Competency-based education is gaining in popularity among the "education reformers," and it was featured in
a recent New York Times piece. The idea seems simple and logical: rather than giving credit for "seat time," students earn credit for demonstrating competency. Advocates for this type of education appears to ground the practice in the assumption that all "seat time" education is largely a waste, and that any education that does not directly affect one's ability to perform is unnecessary. While it seems very reasonable, my perception of the initiative is clouded by several experiences and questions:
1) When I was a youngster, our state had "basic competencies" and we had to demonstrate the ability to do certain "things" at various stages of out careers. I recall writing out the numbers from one to one hundred while in 8th grade (among other competencies). Even today, my response is a derisive "really... rather than learning something new, I have to prove this, rather than learning something new?"
2) I have a degree from a competency-based program (although it wasn't given that name), and it was effective for me-- a mid-career professional who was exploring the ideas of the curriculum in classrooms and as a part of the NELMS technology committee.
3) In an adjunct capacity, I evaluate work done by students enrolled in a competency-based undergraduate program.
In all of that I am come to a conclusion about competency-based education: It is a good model, but several caveats are necessary:
- Learning requires a mentor who helps the learner make sense of the field and to provide coaching and organization. This is especially true, if one is earning credit (a diploma or a degree). Such a credential is based on the assumption that one has interacted with experts in the field (not the product of subject matter experts, coaches, and evaluators) while studying, not just about the field.
- Competency can be feigned. As a teacher, I can identify with great nuance those in my class who are not competent and those who are competent; it is much more difficult when simply seeing products. When I see students' work evolve and come to know them, I can better judge their work and coach them to improve. In addition, producing a rubric-driven product or passing a test does not necessarily correlate with competence and persistence in solving real-world problems.
- Competence is difficult to feign. (Yes, this does contradict my previous statement.) When students are challenged to pass tests and create authentic products--and a real curriculum must include both over an extended period of study which requires interactions with practitioners and scholars--they develop and demonstrate competence.
As with every education reform, we can safely assume that it is not a panacea, but we can think about how competence-based education can be incorporated to make the curriculum more engaging and relevant to students. At some point in one's education career, one must assume responsibility for defining important questions, answering those questions and assessing the answer, and articulating all in a the conventions of professionals and scholars in the field. Anything less is not "education" in the sense it was used in literate cultures. (It might be job training, but it is not education.)
