{"id":6695,"date":"2015-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-10-27T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/regulatory-noise-stifles-slows-rise-of-competency-based-learning\/"},"modified":"2020-02-27T14:46:58","modified_gmt":"2020-02-27T19:46:58","slug":"regulatory-noise-stifles-slows-rise-of-competency-based-learning","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/regulatory-noise-stifles-slows-rise-of-competency-based-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"Regulatory Noise Stifles, Slows Rise of Competency-Based Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SlowEarlier this month, Inside Higher Ed<\/a> reported on how the Department of Education\u2019s Office of Inspector General is stymying the rise of competency-based learning in higher education\u2014and is at odds with the rest of the Department, which has been enthusiastic about competency-based learning\u2019s potential.<\/p>\n

The inspector general released a critical audit of how the Higher Learning Commission, a regional accreditor, considered colleges\u2019 proposals for new competency-based credentials, in particular around whether the programs being approved had \u201cregular and substantive\u201d interaction between faculty members and students in academic programs.<\/p>\n

I, along with many others, have pointed out numerous times that this particular regulation makes little sense in today\u2019s world of emerging online, competency-based programs\u2014and we should instead be moving toward outcomes-based judgments around institutions. But the friction is also entirely predictable, as competency-based education simply does not fit into the traditional value network and associated regulatory structures of higher education.<\/p>\n

Whenever a disruptive innovation emerges\u2014and online, competency-based learning deployed in the right business model<\/a>\u00a0is a disruptive innovation\u2014it doesn\u2019t look as good as existing services according to the old metrics of performance. Disruptions tend to be simpler than existing services; they start by solving undemanding problems. As a result, the sector\u2019s leading organizations often dismiss them because they don\u2019t look terribly good in comparison to the way people have traditionally thought of quality. But they also redefine the notion of what is quality and performance. As such, they don\u2019t fit neatly into existing regulatory structures and often create new ones over time. Judging them by the old regulations can also limit their innovative potential by trapping and confining them to replicate parts of the existing value propositions of the old system rather than deliver on their new value proposition.<\/p>\n

For online, competency-based programs, the old metrics are those focused on inputs. These new programs often lack breadth, generally do not do academic research, and they don\u2019t have grassy green quads and traditional libraries. Assessing them based on these criteria along with specifying their faculty members\u2019 academic credentials and course requirements doesn\u2019t make much sense, nor do one-size-fits-all regulations that govern\u2014in the particular case of the inspector general\u2019s audit\u2014how\u00a0students interact with faculty<\/a>\u00a0online, especially given that\u00a0more interaction in online courses isn\u2019t always better<\/a>\u00a0for students. Regulations\u00a0limiting the geography<\/a>\u00a0in which approved programs can serve students are counter-productive as well for a medium that knows no geographic boundaries.<\/p>\n

Because competency-based programs are emerging under the governance of existing\u2014and, from their perspective, arcane\u2014regulations around higher education in an effort to gain access to Title IV dollars in the absence of Congressional action, these challenges will continue for some time.<\/p>\n

Although innovators will ultimately figure this out and the regulations will likely then cave to the new reality, as has happened in countless other highly regulated sectors where disruption has occurred, there are risks in the years ahead of banking on this approach. First, many students could benefit today from robust competency-based programs\u2014not five years from now. And second, in a desperate attempt to fit into today\u2019s regulatory structure with less friction in order to be eligible for federal dollars, programs could twist and contort themselves and, in the process, lose the unique value propositions that competency-based learning offers\u2014much as has happened in K\u201312 education as the full-time virtual schools have twisted themselves to fit into antiquated seat-time rules.<\/p>\n

At a high level, the solutions to these problems both have challenges today. One is to stay out of the government funding streams, as some online, competency-based programs have tried but struggled to do, or to try to launch a more systematic effort at reform through a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act\u2014an effort that will not be an easy climb with the various lobbying factions that will support the existing order and thus would likely try to stifle innovation.<\/p>\n

As a result, progress for competency-based education in higher education will likely come from a combination of all these efforts\u2014but it won\u2019t be straightforward.<\/p>\n

See also:<\/p>\n