The issue isn't whether our systems have value. The issue is whether the outcomes we're getting are aligned with the priorities we say we have.

Finding Balance

I recently had a conversation with my former high school counselor, and it was a conversation that you often hear among people who work in education or who have spent enough time navigating educational systems.

Why do we still do certain things the way we do them?

Not because they're bad.

Not because they were created with bad intentions.

But because many of the systems we rely on today were built decades ago to solve problems that existed decades ago.

When you look at teacher shortages, workforce shortages, rising student debt, and the increasing cost of higher education, it's a fair question.

Because the issue isn't whether these systems have value.

The issue is whether the outcomes we're getting are aligned with the priorities we say we have.

What Are We Trying to Accomplish?

Most people would probably agree on a few things.

We want strong schools.

We want students prepared for successful careers.

We want thriving local businesses.

We want affordable housing.

We want economic opportunity.

We want communities where people can build stable, meaningful lives.

The disagreement usually isn't about the goal.

The disagreement is about whether the systems we've built are helping us get there.

If we need more teachers, are we making it easier or harder to become one?

If we need more entrepreneurs, are we creating pathways that encourage innovation and risk-taking, or are we creating barriers that delay them?

If we need more skilled workers, are we focused on developing talent, or are we focused on preserving processes?

These aren't questions about intent.

They're questions about outcomes.

The Difference Between Value and Effectiveness

One of the mistakes we often make in public policy is assuming that because something has value, it must also be effective.

Higher education has value.

Professional development has value.

Certification requirements have value.

Workforce development has value.

Economic development has value.

The question is not whether these things matter.

The question is whether they are structured in ways that produce the results we say we want.

For example, if a student wants to become a teacher, they may spend four years earning a degree, complete an unpaid student teaching experience, pass certification requirements, and often accumulate debt before entering a profession that many states openly acknowledge is facing staffing shortages.

If a young adult wants to start a business, student debt may delay homeownership, limit financial flexibility, and make entrepreneurship a greater risk.

If communities need more workers, more teachers, more healthcare professionals, and more small business owners, it is reasonable to ask whether the pathways we have built are helping us achieve those goals.

Not whether they have value.

Whether they are effective.

Following the Money

One of the most revealing things about education policy, workforce development, economic development, and state budgets is that priorities eventually reveal themselves.

Not through speeches.

Not through mission statements.

Through investments.

Every budget is a series of decisions.

Every grant program is a decision.

Every requirement is a decision.

Every dollar allocated toward one priority is a dollar that cannot be allocated somewhere else.

That doesn't mean the decision is wrong.

But it does mean the decision should be evaluated.

If we say teacher shortages are a concern, are we investing in solutions that increase the number of qualified teachers?

If we say workforce development is a priority, are we reducing barriers to employment and career advancement?

If we say entrepreneurship matters, are we helping people build businesses, or are we making it more difficult for them to take that first step?

The point isn't to eliminate systems.

The point is to ensure that our investments are producing the outcomes we claim to value.

The Cost of Standing Still

Every system has an opportunity cost.

Every requirement has an opportunity cost.

Every process has an opportunity cost.

When resources are limited, maintaining something that no longer produces meaningful results carries a cost just as surely as creating something new.

Imagine if we regularly evaluated systems using a simple question:

Does this help us achieve the outcome it was designed to achieve?

If the answer is yes, strengthen it.

If the answer is no, improve it.

If we don't know, find out.

That sounds obvious.

Yet many public conversations focus more on preserving systems than evaluating results.

Realigning With Our Current Priorities

The systems we inherited were created by people trying to solve the challenges of their time.

Many of those systems continue to provide tremendous value.

But circumstances change.

Technology changes.

Communities change.

Work changes.

The economy changes.

The question is not whether institutions should exist.

The question is whether they continue to evolve alongside the people they are meant to serve.

If our priorities today are stronger schools, greater opportunity, economic mobility, workforce participation, entrepreneurship, and thriving communities, then our systems should be evaluated against those outcomes.

Not against tradition.

Not against habit.

And not against the assumption that because something has always existed, it must always remain the same.

Final Thought

The conversation about education often focuses on funding.

The conversation about economic development often focuses on investment.

The conversation about workforce development often focuses on training.

Those conversations matter.

But before we discuss how much we are spending, we should be willing to ask a more important question:

Are the outcomes we're getting aligned with the priorities we say we have?

Because progress is not measured by how much money moves through a system.

Progress is measured by whether that system helps people build better lives.

And that is a question worth asking.

In Pursuit of Better Outcomes,

Lyndsay LaBrier

The Education Catalyst

Merchant Ship Collective

Resources

Missouri Department of Economic Development. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).

Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Missouri 2030 Strategic Plan.

Missouri Office of the Governor. FY2027 Budget and Legislative Priorities.

Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. Workforce and Postsecondary Data Reports.

National Center for Education Statistics. Postsecondary Enrollment and Student Debt Data.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Projections and Workforce Participation Data.

Disclaimer

The Education Catalyst is intended to encourage thoughtful discussion about education, policy, workforce development, and the systems that shape our communities. The opinions expressed are my own and are based on publicly available information, research, and analysis. Readers are encouraged to review source materials, consider multiple perspectives, and draw their own conclusions.