Continuing recent coverage of online debates you WON'T find in the usual areas (From the Deaf 'Dark Web'). It is sign and deaf education (Again), and opposes the NDCS and those adult deaf activists who call for BSL education and use 12/14yr old deaf children as a front for the deaf-politic.
"Literacy is all, It transcends culture or disability as a priority, your life is reflected in how literate you are, not what deaf school you went to, because without it you cannot advance or improve. It also demands true bilingualism being taught to the deaf child. As regards to the deaf people, their language and communication is dependent on literacy too, you have to be literate in own 'preferred' systems or it doesn't work, uneducated cultural groups are no use to man nor beast let alone themselves... Ironically the most 'able' deaf are those who DO NOT RELY on sign language alone."
"Most suffering sadly are in that position because there is no real established tuition of effective BSL communication, they are trying to establish such a system now against a tide or grammatical English text which like Canute you cannot reverse, and a total lack of resource to make it happen. If you have issues learning, deaf or hearing, then your 'language' suffers too. Poor sign awareness by deaf is ignored, even challenged for some reason under the assumption I am deaf and I use sign so I am the expert in it. They are experts on using someone else to follow! yes. "
"The reasons abound why culture and sign is the magic bullet for deaf people, the problem is who holds the gun. Opposition to learning the primary means society uses to communicate, because 'Deaf prefer...' is an opt out and bilinguality a myth too as it needs facilitation to work. Preference doesn't come into it as a deaf child.
It should be pointed out a 'preference' isn't a defined NEED, and not valid in rights terms without context. The UK, indeed all western countries, define need via observation and assessment, not wishful thinking. Such approaches may well determine singular sign use is not the best way for some deaf to communicate, or they may simply be unable to learn sign via APD and such, or do not possess the necessary skills to maximise it effectively, ignorance may be bliss if you are deaf, and you can always blame hearing if all else fails, is not really cutting it."
"Its hard enough for hearing children to master the curriculum in a system designed for it, let alone telling a deaf one they have to learn two when we know they opt for the easiest regardless of academic attainment or effectiveness. The assumption is so long as you can communicate to other deaf, the rest doesn't count!"
"Thereby hangs a tale and a very lengthy discourse on deaf rights! As regards to the UK, BSL pretty much rules here as communication access regardless. We don't have an effective relay service for health for all with hearing loss, as it is all BSL. It's a complete myth Deaf aren't being served, they are the only Hearing Loss sector that are. There is no lip-speaking provision or palantype system. Many UK courts seem totally unaware the deaf have right of access in any format too, if we are talking discrimination' deafened and HoH face a lot more than these deaf ever do."
"In many respects, the system is brainwashed to believe all deaf people sign, and public info videos e.g are being turned out with nil captions because 'deaf prefer sign' despite there being no statistic to back it up, and other deaf and HoH having to demand an alternative PI video to follow, which piles further expense and confusion on service providers already cash-strapped. The lack of a coherent or unifed approach by the non-'Deaf' is a conundrum albeit it is suggested they have manged to gain access without the martryrdom approach, the access, or the cash input.. Albeit they lost the awareness high ground altogether."
"Deaf don't have to provide statistical proof of need do they? they use the rights, language, and cultural argument. E.G. The UK binned a weekly disability TV program, but kept a BSL one despite there being negligible viewing and offered to fund them another online too, the power of using culture as a lever. It drove them out of the mainstream via the bribe, but perhaps that's what they deserved anyway there doesn't appear much of a will to be included.
"I do recall the emergence of the BSL dictionary (which is not all that long ago), and the rows over the content, and the format, it was pretty clear it had insufficient proof the signs were used, or even extant in many cases and there was a mad scramble to invent some on the spot to fill out the book. Technical/Academic sign language is still in its infancy and struggles with terms and details. It's ludicrous to suggest BSL can be used as a primary format in Higher education. So its a step up from a sign class learning colours and such. The emphasis on BSL via 'politics' is undermining the deaf future because of no viable system of teaching it and lack of ephasis on basic needs."
"I concur, grassroots did not understand 68% of the dictionary content. I'm betting even today they don't as the teachers for the deaf don't either. The issue was allowing the deaf themselves to create a dictionary on their own terms, but with little regard to uniformity in any grammatical sense and repetitive signs for same things insisting a facial change altered context etc, the detail really struggles. teaching it as a primary means is pretty chaotic really.
The UK approach is to assist the deaf child to follow a national curriculum based on the home language. There were many concerns the dictionary creators, lacked sufficient academic qualification to create such an essential basis for their languge. It's still an issue where regions are countering the BSL dictionary and criticising it because of an attempt to normalise it in the UK, (which would actually be a plus and a standard could be set allowing the deaf child to attain the skill.)"
"The ultimate irony about BSL is that only HEARING people have to pass exams in it! and the deaf adult fails to hone or improve own skills. They believe as they are deaf and sign, they know all there is to know as 'native' users. We could ask then, why they struggle in education and following own interpreters who are far more qualified in BSL than they are. "
"Yes, 'Dumbing down' by hearing terps defeats the whole point, and the refusal of deaf to accept they have a learning disability caused by poor communicatio to then blame it on not enough BSL just makes the confusion and lack of progress more terminal.."
"They will be all dressed up to go, but with no destination. As their clubs continue to decline, assitsive approaches improve, and their schools get closed, immersive BSL is a 'Deaf Wish' on a hiding to nothing, everything would rely on mainstream benevolence and paying to support its use, meanwhile the mainstream moves on... Deaf are coining it now with handouts and funding for their culture that won't always be the norm, and at the expence of a proper education, we should be questioning its priorities."