Solving this predicament is one rationale for the strong political support and attention shown to work-based learning and high school career and technical education programs. But leaders running these programs report a quandary of their own: They can’t find enough employers willing to host interested high school students in meaningful roles, or sometimes enough students to fill available spots.

The usual explanation, that one side or the other isn’t trying hard enough, misses what’s really going on. The problem isn’t effort. It’s infrastructure.

That’s the central finding of our new profiling six work-based learning programs: a network of CTE charter schools in South Bend, Indiana; an industry-themed school network in San Antonio; a multi-district rural collaborative in Colorado; a Purdue University-affiliated early college network in Indianapolis and South Bend; a rural alliance of districts in Randolph County, Indiana; and a Philadelphia earn-and-learn training program built around real wage progression.

Six different design choices. Six different communities. But all suggest that rather than treating work-based learning as another elective or an item on a “college and career readiness” menu, work-based learning requires intentionally designed infrastructure linking schools, employers, postsecondary institutions and community organizations.

After interviewing the leaders of these programs, we identified six conditions that enabled each program to move from a pilot to a permanent part of a redesigned high school experience.

First, school-based programs benefited when their state allowed work-based learning hours to count toward graduation requirements and higher scores for career and technical education on state school accountability ratings. Colorado and Indiana stood out by allowing students to satisfy graduation requirements or earn a distinction on their diploma by completing a capstone project or a career course pathway with relevant work hours. Program officials told us this recognition meant they no longer felt torn between what was best for students and what state policy required. Instead, they could spend the time and resources to create and sustain high-quality work experiences with employers.

Second, these programs relied on government funding as the core of their budgets, including state career-technical education money, state and local workforce development funds and school innovation dollars. For example, the Fremont Multidistrict Initiative, serving rural Colorado, turned a state P-Tech designation into federal P-Tech dollars — up to two additional years of per-pupil support after graduation. These were layered on top of a state Opportunity Now workforce grant as well as ordinary state and local school funding. By combining sources in this way, all the programs reduced their reliance on philanthropy, which also increased the sustainability of their work. Still, the leaders told us that none of these funding streams fully covered the true cost of their learn-and-earn programs, so philanthropy continued to fill important gaps.

Third, program leaders reported that flexibility in teacher licensure allowing industry-qualified professionals to teach relevant coursework in the classroom and supervise students in the workplace significantly eased staffing challenges. In many states, students can’t earn course credit for either unless the educator or supervisor holds a full license as a K-12 teacher, in addition to whatever certification their industry requires. Indiana’s “workplace specialist” certification for qualified industry professionals eased some of this challenge for programs in that state. But programs across states pointed to licensure itself as an obstacle, and to allowing flexibility as a key action policymakers could take to support their work.

Fourth, fundamental to high-quality work-based learning is the ability to offer students meaningful experiences in their field of choice through employer partnerships. These must be structured to be mutually beneficial, which is best achieved through detailed partnership agreements. Program staff reported that the best partnerships were built on long-term relationships. Many had anchor partnerships with founding employers who helped design the pathway to a specific work experience. This ensured a core number of students could participate, while employers felt more confident that students would be prepared before their work placements.

Fifth, each program had dedicated full-time staffers for recruiting students and employers. The leaders consider these coordinators so essential that funding their positions is a budget line alongside teachers, supplies and transportation. To reach the scale needed to support one or more full-time coordinators, half the programs in our sample pooled school districts across rural counties or a metro area. Program leaders recommended that states earmark funding for these  coordinators and make it easier for school districts to formally collaborate and share resources.

Sixth, transportation plans helping students get to their jobs improved access, especially in low-income or rural areas. Programs solved this challenge in different ways. CAST Schools Network in San Antonio used its partner districts’ school buses. RAZ32 in rural Randolph County, Indiana, leveraged county workforce dollars for transportation. Launchpad Philly gave students tickets for riding public buses. But not all programs could afford to offer transportation, leaving students to find their own way.

All these programs had a final element in common: entrepreneurial leadership willing to work through challenges. But repeatedly, we saw how the underlying infrastructure enabled programs to create life-changing opportunities for students. Participants in Launchpad Philly‘s post-high-school LiftOff track, for example, averaged roughly $15,000 in annualized earnings six months after graduation, moving to nearly $30,000 by nine months and a $50,000 living-wage benchmark at the one-year mark. That’s against a baseline of about $12,500 a year for a young Philadelphian with only a high school diploma. For students planning to pursue a bachelor’s degree, the program shows them what jobs in a field are really like, which helps them choose the right educational path.

As long as work-based learning is filed under “initiative,” it will depend on the allure of a particular principal or the persistence of a particular grant officer. But by filing work-based learning under “core experience,” the integration that makes it work starts to look like something a state or a region is responsible for building, the way it’s responsible for roads or broadband.

Infrastructure and initiatives get treated very differently by the people who fund and govern them. Initiatives get pilot grants, three-year evaluation, and press releases. Infrastructure gets appropriations lines, dedicated staff positions and long-term institutional ownership.

The six programs in our report prove work-based learning can succeed in rural and urban settings alike, using very different designs. The remaining question is whether the country will treat the infrastructure behind them as seriously as it treats the problem itself.

Workforce Pell is Washington’s answer. The result of a , effort, the program allows low-income students to use Pell Grants for short-term, job-focused training as well as college.

Now comes the real news and the real test. In December, the U.S. Department of Education’s rulemaking committee reached consensus on proposed regulations for Workforce Pell, which launches July 1. It is up to the states to identify, approve and submit eligible training programs, with the department providing oversight and verification. These programs must demonstrate that they lead to in-demand jobs.

Participating programs will typically last eight to 15 weeks (or as little as 150 hours), catering to adults who can’t pause their lives for a two- or four-year degree. The department’s examples include emergency medical technician and automotive mechanic training, credentials that are directly tied to employment.

This performance element is key, because the U.S. has a long history of short-term programs with glossy marketing and weak payoff. If Workforce Pell becomes an ATM for low-value credentials, it won’t expand opportunity; it will expand regret. So accountability is built into its program eligibility requirements, something unusual in higher education policy.

Two measures in particular have drawn the most attention, because they are hard to fake.

The first is a mandatory 70% program completion rate and a 70% job placement rate within a defined period. The second is a price-to-value concept, meaning tuition and fees must total less than the amount program completers will earn above 150% of the federal poverty line within three years, adjusted for local cost of living. Programs are ineligible for Workforce Pell if the cost exceeds the calculated earnings gain.

These guardrails are intended to prevent Pell from subsidizing pricey programs that don’t raise income enough to justify the expense. Workforce Pell is not a blank check. It’s an invitation to innovate and produce receipts, with built-in accountability based on the premise that public dollars come with public proof. 

Its success will hinge on whether states can do three things well.

First, states need to build data muscle fast. Workforce Pell accountability leans heavily on wage records, completion data and employer validation. That’s easier said than done, especially when states have fragmented systems, limited longitudinal data capacity and uneven links between education and labor agencies.

Second, states must decide what counts as job placement and enforce it. In the rulemaking discussions, this was a contentious issue. If placement is defined too loosely, accountability becomes theater. If it’s defined too rigidly, few programs will qualify and the policy will never reach scale.

Third, states must determine which noncredit workforce programs qualify for Workforce Pell grants. Some of the most promising short-term training is noncredit. But some warn that states may lack the information needed to judge these programs, and that opening the door without robust data could invite bad actors. 

For providers, the message is to prepare for accountability that more closely resembles workforce policy than traditional higher education. The consensus framework is explicitly designed to strengthen connections among institutions, states and employers.

And the timeline is tight. The next step is for the department to publish the consensus document as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, followed by final rules in late spring, to meet the July 1 implementation deadline. Providers that wait for the final Federal Register notice before building employer partnerships, improving completion supports and cleaning up outcomes reporting will be playing catch-up.

Workforce Pell cannot become just another funding stream. If states treat it as a chance to align training, transparency and outcomes, it could become a genuine mobility engine. Here are five practical steps that state leaders can take to make this happen.

1) Someone must own the program-approval pipeline and the outcomes dashboard. Governors should designate a lead agency, like an existing or restructured state workforce board, to convene employers and validate demand.

2) Build a fast but fair approval process with a public list of eligible programs. Students should clearly see which qualify, and why. Keep the approval rubric short, legible and auditable. If it takes a compliance consultant to understand, you’ve already lost.

3) Define clearly what job placement means. If placement counts for determining Workforce Pell eligibility, the definition must be public, consistent and tied to real employment, not vague positive outcomes. This is where the accountability bargain either earns trust or forfeits it.

4) Invest now in data capacity and cross-agency sharing. States that maintain unemployment insurance wage records have a powerful tool if they can securely link them to education and training data. That data plumbing is the difference between an accountable program and a paperwork program.

5) Protect students from the Pell depletion trap. Workforce Pell counts against lifetime Pell eligibility, so low-value programs don’t just waste time; they can reduce future options. States should require clear disclosures for students and steer them toward credential pathways that lead to jobs that promote real opportunity and upward mobility.

Workforce Pell is about time: shorter programs, faster training, quicker entry to earnings. The department has now moved the policy from legislative concept to a consensus regulatory framework with a real launch date.

From here, the leading actors are not just federal negotiators. They’re governors, workforce boards, state data leaders and providers who can demonstrate that their programs lead to real jobs and higher pay. That’s the new bargain. And for once in higher education, accountability isn’t the afterthought. It’s the deal.

announced on Thursday a new initiative called “FutureReady States” with the goal of increasing access to education and credential training that “pays off in the labor market.” Lumina — a private foundation based in Indianapolis — and partner organizations will do that by offering states technical assistance and policy guidance, according to a press release.

In 12 states, including North Carolina, Lumina will make investments “to improve credential quality and learning outcomes,” the release said. , one of five intermediary organizations, will work with the foundation in North Carolina.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ Newsletter

The other states included in the initiative are Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Part of the initiative will be promoting short-term credential programs, which Lumina says have become pathways into industries such as health care, manufacturing, information technology, and logistics.

Kermit Kaleba, Lumina’s strategy director for credentials of value, said in a press briefing that businesses and learners are interested in quick, short-term credentials that provide the necessary skills to be successful. He defined short-term credential programs as those lasting between eight weeks and one year.

He also said there is reason for caution: Since short-term credentials haven’t received much federal or state funding in the past, not much research has gone into the upsides and downsides.

Nevertheless, they are receiving attention — and funding — now.

“States are spending money on these credentials,” Kaleba said. “We are making these investments — our job at Lumina is to help states think about how we maximize the value of these investments.”

States have invested, and so has the federal government. While the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” recently signed into law by President Donald Trump, cut Pell Grant funding overall, it also to short-term job training programs.

In North Carolina, short-term credential programs are already funded through a .

Lumina will be partnering with , which is part of the North Carolina Workforce Credentials Council. The council also includes the Office of the Governor, the North Carolina Community Colleges System, the Department of Public Instruction, and more organizations.

According to myFutureNC, the FutureReady States initiative will build on the work of the North Carolina Workforce Credentials Council.

Cecilia Holden, president and CEO of myFutureNC, said in a press release that the initiative could contribute to the goal her organization has already set.

“Success, to us, means building a system where every credential earned helps close the skills gap for employers—and where every learner has a clear, supported path to economic mobility,” said Holden. “What excites us most is the initiative’s potential to accelerate progress toward our statewide goal: ensuring that two million North Carolinians ages 25 to 44 hold an industry-valued college degree or short-term credential by 2030.”

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

The U.S. now ranks 20^th globally in post-high school attainment among 25- to 34-year-olds, according to , the latest look at educational achievement around the world. That means proportionally fewer Americans in this age group earn associate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, or other credentials than their international peers. Meanwhile, countries such as South Korea (69.3% attainment), Canada (66.9%) and Japan (65.5%) have surged ahead by prioritizing education and workforce development through sustained public investment, affordability initiatives and alignment with labor market needs.

In contrast, with an attainment rate of just under , the U.S. has seen investment in higher education stagnate, leading to rising tuition costs and declining confidence in the value of a degree. , cuts to state university budgets and even some college closures have only deepened the crisis, leaving fewer resources for student services, academic programs and the educators who deliver them. Instead of strengthening the system that once made America an economic powerhouse, the country is retreating, and the consequences are dire.

Other nations understand that a highly educated workforce is critical to economic success. For decades, they have expanded public investment, updated education systems to match evolving industries and strengthened workforce training programs. By prioritizing lifelong learning and ensuring education leads to economic mobility, these nations have steadily closed the gap and, in some cases, surpassed the U.S. in educational attainment and workforce readiness.  

and provide tuition-free higher education, funded by public investment, that ensures equitable access to learning opportunities. Germany’s integrates classroom learning with paid, on-the-job training, producing well-prepared graduates for industry demands. has a vocational education system that allows students to split their time between school and work in fields like health care, information technology and advanced manufacturing. Singapore’s program gives adults financial credits they can use to pursue short courses and certificates at any stage of their careers. In adults can attend publicly funded retraining programs to gain new skills when industries shift or disappear.

Other nations are also making strategic investments. Australia has reformed its higher education funding to increase accessibility, particularly for low-income students, by and offering . The United Kingdom has introduced requires large employers to help fund job training programs, strengthening the link between schools and workplaces.

The U.S. must take note. In the modern era, America has always led the world in higher education, which has fueled its workforce, industry, research and virtually all sectors that drive its economy. Without a renewed commitment to education beyond high school and workforce alignment, the country risks falling further behind in global competitiveness.

because too many Americans pay more for degrees without clear economic returns. Yet, in the power of education to unlock opportunity. The challenge is ensuring that their investments lead to stable employment, career growth and financial security. The issue is not education itself; it is the failure to make it affordable, relevant and aligned with workforce needs.

Restoring faith in higher education means making college affordable through increased public funding, expanded need-based aid and lower tuition. , for example, provides students with financial support through grants, making higher education accessible without overwhelming debt. Credentials must have clear economic value: has developed strong partnerships between universities and industries, ensuring graduates have the skills necessary for emerging job markets, particularly in technology and health care. America must invest in workforce-aligned programs that prepare students for high-demand, high-wage industries in the same way education has fueled its technology and manufacturing sectors, making it a global leader in innovation.

When more individuals hold high-value credentials, workforce participation increases, financial security becomes attainable for more families and economic growth accelerates. But these benefits won’t materialize without action. Federal and state governments must prioritize education funding, align learning with workforce needs and reaffirm education as a public good.

The global economy is evolving, and the U.S. must evolve with it. Other nations invest boldly in education to fuel their economies, while the U.S. risks falling further behind and ceding its global leadership. Higher education drives innovation, opportunity and national strength. Countries worldwide are demonstrating what’s possible when governments commit to education as a pillar of economic strategy. The U.S. must follow suit before it’s too late.