When you鈥檝e been around as long as I have, one gets all manner of intriguing questions. While I usually respond to such queries in private, some seem likely to be of broader interest. So, in 鈥淎sk Rick,鈥� I occasionally take up reader queries. If you鈥檇 like to send one along, just send it to me, care of Greg Fournier, at greg.fournier@aei.org.
Dear Rick,
I heard you speak recently about your book, , and you touched a bit on the mastery-based learning model. You suggested that it has a lot of promise but also that you don鈥檛 think people necessarily understand how big the challenges are to doing it well. My school is piloting mastery-based learning right now, so I鈥檓 wondering what strategies you鈥檇 recommend for the model to be successful?
Sincerely,
Moving to Mastery
Dear Moving,
It鈥檚 a terrific question. But given that it鈥檚 also a question about pedagogy and practice, I should give my standard disclaimer: I鈥檓 not a teacher, coach, school leader, or curriculum developer, and I don鈥檛 have to do the hard work of putting mastery into practice. So, I鈥檓 talking as an observer, not a doer. Be forewarned.
For readers who may have heard the term 鈥渕astery-based learning鈥� but aren鈥檛 100 percent sure what it is: It鈥檚 an approach that abandons the familiar time-bound model, in which teachers are obliged to march classes in lockstep and instead allows students to proceed at the pace at which they 鈥渕aster鈥� knowledge and skills. In theory, this allows all schools to give students the additional time and support they need (while allowing others to progress more rapidly if they鈥檙e ready to move on).
All that said, I think there are at least three requirements for mastery-based learning to deliver. It requires being clear on the skills and knowledge that students are supposed to master, developing valid and reliable ways of assessing that mastery, and ensuring that students do indeed master them. Where things get tricky is that these keys entail practical and political challenges that aren鈥檛 always obvious and whose severity varies by subject and grade level. This means mastery may look deceptively easy in some settings ... and then prove to be much more difficult in others.
OK, let鈥檚 run through the three points.
First, you can鈥檛 do mastery-based learning if it鈥檚 not crystal clear what students are supposed to learn. You鈥檇 think this would be obvious, but I can鈥檛 tell you how often I鈥檝e chatted with someone who spoke eloquently about mastery-based learning until it came to explaining how it would play out in specific subjects or grades. The conversation then devolves into hand waving, vague generalities, and assertions of, 鈥淲ell, we鈥檒l have to work that out.鈥� This is a problem. While it may not be terribly difficult to determine how to identify and sequence essential knowledge and skills in math, early literacy, or high school STEM classes, it gets a whole lot trickier in areas like English/language arts, history, civics, K鈥�8 science, or the arts. Plus, deciding what鈥檚 essential in some of these areas can get political in a hurry.
Second, it鈥檚 not enough to figure out what the essential skills and knowledge are. You also need to develop valid and reliable ways of measuring mastery. If students are expected to master the ability to explain photosynthesis or determine authorial intent, then it鈥檚 necessary to assess that in a timely and explicit fashion. After all, mastery-based learning is premised on the notion that students will move forward once they鈥檝e mastered a specific skill or body of knowledge. Assessments need to be precisely calibrated, and they need to yield rapid feedback. This poses a challenge for the kinds of authentic assessment that many educators would like to use. It鈥檚 tough to ensure that large numbers of portfolios, essays, or oral presentations are evaluated appropriately. But the alternative is relying on standardized tests, even for knowledge or skills (like civics, writing, or art) for which they may be an awkward fit. And worse, because we haven鈥檛 spent a lot of time or energy developing these kinds of assessments, schools have to rely upon makeshift options.
Finally, for a school to fully embrace mastery-based learning, it must maintain an unflinching commitment to ensuring that students master essential knowledge or skills before they progress. Some students may need to spend extended periods of time on a given unit or subject (and that may be especially true for students who are chronically absent, which could complicate efforts to reengage them in school). And some students will not be ready to graduate when they turn 18. Our history of holding the line on these kinds of expectations (from minimum competency testing to 鈥淩ead by 3鈥� programs) is not impressive. We鈥檝e seen extraordinary grade inflation in recent decades precisely because giving students bad news is unpleasant for teachers, students, and parents alike. It鈥檚 a political headache and it鈥檚 only too easy to imagine schools where 鈥渕astery-based鈥� serves as a euphemism for 鈥済ood enough.鈥� That would be bad for learning and awful for students who get pushed forward without crucial knowledge and skills.
So, as I see it, those are the three keys. And, truth be told, I fear a lot of schools are inclined to experiment with mastery-based learning without having sorted those issues out. Where that鈥檚 the case, I fear it鈥檚 primed to be one more promising idea that disappoints in practice.
