Today, I’m distributing the fourth paper below on my Substack. This paper provides the playbook for how states are redesigning funding to launch, sustain, and scale career-connected learning. One note: citations and author bios are in the original PDFs themselves at the Christensen Institute (opens in new tab).
It should come as no surprise that learning providers organize themselves around enrollment, seat-time, and traditional classroom learning because those are the activities legacy state money rewards and supports; institutional behavior almost always follows where the funding flows.
But career-connected pathways ask schools, colleges, and training providers to behave differently. They require institutions to pursue outcomes that legacy funding formulas often do little to reward. Career-connected pathways aim not only to move students through seats and courses, but also to help them earn valuable credentials, gain meaningful work experience, and move into strong jobs with room for advancement. Institutions cannot be expected to shift resources toward career-connected models while funding systems continue to reward legacy models.
Career-connected learning often comes with costs that traditional funding was not designed to cover. These include specialized facilities, modern industry-standard equipment, instructors with industry experience, employer engagement, transportation, and other functions needed to support cross-system pathways. Without funding models that support these costs, even promising programs will remain dependent on short-term grants, heroic staff effort, or informal workarounds. That instability makes it difficult to sustain and scale successful programs. In short, new value propositions often require new cost structures.
Many career-connected pathways intentionally span K–12, higher education, and workforce development. But much of the available federal funding still flows through those systems separately, which makes it harder to scale integrated pathways. Even where funding can be braided, the work of aligning eligibility rules, reporting requirements, timelines, and accountability systems across funding streams can become a significant barrier in its own right.
The opportunity, however, is that states are not limited to federal dollars or legacy formulas. State appropriations, grant programs, and funding formulas can all be redesigned to support the costs of career-connected learning and reward the outcomes and collaborations policymakers want to encourage. When states create predictable, fit-for-purpose funding—whether through startup support, outcomes-based appropriations, or portable learner-centered funding—they do more than support innovation. They change the financial equation that determines whether institutions can adopt new value propositions in the first place.
In this sense, state funding is the fuel that powers career-connected learning across systems. A program’s resources and processes form the vehicle through which it delivers its value proposition, but its financial formula is what keeps it moving. Even well-designed programs with the right people, partnerships, equipment, and operating practices cannot be sustained without reliable funding. More often, they are never launched at all. By aligning grants, appropriations, and funding formulas with cross-system, career-connected models, states give providers the financial foundation they need to launch, sustain, and scale them.
This paper offers three recommendations for doing so, each illustrated with a state policy example:
Recommendation 3.1: Seed New Programs By Supporting Startup Costs
Principal Policymakers: Governor’s Office; State Legislature; State Higher Education Agency/Board
Creating access to work-based learning for more students and extending the model into high-growth fields where degree requirements remain common demands building capacity in K–12 schools and for-credit college programs— parts of the talent pipeline that historically have played a much smaller role in delivering it.
However, starting a new program is expensive in ways that traditional education budgets often do not accommodate.
Before the first cohort is even enrolled, providers often invest in program design; develop or acquire curriculum; hire staff with specialized technical, instructional, or coordination expertise; recruit and support employer partners; train faculty and workplace supervisors; purchase technology, equipment, or machinery needed for hands-on instruction; and market the opportunity to prospective students. In many cases, those upfront investments are large enough that otherwise promising programs never get off the ground.
Startup support is not a substitute for a sustainable operating model. Even when states help providers stand up new pathways, institutions still need ongoing revenue that covers the recurring costs of high-quality delivery. But startup funding is often the necessary first step. It gives providers the capacity to pilot, refine, and demonstrate new models. Those early results can help build the evidence and confidence policymakers need to justify more sustainable funding and support broader adoption.
States can think about startup funding the way investors think about early-stage capital. Catalytic investments help promising models launch and prove themselves before they are fully self-sustaining. Similarly, states can provide targeted funding that allows education and training providers to build and test new programs—or, in some cases, new organizations—without requiring them to divert resources from existing commitments.
Understanding the Impact Through Business Model Theory
Startup costs are often prohibitive because incumbent institutions have built their financial formulas around existing delivery models. They already carry substantial fixed costs— facilities, faculty and staff, equipment, and other long-term obligations—that leave little room to invest in new programs. In K–12, local leaders often have limited flexibility to redirect funding at the school level. Colleges typically have more varied revenue sources, but many also face financial limitations from enrollment pressure and rising costs. The challenge is not that institutional leaders fail to see the value of career-connected pathways. It is that building them requires an upfront investment that existing business models were never designed to absorb.
A limited-term startup grant does not fundamentally change an institution’s financial formula—more durable funding reforms are still needed. But it can provide the free cash flow necessary to launch a new model in parallel with the existing one. Startup funding gives schools and colleges room to launch a pathway, demonstrate demand, build partnerships, and make the case for more permanent funding. In effect, it allows institutions to develop a new business model alongside their existing one.
Chesterton’s Fence Consideration
A lack of startup funding can hamper innovation, but there is a reason states do not create launch grants for every promising idea. Short-term funding can catalyze valuable new programs, but it can also support programs that were never needed or cannot survive once the grant period ends. States should therefore design startup funding with careful attention to demand and long-term sustainability. Programs should respond to demonstrated learner and employer demand, and applicants should present a credible plan for sustaining the pathway after the startup funding expires.
Deep Dive: The California Apprenticeship Initiative
By 2015, California already had one of the country’s largest apprenticeship systems. However, apprenticeship remained concentrated in the industries where the model had traditionally taken hold, particularly the building trades. Governor Jerry Brown made modernizing the system a priority for the state: “It is essential that the apprenticeship model continue to adapt along with changes in our economy,” Brown wrote, calling for both expansion of existing programs and creation of apprenticeships in nontraditional fields and emerging industries with unmet labor demand.
California backed that ambition with a major new investment. Brown’s 2015 budget more than doubled state apprenticeship funding, from \$23 million to \$52 million. About half of the increase in investment went towards strengthening the existing apprenticeship system. The other half was to expand apprenticeship into occupations with unmet labor market needs.
Supporting apprenticeship’s expansion into the fields with the fastest-growing demand for good jobs meant extending them beyond their traditional home in workforce development and further into colleges, where students could earn academic credit and degrees alongside their apprenticeship. It also meant asking many providers to build new programs and incur upfront costs to develop apprenticeship standards and curriculum, recruit employers and faculty, purchase equipment, and establish the student support systems needed before a program could reach sustainable enrollment.
CAI N&I does that by targeting startup funding for apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs delivered by community college districts, county offices of education, or K-12 local education agencies.
Strategic discipline was built into the grant’s design (opens in new tab). Program guidance narrows the focus to priority and emerging sectors, requires evidence of labor-market demand, and gives preference to programs that award college credit or link to a degree.
The grant also recognizes that program needs evolve over time. It distinguishes between different stages of program development—implementation and expansion—and aligns different funding streams and expectations with each. That staged approach reflects the reality that the barriers to growth change as apprenticeship programs mature. Early-stage programs need help with registration, curriculum design, and employer recruitment. Later-stage programs need help expanding capacity, supporting learners, and continuously improving quality. A lifecycle-oriented grant structure gives providers the resources they need that match what programs are trying to accomplish at each phase.
Scaling apprenticeship requires more than program-level grants, however. It also demands shared infrastructure for employer engagement, program development and implementation, and funding and sponsorship coordination. Recognizing this, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office invested in the LAUNCH Apprenticeship Network (opens in new tab) as a statewide apprenticeship hub to support program development across those functions. The CAI New and Innovative Grant reinforces that strategy by listing LAUNCH as one of two entities from which grant recipients should seek technical assistance during program development.
One program that has leveraged both CAI New and Innovative Grant funding and support from LAUNCH is the Industrial Technology Apprenticeship Program in California’s Inland Empire. Consistent with the grant’s requirements, the program was built to address a clear regional workforce need: employers in logistics, distribution, and advanced manufacturing needed technicians capable of maintaining increasingly automated equipment. Through LAUNCH sponsorship, Chaffey College, Victor Valley College, and Norco College coordinate registered apprenticeships in mechatronics and industrial maintenance with more than 30 regional employers providing paid on-the-job learning. The grant’s staged funding allowed Norco College’s partnership with Target to move from launching the program to expanding it. Target alone has trained more than 115 technicians, while the broader industrial technology collaborative has trained 394 technicians and continues to grow.
California has made tangible progress toward the goals of the initiative. Between 2018 and 2023, the number of apprentices in new industries grew 79 percent, from just over 13,500 to nearly 24,500. While there are many policies and programs that have helped drive that growth, those closest to the work point to the CAI New and Innovative Grants as an important contributor. As LAUNCH CEO Charles Henkels said, the grants have been a “really major, really helpful policy.”
Operationalizing Impact: Key Takeaways for Other States
Fund the proof of concept: Startup grants can provide incumbents with the free cash flow to build new, distinct business models. They give providers the resources to build, test, and refine new models—and only then make the case for more sustainable funding.
Build for-credit options where they add value: In fields where degrees remain important, states can encourage apprenticeship programs to articulate into college credit and stackable credentials. This need not displace employer-, union-, or intermediary-led models. The goal is to ensure that apprentices can earn wages and industry experience while retaining a clear route to a degree.
Support demonstrated demand, not just promising ideas: California targeted startup funding toward priority sectors and required applicants to demonstrate labor-market demand. That discipline helps reduce the risk of creating programs that cannot attract students, employers, or long-term financial support.
Match funding to the program lifecycle: New pathways face different challenges at launch than they do as they grow. States should adapt funding and accountability to each stage of development rather than relying on a single grant structure.
Recommendation 3.2: Shift Funding From Inputs To Career-Connected Outcomes
Principal Policymakers: Governor’s Office; State Legislature; State Higher Education Agency/Board
Higher education funding formulas are powerful levers for shaping what colleges prioritize. When state funding is driven primarily by enrollment or credit hours, institutions have a financial incentive to attract students and keep them enrolled, but less incentive to ensure that the programs they offer lead to strong employment outcomes. States should instead tie a meaningful portion of higher education funding to the labor-market value institutions create for students, rewarding colleges when learners move into good jobs and earn higher wages.
Doing so can encourage colleges to give more weight to career outcomes in their models. Because those outcomes are ultimately determined outside the institution, colleges have stronger reasons to understand employer demand, build programs around the skills employers value, adjust or discontinue programs with weak returns, and help students transition successfully into work.
And because higher education is a destination for pathways originating in both K–12 and workforce development, these incentives can extend beyond the college itself. When colleges align their programs more closely with labor-market demand, dual enrollment, stackable workforce credentials, and other feeder pathways have stronger reason to align with their higher education partners around the same jobs and credentials.
Understanding the Impact Through Business Model Theory
Realigning an institution around a career-connected value proposition is difficult when that institution has been funded and judged according to different goals. It requires new resources and new processes to launch new programs or redesign old ones, strengthen employer relationships, improve advising and placement, and collect better data on learning outcomes. If an institution’s financial formula doesn’t reinforce those moves, the work is unlikely to be sustained.
That is why outcomes-based funding can be so powerful. By tying a meaningful share of public dollars to the outcomes the state values most, policymakers create a direct incentive for institutions to redesign the rest of their business models to produce those results. Just as important, outcomes-based funding doesn’t specify operational moves. It changes the financial logic and lets institutions innovate within that new set of incentives.
Chesterton’s Fence Consideration
Input-based funding may make it harder for institutions to move toward stronger career-connected outcomes, but it persists for reasons beyond inertia. Part of the explanation is practical. It is administratively simpler to fund institutions based on familiar inputs and historical allocations than to build sophisticated outcome measures. But a deeper reason is that input-based models can help preserve institutional autonomy and mission diversity by limiting the extent to which states steer institutional behavior through appropriations.
That risk becomes more visible under outcomes-based funding. When states determine which outcomes drive funding, they exert more influence over institutional priorities. If those metrics are poorly designed—or misaligned with institutional missions —they can distort behavior, narrow access, create unintended consequences, or pressure colleges to chase the wrong goals. That is why collaborative design is critical. Outcomes-based funding should be developed with institutions, not imposed on them. Strong funding formulas align performance measures with institutional missions and provide transition support so they encourage better outcomes without undermining access or institutional integrity.
Deep Dive: The Returned-Value Funding Formula For Texas State Technical College
For decades, Texas State Technical College (TSTC) was funded much like other public colleges: largely based on how many students it taught and how many hours they spent in class. That changed when Texas replaced the traditional contact-hour formula with a returned-value formula (opens in new tab) that ties TSTC’s state funding to the economic value its former students generate after leaving, as measured through post-exit wages.
TSTC’s mission made it especially well suited for this kind of formula. The college’s statutory purpose—to offer “courses of study in technical-vocational education for which there is demand”—aligned closely with funding criteria tied to labor-market outcomes. Its broad-access admissions policy also helped guard against a central risk of outcomes-based funding: institutions might improve their results by limiting admission to students who are already more likely to succeed in the labor market. Finally, the state benefited from its capacity to link education records with state unemployment-insurance wage data. That provided a comprehensive and credible foundation for measuring labor-market outcomes and implementing a wage-driven formula.
Designing a formula around those conditions required more than a clever metric. It demanded a careful policy process. That process was a multi-year legislative and administrative effort involving the Texas Legislature, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Texas Workforce Commission, the Legislative Budget Board, the Comptroller’s Office, and TSTC itself. In 2009, the legislature directed the Coordinating Board to study the feasibility of a returned-value formula, and two years later it charged the relevant actors to build a funding model that rewarded job placement and graduate earnings rather than student contact hours. By 2014, the state had approved the returned-value formula, and TSTC’s core state funding began flowing through it.
The mechanics are complex (opens in new tab), but the underlying logic is straightforward. Texas estimates the increase in earnings associated with attending TSTC, translates a portion of that increase into public value using the state’s tax structure and related assumptions, and then funds the college based on a share of that value.
The formula’s impact stems from its clear focus. Texas tied 100 percent of TSTC’s state funding for instruction and administration to the labor-market outcomes the college produced. TSTC leaders themselves opposed proposals to water down the formula by splitting its funds between enrollment and earnings. They argued that taking this step would divide the institution’s priorities and weaken the incentive to transform.
As Michael Bettersworth, TSTC’s Chief Innovation Officer, said, the clear focus created the momentum to achieve the formula’s purpose: “What we’re trying to do is not drive an appropriation, but drive human behavior,” he said. “Specifically, we’re aiming to drive faculty, department chairs, deans, provosts and others to guide their curriculum in a manner that results in a student’s optimal placement on a successful career path.”
The formula has transformed how TSTC operates. To support the transformation, TSTC created a separate Business Intelligence Unit in the office of the CFO to analyze the relationships among labor-market skill needs, the learning outcomes in its programs, and the employment and wage outcomes of its students. Guided by that analysis—and by the strong incentives created by the funding formula—academic departments had both the information and the motivation to expand programs that improved career outcomes and redesign or phase out those that did not.
The results are impressive. Between 2014, when the formula was implemented, and 2021, median first-year wages for former TSTC students increased 29 percent while state appropriations grew 45 percent. Although not directly factored into the formula, the share of students graduating within 150 percent of normal time nearly doubled over the same period.
This shift also appears to have extended into TSTC’s relationships with K–12 schools. As returned-value funding pushed TSTC’s core model toward programs with stronger labor-market value, the college formally refocused its dual-enrollment operation around career and technical pathways and deemphasized general academic courses outside them. That refocusing coincided with growing demand for TSTC’s dual-enrollment offerings—several large school districts approached TSTC about becoming their technical postsecondary partner.
Dual enrollment was also expanding across Texas during this period, so the formula’s role in that growth cannot be isolated, but the pattern points to an important inter-system effect. As returned-value funding reshaped the programs at the core of TSTC’s model, programs in other parts of the education system that plugged into them became more closely aligned with careers as well.
Operationalizing Impact: Key Takeaways for Other States
Commit enough funding to change behavior: Organizations optimize around the revenue streams that matter most. It will not make sense for every institution to tie as much of their public funding to outcomes as TSTC did, but states that tie only a small share risk the burden of reporting requirements without creating a meaningful incentive to change institutional behavior.
Design funding collaboratively: Outcomes-based funding works best when developed with institutions rather than imposed on them. Engaging policymakers and institutional leaders together helps ensure that performance measures reinforce institutional missions, avoid unintended incentives, and give providers the support needed to adapt.
Focus the formula: A small number of mission-aligned performance measures often creates clearer incentives than a long list of competing metrics. Not every institution should be funded exactly the way TSTC is. States should design funding formulas that reinforce an institution’s core purpose rather than asking it to optimize for too many goals at once.
Recommendation 3.3: Create Portable Funding For Students
Principal Policymakers: State Legislature; State K–12 Education Agency/Board
Career-connected pathways often require students to learn across institutions and settings. A high school student might take technical courses at a college, train on equipment at an industry facility, spend part of the week at an employer worksite, and rely on a support organization to coordinate those experiences. Yet public education funding has traditionally flowed to institutions to support the education they provide themselves. This can make learning across settings difficult to fund, even when schools, students, and employers all want it to happen.
States can address this mismatch by creating learner-centered accounts that give students access to a set amount of public funding they can use across approved providers and expenses. Rather than tying those dollars to a single institution or program, these accounts allow students to fund the combination of learning opportunities and support they need to complete a career-connected pathway. Depending on the design, eligible expenses could include college or training courses, employer-based learning, industry credentials, specialized equipment, transportation, or navigation services.
Many of the resources needed for career-connected learning already exist elsewhere in the education and workforce system. Learner-centered accounts can give students access to these resources without requiring their high schools to build and fund each one themselves. They can also cover individual costs, such as transportation or required equipment, that might otherwise prevent a student from participating.
Giving students control over how these funds are spent can also shape the market for career-connected learning. When funding is portable, other providers gain a financial incentive to create opportunities that students and families value and that fit the needs of high school students.
Understanding the Impact Through Business Model Theory
When portable accounts supplement a K–12 school’s core funding, they can influence institutional business models in two ways.
First, supplemental funding does not fundamentally change a school’s existing financial formula, but it can make career readiness more compatible with its existing formula. Students can use portable funding to access specialized instructors, equipment, and coordination at a college or employer worksite rather than requiring the school to build and operate those resources itself.
Second, these accounts change the incentives for organizations that can receive the funds. When students choose among approved opportunities, providers compete for their participation and revenue. This can encourage employers, training providers, colleges, and other support organizations to reorganize their resources, processes, and financial formulas to better serve high school students.
Learner-centered accounts can therefore support career-connected learning on both sides of the pathway: helping schools access capabilities beyond their existing business models while giving other providers an incentive to better optimize for high school learners.
Chesterton’s Fence Consideration
Traditional education funding includes safeguards for curriculum, graduation, spending, and accountability. Learner-centered accounts should preserve the goals of those protections even as they give students more flexibility in how public funds are used.
States should ensure that funded experiences move students toward lasting goals such as graduation, transferable skills, recognized credentials, further education, and employment—not simply the immediate workforce needs of a particular employer. Clear eligibility and spending rules can help maintain those boundaries.
States should also provide public information about which providers serve students, how funds are spent, and the outcomes programs produce. Data on participation, completion, credentials, and longer-term education and employment outcomes can help students and families make informed choices while allowing policymakers and the public to assess whether these accounts are delivering value.
Deep Dive: Indiana’s Career Scholarship Accounts
Facing a sustained decline in the share of high school graduates continuing into postsecondary education, Indiana launched an effort to “reinvent high school” around a wider vision of readiness after graduation in 2023. The resulting reforms sought to expand access to work-based learning, industry credentials, apprenticeships, and other pathways leading to careers or further education. A central principle of the redesign was to give employers a larger role as “coproducers of talent” that shape career preparation around the skills and experiences they need from future workers.
As Indiana sought to expand employers’ role in co-creating career pathways, policymakers found that the state’s existing funding toolkit did not fully match the range of models it wanted to support. CTE and dual-enrollment funding already supported some forms of career-connected learning. What was missing was a funding route for programs driven by employers and drawing on a broader mix of providers, training organizations. David Buyze, Chief Policy Officer at the Indiana Department of Education, worked on the legislation that established the CSA and described the problem this way: “There just wasn’t a funding mechanism on the books already in Indiana that was open enough to allow for that.” He called that gap “the main genesis for the Career Scholarship Account (CSA) program.”
The accounts are purposefully flexible. They allow CSA dollars to cover the core costs of career-connected learning, such as work-based training and postsecondary coursework, as well as ancillary costs that can otherwise impede access, including required equipment, credentialing exams, transportation, and career navigation.
The CSA’s eligibility requirements decide which programs may receive those funds. The eligibility rules sought to balance employer leadership with assurances that CSA-funded programs advanced students’ broader goals.
Programs must be employer-driven, meaning an employer must help design the program and identify the workforce needs it will address, even when a school, college, intermediary, or other organization delivers the training. But the requirements recognize that demand from a single employer is not enough. Programs must lead to credentials on Indiana’s Credentials of Value list (opens in new tab), helping ensure that students develop skills with value across employers rather than training tailored narrowly to a single company. They must also include work-based learning that satisfies statewide graduation requirements, and students may enroll only when the program aligns with their individual graduation plans. Together, these requirements give employers a meaningful role in shaping training while keeping CSA-funded experiences tied to students’ progress toward graduation and longer-term career opportunity.
Demand for the CSA was initially modest but accelerated quickly. From the first to the second year of the program, funding doubled from \$5 million to \$10 million, while participation increased more than eightfold, from 234 students to roughly 1,900. Since then, further growth has been constrained by the program’s funding cap even as demand has continued to climb. Lindsay Omlor, Chief Educational Options and Quality Officer at the Indiana Department of Education, said that when applications opened for the 2026– 27 school year, available funding was claimed within hours, creating the program’s largest waitlist to date.
That rapid growth has also increased the importance of accountability and transparency. Indiana publishes a list of approved providers, requires an annual independent audit that is shared with state leaders, and surveys participating students and families about their experiences. However, the state has drawn criticism for providing limited public information on program use and outcomes. It does not currently publish how much CSA funding individual providers receive, how funds are spent across eligible expenses, or the outcomes of individual programs.
Administration of the CSA was consolidated within the Indiana Department of Education in July of 2026, replacing a structure that divided responsibilities among three state agencies. As IDOE brings additional structure to the maturing program, it will be responsible for carrying out a public-facing statutory accountability requirement: by 2028, the department and Indiana’s Management Performance Hub must begin publishing data on the incomes of past program participants. The reporting will help Indiana’s policymakers and families assess whether CSA-supported programs ultimately connect students to economic opportunity.
Some individual providers already provide a view into their outcomes. The Construction Prep Academy, offered by regional industry association Associated Builders and Contractors of Indiana/Kentucky (ABC), introduces high school students to commercial construction trades. Over the two-year program, students have opportunities to explore multiple construction trades, earn industry certifications, and begin an apprenticeship while still in high school. According to data provided by ABC, more than 80 percent of its 165 CSA-supported students have moved into industry employment or advanced apprenticeship pathways.
ABC operated the Prep Academy before CSA existed, but program leaders took the opportunity to expand access to specialized training programs and began adapting their model to the new funding structure. It built enrollment pipelines with partner schools, helped families navigate the CSA application, tracked available seats, and coordinated participation across districts. Partner schools adapted their processes as well by arranging schedules so younger students can complete foundational work-based-learning courses at school while juniors and seniors spend larger blocks of the school day at ABC’s training campus.
Taken together, the ABC model shows how CSA works in practice. Portable funding gives students access to employer-connected training beyond their home schools while giving providers a reason to reorganize around serving them—creating new cross-system pathways that would be difficult to build within any one institution alone. ABC offers an early view of what that model can make possible, but until provider-level spending and outcome data are publicly available across the CSA, Indiana will not have evidence of the program’s impact statewide. Even so, this first-of-its-kind fund offers a promising model for other states to consider and adapt.
Operationalizing Impact: Key Takeaways for Other States
Pair employer responsiveness with student safeguards. Indiana shows how learner-centered accounts can support employer-driven training while protecting students’ long-term interests. States should pair employer direction with requirements tied to graduation, transferable skills, work-based learning, and credentials of value.
Design accounts around the full cost of participation. Career Scholarship Accounts cover peripheral costs of program participation, like transportation or equipment, because access depends on more than paying for training itself. States should allow accounts to cover costs such as transportation, equipment, credentials, and navigation when those expenses could prevent students from participating.
Couple learner choice with transparency. Indiana pairs learner choice with internal accountability measures such as independent audits and family surveys. Other states should go further by creating external transparency mechanisms that make provider-level spending and performance data on participation, spending, completion, credentials, postsecondary enrollment, and employment public and conditioning expansion on demonstrated results.
Use portable funding to encourage providers to adapt. ABC Construction Prep Academy shows how a new revenue stream can encourage providers to reorganize their resources and processes around a new value proposition for high school students. States should recognize that making funding portable can create incentives for providers to adapt recruitment, scheduling, partnerships, and delivery models to better serve those learners.
The Future of Education is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Stuck at work? Ignored? Bored? Burned out or unfulfilled? Worried about AI in your career?