Norman Ralph

This week saw thousands of teenagers across the UK get the results for the last two years of work they put into their A-Level courses. There has long been a debate about the standards required of students to attain passes in their chosen subjects which has focused on the fact that for the last 29 years more and more students have been passing with better results than in previous years. My friend Chris posted an article on his site today with his views on it and his conclusion are, that yes, exams are getting easier and the best way to handle it is to band results so that 10% get A*, 10% A etc regardless of individual results.

I feel quite strongly that students should be punished due to how well or badly they have faired compared to a completely unrelated group of people. Is it this year’s group of A-Level students’ fault if the previous 28 years worth of students did worse then they did? Absolutely not. Is there soemthing for us to worry about that the number of people passing their A-Levels has increased again? On the face of it, no. It shows that there are improvements in teaching methods, that modern teaching allows more people to do well in exam (and coursework) conditions. There are of course arguments to say that if things keep getting better then it is harder to differentiate between students and that it is impossible to differentiate between students who took their exams in different years. These are of course valid arguments. However, I think that by simply slamming the examinations as being too easy is just as bad as print media’s fascination with good looking teenage girls on results day when it comes to how we debate this matter rationally and without ruining the image of young people.

Chris’s proposed solution of a banded graded system was in fact the way that A-Levels were graded the early 1960s through to the late 1980s. With the massive rise in students staying on for A-Levels from their introduction in 1951, this system was changed for something more closely resembling the current model, i.e. where results are normalised and then graded based on specific criteria. This system has then been modified by the introduction of modular exams to combat the high drop out rate of linear courses (up to 30% in some subjects) and the realisation that the A grade was not neither norm or criteria assessed.

Essentially, my biggest argument against a banded system is one that Chris attempts to combat in his own arguments, the idea that banding prevents all students aiming for the top grades.

You could also argue that everyone deserves the change to get an A* if they achieve the required level. There are two parts to this answer, first of all, they have target just like the current system – except, instead of a specific number of marks, their target is to reach the top ten percentile, but either way they have a set, fixed target to reach. Secondly, you could argue that if everyone in the country all worked really, really hard, they should all deserve to get A*.

This is, quite frankly, a ridiculous argument. Not only is a banding not a target (how does one control their placing in a banded split?) but it doesn’t answer the underlying question of whether it should be possible for all students to attain the highest grades.

I would hope that any educational system allows for the fact that if all students who took an exam achieved 100% they would be all awarded the highest grade. This is not possible under the norm assessed system. Now I realise that this is not something that is likely to happen, which Chris also points out as an argument in favour of his system. I prefer to remain idealistic about our young people and feel that this should never be ruled out.

Chris does make some good points in his piece. He suggests that modern A-Levels are more about teaching individuals to pass exams rather than fostering an ability to pursue independent learning and developing research and critical thinking skills (although many subjects now contain modules covering these very things). I certainly experienced this style of teaching during my own A-Levels where I was regularly lambasted for asking questions beyond the scope of the syllabus and asking for proofs for concepts that outside of our required learning. This is certainly an area of concern for modern examinations. Chris also points out that it is getting harder and harder to differentiate between students. Again, this is a valid point. There should be some ability to compare one student with another. However, I feel that this comparison should only take place within any given year group. or within a few years either way (where the differences are very small, i.e. less than 1%). It is not appropriate to compare my A-Levels (nearly ten years ago) with those of today’s eighteen year olds.

This is something that is practiced, if not preached, in both the academic world and in the real world of job applications and interviews. A-Levels are a means to an end, not and end in themselves. They are used to demonstrate knowledge in a certain subject that then allows an admissions tutor or an employer to make a decision of suitability for a university place or a job. A-Levels are not, as Chris attempts to claim, a measure of intelligence and they never have been. There is certainly a link between the two, but it is not as profound as some would think. One of the best pieces of advice (although I expect it was meant as a dressing down) was from my head of sixth form. Mr Long sat me down one day and explained that A grades at A-Level were attained in one of two ways 90% application and 10% ability or 10% application and 90% ability. He went on to say that those with the 90% application were far more likely to see their A grade that those with 90% ability.

Differentiating between individuals is hard enough at the best of times, this is beyond question, but trying to do so on the basis of exam results is not always a guarantee of picking the best candidates. Their extra-curricular activities, their performance in interview and the statements of support from teachers and employers are key components of this mix too. Intelligence, learning, knowledge and performance are all different things, with different measures. We should not confuse them despite the lines between them blurring somewhat in this information age.

There isn’t a perfect system where everybody gets the grade they deserve. I didn’t get the grades my intelligence and knowledge deserved as didn’t put the effort it. I am sure there are those that didn’t get the grades they deserved despite putting the effort in because of other factors. People can only pass the exams that are put in front of them, with the support of the teaching methods provided bu their teachers and we should get off both their backs.

Yes, the system needs to be looked at. I think exams could be harder to ensure fewer people take places at university which means that a university degree is the epitome of academic achievement and not a useless piece of paper that leave 30% of graduates unemployed with inflated ideas of their career prospects. Yes, we need to make sure we are holding our education system to account for the standards they set.

However, vilifying our young people through shrieks of “easy” and “low standards” is not the way to achieve the robust education system we want to see.

It hardly seems any time at all since the AHS launched itself into the public eye at it’s press launch and convention in 2009. Next weekend, March 12th -13th, sees the AHS hold its third annual convention at Conway Hall in London.

For those that don’t know, the AHS (or to give it its full name, the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies) is a national umbrella organisation catering for non-religious societies within higher education in the UK.

The AHS has enjoyed high profile support during it’s relatively short history with patrons including author and academic Professor Richard Dawkins and journalist and writer Polly Toynbee. Dawkins said this of the AHS:

Public statements of non-belief are treated as threatening, an affront to the religious, while the reverse is not true. More concerning is the enduring assumption that religious belief does not have to earn respect like any other view, an approach that has caused politicians and public figures across the UK to withdraw from asking the vital question: why is religion given such special status in government, culture and the media? Why is belief in a higher power an indication of greater moral fortitude, character and acumen? The AHS says publicly that it isn’t; on the contrary, beliefs that are unsupported, bigoted or demand special privileges should always be challenged. No opinion should be protected from criticism simply by virtue of being religiously held.

With over thirty members covering the length and breadth of Britain and Ireland, the AHS is one of the fastest growing organisations of its ilk and the 2011 convention will be its biggest event to date.

Speaking about the convention, the British Humanist Association’s Chief Executive, Andrew Copson, who is speaking at the event said:

It is impressive to see how the AHS has grown over the last six months, more than doubling in size. It’ll be very exciting to see this reflected in the numbers that come to the AHS Convention, and I am very excited to be taking part in it.

The line up for the convention is a veritable who’s who with speakers including the philosopher, author and long-term supporter of the AHS Professor AC Grayling. Grayling spoke at the AHS’s first convention in 2009, saying:

As well as making the case for reason and science, it is great to know that the AHS will be standing up against religious privilege and discrimination. All people are entitled to their beliefs but we secularists (whether religious or humanist) are right in arguing that the state must be entirely neutral in these matters. A situation where the religious beliefs of a few may dictate the personal choices of everyone in abortion, for example, or assisted suicide is quite wrong. Yet some religious groups defend and even aim to expand their considerable privileges – public money for their “faith-based” schools, seats in the House of Lords, exemption from laws inconvenient to their prejudices. The AHS shows that increasing numbers of young people are unwilling to put up with it.

Other headliners include journalist and activist Johann Hari, comedian Robin Ince and politician Lord Warner. National Secular Society executive director Kieth Porteous Wood and the BHA Choir round off the set list.

All of the speakers are set to take to stage between 12pm and 6pm on the Saturday of the convention. Fringe events will be taking palce throughout the day, including exhibitions by a variety of local and national organisations. The day is also being broadcast live via the popular science and religion podcast The Pod Delusion.

The Sunday of the convention will be aimed primarily at the AHS’s member societies, with workshops running on sustainability, finances, debating and an awards ceremony.

AHS President, Richy Thompson, summed up the convention:

We’re very excited about this convention, which promises to far and away be the AHS’s biggest gathering yet. The line-up of speakers looks really great, and the events on the committee-centric day should help stimulate a new year of leaders for non-religious societies.

Tickets for the convention are avaialble from the BHA website for the Saturday, or both days. Tickets are priced at £6 (£3 students).

I have been involved in the atheist community for a little over four years now and I have often pondered the question on how atheists and humanists can actually convince other people that their worldview is just as fulfilling and worthwhile as any other, particularly the religious world views.

I first dabbled in an organised atheist society when I joined Leeds Atheist Society, the student society for atheists and associated free thinkers at the University of Leeds. Drawn by the prospect of heated debate and intellectual stimulation I quashed the feeling of unease that most atheists have at the back of their minds when considering any form of organisation for atheists. Within a few months I had converted to a believer in the necessity and usefulness of a society for atheists. This conversion enabled me to take on more and more responsibility within the organisation, delivering talks and lectures and after six months I was elected Secretary. This committee position meant that I now had to consider not only what I wanted from the society but how the society should develop and what it should provide for its members. This led me to first really think about the atheist brand and how best to sell the worldview that excludes a supreme being or beings, that excludes absolute morality and embraces rational, sceptical thought as its cornerstones.

The year I served as Secretary saw Leeds Atheist Society develop some tools with which to answer these questions, namely the One Life course aimed at non self-identifying atheists on how a secular world view could offer the same benefits and comfort as a religious one. The society itself also tried to start opening up its appeal to a wider audience by reducing the reliance on anti-religion themes and embracing a more educational feel to its meetings.

Whilst a lot was achieved, I felt more could be done to increase the appeal of the society to religious students as well as our traditional base, the atheists and agnostics. It was on this agenda that I ran for President in April 2008; as ever in a small society, the competition for committee places was low and I was elected unopposed to run the group.

The year I was in presidency saw a lot of changes to the attitudes and direction of the society. We introduced a second and third course, Perspective and Answers respectively. The former gave a soapbox to a different religious speaker each week to give a talk and explain their world view and then accept questions from the audience. The purpose of this course was to promote understanding of the world views that we are trying to compete with. The course was a resounding success and really helped develop our image on campus. Answers was a course designed to develop the debating and speaking skills of our members so that they had the ability to discuss their own world view with a sound understanding of what it was they actually believed.

The whole year had a very education theme to it, with many talks and debates on important moral and ethical issues as well as trying to define exactly what it meant to hold an atheist world view.

Through my work with Leeds Atheist Society, I got involved with setting up the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) and ended up serving as its president for seven unforgettable months. The AHS raised many questions around the idea of selling the atheist world view. One of our main aims was to promote and facilitate the formation of new societies across the UK.

Alongside the formal involvement with the atheist community which fired by interest in the idea of developing the atheist brand, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of other people that have also had a passion for the question. My friend and colleague at Leeds Atheist Society and the AHS, Chris Worfolk, is a keen believer in the idea of spreading the atheist and particularly the humanist world view through charitable work and direct action. Chris, through his foundation, has set up and continues to be heavily involved with the Humanist Action Group, Leeds Skeptics as well as serving as president of the Leeds Atheist Society whilst a student and sitting as a trustee of the AHS since his graduation. His article in the inaugural edition of Secular Future (the AHS’s quarterly newsletter) was the spark that ignited my desire to document my grappling with this topic.

Chris believes that the only way to develop the atheist and humanist brand is to compete directly with the religious brands. That means offering the rewards that can be found by being involved with those ideas. Humanist Action Group offers a range of charitable activities with its current focus being on feeding the homeless of Leeds and offering community services such as graffiti removal. Leeds Skeptics provides an environment for sceptical discussion and a number of social opportunities too.

Richard Parker, medical doctor and co-founder of Humanist Action Group, is another friend and colleague that believes quite strongly in community action to help sell the atheist and humanist world views. Richard considers that one of the best ways to build the brand is to make an impact on both the practical and political fronts. Richard’s has long considered how he can make the difference by being involved with local and national government.

Whilst community action and involvement are clearly practical ways to offer the physical rewards that religious charity offers its followers I am left feeling that there needs to be more effort made to compete with the spiritual and emotional needs of adherents to a secular world view.

Religion offers a number of benefits that atheists cannot compete with; eternal life, salvation, love, forgiveness, security and absolute truth being a few examples. Whilst academically an atheist or humanist can refute the philosophy of the examples, they cannot offer an alternative. It is no good for an atheist to say they eternal life is a fiction and that absolute truth is a myth if they cannot offer a suitable alternative. In many ways, belief in these ideals is like an addiction. The believers are unwilling to cold turkey; they do not want to just give up their warm, fuzzy feelings of comfort and easy answers. They need an alternative, they need something to help wean them off a religious world view that, most surveys say, their adherence to is cursory and towards the atheist or humanist one.

Many atheists will not agree with that conclusion as they feel that an atheist’s role is not to convert people to “atheism” and on the whole I agree with them. The issue here is that I am not advocating conversion but merely the recognition by the majority that their apparent world view does not actually explain how they see the world.

The biggest question of all is what can we use to replace those emotional and spiritual crutches outlined above? My gut instinct is the same now as it was during my time as officer of the Leeds Atheist Society, education. Educating people about what atheists thing and believe, what it means to be a humanist, how a life as a non-believer is richer and more rewarding that the alternative.

I would urge fellow atheists and humanists to accept this challenge and start teaching people what it is you believe, not what you don’t believe!