The meaning of competency-based reforms varies, particularly in the way reformers frame the relationship between disciplinary knowledge and competencies. This chapter draws on case studies of contested reforms in France, Russia, and Uruguay to compare how actors’ interpretations differed, and how the differences mattered. Whereas some French educators felt that traditional disciplinary knowledge discouraged meaningful learning, Uruguayan teachers valued the disciplines, and Russian reformers saw disciplines as essential to developing higherorder skills. Moreover, whereas French reforms required the same competencies for all students, the Russian reformers saw competencies (defined as primarily personal rather than cognitive)—as suitable for mass but not elite education. However, although French educators sought complex cognitive competencies for all, this ideal broke down in actual classroom practice. The comparison thus highlights not only different attitudes toward disciplinary knowledge, but also different attitudes toward equity, as well as the central roles of teachers in competency-based reforms. Implications for curriculum designers and textbook writers are suggested.