Credentials matter, but maybe not as much as many hope. That seems to be one of the takeaways from Fordham’s latest report by Matt Giani evaluating high school industry recognized credential (IRC) attainment and learner outcomes in Texas. Amongst other findings, it concludes that while IRCs have some benefit in terms of learners’ postsecondary and workforce outcomes, they are not “transformational.” For instance, only credentials in several areas (IT, Health Science, Business and Arts, and A/V) are linked with postsecondary success. And a credential in Cosmetology is an impediment to such success.
I won’t rehash the report’s other findings. The research is worth checking out on its own and represents a welcome addition to the IRC conversation. Indeed, it provoked some reflection on our part at ExcelinEd about the Credentials Matter work that we undertook a couple years ago. In it, we found that states are all over the map when it comes to the alignment of credentials with employer demand. Consider that only 18 percent of credentials earned by K–12 students were aligned with employer demand and associated with careers paying a minimum of $15/hour. (The Fordham report does not evaluate the demand by employers of the IRCs on Texas’s list.)
Fast forward to the present. More states are doubling down on IRCs as a metric for career readiness, not just Texas. So what should policymakers and state leaders know about the promise and pitfalls credentials?
Here are three things we learned during our work on Credentials Matter.
1. Industry recognized credentials are not created equally, but too many states treat them as such. Some are focused on general skills like workplace safety, while others demonstrate real occupational preparation. Some are aligned with postsecondary study and sustainable wages, while others are dead ends. In Texas’s list, mature credentials in IT from Google and CompTIA coexist with basic food safety credentials. A Licensed Medical Radiological Technologist credential carries the same weight as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Occupationally, the former pays a median wage of $29.50/hour, while the latter pays just $14.57/hour (for folks familiar with Texas, that’s $3.50/hour less than a car wash attendant at Bucc-ees). Texas is not alone in its treatment of IRCs. It is no wonder that IRCs are not “transformational” when there is too little differentiation of their value to learners, families, and economies.
2. IRCs are just one element of a high-quality pathway. We support states prioritizing employer valued credentials aligned to family-sustaining wage occupations. But we also recognize that the pathway to such occupations requires core academic proficiency, a range of work-based learning experiences, postsecondary credential attainment (of some sort), and learner supports for pathway advising and navigation. When states place too heavy of an emphasis on IRCs alone, there is no guarantee that these other elements exist or are accessible to all learners. Or when states promote “dead end” credentials as indicators of “readiness,” they are admitting that perhaps a high-quality pathway isn’t for all students. As we point out in Pathways Matter, learners take different journeys from education to workforce, but that should not limit their future aspirations and ability to support a family.
3. There are too many assumptions about IRCs and learner pathways, and not enough facts. If it seems that we are picking on certain credentials (CNA and Cosmetology, for instance), we do so for good reason: We’ve heard too many providers make assumptions about what’s going to happen to learners who earn them. A certified nursing assistant can go on to be a registered nurse. A cosmetologist can go on to own a business. A pharmacy technician can go on to be a pharmacist. Sure, they can. But do they? The gulf between the knowledge and skills needed for a CNA to be an RN, for a cosmetologist to be a business owner, and for a pharmacy tech to be pharmacist is vast. And one cannot assume that an IRC, and the pathways experiences learners are provided, are sufficient to bridge that gulf. In most states, there are nothing but anecdotes to back up these assumptions. No hard data, no assurances to learners and their families that these leaps are achievable. In fact, most states cannot answer basic questions about what happens to learners who choose certain pathways over others.
So what can states do to create pathway experiences that are transformational for learners? They can start by conducting a Return on Investment Analysis of learner pathways spanning K–12, postsecondary, and the workforce—to know how well their current offerings are working. The analysis provides an opportunity for states to set priorities for what a high-quality learner pathway should include, to identify a core set of metrics—not just one proxy—for evaluating offerings, and to make longer-term systemic improvements that guarantee learners economic mobility and security down the road.
Credentials do matter, but pathways matter more.
