Two weeks ago, ALI joined thousands of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in Washington, DC, for the JFF Horizons Summit. It was energizing to see so many people focused on career-connected learning (CCL), the range of programs and practices, from career exploration to work-based learning to industry credentials, that connect what students learn in school to real career pathways. The conversations underscored a premise at the heart of ALI’s recent policy brief, which outlines recommendations for how the federal government can expand the evidence base supporting CCL programs and policies: we still have a lot of work to do to increase relevance and engagement for young people. Compared to high-dosage tutoring, for example, there is insufficient knowledge of and data on evidence-based practices for CCL. The federal government has a critical role to play in building that shared evidence infrastructure.
However, the need for a comprehensive evidence base doesn’t mean we’re starting from scratch. There are promising bright spots, research, and emerging policy ideas, including from members of the ALI Coalition. Inspired by the conversations at JFF, we are sharing a round-up of that research to take stock of where interest in the field is concentrated and get a better sense of where evidence generation for CCL may be heading.
Three main topic areas emerged in our analysis. Numerous studies are referenced throughout this piece, but a full list of the research submissions we received from the ALI community is available here.
1. States and systems still lack the basic infrastructure and data to know what’s working.
Before states and districts can scale effective CCL practices, they need the underlying data systems and evidence-based practices to build, implement, and test. For example, Project Evident’s new synthesis finds a strong case for the developmental benefits of CCL programs (e.g., confidence, identity, sense of what is possible), but far less available evidence connecting it to outcomes like graduation, college completion, or earnings.
This is a widespread challenge. A CTE Research Network review of work-based learning research found the same thinness at scale: of more than 7,000 studies screened, only 21 met the standards for inclusion in a meta-analysis.
That gap shows up at the state level too, where the infrastructure to even ask these critical questions is still being built. Insightful Education Solutions assessed the readiness of state K-12 CTE programs to answer basic outcome questions in a 50-state analysis, and only 4 states earned a “high readiness” rating overall.
2. The field’s ability to measure outcomes for credentials, apprenticeships, and pathways is improving.
We know from lived experience and from connecting with organizations doing this work on the ground that CCL programs can provide rewarding opportunities for learners. CAPS Network’s 2025 alumni study, reflected in a recent ALI guest post, shows that alongside measurable gains in confidence and communication, program alumni most often described their work-based learning experiences with a single word: “love”. These encouraging results are prompting researchers to move toward producing sharper evidence on which specific CCL models deliver enduring positive impacts for participating students after they graduate high school.
What we hope to see is how individual programs or bright spots can translate to outcomes at scale. We are actively following Mathematica’s apprenticeship study and enjoyed reading a multistate case study from the Center for American Progress on CTE employment outcomes. This study from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute analyzed postsecondary and labor market outcomes for Ohio students who earned industry credentials. These projects are representative of a broader push toward outcomes-level research informing the CCL evidence base.
Measuring outcomes well depends on a few key pieces, including:
- Identifying which measures matter. Durable, human skills such as critical thinking, communication, and adaptability will be important skill sets for students to have as they navigate a rapidly evolving workforce in their futures, and efforts from organizations like the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and ETS are uncovering assessment approaches that capture these competencies.
- Embedding those measures into accountability systems, learner records, and credentialing systems. For example, Digital Promise makes a case for micro-credentials, arguing these tools can translate informal and workplace learning into credentials employers actually recognize.
- Ensuring that we build systems that better connect talent and opportunities. We are following along with initiatives such as the Connecting Talent to Opportunity Challenge, work-based learning marketplaces, and more.
3. The field is rethinking what a coherent, student-centered pathway looks like.
A third thread that we heard at the conference moves past measuring individual programs and toward a harder question: what would it actually take to build a coherent, student-centered “pathway” that is designed around students and grounded in evidence?
The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) argues the field needs to think differently about CCL altogether, drawing on top-performing systems worldwide. Education First’s Commission on Purposeful Pathways makes a similar case in its own blueprint for coherent, cross-sector pathways. Both point to the same underlying challenge: this redesign work depends on aligning many stakeholders, including parents, school counselors, students, teachers, and industry representatives, who don’t always share the same definitions of success.
Some of the most interesting work zooms in even further, to the relationships that get an individual student into a pathway in the first place. For example, Hive Research Lab’s brokering toolkit examines how trusted adults use their own networks to connect youth to opportunity. Taken together, this work suggests coherence has to be built at every scale at once: in how systems are designed, in how stakeholders align, and in the individual relationships that actually get a student through the door.
Final Thoughts
There’s growing rigor in how we measure CCL program outcomes, and a clearer sense of what students experience along the way. But the infrastructure to track CCL consistently, assess workforce alignment, and share findings across states remains the exception rather than the rule. Closing gaps like these is less about new investment than about treating program readiness, data-sharing, and evaluation design as first-order priorities. That’s the work ALI will keep pushing on, and we’re glad to see so much of the coalition already pushing alongside us.
