How Might The Implementation Of Competency-based Progression Models In Upper-secondary Education Influence The Social Reproduction Of Inequality, Particularly In Terms Of The Ways In Which Students From Lower Socioeconomic Backgrounds Are Tracked Into Vocational Or Technical Programs Versus Those From Higher Socioeconomic Backgrounds Who Are Tracked Into University-preparatory Programs?

by ADMIN 390 views

The implementation of competency-based progression (CBP) models in upper-secondary education presents both opportunities and challenges in addressing social inequality, particularly in how students from different socioeconomic backgrounds are tracked into vocational or academic programs. Here's a structured analysis:

Opportunities for Reducing Inequality:

  1. Flexibility and Personalized Learning: CBP allows students to progress at their own pace, potentially reducing gaps caused by socioeconomic status (SES). Students needing more time can catch up, offering a more equitable learning environment.

Risks of Perpetuating Inequality:

  1. Potential for Bias in Tracking: Teachers might have lower expectations for lower SES students, influencing their placement into vocational tracks despite academic potential.

  2. Resource Disparities: Wealthier schools may offer more support for academic tracks, while poorer schools might push students towards vocational paths due to limited resources.

  3. Cultural Capital: Higher SES families may better navigate educational systems, advocating for academic tracks, whereas lower SES families might lack this advantage.

  4. Assessment Bias: If CBP assessments are biased, they may disproportionately disadvantage lower SES students, leading to vocational tracking.

  5. Rigid Structures: Inflexible CBP systems might not account for diverse learning experiences, potentially misplacing students in tracks that don't reflect their true potential.

  6. Counseling and Advising Biases: Counselors might steer lower SES students towards vocational programs, reinforcing inequality by not encouraging university aspirations equally.

Policy and Accountability Concerns:

  1. Need for Equity in Policies: Without policies ensuring equity, CBP could perpetuate tracking based on SES. Accountability measures focusing on test scores might push schools towards easier-to-measure tracks.

Conclusion:

While CBP offers flexibility and potential to reduce inequality, its implementation risks exacerbating existing disparities if biases, resource inequities, and tracking issues aren't addressed. Safeguards are crucial to ensure CBP doesn't perpetuate the tracking of lower SES students into vocational programs and higher SES into academic ones.