Language Access Work Group
Notes from
Meeting 4 Breakout Room 5
September 5, 2023
Breakout Room 5 Participants Breakout Room 5 Facilitator
Gabrielle Bachmeier Tony Rice
Faye Chien
Jon Gould
Jarrod Irvin
Yun-Mei Wang Wilborn
Homework: Please share what you would like to see in a draft recommendation, or what you have already shared in a draft recommendation, regarding prerequisites and screening, test content, and test quality.
-
If lists of prerequisites are all inclusive, then there is disagreement with using 'experience living in the target language-speaking country’ as a criterion. That would exclude those who would not have access to the other country yet may have access to the target language community through other lived experience
-
Create a pipeline for ESL students to perhaps become certified (informing them of opportunity to become interpreters, certificate program already in place)
-
The quality of the test is “one size fit all.” Test should be focused on the culture, which would be different based on the language used. Test seems only focused on terminology and does not account for cultural sensitivity. This is an ethics issue
-
The test focuses on the medical terminology knowledge and does not address the ethics concerned with communicating the message to a specific community, which needs to be addressed in some way (may not be able to add to test)
-
Perhaps “lived experience” could be a desired qualification. The experience should be in living in the target language culture and understanding the language in that specific community
-
Screening resources – Highline Community College has the Puget Sound Welcome Back Center, which is partially funded by the legislature. This resource is not limited to the Highline community only. It allows foreign nationals to utilize their degrees in the U.S. It could potentially be part of a pool to provide expertise to screen applicants
-
Create some scenarios or situational-type questions to see how candidates might respond