Does CBE Destroy Our Special Education System?

As I continue to think about competency-based education and the structural changes that go along with fully supporting it, I am concerned about its impact on the current special educational system.  For students to receive special education services, they must have a disability - medical or learning.  If a student is to be designated as having a learning disability, then the student must demonstrate discrepancy from his/her peers.  As we work through the suspected disability process, the team must look at exclusionary factors, such as lack of instruction.

I am concerned that in a competency-based system ("anytime, anyplace, any how, any pace") where each student could be involved in different learning experiences, there will no longer be any peer comparisons.  If students no longer are accessing the same academic content at the same time, I do not think that special education can make any peer academic comparisons.

And if there cannot be any peer comparisons, what happens to special education?  Do those students who do have at least some difficulty in understanding the material no longer have access to support services?  Do those support services take on a different focus and expectation?  And for district leaders, what happens to the weighted funding that supports those services?

Competency-based education provides a new paradigm for student learning, teacher effectiveness, and district leadership; as such, many current systems, such as special education, will clearly be changed by its implementation.  I believe we need to strongly consider the system structures we currently have in place and how competency-based education may change them, so we can be mindful of the implications.

(Thanks to Josh Griffith, Collins-Maxwell 6-12 Principal, and Jen Sigrist, Van Meter Director of Teaching and Learning, for the conversation that inspired these thoughts.)

Course Time to Competencies - What's the Conversion Ratio?

In Iowa House File 2380, the section on competency-based education states, "the rules shall allow a school district or an accredited nonpublic school to award high school credit to a student upon the demonstration of required competencies for a course or content area, as approved by an appropriately licensed teacher.  The school district or accredited nonpublic school shall determine the assessment methods by which a student demonstrates sufficient evidence of the required competencies."

The Iowa Senate education reform bill offers similar language.  It is a bold and appreciated step in moving the educational system in Iowa forward.  I just have a few questions as we move from a time-based to a competency-based system.

We no longer need the CBE "credit" waivers, correct?  That's an easy one.  But . . .

How do we determine how much credit to award a course, if it is no longer measured in time?  This is a critical question to me.  If teachers and districts are allowed to create credit-bearing courses based on competencies, how will the DE track and monitor the number of courses?  This poses a concern for the annual curriculum accreditation process, as a district could 'inflate' the number of courses offered by reducing the number of competencies within each course.

It also opens up new opportunities, as we might be able to introduce new courses or mini-course for our students.  In a competency-based system, I am excited that we can open up new opportunities of learning for our students.  But the issue remains.  Until there is a common definition of "competency" and a common process to create courses based on competencies, has the Iowa Legislature opened up a Pandora's box for the Iowa Department of Education?

I trust we can solve this problem.  I just hope others are recognizing it.

Comprehensive Planning

As superintendent, I feel it is my duty to continually think of the path of progress for my district.  In reality, I know there are many paths trying to improve our local educational system - each teacher, support staff members, board member, or administrator may have a slightly different vision of what progress looks like and should be.  Through time and discussion, we have learned that collectively we can move forward faster, stronger, and better than with un-aligned forces and interests.  (Seems like an appropriate time for a shout out to my alignment guru, Brad Niebling!)

So, as I work to understand and align the various passions, philosophies, and practices in my district, I also think about the forces in the state at large.  At a recent Curriculum Network meeting at my AEA, we discussed some fairly strong competitive forces at the Department of Education, in the state Legislature, and throughout Iowa's school districts.

For education reform or transformation or simply improvement to move forward as fast, as strong, as good as possible we must align our forces and our energies.  How do we have comprehensive improvement when we are debating third grade retention at the same time we espouse competency-based education?  It seems to me the two are not philosophically compatible, nor practically compatible.  Yet, strong forces on both sides leave gridlock, status quo and inertia.

Further, we continue to learn more about the Smarter Balanced consortium and its instruction/assessment suite of tools, yet we also debate the merits of specific end-of-course exams.  Do they work together, or against each other?  Further, in a truly competency-based system, there may not even be courses to have end-of-course exams.

In each Iowa district, each teacher and administrator is required to have an individual professional development plan aligned to a building professional plan that is aligned to the district plan that is aligned to the district comprehensive school improvement plan (and the Iowa Core implementation plan).  With all of this aligned planning, the expectation is forces are united and greater progress occurs.  I believe the same expectation is needed at the state policy level.

We need to work to come together - then work together - so our efforts this far do not come undone.

Licensure and Individualized Learning

As I continue to think about expanding the capacity of competency-based education, proficiency-based education or individualized learning, I continue to struggle with several obstacles.  One main obstacle for me is the licensure issue.  As we continue to support the philosophy of "anytime, everywhere" learning, we need to consider the impact to, and from, our practices.  I am extremely supportive of an all-encompassing curriculum of 'learning' at it truest sense, while still ensuring that the Iowa Core is completely learned.

My struggle remains how we as a system will be able to document 'learning'.  I believe the Board of Educational Examiners will need to revisit its licensure policies.  Districts like the one I serve currently do not have the teachers licensed to address the multitude of learning pathways that will be formed with individualized education.  In fact, no district does.  What if my students want to learn Arabic or marine biology or rocket science?  Are my teachers currently certified for that?

I think the BOEE and the DE need to think about how they plan to address this concern.  The momentum is building, and the conversation about this needs to begin.

Responsibility and Accountability

Everyone is focused a lot on accountability these day. Well, its been the focus for many days, to be honest. But, I never understand why it is the focus. Wait, wait . . . don't get me wrong. I am not against doing my job; it's just that accountability has never meant as much to me as responsibility. I have always felt it is more important to be responsible than accountable. Legislators, education department officials, parents and colleagues will always fall short being trying to hold people 'accountable'. At best, I can 'account' to you that I did what I was supposed to do. At worst, I fight your expectations of my accountability every step of the way. Rather, I think those same groups should work to help people be 'responsible'. Responsibility and accountability have become synonymous, but I think there are distinctions. We must continue to support people to create the "ability to respond" (responsibility). As one dictionary defines, responsibility is "a moral obligation to behave correctly toward or in respect of" - here is the definition for us, educators. This is who we must be - those who educate because of a moral obligation, not an accountability law.

We can be better. We should be better. And we should "own" our responsibilities, not wait to be held accountable.

Resolve, not Resolutions

2012 - the year of resolve. I don't want to make any resolution, new or recycled from years gone by. Rather, I want to remember that I have the resolve, the will, to do the right work, the important work, the work still not done.

There is a lot to do, a lot I want to do, and a lot yet to be discovered along the way - completing my doctoral dissertation, improving the learning and the learning environments in my district, supporting my professional organizations, influencing change in education in this state, and writing that elusive book.

So, I start the work today, resolved to create my future.