[NLA] beyond competency (long)

[Catherine B. King]

Hello Eileen:

I read your note with interest.  You ask at the end:

"Does anyone else see a difference between
competency- and proficiency-based education, and/or
implications for policy?"

As you explain the difference between these two notions,
and ask about the implications for policy, it seems to me
that in the proficiency-based education, there is an inferred
transfer of power from the policy to the adult student.  That is,
while the policy is to set up the conditions for the student to
better themselves, WHAT that means falls within a large range
of acceptability but is ultimately decided on the side of the
student and not on the side of the policy makers, teachers,
administrators, programmers, etc.

In other words, the underlying assumption is that the policy is
FOR the adult student, rather than the student being FOR the
policy.

This may not seem like much from a local point of view where
the administrators; policy makers', teachers', etc., goals may
at times fall together with the adult students--we can certainly
guess most of the broad range of needs they/we have from local
adult education programs; or when the adult student just takes
what is offered out of a habit of powerlessness without
understanding that it's supposed to be for them and that they
are the ultimate arbiters of the programs' worth.

 But from a political point of view, the difference between methods
and notions of expectations, outcomes, etc.,  is enormous.
Where in one the power flows "down" from the "top" and orders
the world of the adult student in terms of its own prescribed
"requirements" and goals, the other invites potential power in the
adult student to develop "from below upwards" in terms of a
developing order of self-other defined ultimately by the adult
student for themselves as developing human beings and worked
out in an ongoing dialogue.

Though it is becoming more and more difficult to claim that we live
in a democracy, the framework and mythology is still there.  And of
course, in a democracy, the most enlightened and creative
educational system will be congruent with its political system--in
this case, one that sets up the conditions for self-development and
order of its citizens.

In the movement and transfer of power in a democracy and its
educational system, however, the different between adults and
at risk or "cast-off" youth, rather than being insignificant, is also
enormous.  The difference is in the range and quality of and order
of leadership in the teacher and, at the background, the policy,
administration, programs, etc.

For instance, individuals vary of course, but what may be good for
a low-income, working or not-working adult with a family, etc., and
a "youth" with  no one to identify with but a gang or a dalliance with
street nihilism, in terms of leadership and educational delivery,
are vastly different.

To lump "youths" and adults together in our thinking about adult
education is also to misunderstand the migration of power from
other to self and the various need for guidance in different levels of
human development--especially in a democracy where our notions
of freedom are so totally dependent on the educational system
setting up the conditions for developing civilized people who take
their own power/responsibility seriously.  (The failure of this system,
of course, is cumulative and manifests concretely in our jails.)

Just some thoughts on your thoughtful note.

Regards,

Catherine King











----- Original Message -----
From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:06 AM
Subject: [NLA] beyond competency (long)


> This has gotten long, so here's a summary: The ability to act skillfully,
as
> a teacher or literate person, is not the result of adding up a sufficient
> number of "competencies." Proficiency is comprised of explicit and tacit
> knowledge and skills uniquely constructed to be effective for each person.
> Acting upon this view would have profound implications for policy and
> accountability. For one thing, it would mean getting rid of standardized
> testing and other measures of knowledge and skill that do not demonstrate
> real-life proficiency.
>
> My message comes across as a lecture, but I really mean it as part of a
> conversation.
>
> Here's the message I summarized:
> In a recent message, Tom Sticht referred to the role of the SCANS skills
in
> promoting contextualized instruction. I agree that was a huge step
forward.
> Knowledge of learning and of the development of proficiency has advanced
in
> ways that require a revision of thinking about competency-based
> contextualized instruction. It's time for the next step.
>
> Competency-based instruction and assessment are likely to use lists of
> "competencies" that, when added up, are presumed to equal the ability to
act
> competently.
>
> Research into proficiency and/or expertise in a number of fields indicates
> that the ability to apply knowledge skillfully and effectively is not the
> result of having accumulated a sufficient number of competencies. Current
> theory reflects the thinking that proficiency is the manifestation of a
> "self-organized" network of both explicit and tacit knowledge and
> metacogntive skills based on the individual's "mental model" of the domain
> of expertise. I realize I'm slipping into jargon, so let me give an
example.
> My own proficiency as a teacher is based on a mental model that includes
the
> principles of personal development and social justice, reflection and
> action. I include those principles in my "self-organization" and use of
> knowledge and skills. I rely on knowledge of reading comprehension and
> metcognition, as well as my interest in and learning about economics and
> politics from the social justice perspective. My proficiency also includes
> "tacit knowledge," which Polyani said is "That which we know but cannot
> tell." Anyone who has ever tried to explain why they do something that
just
> feels right knows what tacit knowledge is.
>
> Others organize their proficiency around phonemic awareness, or around the
> scientific method, or something else. As long as practioners are using
their
> knowledge effectively, they are proficient. "Competencies" that dictate a
> narrow definition of proficiency do us all a disservice by limiting the
> range of knowledge and skills available to programs and learners, and by
> ignoring the roles of individual self-organization (and therefore
individual
> construction of meaning) and of tacit knowledge. I keep thinking of Jose
> Cruz's articulate case for including the strengths of everyone in the
> community in collaborative literacy work. We're tying our own hands when
we
> narrowly define who is "competent" to be involved in literacy work.
>
> Proficiency applies to learners, too. Viewing learner outcomes in terms of
> proficiency would mean instruction and assessment based on learners'
> interests, goals, and strengths, but those value statements have been so
> overused as to become meaningless. A proficiency-based understanding of
> assessment, for example, would render CASAS, TABE, and other standardized
> test obsolete. Learners would demonstrate their proficiency in ways that
are
> meaningful to them in "real-life." Even tests that purport to measure life
> skills (like those CASAS questions based on a generic job application or
> utility bill) are not assessing what learners really know and do in
> situations in their own lives. A test involing a classroom and a #2 pencil
> and 50 minutes to complete 25 questions, and a test booklet (in which you
> better not write) and an answer sheet with rows of A, B, C, D is NOT the
> same as a kitchen table and a partner or friend and a cup of coffee and a
> discussion about how to handle a situation, and "what if" you tried this
or
> that. The "right" answer on a standardized test does not necessarily equal
> proficiency in real life, and the "wrong" answer doesn't necessarily mean
> incompetence in real life.
>
> A proficiency-based view of adult literacy would put learners and their
uses
> of literacy back in the center. Validity, reliability, and other concerns
> that are about "representing" outcomes some degrees removed from actual
> learners and their uses of literacy would be irrelevant.
>
> If we used student proficiency as the measure of programs' accountability,
> then when the accountability cops asked, "How do you know you're meeting
> learners' needs?" they would listen and accept the answers, "Because they
> tell/show us by doing _____ that is meaningful in their lives."
Furthermore,
> they would know that means more than a reliable test score.
>
> Does anyone else see a difference between competency- and
proficiency-based
> education, and/or implications for policy?
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org