Industry Certification On-Ramp: Expediting Campus Access for Students and Faculty for ICT and Digital Media Third-Party Certifications

October 2019

Jamie R. Mulkey, Ed.D.jrmulkey@wavecable.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiermulkey/

Presented toICT-Digital Media Sector,

California Community Colleges

table of ContentsExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Research Study Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Reasons for Offering Third-Party Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Most Popular Certification Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Testing Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Why Test Delivery Isn’t Occurring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Certification Exams Most Likely to Be Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Anecdotal Feedback & Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Third-Party Certification Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Exam Delivery Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Proctoring Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Exam Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Courseware and Certification Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Auxiliary Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Community Outreach/Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ideas and Asks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Testing Center Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Measuring Student Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Communications Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Student Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Faculty Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Proctor Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Industry Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Toolkit Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Communications Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Appendix A – List of Programs Offered at Pearson VUE and Certiport Testing Centers . . 19Appendix B – College of the Canyons Site Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Appendix C: Bio Jamie Mulkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The ICT Sector Team of the Workforce and Economic Development Division, California Community College (CCC) System would like to document the best practices and expand the effectiveness of campus testing centers and certification exam voucher programs to more broadly offer industry-recognized Information Technology (IT) certification program exams. The ability to offer exams from programs such as Microsoft, Adobe, Cisco, AWS, and CompTIA would allow CCC campuses to improve student success by exposing potential and existing students to broader offerings from the community college system. Additionally, providing the delivery and access to delivery of IT certifications exams will leverage Information Communications Technologies (ICT) and Digital Media statewide investments for enhancing Strong Workforce Program (SWP) CCC investments with enhanced, metric-impacting programs. The outcome of this research is to create a best practice guide for implementing third-party certification program exam testing through the campus testing centers. This will assist those CCCs in providing an on-ramp to get such centers started on their own campuses.

The CCC contracted with Jamie Mulkey (see bio Appendix C) to identify best practices and barriers in accessing assessment of third-party certification programs through the CCC. In the first phase of the project, a voluntary short survey was created and distributed to contacts at CCCs. Based upon responses from those willing to participate, qualitative interviews were conducted to provide context and additional information to the quantitative survey process. There was a total of 41 survey respondents, which provided a 13% response rate. Twenty-three (22) qualitative phone interviews were conducted. Survey and qualitative interview participants included CTE deans, professors, instructors, program coordinators, testing center staff, and industry experts.

The results of this research suggest that:

1) Community colleges do find value in offering third-party certifications to compliment course offerings, particularly when these certifications show measurement for student success.

2) For these credential-driven programs to be successful, ICT instructors must have a vested interest in the credentialing process. This means participating in course creation, self-qualification, and teaching to third-party certifications as the capstone to a class or set of classes.

3) Certification exam vouchers at discounted prices must be provided to students. Third-party certification exams can be expensive; the cost of certification shouldn’t be cost-prohibitive.

4) Different sized testing center locations could provide a flexible model for schools to meet their facility, resource, and community needs. This would benefit current CCC students and possibly attract new students. There is value in providing pathways for obtaining third-party credentials to students. 5) The industry credential puts a ‘seal of approval’ on a student’s area of study and makes the individual more attractive to employers.

Executive Summary

Research Study Introduction

A quantitative and qualitative research study was conducted to determine a set of recommended best practices for deploying third-party credentials as part of curriculum completion for ICT and Digital Media programs. Specifically, it looked at delivering assessments on campus to make it more convenient for students to complete certification exams, and the resource requirements for implementing this capability.

While there are some campuses within the one hundred-fifteen (115) CCC system currently providing IT certification program testing services, the practice is not widely held. Collecting and sharing these best practices will provide exposure and additional revenue streams for the campuses by exposing certification candidates to other opportunities within the community college system.

This study explored whether existing campus testing services could include Information Communications Technologies (ICT) and Digital Media credentialing exams or if new testing facilities would be required. The existing CCC testing centers provide an array of testing services that support campus assessment activities. These include admissions testing, prerequisite course testing, and curriculum assessments. The skills and knowledge for administering assessments are currently in place; the addition of IT certification exam administration would be incremental learning to testing center staff.

Findings of this study will also show that providing ICT students with a reasonably-priced mechanism to allow students to complete third-party assessments is also warranted.

What follows are the quantitative survey results and narrative descriptions from the qualitative interviews that support recommendations for further supporting third-party certification programs within the CCC.

Survey Respondents

Quantitative surveys were sent to three hundred-twelve (312) constituents. Surveys were distributed to Career Technical Education (CTE) deans, professors, instructors, program coordinators, testing center staff, and industry experts. There was a total of forty-one (41) survey respondents, with a response rate of 13%. Twenty-three (23) qualitative interviews were conducted.

Approximately one-quarter (26.8%) of survey respondents indicated they were delivering third-party assessments in support of the curriculum courseware taught. The qualitative interviews revealed there were many different assessment delivery models being used to support curriculum and students. This ranged from a single testing seat within the ICT department, to six testing seats within a department, to multi-use rooms converted to testing seats to support many different third-party certifications, to the provision of discounted vouchers which allowed students to select their own testing center location.

Reasons for Offering Third-Party Certifications

When asked why they offered third-party certifications, most survey participants said it was to validate student success. When this topic was discussed during the qualitative interviews, participants suggested that including the certification as part of the courseware provided a means for students to have a validated skill set that could offer them direct employment opportunities. It was also a way to measure whether the students had learned and could apply the coursework they had taken. Lastly, if collected by the college, the information about certification pass rates could be used as a reported measure of student success.

A secondary reason for delivering third-party certifications was to provide the public another location to take professional certification exams. If the campus has a professional testing center, any proctored certification exam offered by the specified test delivery vendor, could be offered. By providing onsite testing, respondents also hoped to allow those unfamiliar with the campus to gain an interest in its course offerings. This would require additional communication efforts which will be discussed later in this report.

Most Popular Certification Exams

The Cisco and CompTIA Academy programs were cited as the most popular certification programs to offer and support. Reasons for their popularity included: materials that were readily available to teach from good support from the certifying organization; and the skills identified were requested by employers. Second in popularity, were certification programs that teach skills needed for the Business Information Worker (BIW), including Microsoft MOS (Microsoft Office Specialist) and QuickBooks.

Anecdotal feedback suggested that these certifications were not job-specific, as is the case with Cisco and CompTIA certifications. However, they support skills that individuals working in a business environment must have, particularly Microsoft Excel.

Volume for test delivery was reported to be low compared to industry standards for private testing centers. Approximately half of the colleges providing test delivery are delivering one hundred (100) exams or fewer per year. The second largest group was for colleges that delivered between 100 – 1,000 exams per year. The testing volumes are consistent with most ICT program sizes, which run between 20 – 90 students per year.

Testing Volume

Why Test Delivery Isn’t Occurring

Three quarters of survey participants stated that they were not delivering third-party certification exams on campus. The reasons included personnel resource availability and training, space to house a testing center, the cost of training, and equipment required. Respondents were also concerned about professional test center hour availability requirements. Also indicated was the concern that there was not clear alignment between courseware and certification exams to warrant coupling the course(s) and the certification exam(s).

The cost of third-party certification exams can be prohibitive for students, especially if there is more than one exam needed to become certified. At some colleges, students are purchasing their own exams. The tests are expensive; this is a heavy burden on students.

Sometimes the cost of exams will be paid for through special funds. Financial resources may come from financial aid, the Strong Workforce Program, or other grants. However, these are not sustainable funding models.

Space for housing test delivery is another issue. If a campus does provide testing for ICT and digital media, the testing locations tend to be small, shared spaces on campus, typically housed within ICT buildings. These testing locations have between 1-6 seats and the testing is focused on the ICT-delivered courses. Many of the testing centers are not open to the public. Typically, there isn’t enough testing volume to justify a full-time proctoring resource.

One of the barriers uncovered during the qualitative interview process, was the lack of instructor buy-in to use of certification exams as the end cap to the instructional process. In some cases, instructors did not want to attach certification for fear that: it could reflect their teaching abilities; it would require they themselves become certified; and, they did not want to teach to the test. Recommendations for removing these barriers will be discussed in the Ideas and Asks section.

Figure 5 - Reasons for not hosting a professional testing center

The survey results suggest that if these barriers were removed, some colleges would consider providing third-party certification exams on campus.

Figure 6 - Likelihood of hosting testing centers if barriers were removed

Certification Exams Most Likely to Be Offered

For those survey respondents who were not currently delivering certification exams, the ones they would most likely offer included CompTIA, Cisco, and Microsoft MOS. Amazon AWS, Adobe, Oracle, and QuickBooks were also preferred. Cisco and CompTIA are perceived as the de-facto standards for IT certification. Adobe, MOS (Excel), QuickBooks are perceived as essential for BIW.

Figure 7 - Preferred Certification Offerings for colleges not currently offering certification testing

This next section discusses feedback received by individuals willing to be interviewed about their current situation with third-party test delivery processes. These interviews included colleges that did and did not have the capacity to deliver third-party certification exams on campus. The following individuals participated in the qualitative interview process:

Anecdotal Feedback & Best Practices

• Todd Adamson, Territory Manager, Certiport• Jackie Berdy, VP, Channel Development, XVoucher• Gerlinde Brady, Dean, CTE, Cabrillo College• Jim Bowen, CTE Faculty, Antelope Valley College• Dan Calderwood, Professor, CIS, College of the Redwoods• Kris Costa, Dean, CTE, West Hills College• Esther Frankel, Professor, Santa Barbara City College• Albert Gasparian, VP Instruction, Golden West College• Markus Geissler, PhD Professor and Regional Director, Employer Engagement, Information & Communication Technologies/ Digital Media, Greater Sacramento Region California Community Colleges

• Anna Isabell, Instructional Associate, Coastline College• Wesley Keen, Assistant Director of The Learning Center, College of the Canyons• Krista Ketchmark, VP of IT Business Development, Pearson VUE• John Makevich, Dean of Continuing & Community Education, College of the Canyons• Shawn Monsen, CIS Instructor, Sierra College• Maria Pinto-Casillas, CIS professor, Oxnard College• Mary Rees, Dean of Physical Science and CTE, Moorpark College

• Margaret Schmidt, Project Manager, Contract Education, Technical Assistance Provider, Chico, California• DJ Singh, CIS professor and department chair, Monterey Peninsula College• Karen Stanton, Test Administrator, Los Medanos College• Ryan Ulwelling, Director of Channel, Pearson VUE• Salvador Vargas, Dean, CTE, San Joaquin Delta College• Christopher Whiteside, Career Education, Golden West College• Teira Wilson, Test Administrator, Clovis Community College

Third-Party Certification Exams

• Certification exams are suggested and encouraged by some ICT and Digital Media instructors. In some cases, the certification exams are used as the final exam; if the student passes their certification, they pass the course.

• Name recognition via a department plaque can be given when a student successfully completes their certification exam.

Exam Delivery Spaces

• Testing locations tend to be small, shared spaces. They include 1-6 seats.

• The test center manager of a campus-based professional vendor testing center may limit hours to fit proctor resource restraints and building availability hours.

• Partitioned spaces within the computer resource center can be used for testing. The Computer Technology Coordinator may serve as the proctor.

• Campus-based professional vendor testing centers may focus on delivering exams for other professions, such as automotive, nursing, dental assisting, and culinary. When the volume is high enough to support the outlaid costs, they will add ICT and Digital Media certification exams.

• Alignment between campus testing center and ICT and Digital Media certification programs is needed. The campus testing center needs to know which certifications the ICT programs support.

• The College of the Canyons Assessment Center was toured in person as part of this project. A synopsis of this center can be found in Appendix B.

Campus-based professional vendor testing centers on campus need to consider: hours of operation,

campus parking, Saturday testing, and building hour availability.

Proctoring Resources

• Proctoring resources can be limited and proctors are often part-time with other duties to fulfill within the ICT and Digital Media departments.

• For some campuses, there is not enough testing volume to justify a full-time proctoring resource.

• Proctors in campus-based professional vendor testing centers are required to recertify as a proctor annually. This can be a heavy requirement and burdensome, given the volume of testing.

Exam Vouchers

• ICT programs can offer vouchers with their courseware.

• Xvoucher (https://www.xvoucher.com/buy/ccc/) provides discounted exam pricing for ICT and Digital Media certification exams. Vouchers can be purchased directly from the site.

• Some voucher funding options include:

• Uses of the Perkins Grant or Strong Workforce Program. The number purchased may be limited because they expire.

• Use of financial aid for low-income students.

Courseware and Certification Alignment

• The certification exam objectives are used in the course design process. This allows the course to align with the certification exam.

• Course materials from the certification program vendor can be used for teaching; the certification exam can become the capstone/final. However, the cost of licensing courseware can be an issue.

• Integration of courseware and certification for BIW (Adobe, MOS, Digital Media) is being considered by some campuses.

• Student learning is increased when utilizing a blended learning model versus all online.

• Many of these programs are small; the range is from 20 – 90 students.

Cybersecurity is drawing interest as a discipline and certification,

particularly where a CCC is near a military base or Silicon Valley.

Auxiliary Preparation

• Programs have access to practice tests such as Gmetrics, CertMaster, and certification program specific practice tests. These practice tests are needed to build student confidence.

• It may be beneficial for students to go through ICT curriculum as a cohort.

Instructors

• Instructors must be comfortable with teaching materials and certification exam content. Otherwise, they tend to not recommend certification.

• Some instructors fear the certification exams are weighed against their teaching ability.

• It can be challenging to find instructors to teach the newer technologies.

• Incentives are needed to encourage instructors to learn newer technologies and stay current.

• On some campuses, instructors are required to be certified on the third- party certifications.

Community Outreach/Planning

• Industry Advisory Boards can meet regularly (i.e., quarterly) to communicate needed knowledge/skills.

• Specific courses can been articulated with local high schools.

• Some campuses conduct outreach to local businesses to place students in jobs.

• It may be beneficial for college counselors to attend local fairs and provide presentations to high school students about careers in ICT.

• Some campuses use Strong Workforce Program funds to send counselors out in to the field to do presentations to high school students.

• Word-of-mouth efforts may help fill some courses/programs because of the person who is teaching the class(es).

• It can be important to conduct continuous outreach to the industry; e.g., local workforce guilds and ensure curriculum and LMI (Labor Market Information) data support courseware

A 12-hour no credit, no fee exam prep class can be delivered to

students at the end of the semester. This allows students to do a final

review of the materials taught before taking the certification exam.

Ideas and AsksThis next section presents ideas worthy of consideration for supporting CCC third-party certification programs. As next steps in the process, a plan for implementing the ideas that are deemed as both straightforward to implement and the most impactful to the ICT & Digital Media programs should be created.

Testing Center Model

Campuses are encouraged to design an ROI model for program viability. Three sizes of campuses testing centers have been identified:

• Small – 1 seat • Medium – up to 6 seats • Large – regional testing center

The Certification Exam Road Map below shows variables to consider when selecting a test administration model that best fits your environment’s needs

Figure 1 - Certification Exam Roadmap

Funding • Establish a process for getting Strong Workforce Program dollars for third-party certification exam programs. • Consider obtaining funding for licensing third party certification course materials and training/certifying instructors.

Measuring Student Success • Create reporting mechanism for tracking successful certification completion. • Create a ‘Best of CCC’ web page.

Communications Planning • Create a student and faculty success stories communications campaign. Promote CCC students who completed class(es), became certified, got hired. • Create generic brochures for colleges to give to local high schools on ICT and third-party certifications. • Offer workshops/webinars for students interested in IT careers. • Design a digital badging strategy. Create and promote a compelling story for badging for both students and faculty.

Student Engagement • Form a club to get students interested in technology careers. Provide industry guest speakers to encourage involvement. • Educate students about programs that pay for their education. • Provide a list of free practice test resources for students. • Offer a monthly, open webinar meeting to ask questions and discuss best practices.

Faculty Engagement • Create best practices guide based on campuses currently delivering testing (listing colleges by name). • Run workshops/webinars for students interested in IT careers. • Promote CyberPatriot programs/teams/competitions. • Provide a list of free practice test resources. • Offer monthly open webinar meetings to ask questions and discuss best practices for instructors

Proctor Enablement • Use the Test Proctors Share-all: Stories from the Frontlines of Testing; Jarret M. Dyer, as a primer for proctors.

Industry Alliance • Work with technology industry to create internships that require/prefer third-party certification. • Design a digital badging strategy. Create and promote a compelling story for badging for both students and faculty.

Next Steps

Toolkit Creation

A ‘How-to Toolkit’ will be created for colleges desiring to become authorized testing centers. This toolkit will be posted to the ICT Sector website. The toolkit will include:

- A catalog of all CCC testing centers including locations, the IT certification exams offered, the prep courses offered, and contact information - Contacts for each IT certification program - Contacts for each test delivery provider - Centralized Xvoucher enablement to take advantage of volume discounts - A set of best practices for startup, management, and sustainability for delivery of IT certification exams - A list of the best channels to market this program to students interested in ICT-DM related programs - Sample pathways to help ICT faculty obtain and maintain current industry certifications. - A sample budget sheet and ROI analysis - Sample testing room configurations for small, medium, and large testing centers

Communications Campaign

A communications campaign should be developed to disseminate information about the third-party certification exam delivery options. The campaign will select multiple communication vehicles such as email campaigns, webinars, podcasts, and news releases to assist interested colleges in learning about the process and connect them to the appropriate IT certification programs, test delivery providers, and program exemplars.

Outcomes

The measurable outcomes for this project are to: - Increase the number and accessibility of industry certification testing centers at CCCs - Increase the visibility of locally accessible professional testing centers - Identify tools and funding that will reduce the cost of third-party certification exams for students - Increase the number of students successfully completing industry certifications. - Show student success metrics.

Summary

The California Community College (CCC) System has an opportunity to develop student success measures through the use of third-party certification programs as an integration point with ICT and digital media curriculum.

Quantitative and qualitative feedback suggest that such programs do support the mission of the CCC. A combination of factors is needed to show a marketable difference in measurable student success.

These factors include: facility, equipment, and resource availability, training and certification in third party certifications for faculty, reduced fees for student test taking, integration of third-party resource training materials, and a mechanism to report program results.

With a system in place, a variety of third-party certifications can be used to validate student learning and show marketable results for California Community College outcomes.

Appendix A :

List of Programs Offered at Pearson VUE and Certiport Testing Centers

Programs offered in CATCs: https://certiport.pearsonvue.com/Educator-resources/Exam-details/Exam-releases

• Adobe Certified Associate (ACA) • Apple App Development with Swift Certification • Autodesk Certified Professional (ACP) • Autodesk Certified User (ACU) • EC Council Ethical Hacking Associate • EC Council Cyber Forensics Associate • Entrepreneurship and Small Business (ESB) • IC3 Digital Literacy (IC3) • Intuit Quickbooks Certified User (QBCU) • Microsoft Certified Educator (MCE) • Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) • Microsoft Technology Associate (MTA) • Unity Certified User (UCU)

• EXIN• Check Point Software Technologies• Citrix Systems, Inc.• ICRM• Globex Certifications Inc.• Open Education and Development Group• VEEAM VMCE• NetApp• Microsoft• International Federation of Inspection Agencies• Fortinet• Android ATC• Blue Prism• Micro Focus• AIWMI• American Academy of Financial Management India• RES• CompTIA Testing• Condition Zebra (M) Sdn. Bhd.• Chainshine Financial Training• Software Certifications• National Instruments• Digital Marketing Institute• First Finance Institute• ForgeRock• FileMaker, Inc• Riverbed Technology• Teradata• Hack2Secure• International Association for Health Coaches(IAHC)• Arista Networks• CertiTrek• BCS The Chartered Institute for IT• IBM Corporation• iSQI• IAB• Veritas• WorldatWork• PCI Security Standards Council• The Open Group

• Object Management Group• Arcitura Education• PRMIA• Zend Technologies, Ltd.• Blockchain• Intuit• Juniper Networks• CertNexus• International Qualifications Network• Chartered Global Management Accountant• BBPSD• Nokia Solutions and Networks• BICSI• Esri• WINS• Symantec• Kinaxis• GMAC® Assessments• Excelsior College• APBM• LPI-Japan Testing• CIW• Huawei• McAfee• Pegasystems Inc• RSA Security Testing• ZTE• AMTRAC• Chartered Institute of Management Accountants• PeopleCert• ACSM• Institute of Certified Bookkeepers• NACE• Qlik Certification Program• Institute of Chartered IT Professionals• Rocheston Press Pvt Ltd• International Capital Market Association (ICMA)• Institute of International Container Lessors• The London Institute of Banking & Finance

• VMware, Inc.• Global Association of Risk Professionals• Nokia• FutureLearn• EC-Council• Cisco Systems, Inc.• Oracle Certification Program• PTI• Linux Professional Institute Testing• Unify• Avaya Inc. Testing• HPE Certification and Learning• Kali Linux• Guild of Architectural Ironmongers Ltd• Institute of Risk Management• IRATA International• Entrepreneurship and Small Business - U.S.• IGP&I Clubs• Strasz Assessment System• London Academy of Professional Training• DELL EMC• Fitch Learning• Splunk• CyberArk• International Association of Privacy Professionals• ISDC• Backbase• Alibaba Cloud Certification• APICS• Palo Alto Networks, Inc.• Unity Certification• ACAMS• SAS• Amazon Web Services• Ericsson• GIAC• The Institute Of Asset Management• Kalinga University• Infosys Limited

Programs offered in PVTCs: https://home.pearsonvue.com/

Appendix B – College of the Canyons Site Visit

A site visit was conducted to the College of the Canyons Assessment Center. Located in Santa Clarita, California, the College’s Assessment Center is housed

inside the Learning Center on campus. It consists of multiple assessment locations within the center. However, the two primary proctored testing rooms provide the

majority of the administration of third-party exams at the campus.

The testing center is run by the Assistant Director of the Learning Center. This person manages the test administrators/proctors for the center.

These two testing rooms house approximately 16-17 test takers at a time. They are glass-enclosed rooms that allow proctors to administer third party certification and

qualifying exams in a clean, well-lit, quiet environment.

There are testing carrels with computer workstations that line the periphery of each room. Each testing space is separated by dividers. There are also long tables in the middle of the room. These tables are used for students taking paper-based

assessments. Tests are provided by multiple test administration vendors, so proctors must know how to log on to each of the different platforms.

Two test administrators are required on heavy testing days. Test takers must first check in at the desk directly outside the two rooms, then the proctors place each

test taker at a specified testing station.

The Assessment Center delivers a myriad of third-party assessments. The center began delivering GED exams starting in 2014 and has steadily progressed to

delivering education certifications, computer technology certifications, medical certifications, and automotive certifications. By growing its test delivery base

gradually, it has shown the testing center can cover its own expenses and add new certification tests that support local community needs.

Appendix C: Bio Jamie Mulkey

Dr. Jamie Mulkey is Vice President, Sales Enablement for Caveon, LLC; a test security company that protects tests and ensures trustworthy test results. Dr.

Mulkey has a distinguished history, holding major positions in testing organizations, certification task forces, and testing-related non-profit associations. As a Caveon

founder, Jamie was a major contributor to shaping the testing industry’s discussion around test security and bringing test security services to market.

Her current focus is working with clients to design pre-emptive policies and processes that protect their most important assets – their assessments. Dr.

Mulkey also started and was the Executive Director of the Certified Exam Security Professional (CESP) program, which provides credentials to test security

professionals. She is currently the

Executive Director of the Institute for Exam Security (i4ES), whose mission it is to broaden the understanding and importance of test security.

Prior to working for Caveon, Dr. Mulkey worked for Hewlett-Packard (HP) for 16 years in a variety of technical training curriculum and project management functions. Jamie managed three different certification programs while at HP

and was part of the team that managed the merger of HP/Compaq certification program. While at HP, Dr. Mulkey was on the leadership team that developed the

HP Women’s Conference. She also contributed to a cross-functional workforce readiness design team with the local high school district.

Dr. Mulkey has held a number of leadership positions in the testing industry, including: Board of Directors for the Institute for Test Security, Chair of the Board

of Directors for the Association of Test Publishers (ATP), Chair of ATP’s Security Initiative, American National Standards Board (ANSI) Personnel Certification

Accreditation Committee (PCAC) member, ATP’s Workforce Skills Division Security Initiative member, jCert Initiative board member, and member of the Editorial

Board for Certification Magazine. Dr. Mulkey is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Exam Security (i4ES), whose mission it is to broaden the understanding

and importance of test security.

Jamie holds a Master’s degree in Instructional Technology from San Jose State University and a Doctorate in Educational Psychology and Technology from the

University of Southern California. She received outstanding research awards from both of her graduate school programs.