CURRICULUM development process usually begins with knowing the needs (through situation analysis) of the people for whom the curriculum would be developed. Then decision is made on the national/state aims and goals of education based on the philosophy, psychology and sociology of the people concerned. Later on, level-wise (primary, lower or higher secondary) general objectives of education are developed. Some of the objectives fall in the cognitive, some in the affective and some others in the psychomotor domain developed by Benjamin Samuel Bloom (an American educational psychologist) in 1956.
Then the level-wise objectives are divided and distributed in subjects (e.g., language, math, science etc.) or grades of the level concerned. For example, development of scientific attitude in students is a general objective of (say, lower secondary) education. For this, several specific objectives, such as developing 1) basic science knowledge, 2) affection for that knowledge and 3) skills to collect and present evidence (i.e., field data), can be made first either for science subject or for grades 7, 8 or 9 and vice versa. Lastly, subject-based and grade-wise specific objectives are fine-grained into more specific and behavioral objectives termed 'learning outcomes' (e.g., learners will be able to analyze field data and formulate conclusions). Once the objectives are developed such fine-grained, contents to be studied are prepared in textbooks, these are taught in classroom situation and achievement of the objectives by the students is assessed through various methods. Describing educational objectives as learning outcomes help both preparation of contents and assessment of the outcomes well. The briefly described mode of curriculum development above is known as objective-based curriculum making.
There is another way of developing curriculum for special purposes such as to develop some skills or competencies necessary in technical, vocational or professional education. For this, 'competency-based' curriculum is developed for medicine, teaching, nursing, driving etc. This mode of curriculum development is not suitable for general education, especially in primary and secondary levels.
Yet some educationists in Bangladesh claim that our primary school (grades 1-5) curriculum was made competency-based over a decade ago. Having doubt in my mind, I looked into the primary curriculum lastly revised in 2011 based on which new textbooks were written for the academic year 2012-'13. I found, the primary curriculum has 13 'objectives' that were divided into 29 'terminal competencies' and later those were distributed among different subjects and grades 1-5. Use of the word 'terminal' here is superfluous because an objective of education for any level is achieved only at the successful completion of learning; hence always 'terminal'. The finest level objectives, however, were termed 'learning outcomes' as in the secondary curriculum. I must say, both the 13 'objectives' and the 29 so-called 'terminal competencies' are all 'general objectives'. The 13 objectives are broader and 29 objectives are somewhat narrower; but most of them have combinations of cognitive, affective and psychomotor objectives. These can, in no way, be taken as competencies although some (of cognitive and psychomotor domains) have skill or competency-like expression.
I have been told that it was an Indian education consultant Ms. Adarsh Khanna who advised somebody in our education arena to prepare 'competency-based' curriculum and having a liking for the term 'competency, it was used for 'objectives' in the education plan (curriculum) of primary level both in 1998-2002 and in 2010-'11.
I feel relieved that our primary curriculum was actually not made 'competency-based,' only the term was used erroneously. What would happen if it were really made 'competency-based'? Our kids would have turned to machine-like 'doers' (professionals?) in such tender age, devoid of moral values, patriotism, and affection for parents, relatives and fellow countrymen! Thank God, little understanding of our primary curriculum consultants saved us from a disaster.
Now it's time to drive the word 'competency' away from our primary curriculum. Is competency a bad thing that I am proposing to drive this away? Not at all! We can make each and every training curriculum in teaching, medicine, nursing, driving, and the curriculum of every professional course 'competency-based'. The curriculum of any discipline of the tertiary level education (in universities) can also be made 'competency-based.'     

The writer is PhD in Science Education (NIE, NTU, Singapore), and Senior Specialist, NCTB, Dhaka.
Email: [email protected]