Elevating Competency-Based Learning in a PLC at Work® by Solution Tree

Elevating

Competency-Based Learning in a PLC at Work®

Actionable Assessment, Defensible Evidence, and Equitable Grading

Karin K. Hess

Brian

M. Stack

Jonathan G. Vander Els

FOREWORD

VIRGEL HAMMONDS

Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.” Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior written permission of the publisher.

555 North Morton Street

Bloomington, IN 47404

800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700

FAX: 812.336.7790

email: info@SolutionTree.com SolutionTree.com

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/PLCbooks to download the free reproducibles in this book.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Hess, Karin (Karin K.) author. | Stack, Brian M., author. | Vander Els, Jonathan G., author.

Title: Elevating competency-based learning in a PLC at work : actionable assessment, defensible evidence, and equitable grading / Karin K. Hess, Brian M. Stack, Jonathan G. Vander Els.

Description: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, [2024] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2024018436 (print) | LCCN 2024018437 (ebook) | ISBN 9781960574923 (paperback) | ISBN 9781960574930 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Competency-based education. | Professional learning communities. | Teachers--In-service training. | Teaching--Methodology. | Educational change.

Classification: LCC LC1031 .H47 2024 (print) | LCC LC1031 (ebook) | DDC 370.11--dc23/eng/20240716

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024018436

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024018437

Solution Tree

Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO

Edmund M. Ackerman, President

Solution Tree Press

President and Publisher: Douglas M. Rife

Associate Publishers: Todd Brakke and Kendra Slayton

Editorial Director: Laurel Hecker

Art Director: Rian Anderson

Copy Chief: Jessi Finn

Senior Production Editor: Sarah Foster

Copy Editor: Evie Madsen

Proofreader: Elijah Oates

Text and Cover Designer: Fabiana Cochran

Acquisitions Editors: Carol Collins and Hilary Goff

Assistant Acquisitions Editor: Elijah Oates

Content Development Specialist: Amy Rubenstein

Associate Editor: Sarah Ludwig

Editorial Assistant: Anne Marie Watkins

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Right now, the field of education is hungry for information about how to foster competency-based systems where learning is captured through a defensible body of evidence. Competency-based (also called proficiency-based ) learning continues to gain ground and attention as schools shift their focus from teaching to learning and seek to measure student success on the application and transfer of knowledge in meaningful ways. Our earlier books have unpacked the design principles of competency-based learning, according to the Aurora Institute (Levine & Patrick, 2019), and provided context for Solution Tree’s PLC at Work® process (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, Mattos, & Muhammad, 2024) to advance competency-based work by collaborative teams in schools.

As we have reflected on our work in PLCs across the United States, we acknowledge the tremendous amount of time and planning that collaborative teams and guiding coalitions have engaged in to consider how to capture a defensible body of evidence of learning for the essential academic and personal concepts and skills of each grade level, content area, course, or program. It is for these reasons that we chose to author a book we feel will move competency-based learning forward.

We are grateful to the staff at Solution Tree, including Douglas Rife, for believing in our vision for this book and supporting our efforts to make it a meaningful and relevant tool for educators. As with our first two books, the influence of many of Solution Tree’s authors is evident. We thank all of you for the tremendous work you have done in helping educators throughout the world understand ways to better support students and educators everywhere and consider ourselves very fortunate to work alongside each of you in support of students everywhere.

And, of course, we are forever lifted up by our family and friends who have stood beside us through our professional journeys, those in the schools we’ve worked in, as well as the incredible networks we’re humbled to be a part of now.

As with Academy Award speeches, there are always too many individuals to name who’ve supported and contributed to the thinking behind any book. All authors stand on the shoulders of giants in our field. You’ll see their work honored and referenced throughout this book. I also want to show gratitude to all the students and practitioners I’ve worked with over the years who have driven my thinking about implementing competency-based learning principles. Years ago, I worked with Jon and Brian when they were school leaders. Now, it’s an honor to call them colleagues and coauthors whose work continues to influence and deepen my thinking. Last, but not least, is a shout-out to the children in my life—especially my grandchildren, some of whom “did school” in grandma’s home office during COVID-19 shutdowns. Gigi, Ford, Jackson, Aria, Tristan, and Abby—who range from preschool to high school—always remind me that true student-centered learning is about capitalizing on their curiosity and co-creating meaningful challenges with them.

To my wife, Erica, and my children, Brady, Cameron, Liam, Owen, and Zoey, you just never know where life will take you if you aren’t willing to step out of your comfort zone and take a risk on life’s journey. There are no safe roads. Where I hope you go, you won’t need roads. Thank you for always believing in me, supporting me, and caring for each other when I am away from home, working in schools in different states. I always hope I’m helping educators design the kind of schools I want all of you to be part of. To the many educators I have worked with in my roles at Timberlane, Sanborn, Fremont, Andover, New Hampshire Learning Initiative, Solution Tree, and V&S School Solutions, thank you for inspiring me as we work collaboratively to help all students achieve at high levels. Jon and Karin, thank you for always pushing my thinking in our work. I consider us close friends and thought partners.

—Brian

In our work every day with schools, we stress the importance of team, and the role of interdependence and mutual accountability to and with each other. I can’t think of any team more important to me than my family. To my wife, Stephanie, and our three beautiful children, Grace, Garrett, and Will, the sense of pride I have for each of you is immense and the wonderful person each of you has become overflows my heart. I love you all so very much. I am also very fortunate to work with great teams supporting schools. Brian, for two decades, we’ve traveled this road together. To be able to work on another project with you and to also be able to do so with Karin is a true blessing. And to our Solution Tree team and New Hampshire Learning Initiative team, thank you for believing in the ever-important work of ensuring learning for every child in the schools we support.

—Jonathan

—Karin

Solution Tree Press would like to thank the following reviewers:

Tonya Alexander

English Teacher (NBCT) Owego Free Academy Owego, New York

John D. Ewald Education Consultant Frederick, Maryland

Shanna Martin Middle School Teacher & Instructional Coach School District of Lomira Lomira, Wisconsin

Demetra Mylonas Education Researcher Headwater Learning Foundation Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Jennifer Rasmussen Literacy Specialist and Instructional Service Director CESA 4

West Salem, Wisconsin

Rachel Swearengin Fifth-Grade Teacher

Manchester Park Elementary Lenexa, Kansas

Steven Weber

Assistant Principal

Rogers Heritage High School Rogers, Arkansas

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/PLCbooks to download the free reproducibles in this book.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Karin K. Hess, EdD, creator of the Hess Cognitive Rigor Matrices, is a recognized international speaker and leader in developing practical approaches for using cognitive rigor and learning progressions as the foundation for formative, interim, and performance-based assessments. Since 1998, Karin has been working in schools as an elementary and middle school principal, district curriculum director, and classroom teacher (fifteen years).

Karin has distinguished herself as curriculum and assessment expert in multiple content areas at the Center for Assessment in Dover, New Hampshire. She has effectively guided over forty U.S. states and territories in the development of grade-level expectations and test specifications for both general education and alternate assessments for significantly cognitively disabled students. She has authored or coauthored a dozen books or book chapters, and numerous articles and white papers related to instructional practices, alignment, cognitive rigor, text complexity, and assessment. Karin’s books include A Local Assessment Toolkit to Promote Deeper Learning (Hess, 2018); Ready to Advance PreK Curriculum (Gibson, V., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., & Hess, K., n.d.); Deeper Competency-Based-Learning (Hess, Colby, & Joseph, 2020); and Rigor by Design, Not Chance (Hess, 2023). She also wrote “Using Standards to Guide Instruction,” a chapter in Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction and Assessment, Prek–6 (Hess, 2020a).

Karin has worked as the state director of gifted education for New Jersey, program evaluator for the Vermont Mathematics Project, co-developer and editor of exemplars K–8 science performance tasks , and content specialist for development of many state assessment blueprints, including the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) content specifications for assessment of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics. Her varied projects

enable Karin to understand the practical implications of her work while maintaining fidelity to research, technical quality, and established best practices. Over the years, she has also been a technical adviser to New Meridian, Renaissance Learning, EL Education, Mentoring Minds, Achieve3000, and World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA).

Karin’s work in competency-based learning has included guiding and supporting school districts and U.S. states in implementing competency-based learning systems, and creating and analyzing the use of high-quality interim and performance-based assessments.

You can follow Karin @Drkarinhess on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn or visit her website at www.karin-hess.com/blog-1 to learn more about her work.

Brian M. Stack is the superintendent of schools in Fremont, New Hampshire, and a professional development provider for the New Hampshire Learning Initiative, a nonprofit organization. He is also an author and associate for Solution Tree, a professional development provider that supports educators in schools and districts around the world. From 2006–2022, Brian was the principal of Sanborn Regional High School in Kingston, New Hampshire. During that time, he was a member of the research, design, and implementation team for the district’s firstin-the-United States recognized K–12 competency-based learning system. Brian has a passion for assisting schools in developing and reimagining their own personalized, student-centered learning models. Prior to his work at Fremont and Sanborn, he was a high school mathematics educator in Massachusetts and served for six years on the school board in his local community.

Brian has worked as a speaker, consultant, and expert coach for a number of schools and organizations engaged in personalized learning work. He has coauthored two books with colleague Jonathan Vander Els on this topic: Breaking With Tradition: The Shift to Competency-Based Learning in PLCs at Work (Stack & Vander Els, 2018) and Unpacking the Competency-Based Classroom: Equitable, Individualized Learning in a PLC at Work (Vander Els & Stack, 2022). He has also written countless educational articles for multiple professional organizations.

Brian received the New Hampshire Secondary School Principal of the Year award from the New Hampshire Association of School Principals in 2017. In 2010 and 2013, he was recognized with the Outstanding Role Model award from that same organization. Brian earned bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degrees in mathematics education from Boston University, a master’s degree in education administration from the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and a certificate of advanced graduate study (CAGS) as a superintendent of schools from New England College. He lives with his wife, Erica, and their five children, Brady, Cameron, Liam, Owen, and Zoey, on the New Hampshire seacoast.

You can follow Brian @bstackbu on X (formerly Twitter) and @brianmstack on LinkedIn or visit his website at www.vandsschoolsolutions.com to learn more about his work.

Jonathan G. Vander Els specializes in supporting educators and administrators in schools and districts across the United States in developing, sustaining, and enhancing structures to support all learners. Jonathan serves as a director of collaborative learning for the New Hampshire Learning Initiative, supporting personalized and competency-based work in schools throughout the State of New Hampshire. Formerly, Jonathan was principal of Memorial Elementary School in Sanborn Regional School District in New Hampshire. Under his leadership, Memorial became a nationally recognized Model PLC (professional learning community) and competency-based learning elementary environment. As a practitioner, Jonathan blends his experience and expertise to meet educators where they are and assist them in developing practical next steps to ensure high levels of learning for students in their school.

Jonathan has consulted, coached, and presented at conferences and institutes throughout the United States on building highly effective PLCs, implementing competency-based and personalized learning, and developing balanced and rigorous assessment systems. Jonathan was involved in the New Hampshire Performance Assessment of Competency Education (PACE) initiative as a member of the PACE leadership team that facilitated the state’s initial effort to integrate skills and dispositions into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. He is the coauthor of Breaking With Tradition: The Shift to Competency-Based Learning in PLCs at Work (Stack & Vander Els, 2018) and Unpacking the Competency-Based Classroom: Equitable, Individualized Learning in a PLC at Work (Vander Els & Stack, 2022) with Brian M. Stack. Jonathan is also the coauthor of The Foundation for Change: Focusing on the Four Pillars of a PLC at Work, with Joshua Ray (Vander Els and Ray, 2024).

Jonathan has an education specialist degree in educational administration and supervision from the University of New Hampshire, a master’s in elementary education, a bachelor’s in history, and certification as a superintendent, principal, and educator. Jonathan is pursuing a PhD at the University of New Hampshire in the educational leadership and policy strand, with a focus on leadership in a competency-based system.

Jonathan lives with his wife and three children on the New Hampshire seacoast. You can follow Jonathan @jvanderels on X (formerly Twitter) and @Jonathan Vander Els on LinkedIn or visit his website at www.vandsschoolsolutions.com to learn more about his work.

To book Karin K. Hess, Brian M. Stack, or Jonathan G. Vander Els for professional development, contact pd@SolutionTree.com.

FOREWORD

IBy Virgel Hammonds

have been honored to serve as a principal and superintendent in two learning communities thousands of miles apart. Each had different strengths and opportunities but held the same unwavering commitment to serving young people and the families who love them. Both of these communities recognized the need to radically transform how learning occurred. They understood that new designs had to be co-constructed, shared, and driven by learners. They also understood that a shared vision, coupled with learner empowerment and agency, was critical to the implementation and sustainability of our new systemic structures. However, where would we start? How could we know we were making meaningful progress? What if we unintentionally inspired inequities and learning trauma? In 2005, there was no playbook or guide for building a learner-centered and competency-based ecosystem where all members of the community understood their roles in supporting learning. The research on systemic competency-based structures and highly personalized pedagogy was in its infancy. We learned what to do and what not to do. Our shared vision and purpose were strong, but our path needed to be clearer.

The practices outlined in this book amplify the meta-analysis of best practices implemented by professional learning communities (PLCs) that have committed to a learner-centered, competency-based system. The thought leadership shared by Karin, Brian, and Jonathan challenges readers to think about systemic transformation in digestible bites that inspire a multiplier effect toward meaningful implementation. Members of PLCs reading this book will find themselves with a resource to guide and support them on their journey toward a competency-based learning ecosystem. Twenty years ago, this book’s practices, resources, and reflective questions would have greatly accelerated and served our community designs. Today, they will provide the reflective launchpad for your PLC’s shared vision for competency-based education.

Karin, Brian, and Jonathan start by aligning their IMPACT framework with the Aurora Institute’s definition of competency-based education. The framework begins by highlighting the illumination of how learners’ work products are applied in new and diverse contexts. Multiple sources and opportunities are used to determine learner progress toward transparent performance metrics. Pedagogies that are learner-centered are used to inspire learner ownership, agency, and voice. Varied assessment practices are deployed to meet every learner where they are. Agreed-on rules, protocols, and practices or collective actions influence learner outcomes and increase achievement. Lastly, the IMPACT model focuses on the transparency of expectations for learning. In each chapter, the authors share how the IMPACT framework supports the necessary conditions for the systemic shift to competency-based education and how the PLC process is a key driver to empowering, engaging, and supporting learners of all ages. This framework sets the foundation for building more innovative and equity-minded practices in classrooms and supports the shift to a system that gives every learner what they need to thrive.

Much like their IMPACT framework, the authors have been a valuable resource to me, and countless learning communities, as educators and partners in learning. We have visited each other’s learning communities and shared feedback that inspired reflection and growth. The PLCs I have served have unpacked their research, literature, and stories, motivating us to lead beyond second-order changes. As educational leaders who have directly led and coached school systems, the authors share pearls of wisdom and perfectly timed feedback that have empowered and motivated educators, learners, and communities to thrive in unique and purposeful ways. Much like the collaborative learning opportunities we have shared over the last two decades, they continue to lean into the three big ideas of a PLC: (1) a focus on learning, (2) the development of a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and (3) a purposeful focus on community-designed results. When those elements are done well, learners experience a supportive culture where they are building the skills to know themselves as learners, using their agency to drive learning, and interacting with and shaping the culture, structures, and pedagogy of a competency-based learning system (Gagnon, 2024).

As an educator, I believe it is important to lead as a reflective learner. A mindset focused on growth and continuous improvement requires a commitment to reflective practices. I appreciate that each chapter concludes with questions that drive members of PLCs to think about local practices and future possibilities—questions such as the following four critical questions of a PLC shared by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, Mike Mattos, and Anthony Muhammad (2024):

1. What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?

2. How will we know if each student has learned it?

3. How will we respond when some students do not learn it?

4. How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency? (p. 67)

Questions shared at the conclusion of each chapter had me reflecting on steps and opportunities considered and pursued by myriad PLCs that were placing learners at the center of each transformative shift. The questions raised new opportunities and considerations, reminded me of past experiences, and invigorated the need to celebrate the collective action of PLCs across the globe.

As the authors write:

In the journey toward educational excellence, the marriage of the PLC process with competency-based learning systems and practices offers a beacon of hope and a pathway to continuous improvement. This process becomes the key to supporting a system where educators measure learning using a defensible body of evidence with IMPACT for both adults and students. (p. 135)

If there is one critical learning that serving as an educator has taught me, it’s when learning communities connect, magic happens. That connection inspires richer and more IMPACTful experiences and futures for young people. Karin, Brian, and Jonathan’s thought leadership provides that spark of transformative connections for you and those you serve alongside. Enjoy the warmth of the collective action you inspire.

Virgel Hammonds is CEO of the Aurora Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. W., Mattos, M., & Muhammad, A. (2024). Learning by doing: A handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Gagnon, L. (2024, April 4). Illustrating the competency-based education definition [Blog post]. Accessed at https://aurora-institute.org/cw_post/illustrating-the-competency-based-education -definition on July 3, 2024.

INTRODUCTION

A Guiding Framework to IMPACT Actionable Assessment, Defensible Evidence,

and Equitable Grading

The launch of the Profile of a Graduate five years ago certainly gave us a new “why” for student exhibitions and a way to deepen and better measure student learning. But looking back and looking forward, what if we had a tool or a more insightful lens to look at performance assessment more effectively? . . . The secret, as it is with many things in competency-based learning, is to do the journey with as much intentionality, reflection, and metacognition as possible, with the aspiration to always go deeper.

—Adam Watson

Since 2010, competency-based systems are more commonplace in North America and beyond, due in large part to state and provincial policy work that allow such systems to flourish in schools (Gagnon, 2023b; Truong, 2019). During that time, we (the coauthors of this book) have worked and written to inform those in the field on how to dig deeper using the process of building student-centered, competency-based learning systems.

In 2019, the Aurora Institute (2019), a national organization serving as a “hub for innovators across education” focused on competency-based and personalized learning, released an updated definition of competency-based learning. This new definition reflects an evolution of how educators think about the design of comprehensive competency-based learning systems (Levine & Patrick, 2019). The revised definition includes seven principles that emphasize equity, student agency, and a new view of competency-based assessment as a meaningful, positive, and empowering learning

experience for students (see chapter 1, page 9, for more about these principles). Even with wellcrafted competency statements or proficiency-based graduation requirements, we find the collaborative teams (as well as individual teachers) that make up a school- or districtwide professional learning community (PLC) need guidance and concrete examples of how best to design competency-based assessments, gather and interpret assessment results (evidence), and make defensible decisions about student learning.

As the field evolves and responds to these new challenges, we recognize the need to address one of the most common questions we hear from educator teams looking to deepen their competency-based work, “How do we create a defensible body of evidence of learning for each of the competencies and transferable skills in our competency-based learning system?” Educators know their students, but many worry that others could call their credibility into question when they are reporting grades on a competency-based report card or transcript, either because someone will say their grading is too subjective, learning expectations are too vague, or their grades are not calibrated with how other teachers in the school are collecting and evaluating competency-based evidence. Because teachers want their grading practices to be defensible, they need ample opportunities to work collaboratively with their colleagues to evaluate evidence of student learning consistently and equitably. No one wants to be alone and unable to produce defensible evidence when students, parents, guardians, or others ask them to explain a grade. This book endorses a process that leans into educator judgment, but is based on evidence that can support what the educator, student, and team have constructed together to make these determinations.

As professional development providers, our collective work lays a foundation for supporting educators in one of the most essential components of competency-based learning implementation, which is building truly defensible bodies of evidence based on high-quality assessment and student-centered practices. We see an incredible opportunity for this book to serve as a resource to teams engaged in competency-based learning work to deepen their practice by using school-based examples from our work.

A Defensible Body of Evidence Is Central to Competency-Based Learning Systems

The phrase body of evidence is familiar to television viewers watching stories of forensic scientists engaging in crime scene analysis. A body of evidence, regardless of the context, always refers to a well-supported collection of information one uses in defense of a stated claim. In competency-based learning schools, evidence can include a variety of assessment data and documentation of methods or processes that lead to making informed decisions, such as whether students have met proficiency-based graduation requirements.

A body of evidence is considered defensible when the evidence of learning is of high quality (valid and reliable) and logically structured in a way that can withstand criticism or challenges. Close alignment between the learning expectations and the assessment strategies educators use to collect the evidence determine validity Reliability is demonstrated when there are clear rules and decision

points that lead to anyone independently reviewing the evidence presented and coming to a similar conclusion (Hess, 2018).

Educators use a variety of formative and summative assessments (including assessments co-designed with students) to illuminate evidence of learning in competency-based learning systems. However, not all evidence is created equal, which is why we describe characteristics of high-quality evidence and begin to lay out the journey PLC schools can take when their vision embodies student-centered learning.

In addition, as you engage as either a singleton or with your collaborative team to build defensible bodies of evidence; remember, the PLC at Work® process is the backbone organizational structure to advance the work, and help educators and school leaders make student learning the center for all the school does (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016; DuFour, et al., 2024). Actually, without a collaborative, systemwide approach, none of this is really sustainable in the long term.

Therefore, we have created a guiding framework that embodies the seven design principles of competency-based learning and can serve as a North Star for collaborative goal setting and decision making when establishing protocols for building a defensible body of evidence for every student. Our framework uses the acronym IMPACT to describe how to collectively apply the intent underlying the competency-based learning design principles: a defensible body of evidence should illuminate deep learning, using multiple sources and learner-centered pedagogies, and promote assessment practices and collective actions that are transparent to all members of the learning community.

About This Book

Implementing the seven design principles of competency-based learning can be overwhelming to schools just starting on this journey, as well as to others who might be hitting some bumps along the way a few years into implementation. Our approach in this book is to slow down the implementation process and allow teams to examine what quality looks like when students are empowered to make decisions about their learning, and when instruction and assessment practices support deeper learning for each student. Each chapter unpacks one or more competency-based learning design principles using school-based examples and tools for teams to consider.

Chapter 1 provides an overview describing how effective implementation of the IMPACT framework leads to the building of a defensible body of evidence that connects with each of the seven principles of competency-based learning (Aurora Institute, 2019).

The chapters that follow present readers with important considerations and reflective questions to guide collaborative decisions that educators must make for effective and systemic implementation.

Chapter 2 provides context for how the seven design principles of competency-based learning align with the PLC at Work process, in particular the four critical questions of a PLC at Work (DuFour et al., 2024):

1. What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?

2. How will we know if each student has learned it?

3. How will we respond when some students do not learn it?

4. How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency? (p. 67)

Chapter 3 explores how a student’s competency-based body of evidence represents balanced assessment practices, using both test-based data and student-driven artifacts demonstrating learning. Educators should consider the roles and uses of formative and diagnostic data, and summative and interim assessments (including performance-based assessments and other local assessments) when identifying the most defensible evidence.

Chapter 4 unpacks how educators on a collaborative team can design performance-based assessments that illuminate deep learning, empower learners, and ultimately result in high-quality student work. An understanding of learning transfer, along with tools that guide building an understanding of how to assess transfer, helps teams make important decisions about which evidence is most defensible.

Chapter 5 builds on the assessment literacy components from chapters 3 and 4 by introducing high-quality competency-based assessment tools for evaluating student work based on essential academic skills and concepts or personal competencies (for example, profile of a learner). We provide specific recommendations for when and how to use holistic and analytic rubrics to guide evidence collection.

Chapter 6 outlines how to create and use verification protocols to collaboratively build a defensible body of evidence for every student. Defensible body of evidence IMPACT tools for educator and student input align with the design principles of competency-based learning and balance out the assessment evidence.

Chapter 7 explores how educators can collaboratively build protocols for equitable, evidence-based grading and reporting. There are entry points for schools that have shifted to standards-based grading and schools that are ready to consider how to incorporate more student-driven evidence (for example, student self-assessment, student-led conferences, and profile of a learner) into their grading and reporting decisions.

While grading is one of the first questions school teams ask about, we’ve strategically placed the chapter on evidence-based grading after school teams have spent time designing their competency-based learning system. This design includes framing a collaborative vision to drive the work; collectively deciding how to balance test-based data with student-driven evidence; building valid and reliable assessments to assess learning transfer; and working together to decide which types of evidence are the most defensible.

Finally, we provide numerous, teacher-tested IMPACT tools in the appendix (page 137) to support every phase of the work.

As you work through the ideas we present in each chapter, consider this a time to explore shifts that allow students and teachers to embark on the competency-based learning journey together. Start small, think big, and invite student input. Know challenges will arise, but problem solving with peers and students can provide valuable solutions.

Clarifying Terminology Used Throughout the Book

While we define most terms and phrases in the text of this book, we’d like to clarify how we use several key terms related to competency-based or proficiency-based learning

Actionable assessment and actionable feedback: Three characteristics describe actionable assessments and feedback: (1) tasks are designed to uncover student thinking and reasoning, not only what they remember; (2) assessment evidence indicates where students are along a learning pathway; and (3) educators use assessment evidence to plan next steps and offer feedback that leads to students taking action and reflecting on what they are learning about the content and themselves as learners (Hess, 2023)

Body of evidence verification: Determining proficiency using a body of evidence requires a review and evaluation of student work and other assessment evidence The review and evaluation process may vary in both format and intensity, but verifying proficiency requires that educators consistently use common criteria to evaluate evidence of student performance across multiple sources Educators working independently may use agreed-on criteria to evaluate student work in their classrooms; a team of educators may review a student portfolio using common rubrics; or a student may demonstrate proficiency through a portfolio defense or exhibition of learning a review committee evaluates using the same consistently applied criteria

Competency and proficiency: The terms competency and proficiency are sometimes used interchangeably And in many ways, they are similar in meaning

• We use the term competency-based to describe systems using studentcentered pedagogies that enable students to apply and transfer their learning across various academic and personal (interpersonal and intrapersonal) learning goals Competency-based systems implement seven specific design principles across all aspects of their work We use the term competency to describe the broad, explicit, and measurable learning goals that empower learners by requiring them to transfer their learning

• We use the terms proficiency or proficient to describe when a student has demonstrated, through multiple pieces of evidence, that they have achieved the knowledge and skills described in a competency statement or broad learning goal

Equitable evidence-based grading: These grading practices ensure educators assess all students from a place of strength and not by prioritizing any group of students above another Educators pay attention to eliminating the potential of implicit and institutional bias and ensuring multiple opportunities for all students to demonstrate learning

Interim assessments: Interim assessments (also called benchmark assessments) are generally standards-based and align with a pacing calendar and grade-level content standards Educators typically use them to measure progress on large units of a district’s curriculum and to determine which students are on track to meet specified annual

academic goals Educators can design interim assessments to inform decisions at either the classroom, school, grade, or district level Thus, educators may give interim assessments at the classroom level to not only provide information for that educator but also to report meaningfully disaggregated results at the broader school or district level

Mastery: Some schools use mastery to describe proficient performance and other schools use it to describe a performance level above proficient Because mastery of academic competencies is somewhat different from mastery of personal skills (and because of the different ways educators use the term), we decided to use competency to describe the broader learning goals (that encompass multiple skills and concepts) students are working on and proficient to describe when students have demonstrated attainment of those goals (competencies)

Performance-based assessment: Performance-based assessments illuminate deep learning by requiring students to transfer what they have already learned to unfamiliar or novel situations Performance-based assessments result in students authentically doing (that is, creating, demonstrating, performing, and so on) by integrating multiple skills and concepts into real-world contexts

Personal learning plan: Personalization is tailoring a student’s learning activities based on that student’s strengths, needs, and interests, including enabling student voice and choice in what, how, when, and where the student learns Student-centered pedagogies provide support and guide students to set personal learning goals, plan a learning pathway, maintain a record of explorations, and document evidence of proficiency In many schools, advisory structures operationalize personal learning plans

Portfolios, exhibitions, and extended learning opportunities: These performancebased models address a wide range of course-based and cross-curricular learning They selectively compile assessment evidence from both academic and personal competencies For course-based assessments, individual educators use agreed-on criteria to evaluate a body of work that students complete during an instructional period For cross-curricular assessments, review committees (groups of educators and sometimes outside mentors) review and evaluate student work using a moderation protocol

Portfolios do not have to require students to create new work, but they may require students to collect and present past and current work, with evidence of growth, self-reflection, and accomplishments over time Exhibitions may also incorporate examples of past work to show the foundation for developing new products of learning

Scales—performance, proficiency, and grading: Educators use various terms to describe a continuum of performance descriptors that articulate distinct levels of demonstrated knowledge and skills relative to a learning outcome or competency-based statement Educators can use scales to plan instruction, develop scoring guides, monitor progress over time, guide the development of artifacts to include in a student’s body of evidence, or assign grades

• We use the term performance scale to describe a series of success criteria— from foundational learning to more complex applications that transfer learning—based on each competency statement These scales embed skills and concepts from multiple standards in different performance levels Educators use performance scales to monitor progress, design formative assessments, and determine when students are ready to move on

• We do not talk about using proficiency scales, which educators typically use to break down individual standards for instruction, scoring, and standards-based grading Because standards tend to encompass learning of different grain sizes (in terms of scope or depth), skills on a four-point scale for one standard lack consistency with the same proficiency level for another standard

• A holistic grading scale combines several characteristics of multiple assessment data points across multiple competencies to yield one generalized—or holistic—score or grade at each level of the scale

Singleton educators: A singleton is defined as an educator who works independently in one (or both) of the following ways

1 In a setting where they are implementing a new or different model on their own (that is, there isn’t a systemwide change taking place)

2 In a setting where they are the sole representative of a particular grade level, subject, or specialized area in a school

In both cases, singletons typically work without colleagues engaged in the same thinking or work, which can sometimes lead to isolation in terms of collaborative opportunities in their immediate workplace As a result, singletons often need to seek out collaborative, professional development, resources, and networking opportunities outside their immediate work environment, such as different schools within the district or from outside the district entirely Ultimately, in a high-functioning PLC, even singleton educators must find grade- or course-alike professionals to collaborate with (DuFour et al , 2024)

Think-alouds: Think-alouds, in the context of this book, are structured focus groups educators use for getting student input prior to using tasks or rubrics Teams use think-alouds to determine how well a new or draft assessment or rubric will perform or how effective an assessment will be in eliciting the intended evidence of learning Think-alouds do not require the time and number of students that field-testing and piloting require; therefore, think-alouds are a good strategy for smaller schools with limited resources

CHAPTER 1

Shifting to CompetencyBased

Learning

to Build Defensible Evidence

What is the common denominator of a truly equitable education that will prepare young people for the demands and opportunities of our rapidly changing world? . . . This is the first question to grapple with as a community. If your competency framework looks like power standards dressed up with some cherryred lipstick . . . , I’d say come back to the drawing board. Standards were created to provide important guidance on subjectspecific knowledge, concepts, and skills. . . . standards work in partnership with a competency framework. Distinct from standards, competencies define the transferable skills, strategies, and processes that are important within and across disciplines.

—Sydney Schaef

In a quaint suburban community nestled in New England, there stands an unassuming elementary school that has dutifully served its residents for over five decades. We will call this imaginary school Anytown Elementary School Positioned at the heart of Anytown, the school holds a special place in the hearts of many, either as a cherished childhood memory or as a present connection for their own children. Like countless communities, this school is a source of immense pride and an integral part of the community’s identity, owing to its deep-rooted ties with the community.

Every year, the school’s doors open wide, welcoming nearly 300 students ranging from prekindergarten to fifth grade, all of whom reside in the town. Throughout its history, the school has prided itself on its commitment to the well-being of its students. While the school’s exterior has remained unchanged since its establishment in the late 1960s, the school district added a modest new sign with a bold vision in 2012. This sign aimed to rebrand the school in the

community and showcase a fresh vision that would distinguish it from others, acting as a catalyst for future innovation not only within the district but also among schools throughout the state. Emblazoned on the sign were these words: Learning for all, whatever it takes.

This simple yet powerful vision statement addresses the essential question of what the school must become to achieve its objectives, offering an inspiring glimpse into the future and providing clear guidance to all stakeholders involved in the school. The school made a resolute commitment to adopt competency-based learning in 2012, using the professional learning community (PLC) process as the driving force for developing what would become one of the United States’ first nationally recognized examples of a competency-based learning system. While the physical appearance of the school remained unaltered, the classrooms, hallways, and communal spaces slowly underwent a remarkable transformation. A shift in focus from teaching to learning set a new standard of excellence, leaving an indelible impact on the lives of students, educators, and the wider learning community. The spirit of this school community, like many others across the United States driven by an unwavering dedication, began the transformation from a traditional education system to a learner-centered one.

We believe that Anytown Elementary is not unlike your school. Anytown Elementary has embraced the critical structures of the PLC process to advance its work with competency-based learning. It has articulated its why and what in its mission and vision. The school has established collective commitments to guide the professional learning of its staff so that it can realize its vision. Its collaborative educator teams have become more focused and intentional in their work, deepening their understanding of student learning and how students will demonstrate their ability to apply and transfer their skills. Anytown Elementary has operationalized the seven competency-based learning design principles, and has now shifted its focus to how, where, and when it collects evidence of learning for essential concepts, knowledge, and skills.

This chapter discusses shifting to competency-based learning, connecting competency-based learning design principles with a defensible body of evidence, and operationalizing the competencybased learning design principles. It will also explain what a body of evidence is and what makes it defensible.

Shifting to Competency-Based Learning

We often begin our workshop sessions presenting the seven competency-based learning design principles by asking, “What are some of the implications for changing what we currently do in schools if we were to adopt any of these principles?” It doesn’t take long for educators to realize that a true shift to competency-based learning means a shift away from decades-old practices that have not empowered learners, made assessment meaningful, and been equitable in terms of supporting every learner in achieving the same rigorous learning expectations. Replacing old practices based on old belief systems and believing that students are capable of deep engagement and learning is the first step to letting go of traditional practices. Letting go of old practices cracks open the door to trying more learner-centered approaches, which becomes a learning process for adults as well as for students. The shift to competency-based learning takes time, and even schools with the best intentions need to find a vision to guide them to the path that works best for their local school community.

Adam Watson (2023), an educator from Kentucky, summarized his school’s journey this way:

One of the wisest moves from our leadership was to encourage our teachers, and by extension students, to just try. We knew that some of our earliest exhibitions would be rough and wouldn’t look much different from those old-fashioned science expos with the trifold presentation boards, but we had to start somewhere so that we could baseline, learn, and improve.

In 2012, the Aurora Institute classified only four U.S. states as having advanced policies to support local school systems in making the transition to competency-based learning systems (Truong, 2019). Between 2012 and 2019, the number of U.S. states with advanced policies increased to seventeen; and by May 2023, every U.S. state had implemented one or more policies offering flexibility at the local level to move toward more student-centered, personalized learning. A parallel shift had also taken root across the globe in Finland, New Zealand, Scotland, and British Columbia (Bristow & Patrick, 2014).

Schools shifting to a competency-based (or proficiency-based) learning system typically begin by developing a collaborative vision that embodies the transformation they envision. For example, many schools develop a profile of the learner (also referred to as profile of the graduate , proficiency-based graduation , and so on), while other schools frame common personal and academic expectations for students in other ways. For example, the program director at Digital Promise, Elyse Gainor (2023), describes a framework that schools around the world have adopted called Challenge Based Learning because of its ability to empower students and educators to be co-learners. The framework defines three broad learning goals for every student: (1) engage through essential questioning, (2) investigate real-world challenges, and (3) act by developing and sharing evidence-based solutions with an authentic audience. This vision has transformed how and why learning happens in each of these schools, with students applying 21st century skills in a variety of ways.

Competency-based systems respond to the unique needs and interests of their school communities and do not always look the same, school to school. However, each school has a vision for what it must become to provide more innovative learning opportunities for students. Has your school or team collaboratively developed or adopted a why for this work? Does your school have a student-centered mindset? How can you use your school’s vision to determine short- and long-term priorities and goals, or develop a plan for your next steps?

While competency-based learning schools may differ in their vision statements, they adopt and apply common design principles that frame shifts in local policies and practices to support student-centered learning. Regardless of how the school has stated its vision or identified learning goals that align with the vision, moving from a traditional education system to a competency-based system will create the need to shift how

everyone in the system changes their practices, analyzes and reflects on the impact of those actions, and rethinks their beliefs about teaching and learning.

Competency-based learning encompasses not only mechanical structures (for example, interventions and extensions tailored to individual needs) but also deeply held beliefs. A school’s collective belief in equity is fundamental to transforming the education system, ensuring all students have the opportunity to learn in an environment that adopts a “whatever it takes” approach. A belief in empowering and engaging students to learn and then transfer their learning to new situations through authentic, rigorous experiences demands shifting away from traditional approaches to student-driven pedagogy and assessment (for example, student-designed assessments and student-led conferences).

The Aurora Institute, an international organization dedicated to supporting innovative learning models, has played a crucial role in shaping the widely accepted definition of competency-based learning. The Aurora Institute has been an instrumental thought partner and resource provider to policymakers and educational leaders. In response to the increasing adoption of state policies supporting competency-based learning in the United States, the Aurora Institute took a critical proactive step to further advance the work. In 2018, the institute convened a technical advisory group comprising experienced educational practitioners. This collaboration led to the initial development of a definition of competency-based learning with five quality principles (Sturgis & Casey, 2018). In 2019, the Aurora Institute expanded the definition of competency-based learning to include seven design principles (Levine & Patrick, 2019), which we discuss in greater detail later in this chapter.

When a school shifts to competency-based learning, it begins to adopt policies and practices that operationalize the following seven competency-based learning design principles.

1. Student empowerment

2. Meaningful assessment practices

3. Timely, differentiated support

4. Moving on when ready

5. Multiple pathways, varied pacing

6. Equity for every student

7. Rigorous learning expectations

Connecting the Competency-Based Learning Design Principles With Collecting Defensible Evidence

The Aurora Institute’s seven design principles of competency-based learning are not isolated concepts or practices; they form an interconnected network of systemic shifts. When integrated, these principles enable competency-based schools to respond to student learning with greater transparency, focus, and intentionality when educators are deciding what to assess and how to collect defensible evidence.

Competency-based learning design principle 1: “Students are empowered daily to make important decisions about their learning experiences, how they will create and apply knowledge, and how they will demonstrate their learning” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

Student empowerment is exemplified through practices that foster student agency and build metacognition skills. This means students actively engage in their own learning processes and are empowered to take ownership of their learning pathways. They use metacognitive skills when they reflect on their learning, assess individual and group progress, and set and monitor meaningful, personalized goals. Self-reflection and goal setting enable students to develop a deeper understanding not only of academic learning but also of themselves as learners (Hess, 2023).

Educators encourage students to embrace a growth mindset, or viewing challenges as opportunities for growth and learning. This mindset cultivates resilience, perseverance, and a willingness to take intellectual risks, creating fertile ground for students to explore their full potential and expand their personal interests and capabilities.

Student Empowerment

A defensible body of evidence reflects the many ways students have taken ownership in decision making and goal setting, co-created learning experiences with peers and adults, and ultimately, produced evidence of deeper learning through a variety of final products and self-reflection processes

Competency-based learning design principle 2: “Assessment is a meaningful, positive, and empowering learning experience for students that yields timely, relevant, and actionable evidence” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

Educators placing a strong emphasis on balanced assessment practices ensure student learning is rigorous, strategically supported, and evaluated using a combination of formative assessment practices and high-quality performance-based assessments. Teams collaboratively develop and validate assessments that align with intended competencies, enabling educators to assess skills and concepts through a diverse range of methods and higher levels of cognitive demand. These collective actions cultivate a shared understanding of proficiency among the teaching staff, encouraging educators to continually refine their instructional methods and assessment strategies to enhance student achievement.

Meaningful Assessment Practices

Educators make decisions about what is included in a defensible body of evidence using a variety of assessment tools and formats Assessment evidence from both products and learning processes yield a more comprehensive picture of student learning

Competency-based learning design principle 3: “Students receive timely, differentiated support based on their individual learning needs” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

Ensuring every student has equal access to a high-quality education means guaranteeing all students receive regular, timely, and differentiated support tailored to their unique needs, so every student can reach their full potential. Differentiated support can include formal, district- or school-level programs to

support struggling learners (for example, response to intervention [RTI], multitiered system of supports [MTSS], and so on) or extend learner strengths and interests (for example, after-school enrichment, internships, and so on), as well as day-to-day planning decisions that happen at the classroom level to scaffold or extend learning. Educators design support systems to closely monitor the pace and progress of each student throughout their learning journey, allowing educators to collaboratively identify areas of strength and challenge and engage students in documenting their individual successes. When students can see concrete evidence they are making progress, they are more motivated to invest themselves in learning (Hess, 2018). Incremental successes lead to future successes.

Timely, Differentiated Support

Proficiency-based decisions using a defensible body of evidence require teams of educators to collectively engage in ongoing discussions and professional development activities to enhance their understanding of using student work analysis to determine the next steps for learning By leveraging their collective expertise and knowledge, teams identify and implement approaches that meet the diverse needs of students so that each student has the opportunity to learn and demonstrate the ability to apply their learning in complex, authentic tasks that align with rigorous expectations Simply put, a defensible body of evidence reflects whether students are successful in their learning When students are not learning, educators must examine and shift or enhance current practices

Competency-based learning design principle 4: “Students progress based on evidence of mastery, not seat time” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

In competency-based schools, educators carefully craft policy language to support a model that allows students to advance academically based on the proficient demonstration of skills, knowledge, and dispositions, regardless of grade level or specific grade-level standards. This approach recognizes students each learn at a different pace and ensures all students are appropriately challenged and supported along their academic journeys. Collaborative teams play a crucial role in monitoring student progress; they do this by developing a series of assessment checkpoints that elicit evidence of increasing complexity in preparation for larger culminating assessment tasks demonstrating proficiency. Coauthors Karin Hess, Rose Colby, and Daniel Joseph (2020) suggest creating learning pathways or performance scales linked to a series of learning targets that align with a demonstration of proficiency. Educators then use the competency-based performance scales to design common formative and summative assessments or common scoring criteria to describe proficient performance when students choose personalized options for summative assessments. (Competency-based performance scales are discussed in greater detail in chapter 4, pages 66–69.) By regularly tracking incremental progress and evaluating individual performance along the way, educators can meet students where they are to determine whether they are ready to move on to more advanced material, or if they need additional support.

Moving On When Ready

Proficiency-based decisions using a defensible body of evidence require that educators not simply evaluate every student at the same time, based on the same assessments, and averaged into a grade A comprehensive collection of evidence reflects a student’s current level of understanding, challenges they have overcome, and the ability to successfully transfer knowledge and skills to new situations Students build their bodies of evidence using work samples from some common assessments and some optional or customized assessments that demonstrate learning (performance-based assessments, reflective essays, and so on)

Competency-based learning design principle 5: “Students learn actively using different pathways and varied pacing” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

Competency-based schools prioritize the continuous instruction and assessment of skills and dispositions, ensuring that demonstrating proficiency goes beyond rote memorization and encompasses the application and transfer of learning to real-world or authentic contexts. Educators encourage students to tap into their creativity and utilize diverse resources to set goals for learning, both in and out of the traditional classroom setting. Allowing students to leverage their unique backgrounds, interests, and passions fosters a sense of ownership and relevance. A personalized approach prepares students for success in higher education and future careers, equipping them with the skills, knowledge, and flexibility necessary to thrive both inside and outside school.

Multiple Pathways, Varied Pacing

A defensible body of evidence reflects the ways students have input into planning their learning pathways with relevant learning activities that meet proficiency-based guidelines These activities could include taking a course at a community college, working with a mentor, or developing and excelling at a skill in an extended learning opportunity not necessarily a part of the regular school curriculum (for example, taking advanced levels of fine arts or sports)

Competency-based learning design principle 6: “Strategies to ensure equity for all students are embedded in the culture, structure, and pedagogy of schools and education systems” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

A shared vision and belief that every student is capable of achieving rigorous learning expectations characterizes an equitable culture; the vision and belief permeate every aspect of the school environment, creating an atmosphere nurturing inclusivity and empowerment. In this culture, transparency is a key element. Educators clearly communicate learning outcomes, which are readily accessible to students, educators, and parents alike. Transparency ensures everyone involved in supporting the

educational process is aware of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions students are expected to develop and apply both in and outside school.

Ensuring strategies for equity in the school structures focuses on developing and implementing a cohesive, seamless system of support that allows each student to get the support or extension they need in a timely, targeted way. This model includes key scheduling considerations, as well as a highly collaborative approach in providing support for consistent and focused opportunities for students to practice key skills to ensure competency or proficiency of essential learning. The three-tiered RTI at Work™ model is the most efficient, effective, and equitable structural model to ensure learning for all in schools we’ve seen (Buffum, Mattos, & Malone, 2018).

Student-centered pedagogy is grounded in cognitive scientific research about learning and engagement, enabling educators to employ evidence-based instructional practices. The priorities are active engagement and deeper levels of understanding through critical and creative thinking and problem solving. Actionable feedback is also a crucial component of the pedagogical framework because it ensures students learn how to receive and offer constructive guidance to enhance their learning and maximize their potential.

Equity for Every Student

A defensible body of evidence reflects performance-based assessments, when students are constructing meaning by doing, demonstrating, investigating, or creating All evidence does not look the same for each student; however, all evidence clearly aligns with agreed-on learning expectations for every student (for example, profile of a learner, academic, or personal competencies) Evidence comes from tasks completed individually and tasks completed with others (such as when educators assess collaboration skills during project-based learning) When monitoring progress or determining grades, educators see evidence from personal reflections and self-assessments as adding value to evidence they collect from other assessments (for example, course- or project-related)

Competency-based learning design principle 7: “Rigorous, common expectations for learning (knowledge, skills, and dispositions) are explicit, transparent, measurable, and transferable” (Levine & Patrick, 2019, p. 3).

Rigorous expectations for learning encompass bundles of prioritized academic standards educators can integrate with essential dispositions (for example, collaboration, critical and creative thinking, or self-direction skills) in performance-based assessments. Rigor is not simply defined as learning harder or more content. Rather, rigor encompasses complex tasks requiring deeper levels of understanding and engagement (Hess, 2018, 2023). Learning activities are mapped as progressions toward completion of assessment tasks more complex than what a single standard describes or assesses (projects, presentations, reflective essays, and so on). Educators cannot complete rigorous learning expectations in a short time frame or simply assess them with a pencil-and-paper test. Rigorous, performance-based assessments uncover what students think and can apply, not simply what they have memorized.

Rigorous Learning Expectations

A defensible body of evidence reflects rigorous, meaningful learning as described in a school’s stated expectations Students are given guidance to select and provide a wellrounded and substantiated showcase of learning that is authentically assessed and valued by the school community

Operationalizing the Seven Design Principles of Competency-Based Learning

One way to bring the competency-based learning design principles together as a system of learning and assessment is to establish practices for (1) how to describe rigorous expectations for learning; (2) how to support each student in achieving that learning; and (3) how to evaluate and report on the quality of evidence of learning each student produces. Hess and colleagues (2020) identify the following five core components of any competency-based learning system that operationalizes the seven design principles, regardless of whether the focus is on personalization, academic competencies, or both.

1. Academic competencies: Broadly stated academic goals that are measurable, rigorous, and transferable, empowering student learning beyond a single lesson, unit of study, or course. (Academic competencies embody the integration of multiple standards and reflect the school’s vision for how students will learn them.)

2. Personal competencies: Life skills explicitly referenced in a school’s profile of a learner or graduate, including workplace habits, self-management skills, and skills for interacting and working effectively with others. (Personal competencies embody real-world learning the school’s vision reflects and learner goals and interests drive.)

3. Learning pathways: Descriptions of the varied ways students will develop and demonstrate deeper, broader, and more sophisticated understanding over time, with flexible pacing of learning. (Learning pathways embody pedagogies and practices intended to support every student—meeting students where they are and doing whatever it takes to help them advance.)

4. Performance-based assessments: Multistep assessments with clear criteria, expectations, and processes that measure how well a student transfers knowledge and integrates complex skills to create or refine an original product.

5. Evidence-based grading: Scoring and reporting based on a body of evidence that reflects progress or proficient demonstration of unit, course, or graduation competencies. (Evidence-based grading requires more than an answer key. Evidence of proficient performance is based on decisions about the alignment of assessment tools used and the sufficiency of evidence collected.)

Considering What Makes a Body of Evidence Defensible

A strong and defensible body of evidence underlies each of the seven design principles, and requires dramatic shifts in the way educators think about designing, supporting, and tracking student-centered learning. As we work with school teams across the United States, the question of how to build a defensible body of evidence continues to come up when we talk about assessment, grading, and how to determine whether or not a student has met proficiency requirements. What follows is our definition of building a defensible body of evidence. The next section uses this definition to establish a set of six guiding principles that embody the seven principles of competency-based learning, which we elaborate further on in later chapters.

The phrase body of evidence might be more familiar to those working in the fields of scientific research, legal proceedings, policymaking, or crime scene analysis than to most educators. However, a body of evidence, regardless of the context, always refers to a well-supported collection of information used in defense of a stated claim. Evidence can include data, facts, artifacts, and documentation of methods or processes that lead to making an informed decision, such as whether a student has demonstrated proficiency in the agreed-on learning expectations (standards, competencies, and so on). What makes a body of evidence defensible is that the evidence is of high quality—both valid and reliable—and logically structured in a way that can withstand criticisms or challenges. In the context of competency-based learning, determine validity by checking the alignment between the learning expectations and the assessment strategies educators use to collect the evidence. In other words, the assessment actually evaluates what it says it will evaluate. Reliability is demonstrated when there are clear rules and decision points (such as rubric criteria, scoring guidelines, or annotated exemplars) that lead to anyone independently reviewing the presented evidence and coming to a similar conclusion.

A body of evidence, regardless of the context, always refers to a well-supported collection of information used in defense of a stated claim.

However, not all evidence is created equal. Evidence included in a defensible body of evidence should be the following.

• Aligned with agreed-on learning expectations (for example, academic competency statements, profile of a graduate, or personalized competencies)

• Thorough (sufficient in the amount of assessment data and coverage)

• Balanced (using a variety of assessment tools and formats)

• Well organized based on broadly stated learning goals (for example, academic domains, career-based competencies, and personalization goals)

Each area of business and industry describes a defensible body of evidence contextually, meaning that within a discipline, such as scientific research or policymaking, the collecting and analyzing of evidence before coming to a defensible conclusion defines credible methodologies. In competency-based schools:

A body of evidence contains student work samples—some common and some unique—and possibly additional evidence of learning, such as test scores, mentor feedback, and student

reflection pieces. Student work samples are placed, and sometimes replaced in an individual student’s body of evidence, which might be organized using a digital portfolio. Body of evidence guidelines are created as to what types of evidence, what quality of evidence, and what to look for in determining that there is sufficient evidence of proficient performance. Questions, such as does this represent the student’s best work or is it representative of typical and consistent work overtime, must be answered and clarified. . . . Once a common set of criteria has been defined, teams of educators review a body of evidence to make decisions that will be reported to parents and students. (Hess et al., 2020, p. 42)

A Guiding Framework to IMPACT Building a Defensible Body of Evidence

We propose a framework that embodies the core values of competency-based learning and serves as a North Star for goal setting and decision making when establishing protocols for building a defensible body of evidence. As stated in the introduction (page 3), we use the acronym IMPACT to explain each part of this framework. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus (n.d.), there are several meanings for the word impact. Our use of IMPACT as an acronym applies a meaning of effectiveness: IMPACT is the quality that provokes interest and produces an effect.

• Illumination: The collection and analysis of each student’s work products should shed light on the depth, breadth, and complexity of understanding when they apply and extend knowledge. A defensible body of evidence begins with rigorous, agreed-on learning expectations requiring students to transfer what they’ve learned to new, authentic contexts.

• Multiple sources and opportunities: Proficiency-based decisions, grading, and reporting draw on a sufficient amount of evidence from multiple sources, collected over time and demonstrating learning processes, progress, and products. We define sufficient as having enough opportunities and evidence for educators to reasonably determine whether a student has attained or demonstrated a proficient level of performance. In other words, a combination of “scrimmages and games well played.”

• Pedagogies that are learner-centered: Pedagogy refers to instructional approaches and how effectively they allow learners to reach their full potential. Evidence of learning is based on instructional and assessment pedagogies that support student-centered learning approaches and encourage student ownership, agency, and voice.

• Assessment practices: The original meaning of the word assess (assidere) was to sit beside a learner. Collaborative decision making guides evidence collection about how best to meet every student where they are using varied assessment forms and formats, including performance-based (for example, product development and investigations) and metacognitive assessments (for example, reflective essays, and peer or self-assessments).

• Collective actions: According to renowned education academic and researcher John Hattie (2012), collective efficacy is the belief that through collective actions, educators

can influence student outcomes and increase achievement. Professional learning facilitator Jenni Donohoo (2017) further emphasizes that collaborative conversations should be based on evidence. Educators in a competency-based system make judgments based on collaborative decisions and agreed-on rules, protocols, and practices for making and acting on those decisions.

• Transparency: Learning expectations and decisions for making judgments about demonstrations of proficiency are transparent to students, educators, and the broader learning community.

This is complex, but meaningful work. The good news is the IMPACT framework is flexible enough to serve any learning community with a vision for student-centered learning. Throughout the following chapters, we’ll share strategies and stories of how educators and educator teams apply this framework.

Reflection Questions

If you were to analyze student work samples in a body of evidence (for example, digital portfolio) for students in your school right now, what would you typically expect to see? What else could you include to tell a more comprehensive story? Consider the following questions with your team.

1. What is your school’s readiness—and collective mindset— to advance your work toward competency-based learning?

2. On which of the five competency-based learning core components (page 17) are you or your school making progress?

3. Which of the five competency-based learning core components (page 17) presents the greatest challenges right now, and why?

4. What are ways you and your collaborative team currently collect evidence of student learning? Where are there potential gaps in how you currently think about the ways students can demonstrate learning?

5. In what ways can you use the intent of the IMPACT framework to refine and deepen this work with your collaborative team?