Career and technical education (CTE) classes enable students to learn skills and obtain certifications in high-demand industries such as information technology, healthcare, engineering, or manufacturing. Recently, many states have adopted legislation that facilitates easier access to CTE pathways and career exposure in high school. These advancements may require significant investments in human power at the school level. Counselors and other school staff members are essential to students’ career-preparation process, as they are the people whom students see regularly and can turn to formulate academic plans that are aligned with their career goals. Yet counselors and other school staff members often have high caseloads that can limit the time they are able to devote to individual students.

Technology-based advising tools offer a potential solution to these problems: They may be able to enhance school-level advising without schools needing to hire more counselors. As a result, such tools are growing in popularity. Despite their increasing importance and use nationwide, there is little evidence about the efficacy of these tools. Do career advising tools truly enhance the number and quality of options students are presented with when considering career-aligned courses, college options, and careers? And do students put the same stock into personalized recommendations from tech advising tools as they do those from counselors or teachers?

To explore these questions, MDRC conducted an implementation study of two tech advising tools, Xello and YouScience, in ninth- and tenth-grade classrooms during school years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. This brief follows five implementing schools where students completed assessments and received their results in the form of guidance on CTE courses and career recommendations. The study team conducted interviews and focus groups with teachers, counselors, and students in the five schools over two years. Four primary findings surfaced from these conversations:

• Extent and Quality of Implementation: Among the five schools, all used the tool with at least some of their students (with significant variation in usage). In schools where school staff members and leaders were committed to implementation and the technology worked well, students tended to have better experiences.
   
• Reactions to Tool Results: School staff members and students both had preconceived notions about what students were capable of, but reacted differently to tool results that did not fit those notions. Teachers and counselors encouraged students to explore unexpected results from the tool, whereas students tended to be less flexible about the careers they wanted to pursue.
   
• Tool Influence on Student Mindset: Students were exposed to careers they were previously unfamiliar with, and learned about the salaries they could earn and the education required to succeed in those careers.
   
• Tool Influence on Course-Taking Decisions: Students could not always act on their tool results when picking career-related courses. Often, students’ decisions were limited by course offerings at their schools and were also influenced by what was socially acceptable in their community or family context.