RE: Question 3: Certification

Let me try to give this one a start. This was a hard one for the working group to get its hands around in part because of the multiplicity of competencies we discussed (from algebra to auto mechanics), the multiple layers of "certifiers" already in existence, and the central question about the state's role.  At the center of this is the question of whether the current non-system is dysfunctional and if so, for whom.

To the last question, we were impressed by the testimony of the business commmunity that they were frustrated by the lack of common standards across institutions and kinds of institutions, a lack of common standards that has led to the creation of very specific curricula (Novell network training) that is then offered commercially or plugged into the curriculum of community colleges.  As a corrollary, we were concerned that in the absence of a common set of standards or a accreditation the various claims of providers as to the "market value" of their programs could lead to the least able consumer being duped.

This led us to hope for a "consumer affairs" approach to the market-oriented programs that, at minimum, required those who offered C++ certification, for example, to file with the department of education and for complaints to be registered and available there.

In more academic areas, we reflected that, in reality, we are already close to a "portfolio" approach to student learning within California higher education.  A couple of examples:  AP credits are taken as signals of competence at UC, CSU and the priovates.  Community college credits in academic coursework transfers to the other segments.  We are encouraged that this system works fairly well, and hope that the state could encourage the further breakdown of barriers between providers in higher education/