teacher must know when the student has mastered it. This is a very different purpose for assessment than in Education 2.0, which is typically norm-referenced assessment, designed to identify how much a student has learned compared to other students (Gallagher, 2003). Hence, PCBE requires a different paradigm of assessment—criterion-referenced assessment—which compares student performance to a standard (or criterion). Competency-based assessment requires a completely different set of psychometrics from norm-referenced assessment, making it a truly different paradigm of assessment.
New Hampshire
“Students across New Hampshire are evaluated not on pop quizzes, but on demonstrated competency tied to teacher-driven, performance-based assessments” (Dintersmith, 2018, p. 24).
This kind of assessment must be performed on each individual competency, or learning target (see Principle C: Competency-Based Learning Targets), when the student is ready for it. This is in contrast to the current practice of a large test that covers many competencies—whether or not the student is ready for it—and students pass even if they have not mastered up to 40 percent of the competencies (Marzano, 2006, 2010). In fact, competency-based assessment does not have to be in the form of a pencil-and-paper test. Rather, it should be performance-based and follow the motto of practice until perfect— the performance on practice becomes the test (Patrick, Worthen, Frost, & Gentz, 2016; see Principle F: Instructional Support, page 29). Furthermore, it is important to assess the student’s ability to combine many smaller competencies into broader competencies, or standards. This fits the concept of badges.
Badges are an assessment and credentialing mechanism to validate learning in both formal and informal settings. Like scouting badges, they are a way of certifying mastery of a set of specific competencies. Digital badges are being used increasingly in K–12 and higher education settings.
Principle C: Competency-Based Learning Targets
To know when each student has learned the current material, the teachers have to define the content in the form of learning targets, which are more detailed than typical state and national standards (Educational Impact, n.d.). A good target is a kind of learning goal or objective that provides enough information for the teacher—and the student—to judge that the student has achieved mastery. Criteria for mastery are key. Even deep understandings and social-emotional learning can be formulated as learning targets.
People are right to caution that breaking down standards can lead to fragmentation in instruction (Wiggins, 2017), but learning by doing (principle E) places the learning targets within a holistic, meaningful context, while instructional support (principle F) allows the teacher to assess mastery in a broad range of relevant, realistic situations. This means that state standards must be broken down into learning targets that have criteria for mastery. Furthermore, there are different levels of mastery for most learning targets, and those levels constitute a proficiency scale (Marzano, 2010), which Marzano defines as “a series of related [learning targets] that culminate in the attainment of a more complex learning goal” (p. 11).
Principle D: Competency-Based Student Records
To make decisions about what a student should learn next, one must know what the student has already learned. Current student records (report cards with a single grade for each course) tell you nothing about that—they only tell you the courses the student attended and how well the student did compared to other students. What you need instead is a list of individual learning targets the student has mastered, often accompanied by a portfolio, rubric assessment, or other proof of mastery, sometimes called a digital backpack. Student records should also provide information about who the child is as a learner—interests, strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and so forth.
Technology can make this more comprehensive kind of student record easier to maintain than the norm-referenced report cards commonly used today. When students take a tutorial on a digital device while they are working on a team project, the results can be automatically entered into the record-keeping system, as is already being done by Khan Academy and many other learning management systems. Even when teachers need to observe student performance (for example, public speaking) and enter information about mastery into the record-keeping system, a handheld device with a rubric or set of criteria can ease the task of keeping detailed records of competencies mastered by each student.
Some skeptics worry that changing student records will be a problem for college admissions. However, according to Ken O’Connor, Lee Ann Jung, and Douglas Reeves (2018), “a growing number of college admissions officers find grade-point averages to be of little use (Marklein, 2013)…. Grades do not typically represent student achievement but rather an amalgam of achievement, behavior, compliance, and test-taking skill” (p. 67). Many post-secondary educational institutions have developed alternatives to the grade-point average (GPA) for deciding on admissions, due to several factors. One is the growth of the homeschooling movement, which has no GPAs. Another is the growing number of high schools, districts, and even states that have adopted competency-based report cards (see Competency-Based Report Cards for an example). Furthermore, more than a thousand accredited colleges and universities are “test optional” or otherwise de-emphasize the use of standardized tests (FairTest, 2019). Some parents feel compelled to compare their student to others. To satisfy this need, they can compare the number of competencies mastered by their student in a given period.
Competency-Based Report Cards
From 1998 to 2004, New Hampshire launched competency-based education pilots in twenty-seven high schools. In July 2005, the New Hampshire State Department of Education allowed school boards to award credit based on either seat time or demonstrations of mastery of the required course competencies. For the 2008–2009 school year and beyond, the state required local school boards to adopt policies for all students to earn high school credit by demonstrating mastery of required competencies for a course, as approved by certified school personnel. For example, at Sanborn High School in Kingston, New Hampshire, all courses use a competency-based grading and student record system. Throughout this process the department sought to respect local control.
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education, n.d., 2016.
Systemic Requirements for CBE
Chris Sturgis and Katherine Casey (2018) identify the systemic nature of competency-based education by identifying sixteen design principles for CBE in three categories:
A. Purpose and Culture
1. Center the school around a shared purpose
2. Commit to equity
3. Nurture a culture of learning and inclusivity
4. Foster the development of a growth mindset
5. Cultivate empowering and distributed leadership
B. Teaching and Learning
6. Base school design and pedagogy on learning sciences
7. Activate student agency and ownership
8. Design for the development of rigorous higher-level skills
9. Ensure responsiveness
C. Structure
10. Seek intentionality and alignment
11. Establish mechanisms to ensure consistency and reliability
12.
