A rapidly rising number of Ohio students are earning industry-recognized credentials (IRCs). This should be good news, as IRCs can boost earnings and employment if they are high-quality and tied to in-demand jobs. But a closer look at state data reveals that many of the credentials Ohio students are earning don’t take much time or effort to obtain. Moreover, they lead to industries and jobs that pay relatively low wages. There are credentials with the potential to provide long-term benefits. But those aren’t the ones Ohio students are most likely to earn.
Ohio’s uptick in attainment—and the questionable quality of its most-earned credentials—can be explained as an unintended consequence of well-meaning state policy. For years, students have been permitted to meet high school graduation requirements by earning a 12-point credential or “bundling” a group of credentials in the same career field that added up to 12. The problem was that these IRCs weren’t consistently or transparently linked to data on wages, job outlook, or employer demand. Absent such data, there was little evidence indicating that the lower-point credentials students could bundle to graduate were actually benefiting them in the long run. But that didn’t stop some of Ohio’s largest districts from funneling students toward these easy-to-earn IRCs in an effort to boost graduation rates.
In short, Ohio lawmakers needed to go back to the drawing board. They did so via the recently passed state budget, which eliminates the point system and requires the committee to establish new criteria for how students can use credentials to graduate. If the committee wants to get things right this time around, it needs to do two things: 1) establish a system that accurately and transparently identifies IRC value and 2) develop a process for revalidating IRCs over time.
Fortunately, Ohio doesn’t have to start from scratch. Credentials of Value, a recently published report from Advance CTE, offers plenty of insight into how other states have tackled these two tall tasks. Let’s take a closer look at each.
1. Establishing a system that accurately and transparently identifies credential value.
Meaningful credentials are those that offer students a return on investment. There are plenty of ways to measure such returns, but one of the most important is whether a credential has value to employers. If an IRC doesn’t help students get their foot in the door in a growing career field, set them apart from other job applicants, or incentivize employers to offer them higher wages, then it’s probably not worth their time. To be clear, Ohio’s credential approval process under the point value system did involve a labor market audit and an industry feedback survey. But the new process needs to be much more in-depth and transparent.
The Credentials of Value report offers several ideas from other states that could help Ohio craft a better system. For example, when validating credentials during its approval process, Wyoming asks employers two specific questions: 1) If a learner comes to you with this credential, would you monetarily incentivize them? 2) If a learner comes to you with this credential in a hiring situation in which all things are equal, will this credential give them hiring preference? A minimum of ten employers must answer both questions affirmatively before a credential can be approved for the state list. Tennessee evaluates IRCs using a “robust scoring rubric” that measures credentials against high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand occupation definitions and cross-references labor market trends. And in South Dakota, leaders have leveraged real-time data from the state labor agency to review job listings from across the state and determine the required credentials employers are seeking for specific occupations.
Employer demand isn’t the only measure that matters. Ohio officials should also pay particular attention to wages. Florida considers whether credentials are tied to occupations that meet wage thresholds within specific economic regions, rather than a statewide wage benchmark that could be influenced by areas with particularly high or low costs of living. Given Ohio’s size and regional diversity, Buckeye leaders should consider following suit. Meanwhile, both Michigan and New Hampshire reported using the Living Wage Calculator created by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to determine “family-sustaining wages” while identifying the value of credentials. For Ohio, looking to a trusted expert source—rather than relying on in-house calculations—would be a positive step toward transparency.
2. Developing a system for revalidating credentials over time.
The labor market is constantly evolving. A credential that’s in demand and leads to a well-paying job in 2025 could be obsolete by 2030. Ohio leaders should prepare for this possibility by proactively developing a system through which credentials are regularly reevaluated over time.
Once again, the Credentials of Value report offers some intriguing examples from other states that Ohio leaders could consider. For example, Maryland ensures that its state-approved credential list contains only IRCs of value by putting credentials through a rigorous vetting process every two years. South Dakota has a statewide advisory board that reviews credentials annually, and its revalidation process intentionally mirrors the initial credential approval process. Wisconsin and Kentucky collect employment-related outcomes data to review the return on investment for credential earners. And Colorado ties its reevaluation of approved credentials to the state’s Talent Pipeline Report, which is updated annually and identifies areas of growing demand.
***
Ohio policymakers deserve credit for their willingness to go back to the drawing board with credential approval. But calling for a new framework is the easy part. Creating a better one will be much more difficult, and getting it right is more important than ever. Fortunately, there’s no reason to start from scratch. Advance CTE’s recent report offers plenty of ideas from other states. Here’s hoping Ohio leaders are willing to take a closer look.
