A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

A Parallel Postsecondary Universe: The Certification System in Information Technology - October 2000

Quality Assurance: Standards and the Accreditation of Certification Programs

62. The cross-vendor recognized examinations are a prelude to the adoption of industry-wide certification standards and accreditation, for, as one training Website noted, "certification has gone to new heights in confusion." In a response to the rapid expansion in the number of certifications, lack of uniform differentiation between levels of certification, and the desire to ensure that the certification is a meaningful credential, a Council on Computing Certification was formed in May 2000, and has distributed draft guidelines for both industry standards (including testing, currency of certification, continuing education/experience requirements, and support for practitioners) and accreditation of certification programs.

Unlike the construct of "program" in formal tertiary education, the IT certification "program" does not necessarily include an instructional provider. The proposed standards apply to the certifying agency, whether that be a corporate vendor (e.g. Microsoft), a broad-based industry association (e.g. CompTIA), an association of specialists (e.g. the Disaster Recovery Institute), or an educational institution that offers its own certifications (e.g. Learning Tree).

Under the proposed standards, all of these certifying organizations will be required to submit evidence of "a clearly stated domain [and sub-domains] of coverage" with identification of all subsumed issues, tasks, and knowledge, as "developed by technically qualified individuals," and with a name for the certification that "accurately reflects this domain" (a kind of truth-in-labeling requirement). The certification itself must "require passing at least one exam" on which "75 percent or more of the identified sub-domains must be reflected" (a content-representativeness requirement). Furthermore, the certifying organization must review and update both the domain and examination content on at least an annual basis, and have in place a method for "assuring currency of skills." There are also requirements for support of certification candidates, modes of disseminating information about changes in requirements, and content of program materials. And under the proposed standards, a program cannot require membership in a specific organization as a prerequisite.

63. The proposed accreditation requirements seek to validate these standards for a "fully operational" program, and sort the certifications into levels. This last requirement is a very important step because it introduces an industry-wide "degree structure" that is currently practiced by only a few certifying agencies (Cisco, Compaq, IBM). The draft specifications for the three proposed levels of accreditation are worth quoting (in a slightly different format than presented by the Council on Computing Certification) because they demonstrate an alternative, performance-based way of thinking about a hierarchy of credentials:

Level I. The domain must be limited to a single technology or skill area, and the certification candidate should be able to:

• accomplish basic tasks in the domain without assistance;
• solve common problems within the domain;
• assist in more advanced tasks; and
• describe the technical structure of the domain.

Level II. The domain must encompass either multiple technologies/skill areas or a complex single technology, and the certification candidate should be able to:

• serve as a resource for others;
• solve moderately complex problems without assistance; and
• perform advanced tasks within the domain.

Level III. The domain must encompass multiple technologies or skill areas, and the certification candidate should be able to:

• troubleshoot complex problems;
• confidently traverse the scope of the domain, from the most basic material to complex issues involving interfaces outside of the domain;
• present "significance experience"; and
• complete a hands-on assessment/lab exam/project.

In a way, these levels translate into analogues of Associate's, Bachelor's, and Master's degrees-at least in the context of one's major field of study. At the least, they are distinct benchmarks on a continuum of competence from novice to expert. But accreditation in the traditional postsecondary sector is focused on the institution, whereas these criteria derive from student learning and performance. Would our colleges and community colleges be willing to adopt this type of criterion in their accreditation procedures? As the IT certification preparation universe moves into the traditional tertiary sector, we may yet find out.

[Beyond the Vendor][Coming Soon to a Campus Near You?]