Competence standards- why this, and why now?!

The requirement to identify programme level competence standards may feel like a new and unfamiliar way of looking at our programmes; and right now, it may also feel like yet another hurdle to jump through at a particularly busy time of year.

I’d like to take a moment to explain the rationale for this, in a way that makes sense in the context of programme design, and to persuade you of the longer-term benefits to you and your students.

What are competence standards?

Competence standards are the non-negotiable elements of a programme that you expect all students to achieve. Consider them as a threshold which students need to meet to be able to pass a course. The concept comes from the 2010 Equality Act, and should help provide clarity over which elements of a programme can be adjusted for disabled students, and which can’t.

For this reason, particular types of assessment are unlikely to be competence standards, because there could be alternative ways that students can demonstrate their learning. For example, if a student can demonstrate their skills and knowledge by giving an oral presentation to a small group, or online, rather than in front of the whole class, you will know that the format of the presentation was not the competence standard, but the act of summarising and communicating information to a specific audience was.

Competence standards will differ depending on the course, so they can only really be established by those who have in-depth knowledge of this. They must be legitimately relevant to that subject, and can be guided by documentation such as QAA Subject Benchmark Statements and professional body standards. For example, in a Pharmacology degree, a student would plausibly be expected to demonstrate competence in independently manipulating equipment to perform a task, because that is a requirement of the professional role the course is leading to. However, in a Chemistry degree, a student with manual dexterity difficulties may be able to use theoretical knowledge to direct others in performing a similar practical task.

Going forward, we’ll be developing institutional capacity for reviewing them from a disability perspective; considering who might be disadvantaged, and whether this is fair and justifiable in relation to that subject.

Competence standards should be measurable and written in a way which does not inadvertently discriminate. Going forward, we’ll be developing institutional capacity for reviewing them from a disability perspective; considering who might be disadvantaged, and whether this is fair and justifiable in relation to that subject. At this stage, we’re not expecting colleagues with subject expertise to also have the necessary understanding of how disability affects the demonstration of skills and knowledge. This is why we’re asking for a first draft to be submitted so that the competence standards can be reviewed and ultimately published in 2025. Without that first draft, there’s nothing to give feedback on.

Curriculum Redefined provides the perfect opportunity to think about this in a new way, drawing together the knowledge of our specialist disability practitioners with subject experts for a truly inclusive approach to programme design.

Through this approach, we’re aiming to effectively combine our understanding of this legislative requirement with the knowledge of our course content and delivery modes. That’s why Curriculum Redefined provides the perfect opportunity to think about this in a new way, drawing together the knowledge of our specialist disability practitioners with subject experts for a truly inclusive approach to programme design.

What are the benefits to specifying competence standards?

• Enabling an understanding of the parameters for flexibility and innovation in assessment. This is important in a landscape where AI is evolving rapidly, and we need to be agile in our approach.
• Enabling an inclusive approach to assessment design, acknowledging that some modes of assessment may put some students at a disadvantage, and therefore providing alternatives. Choice in assessment may also motivate students, if options reflect authentic tasks which relate to their identities and career aspirations.
• Enabling clarity about where reasonable adjustments can and can’t be made to the planned approach to assessment.
• Enhancing clarity by providing an opportunity for shared understanding of the aims and non-negotiable elements of our programmes among teaching teams.
• Allowing us to see where skill development should be built into the curriculum, thus, further enhancing inclusivity.
• Through clear information in course documentation, enabling applicants to make informed choices about whether courses are suitable for them. This will help us avoid situations where staff try their best to help students succeed in something which ultimately does not suit them. This will save both time and emotional energy for staff and students, and help to reduce the very real financial consequences when students are unsuccessful.

What support is available to help understand and identify competence standards?

A comprehensive set of resources is available in the Developing Competence Standards SharePoint site, and this will continue to evolve as we develop our institutional approach. It currently includes a toolkit, case studies, guidance on disability and reasonable adjustments, and the difference between competence standards and learning outcomes.

Training and development can be arranged through the Learning Design Agency by contacting learningdesign@leeds.ac.uk.

Jenny Brady, Inclusive Learning and Teaching Manager in LITE