In postsecondary education and training, quality is where rubber meets road. Low-quality programs can have harmful effects on students, employers, providers, and society at large. Such programs lead students to drop out or fail to get jobs for which their credentials should prepare them, sometimes going deeply into debt with no payoff. Employers may discover their new hires are less prepared than expected. Providers may see declining enrollment as students seek other options.
As the ecosystem of nondegree credentials—including certificates, certifications, licenses, microcredentials, and skill badges—takes center stage in discussions about preparing 21st century workers for a changing labor market, an uncomfortable realization is dawning among policymakers, practitioners, and researchers: We don’t know enough about the quality of nondegree credentials.
The Big Idea: Educational providers who seek to provide the best education possible, not to mention the policymakers interested in funding them, face muddy and conflicting definitions and an absence of data. Until recently it’s been difficult to say with certainty what credentials learners obtain, what they achieve after completion, or even who they are. That uncertainty has obstructed efforts to improve the outcomes learners experience after earning their credentials. But the fog is starting to lift, thanks to the efforts of many organizations, advocates, researchers, and policymakers.
The Details: Over the next several months Rutgers’ Education and Employment Research Center will tackle quality in the emerging nondegree landscape head-on through a series of blog posts. We’re going to explore what nondegree quality looks like, how to measure it, and what would count as success in improving quality. We’re also going to get to know the people, organizations, and agencies nurturing the quality of nondegree credentials. These “quality influencers” play vital roles in gathering data on quality, measuring it, and pointing the way toward high-quality approaches to noncredit education and nondegree credentials.
Over the years, researchers, practitioners, and policy analysts have put forward various definitions of quality for nondegree, noncredit, and short-term postsecondary programs. Yet quality, like efficiency or beauty or progress, may look different depending on where the observer sits.
So let’s start by picturing a framework for possible definitions of nondegree quality (figure 1). The credential’s design speaks to quality in several ways, including content, instruction, student assessment, and connection to degree-seeking pathways. The actual substance of instruction is central to quality, embodied as relevant competencies that the credential signifies. Finally, the learner validates the design and competencies by obtaining outcomes of value, such as getting a job that requires the credential they earned or enrolling in a relevant degree program. Flowing throughout this sequence are the market processes by which a credential comes to be recognized, such as endorsements, regulations, and practices. In a high-quality credential, all of these components are defined and implemented together.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for NDC Quality Design
In Practice: For example, to become a dental hygienist you would typically need to complete an accredited course in dental hygiene, pass the National Board Dental Hygiene Examination, and successfully complete a state clinical board examination. At this point, you would receive a license as a registered dental hygienist. The license is designed to reflect the skills needed as a dental hygienist, as are the national and state examinations. The course leading to these examinations must provide the relevant competencies to successfully complete them. And the value of the license is tested by the outcomes of the registered dental hygienists seeking employment. If dentists hire them and they succeed in their jobs that suggests that the credential is high quality. In some fields, several different organizations may offer certifications for the same role, leaving prospective students and employers to figure out any differences in quality that may exist between them.
Who Cares About Quality
Now we’re ready to think about the people with a direct stake in improving the quality of nondegree credentials. Individual learners and employers both want to understand the value proposition of a nondegree credential, but from different perspectives.
The Learner: The learner wants to know whether the credential is a good investment of their time and money. Will it lead to a better or upwardly mobile job or to a promotion? Would some other credential yield better results?
The Employer: The employer has to decide whether to ask for a credential in a job notice, or whether to give applicants who have earned the credential more weight in hiring decisions. Does this credential signify skill and competency that make applicants more likely to succeed in their jobs?
The Credential Provider: Then there’s the credential provider, typically thought of as a college or university. When it comes to nondegree credentials, however, it’s key to recognize other providers as well. Companies and nonprofit organizations increasingly offer workforce-oriented instruction and credentials. Credential providers want to know how to improve their programs so that their learners can achieve better outcomes after completion.
The Policymaker: Finally, policymakers have an important stake in nondegree credentials. State agencies and legislatures most commonly care about nondegree education, because they’re likely to be the ones paying for it. More than $5.6B in state funding goes to short-term credential programs annually, according to a recent survey by HCM Strategists. These stakeholders care about accountability for funding choices. Should public funds be used to support attainment of nondegree credentials? Which ones? And how to weigh funding for these credentials against other strategies to support workforce and employer needs?
Of course, one-year certificate programs at colleges are eligible for federal Title IV aid, which puts the federal government into the mix as well. The federal stake could go up dramatically if legislation were to pass making some shorter-term programs Pell-eligible.
The process of improving the quality of nondegree credentials is a complex one that has traditionally not received sufficient attention. In this series, we will dig deep into quality—exploring the information that each of these stakeholders needs, the stakes of their decisions, and the people working to shape both data and decisions. We hope you will follow the series here and on our website, share it with colleagues, and engage with us on the ideas.
Why Now: Fostering a robust discussion around quality is critical to defining, measuring, and improving nondegree credential programs. The field is on the verge of potentially significant public investment from policymakers at the state and federal levels. To navigate this complex, fast-growing landscape, it’s essential that we develop a rigorous evidence base and think carefully about what we know and what we need to better understand.
The sooner we do, the better we’ll be able to help students navigate these programs and ensure that they deliver on their promise to be pathways to prosperity.
Michelle Van Noy is director of the Education and Employment Research Center at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations, which focuses on better understanding how education intersects with the labor market. Tom Hilliard is deputy director for policy and engagement at the center.