This piece is part of a series exploring competency-based education (CBE) and focuses on the central role of administrative leadership in successful CBE implementation. For curated research on CBE that may be of particular use to administrative leadership, consult our annotated bibliography on CBE in higher education.
Introduction
When colleges discuss CBE, the focus usually lands on curriculum design or assessment. But ask a registrar, a financial aid director, or an academic advisor, and you’ll hear a different story. Imagine a registrar staring at a student information system built entirely around credit hours, wondering how to capture competencies on a transcript. Or a financial aid officer struggling to fit flexible, self-paced learning into aid rules designed for fixed semesters. Or an advisor trying to guide a student who is moving at an accelerated pace in one competency but struggling in another, without the tools to track progress in real time.
CBE is not just an academic content shift; it is a shift in institutional structure as well. This creates opportunities such as flexibility, faster completion, and better workforce alignment, but it also exposes risk. Without leadership, programs can be slowed by outdated policies or resource gaps (Nodine & Johnstone, 2015; Peek, 2020).
CBE succeeds when faculty and administrators are aligned. Together, they determine whether it remains an isolated innovation or evolves into a transformative model that redefines higher education. More than a pedagogical approach, CBE challenges the long-standing systems that have structured higher education for a century. Institutions that don’t include administrators and advisors in the conversation early often find their programs stuck in small pilots or slowed by red tape. To succeed, CBE needs shared leadership from provosts, deans, registrars, financial aid staff, IT professionals, and academic advisors working alongside faculty (Nodine, 2016; Peek, 2020). Without effective leadership, outdated policies and limited resources can impede progress (Nodine & Johnstone, 2015; Peek, 2020).
Collaboration between faculty and administrators is critical. Faculty contribute expertise in curriculum and assessment, while administrators design the policies and systems that enable new learning models. Research from the Competency-Based Education Network (C-BEN) demonstrates that clearly defined roles and shared accountability prevent programs from stalling (Navarre Cleary, 2015). More recent scholarship emphasizes that sustainability requires leaders to rethink finance, accreditation, and policy so CBE can support lifelong, stackable learning (Brower & Specht-Boardman, 2022). Ultimately, CBE flourishes when faculty and administrators align vision with the systems and structures that bring it to life. This article examines four key domains where shared leadership is essential: strategy, operations, infrastructure, and change management.
Strategy, Ownership, and Sustainability
The first goal of shared leadership is strategy, which involves aligning on fit, ownership, and finances. The initial question is fit: how does CBE connect to the institution’s mission? Is it intended to serve adult learners, expand online programs, or strengthen workforce partnerships? Institutions that define the purpose early develop more resilient programs (Klein-Collins, 2016). Globally, CBE has been associated with broader development objectives, such as Kenya’s Vision 2030, where competency frameworks align graduates directly with labor market needs (Syomwenei, 2023).
Ownership also matters. CBE can’t live in one department. It requires senior leaders working in partnership with faculty to secure board approval, accreditation alignment, and long-term resources. Without that top-level commitment and shared responsibility, programs often falter (Nodine & Johnstone, 2015). Collaboration ensures that academic, administrative, and technological systems evolve together to support CBE’s goals. When departments operate in isolation, misaligned processes and policies can undermine program coherence and sustainability (Le et al., 2014).
Money is another deciding factor. Tuition models, faculty workload, advising, and tech investments all must be designed for scale, not just pilots. Many CBE programs fail because financial models weren’t sustainable (Peek, 2020). As such, policy reform must also be part of the picture. Most state financial aid is still tied to credit hours, limiting who can access CBE and making it difficult for institutions to scale. As Anderson (2018) notes, states that modernize their rules create space for growth by allowing subscription-based tuition models, recognizing direct assessment programs, and aligning credentialing pathways with workforce needs. These policy shifts don’t just ease administrative burdens; they give students more flexible and affordable ways to progress, and they give institutions the confidence to invest in CBE as a core strategy rather than a side project. The bottom line is that CBE only becomes a lasting part of the institution when faculty and administrators share a common vision and work together to support it with the policies, resources, and commitment needed for sustainability.
Operations and Infrastructure
If senior leaders set the direction, the day-to-day reality rests with the teams who make it work. CBE either comes to life or stalls in the hands of registrars, financial aid staff, IT professionals, compliance officers, and faculty advisors. For example, registrars face the difficult task of rethinking transcripts and course articulations in systems designed for credit hours and semesters. Without new ways of recording competencies, students risk having their progress misunderstood or undervalued. Financial aid teams encounter similar hurdles as they try to package support for students who move at different paces, ensuring accelerated learners are not penalized and slower-paced learners can still access aid (Ganzglass et al., 2011). At the same time, compliance staff and faculty leaders must work closely with accreditors to demonstrate rigor while avoiding the trap of forcing CBE back into outdated seat-time models (Klein-Collins, 2016; Nodine, 2016).
Infrastructure is another critical factor. Institutions like Western Governors University (WGU) have shown what’s possible when data dashboards make competency progress visible at scale (Nodine, 2016). These systems give students real-time feedback and give advisors clear visibility into progress and gaps. Yet, as Lomis et al. (2021) point out, systems alone aren’t enough. Data can just as easily overwhelm or intimidate if it is seen as surveillance. For CBE to thrive, students, faculty, and advisors must experience these systems as developmental tools that support growth. Coaching models, frequent advising, and proactive outreach are necessary complements that humanize the technology and keep learners engaged.
Examples from CAEL’s Jumpstart Initiative further highlight that cross-functional collaboration is the difference between success and stagnation. Colleges that underestimated the need to align IT, registrars, and advising ended up with misinformation, delays, and frustrated faculty. By contrast, institutions that deliberately built collaborative teams across academic affairs, operations, and technology reported smoother implementation and stronger outcomes (Klein-Collins, 2016). Globally, universities like those in Kenya are rethinking operations and infrastructure to align competencies directly with employability and national development priorities (Syomwene, 2023). Operations and infrastructure have to be a priority and not an afterthought. They form the backbone of CBE, and success depends on administrators, faculty, and staff working together to redesign them for this new model of learning.
Leading Change
Perhaps the toughest part of CBE is shifting culture. By its fundamental nature, CBE challenges long-standing assumptions about teaching, workload, and progression, so resistance is natural. Good leaders manage this by explaining the “why,” providing training, and involving faculty and staff in the design process (Ganzglass et al., 2011). Lomis et al. (2021) add that building psychological safety is key. People need to trust that CBE is about supporting learning, not undermining it. When leaders create space for dialogue, acknowledge concerns, and reinforce that quality and rigor remain central, they build the trust needed for faculty and staff to embrace change as a shared mission rather than an imposed mandate.
Champions at the provost or president level drive successful CBE adoption. They set the vision, connect CBE to the mission, and build bridges with faculty, staff, employers, and policymakers. For instance, WGU’s founding leadership tied CBE directly to workforce needs by working closely with employer councils to define competencies and by restructuring advising around full-time mentors, embedding leadership decisions into the student experience (Nodine, 2016). At the University of Wisconsin (UW) System, senior leadership ensured that the Flex Option was not treated as a boutique program but as a system-wide initiative by aligning it with state workforce priorities and securing accreditation approval (Anderson, 2018). Without that kind of top-level advocacy, programs often stay siloed and never move beyond pilots (Nodine & Johnstone, 2015). At the state level, champions also matter. Anderson (2018) highlights how states like Texas and Wisconsin modernized aid and credentialing policies—such as authorizing subscription-based tuition or recognizing direct assessment programs—to create the enabling conditions institutions need to grow.
Ultimately, lasting change comes when leaders and faculty embed CBE into policies, budgets, and governance so it’s not just a “special project” but a standard way of doing business (Brower & Specht-Boardman, 2022). Examples from the field, like approaches taken by WGU and UW's Flex Option, show the power of institutionalizing CBE by making it a foundational consideration of not just curriculum but also tuition models, registrar systems, and other facets of operations and support. Likewise, Texas A&M University-Commerce adopted a subscription tuition model that lowered degree costs while embedding CBE in its financial framework (Peek, 2020). These cases illustrate that when policies, budgets, and governance are aligned, CBE moves from being an innovation on the margins to a durable institutional practice.
Conclusion
CBE can realize its potential to provide flexible learning, affordable pathways, and stronger connections to the workforce, but this outcome depends on institutional leadership as much as curricular design. Achieving meaningful reform requires faculty and administrators to act in concert, aligning strategy, operations, infrastructure, and culture.
Faculty define the learning experience, while administrators create the systems that sustain it at scale. Together, they determine whether CBE remains a limited initiative or becomes an enduring element of higher education. For institutional leaders, the priorities are clear: link CBE to mission and workforce goals, modernize registrar and financial systems, invest in data and advising infrastructure, and guide cultural change through collaboration with faculty and staff.
When leadership and partnership are aligned, CBE evolves from an isolated innovation into a transformative institutional model that reshapes how colleges serve students and fulfill their educational mission.
References
Anderson, L. (2018). Competency‐based education: Recent policy trends. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 3(1), Article e01057.
Brower, A. M., & Specht-Boardman, R. J. (2022). New models of higher education: Unbundled, rebundled, customized, and DIY. IGI Global.
Ganzglass, E., Bird, K., & Prince, H. (2011). Giving credit where credit is due: Creating a competency-based qualifications framework for postsecondary education and training. Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
Klein-Collins, R. (2016). Faculty and administrator views on competency-based education: A report from CAEL's CBE Jumpstart Initiative. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL).
Le, C., Wolfe, R. E., & Steinberg, A. (2014). The past and the promise: Today's competency education movement. Students at the Center: Competency Education Research Series. Jobs for the Future.
Lomis, K. D., Mejicano, G. C., Caverzagie, K. J., Monrad, S. U., Pusic, M., & Hauer, K. E. (2021). The critical role of infrastructure and organizational culture in implementing competency-based education and individualized pathways in undergraduate medical education. Medical Teacher, 43(sup2), S7–S16.
Navarre Cleary, M. (2015). Faculty and staff roles and responsibilities in the design and delivery of competency-based education programs: A C-BEN snapshot. DePaul University.
Nodine, T. R. (2016). How did we get here? A brief history of competency‐based higher education in the United States. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 1(1), 5–11.
Nodine, T., & Johnstone, S. M. (2015). Competency-based education: Leadership challenges. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(4), 61–66.
Peek, K. (2020). Competency-based education made easy: A step-by-step handbook for developing and implementing competency-based education programs in institutions of higher education. South Texas College.
Syomwene, A. (2023). Designing competency based higher education curriculum: Strategies and actions. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(7), 23–36.