{"id":3463,"date":"2015-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-08-19T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/a-reflection-on-the-field-of-competency-education\/"},"modified":"2020-12-22T14:20:42","modified_gmt":"2020-12-22T19:20:42","slug":"a-reflection-on-the-field-of-competency-education","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/a-reflection-on-the-field-of-competency-education\/","title":{"rendered":"A Reflection on the Field of Competency Education"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Graph\"Each summer, CompetencyWorks takes a bit of time to reflect on where we have come from, accomplishments, and emerging issues. Our advisory board<\/a> is absolutely instrumental in this process, helping us to understand nuances and variations across states.<\/p>\n

Below are the highlights of our discussion this year. It\u2019s long, but I think sharing in detail is worth it, especially as each week people contact us seeking help in understanding the field. Please, please, please \u2013 we would love to hear your insights and understanding of where we have come from and what we need to think about in terms of advancing competency education. It\u2019s the richness of multiple perspectives that allow us to be as strategic as possible.<\/p>\n

I. How Are We Doing in Terms of Expansion?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

When we wrote the first scan of the field in 2010<\/a>, there were only pockets of innovation across the country, each operating in isolation. Five years later, eighteen states<\/a> are actively pursuing competency education through a range of strategies including proficiency-based diplomas (ME, NH, CO, AZ), integrating competency education into the education code (VT, NH), innovation zones (KY, WI, CT), pilots (OR, IA, OH, ID), and task forces in partnership with districts (SC, WY, OK, HI, DE). <\/em>Federal policymakers are now familiar with competency-based education in the K12 and higher education sector, with ESEA policy discussions considered pilots for new systems of assessments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Districts are converting to competency education across the country, with or without state policy enabling the change. In addition to the northern New England states, which have strong state policy initiatives, districts are converting in AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, MI, and SC.<\/p>\n

New school models are developing that push beyond the traditional organization of school to high levels of personalization, including those at Summit Public Schools<\/a>, Building 21<\/a>, Virtual Learning Academy Charter School<\/a>, Boston Day and Evening Academy<\/a>, Making Community Connections Charter School<\/a>, EPIC North<\/a>, and Bronx Arena<\/a>. Schools for the Future<\/a> has recently announced record-breaking results in its first year of operation.<\/p>\n

Some people think the rate of expansion is too slow. Personally, I think we need to really \u201cget it right\u201d \u2013 robust competency-based structures, high levels of personalization so our most historically underserved populations of students are thriving, upgraded instruction and assessment aligned to higher levels of knowledge, and effective use of online learning \u2013 before we worry about the speed of expansion. Let\u2019s practice what we preach. We are in the midst of huge learning as we deconstruct the traditional system and put into place a more vibrant, personalized system, and it may take us a bit of time. It took us well over 200 years to create the traditional system, and its rituals are deeply rooted into our own personal lives. I don\u2019t think it is a problem if it takes us a few more years to get it right.<\/p>\n

The Results from our Early Adopters: <\/strong>The early adopters are now three to four years into implementation (with the exception of Chugach School District<\/a>, which has been using a competency-based model for nearly two decades). Many have developed the systemic framework within a traditional agrarian, course-based model, which means that at first glance, it appears there is little innovation\u2026until one looks deeper to see the benefits of greater personalization, student agency\/voice\/choice, consistency of proficiency scales across the school, and greater responsiveness to students who are struggling.<\/p>\n

The primary concern is that we have little to report out as results yet. This appears to be the result of one or more causes, varying across schools, including:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. implications of roll-out strategies;<\/li>\n
  2. limitations of state accountability exams to determine growth;<\/li>\n
  3. limited improvements in instruction, possibly related to continuing to use relatively traditional schedule;<\/li>\n
  4. inadequate attention to habits of learning to support student agency;<\/li>\n
  5. failure to embrace a framework for depth of knowledge and\/or inadequate calibration;<\/li>\n
  6. inadequate attention to the needs of traditionally under-served students and\/or difficulty in creating opportunity for more supports\/time for learning;<\/li>\n
  7. humility \u2013 many of our leaders are professional learners, slow to claim success as they themselves are not fully satisfied that their schools are fully competency-based yet; and<\/li>\n
  8. lack of funding for evaluation, co-designed with practitioners, including formative evaluation that would help identify the underlying issues.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Here is the list we\u2019ve been able to pull together of results<\/a>\u2026so far.<\/p>\n

    Early Majority: <\/strong>In states that have set the expectation that all districts will be competency-based, we are now seeing the early majority begin the conversion process. The primary concern here is that they perceive competency education as a technical reform (scroll down mid-way in the post How Competent Are We at Competency Education<\/a> for further discussion) that begins with the second stage of implementation, designing the infrastructure of learning<\/a>, before investing in the ramping up<\/a> stage that replaces the values and beliefs of the traditional system with those of a culture of learning and empowerment. Thus, the implementation challenges are likely to be greater and may also induce opposition from students and parents. However, given that the last four years have developed a number of teachers and principals who are familiar with competency education, we are now seeing the knowledge being transferred as people move up career ladders. This may mitigate the problems that will develop with a technical implementation of CBE.<\/p>\n

    Moving From B to C (i.e., Blended to Competency-Based)<\/strong>: There is interest among a handful of districts that have invested heavily in establishing a strong digital infrastructure and increased personalization through blended learning to now integrate a competency-based infrastructure. This raises new opportunities and is likely to have a somewhat different implementation process. It will also likely push the vendors to consider greater transparency and design to ensure that the learning taking place online naturally leads to students demonstrating higher levels of learning and performance assessments.<\/p>\n

    II.\u00a0<\/span>How Are We Doing in Developing, Disseminating, and Transferring Knowledge?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \"Building<\/a>When we began in 2001, there was one book and one paper describing competency education. There are now at least thirty-three reports and the CompetencyWorks website and wiki<\/a> to support policymakers and educators. Certainly there are still gaps (student agency and habits of learning, advancing beyond grade level, systems of assessments, etc.) and emerging issues raised by the field (granularity, inter-school and inter-district calibration, deeper looks at grading, information management systems, and structure of the instruction and assessment model).<\/p>\n

    It is likely that other types of media or approaches would be helpful, including video, interactive reports that al\"Building<\/a>low for deeper dives, and MOOCs. There is also a growing demand for greater attention to the broader systemic issues, engaging leaders in identifying and describing the type of infrastructure that needs to be in place in states.<\/p>\n

    The biggest challenge we have is that we continue to have limited technical assistance. As demand grows, districts are seeking networks and providers that can help them in advancing toward competency education. However, given that we haven\u2019t seen significant achievement results yet, it is possible that technical assistance providers themselves may not know exactly what is needed to ensure that traditionally underserved students fully benefit from competency education. This once again highlights the importance of investing in evaluation that is co-designed with practitioners. In addition, developing a practitioner-informed set of promising practices or indicators for high quality implementation could be very helpful.<\/p>\n

    A last observation \u2013 right now the only place for innovators to meet each other, network, and share knowledge is at through the competency education strand at the iNACOL Symposium and through regional meetings of the Great Schools Partnership<\/a> and New England Secondary School Consortium<\/a>. There have been some efforts to create networks, but they are often invite-only which is frustrating for all the other districts that want access to knowledge. Thus, it may be time to think more strategically about whether more opportunity for networking and formal transfer of knowledge is needed.<\/p>\n

    III.\u00a0How Are We Doing as a Field?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The number of organizations that have invested in developing their knowledge about competency education, created staff capacity, and established initiatives has continued to grow. Our estimate is that there are thirty-plus organizations playing catalytic roles in the field with an understanding of competency education as a structural change, not just as flexible pacing. Although confusion continues about the difference between flexible pacing in online learning and competency education, the leading organizations all understand the competency education is a structural change that enables greater responsiveness by schools to student needs, not just pacing.<\/p>\n

    There is now adequate capacity to support states in policy development and shaping initiatives. Certainly, more support is always welcome, but in terms of where foundation resources are directed, the greater need is to address the insufficient technical assistance support.<\/p>\n

    To date, the organizations in the field of competency education have been willing to share freely, support each other\u2019s work, and seek out feedback from others. However, in the past six months we have been starting to hear \u201cnegatudes\u201d about competency education itself (such as \u201cthe quality of implementation is mediocre\u201d) and harsh critiques about other organizations in the field. It\u2019s likely some of this is from the field becoming more crowded\u2026and more competitive for foundation funding. However, we also believe that just as competency education requires a different style of leadership at the state and district levels, field organizations need to be able to operate with a stronger culture of learning as compared to judging. In addition, this emphasis on creating cultures of learning and greater professionalism of teachers is also changing how we think of expertise. Those that have deep expertise in narrow areas are going to be challenged to think about issues in much broader contexts than ever before. In other words, silo\u2019d knowledge has only limited value as we embed educational knowledge in districts and schools. As a short-run strategy, we think it may be helpful to the field to have greater coordination so we can continue to seek out where there are gaps rather than have organizations competing for the same \u201cturf.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The greatest weakness currently in the field is the lack of diversity and attention to traditionally underserved students. At a time in which America is revisiting race, racism, and race relations, the field of competency education and the other \u201cnext gen\u201d fields are demonstrating that in general we do not know how to develop or sustain diverse organizations \u2013 and thus are at risk of reproducing inequity ourselves.<\/p>\n

    IV.\u00a0<\/span>What Are the Current Issues Going Forward?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Although the list of current issues that require more clarity or are emerging is long, we have highlighted a few that we believe are crucial to moving forward:<\/p>\n