Appendices

New America’s Education Policy program has been engaging in research and analysis on the topics of educator professional learning, retention, and advancement for a decade, and has been engaged in conversations and research on educator MCs since their inception. In early 2020, New America teamed up with digiLEARN¹, a North Carolina-based non-profit organization, as the state considered if and how to incorporate educator MCs into policy. digiLEARN convened a group of key state stakeholders to learn about MCs and develop recommendations for the State Board of Education, and New America contributed its expertise to the project as an advisor, as well as by undertaking research to provide insights into the current national micro-credentials ecosystem.

Our methodology for this expansive project included:

• Review of prior research and writing on educator MCs
• Data collection and analysis from the three leading MC platforms
• Interviews with over 37 MC ecosystem stakeholders across 22 states and Washington, DC, including six SEAs, three regional education service agencies, eight representatives of LEA and educator associations, and six technical platform and/or digital service providers, including one national education association (see full list below)
• Integration of pre-existing research on state MC policies and our own independent review of policies on public-facing state websites

List of Interviews Conducted

Design Principles

The design principles were developed to support the development of meaningful micro-credentials. Those serving in the role of creating and publishing micro-credential options for educators should consider each of these principles to promote quality in their design.²

Non-Technical Design Considerations

• Consistent: Micro-credentials should include consistent categories for ease of use (including the name of the competency, the key method(s), evidence-based rationale for why the competency is important including supporting research, suggested and available resources for developing the competency, submission guidelines, and evaluation criteria).
• Evidence-based: Micro-credentials should capture skills and competencies that are supported by high-quality, peer-reviewed research.
• Contextual: Micro-credential submissions should capture the authentic learning context in which the educator operates.
• Right-sized and -labeled: Micro-credentials should cover a substantive yet discrete set of skills that correspond with the demonstrated competency, and should be labeled in a way that accurately describes the competency.
• Resourced: Micro-credentials should be accompanied by relevant, evidence-based, and publicly accessible resources that provide sufficient information, tools, and support for developing the competency.
• Demonstrable: Micro-credentials should require educators to provide substantive evidence of demonstrating the named skill/competency in their practice in real and varied circumstances, including via a representative sample of students’ work, when applicable.
• Reflection-oriented: Assessment should enhance the learning experience by prompting educators to reflect on their practice of the named skill/competency and the associated evidence submitted.
• Clear and transparent: As part of the micro-credential design process, issuers should design and publish scoring rubrics which provide detailed expectations for both the earner and the assessor.
• Construct validity-minded: Artifacts, demonstration(s) of learning, and other components of the evidence required to earn the micro-credential are relevant and consistent with the desired skill/competency being developed.

Technical Design Considerations

• Shareable: Micro-credentials should be awarded as digital badges that meet the Open Badge Standard and contain the relevant metadata,³ can be visually displayed, and are portable across technical platforms.

Assessment Principles

The assessment principles were developed to support valid and reliable micro-credential assessment. Those serving in the role of designing content, assessing micro-credential evidence, issuing micro-credentials, and recognizing/providing value for micro-credentials earned by educators should consider each of these principles to support transparency between issuers, assessors, recognizers, and earners.

• Competency-based: Assessment should be based on the evidence that was submitted as proof of demonstrating the targeted competency based on the rubric, not the time it took to learn or demonstrate the skill.
• Tailored assessment: Assessment criteria and rubrics should be tailored to align with the specific competency, not based on a generic rubric.
• Targeted feedback: Assessors should provide feedback aligned with the published rubric so educator can learn and grow from the micro-credentialing attempt, regardless of the issuing decision.
• Qualified assessors: Assessors should 1) be trained in and understand the competency and its required submission components and associated rubric, 2) make objective decisions, and 3) have no conflict of interest in the issuing decision.
• Reliable assessors: Issuers should establish and periodically review validity and reliability of assessors’ ratings to ensure quality and consistency of scoring.

Implementation Principles

The implementation principles were developed to support appropriate use of micro-credentials for educators. Those serving in the role of supporting and/or recognizing educator professional growth and advancement should consider each of these principles in support of a competency-based approach to professional learning and pathways, as should the educators selecting micro-credentials to earn.

• Vertically Aligned: Micro-credentials should be clustered with related skills, sequential when appropriate, and stackable to communicate the development of a family of skills.
• Goal-driven: Selection of micro-credentials should be informed by an educator’s individual professional needs or goals and state, district, or school needs or goals.
• Collaborative: The implementation and resulting educator learning experience should promote collaboration and interaction with colleagues (including through feedback loops and reflections).
• Currency: Formal incentives should be established so that “stacks” of high-quality micro-credentials can provide value to the earner, such that consistent demonstration of competency in a given topic area or toward a specified goal is formally recognized as part of licensure, relicensure, career advancement, and/or compensation policies.
• Supported with Policies: Policies and structures should be in place that support the integration of high-quality micro-credentials as a component of professional pathways including through communication, implementation, and monitoring supports.

The educator MCs currently offered tend to be similar in these ways:

• Accessed through a digital platform that provides resources and details for earning an MC
• Available “on demand” (assuming full, open access to platform, which currently only Digital Promise and NEA provide; NEA will soon start charging non-members for access)
• Require teachers to produce and submit evidence that they have created and/or implemented
• Use a rubric to evaluate the evidence submitted and determine whether an MC is earned
• Provide candidates with the rubric that assessors use to evaluate submitted evidence
• Often accompanied by a digital badge that can be displayed for public recognition⁴
• Often stackable, meaning that they are developed to align with and add breadth and depth to a subset of other MCs within a skill set or area of competency

The educator MCs currently offered differ from each other in terms of:

• The developing entity (e.g., national teacher association or local affiliate, digital education service platform, SEA, regional education service agency, LEA, etc.)
• “Grain size” of the skill or competency to be demonstrated
• Quality and applicability of associated professional learning resources offered or required
• Level of breadth, depth, and “coherence” of MCs available (often via stacks, and sometimes aligned with specific roles⁵)
• Quality and “depth” of evidence required to earn a MC (e.g., are artifacts of teacher work and student work required, and over what time frame?)
• Whether candidates receive feedback prior to submission of evidence or only after
• Quality of evaluating entity characteristics and qualifications
• Internal (educator(s) in the school or LEA) vs. external, third-party assessors (an employee of the issuer, or expert educators hired by the issuer or digital platform)
• Relevance and rigor of criteria for assessor selection and initial training
• Existence and rigor of process to ensure ongoing rater reliability
• Quality of the process for assessing the evidence submitted, including rubric design
• Length of time between submission and receipt of earning decision and feedback
• Intended application (i.e., as a tool to fulfill PD requirements, career advancement, etc.)
• Presence of incentives for educators and what those are

• Arkansas code approves MCs for PD if approved by the department,⁶ as an option to “obtain credit for required professional development through a micro-credentialing process approved by the division,”⁷ and it authorizes the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve PD obtained through a MC process.⁸
• Delaware allocated $850,000⁹ via HB 225 for its “DE Literacy Plan,”¹⁰ one aspect of which includes utilizing MCs and related bonuses to support and incentivize educators to improve professional practice in ways that promote student success in the area of early literacy.¹¹
• Mississippi HB 357 mandates the creation of MCs “designed to recognize participants' specifically demonstrated leadership abilities” in "the Mississippi Initiative for Rural Turnaround Leadership pilot program;" $150,000 is to go to the program annually (although not necessarily for MCs).¹²
• Oklahoma’s SB 1436 established an option to receive a standard certificate "in the area of severe-profound disabilities” upon completion of "a micro-credentialing program.” It also required that special education teachers with five years of experience or those with a state board-approved MC “in a special education area” be paid 7.5 percent above the prevailing wage paid to those who teach nondisabled students, with a required 10 percent above the prevailing wage if the teacher has five years of experience and a state board-approved MC.¹³
• Texas HB 2424 created “a micro-credential certification program for public school educator continuing education.”¹⁴ The board of education is authorized to propose rules for a program to issue MCs “related to an educator’s certification class,” approve providers to offer MC courses, and record an educator's earned MCs “on the agency’s Educator Certification Online System (ECOS)” and that “educator’s public certification records.” As of writing, this program was unfunded and therefore not being actively pursued by the TEA.¹⁵
• Virginia’s code authorizes its department of education to establish a program for earning “microcredentials in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) endorsement areas.” It requires the department of education to establish a work group to determine the proper number of MCs necessary to award an add-on endorsement in STEM areas, and PD points must be awarded toward license renewal for MCs earned that do not count toward an endorsement.¹⁶