We’re a bit odd in the UK. Really.

Sometimes touted as one of the more secular of countries, we often lapse into woolly-minded relativistic thinking of the Terry Eagleton variety. And that’s fine, up to a point. I mean, if you’re not hurting anyone, who are we to cause a fuss?

But say you hurt someone because of it. What if your over-arching, bend-over-backwards-accommodation led to damage?

Would it be the preserve of a secular society, an indisputable right?

Especially if it concerns children.

No, not in that way.

A foundation of an enlightened, peaceful society is education. And as educators (as I’m sure some of you are) we are in a privileged, but often daunting position of responsibility. Too often we are seen as a repository of facts – as if we all carry around a swot-list of inerrant information, and conveyance of these facts is of paramount importance.

Thus, if children don’t learn the facts, has education failed them?

And then cultural relativists come along, and accuse educators (and scientists, and many others) of ignoring the multitude of subtle, nuanced discussions going on in the world – there is no objective truth etc. etc.

And that would be fine (sort of), if it weren’t a massive straw man. Education can best be seen using the scientific method as the basis.

We have facts. Facts are observed and collated, from which we can construct theories.

Theories are then tested – if they fail, they are revised.

And this may be ok for science – but what about, say, literature?

Well, as discussed with friends last night, take ‘King Lear’. [spoiler alert]

Would Gloucester's blinding be seen best as a Freudian castration? Or would a more poetic interpretation - less anachronistic, more relevant to Shakespeare’s time and canon - such as a catalyst to open his eyes to his situation, be the more appropriate reading?
[above paragraph was edited 1/10/09 for factual accuracy - John]

Literary criticism can discuss these ideas – even though there is no ‘objective’ reading, there are more sensible readings. Essentially, Occam’s Razor can shave off the more anachronistic interpretations.

And that’s what education should achieve. I’ve been fortunate – I’ve had a good education, with passionate instructors who served as positive role models. I’m now in a position to help carry that on, and I take the responsibility seriously.

We need to teach people to think critically – an encyclopaedic knowledge of the world is fine for University Challenge, but of no use if you can’t filter out the relevant portions and make logical inferences.

Take science – some science (heck, most science) is counter-intuitive when seen as a totality. Evolution seems pretty bizarre – but makes perfect rational sense when seen as a series of small, non-random steps (i.e. micro-evolution & speciation are just small steps in the long walk of macro-evolution, if you will).

It’s the understanding of the method, the ability to filter out all the junk pseudo-science, and the humility to understand the difference between rational confidence and arrogance, that are the true differences between a Ben Goldacre, and a Jenny McCarthy.

And this is not about a difference in intelligence – not by a long shot. It’s all down to application – which true education should allow.

So, enough pre-amble. The reason I’m writing is because of a rather scary curriculum that my colleague Jonny Scaramanga has brought to the attention of the UK press, with the most thorough article thus far being the original Times TES article.

Excitingly, both Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers have supported by writing about it, and Twitter is ABLAZE with re-tweeting.

Jonny’s written a letter to NARIC which has formed the basis of the Times Educational Supplement article, and which he’s graciously given me permission to reprint here [bold emphasis added]:

NARIC recently found that International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) qualifications are broadly comparable to those offered by Cambridge International Examinations (CIE). As a university lecturer and former student of ICCE’s curriculum, I have a number of concerns about this.

ICCE uses the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum. This has major academic flaws of which you may not be aware.

Learning and assessment methodologies

Studies of ACE criticise its emphasis on rote learning at the expense of higher-order cognitive skills.1 Tests predominantly consist of multiple choice, matching, or fill-in-the-blanks. These means only test factual recall, not understanding. Furthermore, options on the multiple choice tests are often meaningless, e.g., “Jesus died on the___ (cross, toss, chrome).”2This cannot be compared to CIE, which makes use of essay writing and long-answer exam questions as assessment for skills such as understanding, analysis, and critical thinking.

The summative assessment of a CIE course tests a student’s learning over a long period of study, typically a year. By contrast, ACE students are tested after each PACE (Packet of Accelerated Christian Education), which typically takes two weeks. Combined with the emphasis on factual recall, this method of assessment promotes student “cramming” and the use of short-term memory, at the expense of retention.

Science

The ACE curriculum includes no practical science and accordingly no investigation. CIE syllabus assessment objectives for chemistry, biology, and physics all specify that a student should learn to construct hypotheses.3 ACE is a workbook-based system, so it cannot fulfil these objectives. This would be troublesome for any ACE student embarking on a science higher education course.

“The PACEs are based on the reading comprehension mode of learning… There is no room within this method of learning for the negotiation of topics, for whole class problem solving, for the generation of ideas, for the formulating and testing of hypotheses, discussion of results and social application.”4

ACE science teaches Creationism. Leaving aside whether Creationism is true, ACE’s approach is unscientific because it does not test theories against rival theories in accepted ways.5 Rather than weighing evidence objectively, the ACE system rejects any science that contradicts the Bible, as this Year 9 Science PACE shows:

“True science will never contradict the Bible because God created both the universe and Scripture…If a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, then the theory is wrong and must be discarded.”6

The system also takes an intellectually dishonest approach to discrediting evolution. PACE 1107 (1996), for example, claims evolutionists use the “hopeful monster” theory to save the “sinking ship” of evolution. In fact, this theory was put forward by one scientist, Richard Goldschmidt, whose ideas were dismissed by his colleagues. Another PACE claims that the Loch Ness Monster exists and is proof of a young earth.7

Elsewhere, PACEs ridicule the theory of evolution: “No branch of true science would make these kind of impossible claims without proof. Because evolutionists do not want to believe the only alternative – that the universe was created by God – they declare evolution is a fact and believe its impossible claims without any scientific proof!”8 They also claim that Creationism has “unquestionable proofs” and “unarguable evidences,”9 both deeply unscientific claims.

Racial insensitivity

The ACE curriculum “shows a degree of insensitivity towards blacks, Jews, and natives.”10 Users of the system have observed that some cartoons contained within the PACEs appear to depict racially segregated classrooms.11 The syllabus has also included controversial racial statements. Prideaux and Speck (1993) state that, after consulting with Aboriginal Studies Officers and the Education Department of South Australia, they found ACE materials about Aborigines were unacceptable to the Aboriginal people. ACE’s stance on apartheid is also of concern:

“If apartheid were done away with, the twenty million Blacks, who are not taxpayers, would be given the privilege of voting. Within a short period of time they would control the government and the means of taxation. ‘The power to tax is the power to destroy.’ …Some people want to abolish apartheid immediately. That action would certainly alter the situation in South Africa, but would not improve it.”12

“Although apartheid appears to allow the unfair treatment of blacks, the system has worked well in South Africa…Although white businessmen and developers are guilty of some unfair treatment of blacks, they turned South Africa into a modern industrialized nation, which the poor, uneducated blacks couldn’t have accomplished in several more decades. If more blacks were suddenly given control of the nation, its economy and business, as Mandela wished, they could have destroyed what they have waited and worked so hard for.”13

Political bias

ACE materials do not allow the consideration of any opposing point of view. This goes against the skills required by degree-level study of forming an argument, considering different opinions, and analysing the validity of claims. Rather than engaging with differing points of view, ACE derides them. The ACE approach to politics borders on propaganda, with opinions presented as fact.14 An ACE booklet (1987) claims that God’s values are those of right-wing politics. The further left a person moves on the political spectrum, the further they move from God’s absolutes.

“The substance of truth, ideals, and absolutes is on the right. Evil does not have substance: it is a departure from, and absence of the substance of, good. The left is the farthest extreme from that basic substance…Men on the left cannot walk in wisdom.”

In a further departure from the CIE syllabus, ACE promotes coverage over depth. World History, from Creation to the present, is covered in a series of 12 PACEs, each of about 40 pages. Inevitably, there is little analysis. The CIE syllabus for history at both ‘A’ and ‘O’ Level, by contrast, studies specific areas of history in depth.15 An ACE student arriving at university will have learned (and forgotten) many facts, but will not have engaged with the material. Because all the answers are contained within the PACE, the student will also not have learned how to conduct research.

ICCE’s defenders will point out that there are now modules available aimed at addressing some of these issues. These modules are not compulsory, nor are they offered at all ICCE schools. In any case, ACE would make up the majority of an ICCE student’s educational experience.

For these reasons, and numerous others, it is my belief that ICCE is an inadequate preparation for higher education or employment in British society. It should be noted that ICCE is operated by many independent schools and homeschoolers in the UK. In spite of this, it is not recognised by the National Database of Accepted Qualifications, nor is it awarded UCAS points. I hope that UK NARIC’s endorsement of ICCE will be reconsidered in light of this evidence. I look forward to hearing your response, and would be happy to discuss this further.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Scaramanga, BA (hons)

Lecturer at Bristol Institute of Modern Music, in association with Bath Spa University.

1 I have attached an appendix that deals with this comprehensively, since it is prohibitively long to include in the body of this letter. I am aware that some of my sources date back to the mid-80s. It should be noted, however, that the ACE syllabus has changed very little in this time. In her 2005 Marshall University Masters’ thesis, Lisa Kelley noted that the 3rdedition PACEs, introduced in 1980, were still being used.
2Cited in Prideaux and Speck (1993), “Fundamentalist Education and Creation Science” Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1993, pg. 286.

32009 ‘A’ Level syllabus for Chemistry, Biology, and Physics from www.cie.org.uk. Accessed 25/7/09.

4Prideaux and Speck (1993), 290-291.

5Prideaux and Speck (1993), 288. Additionally, in a 2005 ruling on the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones said, “After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” ID stands for Intelligent Design, of which he said, “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” The relevant parts of the decision can be read online at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4... (accessed 27/7/09)

6 Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. (1996) Science 1096 Physical Science, pg. 9

7 Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. (1995) Biology 1099, pg. 30

8 Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. (1996) Biology 1107, pg. 24.

9 Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. (1994) Science 1096, pg. 31.

10Alberta Department of Education 1985, “A Review of Selected Private Schools Curriculums”.

11 An example can be seen in Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. (1998) The Five Laws of Learning, Part 1, page 15. See also Klaszus, Jeremy (2009) “God, Gays, and Government” http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/viewpoint/god-gays-and-gove... accessed 25/7/09, and http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,7041,page=4, accessed 25/7/09.

12 Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. (1990), Social Studies PACE 1086, pg. 29.

13 Quoted in Dent, David, “A Mixed Message in Black Schools”, New York Times Education Supplement, 4/4/93, pg. 28.

14Elkins, Hope. (1992). “A description of Apostolic schools in Indiana.” Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Cited in Kelley, Lisa (2005). See also Moser and Mueller (1980) cited in Prideaux and Speck (1993).

15CIE history syllabus downloaded from www.cie.org.uk, 25/7/09.

What is hoped for, is a raising of the level of discourse – we need to let people, parents, students and teachers know that this sort of uncritical, non-educative brainwashing is happening. Especially this form of racist, homophobic, anti-science, anti-questioning husk of ‘education’.

It’s currently a one-way conversation (cheers, Mr. ”Education, Education, Education”), and we need to change that right now.

Faith is one thing, but this is a gross misuse of the freedoms of private religious belief, and into the indoctrination of young, enquiring minds.

Remember, it’s not so much about the conclusions reached – but about the method used to reach them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This post is an updated version of this article that originally appeared on The Cavalcade of Whimsy. I deemed it a relevant post, despite the articles appearing in July, given Martin's personal article on the same topic. As for all the cultural relativism talk, it's highly appropriate given the Archbishop Williams attacking Reason, and promoting Faith Schools in a recent lecture.