CPL for Incremental & Non-Credit Credentials

Credit for Prior Learning has long been utilized by higher education to award credit for work, life or training experience. But, how can CPL be utilized amidst the growing world of short-term, non-credit credentials? In this episode, we speak with Melanie Booth, Executive Director of the Higher Learning Commission’s Credential Lab, and Ian Roark, Vice Chancellor of Workforce Development & Innovation at Pima Community College, to discuss the policy and practice of making CPL a reality for different forms of credentials.

 

Transcript

Matthew Sterenberg (00:02.153)

All right, Melanie and Ian, welcome to the podcast.

 

Melanie Booth (00:06.136)

Thank you. Glad to be here.

 

Ian Roark (00:07.117)

Thank you.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (00:08.715)

So today, yes, and we are glad to have you. I’m very fortunate to have the both of you here. Typically, it’s a one-on-one. But Melanie, you and I were talking about credit for prior learning and thinking about the new landscape of incremental credentials, the growth of non-credit credentials. And I think this is a phenomenal topic to talk about how we actually make those pathways.

 

and you had the brilliant idea of why don’t we bring an institution in that’s actually doing some of this work? And that’s why Ian joins us. So we have both basically the policy and the practice on board for this podcast. So Melanie, help us set the table here. Credit for prior learning, why is it important and why is it important as we think about non-credit credentials?

 

Melanie Booth (00:39.313)

Thank

 

Melanie Booth (01:00.28)

Well, I actually kind of want to set the table with a little bit of history. I love that credit for prior learning is getting a lot of attention right now. And I’ll say a few words about that. But I also really want to underscore that it’s not a new practice. Prior learning assessment, credit for prior learning, really recognizing that learning can happen.

 

in a variety of sort from a variety of sources and in a variety of Contexts is not new and it’s not new in higher education It’s just that very few institutions ever really embraced it because it has traditionally worked really well for adult learners and it’s been traditionally Situated in that it’s also not unique to the United States There’s a lot of other countries and a lot of other systems that have utilized recognition of prior learning or recognition of altered

 

other ways of knowing for the purposes of helping elevate communities, for helping recognize Indigenous voices, for helping really recognize that an institution is not the only source of knowledge. So I want to just kind of convey that because I think it’s an important kind of historical context that leads us to where we are now.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (02:21.355)

But I wanna pause you there, because I do like that historical context. You said institutions haven’t embraced it. Why not?

 

Melanie Booth (02:29.134)

Well, there’s all sorts of reasons, right? There’s some structural disincentives for it. There’s policies. There’s who owns curriculum and who decides what learning is and where it comes from. So there’s a real paradigm shift among institutional staff, faculty.

 

There’s also incentives that, or disincentives I should say, that are economic. If we recognize that a learner comes to us with learning from another source, then we don’t get their tuition when they could take that class with us. And I’ve encountered that in multiple institutions that I’ve worked with over the years who are really trying to say, yeah, but why would we make them take that course when they could teach it?

 

So, you know, and then there’s policy, right? So there’s different financial aid implications around what it will cover and what it won’t. There’s depending on the accreditor, whether it be an institutional creditor or programmatic accreditor, it may depend on licensure. You need evidence that you’ve taken the course. But I think we’re at a very different time now, and we’re at a time where we have the technological possibility and the very clear rationale for why we need to do this. And thanks.

 

because there’s been a lot of good research that’s been coming out of the benefits of it for learners and for institutions.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (04:00.949)

Yeah. And we also have the legacy of the Carnegie unit where we’re so focused on time in seat. And now as we start to think about skills and competencies more, it’s a challenge to the way we typically think about how things are transferred, how credit moves. It’s different than what we’re used to. It’s a different language. We all speak the common language of credit hour. And I think that’s a challenge for institutions to adapt to.

 

Melanie Booth (04:11.224)

Exactly.

 

Melanie Booth (04:19.053)

Yeah.

 

Melanie Booth (04:24.91)

Yeah.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (04:29.685)

So tell us a little bit about the work of the, your, with the higher learning commission, the credential lab. What has your work been with credit for prior learning? And as you think about non-credit credentials and those opportunities, what’s the work your institution has been dedicated to?

 

Melanie Booth (04:46.334)

So the Higher Learning Commission launched an innovation division in 2023 called the Credential Lab. And the intention of this is really to help the institutions wrap their heads around

 

the new learn and work ecosystem and the changing learn and work ecosystem. And a lot of institutions like ENs are really leading the way, right? They’re really pushing on, this is what learners need, this is what our employer and workforce partners really need. We can leverage these new models of credentials and credit for prior learning and really meet both learners’ needs and workforce needs at the same time.

 

And I’ll let him talk about that because what they do is really quite phenomenal. But what the credential lab is doing at Higher Learning Commission is creating with generous funding from Lumina Foundation and ECMC Foundation, two work streams. One will be an endorsement of third party providers in this space. So how do we know that these are good actors when they’re offering up a credential and

 

either in partnership with a college or university or direct to learner or through businesses, right? So there’s just multiple directions that learning is now reaching learners. It’s not unidirectional anymore. There’s marketplaces, there’s direct to learner, there’s direct to business, all sorts of models. But what’s the quality assurance of those providers? So that’s the first thing that we’ve been building. And I’ve been so fortunate to work with an amazing national design team to help us build out that prototype.

 

And we’re testing that with providers right now and really refining it. It’s not done yet, but we do think that it will really serve an important need in this ecosystem, particularly as we kind of look down the road for the potential of Workforce Pell. The second work stream is an innovation center, which is really a collection of programming resources, tools, partnerships, collaborations.

 

Melanie Booth (06:59.754)

And Ian is on the design team among another collection of brilliant national leaders in the space for really rethinking the traditional you learn first, then you go to work and you learn for a period of time, like two years or four years, and then you get to try to find a job. Like that is not really working for a lot of learners. And when you think about the 40 million plus learners who have some credit, no credential, the new majority learners needs

 

You think about the skill gap and the experience gap that employers keep talking about. We have to think differently. We have to have a different model. And the time is now. And so the Innovation Center at the Credential Lab through Higher Learning Commission is working on that. And we’re not doing this alone because this is an ecosystem. This is really not a silo, a standalone. This is really an ecosystem approach.

 

And so we put together the design team, including Ian, to really think about what are some of the institutions that are really figuring this out and what has their pathway been toward where they are now? Do they all have it all figured out now? No. Are we all learning together? And yes. And do we need to keep learning together? Yes. So that’s the work of the HLC Credential Lab. And it’s been my privilege to lead it up for the last year and a

 

Matthew Sterenberg (08:27.701)

I’ve been hearing a lot about Workforce Pell. Can you explain it in more detail for people listening? Yeah, please.

 

Melanie Booth (08:34.412)

me? Well, Ian, feel free to chime in. It has been under development conceptually and even more specifically for several years now, where it would be Pell funding that would support short-term workforce-oriented programming. Most of that would be, of course, in the non-credit space. And this gets us to this whole like

 

Credit versus no credit. if it, and where I think we are at an opportunity place at this moment is if we’re actually talking about competencies, knowledge, skills, and abilities, and we’re talking about being able to validate those competencies, we have better signals about what learners know and can do than the proxy that has been a degree or even a certificate.

 

that isn’t based on that kind of learning assessment. And that’s where I think kind of Ian’s organization is really taking us forward. We’ll see under the new administration, everything I’m hearing that my ears are open to and that I’m reading is that it will probably be a sooner rather than later priority. And it could look a little bit different in terms of how it’s actually implemented depending on how the new administration

 

You know, there’s a lot of talk about redesigning the Department of Ed and how how funding gets distributed and the role of a creditor. So no comment on any of that. We’ll see how it how it plays out. But I do think there’s interest in making sure that funding goes for learners who are interested and who need to have shorter programs that lead to jobs. Do you have anything else to say about workforce?

 

Ian Roark (10:25.635)

Yeah, I would only add that as Melanie alluded to, it’s a dynamic and fluid policy environment right now. We do know that there are going to be a few things that are prioritized. One of those is what has been bipartisan cooperation on Department of Labor funding streams through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act. But over on Title IV funding streams for Pell and other forms of student financial aid, I think there’s a growing recognition across the board

 

Matthew Sterenberg (10:25.919)

So.

 

Ian Roark (10:55.297)

that’s really about the skills needed to get the job or what at Pima Community College with our new chancellor, we’re referring to now more as a market driven curriculum. So trying to really even linguistically continue to erode the artificial distinction between credit and non credit. But currently, right, the whole system is based on credit, everything about it, faculty are paid, how courses are scheduled, how financial aid is distributed. And so unwinding that over a century of

 

practice right in some cases with the systems that we’ve built is is difficult. I can promise that whatever comes out with respect to workforce Pell won’t be perfect, but it will be one more step on the road to really eliminating those artificial distinctions that are keeping many of our learners out of the workforce and away from our college campuses because they need new models that are more adaptive to what’s going on in their lives. And so we’re excited about the possibility of short-term Pell.

 

or workforce pellets it’s being called coming to fruition, at least in this next administration.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (11:55.873)

exactly what you need. And you have to prioritize. And you have to know you’re gonna do.

 

Melanie Booth (12:01.23)

And to add one more comment about that, I think that part of what many institutions are seeing is that there’s been a critique of careerism, of kind of this idea of workforce taking over the value and the public good of higher education. And I think people like Ian and people on our design team are really saying it’s both and.

 

We do need very well educated citizens. We need critical thinkers. We need people who can work across difference. We need people who can problem solve and really consider novel problems, not just, you know, because with the pace of technological change and the pace of workforce systems change, we need all of that. And we can do both. And so that really calls on a different model. It really calls on a different paradigm.

 

something that I’ve heard called the 60 year curriculum. And it’s kind of the direction that we’re taking that in the Innovation Center.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (13:03.445)

Well, I think that’s why this conversation is so critical where, you know, is it a threat to higher ed to think about short term credentials and to think about the transactional nature of this gets me this job. Let’s just focus on skills and competencies. But I also think the, the idea that we’re thinking about how to get credit allows us to think about long-term education, right? This credential might get me my next job, but what do I want to do 10 years from now?

 

Melanie Booth (13:29.902)

you

 

Matthew Sterenberg (13:33.023)

look different or maybe I want to manage people, right? Maybe I want to move up. So the combination of these things, I think we need to give people opportunities right away. And then we also need to think long-term about the skills, the soft skills, all the other skills that might be necessary because we don’t know what jobs will look like in 10 years. It’s changing rapidly. So yes, we have to meet the needs of today, but we also want to give people a credential that is number one, very recognizable.

 

in the form of an associates or a bachelor’s, something that can sustain a little bit more and give more flexibility rather than this one short term credential gets me this one short term job. And that’s why I think this is such an exciting conversation. you give us the background at Pima? Like how did you begin this work? Who is it helping? Like what were the problems you were identifying?

 

Ian Roark (14:19.117)

Sure. Yeah.

 

Ian Roark (14:24.237)

Well, I’d first like to address the point that you made and just allude to maybe some more detailed conversation that we could and should have about the necessity of quality and program design. And that’s exactly why I was really excited to accept the invitation to join the HLC Credential Lab Innovation Design Center because

 

It really is about those of us that are practitioners that do care about quality education, that do care about a model that’s not just a one and done model, but lifelong learning and opportunities for upward mobility for all the people that we serve. So these are very important points. And I think that one thing about how PIMA approaches this is that it is stackable. All of our non-credit workforce training programs that we’re building as entry points for people to these entry level jobs are not terminal in nature.

 

they are that next step that somebody needs, even just to get them to have enough confidence to come back to the campus. So many of the people that we’ve served in what we call Pima Fast Track or our short-term microcredentialing program in key fields, they are working adults and many of them have reported they didn’t really have a great experience taking their general education at our own college, sometimes 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. And so having the opportunity to step back onto the campus,

 

with yes, an immediate need of needing a new job or a new career, but also experiencing a quality non-credit workforce training program that’s taught by our full-time or adjunct faculty, that’s designed by our full-time faculty in partnership with industry, and then them experiencing all of the things that come with that. Quality student support services, access to career services, the experience of being on site again, has given many of them confidence to use prior learning assessment.

 

to then continue after this short term non-credit program into a credit bearing certificate or degree program. So it really is for at least Pima, and I think hopefully more broadly the education community, opening up opportunities for people who don’t see themselves ever coming back to the college, but now we’ve given them that opportunity to do so. With Pima, it really came out of an immediate necessity. I came to Pima in…

 

Ian Roark (16:43.043)

2015, prior to that I was the executive dean of CareerTech and Workforce Education at Odessa College in West Texas, where prior learning assessment was one of the final projects that I had worked on there after a lot of process building work that needed to get us to the point where we could do it at that institution. When I arrived at Piemann 2015, prior learning assessment was not really on my radar as one of the immediate needs until then Chancellor Lee Lambert and myself were called to a meeting

 

that was put together by our local workforce board and the staff that work in the job center, which is Arizona At Work Team Accounting. And part of that job center is, of course, veteran services under Workforce Innovation Opportunities Act, or WIOA, and then also representatives from the State Veterans Office of Arizona. And this was in 2016. And basically, we were told that as a community college, were

 

not serving our veterans well and on many fronts, but one of those was prior learning assessment. And we have Davis Moth and Air Force Base critical mission that’s located right here in Tucson. And we have a number of other military installations throughout Southern Arizona. And we are a destination for many of the people who after their time of service, decided to come back to school and use their veterans benefits. And we were told you don’t have prior learning assessment.

 

And I will never forget this meeting because the individual from the state level office looked at me and said, you know, right now, Ian, we have young people that are driving massive trucks and vehicles across minefields in Afghanistan. And then when they leave the service and they enroll in your truck driver training program at Pima, we have to pretend like they’ve never been behind the wheel and they have to start all over. That really stuck with me.

 

And it was like, need to solve that problem, but not only for our veterans, but also looking holistically at prior learning assessment across the board. What about people who have been in an apprenticeship and their related technical instruction wasn’t credit bearing? What about people who are able to demonstrate that they have all of the skill sets required for a job, but they want a degree to promote, but they need to take the general education courses? Well,

 

Ian Roark (18:58.071)

why do they have to take the entire associate degree just to get those general education courses that they need to get recognized for the whole degree when they already have the skill sets for the technical part of the degree? One example is automotive technology. Our automotive faculty were the ones who actually came to us and said, look, we want to help solve that problem because if they already have the ASC certifications, they don’t necessarily need our certificate or degree program. But if they want to promote it to dealership, they’re going to need those.

 

five general education courses at the end of the program, and that helps enrollment at the college overall, and that’s just good for everybody. What about industry recognized certifications that speak to whole level programming or state licensures or national licensures? So we just really started with a task force in 2016 that was broad based. It was composed of general education and technical faculty, student affairs, individuals, people that you would expect in this sort of initiative like IT,

 

like finance and like the registrar’s office, which is a really critical office to be engaged in this conversation. And it took us a number of years to get our ducks in a row to launch. And we’ve officially launched our prior learning assessment regimen in 2018. I think it’s important to know that we had zero what the college considered prior learning assessment prior to that launch.

 

except for one critical piece that had to move the conversation along. Like Melanie said, we’ve been giving college credit for other experiences for a long time. One of the key junctures was in conversations with Faculty Senate, and I had to go before Faculty Senate a number of times to address concerns about what they called cannibalism of their programs, right? If we allow too many people to have too much prior learning assessment, that’s going to maybe perhaps lead to a decrease of enrollment.

 

in our programs and how do you address that? So we had to have the crucial conversations about the data, right, and about completability and data from organizations such as CALE and other research that shows that the more prior learning assessments somebody has when they enroll in an institution, the more likely they are to actually persist and complete that award. So while we may be, quote, giving away some credit on the front end of a program,

 

Ian Roark (21:15.361)

we in fact might see an increase of enrollment in the upper division courses at the end of that same program through increases in student persistence and completion. That was one important piece, but the other piece was about quality, and particularly as it relates to non-credit. So what we were building was a system where the only distinction between what is credit and what is non-credit is literally a code in our student information system, which is a Aleutian banner.

 

at Pima Community College, meaning that we would build a non-credit version of a credit course that was mirrored, had the same exact learning outcomes, it was assessed. We do assess all of our non-credit on a pass-fail basis of 80-20 based on those learning outcomes, some cases higher if it’s a licensure-oriented non-credit course. The same faculty, so everything about the course was the same, and the question was, well,

 

Why would you do that? Well, was because we wanted to build short-term programs that stacked into the longer-term programs that were offered on a non-credit basis, but ensure that the quality and the replicability was there and that we could demonstrate to whoever audited or whoever asked that what these learners were getting in their non-credit experience was the exact same quality. But we had some concerns from faculty that really said, know, I’m concerned about non-credit courses that aren’t taught by our faculty.

 

or I’m concerned about giving college credit to somebody who, you know, we don’t know what the qualifications of the instructor were, where they’re coming from. And so we actually had crucial conversations about, okay, but guess what? We already do that too. We do that with advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs all across the country. And those are general education programs. And so that was the light bulb moment where it was like, yeah, we accept that. So we folded.

 

advanced placement, international baccalaureate, CLEP, and locally developed assessments by our faculty into the prior learning conversation. So our policies and procedures that came out of this task force didn’t treat those prior practices that we already had in place as separate. It was basically growing the regimen that we already had in place off of CLEP-AP-IB and local developed assessments to include things such as portfolio assessment.

 

Ian Roark (23:35.075)

recognition of apprenticeships, recognition of industry recognized certifications and licensures, and military service for all six of the armed forces, including Space Force Now, for every military occupational code across the way. So we went from zero courses being quote eligible for those forms of prior learning assessment in 2018 to now a full third of our course catalog at the institution having some form of prior learning assessment for learners in our community.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (24:05.667)

I love that you touched on a few objections in terms of what you hear from faculty and you know, but I think and Melanie you highlighted this we have 40 million Americans with some college no degree.

 

Melanie Booth (24:09.538)

Thank

 

Matthew Sterenberg (24:21.195)

We have so many people for which, you know, traditional college doesn’t fit and think about the experience. You mentioned it with, if you’re a veteran, you’ve got all this experience, how demotivating it would be to know you can do something to then go to a college and have them tell you, you know, we really, we need to see it. We’d like you to spend a little bit more time in seat, pay for this. It’s extremely demotivating and the enrollment piece.

 

Like we have a retention problem in higher ed. Okay. We have a lot of people that start, you know, think I’m going to either transfer to a four year or I’m going to get this degree and they don’t continue. So to me, yeah, enrollment’s one thing. Retention is another. Like we need to keep people there and the closer we can get people to a degree, they can see the finish line. They’re more likely to continue. Sorry, Melanie, you wanted to say something.

 

Melanie Booth (25:12.98)

just, what I really appreciate about the model that Ian just described and what I think we see also in four year colleges and universities, private and public, this is not unique to community colleges. And in fact, my own prior learning assessment leadership was at two private institutions, faith-based institutions. And then through policy and practice and…

 

What I really appreciate about that model is that it values learning It values learning and it says to the learner You are coming with this incredibly valuable Asset it’s asset based its strengths based instead of a deficit model it accommodates the diversity of experiences and It says to that learner we value that and we value you

 

And that is incredibly transformative, particularly for students who have had those difficulties with very traditional structures that have not served them well for whatever reason, either opportunity costs or they didn’t feel included or they had life come up. Like there’s all sorts of reasons. I always say the reason is a straw that broke the camel’s back. Like it’s really, you know, there’s a lot of reasons why students don’t persist. But.

 

but we also can’t say that the system is working when we have so many people who are not able to do that. So I just really, I really appreciate that everything Ian described is really about valuing learning and saying, look, we can look at it. Credit and non-credit is the same. This is a non-credit class and this is a credit class and they’re the same class. You know? So it’s a brilliant design and design is key.

 

Ian Roark (27:01.431)

Yeah.

 

Melanie Booth (27:04.91)

And it also builds on other forms of this that they already do. And so in four year institutions, transfer is part of this conversation, right? And even, I know Kale’s been working with a great group to really think about what about transferability of prior learning assessment, because you typically have to identify on a student’s transcript that something was earned.

 

in a way that is maybe not through a course, but through a PLA process or an articulation or whatever. So there’s still a lot to work out here. But if we say, if we say we really value learning and we really take that to heart in terms of valuing our learners and that accelerates their on ramps to further education and off ramps to career opportunity, both.

 

And not either or, we’re really doing a huge service to so many learners who are currently disenfranchised from traditional systems.

 

Ian Roark (28:11.555)

And I really appreciate what Melanie said. It’s about valuing the learning, but it’s also about valuing the learner. And that’s one of the critical conversations that we also had when we were developing our new policies at Pima around prior learning assessment. For lots of different reasons, I don’t need to go into in this conversation, but the history of non-credit, who oversaw non-credit at the institution is probably similar to many community colleges in the country. can’t speak to the university.

 

system necessarily on how that’s approached. Just being at a community college and having that lived experience. But really the unit at Pima that was offering non-credit and responsible for all the processes was its own unit, was its own cost center that was isolated from the rest of the institution and literally was competing for learners.

 

with the credit programs because the unit, the workforce unit and the non-credit union was told that they had to quote, sell enough non-credit training and community education to make enough money to pay for their own salaries and benefits. They weren’t incentivized institutionally to work with faculty and staff and academic programs to help grow new on-ramps in those programs. They in fact were incentivized to compete with each other. So one major shift we did at Pima,

 

is we actually moved away from that model entirely where the individuals in workforce development and continuing education are wholly funded by the institution as a part of the general budget and every dollar that they raise goes back to the institution and that also freed them up to pursue other forms of business and program development with faculty and industry to include new credit programs, new grant opportunities and working with our foundation on

 

philanthropic efforts with our business and industry partners. But going back to Melanie’s part on that, design was critical. I believe that people generally support things that they help create. And so we at Pima shifted away from a model of packaging third party white label. We still have use cases for that. But we shifted away from white labeling third party content to really

 

Ian Roark (30:32.235)

understanding and knowing that our community wanted Pima developed content. Content that’s developed in partnership with local business and industry and our own faculty. And when we were working with the education design lab during the pandemic on developing our micro pathways regimen as a part of what they call the community college growth engine fund. And Pima was one of six colleges that were in that first cohort in 2020, 2021.

 

That’s what our learners told us during the pandemic. These were virtual sessions, of course, because this was literally in the the tightest of the lockdown period. But we had a focus group of learners. And they told us when I sign up for a non credit class, and I can tell right away if it’s white labeled and it’s not really Pima. Why do I have to go to Pima? I could just go directly to that provider, which is great. There’s a lot of content that you can go to those providers for and will help you in your career. don’t necessarily.

 

need to go through the college, but that allowed us to have conversations about what is our highest and best use of our time and our resources in a way that’s going to help our learners get access to ultimately what we want, which is certificate and degree completion. So back to Melanie’s point, it’s not an either or, but a both and. So we shifted to our faculty are going to have the opportunity, right?

 

to teach quality non-credit courses and they’re gonna have the opportunity to develop them. And so we pay them time and effort to develop those courses and work with business and industry. But yeah, it’s really about ensuring that content is validated by faculty. So all of our prior learning assessment decisions are determined by the faculty in those discipline areas. But interestingly, when we came to the design component,

 

we started looking at how we modularize or unbundle entire certificates or degrees, rearrange the competencies in some cases in a way that allows that learner to get that job. Well, that was a really great design feature for that particular fast track. But what it also allowed us to do is have conversations about, know what, if that’s the actual entry level point.

 

Ian Roark (32:41.955)

on the non-credit quote side, we’ll talk about eliminating sides, well then maybe we need to rearrange the curriculum accordingly in our credit program to match what’s going on in the labor market accordingly. And hence the term that our new chancellor, Dr. Jeff Nassi is driving, which is market-driven curriculum. Like what is, where are those appropriate end points? Where are those appropriate entry points? And how do we redesign all of it to allow learners to continue to move through programs in a way that

 

best works for them. But back to the original point about language and what I would call even otherization is we started moving away at the institution even in our policies from referring to learners as non-credit learners versus credit learners. And so we’ve actually shifted it and in the policies and the APs for prior learning assessment, it’s learners seeking non-credit options.

 

Melanie Booth (33:28.558)

.

 

Ian Roark (33:37.347)

One of the things that we’re also struggling with is we wish there were a better term than noncredit, because even that is something that, yeah. Yeah, and so to Melanie’s point, it’s about the learning and about the learner is during the pandemic, we came out with a little catchphrase to get buy in around these noncredit here. I’m using the word noncredit pathways, which is a learner is a learner is a learner.

 

Melanie Booth (33:42.22)

Yes.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (33:43.851)

Let’s define you by what you aren’t, yeah.

 

Melanie Booth (33:47.224)

Okay.

 

Ian Roark (34:04.341)

And no matter what option they’re seeking from the institution, they are a fellow community member who has value and worth, and they are going to get the very exact same best treatment as any learner seeking a certificate or a degree program. And so we are non, our learners in non-credit programs, they actually have access to student services professionals called community and corporate navigators who offer the full slate of wraparound support services, connectivity to community-based organizations.

 

and facilitation of enrollment into a credit program once they finish their non-credit workforce training regimen or Pima fast track. And so that’s, we’re not perfect, but that’s still, we’ve got a lot more that we want to do, but we feel that, and we see the data that it’s really changing people’s lives. So whereas we had zero people getting college credit for their MOS as veterans or zero people getting college credit for their industry recognized certification, we’ve served.

 

literally hundreds of people and intend to expand it more.

 

Melanie Booth (35:08.174)

Can I say one thing about that? I think what Ian has described as representative of kind of the transformation that the Credential Lab Innovation Center is working toward to support institutions through. And also to kind of modernize how we think about these things from a policy perspective, from an accreditation perspective.

 

Why do we put limits on this? know, like if a learner is a learner is a learner and we value learning through knowledge, skills and abilities and we can assess those and we can now dot we can now use LERs and digital mechanisms to recognize these and then signal to employers in new ways as they’re doing more and more skills based hiring. We can kind of connect learners much more directly to those career opportunities and that social and economic mobility. And

 

The work involved in getting from the paradigm that we’ve been in higher education to this kind of new model, as Ian described, is significant. It’s about changing hearts, changing minds, changing data structures, changing systems, changing policies. Like it’s a lot of change. one of the, we have to stop doing some things in order to do the other things, right?

 

And so that’s really hard and that it is a very, it’s a very challenging environment because institutions are fatigued from change and we’re only gonna get more of it. But I think this is the kind of pivot, this really strategic transformation that the institutions that kind of go in this direction who are really able to recognize who their learners are.

 

willing to listen to what their learners are asking for. Like that’s the other thing, right? Like if you ask learners about the design and they tell you one thing, you’ve got to listen to them. You actually, and same with employers or industry partners, right? You have to be willing to say, well, that’s not the way we do it, but how can we make that happen? And that takes courage also, but.

 

Melanie Booth (37:21.578)

We’re fortunate to have Susan Elrod, who’s an expert in change leadership on the Innovation Center design team for this very reason, because it is about systemic change. And it is about breaking down the very, very thick silos and the echo chamber that we typically have in higher education and say, no, we have to open this up. And we will serve our learners and our communities and our partners so much better if we really think differently.

 

And it’s threatening, absolutely, but it’s also, think, as Ian’s demonstrating, really can actually open doors instead of close them for institutions as well as faculty, staff, and most importantly, our learners.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (38:05.705)

I think it’s a huge door opener. If you view it that way as an institution, because you think about what the cash cows can be for a higher ed institution. It’s professional and continuing ed, it’s master’s programs. So I would think about this as how do we get a pipeline of people back into our institution? Maybe it starts off as professional or continuing ed.

 

By the way, you’re pretty close to a master’s or bachelor’s degree. Would you like to continue? You know, like, I think those are the ways people can make the connection and start thinking about it as an enrollment funnel instead of thinking about, they’re only going to be here for two semesters. And then the policy implement, implement, implement. boy. I’ll get it. Implications. I’m not going to cut that out. We’re going to leave it in. The people at home should know. They should know.

 

Melanie Booth (38:52.8)

Implications?

 

Matthew Sterenberg (39:00.669)

So the implications, some States have already done this where we’re not doing enrollment. We’re doing completion. And if completion comes down, then that makes this that much more impactful because it’s not just how many bodies do we have? It’s are we getting them to a valuable credential, a credential that means something? And some States already doing this. So that could be another huge impact.

 

Melanie Booth (39:22.402)

And that quality piece is key. then that, you know, we also have to think about the demographics that we’re serving, right? And really have an understanding of if we’re a place-based institution, really the local demographic data of the people whose lives we’re trying to impact. Because if we’re bringing people back into systems and using PLA as a lure to do it, but the systems haven’t changed and they didn’t serve the student in the first place,

 

But you heard Ian describe a redesign. Every student, whether they’re seeking non-credit or credit, has access to the services. That’s not true at a lot of institutions. If they are seeking non-credit courses, they may not have access to a whole bunch of stuff because they come on Saturdays or they do it online. Like, it’s not equitable. So we really have to think differently about if we’re going to invite people, if we’re going to see this as an opportunity,

 

we can’t have them coming back to the systems that failed them in the first place. Because it will reinforce a feeling of their own personal failure, that they’re not college material, when in fact they are.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (40:32.555)

So Ian, you’re doing amazing work at Pima, but Melanie highlighted this of how do we get PLA to transfer? so thinking about the scalability of this, instead of having these pockets of excellence, why isn’t the state of Arizona talking about this? Why isn’t the community college system, how do we extend this so that it’s not just a regional community that’s benefiting? How do we think about this broadly?

 

Ian Roark (41:00.897)

Yeah, so the policy environment in Arizona is challenging. I we talked about the federal environment being fluid and challenging, and I think that we face similar dynamics here as well. And interestingly, our three state universities, which I’m sure your listeners are very familiar with, the University of Arizona here in Tucson, Arizona State University in Metro Phoenix, and Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff are governed

 

by a state agency called the Arizona Board of Regents or ABOR for short. So they have sort of a centralized process and oversight and you see a lot of policy, right, that can be implemented through legislation if the governor signs off on it and then ABOR enacts that policy. The community colleges on the other hand, we are political subdivisions of the state and we have no state oversight or no gathering authority whatsoever. So the 10 community college districts in Arizona are

 

autonomous and independent and we report predominantly to our elected governing boards, most of whom are five in the state. And so we do report certain things like we report our enrollment through a mechanism called full-time student equivalency to the state auditor. We report to the Arizona Department of Education because they oversee Perkins funding, but the Arizona Department of Education oversees only the K-12 system and adult ed.

 

So we also have adult ed, so we’ll report there. And then we report to the workforce investment system through a different state office. So we really are reporting all sorts of data to different entities in addition to what we generally report, or normally report for accreditation into the department of ed at the federal level. So we have an association called the Arizona Community College Coordinating Council that is represented by each of our CEOs. So our chancellor, Dr. Jeff Nasu,

 

is the seat for Pima Community College on AC for this council. And that’s where we’re working together on policies such as one that we got passed two years ago. And I had the awesome experience of being able to write the first draft and work with legislative council to get across the finish line. But that was as the 10 community college understanding the value of these short term models. And that really should be incorporated into what we report to the state where we do report it.

 

Ian Roark (43:22.667)

And so we came up with a mechanism in law where our non-credit workforce training programs account towards our full-time student equivalent, which really matters for all of the colleges in Arizona, for whether it’s purposes of state revenue, which we get a little bit at Pima Community College and the Maricopa system also does, but also for these things that we have, such as expenditure limitations, which are how much operational dollars we can spend on an annual basis.

 

based on our prior year’s enrollment. So that’s something that we have to monitor and track very closely as community colleges. And when this passed, it opened up so many eyes at that statewide level about, there are so many other things that we could do now that we have this into the law where we can collaborate on these micro pathways we’re hearing about. And so as we speak, we are engaged as 10 community colleges and ABOR.

 

with representatives from APRO and the Community College Growth, sorry, Education Design Lab, the same people we work with with the Community College Growth Engine Fund on a statewide effort to start to align some of these practices and policies, even though we community colleges don’t have a centralized mechanism to do so. But I think in many ways it took our institution leading by example. Two years ago when I was able to testify, for example, to the Arizona Senate’s

 

Education Oversight Committee on the value and purpose of this board. There were seven representatives, four from one party and three from another. And all day long when I was sitting in that room waiting for us to get called up to testify for this bill, everything was a fourth revote, everything across the board. I was so excited that our item was was, I think, the only thing that day that got a seven zero vote. And it was because the wide the wide ideological spectrum that we

 

that I saw in that room, they all understood that this is good for employers because we’re building that quote workforce pipeline. But this is also really good for the people that we’re serving. And the case studies that we were able to show is how we came to community college have launched some of these micro pathways in partnership with a homeless shelter called the center of the gospel rescue missions.

 

Ian Roark (45:36.917)

Center of Opportunity, which is funded by the HS Lopez Family Foundation. And we were offering these homeless individuals through the generous funding of the HS Lopez Family Foundation, these micro pathway offerings. We’ve educated and served over 200 homeless individuals in this rescue shelter alone. But telling that story, there wasn’t a single person that was going to vote against it because they heard directly the power that these sorts of new models can have.

 

really address a fundamental crisis that’s occurring in our community and address it right at the core in terms of our part of bringing quality education and training to our community. So that’s what we are going to continue to do is lead and build and show we’re not going to wait for the incentive to come from the state. We are going to work together as colleges to get those incentives we need from the state by telling the story of what we have built and what we have accomplished for our communities.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (46:35.273)

And after this podcast, they’re all gonna jump on board. I mean, once they hear this thing, I mean, of course they’re gonna jump on board.

 

Melanie Booth (46:38.158)

Well, I think part of what Ian’s story also underscores is that this is not a lone wolf activity, right? Like this is about really thoughtfully designed both coalitions in terms of policy building and change, but also partnerships across communities.

 

And we have models of this happening in libraries. We have models of this happening in the setting that Ian just described around shelters. And so it’s possible for us to get out of our own way and really take learning to where learners are. sometimes this is also kind of one of the programs I had the privilege of designing many, many years ago is with a large technology firm.

 

that had a leadership development program that they did for all their managers to kind of step up into higher paying but also higher responsibility leadership positions. And they partnered with us at our institution to both have some faculty eyes on their curriculum to infuse it with kind of most current theory and some case studies outside of their own organization.

 

And then we reviewed it and said, you know, if they take that leadership within your organization and we do the assessment of it, we can count it for credit and they can articulate it into a degree at our institution. So it’s a win-win and all that learning took place there. It didn’t take place in our classrooms. And so we really, again, I think there’s a great opportunity to really recognize learning as learning, value learners as learners.

 

and see the connection for both for individuals and for communities and for industry to how this just accelerates and advances on behalf of all of those stakeholders.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (48:45.195)

Well, I’m sure we could talk about this for another 45 minutes. Time has flown by. Melanie and Ian, anything that we didn’t highlight that you want to make sure we touch on before we wrap.

 

Ian Roark (49:01.731)

I would only encourage institutions that are new, that I’m speaking to things that it’s a decade later, right? Nine years to 10 years later after that, it’s a process, not an event. And really bring people into the fold and learn about what are the incentives and disincentives and the structures of the institution that need to change in order to incentivize, at least at the institution level, the partnerships and the players that you’re gonna need across the organization.

 

to bring it to fruition. Be patient, be goal-focused, and be collaborative. And ultimately, you’ll be able to tell your own stories as well. And so that would be my only piece of advice is, and also learn. Learn from organizations such as the Higher Learning Commission, or such as Community College Growth Engine Fund, or New America. There’s just a number of resources out there to help.

 

Melanie Booth (49:51.31)

Okay.

 

Ian Roark (49:55.491)

with this journey that we can’t do it by ourselves. There’s no one person who’s going to be the expert at the organization. But it does require leadership commitment. But again, just that patience that it’s not a process. Sorry, it’s not an event, but a process and you’ll get there.

 

Melanie Booth (50:12.63)

I think I would add one thing to that, is that for learners, the map is not always the terrain. And we know that specifically as we’re looking at rapid technological changes that they will face, know, jobs are changing and professions will be fundamentally changed with the possibilities coming on board with generative AI and agents and all of this, right? And so we’re all really kind of

 

feeling like, well, we can do this, this, and this over the next two years. But we also have to be responsive to that. So I like to think like we can have a map and we need to be able to really recognize that the terrain is shifting. And so the route isn’t point A to point B, but it takes really good leadership like Ian. It takes the connections with all these organizations. We’ve mentioned a lot of them, but I would shout out to Kale, ACE.

 

credentials you go in the learn and work ecosystem library, Acro, Ian mentioned Acro, and like how we really bring these disparate pieces together strategically across our system to recognize that this is in everyone’s best interest.

 

Matthew Sterenberg (51:27.103)

Melanie and Ian, thanks so much for joining me.

 

Melanie Booth (51:29.72)

Thank you. Really appreciate it.

 

Ian Roark (51:30.787)

Thank you.

 

There’s always more to learn.