Rethinking the regulatory environment of competency-based education

Key Points

• Although competency-based education (CBE) has made considerable inroads in higher education, strategies are needed to improve state, accreditor, and federal oversight of CBE programming.
• In particular, state agencies should strive to accommodate forms of CBE that operate independently of the credit hour, and state policymakers should consider whether alternatives to enrollment-based funding models could facilitate the growth of competency-based programming.
• Furthermore, an independent advisory board serving all regional and national accreditors should be created to provide clear, detailed, and coordinated recommendations to all levels of government and to oversee the intersection of innovation and regulation.
• Finally, the US Department of Education should develop a distinct regulatory framework for approving and managing financial aid for CBE programs without reference to credit hour or instructional time concepts.

Read the PDF.

 

Executive Summary

In recent years, competency-based education (CBE) has made considerable inroads in higher education. Various institutions have developed or begun developing a range of programs modeled on competency-based principles. CBE is viewed by many, and with good reason, as a potential means to deliver a more effective educational experience at a lower cost.

Yet despite increased interest from postsecondary institutions and strong support from policymakers, examples abound of regulatory barriers that not only fail to encourage competency-based learning but in fact impede its progress. The question thus arises as to whether the postsecondary regulatory community can develop an efficient process for approving and overseeing competency-based models, even within a favorable political environment.

In this paper, we examine current or proposed regulatory frameworks for the management of competency-based programming at the state, accreditor, and federal levels. We highlight key concerns with and among these systems and note where efforts are being made to resolve barriers. Following this exploration, we recommend strategies for improving state, accreditor, and federal oversight of CBE programming, including the following:

• Where state authorization frameworks make specific reference to credit hour thresholds, regulators should consider whether such thresholds are indeed necessary and, if so, whether they might be defined in an alternative manner that could accommodate those forms of CBE that operate independently of the credit hour (in other words, direct assessment programming). Additionally, as state policymakers discuss reforming funding formulas for public postsecondary institutions, they should consider whether alternatives to enrollment-based funding models would, among other things, facilitate the growth of competency-based programming.
• An independent advisory body that would serve all institutional accreditors, regional and national alike, should be formed. Armed with expertise relating to competency-based programming, this advisory body would bring experience, consistency, and efficiency to the review of such programming across the country. Moreover, the broader mission of this advisory body would be to provide clear, detailed, and coordinated recommendations to all levels of government and substantive feedback on the intersection of innovation and regulation.
• The US Department of Education should develop a distinct regulatory framework for approving and managing aid for direct assessment programs without reference to credit hour or instructional time concepts.

Read the full report.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1EJydpp