Student participation in career and technical education (CTE) has grown significantly in recent years, backed by bipartisan support and increased state investment. While the benefits of CTE programs for students, families, and the economy are well established, less is known about the professional backgrounds of CTE teachers and the financial losses or gains they incur when moving from industry to the classroom. A new working paper from CALDER builds on prior research to examine where CTE teachers come from, and how their earnings change after entering teaching.
The study relies on data from Washington state, where all high school students are required to complete at least one CTE credit to graduate. Industry professionals in the state can enter CTE teaching through one of two routes: (1) the Business and Industry (B & I) Pathway, which requires at least 6,000 hours of relevant work experience and participation in a CTE teacher training program, or (2) traditional CTE licensure, which requires a bachelor’s degree in teaching and a minimum of 45 quarter hours (approximately 30 credits) in a specific CTE subject area.
The research team linked statewide public-school records (2011–19) to unemployment insurance data (2010–23) to reveal teacher entry patterns, credentials, pre-service industries, and earnings. They grouped prior jobs into eight industry clusters and constructed three analytic samples: a one-year sample (n = 1,634), a three-year sample (n = 1,144), and a five-year sample (n = 759), depending on how many years of pre-service data were available. Teachers with no recorded pre-service employment (n = 314) were excluded from the samples.
The study yields several findings of note. First, the B & I pathway was twice as common as the university route, and two-thirds of teachers with no recorded pre-service employment entered through B & I, likely drawing on self-employment or unpaid experience. Three years before entering teaching, 54 percent had recorded earnings in Washington’s unemployment insurance system, with employment rates steadily rising as they approached entry. Because out-of-state, self-employed, and off-the-books work are not capture in the data, these rates likely understate actual pre-service employment.
Despite diverse industry backgrounds, alignment between pre-service employment and teaching assignment was low: only 28 percent of B & I teachers and 19 percent of university-route teachers taught in the same cluster they came from. Alignment was highest in agriculture (71 percent), digital technology (46 percent), and healthcare (43 percent), and lowest in financial services (9 percent) and education (11 percent). Notably, only 1 percent of teachers came from the agriculture, energy, and natural resources cluster, and just 7 percent from digital technology, management, and marketing—two sectors with high student demand—while 39 percent came from the education cluster (e.g., education roles outside of CTE teaching).
Next, nearly all CTE teachers experienced increased earnings upon entering teaching, except those coming from digital technology (who saw a $12,000 drop though the marginal effect is not statistically significant). On average, teachers earned $15,000 more per year, even after adjusting for hours worked, as the average hourly wage rose from $23.62 to $28.89. The size of the increase depended on the teacher’s prior industry: teachers coming from higher-paying fields saw smaller increases, with each additional $1 in their pre-service hourly wage linked to about 51 cents less in added pay after entering teaching.
Lastly, both traditionally certified and B & I teachers saw pay increases, but gains were much larger for those from the university pathway ($21,208 versus $10,409). The pay increases were consistent across most industries, with particularly large bumps for B & I teachers coming from lower-paying fields like hospitality. Despite more varied and often higher pre-service pay among B & I teachers, both those who entered through the university pathway and B & I ended up with similar first-year teaching salaries in terms of distribution and median values, reflecting the homogeneity of teacher compensation compared to industry employment.
The study helps to fill long-standing gaps in the literature and highlights a pressing mismatch between where CTE teachers are coming from and the industries where they are most needed. Notably, although agriculture is one of Washington’s largest industries, only 1 percent of CTE teachers come from that sector. Where shortages exist, districts and industry leaders should strengthen recruitment partnerships, streamline certification pathways, and promote teaching as a viable and rewarding career path. Given the consistent earnings boost experienced across nearly all industries, research like this can help inform and attract the next generation of CTE educators in high-need areas at a time when staffing shortages threaten the growth of these valuable programs.
SOURCE: Elise Dizon-Ross, Grace Falken, Dan Goldhaber, Patrick Lavallee Delgado, and Roddy Theobald, “The Front End of the CTE Teacher Pipeline: Characterizing the Prior Work Experiences of CTE Teachers,” CALDER (July 2025).
