Competence-based education (CBE) was broadened at the beginning of the 21st century in the context of discussions on the challenges and ways of modernising education, emphasising that it is innovative education: not only a new way of teaching, but also a new way of thinking (Makulova et al., 2015).CBE impacts Europeanisation on national curriculum reforms. The curriculum as a content concept has a continental European tradition and specific Anglo-American roots. It includes a detailed description of the curriculum content that teachers should transmit to students when teaching (Nordin & Sundberg, 2016). At the same time, it can be considered that CBE is a systems-change approach intended to re-shape traditional understandings of what, when, where, an d how students learn and demonstrate academic knowledge and skills (Evans, et al., 2020). This means that developing CBE must simultaneously focus on curriculum, teaching and learning. Nowadays, CBE is being integrated into more and more schools every year It essentially focuses on the development of a student's skills, knowledge (cognitive component), attitudes (affective component) and behaviour (behavioural component) (Cuyacot, E. & Cuyacot, M., 2022). Important elements of competence education are personalized learning, higher student engagement, clear learning objectives, flexibility, adaptation to diverse learners needs, strategies to ensure equity, real-world skills, and continual assessment (Levine & Patrick, 2019; Lorente, 2023). In general, CBE can be considered to be characterised by 5 dimensions: 1) learners progress after demonstrating mastery; 2) there are clear, measurable and achievable outcomes; 3) assessment is meaningful and provides positive learning experiences for learners; 4) learners receive timely, differentiated support based on their individual learning needs; and 5) learning outcomes emphasise competences that involve applying and creating knowledge as well as developing important skills and dispositions (Evans et al., 2019).

However, there are also problems in the implementation of CBE, which are related to (1) a lack of standardization - difficult to assess and compare the performance of students across different schools or regions; 2) narrow focus on specific skills or competencies, potentially overlooking the broader development of students in areas such as critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving; 3) too much emphasis on standardized testing to measure specific competencies; 4) inflexibility not always accommodate individual differences among students; and 5) reduced emphasis on content knowledge (Boritz & Carnaghan, 2003; Lassnigg, 2015; Edwards, 2016; Bowden, 2000; Hodge, et al., 2020).

This is particularly true for STEM education (UNESCO, 2019). According to Chalmers et al. (2017) schools face practical difficulties in integrating STEM disciplines in the implementation of Big Ideas (Harlen, 2015). This is attributed to timing, teacher skills, differing curriculum requirements and assessment criteria, and the fact that some STEM disciplines are optional. In general education an improved competence-based education content was fully introduced by 2023. Curriculum reform in Latvia will require a change in teaching and pedagogical approaches (OECD, 2020). The big ideas is central themes or key concepts that guide the teaching and learning of biology, aiming to ensure that students achieve specific learning outcomes related to understanding and engaging with the subject (Skola2030, 2019). The reform of biology content in Latvian schools aims to modernize and enhance the teaching of biology in Latvian schools. It involves changes in the curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment practices to ensure that students gain a deeper understanding of biological concepts and develop critical thinking skills.

The aim of the article is to find out how the implementation of CBE approach in Latvian schools improve the learning of biology. To do this, the research question was stated: What are the opinions of biology teachers on the implementation of the Biology I curriculum developed by Skola2030?

In 2023 the Faculty of Biology of the University of Latvia implemented the sub-project "Digital Authoring Solutions for the Development of Learning Strategies for STEM Content Acquisition to Mitigate the Impact of Pandemic Biology I" (Identification No VISC 2023/2) of the project "Support for the Development of Individual Competences of Learners" (No 8.3.2.2/16/I/001) financed by the European Social Fund of the Ministry of Education. The aim of the project was to develop a curriculum and 105 interactive lessons for the optimal level of the core course Biology I. In order to achieve the project objectives, a pilot-survey of Latvian secondary school biology teachers was carried out to find out about the implementation of the previous Biology I programme developed by Skola 2030. The survey contained 6 demographic items, 40 Likert-style items with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), and 3 open-response items. It was structured in 3 parts. The first part identified the respondent's profile (gender, age, type of school, length of service and subject taught). The second part was an evaluation of the Biology I Curriculum in the context of the competence approach, focusing on the relevance of the content to the core principles of the competence approach. The third part of the study focused on the institutional, professional and personal factors influencing teacher performance. The questionnaire was placed on the QuestionPro e-platform and the snowball sampling method was used to collect respondents. 67 secondary school biology teachers participated in the pilot study (by seniority 1/2 year to 10 years - 8; 11-20 years - 14; 21-30 years - 20; 31-45 years - 25), of whom 12% were male and 88% female, predominantly aged 48% 51-65 years. As this is a pilot study and the number of respondents to the survey will increase, only descriptive statistics are offered in the data analysis.

Content of Biology I Curriculum. Teachers consistently rate the relevance of the programme's learning outcomes (M=3.45, SD=0.80) and the use of recommended teaching methods (M=3.33, SD=0.98). Science literacy achieved (M=3.17, SD=1.10), all Big Ideas are included (M=3.14, SD=1.24) in the content of the programme. The logical sequence of biology topics and subtopics are rated average (M=2.55-2.76, SD=1.22-1.13), but below average - the total number of teaching hours is not sufficient to flexibly adapt the curriculum to students' individual needs and that the number of teaching hours is not sufficient (M=2.19, SD=1.09) for students to acquire research skills. Institutional factors. The school has a wide range of ICT facilities (M=3.55, SD=0.95), facilities for laboratory work (M=3.38, SD=1.00) and facilities for microscopy laboratory (M=3.32, SD=1.08). The distribution of responses shows that not all schools have such facilities, which is also reflected in the question on the use of sensors and computers (M=2.97, SD=1.12).There is a need for improvement of resources and materials in order to achieve all the program's results. Professional factors. Teachers lack time to develop lessons (M=2.45, SD=1.03) because they have to look for a lot of additional information (M=4.35, SD=0.72). Teachers have no problems with ensuring classroom discipline (M=4.09, SD=0.72) and they regularly conducts formative assessments (M=4.01, SD=0.76) and provides effective feedback (M=3.57, SD=0.79). Personal factors. A teacher's well-being is determined by the conditions in which they work. They receive support from the school administration and from their colleagues, both in collaborating with other teachers on cross-curricular topics, in observing their own lessons and in observing the lessons of other colleagues. Conclussion. Study confirms that teachers are successfully implementing the competence approach in Biology I, but there is a need to improve the content of Biology I curriculum and provide teachers with teaching materials and resources.

Boritz, J. E., & Carnaghan, C. A. (2003). Competency‐based education and assessment for the accounting profession: A critical review. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 2(1), 7-42. Bowden, J. A. (2000). Competency-based education–neither a panacea nor a pariah. In Technological Education and National Development conference. Chalmers, C., Carter, M., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9799-1 Cuyacot, E. P., & Cuyacot, M. T. (2022). Competency-based education: Learner’s new process for success. International Journal of Research, 11(4), 89-101. Edwards, R. (2016). Competence-based education and the limitations of critique, International Journal of Training Research, 14:3, 244-255, DOI:10.1080/14480220.2016.1254366 European Council. (2024). European Education Area. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/education-area/ Evans, C. M., Graham, S. E., & Lefebvre, M. L. (2019). Exploring K-12 competency-based education implementation in the Northeast States. NASSP Bulletin, 103(4), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365198774 Evans, C. M., Landl, E., & Thompson, J. (2020). Making sense of K‐12 competency‐based education: A systematic literature review of implementation and outcomes research from 2000 to 2019. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 5(4), e01228. Harlen, W. (2015). Towards big ideas of science education. School Science Review, 97(359), 97-107. Hodge, S., Mavin, T., & Kearns, S. (2020). Hermeneutic dimensions of competency-based education and training. Vocations and Learning, 13, 27-46. Lassnigg, L. (2015). Competence-based education and educational effectiveness. A critical review of the research literature on outcome-oriented policy making in education. HS Sociological Series. Working Paper 111 Levine, E. & Patrick, S. (2019). What is competency-based education? An updated definition. Vienna, VA: Aurora Institute Lorente, L. M. (2023). Competency-Based Curriculum As A Strategy For STEM Education In The 21st Century. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 36, 1310-1328. Makulova, A. T., Alimzhanova, G. M., Bekturganova, Z. M., Umirzakova, Z. A., Makulova, L. T., & Karymbayeva, K. M. (2015). Theory and practice of competency-based approach in education. International Education Studies, 8(8), 183-192. Nordin, A., & Sundberg, D. (2016). Travelling concepts in national curriculum policy-making: The example of competencies. European Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 314-328. OECD (2020), OECD Skills Strategy Implementation Guidance for Latvia: Developing Latvia’s Education Development Guidelines 2021-2027, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ebc98a53-en. Skola2030 [School 2030]. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.skola2030.lv/lv (in Latvian) UNESCO (2019). Exploring STEM competences for the 21st century.