Key competencies: a new way forward or more of the same?

Abstract

Abstract This article explores and critiques the different ways in which the concept of has been understood and represented in the curriculum. It is argued that if competencies are to go beyond simply reinforcing the curriculum status quo, the role they play in the curriculum needs to be better understood. The article develops one approach to understanding competencies that will, it is argued, enhance their transformative potential. Introduction The idea/language of key competencies has been around for the past 20 years. The concept has travelled, being taken up in many places at different times, in new forms and with new emphases. Like most educational ideas, key competencies can be vehicles for simply reproducing the curriculum status quo, or for transforming the curriculum for social justice purposes. In my view, their various manifestations have been more of the former than the latter, but it does not have to be that way. I will argue that if key competencies are to fulfil their transformative potential, there is a need to understand how they can be understood, represented, and practised in curriculum terms. The article is in three parts. In the first, I will describe how competencies have been, and are, understood and represented in curriculum, using mainly Australian examples. In the second, I will critique these dominant understandings on two major grounds: (a) that competencies lack a sturdy rationale; and (b) that competencies have not been understood adequately in curriculum terms. I will use this critique to develop a reconceptualised version of competencies. In the third part, I will speculate on the benefits that a different approach to understanding key competencies might bring. Section A: What are key competencies and where have they come from? In its first manifestation, the concept of key competencies was (and still is, in some countries) a term used to describe generic skills for the workplace. That is, key competencies were economically motivated--with the workplace being their major reference point. For example, key competencies, developed in Australia in the late 1980s to early 1990s, were defined in the Mayer (1992) report as: ... competencies essential for effective participation in the emerging patterns of work and work organisation. They focus on the capacity to apply knowledge and skills in an integrated way in work situations. Key Competencies are generic in that they apply to work generally rather than being specific to work in specific occupations and industries. This characteristic means that the Key Competencies are not only essential for effective participation in work but are also essential for effective participation in further education and in adult life more generally. (p. 7) The Australian Mayer Key Competencies comprise competencies that are skills or attributes (see Table 1). They are seen as transcending traditional subject boundaries, and as therefore being cross-curricular. Whilst they can be developed within a specific subject area, the skill or attribute is not exclusive to a particular discipline. For example, working in a team is a generic skill. Students can learn to do this in many different contexts. The Key Competencies are also seen as being important for all young people regardless of the education or training pathway they follow (Mayer, 1992, p. 1), and indeed as a bridge between general and vocational education (Mayer, 1992). That is, while they may have been motivated for economic reasons, they are also applicable to other aspects of life. There were similar moves in other countries, such as the Scottish Core Skills, English Key Skills, New Zealand's Essential Skills, key competencies in a number of European countries, and the US Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, Workplace Know-How (Werner, 1995). …