Chapter 7 covered 1990-2006 and provided a detailed chronology of the facts,
personalities and efforts surrounding the multi-year project which eventually led to an
accreditation system, when the dream of hundreds of interpreter trainers became a reality after 29
years of hard work.
In summary, a review of this history of the interpreter training profession as a whole
demonstrated that there was an eminent need to document how the profession evolved, along
with its key players and events. Due to the lack of documentation in the field, there was too
much repetition, too much duplication of effort, and too much instructor burn out as each
instructor developed his or her own materials and curricula independently without cooperation
from others in the field. This lack of a documented history may have also hampered the
progression of the profession of sign language interpreting. Many interpreter trainers needlessly
recreated work that had already been done as they established new training programs. Trainers
were left feeling isolated and inadequate due to a lack of standards and collective history with the
potential to offer guidance in their efforts.
Recommendations
A rich history was gleaned from this historical review of the progression of deaf
interpreter training. However, after compiling the history, this researcher made the following
nine recommendations for additional studies.
132
1. Since much of the history of sign language education has been transmitted orally,
interview those trainers who are considered pioneers in the field and document their histories for
future research.
2. Compile a current record of how many interpreter-training programs there are in the
United States. An updated Resource Guide should be sent out yearly to interpreter training
programs by the CIT and a list of the current programs with contact information and program
description should be kept on the CIT website.
3. Past and current curriculum need to be available for interpreter training programs.
Since the field of interpreter education has not had a documented history many trainers have
invented their own curriculum ideas. These ideas need to be accumulated in one place so each
program does not have to re-invent the wheel.
4. Research and Curriculum ideas need to be formulated and shared with all interpreter
educators so a Journal of Interpreter Training should be created and published by CIT. This
journal would create credibility and strengthen scholarship among interpreter educators.
5. More ASL classes are needed with qualified ASL instructors to feed interpreter
training programs. CIT and the American Sign Language Teacher's Association (ASLTA) need
to investigate ways to work together on this. Teacher-mentoring programs with deaf and hearing
mentors could be established. This would alleviate the problem of the lack of qualified teachers
in ASL & interpreting programs. ASLTA and CIT could recommend that if institutions choose to
fill full-time faculty positions with adjunct professors then those institutions should implement a
plan to train adjunct faculty.
6. Colleges and Universities need to acknowledge interpreter training students. CIT
needs to establish a national honor society for interpreter training students to provide funding and
133
scholarships to students and future trainers. This honor society could become a networking venue
for students to improve communication with their fellow future colleagues.
7. More input is needed from CIT members. CIT is a member-run, volunteer
organization, which has traditionally focused on educators within academic settings. While this
has been effective in the past, it is time to refocus CIT's efforts, to provide more consistency in
leadership, to provide a secure and fiscally responsible organizational structure, to recruit a
larger membership base and to improve public relations both inside and outside of CIT.
8. More participation of Interpreter Training Programs is needed in the accreditation
process. For example, programs that have been rated and had site visits could consider having
their faculty become site visitors or raters for other programs.
9. CCIE needs to move quickly and efficiently to accredit all programs that are ready to
move forward with accreditation. CCIE needs to hire a full time director; therefore grants need to
be written to provide funding. The CCIE needs to contact interpreter training.
Conclusion
The lessons learned from documenting the history of American Sign Language
interpreter education will be an invaluable resource for current and future interpreter educators.
This research was vital to understanding and documenting the history of interpreter education. It
illuminated practices that represented the best thinking of the times in which they were
developed, even when those practices were not ultimately very useful.
This historical data provided chronological documentation of the development of the
profession, key people and events who have influenced interpreter education, and finally,
134
influential state and federal laws. This research also documented the sacrifice and support of
many people who donated their time to the interpreter training profession.
135
REFERENCES
Adler, E. & Romano, F. (1999, Spring/Summer). Boyce Williams: Beyond silence. American
Rehabilitation, 25, 16-18.
Alcorn, B. & Humphrey, J. (2001). So you want to be an interpreter? An introduction to sign
language interpreting. Portland, OR: H & H.
Arjona, E. (1983). Education of translators and interpreters. In M. L. McIntire (Ed.), New
Dialogues in Interpreter Education. Proceedings of the 4th national convention,
Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 1-35).Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications. (pp.
1-35).
ASLTA-CIT Task Force on Standards Report (2003 July). Moore, Conference of Interpreter
Trainers Newsletter, 23(3), 4.
Babbidge, H. (1965). Education of the deaf: A report to the secretary of health, education and
welfare by his advisory committee on the education of the deaf. U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Office of the Secretary, pp. iii-103.
Bahan, B., Lane, H., & Hoffmeister, R. (1996). A Journey into the deaf-world. San Diego, CA:
DawnSign Press.
Ball, C. (2003 October). Presidents Report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
23(4), 12.
Battaglia, M. (1986). A resource guide of training programs interpreting for the hearing
impaired. New York: Department of Support Service Education, Rochester Institute of
Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf,.
Bienvenu, M. J. (1987, October). Region I report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
7(2), 2.
Bullough, B. & Bullough, V. L. (1984). History trends, and politics of nursing. New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Burch, D. (1982, May). Curriculum Standardization. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Newsletter, 6.
Burch, D. (1983, November). Dear Membership. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
3(1), 6.
136
Carlson, B., & Witter-Merithew, A. (1979). A resource guide for interpreter training for the deaf
programs. Conference of Interpreter Trainers. First National Convention. St. Paul, MN:
St. Paul Technical College.
Carlson, B., Dirst, R., Siple, L. & Witter-Merithew, A. (1980, January). A resource guide for
interpreter training for the deaf programs. Silver Spring, MD: National Rehabilitation
Association.
Carter, M., & Lauritsen, R. (1974). Interpreter recruitment, selection and training. Journal of
Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 7(3), 52-62.
Central Bible College Bulletin. (1957-1958). Central Bible College. Springfield, MO, p.14.
Central Bible College Bulletin, (1957-1958). Central Bible College, Box A124 3000 N. Grant
Ave, Springfield, MO 65803, p. 14.
Central Bible College Bulletin, (1972 - 1973). Central Bible College, Box A124 3000 N.
Grant Ave, Springfield, MO 65803, p. 106.
Clerc. L. (1818). Address written by Mr. Clerc and read by his request at a public examination of
the pupils in the Connecticut Asylum, before the governor and both houses of the
legislature. Early American Imprints (2nd series), pp. 1-14.
Cleve, J. & Crouch, B. (1995). A place of their own (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet
University Press.
Cogen, C. & Frishberg, N. (1995, April). Educational Standards Committee Update. Conference
of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter, 15(2), 4-5.
Cogen, C. & Pena, L. (1999, July). Educational standards committee report. Conference of
Interpreter Trainers Newsletter, 19(2), 4.
Cogen, C. (1996, January). Educational standards. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Newsletter, 16(1), 4.
Cogen, C. (1999, January). Educational standards committee report accreditation: The idea
whose time has finally come. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter, 19(2), 5.
Cogen, C., Pena, L., Maroney, E., Monikowski, C. & Winston, B. (1999, July). Educational
standards committee report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter, 19(3), 6.
Cokely, D. (1983). Response to Etilvia Arjona on evaluation. In M.L. McIntire (Ed.), New
Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 139-150).
137
Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services Amendments of 1978. Legislative History P.L. 95-602.

Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/gladnetcollect/
152
Decaro, J. (1981). Interpreter trainers as educators: The art and the science. In Proceedings of the
2nd national convention, Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
Dicker, E. (1991). Field testing the interpreter education endorsement process. In, Proceedings of
the National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf: Expanding
Horizons.. (pp. 177-185).Silver Spring, MD: RID Publication. (pp. 177-185).
Dicker, E., McIntire, M., Maiorano, J., West, E., & Witter-Merithew, A. (1990). Program
assessment: A progress report to the organization. In M. McIntire (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 8th National Convention, the Challenge of the 90s: New Standards in Interpreter
Education, Conference of Interpreter Trainers., (pp. 9-18). Pomona, CA. Silver Spring,
MD: RID Publication. (pp. 9-18).
Dublin, T. & Sklar, K. (Eds.). (2002). Women and power in American history. (2nd ed., Vol. 1).
Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice Hall. Education Group.
Fant, L. (1974). The California state University-Northridge approach to training interpreters.
Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf. 7(3), 44-46.
Fant, L. (1990). Silver threads: a personal look at the first twenty-five years of the registry of
interpreters for the deaf. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.
Federal Transit Administration Civil Rights & Accessibility. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from
http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/civil rights 4064.html
Finch, K. L., Gorelick, A. J., Smith, T. M., & Weiner, J. B. (1978). Considerations in the design
and development of interpreter education programs. In F. Caccamise, M. M. Caccamise
& J. Stangarone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1978 RID Convention (pp.82-99). Rochester,
NY: RID.
Gaddis, J. L. (2002). The landscape of history: How historians map the past. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gannon, J. R. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative history of deaf America. Silver Springs, MD:
National Association of the Deaf.
History in educating children with disabilities twenty-five years of progress (n.d.). Ideas that
Work, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. Published by the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services United States Department of Education:
Washington, DC.
138
Huff, K. (1965). Introduction. Proceedings of a follow-up workshop on interpreting for the deaf.
January 28-29, 1965 at The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. Published
by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC.
Joint CIT/RID Endorsement Package Update. (1987, July). Monikowski, 7(1), 8.
Jones, R. (1965). Leadership training in the area of the deaf. Conference for Interpreters,
Northridge, CA: San Fernando Valley State College, April 3, 1965.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education from pedagogy to andragogy
revised and updated. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Krentz, C. (2000). A mighty change: An anthology of deaf American writing 1816-1864.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Ladner, E. (1972). Purpose of the conference. Proceedings on the Preparation of Personnel in
the Field of Interpreting at Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C, March 28-30, 1972, 23. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.
Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Random House.
Lane, H. (1992). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community. New York: Random
House.
Lauritsen, R. (1975). Commission on communication: The national interpreter training
Consortium. VII World Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf: Full Citizenship
for all Deaf People. Washington, D.C. July 31-August 8, p. 89-92.
Lauritsen, R. (1997, May). The early years of PRAD-ADARA: the 1960s, a different time.
Retrieved December 3, 2005, from http//:www.adara.org/pages/history.shtml
Lucas, C. (1990). Sign language research: Theoretical issues. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Luckner, J. & Stewart, J. (2003, July 1). Self-assessments and other perceptions of successful
adults who are deaf: An Initial Investigation. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(3), 243250.
Maher, J. (1999). Seeing language in sign: The work of William C. Stokoe. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Maiorano, J. (1996, July). Thoughts from the President. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
139
Maiorano, J. (1997, April). Thoughts from the President. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Maiorano, J. (1997, September). Thoughts from the President. Conference of Interpreter
Trainers Newsletter, 17(3&4), 1.
Maiorano, J. (1998, January). Thoughts from the President. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Marshal, C. & Bensimon, E. M. (2003, May/June). Feminist critical policy analysis: a
perspective from post-secondary education. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3),
321-336.
McIntire, M. L. (1991). Implementation of a national endorsement system for interpreter
preparation programs. Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education,
Washington, DC. (pp. 1-72).
McIntire, M. L. (Ed.). (1984) New dimensions in interpreter education: Task analysis-theory and
application. Proceedings of the 5th national convention, Conference of Interpreter
Trainers. Fremont, CA: Ohlone College.
McIntire, M. L. (Ed.). (1986) New dimensions in interpreter education: Curriculum &
instruction. Proceedings of the 6th national convention, Conference of Interpreter
Trainers. Chevy Chase, MD: RID Publications.
Monikowski, C. (1987, July). Editors note. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter, 7(1),
9.
Monikowski, C. (1988, April). Presidents report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
8(2), 3.
Monikowski, C. (1988, April). Coming soon: New CIT directory of programs and personnel.
8(2), 16.
Monikowski, C. (1988, June). Sign Language Interpreter Training Curriculum, University of
New Brunswick. (1988, June). Monikowski, 8(3), 17.
Moore, (2003, April). CIT board meeting minutesCIT Board Meeting Minutes. (2003, April).
Moore, 23(2) 1.
Moore, (Ed). (2004, April). Exciting Announcement from the CIT Board (2004, April).
MooreCIT board meeting minutes, 24(2), 11).
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes creating multicultural learning communities. New York
and London: Teachers College Press.
140
Nowell, R. & Stuckless, R. (1974). An interpreter training program. Journal of Rehabilitation of

the Deaf, 7(3), 69-75.
Oller, J. (1988). Making sense in interpreter education programs: Evaluation. In S. Wilcox (Ed.),
New Dimensions in Interpreter Education: Evaluation & Critique. Proceedings of the 7th
National convention, Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 1-20). Sugarloaf Resort,
MI.
Ott, J. (1964). Proceedings of a national workshop on improved vocational opportunities for the
deaf. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. October 18-22, 1964, pp.
1-102.
Patrie, C. (1991, July). Presidents column. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter, 11(3),
1.
Patrie, C. (1991, October). Presidents column. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
11(4), 1.
Pimentel, A. (1972). Preface. Proceedings on the Preparation of Personnel in the Field of
Interpreting at Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C, March 28-30, 1972, ii. Washington,
DC: Gallaudet College.
Quigley, S. (1965). Interpreting for deaf people. A Report of a Workshop on Interpreting,
Portland, ME: Governor Baxter State School for the Deaf, July 7-27, 1965.
Ramsey, C. (1997). Deaf children in public schools placement, context, and consequences.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Public law 93-112 93rd Congress, H.R. 8070 September 26, 1973.
Retrieved November 13, 2006 from http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/documents/ycr/
REHABACT.HTM
Riekehof, L. (1974). Interpreter training at Gallaudet College. Journal of Rehabilitation of the
Deaf, 7(3), 47-51.
Roy, C. (1983). Response to Etilvia Arjona on curriculum design. In M.L. McIntire (Ed.), New
Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 36-42).
Rust, K. (1986). Response to Cavallaro and Cook. In M.L. McIntire (Ed.), New dimensions in
Interpreter Education: Task Analysis-theory and Application, 5th National Convention of
the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (Asilomar 1984) (pp. 21-25). Washington, DC:
RID Publications.
141
Sales, A. P. (1982). Keynote address. Proceedings of the 3rd national convention, Conference of
Interpreter Trainers. (pp. 12-19). Tucson, AZ: Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
Schein, J. D. (1974). Principles of interpreting for deaf people. Journal of Rehabilitation of the
Deaf, 6(2), 190-193.
Schein, J. D., Sternberg, M. A., Tipton, C. A. (1973). Curriculum guide for interpreter training.
New York, NY: Deafness Research & Training Center School of Education.
Seal, B. C. (1998). Best practices in educational interpreting. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Shopbell, J. (1987, July). Joint CIT/RID endorsement package update. The Conference of
Interpreter Trainers Newsletters, 7(1), p. 8).
Shopbell, J. (1988, February). Presidents report. The Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Shuy, R. (1986). A sociolinguistic view of interpreter education. In M.L. McIntire (Ed.), New
Dimensions in Interpreter Education: Curriculum & Instruction. Proceedings of the 6th
National convention, Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 1-8). Chevy Chase, MD:
RID Publications.
Siple, L. (1982). A resource guide of training programs interpreting for the hearing impaired.
Silver Spring, MD: National Rehabilitation Association.
Smith, C. (1999, January). Thoughts from the President. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Smith, C. (2000, July). Thoughts from the President. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Smith, J. M. (1964). Workshop on interpreting for the deaf. On June 14-17, 1964. Muncie, IN:
Ball State Teachers College. Published by the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration,
Washington, DC.
Smith, K. S. (2003, Spring). NTID experiment proved truly grand. RIT: The University
Magazine,1-7.
Smith, T.B. (1983). Response to Barbara Moser-Mercer-simultaneous interpreting. In M.L.
McIntire (Ed.), New Dialogues in Interpreter Education. Proceedings of the 4th national
convention, Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 71-75).
Stangarone, J. (1971). Interpreting in the 70s. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 4(3), pp.
91-95.
142
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (Eds.) (1995, October). Report from the CIT Education
Standards Committee. CIT Newsletter., 15(4), p. 2.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (2000, January). CIT board meeting minutes. 20(1), p. 18.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (2000, July). CIT board meeting minutes, 20(3), p. 27.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (2001, April). CIT 2000 Convention business minutes, 21(2),
pp. 15-24.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (2001, July). CIT board meeting minute,. 21(3), p. 1.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (Eds.) (1995, January). Convention Reflections, CIT
newsletter, 15(1), p. 5.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (Eds.) (1996, April). Self-Study Review Charter Year Call for
Applicants, CIT Newsletter, 16(2), p. 7.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (Eds.) (1996-1997). Educational Standards Committee: SelfStudy Review Charter Year. Call for Program Applicants, 16(2), p. 7.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (Eds.) (2000, January). Educational Standards Committee
Report to the Board, 20(1), p. 12.
Stauffer, M. & Taff-Watson, L.K., (Eds.) (2000, July). Moving into the new millennium: A call
for membership involvement. CIT Board of Directors, 20(3), pp. 6-8.
Sternberg, M. (1974). Brief intensive training to develop interpreters. Journal of Rehabilitation
of the Deaf. 7(3), p. 63-68.
Stotler, M. (1982, May). Standards committee report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Newsletter, 8.
Taylor, M. (2002, October). CIT/ASLTA survey results and report. Published by the Conference
of Interpreter Trainers. (pp. 1-8).
Texas Establishes Interpreter Training Consortium. (1983, November). Laurie Swabey, 3(1), 4.
The legal language: History of rehabilitations foundations. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from
http//:www.alaska.net/~drussell/ars/ma6_3.html
The odyssey of Homer. (1968). Time Magazine. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,941594.00.html
143
U.S. department of labors employment and training administration. Retrieved on October 1,

2006, from http://www.doleta.gov
Vidrine, J. (1981). An historical overview of interpreter-training programs. Proceedings of the
Conference of Interpreter Trainers, March 12-15, 1981, 317-326.
Wells, J. (2001 April). Standards committee report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Winston, B. (1996, April). Educational standards committee self-study review. Conference of
Winston, B. (1998, April). Educational standards committee report. Conference of Interpreter
Trainers Newsletter, 18(2), 19.
Winston, B. (1999, January). Salt Lake City, Utah CIT Convention Business Meeting Minutes.
Educational Standards Committee Report. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
19(1), 11.
Winston, B.. (2000, January). Educational Standards Committee Report. Conference of
Witter-Merithew, A. (2000). CIT and ASLTA Collaboration. Conference of Interpreter Trainers
Woolley, J. & Peters, G. The American Presidency Project [Online]. Santa Barbara, CA:
University of California (hosted). Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide
Web: (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26297).
Wright, M. (1994, July). Presidents Column. Conference of Interpreter Trainers Newsletter,
14(3), 1 & 2.
Yoken, C. (Ed). (1979). Interpreter training: The state of the art. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academy of Gallaudet College.
144
APPENDIX A: CIT NATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1st
Convention
October 4-6,
1979
2nd
Convention
3rd
Convention
4th
Convention
March 12-15,
1981
February 17-20,
1982
February 20-25,
1983
5th
Convention
March 25-30,
1984
Monterey, California
Asilomar
6th
Convention
November 6-10,
1986
Chevy Chase
Maryland
7th
Convention
8th
Convention
9th
Convention
10th
Convention
11th
Convention
12th
Convention
13th
Convention
14th
Convention
15th
Convention
16th
Convention
July 13-17, 1988
Sugarloaf Resort,
Michigan
Pomona, California
October 5-7,
1990
October 21-24,
1992
October 26-29,
1994
October 23-26,
1996
November 4-7,
1998
October 18-21,
2000
October 16-19,
2002
September 29October 4, 2004
October 18-22,
2006
St. Paul Technical

Vocational Institute
(TVI)
St. Paul, MN
Rochester, New York
No Theme
Tucson, Arizona
No Theme
Monterey, California
Asilomar
New Dimensions in Interpreter

Education: Task Analysis Theory
and Application
Education: Task Analysis-Theory
and Application
Education: Curriculum and
Instruction
Education: Evaluation and Critique
The Challenge of the 90s: New
Standards in Interpreter Education
Student Competencies: Defining,
Teaching and Evaluating
Mapping Our Course: A
Collaborative Venture
Accessing Our Work, Assessing Our
Worth.
Keys to Highly Effective Interpreter
Education
CIT at 21: Celebrating Excellence,
Celebrating Partnerships
New Designs In Interpreter
Education
Still Shining After 25 Years
Denver, Colorado
Charlotte, North
Carolina
Little Rock, Arkansas
Salt Lake City, Utah
Portland, Oregon
St.Paul, Minnesota
Gallaudet University,
Washington, DC
San Diego, California
145
No Theme
A New Chapter in Interpreter

Education: Accreditation, Research
& Technology
APPENDIX B: CIT ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 1979-2006
400
350
CIT Membership
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
146
APPENDIX C: HISTORY OF CIT BOARD MEMBERS

October
1979
Organizational Committee
to Establish CIT
Facilitator-Chair
Daniel D. Burch
Becky Carlson
Mel Carter
Arkansas
Minnesota
National Association of the
Deaf
Betty Colonomos
Rita DeVries
Eileen Forrestal
Barbara Garrison
Lyle Hinks
Julie McNeilly
Linda Siple
May 1982 to
November
1983
November
1983
Johnson County
Community College
President
Jan Kanda
Vice President
Jacqueline Vidrine
Secretary
Carl Earwood
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Linda Siple
Betty Colonomos
Daniel Burch
Sharon NewmannSolow
Mary Stotler
Betti Bonni
Delgado College
National Technical
Institute for the Deaf
National Technical
Gallaudet College
University of ArkansasLittle Rock
California State
University-Northridge
Seattle Central Community
College
St. Paul Technical
Johnson County
Community College
California State
President
Jan Kanda
Vice President
Marina McIntire
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Marie Griffin
Margaret James
University of Tennessee
Betty Colonomos
Gallaudet College
Daniel Burch
147
California
Washington,
DC
Louisiana
New Jersey
South
Carolina
California
Colorado
New York
Overland
Park, KS
New Orleans,
LA
Rochester,
NY
Rochester,
NY
Washington,
DC
Little Rock,
AR
Northridge,
CA
Seattle, WA
Minneapolis,
MN
Overland
Park, KS
Northridge,
CA
Knoxville,
TN
Wisconsin
Washington,
DC
Little Rock,
AR
March 1984
July 1985
October
1985
California State
College
St. Paul Technical
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Sharon NewmannSolow
President
Jan Kanda
Vice President
Marina McIntire
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Marie Griffin
Margaret James
Betty Colonomos
Gallaudet College
California State
College
St. Paul Technical
President
Jan Kanda
Vice President
Marina McIntire
Secretary
Marie Griffin
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Beatrice Lyons
President
Vice President
Mary Stotler
Betti Bonni
Daniel Burch
Sharon NewmannSolow
Mary Stotler
Betti Bonni
Betty Colonomos
Johnson County
Community College
California State
Johnson County
Community College
California State
Chattanooga State
Technical Community
College
Northridge,
CA
Seattle, WA
Minneapolis,
MN
Overland
Park, KS
Northridge,
CA
Knoxville,
TN
Wisconsin
Washington,
DC
Little Rock,
AR
Northridge,
CA
Seattle, WA
Minneapolis,
MN
Overland
Park, KS
Northridge,
CA
Knoxville,
TN
Chattanooga,
TN
Washington,
DC
Little Rock,
AR
Northridge,
CA
Betti Bonni
Gallaudet College
California State
College
St. Paul Technical
Seattle, WA
Minneapolis,
MN
Jan Kanda
Marina McIntire
Johnson County
Community College
California State
Overland
Park, KS
Northridge,
Daniel Burch
Sharon NewmannSolow
Mary Stotler
148
July 1986
July 1987
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Marie Griffin
Margaret James
MJ Bienvenu
Gallaudet College
Central Piedmont
Community College
California State
President
Jan Kanda
Vice President
Marina McIntire
Secretary
Marie Griffin
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Beatrice Lyons
Jona Marianio
Marty Taylor
JoAnn Dobecki
Shopbell
Karen Scheibe
MJ Bienvenu
Jona Maiorano
Phyllis Wilcox
JoAnn Dobecki
Shopbell
Karen Scheibe
College of Southern Idaho

St. Paul Technical
Johnson County
Community College
California State
Chattanooga State
Technical Community
College
Gallaudet College
Central Piedmont
Community College
University of New Mexico
St. Paul Technical
President
JoAnn Dobecki
Shopbell
Vice President
Karen Scheibe
Secretary
Laurie Swabey
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Beatrice Lyons

St. Paul Technical
University of New
Chattanooga State
Technical Community
College
MJ Bienvenu
Gallaudet College
Jacqueline Vidrine
Phyllis Wilcox
Delgado College
149
CA
Knoxville,
TN
Wisconsin
Washington,
DC
Charlotte, NC
Northridge,
CA
Twin Falls,
ID
Minneapolis,
MN
Overland
Park, KS
Northridge,
CA
Knoxville,
TN
Chattanooga,
TN
Washington,
DC
Charlotte, NC
Albuquerque,
NM
Twin Falls,
ID
Minneapolis,
MN
Twin Falls,
ID
Minneapolis,
MN
Manchester,
NH
Chattanooga,
TN
Washington,
DC
New Orleans,
LA
Albuquerque,
October
1987
June 1988
November
1988
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
NM
vacant
Donna Reiter
Bradwein
President
JoAnn Dobecki
Shopbell
Vice President
Karen Scheibe
Secretary
Laurie Swabey
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Beatrice Lyons

St. Paul Technical
University of New
Chattanooga State
Technical Community
College
MJ Bienvenu
Gallaudet College
Jacqueline Vidrine
Delgado College
Phyllis Wilcox
Anna Maria
Rinaldi
Donna Reiter
Bradwein

Portland Community
College
William Rainey Harper
College
President
JoAnn Dobecki
Shopbell
Vice President
Karen Scheibe
Secretary
Laurie Swabey
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Beatrice Lyons

St. Paul Technical
University of New
Chattanooga State
Technical Community
College
MJ Bienvenu
Gallaudet College
Jacqueline Vidrine
Delgado College
Phyllis Wilcox
Chattanooga,
TN
Washington,
DC
New Orleans,
LA
Albuquerque,
NM
vacant
Donna Reiter
Bradwein

College
Palatine, IL
President
Vice President
Betty Colonomos
Marina McIntire
150
Waubonsee Community
College
The Bicultural Center
Aurora, IL
Twin Falls,
ID
Minneapolis,
MN
Manchester,
NH
Chattanooga,
TN
Washington,
DC
New Orleans,
LA
Albuquerque,
NM
Portland, OR
Palatine, IL
Twin Falls,
ID
Minneapolis,
MN
Manchester,
NH
Riverdale,
MD
Chatsworth,
June 1989
December
1989
Secretary
Marilyn Mitchell
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Carole Lazorisak
National Technical
MJ Bienvenu
Jacqueline Vidrine
Delgado College
Phyllis Wilcox
Kent Olney
Donna Reiter
Bradwein

Western Oregon State
College
College
President
Betty Colonomos
Vice President
Marina McIntire
Secretary
Marilyn Mitchell
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Carole Lazorisak
Laurie Swabey
Linda Stauffer
Bob Alcorn
National Technical
University of New
Hampshire
Kent Olney
Donna Reiter
Bradwein
University of Texas-Austin
College
College
President
Betty Colonomos
Vice President
Marty Barnum
Secretary
Marilyn Mitchell
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Laurie Swabey
St. Marys Campus

National Technical
University of New
Hampshire
National Technical
Frontrange Community
College
Lynn Finton
Linda Stauffer
Rachael Naiman
151
CA
Rochester,
NY
Staten Island,
NY
Riverdale,
MD
New Orleans,
LA
Albuquerque,
NM
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
Riverdale,
MD
Chatsworth,
CA
Rochester,
NY
Staten Island,
NY
Manchester,
NH
Little Rock,
AR
Austin, TX
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
Riverdale,
MD
Minneapolis,
MN
Rochester,
NY
Manchester,
NH
Rochester,
NY
Little Rock,
AR
Westminster,
CO
December
1990
July 1991
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Kent Olney
Donna Reiter
Bradwein
President
Carole J. Patrie
Vice President
Rebecca Robinson
Secretary
Don Rubel
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Sally Koziar
Kent Olney
Donna Reiter
Bradwein
President
Carole J. Patrie
Vice President
Rebecca Robinson
Secretary
Don Rubel
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Sally Koziar
Lynn Finton
Linda Stauffer
Rachael Naiman
Lynn Finton
Catherine Clough
Ann Topliff
Sandra Gish
Gallaudet University
Portland Community
College
Bloomsburg University
College
National Technical
College
College
College
Portland Community
College
Bloomsburg University
College
National Technical
New River Community
College
College
College
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
Washington,
DC
Portland, OR
Bloomsburg,
PA
Palatine, IL
Rochester,
NY
Little Rock,
AR
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
Washington,
DC
Portland, OR
Bloomsburg,
PA
Palatine, IL
Rochester,
NY
Dublin, VA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Thomasine Teske
Laurie Swabey
October
1991

College
College
President
Carole J. Patrie
Vice President
Rebecca Robinson
152
University of Minnesota
Portland Community
College
Minneapolis,
MN
Washington,
DC
Portland, OR
April 1992
January 1993
Secretary
Jan Nishimura
Sandra Gish
Sign Language Associates

College
National Technical
J. Sargeant Reynolds
Community College
College
College
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Sally Koziar
Laurie Swabey
College of St. Catherine
Lynn Finton
Catherine Clough
Ann Topliff
President
Carole J. Patrie
Vice President
Secretary
Rebecca Robinson
Jan Nishimura
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Sally Koziar
Lynn Finton
Christine Smith
Sandra Gish
DeKalb College
College
College
Laurie Swabey
Ann Topliff
President
Mary R. Wright
Vice President
Secretary
Jona Maiorano
Beverly Hollrah
Joanne
Vandenbusch
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Portland Community
College
Sign Language Associates
College
National Technical
Lynn Finton
Christine Smith
Waubonsee Community
College
Central Piedmont
Community College
William Woods College
University of WisconsinMilwaukee
National Technical
Sandra Gish
DeKalb College
College
College
Laurie Swabey
Ann Topliff
153
Virginia
Palatine, IL
Rochester,
NY
Richmond,
VA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Minneapolis,
MN
Washington,
DC
Portland, OR
Virginia
Palatine, IL
Rochester,
NY
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Minneapolis,
MN
Aurora, IL
Charlotte, NC
Fulton, MO
Milwaukee,
MN
Rochester,
NY
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Minneapolis,
MN
April 1993
President
Mary R. Wright
Vice President
Secretary
Jona Maiorano
Beverly Hollrah
Joanne
Vandenbusch
Sandra Gish
DeKalb College
College
College
Region 5
Representative
Laurie Swabey
Minneapolis,
MN
President
Mary R. Wright
Vice President
Jona Maiorano
Secretary
Beverly Hollrah
Joanne
Vandenbusch
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
July 1994
Aurora, IL
Charlotte, NC
Fulton, MO
Milwaukee,
MN
Long Island
City, NY
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
July 1993
Waubonsee Community
College
Central Piedmont
Community College
William Woods College
Laguardia Community
College
Bonnie Singer
Christine Smith
Ann Topliff
Bonnie Singer
Christine Smith
Ann Topliff
Sandra Gish
Gail Partridge
President
Mary R. Wright
Vice President
Jona Maiorano
Secretary
Beverly Hollrah
Joanne
Vandenbusch
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Bonnie Singer
154
Waubonsee Community
College
Central Piedmont
Community College
Laguardia Community
College
DeKalb College
College
College
College
Waubonsee Community
College
Central Piedmont
Community College
Laguardia Community
College
Aurora, IL
Charlotte, NC
Washington,
DC
Milwaukee,
MN
Long Island
City, NY
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
Aurora, IL
Charlotte, NC
Washington,
DC
Milwaukee,
MN
Long Island
City, NY
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
January 1995
Debi Duren
Gail Partridge
Jona Maiorano
Vice President
Bonnie Singer
Central Piedmont
Community College
Laguardia Community
College
Secretary
Anthony Aramburo
Joanne
Vandenbusch
Xavier University
Sandy Resnick
Christine Smith
Ann Topliff
Debi Duren
Gail Partridge
DeKalb College
College
College
College
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
Charlotte, NC
Long Island
City, NY
New Orleans,
LA
Milwaukee,
MN
Massachusetts
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Palatine, IL
President
Jona Maiorano
Vice President
Bonnie Singer
Central Piedmont
Community College
Laguardia Community
College
Secretary
Anthony Aramburo
Joanne
Vandenbusch
Xavier University
Charlotte, NC
Long Island
City, NY
New Orleans,
LA
Milwaukee,
MN
Cathy Cogen
Northeastern University
Spartanburg Community
College
College
Southeast Technical
Institute
Boston, MA
Spartanburg,
SC
Westminster,
CO
Sioux Falls,
SD
Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
January 1997
Ann Topliff
DeKalb College
College
College
College
President
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
July 1996
Christine Smith
President
Dale Dyal
Bern Jones
Tim Czerny
vacant
Jona Maiorano
155
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
September
1997
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
October
1998
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Anna WitterMerithew
Kellie Mills
Stewart
Barbara O'Brian
Cathy Cogen
Dale Dyal
Bern Jones
Tim Czerny
Christine
Skoczynski
Jona Maiorano
Anna WitterMerithew
Kellie Mills
Stewart
Barbara O'Brian
Cathy Cogen
Dale Dyal
Bern Jones
Julie Simon
Christine
Skoczynski
Jona Maiorano
Anna WitterMerithew
Kellie Mills
Stewart
Barbara O'Brian
Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Harvard University
William Woods University
Boston, MA
Fulton, MO
College
College
Southeast Technical
Institute
Boston, MA
Spartanburg,
SC
Westminster,
CO
Sioux Falls,
SD
Milwaukee,
WI
Central Piedmont
Community College
Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Charlotte, NC
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Fulton, MO
College
College
Western Oregon
University
Boston, MA
Spartanburg,
SC
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Milwaukee,
WI
Central Piedmont
Community College
Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Charlotte, NC
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Norwalk, CA
Cathy Cogen
Christine Smith
Georgia Perimeter College

College
Western Oregon
University
Boston, MA
Clarkston,
GA
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Bern Jones
Julie Simon
156
January 1999
Region 5
Representative
Christine
Skoczynski
President
Christine Smith
Anna WitterMerithew
Barbara O'Brian
Carolyn Ball

Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Norwalk, CA
Fulton, MO
Cathy Cogen
College
Western Oregon
University
Boston, MA
Little Rock,
AR
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Milwaukee,
WI
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
April 1999
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
April 1999
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Ray James
Bern Jones
Julie Simon
Christine
Skoczynski
Milwaukee,
WI
Clarkston,
GA
Clarkston,
GA
Christine Smith
Anna WitterMerithew
Barbara O'Brian
Carolyn Ball

Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Norwalk, CA
Fulton, MO
Cathy Cogen
Boston, MA
College
Western Oregon
University
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Milwaukee,
WI
vacant
Bern Jones
Julie Simon
Christine
Skoczynski
Christine Smith
Anna WitterMerithew
Barbara O'Brian
Carolyn Ball

Central Piedmont
Community College
Cathy Cogen
Division Services for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Paul Schreyer
Bern Jones
157
Clarkston,
GA
Charlotte, NC
Norwalk, CA
Fulton, MO
Boston, MA
Raleigh, NC
Westminster,
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
January 2000
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
July 2000
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
January 2001
Julie Simon
Christine
Skoczynski
College
Western Oregon
University
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Milwaukee,
WI
Clarkston,
GA
Christine Smith
Anna WitterMerithew
Barbara O'Brian
Carolyn Ball

Central Piedmont
Community College
Charlotte, NC
Norwalk, CA
Fulton, MO
Robert G. Lee
Boston, MA
Elisa Maroney

College
Western Oregon
University
Todd Tourville
Christine Smith
Anna WitterMerithew
Barbara O'Brian
Carolyn Ball

Central Piedmont
Community College
Paul Schreyer
Lynda Remmel
Elisa Maroney

National Technical
College
Western Oregon
University
Todd Tourville
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Annette Miner
Secretary
Treasurer
Betsy Winston
Julie Moore

Salt Lake Community
College
Project TIEM Online
University of ColoradoBoulder
Portland Community
Jeanne M. Wells
Paul Schreyer
Lynda Remmel
158
Raleigh, NC
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Minneapolis,
MN
Clarkston,
GA
Charlotte, NC
Norwalk, CA
Fulton, MO
Rochester,
NY
Raleigh, NC
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Minneapolis,
MN
Fulton, MO
Salt Lake
City, UT
Boulder, CO
Portland, OR
Elisa Maroney
College
National Technical
College
Western Oregon
University
Todd Tourville
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Annette Miner
Fulton, MO
Salt Lake
City, UT
Secretary
Betsy Winston
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Julie Moore

Salt Lake Community
College
Project TIEM Online
University of ColoradoBoulder
Portland Community
College
University of Southern
Maine
Salt Lake Community
College
College
Salt Lake Community
College
Fulton, MO
Salt Lake
City, UT
Sacramento,
CA
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
January 2002
January 2003
Jeanne M. Wells
Paul Schreyer
Lynda Remmel
Judy Shepard-Kegl
Paul Schreyer
Jes Julander
Debbie Peterson
Suzette Garay
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Annette Miner
Secretary
Cindy Farnham
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Paul Schreyer
Judy Shepard-Kegl
Nina Coyer
Jes Julander
Debbie Peterson
Suzette Garay
159

University of Southern
Maine
Eastern Kentucky
University
Salt Lake Community
College
College
Rochester,
NY
Raleigh, NC
Westminster,
CO
Monmouth,
OR
Minneapolis,
MN
Boulder, CO
Portland, OR
Portland, ME
Raleigh, NC
Salt Lake
City, UT
Seattle, WA
Milwaukee,
MN
Raleigh, NC
Portland, ME
Richmond,
KY
Salt Lake
City, UT
Seattle, WA
Milwaukee,
MN
July 2003
October
2003
January 2004
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Annette Miner
Secretary
Cindy Farnham
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Paul Schreyer

Palomar College and Mesa
College
Fulton, MO
San Diego,
CA
Sacramento,
CA
Raleigh, NC
vacant
Nina Coyer
Jes Julander
Debbie Peterson
Suzette Garay
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Annette Miner
Secretary
Cindy Farnham
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Paul Schreyer
Eastern Kentucky
University
Salt Lake Community
College
College
College
Jeffrey S. Jaech
Nina Coyer
Jes Julander
Debbie Peterson
Diana Gorman
Jamrozik
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Annette Miner
Secretary
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Cindy Farnham
vacant
Eastern Kentucky
University
Salt Lake Community
College
College
Jes Julander
160
Seattle, WA
Milwaukee,
MN
Fulton, MO
San Diego,
CA
Sacramento,
CA
Raleigh, NC
Brooklyn, NY
Richmond,
KY
Salt Lake
City, UT
Seattle, WA
Columbia College-Chicago
Chicago, IL

College
Fulton, MO
San Diego,
CA
Sacramento,
CA
Jeffrey S. Jaech
Nina Coyer
Richmond,
KY
Salt Lake
City, UT
Eastern Kentucky
University
Salt Lake Community
College
Brooklyn, NY
Richmond,
KY
Salt Lake
City, UT
April 2004
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Debbie Peterson
Diana Gorman
Jamrozik
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Secretary
Annette Miner
Jackie Lightfoot
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Cindy Farnham
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
January 2005
July 2005

College
Seattle, WA
Chicago, IL

College
Fulton, MO
San Diego,
CA
Atlanta, GA
Sacramento,
CA
Jeffrey S. Jaech
Nina Coyer
Eastern Kentucky
University
Jes Julander
Sorenson Communications
Brooklyn, NY
Richmond,
KY
Salt Lake
City, UT

College
Seattle, WA
Chicago, IL
Debbie Peterson
Diana Gorman
Jamrozik
President
Vice President
Secretary
Annette Miner
Carolyn Ball
Naomi Sheneman
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
Cindy Farnham
Brian R. Morrison
Nina Coyer
Jes Julander
Debbie Peterson
Camden County College

Eastern Kentucky
University
Sorenson Communications
College
San Diego,
CA
Fulton, MO
Santa Fe, NM
Sacramento,
CA
Blackwood,
NJ
Richmond,
KY
Salt Lake
City, UT
Seattle, WA
vacant
President
Vice President
Secretary
Annette Miner
Carolyn Ball
Naomi Sheneman
Treasurer
Region 1
Representative
Cindy Farnham
Brian R. Morrison
161
San Diego,
CA
Fulton, MO
Santa Fe, NM
Sacramento,
CA
Blackwood,
NJ
Region 2
Representative
Region 3
Representative
Region 4
Representative
Region 5
Representative
April 2006
July 2006
Eastern Kentucky
University
Richmond,
KY
Debbie Peterson

College
Seattle, WA
Laura Covell
Quincy University
Quincy, IL
Nina Coyer
vacant
Brian R. Morrison
San Diego,
CA
Fulton, MO
Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento,
CA
Blackwood,
NJ
Laura Covell
Quincy University
Quincy, IL
Director of
Membership
Director of
Technology and
Communications
Director of Research
and Publications
Kellie Mills
Stewart
Harvard University
Boston, MA
President
Vice President
Annette Miner
Carolyn Ball
Secretary
Naomi Sheneman
San Diego Mesa College
Treasurer
Director of Public
Relations
Director of
Professional
Development
Director of
Membership
Director of
Technology and
Communications
and Publications
Cindy Farnham
President
Vice President
Secretary
Annette Miner
Carolyn Ball
Naomi Sheneman
Treasurer
Director of Public
Relations
Director of
Professional
Development
Cindy Farnham

Phoenix College
vacant
vacant
Brian R. Morrison
San Diego,
CA
Fulton, MO
San Diego,
CA
Sacramento,
CA
Blackwood,
NJ
Laura Covell
Kellie Mills
Stewart
Quincy University
Quincy, IL
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Doug BowenBailey
vacant
162
Duluth, MN
October
2006
President
Carolyn Ball
Vice President
Secretary
Brian R. Morrison
Cindy Volk

University of Arizona
Treasurer
Director of Public
Relations
Director of
Professional
Development
Director of
Membership
Director of
Technology and
Communications
and Publications
Cindy Farnham
Fulton, MO
Blackwood,
NJ
Tucson, AZ
Sacramento,
CA
Leslie Greer
Mt. San Jacinto College
Menifee, CA
Laura Covell
Kellie Mills
Stewart
Quincy University
Quincy, IL
Harvard University
Boston, MA
Doug BowenBailey
Annette Miner
163
Duluth, MN
San Diego,
CA

Carolyn Ball Dissertation 2007

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Carolyn Ball Dissertation 2007

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING EDUCATION

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

UMI Number: 3258295

UMI Microform 3258295

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Carolyn Ball, 2007

THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING EDUCATION

Statement of the Problem

Significance of the Research

Dissertation Chapter Organization

CHAPTER 2. HISTORY OF INTERPRETING EDUCATION (1800-1900)

Gallaudet Sails to Europe

Gallaudet Meets Laurent Clerc

The Trip to America: Learning French Sign Language

The First Interpreter Trainer

The Impact of Clercs Speech

The First Federal Law: The Enabling Act

A Growing Need for Interpreters

CHAPTER 3. HISTORY OF INTERPRETING EDUCATION (1900-1960)

Dr. Lottie Riekhof

Validity Regarding Sign Language Training at CBI in 1948

College Bulletin Describes Sign Language Class

Formal Research of American Sign Language

Second Federal Law Passed

Vocational Rehabilitation Training for Deaf People

The Need for Trained Interpreters Expands

CHAPTER 4. HISTORY OF INTERPRETING EDUCATION (1960-1970)

The Babbidge Report

The First Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

The Secret Deaf Weapon

The Impact of VRA and Boyce Williams

Ball State Workshop Results: Training of Interpreters

Parameters of Interpreting Programs

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

Second Workshop on Interpreting & Education for the Deaf

Third Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

Fourth Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

A Program for Training Interpreters

Fifth Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf

LTP Established a Conference for Interpreters

Interpreter Training Program Established at NTID

CHAPTER 5. HISTORY OF INTERPRETING EDUCATION (1970-1980)

Wisdom from JADARA in 1974

The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID)

St. Paul Technical College (TVI)

The First Published Curriculum for Interpreter Training

Deafness Research & Training Center of New York University

California State University-Northridge

Conference on the Preparation of Personnel in the Field of Interpreting

The Impact of Federal Legislation

The Impact of PL 94-142 on Deaf Children

The National Interpreter Training Consortium

Federal Aid for Interpreter Training Programs Continues

Training Provided for Interpreter Training Programs

Interpreter Training in the 1980s

The Conference of Interpreter Trainers

First Board of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers

CHAPTER 6. HISTORY OF INTERPRETING EDUCATION (1980-1990)

Mission of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers

The Resource Guide of Interpreter Training Programs 1980

The Second Conference of Interpreter Trainers

The Third Conference of Interpreter Trainers