Towards Credentialing Coherence Developing a Vision and Roadmap for an ANSI Credentialing Collaborative PTC Webinar February 13, 2014

OVERVIEW 14- month Feasibility Study to Determine Prospects for Successful ANSI Collaborative to Coordinate and Develop Standards for Describing and Sharing Vital Data about ALL Labor Market Credentials Project based at GWU’s George Washington Institute of Public Policy; Research Prof. Steve Crawford is project director; Research Prof. Bob Sheets is the research director; regrets that he can’t be part of today’s presentation ANSI=key partner; Dr. Roy Sheets is leading its team Funding: Lumina Foundation: higher education; known for Degree Qualifications Framework 2

Project Phases Phase I : Steering Group Examine need for, scope of Standards Collaborative Identify and recruit key credentialing stakeholders Produce a report including: (1) the vision, goals roadmap for standards Collaborative; 2) a plan for developing a “reference model” Phase II: Exploratory Committee Includes steering group and representatives of all the major stakeholders identified in Phase I report Review Steering Group report and develop its own recommendations, roadmap and reference model. Phase III: Launch of ANSI Standards Collaborative (if recommended and funded)

Steering Group Members I Business Roundtable U.S. Chamber of Commerce The Manufacturing Institute (NAM) CompTIA Center for Energy Workforce Development American Council on Education Association of Public & Land-grant Universities American Association of Community Colleges Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities

Steering Group Members II U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Education (as observer) U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Office of Personnel Management National Governors Association National Skills Coalition (Workforce Data Quality Campaign)

The Credentialing Problem Current Credentialing Context Large, diverse and decentralized marketplace for degrees, certificates, certifications, licenses, etc. Credentialing “silos “with specialized professional communities and languages Recent Changes Growing number and variety of credentials New credentialing models and breakdowns in traditional boundaries Lack of confidence in credential quality and value Problem Summary Participant confusion shows need for greater transparency, trust and quality in credentialing Voluntary, public-private process most promising 6

Proposed Approach Determine and Satisfy the Requirements for Transparency, Quality and Trust, by: Getting agreement on standards for comparable information on key characteristics of credentials Creating a robust, open national data infrastructure – a registry -- for posting and accessing the resulting information Aligning the quality criteria used by key quality assurance/conformity assessment systems 7

Proposed Strategies I Strategy 1: Develop a Common Set of Critical Characteristics (aka “Descriptors”) of Credentials A core set that can be expanded, allowing credentialing organizations to customize it without losing comparability for descriptors Transparency: What do Market Participants Need to Know? Trust and Quality: What Assurances do Market Participants Need? 8

Example Descriptors Transparency Competency Requirements Scope of Primary Application Labor Market Value Credentialing Transfer Value Trust Competency Validation Assessment System Quality Assurance 9

Proposed Strategies II Strategy 2: Create an Open Data Registry by: Develop data standards for the common terms, harmonized with existing initiatives Develop reference model for cross-walking among various formal languages – cp. Rosetta Stone Harness power of credentialing websites, Web 3.0 Develop a public-private registry to: (1) publish, share, and access comparable data about all types of credentials, (2) link to other registries and data systems, (3) establish applications marketplace Registry is decentralized, federated infrastructure 10

Proposed Strategies III Strategy 3: Align Quality Assurance Systems Alignment and harmonization of quality criteria used in endorsement, accreditation and regulatory systems Using the registry to address transparency criteria and promote benchmarking among credentialing organizations 11

Assessment System Descriptor Descriptors will have classification schemes by which credentials are described in comparable ways, including the type and independence of any assessments used to determine attainment of the claimed competency These schemes will reflect widely used “typologies” that can be employed for the full range of credentials (e.g., types of assessment). These schemes also must provide a mechanism to describe key dimensions (such as validity and reliability) that are related to quality, so different “endorsement” and “accreditation” organizations can “signal” to the market which credentials meet their quality criteria 12

Role and Scope of an ANSI- Sponsored Collaborative ANSI and the Global Standards Network ANSI facilitates the development of American National Standards (ANS) by accrediting standards- developing & conformity assessment organizations Project definition of “standard” is not that used in K-12 education; more like “data standards” (CEDS) ANSI establishes standards collaboratives (formerly called panels) in critical areas in cooperation with leading standards bodies and consortia-Healthcare Information Technology Panel 13

Role of ANSI Collaborative I Need for Collaborative Coordinate, align and harmonize multiple reform and standardization initiatives across credentialing silos and communities of practice. Scope of Collaborative Credentialing Systems: Degrees and certificates, certifications, apprenticeship credentials, licenses and registrations, badges and related credentials Interfaces: HRIS; job posting and profiling systems; transcript, portfolio and resume systems; labor market information systems; learning and performance support systems 14

Role of ANSI Collaborative II Role of Credentialing Collaborative Provide neutral forum for public and private stakeholders to work together on solving problem Coordinate development/alignment of standards for common language descriptors of credentials Coordinate standards development in related areas such as human resource management systems Coordinate standards development for web technologies critical to registry and public and private data systems Engage quality assurance organizations in aligning quality criteria for endorsing and accrediting credentialing systems 15

Conclusion Ambitious project, but off to promising start Assisted by superb set of consultants Approach and strategies described here are still an evolving work in progress Important to emphasize that “standards” here are for describing credentials in comparable terms – differences as well as similarities -- not content Envisioned system is open; no quality require-ments; just tell us about your credentials using formal language and posting to open registry Expect quality to emerge from new comparability, hence competition and market pressure to improve 16

Questions & Comments? THANK YOU! Stephen Crawford & Robert Sheets Research Professors George Washington Institute of Public Policy (GWU) Washington, DC