Atomisation Quantified

An atomised curriculum would work differently. Atoms are the smallest pieces of knowledge and are therefore either achieved or not yet achieved. This means that success is measured in the number of atoms achieved rather than in whether large blocks have been "passed".

The atoms can be mapped to qualifications as a short-hand, but each atom is a qualification in its own right. Success is therefore nearly guaranteed. The measure then becomes the number of atoms achieved. A teacher, school, college or university which achieves a higher number of atoms per learner is providing more knowledge than one with a lower average. The first and crude measure becomes the average number of atoms achieved per learner.

We now hit a problem. Someone may have acquired a large number of atoms, but that does not make them, say, a medical doctor. The general qualifications still have a place at the higher levels, therefore the numbers passing these qualifications still matter.

At a lower level, we want our pupils to be able to read, write and do arithmetic. These could be formed into, say, Junior Qualifications, graded bands of qualifications in specific subjects. The lowest bands could be, say, colour-coded; white then yellow, then ... and so on up. Someone could be red for reading, blue for arithmetic, yellow for history and GCSE C in Turkish, for example. However, instead of taking each of these at a specific date, they are achieved when all the atoms for that qualification have been achieved, the certificate just pops through the door. The government could still set specific targets in, say, English, mathematics and IT. It could also demand a specific number of atoms for each age group. Monitoring these would just be a case of these statistics being analysed rather than costly inspections. This would relieve cost and stress, drive up the quantity of knowledge and bring down a number of empires (who would fight long and hard against such proposals).

A qualification gained in this way would be completely gained. You would not have to achieve a percentage of the knowledge, but all of it to get the qualification. An employer or course tutor who sees such a qualification will know that the applicant has achieved all of the atoms. They will also know which other atoms (such as name writing in hieroglyphics or growing water-cress from seed) have been acquired, giving a far more rounded view of the status of the person in front of them.

If a computer system knows the atoms that map to a qualification then it is just a matter of making both the teacher and learner aware of the atoms that are missing to gain that piece of paper. Let's call these missing atoms for a qualification "holes". Obviously, there are no holes in qualifications that have been achieved in this way, but there would be under the SATs, GCSE, A'Level and degree systems because you do not have to achieve all the learning to pass.

But could these qualifications be restructured? Could we have a system in which the atoms for each level of a qualification were defined? For example, if you achieve this list of atoms you get a grade G GCSE in subject X. If you then add these atoms it goes up to an F. Add another list and you achieve an E and so on. In this way, students would be pulled up through the grades rather than needing to be pushed. There would always be the next, close goal to motivate the student. This is the same principle as used in computer games, where you motivate the player by offering higher levels if certain goals are achieved. There are 85 levels on the popular on-line game World of Warcraft.

The content of the atoms can be covered at home, in the car, on the top of the 37 bus to Clapham, on a beach or even ... in a classroom. They do not have to be covered in classroom hours, instead, they can be covered over breakfast, whilst the news is on or in the breaks in the Jeremy Kyle Show. Knowledge acquisition can happen anywhere and at any time, not just in the way we see conventional education. This makes the concept of "lateness" redundant. This means that one axis of the original chart has vanished.

The problem now becomes the rate of atom acquisition. Given that an atom is one item of knowledge and that atoms can be built upon other atoms, one might theorise that the rate of atom acquisition would rise as the person gets older. It would peak until the individual starts full time employment and then start to drop again as the use of the atoms becomes more important than their acquisition. That would give a curve like this:-

However, this leaves out one of the likely major advantages of atomisation. Knowledge acquisition is primarily pull rather than push and so the individual is much more likely to want knowledge for its own sake. Hobbies might well replace official learning and these could be accredited in the same way, allowing the person to build an individual portfolio of talents. We would be back to the flat curve again.

If an individual were to perform at 100% of their capabilities competence any handicaps to knowledge acquisition then the line would be set at their level of competence. Let's call that level C for an individual, i.e. the number of atoms that that person is capable of achieving in a year. nC would be the number of atoms of knowledge acquired over a life time of n years. ΣnC would then be the number of atoms acquired by the population.

If the actual average level of achievement for an individual was c (i.e. taking all the factors which dampen acquisition into account) then their actual life time acquisition of knowledge would be nc and that for the population would be Σnc. The difference between ΣnC and Σnc would be the lost potential in society. The purpose of any educational system would be to minimise this difference. Each lost atom would be a loss to the individual, to society and to the economic well-being of that society.

The preceding discussion makes the process sound absolute, which it cannot be. Individuals are just that - individuals. Sickness, teenage angst, personal issues will all cause fluctuations in the theoretical flat line, i.e. differences between nC and nc (which we could call δc). These factors will temporary affect δc. Of far greater importance will be enthusiasm someone has for learning and that will be affected by those that teach them. A good teacher will enthuse and inspire. Their charges will want to achieve because they want to achieve. These students will acquire more knowledge than those of similar ability who have a less enthusiastic and inspiring teacher. The Σδc's for each group will be different.

However, there is still the issue of ensuring a core curriculum. At primary school and at university the students are set tasks - projects - to complete. This mimics what happens in later life where a street cleaner will be set the task of clearing their patch and the surgeon the task of repairing the damage. Yet, at secondary school we stop this in favour of forcing everyone through the same hoops at the same time. The intellectual overcrowding in the hoop then slows down learning which then comes as a surprise - we claim that education is broken because we made it break! What a shock.

Instead, a set of graded projects could be set. Each project would contain the atoms of a level of core curriculum, thus ensuring a minimum level of education in areas such as the 3R's and IT, say. However, there could also be complementary projects allowing a broadening of the curriculum into areas of interest to the student (e.g. pirates would cover art, geography, history, politics, biology, English, arithmetic, etc. without ever mentioning these names - and, yes, we do have grandsons!). You could imagine a project on fairies which looks at photography, art, literature, folklore, etc.). Using the imagination of children to engage them in education is more likely to get them to their maximum potential than forcing them through a curriculum.

The classroom activities would require each pupil to complete the atoms in their own way. I might choose to start here and you over there. You might complete that project faster than me and be on to the next one. The teacher would be the facilitator and recorder of achievement rather than the arbiter of all. The teacher would have to be much more flexible and be able to set and monitor targets for each one. Which brings me back the the Oliver Twist twist ("Please Sir, I've done some more!"). A pupil may be set the target of achieving a particular atom by a particular time, but come back with that and three extra ones which are not in the curriculum. The current system would pat the learner on the head, make some patronising noises around "well done" and then pop the extra in the bin as they leave. Under this system the atoms would be logged and are already in place when the appropriate project appears.

All of this would have an interesting impact on timetables - both for staff and students. Classes would not be in particular topics, there would be no schemes of work or lesson plans. The project would describe the content to be covered (the equivalent of the scheme of work) and the lesson plan would be the one-to-one marking of work, the answering of individual and the monitoring of progress.

The academic year would not be relevant since each would start where they left off. You could imagine a system where education becomes much more like work, where the customer has a contract for goods to be supplied, but is not bothered which employee delivers the goods. Classes could be year-round (maximising room usage) and holidays for both the customer and employees could be booked with the usual restrictions. No break longer than, say, three weeks and not at times when too many others also want to go. This would make the concept of an academic year redundant too.

Atomisation Quantified (8th Apr 2012)