Digging Deeper: The Challenge of Embedding Certifications into Degrees

New America conducted a second phase of the study, which consisted of structured interviews with staff from 12 institutions that responded to the Phase I survey. We aimed to identify common practices employed by schools using embedded certifications, and looked for evidence to support the theory that industry certifications help better align learners’ skills with employers’ needs. In addition, we spoke with representatives of industry associations and businesses connected with some of the survey respondents (see Appendix for questions, topic areas, and interviewees' job titles).

Participants were entirely public institutions, and tended to specialize in certificate and degree programs lasting two years or less.¹ Nine of 12 institutions were also Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College Career Training (TAACCCT) program grantees, and three had participated in the Lumina-funded Right Signals Initiative.² In selecting institutions for interviews, we aimed to represent a variety of geographic, programmatic, and institutional contexts.³ The institutions that participated in the interviews are mapped below.

Though the challenges and opportunities cited by the institutions we spoke with mirrored the findings from Lumina Foundation’s survey, the interviews allowed us to gain a richer and more nuanced understanding of how specific challenges such as exam costs and lack of access to data hamper efforts by institutions to expand the use of certifications in their degree programs. The interviews also gave us a greater appreciation of the role of institutional champions in initiating and sustaining efforts to rebundle degrees to include industry certifications. We learned that embedding certifications into degree programs is hard, but not impossible. Scaling the practice beyond just a few degree programs is even harder, but can be done with a combination of institutional and external support; measuring the impact of embedding certifications into degrees on student outcomes is harder still. Below are some of the key themes that emerged from the interviews.

The interviews revealed a variety of distinct but related motivations for embedding certifications into degree programs. The most commonly cited reasons were to help make students more attractive to employers, to improve relations with local employers, and to address employers' concerns about skills gaps among college graduates. Multiple respondents talked about how certifications provide a common language for colleges and employers to discuss competencies, opening doors to a much broader—and better—conversation around what employers need and how colleges can help. For example, Miami Dade College reported that tech sector employers brought together through its IT entrepreneurship accelerator warmed to the idea of hiring associate degree candidates with certifications for positions for which they had previously required bachelor’s degrees.

Our interviews also revealed a common set of challenges to embedding certifications into degree programs, and a variety of innovative strategies for addressing them. For the most part, however, each institution had limited awareness of how other colleges or universities were confronting similar challenges.

Designing the Degree: The interviews revealed a common set of implementation practices and challenges, including in the processes of securing faculty buy-in, changing and aligning curricula, maintaining third-party testing facilities, and determining student test scores. All of the institutions interviewed had systems for awarding credit for prior learning in place, and five of them had established defined credit equivalencies for some industry certifications. But apart from some shared practices among schools in Florida, each program had developed its own policies regarding the timing of certification exams in programs, their status as required or optional components, and subsequent data collection. In most cases, individual faculty or deans made these determinations on their own, sometimes with the input of industry associations and/or certifying bodies, but generally with little outside guidance or technical assistance. 11 participant institutions mentioned the importance of an institutional “champion” in driving embedded certification efforts: at six institutions, this was a faculty member or grant coordinator associated with a single program or department, and at five institutions it was a senior administrator or college president. Higher-placed champions appeared to correspond with a broader variety of disciplines and degree programs with embedded certifications.

Financing: The challenge of paying for certification exams came up in every interview, revealing a common concern and a variety of different approaches. Consistent with Lumina Foundation’s survey findings, the most common approaches involved student payment, either by including the examination cost in program tuition and fees or by requiring students pay at the time of the exam. Six of 12 respondents also drew on state or philanthropic funds to cover exam costs for some students. Only two institutions reported support from employers to pay for certification exams of students (the Community College of Baltimore County from local car dealerships and Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College from shipfitting partners). In each of our interviews, respondents considered the cost of certification exams a significant barrier to expanding access to them.

Paying for certification exams was not the only financial constraint mentioned. Program development costs were also a widely cited barrier, and institutions appeared more likely to embed certifications where they had dedicated funding to do so. All of the institutions we interviewed noted the importance of federal Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education (CTE) Act funding to support industry certification use. Other federal and philanthropic funding such as TAACCCT grants, the Right Signals initiative, and JP Morgan Chase’s New Skills for Youth initiative were also cited as having provided critical support for embedding certifications into existing programs.

Certifications provide a common language for colleges and employers to discuss competencies, opening doors to a much broader —and better—conversation around what employers need and how colleges can help.

Expanding Outside Traditional Fields: Lumina Foundation’s survey found institutions that reported embedding certification across all 16 industry sectors listed in its survey instrument. Among our interviewees, the range of disciplines with embedded certifications was much narrower, and was dominated by fields with well-established certifications and certification vendors. These traditional fields included automotive technology (nine out of 12 institutions), aviation (six institutions), welding (seven institutions), and entry-level IT and healthcare occupations (11 institutions each).

The multiple challenges to expanding embedded certifications outside of these traditional fields often came back to a lack of resources to engage faculty, to identify relevant, in-demand certifications, and to secure employer buy-in. The absence of clear evidence that embedding certifications is good for students and employers makes the practice hard to sell in disciplines or industry sectors not familiar with it. In non-traditional sectors, strong industry advocacy or consistent direction from senior leadership were typically necessary to get embedding initiatives off the ground. At Broward College, the Florida Association of Insurance Agents provided both encouragement and accreditation for the institution’s fledgling certified risk management program; at Alfred State College, a member of the State University of New York (SUNY) system, a system-wide push to adopt applied learning practices supported administrators in the expansion of certification practices beyond their traditional purview in the building trades.

Respondents considered the cost of certification exams a significant barrier to expanding access to them.

Despite the challenges of embedding certifications in non-traditional disciplines, a number of participants did report embedded certifications in supply chain management (two institutions), automation and control systems (four institutions), advanced manufacturing (three institutions), advanced IT occupations such as cybersecurity and cloud or virtual computing (four institutions), and banking and finance (two institutions). Each of these disciplines was represented in at least one Florida institution. The broader range of programs and inclusion of costlier certifications among Florida colleges was not an accident, as our case study of Broward College will demonstrate. Rather, it was the consequence of well-targeted state, federal, and institutional investments and policies.

Collecting Outcomes Data: While all respondents expressed confidence that the certifications students earned improved labor market outcomes for students, none had definitive data to back that claim up. Difficulty obtaining student exam scores and pass rates was a widely cited challenge that limited efforts to show the value both of particular certifications and of the overall practice of embedding them. Institutions often have to rely on students themselves to report whether they passed a certification exam, which can be challenging. For example, the Community College of Baltimore County was able to provide a count of students who had received certification and licensure in recent academic years, but this tally depended on program directors collecting student results. Some programs, such as information technology, recorded no certification attainment though dozens of students took and passed certification exams.

Even more challenging for institutions than finding out whether students passed a certification exam is determining whether earning a particular certification increased their likelihood of being employed or increased their wages. None of the colleges we interviewed were able to obtain employment and earnings data for students who had earned specific certifications. While some colleges, such as those in Florida, had access to labor market outcomes for particular degree programs, none were able to obtain the individual level data necessary to compare outcomes among students with and without certifications.

Overall, the interviews revealed enthusiasm about the practice of embedding certifications into degree programs, and a shared belief that their use improved program quality, strengthened relationships with local employers, and led to better student learning and employment outcomes. Because this was a volunteer sample, these beliefs are not surprising. But the interviews also revealed significant barriers to scaling up the practice beyond a relatively narrow set of programs where certifications are well established. Even in traditionally certified disciplines, the practice of embedding certifications often required an infusion of outside funding (TAACCCT, for example), along with committed champions willing to take on the tasks of reaching out to employers, identifying valuable certifications, negotiating with certifying bodies, redesigning curricula, and working with faculty. The overall picture was one of islands of innovation, often with little connection to one another or even to other programs in their own college or university.