why don't you advocate interpreters to teach sign? Just wondering.
The hedging language is important: I said I don't
necessarily advocate interpreters teaching sign. I don't come down on either side of the debate because I think they both have merit. On the one hand, I think most interpreters do not have native-like signing skills (and I don't mean proficiency, I'm talking about signing style) and I think that is very important for a teacher to have. Also I think in some cases an interpreter teaching sign could be taking a job away from a native Deaf signer.
Now on the other hand, it is absolutely untrue that you have to be a native user of a language to be the best teacher. Many native English speakers would be TERRIBLE English teachers. My first sign language teacher was Deaf and she was a very bad teacher. And there are plenty of interpreters who do have native-like skills and high proficiency, as well as strong metalinguistic knowledge which is so important when teaching.
This is an enormous debate in my area and personally I don't accept any teaching opportunities that come my way. I do believe people looking for sign language teachers should do their best to find
qualified d/Deaf teachers, but I realize that that is not always possible. I happen to live in an area with a large deaf population and many of them well-educated, so we are a bit spoiled for choice here. I do believe a more qualified hearing person should be selected for a teaching position over a less qualified deaf person, but there are some who do not agree with that and I respect that opinion by removing myself from the debate altogether.
I don't judge interpreters who teach; I just prefer not to do it myself. Hope I've (over)answered your question. Please realize I'm speaking only for myself here. And like I said, in this particular case I think anyone who knows sign would be a good candidate. It sounds like a very fun and worthy opportunity!
