Research Digest

This study explored the implementation efforts of three NH districts that have adopted CBE. The authors identified conceptual clarity (of CBE reform) as a long-standing and important issue. To mitigate problems, competencies need to have clear, transparent, measurable objectives that define the content, skills, and dispositions. Although the curricular content did not change substantially, grading tended to be challenging (confusing, messy, unclear) for everyone. To be successful, teachers needed sufficient time to transition to CBE approaches. As part of that process, roles shifted. Teachers become designers, facilitators, coaches, and mentors (striving to develop intrinsic motivation in students) and students learned to take more responsibility in their learning. There were some challenges with reassessment and recovery assessment practices (such as grade inflation with some students ‘gaming’ the system), causing a concern that competency-based grading could worsen achievement gaps if this was not addressed.

Source:
Scheopner Torres, A., Brett, J., Cox, J., & Greller, S. (2018, April-June). Competency education implementation: Examining the influences of contextual forces in three New Hampshire secondary schools. AERA Open 4 (2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418782883

This study explored school principals’ perspectives on barriers and resources associated with implementing CBE. The authors observed that a general benefit to CBE was its flexibility. They also indicated the major impetus behind CBE reform was to ensure that necessary knowledge and skills were achieved and reduce achievement gaps.
Four high-leverage barriers were identified:

1. addressing buy-in/acceptance among key stakeholders,

2. providing time for teachers to collaborate and work together,

3. changing traditional school structures and policies such as those related to scheduling and intervention/enrichment blocks, and

4. providing opportunities for teachers to receive training and professional development on how to implement CBE (p. 11).

Lastly, shifting grading and reporting to competency-based practices was also identified as a difficult challenge to overcome.

In addition to providing adequate staffing and support, school structure (#3), time (#2), & training (#4) were also identified as high-leverage facilitators (if addressed strategically for CBE implementation.

Source
Evans, C. M., & DeMitchell T. A. (2018) Mapping out the terrain: Northeast principals’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to implementing a K-12 competency-based education (Policy Brief #18-02). Durham, NH. University of New Hampshire, Education Department, Division of Educational Studies.

Jones’ dissertation explored teachers’ perspectives on PBE implementation at two Vermont high schools. He found that teachers were generally agreeable to the philosophy of PBE, and willing to work towards implementation. The teachers tended to adopt it in a hybridized way as a form of “pedagogical triage” via selective implementation. Teachers incorporated district proficiencies, incorporated formative assessments, and allowed students to reassess, but were hesitant about moving away from traditional grading practices and incorporating transferrable skills. Although they didn’t reference school/district sponsored documents as being useful support, they described their own “artifacts of implementation” (e.g., UbD & KUD variations) to map curriculum. Instructional coaches and colleagues were noted as important sources for guidance/advice. Thus, schools are also recommended to identify in-house experts to aid in PBE implementation. The school administrators generally took the stance of capacity building to improve rather than a strict management position. It is also important for administrators to have a solid grasp of the policy they are adopting before they enforce its adoption. Lastly, given the complexity of grading, it is recommended to put this on hold until other aspects of PBE are developed first.

Source
Jones, A. (2019). Implementing proficiency-based education in Vermont high schools: How administrators support teacher sensemaking of education reform. Graduate College Dissertations and Theses 1030. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/1030

The implementation of a standards-based grading (SBG) system has proven to be difficult even in school districts that tend to be progressive in their educational approaches. Parents are often resistant to change in grading systems and seem to be a significant barrier to a school’s move to SBG. Researchers in this qualitative study went directly to the parents who most vocally and vehemently opposed the new assessment system and sought to understand their perceptions. Data from these interviews produced five themes: 1) confidence in the known, 2) dislike for the unknown, c) poor communication leading to disappointment, d) confusion from lack of clarity, and e) frustration due to perceived outcomes. Data from this study indicate that school leaders ought to consider reframing grading reform and better align it with Dweck’s growth-mindset model and create a process that is less about enticing students in the currency of grades and more about helping students’ learning dispositions that would facilitate success in college and career. Further, in addition to vigilant communication, school leaders need to plan high quality professional development to clarify and refine the purpose of grading and align practices with that purpose.

Source

Frankin, A., Buckmiller, T., & Kruse, J. (2016). Vocal and vehement: Understanding parents’ aversion to standards-based grading. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(11) 19-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4ill.19

This article explains the importance of schools utilizing effective assessments to drive curriculum, improve teaching practices, and obtain accurate data. Many schools are moving away from traditional letter grades and are transitioning to standards-based grading (SBG). Standards-based grading (also referred to as standards-referenced grading and proficiency-based grading) is a philosophy of grading that separates learning goals and work habits. SBG works by providing evaluation of student learning while moving away from assigning letter grades. Some challenges to adopting a SBG approach include grade inflation, teachers needing to determine the most important standards to assess (and reassess), effectively utilizing student information systems, and lack of information and resources for parents to understand SBG.

The article then discusses dynamics for successfully implementing SBG (all of which require teacher feedback and administrative support). It is important to consider teachers’ perceptions about grading. It is also important for schools to consider parent reactions about grading by provide resources, information, and communication about SBG during all parts of the transition. Lastly, it is important to have school leaders engage in SBG leadership practices that review research and literature on implementation to develop a good understanding for how it works.

Source

Townsley, & Buckmiller, T. (2020). Losing As and Fs: What works for schools implementing standards-based grading? Educational Considerations, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2204

This study examined why schools (districts) transitioned from traditional systems to competency-based systems, the challenges and benefits experienced by the schools making the transition, and the characteristics needed by school leaders to shift these foundational educational practices. The study (involving 39, K-12 administrators from across the U.S.) used a quantitative approach (i.e., survey & correlational data) to explore administrators' perspectives on transition. The findings suggest superintendents promoted transition from a traditional approach to a competency-based approach for three reasons. First, schools were struggling to meet the needs of their students. Second, student achievement was low. Finally, educators realized they must prepare students for their own future, not the future educators were prepared for when they were students.

An examination of schools/districts that had transitioned to CBE identified 3 reasons: 1) to better meet students’ needs, 2) to improve achievement, and 3) to prepare students for their futures.

Source

Steinhoff, K., Curtin, S., Jong, D. D., Chesnut, S., & Steiner, C. J. (2022). Transitioning  from a traditional educational model to a competency-based educational model: Lessons learned from administrators. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 18(4), p. 21. ISSN: 1931-6569

Bishop et al. (2020) define personalized learning as “an approach that encourages partnership between students and teachers in the design of learning that emerges from students’ interests, questions, needs, and preferences to foster self-directed learning” (p. 313). Although previous studies of personalized learning on student outcomes identify numerous shortcomings, considerable variation exists in definitions, outcome measures, alignment, and implementation at the classroom and school levels. This study investigates instructional roles and strategies of elementary and middle school teachers for implementing a personalized approach. Teachers’ roles shifted away from authoritarians to become "empowerers" (let students to lead, make choices, work at their own pace, & collaborate/learn from one another), "scouts" (uncover student interests, align curriculum, curate materials, & identify other [human] resources [e.g., mentors]), "scaffolders" (structure, model, question, & fade), and "assessors" (distinguish between assessment & evaluation, provide formative assessment, & identify targets/scales). Thus, implementing a personalized learning environment involves more than adopting new teaching practices, and requires the development of new teacher roles.

Source

Bishop, P. A., Downes, J. M., Netcoh, S., Farber, K., DeMink-Carthew, J., Brown, T., Mark, R. (2020). ​​Teacher roles in personalized learning environments. Elementary School Journal, 121(2), p. 311-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/711079 

Guskey describes how many seasoned teachers introduced innovative grading reforms to mitigate educational challenges brought about by the pandemic; however, they met strong resistance from proponents of long-held grading traditions and were forced to resume former practices. Reflecting on those failures, Guskey suggests grading reforms should be transparent, address grading priorities in order, articulate “why” before “what”, and address anticipated opposition. Regarding transparency, he suggests grading reforms fail because district leaders try to revise grading before establishing transparency in the grading process. Clarity and transparency in all elements of the teaching and learning process establishes a common foundation for all stakeholders and clarifies how students master articulated learning goals. Furthermore, grades should not be conflated with nonachievement factors (such as compliance with homework policies, punctuality with turning in assignments, and class engagement). Next, addressing critical teaching and learning elements in order is important. Identify what is most important for students to learn and be able to do followed by instruction, assessment, and lastly grading. Then articulate the “why” behind the grading reform before describing the “what”. Lastly, it is important to anticipate where one might encounter opposition to grading reform and address “directly with patience, practice, and resolve”. 

Source
Guskey, T. R. (2021). Learning from failures: Lessons from unsuccessful grading reform initiatives. NASSP Bulletin, 105(3), 192-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211029375

As CBE-related reforms have gained traction, there has been considerable interest and legislation designed to promote these reforms. Flexible pacing (as a means for providing students with opportunities to “accelerate learning”) is an important feature to CBE; however, previous research suggests flexible pacing is not frequently observed in practice. The authors explored this problem and found that although teachers understood the specific needs of their students, many did not provide opportunities for flexible pacing. When used, it was more often used for remediation (i.e., catching up) than for acceleration (i.e., moving ahead). “The division of time and space, or the creation of school schedules or siloed classrooms, is a core component of (conventional education)” (p. 21).

Elementary classrooms tended to afford more opportunities for flexible pacing; implementation becomes much more complicated in middle and secondary classrooms. The conventional school model suggests schools are organized around time (and schedules); scripted curricula exacerbate this tendency. Teaching the same course as a colleague provided more opportunities for flexible pacing. Difficulty defining proficiency makes implementing flexible pacing more difficult. The researchers conclude that traditional practices are not inherently favorable or unfavorable to implementing flexible pacing, but that it depends on how conventional practices are carried out and those impacts on collaboration and altering student pacing. Administrators should closely consider the alignment between the curricula and the districts’ instructional goals. Districts should consider curricula that do not operate by rigid pacing. Additionally, districts should select curricula that promote more student-centered work. Districts need to provide professional development opportunities to support teachers’ use of flexible pacing.

Source
Sutherland, D., Strunk, K., Nagel, J., & Kilbride, T. (2022). Boxed in: Structural limitations to flexible pacing in Michigan competency-based education pilot districts. Journal of Educational Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09466-2

This study explores New Hampshire middle school and high school teachers’ beliefs around CBE (related to concerns and usage). They found districts with the more advanced CBE implementation had more transformed practices and were able to persist with less administrative support, while districts with superficial levels of implementation did not experience as many positive outcomes. Also, districts that offered more support tended to have more widespread impacts. More specifically, the teachers indicated that although adopting a CBE system was messy, they were not interested in returning to the traditional system. Straddling traditional and CBE approaches was a common practice although it tended to produce an undesirable lack of investment. An early implementation district maintained traditional practices and reported wanting to know more before being willing to commit to CBE. From a pedagogical perspective, some teachers simply regarded CBE as good teaching involving personalized learning. The teachers assessed that CBE helped to reduce ‘grade polluting’ scores (e.g., behavior & extra credit). This corresponded with students tending to feel less anxious, although adoption required a paradigm shift as perspectives on the thinking/learning process changed.

Source
Rogers, A. P. (2021). Exploring secondary teachers’ perspectives on implementing competency-based education. Competency-Based Education, 6(4), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1265

Standards-based assessments have been prescribed as the cure for the poor accountability of public schools resulting in billions of dollars being spent on curricula, tests, and scoring rubrics that enable federal and state agencies to assess student achievement. Over the past twenty years, standards-based education has become the accepted method for addressing questions of quality in American public education - no other paradigm is on the horizon. Despite its widespread acceptance, the standards-based solution has serious iatrogenic consequences. This article examines the following five negative side effects: 1) propagation of a fixed curriculum; 2) de-emphasis on individualization; 3) subversion of the teacher; 4) focus on measurable outcomes; and 5) development of an expensive, expansive bureaucracy unrelated to instruction. The authors argue that, while standards-based education may address problems associated with accountability, the corresponding iatrogenic consequences have reducedindividualization andnegatively impacted the sanctity of the classroom with bureaucratic intrusion. 

Source

Baines, L. A. & Stanley, G. K. (2006). The ​iatrogenic consequences of standards-based education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(3), p. 119-123. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.79.3.119-123 

This study investigates the impact of a proficiency-based learning (PBL) experience on preservice teacher perspectives on PBL, assessment, and grading. The findings reveal several important advantages (increased focus on learning rather than grades, improved clarity and accuracy of assessment process, emphasis on growth and revision, and opportunities for personalization) and disadvantages (unfamiliarity with PBL created a steep learning curve for schools, teachers, & preservice teachers, perceived increased workload for teachers, and concerns regarding work ethic, leniency, & rewards) of PBL from the student perspective and demonstrate that experiencing PBL can impact preservice teachers’ perspectives on assessment and grading. The vast majority of preservice teachers who experienced PBL reported a deeper appreciation for the importance of assessment, with many sharing expanded understandings of what qualifies as assessment, the value of formative assessment, and the benefits of assessment for students. Preservice teacher responses also reveal some problematic assumptions and beliefs about assessment and grading that are at odds with the principles of PBL, some of which persisted even after experiencing PBL (in their teacher training programs). The authors draw on these findings to offer implications for research and preservice teacher education. 

Source

DeMink-Carthew, J., Smith, C. P., Tinkler, A. S., & Tinkler, B. (Fall 2021). The impact of experiencing proficiency-based learning (PBL) on preservice teacher perspectives on PBL, assessment, and grading. Teacher Education Quarterly. 52-77. 

 

Competency-based education has received increased attention in recent years as an education approach to aid students in graduating from high school with the knowledge and skills necessary for college and/or their careers. In CBE, students must demonstrate mastery of course content to be promoted to the next class, rather than spending a required number of hours in a class and meeting minimum course requirements to earn course credit. The approach helps guarantee that students attain competency in course content, with students allowed to take as much or as little time as they need to achieve such competency. Many states, including those in the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Central Region (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming), have revised or are considering revising their policies to align more with CBE and other innovative education practices (National Governors Association, 2012). Education leaders in the REL Central Region are interested in learning about policies that affect implementation of CBE by understanding policies already in place in their state and learning about the policies of states further ahead in implementation. To help meet this need, this report summarizes the laws and regulations of the seven states in the REL Central Region , as well as the policies of five states outside the region identified as being advanced in aligning their policies to support CBE (Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, and Oregon). This scan of state policies also categorizes the different types of supports these 12 states have provided to intentionally support CBE. State and district policymakers can use the information in this report to increase their understanding of the current laws and regulations in their state that may facilitate or hinder CBE and to learn about the policies and resources that other states have to support this education approach.  

State laws and regulations were classified into three broad policy categories, each with several subcategories and associated policy types: 1) credit flexibility: credit requirements, assessment of student competency, and graduation requirements; 2) progression flexibility: additional education time, accelerated curriculum, early high school credit, and early graduation; and 3) individual learning options: online or blended learning; early college, dual, or concurrent enrollment; and experiential learning. Policies on credit flexibility can influence the flexibility by which educational experiences are applied toward graduation and whether it is necessary for students to have mastered course content before progressing. Progression flexibility policies can support or hinder the ability of students to progress through their coursework and classes at their own rate, while policies associated with individual learning options can influence the education oportunities available to students, particularly options that allow education to occur outside the traditional classroom.  

The study found that: 1) states vary in the extent to which and manner in which they allow flexibility in how students earn academic credits and qualify for high school graduation; 2) advanced competency-based-education states have more progression flexibility policies in place than do Regional Educational Laboratory Central Region states; and 3) all states have policies that provide students individual learning options. Through examination of publicly available documents, the policy scan also categorized the different types of supports states provide to facilitate competency-based education. These included informational and technical assistance, support for CBE collaboratives, and pilot and special program funding. Results indicated that one Regional Educational Laboratory Central Region state and all five advanced competency-based-education states provide support specifically intended to facilitate CBE.

Source

Brodersen, M. R., Yanoski, D., Mason, K., Apthorp, H., Piscatelli, J., Regional Educational Laboratory Central (ED), National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED), Marzano Research Laboratory. (2017). ​​Overview of selected state policies and supports related to K-12 competency-based education. Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572994.pdf 

This study explored state policy approaches and frameworks to CBE in Utah and Idaho (both were identified as “advanced” practice states - iNACOL).

Idaho conducted the following:

• Conducted a statewide awareness campaign to promote understanding and interest for stakeholders
• Established a committee of educators to identify roadblocks and possible solutions for implementation
• Facilitated the planning and development of an incubator process and establishment of local education agencies (LEA) to identify initial cohort to be incubators

Utah launched the state’s CBE framework (which adapted the LEAP personalized learning framework and CBE competitive grant process). The exploratory pilot covered travel, resources, and site visits

Utah supports the diffusion of CBE by looking at policy barriers and offering funding, whereas Idaho supports the diffusion through a networked community of practice (which established common definitions, competencies, and assessments). 

Both states relied on policy recommendations and capacity building from national intermediaries (e.g., Knowledge Works, CompetencyWorks), which translated function between policy actors.

Implications for policy makers: Policy makers should consider ways to design policies that support implementation. Implementation requires drawing on prior knowledge and experience. Additionally, considering how local educational agencies think (and understand) is important for effective implementation (e.g., Rural systems and charter schools may not have the capacity to implement CBE at the local level). Conclusion: It is important to consider the larger political landscape to develop an “innovative plan” that may closely resemble a neighbor’s.

Source
Williams, H. P., Shoup, K., Diffenbaugh, M., & Brady, K. (2022). Competency-based education in the state policy arena: Comparative case studies of two neighboring states. Policy Futures in Education, 20(2), 166-187. DOI: 10.1177/14782103211031342

This essay introduces the special issue on competencies or 21st Century Skills as learning goals promoted by the OECD and other international organizations. The studies in this issue trace pathways through which competency-based approaches have been incorporated into national reforms, and explore how reform advocates, policy makers, and experts have imagined key competencies for compulsory education. Cases examine reforms in Sweden, France, Russia, Kosovo, the United States, Uruguay, and China - as well as conceptualization of competencies, civic competencies, and global competence shaped by international experts. Based on these studies, this essay argues that the concept of competencies, central to the development of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a polysemous notion (i.e., having several meanings) that has led to hybrid forms of discourse and policy implementation. It also highlights the signficicance of reform processes and specific actors in diverse settings, illuminating the complexity and contingency of competency-based reforms. It is also important to note that some countries (e.g., England, Sweden, & Japan) initially going 'all in' on competency-based approaches have since backed off, returning to a more hybridized model that incorporates aspects of traditional and competency-based approaches.

Source

Anderson-Levitt, K., & Gardinier, B. P. (2021). Introduction to contextualizing global flows of competency-based education: Polysemy, hybridity, and silence. Comparative Education, 57(1), p. 1-18. 

This article examines the history of U.S. movements towards competency learning (also called "21st Century Skills") from an international perspective. Curiously, although the U.S. innovated early aspects of competency learning (such as mastery learning), it is considered a 'late' adopter of competency-based reform. Because educational practices are established at the state level (rather than the federal level), approaches vary across the U.S. Consequently, there are few clear national-level criteria for establishing consistency across states or determining whether the U.S. practices competency learning. Thus, Common Core State Standards (CCSS; launched in 2010) has been used by international evaluators as the metric for determining CBE adoption by the U.S. (due to the competencies designed into CCSS). Anderson-Levitt suggests competencies promoted by CCSS support the movement to adopt and promote 21st Century Skills and national standards. Furthermore, this policy adoption demonstrates a way high power, state-level educational reformers exercise reciprocal international influence (such as legitimizing the role of the OECD in establishing international policy - while also being influenced by international policies). 

Source

Anderson-Levitt, K. (2021). 21st century skills in the United States: A late, partial, and silent reform. Comparative Education, 57(1), p. 99-114.

France has a relatively long history navigating competency-based educational reform. Discussions about CBE began in the early 1990s before it was finally included in the Education Act of 2005. Curiously, although it passed at the federal level, CBE has been strongly opposed by a number of teachers, unions, and researchers. Clément examined how CBE legislation prevailed after so many years of deliberation and he found that CBE is fundamentally polysemic in nature. In other words, although many stakeholders use the term, there is little cohesive agreement about what it entails – resulting in multiple meanings for the same term. This created problems as various meanings were used to develop France's Core Curriculum in 2005, despite there being specific nuances to those interpretations. Clément analyzed data from numerous archives and a series of interviews with the main actors of curriculum reforms in France since the 1980s. He then examined the contradictions to which the implementation of this hybrid concept has given rise, before analyzing the new compromise that was found in the 2015 reform. He concludes, "defining the concept of competences appears as a never-ending and decidedly political process" (p. 47). 

Source

Clément, P. (2020). The introduction of competency-based education into the compulsory school system in France (2002-2017): Hybridity and polysemy as conditions for change. Comparative Education, 57(1), 35-50. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1845062 

This paper examines the way Sweden addressed an educational reform in 2011 by hybridizing an approach that satisfied the needs of two, competing organizations (its own national need for promoting subject-specific knowledge with the transnational interests of the OECD adopting a competency-based approach). This occurred when key concepts were re-contextualized to align with national priorities (such as defining competencies according to specific subject area rather than used more ambiguously). This process resulted in a reconfigured interpretation of competency-based approaches aligned to national priorities. This article may be useful for U.S. state-level policy makers as they consider how to contextualize national-level policies, such as CCSS, to meet the specific needs of their individual states.  

Source

Nordin, A., & Sundberg, D. (2021). Transnational competence frameworks and national curriculum-making: A case study of Sweden. Comparative Education, 57(1), p. 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1845065