3: What do accountability, assessment, and crediting look like?

There are numerous emerging products, tools, model and system designers, and advocacy entities exploring how to support and scale assessment and crediting that is competency-based and transferable across environments, and the example entities below are examples of organizations tackling assessment and credentialing from different angles, rethinking the "what" we assess to the "how" of doing and communicating the outcomes of it.

In addition to sharing these examples, we'd highlight two tensions that appeared in the dataset and qualitative survey.

• One point already discussed in the commentary, is how entities are making distinctions (or not) between mastery-based and competency-based learning. We tested this in our survey by asking entities whether or not each term applied to their work. Most organizations reported no difference (literally 0 points). However, organizations focused on policy and mindsets and vision change expressed much higher support for competency-based than mastery-based (14 points and 25 points respectively). This indicates that those operating in different positions in the sector likely hold differing definitions relative to their mission and operating horizons.

• Entities are holding different priorities for what to assess, credit, and be accountable for. As one entity wrote about their organization's relationship to learner-centered innovation: "The interpretation [of these questions] depend[s] on how we view standards and curriculum relative to personalization/mastery and being learner centered. I could see those in the ecosystem seeing our organization answering not true for all of these questions, but given our perspective that grade-level standards mastery is critical to success and that curriculum is a resource meant to be implemented skillfully in service of students, we answered partially true to many of these questions." This also came up in priorities. Comments related to content ranged from "increasing math and science skills for students of color" to "activating student-driven, real-world learning." As we observe entities across the market, some organizations are working to optimize learning in traditional areas, while others are working to completely redefine the framing for what students should learn altogether. These aims are not necessarily in conflict, but how we measure success will depend very much on how we hold them together in tension.

(Note: these examples are illustrative and intended to reflect a diverse array of theories, approaches, and stakeholders, including less well-known or emerging initiatives. We also attempted to avoid duplication across categories.)