Strengthening the Educator Pipeline Through Service Scholarships: California’s Golden State Teacher Grant Program

California, like many states, has struggled to attract and retain teachers, especially in high-need schools and areas such as special education, math, science, and bilingual education. One important source of this shortage is an inadequate number of teacher candidates enrolling in and completing preservice teacher preparation, resulting in a growing reliance on substandard credentials over the past decade. Teachers with substandard credentials are less likely to stay in the profession and tend to be less effective than fully prepared new teachers.

An important barrier to expanding the teacher workforce is the cost of preparation. Given large increases in graduate education costs over time and California’s already high cost of living, many teacher candidates struggle to afford the costs of attendance, which include all tuition and fees, books and materials, and living expenses. Statewide data from this study suggest that the cost of attendance for average teacher candidates ranges from approximately $32,000 in the California State University system to $54,000 in the University of California system. Private and independent institutions of higher education—enrolling almost half of all teacher candidates in the state—have widely varying costs, ranging from $14,000 to $86,000.

To help address California’s educator shortages and offset preparation costs, state policymakers established the Golden State Teacher Grant (GSTG) Program, providing over $570 million to fund the program since 2020–21. Administered by the California Student Aid Commission (CSAC), the GSTG Program provides teacher candidates and Pupil Personnel Services (PPS) candidates (i.e., those training to be school counselors, social workers, and psychologists) with an upfront grant as part of their overall student aid package to offset a substantial portion of their costs for pursuing a professional education program. In exchange, candidates commit to teach in a California priority school or California State Preschool Program for 2 years. A school is designated as a priority school if at least 55% of enrolled students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, are English learners, or are living in foster care. Recipients who do not complete their service requirement must repay the grant funds they received.

The parameters of the GSTG Program have changed over time: The maximum grant amount per candidate started at $20,000 in 2020 but was reduced to $10,000 in July 2024 as funding for the grant ran short, and the service commitment was reduced from 4 years to 2 years. The program also began prioritizing applicants with greater financial need when available grant funds became insufficient to support all eligible applicants.

This study tracks and analyzes statewide participation in the GSTG Program over the program’s first 5 years and examines grant recipients’ perceptions of program impacts. We use administrative data from CSAC that capture information on all GSTG recipients and data from a survey that CSAC administered in April 2025. This study also includes findings from interviews with six educator preparation programs (EPPs) with high GSTG uptake rates to identify effective strategies and challenges in implementing the grant.

Key Findings

The GSTG is a popular program that has supported over 28,000 aspiring educators. Over its first 5 years of implementation—from 2020–21 to 2024–25—the GSTG supported 22,851 teacher candidates and 5,812 PPS candidates. The number of recipients increased every year between 2020–21 and 2023–24 as eligibility expanded and visibility of the program increased. In 2023–24, when the GSTG was available to all teacher candidates, nearly half of California’s new teacher candidates received a grant (45%). The GSTG was an important source of funding for PPS candidates as well.

The GSTG likely contributed to the 23% increase in the number of California-prepared teacher candidates who earned a preliminary teaching credential between 2022–23 and 2023–24. After the GSTG became available to all teacher candidates, there was a noticeable increase in the number of new preliminary credentials issued to teacher candidates who were prepared in-state. Survey respondents confirmed that the grant was important in their ability to complete their preparation and enter the profession.

The GSTG encouraged thousands of teacher candidates, especially candidates of color and career switchers, to pursue teaching and to work in high-need schools. Nearly three quarters of survey respondents said the GSTG was influential in their decision to pursue teaching, and two thirds said the grant was influential in their decision to teach in a high-need school. These perceived impacts were strongest among teacher candidates of color. Additionally, over half of GSTG recipients were over age 30, suggesting that the grant may be attracting career changers who may not have considered teaching as a viable career choice without this funding. The GSTG is also especially important for candidates who have limited access to other sources of financial aid, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and candidates pursuing a PPS credential to become a school counselor, social worker, or psychologist.

Most GSTG recipients have significant financial need, and these recipients reported that the grant enabled them to complete preparation. Nearly 4 in every 5 GSTG teacher candidate recipients were income-eligible for the federal Pell Grant, much higher than the one third of California undergraduates who received a Pell Grant in 2022–23. Survey respondents underscored the importance of the grant for completing preparation and easing their financial concerns. Nearly 60% of survey respondents indicated that they would have had to take out more student loans in the absence of the GSTG, and 42% indicated they would not have been able to finish their preparation without it.

GSTG recipients report teaching in high-need schools and hard-to-staff subjects. Survey results suggest that the GSTG Program is successfully recruiting new teachers into high-need schools and hard-to-staff subject areas in which the state has reported persistent shortages. Among survey respondents who are currently teaching, almost 9 in 10 reported teaching at a priority school, and almost all of these teachers indicated that they wanted to stay teaching at their schools after fulfilling their service obligations. GSTG recipients also reported teaching in high-need fields. Among surveyed recipients who are currently teaching, 38% indicated teaching special education, 33% reported teaching mathematics, and 30% reported teaching science (with some respondents selecting more than one teaching assignment), all fields that have been identified as shortage areas.

The GSTG is critical for meeting the financial needs of recipients, but the reduced grant amount will likely lessen its impact. A key goal of the GSTG is to substantially cover the cost of teacher preparation and enable teachers to begin their careers with little or no student debt. The original maximum award grant of $20,000 covered, on average, 80% of recipients’ tuition fees and other living expenses that were not covered by other aid. As one education preparation program leader explained:

Before the GSTG, we had 70% of our students taking out $20,000 or $30,000 [in loans] on average. When the GSTG was at $20,000, that covered almost all of tuition … [and] the number of students needing to borrow loans dropped to 10–15%. … It’s been a huge game changer.

The reduction in the maximum grant amount in 2024, from $20,000 to $10,000, has resulted in more candidates having to seek additional funding or work, increase their reliance on loans, or delay their preparation plans. For GSTG recipients who were subject to the $10,000 award cap, only 47% of their unmet needs were covered by the grant; they were also more likely than those subject to the $20,000 cap to rely on loans and take on a job.

Policy Recommendations

These findings suggest that the Golden State Teacher Grant Program has been influential in supporting a large number of aspiring teachers and PPS candidates, especially candidates with high financial need and candidates of color, to enter the profession and to serve in high-need fields and high-need schools. There are several steps that California policymakers and practitioners can take to further strengthen the GSTG Program as well as related programs:

• Ensure stability of funding and program administration. The program received $50 million in new funding in the 2025–26 budget, a modest infusion to sustain the GSTG for 1 year. Given that there were nearly 7,500 GSTG recipients in 2024–25, $50 million may be insufficient to continue meeting the current demand from teacher and PPS candidates at the $10,000 maximum award level. After 5 years, the GSTG is widely known to the field, both among aspiring educators and the EPPs that prepare them. Stable long-term funding will allow the GSTG to continue making a strong contribution to California’s supply of fully prepared educators. EPP staff also emphasized that multiyear funding and consistent program administration would enable them to promote and implement the program more effectively.
   
• Benchmark funding to cover a substantial portion of teacher candidates’ costs of preparation. While many recipients noted that the GSTG was still a deciding factor in their decision to pursue teaching after the maximum award amount was reduced from $20,000 to $10,000, the policy change has weakened the program’s ability to substantially cover candidates’ financial needs, resulting in more recipients relying on loans or taking on a job during preparation. Policymakers can maximize the GSTG’s impact by sustaining funding levels so that the grant covers a substantial portion of candidates’ preparation costs. Even after accounting for other aid, GSTG teacher candidate recipients still have to cover, on average, $25,000 beyond what they and their families can afford to contribute.
   
• Support program implementation in the field to ensure broad access to the GSTG, timely disbursement of funds, and high service fulfillment rates. Uptake of the GSTG differs substantially, ranging from 0% in some EPPs to full uptake in others. Some EPPs, especially programs with limited financial aid staff, may benefit from additional support for navigating program changes, certifying eligibility, targeting outreach to prospective and current students, and disbursing funds in a timely manner. Given that some surveyed recipients reported difficulty in finding a job at an eligible school, local education agencies should be informed and engaged to be strong partners in ensuring that GSTG recipients are hired in a timely manner and placed in priority schools where they can fulfill their service commitment.
   
• Apply lessons learned from the GSTG as the state implements other financial supports for teacher candidates, including student teaching stipends. The 2025–26 state budget includes $300 million for the Student Teacher Stipend Program. This program will provide a $10,000 stipend for preservice candidates during the year in which they complete their student teaching or residency. Lessons from the first 5 years of the GSTG suggest this new program will benefit from being designed in collaboration with interest holders, communicated well to implementers, and maintained with stability over time. Communications can be facilitated by the teacher recruitment initiative funded in the 2025–26 budget and managed by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. This initiative should integrate strong, direct communication to aspiring educators about the availability of the GSTG, along with the new Student Teacher Stipend Program.
   
• Strengthen data collection to better evaluate the impact of the grant. CSAC largely relies on voluntary reporting from EPPs and GSTG recipients to track credentialing and service fulfillment rates. A systematic approach to linking and analyzing data across CSAC, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), and the California Department of Education (CDE), such as through a data-sharing agreement among the three agencies, would improve long-term tracking of the GSTG’s impact, as well as other educator workforce programs. With a linked data system, state agencies and researchers could identify GSTG recipients in the CTC credentialing and CDE staffing data, which enables them to track the credentialing, employment, and retention of GSTG recipients over time. Such data would also allow CSAC to track and provide support to recipients who may be struggling to obtain their credentials or complete their service commitment in a timely manner, reducing the likelihood of grant repayment, which could have significant consequences for the financial well-being of these recipients.

Strengthening the Educator Pipeline Through Service Scholarships: California’s Golden State Teacher Grant Program by Melanie Leung-Gagné, Maria Maria Castillo, Susan Kemper Patrick, Desiree Carver-Thomas, Tara Kini, Cicely Bingener, and María Virginia Giani is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This research was supported by the Gates Foundation. Core operating support for LPI is provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Heising-Simons Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Raikes Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Skyline Foundation, and MacKenzie Scott. We are grateful to them for their generous support. The ideas voiced here are those of the authors and not those of our funders.