Unraveling the Case for Credentials in High School

Students can earn more than 1.8 million credentials in the United States today. We know education pays–particularly for those with a bachelor’s degree. But the rapid expansion of credentials offered outside traditional education institutions–through businesses, industry groups, or a state certifying entity–has introduced new dimensions of complexity. These non-degree credentials hold promise for reskilling and upskilling. But they are largely unregulated, making it difficult to know which will lead to a good job and which will lead to a dead end. 

Despite this uncertainty, non-degree credentials have become one of the most widely embraced strategies for strengthening career readiness in the K-12 education system. As of 2024, 26 states consider the attainment of an industry-recognized certificate as an indicator of career readiness in their K-12 accountability systems, and 35 states report funding them through state or federal streams. But are they worth it? Until recently, the field had little evidence to know for sure. New research from Ohio and Texas provides some early evidence: yes, non-degree credentials can be valuable for high school students, but with some caveats.

State education agencies are hard at work sorting through the extensive marketplace of credentials to identify high-value options for students. But even with these efforts, state approved lists are overwhelming. In Texas, the state’s 2025-2030 Industry-Based Certification List includes more than 500 certifications and licenses that count toward K-12 accountability and bonus funding. Ohio offers a similarly extensive list of over 600 certificates and licenses that count toward alternative high school graduation requirements, accountability, and incentives. 

Research from Ohio finds that while some of the certifications offered in the state deliver long-term value, others do not. For example, certifications earned in the manufacturing industry led to stronger income and employment potential than those in fields such as education, human services, or the arts. Findings from Texas tell a similar story. Students who graduated between 2017 and 2022 now see as much as 35 percent higher earnings or up to 30 percent lower earnings depending on the credential they attained. 

This variation is not surprising when you consider the range of credentials states approve. Both Ohio and Texas lists include entry-level certifications, like Microsoft 365 Fundamentals, and more advanced, high-value certificates, like the Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) certificate. Yet, both certifications count toward state requirements for career readiness. If states want to deliver real value for students, policy must push beyond the quantity of certifications and toward quality.

One of the clearest ways to ensure quality and improve outcomes for students is to ensure certificates and licenses are tightly aligned to career and technical education (CTE) programs of study. When students concentrate in a CTE program of study by taking two or more courses within the same program and earn an aligned certificate or license, outcomes drastically improve. However, the same research from Ohio and Texas shows that when students earn “misaligned credentials”–or credentials not connected to a CTE program of study–the consequences are significant. In Texas, aligned credentials are associated with 14.7 percent higher wages and a 1.3 percentage point increase in job stability five to ten years after earning them. Ohio’s findings reinforce this pattern, showing that students who earn credentials through CTE programs earn 18 percent more by their mid-twenties. 

This consistency is not coincidental; it is a clear signal for policymakers. Aligning credentials to a coherent sequence of related academic coursework should not be optional. Credentials should be embedded within CTE programs of study and attained by students after they have completed at least two courses within the program and reached concentrator status.

While non-degree credentials are intended to expand opportunity, the data suggests uneven benefits across student groups. Both Ohio and Texas research shows that white males predominantly benefit from certifications and licenses offered in high school with stronger longitudinal wage and employment outcomes. In Ohio, the research notes that males are earning more “high-value” credentials than females, which likely contributes to the earnings gap that continues to widen over time between males and females earning credentials.

Economic disadvantage also plays a role. Although economically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students earning certificates see similar wage returns immediately after high school graduation, gaps emerge over time. By year four, economically disadvantaged students in Ohio are earning significantly less and no longer see a wage return compared to non-economically disadvantaged students. And by year seven, their wage return is negative with an even further spread.

The disparities are even more apparent for students with disabilities earning high school certificates. When compared to students who did not earn a credential, students with disabilities in Ohio show no positive income return after graduation, and experience substantial negative returns over time. This aligns with other research that names higher unemployment rates and lower wages for individuals with disabilities. Without more information on what certifications students in the study completed, it’s difficult to determine what impact certification selection or quality may have on the outcomes for students with disabilities. However, it’s clear that simply obtaining certifications is not enough to overcome the significant barriers students with disabilities face in the labor market.

Texas researchers report similar patterns across all student groups and caution that although certifications were conceptualized to promote equity, the opposite is actually happening. These findings point to a critical need for states to examine who benefits from which certificates and why. 

For example, we still do not know why females are not choosing to pursue the same high-value credentials as males, or why the wage returns eventually fall off for economically disadvantaged students, or what labor market dynamics are at play that may be leading such a large number of students with disabilities to remain unemployed, despite earning industry credentials. Offering industry-recognized credentials to students has potential. However, without further evaluation of disaggregated data, it is difficult to know how to best leverage credentials to expand opportunities for all students, rather than reinforcing broader labor market trends that lead to persistent disparities for particular subgroups.

Without careful design, well-intended policy can incentivize quantity over quality and not ultimately lead to what’s best for young people. The research from Texas and Ohio offers a clear path forward. States can strengthen their outcomes by narrowing approved credential lists, requiring alignment with CTE, and using data to guide continuous improvement. The next key challenge for policymakers is to ensure these credentials are part of a strategy that consistently leads to meaningful opportunity for every student, regardless of demographic and the challenges they may eventually face in the labor market.