The Case for and Against Competency Education
Replacing this concept is the notion of challenge performances: carefully crafted requirements for demonstration of a skill/s in real-world contexts. If learners can show they already can perform some skills using the facts, concepts and theories of one or more relevant fields to solve a problem, is there a reason for demanding they repeat courses that have traditionally been part of the program package at a specific institution?
Students should be able to claim those competencies as complete. How does one organize and budget for instruction under these circumstances? Even if a singular institution can cut this Gordian knot, there is the pesky matter of how this would work with a highly mobile learner seeking credentials from multiple schools.
Proponents of CBE say tackling this issue successfully provides a more transparent curriculum, wherein students are more in control of their own learning, and it encourages collaboration among faculty as well as interdisciplinary study. It more easily supports out-of-the-classroom experiences and it accommodates multiple learning styles.
Opponents say that it creates a teach-to-the-test, one-size-fits-all curriculum and discourages achievement by creating a low bar for performance. How do you establish and then assess student learning outcomes for French literature or another field that requires significant intuition, interpretation or creativity?
Let’s be completely clear about the assessment argument: assessment drives instruction and always has. Instructors have been saying for years that they do not “teach to the test,” but in practice, this is complete nonsense.
The real issue is to whose test are they teaching? One designed by the teacher herself or one provided by someone else. All of this, therefore, conveniently becomes entangled in the web of “academic freedom”–a concept that has no business being included in the matter of whether someone can or cannot do something at a level that would stand them in good stead upon graduation.
Faculty for Competency Ed Success
Making a judgement about whether or not a young person is able to graduate in regard to core, transferable skills is the best opportunity for faculty to weigh-in on student readiness. Faculty absolutely control this agenda as they control the final definitions of the outcomes and how these are best judged. Ultimately, it is their instruction and tests that make the difference.
The real problem is the time needed to address the challenge of “making meaning” of complex outcomes. Faculty legitimately argue that they do not have such time available. Some wonder out loud if they really want this task at all. Course- and discipline-centric practice has been the norm for longer than the Carnegie Unit has existed.
The irony of the situation is that in the absence of a strong, proactive faculty voice about outcomes, the high ground has been surrendered to third parties to take their best shot at the ultimate definitions of competency: The Lumina Foundation, The AAC&U (VALUE Rubrics), and P21 (The Partnership for 21st Century Learning) to name a few.
So, must we throw out the Carnegie Unit and “traditional” curriculum in favor of a competency-based educational structure? Perhaps the ideal solution is one that combines the best of both and actively invites and empowers faculty to own a process that, as noted above, they already implicitly control.
Much of this work is going on right now in isolated pockets. In the end, the question is not CBE or no CBE but rather, can we arrive at valid measures of core skills performance and stand by that?
A solution is needed that utilizes the power of learning outcomes and assessment to quantify student performance, and digital badging to celebrate student achievement that is at the center of competency-based education, but does not set an upper limit for performance and allows students to follow their passion beyond the line of competency.
Geoff Irvine is the CEO of Chalk & Wire.
- Entry-level IT: Clearing misconceptions in the AI era - August 26, 2026
- To rebuild adult learner confidence, universities must first earn their trust - August 24, 2026
- Schools are building AI rules before they know the destination - August 17, 2026