Educators Take Charge: The Potential of Micro-Credentials
Abstract
Purpose
In this paper, I examine how micro-credentials (MCs) might help address persistent challenges in teacher professional development. I argue that the impact of MC on teacher practice depends both on individual engagement and system-level strategies, policies, and cultural contexts.
Design/Approach/Methods
The discussion is framed around cases of three teachers. These are intended to illustrate contrasting approaches to and outcomes of professional learning opportunities. These cases are then connected to a broader analysis of implementation strategies that draws on existing research, policy documents, and reform frameworks.
Findings
MCs have the potential to enhance teacher agency, personalized learning, and relevance when supported by systems and structures designed to value professional judgment and provide time for collaboration. Without systemic change, supportive policies, and cultural change, MCs risk being reduced to yet another compliance activity. Implementation will also vary across centralized and decentralized systems. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence may further shape how MCs are designed, assessed, and sustained, creating both opportunities and risks.
Originality/Value
By integrating a view of teacher-level experiences with system-level strategies and policies, and by extending the analysis to global contexts and technological possibilities, the paper offers a framework for understanding how MCs can support teachers to assume greater control of their professional learning.
Introduction
Preview of this Article
The paper is organized in two main parts. In the first, I analyze the persistent challenges in teacher professional development and explore how micro-credentials (MCs) might respond to these challenges, illustrated through the experiences of three teachers. The second part builds on this analysis to consider the system-level conditions and policies necessary for MCs to fulfill their promise, outlining strategic frameworks for implementation, with brief reflections on cross-cultural contexts and the role of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI).
| Aspect | Darnell's experience | Michelle's experience | Inez's experience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic selection | The district decided on the topic of professional development | Michelle and her learning community chose the topic based on assessing their and their students’ needs | Chose her own learning goal based on her assessment of her students’ data |
| Learning location | Learning occurs outside his classroom | Learning occurs within the classroom and school | Learning occurs online and within the classroom and school |
| Learning approach | Learning is mostly passive | Learning is active as she engages with learning resources, including colleagues | Learning is active as she engages with online learning resources and a district specialist |
| Learning pace | Expected to learn at the same rate as others | Learning at her own speed | Learning at her own speed |
| Social context | Learning occurs largely in isolation | Learning with colleagues and engaging external supports | Learning on her own and engaging with a virtual community and a specialist |
| Assessment | Application and effectiveness of the target skill are not directly evaluated | Required to provide evidence of applying the skill successfully in her classrooms | Required to provide evidence of applying the skill successfully in her classrooms |
| Credit system | Credit awarded based on “clock-hours,” and demonstrated competency not required | Credit award based on externally verified demonstration of competency | Credit award based on externally verified demonstration of competency |
Little to Show for a Major Investment
Decades of research support what common sense tells us: A well-prepared, skillful, and caring teacher is the most important in-school influence on student success (Chetty et al., 2014; Rockoff et al., 2011). While states and local education agencies (LEAs) have invested significantly in professional development for educators over many decades, evidence of improved teaching skills or enhanced student outcomes is, at best, mixed and, at worst, disappointing (Hill et al., 2013). The 50 largest LEAs in the United States spend at least eight billion dollars annually on professional development (Jacob & McGovern, 2015). The human cost is no less significant: After a decade in the classroom, the average teacher will have spent the equivalent of a school year in professional development activities (McKnight, 2021).
This massive investment of money and time might be justified if the results were better. Teachers themselves report that the investment is largely a waste. Only a minority find value in traditional professional development, and many view it negatively (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2014; Jacob & McGovern, 2015). Among teachers whose students have shown improvement on standardized tests, only 11% report that one-time professional development experiences (often called “sit-and-get”) were helpful, and only 6% report that higher education courses helped them improve. In contrast, 43% of these teachers identified informal peer collaboration and independent learning as contributing most to improving their practice (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2014).
Typically, a state department of education, LEA, or school identifies a skill that they believe needs improvement and enlists an expert who provides the identical training to a group of educators regardless of their individual skill levels, interests, or classroom contexts. Treating educators as passive recipients of information, this model ignores fundamental principles of adult learning: self-directed, solution-focused, and providing job-specific, applicable information (Fenwick & Tennant, 2004; Knowles et al., 2015).
Professional Autonomy as a Driver of Improvement
The source of this failure of the traditional professional development model is deeper than poor program design. Research has shown that teachers experience significantly less professional autonomy than comparable professionals, particularly over their professional development goals—precisely the factor most strongly associated with job satisfaction (Worth & Van den Brande, 2020). This lack of autonomy is strongly related to the issues of effectiveness, job satisfaction, and retention.
A comprehensive UK study based on data from thousands of educators found that:
Teacher autonomy is strongly correlated with job satisfaction, perceptions of workload manageability and intention to stay in the profession … Teachers’ autonomy over their professional development goal-setting is particularly low and is most associated with higher job satisfaction. Increasing teachers’ autonomy, particularly over their professional development goals, therefore has great potential for improving teacher job satisfaction and retention. (Worth & Van den Brande, 2020, p. 3)
This research suggests that greater autonomy for teachers translates into higher likelihood of retention (Cox, 2021). These findings also align with decades of research demonstrating strong relationships between job autonomy and motivation, satisfaction, and productivity across professions (Cerasoli et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2006). When people can choose their work goals and methods for achieving them, they invest more effort and achieve better results. As Tooley and Hood (2021) note, “… research indicates that the best way to incentivize employees to pursue experiences that will promote their professional growth, as well as the growth of their organization, is to give adequate compensation, time, and space to do their jobs … and nothing more” (p. 9). Yet, current professional development policies systematically deny teachers this basic professional autonomy.
Ways to encourage educators to stay in the profession are needed to counter the growing dissatisfaction among the ranks. Whereas 62% of US teachers reported being very satisfied with their jobs in 2008, by 2022 teachers this number had dropped to a mere 12%. Even more discouraging, only 9% of early-career teachers reported being very satisfied (Merrimack College, 2022). In addition, fewer and fewer young people are choosing to become educators: Only 8.1% of those who earned B.A. and M.A. degrees in 2019 were education majors, down a third over the past decade (Kraft & Lyon, 2022).
In sum, these trends of dissatisfaction and diminishing entry into the profession underscore the need for new approaches to professional learning that not only build skills but, most critically, enhance teachers’ sense of agency, control over their work lives, and sense of professional value. In this paper, I argue that while MCs offer promise for addressing persistent challenges in teacher professional development—as seen in the cases of individual educators—their ultimate impact depends on systemic strategies and policies for implementation, making it essential to link teachers’ experiences with broader policy and design frameworks.
The Promise of MCs
The convergence of ineffective professional development and a near world-wide teacher retention crisis (UNESCO & International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030, 2024) demands a fundamental shift in approach to professional development. Rather than mandating uniform training experiences, educational systems must enable educator agency over professional learning while requiring accountability for results. This necessitates moving away from “seat time” toward demonstrated competency, from “one-size-fits-all” trainings to personalized learning paths, and from passive consumption to active engagement and application.
MCs represent a promising vehicle for such a transformation. By enabling educators to choose relevant skills, progress at their own pace, learn wherever suits their circumstances, and demonstrate mastery through classroom evidence, MCs align professional development with both effective adult learning principles and teachers’ fundamental need for professional autonomy. The question is no longer whether we need alternatives like MC to traditional professional development models, but how quickly we can scale up approaches that demonstrate their appeal and effectiveness.
MCs: Accountability for Results
MCs are not just the latest trend in education. With rapidly advancing information and communication technologies, they represent a way for individuals or teams to digitally document what they know and can do in their profession (Ifenthaler et al., 2016).
A common misconception is that MCs are themselves learning opportunities. Rather, MCs verify that an educator has demonstrated proficiency in applying a particular skill or competency. This distinction is evident in the definition recently developed by the Micro-Credentials Partnership of States—or MPOS (digiLearn, n.d.):
Micro-credentials: A high-quality micro-credential is a verification of proficiency in a job-embedded discrete skill or competency that an educator has demonstrated through the submission of evidence assessed via defined evaluation criteria.
Several phrases in this definition are worth a closer look:
•
Require external “verification of proficiency”: Signals that MCs require an external assessor, who has relevant expert knowledge and training, must validate educators’ competency in applying a skill.
•
Use of “defined criteria”: To verify proficiency, the assessor will use a rubric based on accepted standards of effective practice in the relevant domain to evaluate the evidence submitted to document competency.
•
Focus on a “discrete skill or competency”: MCs focus on skills that can be individually identified and assessed.
•
Require “submission of evidence”: To earn a MC, an educator must assemble and submit for assessment evidence (including lesson plans, digital recordings, evidence of student learning, reflections, and other data) that demonstrates that they have successfully implemented the target skill in their classroom.
•
Learning is “job-embedded”: The skills that are the focus of a MC must be demonstrated by evidence from an educators’ actual classrooms or school.
The Professional Learning journeys of Three Teachers
Perhaps an effective approach to understanding MCs is to describe the experiences of three imaginary teachers who pursue contrasting learning opportunities.
Darnell
Darnell, a National Board Certified, 20-year veteran third-grade teacher, is sitting with colleagues in a large conference room at the district office. The colleagues represent the other elementary schools in his district. This is the fourth of six 2-hr sessions designed to ensure that all teachers in the district know best practice in teaching early reading. Darnell is familiar with best practices in teaching reading: Across his career, he has successfully helped many readers, especially those who struggle, learn to read.
The instructor is a professor from a nearby university recruited to present the most recent research on reading instruction and recommendations for practice from the National Reading Panel. She has asked the teachers to keep a log of their efforts to incorporate the recommendations into their practice, to read several research articles on effective reading practice, and to be prepared to discuss the findings from the research with others in the workshop.
Back at his school, Darnell presents a PowerPoint to his colleagues outlining information from the workshop presentation. Darnell also offers to coach any of them who want it. Darnell's principal tells the teachers that she will be looking for evidence of the recommended practices when she does twice yearly classroom observations. Her district has provided her with a checklist of effective practices to look for during her observations. Based on his attendance, participation, and the professor's assessment of his log, the district awards Darnell continuing education units (CEUs) toward license renewal and adds the CEUs to Darnell's personnel file. Later, the HR director notifies the Department of Public Instruction that he has earned the necessary 80 hr of courses and workshops to have his license renewed.
Michelle
Michelle is sitting in her classroom with her third-grade colleagues after school. Their principal had arranged the class schedule to ensure that the four teachers present had a common planning period to enable them to meet as a Professional Learning Community (PLC). After discussing the disappointing results of their students’ most recent reading scores, they decide to collaborate on learning more about research on teaching reading effectively. They learn that the district is offering a stack of MCs in early reading. Earning the MCs would count toward license renewal.
After talking with her colleagues, Michelle identifies the teaching of phonics and phenomics skills as the area she most needs to improve. She listens as a veteran colleague, known as an effective reading teacher, describes her approach to phonics and recommends a video that demonstrates the skills involved. Another colleague recommends a summary of recent research on teaching phonics and phenomics available online. They also discuss the evidence needed to show their proficiency in teaching reading.
The PLC has a video call with the district professional development specialist, who walks them through the process of building an evidence portfolio and how to submit it on the district platform when they are ready. She also offers to review their portfolios and provide feedback before they submit.
After viewing the videos, reading research summaries, and discussing her developing understanding with her PLC, Michelle gradually begins applying what she is learning in her practice. She plays an audio recording of her teaching and presents the results of an assessment of her students’ understanding of phonics to her colleagues. They offer suggestions for improving her practice and evidence portfolio, just as she does for them. She also sends a draft portfolio of evidence to the district professional development specialist for her input.
When each teacher in the PLC feels ready, they submit their evidence portfolio to a portal via the district website. The district forwards the evidence to a trained assessor with expertise in reading instruction. Using a scoring rubric, the assessor evaluates the evidence. All but one member of the PLC is judged “proficient” in their target reading skill. Subsequently, the PLC members help their colleague improve her skills and resubmit. The district awards the successful PLC members MCs and credit toward renewing their teaching licenses.
Inez
After reviewing the assessment results of her students’ reading skills, Inez is worried. She realizes that she needs to improve her teaching of phonics and phenomics skills as well as the skills recommended by the National Reading Panel. Her teaching schedule and multiple outside-of-school obligations limit her options. Given her familial responsibilities, taking a university course either online or face-to-face is not manageable—and expensive. The district offers a workshop that meets weekly after school, but this also conflicts with her personal responsibilities.
Considering her options, Inez recalls that her district offers opportunities to earn MCs in teaching reading skills. Earning MCs is a win-win for Inez: She can improve essential skills through learning opportunities that fit her busy schedule and, at the same time, fulfill the license renewal requirements.
On the district website, she finds a video guide to MCs, describing what they are and the process for earning them. Clicking on the MC icon, she finds descriptions of the expected learning outcomes and the evidence she would have to submit to show her competency in teaching phonics. The webpage includes a list of learning resources: videos of research-based teaching, scholarly articles on effective practices, ideas and suggestions from expert teachers, and a phone number for a central office staff member who can provide more information and advice. Another link enables her to visit a virtual chat room where she can meet colleagues working on the same MC.
Relying on these resources, Inez begins implementing these new practices in her classroom. As she does so, she collects evidence of her students’ skills. Several times, she calls the district's support line to ask about additional resources. She submits the evidence she is collecting to a specialist in the district office who makes suggestions about the evidence. Through visits to a district-arranged chat room, she learns of additional learning resources and compares her experience with that of her virtual colleagues. Finally, she feels ready and submits her evidence.
Within the week, she receives an email from the assessor, who congratulates her and reports sending his recommendation that she be awarded a MC. Encouraged by her success and the comments of the assessor, Inez decides to pursue other MCs in the Early Reading stack in the hope of earning a badge for Early Reading Skills.
How Do the Experiences of These Teachers Differ?
Darnell's experience of professional learning reflects that of many teachers, for whom professional development consists of accumulating required clock-hours from courses, workshops, or other sanctioned activities. LEAs often organize required professional development activities. Rarely, however, are educators required to provide evidence that they applied what they learned in their classrooms, much less that student outcomes improved.
Darnell's experiences contrast with those of Michelle and Inez. These educators self-assessed their practice and identified areas needing improvement. This led them to learning opportunities targeting the skills they needed to improve. In Michelle's case, her PLC helped her identify learning resources that included a colleague who was already proficient in the needed skill. Michelle benefited significantly from her principal, who created common time for PLCs to meet. She knew the research showing the potential of PLCs to improve teaching practice and student performance. She also benefited from a district specialist who could advise and guide her and her colleagues through the process for earning a MC.
Inez relied primarily on the online resources that her district offered. She took advantage of the district helpline and MC specialist, and a chat room to support her as she worked to improve her practice. Both Michelle and Inez had much more control over what, when, and where they learned than Darnell. At the same time, they were held to a higher level of accountability, as they had to provide proof that they successfully implemented their targeted skills and that these skills benefited their students. Although Darnell may have learned new skills through his experience, he was not required to demonstrate that he used the information from the workshop in his classroom. Not to diminish his experience, but he earned credit toward license renewal merely by showing up. Michelle and Inez were held accountable: They had to show they could successfully apply what they had learned.
Data suggest that we focus more of our limited resources on expanding opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues, pursue specific skills based on self-assessment, have access to targeted “just-in-time” supports, and learn at their own pace as Michelle and Inez did. Table 1 compares the experiences of the three educators.
What Have We Learned About the Effects of MCs?
The short answer is—not enough. Part of the reason for this is that, unlike other professions, MCs in education appeared only during the past decade or so. To date, research on MCs remains limited, although a few consistent patterns across studies are emerging. The evidence to date does suggest MCs can improve teacher skills, practice, and job satisfaction when they are properly supported. The research also suggests that significant barriers to successful implementation exist.
Promising Outcomes: Multiple studies demonstrate that educators who complete MCs self-report improved teaching practice, increased confidence, and enhanced reflection skills (Berens, 2023; Fan et al., 2024; Nelson et al., 2024). Across studies, we find that teachers consistently value the personalization, immediate applicability of the skills, and autonomy that MCs provide over traditional “sit-and-get” professional. The most rigorous evidence comes from a large-scale literacy program that involves over 3,000 New Zealand teachers (Gillon et al., 2024). The data from this research show significant improvements in both teacher knowledge and skills and student reading skills compared to a control group. This is the only peer-reviewed article we found based on a large-scale study that included a control group and student outcome data. Another large-scale project using a random control group design has, thus far, generated a single peer-reviewed article that focuses on participating teachers’ experiences as self-directed learners (Nelson et al., 2024).
Consistent Implementation Challenges: The available studies identify similar challenges that limit the effectiveness of MCs. The RAND evaluation of Louisiana's STEM MC program found that only four of 23 teachers completed even one MC, primarily due to time constraints and the interruption of the pandemic (Doss et al., 2024). Across studies, teachers frequently cite the lack of adequate time, insufficient technical and instructional support, inadequate administrative support, and challenges in adapting to self-directed learning as major obstacles (Fan et al., 2024; Kim, 2025).
The research consistently shows that MCs are most effective when educators: (a) pursue them voluntarily rather than by mandate, (b) have dedicated time during school hours to work on MCs, (c) receive ongoing support and guidance from start to finish, and (d) are afforded opportunities to collaborate with colleagues throughout the process (Community Training and Assistance Center, 2021; Fan et al., 2024).
Conclusion: MCs offer a promising alternative to traditional professional development that aligns with what we know about effective adult learning—providing autonomy, focus on specific skills, immediate applicability to work tasks, and competency-based assessment. When adequate support and time are provided, the existing research shows they can improve teacher practice, confidence, and job satisfaction.
The success of MCs as alternatives to conventional professional development ultimately depends on whether educational authorities can overcome the implementation barriers that research has revealed. Without addressing issues of time, support, and system integration, MCs risk becoming just another compliance requirement rather than the transformative professional learning opportunity they have the potential to be.
The Need for Rigorous Research
As the brief review above illustrates, additional research to establish the effects of MCs is critical. If policymakers are to be convinced to support MCs, randomized and large-scale studies are needed to learn whether MCs have the impact that advocates claim (Guskey, 2000). While research on the effects on educators has grown, more studies are needed that include data on student outcomes. As Guskey (2000) argues, student learning outcomes should include a range of measures, not just grades and test scores. Data should include affective outcomes such as motivation and behaviors such as classroom participation and engagement, collaboration with peers, and the application of the specific target skills or strategies taught by the earners. At the school level, indicators could include school climate, absenteeism, behavioral issues, and promotion and graduation rates.
A National and International Shift
MCs are no longer experimental. By 2025, 30 US states had established supportive policies—a 23% jump from 2020—accepting MCs for license renewal, endorsements, priority skills, or even initial teacher certification (Tooley & Partelow, 2025). Specifically, as of 2025, 15 states accept MCs for license renewal, 13 states use MCs to address priority skills, nine states and Washington, D.C. allow teachers to use MCs to earn some license endorsements, and 10 states and Washington, D.C. had created legislation or policies adopting MCs for initial educator licensure (Tooley & Partelow, 2025). This is not gradual adoption; it is rapid transformation.
This momentum extends globally. The European Commission is supporting the development, implementation, and recognition of MCs across member states and sectors, including education (Šarčević, 2024). The Commission is funding projects like CRED4TEACH that serves teachers in Albania, Montenegro, and Ukraine (CRED4TEACH, n.d.; Erasmus+ Ukraine). Australia has gone further: Multiple universities offer educator MCs with government subsidies covering some or all the costs (Australian Government Department of Education, 2024). New Zealand recently became the first Oceania country to integrate MCs into its national teacher qualification system.
Even regions not known as early adopters of educational innovations are moving quickly. The 2023 Potential of Micro-Credentials in Southern Africa (PoMiSA) project spans 12 institutions across multiple countries (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2025; Keevy et al., 2025). Malaysia has established cross-sector MC policies (Ashizawa et al., 2024). Japan launched a nationwide pilot project based on a comprehensive implementation framework and guidelines for issuing MCs (Ashizawa et al., 2024).
These are not scattered experimental efforts. Change is happening at the systems level. From state departments of education to national governments to international organizations, policymakers are abandoning “one-size-fits-all” professional development in favor of educator-controlled, competency-based alternatives. The question for educational leaders is no longer whether MCs will scale, but how quickly their systems can align with and leverage this new reality.
The analysis of current challenges in professional development, combined with the illustrative cases of teachers’ learning journeys, makes clear that MCs hold promise but also face serious limitations and barriers. If left unaddressed, these challenges risk reducing MCs to yet another compliance activity rather than the transformative alternative they are meant to be.
Describing the potential of MCs to empower teachers to take more control of their learning is not sufficient. We also need to examine the system-level and policy changes that are needed if MCs are to realize that potential. The following sections build directly on the earlier analysis by moving from diagnosis to prescription. I describe strategic frameworks and policy considerations that can connect the promise of MCs to the practical realities of implementation at scale, recognizing that these realities are context-specific.
From System Challenges to Strategic Solutions
The Implementation Paradox
To scale MCs involves addressing a fundamental paradox: The very systems designed to ensure professional learning quality can undermine what makes MCs effective. MC policy expert Melissa Tooley offered this warning: “A major reason that professional development has a bad rep is because it's viewed as a compliance activity, and that's because it IS a compliance activity as part of license renewal … if this isn’t paid attention to, micro-credentials won’t have the impact that is hoped” (M. Tooley, personal communication, November 22, 2022).
Tolley's warning identifies the culture of professional development as a primary challenge, rather than something technical. Current professional development policies require teachers to comply with state regulations. MCs rest on a theory of change: Educators are intrinsically motivated to learn to improve their practice and their students’ development. Underlying this theory is a view of educators as autonomous, self-direct individuals capable of making their own decisions about their learning journey. To succeed as intended, MCs require educator agency, support, and opportunities to demonstrate competence through documented job-embedded application. Systemic and cultural transformation are needed, not superficial adaptation.
Five Non-Negotiable System Requirements
If MCs are to be accepted by educators, educational authorities, policymakers, and the public as legitimate endorsements of competence, the system itself must be trustworthy. Drawing from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (n.d.) model, any trustworthy MC system must meet five criteria that ensure both quality and gain professional and public acceptance:
Professional Credibility: Teachers must view the processes and standards as legitimate and fair. Without educator buy-in, even well-designed systems fail.
Administrative Feasibility: The infrastructure must be manageable and financially sustainable, avoiding bureaucratic complexity that strangles innovation.
Policymaker and Public Acceptance: The public and policymakers must trust that MCs represent verified competency based on accepted professional standards.
Legal Defensibility: If MCs are to be used for licensure and compensation, the standards and processes must withstand legal scrutiny.
Economic Accessibility: Pursuing credentials cannot create financial barriers that exclude teachers from professional growth opportunities.
Strategic Implementation Framework for MCs
While this paper draws on experiences in the US and other Western systems, the challenges and opportunities of MCs play out differently across sociocultural contexts. In highly centralized systems, bureaucratic structures may either facilitate or constrain adoption, while in decentralized systems, local discretion can create uneven uptake and interpretation.
In countries where educator credentialing is tightly tied to state authority, MCs may be viewed with greater skepticism, whereas in others they may be embraced as tools for teacher empowerment. Future research should therefore attend more closely to these contextual factors, since successful implementation will require designs sensitive to the cultural, political, and institutional landscapes in which educators work. The evidence needed to convince skeptical gatekeepers of the value of greater teacher agency over their own learning may vary greatly from one context to another.
Core Implementation Principles
Start Small, Scale Smart
Begin with pilot districts already experimenting with MCs rather than forcing system-wide adoption. Road-test every component—from assessment rubrics to technology platforms—before expanding. Early adopters provide crucial feedback and become champions for broader implementation. Begin with a few LEAs that have already begun to fold MCs into their professional learning options.
Protect Core Character
The biggest threat to MCs is not technical failure—it is bureaucratic undermining. Rather than deliberate subversion, undermining occurs through system inertia that incorporates MCs into the current continuing education units (CEUs) system. Resist pressure to convert MCs into traditional CEUs or seat-time equivalents. Instead, establish predetermined numbers of vetted MCs that fulfill licensing requirements outright, preserving their competency-based nature.
Address Equity From Day 1
Rural and high-poverty districts often lack resources for innovation. Build state-level platforms and support systems that ensure all educators can access high-quality MCs regardless of district wealth or geographic location. Educators in smaller rural districts may need greater external support than those in larger, urban, and suburban LEAs. Platforms such as Canvas can provide access to MCs as well as support and resources to educators in more remote areas.
System Infrastructure and Roles
The table below offers definitions of the roles that individuals and organizations play in a MCs system. Taken together, these constitute the infrastructure a MCs system would require (CCSSO, 2020).
Key Roles in a MCs System
| Role | Definition |
|---|---|
| Developer and Provider | The organization(s) or individuals that identify and establish the expected knowledge and skills to be recognized through the MC (often the same entity as the issuer). |
| Earner(s) | The individual or team who submits evidence demonstrating their learning competency to earn a MC. |
| Supports | The human infrastructure at the state, LEA, and school levels required to ensure that earners have the resources, guidance, time, and collegial cooperation needed to succeed. |
| Assessor | The individual(s) that review evidence submitted by earners and use a standard rubric to assess and determine each earner's proficiency. Assessors should be independent from the issuer and recognizer. They must be trained, compensated, and monitored for reliability and transparency in scoring. |
| Issuer | The organization(s) or institution(s) that officially award the MC to earners who have successfully met the proficiency criteria (often the same entity as the developer). |
| Recognizer | The organization(s) or institution(s) that recognize and give currency or value to the MCs and allow them to be used by earners for various purposes. In the United States, this would typically be a state department of education. |
Implementation Framework By Role
Developers, Providers, and Issuers
Build in Quality Assurance Measures From the “Get-Go”
•
Establishing standards: Nothing is more critical than developing or adopting quality standards. Educational authorities should adopt the definition of MCs and the quality standards, such as those created by the MPOS.
•
Clearinghouse for MCs: To assure educators of the quality of MCs from all providers, educational authorities should establish a clearinghouse to host MCs that meet the standards.
•
Informing providers of standards: In the first stage of the quality assurance review, EAs would provide feedback to those providers whose MCs did not meet the MPOS standards and were not aligned to the national teaching standards, and allow them to upgrade them and resubmit.
Encourage Provider Diversity
•
Going to scale involves both breadth and depth. Breadth addresses an increase in the number of users. Depth addresses an increase in the number of high-quality and vetted MCs. Because educator choice is a critical and unique feature of MCs-based professional learning, an array of high-quality providers is essential to a strong infrastructure.
•
EAs should offer annual “design labs” for potential providers to guide them as they develop new MCs to ensure the resulting product meet the MPOS or other quality standards and align with teaching standards.
Earners
Ensure Adequate Learning Opportunities, Technical and Human Supports, and Equitable Access
•
Making dedicated time available: Perhaps most importantly, how school districts and the state address the realities of the significant amount of time and effort many MCs require. Given the outside responsibilities of educators, they should not be expected to find time outside of school for the considerable effort that earning a MC requires. Principals should schedule dedicated time weekly for peer collaboration on MCs.
•
Guidance and coaching: Many educators will need help finding MCs that fit their needs and colleagues who may be working on the same MCs with whom to collaborate. Educators who need help to improve their skills and performance data should be connected to trained peers and/or coaches who have demonstrated expertise in the appropriate subject matter or developmental level.
•
Offering incentives: For MCs to become an integral part of the professional learning eco-system will require clear incentives. Educators have multiple pressing demands on their time. Unless they see professional and financial advantages to pursuing MCs rather than standard professional development activities (incentivized by accumulating CEUs toward license renewal), they are highly unlikely to invest the time and energy into MCs. If resources allow, LEAs should offer stipends to recognize the additional time educators must invest (typically 10–15 h per micro-credential) or opportunities to advance professionally with pay increases (see, e.g., Baltimore City Public Schools’ agreement with teachers on a career ladder that includes pay increases; Baltimore City Public Schools, n.d.).
Assessors
EAs Should Partner with LEAs and Professional Educator Organizations to Select, Train, Support, and Compensate Assessors
•
Identify a pool of initial assessors from recommended veteran teachers.
•
Create a team of accomplished educators to design the assessor training curriculum, including bias training, using scoring rubrics, identifying valid evidence, and templates for providing specific feedback.
•
Design a process for ensuring inter-rater reliability: This should be part of the overall evaluation and research design, including initial double scoring of some submissions. This is especially true for newly created, untested MCs.
•
Employ, train, and support assessors: Assessors may need “re-calibration” periodically to ensure rubrics are applied equally.
•
Compensate assessors: This is not volunteer work. Current providers pay assessors $15–20 per hour, consistent with pay for assessors for components of the National Board Certification process. EAs should consider additional compensation for assessors who take on leadership roles in their schools.
Issuers and Recognizers
Recognition and Crediting Systems
•
The provider should issue MCs based on the assessors’ approval that would be registered on the EA's “micro-credential dashboard.”
•
LEAs should recognize MCs as part of educators’ professional learning records and credit toward earning professional career progression, including license renewal.
•
LEAs can award badges for educators who earn stacks of MCs. The badges include the syllabus for earning the MCs, evidence showing the earner successfully applied the skills, and the evaluative rubric. Earners can add the badges to their e-mail signature.
Critical Success Factors
Leadership Matters
Central office personnel and principals who understand and support MCs dramatically increase completion rates. They provide crucial elements: support and guidance for earners, learning sources, dedicated time for collaboration, permission to take professional risks, and recognition for demonstrated competence.
Peer Learning Accelerates Impact
Teachers consistently report that collaborative MC work—whether in professional learning communities or virtual networks—enhances both learning and completion rates. Isolation undermines motivation; community sustains engagement and growth.
Both Technology and Human Support are Critical
Online platforms provide necessary flexibility and information, but without human support systems, teachers often struggle with self-directed learning and the process involved in earning MCs. Successful programs combine technological accessibility and resources with coaching, guidance, and peer interaction.
Policy and System Recommendations for Decision-Makers
Communication and Clarity
Be clear on the purpose of MCs and “communicate, communicate, communicate”: Make the definition, purpose, and role of MCs clear to everyone, especially teachers, principals, and superintendents.
System Redesign
Revise the current professional learning system. For decades, CEUs have been the “currency” of professional development. Incorporating MCs into the system and, at the same time, maintaining the teacher-directed, competency-based character of MCs requires redesigning the system from the bottom up.
Policy Framework
Create a policy to ensure that MCs count toward license renewal and career advancement. Many states require a specific number of “clock hours” of professional development (from a university- or school district-approved learning activity) for license renewal every 5 years. Current policies typically force LEAs that offer MCs to convert them into CEUs. Standard policy on calibrating equivalency between MCs and “clock hours” does not exist, so LEAs are left to decide, leading to inequities.
Collaboration Infrastructure
Create “Collaboration Hubs”: In the United States, National Board Certified teachers report that the most powerful part of the certification process is the opportunity to work with colleagues on assembling their submissions. In some places, “Transformational Hubs” have been created to bring together certification aspirants. State departments of education and LEAs could host such hubs—virtual and in-person—for educators working on specific MCs.
Technological Disruption
A final consideration concerns the technological trajectory of MCs. Primary advantages have been their portability, flexibility, and accessibility. Emerging technologies such as AI are likely to amplify these features by enabling more adaptive assessment, access to learning resources (including colleagues), personalized learning pathways, and expedited feedback for teachers. At the same time, AI may also raise new questions about reliability, equity, and the role of human judgment in determining instructional quality. A forward-looking perspective on MCs should, therefore, recognize both the potential and the risks of technological change, ensuring that innovation enhances rather than undermines the professional agency of educators in multiple diverse contexts.
Conclusion
MCs represent more than an incremental improvement to professional development. They offer a fundamental reimagining of how educators can grow professionally. By enabling teachers to determine their own learning paths based on self-assessment and classroom needs, MCs restore the professional autonomy that research consistently links to job satisfaction, effectiveness, and retention. The competency-based approach, requiring demonstrated mastery through classroom evidence, ensures accountability for results rather than passively receiving information with no accountability. This approach attempts to address the longstanding criticism that traditional professional development activities result in little impact on teaching practice or student outcomes.
The growing global momentum behind MCs—with 30 US states establishing supportive policies and international adoption spanning from Europe to Southeast Asia, Africa, and Oceania—signals recognition that the current system is ineffective and that educator autonomy and accountability for results are crucial. As education systems worldwide grapple with teacher shortages and retention issues, MCs offer a scalable solution that honors educators’ expertise while requiring evidence of improved practice. At the same time, attention to sociocultural and institutional variation is essential, since centralized and decentralized systems create very different pathways and barriers for implementation.
At the same time, policymakers and educational leaders should recognize the inherent limitations of MCs. Their strength—the focus on discrete skills—is also their limitation. They are not designed to enhance pedagogical innovation nor to address the moral and ethical dimensions of teaching (Goodlad et al., 1990; Greene, 2018). Building authentic relationships with students and colleagues, navigating moral and ethical dilemmas, encouraging innovative practices, developing cultural responsiveness and equity awareness, cultivating systems thinking and organizational leadership, and addressing the emotional and social dimensions of teaching that profoundly impact student learning require other types of learning opportunities.
Moreover, technological change—particularly the rapid rise and evolution of AI—creates both new possibilities (personalized learning, adaptive assessment, rapid feedback) and new risks (equity, reliability, and the devaluing of human judgment) that will shape how MCs evolve.
The path forward requires redesigning professional learning ecosystems in ways that preserve the features that make MCs promising and appealing to educators. Success depends on transforming compliance-driven cultures, establishing quality assurance systems, providing dedicated time and support for earners, and ensuring equitable access to educators wherever they work. Most critically, MCs must complement, rather than replace, other opportunities for professional growth. Policies and systems should strike a balance between developing technical competencies and fostering the relational, ethical, and innovative capacities that underlie excellent teaching.
The question is not whether MCs have a role to play in professional learning opportunities, but whether educational systems can be transformed to accommodate educator autonomy and initiative and to value results based on evidence of successfully implemented skills rather than merely accumulating credit hours.
In short, the promise of MCs lies not in replacing current approaches but in initiating systemic and policy changes that support professional learning that is self-directed, fulfilling, contextually relevant, and demonstrably effective. To fulfill their promise, MCs must be embedded in systems that support and reward teacher agency, ensure equitable access, and integrate evidence of practice into professional advancement. The stakes are high: Attracting and keeping committed and caring educators will depend on whether systems can deliver on that promise.
Needed Research
Research on MCs is in its infancy. We do not yet have sufficient the evidence of effectiveness needed to convince educators, policymakers, and funders to transform the system and the underlying philosophy of professional development. Longitudinal evidence on the impact of MCs on teacher retention, collaboration, instructional innovation, and student outcomes remains especially critical to determine whether MCs can deliver on their transformative promise.
Future studies should investigate how MCs function across diverse cultural, political, and institutional contexts, particularly in centralized versus decentralized systems. Finally, research is needed on how emerging technologies, especially AI, may alter the accessibility, design, support, assessment, and equity of micro-credentialing.
Acknowledgments
The author is deeply indebted to Barnett Berry and Mary Dean Barringer, co-authors of the white paper on which this article is based, Transforming Educator Learning in North Carolina: Realizing the Potential of Micro-Credentials. I owe a similar debt to the other members of the North Carolina Partnership for Micro-Credentials Task Force—Myra Best (Executive Director, digiLEARN), Ashley McBride (Digital Learning Consultant, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction [NCDPI]), and Tom Tomberlin (Senior Director, Educator Preparation, Licensure, and Performance, NCDPI), whose insights and expertise were instrumental in shaping the report. digiLEARN provided financial support for the writing of the original white paper. I deeply appreciate the many educators, researchers, and educational leaders who generously shared their time, insights, and experiences and provided thoughtful feedback on various drafts of this document. Their collective wisdom and practical knowledge of micro-credentials implementation significantly enriched our understanding and recommendations. I am particularly grateful to the leaders of the Empowering Teacher Learning Project at Appalachian State University—Jim Beeler, Kathleen Chestnut, and Caleb Marsh—who were exceptionally generous with their time and provided invaluable guidance drawn from their research and implementation experience. Finally, I acknowledge using artificial intelligence chatbots to help me with organizing this article, for research and suggested edits, and as a critical reviewer. All the ideas and text are mine.
Ethical Considerations
This article does not report systematic research involving human participants and, therefore, was not subject to formal Institutional Review Board review. Informal conversations with educators were used solely to inform the author's understanding of the topic. No identifiable personal data are reported, and no individuals are quoted or described in a way that would permit identification.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: As noted above, the original white paper on which this article is based was funded by digiLEARN, an educational non-profit. The author received no additional financial support for the writing and/or publication of this article.
References
Ashizawa S., Ziguras C., Yonezawa A. (2024). Convergence or fragmentation? Recent developments in recognition of microcredentials and their impact on higher education in Asia and the Pacific. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 26(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICE-11-2023-0031
Australian Government Department of Education. (2024, November 27). Microcredentials pilot in higher education. https://www.education.gov.au/microcredentials-pilot-higher-education
Baltimore City Public Schools. (n.d.). City Schools solidifies agreement with teachers to increase compensation and support career development. Baltimore City Public Schools. https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/article/1917887
Berens B. J. (2023). Micro credentialing for teachers: A case study in personalized professional development (Order No. 30426951). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2829647640). http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/micro-credentialing-teachers-case-study/docview/2829647640/se-2
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2014, December). Teachers know best: Teachers’ views of professional development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED576976.pdf
CCSSO. (2020). Design, assessment, and implementation principles for educator micro-credentials. https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/micro-credentials%20-%20Design%20Principles_FINAL_1.pdf
Cerasoli C. P., Nicklin J. M., Nassrelgrgawi A. S. (2016). Performance, incentives, and needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: A meta-analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 781–813. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1007/s11031-016-9578-2
Chetty R., Friedman J., Rockoff J. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
Community Training and Assistance Center. (2021, February). Supporting top educator (H-STEP) four year evaluation report. https://ctacusa.com/education/talent-development/human-capital-management-systems/
Cox B. T. (2021). The relationship between teacher autonomy, job satisfaction, profession retention, and experience (Order No. 28719820). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (2587216687).
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2025, April 10). Smart policies can unleash the power of microcredentials. https://www.chea.org/smart-policies-can-unleash-power-micro-credentials
CRED4TEACH. (n.d.). MOOC-based micro-credentials for teacher professional development. https://cred4teach.eu/
digiLEARN. (n.d.). The Micro-Credentials Partnership of States. https://www.digilearn.org/partnership-of-states
Doss C. J., Wolfe R. L., Tekkumru-Kisa M., Christianson K., Ziegler M. D., Kaufman J. H. (2024). The role of micro-credentials in strengthening STEM teaching and learning: An evaluation of the Louisiana STEM Micro-Credentials Project. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2486-2.html
Fan X., Wei X., Lewis A., Watts J. (2024). Micro-credentialing as an approach to educator professional learning: Voices from developers, pursuers, and assessors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 148, 104700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104700
Fenwick T., Tennant M. (2004). Understanding adult learners. In Foley G. (Ed.), Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era (pp. 55–73). Open University Press.
Gillon G., McNeill B., Scott A., Gath M., Macfarlane A., Taleni T. (2024). Large scale implementation of effective early literacy instruction. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1354182. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.135418
Goodlad J. I., Soder R., Sirotnik K. A. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Greene M. (2018). Wide-awakeness and the moral life. In Sadovnik A. R., Cookson P. W. Jr, Semel S. F., Coughlan R. W. (Eds.), Exploring education: An introduction to the foundations of education (5th ed., pp. 218–224). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Guskey T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
Hill H. C., Beisiegel M., Jacob R. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.3102/0013189X13512674
Ifenthaler D., Bellin-Mularski N., Mah D. K. (Eds.). (2016). Foundation of digital badges and micro-credentials: Demonstrating and recognizing knowledge and competencies. Springer.
Jacob A., McGovern K. (2015). The Mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. TNTP. https://tntp.org/publication/the-mirage-confronting-the-truth-about-our-quest-for-teacher-development/
Keevy J., Mohee R., Baguant N., Maghoo V. (2025, April 25). Progress with regulatory frameworks for micro-credentials. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250423191300251
Kim A. (2025). Skill building: The emerging micro-credential movement in K-12 education. FutureEd. https://www.future-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Skill-Building_The-Emerging-Micro-Credential-Movement-in-K-12-Education.pdf
Knowles M. S., Holton E. F., Swanson R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge.
Kraft M., Lyon M. (2022, November). The rise and fall of the teaching profession: Prestige, interest, preparation, and satisfaction over the last half century. EdWorkingPaper No. 22-679. Annenberg Center, Brown University.
McKnight K. (2021, December 22). NC feasibility study report to the North Carolina Partnership for Micro-Credentials. Center for Research, Evaluation, and Equity in Education. RTI International. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/624c7ed1f5d1714b908a7715/t/628d011447edee24543fde09/1653408021567/FeasibilityReportFinal_Jan7_2021.pdf
Merrimack College. (2022). First annual Merrimack College teacher survey: 2022 results. https://fs24.formsite.com/edweek/images/WP-Merrimack_College-Todays_Teachers_Are_Deeply_Disillusioned_Survey_Data_Confirms.pdf
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (n.d.). Certification. https://www.nbpts.org/certification/
Nelson R., Weaver H., West E., Thomas-Paddie S., Childress H., Chesnutt K., Beeler J. (2024). Teachers’ initial perceptions of self-directed learning within a teacher-directed professional learning program. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 21(1), 1–16. http://sdlglobal.com/journals.php
Parker S. K., Williams H. M., Turner N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Rockoff J., Jacob B., Kane T., Staiger D. (2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Education Finance and Policy, 6(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00022
Šarčević I. (2024). A new agenda on micro-credentials: Filling the gaps in the European approach. Journal of Learning for Development, 11(1), 181–186. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1423598.pdf
Tooley M., Hood J. (2021, January 13). Harnessing micro-credentials for teacher growth: A model state policy guide. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/harnessing-micro-credentials-teacher-growth/
Tooley M., Partelow L. (2025). When micro goes macro: A nationwide review of states’ educator micro-credential policies. New America. https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/A_Nationwide_Review_of_States_Educator_MicroCredential_Policies_Final_m64AVi5__tXPsF5V.pdf
UNESCO & International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. (2024). Global report on teachers: Addressing teacher shortages and transforming the profession. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/global-report-teachers-what-you-need-know
Worth J., Van den Brande J. (2020). Teacher autonomy: How does it relate to job satisfaction and retention? National Foundation for Educational Research.
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 19, 2026
Issue published: January-March 2026
Keywords
Rights and permissions
© The Author(s) 2026.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Request permissions for this article.
Article versions
You are viewing the most recent version of this article. To download and view previous versions, see below:
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Publication usage*
Total views and downloads: 194
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref:
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBAccess options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
