Accreditation and competency are key issues that the open education movement has to satisfactorily address. There appear to be three categories of learners that have different needs, options and values when it comes to accreditation. The first group is comprised of students, primarily in the developed world, that take courses as part of an approved degree program at an accredited institution. The second group consists of learners that actively educate themselves, but do not necessarily need the courses to be accredited. The third group is comprised of learners that would like to take accredited courses, but simply do not have the means or ability to take courses from an accredited institution.

The first group of learners who have the means and the opportunity to take accredited courses will continue to do so. These individuals take courses to complete a degree, which in turn has the promise of gaining them entry into a profession of their choice. This traditional model works well and there is no reason that it cannot continue to work well. Universities, accrediting bodies, governments, and most professions are all wedded to this model.

The second set of learners are not as concerned about accreditation. They may already have a degree or a good job and are therefore not as concerned with accreditation. Or, they may not have a degree, but are simply not interested in engaging in a full degree program. The credibility of the source of their courses is important to them, but it does not necessarily have to be regulated by a regional accrediting body. Broadly, several groups of learners fall into this category: students taking extra courses, lifelong learners, test-prep students, continuing education students, and life skill learners. These individuals take courses for a variety of reasons: to learn a new skill, keep their brain young, gain CEUs etc.

The third group of learners consists of individuals who would like access to accredited courses, but simply do not have the means or ability to enroll in these institutions (Jarvis, 2007, Suarez-Orozco, 2007). Some of these individuals have financial struggles; others live in late-developing countries that do not have accrediting bodies or a robust educational infrastructure. The need and the desire is present, but the opportunity is lacking.

Accreditation is not an issue for individuals in the first group. Learners in the second group could benefit from some external source of regulation, but it does not have to be a formal accrediting body. The third group would like an accredited education, but simply have too many obstacles impeding them from reaching this goal. For the second and third groups, there has to be an alternative way of recognizing a person’s educational accomplishments outside of an accredited degree program. Sometimes independent (non-accredited) institutions offer a certificate. Another model might be drawn from skills based fields that do not require a formal degree. For example, many computer programmers, or hackers, do not have a degree in computer science. They are instead hired on a basis of their previous work (portfolio) and references from others. The same can be said for an artist or carpenter.

George Siemens (2008) addresses this issue head-on and suggests that the future of education and accreditation could be managed through a reputation system. The reputation system would function like eBay where other people would rate the individual. Recognized experts in an area would have more clout when rating others than people not recognized in that area. For instance, if a person was studying anthropology, then an expert in anthropology’s rating would have more power than another person who knows a lot about electrical engineering, but little about anthropology. These references and accomplishments would then be tracked in the person’s ePortfolio.

It is very unlikely that the traditional accreditation approach will ever be completely replaced. However, it is likely that a parallel, disruptive, reputation system could take root and provide a service where the current accreditation system cannot. Clay Christensen (1997) describes how a new disruptive product or service eventually unseats an old service or product by offering a simple and affordable alternative to the older established product. The disruptive service gains a foothold by providing a service to people that are currently overlooked or underserved by the primary competitor. Another way of saying this is that the disruptive service competes with non-competition.

Just finishing up Peter Jarvis’ Globalization, Lifelong Learning, and the Learning Society.

He provides a really interesting look at the relationship between capitalism and education. In brief, he sees the Americanization of the world as a central force of globalization that is amplified through control of capital markets and information technology. He further argues that education is increasingly being influenced by the globalization/Americanization force. He describes his view of how multinational corporations wield influence on national and local political leaders through corporate investment (eg., We’ll build a factory in this area that will increase jobs and revenue, if…). Similarly, he sees these corporations also influencing the university via grants, funding, and other investment; the primary result is an increased university focus on teaching and scholarship that results in graduates that can be employed in those fields (eg., engineering) and less focus on areas that are not associated with business interest (eg., arts).

Jarvis then goes on to illustrate how education has become the “handmaiden” of corporate interest. He argues that one of the main factors behind the development in adult education, or lifelong learning, is the need for companies to have increased access to human capital. Essentially, if organizations didn’t require more knowledge workers, then there would be considerably less need for lifelong learning.

He then contrasts this with the humanistic efforts of UNESCO that focus on individual development and empowerment. From this perspective, there definitely seems to be a tension between these two ends of the spectrum of lifelong learning:

Corporate Need <—————> Human Empowerment

The optimistic side of me wants to these less as 2 ends of the same spectrum and more as 2 threads that can be interwoven to meet an end that is a win/win for both the individual and the corporation.

———————> Corporate Interests

———————> Human Empowerment

My sense is that the smart organizations have already figured this out and are doing everything they can to marry their business goals with the objectives of the individuals they employ. As the talent crisis continues, I think we will see more and more of this process. People will want to work where they feel they are growing, making real contributions, and solving real problems. If companies can harness that by aligning their goals with their people, then they should be able to capitalize on it and, in the end, create value, help their employees, and be good global citizens.

Many professions in the developed world measure competency through a degree program from an accredited university and some sort of licensing exam. If a person successfully graduates from college and/or graduate school and passes the exam, then they are competent to practice in their field. This basic process covers a range of professions from engineering to medicine.

Many in these professions would admit that this isn’t the best way to measure competency. Accredited degrees are really limited by the student’s effort. Some students learn a lot and others just skate through. A similar thing can be said about licensing exams. Many students use the exam as an opportunity to consolidate what they’ve learned. Others, however, just learn to  *take* the test. They are less concerned with internalizing the material and are more concerned with passing the test.

I’m wondering what kind of new ways of measuring competency might arise in the late-developing world where the degree/licensing exam model hasn’t yet crystallized. I think assessment has to be a key part of this; however, I’m not sure that accredited degree programs have to play such a central role. Many countries simply do not have the educational resources or accrediting bodies that other countries have. There is a lot of room here for people to innovate and proactively define competency for their fields.