{"id":16258,"date":"2022-11-23T08:04:53","date_gmt":"2022-11-23T13:04:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/?post_type=cw_post&p=16258"},"modified":"2022-11-23T08:08:20","modified_gmt":"2022-11-23T13:08:20","slug":"personalized-competency-based-learning-can-and-should-replace-tracking-heres-why","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/personalized-competency-based-learning-can-and-should-replace-tracking-heres-why\/","title":{"rendered":"Personalized, Competency-Based Learning Can and Should Replace Tracking \u2013 Here\u2019s Why"},"content":{"rendered":"
This post originally appeared at <\/span><\/i>KnowledgeWorks<\/span><\/i><\/a> on November 16, 2021. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n The only way to undo racism is to consistently identify it and describe it \u2013 and then dismantle it.<\/span><\/p>\n -Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (2019)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There\u2019s an essential truth we want more folks in education to recognize: tracking\u2014the widespread practice of labeling, ranking, sorting and separating students, our children, by perceived academic ability and behavioral compliance\u2014is bad, really bad. Its origins are racist and its current renditions in our schools perpetuate oppression and produce harm. The impact of tracking is particularly bad for students already facing multiple forms of injustice in and outside our schools. The data proving this fact are everywhere. <\/span>That\u2019s why we argued that when it comes to tracking, it\u2019s inaccurate to say inequity is a symptom; it\u2019s not really even an outcome.<\/span><\/a> With tracking, inequity is a principle of design. The system is working as intended. That\u2019s why we need to dismantle it.<\/strong><\/p>\n Once folks begin to face this fact, they inevitably confront the difficult realization that if we\u2019re to dismantle all the systems, policies, procedures, and practices that compose tracking\u2019s infrastructure, we\u2019ll need to replace it with something else. That something needs to be a learning infrastructure ready to scale, ready to re-shape instruction and assessment, ready to shift mindsets, ready to inspire educators and students and parents and communities to rebuild learning environments so they prioritize belonging, growth, agency, self-efficacy, autonomy, and cultural responsiveness.<\/span><\/p>\n Fortunately, that replacement infrastructure already exists.<\/span><\/p>\n Those who lead and work within our schools often find it daunting to extricate themselves from traditional ways of \u201cdoing school\u201d in part because many directly benefitted from those designs and because compelling alternatives to those approaches have yet to be presented. Many educators, leaders and parents cannot conceive of a school design that departs from separate and accelerated opportunities for \u201cgifted\u201d students, and isolated and remediated instruction for \u201cstruggling\u201d learners. Needing to see it to believe it, some folks are reticent to abandon their cultural and professional training until they can be shown an alternative that offers more gain than loss. Even the most well-intentioned folks can be leery of accepting new ways of operating if they get stuck in old assumptions and problematic practices. We get that. Systemic change is hard. And changing beliefs can be even harder. But once we honestly and critically face what tracking is and what it does, we can\u2019t ignore that we must do things differently and push through the reticence toward brighter horizons.<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the good news: Those who have deeply investigated and implemented personalized, competency-based learning typically recognize that the rationale for tracking\u2014and the practices and policies on which it depends\u2014is soon stripped of its legitimacy. Once folks see how to keep students together socially and individualize instructional activities to build on the unique needs, assets, and contributions each student possesses, tracking just doesn\u2019t make sense anymore. It\u2019s really this simple: schools don\u2019t need to track once the logics and systemic practices of personalized, competency-based learning are established.<\/span><\/p>\n Want evidence for this? Twenty years ago, Oakes (1992) named three core challenges faced by those who sought to de-track schools:<\/span><\/p>\n Building on Oakes\u2019 observation, <\/span>Gamoran notes<\/span><\/a> that most of the emphasis in de-tracking scholarship and strategies has been \u201con the normative and political challenges, reasoning that if these challenges could be surmounted, the technical difficulties could be easily overcome.\u201d He notes, however, that evidence to the contrary has accumulated.<\/span><\/p>\n [F]ailure to solve the technical problems of mixed-ability teaching is a major impediment to addressing the normative and political challenges. While the technical challenges have defied easy solution, recent work has identified conditions under which effective teaching in mixed-ability contexts may be more successful than in the past.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n For this reason and a bunch more, personalized, competency-based learning is ideally suited to become tracking\u2019s replacement infrastructure and thereby function as an equity catalyst. And because tracking is inherently racist, this personalized, competency-based learning replacement, particularly when applied with a racial equity lens, can function also as an anti-racist strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n Below we lay out a series of 13 comparisons to demonstrate how tracking can and should be replaced with personalized, competency-based learning. We consider this a starter list since there is likely a host of other comparisons and features likely worth surfacing\u2014we hope you\u2019ll <\/span>reach out<\/span><\/a> if you think of refinements and additions.<\/span><\/p>\n Download a printer-friendly PDF<\/a> of the information below and share it with an educator, administrator, parent\/guardian, community leader, student, district official, and\/or policymaker.<\/span><\/p>\nPersonalized, competency-based learning replaces tracking<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
We believe personalized, competency-based learning supplies necessary technical solutions to allow reformers to tackle both normative and political challenges. We also believe that if we do so we will be establishing the conditions for the achievement of equity.<\/span><\/h3>\n
Ways tracking can and should be replaced by personalized, competency-based learning<\/span><\/h2>\n