Work Forces

Hosted by Work Forces

Business EducationInterviews guests

Website RSS feed

Episodes

Latest episode

Jun 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

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.

April 2, 2026Episode 727 min

Dr. Joy Coates On Designing Systems for Economic Mobility

Dr. Joy Coates, Managing Director of Post-Secondary Opportunity at Third Sector, discusses how to build systems that prioritize real-world results, such as higher wages and better careers, for all learners. Drawing on a 20-year career spanning business and government, she explains how to move beyond good intentions to actually change how public programs and budgets are used to support people navigating life transitions, including those returning home after incarceration or managing mental health challenges. The conversation explores how to make sure a worker's certifications and skills count wherever they go, putting more power into the hands of the individual rather than the institution. Dr. Joy discusses the Nexus Method, a practical approach she co-authored with Nick Beadle, that leverages the regulatory concept of "advanced standing" to bridge the gap between skills-first hiring and traditional registered apprenticeships. Using examples from states like Alabama and Massachusetts, she highlights how businesses in industries like manufacturing can find and keep talent by making small, strategic changes to their hiring rules, such as removing unnecessary degree requirements. Finally, she outlines the vital role of local community colleges in connecting people in the community to the careers of the future. 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. Julian: Kaitlin, one of the recurring themes on this podcast lately has been the need for a credential system that is transparent and easy to navigate—one where the skills you earn in one place actually count in another. And we've talked quite a lot about this recently with folks like Scott Cheney from Credential Engine and Amber Garrison Duncan from C-BEN. Kaitlin: We have. And today we're exploring additional strategies for moving from establishing the technical foundation to make these credentials portable to engaging different organizations and funding sources to build a credential landscape that puts these ideas into action for all learners. Julian: Exactly. And our guest today has spent her career making sure these systems actually work for everyone. Dr. Joy Coates is the Managing Director of Post-Secondary Opportunity at Third Sector. She specializes in taking different parts of our world—like schools, state agencies, colleges, employers—and helping them change how they use their resources so they can focus on what really matters: helping adult learners get into better careers. Kaitlin: Dr. Joy brings over 20 years of experience to this work, including senior roles at the Markle Foundation and the Tennessee Department of Education. She is also behind a new approach called the Nexus Method, which is really a practical way to bridge the gap between hiring based on skills and traditional apprenticeships. Julian: Welcome to Work Forces, Dr. Joy, and we're thrilled to have you with us today. Dr. Joy Coates: Good morning! I'm so excited to be here with you both. Julian: Well, we've given a little bit of your background, but we'd love to hear you tell us about your background and the journey that led you to your work at Third Sector. Dr. Joy Coates: What's wonderful about the experiences that I'm now having at Third Sector is it really was an opportunity—a culmination, if you will—of everything I've worked on for the past 20 years. Everything I've been fortunate enough to be in the room with as these key decisions are made in terms of education, economic development. So, a lot of my earlier work, when I was still in corporate even, I spent some time in investor relations for a real estate organization that was focused on what we were calling back then "triple bottom line," which meant the return on investor, green development, and then also the return for the community. As part of that work, I was over corporate social responsibility. So I was working with all these organizations around their compliance to make sure that women, vendors of color, and others who were underrepresented were actually getting these really lucrative development contracts in Boston. And that experience shaped me so much. And different board appointments I had as a result of that really helped me shift completely my focus into the nonprofit sector and really try to path in terms of constantly coming back to outcomes, constantly coming back to what outcomes and equity mean together. And so at Third Sector, we're always thinking about that. We're thinking about how everyone who has a seat in the ecosystem can not only be brought to the table, but roll that expertise up to the government so the government can make better decisions for their constituents and so that we can really see lasting systemic change in these critical areas. Kaitlin: I feel like that's a great segue. Could you tell us a little bit more about Third Sector and the work that you're doing currently? Dr. Joy Coates: So, I am the Managing Director of Post-Secondary Opportunity. Third Sector also has several other practice areas; we also have a practice area that focuses more deeply on workforce pathways on the policy side, things like WIOA and TANF and better using these dollars that already exist and having them repurposed to serve more people. We also have a behavioral health division, we have a diversion and re-entry division that supports folks coming back into the workplace and just really back into the general population after periods of incarceration or homelessness. And then we have an early childhood education practice area. And so I'm fortunate enough to be able to be in spaces with these folks and think through where all these critical intersections are. If you were thinking almost like wheels on a spoke, it's where are all the different pain points in the pipeline of a person's existence, a person who's moving in that cradle-to-career pathway, and then all the different stop outs. Where are places where people get off track? Are they getting off track because of a mental health issue, an incarceration issue, because education quality wasn't where it was supposed to be? And so at Third Sector, where we have this focus on outcomes-focused government and outcomes-focused contracting, it's more of—we know and believe that folk want to do the right thing, especially in these different government agencies that are already so taxed. And what we like to do is plug in and help them get from intention to practice so that these things actually happen in the way that they hope and envision. Julian: So, with that focus on outcomes and building more equitable workforce systems, talk to us a little bit about the connection then between credential quality and portability. How do you build an ecosystem where credentials aren't just high quality, but where they can really be carried across different systems? Dr. Joy Coates: So, certainly the portability question isn't necessarily new. In fact, it applies to folk, adult learners like myself—career adult learners who had a family and were working with different institutions of education depending on my schedule, my availability, and transparently what I could afford, right, in terms of different degree programs. And so when we think about the credential quality, what that really means is: what's the bearing this credential has on my future? What is the dollars and cents bearing? If I get this credential, realistically, how much more do I stand to make so that I can take better care of my family? And the folk who help make that decision, one, are the institutions of higher ed and the training providers that design them, but also the employers who really control the receptivity of these credentials in the field. And so when we speak about portability, we're really talking about how that information moves. From the learner who's actually putting in the work to get the credential, to the training provider, and then to the employer, and of course in some cases CBOs who may be providing things like career coaching, things of that nature. How is this information flowing across all these stakeholders that will ultimately have some impact on someone's economic future? But what's important about the portability is we are looking specifically at ways to put the power of that portability into the hands of the learner, rather than them being at the mercy of multiple different standards of transferability. And we know that's a tall order, we understand, but we know we're also not the only ones in this work. And so we heard you mention Amber Garrison Duncan a moment ago from C-BEN, who is a fantastic partner of ours and we really love the work that they're doing. While we have our own ideas—and we'll get into that, the recent paper we released in a few minutes—we also are really about amplification in terms of impact. We want to have the right partners and really do our homework to understand, hey, there are things that are out there that are working, but maybe we've got some leverage points in government or with other partners that other folk may not have in the field and vice versa. So how much more could we do together if we lined up on all those things that we all bring to the respective table? Kaitlin: So, you recently co-authored a white paper—which may be the paper you just mentioned—on the Nexus Method. And so for our listeners, could you please explain that paper, the framework that you outlined, and specifically how using the concept of advanced standing can bridge the gap between skills-first hiring and registered apprenticeship? Dr. Joy Coates: So, again, not new concepts, but concepts we're really excited to dig in on. So, first of all, it'd be remiss if I did not mention our co-author on that piece, which is—who is Nick Beadle, who some of your listeners may know of or you may know of certainly. And certainly after being in federal government for a number of years and being a journalist and things of that nature, Nick and I crossed paths several times at Markle, where we were really thinking—he was running Good Jobs and I was thinking about skills-first hiring and scaling that and all the partners who needed to be at the table. And so for this paper, one of the things we're thinking about at Third Sector and that Nick has also been thinking about is: what does the next iteration of apprenticeships look like? As we think about things like different forms of financial aid is either going away entirely or being collapsed, and pathways being a bit more overwhelming for folk. Again, to my earlier point: what are the things we already have that work well? So when we talk about the Nexus Method, we're really talking about policies and regulations that are already in place, like advanced standing and other things of that nature. Already, if we use them properly, they enable us to accelerate someone's career pathway in an existing framework. So if we're talking about a registered apprenticeship and the skills-first hiring practice of thinking about what experiences is this person coming in the door with that really ought to truncate that apprenticeship length in some way, right, just like you would do with credit for prior learning? So the advanced standing on apprenticeships, up until very recently—as recently as about a week and a half ago—had a cap. There was only so much advanced standing you could get. Now that cap has been lifted. So when we zoom back into what we're saying in the report is, if we take the best of skills-first hiring and the best of apprenticeship, we now have a more holistic way to customize how folk are able to advance their careers with these critical tools. And then the skills-first hiring practices—we call them practices because it's not just about recruitment and hiring. It's also about retention and how you set up within your organization your own structure for how somebody is able to move within your organization and ascend based on what they've already brought in the door, your ability to codify those skills against what your organization needs, and then your ability to kind of evolve, let their skills evolve in an organic yet targeted way throughout the life of the organization. So there's a way for you to codify those practices. And so when we were documenting this in the paper and pulling in language that we've heard from employers, including transparently some of their pushback on these pieces, it's employers and other stakeholders—but certainly we're talking about employers right now—employers want to do the right thing. Employers want talent. Employers want to have fair and equitable hiring practices that build a strong pipeline. The pushback comes from the noise in the field and the confusion over which strategies are the strategies and kind of being a little bit nervous about: I don't want to pilot this, it doesn't work, now it's affiliated with me. So what we're doing is taking existing research, one, for that grounding, existing policy so folk know that they don't have to recreate something, and then laying out an actual roadmap for how that works. So in follow up to the paper, we'll be developing some guides on how employers can actually do this in practice. And also we'll both be at various conferences, ASU-GSV and things of that nature, where you'll be able to at least come by and say hi, or if we're presenting—we're not presenting at ASU, we'll just both be there. But at the places where we are presenting, we certainly hope that folk will come and just talk to us because we, you know, we want to share this information. We don't want to make it seem like, oh, you have to have this special criteria to do it. The criteria is really desire to open up your pipeline and make that pipeline viable. And so we're trying to offer something clear and cohesive that anybody can use, but also understand that you do need some guidance and you do need some practical support on how to make that work regardless of your industry. Julian: So where is it working? You say a lot of what you do is about amplification, and it's—you've talked about the institutional level, you've talked a little bit about policy and with respect to the specific method you've written about with Nick Beadle, wondering too: is anyone doing this effectively? Dr. Joy Coates: In terms of the Nexus Method itself, it's a bit of a pilot; that's why we introduced the paper, we're inviting people to embark on this. Of course! But when we talk about apprenticeships, certainly, and you'll see like these pieces are working in places. So you see apprenticeships working very well in Massachusetts, Colorado, California; starting to see some of that evolution in Mississippi and Alabama. What we want to do is work with the states who have existing apprenticeship practices and existing employer flexibility around the skills-first hiring piece and begin to build cohorts where we can document the specific implementation of the intersection of these two practices. To our knowledge—I'm sure someone is doing it, but they're not calling it that, right? So we want to elevate, if they are doing it, call us, we want to talk to you. But if they're not doing it, we want to help them see that it actually wouldn't be as overwhelming as they think to do it. And so that's the excitement and energy that we're in right now: okay, we have something here. And we've had employers give us feedback directly on LinkedIn, commenting on our posts of "this is exactly the tension that we are wrestling with right now," especially in things like manufacturing and automotive. And so we know we can't do everything at once, so we would likely start in one of those two industries and begin to build and rapidly disseminate that evidence base so that others can adopt. Kaitlin: Building actually on that—what you're hearing from people, from employers around the articulation of the challenge and the need—what does it take to get that deep employer buy-in? Because as you said, right, it can be hard to commit to say like, let's try this pilot or let's try this newer approach. But what have you seen work in that respect, you know, where have you seen success in deep buy-in? Dr. Joy Coates: I think what works the best is doing your homework in advance to understand the industry. So for example, citing, you know, the Markle example when we were doing Rework America Alliance: we built these skills-first hiring kits with input that have subsequently been, you know, absorbed into JFF's portfolio on the skills space. Starting with the employer first to understand where their pain points are, trying to take as much of the burden off of the employer as you can from your space as a practitioner, but yet never losing sight of the fact that the employer is the one who actually has to do it, right? So you can do things like, you know, create a kit or download those hiring kits and use that with your employer that you're consulting with. You can actually host, you know, accelerator events, which Markle and JFF have done. Goodwill Easterseals in Minnesota has a large—I guess now the fourth year that they've been running these accelerators for employers. And what they do is they basically have engaged employers who are willing to give some of their time—not more than three hours, because we're talking about sometimes director, exec, and above level of folk who are coming—getting these folk in a room with other employers in a space that feels relevant yet non-hyper-competitive so they can talk about these real-world problems, know they're not the only one, know they're not being vilified, and then walk them through the steps it will take while also bringing in case studies of other employers who have done it. So it's building the trust, building the credibility, and at the same time being clear about the ease of replicability is really what the things that we see that work the best and that have had the most staying power in the coming up on a decade or so now since we've been engaging with employers in this work. Julian: So what is sort of the biggest "aha" moment for employers when they kind of see that this is working? Dr. Joy Coates: What I have seen as one of the biggest ahas is it actually doesn't take as long as they think it will is the first piece. And the other piece is they don't have to redo every single HR practice that they have; they just need to tweak the ones that they have to make them a little bit more flexible, right? So when you think about something like removing a degree requirement—certainly that's not applicable for every job; some jobs have degree requirements, like doctors, nurses, things of that nature because of the technical training that you need. But when we talk about hiring, promoting, and expanding roles and opportunities based on merit, everybody has that kind of baked into the way they do business just transparently. It's good business, you want to keep your people. So what I think that we see the light bulb go off with employers is when they realize, okay, I'm not doing everything wrong, but there are one or two places where I could potentially see exponential increase in retention and productivity if I made and committed to these specific changes. And we see relief. We don't see, you know, we don't see this regret of, oh my gosh, why didn't I do it 20 years ago, because people are really very much in the now. Everybody's under pressure with the current economy and things of that nature. We really don't have time to lament what could have been. You know, the thing that's the most active and most salient is folk realizing, okay, there is a blueprint, I don't have to start from scratch, I don't have to nix all my HR practices, and I actually do have the folk in place that can help me bring this thing to the next level without it sucking all my time as CEO, executive director, whatever the case may be. Kaitlin: I feel like that is one thing we've heard from so many guests, Julian, guests coming from very different perspectives in the—in the landscape of the future of work and learning, which is really like: start small, right, like don't try to take on everything at once. And I think especially as you alluded to, Dr. Joy, the—this really rapidly emerging, evolving, and changing landscape—it's like, where I think people want to know: where can I start because it can be really challenging to know like, how can I dive into this without, you know, even at moments of ambiguity and uncertainty? Julian: Yeah, I think that notion of starting small and iterating and, you know, it's a complicated landscape now but I still think that's kind of been a missing element. So often, especially with grants—and you know, I mentioned Markle, you know, with grants and publicly funded programs—where some a good idea, often a great idea, is put forward but it doesn't take root and it isn't baked in in a way that's going to allow it to kind of incubate and you can iterate and grow and really make it part of what you do. Dr. Joy Coates: Yes. I think the other piece too and what I think is a bit of a victory for the space is you're seeing the federal government, especially around apprenticeship, start—start contributing more heavily to pass-through funding that is meant to benefit and offset costs to employers in a way that you didn't see before. And I think that, you know, funding always kind of goes a long way you think about that more from the nonprofit standpoint. But even though we're not telling you to tear down your whole organization as the employer, we recognize there is impact, right? There's always some cost to making any kind of change, positive or negative in your organization. And so I do think it was a smart, bipartisan, potentially sustainable thing for the government to do to say, okay, we're going to release some—release some grants, we're going to have trusted intermediaries apply, but the folk who actually need to make the change stick, that's where we're going to push the lion's share of that funding. Now, certainly if you're a consultant, you might wish the funding was going a different way. But for the sake of the growth of the field, to see a significant and substantial investment in the employer and the way that they are taking up and changing practices, I think is—is an important shift to see. Kaitlin: So, as we begin to wind down this conversation, and you've already started to go there, but I'll ask the question explicitly: what are some practical steps that you can offer our listeners—whether they are employers, or educators, or workforce leaders—to help them better prepare for this changing credential landscape and their roles within it? Dr. Joy Coates: I think—well, the first step is always a bit of a mind shift as we talk about at Third Sector: are you open to this degree of change? And it doesn't necessarily mean: gosh, I'm underwater, everything's on fire, I'll try everything—I'll try any and everything, right? We don't mean that when we mean—I have heard that this targeted thing you are doing works and I want to know what the tangible steps are. So certainly, as with any thought leader in the field: our website, we have both the Nexus Method and the—The Future is Portable, which is more specifically around micro-credentials. So go to our website, www.thirdsectorcap.org, pull those resources down, reach out to folk. My contact info is in there, or if you have another trusted partner that is doing this work—we know we're not the only partner in this work—I think the first tangible step: make a decision. The second one: get the right partner to help you implement. And then the third one: have a strong sense of mutual accountability between yourself and actually the field of the change that you want to make. If you're in manufacturing and you know that there is, you know, a 28,000-some-odd gap in a particular role and you want to be at the forefront of closing that gap, then that's what you dig in on. You hone in on: this is the gap that I'm trying to fill. I've got, you know, a colleague at General Motors and she is focused on the recruiting of frontline employees. And when she and I speak, she says: I can take this framework and apply it directly to how I am recruiting these frontline manufacturing specialists at General Motors and then I can say, you know, these are something clear that I can do. Now, again, this is a colleague who has just read the paper and thinks it's great, it's not Ford signing off on us, that's not what I'm saying. But, you know, specific, tangible examples: what problem are you trying to solve, what partner do you need, and what's your real timeline? What are you really willing to commit to in terms of implementation? It won't happen overnight, but it won't happen at all if you don't have a more specific goal, right? And sometimes a partner like us at Third Sector could be the one to even help you set up the timeline. But I'd be willing to bet that many employers have their own timeline they're working against; the gap is they don't know how to get there. Julian: No, I think that's so true and they—so much of this ebbs and flows with economies and, you know, we're doing a bunch of work now in manufacturing with employers that are struggling to find—many that are struggling to find entry-level workers still. So, we know there's a lot happening and changing in healthcare and, you know, so there's it really is more about applying the methodology and working with the employers who have the need. Dr. Joy Coates: And I would if I can add a fourth, if we're not out of time. I would also say don't underestimate the power of your local IHEs, particularly if you're in a community like Boston or San Diego, San Francisco that has really strong community college networks that are providing not only a lot of this training, but a lot of like wrap-around services and helping folk get ready in some of the softer skills areas of this work. Because these are folk who can work as an intermediary for you in terms of understanding and identifying where that pipeline is. A lot of employers are not in the community, and this is not an indictment of those folk, but if you're not in the community and if you even feel like you can't be in the communities where your pipeline is, you need a partner that's rooted in that community and can help you not only get to those folk, but work with you to make sure the map between what they are learning and what you need them to know actually are integrated. Kaitlin: Absolutely. Well, this has been such an insightful—and practical—conversation. We really appreciate you joining us. As we wind down, how can our listeners continue to follow you and learn more about your work? Dr. Joy Coates: We will be doing a couple of follow-up webinars. If you're not on our mailing list, go to our website, www.thirdsectorcap.org, get on our mailing list. My smiling face is on the website under Post-Secondary Opportunity; click on that and if you don't get me, somebody will connect you to me. We are pretty active on LinkedIn, and it's one of the—and I don't know if y'all are seeing it, but I'm seeing quite a—LinkedIn is really turning into more of a gathering place, I feel like, in the past year or two where we're all just kind of going: "Hmm, how do we manage today's delight?" And folk are really connecting with each other on there. So I am on LinkedIn literally all day—not all day because I have meetings or whatever—but I'm easily accessible there; send me a request, send me a message. We don't have to connect all the way and I can either help you myself or give you some resources. But everything that we do, we usually post to LinkedIn. I will post it, Third Sector will repost it, Nick will repost it. And so as this work kicks off even more in the coming months, you'll see things from he and I about what's going on. And also his newsletter, "Jobs at Work" newsletter, has a whole plethora of connected issues that he speaks on twice a week, and so we would recommend that you engage with that as well. Julian: It's funny when you mention LinkedIn as a gathering place; I initially had this vision of like: yeah, used to be kind of like a relatively quiet bar or restaurant, and now it's just like booming, it's like overwhelming. But yeah, that's great and you see your posts and Nick as well frequently. So for sure, we will continue to follow your work and look to gather with you and, to echo Kaitlin, thank you so so much for taking the time to join us. We've really enjoyed this. Dr. Joy Coates: My pleasure! Really was a delight. Thank you both so much for having me, and thank everybody who's listening. 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.

March 17, 2026Episode 630 min

Work Forces Rewind: Amber Garrison Duncan: Advancing Competency-Based Education

Amber Garrison Duncan, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Competency-Based Education Network (C-BEN), discusses the evolution of competency-based education from seven pioneering institutions in 2013 to over 600 institutions and 1,000 programs today. Drawing from her experience assessing co-curricular learning outcomes in traditional higher education and later as a grantmaker at Lumina Foundation, Garrison Duncan explains how CBE restores the promise of economic mobility by focusing on mastery of skills rather than seat time. She details C-BEN's systems-level work through initiatives like the Center for Skills and the Partnership for Skills Validation, which build consensus across K-12, higher education, and employers on quality standards for skills assessment and validation. The conversation explores how policy shifts like Workforce Pell and state-level innovations in Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas are accelerating the movement toward skills-based credentials, financial aid, and talent management systems. Garrison Duncan emphasizes the urgency of iterative innovation, comparing the current moment to the iPhone era where institutions must test and adapt quickly rather than waiting for lengthy pilot programs, and offers practical guidance for institutions to begin their CBE journey using C-BEN's Quality Framework while building authentic connections between learning outcomes and employer needs. 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 workforces podcast website to learn more. And so with that, let's dive in. Julian: Today, we are sharing a Work Forces Rewind of our interview with Amber Garrison Duncan, Executive Vice President and COO of the Competency-Based Education Network, or C-BEN. We decided to revisit this conversation following C-BEN's recent release of "Governing Talent Marketplaces: A Guide for State Leaders" which C-BEN developed in partnership with the National Governor's Association. This is a milestone for C-BEN, providing a roadmap for how states can build the governance and data systems necessary to make skills-based hiring a reality. Amber has long been a leader in this space, and our podcast discussion explores the critical role competency-based education plays in creating more equitable pathways to opportunity. It felt like the perfect time to bring these insights back to the forefront. We will be back in two weeks with our next episode. For now, let's go back to our conversation with Amber. Julian Alssid: You know, Kaitlin, it feels like just yesterday, but it was actually over a dozen years ago now that we were helping to launch College for America at Southern New Hampshire University, which was one of the very first competency-based education models. And back then CBE, it felt like a radical experiment, you know, trying to prove that demonstrating mastery of competencies and not seat time in a course was the key metric to helping people advance their education and careers. Kaitlin LeMoine: Yeah, it's true. And while it does feel like that was just yesterday, the competency based movement has come so far in so many years. While CBE is still viewed as an alternative, non traditional approach by some in the field of education and training, many institutions have and are continuing to holistically implement competency based models to go beyond the traditional credit hour and ensure a curricular emphasis on what learners can do with what they know, and as we think about the intersection of work and learning in which we're all operating, this movement has only been further strengthened as employers further focus on skills based hiring and learners seek to clearly communicate their skills and abilities in a competitive job market. Julian Alssid: Yes, and our guest today is with an organization that's been central to growing the CBE field, Amber Garrison Duncan is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Competency-Based Education Network, or C-BEN. In her role, Amber spearheads initiatives to strengthen collaboration between education and workforce partners with a focus on competency and skill taxonomies and quality assurance before C-BEN, Amber spent eight years as a grant maker at Lumina Foundation, focusing on higher education success. And in her early career, she served in numerous Student Affairs roles at the University of Oregon, Florida State University, the University of Michigan, Hope College, and Texas A&M University. Amber, we're so excited to welcome you to the podcast. Thanks so much for joining us. Amber Garrison Duncan: Well, thank you for having me. It's so exciting to think back to those early days and just also how far we've come. So it's a good moment to reflect. And so thank you for this opportunity. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well, thank you for joining us and for taking this moment in time to both reflect, and I guess maybe, you know, we'll spend a little time thinking about what's ahead as well. So I'm really glad to see you today for this conversation. Amber, and as we get started, we'd love to hear a little bit more about your background and what led you to your role at C-BEN, sure. Amber Garrison Duncan: Well, as you probably heard in my introduction, I had quite a bit of experience on a couple of campuses in higher ed, and are some of what I would call today our legacy institutions that have been around a long time and really are major leaders when you think about higher education. But in my experience there, I was doing assessment in the co-curriculum, and so I was not working in courses, and I was not working in time based measures. I was working on how students apply what they know and can do? How are they doing that and their co-curricular experiences or at work? And then at the University of Oregon, we were just getting to the point where saying, can we validate this and put it on a record for somebody? And so I was having that experience and also saw how hard it was to do, how much of a change it was to think about. Could people be learning outside of the four walls of this classroom, outside this desk, and where are they taking this knowledge? How would I know? And so from that just knew that also it was a lot of change, and was tired as a change maker, banging my head against the wall. So I said, Where else can I go? This is a systemic issue that, again, I worked at institutions across the country. Why is this so hard? And so then decided to pursue something that could support more of the system's change, and was lucky enough to be at Lumina for that which was a really transformative experience for me to see how the ecosystem is set up, why there's a lot of these incentives and barriers to change. And had the fortune to be leading a portfolio called Learning Infrastructure, and that was a portfolio focused on how we make sure that all high quality learning can count. And I learned there that the only way to maybe do that is, if we were to work in competencies and skills. Other countries around the world were figuring this out. We had to figure it out in the US. And luckily, there were seven institutions that said, Hey, we're already trying this Southern New Hampshire being one of those. And so C-BEN's origin story really is, how do we learn as quickly as possible from these seven institutions. Now that was back in 2013 when we were having that initial meeting and conversation. Today we have over 5000 members. There's no way to track fully and know how many CBE programs there are in the US, but we know there's well over 600 institutions that we know of, over 1000 programs. So it's kind of fascinating when we think about turning the ship in higher ed and how hard that is, and that in just 10 years time, we've gone from those early days to where we are now that really are proving out that CBE is a way to provide greater access. It's a way to ensure mastery, for that every learner gets the quality education and the skills they need. And then employers, again, are very much leaning forward to doing their skills based hiring by connecting with CBE programs. So that's like a quick evolution, and my history is just it's all tied up together in those two pieces. And so once I left Lumina, I just said, I really want to continue to be a part of this and continuing to help lead change. And so now I've been at C-BEN for four years, which, again, time flies, but a lot of really exciting progress to see and be a part of people's stories and watch our community grow. Julian Alssid: It is quite a quite a story, and you're right in the thick of it, Amber. And so looking back, you know, you mentioned the seven institutions initially. I'm pretty sure we were, we were one of them at College for America. Amber Garrison Duncan: You were the home of C-BEN at SNHU, yeah. Julian Alssid: Looking back, what are some of the key moments in the evolution of CBE since those early days that led to the growth we see today? Because it really is quite remarkable. Amber Garrison Duncan: It is, it is. Also a couple of things, I would say is we also like to remind folks that CBE, if we look at the theory and science of learning this, goes back 100 years. I mean, we all probably, if we came up through education, we're big fans of John Dewey and thinking about all this. And so it's, it's kind of interesting as like, the old ideas that have new ways of implementing and scaling. And I think that was always our problem, as you looked at the movement in the cities, that people really again, University Without Walls, and we're really trying to do this, but again, it's hard to do this without new tools. And our tools of the moment were not really there. And so early leaders, as technology started to be used in higher ed to say, Can we do this async? Can we do this in a more flexible way? Can we, you know, again, recognize what people already know and can do and move them on a personalized pathway, not treat everybody as a cohort and teach them all the same thing at the same time, right? So as we started to see that world move, I think that's where CBE started to take hold, and it was a lot of early online learning institutions saying, hey, let's try this thing out where, yeah, we've got this moving async, and we know we can kind of personalize this. But what if we did this instead of again based on time and a module that, again, it's based on as soon as you master and being able to lift that is, again, it's no small task. But certainly, I think early movers were trying to reach people that they hadn't been able to serve before. They were trying to make sure that, again, what they were asking people to perform and know and do was relevant. Had payoff for those individuals and those residents in the way that we all hope, that it led to family sustaining wages, that, to me, it was about restoring the promise of higher ed that we really are about economic mobility, and we needed to try something new to reach people in ways that we hadn't before. And so that, I think, has been, as I hear over and over those 600 institutions talking about why they're trying to do this is they're trying to reach people who just wouldn't have maybe come to us before, wouldn't have been able to have that learning. And again, they want to make sure that if I ask you to spend that one Pell Grant, you get, or that Workforce Pell piece, or that that's your one shot for a lot of people. And I want to make sure it's worth it to you, and that you get, again, that economic return, and so CBE really is the solution to provide that. Kaitlin LeMoine: So building off your last comment there Amber, just around, you know, Workforce Pell and where we're headed, right? I mean, we'd love to hear, you know, what are some of the pressing challenges that you see as institutions and organizations seek to work? Work in this complex landscape, and where are there opportunities, especially around, you know, building a skills based ecosystem that involves all these parties, and really not only involves them, but I guess, allows them to collaborate and work together effectively. Amber Garrison Duncan: You know, I think Workforce Pell is a is kind of a bellwether in the policy incentives and things that will start to shift to reward and make sure that we're paying for things that have, again, return on investments, whether that's, you know, we've been working deeply in Alabama and helping them shift their credentials of value onto what are the skills, not just the labor market demand signal and the but what are the actual skills people need, and how do we make sure those credentials are delivering on those skills, and we're paying for that, not just a completion so again, I think Workforce Pell is starting to lean that way. I think more of the accountability measures are going to be headed that way, and quality assurance being tied to that. So I think that's a huge lever for the work that we're doing, and why people can kind of land on this as a solution to answer that. But again, it comes with a lot of challenges. We are, I say we go everywhere skills go. But if you look at where skills go, it's all the proxies of time that are attached to that, so the credit hour and the just getting into the like, where do I go find a person's skills? Well, I've got to go into the LMS, and I've got to hack the course, and then I've got to hack the assessment platform and the la, la, la, la. And it's like, holy cow. So it's definitely not without challenge. And I do feel like, for the first time, we have again, the market has shifted, and people are starting to say we do need to pay attention to how hard that is. Oh, we do need to say again, should we rethink financial aid based on time and maybe have competency based measures? States again are starting to lead the way in that again Alabama, California. Folks are trying to think about new ways to pay for learning based on skills and competencies and not seat time. We're starting to see Arkansas. Just this morning. I was just reading. They were like, we're not going to call it non credit anymore. It's professional skills learning. And like, why do we again have everything attached to credit? Non credit and hours and time and again. I think that we'll continue to explore, but I do think that it also represents a revisioning of the social contract and thinking about how we pay for things as a society at a moment in time when everything feels very disrupted. But how do we have the forum and the space to talk about what that means, and again, disperse funds, or have policies or have employer engagement in these ways that we all feel comfortable with. And so that's where C-BEN, we're spending a lot of our time. How are we building consensus? How do we reshape a system and not replicate things of the past? As we were getting on, we were talking about, we now have an apprenticeship track at our conference, and we have K-12 coming. And I think now that we're starting to see all these innovators are coming up, looking up and saying, let's not build systems the way that we had them before that we don't like. Let's connect them, because people are trying to move between them. And how do we use skills and competencies to do that? And again, find new ways and new paths in this kind of reimagining using skills as the foundation. And that's what gets me too really excited, but that, again, it's a lot of challenge that we're going to have to face, because now we're talking about admissions policies, and we're talking about dual enrollment, we're talking about things that we have we thought we solved, and now we're figuring out we didn't quite solve them, and we'd like to do better. But that is, is, I think the challenge of where we go next is, how do we build together so that as we're innovating, we don't run past each other, or we don't change one side of the system and not the other. People still need that lifelong learning journey, and we've got to be able to again collaborate to do that. Julian Alssid: So it really is this big systemic issue, and it sounds like C-BEN has been spending quite a bit of time thinking about this and trying to build and scale solutions that cut across the education and employer landscape. You know, I will say, while I agree Workforce Pell's, you know, certainly a bellwether. You know, it's not going to be a lot of money. How do we get solutions that have the employers and educators working in new ways at scale. And what do you guys see being done to advance this? You know, like we want to hear about your, you know, your new Center for Skills and the Partnership for Skills Validation. Amber Garrison Duncan: Yes, Workforce Pell, it's going to be a small amount, but it is our first dip in something different, right, a little bit, but still tied to the credit hours, so we still have to figure that out. But baby steps, baby steps, it is, it's a baby step, it's a baby step, it is a big baby step. But I certainly, through the Center for Skills, as we are observing, again, this growth. We said, how do we get to the intersection? And so. That's where the Center for Skills really comes in and says, if we're really talking about not just skills, as in, like, what's the sentence that describes skills we're talking about, what are the new types of evidence we need to base these policy decisions on? If we're saying people should be awarded or recognized based on mastery and demonstration of skill, for award of a credential. But we're also seeing again, employers saying, I want to hire people based on that mastery. I want to pay them. We're seeing a couple weeks ago, I was at Walmart and they gathered a lot of their peers, from Home Depot to Best Buy, saying, how do we restructure our performance based talent management structures. How are we incentivizing people? How do we pay people? How do we provide recognition for their skills? That's a huge shift. Again, collectively, for all of us to be having that conversation. But again, we can't just say, What do I slap a label on, but what's the performance evidence? And that's where the Center for Skills is trying to say, let's have that conversation at the intersection of what assessment means at the end of the day, and that our perceptions and the ways that we've traditionally done assessment has to shift and change. All of us, you know, if we're older than 20, probably are used to standardized tests and multiple choice, and those are great knowledge tests. Those are things we know we can do with great rigor and validity and reliability. But what we're talking about now is a new world where things are based on demonstration of skill. It's what I know, it's what I can do. What are the different contexts I can do that in? So it's a much richer, nuanced conversation, and that means we have to have new assessment tools and new ways of understanding that and that we shouldn't, again, back to this concept of like we shouldn't go build those separate from each other. If we're trying to all use the same evidence, how do we agree? How to create that evidence? What does quality look like? So that's really what the Partnership for Skills Validation is driving that consensus from K-12 to gray, employer to here, you know, we just released the common language. How do you just talk about this in the most common way possible, demonstration of skill performance. We're observing people and their behaviors at work, or we're observing people in their learning experience. How do we talk about it? And then again, what does quality look like, and how do we scale it? And that's what we're trying to drive that conversation and be that catalyst for consensus, so that, again, these things don't get created separate from each other, and then they don't work together. Kaitlin LeMoine: It's really amazing the work you're doing at all these levels, right? The systems it sounds like you're at the systems level. You're at the very tactical level of what does this look like to implement at one institution, or like, how do you change your technical systems to support this work, and then working across stakeholder groups and developing that shared language? I mean, it's an incredible amount of work happening simultaneously. I guess I'm wondering, how do you go about kind of speaking across your own team around some of this learning? Yeah, I imagine you're working at all these different levels and there must be some shared learnings, but also distinct things as well that maybe drive you in directions or directions you didn't expect. Amber Garrison Duncan: Absolutely. It's like we, I'm just reflecting on we've, we've had to redo our own communications internally because of this, and part of this, I mean, the beauty of our team right now, you know, we talked about the field growing. Our team grew. You know, we had three people three years ago. We're now 25 people and these folks come from, from all the places we're working, right? So we have folks who come from. I built a higher ed program. I was a dean. I'm an instructional designer, I'm a state policy person. So we all have this lens internally that we bring to the problem solving. And so we really are solving it from every angle but, but we have to follow our own advice and internally go, what did you learn from that project? What did you learn? How are we connecting this up? Did you go let so and so, like we learned this from this institution, please go let their state policy maker know, because it is the full systems change and trying to follow and learn from each other as fast as we can, so that we can either reflect that back out to the field or again, help connect people who are trying to solve a common problem and may not realize that they're actually friends in the movement, And they should know each other, and you know, they would go further faster if they were to again resolve the policy barrier at the same time that they're building their program. So it is a unique moment to do that, but it does take just as much to work internally within the organization as it does to push this stuff out and to be able to support people on the ground and in the spaces that they're working. But I think that's unique in that we don't just do policy, we don't just do practice. We are really saying, Where do policy and practice meet, and how do they become truly informing each other over time. Julian Alssid: Amber, are there particular places where you're finding the most traction in kind of spreading the space? Putting the word and the kind of cross pollination work. Amber Garrison Duncan: I do think some of the states we've been able to work in have just been tremendous partners to us. Alabama, again, I think, is our most visible support of a full state movement to competencies and skills across the full lifelong of learning, all of that being then represented out in the talent triad so that every employer at every citizen, citizen in the state can participate in a skills based transformation, certainly partnering then with Arkansas and their launch program. But also just, I would be remiss to say KCTCS and our early they were one of the early seven institutions as a system, they continue their great work and and, you know, we just supported the Kentucky CPE (Council for Postsecondary Ed) to build a competency model that takes their K-12 profile of a graduate and extends that up into the associate's degree and the bachelor's degree. So again, you start to see all of these institutions that have been innovating now impacting their systems. You know, we have TBR which has three staff. Tennessee Board of Regents has three staff focused on CBE build out. Those are tremendous amount of change. And again, it shows, I think, a desire to say, how do we solve this on the ground? But we know systems change is hard, and we have to have our systems changing alongside this and working together and just states taking leadership. I will say too, we have a lot of our legacy institutions coming to the fold. University of Kansas, huge leadership in building CBE programs. We just worked with them to launch a research journal for CBE so you could see, even the folks who maybe we wouldn't assume would be at the table, you know, are at the table, University of Nebraska, Lehigh University redesigning their first year experience for engineering students based on competency. So lots of, again, folks coming to the table who you'd be like, oh yeah, I would assume that. But also some folks, you're like, I never would have thought. How cool, you know. So that's pretty fun to see. Kaitlin LeMoine: That's great. I guess you're taking us in this direction anyway, Amber, but I'll ask the question explicitly, what are a few practical steps you would recommend that our audience can take to become forces in supporting the growth of the competency-based education movement. And please feel free to take this question to the systems level, nitty gritty, wherever you want to take it. Amber Garrison Duncan: We have kind of begun to think about CBE as not just a pedagogy, but a way of thinking about what we do, no matter where we're doing that work. And I think that's why, again, we have folks coming from research to policy to tech to whatever is that? What are we trying to really build? Is that that we want people to be able to engage in a learning experience that is authentic and real and based on what we know about how people learn that's a model, or I want to think about against being so outcomes driven, that whatever I'm asking people to engage in actually gets them where they want to go. And that's where the connection with employers, and it just leads you to this place where you're saying, Where am I the folks I'm serving? Where are they coming from? Where are they trying to go, and what am I putting in the black box here so that they can get there? And that our policies and structures should reinforce that, not again other things that we've used in the past. And so we just are, we'll be releasing a math pathways project where we sat down and said, What is, what do people have to know and be able to do around math today? Well, in that project, it just led us to the faculty, Gen, Ed math faculty, who said, I never sit down with an employer before. I had no idea. That's what nurses did with math today. But because this is an orientation to how we think about learning. We have to start with the employer, and then we're coming back and saying, okay, now that I know that again, what is it that I then help somebody know and be able to do? And how do I shift that? So it really is transformational and just a process of thinking. And then I've said to a friend once, it's kind of like in the matrix, where you're like, You take the blue pill, and you're like, I can't see it. Like, okay, this is how learning should look, and this is how it should happen. Is that it should be relevant to where I'm trying to go again, it should be flexible. Should mean something to me, and it should be applied. And that's, that's what CBE is. Julian Alssid: So Amber, I've done some poking around the C-BEN side, which looks great, and it's chock full of good information. How can our listeners learn more and continue to follow your work? Amber Garrison Duncan: A couple of things, I would say is one on our website, become a friend of C-BEN. It's free. Gets you to make sure that you have a newsletter and access to a network and community of people who are trying to work on all these issues and problem solve together. So that's a very first easy step, low hanging fruit. And then the second thing I would tell you to start with is look at the Quality Framework. Our Quality Framework is, as far as we know, the only one exists in the world. We have people come globally who say, I found your Quality Framework. We don't have anything like this in Saudi Arabia, or we don't have anything like this in Singapore, or we don't have anything like this. And so we find people starting there and saying, What does quality look like? Because if I'm going to innovate, I want to make sure I'm doing that with quality. And then the other piece, I would say, is take that and then go try to do it in new ways. We always say, too, there's not one way to do CBE, because your learners are different, your employers are different, and that is an okay thing that is that's very hard for us to get out of the mindset of an education where it's like, well, there's a this response and this intervention should look like this, and it's like, that's not we've not found out to be true. And so take that quality framework, try it out, but start somewhere. This is the thing we know. This is a transformative journey. This is not a quick, quick fix. This is an 18 month fix. But once you work that muscle and you start, it's kind of like a workout program. Start the workout program. Just keep going and showing up every day and solving for that next problem, and you will be transformed at the end of it into something that is again, more relevant to learners and employers. And we're seeing enrollments go up. We're seeing great outcomes for individuals, but you have to get on the road, and I would say, the sooner you get on the road, the better. Again, we're not seeing the slowdown. We're actually seeing it accelerate. There are now, again, policy. We're just talking with all the Texas people. Texas legislators passed a House Bill 4848 that said every public system of learning has to have at least one CBE program in certain in-demand fields, and they have to have it in a year. So folks are again, getting on, which is kind of scary. That's scary because that's fast. That's really fast, but I think that is, again, a bellwether of people are tired of the status quo and need something different from us, and so we're going to have to do something so just grab the Quality Framework, get to work, trying some things. Let us know how we can help. Kaitlin LeMoine: Really appreciate that. Amber, I think you know, I feel like I'm so struck by the number of conversations we have on this podcast that end with, start small, start somewhere. Let's make sure we get going, even if you don't have everything worked out, because if you don't get started, you can never really move the needle or see where the points of pain are, or see where the points of innovation are. So really appreciate that call out. It feels so critical, especially at this moment in time where, yeah, like you're saying, things are moving very quickly. Amber Garrison Duncan: I always, and this is probably, like, silly, but I always use the example too, of the iPhone in higher ed. We have been so research oriented. Again, I got to try it and pilot it and learn from it for three years. We don't have three years. We have an iPhone moment of get something out there, collect data. Change. Change every six weeks, if you need to. But that is the pace and the urgency of now that is going to require us to work differently. We can't wait for five year program reviews. You better be getting in there with those employers. And in that Alabama example, for the Credentials of Value, we're meeting quarterly to review labor market demand and change updating skill sets. So that's again, when I talk about pace of change, it's going to feel very chaotic, but use your data and insights to ground you and do it more frequently than we've ever done it before. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. Amber for this conversation. I mean Julian, I think I think I can speak for us both when I say this topic is very near and dear to our hearts. And you know, we're so excited to have been able to take some time with you to get the current and future state of the field, lay of the land. Really, really appreciate this dialog. Amber Garrison Duncan: Absolutely. Thank you for having me, and you're always a friend of the movement, you you are. You are the sparks of the movement. So it's been fun to reconnect. Julian Alssid: Thank you so much, Amber, really, really do appreciate the reconnect. 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 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.

March 3, 2026Episode 536 min

Scott Cheney: Making Sense of the Credential Landscape

Scott Cheney, Chief Executive Officer of Credential Engine, discusses bringing transparency to a credential marketplace that has grown to over 1.85 million unique credentials representing $2.3-2.4 trillion annually—a tenth of the U.S. economy. Drawing on over 30 years at the intersection of workforce development and education, Cheney describes how the explosive growth in micro-credentials and digital badges creates navigation challenges for learners and employers. He explains Credential Engine's Credential Transparency Description Language (CTDL), a data format enabling disconnected systems to communicate like travel booking platforms do for airlines and hotels. The conversation explores state-level implementations in Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, and Florida, where credential registries help workers compare programs, costs, and outcomes, and innovative work with AACRAO to credential the skills of 40 million Americans with some college but no degree through verified digital badges. Cheney emphasizes that digitization empowers learners to own and share credentials rather than relying on paper transcripts, urging learners to request digital formats, educators to issue them proactively, and highlighting federal support for talent marketplaces that will transform credential navigation. 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. 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: Kaitlin, we talk a lot on this podcast about skills-based hiring, competency-based education and helping learners translate what they know into career opportunities. But there's a fundamental infrastructure challenge underneath all of that. How do we actually make sense of the credential landscape? Kaitlin LeMoine: It's true. The ecosystem is incredibly fragmented. We have traditional degrees, certificates, badges, licenses, apprenticeships, and industry certifications. And those are just the formal credentials. Many of these systems don't effectively speak to one another and learners and employers alike struggle to understand what different credentials actually represent in terms of skills and competencies. Julian Alssid: Right. And it's not just about quantity, though the numbers are staggering. It's about transparency and comparability. If I earn a credential in cybersecurity from one provider, how does that compare to a similar sounding credential from another? What skills does it actually represent? And how do employers make sense of all this when they're trying to hire? Kaitlin LeMoine: And those types of questions bring us to our guest today. We're joined by Scott Cheney, Chief Executive Officer of Credential Engine, the organization working to bring transparency to the credentials marketplace. Scott has spent over 30 years at the intersection of workforce development, post-secondary education, and economic development. Before founding Credential Engine, he served as Policy Director for Workforce, Economic Development, and Pensions for Senator Patty Murray and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Prior to his work on Capitol Hill, Scott formed his own consulting firm working with states, companies, foundations, and think tanks on education, training, and employment issues. He has also held positions with the National Alliance of Business, the American Society for Training and Development, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Scott has also been involved in learner and worker mobility efforts globally, including serving on the Board of Directors of the Velocity Network Foundation and on the Strategic Advisory Committee of the Groningen Declaration Network. Julian Alssid: Scott, welcome to Work Forces, we're thrilled to have you with us today. Scott Cheney: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. Appreciate the opportunity. Kaitlin LeMoine: So as we dive in today, Scott, I know we gave your bio, but please tell us a bit more about your background and what led you to Credential Engine. Scott Cheney: Yeah, the background is not necessarily a clean line. So, you know, we talk about pathways, we talk about how do people find their way to certain places. I can't at all guarantee that any one thing led to my being here. Other than it just being a really different and unique opportunity to have an impact not just across the education and training ecosystem here in the United States, but to really think about how do we use and manage information about offerings across the globe. And how do we actually have better comparability, not just of a... to your example Julian, a certificate in one field by one provider, but a degree in the same field by a different provider and a certification. And then how do we do that when we're looking to support mobility of individuals across national lines. So it was a little different than anything I'd ever done because it's a very technical field, but it was very much in line with this interest in how do we improve education and workforce and training for people. To do it, it always got me very frustrated working in the Senate and then dealing with this very deconstructed ecosystem, we think along very artificial lines about education and training, right? We think about, oh, this is K-12. And then that's even primary and then secondary. And then you get into workforce and higher ed and we organize our thinking around largely federal funding streams, right? That's a higher ed, you know, kind of issue. That's a workforce issue. That's a Perkins issue. That's a, you know, Pell or a TANF issue. And people don't think that way. People think about what do I need next to get me the better job and to advance myself. And I don't care how it's funded, I don't care who offers it. I want to know it's going to be effective for me. And that's what this organization is really trying to dive into. Julian Alssid: So Scott, just recently you published your annual report, counting credentials, I guess counting credentials 2025. Um, which, which provides an update on the credential landscape. Please, if you will, share some of the findings of that report and particularly interested in hearing and knowing any surprises that emerged for you. Scott Cheney: Yeah. So we produced this one in 2025, the one that we did previous was in 2022. Um, it's a lot of work. We do it, we do it periodically. And, and one of the findings, the very top level finding is that we have available in the United States a little over 1.8 million unique credentials. So that is a staggeringly large number, but it would be helpful to just do a little bit of explanation about what's in there. First of all, when we use the term credential, oftentimes people think about a credential is one bucket of things and then there are degrees, right? We don't use the term credential that way. We use the term credential to mean anything that is intended to represent what you have earned and learned and can apply in some additional space. It could be further education. It could be employment. It could just be for self-satisfaction, right? That you're you're doing it because I'm a history buff and I'm not looking to be employed in history, but I went and took a degree or got a certificate in, you know, medieval history because I like it. And so when we think about it that way, and we think about also breaking down a history degree from West Texas is different than a history degree at the University of Washington is different than a history degree at Central Florida. And it's not because history is fundamentally different. It's because the unique sets of skills that you earn, the professors have different specialties. The marketplace into which you're going to use that credential might be different in each of those places. The costs are different, right? So we categorize each of those even though they're in the same field of study as separate credentials. So one is that we just count everything and we really want to help people understand. So it's a very large space. But the more interesting finding is that the growth in non-degree in the short-term credentials, and in fact, you can even get down to—and we're seeing more credentialing of single skills or small groupings of skills that are just what that individual needed, maybe because an employer said, we've got a new piece of equipment and I need you to go get these three additional skills to know how to run that equipment, and we're going to certify that you've got those skills and we're going to recognize that as a credential. And increasingly that's being done through things like digital badges, where you're not taking a full even a certificate program. You're earning those specific skills and once you've mastered them, they're being credentialized. So we're seeing this massive growth in very discrete skills gains and being issued as a credential and that's a lot of the growth we've seen. We were um, just over a million credentials in 2022. We did a much better count of these digital badges. And so the numbers now around 1.8 million. And it's offered by about 135,000 different providers. So credentials are being issued by any number of employers, of nonprofits, of museums, you know, traditional education sources. So it really is becoming a very democratized kind of ecosystem that we're in. And because we're doing a lot of this now as digital credentials, we're able to recognize learning as it's happening and empowering people with more information about their skills, their capabilities, than we've ever been able to do before. Kaitlin LeMoine: Scott, one thing I've been quite struck by reading the counting credentials 2025 report and then also just hearing you talk about, you know, sort of your kind of didn't expect to be in the technical element of this work. And I don't know if when you said technical, you also meant technological, but I'm struck by, you know, the need for data transparency in particular and how to build that foundation and that infrastructure. Especially as you said, right, like if you're comparing one type of program across institutions, how do we make sure that that all of this information speaks to one another, that we're all using the same information. You know, I loved the idea of um, in some of your writing you've talked about solid data, I like that acronym around structured open linked interoperable and durable. But just would love to hear more there because I think it's like it's a really complex and I think sometimes a hard space for people to really get their minds around including myself. Scott Cheney: So it is and it isn't, right? The education world has not really operated in this way. Uh, and honestly, the other number from our counting credentials report is we in this country spend somewhere around $2.3, $2.4 trillion a year on um, efforts to help people obtain credentials. Could be in what we spend in K-12. It could be what parents shell out in tuition for higher ed. It's, you know, federal, state and local funding. It's employers, you know, what they spend internally on their own training. And that is of a, I think we're at about a $21, $22 trillion economy right now. So it is a tenth of the entire economy. It's massive, right? And yet we don't really think in this sector around this idea of transparency and data interoperability. But for comparison, you would never assume that we could live without Expedia and Travelocity and Kayak. You would hop in your car and not use a a navigation tool, Apple Maps or Waze or something. But those can exist because those sectors have all agreed we're going to use a common data infrastructure. So that every airline, every hotel, every restaurant uses the same kind of data format. So that Expedia can reliably pull information and share it with you, that you're actually going to book a Marriott and it's actually going to be a king size bed, right? So what we're trying to do is the same thing for the education and training marketplace here in the country and then working to make this possible globally. And we do that through as as you pointed out, a data format that is structured, meaning that we know that this term means this thing. And if you publish a term, you're saying I am a Marriott or I am Ivy Tech. It's open and that's really important. We don't want this data to be closed off to public use. We don't want it to be owned and behind paywalls. This is a public good. We want this information to be open and accessible to anybody, anytime. It's linked. Again, linking, you go on the web right now, you can link between all these different things. The hyperlinks allow you to search and explore and that is just a modern data format. And so this information needs to be the same. Interoperable. So interoperability just means that if you say something is a credential of a PhD in psychology from Purdue and you take that information and you want to share it with the employer, that the employer can read that information and know that it's true in their system as it was true when Purdue published the information. So it's just a truth and that that consistency. And then durable is that it lasts. We can always find it. It's always going to be good. Whether you're talking about my degree that I earned in 1988 or information that's needed now as I'm looking for a new job. So that information is going to last. We happen to do that at Credential Engine using a data schema that we call the credential transparency description language. It is the data schema that we helped to create back when we were founded. And it is a solid data format. It does all those things that we described. It just happens to be the one and we developed it because nothing existed like it. There was no way to do this back when we founded the organization. So we were founded to create this data language. So when you think about it that way, and you think about oh, well of course I can use Waze to drive across town. Of course I can use Expedia to book a vacation. And then you say, why can't I compare and build a pathway for myself from high school through my own learning into community college onto a degree onto an industry certification? Because all that information sits in different repositories using different terms. And we're trying to change that. We're trying to bring all that information into a common language so that you can build your own pathway. I oftentimes say, we make it easier to book a vacation than we do to help you find your way through this credential landscape to get the right skills, to get a good job, to be able to afford the vacation. And that's just wrong. We need to make it easier to navigate your education and employment pathway than it is to book a vacation. Julian Alssid: Yeah, indeed. So bringing us back to the report for a moment, I'm really interested in, you know, I too was struck by that massive jump of crossing the million mark of digital badges and online certificates. And I guess I'm wondering, are we... from where you sit, are we how would you characterize this in relation to the traditional degrees? Are we are we are we at, are we approaching a tipping point of sorts? You know, are we, do you see, do you see these badges effectively, these badges and certs being stacked into broader programs? Is that happening yet? Scott Cheney: Yeah, so let's take a second and just clarify a few things. One, we don't actually know if from 2022 to 25 there was just a growth in the number of badges out there. We just were able to get a better count on the badges that exist. So it's quite possible that in 2022 there were actually, you know, that our number may have been one and a half million and it grew to 1.8. It may have been 1 point we don't have the longitudinal data on the badges. So I can't say for certain if it was growth. The second thing to understand about digital badges is that it's not just happening in the short-term arena. A lot of universities digitally badge their degrees, right? And so you're just a digital badge is a way of carrying the information. It's no longer having to go get the paper transcript and the paper degree and hanging it on your wall. It's being given to you in a digital format. And so digital badging is happening across the entire spectrum of education and training and all these different kind of credentials. It's just that you can create a digital badge and issue it very easily. And it can be done really easily for a short-term program. So we are seeing a real growth in digital badging and the digitization of this entire marketplace is fabulous. Right? It is a game changer unto itself because it means that I don't have to go pay $20 or $100 every time I need a copy of a transcript from the place I went to. I don't have to, you know, I can carry that information myself. I earned this degree. I earned this certificate. And the provider of that is awarding it to me. Maybe as paper. That's fine. I'll keep the paper. But you're issuing it to me in a digital format as well. And that digital format is then something I can own and it has a verification behind it, right? So it is empowering in ways that we've never been able to empower people before. So we strongly encourage every provider of every type of credential to move to a digital format, right? And that is a game changer. Because now we can also share that information more easily with potential employers. And employers can verify that Scott actually did earn these things from these providers. And you can change that whole dynamic of the interactions and the transactions that an individual can have and they can do it in a secure way. So we're really excited about that move to digitization and as I said before, it means that we can actually do a better job of capturing those discrete skills that are earned. You know, it could be as simple as, and I'm not saying that being a teacher is simple, but oftentimes you might get a principal observing a teacher and noticing that they had really, really good classroom management of a difficult situation. Right? That teacher didn't go back to school. That teacher displayed a set of skills in a classroom in front of a known authority who can then say to the teacher, hey, I'm going to issue you a digital badge because you handled that situation really, really well. And I have the authority and the ability to recognize your skills, to verify that you actually applied them and have them, and use them in a meaningful context. And I'm going to issue you a digital badge. It could be that simple. But that's a powerful thing for a teacher to be then be able to say that yeah, I was recognized and it was rewarded to me. It wasn't just the principal saying hey nice job in there and then forgetting that she said it to me or he said it to me a year later. No, I have proof of this. You saw my abilities to do this and it was issued so that is a game changer in so many ways. So this digitization is more than just one technical piece of it, it is an empowering piece for individuals everywhere. Kaitlin LeMoine: So Scott, as we've discussed, right, this work requires bringing a lot of people together to make these otherwise fragmented systems interconnected and working well together. Curious to learn more beyond the report around you know, how does Credential Engine help to support and drive those efforts? I would love to hear a couple of examples to illustrate this because I think it's like so much of this is in the details and it's super challenging work to bring these stakeholders together and make this work happen. So would love to hear more. Scott Cheney: That's a great question. And you're right. We have a a highly fragmented ecosystem in the country. So when we think about where information lies about this credential ecosystem, it's with certainly the frontline providers of them. It's with state agencies that oversee them or maybe fund them. It's with third party accrediting or qualifying bodies. It's with labor market information shops that might generate the earnings and employment outcomes. It's with employers, you know, who might say that yeah, those are the credentials that we want and these are the credentials and skills that we need inside this inside our company. So it is and that's just a smattering of examples. So let me give you two examples of how this might work. So Arkansas, a state level kind of application. Arkansas has a very aggressive, very well-organized initiative being run out of the office of the Chief Data Officer and under the direct kind of oversight of the Governor. So a centralized effort to bring very comprehensive information together to be able to help individuals see the entire landscape. Not just of what they have or what they can earn, where they can go to get things, but to also be able to store what they have earned in a credential wallet into a learning and employment record. And then being able to compare what they've earned with where they can go to get new skills, to what employers are actually looking for. And doing all of that in a digital platform and a talent marketplace, essentially as the administration is now talking about these things. So we are helping them build not only a credential registry, a common verifiable source of truth about every credential that's available to Arkansans and how to piece all those together. But we're also building for them a repository of support services that are available both through educational institutions—does that community college have a food pantry, do they offer counseling, do they have tutoring, are they on a bus line, do they have child care—but support services also from other providers in the state so if the community college doesn't have something but someone else nearby does, you can still find that. So all of that information is going to be available in this open data format in this credential transparency description language. And the state is combining that with lots of other information about what employers want, about you know other available services and they're putting this into platforms that can help individuals navigate. Julian Alssid: May I just jump in on that example for a sec, I'm just curious the state examples are impressive and Arkansas sounds pretty sophisticated. But you know of course people and jobs cross state lines. And so how do we ensure that you know a state like Arkansas' data doesn't become an isolated island of data? Scott Cheney: We're working really hard to have the same data format being used in Alabama, with Tennessee, with Texas, in Florida. There are about 35 states right now that are working with us in some manner to to bring this data format to to their systems. And then we're also seeing the the federal government and the administration not only talking about the need to build credential registries in every state, but about the need to have the information in those registries be in that structured, open, linked, interoperable, durable format. So we're seeing really good support from and embrace of this from the federal government onto state governments and into systems and institutions. It is a very big lift, right? Like I said, there's 135,000 providers of credential information. But if we can focus the work at 54 states and territories and we can get the federal government to say, yes, this is the way we should be moving in our work nationally, then Arkansas is not an island, right? Arkansas is simply one stepping stone of a person's pathway that they can traverse. The other example I was just going to share quickly is one that we've been working on with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. We know that there are over 40 million people in this country that have some college, no degree. So we've been working with AACRAO, the registrars, and a number of institutions to say, let's figure out what the skills were in the courses that an individual took and that they passed and let's extract those skills and be able to issue a digital badge, a verifiable credential for the skills that someone earned because they did earn them. They just couldn't for one reason or another complete the degree that we've held up as the holy grail in this country. But you did go to school, you did go to college, and we should recognize and award you the skills that you earned. So we've been working on a project that allows us to extract the skills from those courses that Scott may have taken. And issue a credential of those skills by the institution. And the institution stands behind, yeah, Scott came, he took these 10 classes, he passed them. We're going to assume that because he passed them he actually earned those skills. And here is a credential. We hope you come back. We would love to have you come back and finish. But and so that's something that's not at a state level. That's an institution saying, we want to award and recognize what Scott earned while he was here. And that can be done by any institution that wants to raise their hand to say it's a different way for us to recognize and to engage with our student population. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well and I would imagine too, right, I mean that there is an encouraging aspect there for the learner too, right? Of like, I did, I actually did earn something, it may not have been the full degree, but here's all the skills and competencies and the knowledge that I acquired and here's how I can show it. It's verified in the world, right? Scott Cheney: What a great email it must be that you went to these classes five years ago and your institution is writing you and saying, hey, we'd like to recognize what you did earn while you were here. That's a really and and we're not actually going to charge you for it, right? We can just issue you a digital credential. And that's a wow, it makes me actually want to maybe reengage with that institution, right? And and so there's just positives all around. It helps the economy. It helps that individual. It helps the institution. So yeah, we're thrilled by that work. Kaitlin LeMoine: So thinking about like, you know, kind of as you're saying right, where we're headed, where we'd like to be with so much of this work. I think you know one thing that has stood out to us and our work over the last few years is just how fast skill needs are changing in the economy. And so just curious to hear Scott from your perspective, how do we help really learners and employers, I mean really kind of stakeholders across this landscape navigate the value of these credentials when there are shifts happening so quickly? What are your thoughts there? Scott Cheney: So I think the first thing is I would say is I would encourage anyone, any provider of credentials to move to an issuing of of whatever is being awarded into a verifiable credential format, into a digital format, right? Let's begin to have a full adoption. And it's moving that direction, but we can speed this up, right? Those platforms are out there, it's not hard to do and and so we would encourage that everyone starts to to issue these digitally. And then to make sure that you're issuing them to an individual in a way that they can actually hold and and secure and use, right? They may choose to add it to their LinkedIn profile. They may not be in a state where there's a ready accessibility to a learning and employment record platform yet, we're seeing more of that coming. Again, part of what the administration is doing in these talent marketplaces is to encourage that states and systems create both credential registries but begin to issue learning and employment records. And to help employers produce job postings in a skills-based format. So a skills-based job description generator is the third piece of what they're calling their talent marketplaces. If we do all of that, so just thinking about this now not from the individual side, but things that institutions and states should be doing. They should be going down this road. They should be actively working to transform how they issue credentials, how they're issuing them to a learner, and then how employers can make the connection between what they need and then what a learner has. What a learner needs to do is to ask for their credentials to be issued digitally, right? Go to their to their provider, whether it's a community college or a Goodwill or whoever it may be. And say, thank you, this piece of paper is wonderful, can I get that credential in a digital format? Can I hold this differently so that I can actually have control of it and be able to share it because I want to make sure employers know what I've earned. So there is an advocacy piece that learners and students should be taking and should be acting on. It's a hard thing for a learner to do, right? To to say to the to the registrar or the admissions officer, yeah, that's that's great thank you, but can I get it in this format. But the more that we hear it, the more we do it, and the more they hear it, they hopefully will be acting on it. I will say that it's wonderful that organizations like AACRAO, who work with the thousands of registrars and admissions officers around the country, are leading on this issue. They are pushing this field and trying to help institutions adopt these formats. So the more we have this information there, the more easily we're going to be able to navigate it. We're going to be able to connect the skills that you have with the skills that are out there with the skills that that employers need. That sounds a little too good to be true, right? But we've made progress. I can tell you in the nine years that I've been at this work, at this organization, when I first started talking about this vision and and the idea of credential transparency and open data, people just looked at me like I was crazy. You had a good job in the Senate. Why on earth did you leave a good job in the Senate to do this, right? Now we've got the federal government talking about talent marketplaces, talking about policy changes. We have more and more companies and vendors that are offering the products and the services to make this real. We actually can have panel sessions at places like state higher ed executive officers meetings and others where people are showing up to learn how to do this. So we are seeing a shift happening. It's not going to be readily impactful for you know, a learner maybe that's leaving college now. But I am hopeful that those students that are entering middle school now, as they get to high school, we're going to be in a position where they're being issued digital badges and digital credentials into their own learning and employment record. And they're never going to know a difference. They're never going to know that Travelocity didn't exist, Kayak didn't exist before, I had to actually go see a travel agent. We're going to help them enter a different world as they enter high school and then post-secondary because we're making these moves now. Julian Alssid: It feels like it still is the wild west. But we're beginning you've got this massive data, thanks thanks to you and others. And we're able to mobilize and move on these multiple fronts. Is that a fair characterization? Scott Cheney: It is a fair characterization and and you know, there is a little bit of wild west still out there, but we're beginning to see organization out of chaos. We're beginning to see structure. We're beginning to see ways to have a map across that wild west. And to have known pathways and to not be afraid to veer off because you're not sure because you can see, I'm going for this credential. I also, people always ask, you know, there's 1.8 million is too many. Well, maybe. There are credentials that are out there that probably aren't that great. And that they should be ended. But that's the decision of whoever is providing them. If the if whoever is running that community college, whoever is running that industry certification feels like there's a reason they have it on their book still, okay. What I'm more impressed by is the fact that we have a really dynamic economy. And we have as someone I think Kaitlin you said, that there are skills now being needed that we never knew about before. That's fabulous. Right? It means we have an innovative dynamic economy that is constantly pushing the margins. And education is always going to lag behind, right? Because the economy should be more dynamic than we can keep up with. That's a good thing for the economy. We're just trying to shorten the time. And those information signals and and to get credentials created. And sometimes it's simply a different packaging of skills and that's a new credential, but the skills existed. Sometimes they're brand new skills. Either way, we're working to make sure that the information is being made available quickly, you can translate it, you can get that job. We just keep this really virtuous cycle going. And if we pass 2 million, I'm not going to sweat it. What I want to know is what are the skills in those credentials and how does it translate into whatever pathway an individual is taking. And if we have that information and we can help people navigate, you can navigate 10 credentials, you can navigate a million credentials because you have the information you need. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well, it sounds like the momentum is there as you said, right? I mean, no time like the present to take this very innovative moment in our economy to to drive a lot of this other this really important work forward. So as we wind down today's conversation Scott, how can our listeners learn more uh, and continue to follow your work at Credential Engine? Scott Cheney: You can, you can get more information on our website, credentialengine.org. Importantly too, everything we do, everything we do is done openly and transparently. It's not just the mission we're about, but it's how we operate. So whenever we're doing updates to our data schema, whenever we're making policy decisions, we do them through open collaborative efforts. We call them task groups. So I would encourage anyone to get involved. You know, go to our website, get on our mailing list, see what task groups we're working on. It could be, we just finished a task group on better information about transfer. We've done ones on updating terminology around different types of certificates. We've done them as we try and expand globally to make sure that what we're doing here, we understand how terms are used internationally. So anyone from around the globe can join a task group, can be a part of this effort, and to make sure that that we're doing this collectively. We welcome all voices. Kaitlin LeMoine: Well Scott, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today. It's really it is such a welcome update and such an incredibly important work. So we we certainly look forward to tracking and to checking back in and seeing how things are going... Scott Cheney: Well I really appreciate the time to join you today. It's been a pleasure um, as you can tell I get a little enthusiastic about the work because I do think it is making a difference and it is going to transform how we how we help people navigate this entire space and their own well-being. Julian Alssid: Thank you so much for your time Scott. Great to see you. Scott Cheney: Thank you all.

February 17, 2026Episode 428 min

Engineering the Future of Digital Learning with Tom Riendeau

Tom Riendeau, Vice President of Workforce Learning and Skills at Magic EdTech, joins Work Forces to discuss the critical infrastructure powering the future of online education. While AI dominates the headlines, Riendeau argues that many organizations are still held back by "static" legacy content that fails to engage the modern learner. The conversation explores the operational reality of digital transformation, from improving student retention by streamlining the user experiences to using AI as a "smart assistant" for curriculum design. Riendeau emphasizes the importance of moving beyond transactional vendor relationships to find partners who can "see around corners," anticipating challenges like cybersecurity risks and accessibility compliance before they become crises. He offers practical advice for leaders on how to thread "durable skills" into technical training and build scalable learning ecosystems that truly support career advancement. 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. 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: Kaitlin, in so many of our recent podcast conversations, we have discussed AI and its impact on the future of work and learning. We are all grappling with where this new technology will take us and its long-term impacts on education and the workforce. However, we have spent less time exploring the very platforms and tools that support effective online learning at its core. Kaitlin LeMoine: Indeed. While online learning feels ubiquitous and like it has just "always been there," many organizations still hold on to static content—PDFs, textbooks, traditional curricula—that simply wasn't built for today's digital-first, immersive learning environments. And other institutions have adopted advanced technology solutions, but find themselves challenged by how to most effectively integrate tools into one seamless platform or experience. Julian Alssid: To really modernize, you need partners who can engineer that transformation. It requires deep expertise in both learning design and software engineering, and you need teams that can build everything from custom platforms to AR simulations to fully accessible digital content at scale. Kaitlin LeMoine: Which brings us to our guest today. We're joined by Tom Riendeau, Vice President of Workforce Learning and Skills at Magic EdTech, a provider of AI-powered digital learning solutions. Tom has spent over 35 years driving enterprise growth at the intersection of learning, technology, and workforce transformation. He has served as a trusted partner to higher education institutions, career training providers, and EdTech companies, enabling them to reimagine their content. And we're looking forward to speaking with him today! Tom, welcome to Work Forces. Tom Riendeau: Thank you so much. This is a terrific opportunity and I'm thrilled to be here. Kaitlin LeMoine: So Tom, to kick us off, please tell us a bit more about your background and what led you to your role at Magic EdTech. Tom Riendeau: Sure. You know, I have always been focused on education; that was the goal coming out of my undergraduate years. But I student taught and then said, I want to do something different. And I was very fortunate to get a job as an academic advisor at one of the first what we would call online universities in the early 1990s. And I had a really special moment there. I was an academic advisor to nursing students—and at that time that institution was set up to direct students to learning that already existed in their local communities and aggregate it into a college degree. I spent almost my entire day on the phone with students. And I was on the phone with a student who was pursuing her nursing degree, and she burst into tears on me. And she started to tell me about what was going on in her life and how if she didn't finish her nursing degree by the summer, all of the disaster that would mean not only for her, but for her children, and how she was newly a single parent and all of the stress. So it wasn't even an education conversation at that point; it was really about what's going on in your life. And that thread has continued through my career. Now, it has a happy ending, which is why I like telling the story. I got her calmed down, we had a lot of conversations over the spring, she worked incredibly hard, and then at a graduation ceremony that summer, I saw her kids holding up their "Yay Mom" signs. And that stuck with me. So it was not planned, but I had an opportunity to join the academic publishing world through a partnership that school had—it was one of the largest academic publishers. And that sort of led into new opportunities to start to look at the early days of digital learning. And so the common theme, because of where I had started my career, each of my employers let me dive into career-focused education. They let me work with their customers who were delivering that education—whether they were career colleges, whether they were the extended campuses of traditional universities as they were getting into online, whether they were certification companies—but with that common theme of: how do you change a person's life? How do you help them advance their career? And what does that mean not only for them but for their families? And as you start to think about it, I started to realize the impact that I was having on entire communities as I was helping more and more students—far outside of my limited capabilities to teach English to some 12th graders who didn't want to be there. And I say that cynically—I mean, with lots of love for what my parents accomplished as teachers and the lives that they changed. But really, I'm proud of all of that focus on working adults and their needs and seeing them not just as learners, but as human beings with families and communities. Julian Alssid: That's a compelling story, Tom, and glad you've stuck with us. Very mission driven. So, you've worked now with different types of organizations, plied your trade. So what are the types of challenges that your clients face, and how have those changed or evolved over the years in this space? Tom Riendeau: Sure. So there's some constants even over those entire decades. And those constant challenges are helping clients understand their local business needs—making sure that the solutions that my employers were developing for them are developing for them match what's actually needed. And it may be directly for that company, of what they're trying to accomplish. But getting that match right rather than just building things in a vacuum has been a constant throughout the decades. The other piece of that is the constant is acknowledging that human face of the learner. So focusing in on what are the support systems? So are the businesses that are going to employ the learners, are they supporting and creating an environment where the learner can advance? Is there a family structure that supporting it? And that doesn't have to be a traditional family—it could be neighbors, friends, extended family—what's out there and helping find those folks who are going to be part of that support ecosystem. What's started to change though is the student experience with technology. And that's a relatively new evolution. I talked to one very large national career college provider, and I remember going to a conference of theirs, and they had done research where they found that they were losing slightly more than half of their students within the first three minutes of their online programs. That the student experience at the login point was so complex that students were just throwing their hands up and saying, "I can't do this." And what a disaster that was for them from a business perspective, but also the human loss of, hey, here are all these learners who were excited enough to log in, to choose a program, to get ready, and that they were gone on Day One. I mean, that's an absolute crisis. And that's where a company like mine can really help in looking at that and thinking about, what's the experience of that student? If they've got 20 minutes on their lunch hour, are we making this as easy as possible for them to get into your programs? Is everything opened up for them and seamless so that they can see the value right from the beginning? Because with a few minutes, things get in the way and it becomes easy to create excuses not to continue. And then of course, just within the last few years, some very welcome things. A renewed focus on durable skills—and you know, there are lots of terms that we're using for that, whether we mean soft skills (which is kind of an unfortunate term), but durable skills, life skills, socio-emotional skills—that sort of social intelligence that workers need to advance in their careers to move on to more leadership roles, to even to move into middle skill jobs, you need that basic skill set. And that's been welcome because I don't think there's enough focus on that. It's also... what's changed is we're now thinking about how can we actually integrate that into all aspects of the learning as opposed to having it be the thing you do for one session at the beginning and then we forget it. Like, how do we actually make that part threaded through all of the learning? I think is essential. And then I know, I'm sure I'm going to get lots of questions about this, but what's just happened in the last year or two around AI and how that's moving. But that's, I'm sure, a whole separate conversation. Kaitlin LeMoine: It is a conversation unto itself! But I think that the changes you've raised are really fascinating, right? I mean, this focus on the student experience with tech—that it's not just the curriculum that they're engaged with, but also the whole... their whole experience with everything from enrolling, to logging into their first course, to, I would assume, interactions with their instructor or interactions with how they're assessed or graded. I mean those... it's kind of like that whole learner journey, so to speak. Tom Riendeau: I think it's important to treat AI, to think of AI, as your assistant in it. It's got to be a human-centered approach. But having a really smart assistant that can say things like, "Hey, did certification requirements require this particular learning objective? I don't see it here. Did you mean to leave that out? And should that be part of this healthcare course you're building? Because that's in every other course that we're seeing out in the world." That helps you build stronger content for your learner so that you're not missing things. And those are the kind of mistakes that if you're doing it manually, everybody's going to make along the way. So you've essentially got a really powerful assistant that can make the learning tighter. But to your point, Kaitlin, yeah, exactly right. It allows for more creativity on your side because you're not worried about having missed something. Julian Alssid: So, Tom, we're interested in hearing what practical steps you can offer our listeners to help them become forces in effectively adopting digital learning solutions in this complex and ever-changing environment. Tom Riendeau: So I'll tell you what I tell my clients. I think it's really essential to have a partner that you can rely on that can do the things either faster or better that aren't your core skill sets. So that's one piece of it. But what's really critical is: Do you have a partner that is... that understands the true strategic initiative you're trying to solve for? So, one way that you could approach things is to say, "Here's a list of all the great things we do," and that's probably duplicated across lots of different companies. Where it becomes really powerful, though, is when that partner can help you see around corners, that can help you understand what you may not be seeing yourself. Okay, so it's a line item, you know you have to do the accessibility work, but does your partner understand why you need to do that? You need to do that because there are hidden costs to doing it wrong. First of all, there's a regulatory cost to doing it wrong, but more importantly, there's a human cost that you may not even see from the learners who don't succeed, who should have been using your products, should have been singing your praises, and if you want the kind of growth that you're looking for, this becomes essential. If you haven't considered, for example, cybersecurity, and you don't have a partner that's really looking at that, what are the hidden costs of that? Of not modernizing your system. Do you have an insurance company, for example? I mean, this is the kind of things that I mean by seeing around corners. What happens when your insurance company comes back to you and says, "Well, we're going to triple your cybersecurity insurance cost because you're using an old system that's not up to the task, and we're not willing to take on that risk for you without a dramatically higher premium." Seeing that before it becomes a crisis. Having a partner who's going to who really understands what you're trying to do, that's where you can see growth, as opposed to a service provider who comes in and says, "Tell me what to do and I'll do it for you quickly and disappear." You know, helping find those organizations that can add value from that first conversation and come in and say, "Okay, you want to talk about this particular problem that you're facing? Let me tell you where the industry is going. Let me tell you what value I can add to this conversation and create that partnership that's really going to give you the growth that you need." Kaitlin LeMoine: The value that comes from looking around the corner—I feel like, you know, there's so much to be said for that. And I feel like that's what we're all trying to do, right? Is to say, "Where are we now and where are we headed?" and "Who can we predict, so to speak?" Because we are certainly in a fast-moving, fast-paced landscape that is the future of work and learning. Tom Riendeau: You want... the ideal sales conversation, if you're on the buying side of that, should be this kind of a conversation. Where is the back and forth? What is your service provider bringing to the table? How are they responding to your questions? And I love those kind of conversations. I want a sales meeting where there's lots of vigorous back and forth and pushback. I love it when a customer is like, "Wait a minute, I don't want to do it that way. Why should I do it that way?" And you know, a lot of times they have a really good reason for doing things, but that's where you get the kind of true value as opposed to, you know, otherwise you'd just order it on Amazon and be done with it. And I think for workforce education, it's got to be much more vigorous than that. It really needs to be a true partner. Julian Alssid: These... It's such complex work. And as you've pointed out, touches on so many aspects of an organization and learning. And I feel like this is becoming like a love fest for contractors and consultants here. But, you know, like, this is why we get hired to do what we do too! It's like, sometimes it helps to have an outside look and partner that's just gonna kind of raise questions and see things in a different way. It's really, really—having been on both sides of the fence, as we all have—it's really difficult when you're in an institution to try to innovate. Tom Riendeau: Well, it's also, it's also a matter of understanding what you do well and what you don't do well, and where you need capacity. There's a lot of good reasons to say, "Hey, for us to hire up a team to do this, to learn this skill set that's kind of outside of what we do... by the time we start seeing a return on investment, that could be months and years." Whereas, hey, for a really effective solution, we can just outsource that and have somebody who's already done all of that work and done all of that investment who can come in and work with us and understand us and help us grow that much more quickly. So, it should be seen not as a cost line that disappears, but really as an investment in growth. And I think, you know, the right partner is part of your investment and growth strategy, not... not a line item that, that you know, you have to deal with. Kaitlin LeMoine: So, Tom, thank you for taking the time to join us today. As we wind down this conversation, how can our listeners learn more and continue to follow your work? Tom Riendeau: Absolutely. First of all, find me on LinkedIn. But please come to our website, and I'm sure we'll put that in the show notes, but www.magicedtech.com. I am trying to be at every workforce conference, so if you see me and recognize me, please walk up to me and say hello. I love having those conversations at events. But look for our website and for LinkedIn. We also have a fun Instagram account that my colleague Chiara is running that can give you some of the insight into our day-to-day and how we're... we're not just head down, but we're also having some fun on the side as well. Julian Alssid: Well, thanks so much for joining us today, Tom. Really appreciated the conversation. Tom Riendeau: An absolute pleasure and I thank you for your time as well. 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.

February 3, 2026Episode 337 min

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. 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: 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.