Behind the Scenes: What’s New in ASTM E2659-24, Part 1

With their focus on outcomes, certificate programs are becoming a powerful tool in workforce development, continuing education, and professional advancement. But as stakeholder expectations rise for rigor and accountability, the standards for these programs must evolve.

That’s why I’m excited to discuss the newly released 2024 edition of ASTM E2659: Standard Practice for Certificate Programs - specifically its key updates. 

More Clarity, Not More Burden

First, it’s important to stress that most updates in E2659-24 are clarifying, not substantive! In this revision, we set out to:

• Simplify language

• Remove duplicative content

• Add explanatory notes to aid interpretation

Our goal was to make the standard easier to understand and implement for organizations pursuing ANAB accreditation or simply aiming to build stronger certificate programs.

What’s Changed?

There are eight areas of substantive change. By that, I mean either a requirement has been changed or added such that it likely would change what an existing certificate issuer in compliance with the standard does. These are distinguished from clarifying changes, which don’t change the requirements; instead, they clarify the intent.

In this post, I’ll explore 2 of the 8 substantive changes. Future posts will address the other changes.

Expanded Advisory Group Responsibilities (Clause 5.1.4)

The standard requires an advisory group of program stakeholders to be convened to advise certificate program management on issues integral to ensuring the program is current, relevant, and valuable. Clause 5.1.4 already required the group to have input into the program’s target audience, purpose, scope, intended learning outcomes, and requirements for earning the certificate. The advisory group must now also provide input on:

• security of the summative assessment

Why? How secure the assessment needs to be depends upon the stakes of the program – and the stakeholders know best what those are. For example, is the industry comfortable with an unproctored online summative assessment? Or, should the assessment be monitored by a live proctor? Both extremes are acceptable under the standard, as long as the advisory group has weighed in on the determination.

Further, in the previous version, the clause indicated the group had input into the “instructional design plan”; this has been changed to “instructional design.”

This may just be a one-word change, but the focus of the review changes. The intent of the change is that the advisory group doesn’t need to have input into all the details of the instructional design plan document. Instead, it’s critical that they focus on the high-level instructional design elements to verify they meet the needs of the target population and other stakeholders. As examples: Is the needs assessment accurate? Is the program design appropriate? Is the program delivery such that it’s accessible to learners and an appropriate way to learn the specific content?  Is the planned pilot meaningful (e.g., are participants representative of the target population)? Will the evaluation plan elicit meaningful information?

Additional Input for Management Reviews (Clause 5.2.6)

The standard requires the management system to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure its continued suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness. The clause already required the following inputs to management review:  results of internal audits, results of external audits, status of corrective or preventive actions, results of contractor performance monitoring, complaints, appeals, and follow-up on actions from previous management reviews. The following input was added:

• Progress toward program objectives

This change emphasizes continuous performance improvement by requiring certificate issuers to review their progress and adjust objectives, as needed.

Please reach out to me if you have any questions about the changes and how they may affect your program. In the next article, I’ll be sharing more substantive changes.