Medical billing, supply chain management, web design and development—name a field, and there’s probably a course available to learn it. Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of workforce credentials—degrees, certificates, badges, apprenticeships—over 1 million nationwide by one count. They are offered by nearly 60,000 providers, ranging from week-long courses to programs extending over months or years.
The growth comes as more students of all ages opt for cheaper and faster alternatives to four-year degrees and as more employers drop requirements for them.
States and the federal government are also embracing these programs. Many states subsidize them, and there is discussion about covering more of them under the federal Pell Grant program.
Given the nation’s pressing workforce demands—notably in industries such as health care, logistics, and information technology—the growth of certificate programs is a welcome development. In fact, we can’t reach our educational attainment goals without them.
Yet non-degree programs won’t be of much help if they don’t meet a high standard of quality—and right now, we can’t always be sure they do. In truth, we even lack a shared understanding of what “quality” is.
Specifically, we have no common assurance that these offerings are sufficiently aligned with industry needs, that they lead to well-paying jobs, or that they produce the skills and knowledge they advertise. Faced with a breathtaking array of choices, students (and employers) are too often flying in the dark.
We already know what can result. The education landscape is littered with certificates that have left students in heavy debt with little to show for their investment. Some wind up in low-wage jobs that they could have secured without a credential. And far too often, these programs have diverted first-generation learners and students of color from four-year colleges where they might have been better served.
We need to do better. As a first step, that means adopting a common definition of “quality.” The National Skills Coalition, an organization that helps states advance policy in workforce development, defines a quality credential as one that gives individuals the means to equitably achieve their educational goals. More specifically, the credential program must show evidence of employment and expected earnings, along with proof that credential holders can demonstrate competencies aligned with jobs. Ideally, the credentials should also be “stackable,” meaning they can build on each other to help students advance to better jobs.
But how we can know whether programs meet the standards we set?
Enter Credential Engine, a nonprofit organization working to make sense of the confusing credential landscape. It pulls thousands of these programs into a searchable registry that uses common metrics about program content, outcomes, and costs. Using a common, well-defined lexicon—the Credential Transparency Description Language, or CTDL—the registry allows users to sort up-to-date information about what each credential represents in terms of learning skills and how those skills can be used.
More than two dozen states and regions are using Credential Engine tools. Indiana, a longtime partner, is working with the group to build a single open-source registry. It gives users a full picture of what credential programs are offered in the state, how effective they are, and how they align with jobs and link to pathways. An Achievement Wallet, an online learning record developed in connection with Western Governors University, builds on this data. The Wallet captures individuals’ skills and competencies—whether gained in courses or on the job—and then lays out career pathways in which learners can acquire additional skills.
We can understand the attraction of these programs: States know that everyone benefits from having clear quality standards for credential programs, expressed in a common language. Students who face a dizzying array of programs can match those offerings to their goals and life circumstances. And policymakers have a valuable guide as they set education and workforce goals and create budgets to meet them.
Better information can also help improve equity and reduce occupational segregation, which persists today. A study this year from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that from 2017 to 2021, women were much more likely than men to work in lower-wage occupations. The same was true for Hispanic and Black workers, relative to White workers. White men, meanwhile, were overrepresented in occupations with annual wages of $20,000 to $30,000 more than the jobs for other groups.
There may be many reasons for this, but data show students of color are more likely to enroll in credential programs that offer lower wage returns than their white counterparts.
A study this month from the research group Education Equity Solutions found mixed results for Black and Latino graduates of certificate programs for manufacturing jobs. The group conducted more than 100 in-depth interviews with graduates, employers who helped design the programs, and college personnel.
Not surprisingly, the study found that students expect immediate dividends from the programs.
“To better meet students’ needs and expectations while addressing regional workforce demands, colleges should pursue certificate programs that ensure graduates secure a quality job from the very start,” the report said.
In their interviews, graduates said quality for them means advantages such as a living wage, eight-hour workdays, a safe environment, and opportunities for advancement. The report said colleges cannot control job quality, but they can design programs for jobs that meet specific standards and equip students to enter those fields and grow their careers.
As non-degree credentials emerge as part of the “new normal” for learning beyond high school, we must insist that they be better at delivering value. It’s clear that many actors must play a role in making this happen, including employers, states, accreditors, and others. Much more needs to be done, but we know this much: No single one of those groups can take responsibility for improving the system—it’s up to all of us.
This article was originally published in Forbes.