Chris, good points as always. I still see SMEs saying “they need to know this and they need to know that” referring to knowledge (i.e. not “they need to be able to do this” ;). Yes, those curricula may well be structured around knowledge not skills (and the processes may not yet be quite systematic); perhaps I should point to XTOL instead. I think employers might be the point of leverage for accreditation, but not for compliance. The government is typically the determinant there, and employers aren’t going to shake it off. I do think that having employers involved in accreditation is part of the solution, e.g. the end market for the accreditation as well as the SMEs (and the cases where I’ve seen this work better, e.g. some vocational occasions, they have had employers determining the curricula). But the awareness of the barriers is still not widespread enough, I believe. Thanks very much for your feedback!

Like you, I am encouraged by the increasing acceptance of competency as an alternative to compliance (seat time) in accreditation. But we come back to content. What competency is being measured? Both Western Governors and the Florida Virtual School are competency-based but their curricula are still organized around knowledge areas not skills.

Finally, can the point of leverage be anywhere else except employers, broadly construed? Get them to abandon assessments based on multiple-choice quizzes for more skill-based approaches. My vote is for scenario-based challenges with grades based on fine-grained analysis of deliverables and problem solving choices. Change the assessments employers accept and you change the schooling students seek.