Community Colleges Can Increase Credential Stacking by Introducing New Programs Within Established Technical Pathways

ABSTRACT

“Stackable” credentials offer opportunities for college students to start by earning short-term credentials in vocational and technical fields, then stack additional credentials as they progress in careers, building skills in the classroom and in the workforce. Stackable credentials come at a cost: colleges expend resources in developing and offering stackable credential programs, students pay to enroll, and government aid programs support colleges and students. Given these investments, it is important to know whether stackable programs generate value for students and local economies. This study analyzes the introduction of new certificate or associate degree program options at Ohio community colleges during school years 2004–2005 to 2016–2017. Comparing among students who had just completed a credential, the students whose college had an additional program within their field of study were more likely to re-enroll and earn additional credentials within two years. The additional short-term enrollment did not significantly decrease students’ participation in employment or transfers to a university, indicating that stackable credentials fit with their career and educational progression.

KEYWORDS:

• Stackable credentials
• community college
• Ohio
• longitudinal data
• certificate programs

Acknowledgement

The data for this study come from the Ohio Longitudinal Data Archive. The Ohio Longitudinal Data Archive is a project of the Ohio Education Research Center (oerc.osu.edu) and provides researchers with centralized access to administrative data. The OLDA is managed by The Ohio State University’s CHRR (chrr.osu.edu) in collaboration with Ohio’s state workforce and education agencies (ohioanalytics.gov), with those agencies providing oversight and funding. For information on OLDA sponsors, see http://chrr.osu.edu/projects/ohio-longitudinal-data-archive

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences (U.S. Department of Education) through grant R305H190033 to the RAND Corporation ($399,853), and by the ECMC Foundation ($280,543). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute of Education Sciences, the U.S. Department of Education, or the ECMC Foundation. This research is not related to Drew M. Anderson’s work as an economist at Amazon.