In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Van Davis, Executive Director at WCET & Vice President of Digital Learning at WICHE, to discuss recent policy discussions and legislation related to Short-Term Pell. Dr. Davis shares the latest in federal policy, the potential impact of legislation, and the evolving short-term credential landscape.
As we discuss in the episode, WICHE developed a phenomenal report on “State Approaches to Short-Term Postsecondary Credentials, which you can read here – https://www.wiche.edu/resources/state-approaches-to-short-term-postsecondary-credentials-challenges-opportunities-and-policy-gaps/
Matt Sterenberg (00:01.644)
All right, Dr. Van Davis, welcome to the podcast.
Van Davis (00:05.971)
Thank you so much, Matt. Happy to be here this morning.
Matt Sterenberg (00:09.462)
I wanted to bring you on because there’s a lot of conversation, rightly so, about short-term Pell and there’s potentially a bill going through and a lot of people are interested in this conversation of how it impacts states and institutions and ultimately learners. this is a tall task, but you’re heavily invested in the policy side.
set the table for us, give us some historical context, what are the conversations around short-term Pell and where are we at today?
Van Davis (00:44.479)
So we’ve been talking about short-term Pell for a long time. Right now, Pell eligible programs are 15 weeks in length and are at accredited institutions. We’ve been talking about making shorter-term programs, 8 to 15-week long programs.
eligible to propel for a number of
We’ve not gotten anywhere with that. And I have to say, in some regards, I’m a little surprised because this is actually one of the rare issues where we have bipartisan support in Congress for this idea right now. There aren’t many things in this political environment where there is bipartisan support. But there is actually bipartisan support for short-term health. And I can…
talk a little bit about who supports that later if we want to get into the weeds there. But we had a bill last year, didn’t go anywhere despite the fact that there were both Republican and Democratic signatories on that bill. And so this year for the budget, the infamous big beautiful bill,
short-term Pell got written into it on the House side and on the Senate side. So we had this moment where
Van Davis (02:29.233)
It looked like we might actually see movement on this issue. And what it looked like was sort of important. It would have created Pell eligible programs that were 18 to 15 weeks in length. They would not have to come from an accredited institution, which that’s a really important point.
They would have to be in existence for at least a year before they would be eligible for their students to receive Pell funds. The programs would have to show that they had a 70 % completion rate and a 70 % placement rate. And then they’d also have to show that the tuition and fees, and I’m going to read this because it’s weirdly
stated in the bill language. But they’d also have to show that the program’s median graduate earnings minus 150 % above the federal poverty level. So they would have to show that the median graduate earnings were, that the cost of the program was no more than the median graduate earnings.
minus 150 % of the federal poverty level. So it looked like, and you’ll notice I’m talking in the past tense, it looked like we were going to see short-term health until yesterday morning. So that would have been Thursday,
Matt Sterenberg (04:11.648)
And we’re recording this, yeah, Thursday, June 26th that day.
Van Davis (04:15.133)
Yeah. Thursday, June 26th. Until yesterday morning, I think pretty much all of us thought that we would see short-term Pell. And then the Senate parliamentarian did something that was somewhat unexpected. She stripped short-term Pell out of the reconciliation bill. And this probably requires a little bit of an explanation of why on earth the Senate parliamentarian would
be involved in this discussion. So in the Senate, if you use reconciliation to pass a budget bill, which is what the Republicans are using and it’s what the Democrats used before the Republicans took control of the Senate during the Biden administration, you only have to have a simple majority. You can pass it with 51 votes. Normally, it takes 60 votes to pass something in the Senate.
to get it past the filibuster. But reconciliation takes the filibuster off the table. But there’s one huge caveat, and that is the Byrd Rule. And the Byrd Rule basically says that the Senate Parliamentarian gets to decide if something is relevant to the budget process. And that means, in this case, yesterday morning,
when the Senate parliamentarian finally got around to the education portion of the reconciliation bill, she ruled effectively that short-term power is irrelevant. And therefore, it cannot be included in the reconciliation bill.
Matt Sterenberg (05:58.73)
irrelevant to the budget.
Van Davis (06:00.903)
Irrelevant to the budget. It is something that is, what we think that she probably ruled was that this was extraneous to the basic elements of the budget. And that it was not necessary for the passage of the budget, but was instead a policy issue and not a budgetary issue.
And I say we think that that’s what we think that was her line of thinking because she doesn’t have to explain her line of thinking. So I’ve not actually seen anything where she says that this is what’s going on. But most of the reporting thinks that this is sort of the thought process here is that this is extraneous to the basis, the basic passage of the budget and that the creation of short term Pell is in essence a policy.
issue and not a budgetary issue if that makes any sense.
Matt Sterenberg (07:04.012)
So I think it’s fascinating and I really appreciate the way that you explain that in clear language because for many of us, that’s the 300 level civics class that you just gave us where when you’re sitting there in civics class in high school, you’re not, well, reconciliation, Senate, parliamentarian. We didn’t get that far, at least at my high school. you think you understand something and then we get to this point.
Van Davis (07:17.095)
you
Van Davis (07:26.44)
No.
Matt Sterenberg (07:33.358)
In your mind, I don’t think anybody knows for sure what happens next. What are the steps? Does this have to be a standalone policy bill? Is it going to have to go through additional rigor now that it’s been stripped out of this? Like, where do we go from here?
Van Davis (07:47.455)
I think where we go from here is that it’s going to have to be a standalone bill, which is where it started out. And what that means is a simple majority on the House side.
I don’t think that there’s any problem with that happening. But it does mean that it has to be able to get 60 votes on the Senate side in order to get past the filibuster. And that’s where the devil is going to be in the details. If I had to guess, the thing that trips Democrats up and had them even asking the parliamentarians to look at this
would probably be that unaccredited programs piece. Because that’s a significant departure from all of the previous discussions of short-term health.
Matt Sterenberg (08:46.924)
And I do want to read just a quick to your point, because I think it’s important to highlight the proponents and those that think this doesn’t have enough teeth to it, or they’re worried about the fly by night unaccredited programs. And you highlighted there’s that year waiting period. They’ve got to do some reporting, but there are concerns from some people that they could gain the reporting or whatever else. But this is from inside higher ed, obviously written.
more than a day ago, but if it passes, Workforce Pell would give federal financial aid to likely hundreds of thousands more students a year and provide aid to many community college students in particular who don’t currently qualify. It would also incentivize an explosion of interest in the burgeoning credential sector with few guardrails against for-profit and unaccredited providers that could mean a flood of unvetted programs receiving federal funds to enroll vulnerable students.
So essentially the proponents are saying, hey, we need better pathways to better careers. This helps bring in a new group of people and will help fund it. And the other group is saying, listen, we’ve had the battle against for-profit providers in higher ed. It feels like we kind of finally got to the other side and this is opening up a whole other challenge where people are not getting the return on their investment.
and they’re potentially saddled with debt without changing the economic mobility for their future.
Van Davis (10:23.017)
Yeah, it’s part of really, it’s part of a bigger conversation in higher education around consumer protection and accountability. If the federal government is going to basically subsidize programs through aid to students, then does it have a compelling interest in making sure that those funds are being used in a way that are going to benefit the greatest number of students?
and protect them as consumers. And that’s both a state issue and a federal issue. I have to admit, when the House passed its version of the budget with short-term pell in it, I was a little surprised to see that they removed accreditation. I say I was a little surprised. When I stopped and thought about it a moment longer,
It didn’t surprise me too much, given the executive order earlier this year about accreditation. Certainly, this administration is not a fan of the way that accreditation has historically functioned. And they believe that it limits innovation. So in some ways, it was a surprise that the House and the Senate budget
removed accreditation as a gatekeeper or as a guardrail. In another way, not a surprise given the way that this administration thinks about accreditation and sees it as something that limits innovation and something that creates obstacles rather than something that creates guardrails and protection.
Matt Sterenberg (12:10.83)
So kind of a basic question, but who’s lobbying for this? Who’s really advocating for this? Which I always think is important just to understand who thinks this has value to learners, to them? Is it higher ed? Is it employment? Is it labor? Who’s really pushing this?
Van Davis (12:31.443)
You know, it’s a combination. Like I said, this has bipartisan support. So first of all, one of the advocates for short-term Pell is Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon. And she comes out of a conservative think tank environment. So I think that we have some of the conservative think tanks that are in favor. Certainly, we saw that the American Association
community colleges came out in favor of short-term Pell. We have legislators on both sides of the aisle. the short-term Pell bill that was proposed in the last congressional session had, for example, its co-sponsors were, and this would be the Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act. Elise Stefanet, who’s a Republican from New York, Bobby Scott.
who’s a Democrat from Virginia, Virginia Fox, who’s a Republican from North Carolina and the previous chair of the House Higher Education Labor and Pension, Higher Education Committee, and then Mark DeSolion there, who’s a Democrat from California. The fact that there was a piece of legislation that had those four people
agree with it enough to be willing to co-sign it and propose it together is kind of nothing short of miraculous. And I think the reason why there’s agreement there is there has been a push from some corners of higher education, not all of higher education. And then there has been a push from states
and a push from workforce that we have gaps in our skilled workforce at the state and the federal level and that we need to find ways to fill those gaps to make sure that we have folks that have the skills to go into those jobs and that sometimes that doesn’t require an entire degree in order to do that.
Van Davis (14:56.935)
particularly with the dynamic nature of the workforce now and the need to be constantly re-skilling. We’re long past the days where you go to school, you get a degree, and you stay in the same field for 30 years. Even if you stay in the same field, the skills that you need aren’t going to be stationary. You’ll stagnate if you don’t go back and find some way to re-skill.
And so I think that labor also sees this as a necessary piece in order to be able to reskill to get those jobs.
Matt Sterenberg (15:37.07)
Well, I think you could argue over whether this is the solution, but it’s clear the challenge. I think that’s why you have bipartisan support. have middle skill jobs that need to be filled. And I think we’re seeing that that shift of we have a lot of people that are going to college because they don’t have another alternative. And what ends up happening is they drop out after two or three years or settled with debt.
Van Davis (15:51.412)
Yep.
Matt Sterenberg (16:05.972)
Or they’re underemployed, which is probably the more real issue where, know, I went to college and I’m just not sure I studied the right thing. It’s a big investment. I’m not in the job that I want or expected to have. And it’s giving students another path, which is an interesting shift. And you’ve been close to this due to all your work, but Lumina years and years ago was 60 by 30, and it was all about the degree. And it’s interesting to see the shift.
And I think because it’s, we’ve seen the data that these middle skilled jobs are critical for a healthy economy. And it’s, it’s a critical path because of the, the investment that higher ed is today.
Van Davis (16:50.431)
I think that it’s really telling. You bring up Lumina. I think it’s really telling that Lumina has changed its focus from a degree to a credential of value. And that’s where I think we see the conversation really going. And where we see the policy conversations going is away from assuming that the degree is the credential that is going to get you to the job. But instead, there are a number of pathways
that job and that what we’re really looking at now is a credential of value. Not just any credential, but one that’s going to get its recipient into a job that’s going to provide them with a livable wage and a pathway to improving their lives and the lives of their family members.
Matt Sterenberg (17:45.718)
And a lot of people are trying to tackle like, what is a credential of value? And I just saw last week, Burning Glass Institute came out with their credential value index where you can search for certain credentials and jobs. And I love that people are tackling it because we need data on this. What’s the exchange? need transparency around if I’m going to invest in this program, what is the potential return? I do want to ask you though, Van.
Van Davis (17:49.939)
Yeah.
Van Davis (17:57.758)
Mm-hmm.
Matt Sterenberg (18:15.278)
with all of the federal uncertainty, you work with a lot of states, like what are your recommendations? Because at some point it may come, there might be reporting regulations requirements when you have federal funding. Like if you were talking to a state policymaker or someone at a state system, what would your advice be given that we still don’t know what’s happening at the federal level?
Van Davis (18:18.335)
Mm-hmm.
Van Davis (18:40.543)
So if I was talking to a state policymaker, I think one of my first pieces of advice would be make sure that you have strong data systems in place. Make sure you have a way to see what the relationship is between a credential and wages. And that means integrating educational data systems with labor data systems.
Some states have done that, a growing number of states have done that, not every state has done that. The feds can’t do that. It is actually illegal for that to happen on the federal level. And that is thanks to Representative Virginia Fox, who has very strong opinions about not integrating data systems.
I think we’re starting to see a movement at the federal level. And again, it’s one of those things where we’re starting to see some bipartisan support for integrating educational labor data systems, but that hasn’t happened at the federal level. So if I was talking to a state policymaker, I would say invest in your data systems and invest in integrating education and labor data systems so that you can understand and determine what a credential of value actually is.
and whether or not these credential holders are getting value out of that in terms of being able to get a middle skill job where it has a livable wage that is going to improve their lives. That’s the first thing. The second thing that I would tell them is to think about and to talk to the workforce in their states and figure out where the puck is going.
what are going to be, and we’re in incredibly dynamic time because of AI right now. Even more than, I think labor is even more dynamic than normal because of AI, because we don’t know what AI is going to do to jobs. We don’t know what it’s going to do in terms of opening up new career pathways and jobs, or what it’s going to do in terms of,
Van Davis (20:58.793)
people who are currently employed need to go back and get re-skilled because either jobs are going to go away or the nature of their job is going to radically shift. So I would tell that policymaker, make sure you’re having close conversations and you’re incentivizing education and labor and workforce to have those close conversations about where things are going. And then I think I would tell them that don’t wait for the first.
Think about what your investment in your state needs to look like. And if you believe that you need to be, if you believe that your state needs to be producing a larger number of credentials of value, then think about ways to incentivize that in your state, whether that means providing students with scholarship money,
or whether that means directly incentivizing institutions to develop those programs. But don’t wait around for the feds to figure this out. Go ahead and do that. Do it right now. And we see a number of states that are taking that path, that they’re not waiting for the federal government to provide short-term help. But instead, they’re creating scholarship programs.
They’re creating performance-based incentive funding programs for institutions to develop these sorts of credential of value, including short-term Pell programs or short-term workforce programs.
Matt Sterenberg (22:39.18)
love that advice because states are also the little laboratories of democracy, right? So there could be a state that says, here’s actually the model that we’ve put forth. Here’s how we’re measuring it. And it could be guidance at the federal level as well. And I know a lot of states are thinking about just the reporting aspect. was talking to Rita Pister. She’s the registrar at Oklahoma State University last year, and she was just
thinking about, okay, like these non-degree credentials, like, are we thinking about reporting on them? I know our state’s thinking about this. They might be asking us for it. And a lot of times, if it’s professional and continuing ed, for instance, or non-degree, sometimes those live in a completely different student information system, right? they’re not in Banner or PeopleSoft, right? And so how do we merge these? And then of course, we wanna start thinking about…
Van Davis (23:29.203)
Yes, they do.
right.
Matt Sterenberg (23:37.036)
You know, how do these short-term credentials potentially lead to a degree program potentially? Like what is the crosswalk and how do we fit it all together? I do not envy anyone that has to actually do that work. Much easier to talk about it, but difficult to actually do. But states to your point are starting to think about to either get ahead of the federal level or to say, you know, we’re not waiting. Let’s do it on our own.
Van Davis (23:42.281)
Yeah.
Van Davis (24:05.193)
Yeah, and I think that states need to have a plan for doing this. Because what we see right now is that things are sort of all over the map. And they have to, we’re really going to need to get to a point where we can begin to learn from each other and where we can get a better sense of what works, what doesn’t work. I would be really remiss, so WCET, which is the organization I’m the director of,
is a part of WICHI, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. It’s one of the four regional compacts that focuses on higher education in the United States that is recognized by the federal government. last year, in December, right at the end of last year, WICHI actually produced a report. Christina Sedney was the author of it. It’s really worth taking a look at if you want to understand where states are going.
with short-term credentials. It’s called State Approaches to Short-Term Post-Secondary Credentials, Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Gaps. And it’s a really good snapshot of what states are doing right now in this area, both in terms of incentivizing and also in terms of making sure that there’s consumer protection around these short-term credentials and that students aren’t getting taken advantage of.
that the state’s not getting taken advantage of, and that what ends up being produced is something of quality that is going to be a credential of value and help both the workforce as well as the learner. So I wanted to make sure I plugged that because it’s a really great resource for understanding what the state environment looks like right now.
Matt Sterenberg (25:59.69)
And we’ll make sure to link to that in the episode description as well so that people can access that. If there’s in fact a link, we’ll make sure to link to it. And you’re doing phenomenal policy work. You know, we’ve collaborated and worked with Wichita for many years and the other state compacts or the regional compacts. But I wasn’t.
Van Davis (26:07.924)
There it is.
Matt Sterenberg (26:23.48)
fully aware of all the advocacy and policy you do. So if someone’s listening to this and they’re just like, all right, I wanna make sure I’m getting updates in the future, how can they make sure they’re getting information from your organizations?
Van Davis (26:37.215)
Sure, so one of the best ways for WCET is our blogs. We do a blog series called Frontiers. We take different themes every month. We really focus on the intersection of policy and practice and advocacy around high quality digital learning for all learners, regardless of whether they are in a short-term credential
or whether they’re in a traditional degree program. And so a lot of our thought leadership ends up being published on frontiers. We’re actually going to be focusing on the learn and work ecosystem in July. And then later this year, we’ve just entered a partnership with the learn and work ecosystem library.
And so we’ll be doing some work with Holly Vandal and the Learning Work Ecosystem Library later this year as well. We’ll do a webinar with them. We’ll have them do a series of blog posts for us that talk about their resources and how those resources can help particularly institutions, but learners as well, begin to navigate this space. And in fact, I was working on July’s introductory blog right before I jumped on this.
podcast with you that serves as an introduction to this theme for July.
Matt Sterenberg (28:10.51)
I’m really glad you plugged all those things. The learn and work ecosystem is a very valuable resource and everyone’s described credentialing as the wild west and they’re trying to make it a little less wild by giving people resources, changing constantly. Van, is there anything that you want to bring up that I didn’t highlight or anything that we should touch on before we wrap up today’s conversation?
Van Davis (28:19.678)
Yep.
Van Davis (28:23.358)
Yeah.
Van Davis (28:37.139)
Well, I think it’s worth talking about. I want us to go back to short-term Pell for a minute, because I think it’s worth talking about what are the potential implications should we get short-term Pell passed. And there are, I think, definitely some positive implications, and there are some troubling implications. On the troubling side is the fact that Pell is looking at a deficit now that it’s
is going to run in the billions. And there is concern that if we open up Pell eligibility to short-term programs, that that’s going to take away money from traditional degree programs, particularly if Congress doesn’t invest in fully funding Pell. And so there is that implication out there should we get short-term Pell.
Matt Sterenberg (29:31.072)
So the concern could also be that it’s a way to defund traditional degree programs. If you’re looking at from a very maybe cynical point of view, know, it’s what we’re not investing in more so than what we’re investing in, or it’s just a natural unintended consequences. Maybe. Yeah.
Van Davis (29:37.225)
Yeah.
Van Davis (29:40.99)
Yes.
Van Davis (29:49.023)
Yes, I think it’s an unintended consequence. opposite side of the coin, is that short-term programs, and especially if we get health funding for them, could very well become an economic engine for institutions. know, are at our… 2025 is the peak graduation year.
for high school graduates. After this, the number of high school graduates just goes down more and more and more and more every year for the next 15, 20 years. And that means that that traditional age student population that so many of our institutions have relied on for tuition, it’s not going to be there anymore.
We’re going to have to, in higher education, if we’re going to remain economically viable, we’re going to have to reach out to post-traditional learners. We’re going to have to reach out to the folks that either already have a degree and need to re-skill, or the folks that aren’t interested in a degree and want a different pathway. And short-term credential programs could really become an economic engine.
for higher education. And especially if we see Pell eligibility for those programs. So there is the potential unintended consequence that it could siphon money off of Pell degree programs. But then there’s the other piece of the puzzle that it really could expand the learner audience that institutions will be able to draw on.
So I wanted to make sure that we got out there what the implications of these short-term credentials could be. And there’s a little bit of a push-pull here with short-term credentials, I think, at institutions of higher education that’s worth thinking about. The other resource that I wanted to make sure that I got out there that I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to see, because it just came out this week, is
Van Davis (32:16.329)
Georgetown University Center for Education and Workforce released a new study this week called Bridging the Middle Skills Gap. And although it doesn’t specifically look at short-term credentials, it looks at credentials in general and associate degrees. the piece of data that I want to pull out here and highlight is
their estimate of what sort of a shortfall we’re looking at. They’re looking at high paying middle skilled jobs and they’re estimating that we’re going to be looking at 712,000 credentials per year that will be short in the US. So that’s a shortage of almost three quarters of a million of credentials annually.
And what that tells me is we’ve got to think about how we do this better. There is too much at risk in terms of our federal and state economic engines with workforce, but there’s also too much at risk in terms of making sure that we have Americans who can fill that.
Just as importantly, Americans that have a pathway to a high paying job that’s going to change their lives and change the lives of their family members. And the old ways aren’t going to do it.
Matt Sterenberg (33:55.714)
Yeah. And the it’s literally building a bridge between the people that are looking for opportunity and the opportunities that are available. And if you’re, if you’re talking to the average person, they’re like 712,000 jobs. Where, how can I get there? What route do I take? I mean, when you say that, I think it really hits you over the head where you’re thinking there are so many people out there that are desperate for something better. How do we incentivize the right
Van Davis (33:59.326)
It is.
Van Davis (34:04.286)
It is.
Van Davis (34:11.091)
Yeah.
Matt Sterenberg (34:25.646)
Pathways the right behaviors the right programs to get people to the place that they want to go They just don’t know how to get there How many people would love a good-paying job and are working hard every day? It’s we have to build the pathways to make that real especially after making that transition from Degree programs and saying college college college not a that’s not a bad thing. But at the same point it is a shift
It’s a shift in our narrative of actually economic mobility is the most important thing and whichever way you get there is fine, right? I think that is a shift that we need to almost communicate back out to students and families.
Van Davis (35:10.095)
It is a shift. It’s going to be a shift. It’s going to be a cultural shift. And I don’t want to make it sound like that I devalue the traditional degree. I hold three of them. there is. Well, what I’d like to think about it as there are different entry points into it.
Matt Sterenberg (35:27.608)
There’s always going to be value for it, right? It’s just not for everybody. Yeah.
Van Davis (35:40.275)
And that entry point of the bachelor’s degree or even the entry point of the associate’s degree isn’t going to be an entry point that works for everyone. And so I think finding ways in through different certificate and credential programs, making sure that those certificate and credential programs can stack and lead towards a degree if somebody wants to pursue one.
is going to be really critical. Because there are things that a degree gets you, particularly a general education curriculum gets you. Critical thinking, those communication skills, cultural understanding. Those are all really, if you look at what employers are asking for, they’re oftentimes asking for those in addition to those hard skills.
So it’s really, I think, about making sure that we have multiple entry points into a post-secondary education and that a person can choose which of those entry points is best for them at any given moment and that we connect those entry points together so that somebody doesn’t go down one pathway and then discover that if they decide that they want to shift careers, that they’ve lost all of
the education that they’ve gained. So, but it’s a cultural shift. It’s a shift for higher education. It’s a shift for us as a society. And we’ve got to remember that we are now in an era where we really have to focus on lifelong learning. You’re not going to just get a degree and that’s going to set you for the rest of your workforce career.
So that’s the other piece of this is we’re in lifelong learning now. People are always going to be cycling back now to get new skills, to begin to move into new career pathways, or to move into new jobs within their career. So it’s an ecosystem now in a way that it probably hasn’t been in the
Matt Sterenberg (38:03.672)
Van, I really appreciate you joining me and giving us all the details related to the legislation and short-term Pell. Then just your knowledge on the credentialing landscape and all the ins and outs of higher ed has been really valuable. So really appreciate you joining me.
Van Davis (38:24.629)
happy to join you for the conversation this morning. It’s such a critical conversation, and I’m really thrilled with the work that y’all are doing to further that conversation, and we’re excited about our partnership with y’all.
