Are We Studying Our Curriculum Right?

In all those years at school, with tests and assignments and submissions and deadlines, how well have we learned our curriculum? The answer to this question lies within ourselves, but more importantly, our education system. With a fixed syllabus to study and a similar pattern of question paper in the final exams, we have learned how to tackle the examinations but gain knowledge. We have been trained and not taught to succeed. 

Back in ancient times, literature was studied intensively, and acquiring language proficiency was looked upon. There was a skyrocketing urge to study Greek and Latin. Knowledge was not contingent upon grades and was driven by self-awareness. It was only with evolving times that a desire to read multidisciplinary subjects like science and maths in tandem with history and philosophy arose. Schools across the world followed a similar pattern of teaching and grading styles that is universally accepted. To maintain trust in the discretion of institutions, a time-based measure, called the Carnegie Unit, was used to determine student progress. Based on this measure, a new method of Competency-Based Education originated. First employed in the United States in the 1970s, this method was based on the scope of acquiring competencies. It is a time-flexible and space-flexible approach involving a robust and more inclusive curriculum. 

This concept has been floating around but has recently received a lot of traction in the field of policy. The 21st-century skills, as one might call it, has seen a broad implementation in different forms. To lay a foundation for this idea, one needs to define competency. This is one of the most widely debated subjects, and there is no objective way to do so. It can comprise the learning objectives or the teaching and assessment guidelines or be an out-of-the-box idea. The main principle is to excel in the competency to progress to the next standard. 

To set an example, consider a fifth-grade mathematics class. A traditional school, as we have witnessed, requires the students to pass the exam covering topics of algebra, geometry, and calculations – all in one. Whereas, a competency-based system allows for assessing these three skills separately. If a student does well in algebra, he can continue with the next level, but if he needs to improve in geometry, he can retake the exam after seeking proper guidance from his teachers. The progression is based on attaining skill and not just clearing a classic set of examinations we are used to. More detailed and domain-specific grades paint an accurate picture of his mathematical abilities than providing a vague final grade-point for a subject comprising various complex competencies to master. 

A conventional classroom does not accommodate student interests, whereas diverse learning methods and tools to assess the potential are a way of competency education. Even personalized feedback from their teachers eventually improves upon their capability. Thus, being a part of a collaborative learning process is one of its many features. Nonetheless, if the student fails to obtain the desired credit, relearning and retaking the test remains an option for that particular competency than the whole course. Such tailor-made methods help one align with career-ready standards. 

However, such flexibility can turn into complacency. The self-fulfilling nature of this system seems suspicious. For one, the pace to learn can become slacked and would cost time. A possibility is that students prefer retaking the exam to ensure they perform better and better until they score the maximum marks. This defeats the purpose at hand and creates an atmosphere of unhealthy competitiveness. Even this innovative grading system does not provide us with the depth of learning capabilities a student has acquired. 

Still, the advocates for Competency-Based Education focus on three levers: policy and aid, field-building and knowledge creation, and convening and connecting. With pilots of this educational set-up across the world, they stress the need for self-evaluation to providing transparency and a proper feedback mechanism in place. The loosely defined term competency is another issue to be resolved to ascertain uniformity. Presently, there is just a difference in the scope of techniques used and results derived from them. A spectrum of the focus of an educational system can be conceptualized in this manner. With the ends defined by outcomes on one side and competencies on the other, we can separate geographies within them. The United States would lie more towards the competency end, whereas the United Kingdom is still concerned with the outcomes and success rates than excelling in specific competencies. 

All in all, Competency-Based Education should not create winners and losers. Instead, it should allow one to take the journey to self-awareness. Not only learning strategies such as demonstrations, rubrics, and capstone projects should be put into practice, but teachers and students should provide constant feedback to each other. It is a learning process for teachers as much as it is for the students. An environment to enable professional and intellectual development needs to be created. Competency maps need to be redesigned and institutions to be rethought upon. The key here lies to indulge in specifications of the core concept. 

Indisputably, the earlier years of instruction are imperative for a child. The lessons learned during this time helps in the development of skills for the future. The primary goal of education should be closing the learning gaps, opportunity gaps, and achievement gaps along the way to ensure progress and prosperity. But there will always remain the struggle of equity, and some will do better than others. For policy-makers, the task is to ensure constant innovation in methods, assessments, evaluation, feedback mechanisms, and, most importantly, design the right curriculum to study.