Continuing the Conversation on California’s A-G and Multiple Pathways
- Kevin Fleming
- May 12
- 4 min read
This month, I want to share some of the thoughtful conversations that followed my recent research brief on A–G alignment and graduation requirements. What I appreciate most is not whether people agree or disagree, but the depth of the discussion itself. Educators, administrators, and thought leaders have raised important questions, critiques, and insights. Who says social media cannot spark meaningful dialogue?! These difficult conversations are exactly what education needs to improve student outcomes.
A Need for Flexible and Multiple Pathways
One of the first points raised came from Laura Kazan, who challenged the premise that California’s A-G creates limitations. She stated to me that, “A-G is a pretty low bar. The required path is not the recommended path for a university. It is too basic.” Her perspective reflects a common belief that A-G ensures a baseline of rigor and keeps doors open for students who may change direction later in high school. She also highlighted a real issue that many districts face: Some California students often decide late in their high school journey that they want to attend a California State University, only to find they lack the required coursework. That concern deserves attention. We must ensure that any system we design does not unintentionally close doors for students who discover new aspirations. (Note: thankfully, there are 116 California Community Colleges in the State of California that provide a viable, transferable pathway to the CSU system without requiring A-G in high school.)
At the same time, Matthew Nelson raised a different set of concerns that focus on equity, flexibility, and long-term mobility. He shared, “Most of my first-year college students do not really know what they want to do.” That observation aligns with national data and developmental reality. He also expressed concern that structured pathways could limit exploration or reinforce socioeconomic patterns. He referenced to me research on educational stratification, which reminded me that systems can unintentionally direct students based on background rather than potential, “I worry about how students are placed onto those pathways.” That question sits at the center of this entire conversation. Design matters. Implementation matters even more. To truly serve diverse student needs, pathways must be adaptable and responsive to individual circumstances and aspirations, ensuring equity and relevance for all learners.
I do not advocate for rigid tracking or forced decisions. “No forced tracking, no early sorting, student choice with informed advising, and multiple entry and re-entry points,” is a critical distinction. A well-designed pathway system must remain flexible, permeable, and responsive. Students should be able to explore, adjust, and pivot without penalty. The goal is to expand opportunity, not restrict it. When pathways function as options rather than assignments, they can increase access to both academic and career success.
Do institutions provide current career readiness?
Another key point of discussion centers on how we define readiness. Many current metrics focus heavily on university preparation. “Being ready for a university is not the same as being ready to excel in the labor market,” sparked meaningful reflection. If our accountability systems measure only one outcome, our institutions will prioritize it. When nearly half of students do not meet existing readiness benchmarks, we must question whether the system itself requires redesign. Expanding our definition of success allows us to better serve a diverse student population with varied goals. A broader perspective can help policymakers and educators develop more inclusive and effective measures of student achievement.
Concerns about students who change their minds and the need for adaptability in a rapidly evolving economy were raised. I agree fully with that premise. However, the assumption that A-G preserves flexibility is also not accurate. In many cases, it preserves one type of opportunity while limiting exposure to others. Effective pathways should ensure students graduate with self-awareness, transferable skills, academic knowledge, and real-world experience. These assets support mobility. They do not restrict it. When students possess both knowledge and applied skills, they can navigate change with confidence.
Equity remained a central theme throughout my social media discussion with my friend and colleague Matthew. He noted the importance of avoiding systems that replicate existing inequalities. And yet, I’d like to point out that our current model already produces uneven outcomes. Access to advanced coursework, tutoring, and enrichment opportunities often varies by community, “We have created a system where some students get true university readiness, others get compliance without mastery, and many lose access to career preparation entirely.” This reality should push us to consider alternatives that broaden access rather than maintain the status quo.
So what is the solution, especially in the community college system?
How can colleges better support career readiness? First, we must refocus on demonstrated ability. Higher education still relies heavily on seat time and credit hours. “Units only matter to reach graduation. Skills matter more beyond that point.” Embedding industry credentials, competency-based education, and credit for prior learning can help align education with workforce expectations. Second, we must ensure that every student gains relevant experience. Work-based learning should not exist as an optional add-on. It should function as an integrated component of every program.
One theme remains constant. We all want students to succeed and their education to provide purpose, direction, and opportunity. Where we differ is in how we design systems to achieve those outcomes. I deeply respect the concerns raised, and I value the perspectives shared. Most importantly, I welcome continued discussion.
My core message remains clear and unchanged. A single definition of success does not serve a diverse population. When multiple pathways are designed with intention and equity, they can expand opportunity for all learners. The question is not whether we change. The question is how we design that change to ensure every student can thrive.
I welcome your thoughts and encourage ongoing dialogue to keep this critical conversation flowing. Your insights are essential for meaningful progress. And if you are interested in equipping yourself, and your entire team, to advance relevant education for all, check out Catapult Masterclass. This is how we are redefining education - together: