Refers to a work environment that actively supports and values employees of all ages, ensuring equal opportunities and preventing age-related bias.

According to the World Health Organization, ageism refers to the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel), and discrimination (how we act) towards others or oneself based on age. While ageism can affect individuals of any age, it is most commonly associated with older adults. It can manifest in subtle biases or overt discriminatory practices and has significant negative impacts on individuals and society in the learn-and-work ecosystem.

Belonging is a student’s perception that they are accepted, supported, and valued as a full member of the academic community, and that they have legitimate pathways to participate and succeed. Students receive signals—formal and informal—that their experiences, identities, and contributions matter.

A strong sense of belonging is associated with higher levels of academic engagement, persistence, well-being, and degree completion, particularly for students from historically underrepresented or nontraditional backgrounds. Across multiple decades of research, findings show that belonging can:

• Improve retention and persistence, especially in the first year of college.
• Buffer against imposter syndrome.
• Strengthen academic motivation and behavior to seek help.
• Enhance mental health and resilience.
• Act as the bridge between support structures and actual student outcomes: services exist, but belonging determines whether students use them.
• Have a particular impact for first-generation students, adult learners, students of color, part-time students, and commuters.

Ways higher education can foster belonging include:

• Faculty and Staff Practices
  • Use inclusive pedagogy (transparent assignments, flexible pathways, varied participation modes)
  • Learn and use students’ names and preferred forms of address
  • Normalize struggle and growth in academic spaces
  • Embed belonging-affirming messages in syllabi and coursework
• Early and Continuous Touchpoints
  • First-year seminars and onboarding that emphasize “you belong here” rather than just compliance
  • Proactive advising and check-ins before problems escalate
  • Early alert systems paired with human follow-up, not just automated flags
• Structured Peer Connection
  • Use of cohort models, learning communities, or guided study groups
  • Peer mentoring that includes adult learners and commuters
  • Intentional design for hybrid and online students, not afterthoughts for these student groups
• Campus Climate and Systems Design
  • Clear, consistent communication across offices
  • Curricula that reflect diverse perspectives and lived experiences
  • Institutional storytelling that highlights multiple definitions of success
  • Simplified processes that reduce friction and stigma
  • Policies that assume students want to succeed (e.g., flexible attendance, compassionate leave)
  • Short, research-backed interventions that reinforce:
    • “People like me succeed here”
    • “Struggle is normal and temporary”
    • “Asking for help is a sign of engagement, not weakness”

Civic Education Centers are academic units or programs within colleges and universities that emphasize the study of Western intellectual traditions, classical texts, civic philosophy, and foundational concepts in political and moral thought. These centers typically focus on curriculum in history, philosophy, literature, and civics, often through reading-based seminars and interdisciplinary coursework.

In recent years, several public universities in the United States have established such centers through state funding or governing-board initiatives. Their stated purposes commonly include strengthening civic literacy, encouraging debate on foundational ideas, and broadening perspectives in undergraduate education. Governance structures, faculty hiring practices, and curricular roles vary across institutions.

Refers to the gap between individuals, communities, or organizations that have access to reliable digital technologies—such as the internet, computers, and digital skills—and those who do not. This divide can be shaped by factors such as income, geography, education, infrastructure, and age. It influences people’s ability to fully participate in learning, work, and civic life, often reinforcing existing social and economic inequalities.

Refers to efforts within the philanthropic sector to promote inclusion, rights, and justice for people with disabilities.

Examples of direct service organizations:

• The Arc is a community-based organization that serves people in the U.S. with disabilities.  They work with over 100 diagnosed disabilities, provide residential housing and support, family support, education and individual advocacy, and employment and referral services.
• Parents Helping Parents is a nonprofit agency that provides information, support, and training for families with special needs children. They specialize in children with special needs and different disabilities, including children with disabilities and children diagnosed with cancer and other major illnesses.
• Friendship Circle serves children with disabilities and specializes in cultivating volunteerism among teenagers with disabilities.
• Special Olympics helps people with disabilities discover new skills, abilities, strengths and success through sports.
• United Cerebral Palsy works with people who have different disabilities. They use an affiliate network throughout the U.S.  to connect families and individuals for empowerment. Services include employment support, family support, advocacies, health and wellness education, housing support, and financial assistance.
• Birth Injury Justice Center is an online resource for those affected by birth injuries, cerebral palsy, brain injuries, Erb’s palsy or other disabilities. Services include guidance to help families and children get the assistance needed to help improve their overall quality of life. 

Examples of foundations that support disability-related initiatives through grants:

• Abilis Foundation
• Disability Rights Fund and Disability Rights Advocacy Fund
• Ford Foundation
• National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR)

In the learn-and-work ecosystem, a three-part framework used to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially groups historically underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, etc.

• Diversity: the representation of people from a variety of at all levels in an organization, including the leadership level.
• Equity: fairness and justice, especially related to whether people are being paid or treated fairly in the workforce.
• Inclusion: the feeling of belonging, feeling heard or valued in an organization.

See MEI – MEI / DEI | Learn & Work Ecosystem Library

A new approach to hiring and workplace diversity is gaining traction across corporate America, challenging DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives. The emerging movement advocates for MEI (merit, excellence, and intelligence), which emphasizes selecting candidates for jobs based solely on their qualifications, abilities, and intelligence. Proponents argue that MEI offers a more equitable and effective method for building high-performing teams, moving away from demographic considerations to focus exclusively on individual merit.

These are voluntary, employee-led groups that bring together individuals with shared identities, interests, or experiences within an organization such as a company. While often rooted in cultural or demographic commonalities (such as race, gender, LGBTQ+ identity, veterans, or working parents), ERGs/BRGs are typically cross-functional and open to all employees, fostering inclusion and community across departments.

In addition to supporting diversity and belonging, ERGs/BRGs can serve a talent management function in organizations—helping attract, develop, and retain talent; inform inclusive product or service design; and identify high-potential employees for leadership pipelines.

While ERGs/BRGs are a widely adopted practice, they are not always defined identically across organizations. Here are examples of several sources that discuss ERGs / BRGs:

• Catalyst (2021) – Employee Resource Groups (ERGs)
  • https://www.catalyst.org/topics/employee-resource-groups-ergs/
  • Describes ERGs as voluntary, employee-led groups that foster inclusive workplace cultures and support talent development
• Harvard Business Review (2019) – Thomas, D.A., & Creary, S.J. Having a Strong ERG Isn’t Enough
  • https://hbr.org/2019/10/having-a-strong-erg-isnt-enough
  • Discusses need to integrate ERGs into corporate strategy and leadership development to drive impact
• McKinsey & Company (2020) – How employee resource groups can drive inclusion and performance
  • https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/how-employee-resource-groups-can-drive-inclusion-and-performance
  • Discusses how ERGs contribute to performance, belonging, and leadership pipelines
• Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) – Employee Resource Groups: An Introduction
  • https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/employeeresourcegroups.aspx
  • Outlines role of ERGs in fostering workplace belonging, supporting HR goals, and aligning with business strategies

Governor Executive Orders are formal directives issued by the governor of a U.S. state to direct the operations of state government. These orders carry the force of law unless overturned by legislation or judicial review. While they do not require legislative approval, they must conform to the state constitution and statutes and can be challenged in court or overridden by legislation. These orders can establish policies, create commissions or task forces, mandate interagency coordination, allocate emergency resources, or implement legislative mandates.

Governor Executive Orders differ from Federal Executive Orders in that they are issued by state governors and apply only within their respective states. These orders address state-specific issues, including workforce development, education, and economic policies, often aligning with federal initiatives but tailored to local needs.

Executive orders trace back to colonial governors and have gained formal recognition through evolving state constitutions. Traditionally used for emergency management or routine administrative actions, they have increasingly become instruments of strategic policymaking. In the 21st century—especially since 2020—their use has expanded significantly in areas such as workforce readiness, education reform, and digital infrastructure.

In the learn-and-work ecosystem, governors may use executive orders to launch statewide skills initiatives, create task forces, mandate cross-agency collaboration, and/or prioritize workforce development efforts. Executive orders can fast-track actions in areas like credential transparency, apprenticeship expansion, and digital learning records.

See Topic: Governor Executive Orders in the Learn-And-Work Ecosystem | Learn & Work Ecosystem Library

Refers to a movement that has gained popularity recently, in which universities by policy do not comment on current affairs that do not affect their direct interests. The genesis of institutional neutrality is credited to a 1967 University of Chicago report, which posited that institutions must remain neutral to be a home to a diversity of views. The premise of this approach is that institutions could undermine their commitment to open inquiry by suggesting that those who disagree are unwelcome, and that would-be dissenters believe voicing disagreement could jeopardize college admission, grades, or advancement.

While decisions about institutional neutrality are often up to university administrations (e.g., presidents and chancellors), state lawmakers are increasingly mandating such policies. In 2024, seven state legislatures introduced bills to require institutional neutrality.  Three of those became laws, in Indiana, Iowa and Utah.

There are also questions raised about the role of institution’s department heads and faculty in commenting on current affairs, even if their campus administrations do not (or cannot).  This is generally viewed as a free speech issue: department heads and faculty can speak as individuals but not represent the official views of the institution.

Many disagree with policies of institutional neutrality, based on the belief that this could be an abdication of leadership.

Institutional neutrality policies may differ for institutions with unique missions, such as service academies or religiously affiliated universities.

Integrated majors combine two existing higher education majors (degrees) into one. The aim is typically to increase diversity and skill sets that are well-suited to 21st century workforce needs. Many integrated majors combine computer science with another major. Examples of integrated majors: computer science and English, design and psychology, and journalism and sociology.

Drivers of this movement:

• In every industry and academic discipline, there are increasingly computer science roles and opportunities—every field needs people who can understand the discipline and also know how to create the software and tools needed for a digital world.
• Combined majors may encourage students who might not be otherwise interested in computer science—and especially those who are underrepresented in the field, including women and Black and Hispanic students—to consider studying it.

The development of combined curricula has developed at many higher education institutions from faculty members—and collaboration with local employers weighing in on which programs proposed by faculty might meet the area’s workforce needs.

Refers to individuals who come to the United States from other countries to pursue higher education at American colleges and universities. These students typically hold non-immigrant visas, such as F-1 visas for academic studies, and contribute to the cultural and intellectual diversity of U.S. campuses. International students comprise more than 5% of all students in higher education, and about 20% of students at the graduate level.  Enrollment of international students has decreased in recent years, in part as a result of federal administrative policy changes that make it more difficult for international students to come to the U.S.; and as universities in other nations attract more international students.

Related Term: Foreign Nationals, defined by ed.gov as “citizens of countries other than those in which they reside”

A new approach to hiring and workplace diversity is gaining traction across corporate America, challenging DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives. The emerging movement advocates for MEI (merit, excellence, and intelligence), which emphasizes selecting candidates for jobs based solely on their qualifications, abilities, and intelligence. Proponents argue that MEI offers a more equitable and effective method for building high-performing teams, moving away from demographic considerations to focus exclusively on individual merit.

Eight competencies for career readiness:

1. Career & Self-Development: Proactively develop oneself and one’s career through continual personal and professional learning, awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, navigation of career opportunities, and networking to build relationships within and without one’s organization.
2. Communication: Clearly and effectively exchange information, ideas, facts, and perspectives with persons inside and outside of an organization.
3. Critical Thinking: Identify and respond to needs based upon an understanding of situational context and logical analysis of relevant information.
4. Equity & Inclusion: Demonstrate the awareness, attitude, knowledge, and skills required to equitably engage and include people from different local and global cultures. Engage in anti-oppressive practices that actively challenge the systems, structures, and policies of racism and inequity.
5. Leadership: Recognize and capitalize on personal and team strengths to achieve organizational goals.
6. Professionalism: Knowing work environments differ greatly, understand and demonstrate effective work habits, and act in the interest of the larger community and workplace.
7. Teamwork: Build and maintain collaborative relationships to work effectively toward common goals, while appreciating diverse viewpoints and shared responsibilities.
8. Technology: Understand and leverage technologies ethically to enhance efficiencies, complete tasks, and accomplish goals.

A higher education institution recognized under the Carnegie Classifications for Student Access and Earnings, developed in collaboration with the American Council on Education (ACE). Institutions earning this designation must meet two core criteria:

• High Student Access – Demonstrated success in enrolling and supporting students from underrepresented, low-income, first-generation, or historically marginalized backgrounds.
• High Graduate Earnings – Evidence that graduates achieve strong post-graduation income, indicative of economic mobility and return on investment.

Institutions earning the OCU label are thus designated for balancing equitable access with meaningful economic outcomes for students.

Examples of U.S. Institutions with the OCU designation:

• Lamar University (Beaumont, Texas)
• University of Texas System Institutions – Five UT System campuses are designated OCUs: UT Arlington; UT El Paso; UT Tyler; UT Rio Grande Valley (UT RGV); UT San Antonio
• Germanna Community College (Virginia)
• Morehouse College (Atlanta, GA)
• St. Thomas University (Miami Gardens, FL)
• Albion College (Albion, MI)
• Ball State University (Muncie, IN)
• Ferris State University (Big Rapids, MI)
• Western Governors University (Salt Lake City, UT)
• New Mexico Military Institute (Roswell, NM)
• Mercy College of Health Sciences (Des Moines, IA)
• Otis College of Art and Design (Los Angeles, CA)

Refers to young people, typically ages 16–24, who are neither enrolled in school nor participating in the workforce. The term emphasizes potential rather than deficit, framing these young people not as “dropouts” or “disconnected,” but as individuals with untapped talent who require pathways back into education, training, employment, and civic participation.

The term began gaining widespread use in the late 2000s and early 2010s. It emerged as a strengths-based alternative to earlier labels such as “disconnected youth,” “idle youth,” “status offenders,” or “at-risk youth.” While these earlier terms focused on deficit or risk, opportunity youth reflect a policy and practice shift toward reconnection, systems alignment, and long-term economic mobility.

Recent estimates suggest that approximately 5–6 million young people in the United States fall into this category at any given time. This population spans race, geography, and socioeconomic background, though rates of disconnection are often higher among young people from low-income communities, youth aging out of foster care, young parents, justice-involved youth, and those without access to stable transportation, childcare, or digital connectivity.

The condition of disconnection reflects absence from two primary launching institutions of adulthood: Education systems (secondary, postsecondary, or credentialing programs), and Employment systems (formal labor market participation). Because of this dual absence, opportunity youth sit at the intersection of the education-to-work pipeline, workforce development policy, and social services systems.

Efforts to reconnect opportunity youth often involve:

• Career and technical education (CTE) pathways
• Apprenticeships and work-based learning
• Short-term credential programs
• Wraparound support services (mentoring, childcare, transportation, mental health support)
• Reengagement centers and alternative education models
• Youth employment and summer job initiatives

Federal and state policies tied to workforce development (e.g., under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act), education funding, and community-based partnerships frequently target this population.

A recent report by American Enterprise Institute titled “Reconnecting Opportunity Youth to Work and a Future,” argues that the scale and persistence of youth disconnection require more coordinated, systemic solutions rather than fragmented programmatic responses.

A related term is opportunity population, a broader strategic framing term  often used in workforce and  policy discussions to describe multiple groups with underutilized potential due to systemic barriers to education or employment.  This population may include multiple groups facing structural barriers to education or employment, such as:

• Opportunity youth
• Justice-involved individuals
• Veterans transitioning to civilian work
• Individuals with disabilities
• Long-term unemployed adults
• Displaced workers
• Returning caregivers
• Immigrants or refugees (depending on context)

The exact definition varies by organization; it is generally less standardized than “opportunity youth.”

The difference between opportunity youth and opportunity population is that opportunity youth refer to:

• A specific demographic subgroup.
• Typically refers to individuals ages 16–24.
• Defined by a status condition: not enrolled in education and not participating in the workforce.
• Widely used in youth policy, workforce development, and education reform.
• Has a fairly standardized meaning across research and policy communities.

Higher education value metrics that indicate how well institutions across the U.S. are delivering economic returns to their students. Developed by Third Way, the Price-to-Earnings Premium (PEP) and Economic Mobility Index metrics assess the extent to which institutions are preparing students to recoup their educational costs quickly—or leaving them worse off than if they had never attended.

The PEP measures the value that higher education institutions provide their students by looking at the net price the average student pays out-of-pocket to obtain an academic credential relative to the additional amount they earn by attending that institution in the first place. A PEP value is also constructed for low-income students, which identifies the time it takes students whose household income was $30,000 or less to recoup their educational costs. This provides information about how this population is faring in higher education.

Using data from the College Scorecard, the  PEP calculates the ratio of the institution’s total average net price to the graduate’s expected earnings premium from attending that institution. The total average net price of the bachelor’s degree (assuming 4 years of tuition) is computed for the difference between the median earnings of a former student from that college 10 years after initial enrollment and the median earnings of a high school diploma holder in the same state as the institution.

A low PEP value indicates it takes students fewer years to recoup the net cost of the degree. A  higher PEP indicates the institution saddles students with high tuition, fails to deliver a strong earnings premium, or both.

The PEP for low-income students is calculated using the same formula with adjusted College Scorecard variables for students in the lowest income tercile. Low-income students are defined as those whose families make $30,000 or less when they enroll in college.

The acronym was introduced in 2001 by scientific administrators at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to refer to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. STEM is critical for many reasons, including problem-solving and critical thinking, innovation, career opportunities, and equality and diversity.

The NSF has emphasized the need for students to immerse in these areas at a young age, setting them up for success in STEM-related careers. The federal government further emphasizes the importance of STEM education in grades K-12, investing significant funds each year to improve these programs and prepare students for critical careers in STEM fields.

Woke has evolved to mean awareness of discrimination and progressive social and political ideas that promote diversity, inclusion, and liberal values.

Anti-woke refers to a movement that opposes progressive social and political ideas, especially those that promote diversity, inclusion, and liberal values.  Proponents of the anti-woke movement claim that learning about or seeing marginalized groups will negatively impact society.

In the United States, changing public and political views regarding diversity-focused initiatives have increasingly influenced higher education policy. Several states have enacted legislation or governing-board policies that revise how public colleges and universities may address topics related to race, identity, inclusion programs, and campus activism. These actions include restrictions on funding for diversity-related offices or programming, limits on certain classroom content or training activities, revised general education curricula, and new regulations governing student protests and guest speakers.

At the same time, some states have promoted new academic units emphasizing civic education, Western intellectual traditions, or classical curricula. These developments reflect broader debates about the role of public universities, academic freedom, institutional governance, and the balance between state oversight and campus autonomy. Because public higher education systems are shaped by state law and governing boards, policy changes in one state can influence approaches adopted in others.

An informal term used in media and workforce analysis to describe a labor market in which employment growth is increasingly concentrated in sectors and occupations where women make up a majority of workers. These sectors often include health care, education, and service-related roles.

For example, recent U.S. labor market data (2025–2026) show that, for only the third time on record, women slightly outnumber men in total employment. This shift is being driven less by rapid gains in women’s employment alone and more by structural changes in the economy: strong job growth in female-dominated sectors such as health care, combined with flat or declining employment in traditionally male-dominated fields like construction and manufacturing. At the same time, male labor force participation has declined, influenced by a range of factors including demographic changes and immigration policy shifts. Together, these dynamics are contributing to a labor market in which women represent a growing share of workers overall.

The dynamics described as a “women’s economy” reflect longer-term structural patterns rather than a sudden transformation. These include:

• Sectoral shifts in the economy: Over several decades, employment growth has moved toward service-oriented sectors—particularly health care and education—where women have historically been overrepresented.
• Educational attainment trends: Women have surpassed men in college completion rates in the U.S., positioning them more strongly for roles in expanding knowledge and service sectors.
• Occupational segregation: Persistent cultural norms and career pathways continue to channel men and women into different occupations, reinforcing gender concentration across sectors.
• Labor force participation patterns: Male participation has gradually declined over time, while women’s participation increased significantly in the late 20th century and has remained relatively stable, with fluctuations during economic shocks.
• Economic restructuring and shocks: Periods such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic have reshaped employment differently across sectors, sometimes accelerating shifts toward female-dominated occupations.

While an increase in women’s share of employment may appear to signal progress, it does not necessarily indicate improved economic equity. Many female-dominated occupations continue to be lower-paying on average than male-dominated ones. As a result, shifts toward a “women’s economy” may coincide with broader wage pressures or changes in job quality across the labor market. The concept also highlights ongoing cultural and structural barriers that influence occupational choice, including the limited movement of men into care-related professions.

Emerging artificial intelligence technologies may reinforce some of the dynamics associated with a “women’s economy.” Occupations with high levels of human interaction—such as health care, education, and social services—are less susceptible to full automation and are expected to continue growing, while some routine or physically intensive roles in male-dominated sectors face greater automation risk. At the same time, AI is increasingly embedded within care-related work, augmenting rather than replacing human labor. This contributes to the rise of a “machine–human workforce,” where technology supports but does not substitute for human-centered roles. However, the expansion of AI-related technical occupations, which remain male-dominated, does not necessarily offset broader patterns of occupational segregation.

Note: “Women’s economy” is not a standardized economic term. It is best understood as a descriptive framing of broader concepts such as gendered labor markets, occupational segregation, and the growth of the care economy.