As part of California’s broader strategy to align education with workforce needs and boost postsecondary readiness, California established the Golden State Pathways Program (GSPP) in 2022 with a $500 million investment. The program aims to promote pathways for high school students into “high-wage, high-skill, high-growth” jobs and improve college and career outcomes for all students, including low-income students, English Learners, and other underrepresented groups.

In this study, we explore the GSPP’s implementation grants, which are intended to help local education agencies (LEAs) expand or enhance existing career pathways by, for example, integrating college readiness, college acceleration (e.g., dual enrollment, in which high school students take college courses for credit), work-based learning, and/or integrated student supports into career and technical education (CTE). Our research aims to better understand grantees’ plans for implementation, including the barriers they face, and to help guide future policy.

Which LEAs received implementation grants?

As of February 2025, roughly $426 million of the GSPP funds have been allocated to 372 LEAs in all regions of the state. As stipulated by law, most of the total funding ($376 million, or 88%) has gone toward implementation grants. LEAs that received these grants have existing CTE courses or pathways and enroll nearly half (46%) of the state’s 9th–12th graders. We estimate about 532,200 high school students will participate in the program; this represents 60 percent of students enrolled in these LEAs and nearly 28 percent of the state’s high school students.

LEAs that received implementation grants serve more diverse students than the statewide average. Low-income (67% among grantees vs. 61% statewide) and Latino (60% vs. 57%) students are overrepresented among grantees. Representation by gender and among Asian and Black students is relatively proportionate, and white students are underrepresented. Grant awards varied notably by region, with the Greater Los Angeles and Northern regions receiving a larger share of grant funds relative to their shares of high school students.

What are the most common pathways?

Implementation grants support more than 1,300 pathways in diverse industry sectors. GSPP priority sectors—technology, health care, education (including early childhood), and climate-related fields—comprise over three-quarters of funded implementation grants. The most common GSPP-funded pathways include health science and medical technology (25% of total), information and communication technology (16%), education and child development (12%), and art, media, and entertainment (10%). While nearly all regions prioritize health care and information technology pathways, the prevalence of other pathways differs across regions.

What challenges and opportunities do LEAs face?

With the launch of GSPP, LEAs across the state are enhancing their integration of CTE and career pathways with college readiness through collaboration with community colleges and/or workforce partners. Based on our research and interviews with grantees, we highlight these key considerations for policymakers:

Standards for career readiness, college readiness, and university admissions requirements are not fully aligned. While grantees are committed to integrating college readiness into CTE courses and pathways, GSPP alone may not ensure that students fully satisfy A–G, the academic admissions requirements for the state’s public four-year universities. The state should revisit college and career readiness standards so all students are prepared for a variety of opportunities after high school.
Commitment to college acceleration is high, but implementation remains an obstacle. Grantees are integrating college acceleration models—such as College and Career Access Pathways (CCAPs) or other dual enrollment programs—into their CTE curriculum. However, many have concerns about collaborating with local community colleges and the demand for instructional capacity. Examining the challenges high schools face in partnering with local colleges, and the instructional costs and staffing associated with different acceleration models, will help provide a clearer understanding of pain points and ways to move forward.
The policy goal of equity is unclear. GSPP includes an explicit commitment to equity that is not well specified. As a result, grantees have taken different approaches to the issue. The state should consider setting clear goals related to college preparation and career readiness to help guide LEAs and monitor progress, including gaps between student groups.
Annual one-time funding allocations to supplement GSPP will likely prove inadequate in times of fiscal restraint. GSPP is a one-time, multi-year funding source. Once GSPP funds are exhausted, finding the resources needed to sustainably develop and maintain work-based learning programs, acceleration strategies, and integrated student supports with annual one-time allocations may prove challenging. Monitoring the use of GSPP funding will help clarify the estimated implementation costs and identify opportunities to improve efficiency.

Despite the implementation challenges, LEAs have embraced GSPP’s charge. As the state and LEAs move forward, further research on how LEAs plan to sustain their programs and whether GSPP is improving key educational and labor market indicators will further help identify policy gaps and opportunities.

Source

About the Authors

Olga Rodriguez is director of the PPIC Higher Education Center and a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she holds the Thomas and Marilyn Sutton Chair in Higher Education Policy. As center director, she works with a team of researchers to identify programs and policies to help make the state’s higher education system more successful, equitable, and sustainable. Her own research focuses on college access and success among underserved students. Her recent work has examined statewide reforms to developmental education, English as a second language, dual enrollment, and assessment and placement systems in California’s community colleges. Before joining PPIC, she was a postdoctoral research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. She holds a BA in economics/mathematics and Spanish from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an MA and PhD in economics and education from Columbia University.

Valerie Lundy-Wagner is associate director of the PPIC Higher Education Center and a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her research focuses on multiple dimensions of higher education, including postsecondary access and college and career pathways in regional or systemwide contexts; her most recent focus has been on categorical program funding formulas and allocations in the California Community College system. Before joining PPIC, she oversaw the California Community College system’s research team as well as its IT operations and Education Technology portfolio. Previously, she led applied policy research at New York University, the Community College Research Center, Jobs for the Future, and California Competes. She holds a PhD in higher education administration from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in education from Stanford University, and a BS in civil and environmental engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Eric Assan is a research associate at the PPIC Higher Education Center, where he researches PK–12 and higher education policy. His work focuses on educational equity, dual enrollment, college and career pathways, the impacts of COVID-19, and digital transformation to improve California’s education system. Prior to joining PPIC, he was a graduate teaching assistant at the Berkeley School of Education. He holds a BS in social sciences education from the University of Cape Coast (Ghana), an MEd in educational administration from Huzhou University (China), and an MA in education from the University of California, Berkeley. He also holds a Graduate Certificate in applied data science from the Berkeley School of Information.

Selina Gomez is a research associate at the PPIC Higher Education Center. Her work focuses on higher education accessibility, readiness, and completion. Before joining PPIC, she served as a program specialist at Hayward Unified School District, evaluating K–12 data on comprehensive academic, social, and health services for students. She also worked at Alameda County’s Office of Sustainability and as a middle school educator focused on STEM education through the Public Service Center at the University of California, Berkeley. She holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental economics and policy from the University of California, Berkeley.

Vicki Hsieh is a senior editor at the Public Policy Institute of California. She works with the research staff to publish clear and compelling reports, briefings, and other documents for a broad audience—including state legislators, policy experts, and the media. Before joining PPIC, she worked at Hanover Research as a project manager and editor in K-12 and higher education research. She holds a PhD in comparative literature from the University of California, Irvine, and BAs in comparative literature and psychology from Cornell University.