Competency-based learning has become a common term in education reform. The model is born from the notion that seat time and Carnegie units (credit hours) cannot confine elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher education when organizing how students will progress through learning. In a system of competency-based learning, a student’s ability to transfer knowledge and apply skills across content areas organizes his or her learning. Transfer means that students are able to take what they have learned (the skills and content within a course) and apply this skill and knowledge across other disciplines to solve unfamiliar problems. Students refine their skills based on the feedback they receive through formative assessment (assessment for learning) and, when they are ready, demonstrate their understanding through summative assessment (assessment of learning; Stiggins, 2005). Competency-based learning meets each learner where he or she is and allows the student to progress at his or her own speed along a developmental continuum. Chris Sturgis (2015) provides a clear and concise five-part working definition of competency-based learning:
› Students advance upon demonstrated mastery;
› Competencies include explicit, measurable, and transferable learning objectives that empower students;
› Assessment is meaningful and a positive learning experience for students;
› Students receive timely, differentiated support based on their individual learning needs; and
› Learning outcomes emphasize competencies that include application and creation of knowledge, along with the development of important skills and dispositions. (p. 8)
Organizations like the International Association for K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL; www.inacol.org/about) use Sturgis’s (2015) definition as a basis for much of their policy advocacy and learning systems transformation work. In the pages that follow, we expand on this definition and provide context for school leaders.
Students Advance Upon Demonstrated Mastery
Fred Bramante and Rose Colby (2012) write extensively about how educators should imagine a school without clocks, and think about what it would look like to move the standard measure of learning from seat time to mastery of learning objectives. Secondary schools and colleges have used time as the standard measure of learning since the American industrialist and steel mogul Andrew Carnegie first proposed the idea in the early 1900s. The Carnegie unit was introduced as a way to award academic credit based on the amount of time students spent in direct contact with a teacher or professor. The standard Carnegie unit has long since been defined as 120 hours of contact time with an instructor, an amount roughly equivalent to one hour of instruction a day, five days a week, for twenty-four weeks or 7,200 minutes of instructional time over the course of an academic year. At the time of its inception, the Carnegie unit helped bring a level of standardization that the American education system had never seen. It provided for the education model what the dollar first provided for our financial system: a common language and a common unit of measure that could be quantified, assessed, and traded (Silva, White, & Toch, 2015).
Education reformers like Bramante and Colby have challenged Carnegie’s industrialist model for measuring learning. They believe there are more effective ways to measure student learning, but it hasn’t been until the mid-2000s to present that these reformers had the opportunity to challenge the model at a systemic level through policy changes at the state level in states such as New Hampshire that have been early adopters of the model. Bramante and Colby (2012) write:
That opportunity to reimagine public education is before us today. At no other time in public education have we been so challenged by the constraints of the economy, the public outcry for changes in financing personnel and resources, and the demand for accountability through testing. (p. 2)
Bramante and Colby (2012) call for moving from a system that measures learning by the minutes a student sits in front of a teacher to one based on mastery of learning objectives. Their work challenges the organizational structure of most American schools. If schools no longer use seat time to measure student learning, how will that impact schools of the future?
Both school and education policy leaders use the following arguments to support why the Carnegie unit should not be removed from American schools. We add our own counterarguments that support the removal of the Carnegie unit to each argument as well.
▶ Argument: Without the Carnegie unit and a nationally defined and mandated curriculum, Americans will lose the level of standardization schools have to measure learning.
Counterargument: We argue that there are better ways to provide a standard measure for learning in schools. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative (www.corestandards.org) and state and local standards provide the ruler sticks for which schools could and should measure student learning.
▶ Argument: If schools remove all time requirements, they run the risk that students will advance through grade levels at a pace that exceeds their social maturity.
Counterargument: If schools use a student mastery model, then they must develop quality instruction for each of the standards and student learning objectives they will measure. Good instruction takes time; it is unlikely that a student would advance through multiple grade levels too quickly, although the notion of students moving on when ready does highlight other considerations schools must balance, which leads to the next argument.
▶ Argument: Without time as the constant, schools will move away from grade levels, which will require a whole new organizational structure in schools, impacting everything from staffing and funding to the organization of grade levels and school calendars.
Counterargument: This is a very valid point; however, rather than use it as a reason not to move forward with competency-based learning, it should be seen as the rallying point that will define a brave new world of American schools that are flexible enough to grow and adapt with students, providing them with a level of personalization and differentiation that is unparalleled in traditional school systems.
In competency-based learning schools, standards are the true measure of learning. With carefully crafted assessments tied to standards and rubrics that can measure to what degree students have mastered a concept or skill, it is possible to create a structure whereby students can advance to mastery. The simplest way to imagine this model in action is to look at successful online schools. Unbound by the organizational structures of traditional calendars, bell schedules, and staffing patterns, many online schools have developed successful competency-based “move when ready” systems. Here are two examples.
The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School (VLACS; http://vlacs.org) is the largest charter school in New Hampshire. Each year, thousands of middle and high school students enroll in VLACS programming, either as full- or part-time students looking to supplement their regular education programming. Students can register for full courses or they can complete a smaller subset of the course that pertains to a specific competency. Each module in each VLACS course aligns with specific state or national competencies, standards, and frameworks, depending on the course. Students move at their own pace through academic work. VLACS teachers, many of whom also work in traditional schools, are assigned a cohort of students to follow through their course or courses. Since online modules deliver direct instruction, the role of a VLACS teacher is very different than in a traditional school. VLACS teachers spend much of their time monitoring student progress
