Early Insights from the Golden State Pathways Program

To better understand grantees’ local context and plans for GSPP implementation funding, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with 16 individuals between February and April 2025 (see Technical Appendix D). Interviewees held staff or administrative roles at the district or high school level and were highly engaged in the GSPP application process and/or implementation planning efforts. Interviewees included at least two LEAs from each region of the state and included LEAs that planned to implement a variety of GSPP pathways in priority and non-priority sectors. In our analysis, we explore how LEAs with more experience in college and career integration are supporting deeper alignment with the key GSPP elements (i.e., college and career readiness, college acceleration, work-based learning, and student supports). Understanding their experiences, including barriers, can provide insight into policy and implementation issues and guide future recommendations.

It is important to note that although GSPP implementation grant funding allocations were delayed, GSPP applications included multi-year plans. As such, grantees described their plans for implementation, most emphasizing that significant work was set to begin during the upcoming school year (2025–26).

LEAs identified pathways based on local programmatic and economic need as well as GSPP grant criteria. Implementation grantees selected career-focused courses and pathways where collaboration with community colleges and/or workforce already exists, but program elements are not yet fully aligned with GSPP. Interviewees generally told us that implementation grants will be used as needed for their local context. This could include efforts to expand individual career-focused courses into pathways, align CTE courses or pathways with A–G requirements, integrate career pathways with acceleration models, increase opportunities for work-based learning, and/or expand integrated student supports. A college and career executive described discussing with colleagues which elements to focus on when developing GSPP pathways: “are you fleshing out the A–G part, are you fleshing out the work-based learning part, the dual enrollment part…?”

Grantees indicated that existing career courses and pathways sometimes suffered from lack of resources for development and maintenance. In creating implementation plans, interviewees said they considered local economic need and alignment with the grant priority sectors. As one director of college and career explained: “We looked at the goal of the grant and… we had two sectors that we thought aligned really well… They were doing really good work, but [we asked,] what were some of the gaps aligned with the goals of GSPP? And then how could we utilize that funding to actually move the work?”

While state and national CTE initiatives often focus on high-demand and/or high-wage fields, GSPP also prioritizes locally relevant high-demand fields that may not lead to particularly high wages, like early childhood education. A recent CTE instructor-turned-administrator described expanding a standalone career-focused course into a CTE pathway to help alleviate local childcare and teacher shortages: “We’re hoping that this [early education] pathway gives students another job opportunity that [may even] lead them to getting a teaching credential and then teaching in town. So, we’re hoping to kind of beef up hiring from within.” Notably, based on the analysis of applications, the majority of GSPP implementation grantees indicated in their applications that they plan to develop pathways in either high-skill, high-demand, or high-wage occupations (87%).

LEAs are planning to implement integrated programs designed to increase college readiness, despite perceptions of CTE as distinct from college-going. Historically, A–G was limited to college prep courses; however, LEAs told us that GSPP will be used to integrate A–G requirements into career-focused courses and pathways. Our analysis of applications reveals that 83 percent of GSPP implementation grantees plan to expand integrated college and career programming. Many interviewees had already begun this work via other initiatives or funding sources (e.g., the 2021 A–G Completion Grant program). In fact, one CTE program administrator noted, “85% of [our] CTE courses are already A–G [aligned].”

Schools and districts interviewed also consider GSPP a lever to increase universal access to A–G courses. A career readiness director noted that, historically, “African American or brown students, [emergent bilingual students], and our students with disabilities… end up in classes that are not A–G.” This LEA and others described using GSPP to implement a two-step process to reduce structural barriers to college and career readiness: first to ensure that all high school classes offered meet A–G requirements, and second to enhance the college-going culture within career pathways. A college and career administrator explained: “Our goal is that all students meet A–G [requirements] when they leave high school [because that’s their] opportunity to continue on to postsecondary, to college… we want to make sure all kids get the best education that they can.”

Some leaders interviewed told us about anticipated challenges to achieving universal access to other parts of GSPP. For example, one college and CTE district leader noted that English Learners often take two to three English courses per term, which can prevent participation in courses outside of curricular requirements. However, their district has already begun to align English Language Development Standards with career-focused courses to expand student exposure to rigorous coursework through GSPP. In terms of structural barriers to participation in work-based learning, they also described a “requirement for [foster students] to have so many hours with their family during [the week, which] leaves them no time to do extracurricular activities.”

LEAs also described concerns about buy-in for integrating college preparedness into career courses and pathways, since historically some stakeholders have interpreted CTE as an alternative to college prep coursework. As LEAs plan for GSPP, many described developing and disseminating strategic communications about the pros and cons of offering, investing in, and implementing A–G alignment for CTE courses to teachers, counselors, administrators, and school board members as well as students and their families. In places with particularly high costs of living, grantees told us that aligning career courses and pathways with A–G requirements can provide an opportunity to help students understand locally relevant jobs that would result in a living wage. In effect, interviewees described GSPP as a way to help students and other stakeholders shift mindsets from “college or career” to “college and career.”

Of note, the state currently funds UC Scout, a technology platform included in the GSPP legislation, that provides A–G courses at no cost to public school students through independent subscriptions or high schools (with some cost to institutions for the latter). During the 2023–24 academic year, more than 35,000 students from over 1,000 middle and high schools used UC Scout. Despite the availability of this resource and its reference in the legislation, none of the implementation applicants or grantees identified UC Scout as part of their GSPP work.

LEAs plan to implement multiple college acceleration models simultaneously, primarily through traditional dual enrollment and College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP). LEAs interviewed described many different acceleration models, including courses or pathways “articulated” through agreements with individual colleges or universities, dual enrollment (i.e., traditional, CCAP, Early or Middle College High Schools), AP courses, and IB programs. Each model can be used to provide high school students with an opportunity to earn college credit either before high school graduation or after college enrollment.

Interviewees noted that their LEAs offered articulated courses or pathways with a local community college or university. One district-level college and career administrator said they have “6,000 kids a year [that] get articulated credit with the community college.” Despite the prevalence of articulated courses, the CTE coordinator from a small district noted, “I envision we’re going to convert all [of] our articulated courses to dual enrollment courses” as part of GSPP. While other districts described shifting which acceleration models they used, only a few others mentioned such wholesale changes.

Approximately 150,000 (or 30%) high school graduates in 2024 participated in dual enrollment (Rodriguez et al. 2025). While dual enrollment can be implemented in multiple ways based on how LEAs and their postsecondary partners navigate federal, state, and local policies, it is by far the most common acceleration strategy among GSPP implementation grantees. Based on our review, 96 percent of implementation grantees plan to use dual enrollment as a college acceleration strategy as part of GSPP. Interviewees described expanding dual enrollment for career-focused courses and pathways. Some told us about plans to develop CCAP agreements, including the opportunity to expand dual enrollment as one type of “college or career” pathway (per 2016 legislation). Further, 34 percent of GSPP implementation grantees plan to establish dual enrollment through CCAP, which can include CTE courses and programming.

In their implementation applications and during interviews, LEAs also mentioned AP and IB, largely to maintain their traditional college readiness efforts. According to applications, about one-third of LEA grantees already incorporate AP as part of their GSPP career courses or pathways, and 35 percent plan to use AP as part of their GSPP implementation work. While included in implementation plans, AP and IB were not described as a primary acceleration strategy for GSPP. Some grantees expressed that these two models were less likely to significantly expand access to college credit given the burden on students to take and pass a costly exam or request college credit after college enrollment. LEAs did not discuss making significant changes to IB programs. Only 3 percent of grantees plan to use IB as part of GSPP implementation.

Many interviewees mentioned deliberations about when it was advantageous to maintain or expand specific acceleration models. Oftentimes, the primary challenge was K–12 teaching capacity. Whereas K–12 teachers can provide instruction leading to college credit via articulated, AP, or IB courses, LEAs must adhere to partner community colleges’ minimum requirements to implement dual enrollment. To that end, some grantees told us that they plan to use GSPP funds to subsidize K–12 instructor skill development (e.g., completion of a master’s degree in a relevant subject area to meet locally defined minimum qualifications).

LEAs are planning to enhance work-based learning opportunities, but GSPP is unlikely to address known resource and capacity challenges. According to our analysis of applications, 81 percent of grantees already have work-based learning activities and 26 percent have summer work-based learning programs. In interviews, grantees told us about efforts to use the state-adopted work-based learning continuum to shift from “random acts of work-based learning” to more mature programs. Some LEAs described developing or enhancing activities and instructional strategies that serve many students (e.g., career exposure lectures or field trips). Others told us about plans to accelerate development of deeper career experiences, like internships, pre-apprenticeships, or apprenticeships. A college and career administrator noted, prior to GSPP, “we didn’t have the systems and support and the structures” for “robust” work-based learning.

LEAs also described plans to add staff capacity to help navigate school, employer, and industry policies, facilitate or support local collaborations (e.g., through steering committees), and recruit instructional staff. However, leaders highlighted concerns about capacity: a college and career administrator shared, “it’s very hard to get people to leave [industry and become] a teacher.” Of note, multiple interviewees told us that GSPP funds are critical to support work-based learning, yet the primary capacity challenges for implementation—curriculum design, teaching capacity, and funding for collaboration—have no permanent solution. Further, a superintendent described capacity and demand issues in this way: “Work-based learning is a challenge in rural communities because we are 99% private businesses… they’re usually family operated, they have one to two individuals in the business, so supervision and mentorship of new [workers] is very challenging.”

Multiple grantees mentioned plans to incorporate work-based learning experiences within their district or school offices as a strategy to lower barriers for student participation by using a known location with familiar staff. However, even these aspirations may require significant staff capacity. One curriculum and instruction leader lamented, “what’s been a struggle, to be totally honest with you, is we thought we would run those internships through our own district… have students who are interested in information technology… work alongside our IT professionals.” But she noted, “Our unions actually were not okay with it” due to perceptions that students would be replacing positions.

Grantees also plan to use GSPP as a funding source for paid work-based learning activities. Grantee applications revealed that while 84 percent have internships, only 10 percent are paid. Similarly, while 35 percent of grantees have apprenticeship experiences, only 2 percent include student pay or stipends. One instructional lead noted, “our kids need to make money during the summer, so if we want them to participate in internships, we have to pay them; otherwise, they’re going to work [somewhere else]… they don’t have the opportunity to just not work in the summer… or during spring break or winter break.” This interviewee also noted that their district had managed to incorporate paid work-based learning opportunities using funding connected to their LCAP (Local Control Accountability Plan) allocation. Despite aspirations for more mature programming, grantees anticipate challenges navigating the logistics required to co-design, set up, advertise, select, and monitor work-based learning experiences, regardless of location or pay structure.

LEAs plan to expand or enhance academic and non-academic supports, some of which will only be available to GSPP students. Implementation grantees mentioned plans to provide both academic and non-academic support to facilitate students’ access to and completion of GSPP-funded pathways. LEAs also indicated that GSPP funding for academic and non-academic supports would be deployed no sooner than summer 2025 and more robustly during the 2025–26 school year.

According to our application analysis, 79 percent of grantee LEAs already provide student support services. Interviewees described expanding upon existing knowledge and infrastructure. For example, one college and CTE coordinator noted, “we’re building out wraparound supports for our students in these dual enrollment pathways with AVID strategies,” including modules on how to use the college’s learning management systems (e.g., Blackboard or Canvas) and how to obtain help from faculty members. Applications revealed that 75 percent of grantees plan to implement support services only for students in GSPP courses and pathways. Eighty-five percent of grantees plan to provide a new support service, including, for example, expansion of afterschool academic supports (including for dual enrollment students), staff training on social emotional development, reassignment of existing counselors, in-class tutoring by local university students, and family engagement events to improve awareness of college and career readiness.

Plans for non-academic support must also take into account existing challenges. For example, multiple LEAs told us about challenges with transportation that may be exacerbated if career-focused courses or work-based learning requires students to remain at school outside of regular hours, or if work-based learning is offered off-campus. In both scenarios, public transportation may be less frequent and less available. One director of educational services noted, “the single biggest barrier for our downtown children is to be able to get up the hill [to industry partners]… we don’t have a solution.”

In addition, a few LEAs described the benefits of mental health support to help students navigate the less traditional, career-focused, academically rigorous curriculum. When asked about non-academic supports, a college and career administrator shared the following question that helped guide their efforts: “How do we make sure that we are supporting kids and giving them what they need to be successful without putting extra stress or expectations [on them]?”

LEAs described plans to use multiple funding streams to supplement the multi-year GSPP initiative. Grantees identified many initiatives with funding available to supplement GSPP on their applications, including, but not limited to, the state-level CTE Incentive Grant, the A–G Incentive Grant, the K–12 Strong Workforce Program, and CCAP implementation grants; they also noted leveraging federal Perkins dollars. A college and career district leader told us: “There are so many sources of different funding…. And we’re also getting a lot more philanthropic funding and corporate sponsorship.” Fifty-two percent of GSPP applicants noted plans to access private or philanthropic funds to supplement GSPP.

Interviewees described casting a wide net to supplement GSPP funding. One curriculum and instruction administrator told us that their LEA is using a Middle College High School grant, multiple CCAP grants, CTE implementation grant funding, and Perkins Act funding to support work-based learning initiatives, adding, “I mean, we’re using everything we can get our hands on to try to make the work successful.” Grantees described weaving together funds to expand summer school offerings, pay student interns or apprentices, fund secondary instructor master’s degrees, or fund positions to focus on district-wide and cross-segment collaboration (i.e., to design and implement articulation, dual enrollment, or work-based learning). An academic administrator specified using CTE incentive grant funds and Local Control Funding Formula funds for student competitions and CCAP funds for field trips. Meanwhile, multiple GSPP grantees described using Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) funds for paid internships and K–16 collaborative grants to support teachers earning master’s degrees, especially in English and math, which are key subjects for high school and college success.

For some, the combination of annual allocations from different funding streams translated into mixed messaging about one-time versus ongoing funds. One career readiness director noted, “When you look into [the investments in CTE],” funding has been somewhat reliable in California, even though it has not been guaranteed. This suggests that while sustaining these career programs and pathways in the long term is possible, LEAs will likely need support in continuously identifying and securing funding to support these efforts.

Overall, the five most commonly cited funding sources in grantees’ applications were:

• Career and Technical Education Incentive Grant (established in 2020)
• K–12 Strong Workforce Program (2018)
• Carl D. Perkins Grants (2006)
• School Plan for Student Achievement (2018)
• Local Control Accountability Plan (2014)

Each funding source is currently an ongoing allocation that is disseminated each fiscal year. Some grantees also plan to incorporate contributions from parents as part of their GSPP funding strategy.