Search

Interest in the field of career and technical education (CTE) has experienced a resurgence over the last decade, as the global economy has grown increasingly competitive while students have continued to leave school underprepared for well-paying twenty-first century jobs. Together and separately, the education and workforce sectors have sought to address these challenges and better prepare students for viable economic futures. The results have been many new, innovative programs at both the secondary and postsecondary education levels that seek to give students technical training for specific careers, general training to prepare them for the workplace, and work-based learning opportunities where they can develop connections to employers and the workforce. While there are still many under-researched areas in CTE, this paper attempts to capture the evidence that has emerged--identifying areas where there is more evidence as well as areas where gaps in evidence still exist. The studies that have been conducted on CTE have demonstrated that it shows promise, but it is imperative to continue building evidence, particularly where there is policy interest and momentum but little data. Doing so will help demonstrate how those programs and models serve students and ensure that the continued scaling up of CTE is supported by a rigorous evidence base. This paper begins with an overview of the issues in the education system and the labor market that have led to the current revival of CTE. It argues that the skills today's employers need are not the ones schools are providing. The paper continues with a description of how various policies have fostered the growth of CTE. In the next section, it provides details on the types of programs and institutions that offer CTE, and the evidence base to support each of them. The paper provides evidence on the effectiveness of CTE at different educational levels, and for specific subgroups, including students with disabilities, and by gender. Further, the paper provides an overview of the available evidence to support different kinds of programs offered at both secondary and postsecondary education levels, touching on the amount of evidence available in each area and the level of rigor used in the studies that generated that evidence. The paper concludes by suggesting that while CTE instruction at the secondary and postsecondary levels could bolster students' economic mobility by helping them gain postsecondary credentials and obtain higher-paying jobs, there are challenges involved in turning that promise into reality. Investments in evidence-based practices can give CTE programs a better chance at success.

The paper presents a first global investigation of the longer-term inequality implications of COVID-19 by examining the effect of school closures on the ability of children from different countries and backgrounds to engage in continued learning throughout the pandemic, and their implications for intergenerational mobility in education. The analysis builds on the data from the Global Database of Intergenerational Mobility, country-specific results of the learning loss simulation model using weekly school closure information from February 2020 to February 2022, and high-frequency phone survey data collected by the World Bank during the pandemic to assess the incidence and quality of continued learning during periods of school closures across children from different backgrounds. Based on this information, the paper simulates counterfactual levels of educational attainment and corresponding absolute and relative intergenerational educational mobility measures with and without COVID-19 impacts, to arrive at estimates of COVID-19 impacts. The simulations suggest that the extensive school closures and associated learning losses are likely to have a significant impact on both absolute and relative intergenerational educational mobility in the absence of remedial measures. In upper-middle-income countries, the share of children with more years of education than their parents (absolute mobility) could decline by 8 percentage points, with the largest impacts observed in the Latin America region. Furthermore, unequal access to continued learning during school closures across children from households of different socioeconomic backgrounds (proxied by parental education levels) leads to a significant decline in relative educational mobility. [This report was prepared by the World Bank Poverty and Equity Global Practice & Education Global Practice.]

Chetty et al. (2022) say county density of cross-class friendships (referred to here as "adult-bridging capital") has causal impacts on social mobility within the United States. We instead find that social mobility rates are a function of county density of family capital (higher marriage rates and two-person households), community capital (community organizations, religious congregations, and volunteering), and mean student achievement in grades 3-8. Our models use similar multiple regression equations and the same variables employed by Chetty et al. but also include state fixed effects, student achievement, and family, community, schoolbridging (cross-class high school friendships), and political (participation and institutional trust) capital. School-bridging capital is weakly correlated with mobility if adult-bridging is excluded from the model. R-squared barely changes when adult-bridging is incorporated into the model. When it is included, mobility continues to be significantly correlated with the achievement, family, and community variables but not with school-bridging and political ones. We infer that county mobility rates are largely shaped by parental presence, community life, and student achievement. To enhance mobility, public policy needs to enhance the lives of disadvantaged people at home, in school, and in communities, not just the social class of their friendships.

This paper provides new evidence on educational inequality and reviews the literature on the causes and consequences of unequal education. We document large achievement gaps between children from different socio-economic backgrounds, show how patterns of educational inequality vary across countries, time, and generations, and establish a link between educational inequality and social mobility. We interpret this evidence from the perspective of economic models of skill acquisition and investment in human capital. The models account for different channels underlying unequal education and highlight how endogenous responses in parents' and children's educational investments generate a close link between economic inequality and educational inequality. Given concerns over the extended school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also summarize early evidence on the impact of the pandemic on children's education and on possible long-run repercussions for educational inequality.

There is empirical evidence of substantial heterogeneity in economic mobility across geographic areas and the efficacy of schools has been suggested as an explanatory factor. Using administrative microdata from seven states covering nearly 3 million students, we explore the potential role of schools in promoting economic mobility by estimating cross-district variation in "academic mobility"--a term we use to describe the extent to which students' ranks in the distribution of academic performance change during their schooling careers. We show that there exists considerable heterogeneity in academic mobility across school districts. However, after aggregating our district-level measures of academic mobility to the commuting-zone level and merging them with geographically matched external estimates of economic mobility, we find little scope for geographic differences in academic mobility to meaningfully account for differences in economic mobility.

I study the efficacy of test-based meritocracy in college admissions by evaluating the impact of a grade-based "top percent'' policy implemented by the University of California. Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) provided large admission advantages to the top four percent of 2001-2011 graduates from each California high school. I construct a novel longitudinal dataset linking the ELC era's 1.8 million UC applicants to educational and labor market outcomes. I first employ a regression discontinuity design to show that ELC led over 10 percent of barely-eligible applicants from low-opportunity high schools to enroll at selective UC campuses instead of less-selective public colleges and universities. Half of those participants were from underrepresented minority groups, and their average SAT scores were at the 12th percentile of their UC peers. Instrumental variable estimates show that ELC participants' more-selective university enrollment caused increases in five-year degree attainment by 30 percentage points and annual early-career wages by up to $25,000. I then analyze ELC's general equilibrium effects by estimating a structural model of university application, admission, and enrollment with an embedded top percent policy. I find that ELC and counterfactual expansions of ELC substantively increase disadvantaged students' net enrollment at selective public universities. Reduced-form and structural estimates show that ELC participants derived similar or greater value from more-selective university enrollment than their higher-testing peers. These findings suggest that access-oriented admission policies at selective universities can promote economic mobility without efficiency losses. [Additional funding for this research was provided by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.]

The purpose of this brief paper is to present initial findings from the recently collected London School of Economics and Political Science-Centre for Economic Performance (LSE-CEP) Social Mobility survey, which was undertaken as part of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) project 'Generation COVID and Social Mobility: Evidence and Policy'. These are the first results from a project that is producing a detailed assessment of COVID-19's impact on education and economic inequalities and offering an assessment for the longer term consequences for social mobility in the UK. Alongside the survey findings, the authors have also analysed economic and education outcomes of individuals in April 2020 in the Understanding Society (USoc) national household panel data. Before the pandemic, younger generations were already facing declining absolute social mobility and real wage decline (Elliot Major and Machin, 2018, 2020a). Education inequalities were also widening. Here new findings are presented on inequalities in the workplace and the classroom that have emerged following the pandemic.

Using 2016 Canadian Census data, this article examines the socioeconomic status of the second generation of immigrants, whose population has become increasingly diverse. The analysis focuses on group differences by visible minority status in two aspects relating to socioeconomic mobility: (1) intergenerational progress in educational attainment, which indicates the ability to achieve higher education regardless of parents' education, and (2) the relationship between education and labour market outcomes, which reveals the ability to convert educational qualifications into economic well-being. The results in general paint a very positive picture for the children of immigrants regarding the first aspect, while mixed results are evident for the second aspect. In particular, some visible minority groups are characterized by high educational attainment and high earnings, while some other groups experience low education mobility and low labour market returns to education. These results suggest that there are divergent paths of socioeconomic integration among the second generation.

For decades, assessing income has served as the tried-and-true method for creating financial aid packages--scholarships, grants, and loans--for the nation's college students. Each year, students and families living with low and moderate incomes submit income documentation to colleges, states, and the federal government in hopes of qualifying for financial aid to defray college costs. But what if a student's wealth status revealed more about their ability to cover college costs than their income did? Income is an important measure, but it provides only a snapshot of the full resources available to students and their families. Wealth, too, impacts a student's access and ability to pay for college as well as their chances of graduating and turning career aspirations into a well-paying job and fulfilling life. Examining income alone masks deep and persistent inequities in wealth by race or ethnicity. This gap, which is rooted in generations of discrimination and systemic barriers to opportunity, affects the college dreams of countless people, particularly those from historically marginalized communities. Limitations in available data mean researchers and policymakers know relatively little about how wealth impacts higher education, with far more attention focused on understanding and addressing the effects of income. This paper seeks to address that missing piece by exploring the impact of wealth on students' experiences in higher education and how these experiences, in turn, influence wealth-building.

For a growing share of learners and workers in the United States, college is failing to live up to its economic mobility promise. The cost of college is rising, accompanied by mounting student debt, and many graduates are underemployed following college. Students face steep barriers to college enrollment and success, including time demands, access to housing and childcare, and transportation. These conditions have prompted many learners and workers to reconsider whether college is truly worth the expense. Higher education leaders are facing a moment of reckoning in which they must improve the economic returns of a college education. However, there is little clarity around which programs and initiatives best improve a student's earnings and employment later in their career. The dearth of information reflects, at least in part, the lack of attention and resources such programs have received from the majority of post-secondary institutions. This white paper puts "college-to-jobs" programs in focus, making the case that they should be a priority for future policy, investment, and research. It maps the field of initiatives that smooth transitions for college students to the workforce, identifying 13 "interventions" that have been deployed to improve college students' economic outcomes. The Playbook provides answers to a crucial question at a time of inflection for postsecondary education: what can we do to launch more college students onto successful career trajectories? [This report was co-published by the Project on Workforce and was funded by the Capital One Foundation.]

This paper builds on current knowledge by examining patterns of career technical education (CTE) pathway completion for California public high school students in two consecutive years and using multiple data sources on course-taking, student demographics, and school characteristics. Specifically, the paper answers the following questions: (1) What are the most frequent CTE pathways completed by recent high school graduates?; (2) Who completes CTE pathways and how does CTE pathway completion differ by key student characteristics (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English Learner status, students with disabilities)?; and (3) How do CTE pathway completion rates differ by key school characteristics (e.g. type of school, location of school, diversity of student body, and concentration of socioeconomic disadvantaged students)? Findings suggest that there may be clear differences in access or demand that must be better understood, and could also connect to funding incentives. For example, if lower-income Latino students participate in CTE at higher than average levels, but have more limited access to a breadth of pathways, the CTE policy landscape may hinder economic mobility rather the promote it. Furthermore, the gender-specific patterns of participation by sector also suggest that disrupting such patterns may be a policy lever that could be used to improve female representation in STEM fields if done properly.

Historic inequality along with contracting social mobility in the U.S. have exacerbated the challenges facing students, families, and the community colleges that serve them. And despite some recent progress among students from traditionally underrepresented and underserved populations, the achievement gap persists. The purpose of this paper is not to reflect on how students may come from poverty or disenfranchised communities, or even how underprepared they are for college and the world of work. Instead, this paper aims to reflect on institutions and how faculty, staff, administrators and trustees of the "system" need to see their own role (intentionally or unintentionally) in perpetuating the inequities, or more importantly, in helping to achieve student equity. This report builds on the papers "Practically Speaking: Community College Practices That Help (Re)define Student Support" (ED548259) and "Student Support (Re)defined" (ED548257). The goals of this policy paper are the following: (1) Make the case for continued, focused funding for student equity; (2) Provide some tools and recommendations for colleges to implement, integrate, and institutionalize their equity plans to achieve groundbreaking outcomes; and (3) Encourage a statewide, open and honest conversation about student equity. In addition, this paper: (1) Provides a historical perspective of the circumstances in law and policy as they relate to community colleges that have led us to this point; (2) Provides some observations made by the RP Group and League Staff on student equity activities that seem promising; and (3) Provides examples of equity-focused partnerships. [For "Practically Speaking: Community College Practices That Help (Re)define Student Support," see ED548259. For "Student Support (Re)defined," see ED548257.]

This paper seeks to provide a current overview of socioeconomic school integration and provide a new conceptualization of socioeconomic integration from an equity perspective. What does socioeconomic integration involve? How can it be made to work well within schools to benefit all students? The paper draws upon the insights of a day-long conference of educators, researchers, policymakers, civil rights activists, and staff of the nation's four federally-funded Equity Assistance Centers, sponsored by the Center for Education Equity at Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium in Washington D.C. earlier this year. Five steps for helping to ensure that equitable socioeconomic integration becomes a reality include: (1) Adhere to and internalize basic principles; (2) Implement a suite of socioeconomic integration equity tools; (3) Understand student assessments and address student needs; (4) Build a positive school culture that includes family and community; and (5) Promote reflection and self-assessment. [Edited by Phoebe Schlanger.]

This document is part of a Bridgespan Group research project that focused on the question: "How could a philanthropist make the biggest improvement on social mobility with an investment of $1 billion?" In answering this question, the authors have sought to understand "what matters most" for improving social mobility outcomes. To do this, the authors have drawn from extensive research conducted by leading scholars in the field. They have also outlined a range of tools to assist philanthropists seeking systemic and field-level changes that go well beyond scaling direct service interventions. Using the research and identified tools, the authors have created an illustrative set of "bets" that provide concrete roadmaps for high-leverage investments of $1 billion with the potential for sustainable change at scale. From a list of 15 high-potential bets through which philanthropists could have a significant impact on increasing upward mobility, six bets were selected that are particularly timely, suited to the unique role of philanthropy, have the potential to create significantly outsized impact, and, as a package, could truly sum to $1 billion. This concept paper illustrates one of the six bets. The paper looks at how philanthropists could help decrease over-criminalization, focusing on those populations that most acutely feel the burden: low-income communities of color. It describes the laws and policies that produce and/or exacerbate over-criminalization, and describes the devastating effects of this system on individuals and families, particularly their ability to reach middle class by middle age. [For the main report, "'Billion Dollar Bets' to Create Economic Opportunity for Every American," see ED606509.]

This document is part of a Bridgespan Group research project that focused on the question: "How could a philanthropist make the biggest improvement on social mobility with an investment of $1 billion?" In answering this question, the authors have sought to understand "what matters most" for improving social mobility outcomes. To do this, the authors have drawn from extensive research conducted by leading scholars in the field. They have also outlined a range of tools to assist philanthropists seeking systemic and field-level changes that go well beyond scaling direct service interventions. Using the research and identified tools, the authors have created an illustrative set of "bets" that provide concrete roadmaps for high-leverage investments of $1 billion with the potential for sustainable change at scale. From a list of 15 high-potential bets through which philanthropists could have a significant impact on increasing upward mobility, six bets were selected that are particularly timely, suited to the unique role of philanthropy, have the potential to create significantly outsized impact, and, as a package, could truly sum to $1 billion. This concept paper illustrates one of the six bets. The paper discusses potential solutions to place-based barriers--such as limited job opportunities, restricted access to good schools, and high rates of crime--focusing on investments that help break apart the structural forces of economic and racial segregation that have created communities of concentrated poverty and that help improve conditions in distressed neighborhoods. [For the main report, "'Billion Dollar Bets' to Create Economic Opportunity for Every American," see ED606509.]

It is sometimes claimed that teaching grammar is elitist. This article contends that in actual fact, far from being elitist, grammar is a vital ingredient in the English language teaching mix. Since the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics there has been a school of thought in the English speaking world that the formal teaching of grammar is unnecessary or even elitist. The author argues that in reality it is not the teaching of grammar, but the failure to do so, that is elitist. Among learners there will always be those, the linguistically brightest or most literate, who will master a language without needing to learn any grammar; for the majority of learners however, whether learning English as a native language or a second language, the essential rules of grammar constitute a vital framework without which language acquisition will be harder and slower than it need be. Ensuring that all learners master the norms of grammar and spelling is not only a prerequisite for reaching full literacy across society; it also encourages social cohesion and social mobility. When grammar and communication skills are mastered only by an elite, society will be more divided, based on literacy skills, and social mobility will be harder. A society in which a common language with its common norms is shared by all is intrinsically more inclusive and less divisive than one in which different groups of people have significantly different approaches to a common language or indeed are excluded from the mainstream by poor mastery of the/a common language. Part of the problem with "grammar" is that as a field of study it has often become equated with linguistic analysis; but pedagogical grammar and linguistic analysis are two different things. The teaching of grammar should concentrate on the essential rules and conventions that govern the everyday use of a language, thus helping learners to improve their literacy skills; linguistic analysis involves a critical assessment of the grammar rules that others have used or flouted, and is as likely to confuse average learners as it is to help them.

What does it mean to achieve socioeconomic and racial justice in the United States, and what role can the postsecondary education system play in achieving these aims? Unfortunately, justice is often an elusive concept as it relates to educational achievement. In this paper, the author argues that, to understand the meaning of racial and socioeconomic justice and the role postsecondary systems play in achieving it, we must first understand the philosophical structure that underlies the key narrative of the American dream, the narrative that equal opportunity is available to all and that dreams and aspirations are achievable with hard work. The author proposes a system that confronts our love affair with the American dream, which is often caught up in notions of colorblindness and merit, so that we can deal effectively with the cumulative effects of past and ongoing inequality. The expansion and improvement of postsecondary education will only go so far without this kind of confrontation.

A postsecondary credential is associated with higher levels of earnings, not just in the short term, but over a lifetime. Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce found that college graduates earn more than one million dollars more in lifetime wages, compared to high school graduates. However, many factors influence income--including choice of major, occupation and/or industry of employment, location, gender, and race. While some disparity in wages on the basis of gender and race can be explained by differences in educational attainment, the evidence suggests that notable gaps remain, even when education level is taken into account. Using data from the University of Texas (UT) System's Office of Institutional Research and Analysis (OIRA) this paper explores differences in earnings across gender and race/ethnicity. Key findings from this analysis include: (1) Median earnings gaps exist for UT System graduates by gender and race/ethnicity; (2) Gender and racial/ethnic differences in earnings outcomes vary by field of study and industry; and (3) Differences in intergenerational income mobility exist by gender and race/ethnicity.

This document is part of a Bridgespan Group research project that focused on the question: "How could a philanthropist make the biggest improvement on social mobility with an investment of $1 billion?" In answering this question, the authors have sought to understand "what matters most" for improving social mobility outcomes. To do this, the authors have drawn from extensive research conducted by leading scholars in the field. They have also outlined a range of tools to assist philanthropists seeking systemic and field-level changes that go well beyond scaling direct service interventions. Using the research and identified tools, the authors have created an illustrative set of "bets" that provide concrete roadmaps for high-leverage investments of $1 billion with the potential for sustainable change at scale. From a list of 15 high-potential bets through which philanthropists could have a significant impact on increasing upward mobility, six bets were selected that are particularly timely, suited to the unique role of philanthropy, have the potential to create significantly outsized impact, and, as a package, could truly sum to $1 billion. This concept paper illustrates one of the six bets. The paper explores potential solutions to the underperformance of social service programs. It focuses on ways to increase government use of data to improve their efficacy and proposes eight potential investments philanthropists can make. The paper quantifies the projected impact with estimates of the potential return on investment individuals and families would experience if a big bet were to be made to improve program performance. [For the main report, "'Billion Dollar Bets' to Create Economic Opportunity for Every American," see ED606509.]

This document is part of a Bridgespan Group research project that focused on the question: "How could a philanthropist make the biggest improvement on social mobility with an investment of $1 billion?" In answering this question, the authors have sought to understand "what matters most" for improving social mobility outcomes. To do this, the authors have drawn from extensive research conducted by leading scholars in the field. They have also outlined a range of tools to assist philanthropists seeking systemic and field-level changes that go well beyond scaling direct service interventions. Using the research and identified tools, the authors have created an illustrative set of "bets" that provide concrete roadmaps for high-leverage investments of $1 billion with the potential for sustainable change at scale. From a list of 15 high-potential bets through which philanthropists could have a significant impact on increasing upward mobility, six bets were selected that are particularly timely, suited to the unique role of philanthropy, have the potential to create significantly outsized impact, and, as a package, could truly sum to $1 billion. This concept paper illustrates one of the six bets. The paper discusses potential solutions to reducing unintended pregnancies in the United States. It focuses on building a national initiative that encourages and supports young women and their partners to make informed decisions about when to have a child and improving access to the most effective contraceptive methods. It also outlines the potential of seven investments philanthropists could make to improve and grow promising programs and to shift incentives and behaviors in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies. Lastly, it puts the investments into economic perspective, quantifying their projected impact on the lifetime earnings of individuals and their families and highlighting for philanthropists the return on investment of such commitments. [For the main report, "'Billion Dollar Bets' to Create Economic Opportunity for Every American," see ED606509.]

This document is part of a Bridgespan Group research project that focused on the question: "How could a philanthropist make the biggest improvement on social mobility with an investment of $1 billion?" In answering this question, the authors have sought to understand "what matters most" for improving social mobility outcomes. To do this, the authors have drawn from extensive research conducted by leading scholars in the field. They have also outlined a range of tools to assist philanthropists seeking systemic and field-level changes that go well beyond scaling direct service interventions. Using the research and identified tools, the authors have created an illustrative set of "bets" that provide concrete roadmaps for high-leverage investments of $1 billion with the potential for sustainable change at scale. From a list of 15 high-potential bets through which philanthropists could have a significant impact on increasing upward mobility, six bets were selected that are particularly timely, suited to the unique role of philanthropy, have the potential to create significantly outsized impact, and, as a package, could truly sum to $1 billion. This concept paper illustrates one of the six bets. The paper explores potential solutions to the barriers low-income and minority job seekers face when building their careers. It focuses on making existing jobs available to low-income and minority job seekers who aim to ensure that they have access to fulfilling, life-sustaining employment. [For the main report, "'Billion Dollar Bets' to Create Economic Opportunity for Every American," see ED606509.]

This work is part of a larger set of conversations on how philanthropic capital can better deliver potent results. This paper is intended for philanthropists and foundation staff who are interested in understanding not only which issues and interventions might put many more low-income people on an upward trajectory, but also how private donors can use their dollars, networks, and voices to achieve systemic change. Based on their review of the research on social mobility, the authors identified four sprawling opportunities for philanthropic investors to help ensure that far more Americans have a chance to reach their full potential. Using the frame of a philanthropist investing $1 billion, the authors have constructed a set of 15 big bets across each of the four general investment areas. The bets consider specifically how a philanthropist could support efforts to improve outcomes for low-income populations across race, gender, and geographic differences. For donors seeking to give big to catalyze greater levels of social mobility and build sustainable pathways out of poverty for low-income Americans, this paper aims to: (1) provide a draft frame of "what matters most" to help an individual attain social mobility (or be "middle class by middle age"); (2) highlight ways that philanthropists can use a broad set of tools--beyond funding nonprofits--to support enduring impact; (3) develop an illustrative set of 15 investment opportunities ("bets") that map out how to spend $1 billion to drive change at scale; and (4) provide preliminary estimates of the potential return on investment for six of the $1 billion bets. [For the Executive Summary, see ED606513. For the Overview of Research, see ED606515. For the Overview of Estimated Returns on Six Big Investments and Their Impacts on Lifetime Earnings, see ED606518.]

Copyright of OECD Social, Employment & Migration Working Papers is the property of Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The American dream--the belief that anyone is capable of upward mobility and a better life than the one in which they were born--is in jeopardy. According to Harvard economist Raj Chetty, American families are experiencing reduced upward mobility across generations. Education is the key to reversing the trajectory of upward mobility, imparting what it means to be a good citizen, and making the American dream a dream to, once again, be grasped. To propel society toward a better future for all, we must refocus on the following: (1) A flexible education system that is not entrenched in existing silos; (2) A workforce where supply meets demand; and (3) A system design that keeps the end in mind. Hybrid college could be a catalyst to rethink education. Hybrid college combines the flexibility of an online degree with in-person support and community building. Hybrid colleges could considerably increase persistence and graduation rates while decreasing student debt.