America’s Skills Gap Has a Multiplier: Missing CTE Instructors

The CTE instructor shortage is multiplying America’s broader skills gap by reducing the number of students who can enter and complete technical workforce pathways.

America’s workforce strategy is built around expansion. Build more semiconductor fabs. Modernize manufacturing. Construct data centers. Strengthen the electrical grid. Grow apprenticeships. Prepare more technicians, electricians, welders, machinists, HVACR specialists, cybersecurity professionals, nurses, and automation workers.

Yet nearly every expansion plan depends on a workforce role that is rarely counted with the same urgency: the instructor.

An unfilled industrial position removes one worker from the labor force. An unfilled career and technical education teaching position can remove an entire class of future workers—sometimes year after year. If a district cannot hire a welding instructor, it may not merely report a vacancy. It may cancel welding. If a college loses the only instructor qualified to teach industrial controls, a laboratory full of equipment can sit unused while regional employers continue reporting a skills shortage.

Technical Education Post calls this the instructor multiplier: the compounding workforce loss created when one missing educator reduces the number of people who can enter, complete, and advance through a technical pathway. It is an editorial framework, not an official federal statistic, but it describes a structural weakness that current workforce policy often overlooks.

New evidence makes the problem difficult to dismiss. In fall 2024, 15% of public schools reported feeling understaffed in career and technical education, while 5% of CTE teaching positions were vacant. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects approximately 15,900 CTE-teacher openings every year through 2034, entirely because current educators are expected to retire, leave the labor force, or transfer to other occupations.

At the same time, a 2026 peer-reviewed study complicates the conventional explanation that industry professionals universally take a large pay cut to teach. In Washington state, previously employed people who actually entered CTE teaching increased their annual earnings by about $13,000 on average. The finding suggests that compensation matters, but the national instructor problem is also about entry barriers, uneven opportunity costs, weak transition support, limited succession planning, and the failure to treat instructional capacity as economic infrastructure.

The United States cannot train its way out of the skills gap without first building the capacity to teach.

Key Takeaways

• Fifteen percent of public schools reported feeling understaffed in CTE in fall 2024, and CTE had an average vacancy rate of 5% among schools offering those positions.
• Only 77% of CTE vacancies filled before the 2024–25 school year were filled with fully certified teachers.
• BLS projects approximately 15,900 CTE-teacher openings annually through 2034, all created by replacement needs rather than occupational growth.
• Congressional Research Service analysts warn that CTE shortages may be undercounted because schools sometimes eliminate programs when they cannot hire an instructor.
• A 2026 Washington study found that new CTE teachers increased their annual earnings by about $13,000 on average, showing that the pay story varies substantially by industry and entrant.
• Instructor strategy should be included in every major CTE facility, equipment, workforce, semiconductor, AI, energy, and advanced-manufacturing investment.

The Instructor Multiplier

The skilled-worker shortage and the instructor shortage are not parallel problems. They are connected in sequence.

Employers need workers. Schools need instructors to prepare those workers. Instructors need current technical expertise, teaching skills, laboratories, curriculum, employer relationships, and time to maintain their own occupational competence. If any part of that instructional system fails, the workforce pipeline narrows before students ever reach an employer.

A conventional vacancy count does not capture this effect. One vacant instructor position might represent:

• Two or more canceled course sections
• Twenty to 100 student seats removed from the annual pipeline
• An industry credential no longer available locally
• A laboratory that cannot operate safely
• A dual-enrollment agreement placed on hold
• An apprenticeship related-instruction partner lost
• A rural region left without a comparable program
• Several employers competing for fewer graduates

The impact also compounds. If 25 students would have completed a program each year, a three-year instructor vacancy does not create a one-person shortage. It may remove as many as three cohorts from the regional talent pipeline.

This is the logic behind the instructor multiplier. The exact effect differs by program, class size, completion rate, and local hiring demand, but the direction is consistent: a shortage of educators amplifies a shortage of workers.

The Shortage May Disappear When the Program Disappears

The Congressional Research Service’s 2026 CTE primer identifies a major measurement problem: states are required to identify shortage areas, but they are not required to report the number of open CTE positions.

The report adds a more consequential warning. A provider may respond to a vacancy by changing its program offerings and eliminating the affected program of study. In that case, the vacancy can disappear from the staffing count because the position itself no longer exists.

This creates a form of statistical erasure. A district that keeps searching for an automotive instructor may show a vacancy. A district that closes automotive may show no vacancy—even though students have lost access and local employers have lost a workforce pathway.

That distinction changes how state leaders should measure the problem. Vacancy rates are important, but so are:

• Programs suspended because of staffing
• Courses reduced to alternating-year schedules
• Student waitlists caused by instructor limits
• Laboratories operating below capacity
• Credentials no longer offered
• Work-based learning agreements interrupted
• Programs taught outside an instructor’s area of expertise
• Programs dependent on one person with no qualified backup

The CRS report also notes that the most recent national survey of state CTE directors on subject-specific shortages was conducted from 2008 through 2017. In every year of that survey, more than half of state CTE directors reported shortages in STEM, health sciences, and manufacturing.

In other words, the country is attempting to solve a 2026 advanced-workforce problem with an instructor data system that does not reliably count positions, program closures, or capacity lost.

What the Current Data Show

The National Center for Education Statistics reported that 15% of public schools offering CTE positions felt understaffed in that area as of October 2024. Across schools offering CTE teaching positions, an average of 5% of those positions were vacant.

A separate NCES survey found that schools filled 77% of their CTE teaching vacancies with fully certified teachers before the 2024–25 school year. That was below the overall average of 79% and placed CTE alongside physical sciences and special education among the subjects with lower fully certified fill rates.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 239,600 CTE teachers worked across middle schools, high schools, postsecondary institutions, and technical schools in 2024. BLS projects the occupation to decline 1% through 2034, yet still expects approximately 15,900 openings annually.

All of those projected openings result from replacement needs. That matters. The instructor pipeline does not need to grow merely to support new semiconductor, data-center, healthcare, energy, and manufacturing programs. It must replace thousands of existing educators before expansion begins.

CTE Depends on a Different Teacher Pipeline

Most academic teachers move through a relatively recognizable sequence: degree, teacher preparation, student teaching, certification, and classroom employment.

CTE educators frequently enter through a different door. They may begin as welders, nurses, machinists, chefs, electricians, engineers, automotive technicians, software professionals, construction supervisors, agricultural specialists, or business owners. Their value often comes from occupational experience that conventional teacher preparation does not produce.

NCES data show that 38.8% of public-school CTE teachers entered through an alternative certification route in 2020–21, compared with 19.4% of public-school teachers overall.

That makes alternative entry a core part of the CTE workforce—not an exception. It also creates a design challenge. Schools need to preserve meaningful occupational standards while avoiding requirements that exclude capable industry professionals. At the same time, technical expertise alone does not prepare someone to manage a laboratory, design assessments, teach adolescents, support students with disabilities, or translate tacit workplace knowledge into a coherent sequence of learning.

The policy choice is not between occupational expertise and pedagogy. High-quality CTE requires both.

This is why earlier Technical Education Post coverage of programs that train workers to instruct the next generation remains relevant. Industry-to-classroom pathways work best when they reduce unnecessary barriers while providing deliberate preparation in teaching, assessment, classroom management, safety, and student support.

Rethinking the Pay-Cut Narrative

The conventional explanation for CTE teacher shortages is straightforward: skilled professionals can earn more in industry, so schools cannot recruit them.

That explanation is often true for specific occupations, regions, and experienced candidates. It is not universally true.

A peer-reviewed study published in May 2026 in AERA Open linked Washington state teacher records with unemployment-insurance earnings data. The researchers studied people who entered CTE teaching between 2011 and 2019 and examined their employment and earnings before and after the transition.

Previously employed entrants increased their annual earnings by about $13,000 on average in their first year of teaching. Teachers entering through Washington’s traditional university pathway experienced larger gains, while those entering through the Business and Industry pathway also experienced a statistically significant increase.

The result does not prove that CTE teaching is financially attractive to every industry professional. The study only observes people who actually chose to enter teaching. It cannot measure qualified professionals who considered teaching but stayed in higher-paying industry jobs. It is also limited to Washington and to employment captured through state unemployment-insurance records.

Nevertheless, the finding challenges a simplistic national narrative. The problem is not always that every candidate would lose money. It may be that potential candidates:

• Do not know teaching is an available second career
• Cannot navigate certification rules
• Cannot afford an unpaid preparation period
• Do not know how industry experience will be credited
• Fear classroom management more than a salary change
• Lack a mentor during the transition
• Need flexible or part-time entry options
• Would teach if they could maintain some industry practice

The same study found that the economic pattern varied by field. Entrants from digital technology were the group most likely to experience reduced earnings or wage rates, while entrants from agriculture and healthcare-related industries saw increases. Earlier research cited by the authors found that CTE teachers in high-growth IT, STEM, and health fields were especially likely to leave teaching for industry.

The policy lesson is not that pay does not matter. It is that compensation strategies must be targeted, and recruitment strategies must address the full transition—not just the salary schedule.

The Hardest Instructor to Recruit May Not Be the Highest-Paid Worker

Schools often compare a teacher salary with an industry wage and conclude that the pay gap explains the vacancy. That comparison can miss several factors.

An industry professional may value predictable hours, health benefits, retirement, meaningful work, school-calendar flexibility, or the opportunity to mentor young people. Teaching may offer greater annual earnings to someone moving from unstable, seasonal, contract, or part-time employment.

Conversely, a candidate whose industry wage appears comparable may still decline because teaching requires new credentials, unpaid coursework, administrative paperwork, classroom-management responsibilities, and reduced autonomy.

Recruitment decisions are therefore shaped by a bundle of conditions:

Potential advantage of teaching	Potential barrier to teaching
Stable annual employment	Certification and degree requirements
Benefits and retirement	Lower earnings in certain high-wage fields
Purpose and community impact	Classroom-management concerns
Predictable schedule	Evening preparation and administrative workload
Opportunity to mentor future workers	Loss of current technical practice
Summer or consulting flexibility	Limited credit for industry seniority
Pathway into education leadership	Temporary certification without sufficient mentoring

Districts should stop treating the industry-to-teaching decision as a single salary comparison. They should study which candidates are likely to find teaching attractive, which barriers prevent them from entering, and which conditions cause them to leave after the first few years.

A New Teacher Is Not Yet an Instructional System

Recruiting an industry expert solves only the first problem.

A new CTE teacher may arrive with exceptional occupational knowledge but limited experience in lesson sequencing, assessment, adolescent development, special education accommodations, classroom management, lab supervision, grading, or school systems.

ACTE notes that CTE teachers require professional development designed for their unusual role as the bridge between education and the workplace. Many enter through alternative routes, and they may not have received the preparation typical of traditionally trained educators.

Schools that recruit industry professionals without a strong induction system can create a revolving door: experts enter, become overwhelmed, and return to industry.

Effective transition support should include:

• A paid pre-service or summer teaching bootcamp
• A trained mentor in the same or a related technical field
• Reduced course preparations during the first year
• Curriculum and assessment templates
• Lab-safety and student-supervision protocols
• Support for special populations and accessibility
• Classroom-management coaching
• Time to maintain certifications and industry relationships
• Regular observation focused on growth rather than compliance
• A clear pathway from temporary to full certification

Technical Education Post’s broader examination of challenges affecting CTE programs has already identified the tension between occupational qualifications, teacher licensure, compensation, and program access. The 2026 evidence suggests that transition design should receive the same attention as recruitment.

What SUNY Oswego’s Instructor Bootcamp Demonstrates

A recent program in New York provides one model.

SUNY Oswego created a 40-hour Instructor Bootcamp for professionals from construction, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, electronics, engineering, mechatronics, and mechanical technology. The program covered curriculum development, course delivery, classroom management, assessment, and micro-teaching practice.

Across seven cohorts, 80 of 90 participants completed the program, an 89% completion rate. As of early April 2026, 70 of the 80 graduates were employed or retained as instructors in community colleges, adult education, or apprenticeship programs, producing a reported instructor-placement rate of 87.5%.

“It has built a new bridge between industry and education.”

— Kristi Eck, SUNY Oswego Assistant Vice President for Workforce Innovation and External Relations

The program does not answer every secondary-school licensure question, and its outcomes were reported by the institution rather than through an independent evaluation. Still, it demonstrates that pedagogy can be taught in a focused, employment-connected format without requiring experienced workers to begin with a traditional multiyear education degree.

Its structure offers a practical sequence:

1. Recruit candidates from real high-demand industries.
2. Teach the essential mechanics of instruction.
3. Require practice and feedback through micro-teaching.
4. Connect graduates to actual teaching positions.
5. Continue support after placement.

The earlier Technical Education Post article Become CTE Teachers describes another approach: connecting associate-degree graduates in technical fields to a university pathway in technical education. These models should not compete. States need multiple entry points for current students, career changers, retirees, adjuncts, and incumbent industry workers.

Semiconductors Need Instructors

One of the clearest signs that instructor capacity is becoming a strategic issue comes from semiconductor workforce development.

In 2024, the National Science Foundation and Intel funded the Reinforcing Instructors for Semiconductor Education Consortium at Columbus State Community College. The project’s purpose is not simply to recruit semiconductor students. It is to build a faculty hub that recruits, diversifies, and upskills instructors in semiconductor and advanced-manufacturing disciplines.

That distinction matters. The country cannot scale semiconductor technician education only by publishing curriculum or purchasing cleanroom equipment. It needs faculty capable of teaching electronics, vacuum systems, process technology, automation, maintenance, contamination control, metrology, and safety.

The same principle applies to the national semiconductor education infrastructure examined in Technical Education Post’s analysis of the NNME Regional Nodes. Shared facilities and curriculum will matter, but they cannot replace instructors who can contextualize, demonstrate, assess, and update the material.

Every emerging sector eventually reaches the same constraint. Technology can scale more quickly than the human capacity to teach it.

The Technical Education Post Instructor Capacity Framework

Schools typically monitor enrollment, completion, credentials, equipment, and employer demand. They should add an instructor-capacity balance sheet.

The following framework is proposed by Technical Education Post as a planning tool. It is not a federal reporting standard.

1. Instructor Capacity Ratio

Instructor Capacity Ratio = qualified instructional FTE available ÷ instructional FTE required to operate planned sections safely.

A ratio of 1.0 means the program has exactly enough qualified staffing to operate as planned. Next, a ratio below 1.0 signals a current shortage. A ratio only slightly above 1.0 may still represent severe risk if one person holds most of the required expertise.

2. Single-Point-of-Failure Index

Count the number of courses, credentials, laboratories, employer agreements, and dual-enrollment sections that depend on one instructor with no qualified backup.

A program can appear fully staffed and still be one retirement, illness, or resignation away from closure.

3. Annual Seats at Risk

Estimate the number of student seats that would disappear if each critical instructor position became vacant. This converts an abstract staffing problem into a student-access and workforce-capacity measure.

4. Time-to-Competence

Measure how long it takes a qualified industry professional to become independently effective in the classroom. Include certification, pedagogy, mentoring, curriculum preparation, and laboratory authorization—not merely the hiring date.

5. Technical Currency Reserve

Track the time and funding available for current instructors to complete externships, certifications, vendor training, conferences, and technical updates. A filled position can still create a capacity problem if the instructor’s knowledge cannot keep pace with industry.

6. Succession Readiness

For every instructor expected to retire or depart within three years, identify a recruitment source, transition pathway, mentor, credential plan, and interim coverage strategy.

What Districts and Colleges Should Do Now

1. Count Lost Capacity, Not Just Vacancies

Report canceled programs, reduced sections, waitlists, credentials suspended, and laboratories operating below capacity. Make the invisible shortage visible.

2. Build a Three-Year Instructor Succession Plan

Do not wait for a retirement announcement. Identify age, certification, unique expertise, and single-person dependencies while there is still time for knowledge transfer.

3. Recruit From Multiple Talent Pools

Potential instructors include midcareer professionals, retirees, veterans, recent technical-college graduates, apprenticeship instructors, industry trainers, adjunct faculty, and current school employees with relevant experience.

4. Create Paid Industry-to-Teaching Residencies

Allow candidates to earn while completing pedagogy, supervised teaching, and certification. An unpaid transition period will exclude many otherwise qualified candidates.

5. Separate the Lead-Teacher Role From Every Expert Function

One person does not need to provide every lecture, demonstration, employer connection, credential, and advanced specialty. Programs can combine a qualified lead teacher with industry guest instructors, remote experts, lab technicians, mentors, and shared regional faculty.

6. Use Bootcamps as the Beginning, Not the Entire Preparation

Short programs can accelerate entry, but new instructors still need coaching, observation, mentoring, and a path to deeper pedagogical competence.

7. Compensate Scarcity Strategically

Use shortage-area stipends, recognition of industry experience on salary schedules, paid externships, certification bonuses, summer industry work, and retention incentives where labor-market competition is greatest.

8. Make Industry an Instructor-Capacity Partner

Employers can provide adjuncts, release time for employee teaching, equipment training, internships for faculty, curriculum validation, mentors, and loaned technical specialists. Technical Education Post’s analysis of industry’s role in technical education shows why advisory participation should extend beyond occasional meetings.

9. Fund People With Every Equipment Investment

A new laboratory should include funding for recruitment, faculty training, curriculum development, maintenance, certification, and succession. Equipment without instructor capacity is not a workforce program.

10. Build Regional Instructor-Sharing Agreements

Rural and specialized programs may need shared faculty, rotating instructors, hybrid delivery, regional laboratories, and coordinated calendars. Sharing should expand access without replacing the supervised hands-on instruction required for safe technical learning.

11. Maintain Industry Currency

Instructors need regular access to the workplaces, equipment, standards, and digital systems their graduates will encounter. The argument in HVAC Industry Message for Education applies across sectors: when instructor knowledge stops advancing, curriculum relevance eventually follows.

12. Create a “Teach the Trade” Career Pathway

Students should learn that technical education instruction is itself a career option. Strong programs can identify graduates with leadership and communication ability, help them gain industry experience, and invite them back as mentors, adjuncts, and future teachers.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming salary is the only barrier. Entry friction, certification, workload, mentoring, and role design also shape recruitment.
• Lowering credential standards without adding support. Faster entry should be paired with serious pedagogical preparation.
• Depending on one instructor. A fully enrolled program can still be structurally fragile.
• Buying equipment before recruiting faculty. Technical systems cannot teach or supervise students by themselves.
• Using adjuncts as a complete staffing strategy. Adjunct expertise helps, but program continuity requires coordination, curriculum ownership, and student support.
• Ignoring current instructors while recruiting new ones. Retention and technical currency are less expensive than repeated replacement.
• Counting program closure as a solved vacancy. Removing the position does not remove regional workforce need.
• Expecting industry partners to provide free instruction indefinitely. Sustainable partnerships require defined roles, scheduling, liability, and compensation.

Questions to Ask Your Program

1. Which programs depend on one instructor with no qualified backup?
2. How many annual student seats would disappear if each critical instructor left?
3. Which credentials, dual-enrollment sections, or apprenticeship agreements would be affected?
4. How many instructors are likely to retire or leave within three years?
5. Does our salary structure recognize relevant industry experience?
6. Can candidates enter through a paid alternative-certification or residency pathway?
7. What pedagogical preparation do industry-to-classroom hires receive before teaching independently?
8. Does every first-year CTE teacher have a trained mentor?
9. How much release time and funding support technical recertification and externships?
10. Could industry employees teach part time without leaving their primary occupation?
11. Can neighboring institutions share specialized instructors or laboratories?
12. Do we track programs reduced or closed because of staffing?
13. Are we recruiting future instructors from our own graduates?
14. Does every equipment or program-expansion proposal include instructor-capacity funding?
15. What is our plan if the lead instructor resigns tomorrow?

What to Watch Next

Results From the National CTE Teacher Research Project

The Institute of Education Sciences funded a four-state study examining CTE teacher labor markets, attributes, attrition, certification, and student outcomes. The project covers more than 15,000 CTE teachers and more than 2 million students in Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, and Washington. Public findings could improve decisions that are currently made with limited evidence.

State Alternative-Certification Reform

States will continue revisiting degree requirements, occupational-hour requirements, temporary certificates, and pathways from industry. The most effective reforms will reduce avoidable barriers without treating classroom preparation as optional.

Instructor Hubs for Emerging Industries

Semiconductor, AI, energy, data-center, robotics, and advanced-manufacturing initiatives may increasingly establish shared faculty hubs rather than expecting every institution to recruit specialists independently.

Remote and Shared Instruction

Hybrid demonstrations, remote experts, shared faculty, and simulation can expand access, particularly in rural regions. Policymakers will need to distinguish useful instructional augmentation from cost-cutting models that leave students without sufficient hands-on supervision.

Industry Release-Time Models

Employers may begin treating employee teaching as workforce investment. Paid release time, rotating assignments, and jointly funded instructor positions could keep experts connected to both production and education.

AI as Instructor Support

AI can help instructors create examples, adapt materials, document competencies, and provide practice feedback. It cannot independently supervise hazardous laboratories, evaluate professional judgment, build trust with employers, or replace current occupational expertise. The principles outlined in AI Literacy Is Not Enough apply to faculty as well as students.

Frequently Asked Questions

How serious is the CTE teacher shortage?

National measurement remains incomplete. NCES reported that 15% of public schools offering CTE positions felt understaffed in fall 2024 and that 5% of CTE positions were vacant. CRS cautions that vacancies may be undercounted when schools respond by closing programs.

How many CTE teachers must be hired each year?

BLS projects approximately 15,900 annual openings through 2034. These are replacement openings created by retirements, occupational transfers, and labor-force exits rather than employment growth.

Do industry professionals always take a pay cut to teach?

No. A 2026 Washington study found that people who entered CTE teaching increased annual earnings by about $13,000 on average. However, the results varied by industry, and the study does not include qualified people who considered teaching but decided not to enter.

Why do so many CTE teachers use alternative certification?

CTE programs value occupational experience, and many instructors enter after working in industry. NCES reported that 38.8% of public-school CTE teachers entered through alternative routes in 2020–21.

Can industry experts teach without becoming full-time teachers?

Yes. Programs may use adjunct appointments, co-teaching, guest instruction, paid release time, virtual experts, mentoring, and short-term specialty modules. A qualified lead instructor should still coordinate curriculum, assessment, safety, and student support.

Can simulation solve the instructor shortage?

Simulation can extend instructional capacity and provide safe practice, but it cannot replace supervision, feedback, laboratory management, assessment, and the professional judgment of a qualified instructor.

What should be included in an instructor-capacity plan?

The plan should cover recruitment, compensation, certification, pedagogy, mentoring, technical currency, backup staffing, succession, work-based learning, and the number of student seats at risk.

What is the instructor multiplier?

It is Technical Education Post’s term for the compounding workforce loss that occurs when one missing instructor reduces multiple cohorts of future skilled workers. It is a planning concept, not an official federal metric.

Technical Education Post Perspective

America’s workforce debate tends to begin at the end of the pipeline. Employers report vacancies, policymakers announce training investments, schools receive equipment, and students are encouraged to enter high-demand careers.

The instructor is often treated as an implementation detail.

That is a strategic mistake. A technical educator is not simply another employee in the workforce system. The instructor is a capacity multiplier who converts equipment, curriculum, employer knowledge, and student interest into future workers. When that role is vacant or unsupported, the loss spreads across every employer depending on the program.

The 2026 research also shows why the solution cannot be reduced to “pay teachers more,” even where compensation increases are necessary. Many industry professionals gain financially when they enter teaching. Some face substantial opportunity costs. Some can be recruited but leave because the transition is poorly supported. Others never consider teaching because the pathway is invisible or unnecessarily difficult.

The most effective strategy will combine targeted compensation, paid entry routes, serious pedagogy, mentoring, shared faculty, industry participation, technical recertification, and succession planning.

The United States is investing billions of dollars in facilities intended to restore manufacturing, energy, digital, and technological capacity. Every one of those investments assumes that qualified people will be available to operate what is built.

That assumption begins in the classroom. The instructor workforce should therefore be managed as national workforce infrastructure—not as an afterthought once the building and equipment are already in place.

Continue Reading

• Challenges Impacting CTE
• Workers Train to Instruct the Next Generation
• Become CTE Teachers
• Industry’s Role in Technical Education
• HVAC Industry Message for Education
• Robots and Shop Class
• Semiconductor Education Is Becoming National Infrastructure
• Technical and STEM Education 2026

Sources and Further Reading

• Congressional Research Service: Career and Technical Education—A Primer
• National Center for Education Statistics: Public-School Staffing and Vacancies
• NCES: Hiring Challenges for the 2024–25 School Year
• NCES: Alternative Routes to Teacher Certification
• Bureau of Labor Statistics: Career and Technical Education Teachers
• AERA Open: The Front End of the CTE Teacher Pipeline
• Institute of Education Sciences: CTE Teacher Labor Markets Research Project
• SUNY Oswego Instructor Bootcamp
• NSF: Reinforcing Instructors for Semiconductor Education Consortium
• ACTE CTE Educator Pipeline Toolkit
• NSF Advanced Technological Education Program