Kevin Dietsch // Getty Images

Will federal tax-credit scholarships help public school students?

Could the new federal tax-credit scholarship program pay for summer school or tutoring for public school students? Could it help homeschool families, microschools, and after-school enrichment programs alike?

Or will most of the money mirror voucher programs and flow through large established scholarship groups for private school tuition?

The race is on to shape a program that could become one of the largest federal investments in K-12 education and fuel a dramatic expansion of private school choice, Chalkbeat reports. The Treasury Department fired the starter’s pistol right before Thanksgiving when it posted a request for comments on how to implement the new tax credit, which passed this summer as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill.

Requesting comment before developing draft rules is the first step in a process that ultimately will determine how much authority states have to put their own stamp on the program, how attractive it is for nonprofits, and how much flexibility families will have.

Treasury Department rules could influence whether some governors choose to have their states participate at all. The Democratic governors of Colorado and North Carolina already plan to opt their states in. Many others have said they’re waiting on federal guidance before they decide.

But on one of the key questions — can governors put restrictions on scholarship-granting organizations, such as requiring that they serve only low-income families or prohibiting them from discriminating against LGBTQ students? The answer may already be no.

The request for comment indicates that Treasury expects to require participating states to include all organizations that meet the bare-bones statutory requirements, such as being a federally recognized nonprofit and serving more than 10 students who don’t all attend the same school.

“It’s really a take it or leave it scheme,” said Rachel Canter, director of education policy for the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank.

The law doesn’t define “school,” and the Treasury Department has not explicitly asked for feedback on how it should be defined. That could lead to more questions: Could scholarships be used to cover preschool tuition? What about microschools or students who are homeschooled? School choice advocates want those students to have access to funds raised through the tax credit, but some are wary of creating a federal definition of school through the rule-making process.

People who believe in using private markets to drive educational change and in making public money available to religious schools were the biggest backers of the tax credit, and it’s most suited to serve their needs, said Scott Palmer, co-founder and managing partner of the consulting firm EducationCounsel.

But there is a “real opening,” Palmer said during a recent virtual panel discussion, for supporters of public education to push for what he called an “ecosystem” approach that would make it easy to use the tax credit to raise money for tutoring, arts and music enrichment, and other programming that would benefit public school students.

“When you receive a punch in the martial arts, you can either try to block it or leverage its power to throw the person over your shoulder,” he said. “I think we have an opportunity to think not only about how we might need to block, but how we might need to leverage.”

School choice supporters want flexibility, light regulations

The federal tax-credit scholarship program allows taxpayers to receive a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement for donations of up to $1,700 to eligible scholarship-granting organizations. Those organizations would distribute the money to students from families making up to 300% of local median income, a threshold that makes the majority of American families eligible.

How much money the tax credit generates will depend on how many people participate. Education Reform Now estimated that some 47 million taxpayers owe more than $1,700 in federal taxes each year. If 15% participated — far more than currently participate in most state tax-credit programs — that would generate roughly $12 billion a year. For comparison, the federal government spends about $18 billion a year to support high-poverty schools through the Title I program and about $15 billion a year to help offset the cost of special education services.

The money can go toward any expense allowed under Coverdell education savings accounts, which include tuition, tutoring, specialized services for children with disabilities, and computers.

The law allows scholarships to go to students in public or private school, but it’s less obvious how the money could be used to benefit public schools and their students. Could a community group raise money to cover the cost of tutoring for public school students? Could that tutoring be provided by the public school itself or only by outside groups?

During the same panel conversation with Palmer, Karen Pittman, a founding partner at the consulting firm Knowledge to Power Catalysts, cited research that parents spend an estimated $232 billion on their children’s education and development. Groups like 4-H Clubs, for example, could use the tax credit to raise money or offer programs that families could pay for with their scholarships.

“We can give the Treasury the facts on how parents are currently spending their private dollars, and say, ‘Why don’t you allow this bill, this tax credit, to cover these things that parents are already covering, that they consider part of their young people’s education?’” Pittman said.

For their part, groups that have long supported vouchers and education savings accounts want minimal regulations that ensure money donated through the tax credit can support microschools and homeschool families, as well as those attending private school.

Supporters said they’re glad to see the rule-making process start early, so that scholarship organizations have more time to plan.

And they’re also particularly relieved that the Treasury Department doesn’t seem inclined to let governors put additional requirements on scholarship groups beyond what the federal law requires.

The tax-credit scholarship “is a tax law,” said Leslie Hiner, vice president for legal policy at EdChoice, an advocacy group. “It’s not an educational program.”

“This was intended to add to what already exists across the country and help that grow, and any action through rule-making that would go in the opposite direction of that cannot happen,” Hiner said.

Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, said in a statement that the program’s goal “is to broaden educational opportunity, especially for low-income families, and the rules should encourage and make it as simple as possible for Governors and all states to opt in — as all should — while ensuring access is maximized and the program is protected from political interference.”

People have until Dec. 26, the day after Christmas, to submit their comments. Then the department will issue draft rules and regulations, and the public will have another chance to comment before they’re finalized.

This story was produced by Chalkbeat and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Jabin Botsford // The Washington Post via Getty Images

How education changed in one year under Trump

Even with a conservative think tank’s blueprint detailing how the second Trump administration should reimagine the federal government’s role in education, few might have predicted what actually materialized this year for America’s schools and colleges.

Or what might be yet to come.

“2025 will go down as a banner year for education: the year we restored merit in higher education, rooted out waste, fraud and abuse, and began in earnest returning education to the states,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Hechinger Report. She listed canceling K-12 grants she called wasteful, investing more in charter schools, ending college admissions that consider race or anything beyond academic achievement and making college more affordable as some of the year’s accomplishments.

“Best of all,” she said, “we’ve begun breaking up the federal education bureaucracy and returning education control to parents and local communities. These are reforms conservatives have championed for decades — and in just 12 months, we’ve made them a reality.”

McMahon’s characterization of the year is hardly universal. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats, led by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, called out some of the administration’s actions this year. They labeled federal changes, especially plans to divide the Education Department’s duties across the federal government, as dangerous and likely to cause chaos for schools and colleges.

“Already, this administration has cancelled billions of dollars in education programs, illegally withheld nearly $7 billion in formula funds, and proposed to fully eliminate many of the programs included in the latest transfer,” the senators wrote in a letter to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the committee that oversees education. “In our minds, that is unacceptable.”

So, what really happened to education this year? It was almost impossible for the average observer to keep track of the array of changes across colleges and universities, K-12 schools, early education and education research — and what it has all meant. The Hechinger Report takes a look back at how the education world was transformed.

Higher education

The administration was especially forceful in the higher education arena. It used measures including anti-discrimination law to quickly freeze billions of dollars in higher education research funding, interrupting years-long medical studies and coercing Columbia, Brown, Northwestern and other institutions into handing over multimillion-dollar payments and agreeing to policy changes demanded by the administration.

A more widespread “compact” promising preference for federal funding to universities that agreed to largely ideological principles had almost no takers. But in the face of government threats, universities and colleges scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that provided support based on race and other characteristics, and banned transgender athletes from competing on teams corresponding to genders other than the ones they were assigned at birth.

As the administration unleashed its set of edicts, Republicans in Congress also expanded taxes on college and university endowments. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made other big changes to higher education, such as limiting graduate student borrowing and eliminating certain loan forgiveness programs. That includes public service loan forgiveness for graduates who take jobs with organizations the administration designated as having a “substantial illegal purpose” because they help refugees or transgender youth. In response, states, cities, labor unions and nonprofits immediately filed suit, arguing that the rule violated the First Amendment.

The administration has criticized universities, colleges and liberal students for curbing the speech of conservatives by shouting them down or blocking their appearances on campuses. However, it proceeded to revoke the visas of and begin deportation proceedings against international students who joined protests or wrote opinions criticizing Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. government policy there.

Meanwhile, emboldened legislatures and governors in red states pushed back on what faculty could say in classrooms. College presidents, including James Ryan at the University of Virginia and Mark Welsh III at Texas A&M were forced out in the aftermath of controversies over these issues. — Jon Marcus

K-12 education

Since Donald Trump returned to office earlier this year, K-12 schools have lost millions of dollars in sweeping cuts to federal grants, including money that helped schools serve students who are deaf or blind, grants that bolstered the dwindling rural teacher workforce and funding for Wi-Fi hotspots.

Last summer, the Trump administration briefly froze billions of dollars in federal funding for schools on June 30, one day before districts would typically apply to receive it. Although the money was restored in late July, some school leaders said they no longer felt confident they would receive all expected federal funds next year. And they are braced for more cuts to federal budgets as the U.S. Department of Education is dismembered.

That process, as well as the end goal of returning the department’s responsibilities to the states, has raised uncertainty about whether federal money will continue to be earmarked for the same purposes. If the state of Illinois is in charge of federal funding for every school in the state, said Todd Dugan, superintendent of a rural Illinois district, will rural schools still get money to boost student achievement or will the state decide there are more pressing needs?

As part of layoffs at the Education Department during the government shutdown in the fall, the Trump administration cut loose almost everyone who works in the Office of Special Education Programs, alarming many parents and advocates. About 7.5 million children ages 3 to 21 are served under federal law protecting students with disabilities, and the office had already lost staffers after the Trump administration dismissed nearly half the Education Department’s staff in March. Some worry this additional round of layoffs is a big step toward moving oversight of how states treat students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Even as the Trump administration attempts to push more control over education to the states, it has aggressively expanded federal power over school choice and transgender student rights in public schools. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will create a federal school voucher program, allowing taxpayers to donate up to $1,700 for scholarships that families can use to pay for private school. The program won’t start until 2027, and states can choose whether to participate — setting up potentially divisive fights over new money for education in Democratic-controlled states.

Already, some Democratic-led states have come to the defense of schools in funding and legal fights with the federal government over transgender athletes participating in sports. The U.S. departments of Education and Justice launched a special investigations team to look into complaints of Title IX violations, targeting school districts and states that don’t restrict accommodations or civil rights protections for transgender students. Legal experts expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide how Title IX — a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education — applies to public schools.

The federal government directly runs just two systems of schools — one for military families and the other for children of tribal nations. In an executive order signed in January, the president directed both systems to offer parents a portion of federal funding allocated to their children to attend private, religious or charter schools.

And as part of the dismantling of the federal Education Department, the Interior Department — which oversees 183 tribal schools across nearly two dozen states — will assume greater control of Indian education programs. In addition to rolling out school choice at its campuses, the department will take over Indian education grants to public schools across the country, Native language programs, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and many other institutions. — Ariel Gilreath and Neal Morton

Early education

Early education was not at the top of Trump’s agenda when he returned to office. On the campaign trail, when asked if he would support legislation to make child care affordable, he gave an unfocused answer, suggesting tariff revenue could be tapped to bring down costs. Asked a similar question, Vice President JD Vance suggested that care by family members was one potential solution to child care shortages.

However, many of the administration’s actions, including cuts to the government workforce and grants, have affected children who depend on federal support. In April, the administration abruptly closed five of 10 regional offices supporting Head Start, the free, federally funded early childhood program for children from low-income families. Head Start program managers worried they would be caught up in a freeze on grant funding that affected all agencies. Even though administration officials said funds would keep flowing to Head Start, some centers reported having problems drawing down their money. The prolonged government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12 after 43 days, also forced some Head Start programs to temporarily close.

Though the shutdown is over, Head Start advocates are still worried. Many of the administration’s actions have been guided by the Project 2025 policy document created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 calls for eliminating Head Start, which serves about 715,000 children from birth to age five, for a savings of about $12 billion a year.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contained some perks for parents, including an increase in the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200. The bill also created a new program called Trump accounts: Families can contribute up to $5,000 each year until a child turns 18, at which point the Trump account will turn into an individual retirement account. For children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, the government will provide a $1,000 bonus. Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell have also promised to contribute $250 to the account of each child ages 10 and under who lives in a ZIP code with a median household income of $150,000 or less.

That program will launch in summer 2026. — Christina A. Samuels

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Zamrznuti tonovi // Shutterstock

The skills gap crisis: Boomers are retiring before the next generation is ready

For decades, experienced professionals have quietly kept the world running, training new hires, solving crises and carrying institutional knowledge built over long careers. Now, many of those workers are preparing to retire, taking with them expertise that cannot be quickly replaced.

A new global survey from Kelly shows that while most organizations know the “Silver Tsunami” is coming, few are prepared for what happens next.

Across regions, executives say experience is slipping away faster than they can replace it. In Europe and North America, retirements are already affecting operations, while in Asia and the Middle East, demand for technical expertise continues to climb.

As millions of baby boomers exit the workforce, companies across industries are struggling to replace both the labor and the know-how that leave with them.

Prepared on paper, not in practice

Executives and employees know the retirement wave is coming, but they do not know what happens next. Ninety-two percent of executives say they are concerned that retirements will worsen worker shortages, leaving critical gaps in the workforce, and nearly 4 in 10 are very or extremely worried, according to the research. Workers share those concerns. Eighty-one percent say they worry their employers will not be able to replace outgoing employees, including 28 percent who are highly concerned.

Kelly

The views are split on preparedness. Two in 3 executives say their organizations are ready to keep operations running as older workers retire. Only 17 percent of employees agree.

Kelly

Many workers see a system running on borrowed time, with institutional knowledge walking out the door faster than it can be passed down.

A problem money cannot fix

Across industries, organizations are trying to offset the loss of experienced workers by redesigning roles, investing in technology or relying more heavily on automation. But replacing people with tools does not replace experience. Knowledge takes time to build, and many midcareer professionals have not received the training or mentorship needed to step into more complex roles.

Researchers warn that when expertise is not transferred, productivity dips, innovation slows and mistakes multiply. The impact is not just technical. Entire ways of working risk being lost as organizations modernize without preparing their people for what comes next.

Fewer than half of executives say they have formal programs to transfer knowledge before employees retire, and only 38 percent report investing in midcareer development at scale. The result is a widening experience gap between senior specialists and the workers expected to replace them.

Rebuilding the pipeline

Research points to a few solutions that go beyond short-term hiring. Successful organizations are pairing senior and junior workers to capture insights before they disappear. Many are adopting a “skills-first” approach that looks past resumes to find potential in veterans, midcareer switchers and people with nontraditional backgrounds. They are also making learning part of advancement, linking training programs to real opportunities for growth.

Some companies are looking outside their walls for support, using strategic outsourcing to bridge experience gaps and maintain continuity during transitions.

A turning point for talent

The skills gap is not a distant threat. It is already reshaping teams, production lines and offices around the world. How organizations respond will determine whether they lose momentum or create a new generation of capable, confident workers ready to lead.

Research makes the choice clear. Future-ready companies invest in people before the crisis hits. The expertise leaving today can become the foundation for tomorrow if leaders act now to transfer it.

The report notes that organizations focused on resilience, including those that prioritize upskilling, flexible teams and inclusive hiring, are twice as likely to say they are prepared for the future. Building that resilience now could determine which companies thrive in the next decade of work.

This story was produced by Kelly and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Sean Pavone // Shutterstock

Layoffs are rising: Here’s where Americans are experiencing the most job disruption

It’s been more than five years since the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the U.S. unemployment rate seems to have settled down for the most part after an April 2020 high of nearly 15%.

After the rate hovered between 3% and 4% between 2022 and 2024, it has slightly increased since the start of 2025. The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics has the nationwide rate at 4.6%. December 2025 saw more bad news, as the total number of layoffs reached one million for the first year since 2020.

Why Are Layoffs Increasing?

One of the primary reasons for the increase in layoffs has been the continued adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), with companies surveyed in a report by Challenger, Gray & Christmas citing it as the cause of nearly 55,000 layoffs since January 2025. Another common reason for layoffs in 2025 was restructuring, which is a broad term that companies can use in numerous situations.

More reasons for the gradual increase in layoffs include economic uncertainty over tariffs, general macroeconomic conditions, and impacts from the Department of Government Efficiency cuts. DOGE alone is responsible for nearly 300,000 layoffs in 2025. PeopleFinders examines where people in the U.S. are experiencing the highest unemployment rate increases.

12 Locations Americans Are Experiencing the Most Job Disruption

Although the national unemployment rate has risen over the past year, some metropolitan areas are seeing decreased unemployment. Job markets are strong in Oklahoma, Indiana, Alabama, and Nebraska, for instance.

Other areas are not as lucky. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more U.S. metros with a population of at least one million lost jobs between July 2024 and July 2025. Twelve of those large metros had unemployment rates increase by at least half a percentage point in that time span.

1. Cleveland, Ohio

Among the nation’s 56 largest metros, Cleveland saw the highest unemployment rate increase (0.8%) between July 2024 and July 2025. The rate today stands at around 5.2%. Manufacturing and hospitality jobs have taken a hit in the Cuyahoga region, and college graduates have found it more difficult to secure white-collar jobs.

2. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Oregon-Washington

While Seattle’s unemployment rate held steady, its neighbor to the south, Portland, hasn’t been as fortunate. The rate increased by 0.7% between July 2024 and July 2025. Intel’s Portland-area facilities shed thousands of jobs in 2025; manufacturing (specifically semiconductors) was hit hard.

3. Columbus, Ohio

Ohio’s largest city, Columbus, was also affected by the recent uptick in unemployment. The decrease in leisure, hospitality, and goods-producing jobs accounted for much of the 0.7% increase.

4. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-Virginia-Maryland-West Virginia

Cuts to the federal workforce—notably through DOGE—led to the DMV having the highest monthly unemployment increases during the first half of 2025. While the trend is starting to level off, the D.C. area still saw a 0.6% rise from July 2024 to July 2025.

5. Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, Virgina-North Carolina

The story is much the same in Southeastern Virginia, where the unemployment rate also rose by 0.6%. The reduction in federal workers has also led to fewer jobs for government contractors, who make up a significant portion of the Virginia Beach area.

6. Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas

On top of consistently high rates of violent crime, the Memphis metropolitan area is also experiencing an unemployment rate increase of around 0.6%. No clear reasons seem to exist for the surge, but some data suggest the region’s lack of high-paying jobs could be partially to blame.

7. Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, Connecticut

Although the unemployment rate in Connecticut is under 4%, the state’s largest metro has seen a rate increase of 0.6% from July 2024 to July 2025. Around 4.3% of Hartford’s workforce is currently unemployed.

8. Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, California

California’s unemployment rate stands at 5.6%, which is the highest among all states and behind only Washington, D.C.’s rate of 6.2%. In addition to job cuts in the hospitality and entertainment industry, large tech companies are beginning to downsize in response to AI-related disruptions. Sacramento has felt this squeeze more than other areas, as shown by its unemployment rate increase of 0.5%.

9. Fresno, California

No other U.S. metro with at least 1 million residents had a higher unemployment rate in August 2025 than Fresno in California’s Central Valley. Between July 2024 and July 2025, the region’s rate increased by 0.5%, from 8.1% to 8.6%.

10. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, California

Riverside’s rising unemployment (0.5%) shows that California’s job woes extend to every corner of the state. Construction and manufacturing accounted for many of the area’s losses.

11. Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana

Columbus and Cleveland are not the only large cities in Ohio with rising unemployment. Cincinnati’s diversified economy, however, has kept the rate increase at a relatively cool 0.5%.

12. Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, Michigan

Western Michigan experienced an increase of 0.5% between July 2024 and July 2025, but its current rate of 5.5% is still lower than Detroit’s unemployment rate of 5.7%. A contributing factor to Michigan’s relatively high jobless rate is the recent increase in unemployment benefits.

Should You Avoid Areas with Rising Unemployment?

While rising unemployment rates are seldom signs of strong economies, workers in some industries (such as healthcare and data science) are better insulated from mass layoffs. Trends don’t last forever, either; Florida’s historically low unemployment rate of 2.8% in early 2023 has crept up to 3.9% at the end of 2025, for instance.

On the other hand, regions with high unemployment often experience collateral consequences, such as low economic growth and elevated crime rates.

Even within regions with favorable economic conditions, cities, towns, and neighborhoods vary in their attractiveness. Job seekers have many variables to consider when weighing the pros and cons of relocation, not the least of which is the overall strength of companies extending job offers.

In this era of rising job scams, it’s also important to verify the identities of hiring managers with a people finder and run a reverse phone lookup on the number they’re calling from. Every reasonable measure to prevent scams is worth it in today’s economic climate.

This story was produced by PeopleFinders and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Branislav Nenin // Shutterstock

Remote job market still strong despite return-to-office mandates

High-profile return-to-office mandates at companies like JPMorgan Chase and Microsoft dominated headlines in 2025, but a new job report shows that remote work continues to play an important role in the modern labor market. Toptal’s High-Skilled Job Report for Q4 2025 found that demand for experienced remote and hybrid technology and professional services personnel is actually slightly stronger than that for comparable in-office positions.

The report found that global demand for these remote and hybrid professionals increased by 19.8% in Q4 2025 versus Q4 2024. Looking at the entire year, demand increased 10.9% in 2025 versus 2024. Meanwhile, demand for similar professionals across all work models, including remote, hybrid, and in-office roles, increased by slightly smaller magnitudes (19.4% for Q4 2025 versus Q4 2024 and 10.4% for full-year 2025 versus 2024).

The difference in the trends is very small, but still worth noting, according to the report. For remote and hybrid roles to exceed the blended average, in-office roles must be lagging behind, pulling down the overall figure.

Toptal

Quarter-over-quarter data tells a similar story. Demand for remote and hybrid talent declined by 4%, a typical late-year contraction; however, the broader experienced market, which includes in-office roles, showed a slightly larger decline of 4.7%.

Remote Work Is Finding Its Level

Five years after the height of COVID-19 pandemic disruption, data suggests that distributed work has settled into a more stable phase. The report notes that office occupancy in major U.S. markets has recovered from its pandemic lows but remains well below 2019 levels. This points to an emerging equilibrium between remote, hybrid, and in-office work in which companies have begun to pinpoint when in-person collaboration is essential and when work can be done remotely.

This shift mirrors the adoption of AI, in which companies’ early experiments have evolved into strategic combinations of technology and human insight. Together, these changes point to a more deliberate approach to the future of work. Having tested remote policies and AI tools for several years, companies are now making clearer choices about where work happens and how technology supports it. They are increasingly implementing AI-driven tools and in-person work into the parts of the workflow where they add the most value.

Toptal

While it’s clear that many employees enjoy the flexibility of remote and hybrid work, the availability of these roles has grown for reasons that go beyond employee preference or cost-savings for companies, according to the report. Firms that strategically employ remote and hybrid teams are able to access larger and more diverse talent pools and hire faster, especially when scaling or experimenting with new capabilities.

This transitional job market is challenging for both workers and employers, but this data points to a potential bright spot: that flexible work for experienced professionals is not dying, rather it is maturing into a permanent feature of the market.

This story was produced by Toptal and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Turn_around_around // Shutterstock

Planning life after high school isn’t easy: 4 tips for students and their families

Many high school seniors are now focusing on what they will do once they graduate — or on the fact that they don’t at all know what is to come.

Families trying to guide and support these students at the juncture of a major life transition likely also feel nervous about the open-ended possibilities, including starting at a standard four-year college or not attending college at all.

Writing in The Conversation, Purdue University psychology professor Shannon Pickett, a mental health counselor, shares four tips to help make deciding what comes after high school a little easier for everyone involved.

1. Shadow someone with a job you might want

Many college students are interested in a particular career path, but are not familiar with the job’s day-to-day workings.

A parent, teacher or another adult in this student’s life could connect them with someone they shadow at work, even for a day, so the student can better understand what the job entails.

High school students may also find that interviewing someone who works in a particular field is another helpful way to narrow down career path options or finalize their college decisions.

Research published in 2025 shows that high school students who complete an internship are better able to decide whether certain careers are a good fit for them.

2. Look at the numbers

Full-time students can pay anywhere from about $4,000 for in-state tuition at a public state school per semester to just shy of $50,000 per semester at a private college or university. The average annual cost of tuition alone at a public college or university in 2025 is $10,340, while the average tuition cost at a private school is $39,307.

Tuition continues to rise, though the rate of growth has slowed in the past few years.

About 56% of 2024 college graduates had taken out loans to pay for college.

Concerns about affording college often come up with clients who are deciding on whether or not to get a degree. Research has shown that financial stress and debt load are leading to an increase in students dropping out of college.

It can be helpful for some students to look at tuition costs and project what their monthly student loan payments would be like after graduation, given the expected salary range in particular careers. Financial planning could also help students consider the benefits and drawbacks of public, private, community colleges or vocational schools.

Even with planning, there is no guarantee that students will be able to get a job in their desired field, or quickly earn what they hope to make. No matter how prepared students might be, they should recognize that there are still factors outside their control.

3. Normalize other kinds of schools

Some students feel they should go to a four-year college right after they graduate because it is what their families expect. There are students and parents who see a four-year college as more prestigious than a two-year program, and believe it is more valuable in terms of long-term career growth.

That isn’t the right fit for everyone, though.

Enrollment at trade-focused schools increased almost 20% from the spring of 2020 through 2025, and now comprises 19.4% of public two-year college enrollment.

Going to a trade school or seeking a two-year associate’s degree can put students on a direct path to get a job in a technical area, such as becoming a registered nurse or electrician.

But there are also reasons for students to think carefully about trade schools.

In some cases, trade schools are for-profit institutions and have been subjected to federal investigation for wrongdoing. Some of these schools have been fined and forced to close.

Still, it is important for students to consider which path is personally best for them.

Research has shown that job satisfaction has a positive impact on mental health, and having a longer history with a career field leads to higher levels of job satisfaction.

4. Consider a gap year before shutting down the idea

One strategy that high school graduates have used in recent years is taking a year off between high school and college in order to better determine what is the right fit for a student. Approximately 2% to 3% of high school graduates take a gap year — typically before going on to enroll in college.

Some young people may travel during a gap year, volunteer, or get a job in their hometown.

Whatever the reason students take gap years, the time off can be beneficial in certain situations. Taking a year off before starting college has also been shown to lead to better academic performance in college.

This story was produced by The Conversation and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.