Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternative Credentials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents committee hears progress, two-year plan proposed to track alternative credentials
Summary
Vice President Elaine Frisby told the Board of Regents’ BAS Committee that work on Board Goal 5 — cataloging noncredit and alternative credentials — is underway but still requires definitions, a suggested two-year timeline and clearer data-collection plans; the item will appear on the board discussion agenda this afternoon.
The Board of Regents’ Budget and Academic Services Committee heard an update on Board Goal Number 5 on alternative and noncredit credentials, with Elaine Frisby, vice president for finance and administration at the Board of Regents, reporting progress but saying that firm definitions and collection methods remain unresolved.
Frisby told the committee that a multi-campus team met several times over the past year and produced a draft appendix (Appendix B on page 86 of the board agenda) that outlines proposed definitions and a suggested two-year timeline to further identify and standardize these credentials.
The report, Frisby said, was intended to give committee members a sense of the work completed so far rather than to seek immediate action. "This is not my area of expertise. There are others in the room who know far more about this than I," Frisby said, describing the group's effort to "get the lay of the land" and to surface where institutions are at different stages in cataloging credentials.
The committee was told that campuses are in varied places regarding alternative credentials and that institutions are already conducting local efforts to identify and report such awards. Frisby said capturing consistent data across institutions will be challenging because the scope and format of credentials vary and because the Regent office and campuses must weigh capacity to collect additional data. "How we will go about collecting this information is yet to be determined," she said.
Committee members pressed for clarity about next steps. One regent asked whether the item was on the consent agenda; Frisby and staff clarified that it will be on the board's discussion agenda this afternoon. Another regent, identifying a Fort Hays State perspective, said she was not comfortable endorsing the draft definitions on behalf of her campus without more information on nuances and industry engagement.
From staff, the guidance was that today’s presentation was to "receive a report and not act on anything," and that staff were not prepared to recommend definitive adoption of definitions at this meeting.
Frisby and other staff noted that although the system-level work has been internal to the universities and Regent staff to date, individual campuses are expected to be engaging industry partners as part of local work to develop credentials that meet employer needs. The report recommends assigning further review and next steps to the board's appropriate committee to sort definitions and reporting practices.
The committee did not take formal action on the draft definitions. The report will move to the board discussion agenda for this afternoon for additional review and member questions.
The update reflected continuing work rather than a final policy: a suggested two-year timeline, the need for common definitions, uneven campus readiness and unresolved data-collection approaches were the principal takeaways.
