A person (Amy Heitzman) smiling

By Amy Claire Heitzman, Ph.D.,
Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer, UPCEA

At the inaugural UPCEA Council for Credential Innovation (CCI) Convening, leaders from across UPCEA member institutions came together to explore what it means to build truly learner-centric, intentional credential ecosystems—ones that align with institutional mission, ensure financial sustainability, and elevate the student experience.

Hosted as the first in-person gathering of CCI representatives, the event served as both a celebration of progress and an invitation to challenge assumptions about program design, innovation, and collaboration.

A Community of Practice in Motion

The convening began with reflections from the CCI leadership team, who shared their own journeys of experimentation, pivots, and lessons learned in developing innovative credentials and programs. Their candor framed two mini-panels and table discussions centered on two defining themes:

  1. Decreasing pathway friction

  2. Increasing learner mobility

These themes resonated across institutions of every size and mission. They called attention to both the systemic challenges—policy, process, and infrastructure—and the human ones, such as faculty engagement, empathy, and communication across units.

Insights and Reflections

Throughout the day, attendees captured and shared insights that reflected both the complexity and promise of credential innovation. Key reflections included:

  • Learning vs. Schooling: The concept of lifelong learning challenges traditional schooling models. Learners’ journeys evolve; our systems must, too.

  • Infrastructure and Flexibility: Institutions need strong infrastructure—but it must remain adaptable to meet diverse learner needs.

  • Faculty Buy-In: Professional schools often embrace microcredentials, but broader faculty engagement remains a cultural challenge.

  • Reframing “Industry”: For liberal arts and general studies, “industry” partnerships must be reframed to focus on enduring, transferable skills.

  • AI and Ethics: As AI reshapes teaching and learning, higher education must embed both moral and ethical considerations and the critical thinking that drives responsible application.

  • Durable Skills: Employers consistently seek durable skills; the challenge lies in helping students recognize and value their relevance.

  • Frictionless Pathways: True frictionlessness begins behind the scenes—with aligned systems and processes for staff.

  • Stackability and Flexibility: Credential systems should prioritize stackability without recreating degree structures under new names.

  • Empathy as Strategy: Empathy emerged as a central theme—essential for leadership, collaboration, and institutional alignment.

  • Credential Validation: Participants wrestled with how to establish trust in local credentials without relying solely on external certifications like PMI or SHRM.

  • System-Level Support: It was encouraging to hear how university systems that provide structural and financial support can accelerate credential innovation.

  • Registrar Alignment: Alignment between registrar functions and prior-learning offices is critical to ensuring that learning mobility becomes reality.

As one attendee reflected with a touch of humor, “‘Frictionless’ is still aspirational—we’re still in the voodoo doll space.” The comment captured both the ambition and humility of the group: innovation is messy, iterative, and grounded in shared humanity.

Themes That Endure

Across discussions, several enduring themes emerged:

  • Intentionality matters. Credential initiatives succeed when they are mission-aligned, data-informed, and responsive to real learner needs.

  • Flexibility is not optional. Systems that resist change risk irrelevance; those that adapt build resilience.

  • Empathy fuels innovation. Change is sustained through shared understanding and respect across academic, administrative, and workforce boundaries.

These insights reaffirmed that credential innovation is not a one-time project—it is an ongoing cultural shift that demands dialogue, partnership, and courage.

Looking Ahead

The 2025 CCI Convening underscored the power of the UPCEA community to learn from one another, take risks, and lead collaboratively. It was, in many ways, a microcosm of higher education’s broader evolution—where the lines between degrees, credentials, and skills are blurring, and where institutions must balance tradition with transformation.

As the CCI continues its work, the insights and connections from this inaugural gathering will inform ongoing efforts to create credential ecosystems that are flexible, ethical, and designed with intentionality.

In the end, the convening was more than a meeting of minds—it was a reminder that when institutions come together to share openly, listen deeply, and lead with empathy, the pathway toward learner-centered innovation becomes clearer, one conversation at a time.

Save the Date! Don’t miss these upcoming Strategic Conversations curated by the UPCEA CCI: 

  • December 16, 4:00 pm ET 
  • February 17, 4:00 pm ET 

 

Learn more about the Council and its leadership team. 

Amy Heitzman is Chief Learning Officer and Deputy CEO of UPCEA, leading work at the intersection of research, policy, and innovation in professional, continuing, and online education.

 

Content for this resource was refined with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI language model. All text has been thoroughly reviewed, edited, and approved by UPCEA staff with subject matter expertise. References and links have been verified for accuracy and reliability.

Major Updates

Federal Grant Opportunities: Funding for Workforce Pell Programs and AI (Applications Due December 3)
The Department of Education has launched a rapid grant competition under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE–Special Projects), with applications due December 3, 2025. The program is designed in part to help institutions build or scale short-term credential programs that align with the new Workforce Pell Grants.

Two of the “absolute priorities” in this competition focus on creation of new short-term offerings as well as the expansion of existing programs. Eligible activities span the practical work of standing programs up or scaling them: hiring faculty and staff, purchasing equipment and technology, improving labs and classrooms, convening employers and workforce boards, and building the data and reporting capacity needed to demonstrate Workforce Pell eligibility and outcomes. Across both priorities, ED emphasizes close collaboration with employers, integration of work-based learning, and alignment with real labor-market demand.

At the same time, there are grant opportunity priorities around advancing AI understanding and use in postsecondary education. The funding opportunities don’t come without criticism, as the Department has repurposed dollars that Congress had originally earmarked for student success and basic-needs initiatives. That funding shift has prompted critiques from some advocates and lawmakers, who argue the move stretches congressional intent and raises questions about executive flexibility in reallocating higher ed funds. Still, for institutions able to move quickly, especially those with existing online, certificate, and nondegree infrastructure or interest in promoting AI understanding or use in teaching and learning, this competition may offer an opportunity for funding. Read more about the grant opportunities and how to apply. 

If your institution is considering applying, UPCEA Research & Consulting could be a partner and provide support for the work. We are interested in opportunities to work with you. Contact [email protected].

 

Consensus Reached in RISE Negotiated Rulemaking: New Graduate Loan Caps; Narrow Definition of “Professional” Programs
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking committee has reached consensus on how to implement the new federal loan caps for graduate and professional students created by Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which take effect in July 2026. Under the law, students in most graduate programs will be limited to $100,000 in federal loans, while students in designated “professional” programs can borrow up to $200,000. The negotiations centered on which programs qualify for that higher cap.

The department and negotiators ultimately agreed on a relatively narrow list of professional fields that include medicine (M.D. and D.O.), dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatry, chiropractic programs, law, certain theology degrees (such as M.Div.), and clinical psychology doctorates, along with a few related doctoral tracks. Programs outside this group, including the vast majority of master’s, Ph.D., Ed.D., and professional graduate programs, many of which are offered online, will fall under the lower $100,000 cap. Department officials have touted the policy as a step toward restraining graduate borrowing and tuition growth, while many in the higher ed community worry it could push students into private loans or out of high-cost advanced degrees altogether, especially in health and human services fields.

The way consensus was reached is also notable. ED presented a package of regulatory changes and signaled that several concessions important to different stakeholder groups might be withdrawn if negotiators failed to support the overall deal. That approach left committee members weighing tradeoffs among provisions that helped some constituencies while disadvantaging others, with many reluctant to reject the package and risk a more restrictive rule if the Department proceeded without consensus. For institutions, especially those offering high-tuition online or professional graduate programs, the new caps will likely require revisiting pricing, financial aid strategies, and program design as the rules move toward publication in the Federal Register and eventual implementation. Read more.

 

Trump Administration Accelerates Effort to Dismantle the Department of Education
On November 18, the Trump Administration announced a new set of interagency agreements that would shift large portions of the U.S. Department of Education’s work, and billions of dollars in grant funding, to other federal departments. Building on an earlier transfer of career and technical education and adult education programs to the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, the latest moves relocate the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Postsecondary Education to Labor, the Office of Indian Education to the Department of the Interior, child-care and foreign medical education functions to Health and Human Services, and international and foreign language education programs to the State Department.

Administration officials, such as in a recent op-ed from Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, frame the restructuring as a way to “return education to the states,” reduce federal bureaucracy, and better align specific programs with agencies that have related missions, such as workforce development at Labor. However, critics argue that using these agreements to effectively dismantle much of the department sidesteps statutory requirements that establish these offices in law and may violate obligations such as prior consultation with Native nations. They warn that scattering programs across multiple agencies could increase complexity for institutions, disrupt services to students, and trigger significant legal challenges.

For colleges and universities, especially those with large online and professional portfolios, the immediate practical impact is uncertain. Programs that historically interacted with ED for grants, reporting, and oversight may soon find themselves dealing with different agencies, unfamiliar processes, and potentially divergent policy priorities. Federal student aid remains within the Department of Education for now, but observers note that those responsibilities could also be targeted in future rounds of restructuring. Read more.

Other News

 

 

The tagline for Convergence, Credential Innovation in Higher Education, raises two important questions: First, what kind of credentials are we talking about?  Is the scope of credentials unlimited, blue sky, or confined to incremental changes on the margins of the status quo?  And second, who is leading that innovation, and what do they need to succeed?

Let’s begin with the question about scope. The content at Convergence 2025 primarily focused on non-degree credentials, because most credential innovation is currently happening outside the comfortable boundaries of our traditional degree framework. 

We all know the degree remains the gold standard, and in our view that’s a very good thing.  After all, it has served American higher education very well for the past hundred or so years and will continue to do so for millions of students. 

But I think it’s fair to say we are now in the early days of a movement that inspires us to reimagine what is possible.  A movement that invites us to recognize that the degree did not emerge fully formed, transcendent and timeless.  No, the degree was very much a human construct. 

The first bachelor’s degree was offered by the University of Paris in 1231.  To put that in perspective, that was 220 years before Guttenberg invented the printing press.  Britain later developed the 4-year model, which it then exported to its colonies.  The US may have expelled the British, but we kept their degree framework firmly in place.

In 1906, the Carnegie Foundation added the final structural piece of the standard baccalaureate degree when it began administering retirement pensions for faculty.  Carnegie adopted the 120-credit hour model as a standard of measurement for pensions, and institutions quickly fell in line.     

The four-year model remained uncontested until the 1990s, when European nations embarked upon the Bologna Process. Named after the host institution, the Bologna Process concluded that the 4-year model no longer served the interests of European society.

The resulting Bologna Declaration was a bold stroke. It standardized a new 3-year model focused on a single discipline of study, more or less eliminated general education requirements, and tasked secondary education with preparing students for their eventual field of study and, ultimately, work. 

The Bologna model may or may not work in the US, though a few pioneering institutions are experimenting with it. 

My point is that these examples of intervention in history illustrate that what can be constructed can be deconstructed or reconstructed.  

So as we talk about the credential innovation occurring on our campuses, let’s keep an eye on the distant horizon of what may be possible in the future. 

Let’s take a step back and ask ourselves to imagine a credential architecture that not only advances higher education but civilization itself. Because that’s what is really at stake, especially in this new age of AI.

This brings us to the second question: who leads, or should lead, credential innovation today? We all recognize that faculty are content experts and are thus critical partners. But we must also remember that the online learning revolution didn’t fully mature until senior administrators were charged with building the modern online enterprise and were empowered to lead with an entrepreneurial spirit. 

Chief online learning officers, or COLOs, brought leadership and expertise to the emerging field, just as the rise of chief information officers did for the exploding field of IT the decade before. 

I believe the field of credential innovation is now at a similar crossroads. I also believe that the promise of credential innovation is too important to be left radically decentralized, under-supported and marginalized, and reliant on the kindness of willing faculty whose academic interests and career incentives sometimes work at cross-purposes with institutional vision and strategy.

No, moments of radical change like we are all experiencing today require great leadership.  For this reason, UPCEA is prioritizing the development of senior leaders in credential innovation, just as we successfully championed the rise of the Chief Online Learning Officer over the past decade. 

To that end, I’m happy to report that our Council for Credential Innovation held its first meeting at Convergence 2025.  Participation in the CCI greatly exceeded our expectations.  Expect to hear more good things from this brain trust for the field.

Student success starts with the right conversation. By uniting data, technology, and human connection, institutions can shift from reactive outreach to proactive engagement that strengthens trust, equity, and long-term retention.

Every Student Is a Story, Not a Segment

“On the other side of every data point, every phone number, every email address, there’s a person behind it,” says Ryan Villwok, Senior Director of Enrollment Operations & Strategy at Noodle. “Every person is looking for some type of individual approach that really focuses on them.”

Every prospective student brings unique motivations, barriers, and timelines. The more institutions understand those individual contexts, the more effectively they can communicate in ways that drive both equity and efficiency.

That means moving beyond one-size-fits-all outreach and focusing on right contact, right person, right time. Timing and segmentation aren’t marketing buzzwords. They’re core to providing fair, human-centered support.

Noodle’s Tips to Personalize Messages

  • Avoid generic or mistimed outreach (like prompting an application reminder when the learner already submitted it)
  • Segment communications by motivation or circumstance rather than just demographics: career changers, first-generation learners, working professionals, employer-sponsored students
  • Build feedback loops between marketing, enrollment, and advising teams so data is current and actionable

Abe Perry, Senior Vice President of Enrollment at Noodle, takes it one step further. “We get asked a lot about our script,” she says. “There isn’t one. What we have is a framework that lets every conversation feel unique to that student. We train our advisors to connect program outcomes back to what that specific prospect needs—so it’s natural, not rehearsed.”

When institutions tailor communication to individual goals and stages, they create trust. And trust keeps prospective students engaged through application, enrollment, and beyond.

Technology as an Enabler of Human Connection

Technology isn’t a replacement for connection. It’s an amplifier. The right tools allow teams to deliver personal, timely communication at scale. But technology alone can’t fix fractured processes or unaligned teams.

“Technology needs to do what technology does so people can do what people do,” says Villwok. “At the foundation of enrollment is making human one-to-one connections. Technology allows us to do that at scale.”

For a deeper look at how to align data, systems, and people to make those one-to-one connections scalable, read Beyond the Nudge: How Data-Informed Strategies Drive Enrollment, Retention, and Product Growth.

Technology helps generate rich data about learner behavior and needs, which gives institutions the ability to spot trends, identify risk, and make smarter decisions about where to invest time and resources. But only when infrastructure, people, and processes are designed to serve the student’s experience. An effective foundation looks like:

  • Connected systems: CRMs, chatbots, and marketing automation tools that share data and context.
  • Smart triggers: Automated reminders and nudges that free advisors for higher-value conversations.
  • Human oversight: Enrollment teams who use intelligent data to guide empathy—not replace it.

It’s more important to be effective than efficient. Before introducing AI or automation, institutions should ensure their data pipelines are clean and integrated. Otherwise, they risk creating new barriers instead of removing them.

Retention as a System

Institutions often treat retention as a post-enrollment concern. But retention starts with a learner’s very first interaction. According to Kevin Phang, VP of Partnership Development for Marketing & Enrollment at Noodle, “students have one experience—and it’s with the institution, not with one department at a time. Our goal is to help every handoff feel invisible so students never feel like they’re starting over.”

When marketing, enrollment, and student support teams operate in silos, learners feel it. They’re asked to repeat information or receive duplicate or conflicting messages. And those friction points can turn into attrition points.

The most effective institutions treat the learner journey as a single, unified experience. Advisors, success coaches, and marketing teams share access to the same CRM data, so learners never feel like they’re starting over:

  • Enrollment teams capture the “educational why” behind each student’s goals.
  • Support teams reference that same data to personalize coaching and motivation.
  • Faculty and administrators gain a clearer understanding of learner needs and obstacles.

That connected journey doesn’t just improve retention. It models the kind of thoughtful, individualized attention that today’s learners expect from every service in their lives.

Aligning People, Process, and Technology

“If we have technology no one can use, it’s not impactful,” says Villwok. “Or if we have great people but not the tools they need, that’s a challenge too. The power comes from aligning all three—people, process, and technology—intentionally, based on what the partner actually needs.”

More than just aligning all three, institutions need to be able to strategically adjust them to create better learner experiences:

People:

Advisors and coaches trained to adapt (instead of reciting scripts) so every conversation feels natural, informed, and relevant.

Process:

Workflows that prevent duplication, delays, and missed opportunities. Regular debriefs between departments turn anecdotal advisor insights into institutional improvements.

Technology:

Systems that connect data across the entire learning lifecycle, so insights from marketing inform advising, and advising informs academic strategy.

When these levers work in concert, communication becomes consistent, intentional, and measurable. Institutions gain the agility to respond quickly to trends while maintaining the personal touch that keeps students connected.

Moving From Reactive to Proactive Outreach

Traditional enrollment communication tends to be reactive: sending reminders when deadlines pass or re-engaging students only after they’ve gone silent. Predictive analytics, engagement scoring, and automated alerts, however, make it possible to act before disengagement sets in.

Proactive communication is also equitable communication. By using data to identify who’s at risk and when, institutions can offer timely nudges and resources that help every learner stay on track.

“All the small stuff matters,” according to Villwok. “It’s every intentional moment, from the first inquiry to the alumni stage, that creates real results.” Start with small, meaningful changes:

  • Identify “moments that matter” in your funnel: inquiry follow-up, application completion, financial aid verification, and orientation prep.
  • Track where delays most often occur, and automate personalized reminders to prevent them.
  • Use engagement data to prioritize advisor outreach—so no student slips through the cracks.

These small, intentional interventions compound into measurable gains in persistence, satisfaction, and institutional trust.

Building a Culture of Continuous Improvement

Across higher education, there’s a growing willingness to experiment and listen. Institutions are recognizing that meaningful change requires a readiness to test new ideas, challenge assumptions, and learn from outcomes. That openness creates opportunity—for innovation, for collaboration, and for deeper alignment around shared student success goals.

Perry believes “there are a lot of institutions willing to take the risk of the unknown. They may not always choose Noodle, but they’re listening—and that willingness to listen opens the door to real innovation.” To sustain that real and lasting innovation:

  • Revisit communication strategies each term to identify new bottlenecks.
  • Encourage advisors to share qualitative insights with marketing and faculty.
  • Measure what matters: outcomes, not just activity.

When institutions treat every process as an opportunity to learn and improve, retention becomes less about crisis management and more about community care.

The Bottom Line

Every message matters. Every data point tells a story. And every student interaction is a chance to turn insight into impact. By uniting people, processes, and technology around data-informed communication, institutions can replace fragmented, reactive outreach with intentional, proactive engagement that supports every learner’s journey from inquiry to alumni.

As institutions align their data, timing, and human insight, enrollment and retention stop being separate goals and start becoming shared successes.

 

Abe Perry, Senior Vice President of Enrollment at Noodle, advances Noodle’s mission to lower the cost of education and drive change across higher ed. With nearly 15 years of experience in edtech leadership, she builds strategic partnerships, inspires teams, and delivers measurable growth and engagement.

 Kevin Phang, VP of Partnership Development for Marketing & Enrollment at Noodle, has over 15 years of experience in digital marketing. With roles at QuinStreet and HotChalk, he brings expertise in creating impactful solutions by balancing the needs of learners and institutions.

Ryan Villwok, Senior Director of Enrollment Operations & Strategy at Noodle, leads data-driven initiatives that strengthen performance, agility, and partnership outcomes across the enrollment portfolio. With more than a decade in higher education and workforce learning, he specializes in scalable systems, strategic planning, and learner-centered operations.

Noodle is the leading tech-enabled strategy and services partner for higher education. A certified B corporation, Noodle (founded in 2013) has developed infrastructure and online enrollment growth for some of the best academic institutions in the world. Noodle empowers universities to transform the world through life-changing learning. It offers strategic consulting to advise partners as they navigate their futures, provides services tailored to meet their growth aspirations, and deploys technology, tools, and platforms that integrate for scale, making our partners more resilient, responsive, efficient, and interconnected.

A person (Amy Heitzman) smiling

By Amy Claire Heitzman, Ph.D.,
Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer, UPCEA

Learning Mobility: A Movement Taking Shape

At this year’s AACRAO Technology & Transfer: A Learning Mobility Summit, higher education leaders from UPCEA member institutions gathered to explore a question at the heart of the learner mobility movement: How can postsecondary institutions recognize, record, and reward all learning—wherever and however it occurs?

Moderating this conversation alongside visionary colleagues Keisha Campbell (Morgan State University), Marc Booker (University of Phoenix), and Katherine Antonucci (Arizona State University) was a privilege. Together, we explored what it means to make learning truly mobile—creating fluidity across institutions, systems, and the span of a learner’s life.

Putting Learners at the Center

Panelists agreed: learning mobility begins and ends with the learner.

Booker described it as “a change in perception”—a shift from valuing only the credits earned in a single institution to recognizing the whole of a learner’s experience, knowledge, and skills. “It’s about recognizing the learner for everything they bring to the table,” he shared.

At Arizona State University, Antonucci echoed that spirit of inclusion. “We measure ourselves by who we include, not exclude,” she said, describing ASU’s initiatives like Career Catalyst and Work+Collective, which connect academic learning to work experiences and real-world skills.

Engaging the Whole Campus

We then turned to the question of who must be involved to make learning mobility real.

For Booker, the answer was clear: “If learning mobility is about recognizing the learner in all aspects, then who on campus needs to be engaged? Everyone.” He emphasized how connecting data across academics, IT, faculty, and student services creates “virtuous cycles of success” that improve both learning and teaching.

Campbell shared that it’s “important to note that each school can have a different journey and set of resources at their disposal”, and that “it’s ok to start where you can” as an institution.  This can be a factor in determining how to approach the early stages of engaging stakeholders on the topic of learning mobility.

Antonucci added that culture change often begins with technology. ASU’s efforts to simplify transfer credit evaluation with the Triangulator have sparked new conversations about equity, policy, and practice. “When technology removes barriers,” she explained, “we can focus on changing culture.”

Technology, Trust, and Storytelling

The panel’s discussion on Learning and Employment Records (LERs) was one of its most dynamic.

Booker offered a candid reflection: “The issue isn’t the technology—it’s the story. If employers don’t come along, we’ll just be creating the next acronym.” He emphasized that LERs, Comprehensive Learner Records, and similar tools must help learners tell their stories in ways employers understand and value what unique experiences, traits, and skills the learner can bring to an organization..

Antonucci highlighted ASU’s Trusted Learner Network, which gives students control of verified digital credentials—an innovation that both empowers learners and reduces systemic barriers.

Campbell reminded everyone that a key to success “is involving the registrar in learning mobility processes.” She notes that not only do registrars “play an important role in determining the integrity and validity of credentials,” but that they also sit at the intersection of institutional data and technology integrations on campus, which will be essential to any successful LER implementation. 

Breaking Down Barriers

Even as new tools and frameworks emerge—like AACRAO’s Learning Mobility Pillars, a set of LER Principles authored by a collective group of stakeholders including UPCEA, and an emergent Learning Mobility Framework —many barriers remain:

  • Lack of interoperability across systems

  • Inconsistent policies

  • Challenges in identifying learners across modalities

Yet across our conversation, optimism prevailed. Institutions are finding creative ways to move forward—through collaboration, data alignment, and a shared belief that learning deserves to be recognized no matter where it happens.

Continuing the Work

This dialogue doesn’t end here. UPCEA and AACRAO are continuing to advance learning mobility efforts across the ecosystem—through research, coalition work, and professional development. 

We’ll reconvene in early 2026 for a Strategic Conversation hosted by the UPCEA Council for Credential Innovation to continue the conversation, share what’s working, and imagine what comes next.

Because learning mobility is more than a framework—it’s a movement toward equity, access, and recognition for every learner.

 

Amy Heitzman is Chief Learning Officer and Deputy CEO of UPCEA, leading work at the intersection of research, policy, and innovation in professional, continuing, and online education.

 

Content was refined with assistance from ChatGPT and fully reviewed by UPCEA staff for accuracy.

Most of us in higher education are now familiar with generative AI bots, where you formulate a prompt and get a reply. Yet, we are now beginning the advancement to agentic AI, the autonomous 24-7 project manager.

The dramatic enhancement in the capability of AI as it moves from bots to agents will bring about efficiencies and have a far greater impact on the day-to-day operations, strategies and effectiveness of our institutions. We will become less expensive, more personalized and more responsive to students and employers. Those are big claims, so for this column, I turned to my personal assistant, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro on Nov. 1, 2025, to help me with identifying the pathway to those outcomes.

Caveats

In this article, I can only hit the high points along the way in developing an agentic AI–enhanced university. This is merely a broad-brush, incomplete view that each university should adjust and enhance in order to meet its structures and needs. I also encourage you to read the valuable McKinsey article “Deploying agentic AI with safety and security: A playbook for technology leaders,” published on Oct. 15, 2025, for important security and safety information.

Gemini Pro prefaced its recommendations with:

This is the central strategic challenge for the next 36 months. The institution has successfully navigated the first wave—generative AI, which is about creating content. You are right to be concerned about the second, more powerful wave: agentic AI, which is about taking action.

Where generative AI is a research assistant, an agentic AI is a 24/7, autonomous project manager. It can understand a high-level goal (e.g., “increase retention for first-generation students”), create a multi-step plan, execute that plan across different software systems and learn from its mistakes without constant human prompting.

Competitors will use this to create profound operational efficiencies and new, hyper-personalized student services. The institutions that wait will be competing on price and quality against a rival that has automated its back office and given every student a personal AI adviser.

This will take significant thought and planning across the university. It will be important that we include all members of the university community to make this a coordinated, comprehensive change that will significantly advance the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the institution. Timing is important. We must begin immediately if we hope to have major changes in place before the end of 2027. Let’s begin!

First Half of 2026 Foundation and Vision

We will need an executive task force with the knowledge, resources and shared vision to accomplish this task. Gemini recommends we be sure to include:

  • Chief information officer: To map the data and systems.
  • Chief financial officer: To identify cost-saving opportunities and fund pilots.
  • Provost: To champion the academic quality and student-facing initiatives.
  • VP of enrollment: To represent the entire student life cycle (recruitment to alumni).
  • VP of operations: To represent the “back office” (HR, grounds, facilities).

The executive task force will want to set up opportunities for input and support of the initiative. Perhaps the first step will be to seek ideas of whether the first order of priority should be quality improvement (hyperpersonalization of services to the learners) or cost efficiency (operational excellence). Both of these will be needed in the long run in order to survive the agent-enabled competition that will be both of higher quality and less expensive. In seeking input on this choice, university-wide awareness can be fostered. Perhaps a broad university forum could be scheduled on the topic with smaller, targeted follow-ups with faculty, staff, students, administrators and external stakeholder groups scheduled as the initiative proceeds.

One of the first steps of the executive task force will be to perform a university-wide Agent Readiness Audit. Since agents run on data and processes, we need to identify any data silos and process bottlenecks. These will be among our first priorities to ensure that agents can perform work smoothly and efficiently. Resolving these may also be among the most time-consuming changes. However, removing these data roadblocks can begin to show immediate progress in responsiveness and efficiency.

Second Half of 2026 Into Spring 2027 Pilot and Infrastructure

Gemini suggests that a good starting point in the summer of 2026 would be to set up two pilots:

  • Cost-Saving Pilot: The Facilities Agent
  • Goal: Reduce energy and maintenance costs.
  • Action: An AI agent integrates with the campus event schedule, weather forecasts and the building HVAC/lighting systems. It autonomously adjusts climate control and lighting for actual use, not just a fixed timer. It also fields all maintenance requests, triages them and dispatches staff or robotic mowers/vacuums automatically.
  • Quality-Improvement Pilot Example: The Proactive Adviser Agent
  • Goal: Improve retention for at-risk students.
  • Action: An agent monitors student data in real time (LMS engagement, attendance, early grade-book data). It doesn’t replace the human adviser. It acts as their assistant, flagging a student who is at risk before the midterm and autonomously executing a plan: sending a nudge, offering to schedule a tutoring session and summarizing the risk profile for the human adviser to review.

Our most significant centralized expense will be to set up a secure digital sandbox. The pilots cannot live on a faculty member’s laptop. The CIO must lead the creation of a central, secure platform. This sandbox is a secure environment where AI agents can be developed, tested and given access to the university’s core data APIs (e.g., SIS, LMS and ERP).

Gemini reminds me that, concurrently, we must set up a new entity. The generative AI rules were about plagiarism. The agentic AI rules must be about liability. The new entity is a kind of Agent Accountability Framework. It deals with policy questions such as:

  • Who is responsible when an agent gives a student incorrect financial aid advice?
  • What is the off-switch when an agent-driven workflow (like course wait lists) creates an inequitable outcome? Who has authority to flip the switch?
  • By whom and how are an agent’s actions audited?

Implementation Across University Through Fall 2027

There will be many personnel and staffing topics to address. By the summer of 2027, we should be well on the way to refining roles and position descriptions of employees. The emphasis should be efficient, enhanced redesign of roles rather than staffing cuts. Some cuts will come from normal turnover as staff find more attractive opportunities or retire. In most cases, employees will become much more productive, handing off their redundant, lower-level work to agents. For example, Gemini Pro envisions:

  • The admissions counselor who used to answer 500 identical emails now manages a team of AI agents that handle the routine questions, freeing the counselor to spend one-on-one time with high-priority applicants.
  • The IT help desk technician no longer resets passwords. The technicians now train the AI agent on how to troubleshoot new software and directly handle only the most complex, level-three issues.
  • The human adviser now manages a caseload of 500 students (not 150), because the AI assistant handles 90 percent of the administrative churn, allowing the adviser to focus on high-impact mentoring.

Gemini Pro suggests that this approach can result in a higher-quality, more efficient university that will be able to compete in the years ahead. The final step is the most critical and is the job of everyone, from the president and board on down. We must champion a culture where AI agents are seen as collaborators, not replacements. This is a human-AI “co-bot” workforce.

The institutions that win in 2027 will be those that successfully trained their managers to lead mixed teams of human and AI employees. This is the single greatest competitive advantage one can build.

This framework will position the university not just to survive the agentic AI wave but to lead it, creating an institution that is both more efficient and, critically, more human-centered.

 

This column was originally published in Inside Higher Ed. 

A person (Amy Heitzman) smiling

By Amy Claire Heitzman, Ph.D.,
Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer, UPCEA

At Convergence 2025, a conversation unfolded that perfectly captured the spirit of the event—collaboration across boundaries, disciplines, and traditions to create something more unified and learner-centered.

In Convergence in Action: Strategic Credential Framework Collaborations Across Campus, I had the pleasure of moderating a panel featuring Elizabeth Kerr and Molly McDermott-Fallon of the University of Cincinnati and Beth Merenstein and Patrick Tucker of Central Connecticut State University. Together, they revealed what it looks like to build shared institutional frameworks for credentialing—structures that not only streamline systems but also expand the definition of student success.

From Fragmentation to Framework

“Our project has been—what I often call—the Wild West of records,” said Molly McDermott-Fallon, Assistant Vice Provost and University Registrar at Cincinnati. “We’ve had non-credit, alternative credentialing, and experiential records living in pockets across the institution. Our goal is to create governance and policies that ensure what we record reflects meaningful, verifiable learning.”

Her colleague Elizabeth Kerr, Assistant Dean for Professional and Continuing Education, echoed that sentiment. “We’re expanding non-credit learning while also building the foundation—systems, shared language, governance—that makes it sustainable,” she explained. “It’s about culture as much as it’s about process.”

At Central Connecticut State University, Beth Merenstein and Patrick Tucker shared their own ambitious project: the Central Success Journey (CSJ), a Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) designed to sit alongside the traditional transcript. “Our ‘why’ is always about student success,” said Merenstein. “A CLR allows students to articulate the full story of their learning.”

Tucker added, “We’re making the CSJ available to every undergraduate student. It’s about integrating curricular and co-curricular experiences—and doing it in a way that’s scalable, accurate, and authentic.”

Collaboration as the Core Competency

Each speaker underscored that convergence doesn’t happen through technology alone. It requires trust, dialogue, and shared ownership.

“You don’t have to boil the ocean all at once,” said Tucker. “Progress, not perfection, is the goal.”

At Central, that progress began with research, faculty engagement, and senior leadership buy-in. “Last year, we listened to others talk about CLRs and wondered, how would we even start?” Merenstein recalled. “One step at a time, we built the right coalitions.”

For Cincinnati, transparency has been a guiding force. “We’ve made sure this work doesn’t happen in a black box,” McDermott-Fallon noted. “People need to see how their input matters. Transparency builds trust—and trust builds coalitions.”

Kerr highlighted the importance of curiosity and listening: “Because this work touches every corner of the university, I’ve spent as much time asking questions as building systems. We have to understand our partners’ needs before designing solutions.”

Early Wins That Build Momentum

Though each team described their work as “in progress,” the tangible achievements are already shaping institutional change.

At Central Connecticut, faculty aligned general education with NACE competencies, while collaboration with IT and advisors created momentum across campus. “When we present to internal and external groups, the enthusiasm is immediate,” said Merenstein.

At Cincinnati, key milestones included the establishment of a formal governance structure, cross-college partnerships, and even a shared staff position funded jointly by the Registrar’s Office and the College of Continuing Education. “Those decisions made collaboration visible,” McDermott-Fallon explained. Kerr added, “Each artifact—whether a website, a guide, or a shared form—helps make the work real.”

Lessons in Patience and Perspective

When reflecting on lessons learned, the panelists were candid about the challenges of pace, scope, and alignment.

“Slow down,” advised McDermott-Fallon. “We were moving fast, and that built momentum—but sometimes patience gets you further. Every institution’s pace is different.”

Kerr agreed. “We backed into this project, and it grew quickly. If I could start again, I’d begin smaller and expand strategically. And aligning non-credit and credit processes has been key to bridging cultures.”

Tucker emphasized the evolving role of registrars in this work: “At first, I thought this might fall outside my lane. But registrars bring the perspective of integrity and scalability—it’s essential for the success of a CLR.”

And Merenstein concluded with a reminder to pause and celebrate: “Be patient with yourselves. Take time to see how far you’ve come. Last year at Convergence, Patrick and I were the ones asking, ‘How do we even begin?’ and now we’re here, sharing our progress.”

Progress, Not Perfection

In the end, this session was more than a showcase of projects—it was a portrait of convergence in action. Across institutions, teams are working to unify systems, language, and culture in ways that honor both institutional mission and learner mobility.

Credential convergence is not about standardization—it’s about alignment, empathy, and intentional design. The lessons from these institutions remind us that innovation doesn’t come from technology alone, but from the people willing to collaborate across boundaries and build structures that tell the whole story of learning.

At Convergence 2025, that story was alive—and it’s only just beginning.

 

Amy Heitzman, Ph.D., is UPCEA’s Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer.

 

Content for this resource was refined with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI language model. All text has been thoroughly reviewed, edited, and approved by UPCEA staff with subject matter expertise. References and links have been verified for accuracy and reliability.

A man (Bruce Etter) is dressed in a blue suit smiling for a headshot.

By Bruce Etter

Imagine your bellwether program stepping into a modern search arena with a glossy tri-fold and a storied reputation, ready to battle any challenger. Across the ring rolls a robotic rival as “The Imperial March” blares over the speakers. The ref signals start; a blinding spotlight from the robot makes your program vanish from view. The quality of your offering isn’t in doubt, if anything it’s better than the competitor, but the scoreboard still reads 100–0 in the blink of an eye. That’s 2025 search. UPCEA’s latest study with Search Influence, titled AI Search in Higher Education: How Prospects Search in 2025, maps the new ground rules: when AI-SEO can read, trust, and cite clear, authoritative, well-structured program pages, you get seen; when it can’t, you don’t.

Search engines still sit at the top of the research stack. Page one remains the front door, and most prospects will only knock if you’re there. Eighty-two percent of prospective and current professional and continuing education students say a page-one result makes them more likely to consider a program. That’s not vanity ranking; it’s the gate to the consideration set. AI overviews now act like a spotlight on that doorstep. Seventy-nine percent read them when they appear, and 56 percent report higher trust when your site is cited. If you’re named, you earn credibility before the visit; if you’re not, you’re invisible to a large share of qualified demand.

That dynamic explains the channel hierarchy. Prospects start with search, then turn to institutional sites to confirm details. Eighty-four percent are extremely or very likely to use search engines to research programs, and 63 percent say the same for university sites. Seventy-seven percent rate those sites as extremely or very trustworthy, ahead of search engines and well above social. Your program pages are the trust anchor for both humans and machines. The words, structure, and references on those pages now do double duty: they persuade people and signal authority to AI.

Visibility depends on how well your pages feed the spotlight. SEO is the lighting rig – it makes content legible to Google, gives AI summaries citable answers, and guides prospects to a clear, scannable program page. When the rig is weak, AI has nothing trustworthy to cite and your presence fades. When it’s strong, built on structured entities, clean internal links, and authoritative references, both Google and AI surface you consistently. The practical target is precision over puffery. Answer what you teach, who it’s for, time to completion, cost, and expected outcomes with specific, verifiable detail.

The operational shift is simple and measurable. Write program pages for citation as well as conversion. If a line would stand on its own in an AI summary, put it on the page. Use plain-English questions and definitions, spell out comparisons and prerequisites, and publish those answers directly on your program pages in structured, machine-readable HTML. Add the scaffolding machines use to validate and connect facts with appropriate schema, tight internal linking, and reputable external references. These moves make the page more useful to humans and more legible to AI – the combination that wins visibility.

Video follows the same pattern. Many prospects use YouTube like a search engine, so short explainers that mirror your top question clusters are no longer optional. Produce concise videos that answer the core questions, with accurate titles and descriptions, time-stamped chapters, and links back to the canonical program page. This keeps the journey coherent: search or AI surfaces your institution, video builds clarity and confidence, and the program page closes the loop with complete, verifiable detail. The content does not need flash – it needs clarity and a direct path to the page AI will cite.

Quality signals matter more than volume. Authoritative pages show depth without bloat, concrete learning outcomes, relevant employer or industry ties, transparent tuition and fees, and sample schedules that make time-to-completion obvious. When you state an outcome, make it checkable. When you use a term of art, define it. When you reference labor-market alignment, link to evidence. Each element lifts human trust and gives AI reasons to surface your page. Treating these details as internal knowledge or burying them in attachments is a visibility tax. Put the details on the page.

This approach also avoids the false tradeoff between branded and non-branded queries. Prospects often begin broad and comparative, looking for best options, local availability, requirements, costs, modality, and timelines, before they consider a brand. If your site only answers branded questions, AI has little to cite for the broad ones, and a competitor’s structured, citable answers will stand in for you. The goal isn’t to chase every keyword variant. The goal is to cover the core question families with authoritative, machine-readable answers that withstand human scrutiny.

Execution requires instrumentation. Track which question families you cover and how those pages perform across search, AI summaries where observable, and video. Watch impressions and click-through, inclusion and citation patterns, and follow-through from video to page. If a page earns impressions but not visits, tighten the snippet and opening paragraph. If a page earns AI citations for a question family, add adjacent content that answers the next two questions a prospect will ask. Make small, continuous moves that compound.

The payoff is practical. Visibility at page one opens the door. Being named in the AI overview confers trust at the moment a prospect decides where to click. A clear, authoritative program page confirms the decision and reduces friction to inquiry. None of this requires a gamble on novelty. Instead, it requires discipline about clarity, structure, and evidence. Treat inclusion in AI summaries as an SEO outcome you can engineer, not a black box. AI tools surface authoritative content – without SEO you don’t show up in AI, and without AI you don’t get the enrollment.

Bruce Etter serves as the Senior Director of Research and Consulting at UPCEA, where he leads the development and management of research initiatives for UPCEA’s Research and Consulting division and its clients.

In celebration of National Distance Learning Week, UPCEA is highlighting key resources each day that showcase how online and professional education leaders continue to drive innovation, resilience, and transformation.

It’s Friday—a perfect moment to pause, take a breath, and focus on you. Your career, your growth, and your well-being all deserve attention. UPCEA offers ways to advance professionally, connect meaningfully, and care for yourself along the way.

Grow Your Skills and those of your team

Stay ahead in online and professional continuing education with UPCEA Online Professional Development. Choose what’s right for you and your team – courses, certificates, and AI Labs designed to strengthen the leadership, management, and technical expertise of our community. Participants learn from leading experts with real-world experience and engage with peers in dynamic virtual classrooms, earning digital badges and credentials that showcase professional growth. UPCEA’s flexible, high-value programs are a cornerstone of many professional development plans for members because they provide actionable takeaways and recognized credentials, all from the field’s leading association.

Members get more! The UPCEA Institutional Impact PD Bundle offers members 10 course enrollments for $3,500—a savings of more than $1,000—Flexible 12-month access and substantial savings on high-quality professional development. Courses can be applied toward the PCO Pro Certificate. The 10 courses must be used within 1 year of the date of purchase.

Mentorship Matters

Connect, learn, and give back with the UPlift Mentorship Experience. Whether you want to share your experience as a mentor or gain guidance as a mentee, mentorship is a powerful way to nurture both your professional and personal growth. Build lasting relationships, receive actionable advice, and expand your perspective. The 2026 cohort opens for applications in early November, apply here to start your journey.

Build Meaningful Connections

With UPCEA memberships, you gain access to peers and educational leaders who are navigating the same challenges as you. Connect at UPCEA industry-leading conferences and events, share ideas, ask questions, and gain inspiration. These relationships can open doors, spark collaborations, and provide ongoing support throughout your career.

Tap Into CORe

Need advice, feedback, or fresh ideas? CORe (Community Online Relationships) is UPCEA Members’ 24/7 online community, connecting you to 15,000+ educators, leaders, and colleagues. Whether you’re troubleshooting a challenge, exploring new strategies, or seeking a sounding board, CORe gives you real-time access to collective knowledge and experience—so you’re never navigating your career alone.

Join a Network

Find your professional home in any of UPCEA’s nine professional affinity Networks. These groups bring together professionals in key areas of higher education, from online learning to enrollment management and beyond. Engage with peers who share your focus, exchange best practices, and strengthen your expertise in areas that matter most to your work.

Advance Your Career

Looking for your next opportunity, or hoping to hire top talent? The UPCEA Career Center is your hub for posting jobs or discovering new roles. From leadership positions to specialized roles in online and continuing education, it’s a resource designed to support your career growth and connect you to the right opportunities

Today, take a moment for yourself. Learn, connect, grow, and recharge with all of the UPCEA resources at your fingertips! Nurturing your career and your well-being are paramount to a bright and happy future!

In celebration of National Distance Learning Week, UPCEA is highlighting key resources each day that showcase how online and professional education leaders continue to drive innovation, resilience, and transformation.

Higher education is standing at the edge of rapid transformation, where the choices made today will define the universities of tomorrow. From shifting learner demographics and workforce needs to emerging technologies like AI, leaders in online and professional continuing education are not just adapting to change, they’re driving it.

At UPCEA, our mission is to help those leaders see what’s next, plan strategically, and act with insight. Through research, reports, and forward-looking thought leadership, UPCEA gives members a clear view of the horizon, and the tools to lead their institutions toward a more agile, learner-centered future.

The Future Is Now: Essential Conversations for Building Tomorrow’s University Today

UPCEA’s guide, The Future Is Now: Essential Conversations for Building Tomorrow’s University Today, challenges higher education leaders to rethink the traditional models of access, flexibility, and value. The guide offers a framework for understanding the forces reshaping the landscape: from demographic shifts and alternative credentials to the growing role of partnerships with employers.

Designed for institutional leaders and practitioners alike, The Future Is Now is your catalyst for action; use it to drive conversations with senior leadership about ROI, new business models, and entrepreneurial strategies. This guide helps your institution to stay relevant, sustainable, and student-focused in a rapidly evolving landscape. It’s both a roadmap and a mandate to start shaping the university of the future, now.

UPCEA Predictions: Anticipating What’s Next

Every year, UPCEA gathers insights from our field’s thought leaders and subject matter experts to forecast the key forces shaping online and professional education. The 2025 UPCEA Predictions Report explored emerging trends such as AI-driven personalization, “in-housing” of online operations, new workforce pathways, and policy changes that could reshape access and affordability.

The next chapter is coming soon, watch for the release of the 2026 Predictions Report on December 8. These forward-looking insights help institutional leaders anticipate change and position their organizations strategically for the year ahead.

Policy on the Horizon: Workforce Pell and the Expanding Education Landscape

Among the recent shifts in the policy landscape is the expansion of Workforce Pell, which will allow learners in eligible short-term credential programs to access federal financial aid. This development represents a major opportunity for colleges and universities to align with workforce needs while opening doors to new student populations.

UPCEA continues to provide guidance, analysis, and advocacy to help institutions understand and leverage this change, ensuring that policy innovation translates into practical pathways for learners and leaders alike. UPCEA spent years advocating for short-term Pell eligibility for online programs—a key victory for UPCEA members after online programs were nearly removed in earlier versions of the bill

UPCEA Expert Blogs on Emerging Trends in Online and Professional Education

Stay ahead of the curve with two of UPCEA’s leading blogs, offering expert insights into the future of higher education.

Online: Trending Now: Insights from Ray Schroeder, UPCEA Senior Fellow
Get timely analysis on technology, higher education, and the future of work. From AI and automation to institutional innovation, this blog keeps you informed about the trends shaping digital learning. Read the biweekly version of Online: Trending Now on Inside Higher Education or subscribe to the daily digest for curated updates delivered to your inbox.

The Pulse of Higher Ed: Perspectives from UPCEA’s Research and Consulting Experts
 Gain practical strategies and forward-thinking insights on enrollment management, learner success, and innovation in online and professional education, —helping institutions navigate today’s challenges and plan for tomorrow.

Stay tuned throughout National Distance Learning Week as UPCEA continues to spotlight the ideas, people, and resources shaping the next era of online and professional education.

Explore These Resources