All Party Committees (Wales).

ATR's Open letter to BDA Cymru, disputing they are actively participating in this area, and indeed not addressing issues BSL users face in Wales either, relying on campaigns developed elsewhere by non-Welsh deaf.

"ATR's own experience of APC at the Senedd is that nothing ever happens at all, indeed, I gather that the RNID stated the same thing, and threatened to pull out (twice), at the time, as the RNID was footing the access bill for those attending, and later withdrew much social online access in Wales due to lack of interest from grass roots.   

The BDA also refused to devolve their charity sites to localised control, taking away the ability of Welsh deaf to decide themselves how support/access and Inclusion should proceed, given, the Welsh need is entirely different from other regional areas, but we have no effective say. It goes without stating, the BDA shows no support to the majority of Welsh deafened, or hard of hearing in Wales, being a secular organisation.

Who is talking for Wales?  Leeds/Manchester/London BDA?   The last  APC  'meeting' never took place in person, but was done online in July last year. Just who knew about it?  Most deaf I talked to had no idea an APC actually existed, let alone saw the 'Zoom' thing.

Prior to that, there were 3 years when hardly any viable meeting took place at all, one or two meets a year if that.  Requests at the time from grass roots to participate, were refused outright, including a request ATR made to respond to one issue. Sadly BSL was then used as a 'barrier' to participation, as the BDA insisted on the 'D' approach, side-lining 300,000 with hearing loss in Wales.

At the end of the day, we are told grass roots cannot attend or represent at APC as the Senedd recognises only their representation, this is a 'rule' via all government centres apparently, but Wales?  There is an option to make it public, and we know,  the Senedd website is not going to be accessed by deaf people. It's a complete travesty of a website, that defines deaf people via 11-13 alternative descriptions, it is impossible to get any accuracy or detail from it, deaf areas are duplicated 3 or 4 times, under different headings.  This appears to be a major discrimination against grass-roots deaf of all kinds, as charities make the decisions, in essence, behind closed doors.  In effect nobody is represented except a few sign using deaf.

Neither the BDA or RNID have a mandate of Welsh membership TO represent, i.e. if we are to attach any validity to the RNID and BDA's own statistics.    It is widely agreed by most areas the APC is a pointless exercise, and the BDA/RNID operating singularly and in a vacuum.  There seems to be a lack of awareness that Wales has no  deaf schools any more, and that mainstreaming has proven a huge success, despite BSL areas criticising at every opportunity.  Neither does Wales have a BSL Act, apparently the fact Wales recognised BSL many years before the BSL Act was mooted, was ignored by the BDA.

The fact Wales is the best-served area for BSL users in the UK, having a surplus of BSL interpreters due to fewer deaf using BSL, and the BDA itself on record, as providing support for deaf to use unprofessional support (families, friends, etc), if they so chose.  This included e.g.  'mentors', many of whom did not possess qualifications IN BSL, and were ungoverned, and unmonitored regarding privacy laws, and neutrality, professional BSL terps are, some are actually their own friends, who had access to their private lives. One rather telling fact, is that according to the BDA itself, only 1% of deaf BSL users, appear to have any qualifications in it.  So the BDA is campaigning for access they cannot effectively use, BSL?

All current campaigns regarding BSL are aimed at awareness for HEARING people, given the reluctance by all regional governments to endorse BSL itself.  Also targeting children and young people, because they fail to connect to adults.  Overall, there is a 'hype' around BSL that is ignoring the realities for deaf people. We still have deaf people leaving school and then plateauing, and further education and training simply doesn't happen, even literacy improvements don't.  Perhaps the BDA needs to look AT deaf people and BSL and recognize where the need is.  

As my blog will verify, the ability to advance academically for deaf people, cannot happen because BSL lacks academic, and reference signs to teach with.  Perhaps the BDA really does need to start at the ground and build BSL up as a viable language first, and not just a glorified social tool?  What is clear, is that Welsh deaf and hearing loss charities have lost any sort of awareness about their own area."

Why barriers exist for a BSL curriculum.

This is before education  departments can find, or train enough teachers to make it happen. (The BSL GCSE is not about this issue, as it is aimed at making  hearing students aware of sign language, who can follow English anyway).  

Addressing the challenge of creating academic classes in sign language that can match the depth and breadth of spoken and written sources, particularly e.g. via specialized fields like science, or advanced theory, and other complex topics, presents a unique set of considerations. While sign languages, such as British Sign Language (BSL), are said to have their own grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, it is still viewed as a 'social tool' more than an academic one. There are many major obstacles to achieving parity in academic content across languages. 

Some factors to consider when seeking to bridge this gap:

(1)  Limited Academic Material in Sign Language: 

Despite the progress made in developing educational resources for sign language learners, there is a lack of specialized academic material in sign languages for advanced subjects. This scarcity can pose challenges for Deaf individuals who wish to pursue higher education or engage with complex academic content in their preferred language.

(2)  Challenges in Translating Specialized Vocabulary: 

Translating technical and specialized vocabulary from spoken or written sources into sign language poses unique challenges, as sign languages lack established signs for certain terms or concepts. The process of expanding the lexicon of sign languages to encompass these complex terms requires time, effort, and collaboration between linguists, educators, and 'Deaf' experts, who don't exist in sufficient qualifications or numbers currently.

(3)  Education and Literacy Levels: 

Another factor to consider is the variation in education and literacy levels among sign language users. While sign languages are primary modes of communication for many deaf individuals, there are disparities in literacy skills, especially in written languages like English. Addressing literacy challenges, promoting bilingual education, and providing additional support for academic literacy in both sign and written languages are crucial for enhancing educational outcomes.  This isn't happening currently, due to many factors.  E.G. training teachers, the availability of sufficient academic reference materials, and disagreements regarding conflict of BSL/English grammar, and issues of bilingual comparisons. 

(4)   Access to Higher Education: 

Providing equal access to higher education for Deaf individuals requires not only the availability of academic content in sign language but also inclusive teaching practices, curriculum design, and support services. Institutions must be proactive in addressing communication barriers, fostering a supportive learning environment, and promoting diversity in academia.

Coming to a Hub near you?

What does your 'Hub' contribute to the deaf way of life?

What they say it is:

Deaf 'hubs' usually refer to deaf communities or centres where deaf individuals come together to socialize, communicate, and support each other. (Actually they don't, they replace deaf clubs).  These hubs are often physical locations, such as community centres or schools for the deaf, where deaf individuals can connect with others who share their experiences and language (such as sign language). They may offer various services and resources specific to the deaf community, such as sign language classes, social events, educational programs, and advocacy support. Deaf hubs serve as important spaces for deaf individuals to feel a sense of belonging and belongingness within their community.

The reality:

Deaf hubs have emerged as replacements for social clubs that have been closing down due to a lack of funding. Deaf individuals have shifted their focus towards seeking funding for cultural activities, after Local Authorities and Social Service areas, pulled funding from the deaf clubs, due to cost-cutting policies.  A Deaf 'Hub' isn't, a social deaf CLUB.  It's make up, varies via post code and validity of deaf involvement.  Such Hubs have been more successful in attracting support. They receive funds from sources like e.g. the Lottery, local government, to promote deaf culture and language, particularly British Sign Language (BSL). 

However, areas like the British Deaf Association are concerned about the lack of academic resources supporting the effectiveness of these hubs in promoting deaf culture or BSL, and with far lesser involvement by deaf people.  The increasing usage, and success of assistive devices to hear, e.g. Hearing Aids, and cochlear implantation is seriously affecting a deaf desire to use sign language, as more integration and mainstreaming takes place of deaf youth.  

As a result, hubs are primarily focusing on promoting BSL as an academic endeavour, and struggle to involve the wider deaf community, creating cultural awareness via remote. 

More able deaf, are targeting younger people and collaborating with educational institutions to serve as 'advisors'.  As are professional interpreters of deaf people, hoping to get work in educational establishments.   Neither area is able currently, to comply with teaching requirements in mainstream settings.   The reality is the BSL-using  deaf, are divorced via the promotion of their own culture and language, by non-deaf,  and the 'business' approach of areas with little links to their community.  BSL has become a saleable commodity, that doesn't need the deaf involvement.

BSL Versus Welsh GCSE?

A recent development in Wales regarding a proposed BSL GCSE program is facing delays due to a lack of teachers trained in BSL and regional sign language variations. The proposal includes two parts: basic sign language instruction and a supplementary class on deaf cultural awareness and history. However, it is unclear how such a curriculum can be implemented in Wales, given the limited recorded history of Welsh deaf culture and the prevalence of English-based sign language. Many deaf individuals in Wales are not familiar with the Welsh language or its finger-spelling alphabet, which poses challenges for aligning the BSL GCSE with Welsh cultural backgrounds. 

The preference for English over Welsh in the BSL program via bilingual approaches, has led to conflict, such as the exclusion of BSL at Welsh cultural festivals like the Eisteddfod. In essence Welsh deaf aren't taught their own native language and have not developed a stand-alone WSL.  One wonders how this sits with protecting the status of Welsh in Wales.  Additionally, concerns have been raised about the educational efficacy of the BSL program, as hearing teachers may need to conduct the classes due to a lack of trained deaf educators. There is uncertainty about whether the BSL GCSE program will come to fruition by 2027, as there are currently no teachers prepared to deliver the required content.

The news Item:   In British Sign Language, signs can vary depending on your location, similar to other languages. Variations in signs for colors, numbers, and phrases like "good morning" exist from place to place. The newly introduced BSL GCSE in Wales is delayed by a year to allow more time for understanding how regional dialects will be incorporated.

Originally planned for September 2026, the GCSE will now commence in 2027. An expert mentioned that the delay is beneficial to ensure the high quality of the qualification. Sarah Lawrence, a BSL teacher and advocate, emphasized the importance of executing the GCSE correctly. She highlighted the scarcity of qualified BSL teachers, noting the challenges related to those with teaching qualifications lacking BSL proficiency and vice versa.

Despite some in the deaf community believing that only deaf individuals should teach BSL, Sarah Lawrence disagrees, raising concerns about the feasibility of having sufficient deaf teachers. The new BSL qualification is part of broader GCSE reforms in Wales, spearheaded by Qualifications Wales. The objective is to have the qualification ready for initial teaching by September 2027, as part of the phased rollout of new Welsh-specific GCSEs.

Given that it is a novel qualification, Qualifications Wales mentioned the challenges of establishing a standardized lexicon for language and dialect differences. Wales lacks a centralized mechanism, unlike other UK nations, for developing and agreeing upon new BSL signs. Ms. Lawrence, who specializes in the Welsh regional dialect, advocates for its incorporation into the qualification, highlighting the historical association between different dialects and the locations of deaf schools, resulting in diverse signs for basic terms like colors, "people," or "cake."

NOT BSL WEEK

Pride Of Britain attacks Makaton.

Pride of Britain organisers are supporting media discrimination, and publicly supporting BSL attacks, on Makaton use, a communication support system used in special education, to support children with sensory need.

To this end BSL supporters online, have attacked Makaton users on social media, parents of children in special need schools,  Teachers Of the Deaf who utilise it, and now with help by Pride of Britain./Daily Mirror, in rejecting MAKATON's existence.  BSL areas claiming Makaton was 'cultural theft and appropriation', i.e. 'stolen' from British Sign Language, (a perceived 'language' of minority deaf areas, which to date is not used as a teaching format for young children because it hasn't been validated in schools).

The whole thing stinks frankly, with jaded pop stars and z-celebs taking part, who participate to promote themselves, using disabled and other children/adults, as a front, the penultimate in patronisation.

As it is BSL 'week' accept no alternatives apparently!  Just another example of 'language sectarianism and apartheid' from a hard-core BSL area, who are already notorious for killing online free speech on their charity, and personal sites.

It is to the Daily Mirror's shame they have gone and supported these petty and negative attacks by BSL promoters on vulnerable deaf children's options, who need every available tool we can muster to enhance their communication, no one-size fits all, certainly not an oppressive and unbending promoted system like BSL.  For shame P O B.

Deaf children come first, not BSL campaigners making  money promoting a system most deaf DON'T use, BSL.

Anything for the Deaf

 

Has the chicken lost its WITS?

ATR covered Welsh WITS issues earlier this month, in order to clarify in depth the issues of BSL Interpretation in Wales, and related issues n England also, sadly Deaf BSL areas chose to ignore it and have instead offered another platform to Cedric Moon in Wales to post the same barely accurate details yet again. It is clear, the blog owners of 'Limping Chicken' deliberately (And after reading the ATR Blog), then refused to allow ATR input to provide Welsh deaf people with a balanced view option..  

ATR, challenged Cedric's version of the issue.  Rows between WITS and freelance BSL terps are common knowledge in Wales.   WITS wants to standardise BSL support (especially in 999 areas), because freelance BSL interpretation was unreliable being primarily part-time in operation, and a significant number of freelance interpreters being unwilling due to various family commitments to be on call 24/7.   This is despite deaf clients being no different to anyone else regarding medical or police/fire help, our needs don't start at 9am of a morning then end at 3pm of an afternoon and support not needed after these hours. 999 is a 24hr system.

It is unfair of Cedric Moon or any other 'Deaf' area to then lay blame on the systems trying to sort out what they obviously cannot, or, for them to kill explanations as to why such issues exist, it is all hype and blame-oriented to promote deaf culture.

Some deaf were actually left without communication support in cells or police/NHS staff, were left having difficulties communicating.  This is the case I understand in England too with terps predominantly pleasing themselves when they are available.  Obviously, ASLI supports freelancers, but has no way to control or organise its own memberships..  There is via post-code issues, issues getting BSL interpretation, it could be rural e.g.  Or just plain and simple lack of interpreters to cover support.  This however is NOT the case in Wales.

Deaf BSL dependents are a 'captive clientele' so the random nature of BSL freelancers, can create havoc. It's about money, availability, family commitments etc.  Some can only work maybe 6-8hrs per week.  Wales, especially S Wales, is over-supported via BSL help. The Senedd moved to support deaf people long before England did, or has yet, in fact 10 YEARS before England got around to it, despite England having the most need, Wales has a very small BSL population, and no deaf schools etc, and a huge percentage of those prefer to use family, not professional BSL help, its free and easily available to deaf, and crucially available 24/7 too.

ATR suggested the BDA recognise that this drives down DEMAND for BSL interpreters, and should recommend the systems refuse to allow unqualified family/friend support.  They refused outright on rights grounds, meaning demand will just get less and less, despite deaf BSL users being at risk in unsupported legal and health systems via decision-making, or getting neutral advice etc.  In courts these deaf are unable to defend themselves, because what BSL terps that do exist, may have no legal training, in reality no Health training either in GP's or Hospitals etc.  It's a dangerous myth BSL terps doing 'he said, you said' etc is enough, and as we know, 'Deaf Awareness' OF systems is poor anyway, it needs sorting, systems suggest WITS are the way to do it.

The issue is about BSL terps in Wales losing work and a decent wage, because WITS wants to normalise that too, erm ... DOWNWARDS. Sign Health is a private endeavour too, vying for work albeit their approach is to centralise BSL access via video relay approaches, which removes the need for an actual person. In reality, the most vulnerable deaf sectors, the elderly in health areas, predominantly use own family.

To be fair WITS is at least trying to get BSL support normalised because it causes issues for the systems and for the deaf themselves, but they should have examined first, HOW BSL interpretation systems work as we do nation-wide, it is disappointing Cedric Moon who is well aware of these issues is not clarifying them.  Sadly there is a 'mind set' of Deaf BSL areas who have own agendas on everything, and don't want facts to interfere with them.  In reality 86% of Welsh deaf issues and campaigns are run from England, as was exposed to the Senedd 4 years ago where ATR identified English BDA areas posting on Welsh sites, but failing to clarify they weren't Welsh or even lived in Wales, they were attempting to suggest issues Wales didn't have..

A lot is passed off via the refusal of charities to accept devolvement retaining a 'national' approach to everything that is creating issues regionally, where decision-making is now taking place. It is also true BSL hardliners are taking advantage of the confusion.  The ASLI cannot control its own membership as regards to bad or poor support, etc, but they cannot afford to upset their membership either, the whole thing is not very sustainable.  Apart from WITS and freelance ASLI terps members, there are a many BSL terps members of neither, and unlisted, with some working for WITS and registered at the ASLI(!),

It is clear free-lance interpretation is not the way ahead for those deaf reliant on BSL, and, is is anyway killing demand for its own services because deaf users go to families who are there 24/7.  The WITS arguments are about a system of BSL fewer deaf are using, interpreter fees, and the need for a reliable 24/7 set up..

Who needs BSL?

A deaf Eastbourne boy  [LINK] has called on the Chancellor to invest in life transforming therapy

11-year-old Sam Callaghan is urging the Chancellor to make a commitment to invest in the specialist therapy which supported him to listen and speak and allowed him to have the same opportunities as his hearing peers. Sam, from Eastbourne, was diagnosed as profoundly deaf as a baby and his parents were both devastated and scared for what the future would bring.

Now Sam is flourishing at secondary school, loves science and making films, and is always talking thanks to the specialist Auditory Verbal therapy programme he attended as a young child. To mark World Hearing Day (March 3) and ahead of the UK Government’s Spring Budget (March 6) Sam is urging the Chancellor to make a commitment to invest the necessary funding, of just over £2million a year for 10 years, to ensure all deaf children under five have the opportunity to access Auditory Verbal therapy which enabled him to thrive at school and beyond. 

ATR: Which is cheap enough given the many millions the state has thrown at BSL and culture to no avail. 

Mum Joanna explained: “When we received Sam’s diagnosis we were so worried about his future. Would he make friends? How would he get on at school and develop interests in everything life has to offer? “But thanks to Auditory Verbal therapy he is absolutely flying. He is a real chatterbox and never stops talking especially about the things he loves like science and he is doing brilliantly at secondary school. We will always be so grateful for the support we had and how Auditory Verbal therapy transformed his life.”

More than 90% of deaf children who could benefit from an Auditory Verbal therapy programme are currently unable to access it and there are only 31 specialist Auditory Verbal Therapists in the whole of the UK.  This is despite research by YouGov showing that 80% of adults in the South East of England believe Auditory Verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services (ie, the NHS), while only 2% think it should be paid for privately.

Auditory Verbal therapy is a robust, evidence-based approach that supports deaf children to learn how to make sense of the sound they receive through their hearing technology (such as hearing aids or cochlear implants) so they can learn to talk like their hearing friends. Research shows that more than 80% of deaf children who attended an Auditory Verbal therapy programme for at least two years graduated with spoken language on a par with their hearing peers – this figure rose to 97% for children without additional needs.

LINK (2) 

Deaf Teacher shortages in Wales

Liam O Dell A self-proclaimed and free-lance, 'expert' on deaf issues writing about ToD shortages in Wales, (But cut and pasting data and using English statistics?) shows how poor his awareness of his chosen subject he is. He could have pointed out only a few deaf children in Wales are assessed as needing specialist support, not enough to open a class or even a deaf school for them.

Wales has no deaf schools or BSL Act either. On the whole, mainstreaming is working in Wales, The issue is not so much ToD shortages, which were inevitable, given the total closure of deaf schools in Wales and ToD simply failed to find work, as deaf children were scattered to mainstream environments, ToD retired, or gravitated to areas were deaf schools still existed. The training of ToD hasn't included how best specialist teachers can adapt their job, to manage in mainstream settings. Many of them worked in specialists school areas, where the class make up and modus of tuition was quite different,.

Deaf schools in Wales (And we suspect elsewhere in the UK), failed to equip deaf children to manage mainstream, and abuse was par for the course, parents wanted that to end, wanted their deaf child to be included and accepted etc, attend same schools as siblings, not lodge in some large house in a field, miles away from family and everyone else. From supported education to supported adulthood, there was no real drive or acceptance deaf could do much else. The last 20 years endless discourse about HOW deaf should be taught (Sign? Oral? using technologies, CI's, hearing aids etc), but getting opposition from aggressive BDA and other areas demanding a cultural/BSL curriculum and attacking ToD themselves for not supporting it, and ignoring parental preference as well.

In retrospect the switch to mainstreaming in Wales, did not ensure sufficient back up was in place when it it was decided upon, and as stated, fully ensured when the switch occurred, the teaching staff had the tools to do the job. This left deaf activism with a cause celeb to create uncertainty, and increase demands for a 'back to the future' approach based on deaf schools and sign language. It was inevitable a minor percentage of deaf children were not able to reach potential due to the random support offered or available.

The government works on percentages, the majority are doing OK, which of course is little comfort for parents who feel their child is losing out. However we should not fall into the trap of suggesting this minority is an actual MAJORITY, headlines, aren't proof. From what we read (In Wales), it is deaf children in single figures whom parents feel are losing out via a ToD shortage. Apart from wage issues and training changes not being made, ToD need regular WORK, and it may simply not be viable for them to stay in one school for one child and still make a living. Local and cash-strapped Authorities reluctant, or unable to find the money to pay the wages ToD need, or even find them. It is an expensive training to be a Teacher to the deaf, potential recruits are not being seen. Perhaps a re-assessment of need is one way forward? Less than 8 deaf children in Wales, were assessed as being unable to be educated in mainstream.

BSL usage is falling, despite claims to the contrary. The NDCS fails to identify devolvement of care and support too, as Wales, N Ireland, and Scotland, have different approaches and needs to England, and, far less ability to hire or train professional support either, also regions make OWN decisions, just as England does for its deaf. The NDCS has NOT been made aware of devolved governments, and devolved decision-making either.

The NDCS like all major 'UK' charities refused to devolve themselves, or offer devolved areas their own charitable autonomy, still campaigning on a national basis that is no longer 'national'. NO decision England makes, can force any other region to comply. It is like insisting the circumstances in the Lake District are the same as inner London. The way we read it, the parents are struggling. At the end of a very long day parents decide where their children are educated or the systems do. Obviously availability of support and the cost are the main drivers. On the whole Wales has the best system of deaf support in the entire UK, including BSL support.

Health massage for signers.

USA Deaf comedian a success

 The key apparently is not to use sign language at your hearing audience.... Deaf success in the UK is also based on this premise..  They only sign AFTER they become a success.

The Deaf Comedian.

For ATR's money the best is still Brad.....

SS 'Hearing Loss'

 "10,000 Welsh patients waiting for hearing aids"

It's essential hearing aids are issued quickly.  Going deaf costs the UK in excess of £6 Billon a year and that is just deaf support, that doesn't take into account 10m have hearing loss, or, helping 3 million with severe loss, who are refusing to wear one, because they experience ridicule from peers.  

Most of those with hearing loss suffer traumas, and many difficulties getting a job, or holding one down,  managing a social life, even accessing the 999 services, is a lottery for all except a few deaf who use sign language, estimated at 6-700, which pale into insignificance given Wales has near 3/400,000 with  hearing loss issues, who are the majority area of hearing loss NOT being supported in Wales at all, as hearing loss, is a 'loss loser' to charities who raise funds to support them, indeed many in Wales have pulled out of doing it concentrating on sign users instead.  

It is overkill, given Wales hasn't a deaf school, and very few who need specialist schooling either. It is a total and false economy to ignore hearing loss, be it in Adults, or children, as if it cannot be managed or addressed then the NHS/999 and the Senedd will have to foot the bills for their care and support as the hearing gets worse. Which they aren't even doing for the minority who have been deemed eligible for an Hearing aid.  There is an increasing pandemic of hearing loss, being hidden or obscured by technology, to make up for no hearing aid, which increase their isolation, and inability to hold down any conversation for more than a few minutes.  Those who struggle to hear properly are 10% of the Welsh population and the numbers are rising, we live in a world of noise.

The Welsh government throws much support being sign-using deaf, who now have the best deaf support in the UK, but it has been at the expense of 300,000 others, in Wales, and millions of others UK-wide, displaying, that appalling indifference, bias, and profile hunting is behind that area of Senedd support, as they ignore the majority in actual need.  Easier to address one small area of hearing loss, and hoping nobody realises there are many many more. So they blow own trumpet to deaf ears. It is no secret mainstream are fed up of charities asking them for money, and in these difficult times who has money to spare anyway.

They, and the governments need to understand ignoring it is going to cost them a lot more than a few coins in a tin, or an ad to crowd fund half a dozen people.  It is going to cost the economy and the NHS more £billions.  Basic digital hearing aids are not expensive, they can be bought for as little as £30/40, the government could afford that, given it is £100s of £1,000s a year, they are going to have to find when unaddressed loss leads to deafness.

X Marks the spot.

Oops Mr Musk.   The Tesla CEO, 52, has come under fire for a recent post where he posed a question to his 171million followers. He had started a debate about Disney online and a user replied to him with a leaked video of Karey Burke, the president of Disney's General Entertainment Content, from a company-wide meeting. 

The footage featured both subtitles and a male sign language interpreter, which seems to have really puzzled Musk. The business mogul wrote in a tweet on Tuesday: "What’s the point of sign language in a video if you have subtitles? Am I missing something?"  Indeed not much point at all if they can read.  But don't ask questions they can't answer or won't, ASL is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Don't give 'em another cause to moan about.

I'm in survey overload....

Another 'Survey' aimed at hearing parents of deaf children regarding how they 'choose' to have their child educated. We could save the Uni a lot of pointless effort, as even the NDCS has never gained a significant response to such a survey (Or indeed published any stats if they had).  The issue for areas like the NDCS is to support deaf children and their parents, they don't have a definitive policy for communication/language inclusions in deaf educational areas. Choosing such is outside their domain too.

The promoters of this survey are obviously wanting to know why parents are NOT opting for a BSL tuition.  We can only put this naivete into prospective by saying they haven't done research on how deaf educational approaches currently function.

Apart from a diminishing deaf school system and fewer deaf to fill them, there is a gross shortage of Teachers to the Deaf. Also as per the BSL GCSE teachers of BSL are NOT  qualified to teach the school curriculum, it is a separate qualification.   This would pose significant issues to those who insist such teachers should be deaf as well.   So it's 'Academic' (Sorry!), to question why parents choice A or B options.  In reality choice isn't a real option, A system whereby deaf children can be taught in BSL only doesn't exist, this issue was covered via the BSL GCSE thing, where all BSL areas involved know the tuition isn't there or the training of that tuition exists to make it viable. Least of all to include aspects of deaf 'culture' which hasn't an academic refence system to use, or teachers specifically trained to teach it.. 

ATR and others, have pointed this out day one, and only this week did the BDA (Who drive all this BSL output), admitted we were right, on their BSL SEE HEAR TV show, i.e. after 10 YEARS or bans, blocks and personal attacks.  For 10yrs they talked about it but never did their homework, or discussed practicalities of making it happen.  It's important to understand it is 90% emotive and 10% chat and not research, because the research didn't back what they proposed. ATR covered 5 research surveys the last 4 weeks, what you will find is 5% engagement at best, because nobody knows where the hearing parents are, not even the NDCS, or, how a BSL approach could work, it hasn't been tried, and parents are reluctant to have their children used as 'guinea pigs' for the advantage of BSL promotion. Online surveys are suspect as you never really can quantify who is responding.  You have to restrict response to your target area, it is easy to get around that online.

Consider, if a proportion of parents DID want their children taught via BSL.  You would propose a 'Tiered' system?  Whereby some children will be educated in BSL, (You cannot  force all parents to comply),  and others educated via what works best for them, (which is the current approach).  Do you suggest parents get overruled?  You cannot offer them choices where options to choose do not exist.  No doubt why current BSL campaigners  (The majority aren't grass roots, they are charities with  few if  any grass root membership),  are all lobbying politicians and NOT consulting parents, because they know they have no rights or authority to do that in law, so 'back door ' campaigning is way of circumventing parental choice and state mainstreaming too.  The BSL GCSE an example, but only aimed at teens and Hearing mostly.

What we see is an area who are desperate to ensure a BSL community continues, commendable in part, but we are talking about parents and their children's futures which are not any domain of deaf groups of any persuasion. We know fewer deaf are using BSL now.  The BDA stated it also. We would prefer is surveys (We get 30 a year online doing the same thing), published real data too, as currently      those who run surveys do not validate their numbers.  Asking 50 people and getting 15 responses e.g. is not sadly, going to produce the results you hope for.  I think the public are far more aware how these things operate by now.

Lies damned lies and Pipe dreams.

How the  sign user interprets own surveys.  I can but refer you to your own survey results.   As a 'social' tool sign has obvious uses and of course the choice is the users. where it fails to register is as an educational tool to access mainstream and advance deaf options. 'BSL' has next to no signs for terms compared with English, so that renders the grammar hit and miss too.  500,000 words  in the English dictionary, 2,500 in the BSL one.   A  1,000 added since 1970.    I can point you to more able deaf who have professional jobs, who have no signs for the work they do, and trying to invent their own, again based on English.  The BSL ABC by default is using English letters/words and terms.  Sign is the visual interpretation of it.

Based on colloquialisms, and formats people use together 'BSL' can become a language, it can be an advanced form or a very basic one, the only rule is a grouping uses it. If you have few signs, you have no real grammar and an impoverished language.  There is next to no signed academic resources, so it cannot be used to teach deaf on its own, so it is used to access a real language. BSL is more a 'pigeon' form of the host language, S.E. and SSE more appropriate as it is more a match, also no issue to deaf as it is a visual medium too. Given  only  point 2% of deaf have ANY historical, or genetic deaf background, you cannot apply this maxim to everyone or, 'infer' it.  It is dishonest.

I  concede it is a novelty but we are in different times to the 1950s and 1960s of the last millennium, huge advances in assisting the deaf to hear etc, fewer deaf schools and clubs, and as your survey identified fewer deaf too.  if we refer back to the 'British Association for the Deaf & Dumb' videos of the times, (The old BDA title), of the pre 1950s, then finger-spelling was the primary signing used, not 'conceptual signing' they claim  it is now, that suggests deaf are so aware, they  can fill in details of things they aren't aware of. 'Edited highlights' cover a multitude of awareness sins.

I am grateful you have admitted as I have stated for many years, the utter lies and distortions emanating from the BDA/RNID regarding who is deaf how many etc. I was somewhat puzzled you used 1970 statistics to bolster your 2024 survey point, and even European Statistics, it looked a little like desperation frankly.    I have used AI as well as own research, and little of it backs the BSL/Deaf or cultural argument. NOBODY has any idea who is what, or how they communicate, 32 times the responses I got were that the Data Protection Act will block any attempt to do that. UK charities refused to even validate or respond, claiming exemption, from what? admitting the truth?

I've spoken to my minister and told him this allows vested interests like charities/BSL classes and course operators to declare whatever statistic they want, because they KNOW you cannot check on them for that reason, you can get responses like 'YOU prove differently..' if you challenge..  This kills any sort of logical debate on the issue. The idea of a survey is to determine need basically, you don't use your survey for that, we can refer to official systems like the NHS/LA or even the DWP who clarify and support this need, some sort of bottom line has to be established, we can't all be whatever we think we are, it would be support/provision chaos.  Assessment is the way its done, we don't always know what is best for us, or, what best suits our abilities, regardless of current ridiculous claims. No magic communication bullets exist.  Other hearing loss areas believe alleviations are the way forward, e.g. Hearing aids, CI's, genetic intervention, even apps on your phone etc.

Obviously the db thing is already dumped as any guide to being deaf, because many who allude to being culturally so, aren't in clinical/profound terms.  Their figures suggest barely enough needy deaf to fill a classroom. What is 'deaf? or even Deaf?' apparently whatever you think it is, is really no basis to assessing how it is to be addressed, or managed.  Actually the DWP is the ONLY area that officially defines deaf need, or indeed how much of an issue it is. Whether we agree or not on their assumptions is for another time, as people will read into things what they want.  The census as you saw, (and quoted), reduced the 150K UK/BSL using deaf to 1/10th of that by own deaf admission, the BDA mounted a very hostile and personal  attack, when I quoted the same figures, even operated a total online ban, and I am still reading these outrageous claims are not only 'fact' but getting worse, but no validations again.  Think of  a number,  double it, who can deny it?   The D/d thing hearing haven't a clue about, so use  150K or even 10m, politicians swallow it because they have to, forgetting the sole source of the Stats are the same people lobbying them, the bigger the number etc.....   

At the root of it, is misinformation to promote BSL this way, and, to mostly to hearing people, again nobody has any idea if the Deaf themselves are fluent signers, you cannot ask or test them.  As an ex deaf club  treasurer I can tell you the level of sign capability was barely Lev 3 amidst the best of them.  The best sign users are obviously hearing people who HAVE to attain high levels to 5/6 etc.  Terps in  turn complain they spend many £1,000s to qualify, and subject to adjudgment based on regional sign use which they aren't taught, and deaf  resist a norm of the signing, regional sign versus the pressures to normalise BSL as a language.

Do I sign, yes, am I deaf? yes again, have I been involved in the community, erm obviously as a treasurer in a deaf club, they asked me, presumably because I had alternatives to BSL to communicate, it was a hindrance to them as they only used interpreters and terps, who only work the systems, not the social areas with hearing which would help deaf to manage the mainstream.  The state support for BSL goes no further than their own system access, there is no desire to support BSL to integrate on any social level, indeed it is stated Deaf signers would not go that route, the drive is to establish some sort or 'parallel' way of life.

The suggestion mainstream is going to adapt to them is never going to happen, deaf are stuck with terps until they expand their options, I acknowledge not every deaf person can do that, but most can.  It is not an 'attack' on BSL it is a statement of the reality.  The current approaches are designed to prevent the deaf integrating or being accepted as some sort of cultural protectionism, really?    It can only function in isolation and if deaf never attempt to be outgoing.  Language pursuit should be based on its access advantages, the sole advantage is to the deaf themselves, which is fine assuming they never work with or integrate with anyone hearing.  

Hence why we see clusters of these people in towns and cities, because that is the only way it can work, just be thankful you are NOT a sign user who doesn't have any access to this 'deaf world'.  Which is actually 56% of the whole. I.E. deaf sign users, this doesn't include deaf who don't rely on sign language, who outnumber signing deaf by many 100s to one, perhaps you could research how THEY succeed without sign or a culture? as indeed they had to by way of adapting to no signed access, or, they chose not to sign anyway to retain some form of independence.  It is why  Hard of Hearing resist sign use.  

One statistic you could look at is  that primarily text is the main form of communications deaf are using on phones/TV etc, NOT BSL, obviously, English and its grammar is not the issue you are making it out to be. You actually discounted any link that BSL and Inclusion are relative.   Of course it isn't if the deaf world is the only one you are part of.   There is such hostility from hard-core BSL users, completely unnecessary as the majority of deaf are the people who can show them a way of moving forward, because they HAD to.  I don't think deaf people want family or interpreter reliance all their lives, and personally I challenge the statement most do anyway, one stat from ASLI suggested 78% of all deaf didn't use them but family, family with no qualifications in BSL.

Campaigns to encourage deaf to utilise terps because of their neutrality, (especially in medical areas, because deaf were complaining hearing relatives were making decisions for them e.g.) were opposed by the BDA. I personally campaigned for a ban on family interpreting in the NHS and 999 for that reason.  I was attacked for denying deaf rights.  I think any 'awareness' you should start with your own area first....  The duality of BSL/Cultural campaigning makes your arguments weak and unsustainable, your responses aggressive and attacking.  I don't have to prove anything to you, what authority grants you this right? The law says you cannot ask if I am deaf, if I sign or if I am a member of this excusive BSL set up. I feel I have proved BSL isn't helpful to the deaf as it is currently mooted, but more a jobs for the boys gig for those that profit from them, of course they are determined the golden goose keeps laying for them, £6B a year isn't to be sniffed at......

BSL GCSE (Cymru) What survey?

 Years ago a BSL GCSE mooted in Wales, it never got off the ground, why?

The BSL survey nobody knew about until it was closed.

GCSE British Sign Language

The work on British Sign Language has taken a different timeline to other subjects as there is no history of teaching BSL as a subject and there is no current GCSE to review and reform. In order to better understand the context in which we’re working, we have undertaken considerable engagement and conducted detailed scoping work.

NOT aimed AT deaf people or BSL users?

As reported in our decisions report published in October 2021, there was strong support for developing a made-for-Wales qualification. It is worth noting that from those responses we were unable to determine whether respondents were in favour of developing a qualification for first language users or for learners, or both.

As a result of the research undertaken and conversations with stakeholders, we propose to develop a made-for-Wales GCSE aimed at learners who are learning BSL for the first time. We are proposing this because:

It will help raise the profile of BSL in Wales and enable a more inclusive society.

It will give more young people the opportunity to learn BSL. BSL has been visible on prime-time television programmes which has raised its profile generally and the visibility of positive role models potentially could lead to more people wishing to learn BSL.

It will give schools time to build capacity to deliver BSL at the higher levels of the progression steps.

It will help build a critical mass of BSL users and those who can understand BSL in the workforce of the future.

It will ensure viable numbers for awarding bodies in the medium term although initial numbers completing the GCSE may be modest.

We acknowledge that this may not be a suitable GCSE for fluent and confident users of BSL and are aware that the decision may need to be revisited in the future to offer options for learners developing their communication skills to higher levels.

We will consult on the design proposal for a new GCSE BSL following collaboration with subject experts, practitioners and other stakeholders.

Are BSL Teachers actually qualified?

A follow on to the British Deaf Association publishing a BSL teacher directory, suggesting no shortage of teachers to develop a BSL GCSE. Factually, teaching BSL in informal settings a few hours a week  doesn't actually qualify them to teach in schools via the curriculum without additional qualifications, the only 'exemption' is if the pupils are deaf etc, even then conformity to the curriculum is essential, they cannot ignore English or its grammar e.g. and NOT if the students are hearing.

The official declaration:

To teach in a mainstream school, BSL teachers generally need to meet the same qualifications and requirements as other subject teachers. This may include having a teaching degree or certification, as well as any additional qualifications specific to teaching BSL or working with students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Additionally, BSL teachers may need to adapt their teaching methods and materials to effectively teach hearing students. They may focus on teaching BSL as a foreign language, enabling hearing students to develop communication skills and cultural understanding of the deaf community. The curriculum may include sign language vocabulary and grammar, deaf culture, and communication strategies.

Alternatives to BSL.

 

Sign Supported English (SSE)

SSE is a way of speaking and signing at the same time, using BSL signs for key words while speaking English. When signing SSE, you don't need to sign every word. SSE can be useful to support lip-reading for deaf people whose first language is English, or to teach English to people whose first language is BSL. It can also be useful when communicating informally with a group of people who use both BSL and English. However, many BSL users find SSE hard to follow. 

Signed English (SE)

Signed English is an exact representation of English where a sign is used alongside every spoken word, including fingerspelling words which don't have an equivalent in BSL, such as 'to' or 'the'. SE is sometimes used in education to develop written and spoken English skills and English grammar. 

Makaton

Makaton is a communication programme which uses signs, symbols and speech to support communication. 

In Makaton, parents and professionals speak and sign or point to symbols at the same time. The signs and symbols provide visual support for the key words being said. The signs and symbols are used until the child has learned to speak and understand English.

Makaton symbols have been designed to support the written word in the same way that the signs support speech. Makaton aims to support the development of spoken and written language and literacy.