| Course | HLTH 6005 Introduction to Health and Wellness Education Profession |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Position paper |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6005 Week 9
Health Departments Should Require the CHES Credential for Health Educator Positions Within 18 Months of Hire: Three Arguments, the Strongest Objection Stated as Its Holders Would and the Answer to It
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6005: Introduction to Health and Wellness Education Profession
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Health Departments Should Require the CHES Credential for Health Educator Positions Within 18 Months of Hire: Three Arguments, the Strongest Objection Stated as Its Holders Would and the Answer to It
Thesis
State and local health departments should require the Certified Health Education Specialist (CHES) credential for positions titled "health educator," with new hires allowed 18 months to earn it, the department paying the examination fee and licensed clinicians exempted. The claim is limited to governmental public health agencies and to positions carrying the health educator title. It does not extend to community health workers, health coaches or educators in private settings.
Background
Health educators are a substantial part of the governmental public health workforce. An analysis of the 2017 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey found that health educators in state and local health departments were younger, more ethnically diverse and more likely to hold advanced degrees than the governmental public health workforce as a whole, and that they were more knowledgeable about public health concepts than the national sample (Cinnick et al., 2023). The same analysis compared certified and uncertified health educators, a comparison that is only possible because certification is voluntary and many health educators in government do not hold it. Nationally, 65,690 people were employed as health education specialists in May 2025 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2025).
Argument 1: The Title Needs a Floor
The health educator title is used loosely. Job postings attach it to roles ranging from program planners to outreach staff to people who staff an information table. That is not a criticism of those roles, but it means the title alone tells a hiring manager, a partner agency or the public little about what the holder can do. The CHES credential sets a floor. Eligibility rests on a degree plus either a health education major or 25 or more semester credits that cover the profession's areas of responsibility (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing [NCHEC], n.d.-a), and the examination tests those areas, which include assessment, planning, evaluation and research, and administration. A requirement attaches a defined set of competencies to a title that public agencies use in budgets, grant applications and job classifications.
Argument 2: Public Agencies Owe Public Accountability
Health departments spend public money on programs that health educators design and evaluate. Grant applications to federal agencies describe staff qualifications, and governing boards approve positions on the basis of what those positions will deliver. A recognized national credential makes the qualifications behind that spending visible and checkable. Requiring it for a defined title is a modest step compared with the licensing requirements that health departments already accept for nurses, sanitarians and laboratory staff.
Argument 3: The Credential Requires Continued Learning
A degree certifies what someone knew at graduation. The CHES credential must be renewed every five years with 75 hours of continuing education, at least 45 of them from preapproved providers and 5 devoted to continuing competency, which may include a performance assessment by a supervisor (NCHEC, n.d.-b). For a field whose practice framework was revised in 2020 and again in 2025, with a ninth area of responsibility taking effect in examinations from 2027 (NCHEC, n.d.-c), a renewal requirement keeps the workforce's preparation aligned with current practice in a way a one-time degree cannot.
The Strongest Objection
Those who oppose a requirement would put their case like this. There is no evidence that certified health educators produce better health outcomes than uncertified ones. A requirement would add cost and delay to hiring in agencies that already struggle to fill positions. It would screen out capable people trained in nursing, social work, nutrition or communications, along with people who learned the work in community settings, and it could narrow the diversity that makes the governmental health education workforce effective. And it would protect a professional group's interests at the expense of the communities a health department serves. On this view, a department should hire for demonstrated skill and leave certification as one way, among several, to show it.
The Answer
The objection is right that outcome evidence is missing. No study cited here shows that certified educators achieve better population health results, and the paper does not claim it. But the same is true of most credential requirements in public employment; licensure for sanitarians or certification for emergency medical technicians rests on defined competence and public accountability, not on outcome trials. The question is whether a defined floor is reasonable for a title that controls public program dollars, and the first two arguments hold without outcome evidence.
The remaining points are answered by the design of the requirement rather than by denying them.
Cost and delay: the 18-month window lets departments hire first and certify later, and paying the examination fee, which NCHEC sets at $250 to $435 depending on student status and registration period (NCHEC, n.d.-d), removes the financial barrier for the employee.
Exclusion of other disciplines: licensed clinicians such as nurses and dietitians are exempted, because they already hold a credential with public accountability. People trained in communications or social work can qualify through the coursework route, and those who cannot can be hired into other titles.
Workforce diversity: the evidence that governmental health educators are already more diverse than the wider public health workforce (Cinnick et al., 2023) is a reason for care, not for inaction. Departments should track whether a requirement changes the makeup of applicants and new hires, and pair it with paid study time and examination preparation for staff who come through community pathways.
Professional self-interest: the requirement is limited to one title in public agencies. Community health workers and coaches, whose value lies in other qualities, are expressly outside it.
What Would Follow
If health departments adopted the requirement, the health educator title would carry a defined meaning across agencies, grant reviewers could rely on it and the workforce's preparation would be renewed on a fixed cycle. The cost would be a modest fee and some delay for a portion of new hires. If evidence later showed that the requirement reduced the diversity of the workforce without improving program quality, the case for it would weaken, and departments should be ready to revise it.
References
Cinnick, S., Gambatese, M., Auld, M. E., Escoffery, C., & Moon, T. (2023). Health educators in state/local public health departments: Training needs and awareness of emerging areas of public health practice. Health Promotion Practice, 24(3), 523-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399221098345
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-a). CHES exam eligibility. https://www.nchec.org/ches-exam-eligibility
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-b). CHES recertification. https://www.nchec.org/ches-recertification
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-c). Responsibilities and competencies. https://www.nchec.org/responsibilities--competencies
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. (n.d.-d). CHES schedule and fees. https://www.nchec.org/ches-schedule-fees
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). Occupational employment and wage statistics: May 2025 national estimates [Data set]. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
The Walden HLTH 6005 Week 9 instructions
Week 9 sets a position paper on a question the profession actually contests. The thesis should appear on the first page and be narrow enough to be wrong, for example limited to a setting, a title or a condition. Support should run three or four arguments deep, each with current professional or empirical sources rather than anecdotes. The strongest section is expected to be the counterargument, stated in a form its holders would recognize before the paper answers it. Graders reward a writer who admits where the objection lands and then narrows the claim. The conclusion should state what would follow if the position were adopted and what evidence would change the writer's mind. A survey of the field that describes every side without choosing is exactly what this prompt rules out. Sources include credentialing documents, workforce research and labor data.
How the HLTH 6005 Week 9 example is put together
The paper states its thesis with the department setting, the title, the 18-month window, the paid fee and the exemption. Background draws on the workforce survey analysis and federal employment data. Argument 1 explains how the credential's eligibility and examination give a loosely used title a defined meaning. Argument 2 compares the requirement with licenses health departments already accept for other staff. Argument 3 uses the five-year renewal rules and the 2020 and 2025 framework revisions. The objection section lays out the missing outcome evidence, hiring cost and delay, exclusion of other disciplines, workforce diversity and professional self-interest. The answer concedes the outcome point and responds to the others through the requirement's design: the window, the fee, the exemption, diversity tracking with paid study time and a scope limited to one title. A closing section states consequences and a condition for revision.
Reading the HLTH 6005 Week 9 rubric
Position papers are usually graded on the thesis, the arguments, the treatment of the counterargument, evidence and the conclusion. The thesis earns credit when it is specific and arguable, with conditions stated. Arguments are judged on logic and support, and graders prefer professional and empirical sources over personal experience. The counterargument is commonly the heaviest row: it should be stated fairly and fully, and conceding a valid point earns more than pretending the objection is weak. Answers that rely on the design of the proposal, rather than on dismissing the objection, show sophistication. The conclusion should describe consequences and name evidence that would change the position. Organization should make the objection's section visibly substantial. APA details include a journal article that appeared online a year before its print issue and several undated organization pages.
HLTH 6005 Week 9 help from the desk
Position papers in this course most often fail by surveying the debate without taking a side. Another frequent weakness is a claim nobody would dispute, such as "certification is valuable." Students also give the counterargument a sentence and dismiss it. Before submitting, write your thesis with a setting, a scope and a condition. Give each argument its own section with sources. Spend more words on the strongest objection than on any single argument, and state it as its holders would. Concede what is true and narrow your claim accordingly. End by saying what evidence would change your mind. A custom paper can argue another boundary, such as protecting the health educator title in state law or separating coaching from education in job descriptions.
Get a HLTH 6005 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Give the desk your Week 9 prompt with your section's rubric and, where the choice stays open, the boundary you want argued. A sample position paper arrives carrying the counterargument at full strength. The first custom sample costs nothing and takes 24 to 48 hours. Positions you already argued in a thread remain yours.
More HLTH 6005 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6005 Week 1: Health Education Role Post
- HLTH 6005 Week 2: Role Comparison Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 3: CHES Credential Brief
- HLTH 6005 Week 4: Ethics Analysis Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 5: Peer Reply Example
- HLTH 6005 Week 6: Practitioner Reflection Paper
- HLTH 6005 Week 7: Scope of Practice Analysis
- HLTH 6005 Week 8: Practice Settings Analysis
- HLTH 6005 Week 10: Professional Development Plan
- HLTH 6005 Week 11: Professional Identity Synthesis
HLTH 6005 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6005 Week 9 sample paper?
This page offers a full Week 9 position paper arguing that health departments should require CHES for health educator positions, with the strongest objection answered and six references.
What position does the HLTH 6005 Week 9 example take?
That state and local health departments should require CHES for positions titled health educator within 18 months of hire, with fees paid by the department and licensed clinicians exempt.
What is the strongest objection to requiring CHES?
That no evidence shows certified educators produce better outcomes, and that a requirement adds cost and delay, excludes capable people from other fields and may narrow workforce diversity.
How does the paper answer the objection?
It concedes the missing outcome evidence, then relies on the design: an 18-month window, paid fees, exemptions for licensed clinicians, diversity tracking and a scope limited to one title.
What would change the paper's position?
Evidence that the requirement reduced the diversity of the health educator workforce without improving program quality would weaken the case and should prompt revision.