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.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)