The projects’ goals for Term 2 Establishment of a Remote Sign Language Education System Intended to Develop Supporters for the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing (FY2021-2030) have been presented through an interview with project leader Takayuki Kanazawa by project staff member Reiko Futagami.

→ See the outcomes of Term 1 here (link to new window)

○ Objectives for Term 2

Futagami　The goals for Term 1 of the project included meeting the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students for sign language interpreters and creating the foundation for a system of student training at higher education institutions in order to ameliorate the shortage of personnel in sign language interpreter education. Could you tell me about the goals for Term 2?

Kanazawa　Developing national qualifications for sign language interpreters in the format of training at higher education institutions, and making sign language into a curriculum subject. Toward creating these two systems, we are developing the details through practice, with the implementation of these systems in mind. We also plan to put them online for nationwide access.

　During Term 1, our goal was to create a model for university-level sign language interpreter training at Gunma University. This was to take the form not of launching a major focused on interpreter training, but through having students acquire interpreter qualifications through accumulating credits while studying mainly in other fields (education, welfare, et cetera). The method was to give credit for the basic, applied, and practical training courses provided in the region. Students would need to learn sign language first, so courses to that end were created. At the time, we felt that if we could establish a model at Gunma University, the ripple effect would lead other universities to follow. However, in reality we found this to be very difficult. While a curriculum model in accordance with the system could be created, it was important not to organize a system but to develop effective sign language instruction methods. This included, we had to create something other universities could imitate. However, the more we developed an advanced curriculum and instruction methods, the more we were met with a reaction of “That was possible because it was at Gunma University,” creating the dilemma that it could not be imitated elsewhere. In the end, we found that we were unable to change interpreter training nationwide while counting on others to imitate what we were doing.

　Then we decided that if classes at Gunma University were available online nationwide, they would provide a force for changed training throughout the country from an independent perspective, rather than relying on others. Just as we were wondering how to have people outside the university take our classes and learn from us, the coronavirus crisis arose.

　Before the pandemic, we had vague thoughts of working with Hokkaido, or perhaps Utsunomiya University. Utsunomiya University had planned (from 2020) to merge its education faculty with Gunma University’s, so we had ideas of joint work with Tochigi Prefecture. Hokkaido has a consortium, so we casually discussed having each university in the consortium start one class, which could be shared to create a course on sign language interpreter training within the consortium as a whole. Let me underline that this was simply casual discussion.

　In actuality, the pandemic called for online classes, and the barrier to creating university classes that could be accessed anywhere and anytime fell sharply. From that point on, we began to work on our new concept.

○ Prospects for Term 2

Futagami　So the goals for Term 2 are developing national qualifications for sign language interpreters and making sign language into a curriculum subject. Since both are about systems, I cannot imagine how these goals are approached as a project at Gunma University.

Kanazawa　English language education in Japan has been carried out as a national policy intended to render all citizens capable of reading and writing English. To that end, English textbooks have been created properly, the curriculum has been developed, and even with non-native speakers as teachers, students are able to master the content. We hope to base sign language education on this model.

　In order to improve sign language training across the nation, we must not only make courses at Gunma University available but also work to develop a curriculum, tests, teachers’ guides, and teaching materials. This also involves creating a system enabling even non-native hearing people to teach. However, this does not mean that native signers will not be required. The presence of native signers is extremely important. However, to move forward in terms of national policy, the total number of native signers is just not large enough. The same applies to English education. Therefore, even if the ideal cannot be realized, we feel there is a need to create textbooks and manuals that will provide some kind of outcome.

　In addition, because institutionalization as a national policy would itself be done by the government, what we can actually do is take a practical approach toward creating the system.

　Specifically, practice toward creating national qualifications for sign language interpreters in the format of training at higher education institutions, and making sign language a curriculum subject. We can demonstrate a practical example of what practice and curriculum would look like if the system comes into being. For example, there are university curricula for the training of certified public psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and so on. Actual training takes place in accordance therewith. Likewise, the teaching licenses for various subjects are as a rule acquired through universities and other schools with training programs. We plan to develop the required classes through this practice and thus create a system for classes that can be accessed online as well.

○ What constitutes a system for sign language interpreter training?

Futagami　Of the two systems you have in mind, let me ask here about the creation of national qualifications for sign language interpreters. While this system itself would be put into place by the government, we do have sign language interpreters certified by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and existing qualifications for sign language interpreters. What is different from this?

Kanazawa　While the term sign language interpreter is frequently used, it generally refers to someone who has passed the prefectural exam intended for communication support programs and employed. With training taking place separately by prefecture, as it does now, we have the problem of differing training methods and registration standards for each prefecture, so that this existing framework has to be maintained.

　The national qualification (shuwa tsuyaku shi) is the only one we have. I’m familiar with the movement to create national qualifications for sign language interpreters. But the existing qualifications are, as the Sign Language Interpretation Skill Certification Exam test name suggests, a certification of skill by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. This is not sufficiently understood at large. To give an example, it’s something like the traditional craftsperson qualifications. That is, it certifies skills already acquired in some way, bestowing qualifications in that sense; its essential existing framework differs from that of national qualifications such as certified social workers, for instance, which are designed to encompass training methods as well.

　On the other hand, what we have in mind for national qualifications refers to qualifications acquired through credit certification at a training school such. Doctors, nurses, speech-language pathologists, certified public psychologists, certified social workers and so on are required to attend specialist training institutions. We have something similar in mind.

　One objective for Term 1 was to have students acquire qualifications while enrolled, requiring the project to go along with the existing system. However, if we are to train students at university in Term 2, it is important that we clarify what personnel we have in mind. One reference for this is the nationally qualified personnel such as certified social workers.

○ What constitutes a system for sign language interpreter training?

Futagami　Of the two systems you have in mind, let me ask here about the creation of national qualifications for sign language interpreters. While this system itself would be put into place by the government, we do have sign language interpreters certified by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and existing qualifications for sign language interpreters. What is different from this?

Kanazawa　While the term sign language interpreter is frequently used, it generally refers to someone who has passed the prefectural exam intended for communication support programs and employed. With training taking place separately by prefecture, as it does now, we have the problem of differing training methods and registration standards for each prefecture, so that this existing framework has to be maintained.

　The national qualification (shuwa tsuyaku shi) is the only one we have. I’m familiar with the movement to create national qualifications for sign language interpreters. But the existing qualifications are, as the Sign Language Interpretation Skill Certification Exam test name suggests, a certification of skill by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. This is not sufficiently understood at large. To give an example, it’s something like the traditional craftsperson qualifications. That is, it certifies skills already acquired in some way, bestowing qualifications in that sense; its essential existing framework differs from that of national qualifications such as certified social workers, for instance, which are designed to encompass training methods as well.

　On the other hand, what we have in mind for national qualifications refers to qualifications acquired through credit certification at a training school such. Doctors, nurses, speech-language pathologists, certified public psychologists, certified social workers and so on are required to attend specialist training institutions. We have something similar in mind.

　One objective for Term 1 was to have students acquire qualifications while enrolled, requiring the project to go along with the existing system. However, if we are to train students at university in Term 2, it is important that we clarify what personnel we have in mind. One reference for this is the nationally qualified personnel such as certified social workers.

○ “Sign language” as a high school subject

Futagami　The other prospective system you mentioned was the creation of sign language as a curriculum subject. Does the project have schools for the deaf in mind, or regular high schools?

Kanazawa　We feel that sign language is necessary as a curriculum subject for both hearing and deaf children. Examples of this in practice actually exist already at the level of individual schools. A number of schools have instituted sign language as a school-designated subject. For hearing students, I mean. Elsewhere, Meisei Gakuen has created a sign language subject through application as a Cabinet Office Special Zone. While both are important initiatives, this project aims to have sign language established as an elective course for hearing high school students.

　As of now, with the training of sign language interpreters becoming an issue, in advance of training interpreters at universities, we have the problem of whether opportunities are provided within school education up to high school to learn sign language thoroughly as a language. The Sign Language Ordinances issued in various locations advocate for providing opportunities for hearing children to learn sign language, but actual school practice tends to be limited to a few hours a year at best of sign language study in elementary school integrated study periods. They may invite a deaf guest lecturer and have the students learn a few signs, for instance. Or else the practice may be limited to activities like signing this month’s song during special activities (homeroom, student council, et cetera), making systematic study difficult. Therefore, with almost no opportunities to acquire sign language systematically within school education, if sign language as a subject is made available as an elective course, it could change the foundations of sign language study. This is because the existence of sign language as a curriculum subject would require textbooks and inclusion in the Course of Study. A licensing system would also become necessary. That is, training methods in universities would need to be examined. This would mean the creation of regulations mandating that a number of specialist faculty would have to be employed for training. This would give employment at universities to researchers studying sign language. Sign language research in Japan would take a huge leap forward.

　Therefore, the establishment of sign language as a curriculum subject would create results beyond what most people imagine. We are talking about a different dimension from the current offerings of sign language as a school-designated subject. Within sign language research as well, the field of research on the theory of sign language acquisition as a second language would expand dramatically.

○ Reasons to establish Sign Language as an elective course, not a subject confined to schools for the deaf

Futagami　I understand the importance of creating a Sign Language subject for hearing children. Don’t you agree that it is also necessary as a subject at schools for the deaf?

Kanazawa　Education at schools for special needs education is based on education at regular schools. Fundamentally, classes are held in the same subjects and areas as at regular schools. Combined instruction does take place at schools for the intellectually disabled, in the sense of combining subjects and areas. There is also the area of Independent Activities, unique to special needs education schools. We feel that creating Sign Language as a special subject within schools for the deaf alone would make it difficult to proceed with discussion, given the framework of the Courses of Study. Although it’s not out of the question.

　Rather, if Sign Language can be positioned in some form as a subject in regular schools, given that special needs schools are intended to conduct education based on that of regular schools, there should be no problem with offering the same subject at schools for the deaf. That is, if Sign Language can be established as a high school elective, it should be possible to make it a subject at schools for the deaf as well.

○ Taking education and training on sign language skills for specialists involved with the deaf and hard-of-hearing online

Futagami　Finally, could you tell me in more detail about the need and directionality for moving university classes online, as training for special needs education teachers?

Kanazawa　It’s a problem with two stages. First is the structure of licensing for special needs education teachers. The issue is that licenses can be obtained without acquiring advanced expertise. The other thing is the reality of the massive amount of time required if teachers at schools for the deaf are to be called on to acquire sign language as an essential skill. But because teachers’ sign language skills are insufficient on site, the children’s right to learn is not being guaranteed, and we can’t overlook that.

　There are two methods of obtaining a license under the current system. (1) Licensing through a school with a certified program Earning credits at a university, going through a practicum, and obtaining a license. (2) Licensing through a training course So-called certified training The required credits differ between these two. In the case of (2), in order to obtain a Type II license for special needs education (hearing impairments), what you need is three years of practical experience plus six training credits. This practical experience doesn’t have to be at a special needs school. And the six credits are divided into Column 1: Educational system etc., Column 2: Types of special needs education, and Column 3: Other impairment types (developmental disabilities, etc.), so all you need is two credits’ worth of classes on hearing impairments. That is, a teacher with no experience at a school for the deaf can obtain a license for special needs schools (hearing impairments) with just two credits on that specialist area. This is a big problem with the design of the system. And as of now, roughly half the teachers at schools for the deaf do not hold hearing impairment-specialized licenses. As far as the educational authorities are concerned, they just want more license holders, even Type II is ok.

　What I want to do, however, is to create classes which cover special issues (psychology, instruction methods, and so on) rather than overviews, for the teachers who want more specialized Type I licenses or advanced licenses, who want to enhance their skills. For these teachers, the classes need to be available on site. Individual prefectures would have limited numbers of participants, so the classes would go online. Classes on sign language must include lectures on how to use it in school contexts rather than simply teaching the language.

　The value of remote distribution was brought home to me in 2020 by my class on Psychology of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. With two instructors, each lecture was designed to be complete unto itself, so that teachers who wanted to know about cognition, for instance, or about deaf children with multiple disabilities could take that class hour alone. We had no problem with the course being used for self-improvement. Further, the good point of taking classes online is that teachers can remain at their posts at schools for the deaf and just spend one hour taking a university course as a learning method.

　Some schools run their own sign language training weekly as an independent program. The university lectures could be made use of during this training time, enabling systematic mastery of sign language.

　In this way, some teachers can attend only the classes that interest them, for self-improvement purposes, while others can take the whole course and work toward a Type I license for schools for the deaf. Further, while this may sound like a castle in the air, if we can establish Sign Language as a subject, teachers would be able to acquire sign language itself in order to receive their licenses for the subject.