Dr. Harry Holzer, Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University: New Research On How Educators Can Improve Alignment With The Job Market

Van Ton-Quinlivan
Hello, I’m Van Ton-Quinlivan, CEO of Futuro Health, welcoming you to WorkforceRx, an ongoing conversation with leaders and innovators offering insights into creating a future-ready workforce.

When it comes to analyzing the prospects of community college students, much of the conversation focuses on low completion rates and what should be done to improve them. There’s less attention given to why even those who complete often don’t pursue credentials of value that can lead to annual salaries of $45,000 to $50,000.

That overlooked question is the focus of a research project conducted by my guest, Dr. Harry Holzer of Georgetown University, and his colleague Amy Fagan of the American Institutes for Research, which published their findings earlier this year. Dr. Holzer is a former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. His research has long focused on the low-wage job market and job quality. I served with Dr. Holzer on the National Skills Coalition board.

Thanks very much for joining us today, Harry.

Harry J. Holzer
It’s nice to see you, Van. I miss our frequent interactions and our conversations when we were on the NSC board together, because you would always tell me all the exciting things you were doing for community colleges in California, and I always learned a lot from those conversations, but it’s nice to reconnect now.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
Well, likewise, in terms of learning, and I’m so glad we have you on this podcast to share with our listeners your latest studies. So why did you want to focus on this aspect of community college performance, Harry?

Harry J. Holzer
I think it’s very important for the futures of community college students, and it doesn’t quite get the amount of attention and resources that I think it deserves. You know, when we think about community colleges—and Van, you know this better than anyone—community colleges have a lot of functions, but they have to prepare people academically for transfer to four-year colleges and universities. That’s the more academic liberal arts side of the house. But they also have to prepare people directly for the labor market, and some colleges and some states do more of one or more of the other.

But the truth is, on the academic side, only about 15% or 16% of community college students, the young students that are coming out of high school, will ever get a BA. The vast majority will not transfer or they will not get a BA. On the workforce side of the house, they’re not always as successful as they can be. By the way, if they do get a terminal degree in liberal arts—an English lit or history associate’s degree—that usually doesn’t have much value in the labor market. It’s much better if they get some kind of credential with real labor market value, and we can talk about what that means.

But since that’s going to be the majority of the students, it’s really important that the institutions do this well, not only to have high completion rates, but really good experiences in the labor market afterwards. So I just think it’s really important. I think it’s understudied, and I think there’ll be some new trends that we’ll probably talk about. AI is gonna really change how we do all of this, and there’s other needs of employers for skilled workers that are not always met well. So it’s very important to do it as best as we can with the resources we have.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
Well, before we dive into some of those points that you’re making, I appreciate that you brought up how community colleges can have many missions, some tasked with transfer and workforce, and even the basic skills. And those basic skills are changing a lot these days.

You point out that existing data shows that technical colleges, which are basically colleges which are purely focused on the workforce mission, outperform comprehensive ones where they have multiple missions that they have to shepherd, and that also larger colleges outperform smaller ones. Could you share more behind these patterns?

Harry J. Holzer
Sure. So first of all, there’s several states where their community college systems are primarily technical colleges. Indiana has Ivy Tech, you look at Wisconsin, you look at Georgia, Kentucky, and some other places. Technical colleges….this is what they do, and they’ve mostly learned to do it quite well. They’ve learned how to interact with their regional employers to make sure that they are providing workers that are well aligned with regional economies. Now, they also have to do some transfer and some liberal arts, and how well do they do that, I didn’t study. But when you look at the data, it really jumps out at you on average how much better the technical colleges are.

I think there’s some things that the comprehensive colleges can learn from them. The comprehensive colleges will not be becoming technical colleges in most places, but maybe they can improve their performance by studying more of those.

Now, as far as the difference between larger colleges and smaller colleges, some of this is a little speculative. I think there are a couple things going on. First of all, the larger colleges have a lot of economies of scale, right? So sometimes you’re spreading the same services and maybe interactions with regional employers over a broader range of students and a broader financial base. So I think they have more resources to put in, you know, to these operations. They learn how to do it better.
I also have the sense that the larger colleges are more visible to the employers. So I think the employers maybe take them a little more seriously and put more time into interacting with them to try to get the product right between them.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
One of the things I also saw was some of the larger colleges, as you mentioned, are a better resourced with grant writers who they can pursue grants that then support some of the partnerships and outreach to employers, for example.

Harry J. Holzer
That’s right. You know, in economics we often talk about fixed costs for businesses, and having good staff—sort of fairly professional staff to do the things you just said—it’s a fixed cost. And we know the bigger institutions can bear those fixed costs more easily because they have that larger pool of resources, like you said.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
So Harry, when you identify the high performers, what distinguishes an excelling college from an aspiring college in your study?

Harry J. Holzer
Well, we had to come up with a definition of how to measure high performers. There’s roughly 1,000 public community colleges in America, and we needed a definition that applies to all of them. So our definition was we ranked institutions by what percentage of their enrollees earn a credential with labor market value. We defined labor market value on average as 45,000, 50,000 bucks a year. Of course, that varies with the cost of living and things like that. But once we had that measure, then we had to get data on all the community colleges.

So we went to the Department of Education. It has a data set called Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) that is gathered from a survey. Every year the community colleges are required to report to the federal government not only how many students are enrolled, but how many of them are earning certificates, associate degrees in each field of study. So we got those data.

Now what we had to do is kind of crosswalk the fields of study to occupations in the labor market, and the Census Bureau and some other places have developed those crosswalks. So then we can learn for every credential, for every certificate or associate degree, on average, which occupations and which occupational earnings does that credential link to in the labor market? So we generated that measure for all of the colleges. Then we simply ranked them.

The excelling colleges were those in the top quarter or third, the top few hundred out of the thousand. The aspiring colleges were often more towards the bottom end of that, you know, the bottom third. And we tried to match up the colleges. You want to compare apples to apples. So we tried to match up, for instance, whether the colleges were in the same state, whether they’re urban or rural, what do their demographics look like in their student body? So you know, you’re really trying to control for those important differences.

And we often found high performers and low performers in any of those baskets with characteristics. You would think that, well, maybe the richer community colleges do all of this better. Well, they don’t, and in every state and in every kind of community — with a lot of low-income people, with a lot of people of color — you still find institutions that do this very well. That’s how we drew our two samples. And then we did a lot of interviews with colleges at the high end and the low end that look similar to each other.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
So interesting…the process that you had to go through in order to do that analysis, and that there’s no obvious pattern in terms of how they cluster. So for the community colleges that do have workforce programs, your first recommendation is to make sure that those programs align with job availability and job quality. And as you know, almost all colleges say that they do this. What did the excelling colleges actually do differently?

Harry J. Holzer
It’s very interesting. You’re exactly right. You ask that question and they all say, yes, we do that. But then you listen to how they describe their activities, and they’re actually quite different. The really successful colleges do a lot more of this kind of work. They put a lot more thought into it, a lot more effort. I’d say they do it with more intentionality at every step along the way. They actively use labor market information data on the regional economies. And again, most places say they do that, but it matters how you do it, you know, how much attention you really pay, how hard you work to make sure that your curricula and your programs line up with the jobs with the most demand and the highest quality jobs.

The employer interactions are really important too, because when you think about it, all data are sort of backwards looking, right? They tell you what’s been going on maybe in the last six months, the last year. But when colleges create their programs quickly, they need to be somewhat forward looking. So they get more of that, I think, from the employers. They try to combine the two sources of information and be responsive, make sure that they’re providing the best quality curricula to meet the economic needs of their region.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
So on this forward-looking perspective, colleges often deploy or form employer advisory boards. What does an effective relationship with employers look like in practice?

Harry J. Holzer
Well, it’s a really important question, because this is another area where virtually all community colleges say they do it, but how they do it really matters. There needs to be frequent and regular meetings with regional employers. There needs to be a really good exchange of information going in both directions to make the partnership. And then I think both sides have to be responsive to the conversation.

So the community colleges have to really actively and regularly look at their programs, look at their curricula. Are they keeping up with new advances in the field and changing employer demands? But the the employers have to bring something to the table, too. You know, best relationships are two-way, and the employers then provide job opportunities, work-based learning opportunities for the colleges that are working really hard to meet what they need.

There’s a few scholars that have done really good work on this. Joe Fuller and Kerry McKittrick of the Project on Workforce at Harvard Business School are very well-known on this. Nichola Lowe at the University of Minnesota has studied the interactions between employers and colleges and which ones seem to be best at meeting the needs of both sides.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
One of issues you looked at is the accountability placed on colleges, and you give an example of outcomes-based funding as an approach that Texas took. Tell us more about that and whether or not it got the behavior or the outcomes that was desired.

Harry J. Holzer
We still don’t know the answer to that question, but let me take a step back. Most states at this point do some kind of outcomes-based or performance-based funding, and that simply means all of the two-year and four-year colleges and universities in the state, which the state subsidizes—that’s what keeps tuition reduced—the amount of money will depend at least partially on some measure of performance, because they want to provide the incentives for the institutions to do things well.

Now, across the states that have some kind of performance-based funding, they do it very differently across states. First of all, some of them only have maybe the last 10% of their funding or the last 20% dependent on performance. Other places like Texas is trying to have 95% of its funding determined by these performance formulas. And of course, the formulas will be different for their four-year universities, state universities versus their community colleges.

If you look across states, some simply reward completion rates — completion of associate degrees, completion of certificates. Other places like Texas will put more weight on the subsequent earnings of the students who attended those places. And again, you’ve got to be in position to get the right kind of data to match that. Some will put weight on the numbers of students who successfully transfer, who get BAs, etc.

Now there is a big downside to this approach. Scholars have been studying public institutional performance for decades and one of the things you learn is that institutions will try to game whatever the rules are, right? So if you tell a college, you know, we’re going to reward you for producing credentials, they will shift students into the easiest credentials to obtain, regardless of whether they have labor market value or value for transfer.

One of the most obvious things places can do is called creaming. They will you let in the better students to make their numbers look better, and the people most in need of good education — lower-income students, first generation, people of color — you will let them in less frequently. By the way, you can construct your measures to take those groups into account, right? You can have one of your criteria be how well do low-income students do. But however you do it, there is that risk of sort of creaming and of gaming the system. So all of this is evolving.

Kevin Dougherty at Columbia was one of the scholars of what some people call the first wave of this stuff in the mid-2010s, and the results were mixed. Again, if you’re gonna reward colleges for doing X, they will figure out a way to do more of X, whether X is the right measure or not. My view is I think accountability matters, but you want to make sure you do it right. Let’s look at how Texas does a few years down the road. Let’s look at other states and how they’re doing, and especially how they’re doing for the lower-income students, as well as meeting employer needs, and then try to adapt.

I don’t think that all of a state’s colleges should be based on a formula like that. I wish Texas well. We’ll see how they do. We’ll also see the institutions that serve minority communities, and low-income people and see how they do. It will be hardest for their numbers to look good. Now, maybe you can control for that, right, as you measure these things, so that those institutions don’t look bad just because they’re trying to help the students who need the help the most.

You probably have to take into account the whole not-for-credit side of the house, where a lot of those students are. And now, as you well know, there’s now Workforce Pell and there’s a whole other conversation about how successful that will be. But again, let’s try these different performance measures, these different kinds of accountability, and see what their impacts are on the outcomes we care about.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
It would be good to track those reforms and see which of the formulas produce the best outcome and the intended outcome. Well, you know, when I was leaving the community college system, I was a big advocate of work-based learning. It’s even more important now when you have a lot of the AI tasks taking many of the entry points for analysts and coordinators and those types of roles that many of us started in. You and I are both big proponents of work-based learning, from internships to apprenticeships to co-ops to practicums. In the world of healthcare it’s called clinicals, which is doing some hours with actual patients and practicing on them. Why does the variety of these work-based learning opportunities matter?

Harry J. Holzer
So when you look at that whole range of work-based learning opportunities, you know, some of them are lengthier than others, some of them are deeper relationships between employers and students. We would expect that the longer and deeper ones, on average, do better, meaning they generate more skilled people, but the truth is that a lot of employers just aren’t ready for that high end of apprenticeships.

For a long time, American employers, much more than, say, those in the EU, were very independent. They like to maintain their degree of freedom. They are skeptical of taking on students, especially those that don’t have college degrees. They’re nervous that they may not perform well. They’re nervous about making big commitments to students or future workers of questionable quality in many cases. They also worry about the cost of doing this. They worry about the regulations, you know, the whole registered apprenticeship process.

Whether those concerns are right or wrong, one can ask. Those risks might be exaggerated by the employer, but that’s where they are, right? So they’re not going to do apprenticeships. They’re going to be nervous about making those kind of commitments, but they might be more open to internships or co-op programs.

So we’ve got to have the whole menu to really try to meet different employers where they are. We don’t want the very best to be the enemy of the good, and presumably, if all of those things are most appropriate for different kinds of employers — you know, smaller employers don’t want to make big commitments, don’t have the resources — then it’s best if you have a menu of options that both sides can choose from. My sense is that that works best, rather than going in and demanding the high end programs.

And by the way, even in terms of apprenticeships, lots of states have unregistered apprenticeship, which means they can skip this kind of lengthy, difficult registration process. I’m not saying I prefer one to the other. I’m not advocating. Again, it’s not bad to have a world where you have both kinds, and states and businesses can choose what they think looks best from their point of view.

I did some work a few years ago at the City Colleges of Chicago. They’re trying to encourage their regional employers to provide these work-based learning options. But I think they were pretty clear that you can’t expect an apprenticeship from everybody, and you’ve got to have other options that may be better suited, especially to the smaller employers in their region.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
So, Harry, for those of our listeners who are from healthcare, what’s your advice to health systems as to what they should take from the insights in your research?

Harry J. Holzer
Well, Van, I know this is your area right now, so you are the expert between the two of us, so I’ll just state it broadly. Healthcare is the highest demand sector in the country, very simply. Healthcare represents nearly a fifth of our economy, and with the aging of the baby boomers, there’s just a big, big need. It’s often very hard for employers in that world — whether they are hospitals or nursing homes or doctors’ offices — to find the talent they need and retain the talent they need. And if they have problems with that, it’s going to affect their bottom line. Not to mention what it does for the economy and the health of American citizens. But it’s economically challenging for a lot of these health and elder care institutions, right? So they want to do it well.

Because if you do it well, it reduces your turnover, it raises your productivity and all those things matter for the institution’s bottom line, whether they’re for-profit or not-for-profit. Both of them care about performance and productivity and employee retention. So I think they have a very strong incentive to do this right. To try to get well-trained people, whether it’s RNs or technicians or CNAs, you know, the whole range from top to bottom, to make sure that people have the appropriate training in all of those areas. It will improve their economic performance. So I think it behooves them to really be very actively involved

Again, the community colleges are the most important institutions for this, not necessarily the only ones, and we’ll probably talk about that in a minute. But it’s important for those healthcare providers to be engaged and to try to do this as best as they can.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
So let’s leave the campus environment for a moment and talk about bigger picture in workforce development. It’s been a few years since you and I were on the board of the National Skills Coalition, where we were bringing the most recent trends and practices to inform the board. I was wondering if there’s any new insights in terms of trends you’re watching or practices that you’re watching that you could share with the audience.

Harry J. Holzer
Sure. Well, so outside of community colleges, I think the two areas are, one, what we just discussed — the whole range of work-based learning options, including tax credits or subsidies for incumbent worker training. That’s one area. The other area is what people call sectoral training. Community colleges do some of that, but outside providers do it too, where different providers really specialize in one sector of the economy, whether it be healthcare or advanced manufacturing or IT or logistics. They learn to do that really well, and they interact a lot with regional employers in those sectors. They find out exactly what the employer really needs, and then they try to provide well-trained students for those employers to fit those slots.

Now, interestingly, when you and I were on that board together, we were starting to hear a lot about sectoral training, and the National Skills Coalition leadership — Andy Van Kleunen and some of the scholars — were getting enthusiastic about them. But we didn’t really have much evidence at the time, so I was always a little bit more, you know, let’s get more information. Now, frankly, we have stronger evidence.

Not all of those approaches perform really well, but there’s a set of very good performers: Per Scholas, which is an IT group, Project QUEST, Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, Jewish Vocational Services, and some others. When they do it well, they do it really well. You can have large bumps in earnings on average for everyone who enrolls. There are 30 to 40 percent earnings bumps that last a decade or more. So it works really well when it works.

However, in all of these approaches, scaling is a challenge, and the other challenge is to maintain quality while you scale. So number one, the really best programs are pretty expensive, because there has to be a lot of support services to get the students through. As we know, life happens for a lot of these students. To finish the programs and be able to focus on their working need, they need a range of supports.

But the other thing is, to be really honest, the very best programs screen a fair number of people out, and it’s not a terrible thing. Look, for the program to be successful, the employers really need to trust the providers and the intermediaries, and they have to, with high confidence, know that they’re not going to be sent really weakly skilled workers, workers with barriers to employment, et cetera. That’s a reasonable concern.

But then, we have a lot of students at community colleges who come either with weaker academic records or they are parents who have to work full time, you know, a lot of challenges. So how do you provide this really good training to a lot of them at an acceptable cost, without reducing the quality? That’s really hard.

With the best of those programs that I just mentioned, there are a couple of factors to mention. First of all, like for people in IT, the very best providers will say, at a minimum, my students have to be doing math and reading at a tenth-grade level, right? Otherwise they just can’t handle the technical material and it’s not going to work. They have to keep the confidence of the employers, and they have to also be able to keep up with fields like IT that change rapidly.

So it’s challenging, but I think the very best performers are all experimenting with different models for scaling. Like Per Scholas is a great outfit. They have now twenty or thirty sites around the country trying to see if they can replicate their best success. But they’re also starting to work with other training providers. They’re trying to provide like a module of practice. And they say, if you plug in this model into your organization, how well does that work? So they’re trying to do that, and we’ll have to evaluate the results. So it’s an important thing to do, but it’s challenging.

I’d say the same thing about apprenticeships. You know, the fact is that a lot of employers are very reluctant to invest a lot of time and resources into people whom they fear might not be very good, might not stick around for very long, might not be able to pass a drug test, etc. So how do you get the people who really need the apprenticeships into those areas? Well, there’s a whole thing about pre-apprentice programs to try to prepare people for the more rigorous programs, to improve their basic cognitive skills, but also their work readiness in various ways. Do they work? Are they worth a lot of resources? We’re not sure yet. It’s certainly worth making the effort and then evaluating.

So that’s what I see outside of the community colleges: the sectoral training programs, the range of work-based learning. There’s exciting stuff. There’s concerns about scaling, so let’s just keep working at it and seeing what we can do.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
I’m glad you mentioned Per Scholas. We’ve had the CEO, Caitlyn Brazill, on the podcast previously. In a way, your point about sectoral training programs ties back to one of our earlier questions, which is the higher performance of the technical colleges. They’re able to produce better outcomes specific to workforce programs and sectoral training because they’re very focused.

Harry J. Holzer
That’s right.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
They’re getting similar results, right? So maybe that’s an argument for focus versus having many things on your plate.

You’re currently working on a book on state workforce policy. I know what’s on everybody’s mind, which is AI and the impact on higher education and the workforce, the current workforce that’s out there and the coming-up workforce. I wonder, if you were in the policymaker’s seat, what one thing would you be thinking about that ties into AI and the policy considerations as it’s coming forth?

Harry J. Holzer
Well, AI will likely be the biggest challenge that we face in the next, I don’t know, decade or two. It will be a challenge for workers to keep their skills up to date, but it’s a big challenge for the community colleges and the other training providers. They’re terrified that the training they’re providing to their students right now might be obsolete within a few years. We don’t know that it will, but they fear it, and especially once AI becomes something they call recursively self-improving, which means the AI will update itself quite frequently.

You know, people have been worrying about automation for 200 years, going back to the Luddites in Britain. The Luddites were always wrong, right? Because yeah, you’d have a form of automation, but the automation reduced costs, raised productivity, brought prices down, and that always generated new demand. So once workers got a new skill set to adapt to that new demand, they’d be fine. And for 200 years that’s happened. I think the big fear with AI is that, again, workers can invest in an adaptation, in learning a new skill, and that could become obsolete in a year or two.
We’ve never faced this likelihood of tasks that are constantly evolving, and automation that’s improving itself. We don’t know how employers are going to restructure their workplaces, as they likely will. The last evidence we have is from the digital revolution in the ’80s and ’90s, and robotics. We have some sense how it played out. We know the combination of automation and imports really hurt some regions of the country, like the industrial Midwest.

We don’t know how employers are going to handle this, and it’s not realistic to think that community colleges can simply every semester or every year completely redo their curricula. I mean, that would just impose huge burdens. So we’re groping towards a process where colleges can interact very frequently with their employers, get a sense of what’s coming down the pike in the next few years, and adapt in a reasonable way as best they can.

I’ve mentioned Joe Fuller and Kerry McKittrick of the Project on Workforce at Harvard. Just in the last month or two, they wrote a very nice short paper, a policy brief, trying to tell the community colleges at least how to prepare for this world. What kinds of data do they have to collect — both from the employer side of the market, but also from the student side of their institutions — and monitor those carefully. What kinds of processes do they have to create to be reviewing their curricula regularly with some eye for what’s gonna be happening in the next three, five years.

When I go to a meeting with community college vice presidents for workforce, they’re all wrestling with this. They want to do this well. You know, they’re really committed. They know it’s going to be challenging. So that’s what we have to learn how to do best.

You mentioned I’m writing this book on state workforce policy. States will have a role to play in all of this in terms of providing resources and helping the institutions. There is this project at the Lumina Foundation called Future Ready States. It’s run from a former colleague of ours from the National Skills Coalition, Kermit Kaleba. It’s a really interesting project. He’s working with about a dozen states to help them first and foremost define the credentials of value, get the right data that you need to measure that — including data on the not-for-credit side, which a lot of states don’t even collect yet — and then use the data and use the analysis to really try to upgrade their programs, but then make their programs resilient in the face of all these coming automation challenges. So I think it’s a very important area.

And of course, the other thing – which I see up close from my vantage point here in Washington, DC – is the federal government’s a little bit dysfunctional right now. The polarization is terrible, and they have piled up terrible debts, so the notion that you’re gonna get big injections of new resources from the federal government is unlikely. The states are gonna have to step up. The states traditionally have been our laboratories of democracy, and they have to balance their budgets every year, and they have a more practical orientation. So I look to the states.

There’s another organization I’d like to mention if I can. Gina Raimondo, who’s the former Secretary of Commerce, has started a nonprofit called Raise Us, where she’s trying to experiment with and support evaluations of a lot of state-level training programs, including the ones that are going to try to respond rapidly to AI deployment and AI self-improvement. I think that’s an important effort as well.

So I’m really pleased to see these nonprofits stepping up, trying to help the states and help the institutions do this as best as they can.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
So let’s wrap up by giving you the last word here on what makes you optimistic on the future of higher education.

Harry J. Holzer
Well, it’s easy to criticize — and I’ve been guilty of criticizing sometimes just because you see data that don’t look so great to you — but then you meet the people who dedicate their lives to these institutions, the community colleges, the sectoral programs. They could have made a lot more money in the private sector, but they are dedicated to improving their institutions.

We ask so much of our community colleges. They have to wear so many hats, as you know better than I do, and respond to so many needs in their communities, in their regional economies. The people you meet, they’re dedicated, with very limited resources to do this, to really work hard to meet all the challenges. It does give you hope when you meet these people and you realize how hard they’re working, how good they are, and they likely do this better than I could.

So it does give you some hope that, as much as we face these challenges — from AI and from baby boomer retirements and other things — you have people are that are gonna step up to the challenge. You’ve seen these examples of success in the best sectoral programs, in the excelling community colleges, and you have a sense that other places can learn from them and can replicate at least some of their success.

Now, again, their circumstances might be different. They might face other financial challenges or other things, but that they can learn, and you just get the sense they want to learn and they want to do better. I guess that’s what gives me the most hope when I look at these training providers.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
Dr. Holzer, it was a pleasure to revisit with you today. Thanks for spending the time with our listeners.

Harry J. Holzer
Thank you for having me on, Van. It’s always nice to chat with you, and I look forward to more opportunities to interact with you on these issues.

Van Ton-Quinlivan
I’m Van Ton-Quinlivan with Futuro Health. Thanks for checking out this episode of WorkforceRx. I hope you’ll join us again as we continue to explore how to create a future-focused workforce in the nation.