Find partners
Work Forces

Work Forces

Hosted by Work Forces

BusinessEducationInterviews guests

Episodes

77

Latest episode

Aug 2026

Language

EN-US

About the show

Seeking to optimize your organization for the future of work and learning? Join workforce and education strategists Julian Alssid and Kaitlin LeMoine as they speak with the innovators who are shaping the future of workforce and career preparation. Together, they will unpack the big problems these individuals are solving and discuss the strategies and tactics that really work. This bi-weekly show is for practitioners and policymakers looking for practical workforce and learning solutions that can be scaled and sustained.

Listen to episodes

60 recent
August 18, 2026Episode 133 min

Alexandra Simon: Building High-Quality Youth Apprenticeship Pathways

Alexandra Simon, Senior Policy Analyst with the Center on Education and Labor at New America and a key contributor to the Partnership to Advance Youth Apprenticeship (PAYA), discusses what it takes to build youth apprenticeship programs that are rigorous, equitable, and ready to scale. Drawing on her experience leading technical assistance for U.S. Department of Labor Youth Apprenticeship Readiness Grants and her recent report "Employers Report Four Indirect Benefits of Youth Apprenticeship," Alexandra reframes youth apprenticeship not just as a talent pipeline strategy, but as an organizational development investment that strengthens managers, renews employee engagement, and improves training systems across the board. The conversation explores how youth apprenticeship differs from internships and other work-based learning experiences, why the field looks so different from state to state and community to community, and what it takes to bring employers to the table. Alexandra also walks through PAYA's five quality principles for high-quality youth apprenticeship, makes the case for starting small and building toward programs that prepare young people for both college and career, and offers practical guidance for educators, employers, and policymakers who want to expand access to youth apprenticeships in their own communities. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our Work Forces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast, and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Kaitlin LeMoine: Welcome to Season 7 of Work Forces. As we head into a new season and a new school year, we're excited to kick off the season by further exploring a theme that has been running through our recent podcast conversations: the growing recognition that career preparation can't wait until the end of a student's journey. Whether we're talking about gateway courses in higher education or career and technical education at the secondary level, there is increasing momentum around the idea that young people need earlier, more scaffolded exposure to the world of work. Julian Alssid: That's right, Kaitlin. And yet, as promising as that momentum is, the field is far from uniform. Youth apprenticeship, one of the most rigorous models we have for connecting young people to careers, is taking many forms. And employers, even those who want to engage, don't always see a clear path to doing so. So the question isn't just what are the various ways to engage learners in early career preparation. It's how we build pathways that are coherent enough to scale, rigorous enough to mean something, and compelling enough to bring employers to the table. Kaitlin LeMoine: And all of this brings us to our guest today. Alexandra Simon is a senior policy analyst with the Center on Education and Labor at New America, where she supports youth transitions from high school to post-secondary education and careers. Alexandra contributes to the partnership to advance youth apprenticeship, known as PAYA, through research, technical assistance, and strategic communications, and has spent her career working at the intersection of youth apprenticeship, work-based learning, and career pathways. Before joining New America, she led technical assistance for US Departments of Education and Labor initiatives focused on youth apprenticeship, work-based learning, and career pathways. And she began her career as a high school Spanish teacher. Alexandra, welcome to Work Forces. We're so glad to have you with us to kick off our new season. Alexandra Simon: It's a pleasure to be here. Julian Alssid: So glad you've taken the time to join us. And to kick things off, if you will, tell us in your own words about your background and the path that brought you to your current role at New America. Alexandra Simon: After teaching in several states and overseas, I transitioned into the nonprofit space. And I had the opportunity to lead the technical assistance for US Department of Labor's Youth Apprenticeship Readiness Grants, which kicked off in 2020 and ran through 2024. And that's where I really became passionate about youth apprenticeship. I like to say I drank the apprenticeship Kool-Aid. Since then, my work has expanded to include not only youth apprenticeship, but also more broadly, career and technical education, work-based learning, dual enrollment, and other pathways work that really help young people successfully transition from high school to college and careers. And today at New America, I support the partnership to advance youth apprenticeship, PAYA for short, through research, technical assistance, strategic communications, and also working with grantees who are implementing the boots-on-the-ground youth apprenticeships. Kaitlin LeMoine: Youth apprenticeship, I feel like it can be used interchangeably with other terms or feel similar to other terms we often hear in this space, like internships or work-based learning or pre-apprenticeships. Can you help us understand what youth apprenticeships are, what makes them distinct, and where PAYA and the definitions created through PAYA fit within that broader landscape? Alexandra Simon: So I'm going to start with the broadest term here, which is work-based learning. And that really spans a continuum from things like short-term experiences, like job shadowing, or maybe having guest speakers come to schools from employers to talk about their organizations or certain jobs. And then that continuum goes all the way to more sustained activities like internships. And then on the far side, apprenticeships, which was a really good lead-in earlier to explain how rigorous and aligned with occupations apprenticeships can be. So let's look from the perspective of a young person. An internship for a young person, I think the biggest distinction or confusion becomes between an internship and apprenticeship. So I'm going to break that down. An internship's really a chance to explore a career and gain experience. But an apprenticeship is a pathway into a career, a specific occupation where you're hired from the start. You receive structured training, you have a mentor that you're paired with to help you learn this occupation, and you build the skills needed for that occupation while earning a wage. Oftentimes you hear this term "earn and learn." So you're immediately an employee of the company and you're also learning on the job through on-the-job training. And I think this really matters because apprenticeships and internships are designed to achieve different goals, right? If an employer simply wants to identify some promising talent, an internship might be enough. But if they're struggling to find workers with specialized, hands-on skills, an apprenticeship really allows them to grow that talent themselves. And so I want people to think of internships and apprenticeships as complementary tools, not competing ones, but they are very different in that way. And so I think our work at New America, we have defined what a quality youth apprenticeship is. And I think our version of youth apprenticeship is very specific because youth apprenticeship from PAYA's perspective should start when a youth is between the ages of 16 to 18, like high school age. A lot of youth apprenticeships do start in high school. Some of them might start right at the tail end of high school, so you're identifying that you're going to go into a youth apprenticeship, but you're maybe not starting it until right towards the end of high school for various reasons. Julian Alssid: So to dig deeper into apprenticeships then, you recently wrote a report about the indirect benefits of youth apprenticeship that employers experience and gain from participating in youth apprenticeship programs. Great if you would walk us through that report, the key findings, and what surprised you the most? Alexandra Simon: So the findings from the report, what they really do is reframe youth apprenticeship not just as a talent pipeline strategy, which is how we often look at it, but also as an organizational development strategy for employers. I would say the biggest takeaways from our research were that employers defined benefits that went far beyond filling that future pipeline. And for this report, we did interview six employers across IT and advanced manufacturing; they were training youth apprentices in those two sectors and occupations. And while they definitely valued developing this future talent, we heard from employers about how youth apprenticeship actually made their existing organizations stronger. And so there's not a lot done on youth apprenticeship specifically. There's a lot of return on investment or ROI studies on apprenticeship more broadly, but we really wanted to dig into indirect benefits that are harder to quantify. So that's what we did for this study, and we really identified four major indirect benefits from the interviews that we conducted with employers. And I'll start off with how youth apprenticeship really renewed employee engagement. We had mentors and also just co-workers who worked alongside the youth apprentices describe a real sense of pride and purpose in helping young people succeed. It created what many coined this "proud parent effect," where it's just exciting to work alongside young people and to see them hit milestones in their lives and be a part of that process. I'd say the second, and I found most surprising finding, was the manager development finding. Across broader apprenticeship research, we do see that developing managers is considered like a nice bonus. But in youth apprenticeship, it actually emerges as one of the strongest and most consistent findings across every employer that we interviewed, as opposed to just being like a middle-of-the-pack finding in general apprenticeship research. It's a leading finding across youth apprenticeships. And I really think that's because when you're working with youth, they need really intentional coaching, feedback, and opportunities. The supervision looks a little bit different. And I think people, honestly, from speaking with the employers, they're really thoughtful about understanding that there's different learning styles, that youth might need additional support. And so as a result, these employers were building leadership skills like communication, empathy, coaching, giving feedback to youth in ways that maybe they wouldn't think about giving feedback to an adult to make sure that they're really learning during their apprenticeship. I think it's an important thing to consider that perspective. And also these things are really valuable in today's workplace—the ability to communicate with people and to be able to give this level of feedback. So in many ways, we see youth apprenticeship was really developing two types of talent at the same time, right? So they're developing the apprentice themselves, but they're also developing the mentor because those individuals were improving upon their skills. And some of them may not have been managers before. The third finding was that apprentices sparked collaboration. So if you speak with young people today, you might know that they have different ideas than people our age. And so they might bring in challenges to assumptions that adults have already made. And sometimes that even went further than just the actual organization. Some of the work that was coming out of youth apprenticeships actually moved across regional ecosystems, coming together with other organizations or employers to build deeper this youth apprenticeship landscape in their local community. And finally, every single employer did say that youth apprenticeship raised the quality of their training because they had to make it accessible to young people. What they did was they built better onboarding, they built clearer frameworks and more structured learning materials. And the interesting part about this is that it didn't just benefit the apprentices; a lot of these organizations actually adopted these materials for their overall onboarding. And so it ended up improving training for organizations, not just for their youth apprentices, but also for their organization as a whole. So I really think that the broad message from this study is that youth apprenticeship isn't just an investment in young people, it's actually an investment in the organization itself. And so when employers think about building this talent pipeline, they can also leave with stronger managers, better training systems, and more engaged employees who get excited about going to work because they are training that next generation. They are passing on the skills that they've learned, their knowledge. I mentioned that that manager development finding really surprised me the most because we did expect employers to talk about future talent, but we didn't really expect every single employer to talk about how mentoring apprentices accelerated leadership for their current employees. So that's really seen as a secondary benefit, but in this case for youth apprenticeship, it's one of the defining outcomes of our study. Kaitlin LeMoine: So when you were conducting this study, I'm curious to know, where kind of how far and how deep into the process were the employers that you spoke to around the implementation of youth apprenticeships? Because it seems like there has to be some infrastructure in place, there has to be some existing policies, procedures, I would imagine, in order to really get these programs running smoothly. Would just love to get a better sense of where were the employers in that process that you had spoken to and any other insights you'd offer, maybe to employers who have thought about starting youth apprenticeships, but maybe are looking to dip their toe in the water around how to go about doing this. Because like these indirect benefits are amazing, but how far down the path do you need to be to start to feel those indirect benefits and what needs to be in place? Alexandra Simon: That's a great question. And honestly, it was one of the first things that we considered when we started to plan for this research. And so we had to shift our parameters a little bit because I think we were a little bit ambitious. Let's talk to employers who've been working with youth apprentices for like four or more years and are serving at least two to fifteen apprentices at a time. And then we narrowed it down to employers who'd worked with youth apprentices for two years or longer. And part of that is that you're right, this is something that can be a little bit challenging to find employers who have been doing it maybe for a little bit longer. But in our case, it was because we wanted to be careful in the sample that we were looking at. So we decided to make it more occupation-specific: employers who were working within what we call an emerging field, which we felt was IT or information technology occupations, and then an established field, which was advanced manufacturing, and just really see if maybe an apprenticeship field like advanced manufacturing that's been around for a long time had differences in how their youth apprenticeships benefited their organization versus organizations that might have newer apprenticeship programs like information technology. But we ended up making sure that they met these bare minimums so that we had something across the board where we could say, we didn't want someone who just started a program, it was their first year, but someone who had been doing it for at least two years. And I think it was really helpful. And I'd say in future iterations, if we want to dive deeper, expanding to make sure that we do include employers who are training youth apprentices in other occupations. Julian Alssid: Did you get a sense of how employers are even becoming involved with youth apprenticeship? When looking across the country, first of all, apprenticeship is one thing, but the idea of youth apprenticeships is a whole other ballgame. And I do think that for many employers, the perception is that this is a heavy lift, it's a lot of work, how do you do it? And then with respect to youth apprenticeships, states vary in what they even consider youth apprenticeships. So how are employers getting involved? And can you speak a little bit to the types of employers that are being drawn to this? Alexandra Simon: The types of employers really vary. You have small employers that might only employ one or two youth apprentices at a time ever because that's really their capacity, their small business. And then you have employers that are maybe even on the Fortune 500 list who are looking at youth apprenticeship as building their talent in larger cities, and they don't want to miss out on the opportunity to train young people. And I think they're seeing a lot of benefits from the cultural impacts as well. But getting employers on board is definitely one of the biggest challenges in youth apprenticeship. I think organizations that are, for example, originally European-based, maybe they're more familiar with the apprenticeship model, and so the idea of creating a youth apprenticeship program is not so foreign. They're like, yes, they've done that before, just in another country, and so now they're willing to do that here. I really think the best way that employers get involved in youth apprenticeship is when there's really a need for their industry and for their organization. They're seeing a talent shortage and it is a clear path to filling that talent shortage, but it is a little bit of a long-term game, right? You're not just getting someone to come on board who's going to be trained in six weeks, go through boot camp—no, that's not the apprenticeship model. But what they see as the benefit when it's outlined for them is that you get this different level of understanding about an organization when you go through an apprenticeship. You build strong connections with an organization; as the young person, you have a different sense of loyalty and there's a different level of engagement company-wide that we saw in this study by all the individuals that work in an organization that train apprentices. It's also really a way to ensure that someone that you hire is going to learn the job the way that you need it to be done because you're training them from essentially the ground up to learn this specific occupation. And that's why it has a lot of success and a lot of positive outcomes. Because when a young person agrees to do a youth apprenticeship in a specific field, whether it's IT, advanced manufacturing, maybe healthcare, which is another emerging industry, they know that they're going to leave trained to do that job and that either the employer themselves is likely to hire them or they're in a local community where that's a need. Like, for example, healthcare—we know that's a huge need that just continues to grow in our country, and so there will be jobs that will align and the employer will have jobs also available for that young person. So I think it's just really making sure that the employer is aligned with understanding the labor market, the possibilities that come from training young people. And I would say there's also a bit of—I don't really necessarily think it's risk-taking, but it's not that common. So employers, when they hear from other employers, that helps so much. When they hear about success, like "we started a youth apprenticeship program, and this is what we're seeing as the outcomes for our participants," that really helps employers understand and get on board when they're looking to potentially start a program. Kaitlin LeMoine: So PAYA is approaching its 10th anniversary as a partnership. And we understand there's significant investment flowing into the apprenticeship and youth apprenticeship space. How do we think about scaling youth apprenticeships, recognizing, like you said, so much of the variability that exists? PAYA has some existing quality principles and a guide, but how do we think about scaling this effort, because like you said, some of the challenges are that it takes people a while to get going. And then what is transferable? What are transferable learnings, and what is really truly specific to one employer or one region or one state? Would love to hear you riff on that a little bit. Alexandra Simon: Yeah, so I think we're really at an exciting moment right now with the investments in youth apprenticeship from organizations like Bloomberg Philanthropies and Siemens, who has this Careers Electric initiative. And it's really just such a great opportunity. But when you talk about scale, I think it's really a reminder that how we scale matters just as much as how fast we scale. And that's really where PAYA's quality principles come in. To me, they're really the gold standard for designing youth apprenticeship programs and systems. The five quality principles—and I'm just going to quickly go through them, but you can find them on the New America website if you want to dig in deeper—emphasize that programs should be career-oriented, equitable, portable, adaptable, and accountable. And that really helps ensure that youth apprenticeship isn't just another work-based learning experience, but that it's a high-quality pathway that prepares young people—and I want to really push this—for both college and careers. A lot of times we hear "or college or career," but high-quality youth apprenticeship will prepare you for both. And so that's really something to grow towards. And I think that communities get overwhelmed when you see these principles or when you learn about what goes into a youth apprenticeship because there are a lot of different factors like the on-the-job training, the related technical instruction, having a mentor. But communities don't have to have every principle from PAYA realized on day one. For example, building that transferable college credit that we push might take a year or more to build that partnership between the community college system and the K through 12 system and the employer to make sure that you're getting those courses right, that you have the instructors that can teach those courses, and how they fit in with the high school curriculum that's already there. So what I think is really important is that the principles guide the work from the start, but know that you don't have to check every single box on day one. And growing youth apprenticeship programs, the most successful programs that I have seen from working with grantees, from working with organizations that we partner with to showcase their work, they start small. They don't start with 50 youth apprentices; they start with one or two. And so I'm really encouraged that a lot of these investments are understanding that you have to start at the beginning. So you're actually looking at career technical education and how can we get more courses aligned with the occupations or fields that are in need, whether it's the skilled trades or pre-apprenticeships, to prepare young people to go into an apprenticeship ahead of time. And I also really like that a lot of these investments are mirroring PAYA's approach in many ways, like focusing on sectors: skilled trades, healthcare, information technology. And I think that sector-based strategy really helps employers collaborate. It's going to create a stronger career pathway for a student because it's very concrete that they're going into a specific sector they're interested in. And I think ultimately this level of cooperation in the sectors will make programs more sustainable over time. So I really think that the two big things that I would push are: know that you can start small, and know that you want to be able to make sure that youth apprenticeships prepare young people for both college and career. Kaitlin LeMoine: Recognizing that youth apprenticeships draw on, as is in PAYA's name, partnership across employers and educational institutions, where do you find that the youth apprenticeships tend to stem from? Where does the conversation start? Because it feels like it could start with a high school, an employer, or an industry association of some kind. Do you find that there are common places where the idea of youth apprenticeship originates in different communities, or does it range? Alexandra Simon: I think it's really a range from my experience. For example, when I look at our grantees that we support in developing, building, and sustaining youth apprenticeships, they really run the gamut. So we have, for example, school districts, community-based organizations, intermediaries, and employers. And so I think one of the things that when we give youth apprenticeship 101 training to folks is that there's always someone in the middle who's functioning as an intermediary. Intermediary can mean so many things, but essentially they're the person that's linking everyone together. And so then you also have a combination of the K-12 system, the higher ed system—because we want to have those college credits and courses, dual enrollment—and then you also have the employer, and you might also have an intermediary. But where we've seen the leadership happen, it could be a community college system. Trident Technical College is a great example. They kind of spearheaded the Charleston Regional Youth Apprenticeship system, and they're a community college system that brings together three school districts in their area that all work together to build, develop, and sustain these youth apprenticeships with employers. And the employers have been a key part of building the apprenticeship system in Charleston. So I think really what you just asked, it works best when everyone comes to the table. And it's actually much harder to do when it's only a K to 12 school system or when it's only a community college, because you need to work collaboratively to really have a successful program and you need to work with all those entities from the beginning. It's really hard if like a community college system and a K to 12 system come together and say, "we want to do youth apprenticeship for our students." I think that's fabulous, but we need industry there, we need to have the employer, it needs to really be aligned. Where I see a lot of opportunity is looking at what already exists in K-12 in career technical education and what's the labor market need for communities on the local level. And can we align that? Because I do think it's a lot easier, working with grantees over the years, to build something when there's already a foundation—if there's already, for example, a pathway in education or in healthcare in the high school CTE program. And then you have an employer that has a need—and it might actually be the K to 12 school system that needs educators or paraprofessionals, right? And so you take those two things and you work to align them and be really strategic, and build out youth apprenticeship as a part of those work-based learning opportunities that might already be happening. Work-based learning, like the little things that I talked about earlier like job shadowing or having guest speakers, those are also the beginnings of a youth apprenticeship. When you can get an employer to come in and get to know students, or you can bring students to their work site and they get to see how excited these young people are to learn about their company, to learn about the occupations that they offer, that can spark an interest to go deeper and to build on what they're already doing. Julian Alssid: You paint a wonderful picture of collaboration, and as we always say, workforce development's a multidisciplinary undertaking, and clearly this is a great example. Given that our podcast is Work Forces, we always ask our guests: what would you recommend to educators, employers, policymakers who want to become forces in expanding access to high-quality youth apprenticeship? Very specifically, how do they get involved? If they really want to drive this forward in their community, whichever seat or role they're in, how do you recommend doing that? Alexandra Simon: Well, from a practical level, I would recommend that they start by understanding the landscape in their own community. I think that youth apprenticeship is really regional and locally driven, as all apprenticeships are. Youth apprenticeship is a special opportunity, and so there is a lot of knowledge building. I would really recommend folks who are already starting to do this work or interested in doing the work that they learn more about PAYA and potentially, if they're looking to start a youth apprenticeship, they join the PAYA network. It's not something that we keep open on a rolling basis typically, but we will be accepting applications towards the end of the year. And when you join our network—and this is free, there's no cost to it—it allows you to have access to learning opportunities. For example, we just held a healthcare-specific meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, at Trident Technical College, to learn all about healthcare youth apprenticeships. We also have the National Youth Apprenticeship Summit that happens every year in the fall; this year it's November 17th through 19th in Denver, Colorado, co-led with one of our partners, CareerWise. So I would say going to something like that, getting tuned into our webinars that we offer through the PAYA network or through PAYA more broadly, that's a really great way. I think once you understand how youth apprenticeship works, you can dig a little bit deeper. I think the other thing is to really understand that these opportunities do need support. So policymakers can become cheerleaders; we see a lot of policymakers in the U.S. at the state level really pushing to expand youth apprenticeship, creating opportunities in states like Delaware, Maryland, and Florida, knowing that you can build a robust youth apprenticeship system within your state. It doesn't always have to be at the federal level. So I think that's another thing. But definitely tune into the PAYA network. And another way that you can learn more about these opportunities is to check in your local community and see who is doing the career technical education work. Like a very personal example, I'm applying to be on a committee for career technical education at my local school district because I want to better understand that. So if you're in the workforce development space already, get involved and understand how you can learn to grow these things. If you're an employer, see what else is out there and if you can learn from individuals already doing this work. And I think that we're going to see more of a push for sector-specific collaboration and growth and that there's going to be a lot of opportunities forthcoming. Kaitlin LeMoine: Great. Well, thank you so much for providing all of those resources and materials. And as we close out our conversation today, I would also love to invite you to share how listeners can continue to learn more about you and your work and follow what you're doing on a regular basis. Alexandra Simon: Great. Well, thank you so much for having me. If you want to connect with me, you can find me on LinkedIn, Alexandra Simon. And I do share the work that I'm doing at New America, and I'll probably also be sharing the work that I'm doing in my community as well. But also subscribe to our newsletters at New America. So if you go to newamerica.org/subscribe, you can select subscribing to "Education & Work" and PAYA newsletters, and that's where you're going to hear a lot of the latest information on this work. And you can also follow us on LinkedIn at the Partnership to Advance Youth Apprenticeship (PAYA) and New America Education Policy Program as well. Julian Alssid: Well, thank you so much, Alexandra. Really, this is chock-full of amazing information that everyone should act on. So appreciate your taking the time to speak with us today, and we look forward to continuing to follow your work. Alexandra Simon: Great. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I love talking about youth apprenticeship and I hope that if listeners want to learn more about youth apprenticeship, that you do reach out. Kaitlin LeMoine: Thanks again for joining us. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and a special thanks to our producer, Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you're interested in learning more about Workforce Consulting, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

August 4, 2026Episode 1637 min

Work Forces Rewind: Haley Glover: Building Employer Upskilling Strategies

Haley Glover, Senior Director of UpSkill America at the Aspen Institute, discusses how businesses can effectively upskill their workforce in an AI-driven economy. Drawing on her experience at Lumina Foundation, Amazon, and the Aspen Institute, Glover explains how upskilling has shifted from talent acquisition crisis management to strategic workforce planning focused on validated skills. She details findings from The Upskilling Playbook, emphasizing that successful AI adoption requires thoughtful, worker-focused training aligned with business strategy—not just technology purchases driven by peer pressure. The conversation also explores the All Learning Counts initiative, which advocates for recognizing skills regardless of where they were acquired, and new research on internship programs showing how companies find value through talent pipeline development, retention, and innovation from fresh thinking. Glover addresses distinct challenges facing small versus large employers and offers practical guidance for learners, educators, advocates, and employers to build resilient upskilling programs that withstand economic shocks. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our workforce consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. Julian Alssid: We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast, and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Julian Alssid: As we continue our summer break before returning with a new season later in August, we're revisiting our conversation with Haley Glover of UpSkill America. With AI reshaping jobs faster than most organizations can respond, and so much in flux around how we fund and support workforce development, this conversation feels more relevant than ever. Haley discusses how businesses can effectively upskill their workforce in an ever-changing, AI-driven economy, while recognizing this is an ongoing and unfolding conversation. We hope you enjoy it. Here's our episode with Haley Glover. Julian Alssid: Kaitlin, so much of the conversation around the future of work focuses on the what—what skills are needed, what jobs are disappearing. But the harder question, and the one that really determines success, is the how. How do businesses actually help their existing employees develop the skills they need to succeed in a changing economy? Kaitlin LeMoine: Absolutely. While we know the need for and importance of upskilling initiatives, actually building an effective system that helps workers grow and advance is a really complex undertaking for employers. Julian Alssid: Right. It's one thing to agree that upskilling is necessary; it's another to have a playbook that works for both the employee and the bottom line. To create that playbook, we need guidance from leaders who understand both the policy landscape and the operational reality of business. Kaitlin LeMoine: Exactly. We need that along with insight into researched best practices across industries. And luckily, today we're joined by someone who brings that multi-sector perspective to the table. Today we're speaking with Haley Glover, Senior Director of UpSkill America, a national initiative of the Aspen Institute Economic Opportunities Program. UpSkill America drives research and efforts that promote employer-led education and training to help workers advance and help businesses compete. Julian Alssid: Prior to this role, Haley was Senior Program Manager at Amazon, where she led college programming for the company's Career Choice team. And before that, she served as a Strategy Director at Lumina Foundation—which is where we first met Haley—leading efforts to reduce racial disparities in credential attainment. Haley holds a bachelor's degree from Franklin College, a Master of Liberal Arts from St. John's College Graduate Institute, and an MPA from Syracuse University. Haley, welcome to Work Forces, we're thrilled to have you with us. Haley Glover: Thanks, guys. Good morning. Julian Alssid: Please tell us, in your own words, about your background and what led you to your role at Aspen Institute. Haley Glover: In the spirit of time, I will give you the short journey instead of the meandering one. But fun story: you mentioned I was at Lumina Foundation, and I was there for a very long time—about 11 and a half, 12 years. I not only led the work in my last four years at Lumina focusing on eliminating racial disparities and that kind of thing, I also led portfolios focused on what we called "employer mobilization," which in my glib moments I described as getting employers to do stuff. But it was really focused on understanding and motivating how employers can take their considerable resources, influence, and that unique positioning in employees' lives to mobilize toward the credential attainment mission. Back in 2015, when UpSkill started, I actually was one of the first funders of UpSkill at Aspen and helped try to kick that off back in the day. So my time with UpSkill started right at the beginning. Obviously, the initiative changed a lot over a decade, along with the economy, the workforce, and all of the things. But that is how I found myself here about three and a half years ago. This idea, this question about how employers can not only benefit from investment in skill development but create benefits for individuals, their companies, society, and our country—that has been a throughline of work that I've been doing for quite a long time. Between my past life as an educator, working in economic development, working in nonprofits, government, and philanthropy, as well as the private sector, that's been the river running through my work: trying to blend the streams and get more people to think very critically about how we leverage all of the power we need to get people the skills they need to thrive. Kaitlin LeMoine: Thank you for that overview and that story of how you got to where you are. I'm curious to know: how has the focus of your work through UpSkill America evolved over the last few years? You mentioned all the changes that are occurring—what do you see as the primary focus, and how do you see that shifting? Haley Glover: That is a fantastic question. I think there's a very simple answer, which is that the economy we're in in January 2026 is not the economy we were in when I came to UpSkill back in the summer of 2022. Three and a half years ago, employers were absolutely just falling over themselves to acquire and retain talent. The question of the time was: how do I find people with the right skills? How do I keep people with the right skills? How do I get the mass that I need in order to proceed? That is not the question now. Now, I think employers are really leaning into: what skills and competencies do I actually need to not only fill tasks and roles that I have right now, but to take me into the future? How do I not just retain talent, but retain the right talent in particular roles that are going to have strategic value for me going forward? How do I create robust pipelines that guarantee that I, as an employer, am not going to be wasting time, energy, and effort on the upfront acquisition? How do I build my workforce strategy muscles in order to understand with much more nuance and robustness this idea of what I'm going to need in the future? So, it's pivoted from a "fire on my front line right now" focus three or four years ago to a need to think much more critically about what's down the road and into the future. That's been huge. From the work that UpSkill is doing, we've leaned more heavily into this idea of getting much more specific and intentional. With the addition of AI—which is both a positive in that it can help people do things with less time, energy, and effort, but also a complicator—you've got this skills validation issue. I just read a piece the other day about a $600 billion resume fraud issue, which is really asking the question about skills validation. We are trying to make sure that (1) we get people to understand and be recognized for the things that they know and are able to do, regardless of where they acquired them. We've been calling this movement "All Learning Counts" for a very long time. It is this idea that it shouldn't matter whether you attended the most prestigious elite institution or you gained your skills through work. If you've got the same skills, you should be competing in the same way. What we do right now is we conflate a lot of different things with being "better" at something instead of really understanding what people can really bring to the table. So this idea of skills validation has become a much more important part of our work because it addresses both sides of the coin: employers need validated skills, and people need to understand their own skill set. A lot of people will go through education programs, training programs, and work experiences and not develop what we call this metacognition of what they know. Knowing what you know and knowing what you're able to do can be a very powerful, empowering scenario for an individual. It can also be the thing that sets you apart in an interview or a process because you can say, "I know what I know, and here's how I know it, and here's what I did to show it." We're also trying to really help the employer get specific about what skills they need and how to find them through this validated skills movement. So, we're much deeper into technology than I think we ever thought we would be, or that I ever wanted to be, frankly, because it is not my primary language. But it is the method that I think will ultimately produce the right kind of results for both people and the employers they work for. Julian Alssid: So Haley, I mentioned earlier in your intro that we need that playbook—how do you do it? You have produced a playbook: The Upskilling Playbook: AI Skill Development in the Workforce. Tell us about it. What are your findings? What have you learned, and what's in that playbook? Haley Glover: Yeah. Well, so the playbook is not just that AI chapter, which was our latest addition, but essentially pulling together all of the things we've been learning, doing, hearing, and writing about for many years now. The idea is that companies are not necessarily encouraged or inclined to share the things that they're doing. In fact, a lot of companies will fight against that sharing because it's "secret sauce"—the thing that we do that creates our own special business value. So when we have the opportunity to share broadly—like "here's what's worked at one company," or "here are results from another company," or "here's a process that appears to work across multiple companies"—that's our bread-and-butter activity. We can shine lights on things and make these secretive or specialized processes much more visible for other people. That's a really positive thing. That's what the playbook is about. The AI Skill Development in the Workforce chapter was a call that we decided to put out within the last couple of months here. It was less about "here's how companies should approach AI." I don't know how companies should approach AI. That is very much a "them" decision—what vendors they use, how they embed it, all of those things. That is a them decision. What we've been observing, though—and you can see this if you read stuff and pay attention—is that a lot of companies are doing a sort of "silver bullet" kind of approach to their AI work. They're saying, "Oh, if I just give this self-directed module and training on AI to all my people, it'll solve my problems." That's, of course, not true. "If I just buy a tool, it'll all work." Also not true. "If I feel like I must invest as an employer in this thing..." Peer pressure never solved really anything. So, what we are calling for and what we really are observing in this moment is that AI—when it is accompanied by thoughtful, humane, and worker-focused training and opportunities—that works. Product acquisition, when it is solving a business problem and serving a discrete business purpose, that works. Don't just hop on board. And leadership and workforce planning that is really thinking about AI in service of future goals, in service of those broader strategies, that works too. None of the findings surprised me because we are always going to take a sort of human-first lens on all of our work. But what I hope we are starting to contribute is this idea that any product, technology, or process absent workforce strategy and workforce planning won't work as well as it could. You have to do the work of understanding what your workforce needs, who your workforce is, and how to best support them to be able to do the things that you want and need. And then to know with great precision, as much as possible—two years out, four years out, whatever—what they're going to need to do and how they're going to be doing it. It's when those things interconnect, powered by AI, that something magical can happen. Kaitlin LeMoine: Haley, it strikes me that I think one of the complicated things about this moment is that AI tools are emerging constantly, right? And there's this historic concept that strategy can take a while, and yet we're moving at this very fast pace. In your research and the conversations you've been having, how are people balancing that reality? When do you say, "You know what, we're going to commit to these tools for a little while because we feel they meet these business goals and this broader strategy," and when do you say, "You know what, let's try this instead"? It seems like a very tricky balancing act right now. Haley Glover: I think that's going to be a different question for every company and every industry, because it's a question of tolerance. What is your tolerance for risk, for experimentation, for all of those "what-ifs"? And then, what is your strategy for evaluation? What do you care about? It does sort of speak to some of the things that we wrote about in the piece where, you know, if your evaluation strategy is, "Well, I had X number of sign-ons," or "X modules completed," or "this many instances purchased," what does that tell you? And if that is the only thing you're really looking at, you're probably not going to be in a position to really effectively understand if it worked or if it changed anything. What you might see are downstream effects like morale is bad, or managers are getting way overloaded with things that are coming from both sides, or you don't have enough information to really effectively evaluate your contract renewal. There's a thousand things that can happen on the other side of "piloting" if you don't really understand why you're doing it. So, I'm not suggesting that companies are just willy-nilly running in and just buying stuff. And yet, I think what we do observe is that workforce strategy is the muscle that companies need to exercise that can make these things work better. Because like I said, if you do know why you're doing it, what you want out of it, and how you're going to measure the outcome you really want to see within your workforce and within your organization, then you can really understand how it's all coming together. So, that might be a bit of a lame answer, but I think it is the truth. We see a lot of experimentation with technology without necessarily complementary thought around the other side of it. Julian Alssid: To complicate it further, Haley, you look at companies large and small in your work, don't you? So, can you speak a little bit—because that too brings a whole other world of issues—to how we compare Fortune 500s to more typically sized medium and smaller businesses? Can you speak to tech as it relates to the smaller ones? Haley Glover: The tech question is really very similar to other questions about evaluation and implementation of new processes and tools by industry size. Everything that we've found suggests that the things that we say "work" for large companies are sort of not relevant in many ways to small organizations for a lot of reasons. These will be obvious to you: if you've got an HR team that is HR and compliance and workforce and technology and also operating, that's too many hats for one human to wear and an environment in which decisions are made differently than when you've got a team working on each of those things. There's a capacity question, which is the biggest "duh" of them all: when somebody's wearing five hats, how in the world do they do another thing that can require a huge amount of compliance? This comes up a lot in apprenticeship: "Well, why if apprenticeship is such a great model, why doesn't it work for some people?" And that's because it requires a lot of work to really get the benefits of those programs. There's a cost thing: if your margins are low, you do not have extra resources to spend on doing the experimental and piloting work. You need ready-made solutions that are affordable or no-cost, and often you need support from organizations that are going to be wrapping around you and working with you—workforce boards, intermediaries, others. So there's multiple layers of why strategies and things that would work for very large companies just don't apply. And I do think, too, the risks for smaller organizations are higher because of margins, capacities, and otherwise. If you invest in a program or a technology and you're a small organization, that may be somebody you can't hire next year. That may be a contract you can't bid for. That may be something you can't purchase that you need. It's those kinds of really real challenges and real barriers that prevent us from saying unilaterally "employers should do this." It's always about context, about industry size, geography, and every other factor—which makes this work very challenging but, you know, we try to be attentive to it as much as we can. Kaitlin LeMoine: So Haley, you mentioned apprenticeships. I know you've been exploring work-based learning, internship programs, and the value of those in the workplace for employers and employees. Can you tell us some of what you've been learning as it pertains to that initiative? Haley Glover: Yeah, absolutely. And this is really exciting. We've got a piece coming out quite soon which I'm happy to share with you when it is released, but I'll give you a little sneak peek right now. Over the summer, we sort of were grappling with this issue of "business case," "value case." This is a truth, I think, for every question we have to ask of employers: we have to couch it in what value it provides to your organization. Altruism is not the motivating factor for the private sector. I think we all know that, but it can be harder, particularly for advocates, when you're thinking about why an employer might do something. So where we were taking a look is—we have a really great understanding. We did some ROI studies on tuition benefits back when I was at Lumina, and those are—I still use those all the time and they are used broadly in the field. We've got some interesting ROI information out of apprenticeship programs, though colleagues over at the Brookings Institution just released findings yesterday really showing that it's very, very hard to use ROI insights generally because the applications are, like I was talking about, context matters so much. So you have to really be careful about understanding those. And then we were looking around for—we have a general understanding of why employers do internships. And we really understand that the demand for internships, based on work by NACE and others, is huge. Eight-some million students seeking internships; about half got them. And as we think about the situation we're in with impacts on entry-level talent from AI and automation and all of those other things, people have to get work experience in order to get jobs. That's at least how we work now. And internships are a great way to do that. But how in the world do we think about growing the number of employers offering internships or growing the number of internships? So we sort of tackled this question of: where do employers find value? Why do they offer internships? What is driving them to keep these things on, especially as we enter sort of tumultuous economic times? We interviewed about 40 employers to sort of get under the hood of their internship programs to understand why they did them, what business objective they were trying to seek. And those findings, I think, were actually quite standard. We're not surprised really by anything that we found because employers are doing internships for the reasons that we would understand: their talent pipeline is not sufficient; they're not getting what they need from typical sources. They're trying to remediate against sort of a poorly prepared workforce; they're trying to say, "You need exposure in my industry. I'll take a chance on you, but if you don't have production experience, you don't have insight into where I am, we're really going to try to focus on that with internships." Things like low retention—creating a level of "stickiness" within new hires—is a really big priority. And then creating new opportunities for people who are managers or who are emerging managers to lead. Those are four big problems that they're looking to solve through internships. And we also looked at: what are the conditions within companies that make internships sustainable and successful? Those come down to conditions that can often be sort of hard to replicate, but you know that they're there when they are or aren't. Those are things like executive sponsorship: having an executive leader who is bought in and really on board with the program can be the difference between it thriving and being a part of the actual talent pipeline, and just dying on the vine when things get rough. Integrating across an organization: when the internship program is just this little pocket and they get dropped in, interns get dropped into departments and people are like, "What do I do with these people?", that can be a problem. So this cross-functional integration helps leaders see. Leveraging external partnerships: states are investing a lot in work-based learning and those, particularly for smaller businesses, can be ways of maximizing resources. And really thinking then primarily about effective programming: having actual learning outcomes, actual work that interns can do, actual supervision and mentorship, actual accountability. Those are all things that, from an organization perspective, can be really powerful. So why this idea of why do employers invest? Really articulated key business values: attraction. Employers, to almost a person, talked about how their internship programs are creating buzz on college campuses if they're recruiting; how interns from one summer go back to their campuses and say, "I had a great experience, you should apply." They love that because it is really creating a level of advertising and acquisition and outreach that they could never do on their own. They're really looking for readiness when it comes to having students or having interns start as full-time hires without the need for expanded onboarding, without a ton of time like "where is the break room?" They know already; they're ready to go. That can be a big cost saver as well. As I said, engagement and retention—keeping people longer—is always going to be a primary mission. They also benefit from increased workload capacity because if interns are doing real work, that can really benefit the bottom line. And there's also other effects that they want to have within their communities and their industries and their regions that should not be understated. So long story short, this piece will come out in the next several weeks and we're excited about it. But it puts a fine point on this idea that employers invest in talent in a lot of different ways, and building the business case—really understanding from all sides why, how the value gets created in the organization, how to maximize the impact of these investments—that is the thing that we're chasing. Because it's a positive thing we know for students; we want to make it just as positive for the employers that they're working with. Julian Alssid: Haley, did this research look at companies across multiple industries and, again, size of businesses and geographies? I know that this isn't publicly released yet, but are there any nuggets you can share of insight about where you're really seeing traction or where some of the challenges are? Haley Glover: Yeah. Well, so we did 40 employers—it is not representative, but we did seek for representation of all different sizes. So we talked to 20-to-50-people companies and 50,000-people companies. We talked to manufacturing, finance, insurance, services, tech—all of the industries. And then we tried to get a very solid geographic distribution. We had a little bit more representation from Midwestern companies because, as you know, getting in the door often requires a relationship, and that's where I'm based and where many of our partners are based. So yeah, I mean, a couple of findings: Small businesses, as I've sort of said before, they obviously can benefit I think a little bit more from the publicly resourced models that you have out there that are either reimbursing or replacing wages. They kind of look at it as: "This is a way we're meeting our talent goals and risk is defrayed by public investment." And so they, I think, are very pro those public programs, which is great because they're actually serving a public service; students are getting work experience and they are acquiring skills as a part of their programs of study and it is really working on both sides of the equation. Small businesses also struggle a little bit more with the administration and the overhead and the mentoring required. As a result, they often do smaller cohorts. We do understand from larger companies that cohort models can often be really successful because you're creating shared experiences, networks, groups to rely on and learn from and work together with. So there's a tradeoff there. And I think coming back to the workforce strategy question, it's always going to be: what kind of work do you have your interns do? What I think was really cool to hear from employers across the board—large, small, every state we talked to, every industry—is they are, to a person, I think really excited about the innovation and fresh thinking that interns bring. Whether it's something like what would have taken our staff member hours to do because they don't really know the tools, it took our intern 45 minutes to do because they'd been exposed to AI or whatever tool—they did it easily. Or they saw things in a different way than our team did and really helped us get over a hurdle that it would have taken us time to do. It's those kinds of things that I think are harder to understand the business value—like yes, of course, saving time equals saving money. But it is a really important factor in a lot of our value that employers get: this innovation and fresh thinking that comes from introducing a new generation of students with different experiences and not people who are entrenched. And positively, on the incumbent workforce side, a lot of employers talked about the "breath of fresh air" that this gives to their workers. Mentoring a new generation, sharing what you know, telling people how you do things and teaching them can sort of reinvigorate folks and get them re-engaged with their role. Kaitlin LeMoine: So you have offered many tips, strategies, potential practices. However, I would love to give you the space—we ask this question of all of our guests—what are, if you have any other practical steps you'd like to share around how our listeners can work with employers to become forces in this complex place that is work and learning, or help learners themselves? Take the question in whatever direction you'd like. Haley Glover: I really love the question because you said that word "complex." It's complex and it's complicated. And I don't think it's going to get less complex or complicated as we go forward. In this moment, leaning into learning as much as we can, into supporting each other, and being mindful that the decisions we make now, we are going to see the downstream effects of them in 20 years, is really, really important. So for learners: I was on a panel here in Indy before the holidays and they were asking, "How as a student should I best position myself?" It was a technology conference. And I said, "I can't tell you anything other than work." Obviously, try to find a job that is field-aligned, that will give you the sort of exposure to the industry and role that you want to have. Absent that opportunity: work. Because there is learning and knowledge and insight to be gained in any role. Our society doesn't, I think, give adequate credit to learning gained in some roles, and I think that's a tragedy. But employers are looking for experience and work ethic and the capacity to do the job, and the best way to understand what those things look like is to do them. So, work if you can. And for advocates and institutions, it is about supporting learners to know what they know. I think that's a big, big problem and a big solution too. We should not, in 2026, have somebody graduate with a credential and say, "Okay, now what?" or "How do I reframe these experiences that I've had in terms of skills that employers can recognize and appreciate?" Like, that stops. We've got to get past that problem of making sure that everything is as transparent as possible and that learners have evidence of the things that they know how to do and things that they know. So that's the higher education call: shift toward competency-based education as much as you can and be very, very articulate about helping students understand their own skill sets. And the advocates: know your business case. In trying to bring employers over to our side, to doing the programming, to expanding what they're doing, you have to couch it—especially now—in ways that the employer will benefit from. And if you can't share, if you can't tell employers what you know and how they can understand how this will impact them, you're going to have a much, much harder time because the economics are just different now. So learn that. And for employers: chances are, every single employer who would ultimately listen to this podcast is doing something. I've not encountered an employer who doesn't care deeply about the skills of their workforce. Now, some employers program more, some less, depending on all kinds of different things. But the point is: keep doing it. Make what you're doing more visible to employees and to others. Share your stories and think about how what you're doing is creating value for your organization. The thing that frightens me—back in 2020, when the pandemic hit, we'd been doing so much work to focus on the employer business case and really understanding how employers were advancing education for their incumbent workforce. And when the pandemic hit, I was like, "I think this is all going to go away." I was so worried that in the shock of that economic shock, we were going to lose programs that were investing in students and their education and pipeline and all of that. And what we saw, I think due to unique circumstances that the pandemic produced, was actually a doubling down and huge expansion of supported education. I'm not positive that the next economic shock won't be different, but I keep thinking that if we really understand how this is contributing to the bottom line, we really understand how this is benefiting employees, employers, our communities, our nation, we create just that bulkhead against the shock. So those are I think the four levels of how I would think about what to do next: make this work bulletproof, and then we can really keep it going. Julian Alssid: Yeah, and it's, you know, I feel like you're singing our tune and I couldn't agree more. Such words of wisdom, Haley. So, how can our listeners continue to learn more and follow your work? Haley Glover: Sure. So, we're upskillamerica.org if you're interested in doing old-school website spelunking. We're pretty prolific when it comes to papers, so there is that. And then follow us on LinkedIn—both for UpSkill, but also I'm always happy to engage on LinkedIn with people individually, I do a lot of that too. And then, you know, don't be afraid to drop us a line. I'm always interested in learning more about what's working and our model is to partner and elevate as much as we can. And so, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Julian Alssid: Great. Well, thank you so, so much for taking the time. Haley Glover: Awesome. It was fun, and I'm really glad, Julian, we're still friends after all of these years. It's been a while fast, yeah. Julian Alssid: There you go. Kaitlin LeMoine: It was great to see you today, Haley. Thank you. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and a special thanks to our producer, Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you're interested in learning more about Workforce Consulting, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

July 21, 2026Episode 1535 min

Work Forces Rewind: Mitchell Stevens on Building a Learning Society

Mitchell Stevens, Professor of Education and Sociology at Stanford University and Co-Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, discusses the urgent transition from a "schooled society" focused on credentials to a true "learning society" that recognizes and supports learning across the entire lifespan. Stevens explains how the traditional three-stage model of education, work, and retirement is becoming obsolete as Americans move toward 100-year lives amid rapid technological change brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. He argues that legacy school structures that are built for durability and stability cannot by themselves prepare people for ongoing adaptation, emphasizing instead that learning happens everywhere: at home, work, and play. The conversation explores how declining fertility rates mean societies must rely on older workers, requiring a fundamental reimagining of human capital investment beyond children and young adults. Stevens calls for new conversations about who is responsible for lifelong employability and offers practical guidance for parents, young people and voters alike. Transcript Kaitlin LeMoine: Welcome to the Work Forces Podcast. I'm Julian Alssid And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our Work Forces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education industry and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast, and invite future sponsors of this effort, please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Happy Summer! Julian and I are taking some time to recharge before launching our next podcast season. In the meantime, we're excited to revisit two conversations from this past season that remain relevant and top of mind for us in our own work. Our first Work Forces "rewind" is our podcast conversation with Mitchell Stevens. During this conversation, Mitchell shared his work at the Stanford Center on Longevity and discussed the need for a transition from a "schooled society" focused on credentials to a "learning society" that supports learning across the entire lifespan. We hope you enjoy this discussion as much as we did, and we'll be back with new episodes soon! Welcome back. You know, Julian, we spend a lot of time on this show talking about the future of work, but there is a massive variable in that equation that we don't discuss enough, the reality that we are all likely to live much longer lives and need to learn continuously along the way. Julian Alssid: It's so true. Kaitlin, we're moving toward what researchers call the 100 year life. The old three stage model where you learn in your 20s, work for 40 years, and then retire is rapidly becoming obsolete. We can't rely on a one and done dose of education, and need to fundamentally rethink how we access and engage in learning experiences across our lives. Kaitlin LeMoine: Exactly. We need to move from what our guest today calls a school society focused on credentials and early life education to a true learning society where learning is ongoing and achieved through many contexts over one's life. Our guest is leading the initiative to define what that society can look like, mapping out a future where learning work and leisure intersect throughout the entire lifespan. Julian Alssid: Our guest today is Mitchell Stevens, Professor of Education and Sociology at Stanford University. He convenes the Pathways Network and studies history, finance and politics of post secondary education in the United States and worldwide. Mitchell is the author of award winning studies on home education and selective admissions, and his most recent books are Remaking College: the Changing Ecology of Higher Education and Seeing the World: How US Universities Make Knowledge in the Global Era. Kaitlin LeMoine: Mitchell is also co director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, where he convenes the Learning Society initiative. This effort brings together leaders from various sectors to imagine a learning ecosystem that supports all of us across longer and multifaceted life. He's written scholarly articles for variety of academic journals and editorial for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. We are so thrilled to have you join us today. Mitchell, welcome to the workforces podcast. Mitchell Stevens: Thank you for having me. Julian Alssid: Yes Mitchell, welcome, and we've talked a little bit about your background, but we'd like to have you tell us about your background and what led you to co directing the Center on Longevity. Mitchell Stevens: I would say one of the formative experiences for me, intellectually, as is often the case for academics, was their doctoral work back in the 90s, I studied the home education movement and drove my multi-used car all over the Chicagoland suburbs to talk with men and women who were making, at the time, a very radical decision to remove their children from school and teach them at home. One of the big lessons that home schoolers taught me and now many others, is that the rhythms of conventional schooling that so many of us take for granted are highly demanding and often fairly rigid structures. They are not very flexible for the needs of particular people or even the rhythms of complicated lives. That's really what planted the seeds for what we're currently calling the limitations of a schooled society, one in which not only education and learning, but many social rewards, good jobs, social status, looks of approval from parents and grandparents, is really tied to educational credentials, and especially in the face of very dramatic and rapid changes in the character of work and technological change coming to question whether legacy school structures themselves are the best way to prepare people for ever more complicated futures. Kaitlin LeMoine: So there are many places to jump into based on that explanation. We appreciate, we appreciate you kind of giving a sense of what has led you to this work. I guess one place I'd love to take the conversation to start is we recognize, within the last year, your work on the Learning Society within the Center on Longevity has really taken off. We'd love to hear more about the goals of that initiative and what you've sought to accomplish this year, and where you're where you see it headed. Mitchell Stevens: How we get from home schooling to longevity, I guess, is the second half of that question that I elided the first time around. I came into the Stanford Center on Longevity, just as a professor at Stanford around 2017. Someone encouraged me to go because their assemblies were so good. I was in my mid 50s. I'd been at Stanford for just a couple of years, and I was, frankly, kind of blown away by the intellectual breadth of the conversations of that organization. First of all, we call it the Center on Longevity, not the Center on Aging, right? Aging is a frowny face, right? As in anti-aging and preventing aging and denying aging. Longevity is a strong net positive. It's a gift that the 20th century gave all of us. In fact, Laura Carstensen, the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, likes to point out that lifespan grew in the 20th century more than it ever had in the entire previous centuries of human history combined. Very large change, say, additional 30 years of life over that decade, and it's happened very quickly. Societies and cultures have not had time to adapt to this gift. What have most societies done? In fact, all societies on earth at present, we parked those additional years in old age. Old age is the most expensive and arguably least fun part of the life course. It's when our bodies are most frail and when our minds are most fragile as well. So the goal of the Center on Longevity, and in fact, a global longevity movement, is to make functional adulthood as long as possible, keep old age short, but extend functional adulthood so that our minds and bodies can enjoy life and contribute to the well being of others for long, as long as we possibly can. And let's say also this is not the Silicon Valley live forever longevity. That's not really the game that the Center on Longevity is playing. We are trying to think about longevity as a civic gift that all of us should be able to enjoy, and in fact, that we need to be able to take advantage of, because also of declining fertility. Around the world, except for Sub Saharan Africa, are experiencing net declines in fertility. So that means that the men and women we're going to need to rely on for economic prosperity and civic health, are going to be older. They're going to be more mature, and so we need to sort of rethink pretty much all of our institutions in order to enable those older men and women to make the best contributions they can to their own lives, to their families, and to their societies. Another tie to the homeschooling movement, however, is that the longevity movement has developed a bunch of terms heuristics to make sense of transitions that we used to think were the sole purview of childhood. One of my colleagues refers to, for example, there's adolescence, but Barbara Waxman calls it middlessence. Middlessence is the transitions that adults make between different life stages. Michael Clinton argues that we don't retire, we should instead rewire, right, so the idea that longer lives require but also allow us to change our lives in fairly fundamental and substantial ways, to have multiple chapters in life that look and feel different from each other. So again, these are the sorts of conceptual tools that once you start to use them, it's really hard to it's hard to move backwards. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well, and it's interesting to think about that framing of how to rewire and think differently about these different stages, but without the formal structure of schooling, or without the formal like now I'm going from K 12 to higher ed, right? Like these, these formal moments in one's trajectory. I feel like it's a whole other experience to say, how do we rewire without those formal structures, and what does it look like to structure it for oneself? Mitchell Stevens: That's an excellent point. Kaitlin, I mean, one way to think about the American high school, you know, grades nine through 12, is it's an elaborate machine for enabling the transition from childhood to adulthood. And for relatively more privileged families, the four year college degree is another machine for transitioning from childhood to adulthood. One of the things that's happened with the fact of lengthening lifespans is we've made adolescence one ever longer, right? So demographers talk about a domain called emerging adulthood. There's a lot of cultural ambivalence about what it means to adult as a verb, right? And. I would argue, appropriately, an increasing questioning of, have we scaffolded the transition from childhood to adulthood in the right way? We have high school, then college, and now, sort of an increasing conversation about what the early 20s are like, for example. So while you're correct that, historically, we have created organizational machinery for managing those earlier transitions. It's not necessarily the case that I would want to, you know, mimic that infrastructure for late life, but it's also the case that, as you said, that we don't really have clear rituals for navigating these different transitions. Imagine how, I mean, think of how much psychotherapy is bought and sold. How many support groups and self help books are promulgated because people are looking for mechanisms to make sense of the kinds of transitions that we're talking about. Julian Alssid: Well, and so we're really, you know, we talk a lot about, and have for years and built a lot of our work around the notion of continuous learning and lifelong learning and and I'm really interested in speaking of terms, in examining the term you use learning society. And you know, how do you define it? What are the factors that are at play when we think about how we all learn? Mitchell Stevens: Yeah, so the Learning Society project grew out of a year long conversation at the intersection of the fact of lengthening lifespans and the revolutionary changes that AI and related technologies are bringing. There's an extraordinarily large conversation in the United States and globally now about how to prepare people for economic viability and flourishing in the wake of rapid technological change and questions about the extent to which legacy school models are the best way to do that. Very rarely does that conversation get leavened with questions about longevity in the life course. So we talk about the need for adaptability and resilience at work, but we don't talk about the fact that the adaptability and resilience at work that we're going to need from people is going to come from people in their 40s and 60s and 70s. We talk, for example, about how current versions of large language models are good at instrumental tasks but not good at wisdom. We talk almost never about the kinds of men and women in which wisdom is found, right? Wisdom typically resides in older workers, right, whereas flexibility is thought to reside in younger workers. So, you know, putting AI in the future of work discussions alongside the facts of longevity and declining fertility, we think, you know, the men and women, the scores of men and women who have been working with me on this issue, we think that that makes both conversations richer and more substantive. So that dialog is what produced the idea that Julian just mentioned, which was sort of a an overly simplistic, but nevertheless useful heuristic in which we contrast how Americans invested in human beings in the 20th century with how they might invest in human beings in the 21st. In the 20th century, Americans responded to two waves of massive technological change by building schools now during The second industrial revolution, which took place between the Civil War and World War I, Americans created universal mass schooling for children to enable the basic skills of literacy and numeracy that an increasingly industrialized society required in the so called Third Industrial Revolution, the transformations brought about by the semiconductor and the Internet, we massively expanded higher education. We created what the Clinton and Obama administrations called the knowledge economy, and we strongly advocated for post secondary education, aka college for as many people as possible. Those were very substantial investments, and they yielded very strong positive returns, economically, civically. Now we're in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schools will not save us this time. It's not the case that we can grow schools or fix schools in ways that will enable the kinds of flexibility and ongoing development that the 21st Century requires, why not? Schools are built for durability and stability. They're built to not change. That's why social scientists talk about chronic reform in education. You notice that we're constantly reforming school? Right? We're constantly fixing something that is presumed to be broken, that's in some ways because of the bureaucratic character of schools themselves. They're set up to be stable, right? And, again, those structures were very good for human capital development in the 20th century. By themselves, they are not going to be adequate vehicles for investing in human capital. Will they be essential civic assets? Yes, right, in some ways, we must organize the first decades of the life course around something like schools, because we oblige adults, we oblige mothers and fathers to go to work all day, right? So we're not going to live without school, right? But nor can we presume that schools, in their current form and by themselves are going to enable the kind of, you know, iterative development that the future needs. So in the past, for example, we, you know, extended what counted as good enough education first from from grade eight to grade 12 to grade 16. Well, do we add another six years to get people ready for the fourth industrial revolution? I don't think so, right? So one of the big goals of the learning society is to just remind people of things that they already know, which is that schools themselves are limiting organizational structures, and we're going to have to think in new ways. Hence, a move from schooling, which happens in bureaucratically organized structures called schools, leading to things called degrees, to something called learning, which happens everywhere, at home, at work, at school, at play, at worship, and that we need to think about ways in which we can fund, scaffold, incentivize, and reward learning wherever and whenever in the life course it transpires. Kaitlin LeMoine: And as you say that Mitchell, it also makes me think about building these skills fairly early on for learners to recognize when that learning is happening and be able to talk about it, call it out, reflect upon it, have it connect or build across either like you're saying formal learning environments or informal environment that we wouldn't call learning or school, but where that same, you know, a certain type of skill or body of knowledge is being explored and developed. It's and you know, it don't require like, it requires that explicit instruction to say, like, how do we build that awareness? How do we build for learners, the ability to say, okay, learning isn't only happening in this one structure called school, but everywhere. Mitchell Stevens: Well, one of the, I find, intellectually satisfying and refreshing parts of this dialog is that Americans have been in conversation about what the essential purposes and content of education should be for a very long time. So say, for example, that we presume that some degree of numeracy and literacy are essential components for economic well being and civic participation. Well, how much literacy and how much numeracy. Right question one. Two are literacy and numeracy enough? Answer, no, but then, but then? What else, right? So these are questions that the architects of early education thought a great deal about these are questions that have been wrestled with by Jean Jacques, Rousseau, John Dewey, Maria Montessori, John Holt, Ivan Illich, right. Is schooling for skills? Yes, is schooling for inculcating a certain kind of character or disposition toward knowledge? Yes. ]How much of one versus the other? We're never quite sure, right? And so what I like about that is that it reminds us that these questions about, you know, what it means to be an adequately educated human being is sort of constantly in flux, right? So that we should embrace this question for our time, you know, rather than see it as a sort of new obligation that has come to us by virtue of artificial intelligence, right? We've been here before, and we're going to be an ongoing dialog about it, even as the Fourth Industrial Revolution unfolds. What is also very satisfying I find about this conversation in the United States is that education and learning is a widely shared cultural value in American life. I always challenge my students. Can you think of any problem in contemporary American life that people do not think schooling or education can help mitigate or improve? And that is true across a broad political spectrum. Americans may disagree on who's responsible for providing education. Whether, for example, the relative role of quote, government, unquote, versus, say, families or communities. But you'll be hard pressed to find a political or cultural constituency in the United States that does not think that more education and learning is generally a good thing. So we have a lot of faith in education and learning, and we actually have a lot of faith in schools, as long as those who are participating in them have some, you know, sense of involvement and participation. So one of the things we're trying to do with Learning Society is sort of take that positive, positive feeling that Americans have toward education and learning and directing it towards sort of new forms of learning provision that make more sense for our time. Julian Alssid: So now this topic is front and center like never before, and recognizing that, I think there is a greater and greater recognition that learning is truly this lifelong pursuit, you know, however you think the you know, whatever you think, is the right mix and who should be doing it and where it should be happening. How can we think about or rethink our learning trajectory across life stages, you know, and as especially as technology becomes you know, and technology, unlike technology we have seen before with AI becomes a more significant role in learning and work and the rest of our lives. Mitchell Stevens: Julian, I'm really glad you said that. You said these issues are front and center. I would say they are front and center in new ways, right? So in the middle of the 20th century, the 1950s and 1960s they were front and center in terms of who goes to school with whom. The question was the organizational contexts within which children of different backgrounds were coming together or not specifically along racial lines. That animated a great many national discussions. In the 80s and 90s. It was preparing for the knowledge economy, and that was in the era, although actually all the way through the early 2000s the second Obama administration and College for All was the mantra of the moment. I don't see those conversations as being sort of any less central now. But the content is different, right? The content is not is get everyone to college. It's how do we adequately prepare people for ongoing technological tumult. Right now, the strong positive on that, in my view, is we have put brackets around school as the human capital strategy to pursue. Right what's so nice about the idea of learning as opposed to schooling, is that we can recognize that learning happens all over the place, right? I can learn a lot without having much schooling. I can have a lot of schooling and not have learned very much, right? And I think there's a growing, I think healthy recognition that Americans have tied a great deal of social rewards to school credentials, and have discounted learning that happens in other ways and in other contexts, right? So I see this moment of yes anxiety, great anxiety about about how you know, technology will disrupt our lives, but also at least the opportunity for a great deal of optimism moving forward. Are there ways in which we could recognize and honor learning happening in a wide variety of contexts in ways that we haven't acknowledged before? Kaitlin LeMoine: So we've spent a lot of this conversation talking about the role of school, and I'm wondering, as we think about adults and adults who are perhaps, you know, many years removed from education, as you're you know, as you're approaching this work, how are you thinking about adults and how we reframe our own learning trajectories or our own approaches? Right? Mitchell Stevens: Some of the great challenges of this moment, I would say. One is that I've said Americans have put a great deal of faith and value in education and learning. We also have a great deal of faith in investing in children, right? Doing things on behalf of children is something that is sort of a relatively smooth path to public and private patronage, right? You know, honoring and serving adults that were not well served by legacy schools is a very different kind of project, right? And Americans, you know, we don't have a similar sort of philanthropic commitment to adults with modest education and modest earnings, right? So the population that we're going to need to rely on and invest in more to enable economic prosperity and human flourishing forward, it's just going to be different than children and young people in whom we were mobilized to invest in the 20th century. The other thing that does keep me up at night is I do know that we get massive investments in human capital, massive investments in people in the United States in response to global conflict. War often mobilizes massive investment in people. So we certainly saw that in World War II, when the nation relied on colleges and universities to recruit, train, mobilize soldier citizens, we saw that also with the Higher Education Act of 1965 massified college education in the name of global geopolitical prominence for the United States in the wake of a threat from the Soviet Union. We are now, what, four years, you know, several years into large language models. I see a significant challenge to American primacy, economically and militarily in the global stage. You know, we're but we're still crawling under the tables right? AI is still going to come get us right. We have not developed a national narrative of positive, optimistic investment in people to match the anxiety and fear that AI has created. That troubles me a great deal, and I speak from the heart of Silicon Valley, where even some of the most vaunted experts on AI and the future of work often sound pessimistic that some, somehow, somehow, what we're supposed to do is enable human flourishing, despite artificial intelligence, despite the massive disruptions to work and the rest of life that that these technologies are going to bring, rather than framing these as empowering technologies that require comparable investment in human capacity in order for the nation and the world to flourish without national and, frankly, fairly urgent narrative of organized around investing in people that we're going to miss a very large opportunity to get the nation ready for The prosperity that that we could achieve if we thought of these technologies as opportunities rather than fates? Julian Alssid: Yeah, so, so true. Mitchell, and I think it is really that uncertainty and that anxiety that is filtering down to the masses in ways we've never seen. I mean, people are really concerned about their jobs and the high cost of getting an education that may or may not lead you to a prosperous future. And I agree with you that thinking about this all in a more positive light, and how we can be enabling humanity realizing its potential, is really where we have to move with this, because there is a lot of anxiety, and that is what I've never seen before. Workforce development has never been discussed by people at a typical cocktail party. Mitchell Stevens: Yeah, that's, that's for sure. And I actually see that as a strong net positive too, because for the last quarter of the 20th century, and again, well into our own, you know, we placed most of our eggs in the college basket, right? I mean, there were rooms you could not enter in Washington and Sacramento, if you had the temerity to say that: "well, gosh, not, maybe not everyone is well served by a possession of a four year college degree". That ideology has been bracketed, but it has not been replaced by any comparable narrative of investing in people that was nearly as compelling as the college for all project. What was great about the college for all project was that you kind of knew what the goals were. Right. The nation was going to be a better place the more people, the greater the proportion of people entered and completed four year degrees. We put that aside, I think, appropriately, because there's nothing to presume that a four year college degree is the sine qua non of being ready for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But we haven't replaced it by some other target of accomplishment, of human investment that would similarly mobilize and organize investment so and I see that as a real, real challenge, challenge politically, because there's no shared optimistic vision about what the nation will look like 10 years from now, if we all work in the same direction. I think that absence of a positive narrative is part of how we have arrived at the the current presidential administration, and its second chapter, it's a problem scientifically, because we don't know, say we want to enhance human learning across the life course. Well, what is, what is the goal of that? Right? How do we sort of organize research to move us in that direction? And so one of the goals of the learning society project is to try to set a table, to establish what some of those audacious and optimistic goals would be. Lifetime Learning and prosperity is great, but how do you know if you're getting there? Right? You know there's a great deal of ambiguity about that. At present, and you know, sort of to try to disambiguate that, to try and specify some goals for the United States we want, in 2035, terms of human capital is very, very much a part of the learning society's ambition. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, building off of that last statement, Mitchell, we often ask about how our audience can become forces in these efforts. And so I'm wondering, as we wind down our discussion, what are a couple of practical steps that our audience can take in 2026 and beyond, to become forces in supporting the development of a pathway for continuous lifelong learning. Mitchell Stevens: I think there are several things that I would encourage people at different stages in life to pursue. One is, if you are the parent or grandparent of a young person who is in high school or headed toward high school, think very carefully about what kind of conversation you might want to have with that loved one about what their transition to adulthood should and could look like, right? If there's a presumption in your family that people should go to college, where does that presumption come from? What is implicit in it? What do you think that college, you know, something called college, is supposed to provide? You know, don't take that presumption for granted if you're from a household in which you know, you know, college has not been regarded as a sort of viable or approachable activity. Lean into that right. Ask questions about yourself, about what would it mean to get ready for a very rapidly changing world of work. Don't presume that there are experts who can help you do this right, because we don't have a script for this moment yet. The other is to think about again, if you're a parent or a grandparent, how many careers should you talk about your children having? Is it one? Is it three? Is it five? Right? How might you encourage those young people to think about the relationship between earning money and raising families and caring for loved ones? Because one of the cruelties of the schooled society is that we often oblige people to choose between working for pay, investing in themselves by going to school, or taking care of loved ones, right? You know. How would you encourage a young man or woman who might be anticipating having children to sort of, sort of think about the relationship between those things. If you are a young person you know, you might think about, you know, think about a world in which you get to have multiple adult lives. You get to have multiple stages. Not only are you going to grow up, but you can, you can have several chapters of adulthood, right? It's kind of fun to imagine, you know, what that might look like if you're a voter. I would encourage you to think about, you know, who is responsible for the lifelong employability of the people in your state, because the only thing that the people in your state are owed right now is a high school diploma. Is that enough? Do the people in your state deserve more investment than a high school diploma? If the answer to that question is yes, well, what are they owed? A four year college degree, a two year college degree, an education savings account, tax subsidies for tuition. I don't know what the answer is, right, but that question about who's responsible for Americans sort of meeting the challenge of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is really an open question, and I think we should be asking the people who we want to represent us that question. I don't know what the answer is. It's not my place to have the answer, but I think raising the question about responsibility for human flourishing in the fourth industrial revolution is something that we should have conversations about constantly. Julian Alssid: Well, you're certainly raising the right questions. Mitchell, and we thank you so much for taking the time today. We will definitely follow you on learningsociety.io, and look to see more and more of these questions surfaced and unpacked and answered for all. Mitchell Stevens: My pleasure, honor to be here. Kaitlin LeMoine: Thank you so much for taking the time. Mitchell, we hope you enjoyed today's conversation, and appreciate you tuning in to workforces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support and a special thanks to our producer, Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces dot info forward slash podcast. You can also find workforces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like and share it with your colleagues and friends, and if you're interested in learning more about workforces consulting, please visit workforces dot info forward slash consulting for more details about our multi service practice.

July 7, 2026Episode 1427 min

Clare Bertrand: Shaping College Board's Role in Career-Connected Learning

Clare Bertrand, Executive Director of Partnerships and Ecosystem Strategy at College Board, discusses how one of education's most recognized organizations is expanding its mission beyond college admissions to embrace career-connected learning as a core priority. Clare shares the story behind AP Career Kickstart, a new suite of courses co-designed with IBM, CompTIA, and Cisco that allows students to earn college credit and industry-recognized credentials before graduation, with the first two courses, AP Business with Personal Finance and AP Cybersecurity, launching nationally in fall 2026. The conversation explores how deep partnerships with chambers of commerce across 41 states have shaped the design of these courses, why employers are hungry for a trusted, nationally recognized signal of durable skills, and how College Board is thinking about scale in a way that honors local labor market context. Clare also reflects on the acquisition of Teamship, the role of intermediaries in connecting employers to schools, and what it will take for educators, employers, and policymakers to become true forces in expanding access to career-connected learning for all students. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces Podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our Work Forces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces Podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. As we close out the academic year and take some time to reflect on the past year of our work at Work Forces, we're struck by a theme that keeps showing up across our work: the integration of academic and career preparation across learning experiences, from K-12 through higher education. Julian Alssid: That's right. Listeners may remember our recent conversation with Dan Gonzalez when his company, District C, was building project-based learning experiences that put students to work on real business problems. Since then, District C became part of College Board, an organization most of us associate with the SAT and Advanced Placement exams. That shift is part of a broader initiative asking what it means to prepare a student for both college and career, not as two separate tracks, but as one continuous throughline. Kaitlin LeMoine: Which brings us to our guest today. Clare Bertrand, Executive Director of Partnerships and Ecosystem Strategy at College Board, leads the chamber, intermediary, and philanthropic partnerships behind the development of AP Career Kickstart, a new suite of courses co-designed with IBM, CompTIA, and Cisco that lets students earn college credit and industry-recognized credentials before graduation. Before joining College Board, Clare was a senior leader at Jobs for the Future, where she helped build one of the field's first career navigation tech products. She also co-founded a neurodiversity intermediary focused on building more inclusive talent pipelines for higher-performing companies. Clare, welcome to Work Forces. We're so glad to have you with us on the podcast today. Clare Bertrand: Thank you so much. I'm glad to be here. And I love starting a conversation that references Dan Gonzalez and Teamship. Dan's one of my favorite people at College Board, and I'm so thrilled for Teamship to be part of our portfolio. So thank you for that. I'm just very excited to get into it. Julian Alssid: It was great to interview Dan, and the flow is obvious and will become more so as we have this conversation. So to kick us off, tell us in your own words about your background and the path that led you to your current role at College Board. Clare Bertrand: So as you mentioned, I was a senior leader at JFF before joining College Board. There I directed federal initiatives and innovation partnerships, and I launched a career and technical navigation product that was used by Job Corps and really focused on young people who were overage and undercredited in high school — what they used to call opportunity youth, but really students who are disconnected from education and the workforce. That role gave me a 360-degree view of the systems and actors that inform how students get to and through school and into the workplace as young adults. And as mentioned, I did co-found a talent intermediary focused on helping companies hire and retain neurodiverse individuals, working mainly with the cybersecurity industry. That experience helped me understand the gap between employer and worker expectations, which was very real in that work. When I came to College Board, I authored our career and partnership strategy to position College Board and its programs within the broader education and workforce ecosystem, to really help expand our reach to more students and ensure that we clear a path for students to thrive in whatever they choose to do after high school. So now I lead partnerships, and that really focuses on the launch of our AP Career Kickstart courses, which you all mentioned and we'll get into a little later. I'm in regular conversation with chambers of commerce, companies, schools, national and local intermediaries, and philanthropic partners. College Board is in new rooms and new conversations, and it's a really exciting time. And finally, I'll mention that my husband has been teaching in the classroom for 25 years, so that keeps me very grounded in the everyday world of teaching and learning. Kaitlin LeMoine: College Board has long been associated with traditional college prep and AP courses. I'd love to hear a little bit more about the decision to expand into career-connected learning with AP Career Kickstart as a core offering, and what's driving that. Clare Bertrand: It's very true — college is in our name. We've been working to help students get into college for over a hundred years. And to be clear, college is still the right choice for many students, but it isn't the path for all students. Given that we're a mission-driven nonprofit, we know that we can do better to reach more kids. Our CEO thinks of our mission in three ways: we want to help students feel that their work is relevant, especially the work they're doing in high school; expand our programs to reach more students; and ensure that all students are ready for the future of their choice — whether that's a four-year college, a two-year college, apprenticeship, or going straight to work. We really want them to be prepared for that. AP Career Kickstart lives at the center of all three. Advanced Placement, which has been around for seventy years, is a college-level course that confers college credit, and we save students about three billion dollars in tuition every year. I love that statistic. Our new AP Career Kickstart courses are built with AP's thoughtful design process — they're built with faculty and industry at the table, which is quite new for us, and are connected to in-demand occupations. Our first two courses launching this fall are AP Business with Personal Finance and AP Cybersecurity. We want students to have more choice, and we want to give employers stronger signals of readiness — the same thing we do for universities and colleges, but now at scale for career. So we're tackling both a skills gap issue and a validation gap. Students who have these skills sometimes can't articulate them, and employers aren't sure what signal to trust outside of degrees and certifications. College Board, we feel, is uniquely positioned to help fix this. We're already thinking of ourselves as a trusted validator of career readiness, and we believe we can provide the same signal for career that we've long provided for college readiness. Employers and industry are at the table, and the goal here is simple: at the end of the day, we want to end the artificial divide between students who are going to college and students who are going into careers. Students deserve both, and they're ready for both. A lot of our students work while they're in school, and students want to figure out what's right for them rather than be put on a very narrow path. Julian Alssid: Clare, you've spent a lot of time meeting with chambers of commerce across the country to help design AP Career Kickstart. What have you been hearing from them and their employer members, and how has that shaped what you're building? Clare Bertrand: You say "chambers of commerce" and you may have seen a big smile come across my face. I never in my career thought I'd love chambers of commerce so much. Even though I've been working in the education-to-workforce ecosystem for over twenty years, I'd actually never worked with chambers before. I've had the pleasure of overseeing an initiative with the US Chamber of Commerce, which has been a great partner for College Board. The US Chamber has actually endorsed both AP Business and AP Cybersecurity. The initiative we launched together is called Preparing Tomorrow's Workforce, and we invited chambers to help us prepare AP courses and be part of the Preparing Tomorrow's Workforce Coalition. Over 70 chambers in 41 states responded to support the courses and help us raise awareness across the country. Over the last 18 months or so I've been working with these chambers — listening to them, visiting them, presenting for them — and I've been really impressed by how embedded in their communities they are and how well they translate between education and business. They know the superintendents, they know the businesses, they know the state agencies. They're really an anchor, or what we'd call a backbone organization, across states. I've been so pleased to work with all of them and learn from them. At the dinners with employers that the US Chamber has set up for College Board, and in speaking with state and metro chambers, one thing we've heard over and over again is that employers struggle to identify early talent. There's really no trusted, nationally recognized signal for durable skills. We did a survey with the US Chamber of 500 hiring managers, and 80 to 90% said that high school students aren't ready for the workforce. But then 90% said they'd love for students to have a business course and some signal of the skills they're building. So we're listening to that and working with employers to get them at the table to help us build not just the two courses we have now, but the courses of the future for Advanced Placement. We have these continual conversations with employers about how they're working with education and higher education now, and how we can help them work better and bring in the early talent they know they need — with the right signals and understanding of what skills and knowledge students are coming through the door with. Through the Preparing Tomorrow's Workforce Coalition, we now have about 400 letters of support from employers, essentially saying these courses give students the right skills and this is a credential they can get behind. We've been really excited about that, and grateful to the US Chamber as well as state and metro chambers who've helped us better understand how to do this work in local contexts while also scaling it nationally. Kaitlin LeMoine: I'd love to dive into the design of these courses a little bit. As you're saying, Clare, it sounds like they're working at this intersection of employer need and faculty input. What has been the process of building them out? How do they look and feel? How much of the learning happens out in the community versus in the classroom? Clare Bertrand: These Advanced Placement courses are designed differently than Advanced Placement traditionally — and I say that with heavy air quotes, because we've been thinking differently about AP for a few years now, starting with AP Seminar, which looks very different from a traditional course like AP History. AP History is a great course, very rigorous, and built with faculty, looking first at data across the country: where should these courses be, what is needed in high school, and what do colleges think students need when entering college? We're applying that same design process to our AP career-connected courses. AP Seminar, for example, includes performance tasks, not just an exam. Students work in teams, doing research on topics they're interested in. That got us thinking about relevance for students. We saw students light up, and we saw students who had never taken an AP course before go into AP Seminar and say: I can do this, I'm an AP student. We wanted to see more of that. So we thought of AP Career Kickstart as a place where more students could enter into AP and get both industry skills and academic skills. Where we started was really looking at occupational data, which we hadn't done before — what is in demand in the labor market, and where are the gaps in what's happening in schools? For example, only about 2% of high schools have a cybersecurity course. There's plenty of computer science, which is excellent, but very few cybersecurity courses. So we built AP Career Kickstart: Cybersecurity to be responsive to what high schools need and what employers need, knowing that cybersecurity is a national security issue and there's tremendous need for talent. We designed it as a survey course to really invite students to understand cybersecurity and explore careers within it. We actually have two cybersecurity-related courses — Cybersecurity and Networking — and we've thought carefully about how students can explore careers in that space. One thing we're trying to do is push against the myth of cybersecurity as people in hoodies alone in a dark corner. Cybersecurity professionals work in healthcare, agriculture, on submarines. Whether you want to go directly to college, directly to career, or into the military, you need some cybersecurity knowledge, and it exists in every single industry. Similarly, with AP Business with Personal Finance, we wanted to integrate financial literacy into business because we want students to think about how they're going to make money and how they're going to manage it. We love that combination because we want students to have financial literacy, but sometimes financial literacy on its own makes a lot of assumptions about a student's situation and their family's situation. What we wanted to do was give students a business framework so they could take financial literacy and think about it in the context of building a business and thinking of themselves as a business person. That course also has case studies — we're using the Harvard Business School case study model — with 22 employer case studies, and we're inviting employers like McDonald's to submit new case studies as well. We also have competitions as part of AP Business. So there are work-based learning components, project-based learning components, and a real effort to connect students taking AP Career Kickstart to opportunities like internships and apprenticeships. We've got partnerships with CareerWise as part of that. We've been piloting a number of these courses the last couple of years, and they're launching nationally this fall in 2026. Kaitlin LeMoine: That's really exciting, and really interesting to hear how you're thinking about these fields that cut across sectors. Cybersecurity exists everywhere — it gives students a window into many different industries. And the integration of business acumen with personal finance just seems like such a natural combination and one that is incredibly needed. So exciting to hear about the direction you're taking this. Clare Bertrand: It's been really interesting when we talk to employers. I made the assumption that employers wouldn't care much about the financial literacy component of the course, which is a really integrated part — it's almost half of the course. I thought they'd want the business survey and the business skills. But actually, employers have been almost as enthusiastic, or more enthusiastic, about the financial literacy piece and the way it's woven into the business content. That's been delightful to hear. And if you look at the data, organizations like Starbucks are actually integrating financial literacy training into their learning and development programs because employees are struggling with it — they didn't get it in school. So we're really excited about the opportunity. Julian Alssid: As you scale this nationally, Clare — and I think you've begun to answer this — how do you maintain depth while also achieving broad reach? I know you've written about this quite thoughtfully, and I imagine meeting with chambers of all different sizes is one way you're navigating it. How are you thinking about that tension? Clare Bertrand: I think when we consider scale — and I've been doing national work and running initiatives with funders for quite a long time — scale can sometimes be used as a blunt instrument. If we reach a lot of kids, that must mean it's working. But that isn't necessarily true. What scale really needs is insight into local context. And I'm not the only one saying this — there are fantastic funders, initiatives, and a long history of organizations doing scale right. I just think we need to talk about it more explicitly and make sure we're designing for scale while first starting with local context, ensuring we're replicating quality and rigor in a way that can be customized for that local context. And that's where the chambers have really helped us. Every single labor market is a little different. Waco, Texas may be thinking about aviation. Des Moines has cybersecurity and a concentration of financial services headquarters. Orange County has data centers coming in. These chambers are thinking about all of those local realities. But when we think about AP Business with Personal Finance and AP Cybersecurity, they know that the course frameworks look the same in every single high school, and what the exam and credential signals to employers across the country is consistent. So we're thinking about how to use the way we've already scaled Advanced Placement and do that same thing for employers, for universities, and for both — making sure students have the same choices regardless of where they live. Because College Board has teams in every single state and digs in with districts to provide services and professional development to counselors — and now we have stakeholders at chambers of commerce, among employers and industry associations — we're really thinking about the whole ecosystem. And that's going to help us with scale, because we can hand something off and trust that partners on the ground are going to deliver the course framework and the assessment in a way that's meaningful for a student in Des Moines, Iowa, Waco, Texas, or Boston, Massachusetts — and that employers can trust it. We're really excited about thinking about scale differently, and testing how we can do this with our employer and industry partners, as well as schools and higher education. Kaitlin LeMoine: I can imagine this next phase must be very exciting, because you're going to see how this is implemented in practice across different contexts — where schools need additional support because they don't always have connections to community or business, and where employers are more or less naturally inclined to engage. It sounds like you're at a real juncture of tremendous learning. Clare Bertrand: Totally, yes. And I think there are opportunities to continue that learning and have that conversation. Something I really like to push my colleagues on — both at College Board and across the field — is to move beyond the headlines. There's a lot of "employers aren't getting the skills they need from education." But then you talk to an employer and they have 18 different higher education partners. They are talking to higher ed, they're informing the curriculum, there's all of this work already happening. And I think if we stop at "the system's broken," we miss what's already working — and a lot is working. What College Board is trying to do is add value to that. We're not trying to reinvent the wheel. We're trying to make sure our courses and assessments fit into what's working and really amplify and validate it. We're learning a lot, we're sharing with our partners, and we're really excited about the launch. AP Business with Personal Finance and AP Cybersecurity truly meet the needs of students, families, and employers in the communities they're part of. It's been very exciting. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, Clare, you've mentioned various stakeholder groups you've engaged with throughout the development of AP Career Kickstart. For all of our guests, we love to ask how others can become forces — given that the name of the show is Work Forces. What would it take for educators, employers, or policymakers listening to this conversation to become forces in expanding access to career-connected learning, drawing on your experience building AP Career Kickstart or your many years in the field? Clare Bertrand: First and foremost, if anyone wants to learn more about AP Career Kickstart, I'd invite them to go to collegeboard.org/AP-career-kickstart. You can share the link with your listeners. But beyond that, I think for employers and chambers — just getting in the room. We know that high school faculty and college faculty are under a lot of pressure, doing a lot of great work every single day. And while they're working hard to build the academic and durable skills that connect to careers, they need employers and chambers of commerce to step in and say, how can we be helpful? And I think that's really part of why College Board has invested in Teamship, because we want to scale the opportunity for employers to work with schools. It's been a challenge — I've talked to employers who want to work with their school district but face different MOUs for every single high school in their region. It's a lot to handle. Teamship helps smooth that connection, and it's low-hanging fruit. It doesn't require many hours of an employer's time, and it just gets them in the door. It also gets employer staff genuinely excited, because working with teenagers is fantastic. They get to see how sophisticated, smart, sharp, and full of ideas high school students actually are. So we're really excited that we have the AP Career Kickstart model, paired with the opportunity that Teamship provides — and Teamship can actually be used at any school, whether they have AP or not. We hope most schools will have AP, but we're also thinking about how our chamber partners are setting up internships and how AP students will be more aware of those opportunities. There's a real opportunity for awareness, with College Board as a partner to all these stakeholders, helping folks connect the dots. College Board is traditionally a membership organization and a natural convener, and we're just starting to convene new stakeholders. Generally speaking, check out AP on collegeboard.org and learn more about AP Career Kickstart in your local area or region. Look into your chamber of commerce — they may be involved in our Preparing Tomorrow's Workforce initiative. We can share a link for that as well. There are a lot of different entry points, but I'd start with the collegeboard.org website. Julian Alssid: Where can people follow you, Clare? Clare Bertrand: I'm on LinkedIn, and some of my writing is on the All Access blog, but LinkedIn is definitely the place to follow me. Julian Alssid: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today. It's really great to hear about all of this and to learn about AP Career Kickstart, and we definitely look forward to tracking this as it unfolds. I do think you'll learn a lot, and I'll be really interested to see how a large organization like College Board keeps up with what's around the corner. Clare Bertrand: Absolutely. It's quite dynamic. We're looking at more career-connected courses to launch, and there's a lot of dynamism in the labor market with AI — I didn't mention AI at all during this conversation, which is remarkable. But that's coming, and we want to make sure students are prepared for it. It's something we think about constantly, and this is why the last two years of building new relationships and thinking about what new tables we can set — with as many stakeholders as are invested in early talent and making sure all kids are successful — has been so important. That's really something we're looking forward to convening and nurturing as one of the biggest national players in the United States and globally. Kaitlin LeMoine: Absolutely. Well, we really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today, Clare, and look forward to remaining in touch. Clare Bertrand: Thank you. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and a special thanks to our producer, Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you're interested in learning more about the Work Forces consulting practice, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

June 23, 2026Episode 1326 min

Michael Herrera: Career-Connected Learning in Action

Michael Herrera, Ed.D., Executive Director of Upper Bucks County Technical School and Vice President of Region 1 on the national board of the Association for Career and Technical Education, discusses how high-quality career and technical education connects students' interests to real economic impact. Herrera shares striking results from his school's cooperative education program, including students earning over one million dollars through paid co-op experiences and 93% of participating students receiving full-time job offers from their co-op employers after graduation. He explains how the school's relationships with more than 250 industry partners keep curriculum aligned with current and emerging fields. The conversation explores his distinctive approach to treating language as an economic asset, crediting students' bilingual abilities to open doors in healthcare, law enforcement, and manufacturing, as well as his work building employability skills alongside technical and academic instruction. Herrera makes the case that career-connected learning should be a right for every student, not the exception, and offers a vision for how educators, employers, and policymakers can work together to expand access to high-quality CTE nationwide. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. This podcast is an outgrowth of our Work Forces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. As we head into summer, we find ourselves reflecting on the school year that is winding down and anticipating the one that is right around the corner yet again. In so many of our conversations on this podcast and in our consulting work, we talk about workforce development and career readiness from the vantage points of higher education, employers, and training organizations. And today we're turning our attention to career and technical education programs in the K-12 space that are preparing young people for the world of work. Julian Alssid: That's right, Kaitlin. And it is striking how much innovation is happening at the individual school level, often quietly and without enough recognition. CTE has certainly come a long way from the vocational education of a generation ago. And today's most effective programs are building career pathways, embedding work-based learning, and meeting students where they are to open doors to economic mobility. Kaitlin LeMoine: And this brings us to our guest today. Michael Herrera is the executive director of Upper Bucks County Technical School in Pennsylvania and vice president of Region One on the national board of the Association for Career and Technical Education, or ACTE. He's a recognized leader in career-connected learning and has led initiatives that expand work-based learning, industry-recognized credentials, and employer-aligned pathways that open doors to economic mobility for high school students. Michael, welcome to Work Forces. We're so glad to have you here with us today. Michael Herrera: It's a privilege and honor. Thank you so much for having me here today. Julian Alssid: So Michael, to kick us off, please tell us about your background and your dual roles both as executive director of your CTE school and as vice president of Region One on the ACTE board. Michael Herrera: I'd be glad to. As mentioned, proud executive director of Upper Bucks County Technical School. I also proudly serve on the ACTE Region One Board of Directors for my Association for Career and Technical Education. I become increasingly passionate about career-connected learning because I see firsthand what happens when students understand what they're learning and how it connects to their future. Our theme is from interest to impact. Whether it's an industry credential, work-based learning experience, apprenticeship, college pathway, or an employment opportunity, students become far more engaged when learning has purpose. At UBCTS, we serve 900 students across 23 career pathways, technical programs, and our focus is helping students develop the skills, experiences, and confidence needed to thrive in a rapidly changing economy. Kaitlin LeMoine: And Michael, just a little bit more on your background, you've been at this work for some time, correct? You've been in this role for some time and leading this work for many years. Michael Herrera: I have over two decades in career and technical education. Kaitlin LeMoine: So drawing on your background, this experience, these many years in this space, when you think about career and technical education, what does high-quality career-connected learning look like in practice? And what role does on-the-job and work-based learning play in your model? You mentioned it in your intro here, but would love to hear you talk a little bit more about that and walk us through some examples. Michael Herrera: Let me work backwards. Our students left—we had a senior ceremony last week. Kaitlin LeMoine: Congratulations. Michael Herrera: Thank you. Our students earned over one million dollars through a nationally recognized school-to-work program. That's the impact. Our students worked over 67,000 hours just during the school day. It does not include nights and weekends, as that number will far exceed that. That's the power for me for career and technical education. We had 110 industry partners that shared, and 93% of our students were offered full-time employment. So all of our students left with industry-recognized credentials and they left with a lot of pride. There should be pride in the dignity of work right now in our society. I firmly believe that career and technical education builds stronger individuals, families, and communities. And that's the power of CTE and career-connected learning. It gives people hope. I believe that this provides socioeconomic mobility. Many of our students, whether they have an IEP or come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, this opportunity gets them on an equal playing field. And it all starts with our interests. We use the term here at Upper Bucks, "ikigai"—purpose, passion. When, according to NPR, 68% of adults hate their job, that's a problem. We have a critical skills gap. So we like to really hope and instill what makes that student excited. What makes them go out, work those hours, and have that pride. And ikigai for us is what the world needs, what you love, what makes you money. When I started in Career Tech Ed years ago, we asked students, why do you go to school? And the answer was always to learn, which we are all lifelong learners, but without that purpose and that passion and that desire, that spark is not there. And what we do here at Upper Bucks in career-connected learning, we connect a student's education with the workforce. Julian Alssid: So just as a follow up, Michael, since students are coming in and may not have a whole lot of experience and knowledge about the workforce, how do you even introduce them to the different possibilities and begin to help them find areas they'd like to explore? Michael Herrera: We are bringing students in as early as first grade through our summer camps because our students have the experience, they have the skills and the aptitude, but may not necessarily have the interest. So exposing them to the benefits of what we offer, what the world needs, what's going to give them an opportunity to become stronger individuals and build stronger communities is just opening the doors, starting as first graders, working with our sending schools, helping them find their interests and their aptitudes is critical for us. At the same time, what we've really done was we did our best to communicate that. As you mentioned, vocational career and technical education can no longer be the best-kept secret. During COVID, when a lot of the world was shutting down, career and technical education accelerated. We are the frontline workers. We're the workers that are going to keep the economy growing. And it was at that time, in order to create a COVID safety plan, when we placed our students on our school-to-work program, we invited the parents, we invited the mentors, and we met at the businesses. That became our signing day. So what we've done is we've also put that on social media and shown the importance, no different than an athlete or any other type of signing day. And so we wanted to identify it, celebrate it, and then replicate it. We've grown since then, and now we place a banner: "We employ a UBCTS student". So when we talk about the return on investment with education and our community members are driving by over a hundred businesses that are hiring our students, they're seeing the firsthand knowledge of career and technical education. And they're seeing the partnership that we have with business and industry to help guide, build those stronger students and communities. Kaitlin LeMoine: Michael, you mentioned in discussing the recent graduation of some of your learners, your 110 industry partners. I would love to hear a little bit more. I mean, that's a lot of industry partners. Can you talk a little bit about how you've gone about building out those partnerships and what are different models through which learners engage with those industry partners? Michael Herrera: I think it's a partnership. We were a national finalist in the Career Z Challenge for many of those principles that I just mentioned. It's a partnership. So we have over 250 business and industry professionals that come in and help modernize our curriculum. So we're not only preparing students for the work today, but in the future, partnering with organizations like Aerium in terms of drones, aviation, and emergent industries. That's the difference in career and technical education is we're constantly adapting to meet current and future needs in the industry. We hold that relationship sacred in that there's an agreement, there's a partnership. So we work with business and industry, we tailor our curriculum to fit their needs. We do site visits once per month. We help communicate between the students and the school in our programs, ensuring success. So I really appreciate you bringing that up, Kaitlin. It's not by accident; it's with intention, it's with detail, and it's with relationships. We talked a little bit about our graduation, but one of the things that we're most proud about is at the end of the year with award ceremonies, having business and industry come in, celebrating that relationship, seeing students offered full-time jobs, apprenticeships, and scholarships. They're investing in the students and their future. And being able to share that and be a part of it is really, really meaningful to me. Julian Alssid: Yeah, that really comes through across the airwaves. So, one of the distinctive ideas that you've put out there is the idea of treating language as an economic asset for your students. And how does that lens kind of shape the way CTE programs should be designed, and what does it look like in practice? Michael Herrera: So I had an opportunity to visit an organization where there was a big movement with the Seal of Biliteracy. And we became involved as a career and technical school because we looked at it from a different lens. Language is an academic subject, but it's also a critical workplace skill. So our initiative using language as an economic asset, which we believe is critical to our thriving economies and national defense, we began to credential our students' ability. And about three years ago, I had an opportunity to sit on the stage at the Seal of Biliteracy summit. And I was on a stage with someone from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. And they mentioned approximately 120 languages spoken there, 20 full-time translators, and they just didn't have enough to fill that gap. So we came back to the school working with Language Testing International and ACTFL, and we began to credential our students' language ability. It started off with almost like a student find. It was really hard to identify what students had the superpower. And many of them didn't look at it as an asset. It was something that was not to the forefront. So imagine our student that's in healthcare who already has her CNA, going to get their RN, but is credentialed in one or two other areas, whether it's Spanish, Mandarin, or this year Turkish, and it was really a game changer for us. So we're very proud and we just believe that that opens doors; that's a credential that's needed. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well, and to value that really critical skill in a way that is, as you're saying, valuing it from the perspective of earning a credential, I feel like just further raises the impact. It's really interesting to hear you share more about that, Michael. Michael Herrera: And that was really interesting working with organizations like Digital Promise and Global, with a lot of the manufacturing coming back, this is a superpower. We know that many businesses are losing opportunities. So whether it's in dental, whether it's law enforcement, whether it's our students that are entering the military, it's a great way to be able to highlight that. And when we talk about global initiatives, we meet students where they are. We're credentialing their languages. We're giving them opportunities to become credentialed. We're giving them opportunities to hone their crafts in our technical schools. Here's a wonderful example: we're part of the NASA Hunch program. So our students are working on building parts in space. And our instructor had the students working on a new part. He wanted to make a model of it before developing and making those parts. And one of our students, it was a female student, went back to the instructor and stated, "I'm sorry, I can't make the model. I don't have all the dimensions." Well, through a lot of emails later, through NASA, she was right. So think about that impact and think about the importance of our underclassmen working on these real-world projects with credentials; think about the innovation, the manufacturing, where we are in this country, and the power of that. So those are just the opportunities that really separate us, and where you see the power of career-connected learning. Kaitlin LeMoine: So I guess drawing on that last example, as we think about how to further expand the power of that learning, what do you see as the changes that need to happen systemically to expand access to high-quality CTE programs? And where do you see the most promising opportunities emerging either through either of your roles or both of your worlds? Michael Herrera: I think we're at a critical age right now in education with the advent of AI, with the advent of our educational systems. Our model has been around for years and it's been developed. So I think really what we kind of take a look at is how do we expand that to all students? And I was working with Mark Perna, who's a national voice in career and technical education. And he cautioned me to say, "Michael, it's great for the role, the innovation you're doing with career and technical education, but how can we enhance that to career-connected learning to serve all students?" And that was great advice. So I think our model is we focus on employability, technical, academic—that has to be built in through all of our educational systems. There are some scary statistics with employability. And over the last two years, we've had a national gold medal winner and a bronze medal in that employability. So again, being able to be on the workplace, I believe, is an excellent social-emotional curriculum, and just being able to partner with that. But when we have and see some of the statistics, like 53% of recent grads struggle with eye contact, or the 50% with unreasonable compensation. As much as 15% of college graduates may be bringing a parent to the interview, we've got to really change the way our educational systems are working. So again: employability, technical, and academic. Our instructors are showing the value of academic integration through literacy, through math, because it's applied. And then obviously the technical skills. So we look at that. I'm a big believer in the school-to-work pipeline. 77% of college graduates felt they learned more after six months on the job than after the completion of their university degree. It's a scary statistic for me. Some statistics say 50% of students believe their college major will lead to a good job. So again, returning back to our themes: interests, impact, what the world needs, what makes you money, what makes you happy, how do we then replicate that and provide these opportunities for all students? Kaitlin LeMoine: Well, and how to navigate that framework across a lifespan too, right? I think that is currently one of the things I'm thinking a lot about is just the world is moving very quickly. And as you said, I think your connections to industry can help the coursework and assignments to remain relevant and pretty applied. But how do we all as people, as lifelong learners, navigate a framework where you're regularly reevaluating interest, passion, economic mobility, and bringing that together across a lifespan? Michael Herrera: And I think that's it. I've done a webinar with Dr. Alveda King; she's the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. And we talked about career-connected learning being the new civil right. My dissertation in the past was content area literacy, and I still believe literacy is the key to economic prosperity, but I've expanded that recently and really believe in career-connected learning. Right now, Secretary McMahon is emphasizing workforce readiness, career pathways, work-based learning, industry-recognized credentials, and apprenticeships, like we talked about at the national level; these all align with what we believe in career and technical education, a strong alignment between not only education, but labor. When I started about 15, 20 years ago, believe it or not, apprenticeship did not count as a positive placement for students. It was all about college for all. And regardless of political affiliations, career and technical education from both sides of the political aisle, along with independents, community members are seeing the value and importance of that. One other area that I'd like to highlight is we're in a rural area. Our local EMS would have taken about 15 minutes just to get to the school, to come here. So one of the things that we've done was we built a substation for our EMS right at the school. We have 800 students. We're working with them to build EMS, fire, law enforcement, and a lot of the work that we're doing with drones. Our students are getting involved with it at the early stages. And again, that's just one example of how CTE builds stronger communities. Our students will be working alongside with them through ride-alongs. They'll come in, they work with our students. We're in hazardous industries right here; we're very fortunate, we have a strategic alignment with OSHA. But how great knowing is that we have that EMS substation right here in the front of our school partnering. And going back to the language, imagine that our students that are riding along have the ability to communicate, right, because we know that communication is critical. When you look at business and industry and what their needs are, communication is at the top of the list. So those who are able to do that in multiple languages just have that great advantage. Julian Alssid: So Michael, our audience are the educators, the workforce practitioners, the employers, the policymakers who need to build the system that we're talking about and are trying to build the system that we're talking about. A question we like to ask of our guests is how can our audience become forces in the field, and in this case, in expanding access to high-quality career and technical education? Michael Herrera: I would assure every learner in America has meaningful access to career-connected learning. From the interest, from being exposed to business and industries, to careers. As early as kindergarten, I think we can have some of these conversations about careers. Every student should be able to explore those careers as they go through the system, engage with employers, earn industry-recognized credentials, or skills through alternative routes, which would be familiar with your audience, participate in work-based learning, and understand the connection between education and opportunity. So career-connected learning shouldn't be the exception; it should be experienced by everyone. The future belongs to systems that connect education and workforce development. When students see that pathway, they engage. When they engage, they succeed. And when they succeed, communities, employers, and economies all benefit. Kaitlin LeMoine: Thank you so much for joining us for this conversation today, Michael. As we close out today, how can our listeners learn more and continue to follow your work? Michael Herrera: Right now, LinkedIn—please reach out, and I am really looking forward to continuing to learn best practices. I firmly believe when much is given, much is expected. So my role with the ACTE, being able to visit different areas and states, is incredible. So I just wanted to finish with this. I had a great opportunity to work with the UFT in New York, where they were building AI systems. Some of our partners in upstate New York, the BOCES, are developing those K-20 ecosystems together. I'm going to be leading a Northeast Region Summit in October, where we'll have a hundred school leaders and workforce development professionals continue this conversation. And I'd like to offer the audience, please reach out. I'd love to be able to share ideas and also learn from all the great things that are happening around the country. Julian Alssid: Well, thanks so much, Michael, for taking the time to speak with us today at this very busy time of the year, and I hope you have a great wrap-up to this current year and a wonderful summer holiday. Michael Herrera: Thank you so much. Thank you. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and especially thanks to our producer, Dustin Ramsdell. If you are interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you are interested in learning more about the Work Forces consulting practice, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

June 9, 2026Episode 1230 min

Laura DaVinci and Robert McGuire: The Career Readiness Imperative in Gateway Courses

Laura DaVinci, Director of Every Learner Everywhere, and Robert McGuire, managing editor and content strategist, discuss their new report, The Career Readiness Imperative in Gateway Courses, which makes the case that career readiness belongs at the start of a student's college experience, not the end. Drawing on interviews with 17 practitioners and a review of more than 40 white papers, they trace an emerging trend of colleges and universities embedding career readiness into introductory and general education courses rather than treating it as a capstone activity. The conversation explores why gateway courses represent a unique opportunity to reach every admitted student, how digital learning tools are enabling faculty to make career connections without redesigning their courses from scratch, and what a practical playbook looks like for both institutional leaders and classroom faculty. DaVinci and McGuire also highlight the NACE competencies as a ready-made bridge between academic objectives and employer expectations, and offer concrete strategies for building faculty momentum through learning communities, fellowships, and ambassador programs. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our Work Forces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Julian Alssid: Across all of the conversations we have on this podcast, and in our consulting work too, there is one challenge that keeps coming up in different forms. Historically, we have built a higher education system in which career readiness is treated as something that comes at the end: a capstone course, a final-semester internship, a credential layered on top of everything else. And in doing this, we have essentially been signaling to students: learn first, and then maybe we will talk about what any of this means for your career. Kaitlin LeMoine: That is so true. And what makes it particularly striking is that the courses where career readiness is most absent are often the very first ones students encounter on their learning journeys. General education and introductory courses are taken by virtually every college student, many in their first year. And while they are an almost universal touchpoint in higher education, they are often not designed with career readiness in mind. Julian Alssid: Which raises the question our guests today have spent real time trying to answer: what would it actually look like to change that? Not adding on career readiness, but genuinely embedding it, making the case that career readiness can and should happen in gateway courses, right from the very start of a student's college experience. Kaitlin LeMoine: And that is exactly what Laura DaVinci and Robert McGuire set out to research and discuss in their new report, The Career Readiness Imperative in Gateway Courses, published through Every Learner Everywhere. To provide a bit of background on our two guests: Laura has been with Every Learner Everywhere since its founding in 2018, and currently serves as its Director. She has dedicated her career to improving educational outcomes through innovative, technology-enhanced approaches, and has led complex, grant-funded programs across a wide range of partners and funders, including the Gates Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation, to name just a few. Julian Alssid: And Robert McGuire brings over 30 years of reporting on education, and has worked as an adjunct professor of composition and literary studies. His magazine and newspaper reporting has won multiple national and regional press awards. Through McGuire Editorial and Consulting, which he founded in 2013, Robert works with national nonprofits, colleges and universities, and education technology organizations to produce thought leadership that, as he puts it, is the ungoogleable: content that is genuinely derived from the work people are doing and moves conversations in new directions. Laura and Robert, welcome to Work Forces. We are delighted to have you both with us today. Laura DaVinci: Thank you very much. Robert McGuire: We're delighted to be here. Thank you. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, Laura, to get us started, please tell us a bit more about your background and Every Learner Everywhere — its origins, its structure, and what drives the work? Laura DaVinci: I'm the director of Every Learner Everywhere, and as you said in the bio, I come with a background of program development, grant management, and I've always been at the heart of nonprofit and higher education. I'm really committed to seeing students succeed, and with Every Learner, I could do that at the gateway course level. As Every Learner Everywhere, we're a network of partner organizations, and our mission is to partner with colleges and universities to harness digital learning technology in ways that drive innovation and improve outcomes for every learner. What makes us a little unusual is the network structure. WCET and WICHE, which stands for Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, serve as our parent organizations, and around that, we've built a network of partners that includes groups like Achieving the Dream, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Online Learning Consortium, and many more. Each brings deep expertise in a different piece of the puzzle, whether that's pedagogy, technology, research, or professional development. And we bring that collective capacity directly to institutions. Our origins are rooted in a very specific student outcomes problem: many students start college, but they don't finish, and a lot of that attrition happens in the gateway and general education courses. That's where we've always been focused. We build capacity through three things: direct technical assistance, free resources, webinars and toolkits, and ongoing analysis of what's actually working in the field. This report is a great example of that third piece — taking a real question and putting evidence and practical guidance behind it. Julian Alssid: Great, thank you for that, Laura. And Robert, turning to you, can you tell us a bit more about your work as a content strategist in the higher ed and workforce development spaces? Robert McGuire: Thank you. Essentially, I'm a managing editor for thought leadership initiatives. I set up the storytelling machinery for organizations like Every Learner Everywhere who are trying to grow their audiences. My clients typically have a lot of raw data, research, insights, and stories, but all of that is locked up in the heads of their internal experts, employees, stakeholders, or partners. I help get that data and those stories out into the world where they can start to influence conversations in their field. I do that by setting up the editorial workflow, and I have a team of writers who help deliver all that content — or in cases where I get particularly energized, I take the lead on writing it myself, which is what happened with this report. The way my business relates to the topic at hand: about 13 years ago, when MOOCs were dominating the conversation about online learning, I got very interested in online learning and started to develop an expertise in education technology. My client base at that time started to include a lot of edtech startups. As your listeners probably know, education technology startups sell not just into K-12 and higher education, but also into major employers for their workforce development and talent learning initiatives. Working with those clients, I gained a better understanding of the continuum of learning from higher ed through workplace learning. Alongside those edtech startups, my client mix has grown to include nonprofits like CompTIA, EDUCAUSE, and Every Learner Everywhere — large membership-oriented or network nonprofits that are trying to be leading voices in their fields. I help them articulate that voice by setting up the strategy and running the editorial workflow. Julian Alssid: Robert, you recently published the report, The Career Readiness Imperative in Gateway Courses, which makes the case that career readiness can and should happen in introductory and general education courses, not just capstones. We would love to learn more about what led you to this area of inquiry and research. Robert McGuire: Well, what led me to it is that Every Learner said they were interested in doing more on the subject and asked if I had any ideas. I scoped it out, but I'll let Laura speak to why Every Learner particularly had an interest in doing more around career readiness. Laura DaVinci: We've worked with so many institutions of higher education, especially in the gateway courses, and the connection to career readiness has come up repeatedly. It comes straight out of the mission and values of Every Learner to center the student voice in our work. Across survey after survey, students say loud and clear that launching a professional career is their top priority — that's why they're coming to college. About 60% of enrolled students say expected job opportunities are a very important factor in their decision to enroll. We also know from learning science that making learning relevant is one of the most powerful teaching practices. Students are telling us the most relevant thing to them is how college connects to a career. It doesn't make sense to save that conversation for the last semester. You need to start with it and continue semester by semester. It will help with retention because students want to see themselves progressing toward their career, and it will keep them more engaged. "Meet students where they are" is something you hear constantly in higher ed — and where students literally are is in gateway courses. That's the one place you can reach 100% of admitted students. The data on career centers is telling: one study defined a frequent user as a student who visits the career center maybe six times across their entire college career, and only about 8% of all students meet that bar. Engagement with co-curricular programming stays stubbornly low, and honestly, that's rational behavior — students put their limited time where the incentives are, which is earning credits toward a degree. I'm not knocking career centers; they do incredible work. In fact, Tyton Partners' Listening to Learners study from 2025 found that students who participate in co-curricular programming report very high satisfaction. The work is excellent — the challenge is simply getting students through the door. So this has never been about replacing career centers. They're a central part of almost every initiative we feature in the report. It's about meeting students where they are in the classroom and using that to draw them toward the resources that are waiting for them. Robert McGuire: One thing I would add is that what we're discussing today is, to some degree, an extension of conversations you've already had on previous episodes of Work Forces. I was listening to the episode with Nisha Taylor, which aired about a year ago. She was someone I interviewed for the report, and in that episode she made many of the same arguments we make here about increasing collaboration between co-curricular programs and academic courses — in the context of internships. I kind of initiated work on this project with the question of what that would look like further upstream, in the gateway courses and first-semester experiences that often end up screening students rather than welcoming them. Kaitlin LeMoine: You're both already taking us in this direction, and I'd like to push the conversation a bit further. Your research process included a review of around 50 white papers and interviews with 17 or so stakeholders. Can you talk about some of the trends that emerged? As you said, Robert, aspects of this conversation have been happening for some time, but the world continues to change, and we'd love to hear an updated view of the findings. Robert McGuire: One major finding is that it is, in fact, a trend. We had a sense that the conversation about career readiness and incorporating it into academic programs was gaining volume, so I went out with an open-minded inquiry — is that actually the case, and if so, what does it look like? I can confirm that it is an emerging trend. A growing number of colleges and universities treat career readiness as a strategic priority, and a subset of those increasingly treat gateway courses as an essential part of building it. The report is organized in three parts, and Part II outlines eight high-level trends — I won't go through all of them, but I'll highlight one. I observed a range of activity that spans what you might imagine as a maturity model. I didn't find any existing maturity models in this space, so maybe that's the next project. But on one end, there are isolated, innovative faculty — maybe reaching a critical mass — who are doing this work on their own. On the other end, there are institution-wide initiatives involving many offices and stakeholders. Those comprehensive programs often try to scaffold career readiness across the program, doing what's developmentally appropriate at the right moment — just like critical thinking is a multi-touchpoint objective woven through a two- or four-year program rather than crammed into one course. The more sophisticated programs I spoke with had that scaffolding approach built into their strategy. So one of the major findings is that there's a continuum from what one source called "career-curious faculty" who are pioneering the work individually, to institution-wide strategies. That continuum speaks to where we are in the conversation. I'd say this is happening a lot, but not commonly — it's more of an emerging trend in its early stages. Laura DaVinci: What surprised me and genuinely inspired me was the creativity on the digital learning side, which is where Every Learner spends most of its attention. The lesson I took away is that it isn't about digitizing for its own sake — it's about taking what we already know works in good teaching and finding the digital tools that allow faculty to extend it. Because I'm a practical person who appreciates real examples, and faculty tend to run with examples, I'll share a few. Virtual job and interview simulations are often plug-and-play, so an intro chem or bio class can have students apply what they're learning to a real-world case without faculty building the scenario from scratch. Career readiness modules in the LMS are another — we found dozens of examples where a career center builds a menu of short modules and faculty pull the ones that fit. When done deliberately, a student can experience different modules across their four-semester general ed sequence. There are also curriculum alignment tools that help academic units surface where career competencies already live inside their syllabi. But my favorite, and the simplest, example is from Indiana University Indianapolis. Sydney Kadinger has students keep research logs during lab work. It's a very traditional assignment that builds information literacy and metacognition. It used to be paper and pencil; now it's Google Sheets or a Notion database. What makes it career-relevant is simply the questions she embeds in the log — a couple of prompts that raise students' awareness of how the course objectives connect to their durable professional skills. That captures the whole recipe: make the objectives transparent, make the competencies transparent, raise awareness of the connection, and give students practice articulating it. Julian Alssid: The report has a playbook, and it's divided into guidance for leaders and guidance for faculty. Robert, can you speak to what that guidance looks like for leaders to create the conditions to meaningfully integrate career readiness into general ed courses? And Laura has touched on it with examples, but what does it look like in the classroom when a faculty member embraces this work? Robert McGuire: We were careful to characterize this as an emerging playbook, not the playbook, because the conversation is still relatively early and I don't think we did enough research to identify one definitive right way. But in this emerging playbook, you can sum it up as a recipe with four steps. The first step is recognizing that a connection exists — that the objectives of a general education program typically do coincide with the broad, transferable, and durable skills employers say they value. A lot of faculty in higher ed assume there's some adversarial tension with employers, but there's almost no daylight between what a general liberal education program promises and what employers say they want. Recognizing that is step one. The second step is making that connection explicit — usually by crosswalking your program's objectives against a framework. Over 95% of the time, that framework is the NACE competencies, which you've featured many times on this podcast. A simple way to start: open a browser tab with your gateway course objectives, open another with the NACE career competencies, and set them side by side. The dotted-line connection becomes very clear. The third step is making that connection explicit for students by referring to it regularly and in context. One evidence-based teaching practice Every Learner promotes widely is transparent instruction — making clear to students the "why" behind a given assignment, starting with the syllabus. A simple adaptation is to make that bilingual: list both the course objectives and the NACE competencies side by side, so you're constantly helping students see how they're building both an academic identity that will help them succeed in their program and a professional identity. The fourth step is practice — giving students opportunities to articulate that connection for themselves. A specific example: a history professor at Washington State University uses a reflection activity, which is a low-stakes moment where students articulate their working process after a high-stakes assignment like a research paper. That kind of reflection builds metacognition, which is another well-established teaching practice. The adaptation he made was instead of having students write that reflective essay addressed to the professor, he had them address it to an imagined future employer. The student gets into the habit of code-switching between academic language and a future professional context. And the key point is that this does not challenge academic integrity — students are still doing the same traditional paper, the same lab report, the same problem set. The history professor doesn't need to become an expert in labor market trends, spend time in O*NET or BLS data, or build direct relationships with employers — all of that still rests with the career center. It's just finding small moments to step back and say: here is the reason we're doing this that's going to help you succeed in college, and here's the dotted-line connection to what employers value. Then follow that up with creative ways for students to practice articulating it. Kaitlin LeMoine: Robert, through these examples, you've illustrated much of what we typically ask in our closing question. I'm still going to ask it. Given that the podcast is called Work Forces, what recommendations do you have for our audience — faculty, institutional leaders, workforce practitioners — for how they can become forces in making career readiness a reality earlier in a learner's journey? Laura and Robert, we'd love to hear both of your perspectives — one or two key takeaways that would help people apply these lessons. Robert McGuire: A theme that emerged in the playbook section is that the programs that succeed are ones that lower the lift for faculty by providing clarity, tools, and shared language. We talked about that crosswalk — laying academic objectives and employer competencies side by side. Not every faculty member needs to do that individually. Templates exist, and if the institution's center for teaching and learning provides that template, it lowers the lift significantly. If you follow the links in the report to the profiled programs, you'll find template syllabi language, template assignments, and reflection activities like the ones I described. The second thing that's working well to build momentum is faculty learning communities, faculty fellowships, and faculty ambassador programs. A faculty learning community is essentially an informal, ongoing working group of faculty committed to a particular pedagogical question or challenge — often sponsored by the center for teaching and learning. Increasingly, career readiness is one of those themes. Faculty fellowships give faculty a small course release and stipend to work on a given problem, and are increasingly devoted to developing their ability to incorporate career readiness. Faculty ambassador programs are a similar concept. What all of these have in common is that they identify those career-curious faculty who are pioneering the work and grow organically from there through peer learning. The third recommendation is to call the question as part of your regular strategy work, wherever that lives at your institution. If decisions get made through the budgeting process, the strategic planning process, or accreditation work, that's where you should be raising this. It doesn't help to design a career readiness initiative in isolation from the processes through which your institution actually makes decisions. It's not a coincidence that many of the examples in the report derive from Quality Enhancement Plans, or QEPs, which are targeted improvement initiatives required by regional accreditors. Institutions typically choose the focus of their QEP themselves, and a number of them in recent years have chosen career readiness. The most strategically planned programs we found are often situated within that QEP process. Laura DaVinci: The only thing I would add is what I would tell faculty generally if they're trying to improve their teaching: you don't have to redesign your entire course to make a real impact. It can be one assignment, one tweak, one added question, or one changed question. That alone can really make a difference in students' lives by helping them connect to their future career. And if faculty across an institution each do this over four years, it builds on itself. Kaitlin LeMoine: I feel like so much of this is about the scaffolding provided across a learner's whole experience. The more that can happen across an institution — revisiting, as Laura said, maybe one reflective moment in one assignment, but then experiencing that again and again as students progress through their years in higher ed — that's where the true effectiveness lies. Thank you for those examples. It's really helpful to hear how people can practically apply these steps in their own work. As we wind down, I'm interested to hear how our listeners can learn more about these examples, access the report, and continue to follow your work. Laura DaVinci: There are a few easy ways to do this. Listeners can start with the resource library on our website, everylearnereverywhere.org. This report and all of our reports are completely free to download, published under a Creative Commons license. If you want inspiration, visit our blog — it's shorter form than the reports and more narrative-driven, but it's full of examples of faculty doing innovative work with digital learning. We have webinars: our digital learning workshop series runs throughout the year, with every session recorded and available free on demand. We have a new course catalog with 10 low-cost self-paced professional learning courses — things like AI for Digital Learning Design, Authentic Assessment with AI, and digital literacies — available at courses.everylearnereverywhere.org. Listeners can also subscribe to our newsletter, which is the best way to keep up with new reports, faculty development programs, and upcoming webinars. And lastly, come say hi at a conference. We try to stay active presenting our research and staying in the conversation about digital learning. Julian Alssid: It's fantastic, and I just want to thank you both so much for taking the time to talk with us today. We look forward to following this work and, hopefully, meeting in person sometime. Thank you for joining us. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and especially thanks to our producer Dustin Ramsdell. If you are interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you are interested in learning more about the Work Forces consulting practice, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

May 26, 2026Episode 1131 min

Miriam Altman-Reyes: Investing in AI-Driven Solutions for Economic Mobility

Miriam Altman-Reyes, founding managing partner of Brass Ring Ventures, discusses her path from public school teacher to entrepreneur to venture capitalist, and how each chapter informs her current work leading a seed fund and growth studio focused on the future of work and learning. Drawing on her experience co-founding and selling Kinvolved to PowerSchool, Miriam explains how her team of exited operators supports early-stage founders across four investment themes: early success systems, operational efficiency, social capital development, and workforce upskilling and reskilling. The conversation explores how private capital can play a distinctive role in scaling AI-driven solutions for learners and workers, and why the defensibility of technology matters more than ever as larger players enter the education and workforce space. Miriam shares examples from her current portfolio and offers practical guidance for leaders navigating labor market shifts, emphasizing adaptability, mission alignment, and the enduring importance of human skills that AI cannot replace. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our workforces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast, and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Kaitlin LeMoine: In our recent Work Forces episodes, we've looked at the future of work through different lenses, from the technical infrastructure of credentials to the institutional shifts happening at community colleges and national nonprofits. And today, we're continuing our focus on the innovators who are driving these changes by looking specifically at the role of investment in the work and learning ecosystem. Julian Alssid: While we often talk about policy and systemic shifts, it's equally important to understand how private capital and exited operators—or founders who have successfully built and sold their own companies—are identifying and scaling the next generation of solutions, particularly as artificial intelligence begins to fundamentally reshape how we prepare the workforce. Kaitlin LeMoine: And our guest today brings a unique perspective as both a successful entrepreneur and venture capitalist. Miriam Altman-Reyes is the founding managing partner of Brass Ring Ventures, an exited operator-led seed fund and growth studio. Miriam and her team focus on investing in AI-driven solutions that prepare learners and workers for a rapidly evolving labor market. Julian Alssid: Miriam is an expert in the industry who's experienced the full life cycle of a social impact startup. She was the co-founder and CEO of Kinvolved, which she led from its inception to a successful acquisition by PowerSchool in 2022. Her leadership has been recognized by many, including Forbes 30 Under 30 and the New York Times, and she maintains a deep commitment to driving economic mobility for underrepresented populations. Kaitlin LeMoine: Miriam, your path from being a public school teacher in New York City to leading a venture fund gives you an incredible perspective on how to best support innovators and solve for the challenges ahead across learning, work, and economic mobility. We are very excited to have you with us. Welcome to this podcast. Miriam Altman-Reyes: Thank you. I'm really thrilled to be here. Appreciate you having me. Julian Alssid: Yes, Miriam, welcome. And so we've talked a little bit about your background, but we'd love to hear in your own words about your journey—the path that led you to found and lead Brass Ring Ventures. Miriam Altman-Reyes: So, I moved to New York right out of college, almost 20 years ago—amazing to say, hard to believe—to initially start a career in education. I moved to the city to teach in a public high school through a program called Teach For America, where I witnessed firsthand many different challenges facing our education system. But the one that really stuck with me because it was just so foundational was student absenteeism. You know, kids who would miss school for a variety of reasons, but at the end of the day, you know, as, uh, as I think we all know, if, you know, you don't show up, it's very hard to be successful, um, in whatever it is you're trying to achieve. And I think of my time in the classroom as really kind of trying to understand some of the underlying challenges behind student absenteeism and the opportunities to solve for it. And I found, from an operational perspective, that there were really two parts of the challenge that I felt that eventually technology could help solve. One was that educators, administrators, parents, and students themselves didn't have access to data to really help understand what's going on and therefore inform interventions to solve the problems. And then, two, that those stakeholder groups were really not able to be in close and regular communication to help, ideally, even prevent absenteeism from happening in the first place, um, because of just a really broken communication sort of system between school and home. So I left the classroom having sort of thought of the challenge—I certainly witnessed the challenge, um, thought of some of the solution possibilities. I actually left the classroom thinking I was going to start a school as I entered into my graduate degree at NYU's Wagner School of Public Service. And in the first two weeks of the program ended up pivoting to starting an education technology company. And eventually that, uh, company offered a platform of multiple tools that did just what I just described, you know, providing more real-time access to data and facilitating two-way communication between school and home, really heavily focused on underserved populations where student absenteeism tends to be most profound. And so I led as one of the co-founders and the CEO of the business over the course of about eight years from, of course, idea through eventually our exit, as you mentioned, uh, in your earlier comments. Many different chapters along the way, but, um, you know, and lots of highs and lows, as with any entrepreneurial business. But maybe some of the highlights are that we, first of all, from an efficacy perspective, achieved positive results from three third-party efficacy studies that really showed that our solution did, in fact, work at reducing absenteeism, which therefore had impacts on short- and long-term academic gains, including graduation. Also, we became a profitable business, even though we did raise financing over the years from a number of different sources—from venture capital to debt financing to strategic sources, um, you know, grants and others. We did become profitable, um, before we were acquired. And we were a business that sold our software to arguably one of the hardest, uh, you know, buyers that exists, that's K-12 schools and districts across the US. And at the time of our acquisition, we had customers from small rural districts to New York City public schools across about half of US states. So it was a really great run, um, and super proud of the work that we did. I then stayed on at PowerSchool, who had acquired us, which then had recently gone public. We were their second acquisition as a publicly traded company, as primarily in the role of Vice President of Go-to-Market Strategy and Partnerships for their New Solutions Group, which essentially was spun up around the time of our own company's acquisition, with the goal being to help develop more, um, sort of organic growth to help offset a lot of the acquisition-related growth that PowerSchool, um, had become famous for over, you know, many years. Uh, and so I reported to the Chief Product Officer and worked on launching four products across the entire ecosystem of PowerSchool's, I think, maybe 25 to 30 products in total. So really got that much broader perspective after having been so specifically focused on building my own business and my own problem set for many years. And that was certainly, by, um, opportunity and also by design. But ultimately, I decided that I really wanted to be closer to the early stage, closer to the ground, and closer to the impact. And also had, you know, that entrepreneurial spirit in some ways never dies, and so I knew I wanted to start something, uh, new again. And so I left PowerSchool just about three years ago to start Brass Ring Ventures with the initial idea being that as a founder, you know, I had incredible mentors, advisors, and board members who were exited founders and operators in their own right, and they knew exactly the right time to provide support, how to provide support, how to push, um, and also how to let me sort of like lead and learn, um, as a first-time, uh, CEO. And I realized in talking with dozens of other founders that were earlier in their journey that that experience that I'd had was particularly unique. And I also was really fortunate that I had a team of exited operators and founders in my last business's executive team that wanted to work together again. And so we came back together as partners in Brass Ring Ventures, both the studio and now in the fund. Um, I'm sure we'll go into more, but that is a little bit of how I got to where I am today. Kaitlin LeMoine: What a cool and amazing story, and certainly can see how you draw upon so many of your lessons learned across your eight years, I think you said, in that kind of startup space. I'm curious—you started to speak more of the importance of having coaching or mentorship as you were designing, you know, a new venture. And so I'm curious to dig a little bit more there and talk about, you know, what specific challenges in the future of work and learning is Brass Ring Ventures looking to solve through both the investment strategy and also the growth studio? Miriam Altman-Reyes: So, over the, you know, last three years of working with several dozen companies at this point, into which we've invested in a handful and that number will continue to grow as we continue to have, uh, additional capital deployed through our fund, we've identified four core themes that we're, you know, looking to support both through the studio and then the studio really is a mechanism to feed into the investment fund, so they sort of go hand in hand. And so we invest across the life cycle of the learner, as we describe it, so everything from early childhood through K-12 age, learners through higher ed and sort of alternative pathways, uh, and even into workforce and adult learning. Um, so the idea being sort of helping people continue to improve and, you know, gain access to new opportunities in the professional, you know, um, and ultimately economic opportunity and mobility, um, which is sort of the overarching theme of what we're looking for in our fund from both an impact and a financial return perspective. So those four themes, um, sort of align to those age segments are: first, what we call early success systems. So those are technologies that are helping prepare our youngest citizens and and early learners for their first formal schooling experience, and or solutions that are helping parents and caregivers access quality, affordable childcare, which then in turn has a really important impact on workforce retention as well. Uh, there's lots of data and studies out there showing, particularly for women, um, but not exclusively women, that, uh, there's many people who are leaving the workforce because they're just finding that the the sort of cost trade-offs are not there, um, to kind of stay in the workforce. That's the first theme that we're investing in. Second are solutions that are really helping drive operational efficiency for some of these, you know, more institutional, bureaucratic institutions, like K-12, like higher education, even into sort of workforce corporate environments, helping these institutions do more with less, primarily leveraging AI, you know, in ways that really work for them and can drive more productivity and efficiency as budgets in some ways are getting, you know, shifted and constrained. Third are solutions that are more learner-focused that are helping learners develop what we call social capital skills, and that would encompass skills and tools that are helping people develop like emotional intelligence, um, social-emotional connectivity, communication skills, things like, uh, creative thinking, problem-solving, critical thinking. All these things that, you know, AI is not going to replace and arguably that the worker today and tomorrow needs to be even more adept in as AI becomes more of a solution to replace some of the rote skills that are, you know, existing, especially in entry-level or even mid-level jobs. And then fourth are solutions that are helping upskill and reskill both the current and the future workforce, um, which is very aligned to that third theme. So we're really excited, and again, these themes are both, uh, aligned to what we've seen as our, you know, working by working hands-on with companies in these different areas, but also really validated by the research much more broadly, uh, that shows that these are areas that are not only impactful to society as a whole as we're seeing these like major shifts and we're just at the tip of the iceberg, but also are going to drive, you know, a financial return, really kind of that doing well by doing good concept that I wholeheartedly believe in. Julian Alssid: Wow, that's a—that's a pretty broad mandate you've given yourself there, Miriam. So, given where you sit now as CEO and managing partner, what are some of the most exciting innovations that you're seeing in the early stage EdTech work and in and in the market more broadly? We'd love to hear some specific examples. Miriam Altman-Reyes: So, we just invested—our first fund investment in a company called Doowii, uh, which is basically pulling together data from many disparate systems and making it immediately actionable and sort of, um, uh, helping inform decisions both in the K-12 and higher ed institutional, for the institutional kind of buyer and user. So they fit nicely into that operational efficiency theme that I had mentioned is one that we're looking to invest in. Really, you know, interesting company, you know, have a number of partnerships that they developed early on, um, that really helped them drive growth and expansion, as well as working directly with schools and districts. And so, we think there's really high potential for Doowii, you know, and companies like that in the sector, and that's why we're excited to make our first investment in them. We're looking at a company as well that we're excited about that I probably can't name by name, but it may be illustrative of some of of what we're seeing, that is, um, developing, you know, similarly kind of AI, um, workflows and supports both training and upskilling, as well as like, (for example) financial management capabilities for small business owners. Um, small business, you know, represents more than half of our workforce and continues to grow, especially as again, sort of the corporate workforce is changing, and people are looking for different types of working dynamics and environments and opportunities. But a lot of, uh, a lot of small business owners are not necessarily like CFOs by background, right? Uh, and so there's a huge opportunity to help them really build bigger and more successful and sustainable businesses through leveraging tools like this, and then also help scale and upskill and reskill their employees, um, as well. So, those are a couple of examples. There's also a number of companies—one that I did an angel investment in, several others we're looking at that are more in like the social capital development space. So, there's a company called Hiveclass that basically has a sort of whole full spectrum solution for both mental and physical health and wellness for K-12 specifically as at least a starting point, which is really unique. There's a lot of kind of social-emotional development and mental health, uh, content and platforms that are available to K-12. There's less in the physical education space, but, you know, maybe some competitors. But there's really no one who's bringing these, the physical and the mental health together, which is again, really foundational. If you don't have your physical and mental health as a baseline, it's very hard for, you know, students to be successful in school and and therefore to build the habits that ensure that they're successful, you know, longer term as they become employees into the workforce. So, there are so many companies. I mean, I look at, you know, dozens of companies in a week, and sometimes even in a day. Um, but that gives you an idea of some that I think are really exciting in the market. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, you mentioned, Miriam, the impact of AI on your work and and how you're thinking more about, you know, what are the uniquely human skills that we can all help to build in a time and space where AI is perhaps doing the more rote work more readily? But but there are these unique human, human capabilities. Just curious to hear how your work has shifted even over the last few years around the technology piece of how you think about your investment strategy, because I would imagine there's some shifting that that happens and continues to happen. I'm sure across your work, but that's one area that, when you mentioned it, I was like, "Oh, let's talk more about that." Miriam Altman-Reyes: Absolutely. Yeah, it's a really exciting time, I think, you know. Certainly there's there's a level of uncertainty in times like like today's, but I think I'm extremely excited, you know, just thinking only in just the last three years of working with, several dozen companies, at this point, you know, even though we've, if we just start there, right? Since we started Brass Ring, I think, you know, the kinds of companies, um, the access to development of technology and like the ability to to invest in R&D with, you know, limited resources is so much broader than it used to be, at least to get kind of initial ideas developed and out the door. You don't need to hire a full engineering team at that stage, right? And then as now business continues to evolve and grow, you can get so much more out of a smaller engineering team today than you could even five years ago because these engineering teams themselves are using AI tools, for example, to help facilitate the development of the products that they're building. Which, of course, again, if we're talking about operational efficiency, it helps them, you know, do more in fewer hours than they ever could have done, you know, before without these kinds of tools. So, I think, you know, access to technical talent, um, at a reasonable price is definitely expanding. There's obviously the flip side where, you know, people are raising huge amounts of money in certain, you know, sectors and industries and investing tremendous amounts in technology development as well. If we're thinking really specifically about our sectors and sort of the stage businesses we're in, I think it's really like largely a really positive outcome we've seen. I think the flip side is that because it is so much easier for anyone, uh, to kind of develop technology, uh, you know, to some degree or another at least, the defensibility of technology is something that we scrutinize a lot more than we used to. We always did, but it's just something you have to look at much more carefully and closely, you know. What is the real moat for this solution? How do we know that some of these bigger players are not going to be able to, you know, easily displace, um, the existing solutions? And also, these bigger players are paying a lot more attention to education and workforce-facing technology than they ever have before. The Googles of the world had EdTech, but, you know, arguably are investing a lot more in really influencing, uh, and building tools to help shift how, uh, school operates and how the workforce operates in a way that they weren't doing, you know, 5, 10, 15 years ago. There's just a lot more attention paid, so the competitive risks are much higher. So, you know, that's an interesting dynamic that we're seeing as well. You know, and just the proliferation of technologies out there as well, right? Like where there may have been, I don't know, 10 upskilling and reskilling solutions 10 years ago, now there's 100 or 1,000. And so, again, just being able for founders and and these companies to be able to, A, you know, get a chunk of the market early, and B, differentiate and really communicate their unique value proposition and also, you know, their their team's unique perspective and skill set and lived experience and how it sets them apart and sets them ahead is more important today, I think, than it, you know, ever has been in the past. So, those are a couple of things that we're, you know, noticing. I think, you know, people talk a lot about valuations as well in venture, um, you know, when it comes to AI-driven solutions. I think, you know, in certain industries certainly we've seen, you know, valuations go all over the map. I think in future of learning work, generally, they've been fairly right-sized, which I think is good for the industry overall, um, and, you know, not extremely overpriced, frankly, uh, which I think just sets like these companies, founders, and their investors up for longer-term success as we navigate what the future looks like as well. Julian Alssid: As I understand it, you take a pretty hands-on approach with your portfolio companies, and it'd be really interesting to hear you talk a little about the sort of hurdles, the common hurdles that you see founders that founders face building their for the future of work and but also how do you help them address these challenges and scale? I mean, you know, you gave a little, you gave us a little taste of what it was like for you going through the trials and tribulations of startup land. How do you keep them all sane? Miriam Altman-Reyes: I'll answer that in a few parts. First of all, the most common things that we see founders need right out the gate are support with sales and go-to-market, just, you know, increasing their revenue, figuring out their revenue operations, talent acquisition, etc. Everything that, their narrative, their presentation, everything that's tied to top-line increasing their growing the business. Tied to that is also making sure that their retention of the existing customer is also strong and there's an opportunity for expansion. So that's sort of the whole bucket, I would say, is like revenue and growth. Um, and that usually is number one, uh, even if there are different flavors of just like what kinds of things that founders need help with, and uh, where I personally have a background in, you know, sales and go-to-market, just from sort of learning on the fly, no- nothing formalized, uh, in my like professional training, um, early, uh, schooling training, I guess, but just for like lived experience. Um, and we have several members of our team including an operating partner focused on growth who's served in several leadership capacities who, you know, together we take a really hands-on role with founders on that particular sort of area. The second, I would say, is everything related to kind of, um, you know, cash flow operations, financial management, and fundraising. Uh, you know, those kind of all go hand-in-hand to some degree. We find a lot of times that founders in our sector, future learning work, come in with incredible lived experience, and you can't teach lived experience. So to me, that's incredibly important. But very little business experience, you know, in business acumen. And so, uh, the good news is that you can teach those kinds of skills, right? Like how to review financial statements, how to create financial projections that are, you know, based in realistic assumptions, um, how to execute against those, um, how to adjust and scenario plan if you don't hit your revenue target, right? Like when, you know, how do you make sure that the company can continue to sustain itself? You know, how do you model in fundraises, right? Like when's the right time to fundraise? How much should you fundraise? From whom should you fundraise? What should the valuation of your fundraise be? What are the KPIs and milestones you need to hit along the way to warrant a fundraise? So there's so many different pieces of the puzzle that come together all related to the financial side. And so, our lead operating partner, who's also on our investment committee, Sumit Singh, uh, is in charge of that work, and he and I, you know, work really closely together as well, but he's kind of our our numbers guy, um, in a de facto kind of a fractional CFO. So, we see those areas initially as areas of support that founders most often need, and then for myself, a lot of what I, you know, I'm a generalist, so I touch a lot of different things, but a lot of like leadership development as well, helping founders kind of put a mirror up, um, understand how they're, uh, coming across internally, externally, um, how to strengthen their own narratives and ensure that they're able to get their goals achieved. And communication is just so critically part of that, and also just how you lead and manage all these different stakeholder groups, not just employees, but your customers. If your customer has a frustrating experience, you know, how are you or how are you coaching your team and how to respond to that? So many different examples like that, right? Like board communications and management, um, and sort of generating positive results from, you know, board engagement is another, you know, really common topic that I find myself supporting founders on. So, those are kind of the initial areas, and then we have—I mentioned a couple of our operating partners, but essentially, our model is that we have seven operating partners outside of myself, each of whom have gone through—most of them were on my former executive team, as I vanished before, so we've got a really great track record of working together, and most of them had served in some capacity in leadership through at least one other acquisition across the sector, if not two or three in some cases. Really just like an incredibly seasoned, um, and active operating team, not people who retired 10 years ago and are sort of, you know, meeting with founders like ad hoc once a month. Like, we're meeting with founders usually at least once a week in some capacity, um, when we're working with them, and sometimes more often than that, sort of really roll up our sleeves and supporting them. Our model is typically that pre-investment, we work with founders in what we call our, um, sort of a Phase 1, like more of an advisory capacity. We're getting to know founders, getting to know their businesses. They're also getting to know us and ensuring that they feel that there's strong value-add. And our goal is to come to a decision typically in, you know, ranges in terms of the time frame, but anywhere between like three and six months on average as to whether it makes sense to invest or not. And again, also opening that door to the founder, their self, to make sure they feel that we're a good fit before we get into a long-term relationship, which is what making an investment ends up being. And then post-investment, we usually invest at the seed stage, so typically when companies are like half a million to wiki 3 million in annual revenue, sort of how we define that on a very simple, simple metrics, uh, revenue metrics basis. Post that round of investment, we'll go even deeper as fractional executives, really helping professionalize the organization, um, with the idea being that we're helping the, you know, each kind of department function clean up a bit, um, prepare to bring in, you know, full-time staff and offboard our own team, and ultimately prepare for their first institutional fundraise, which is the Series A. And then in that Series A, things have gone well, then we'll do follow-on as well and continue to support the business in that way. So, it's a, you know, there's nuance to everything, and there's certainly like an acceleration component to it. People often are like, "Is this an accelerator? Is it a venture studio?" It's neither of those, that's why we've called it this Growth Studio because it's something a little bit different, but it certainly pulls elements from, um, from both of those, really with the goal being to again, sort of help provide that exited founder, exited operator guidance and expertise that many investors just don't have to founders that goes beyond just, you know, providing capital to to the business and, helping them grow. Kaitlin LeMoine: Yeah, I would—I could see that sort of support being invaluable. Like, each of those stages is so distinct, and the needs become, I feel like they change almost before your eyes, right? Like, we're just we're just putting this together, it's a startup. Wait a minute, there's this whole other bucket of things we never even thought we'd have to do, and now what do we do? And so I can imagine that your hands-on approach and focus on being a Growth Studio really resonates for a lot of founders because it's like, you don't really know what the challenges are until you're in it, right? Like, um, until you're kind of looking around that corner, you can't always anticipate what the challenges are going to be. Miriam Altman-Reyes: Absolutely. Yep. That's a big value. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, Miriam, what's a piece of practical advice or a couple pieces of practical advice that you would offer our listeners, whether they come from more of an investor space or as educators or or entrepreneurs, to help them become forces in navigating labor market shifts or, you know, like you can take it in the direction of navigating changes as you're running an organization, whether it's small or large? I will let you decide where you want to take your reply. Miriam Altman-Reyes: Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, back to like some of our investment themes, honestly, I think leaders at any type of organization, whether it's a startup or a larger entity or a school or a, you know, a consultancy, whatever your your sort of work is, um, and wherever you are, frankly, in the hierarchy, I think adaptability is so critical and and that social capital is so important. You know, having a network of people that you can, you know, go to to both continue to build relationships, get a, you know, sense of what's going on in the industry from their unique perspectives, um, what are the opportunities, what are the things that you should look out for, um, what are the skills that you should be developing, what experiences that you should be, you know, garnering, etc., for example. I think that that's really, really critical, and so again, just sort of, you know, having that social capital, developing those social-emotional skills, that social capital, um, and being able to be adaptable in, you know, today's market and honestly, I think the market for many years to come is going to be a requirement for people to be successful and continue to kind of stay ahead of what's going on and not be caught flat-footed. So, you know, that just takes, you know, critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills and, you know, having the head space as well to take a step back and sort of understand what's happening both on a micro and a macro level. Um, so, it's a lot of different moving pieces, but I think again, that advice I would give to founders, but I would give to people in a lot of different areas of the economy, frankly, you know. Policy makers as well, I think that's really important. And then, I think the other thing, more from like a team management perspective, is it has never been more important, even though I think it's always been important to find people that are incredibly mission-aligned to whatever it is that you are trying to do, right? What's the end outcome or end goal of what you're working on, what you're building, what you're developing, the policies you're implementing, etc. And ultimately, are the people mission-aligned and truly passionate about the same, you know, solving that challenge because, hopefully again to one of those themes that, you know, we're investing in, you know, as as things change and shift, you know, people will have the opportunity to upskill and reskill, but what you can't teach is passion, right? Ukulele can't teach someone how to care about something. You can give them experiences, but whether it's going to resonate with them or not is not a teachable thing. And so, that's always something that I would suggest, you know, certainly looking for. Um, it's a—it's an exciting time, uh, but it's definitely a time to keep your head on a swivel and, uh, you know, just keep paying attention to, you know, what's going on and try to kind of stay ahead of the curve as much as you can. Julian Alssid: And do you consult consulting firms? No, just kidding. We're, um, you know, this is like this is our—welcome to our lives. It's it's it's I think, and we know we're not alone because we talk with a lot of people, but it is a world in, you know, it was always challenging starting a business, and I think, you know, this world now is a world in flux. Miriam Altman-Reyes: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, we get requests, you know, to support lots of different kinds of organizations and entities, frankly, some of which we don't have the ability to say yes to because, you know, it's just a little bit outside of our wheelhouse. But, you know, nonprofits are dealing with, you know, these same challenges, for-profits, early-stage businesses, later-stage businesses, um, you know, PE-owned companies, public—I mean, it's just everyone is trying to figure this out in their own flavor on, and I think like ultimately, the the skills and sort of attributes as as a leader that you need, um, are similar, just how you apply them might be slightly different each context. Julian Alssid: Yeah, so true. Um, so Miriam, thank- thank you so much for taking the time today. This has been a really great conversation and soaking it all in. Um, how can our listeners continue to follow your work and, you know, your initiatives? Miriam Altman-Reyes: Yeah, thank you for asking. You know, we're both through Brass Ring Ventures' page, as well as through my own page. We're very active on LinkedIn, also on Instagram. I would say those are the two kind of, um, social channels to where you can find us. Um, so it's brassring.vc is our website, um, can also find more information there on us. And then my name is Miriam Altman-Reyes with a hyphen, uh, where you can find me on LinkedIn, uh, or Instagram like I said. And then for founders, and in particular, who are looking, uh, you know, for potential investment opportunity or support through our Growth Studio, by going to our website, you can find, um, on the upper right corner, um, and throughout the website, access to apply to join our Growth Studio, which is a short, less than 10-minute application, um, and we'll, you know, always review and get back to get back to founders always within a week or less. Kaitlin LeMoine: That's great. Thank you so much for those very practical next steps for In other practical next steps for our listeners as far as how to continue to follow or become involved, perhaps, with your great work. Really appreciate you taking the time to join us today, Miriam, and for sharing so many thoughts throughout this conversation. And we look forward to remaining in touch. Miriam Altman-Reyes: Thank you so much. I appreciate the conversation, the opportunity, and I also look forward to staying in touch. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and especially thanks to our producer, Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you're interested in learning more about Work Forces Consulting practice, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

May 12, 2026Episode 1030 min

Philip Weinberg: Scaling High-Impact Workforce Solutions

Philip Weinberg, President and CEO of STRIVE, discusses the organization's intensive, evidence-based model for workforce development. Drawing on his background in government and the private sector, Weinberg explains how STRIVE blends rigorous professional training with long-term "lifetime" coaching to help individuals facing significant systemic barriers move into family-sustaining career paths. The conversation explores STRIVE's rapid national expansion to 14 cities and its strategic approach to scaling without compromising quality, including the use of anchor employer partnerships to backward map training for high-demand sectors like healthcare, construction, and logistics. Weinberg emphasizes the necessity of ongoing coaching and social supports as the "secret sauce" for helping students thrive and discusses practical steps for building more inclusive talent pipelines. Transcript Julian Alssid: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin LeMoine: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Julian Alssid: Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. Kaitlin LeMoine: This podcast is an outgrowth of our workforce's consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher education, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our workforces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Julian Alssid: Kaitlin, in so many of our recent conversations, we've discussed how workforce development has moved from being a fringe topic to a central economic imperative. Over the past few years, there's been a real shift toward a skills-based ecosystem where the goal isn't just a one-and-done credential, but creating sustainable, family-sustaining career paths. Kaitlin LeMoine: It's true, Julian. And while the policy and tech landscapes are moving incredibly fast, we keep coming back to the importance of the human connection and social supports as the true secret sauce for helping students persist and thrive in this new economy. It's not just about the technical training; it's also about the foundational skills that allow learners to pivot and grow over a long-term career. Julian Alssid: Which is why we're so thrilled to have our guest join us today. Phil Weinberg is a leader who's been at the forefront of this work for years, proving that high-quality, intensive training can fundamentally change the trajectory of lives and communities. Kaitlin LeMoine: That's right, and the breadth of his experience is what makes him such a powerful voice on this topic. Phil is the President and CEO of STRIVE, and his career has spanned the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Before taking the helm at STRIVE in 2011, Phil was appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as President of the New York City Workforce Investment Board, where he oversaw workforce development services for the nation's largest workforce area. Julian Alssid: Phil's journey also includes significant leadership in education reform and private sector experience at the management consulting firm Bain & Company. That range of experience is exactly what he's used to lead STRIVE through a period of growth and renewal. Under Phil's leadership, STRIVE has scaled to 14 cities, focusing on helping students facing significant systemic barriers across the workforce. Kaitlin LeMoine: STRIVE has become a model for how to blend rigorous professional training with the long-term coaching necessary to move people from entry-level jobs into sustained careers. We are so happy to have you with us today. Welcome to the Work Forces podcast, Phil. Phil Weinberg: Thank you. Really thrilled to be here. Thanks for having me. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, as we dive into the conversation today, Phil, we'd love to hear you tell us in your own words a bit more about your background and the journey really that led you to your role at STRIVE. Phil Weinberg: Like many people, my journey has not been a straight line. As you've described it, it's been across multiple sectors: corporate, government, and now nonprofit. And I think like a lot of people, I entered the corporate sector thinking that was where the innovation was happening and if you wanted to do big things in social impact, that would be the platform to do so. And I had an early experience, my first time working in government in Chicago—and this was, to date myself, back in the 1990s during the sort of welfare-to-work reform era—and I had the incredible fortune to work with some audacious, courageous, visionary leaders within government working across sectors. For me, it really opened my eyes to what's possible and the ability to do big things from government and across sectors. So, I once again found myself within city government, as you noted, working in the Bloomberg administration here in New York City, focused on helping uplift individuals and access career opportunities that could, in fact, change their lives and their families' lives. Whether it was on the education reform side, as you noted earlier, or on the career pathways economic mobility side, my career has always been focused on the question of how do we help individuals gain opportunity, advance in their lives, and how do we create communities that are more just and more equitable? And so, I'm sitting in city government, I got a call from a recruiter, and it turned out that STRIVE—which at that point had been around for about 25 years—had been a leading workforce development nonprofit. Its CEO was transitioning, and they were looking for someone to lead STRIVE into the future. And so, I came up to visit the team, I stepped into a classroom, and I was totally blown away by the power and depth and quality and engagement of what I encountered. And so for me, I just imagined how powerful it could be to take that model, expand it in New York City, and ultimately to consider how we could scale that in partnership with additional communities around the country. So, that's what landed me here at STRIVE. I am almost 15 years in and really grateful and energized to be part of this organization and part of this work, as you noted, in advancing economic mobility in communities nationally. Julian Alssid: So, STRIVE has grown and I guess serves about 2,000 students now, and you have a goal of serving 10,000 with support from your investors, like Blue Meridian and others. We heard you talk about using an evidence-based approach. So, how are you going to use an evidence-based approach to ensure that your really exponential expansion there doesn't compromise the quality of outcomes? Phil Weinberg: Well, I appreciate the question. You've actually perfectly hit upon the real tension, I think, for any organization that's considering taking a quality model and bringing it to scale. And so, I'd say that tension between quality, scale—I'd add a third component, which is the economics of scale—how to ensure that as you do grow and expand, that happens in a way that's economically sustainable. And I'd say for us, the focus on quality as we scale is first and foremost rooted in our values. As an organization, what do you believe? What's your true north? How do you ensure that you hold dear to those principles and those values and that all decisions really flow through that filter? More practically speaking, for us, it starts with having built an evidence-based model in partnership with our research partners at MDRC. So, building a comprehensive model that's built on the best evidence—in our case, it's predicated on the work-advance model. And so, ensuring that we are confident in the evidence base upon which our work is structured. Once we built that foundation, it then is incumbent on us as we grow to think about what elements of that model are essential to remain consistent across our communities we serve, and where do we see a need to be contextualized? In many cases, we see tremendous value and opportunity to contextualize the work that we do within our community partners—so, partnering with community colleges and other anchor institutions as a way to ensure that as STRIVE expands, we're doing so in a way that is authentic and resonant within the communities we serve. Investing in infrastructure. So, clearly there is delivering great programming, but then there is as you scale, having the infrastructure to support scaling with quality. What does that look like? These are often the not-the-most-glamorous aspects of operating a nonprofit, but often some of the most essential. Having strong performance systems and financial systems and data systems; having the operational backbone; having the programmatic support tools to ensure that as you grow, the support system is in place to grow thoughtfully and with quality. And I guess the last thing I would say is really growing with an eye toward being a learning organization. That certainly is one of our values at STRIVE, which is we've got a deep history to draw upon. Over four decades of service, over 90,000 students served. While there is that very deep reservoir of history of practice, we also approach the work with a great deal of humility, which is: what are we learning? What is the labor market telling us? What are the kind of policy context changes telling us? And how do we as an organization adapt accordingly so we can maintain quality and focus even as we grow? So, not an easy feat, I won't claim that we have sort of honed this, but we are certainly with a values-driven approach committed to that endeavor. Kaitlin LeMoine: So Phil, you've given us much to think about and dive into further during this conversation. I think one thing that, you know, would love to hear you talk a little bit more about are both the individuals you serve and also the programs you offer. So, we'd just love to hear a little bit more context there, especially as we think about, you know, like you're saying, the complexities of bringing these programs to different geographies and settings. Phil Weinberg: Absolutely. So STRIVE serves individuals who are talented, motivated, eager to work, and oftentimes have just found themselves facing steep obstacles—often multiple obstacles. And so, we serve a broad range of individuals 18 and older, men and women. People often come to us unemployed, mostly on public assistance, often facing obstacles like food insecurity, housing insecurity. Our average age is about 30, so we have many parents or those who are supporting minors. And so, we recognize that our students come to us with lots of aspirations. They've oftentimes found themselves in a revolving cycle of dead-end jobs, and the question is how do they break through? And so, the model we built is really one that provides a platform to support those individuals in gaining the kind of habits and behaviors to succeed at work, and also the skills and credentials and supports to be able to enter entry-level positions that have good jobs, the opportunities for advancement, and to support them in accomplishing their goals. I guess the one other thing I would note is that among the obstacles our students face, nearly half our students have been impacted by the justice system—whether they've been direct incarcerated and returning from incarceration. And I'd say one thing we've done programmatically is really ensure that we are meeting our students where they are. So, we've over the last decade worked with real intention to ensure that we are focusing our programmatic model and our interventions exactly where our students need them most. So, we've got, to your question about what are our programs, we've got our flagship program, which is our career path program. It supports a wide range of students to build careers in the healthcare, construction, and logistics industries. Those for us have become real areas of expertise. But then we noticed that about a third of our students had been coming to us justice-impacted and from incarceration, and as a learning organization we asked ourselves, are we doing enough for this population? And with that, we engaged with kind of the leading thought partners we could find and built what we now call our Fresh Start program, which is designed for adults coming home from incarceration. For us, that's just a recognition that those individuals are facing other obstacles—family reunification, search for housing—in ways that perhaps our general student population is not. And so, we've based on the work we've done at Rikers Island and with a number of correctional departments and partners, we've been honing and delivering this program for years and we're now in the process of replicating this. We just launched it in Birmingham, Alabama, the first time outside of New York City. And I'd say the last thing I would say is that we also noticed about a third of our students were coming to us as young adults, 18 to 24 years old. We asked ourselves the same question: are we doing enough to support the successful outcomes as a data-driven, kind of evidence-based organization? And what we did is we decided to kind of completely revisit and interrogate our programming for these young folks. So, we invited in thought partners who specialize in positive youth development, our research partners at MDRC, and we reconstructed based on our core programmatic pillars a model that we now call our Future Leaders model, which is specifically designed for 18 to 24-year-olds. This is a model that's probably been implemented in upwards of 15 to 20 communities serving thousands of young people across the country over the past decade. Julian Alssid: So, in your efforts, Phil, working with healthcare, construction, logistics, my understanding is that a key part of the model involves working with employers—sort of anchor employers—to map or backward-map capabilities into the programming. Can you speak about how that takes place? How do you keep current? You know, we do a lot of work building those bridges between education and training organizations and employers and it just feels like a constant process of trying to keep up. How do you do it and ensure long-term success? Phil Weinberg: Absolutely. I appreciate the terminology backward-map. In many cases, it feels like that is in fact the work that we're doing. So, it started with a very intentional selection of the sectors within which we work. We work with a terrific group of thought partners to determine where do we see opportunities in the labor market where there are good jobs with good wages and conditions for good jobs and advancement potential where you do not need a post-secondary degree in order to get your foot in the door in order to be able to then advance? For us, that in fact led us to healthcare and to construction and to logistics. But there's the concept, there's the labor market data and what it tells us and where we think there's opportunity, and then there's what, as you were noting Julian, the real world tells us—our employer partners, where there's actually demand and what the skill sets and competencies that graduates would need in order to be able to succeed and stand out and thrive in the workplace. So, for us, that starts with partnerships and listening closely to our employer partners. I'll use healthcare as just a brief example, and I'll use our kind of backyard, our flagship site in New York City and in the community of East Harlem. The largest hospital in East Harlem is called Mount Sinai, now part of Mount Sinai Health System. And they were trying to increase their community hiring and they were also trying to fill roles that they had found difficult to fill in their medical and billing system. So they reached out to STRIVE. This was not an area of expertise for us at the time but a real area of aspiration. This is over a decade ago, and we said we would love to co-create something with you. So we built a pilot, and the pilot was to serve a small group of 15 students to be able to access positions to operate those medical billing and scheduling systems. To fast-forward, it was a huge success because we started small, we co-created this in partnership with the human resources team—so, this was not a notion of doing something charitable or philanthropic; this was a notion of being a good community partner, a good community citizen as a hospital, and also trying to tap into untapped talent pipelines. I mention that example because that kernel, that seed that got planted really became the basis of a much broader-based partnership with that hospital system as they grew in a range of positions that are really positive entry points into healthcare careers—patient care positions, billing and coding positions, environmental positions, dietary transporters. The quality of those relationships, listening to our employer partners, understanding their pain points, understanding where they have hiring gaps... In fact, it was then in the pandemic when they said, you know what, we don't need the positions that you've been partnering with us on, but we now need to transport equipment and supplies across our system. Can you help us? And so, we leaned into that opportunity and that helped us build out a robust logistics pathway within our health partnerships and also beyond. For us, it really is about rooting in the partnership, listening closely to the human resources teams. When we now engage with new communities about where and how STRIVE might be able to make a difference, those are always predicated on deep partnerships, mutually beneficial partnerships with anchor employers. I'll just use the example of Ochsner Health in New Orleans, which has been a phenomenal partner of ours. I'd say the ingredients that make a partnership strong—and this is certainly true at Ochsner, it's true at Mount Sinai and many of our hospital system and other employer partners across the country—one is they inform our training, so they're co-creating with us the training and credentialing that's going to be needed for someone to enter and then stand out in those roles. Two is they're working with us on the recruitment process, so they're not guaranteeing our students positions, our graduates, but they certainly are committing that if we're producing quality graduates, that then there will be a pathway into their hiring system. Some of our hospital partners in fact have STRIVE listed on their dropdown menus for their hiring teams. And then I'd say lastly, just a really honest and candid partnership based on two-way communication: where is this working, where is this falling short, constantly iterating to ensure that we're learning lessons together, we're doing this in a way that is building strength and trust in the relationship and ultimately deepening partnerships and extending those into other domains. Kaitlin LeMoine: As you seek to expand and broaden your reach across states and regions, I'm wondering, do you also look at different industries as well? Because I can see, I mean, this is such an intensive process you're talking about. So, are you thinking you're going to focus in those three areas long-term, or do you also look to, you know, what are the emerging industries or areas of opportunity across different regions? Phil Weinberg: Absolutely. So, you must have been eavesdropping in our planning conversations. We're going through some intensive planning. I'd say a couple things. One is that we are always exploring where else do we think we can contribute to a local talent ecosystem and where do we think STRIVE is distinctly equipped to be able to do so. In many cases, it's by developing depth in areas where we feel like we are particularly well-suited and our student population is particularly well-suited. But as you noted, there's lots of shifts in the economy, there's lots of disruptions related to technology, and so it constantly challenges us to think about are there other industries or in some cases other occupations within industries where we're seeing increases or spikes in demand and where we think STRIVE might be particularly well-suited to support that? I would say that one of our ethos as an organization, we do try to be responsive and agile to the changing market conditions, but we try not to be overly opportunistic in the sense that it's okay to say no. It's okay to look at an opportunity, say that is certainly a need that the employer or the community has. Are we best equipped to support that community or those sets of employers to fill those needs? Those are the conversations that we're typically having as we think about ways in which we can deepen our impact and broaden it within current and new communities. Julian Alssid: Phil, so STRIVE is known for its support model, which I guess continues over time with your students. Can you speak a bit about the model and why do you see it, how does it fit and how is it part of the secret sauce of STRIVE? Phil Weinberg: Thank you for the question. I think Kaitlin, you had referenced early in the discussion the notion of human connection. Even in a world that is being disrupted rapidly by technology—and all organizations, including STRIVE, are actively assessing how to best incorporate that into our operating and programmatic models—we're also mindful that the communities we serve often respond best when there is a deep level of human connection. So we built a model predicated on five pillars. The first is an intensive work readiness model. It's a three to four-week workshop focused solely on building the workplace habits and mindset to succeed at work. People often call these soft skills; we know these as anything but soft. This is professional communication, managing conflict at work, working within teams. That really gives our students the leg up, not just to get the job but also to succeed once in the workplace. The second pillar of the model is our occupational skills training. This is ensuring that we are working with employer partners, assessing labor market conditions to ensure that our students are credentialed in a way that gives them access and hopefully a leg up within the hiring process. Third is our coaching. This is an important ingredient because so many of our students do come to STRIVE encountering so many obstacles, both professionally and personally, that the coaching model for us is an incredibly important way for us to help them understand and navigate through many of these challenges, whether it's related to childcare or food or transportation or navigating their entanglements with the justice system. The fourth pillar of course is our partnerships with our employers. So this is our job placement assistance. And our last pillar is another we call part of our secret sauce, which is our lifetime support. I would note that there is, to go back to your question about scale, there is such a temptation in the workforce arena, particularly how incentives are structured, to be transactional—look for short-term milestones. We know that if you're really committed to the notion of economic mobility for everyone—and for STRIVE that means individuals that often face some of the highest hurdles to accessing and thriving in good careers—then we've got to build a model that's in it for the long term and that supports students not just at the entry point but coaching them on the advancement. For us, that is ensuring that getting that first job is a great cause for celebration, but it's not the final destination. Once our students get that first job, we're sticking with them and supporting them as they're navigating through complexities in their lives and as they're looking to upskill and advance within their careers. So it is a holistic model, it is a long-term model, it's a very human-centered model. For us it means our students build a great sense of community at STRIVE and a great deal of trust. And for us that's a very sacred principle that we work really hard to preserve and to celebrate even as we grow. Kaitlin LeMoine: And building that network, I feel like is so critical for many reasons including that, you know, as we let off the conversation with, careers are not linear, jumping from one job to another. So having that sustained network is an invaluable component of your program model. We like, given that the show is called Work Forces, we like to have a question that asks about how others can be forces in the work. And so Phil, we're curious to hear from you, what are a couple of practical steps you can offer our listeners who are looking to become forces in building inclusive talent pipelines or helping populations who are facing barriers to navigating the job market? Phil Weinberg: I would note one of your opening comments, which is this is an important time to be committed to this work. It does seem that there is a recognition across sectors—policymakers, corporate employers, philanthropic—that if we're really going to live up to our values as a country of fairness and justice and opportunity for all, then we've got to build these pathways that allow everybody, regardless of circumstance, to access careers and opportunities that can allow them and their families to live dignified lives that have the potential for advancement. So there's room for lots of actors and players. There's a tremendous amount of energy and activity. We have the great fortune at STRIVE across our communities to partner with organizations big and small. So what I would say is no matter where one finds themselves, whether a person or an organization, it's really being clear about, you know, beginning with the end in mind. Julian, this is the backward-mapping that you talked about. When you think about the talent ecosystem, what are we trying to accomplish? What are the objectives? What are the incentives of the various players? What are the funding opportunities? And then that allows each person or organization to take a really clear-eyed view of, like, where do we fit? Where could we add value? Is there a role for us here? What is our superpower as an organization? And that means listening really closely, not just coming into a situation with a solution in mind, but having some hypotheses or having some areas where you may feel like you can contribute, but sometimes those assumptions get disrupted in the course of engaging with partners across sectors. So being really intentional about when you bring a clear solution into a conversation versus when you're bringing a kind of appetite to co-create and problem-solve as part of a larger ecosystem. The partnership development—this is capital, and it gets built during the partnership development process. None of us can achieve any measure of impact unless we do it together. This is with other nonprofit partners, governmental partners, employer partners, philanthropic partners. So really investing time in building those relationships, building that capital, listening closely, understanding where there might be additive value to contribute. Again, there are many instances where we at STRIVE say, you know what, we're not sure we're a suitable addition to this partnership or to this effort to advance mobility, or are there ways we can be a thought partner, you know, but it may not be an appropriate setting for us to establish operations. And I'd say one other thought is the notion of dreaming big but starting small. This was the Mount Sinai example that I noted. It sometimes can feel really frustrating when there are big, grandiose ideas being discussed and yet, you know, sometimes it's not clear what the starting point is. For STRIVE, whether it's launching a new site or launching a new program, we like to start small. We like to start, test, pilot, learn. Many communities have been exhausted by the promises and the commitments that have been made and not delivered upon. Our commitment is we want to ensure that we are delivering upon any commitment that we make. We're not falling short. We're building confidence that the early steps we're taking have the potential to grow and snowball into larger commitments. So there's lots of practical ways and practical steps that any person or any organization can take to do so intentionally and to be open to the co-creation and the opportunism that can emerge in the course of a collaboration. Julian Alssid: So Phil, as we wind down our conversation, how can our listeners, as you dream big and continue to move in the direction of expansion here on the national level, how can our listeners follow you, continue to learn more? Phil Weinberg: Certainly any listener can come to us online at our website at strive.org. So that's an easy way to plug in and get a sense of our programming, where we are, how we're thinking about the landscape of economic mobility. Can certainly follow us on our social sites: LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram. Sign up for our newsletter. Come visit one of our sites! If you happen to be in a city or visiting a city where STRIVE has a presence, we would welcome you to come. Our approach is a partnership model, so we welcome partners of all kinds, we welcome thought partners, learning communities. We invite folks to come in and, you know, you never know where those conversations can lead. Kaitlin LeMoine: Great. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today, Phil. I feel like I'm taking so much from this conversation. I love that dream big, start small and really deciphering where you're going to play versus what you're not going to play, maybe, and making intentional choices on both sides of that line of thinking. So, really appreciate this conversation today. Thank you so much for joining us. Phil Weinberg: Thank you. Thank you both. Julian Alssid: Really appreciated your taking the time, Phil. Thanks. Phil Weinberg: Great. Thanks. Take care. Kaitlin LeMoine: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support and especially thanks to our producer Dustin Ramsdell. If you are interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you are interested in learning more about Work Forces consulting practice, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

April 28, 2026Episode 938 min

Ian Roark on Integrating Academic and Workforce Learning

Ian Roark, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Workforce Development at Pima Community College, discusses the institutional shift to merge academic affairs and workforce development into a single integrated system. Drawing on over 25 years of experience in education leadership, he explains how Pima is eliminating the traditional silos between credit and non-credit programs to create a cohesive educational model for all learners regardless of their point of entry. The conversation explores how the college uses an economic development lens to align legacy programs and new initiatives, such as specialized centers for excellence, with long term regional industry needs. Ian shares how Pima has supported the regional transition to an advanced manufacturing hub by integrating skills like optics and photonics into technical programs and expanding offerings in building construction, technology, and aviation. He highlights the importance of funding workforce development teams through general budgets rather than requiring them to generate their own revenue, which encourages deeper collaboration with academic faculty. Finally, he outlines how viewing workforce development as a paradigm rather than a series of programs enables community colleges to serve as the primary engine for regional economic mobility. Transcript Julian: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. This podcast is an outgrowth of our Work Forces consulting practice. Through weekly discussions, we seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher ed, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Kaitlin: In some of our more recent episodes, we have focused on the technical requirements for making credentials portable and transparent. While data standards and credential portability are essential to strengthening educational pathways for learners, many higher education institutions also still operate with an internal wall, so to speak, that separates credit programs from noncredit workforce development offerings. Julian: Yes, this separation can be difficult for learners to navigate. We often see degree programs and short term training operate with different funding structures and institutional goals. Breaking down these silos is an important priority for community college leaders. Kaitlin: And our guest today is leading institutional efforts to address these challenges. Ian Roark serves as the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Workforce Development at Pima Community College. He brings over 25 years of experience in education to this role, spanning K12 leadership and community college administration. Julian: Under Ian's leadership, Pima has been at the forefront of workforce innovation through the development of specialized centers for excellence and new models for apprenticeships and community college baccalaureate degrees. Ian also serves on a number of boards and committees at the local, state, and national levels. Notably, he was named to the Aspen Presidential Fellowship for Community College Excellence in 2019, called to serve on the Higher Learning Commission's Credential Lab Innovation Design Team in 2024, and has advised numerous organizations, including New America and Education Design Lab. Kaitlin: At Pima, Ian is implementing a no wrong door strategy to ensure that every student has a direct path to economic mobility and higher wages regardless of where they begin their education. Welcome to the podcast, Ian. We are happy to have you here. Ian Roark: Great, thanks Julian and thanks Kaitlin. It's a little embarrassing at times or humbling to hear a little bit of your biography read out loud, so I just want to start off by saying it's an honor to serve Pima Community College and our southern Arizona community in this role. And none of those things would have ever happened if it weren't for the amazing work of the team that supports me, administrators as well as our amazing faculty and staff at the institution. And I'd like to give a special shout out to our chancellor, Dr. Jeff Nasse, to whom I report, as it was his idea to merge academic affairs and workforce development under this combined role as provost. And so really excited to speak with you and the audience around the journey that we've been on at Pima Community College for this past 11 years and counting. Kaitlin: Well, we can't wait to dive in with you on all of that today. Ian, to get us started, can you please tell us in your own words a little bit more about your background and the journey that led to your current role and work at Pima? Ian Roark: Yeah, sure. I like to start off by saying I've been in school since I entered kindergarten. I haven't worked in the private sector ever, although a lot of my work has engaged the private sector quite often, especially in the workforce development roles that I've held in the past. So it's, you know, interesting to spend your whole entire, you know, working life and school life in school, both in K12 and in higher ed as a student and as, you know, a staff member, faculty member, and now administrator. I sometimes, if I had to compare myself to like what is your specialty, I'm sort of a Swiss Army knife of education in ways. I started off as a music teacher, I have a music degree. I quickly went into getting certified in K12 to teach social sciences and I've taught everything from sociology to psychology to history to world, you know, world geography and world history. I did a lot of curriculum work in K12, really outlining entire scopes of sequences from kindergarten to seniors in high school on learning outcomes and how those could be assessed. Went into administration in K12 as a Career Tech director and I had campus principal oversight over a technical campus, so really got to do a lot of operational work in working with faculty and working with students. My first role in higher education was as Dean of Career and Technical Education at Odessa College in Odessa, Texas, and just would like to give another shout out to my sponsor, mentor, and friend, Dr. Greg Williams, who is still president at Odessa after all these years, who opened the door for community college work and really opened my eyes. And then the community college experience really just, I fell in love with it. He promised me that you'll never want to do anything else when you enter community college, you're going to want to stay here until you retire, and so far he's been right. Just what we do at the community college world. So I served as Dean and then Executive Dean at Odessa College. I entered came to Pima Community College in 2015. Then we were structured as six quasi-independent campuses, each with a president reporting to our then-chancellor Lee Lambert. I reported to one president, but I was the first matrix vice president, meaning the institution was rigidly structured around these campuses and the reporting lines at these campuses, and the intent all along was for my role and the team that I built to start working cross-functionally across all these campuses with deans and faculty to break down barriers and silos as it related to serving employers in our community and ensuring that our learners had pathways to upward mobility in key industry sectors. And so my role has evolved over all of these years. I was Vice President of Workforce Development, then became Vice President of Workforce Development and Strategic Partnerships, then Vice Chancellor of Workforce Development and Innovation, and then now this past year serving both as acting and now non-acting provost and executive vice chancellor. And really the journey all along has been pointed in the direction of what you outlined, which is breaking down these artificial barriers that in higher education we put up, right, these firewalls between credit and non-credit, between workforce programs and academic programs. These are things that we've constructed on our own, in part because we're incentivized by our accreditation systems, by our federal financial aid systems to do so, but also because it's fall, spring, summer, rinse, repeat. Higher education is a very, going back to my music roots, rhythmic, right? There's a rhythm that's always underlying the operations. And it goes back, as you know, to an agrarian calendar, to Carnegie units that are named after a prominent individual who literally created it just as a way for us to account for the time we spend doing things in higher education. So once those things are set, it's very hard for us to break it. But at Pima we're doing some really interesting and amazing work, not just because it's interesting and amazing, but because we have seen firsthand how eliminating these silos and breaking down these traditional firewalls is what's best for our students, what's best for our community, and ultimately allows us to fulfill our mission at Pima, which is to empower every learner for every goal every day. Julian: Well, it seems that the big firewall is the academic affairs and workforce development separation. And so Pima's made this strategic decision to merge these worlds with you now at the helm of that effort. Can you speak with us a bit about the reasoning behind the shift and how it supports this idea of a no wrong door approach for learners? Ian Roark: Yeah, really right. So at the end of the day, whether a student is coming to Pima Community College for adult basic education where they want to earn their high school equivalency because perhaps they dropped out of high school or had circumstances that impacted that educational journey or put it to a stop, whether they're coming to us for non-credit workforce training, or as we're starting to refer to it as professional credit for upskilling and reskilling opportunities, or they're coming to us for a credit-bearing certificate or a degree in career and technical education, and/or still a primary mission of transfer—two-thirds of our students on any given year are coming here because they want to transfer and primarily to the University of Arizona, we are proud to partner with them of course here in Tucson—at the end of the day, they're not doing that because they want to earn college credit or get a certificate, they're doing these things, they're choosing Pima because of what's at the end of that educational journey, whichever door they enter. It's because they know that whether it's earning a certificate, earning a degree, getting an industry-recognized credential, or completing the Arizona General Education Curriculum to transfer to one of our state universities, or earning a full transfer degree and then transferring, they're doing all of these things because they know at the end of that there's a better job opportunity. And so at the end of the day, it's really about workforce development whether we call it transfer, whether we call it workforce development, whether we call it career and technical education. Our students are seeking and earning these credentials because of what it does for them and their households, which is a better pathway to upward mobility. So we really need to start framing all of it as workforce development. It's not this dichotomy that we have erected and then perpetuated. It really is workforce development for all of our students. And it's great that our transfer students want to pursue transfer degrees. We want to ensure that they're making those choices though in a career context. And so a little bit of our work this past year has been working across academic affairs and in partnership with student affairs to look at what the first-year experience looks like for all of our learners. And so starting next year, we are having a more career-focused first-year experience and onboarding process for all of our students. And one of our strategic plan goals that's emerging out of our current strategic planning process is: what would it look like if every single learner at the college, whether they're a transfer student, even in a traditional area like psychology or economics or a STEM field like engineering, what would it look like if every single learner had an opportunity to have a work-based learning experience or an experiential experience tied to real-world application as part of their program of study? And that's kind of how we're approaching it. That could be the reality, especially when we start to think about the impact of artificial intelligence and things like XR or AR/VR technology—how can we even use those sorts of technologies to bring those real-world applications into the classroom if we can't physically tie every single student to an internship or a job shadow per se? So those are the things we're thinking about, already putting in place with respect to the first-year experience. And it's really an exciting time to see how, really across the college, faculty in particular are embracing this. I know that Julian knows one of my partners and a team member, the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Workforce Development, Amanda Abens. She's traveling with one of our journalism faculty in a transfer program to a journalism conference to talk about the unification of workforce development and the academic piece in this particular program of study. And so we're seeing people really embrace the idea that this is not a dichotomy. We are one family, one team focused on one mission, which is to better serve our students so that they can accomplish their college and career goals, whatever those may be, as long as they are tied to a pathway for upward mobility. Kaitlin: So to that point, the last point you just made, how are you working to ensure that the pathways that are set up lead to tangible outcomes like wage gains, while making it easier for students to stack those skills? Because I think what you said earlier about really all of this learning is workforce development in some ways, I think really resonates for us. I mean, we have talked about that, Julian, I feel like numerous times just about, at least at the high level of, man, it feels like now more than ever education is—the point is like, how do we think about how to develop talent and what does that look like? And how does it look like to develop the workforce of the future? And so when you said that, it really resonated with me. But I'm curious to hear a little bit more about what is your thinking behind building for those tangible outcomes. Ian Roark: Yeah, in the opening Julian mentioned the centers for excellence that are at our now five campuses at Pima Community College and we are seeking to open more. But we have over the past decade been opening these centers for excellence that are not only extraordinary physical locations of great magnitude with respect to career technical education and increased square footage, top-of-the-line state-of-the-art technology working with industry to develop our programs, but it's also concentrating programs on a single geography so that faculty can co-create programs together aligned to business and industry. And we've done a lot of great work in the workforce development and technical education space, so we've started a lot of new programs with exactly what you said, Kaitlin, in mind, which is: what are the pathways that are aligned to the economic development priorities of our community and that lead to opportunities for increased wages and upward mobility? I won't go through all of them, but I'll talk about some of them. And I do want to put it in the context of the difference of workforce development in the here and now and workforce development with an economic development lens, because there is a difference. Workforce development here and now is really about our institution's ability to respond to whatever request business and industry brings to us today. So my ability, my team's ability to respond to whatever request, say you or Julian brought for Kaitlin as a potential employer, hypothetical employer in our community, is really based on whether or not we foresaw that request coming. So we can only respond with the capacity that we have now, which is based on past strategy. Our current strategy that is rooted in economic development means partnering not only with business and industry but business and industry associations, our economic development partners—for us that's the Chamber of Southern Arizona, the economic development offices of Pima County and all of our surrounding municipalities, including Tucson, suburbs—and really learning about where community leadership, civic leadership wants Tucson and Pima County to be ten years from now, twenty years from now, and designing our programs with that mindset at the forefront. So pictured behind me is an example of that. That's a over 100,000 square foot advanced manufacturing training center that was conceptualized in 2017 in partnership with business and industry, opened two years ago, and it was built under the prospect of: we are becoming an advanced manufacturing community. Ten years ago we weren't, we were a call center community. Now the predominant number of economic development leads that our partners bring to the community are in advanced manufacturing. And so we built this center not because it's an awesome facility and has lots of cool things in it like robots and lasers and optics and all these things, it's because we knew that's where the civic leadership wanted the community to go, and now we have the ability to train at scale for any employer partner that either relocates or expands in our community. So that's been the trajectory over the past decade. Areas like advanced manufacturing, IT cybersecurity, the new health profession center of excellence. But right now we also have a challenge, Kaitlin, which is we are over 50 years old, almost 55 years old as an institution, and we have a lot of legacy programs. We're having to look at those, say, is this really the best way to offer this program to our learners? Is it really the best program for us to have? Is it really aligned to business and industry? So I'm sure like many listeners of this show, we have our program review processes that sort of answer those questions on a four-year cycle of program review for every program. But by merging academic affairs and workforce development, we have brought in all of the expertise of the workforce development team into the program review process to help the academic affairs professionals answer that question and do it together. Right? Previously that really wasn't the case. Academic affairs had its own process and workforce development over here, we were starting lots of new programs in partnership, but we really didn't have a role in assessing and validating all of the existing legacy programs. And so the unification of academic affairs and workforce development really allows for the opening of the door down to a very detailed and rigorous level of depth and engagement analyzing the outcomes of programs not only in the traditional context of persistence, retention, and completion, but labor market alignment. Is this credential actually what is required to get the job that this program purports to allow students to get? And is it really a good return on investment for the individual learner, their household, and the community at large for us to be offering this program at this price point? Perhaps there's a different way we can offer it. So that's just a little bit about how we're thinking of both the starting up of the new programs in a center of excellence context, but looking at the legacy programs that we have and being really judicious on how we answer those questions with respect to market-driven curriculum. Julian: It is such a challenge. When you first started talking about, you know, like fall, spring, summer, rinse, repeat, you know, having spent my time in community college and working a lot more on the workforce side, it isn't, as you know, that is not necessarily the same calendar, you know? Like if you're responding to workforce needs, they happen when they happen. So I'm still interested, I mean I get the idea of kind of bringing rigor to try to figure out how legacy programs fit, but of course your team, your faculty, you know, they did not sign up—the academic faculty by and large didn't sign up to like responding to the flavor of the day or the technology of the moment. And so how do you begin to reconcile the two in actuality and practice? Can you give us an example or two? You know, so for example, I mean I'll say in our world, we're doing some work now with community college that, you know, like many, kind of their manufacturing programs sort of go away on the credit side because like, who's going to wait all that time to get a degree when you can go out and get a decent job with less training? Now there's kind of this resurgence. How do you bring these programs back, both for short-term credentialing and for longer term? How do you do it? And yeah, can you give us an example or two? Ian Roark: Yes, certainly. Of course it varies by program area, right, because these things are not monolithic across even career and technical education, let alone traditional transfer programs. Every industry is different, and I think that's the first thing we have to keep in mind is let's work with our industry partners to really truly understand what's going on in their particular corner of the labor market and then ensure that we are responding in kind. Because a credit program is certainly not the answer to every labor market issue, and neither is a short-term training program the answer to every labor market issue. It really is industry-specific and market-driven. And so of course the cornerstone of that is partnership. So if you're not—if faculty and deans are designing programs without the input and connections that the workforce development internal partners bring to the table with respect to not only advisory committee members but again the thinking that economic development partners and workforce investment board partners and, you know, community-based organization partners bring to the table with respect to the diversity of people that we're serving in our community, then we're really designing programs, you know, in isolation and perpetuating sort of those stovepipes if you will. So of course it's industry alignment first and foremost. But then how we approached it at Pima—A because of resources and just the necessity of it, but B understanding that if we're going to eliminate these stovepipes, these silos, that we didn't start building short-term or not-for-credit or professional credit upskilling/reskilling opportunities in isolation of our full-time faculty and deans. The strategic choice that we made intentionally all along was that we are going to shelf all of our white labeling and third-party non-credit offerings. Right? That's not Pima. This may not be the case for every other community college, and I'm certainly not suggesting that every community technical college should or could do this. But for us, based on feedback we got from employers and frankly non-credit students in 2020 when we were working with the Education Design Lab to develop our Pima Fast Track program—short-term non-credit programs that wholly stack into our certificate and degree programs—the feedback was: do away with all of the white labeling things that you're doing and invest in building non-credit programs that are unique to you, Pima. And so we understood that the only way we can do that is to engage not only our industry partners but our full-time faculty and our adjunct faculty who are subject matter experts. And so all of our non-credit offerings that we offer through our divisions are designed and developed by our full-time faculty and adjunct faculty in partnership with business and industry, and then they are taught by those same individuals. And if we can't find an adjunct faculty member in the existing pool, we of course work with industry partners to recruit, as do many community technical colleges, from our advisory committee or other partners to teach those courses. And so a prime example, just yesterday evening, super excited, we did a ribbon-cutting for—you can't see it—a building behind the building pictured is our new building construction technology facility that our Dean Greg Wilson of Applied Technology and department head faculty member John Gerard, like really co-led in terms of developing and opening. It's 20,000 square feet under roof for HVAC, both residential and industrial, plumbing, electrical, so on and so forth. It's an amazing facility, and it was a long time coming. But during the ribbon-cutting speeches, it was recognized that the building construction technology faculty and team don't only serve the credit-seeking students that will be taking classes now in that new facility. They are actually teaching classes at what's called the Humberto Lopez Family Foundation Center of Opportunity, which is a residential facility for the unsheltered people in our community. They are delivering building construction technology training at that facility offsite in a non-credit fashion. They partner with our instructors that teach in our state penitentiary system, who we're also delivering our certificate programs in construction technology at that site. They've partnered with Habitat for Humanity to do offsite work related to building tiny homes for people who need shelter in our community. And they do non-credit workforce training fast track programs in this new facility, as they did in the old, and also provide the related technical instruction for apprenticeship. So just in that example, and by the way, I forgot, our building construction technology faculty also work with our adult basic education team on offering what's called Integrated Basic Education Skills Training, or IBEST, which is where people who don't yet have their high school diploma are taking college-level building construction technology courses that are co-taught by reading and mathematics faculty and building construction technology faculty in the same class—not at the same week, like literally in the same class, these co-designed classes. That's preparing them to pass their GED and earn a college certificate all at the same time. That's just one program. That's building construction technology. So that shows that when you have the mindset of innovation but the open hands of partnership between workforce development and academic affairs internally, right, how faculty and teams will respond. They are truly offering their curriculum in every way you could imagine just with that one example. And I could go on with others, but you asked for one, Julian. So, you know, shout out and congratulations to them again for the ribbon-cutting event that we had yesterday, and they deserve the accolades because they truly are living out what you're talking about. In building construction technology, there is no wrong door, no matter who you are in our community. If you want the outcomes that that program provides, you will find an open door. Julian: It really is striking how many pathways into that programming there are and that you've built in direct response to community needs. I mean, I'm wondering, you know, what happens when perhaps there's a workforce development program or offering that maybe aligns with multiple academic programs? How do you go about navigating that? I don't know how much of a nitty-gritty question that is, but it feels like, wow, I mean there's a lot of transferable skills and transferable content knowledge, right? And so what does that look like? Ian Roark: Well, we just had—we literally just went through a whole entire process to answer that question for what's called the optics industry here in southern Arizona. So optics and photonics is a very important enabling technology that is in many different industries. For those that aren't familiar with Tucson and southern Arizona, we have a large operation of RTX, or aka Raytheon, here, which is advanced manufacturing and integrated integration with respect to aerospace and defense. We also have a lot of maintenance and repair operations in aviation technology and then from there we have just a lot of small and medium-sized suppliers in advanced manufacturing that serve as a hub to these primary industries. And then also we have medical device manufacturing with Roche Ventana here in Tucson. Roche is an international company. Optics is a central integrated technology in all of these different fields. And so we were approached by what's called the Optics Valley, an outgrowth if you will of the Arizona Technology Council, an entity that we partner with often and rely on with respect to their expertise and engagement with all of the technological fields throughout Arizona and especially for us southern Arizona. And at first the conversations were sort of what we experience a lot in community college, which is: there's a labor market need for this specialized skill set among optics and photonics technicians, you need an optics and photonics degree. But we started looking in working with the group and on analyzing the labor market and what optics and photonics technicians actually do, and at the end of the day, we all came together in not only consensus but agreement of, right, a degree program for Pima in optics and photonics might be a thing down the road, but what we're seeing is that these are additive skills to programs that we already offer in our automated industrial technology and manufacturing programs. And so together we co-created some upskilling and reskilling opportunities in the professional credit space that we have already launched. On April 27th, we will launch our first round which is basically the fundamentals of optics and photonics and then over the summer, handling and logistics with respect to optics and photonics. And so it was a prime example of what you talked about—like we didn't really need to start from scratch. We already had a lot of programs that were 70, 80 percent aligned perhaps, you know, pulling numbers out of my hat, but like a lot of alignment already, but we were missing key pieces. And that means we were missing subject matter expertise among our faculty and we were missing the equipment needed to make up the rest of that gap. And so by partnering together, we have our subject matter experts with new adjunct faculty, we have new equipment that Optics Valley helped us acquire, and it's been a great partnership. And so a shout out to Katie Schwartz from Optics Valley, and again Dean Wilson and his faculty, and our workforce development team under Assistant Vice Chancellor Amanda Abens, who really came together to again co-create something that was market-driven and aligned to exactly what the industry was requiring. Julian: Wow, I have so many questions, Ian, and I think we may have to have like, you know, a chapter two, chapter three, because you're just—it's amazing what you've been doing for years, and so cool to see the latest iteration and have this catch-up. For our audience, for our listeners, what practical steps can you offer, you know, whether they're higher ed leaders navigating organizational change and policy and economic changes, or employers looking for deeper partnerships? You know, what practical steps can you suggest to help these folks better align their work with one another? It's really to serve our learners and the workforce. Ian Roark: To my colleagues and peers who are in positions of leadership and decision-making at your community and technical colleges, you know, thinking around—thinking about workforce development not as a series of programs, but as a paradigm is the first step. Right? When you think of—like it's workforce development—and so you automatically picture somebody with a hammer or a welding torch or, you know, a ratchet set in an automotive technology lab. That really feeds back into the stereotypes of, in this corner we have workforce development and in that corner we have our academics. Right? You really need to think about workforce development as a paradigm. How is your entire institution and all of the programs that you offer aligned to the labor market, whether it's at the certificate, two-year degree, or bachelor's degree level? Even if you're only offering the first two years of a bachelor's degree in your transfer programs, are they actually aligned to the bachelor's degrees that your community needs with respect to economic development and upward mobility? So workforce development not as a series of programs, but as a paradigm. And then secondly, right, are you investing in your workforce development team or are you expecting them to earn their own revenue? A strategic shift that we made at Pima Community College is that we generally fund as a part of the regular budget our workforce development team, because 11 years ago that team was charged with "selling" non-credit training, and what we discovered was they're selling a product our industry partners in the community didn't want or need. They want some of that, but not enough to sustain an entire workforce development unit. What did our business industry partners want? They wanted new programs, apprenticeships, certificates, degrees, buildings, all of the things that a revenue-generating self-sustaining unit wasn't empowered to do, wasn't funded to do. And so we removed that sort of disincentive for workforce development to partner with academics by saying, we're going to generally fund you. And the commitment that we made back to the institution is you will see the development of new credit programs, new non-credit programs, apprenticeships, grant-making opportunities, philanthropic partnerships through our Pima Foundation because we're gaining credibility with business and industry which opens that door, and now which you're—like again, a physical manifestation behind me—new things at the college that nobody 15 years ago would have even thought possible. And true to our word, we have delivered at the institution on that promise. By investing in workforce development and thinking about it as a paradigm and not a series of programs or an isolated self-sustaining unit over in the corner, we have shaped the trajectory of the entire institution. Importantly, right, we have credibility with business and industry. We can always do more, we can always do better, but we have gained a lot of credibility with business and industry and that's important not only for the reputation of the institution but again back to our mission, what we're really about, which is opening the doors for people in our community to pathways that they never would have imagined themselves setting foot on. Places where they can go from abject poverty, not having any education at all, to being able to sustain entire households with the earnings that they have in these new and exciting occupations that we are now aligned to be able to provide that education and training experience for. You know, it really is—those are the two things, and I know I brought it back to the mission—but workforce development as a paradigm and invest in your workforce development team. Don't leave them out there gnawing on leather on some shipwreck, like, you know, as they're trying to cross the Pacific Ocean. Give them the tools they need to help the rest of your college achieve its mission. Kaitlin: Well, thank you so much for those very practical steps. Really love the focus on really this holistic intentional strategy that allows for teams to be working cross-functionally and really as you're saying, right, like everyone rises when we have a chance to collaborate in such a not only cross-functional but just mutually beneficial way both for people within the institution, for the learners, and for the community at large. As we wind down the conversation today, Ian, how can our listeners learn more and continue to follow your work and the innovations and great efforts happening at Pima? Ian Roark: Yeah, usually I would say I post a lot on LinkedIn, it's the only social media outlet you'll find me in. I've been a little busy with this joint role of academic affairs and workforce development, right? We're still reorganizing, we're still figuring some things out, so I'm a little behind on the LinkedIn posting, but LinkedIn is a great place to see some of the things that we've done and I will start posting again at some point soon. And, you know, occasionally appear on podcasts such as this one, so I'll take Julian up on the offer for part two. But again, it's been an honor and a privilege to represent our college on Work Forces podcast and so again, a special thank you to our board, to again our chancellor, Dr. Jeff Nasse. It was, you know, he was the one who said, yeah, we're going to go one step further than you've already taken this, we're going to merge academic affairs and workforce development. And so just a special thank you to Chancellor Nasse and his leadership. And finally again to the team that really is—works with me and supports me in our work, right? We have an amazing leadership team, the provost leadership team, but also our faculty and staff. Without our faculty, who do what they do in the classroom each and every single day, the college wouldn't exist, right? People don't sign up for Pima Community College because there's a provost or any other position, they sign up for classes because there are faculty who are doing amazing things in service to our students each and every day. And that's just excited again to represent all of our team here on this podcast. Julian: Thank you, Ian. It's really been a great conversation. Ian Roark: Thank you so much. Kaitlin: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and a special thanks to our producer Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you're interested in learning more about Work Forces Consulting, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

April 14, 2026Episode 832 min

Audrey Ellis On AI and Higher Education Transformation

Audrey Ellis, Founder and Principal of T3 Advisory, discusses the strategic and human-centered implementation of artificial intelligence across higher education. Drawing on extensive experience in college policy and institutional effectiveness, she explains how institutions can move from isolated experimentation to a comprehensive AI strategy that supports all learners. The conversation highlights findings from a national study titled AI for Institutional Transformation, which was conducted in partnership with Complete College America and funded by the Gates Foundation. Audrey describes artificial intelligence as an accelerator of existing institutional challenges, such as disorganized data and limited human capacity, while identifying specific opportunities for positive impact, including in the areas of student advising and financial aid. She introduces open practical tools for leaders, including an AI adoption rubric and a survey suite designed to capture feedback from students and staff. Audrey encourages leaders to take a proactive approach to AI use, emphasizing the importance of establishing clear rules to foster safe and effective experimentation. These efforts can lead to the automation of routine administrative work, allowing educators more time to build the human connections that support student success. Transcript Julian: Welcome to the Work Forces podcast. I'm Julian Alssid. Kaitlin: And I'm Kaitlin LeMoine, and we speak with innovators who are shaping the future of work and learning. Together, we unpack the complex elements of workforce and career preparation and offer practical solutions that can be scaled and sustained. This podcast is an outgrowth of our workforce's consulting practice through weekly discussions. We seek to share the trends and themes we see in our work and amplify impactful efforts happening in higher ed, industry, and workforce development all across the country. We are grateful to Lumina Foundation for its past support during the initial development and launch of this podcast and invite future sponsors of this effort. Please check out our Work Forces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Julian: Kaitlin, AI has become such a pervasive topic. It seems to make its way into every conversation we have on this podcast, on this planet, from skills validation to credential transparency to workforce development. But there is a conversation that we haven't had in some time. How are colleges and universities approaching AI implementation? How are they approaching it not just in the classroom, but across the technical infrastructure that supports running these large complex institutions? Kaitlin: Yes, that is a critical question. We hear a lot about AI experimentation from faculty piloting tools to students using AI when studying or completing assignments, but less about the coordination and decision making challenges underneath it all. How do institutions move from pockets of experimentation to a holistic strategy? And how do they address the human capacity, governance structures, and academic considerations required to scale AI responsibly? Julian: Exactly. And that is where our guest today comes in. Audrey Ellis is the founder and principal of T3 Advisory, where she partners with higher education institutions on AI strategy, change management, and student centered process improvement. Her research focuses on AI adoption, institutional transformation, and addressing initiative fatigue in the higher ed. Audrey has co-authored numerous publications on AI and student success and frequently delivers keynotes and workshops on technology, equity, and education. Kaitlin: Audrey holds a doctor of management in community college policy and administration from the University of Maryland Global Campus, an MS Ed from the University of Pennsylvania, and a BA from Tufts University. Audrey brings both consulting and firsthand institutional experience leading effectiveness, strategic planning, and student success initiatives at community colleges. Welcome to Work Forces, Audrey. We are so glad to have you with us today. Audrey Ellis: Thanks. It's great to be here. Julian: And though we gave a bit about your background, we would love to hear you tell us a bit more about who you are and the journey that led you to founding T3 Advisory. Audrey Ellis: It's an honor to be here and really excited to talk about this ubiquitous topic of AI in every industry, really. And I think that's what makes it interesting in higher ed, right, because we serve all the industries. So it not only is appearing there, but in how we make all of our decisions on campus these days. A little bit about me, I started T3 a little over three years ago. I am from New England, Massachusetts. We are focused on supporting institutions that are access oriented, so they really serve the vast majority of students in this country in their postsecondary experience, but that often don't get the same resources allocated to them as the elite or more well-funded institutions. So that looks like community colleges, minority serving institutions, and regional publics primarily. Especially because those institutions are making a tremendous amount of decisions that need to be made around AI and often with less resources than, you know, their peers at other institutions that we hear about more often in the news. So really trying to create more knowledge sharing among those access oriented institutions so we can all learn together right now, because I think we need to face the reality that we're all a little bit of a student when it comes to AI. Feel like every morning I'm starting a new course because the tool changes overnight, it seems. So back to basics every single day with Claude and ChatGPT, Gemini, starting new features every morning. Julian: Yeah, it is just dizzying, isn't it? Audrey Ellis: It sure is. Julian: So your organization recently released a national study examining AI implementation across colleges and universities. Would love to hear about the study and some of the biggest challenges that higher ed is facing. Audrey Ellis: Yeah, we conducted a national study called AI for Institutional Transformation. We were really generously funded by the Gates Foundation and we worked with Complete College America to conduct interviews with senior leaders at over 30 institutions across the country from that segment that I just described. Our goal was really to understand how institutional leaders are kind of navigating a dual path. So we have institutions both trying to figure out today, tomorrow, this semester, next semester, what does AI mean for us? But we also are trying to understand, you know, dream big, wave a magic wand, what does AI mean in three years or five years? With the exponential rate of change and that comes with opportunity, and so we wanted to understand kind of both sides of that conversation: policy, governance, practical changes, but then also really big picture what could AI mean for how we do work in higher ed. And so all of this work was considered public goods funded in their investment strategy at Gates. So that's really exciting because it means that everything that we have published is available to the field for free. So I appreciate you having us on. I just really want to make sure that institutions know that this body of research and all of the tools that we've developed are available and can be downloaded, repurposed, edited, modified today. So we'll be sure to share the link and hopefully you can share that out with the listeners, but really excited to kind of get into what we learned. Kaitlin: Yes, so please tell us a bit about, you know, what do you see as some of the biggest—I guess you could start at either end of the spectrum—what are some of the biggest challenges or the biggest opportunities? Why don't you take us where you'd like to go first and then we can discuss the whole spectrum. Audrey Ellis: Sure. Let's start with the challenges. I think I'm a practical person and there's no doubt there's a lot of opportunity, but I think in order to be around to play with the opportunity, we have to figure out right now. So let's start there. We need to kind of, I think, what we've heard and what we've seen from the institutions that we've interviewed and studied is that very few institutions are taking a coordinated strategic approach to their AI adoption right now. So what that means is that kind of as you described in the intro, there are a tremendous amount of pilots and experimentation happening at institutions. And I feel pretty confident saying that probably every institution has at least a little bit of AI experimentation. I don't think that any institution could say they have no AI happening on campus anymore. But what that looks like at most institutions is a very decentralized, dispersed, kind of scattershot approach to AI adoption and AI innovation. Which isn't bad. So I'm not trying to suggest that institutions have made the wrong move so far, but that's come out of kind of a couple of steps that leaders have made that has led them to take this more decentralized approach. So we developed a rubric that helps institutional leaders think about kind of all the different decision areas or dimensions of AI adoption, everything from budget investments to mission alignment. All of those play a part. And when we saw our institutions that are kind of the most far ahead with their institutional transformation, they had addressed all of the different areas, whereas we saw that institutions, and really like around 80 percent of the institutions that we interviewed, are more in this scattershot area of implementation. And that's often happened because there's been a real focus on things like policy and academic integrity, which is certainly an important thing to consider, and I don't want to diminish the value of the conversation around academic integrity. But often it's led to kind of kicking the can down the road on any other decision making around AI. Like, we're going to stand up a committee or a task force and until they have the policy, we're doing AI, that box is checked, and we'll get there later. And what that's leading to is a growing divide between institutions who are taking this more strategic centralized approach around AI adoption where they're thinking, you know, what are the biggest strategic plays that I can make right now? Whether it's workflow efficiency or improving the student experience or kind of like winning back time that, you know, from an initiative fatigue standpoint, like our stakeholders on campus have been, you know, saying that they've been wearing multiple hats for decades with all of the reform and work that we do. So there's a lot of strategic opportunity here. But importantly, the divide is happening not only between decentralized and centralized or strategic adoption, but that is happening across kind of the resource lines of institutions. So those institutions that are more well resourced, which we used endowments as a proxy for resourced, those institutions that have those massive endowments are taking a centralized strategic approach and that gap is going to further widen if institutions don't figure out how to wrap their arms fully around their institutional strategy. A couple of other kind of big findings we saw is that, you know, staff are really not being considered in the training equation. You know, in higher ed, and I'm sure from your workforces angle this resonates, like we call ourselves the connector to the workforce, like we that is a huge part of our mission. But our institutions are also part of the workforce. Like, we employ so many people in our region. And we've actually often overlooked a really significant part of our own workforce in this moment when it comes to talking about AI skills and AI literacy. So we found that almost none of the institutions that we interviewed had intentional training for their staff. They were, you know, leveraging teaching and learning centers, professional development for faculty, but because there's often not a comparable center for staff, those folks were getting pretty overlooked in the training conversation. And that's just an example of the fact that AI is in a way just an accelerator of the existing inefficiencies and process challenges that we have at our institutions. And it's shining a new light on challenges that are not new. Whether that is, you know, trying to put dirty data into AI that has been dirty and causing inefficiencies or challenges with reporting for decades, but now AI is making you realize the data quality issue that you have, or whether it's that you don't have, you know, kind of standalone institutionalized professional development for your staff. There's just a number of existing challenges that AI is really illuminating right now. I'll end it here with, like, the big risk is that our institutions are feeling the pressure of having to keep up. Like, they're not ignorant of this widening gap. And that puts them in a bit of a vulnerable position when it comes to their relationships with vendors who often bring really important expertise and solutions to campus. But without having kind of senior leaders' arms wrapped around their strategy, it lends itself to a more impulsive vendor strategy that might not be thinking about the comprehensive picture that an institution needs to consider before they get into a long term contract. Julian: So it really is sort of, it sounds almost like it's really surfacing just what we already know to be these huge issues and inequities and so on. So, what do you see as some of the bigger areas of opportunity? And I guess and I'm particularly interested—I'm interested in all the institutions—but particularly interested in the institutions that are more challenged. You know, we do a lot of work, for example, with community colleges and, you know, they just don't have the resources and and and probably and are never going to. What are the opportunities for all institutions? Audrey Ellis: First let me just say that I don't mean to sound like doom and gloom. I realize I just ran through so many challenges only to just kind of paint the picture of the importance of taking a strategic approach. So I think in order to take advantage of the opportunities that AI can present, which I'll talk about in one second, I just want to make a plug for the resources that we've developed that are all public goods. So everything from toolkits, talking guides, facilitation resources, how to develop staff training around AI. All of those challenges I described have free resources to try to help institutional leaders wrap their arms around this. But I think that the opportunity is huge, right? Like, I having studied initiative fatigue for a long time can't tell you how many times I've heard faculty, staff, senior leaders say, "I would love to do more of this best practice you're teaching me about right now," whatever it be, like let's just take a faculty professional development about universal design in the syllabus or about memorizing your students' first names so that they feel a greater sense of belonging. And then faculty say, "Yes, like you've sold me. This is a good practice. But exactly when am I supposed to fit this into my schedule? Like I have already am, you know, working late or traveling between campuses because I'm an adjunct or because I have to work multiple roles because I do work at an institution that's, you know, lower resourced and maybe doesn't pay as much." So I think there's a real opportunity to offload some of the transactional work to make more time for the human. Which is definitely like a different narrative than what you would get from, you know, maybe like the most recent Mission Impossible movies where it's like AI takeover, global domination, we're all going to be irrelevant in a few years. Which don't get me wrong, I'm not an AI evangelist and I'm not here to say like that AI is going to be the perfect solution and there's a lot of challenges that it brings outside of what we're discussing today. But I do think that, like, we have an opportunity to do more of the mission-driven human work that I at least when I worked on campus wanted to do more of. Like, I didn't, I know that the advisors that I used to work with would have rather spent more time talking to students than dragging and dropping courses in Banner or Degree Works. They would have rather had that time to say like, "Hey, you know, Julian, what do you want to be when you grow up? Why did you come to this college? What made that a decision for you?" But they were often faced with the reality of a long line of students out their door waiting for them and that student who needed to register, and so it became more transactional like, "Okay, let me just get make sure you get into these courses." The challenge is really significant though with that, like, we know that students often pick let's say the wrong major on their application. If we're rushing the conversation then around what classes they should get into and don't help them course correct, they might end up having excess credits in their first semester or not seeing a connection to the college and not being retained. Not to mention from a staff sense of belonging engagement standpoint, it starts to feel really repetitive and not like what you've signed up for. So I think there's a lot of opportunities there. That one gets me really excited. Kaitlin: It is really tricky, right, to think about the layers here around, like, you mentioned earlier the vendor relationships. And the fact that each of these vendors, right, are also innovating and experimenting with AI and embedding AI in their own tools, and then what does it look like to start to think about how to holistically integrate tech systems that are also kind of changing and evolving in this landscape? And as, right, as you started today's conversation and saying using that word ubiquitous, right? Like it's everywhere. So what does it look like to be kind of in the center of this changing landscape trying to utilize these tools effectively, but the tools are changing? Right, and I appreciate what you just said about almost like well what can we start with? Where can we, like, where can we focus our energy on the things that matter most like engaging with students effectively? And can we draw, like, lessons learned from there or can we can we draw, like, places to start from the core of what matters most around students and engagement? Audrey Ellis: Yeah, I think you're really getting at at the real crux though, which is like if we don't decide what we want to use AI for, vendors will decide what we use AI for. Because every vendor is adding AI. That is how they will stay relevant in this moment. If you already have technologies, which you undoubtedly do, we all use technology in our day to day. And you don't take an active stance in this conversation and in your procurement and in your strategy, you will ultimately become a passive consumer of how vendors have decided you should use AI. And so I think that that is why it is so important right now to pause and think about what do you value about your job? What value do you provide that technology cannot, which is substantial in my opinion. Like, humans should absolutely still be at the fore of education and the driver. So then, then where are the biggest opportunities to leverage AI? And that's something that institutions who are taking a scattershot approach are not benefiting. Like, that exercise is not benefiting those institutions. And what we found is when we conducted our interviews, we had this heat map, I guess, that we asked institutions to vote for both where they have seen AI, where they are using AI, like from an org chart standpoint, but then also where they thought AI could have a lot of value and there was a there was a gap. Because I just talked about advising. Because it is a very obvious example of a place where AI could have a huge impact. And also, for what it's worth, advising is always the front line of every reform. So, you know, for better or for worse for the advisors from an initiative fatigue standpoint. But we also heard from a vast majority of our interviewees that strategic finance and financial aid are other areas where there's a lot of opportunity for AI, but almost no one is leveraging it. And so if we don't kind of demand or force the experimentation and the innovation in those areas, then we won't benefit from from it or someday, you know, the tools that we use to do our our financial aid packaging, for example, will roll out whatever they think is best for AI integration. And so I think there's a real opportunity to also work with vendors right now rather than just be kind of passive consumers of the AI washing, like whatever they're just embedding in their functionality. Julian: So my last job working for other people was as an administrator at a leader at a community college system. So my mind takes me to, okay, so what is working? What are examples of how this can be organized? Because, you know, you can be strategic even if you don't have a lot of money. And you can experiment and be thoughtful about how you pilot and grow and scale and and and drive change and policy and work with vendors. So are there in your research, in your travels, are there examples, structures that are working? You know, obviously the president needs to be the leader of leaders, but who typically is driving this work? And especially if you if institutions are thinking about it as both what we do on the learning educational teaching side and throughout the rest of the institution crossing to the admin and everything in in between? So I don't know, it's a lot to cover, but I'm curious to know if there are examples that stand out to you? Audrey Ellis: Well, ironically, there isn't like a monolithic AI lead in higher ed. That made our research really hard to be honest, because you're kind of like shooting fish in a barrel with an org chart. Like, I'm going to reach out to this person who I think maybe is in charge of AI and then they say, "No, I don't have anything to do with AI, talk to this person," it gets kind of kicked around. The alternative institutions are starting to assign or hire for like AI innovation leads, but I am kind of not fully in on that model. I don't think that it's I think a lot has yet to shake out in how that like AI or Chief AI Officer kind of role works. I think the risk just quickly is that it becomes kind of like "Oh, that is just that person's job and therefore it is no one else's." But with such a ubiquitous technology, it is everyone's job. And so what I usually say is we all need to be leaders in this moment and every supervisor should be thinking about what AI means for them and their direct reports. And that's why, you know, doing capacity building exercises like leveraging there are so many free AI training modules and content out there. Encouraging your leadership leadership broadly, being really like I said supervisors, to think about how AI could look in their unit is a really big opportunity and pretty low cost. I think that one very free next step that institutions can do is assess what their AI adoption currently looks like on their campus. So we developed a survey suite and I just recorded a long webinar about this, so feel free to put that in the show notes, but we developed a four part survey suite that includes a presidential reflection, leadership or department unit lead survey, an individual user survey, and a student survey. And the idea is that if you conduct all these surveys and I'll just interrupt myself to say I used to run institutional research office. So I'm not trying to blindly push surveys. I know that survey fatigue is very real. But AI is being used in offices that we don't know about in ways that are potentially very innovative or potentially very problematic. They may or may not be benefiting us as an institution and we don't know. So it's really important for senior leaders to get that kind of heat map view of what their institution looks like or their system. So Julian, I would say that is like the immediate next step. You can start with the rubric though. What I suggest is like take the rubric to your cabinet. Have everyone independently score your institution and then compare your scores. What does your VP of Academics think compared to your CFO and your CIO and how are you aligned? But then getting that more distributed look is just as important because, you know, I hear all the time about like, you know, the student workers who are also students and using AI in their work for school and then, you know, they already have the account set up and so they just start using this their current account to maybe do what their job is in their student worker role a little more clearly. It goes all the way down to, you know, frontline staff that could be using AI but also could be really creatively using AI and perhaps and I'm not saying do this in an audit or punitive way. So I think in addition to the survey, the most important secondary action leaders can take is getting really tight on like what is actually out of bounds from an AI use standpoint and then otherwise encouraging experimentation. So, you know, the institutions that are, you know, private, really well resourced, I've been kind of watching this moment unfold for the last three years. And I remember, you know, in the first six months of ChatGPT on the scene, there were senior leaders who full on banned AI and then there were others who said, "This is your kind of temporary notice. Do not upload FERPA protected data. Do not put, you know, confidential information into AI. Otherwise, experiment and tell us what's working." And that I think is another free action that's actually setting institutions apart right now as far as how far they've gotten. A lot of institutions that I've worked with have spent a lot of time making AI policies that by the time they get approved by the board are not relevant. And so, you know, I would encourage leaders to not overplay the policy angle and and think about how you might incorporate one or two potential additional lines in existing policies. Like AI isn't new. If you've used GPS for the last 10 years, like our technologies include AI already. So in theory our policies should for the most part cover the ways that AI rolls out. And let's not use it as kind of like a delay tactic anymore. Kaitlin: There is an element of this ongoing learning that I think it would be more comfortable if we could say, "Well, when I'm an expert in this, then I'll use it," or "When I understand it enough, then I'll apply it here." And there's this reality that that's not what we're facing and so, you know, I think it really is complicated, right, how to get comfortable with that as you're saying from just like a human development and capacity standpoint. Like how do we all like gain some comfort with that because the world keeps moving and our jobs keep, you know, every day we wake up into our jobs and so what does it look like to apply this ongoing learning mindset to something that I think it can feel a little uncomfortable on an individual level never mind an organizational level. Audrey Ellis: Yeah, actually from my initiative fatigue research, that is a really important takeaway is that below all of these institutional decisions or maybe like a history of failed initiatives or poor communication or mismanaged expectations, there's the human element where your stakeholders on campus are honestly just like "How does this affect me in my day to day and will I still have a job?" And it doesn't help that with AI that is also the narrative in our society and, you know, like there's a lot of fear mongering. And so that's why I say that every supervisor has a role right now because especially in the absence of a presidential statement around AI, every employee is going to look to their boss for signals around "Should I be worried right now? Should I take a growth mindset or a fixed mindset in this moment?" And that is not something to underestimate. Like if you have a growth mindset, you're seeing that you bring I think intrinsic value because of who you are and your your humanness and your mission drivenness. And then you are saying "How can I continue to do this better with this new technology?" If you have a fixed mindset, you're saying "As I am today is protected and so I cannot change or else what I am right now is as under threat, I guess." And I think that is very much like being rinsed and repeated in the public sector right now and so I think leaders need to lead by example. They need to say, "I am scared of AI too. I am trying to learn and you should learn; we will learn together. We will learn with our students and maybe from our students," rather than just being silent because I think that's when the real fear happens and then folks kind of freeze. Julian: It's so interesting because it does on one level harken to so much of what, you know, those of us who've been trying to reform education have been dealing with for years, which is career pathways, yeah, that happens down there, or workforce development, yeah, there's an office I think they're in that other building. And this idea of how do you just integrate this work in your everyday? And it's really scary when something this powerful has emerged. We have not experienced anything like this. And and I'm almost interested in as we wind down the conversation, you know, we want to hear from you again and more about how listeners can follow and continue to learn more and follow your work. I also like there's a part of me that like wants to talk to you again in six months, talk to you again three months later, talk to you again three months later because I think it could be a very different conversation, you know, that's just the reality we're in. Audrey Ellis: Yeah, and I know I would love to keep the conversation going. It certainly is only ramping up and is not slowing down. So on our website, t3advisory.com, there's an section or a tab that's called AI for Institutional Transformation. All of our resources are available to download and use on that page. That also includes our recorded webinars and upcoming webinars. I'll be presenting at a bunch of conferences this year and really happy to hear from folks if they want to continue the conversation. We hope to do a second round of this study, like you were just saying, Julian, like this conversation is not going away. You know, luckily the way I talk about it is constantly updating and being informed, but our actual data was collected last year. So I really hope that we'll be able to collect even more data formally officially in the coming months as a continuation of this research. And, you know, we work with a lot of institutions and systems on their AI adoption strategy, and we are also thinking about developing some solutions to support institutions with this in a more scalable way, so maybe we can check back in in a couple months. Kaitlin: That sounds great. Yeah, thank you so much for taking the time to connect with us today, Audrey, and to share this work and yeah, looking forward to remaining in touch. Audrey Ellis: Yeah, thank you so much for having me and really excited to be part of the conversation. Julian: Thank you. Kaitlin: We hope you enjoyed today's conversation and appreciate you tuning in to Work Forces. Thank you to our listeners and guests for their ongoing support, and a special thanks to our producer Dustin Ramsdell. If you're interested in sponsoring the podcast or want to check out more episodes, please visit workforces.info/podcast. You can also find Work Forces wherever you regularly listen to your favorite podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with your colleagues and friends. And if you're interested in learning more about Work Forces Consulting, please visit workforces.info/consulting for more details about our multi-service practice.

Is this your show?

Claim this listing to keep it up to date, reach guests who want to pitch you, and manage bookings with Guestify.

Claim this listing

More Business podcasts