Jul 11

The Legacy of Lady Warnock

The short straw

We were deep in the bowels of Parliament and in the distance there was a small woman slowly making her way closer to us. She slightly hunched as if the weight of Parliament rested on her shoulders but her face was light and at ease. Her hair was bravely short and still moved in the howling gales that travelled the tunnels.

She introduced herself as Mary Warnock, a Lady of the House of Lords, a philosopher, a wife of the late Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, and author of the 1978 Warnock report.

If you are like me and born in the 1970s, you may remember that the 1980s began the period of mainstreaming, where a deaf child is placed in a classroom with non-deaf children without support (1981 Education Act: integration policy). When we learn, later in life, that the then Baroness Warnock wrote a report that introduced mainstream education; you can’t help feeling resentment.

“Margaret Thatcher didn’t like me at all,” she remarked with disguised pride. She was indeed a philosopher and knew her mind. But then she described her heroes, “Winifred Tumin was an inspiration and it made believe what deaf children could achieve. She was an excellent role model.”  The fact that she didn’t need to address all of these people with ‘Lady’ in front of the names was a reminder of where I was and who I was talking too. But she was approachable and inquisitive, she sped through her questions until we reached a comfortable dialogue.

“I went to a school in Wales that taught English and Welsh at the same time, the children were dreadfully confused. I never really took to bilingual education and never supported it.” I felt a twinge that made me want to respond but she wasn’t talking about education of deaf children, but a bilingual school for Welsh non-deaf children. So I moved the discussion to the importance of BSL and English in all deaf children’s lives, a point she agreed with.

The Warnock report was primarily about needs and matching an education to the needs of the child. “Even a child with a severe disability deserves an education. I met a child who learnt the desire for choice, for a radio to be further away or close by, or preference of one menu over another. Learning that one can have a choice is an education; it might not be the National Curriculum but it is what that child needs.”

But it went wrong. The implementation of the Warnock report mistakenly made the assessor of needs, the author of the child’s statement, also the budget holder. The assessment no longer became about real needs, but about budgets. She plainly wrote her criticism in an open letter. Children were being pushed into a budget appropriate educational system that was unsuitable for the child. The system should have made it easier for parents to ensure their child receives the best education, in fact became a source of frustration. Parents regularly sat in court rooms: sometimes to an extent that it was normal for a parent to attend a tribunal 30 times during the course of the child’s education.

That day, Michael Gove released a report that sought to challenge this discrepency. After 30 years of struggles to give the child the education they require, one can imagine how parents will be feeling. Their reaction was to create an ‘informed choice‘ policy.

If you talk to the leading organisations representing parents and teachers of the deaf in the UK, you will be familiar with ‘informed choice’. There is a continuous ongoing dialogue between them to protect the interest of the parents and challenge the autocracy of the budget holder. ‘Informed choice’ has served its purpose and now parents have, or will have, a greater say in the educational decisions of their child. But this policy creates another hurdle.

Informed choice is designed to meet the needs of the parents, or that of the family, and the needs of the child is tailored towards that need. But one forgets that a child does indeed turn into older children, into teenagers and, eventually, into young adults. In the period of transition from childhood to adulthood, the young person begins to make their own decisions. But without a choice made available to them initially, there isn’t a decision to make.

The report that Lady Warnock first intended has now come to its fruition. A child will be assessed to their needs and an education will be fit for purpose. The 30 tribunal hearings per child per 18 years must become a thing of the past; parents should be spending their time and money being parents. But Mary is also a protector of children, “I am a parent and I will make decisions as a parent, but my children may have a very different view to me. I don’t think parents should always have the ultimate decision.” I realise her legacy is yet over. I remember her mantra, “every child deserves an education, even to make the most basic choices.” It includes the choice to have deaf friends, to speak and/or sign, to have Deaf role models, have a relationship with the Deaf community and/or with their non-deaf family.

Every child deserves the right to experience everything the world has to offer, so when the time is right, they can lead their own future. Because that is an ‘informed choice’.



Jul 11

Kim’s Game and the Kinaesthetic Thinker

real/image

“Deaf people are people of the eye.”

“Deaf people see things differently.”

“Deaf people can see more.”

The experiment on peripheral vision was used as an indicator that Deaf people better utilised their sight compared to non-deaf people. I am still left scratching my head. You know why? My peripheral vision is just rubbish. Rather than denounce the whole idea, I find myself wanted to understand it better.

I find myself pondering about Neil Flemming and the VAK model (later VARK). Flemming identified three types of thinkers: visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. He later added ‘reading’ for people who think in ‘text’. While people can think differently, they also learn different. So the VAK model can influence teaching and learning practice, ie. to operate in the visual, auditory or kinaesthetic domain. You can find a lot of evidence in the English language, such as: I see what you mean, I hear what you are saying, and I get the gist of what you mean. Essentially, they all mean the same thing but expressed in different ways, depending on how one thinks. Depending on which characteristics one exhibits, you can observe if a person is a visual thinker, or not.

Are Deaf people visual thinkers? It would involve someone who can think in pictures or film. Someone who can recall images again in their minds. They can create images of how things will look before they are made. They are the observers, the people who sit in the street-side cafes and watch the world go by, and they catch the smallest details. They can abstract ideas from what is seen. They can interpret reality into something that can be perceived different to invoke a reaction, like impressionism and cubism.

I find it difficult to imagine that all Deaf people are visual thinkers. I remember an exercise I used as a trainer, regular, over a period of 8 years. It was called Kim’s Game. 30 different everyday objects are placed on a table in another room. A group of four people are instructed that they will see around 30 objects on a table and, as a team, remember as many objects as they can. They are not allowed to communicate whilst in the room and objects can only be viewed for 30 seconds. The group would organise themselves to look at different parts of the table and work together to remember as many as they can.

I do not recall that Deaf people were better at this ‘game’ than non-deaf people. In fact their scores are very similar. If Deaf people were truly visual thinkers, they should excel in this test. But they don’t. Why don’t they?

There is another type of thinker that might be an alternative option: the kinaesthetic thinker. It is where a person operates in the feeling domain. The thinker is more tactile, using movement and touch to express their feelings. Kinaesthetic thinkers express through doing, touching, feeling, moving.

When you think of a Deaf person expressing their ideas through their movement, you realise that signed languages are very well equipped to do this. The changes in rhythm, tempo or temperature can change how the same sign is expressed and its meaning. Our signed language poetry has it in abundance. The movements are collected into abstract ideas by the way of signs. Classic examples include classifiers and placements that create rules to bring the real or imagined space into the hands (or topographical space).

I would expect all people to be able to think in the visual, auditory or kinaesthetic modes but one will be adopted more favourably. Here is a simple idea that will help you to decide if you are a visual or kinaesthetic thinker. You are asked to describe a room in your house that you know well. Try to recall the room in as much detail as you can. When you have finished, think about what you have just said and decide whether you described the room as an observer looking at a picture or a film, in the observer position, or were you in the picture or film and moving about in the room referring to the things as they are laid out in front of you?

If you are the observer, then you are operating in the visual mode but if you are in the room, then you are operating in the kinaesthetic mode.

The idea of ‘kinaesthetic people’ reminds me of a previous blog I wrote on ‘sensorimotor’ stages of cognitive development (Piaget). The act of moving, sensing, feeling, emoting the space they are in. The movement can be real (moving in space) or abstracted (signing in topographical space). This coincides with ideas that signed languages are less iconic than we think, the sign for bird may look iconic to us as signed language users but they are not iconic to non-signed language users. Therefore, signed languages are an abstracted representation of what is real.

I am left thinking about a piece of poetry by Dot Miles. She used her hands to describe a tree by a lake in the sun; one hand to represent the tree and another to represent the reflection of the tree on the lake. But then she moved, her eyes switched from the observer of her creation to actually being there, looking at the tree and admiring the reflection in the rising sun. It was a classic Miles moment when she is there, feeling, emoting and living in her creations. She wasn’t creating pictures for you to see, she was creating worlds for you to sit in and feel, right in the palm of her hands.

Photo by Max Sparber


Jul 11

The Thought Experiment

My brain

When most of us imagine an experiment, we imagine people dressed in white coats with subjects succumbing to their will. In reality, these tests are done under careful scrutiny and has a lengthy ethical review process. But there is a different type of experiment that doesn’t require subjects, it is a thought experiment.

One of the most famous thought experiments is Schrödinger’s Cat. It described a cat locked inside a metal box attached to a decaying atom. If the atom decayed, it would trigger a canister of hydrochloric acid to be released inside the box and the fumes would kill the cat. Because the decaying of the atom has a 50:50 chance that it could decay, or not; the state of atomic flux would also place the cat in the same flux. Hence, inside the box, the cat was both alive and dead at the same time. This is a scientific definition of a paradox.

If you get the experiment, great, but if you don’t, not to worry. The point is that the concept of paradox can be defined. A thought experiment creates an undeniable proof that does not need to be put into practice. Nobody wants to force a cat inside a metal box, neither should it happen. So, it stays as a thought experiment.

In my thought experiment, I want to give a group of people 100 gold coins. This group is going shopping. They can not buy anything, they can only purchase items from a given list that I have supplied. The only rule is that each person must be genuine and buy something that they will want/use.

The group must be a mixture of deaf and hearing people. In fact, the diversity of the group will come under four categories:

  • A hearing person who only uses English.
  • A deaf person who only uses English.
  • A deaf person who only uses BSL.
  • A deaf person fluent in both BSL and English.
So each person will have 100 gold coins to buy as much of the following they wish. Every item they invest in is worth 10 gold coins each. There are two lists to choose from:
  • The entire works of Shakespeare.
  • The music of Beethoven on CDs.
  • Tickets to see the Swan Lake ballet.
  • A guided tour around a national museum.
  • A visit to the opera:  Mozart’s last concerto.
  • An invitation to the national Monarch or President’s meet and greet event.
And this list as well:
  • Tickets for the Deaf cruise, sailing through the Caribbean with 2000 Deaf people on the ship.
  • Full video collection of sign language poems, such as Clayton Valli or Dot Miles.
  • Entry to an event hosted by Signmark, a Deaf rapper.
  • A day in the Deaf historical archives.
  • A night out in the International Deaf Club.
  • A Volunteer OverSeas trip to build a school for Deaf children.

You may have guessed that the former list represents what is known as culture with a capital ‘C’, or otherwise known as ‘higher culture’. The latter represents that cultural activities that would be of value to members of the Deaf community. One would assume that all items on the list are accessible to all people, therefore interpreter and captioning services would be available; the question is whether these four people would be interested to invest money in them.

The results could look something like this:

  • A hearing person who only uses English. [100 gold coins spent]
  • A deaf person who only uses English. [30 gold coins spent]
  • A deaf person who only uses BSL. [70 gold coins spent]
  • A deaf person fluent in both BSL and English. [100 gold coins spent]

The more one spends on the two lists, the more they are able to operate within the cultural norms of the worlds we live in (Deaf or non-deaf). The higher access and interest in these cultural items results with a person who has a higher level of cultural capital. Hence, a more culturally competent individual would be more successful financially and be more connected.

Bilingual Deaf people and a non-deaf person will always be able to spend the most, they will be the most culturally adept. At the other end of the scale, the deaf person who uses English as their only means of communication has so little cultural resources available to them. They feel on the ‘rim’ of both communities, or both worlds. Hence, they are least likely to be culturally mobilised, less socially connected and with lower economic power. The move to ‘normalise’ deaf people by offering resources to use their residual hearing as a route to equality is essentially flawed. It leaves a person who is not able to function in either Deaf or non-deaf worlds because they do not have the cultural resources available to them.

There is nothing paradoxical about this thought experiment but one can not escape that fact that the ‘normalisation agenda’ is a route to further segregation and exclusion; opposite to current thinking on ‘inclusion’. Like a cat in metal boxes sitting in a persistant state of flux: they are deaf-cum-hearing people but, at this point in time, neither of the two. The medical/educational agendas are creating social paradox, they are placing deaf people in a state of flux. This thought experiment has suddenly become very real.

A photograph of my brain from 3 angles.


Jul 11

Raising the Deaf Flag

Deaf flag image

There are many symbols that have been used in our day and age that provide a symbolic representation of an identity. A flag is only one of them. There are also salutes, oaths, statues, symbolic shapes (crosses and stars), handshakes/nose rubs, badges, dances, costumes, hair styles, headwear, books, jewellery and more. All have been utilised by countries, political groups, religions and interest groups.

I must congratulate the Swedish Deaf Association for investing their time and energy in creating a flag, as shown at the start of this blog. It has a series of blue strips to represent that five continents in different shades of blue, the colour of the World Federation of the Deaf. WFD is having their congress in Durban, South Africa, just this week.

It has been called for WFD to approve the flag, and this should be welcomed. But it should not be the flag of WFD, it already has its own symbol that is internationally recognised. This is the flag that should represent the pluralism of Deaf communities that could be used and distributed by anyone.

As a Gay man, the rainbow flag is a potent symbol because wherever I see the colours, I know that place welcomes me. It ranges from a painted symbol across the top of a building or a small badge in the shop window. It is a symbols that tells me, ‘this place is safe from persecution.’ Maybe ‘persecution’ is a strong word but when you arrive in a public place and you are welcomed in signed language, it is an enormous sigh of reassurance. A place devoid of judgement and hostility. You feel safe.

Do we need a flag? Oh yes. But is this the flag? I am not too sure. It is unsymmetrical and too many shades of the same colour. It is not noticeable from afar and too loyal to the international colours. It needs to be a flag of the people and not of the UN.

What is delightful is that this flag comes far away from the symbols of slashes: a slash through the ear or a slash through the word ‘loss’. Nobody wants to see a symbol that says ‘can’t', instead of ‘can’. A Deaf flag needs to free people from the chains of assumed inability or the past and give people the freedom to create their own futures. Symbols are potent in keeping communities together and creating places for the Deaf community to nurture their capital.

Image is not a true representation of the flag but an imitation for the purpose of this blog.


Jul 11

Deaf Capital Thermometer: July 2011

What is going hot and cold in the Deaf village? Here is a thermometer of events cooling down or heating up Deaf capital.

15-7-2011