CTE and Workforce Development
With the upcoming House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing happening this week, I’ve been thinking a lot about how our systems align or sometimes don’t. One relationship I keep coming back to is the one between Career and Technical Education (CTE) and workforce development. CTE and Workforce Development.
They’re often treated as distinct systems. And structurally, they are: different funding streams, different oversight bodies, different performance metrics. But on the ground, in the real world where students become workers and employers are trying to hire, these systems are deeply connected. And when they work in partnerships, they create clearer pathways, better outcomes, and more resilient communities.
This topic is also personal for me.
Like many people who find themselves in workforce development, I didn’t start with policy or systems change. I started in CTE: supporting high school & adult learners, building partnerships with employers, and helping people figure out what came next.
At the time, I thought I was just doing my job. But those early experiences shaped how I see this work. They showed me what’s possible when learning is tied directly to opportunity. And they taught me that systems are strongest when they’re built around the people they serve: not the structures that fund them.
Understanding the Intersection
Career and Technical Education provides foundational exposure to career pathways, industry skills, and applied learning. It happens in high schools, technical centers, community colleges, and adult education programs. For many learners, it’s their first real window into what the world of work looks like beyond a traditional classroom.
Workforce development systems: led by local workforce boards, bring another piece of the equation. These systems are designed to respond quickly to labor market demand. They work directly with employers, industry associations, and economic development organizations to identify skill gaps, design responsive programs, and fund training that meet those needs.
In short: CTE is the launchpad, and workforce development is the bridge. One builds the foundation; the other connects learners to real-time opportunity.
When those systems work in alignment, outcomes improve for everyone involved:
- Students and adult learners receive training that leads to credentials with value in the labor market.
- Employers have a voice in program design and a clearer pipeline of talent.
- Schools and training providers gain insight into what industries actually need, today and tomorrow.
- Communities benefit from increased economic mobility, reduced barriers to employment, and stronger alignment between education and economic development.
But when the systems are disconnected? That’s when training leads to nowhere. When graduates are left with credentials that don’t align to local job openings. When employers disengage because they don’t see themselves in the process. And when learners, particularly those who have been historically underserved, slip through the cracks.
A Shared Purpose in Action
Across Pennsylvania and beyond, there are promising examples of what strong collaboration looks like between CTE and workforce development. In some regions, workforce boards are actively co-developing training programs with CTE partners, embedding industry-recognized credentials into high school pathways, or co-hosting employer advisory panels that bring K–12, postsecondary, and business leaders to the same table.
Workforce funding is being braided with Perkins dollars to create stronger support for learners transitioning from secondary to postsecondary training or apprenticeships. Counselors and career advisors are receiving shared training across both systems. Adult learners in CTE programs are being seamlessly connected to workforce support, like transportation, childcare, or career navigation, that help them complete and succeed.
These are not quick wins. They take intentionality, communication, and often a shift in how we view our roles. But they’re exactly the kinds of partnerships we need more of, not less.
Where We Go from Here
Too often, our systems are structured in ways that discourage collaboration. Different funding rules, different accountability measures, different terminology-it is a lot! It is easy to get caught up in programmatic boundaries and forget that the people we’re serving don’t care which acronym is funding their success. They just want a path forward.
And here’s the truth: we don’t need to wait for a federal directive or a legislative mandate to do this better. The strongest partnerships I’ve seen happen because people at the local and regional level made the choice to work together because they knew the outcomes would be better, the programs would be stronger, and the impact would be deeper.
That could mean workforce boards having a standing seat on CTE planning committees, or vice versa. It could mean using shared labor market data to inform both instructional design and funding priorities (#freethedata!). It might mean rethinking how we prepare counselors, case managers, and instructors to talk about career pathways with learners of all ages.
None of this is flashy. But it is foundational.
Why I Still Believe in This Work
CTE gave me my grounding in this field. It introduced me to the human side of workforce development: the people trying to make a better life, the teachers and instructors who care deeply, the employers who are willing to lean in when the system works for them. Workforce development gave me the systems lens: the policy, the strategy, the scale.
And over the years, I’ve seen what happens when we honor both sides of the work.
Because preparing someone for the workforce isn’t a single program. It’s not a checklist. It’s a journey- and one that requires us to align systems, braid funding, and build partnerships that don’t just look good on paper, but work in practice.
We don’t have to choose between education and workforce. In fact, we can’t. The future of both depends on how well we work together.
CTE and Workforce Development: Different Systems, Shared Purpose
