Guided Pathways

Interim Report

April 4, 2025

​

Bruce Vandal, Laura Lara-Brady, Amy Getz

​

Guided Pathways Evaluation

Project Overview and Executive Summary

Slides 3-4

Outcomes

• Understand the scale of adoption of Guided Pathways across the nation
• Explore the challenges and promising practices
• Collect evidence of the impact of Guided Pathways reforms, on a variety of student communities
• Explore the impact of state and system policy, and support required to implement Guided Pathways successfully

Report Sections

Context

Slides 5-8

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Slides 9-18

Beyond Core Practices

Slides 19-24

​

Challenges, Opportunities, and the Work Ahead

Slides 25-30

Appendix

Slides 31-38

1

2

3

4

5

6

Arc of Work

Project Goals

• Understand the scale of adoption of Guided Pathways across the nation
• Explore the challenges and promising practices of implementation
• Collect evidence of the impact of Guided Pathways reforms, on a variety of student communities
• Explore the impact of state and system policy, and support required to implement Guided Pathways successfully

Project Overview

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Across institutions nationwide to understand the landscape of implementation efforts across 4 pillars

Survey

Across 2 and 4 years institutions to assess accessibility of GP materials

​

Website Scan

Understand implementation efforts and impact from students, faculty, and staff

Focus Groups

Assess level of support provided from state leaders

Interviews

Ensure an student-centered and an equity lens are applied

​

Equity Advisors

Aug 2024 - July 2027

3

Executive Summary

Takeaways

1. Implementation of Core Practices: Most institutions have made significant strides in implementing core practices by dedicating resources or establishing them as standard practice. However, certain practices, such as redesigned onboarding, still lag.
2. Implementation Journey by Duration: Our grouping of institutions based on the duration of Guided Pathway implementation reveals a clear pattern: the longer an institution has engaged with Guided Pathways, the more deeply embedded its practices become. Nevertheless, even after 7-10 years, some key components of Guided Pathways are not fully implemented.
3. Going Above and Beyond: Institutions have extended beyond core practices by implementing additional strategies, particularly under Pillar 2, where most have adopted multiple measure placement practices alongside corequisites in math and English. Additionally, numerous institutions have dedicated resources to eliminating prerequisite remedial courses in math, English, and/or reading, but no institution reported having this as a standard practice.
4. Opportunities for Improvement: Although there is a high level of implementation overall, some essential practices like predictive scheduling, case management advising, and program onboarding remain less prevalent, adopted as standard practices by less than half of the institutions.

Moving forward, our team will engage in several strategic activities to gather more insights—ranging from expanding the range of the survey, reviewing college websites, scanning state/system-level policies, and conducting interviews to further explore implementation practices.

Our analysis reveals insightful trends in the implementation of Guided Pathways across various institutions, highlighting both the progress and areas of opportunities. Below are four key takeaways from our analysis:

Enabling Conditions

Institutions reported leveraging a variety of resources to support Guided Pathway implementation, but overall institutions have not made significant investments in building their capacity. The top resources focus on internal capacity building, but there is room to delve deeper into how institutional policy and technology have supported the implementation of key practices, highlighting potential differences based on the time of implementation.

Specifically, the top three areas that colleges reported leveraging to support Guided Pathways activities were:

1. Data infrastructure to collect, evaluate, and continuously improve practice (25%)
2. Institutional leadership that prioritizes and supports implementation (25%)
3. Dedicated faculty and staff time to redesign and implement reforms (22%)

These results highlight an opportunity for institutions to invest significantly in their core capacity to drive reform

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Project Overview

4

Census of Institutions

Institutions for this study were drawn from a list of institutions who have received support from the Gates Foundation to participate in state and national Guided Pathways initiatives. An additional 144 institutions were identified through a census of state and system leaders. To date, there are 546 postsecondary institutions, encompassing both 2-year colleges and 4-year universities, that have been identified as implementing Guided Pathways.

In the next phase, we conducted a review of 426 institutional websites to identify institutional leaders responsible for leading Guided Pathways implementation at 172 institutions. While the specific title of "Guided Pathways" often did not appear in their official titles, these contacts were linked to the initiatives at their respective institutions. The majority of contacts identified were Student Services Deans or Vice Presidents.

We then distributed a survey to all 172 identified Guided Pathways leads. Respondents were encouraged to share the survey invitation to any colleagues who were also actively involved in Guided Pathways efforts at nearby institutions. After a four-week period, we collected 71 surveys responses, of which 53 were completed in full.

The project team will continue to identify institutional representatives to complete the survey in order to achieve a larger sample for the year 1 report due in August.

Context

Guided Pathways Interim Report

426

Review institutional websites to identify a Guided Pathways lead contact.

546

​

Public postsecondary institutions identified participating in state and national Guided Pathways initiatives across the nation

5

Guided Pathways Implementation Survey Development

The Guided Pathways Implementation Survey was crafted using the foundational principles of the Guided Pathways framework and the Scale of Adoption Self-Assessment (SOAA) developed by CCRC. This survey assesses the level of implementation the four pillars of Guided Pathways: Clarify the Path, Get on the Path, Stay on the Path, Ensure Learning. Additional components emphasizing both strength- and student-centered perspectives. The primary aim of the survey was to establish a baseline and monitor improvements over time through future administrations.

Institutions categorized the implementation of Guided Pathways strategies by indicating if the institution:

• Has adopted the strategy as standard practice,
• has dedicated resources to implement and scale the practice,
• Is aware of the practice and plan to implement it or,
• has no plans to implement the practice.

The Equity Advisory Group (EAG) provided feedback on the survey. The EAG group, is comprised of five leaders with extensive expertise in Guided Pathways. The group includes leaders from individual colleges/universities, state associations of community colleges, and organizations such as WestEd and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). EAG members will serve as thought partners throughout this project to ensure that the Guided Pathways project assesses the extent that reforms prioritize the achievement of equitable outcomes.

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Context

6

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Context

Engagement of Equity Advisory Group to fine tune the survey

Data collection and analysis

Dissemination of survey (3 weeks)

Engagement of Gates Foundation to further fine tune survey

Survey Development based on the Guided Pathways: Planning, Implementation, Evaluation framework

Preparation of survey on Qualtrics

Survey Development and Dissemination

Guided Pathways Implementation Survey Approach

7

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Context

TOTAL INSTITUTIONS

2- and 4-year institutions implementing Guided Pathways

SURVEYS RECEIVED

from list of 172 organizations with identified Guided Pathways leadership

INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED

2- and 4-years institutions were both represented in the results

STATES

California, Kansas, and Iowa had the most responses

MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS

Majority Hispanic serving institutions, and AANAPISI included in responses

661

71

14

MSI

51

What We Are Learning

Guided Pathways Implementation Survey at a Glance

8

Status of Institutional Implementation

41%

Institutions that indicated they have between implementing Guided Pathways for 4-6 years, followed by less than 3 years (31%), 7-10 years (24%), and over 10 years (4%)

​

Why did your institution paused or is no longer implementing Guided Pathways?

"Our meager funding ran out (we received very little, literally a fraction of what the other colleges received); more specific, our energy ran out.  Too little funding led to the same few people doing the brunt of the work.  Pure exhaustion and fatigue - physical, emotional, and spiritual."

"Academic Career Communities (Meta Majors) look good on our website, and while some of us have a basic understanding of Guided Pathways in our minds, it hasn’t fully resonated or connected with us at a deeper, emotional level or in daily interactions with student level - yet."

​

72%

Respondents that indicated they are making steady progress in implementing Guided Pathways.

Reasons institutions provided on why they have paused implementation of corequisites include:

• Leadership transitions and shifting institutional priorities
• Lack of unified stakeholder engagement
• Resource constraints and initiative fatigue
• Cultural resistance to change
• Communication and coordination challenges

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

16%

Institutions reported having to pause implementation efforts due to a leadership change and diminishing resources Fifteen percent of respondents that shared a challenge in implementing Guided Pathways.

9

An institution is implementing a Guided Pathway Pillar if:

• The institution has implemented all the core practices of the pillar by allocating dedicated resources towards its implementation and scaling or,
• Recognizing the core practice as a standard institutional practice.

Pillar 3 – Keeping students on the path

Core Practices:

• Case management advising
• Checkpoint advising
• Predictable scheduling

Additional Practices:

• A system for students to track their academic progress
• A structure in place to redirect students who are not progressing in a program to a more viable path to credentials and a career

Pillar 4 - Ensuring Learning

Core Practice: Improve teaching and learning within programs

Additional Practices:

• Document student learning for employers and universities through portfolios and other means beyond transcripts
• Program faculty embed active learning into coursework (internships, co-ops, service learning, study abroad)
• Programs offer intentional and sustained student engagement opportunities
• Institution-wide expectation to use equity-minded, asset-based teaching practices.
• Program learning outcomes are aligned to employment opportunities
• Regular reviews of program learning outcomes within programs that lead to further education, and/or gainful employment
• Results of learning outcomes reviews are used to improve teaching and learning through program review, professional development, and/or other intentional campus efforts.

Pillar 1 – Clarifying the path

Pillar 2 – Helping students get on a path

Core Practice:

• Meta-majors/ Academic focus areas

Additional Practices:

• Academic programs have set targets for career placement and transfer outcomes
• Aligned required coursework to each program of study
• Students are made aware of:
• Course sequences
• Critical courses for success
• Academic progress milestones
• Embedded credentials
• Regional employment opportunities

Core Practices:

• Redesigned program onboarding
• Educational planning
• Corequisite remediation and math pathways

Additional Practices:

• Use of multiple measurements for placement
• Contextualized integrated academic supports in critical courses (other than English and Math)
• Students are supported to take a class in their program of study in their first year
• College partners with K-12 feeder schools
• Elimination of prerequisite remedial courses in English, math, and reading

​

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Institutions must be implementing all core practices in order to be a Guided Pathway institution

Guided Pathways Practices

Guided Pathways Interim Report

10

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Most institutions have implemented Core Practices by dedicating resources or established certain practices as standard across various Guided Pathways components. However, there are core practices that still need to be implemented at institutions. In particular, many institutions have not redesigned their onboarding process. This finding requires further study to understand why implementation of the strategy lags behind other core practices.

Establishing a Baseline - Core Practices

Most institutions are implementing the core practices of Guided Pathways, but work is to be done.

11

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Establishing a Baseline - Core Practices

Progress has been made to adopt Guide Pathways Core Practices as Standard Practice.

While a majority of institutions are implementing core practices, several practices have not become standard practice, despite the high level of implementation. In particular, predictive scheduling, case management advising, and redesigned program onboarding are standard practice at less than half of institutions.

12

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Exploring Implementation Strategies

With many institutions planning to implement reforms, there is an opportunity to invest in efforts to support implementation of most core practices. The areas where institutions are planning to implement practices, but haven't yet dedicated resources, such as predictable scheduling and research-based teaching practices, highlight opportunities to design deeper support for those still in the planning. However there appears to be resistance to implementing reforms among institutions that have indicated they are implementing Guided Pathways. For example, 15% of institutions have no plans to redesign their onboarding process - an area of exploration as part of the upcoming qualitative analysis. stages.

Implementing Core Practices

Not Implementing Core Practices

Establishing a Baseline

Of those that have not implemented core practices, most institutions plan to do so.

13

Establishing a Baseline

​

Guided Pathways Implementation Patterns by Time

Early Implementation (0-3 years)

Mid-Term Implementation (4-6 years)

Long-Term Implementation (7-9 years and over 10 years)

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

To gain a deeper insight into implementation of core practices, we examined implementation of core practices based on how long institutions have been engaged in implementing Guided Pathways. Institutions were categorized into four groups: those implementing for 0-3 years (6 institutions), 4-6 years (20 institutions), 7-9 years (22 Institutions), and over 10 years (3 institutions). The overall findings indicate that both the depth and breadth of implementation tend to enhance over time, with institutions that have been involved for a longer period implementing core practices.

Institutions in the early stages of implementation show inconsistent adoption across various practices. Corequisite academic support in math and English is starting to be introduced, but not yet standardized across all institutions. Many practices are still in the planning phase, with many indicating awareness and intentions to implement rather than having dedicated resources or establishing them as standard practices.

By this stage, institutions are generally more stable in their implementation of core practices such as structured course sequencing and providing students with comprehensive term-by-term maps. There is noticeable progress in aligning program learning with career and employment opportunities, reflecting an institutional emphasis on career readiness.

Institutions that have been implementing reforms for over 6 years have adopted core practices as standard practice. There is comprehensive adoption and embedding of pathway practices, such as ongoing, intrusive advising and the regular review of learning outcomes. The flexibility of course scheduling and the elimination of prerequisite remedial courses signify an institutional shift towards efficiency and student-centric planning. Long-term implementations efforts show increased levels of student engagement opportunities and faculty use of effective teaching practices.

Exploring Implementation Strategies

14

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Institutions implementing Guided Pathways less than 3 years (5)

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Establishing a Baseline by Length of Time

A large number of institutions that have been implementing Guided Pathways for less than 3 years have implemented meta-majors and program maps. However, a low number of institutions have shown similar progress in other core practices such as educational planning, redesigned onboarding, and predictable scheduling.

15

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Institutions implementing Guided Pathways 4 - 6 years (20)

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Establishing a Baseline by Length of Time

This group of institutions, which has been implementing Guided Pathways between four to six years, shows a marked contrast to the earlier-stage institutions, particularly in educational planning, which is now widely implemented. However redesigned program onboarding continues to pose a challenge, as only 68% of institutions report having implemented it. Additionally, even as these institutions advance a small number have yet to implement corequisite remediation, highlighting potential areas for further exploration and support.

16

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Institutions implementing Guided Pathways 7 - 10 years (22)

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Establishing a Baseline by Length of Time

These data reveal a striking pattern: redesigning program onboarding remains relatively low in adoption across all year ranges, underscoring a consistent challenge for institutions regardless of implementation length. Its encouraging to see that all institutions in the 7-10 range have integrated corequisite remediation, highlighting their commitment to this key component. However, its notable that several institutions, even after 7-10 years, have not implemented all core strategies of Guided Pathways, emphasizing the need for increased focus to achieve complete adoption of these essential practices.

17

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Institutions implementing Guided Pathways over 10 years (3)

Exploring Implementation Strategies

Establishing a Baseline by Length of Time

Although only two institutions reported implementing Guided Pathways for over 10 years, practices like predicting scheduling and research-based teaching have reached full implementation. The consistent adoption of multiple strategies, such as meta-majors and redesigned program onboarding, aligns closely with earlier findings, yet educational planning still shows room for improvement with some plans not fully in place.

18

Guided Pathways Core Practices Timeline

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Core practices in Pillars 1 and 2 move toward standard practice, while Pillars 3 and 4 lag behind

Beyond Core Practices

Based on the results by length of the time institutions have been implementing Guided Pathways, it appears that the core practices associated Pillars 1 and 2 seem to progress from implementation to standard practice over time. Most of the core practices in Pillars 3 and 4 are not progressing toward standardized practice at the same rate.

​

It should be noted that the survey did not track individual institutional implementation over time. Instead we categorized the extent that any core practice moved to 50% or more institutions having reached a specific level of implementation for each year along the timeline. Once a practice reaches standard practice, it stays at that level regardless of data for subsequent years.

19

Going Above and Beyond

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Pillar 1 - Clarifying the path

Beyond Core Practices

We also reviewed additional practices that we might term as strategies institutions should adopt alongside or after core practices have been adopted.

​

Regarding Pillar 1: Most institutions have implemented the additional practices, with the exception of setting targets for career placement and transfer. While there is much work to be done, many institutions are taking a sophisticated approach to implementing Pillar 1.

20

Going Above and Beyond

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Pillar 2 - Choosing and entering a pathway

Beyond Core Practices

Most institutions have implemented and adopted as standard practice many of the additional practices associated with Pillar 2. Not surprisingly, institutions that have implemented corequisite support in math and English have also adopted multiple measure placement. However, it is unclear whether they are using HS GPA as a primary measure. Most institutions have not extended corequisite support to other gateway courses such as General Chem or other courses required for entry into competitive programs.

21

Going Above and Beyond

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Pillar 2 - Choosing and entering a pathway

Beyond Core Practices

There are still many institutions that have not eliminated prerequisite developmental education. This suggests that while many institutions have implemented corequisites, they still maintain at least one level of prerequisite developmental education. This aligns with other work that has been done that shows institutions are reluctant to scale corequisites, despite the strong evidence that they are more effective for all students, regardless of their placement level.

22

Going Above and Beyond

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Pillar 3 - Staying on a path

Beyond Core Practices

While most institutions have implemented a system to allow students to track their academic progress, few have adopted the practice as standard. Only about 50% of institutions have systems in place to redirect students into more viable pathways after either not being admitted to or not making progress in their initial program of study.

23

Going Above and Beyond

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Pillar 4 - Ensuring learning

Beyond Core Practices

It appears that many institutions are implementing additional practices in Pillar 4. The one outlier is that institutions have not made progress with implementing portfolios that demonstrate skills students possess that would be helpful to potential employers. Given other results related to employment readiness, it appears that alignment of postsecondary education to workforce opportunities is an area in need of further development.

24

Enabling Conditions

Few institutions reported making current investments in their internal capacity to implement, scale and sustain reforms. Technology-based advising and reforms to institutional policy were the least likely to have occurred at institutions.

Many institutions don’t have the full investment from institutional leadership and a data infrastructure in place. These findings suggest that many institutions are not positioned to scale and continuously improve their reforms.

Focus groups and interviews will aid to further understand how each of these supports played a role. In addition, it will help to uncover any differences across colleges by time of implementation.

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Challenges and Opportunities

Few institutions have invested in their core capacity to implement, scale, and sustain reforms.

25

Where is Implementation Lagging?

These areas were identified as having significant opportunities for improvement within the context of a Guided Pathway framework. Addressing them can lead to substantial improvements in educational quality, equity, and student success.

Opportunities for long-term institutional growth and positive student experiences

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Challenges and Opportunities

26

26

Key Technical Assistance Providers

​

Achieving the Dream (ATD)

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)

CA Community Colleges Chancellor's Office Guided Pathways

Career Ladders Project

CCCCO Regional Coordinators

Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE)

Community College Research Center (CCRC)

Complete College America (CCA)

Consultant

Continuous Learning Institute

Education Design Labs

HCM Strategists

Jobs for the Future

KACC

National Center for Inquiry and Improvement (NCII)

New Jersey Council of County Colleges (NJCCC)

PhaseTwo Advisory

Sova

Texas Success Center: Talent Strong Texas Pathways

Based on the data collected, the Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE) emerged as the most frequently reported technical assistance partner among respondents, emphasizing its prominent role in supporting Guided Pathways initiatives. Achieving the Dream (ATD) was the next most frequently mentioned partner, reflecting its strong influence and presence in the community college sector.

​

Even with all these resources available, 14% of respondents didn't know if their college was involved in any Guided Pathway initiatives. This points to a possible communication or engagement gap that needs attention to make the most of what these technical assistance partners offer. The wide range of support highlights the diverse expertise available to help institutions successfully guide their Pathways journeys.

Technical assistance providers that colleges have partnered with.

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Challenges and Opportunities

27

27

Adoption and Efficacy of Guided Pathways

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

Challenges and Opportunities

While all indications are that the number of institutions that have stated that they are implementing Guided Pathways reforms is increasing, our findings suggest that the fidelity of implementation of core practices are mixed. Our analysis provides a means by which to measure the extent that Guided Pathways reforms are being fully adopted.

​

At a minimum, the goal is for institutions to adopt core Guided Pathways strategies as standard practice and improve first year momentum, fall to fall persistence, and timely credential completion. The baseline and targets established in the table reflect this minimum standard for the implementation of Guided Pathways.

​

In addition, institutions should implement structural reforms to sustain Guided Pathways over time. Institutions that have appropriate policies, data structures, and organizational structures are more likely to institutionalize reforms.

​

​

​

28

The Work Ahead

Following the initial survey distribution, our team will be focusing on the following activities:

• Identifying contact information for missing leads at colleges implementing Guided Pathways for survey dissemination
• Begin phase II of the website review-Identify a subset of 2-and 4-year colleges and universities and review their websites to assess the extent that institutions are implementing the core elements of the Guided Pathways Framework
• Draft interview and focus group protocols to further explore implementation practices with a selected group of institutions across the nation
• Begin a scan of state/system-level policies that could have an impact on Guided Pathways implementation
• Draft a set of visualizations that demonstrate institutional progress toward scale

​

Summer and Fall 2025

The Work Ahead

Guided Pathways Interim Report

​

29

29

Thank You

Bruce Vandal, Ph.D.

bruce@brucevandal.com

​

Laura Lara-Brady, Ph.D.

llarabr@wested.org

​

Amy Getz, Ph.D.

agetz@wested.org

Appendix:

Presentation

February 26, 2025 Project Meeting

Gates Foundation

Washington, DC

Bruce Vandal, Ph.D.

bruce@brucevandal.com

​

Laura Lara-Brady, Ph.D.

llarabr@wested.org

​

Amy Getz, Ph.D.

agetz@wested.org

Exploring Implementation Across Pillars

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Redefining adoption across one college

Pillar 1

Clarifying the Path

Most components of this pillar are standard practice across the college

This is standard practice at our institution

We have dedicated resources to implement and scale this practice

We are aware of this practice and plan to implement it

No plans to implement this practice

Students are presented with the following as part of their selected program of study

32

32

Guided Pathways: What data matters

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Pillar 2

Choose and Enter a Pathway

Most components of this pillar are standard practice across the college, except providing corequisites in critical courses (other than in math and English) in a given program of study

Redefining adoption across one college

​

This is standard practice at our institution

We have dedicated resources to implement and scale this practice

We are aware of this practice and plan to implement it

No plans to implement this practice

33

33

Guided Pathways: What data matters

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Redefining adoption across one college

​

Pillar 3

Stay on the Pathway

Most components of this pillar are standard practice across the college, except having a structure or set of procedures in place to redirect students who are not progressing in a program to a more viable path to credentials and a career.

This is standard practice at our institution

We have dedicated resources to implement and scale this practice

We are aware of this practice and plan to implement it

No plans to implement this practice

34

34

Guided Pathways: What data matters

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

Redefining adoption across one college

​

Pillar 4

Ensure Learning

Most components of this pillar have a plan for implementation. Lowest scoring component was offering intentional and sustained student engagement opportunities (such as social events and activities, and mentoring opportunities).

This is standard practice at our institution

We have dedicated resources to implement and scale this practice

We are aware of this practice and plan to implement it

No plans to implement this practice

35

35

Guided Pathways Survey: What data matters

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

What does meeting the adoption standards of implementation look like?

​

Implementation scores were calculated based on the following scale:

• No plans to implement this practice
• We are aware of this practice and plan to implement it
• We have dedicated resources to implement and scale this practice
• This is standard practice at our institution

​

Understanding the scale of adoption of Guided Pathways across the nation

Sample Survey Data

36

Guided Pathways Survey: What data matters

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

What does meeting the adoption standards of implementation look like?

Understanding the scale of adoption of Guided Pathways across the nation

Sample Survey Data

37

Guided Pathways Survey: What data matters

Appendix

Guided Pathways Interim Report

What does meeting the adoption standards of implementation look like?

Understanding the scale of adoption of Guided Pathways across the nation

Sample Survey Data

38