Where Each State Stands with Individual Learning Plan (ILP, ICAP, IGP, ACP) Mandates

Individual Learning Plans (ILPs), also known as Individual Career and Academic Plans (ICAPs), Individual Graduation Plans (IGPs), or Academic and Career Plans (ACPs), are personalized frameworks that connect students’ secondary learning with their postsecondary pursuits. Through ILPs, students can explore career pathways, assess their interests, set achievable goals, and actively build the durable and technical skills they’ll need for success in college and the workforce. Dozens of states now mandate ILPs as a core component of college and career readiness, often requiring their completion for high school graduation.

Why Are States Mandating ILPs for High School Graduation?

The increase in requirements reflects growing evidence that ILP completion plays a role in improving student engagement and attendance, while increasing graduation rates and reducing disciplinary issues. The mandates also stem from U.S. Department of Labor and Lumina Foundation initiatives to personalize education, bridge IEPs for special needs students, and align secondary school curricula with workforce demands. The primary goal is to ensure that a high school diploma is backed by a viable, data-driven plan for career readiness and higher education success.

Which States Require ILPs for High School Graduation?

These states require formal ILPs (or equivalents like ICAPs) for graduation/promotion, guiding students through career assessments, course planning, and postsecondary goals.

• Alaska Individual Learning Plan (ILP): Flexible local mandate helps students create personalized academic and career pathways starting in middle school.
• Arkansas Student Success Plan (SSP): State mandate requires a plan for all secondary students via the LAUNCH for Students platform for the 2026-27 school year.
• Arizona Education and Career Plan (ECAP): Grades 8–12 requirement using district platforms for career exploration, 4-year course plans, and postsecondary applications.
• Colorado Individual Career and Academic Plan (ICAP): Nationally recognized model mandated grades 9–12 (middle school optional); builds portfolios, PWR evidence, and annual reviews.
• Connecticut Student Success Plan (SSP): All high schoolers must complete career interest surveys, academic alignment, and graduation checklists with counselor oversight.
• Delaware Delaware Career and Technical Plan (DCTP): CTE-focused mandate with local customization for workforce credentials, apprenticeships, and dual enrollment planning.
• Florida Career and Education Plan: State mandate requires a middle school planning course that produces a personalized academic and career plan.
• Georgia Individual Graduation Plan (IGP): Starts 8th grade via GaFutures.org; selects career clusters, pathways, and postsecondary options with portfolio requirements.
• Hawaii Individual Learning Plan (ILP): Statewide HawaiiCareerExplorer platform mandates career matching, skill-building, and graduation planning for all students.
• Idaho Individual Learning Plan (ILP): Grades 8–12 process includes interest surveys, employability skills training, academic forecasting, and annual updates.
• Indiana Individual Career and Academic Plan (ICAP): Comprehensive grades 6–12 program tracks WorkKeys, certifications, and college applications in student portfolios.
• Iowa Individual Career and Academic Plan (ICAP): Grades 8–12 (grade 5 expansion 2025–26); annual career assessments, course selection, and FAFSA preparation required.
• Kansas Individual Plan of Study (IPS): Perkins-mandated for CTE concentrators (district-wide adoption); builds multi-year plans with industry certifications.
• Kentucky Individual Learning Plan (ILP): Grades 6–12 transition portfolios include career inventories, ACT WorkKeys, and postsecondary action steps.
• Louisiana Individual Learning Plan (ILP): JAG Louisiana statewide platform mandates Jump Start credentials, TOPS scholarship alignment, and career clusters.
• Maryland Student Learning Plan: High school requirement via MarylandCollegeandCareer.org links Bridge Maryland skills to career goals and course sequences.
• Massachusetts My Career and Academic Plan (MyCAP): Competency-based mandate begins middle school; includes IEPs integration and industry-recognised credentials.
• Michigan Educational Development Plan (EDP): PA 141 (2007) requires grade 7+ plans outlining postsecondary pathways, MI School Data integration, and counselor sign-off.
• Minnesota Individual Student and Multitiered Support Plan / Career Plan (ISMP): Mandated local framework combines academic/behavioral support with career planning and graduation appeals.
• Mississippi Individual Success Plan (ISP): State mandate (Public School Accountability Standard 14.1.1); must be completed by each student before exiting the 7th grade.
• Missouri Individual Career and Academic Plan (ICAP): All students complete career clusters, interest profilers, academic forecasting, and A+ Schools eligibility tracking.
• Nevada Individual Learning Plan (ILP): High school graduation requirement measures college/career readiness via career goals, course plans, and skill demonstrations.
• New Jersey Personalized Student Learning Plan (PSLP): Statewide mandate customizes career clusters, dual credits, and SEL competencies for every student.
• New Mexico Next Step Plan: Locally implemented mandate covers career awareness, academic recovery plans, and CTE endorsements.
• Oklahoma Individual Career and Academic Plan (ICAP): HB 2155 graduation requirement (9th grade, class of 2023+); annual counselor-led reviews with portfolio artifacts.
• Oregon Education Plan and Profile: Modified diploma pathway mandate; locally customized for personalized graduation, CTE, and extended options.
• Rhode Island Individual Learning Plan (ILP): Grades 6–12 requirement supports portfolio development, career advising, and postsecondary transition planning.
• South Carolina Career Guidance Model: Personal Pathways to Success mandate aligns career clusters, WorkKeys, and CAP scholarship requirements.
• Tennessee Education and Development Plan: Grades 6–12 mandate includes TVAAS goals, career inventories, and postsecondary action agreements.
• Texas College, Career, and Military Readiness Plan: Accountability-tied mandate; districts use Naviance-like tools for CCMR indicators and endorsements.
• Vermont Personalized Learning Plan (PLP): Personalized roadmap mandate supports flexible pathways, proficiency-based graduation, and career-connected learning.
• Virginia Academic and Career Plan (ACP): Grades 6–12 mandate via Virginia Education Wizard selects concentrations, predicts graduation, and tracks credentials.
• Washington High School and Beyond Plan (HSBP): Requires a universal online platform for career-connected learning, skill attainment, and graduation pathway alternatives.
• West Virginia Individual Learning Plan / 4-Year Plan (ILP / 4YP): Middle school mandate details annual goals, career objectives, and Hope Scholarship alignment.
• Wisconsin Academic and Career Plan (ACP): 2013 law mandates a statewide platform for grades 6–12 career exploration and course planning.

Which States Have Locally Driven Guidance Rather Than Mandated Policies?

These states may not have a formal mandate, but implementation is either suggested by the state or left entirely to local districts.

• Alabama: Districts voluntarily implement 4-year plans or IGPs focused on career clusters and course selection.
• California: Local Linked Learning pathways and CTE programs drive ILP-style planning without a unified mandate.
• Illinois: Districts choose CCPs aligned to regional career pathways; no statewide enforcement.
• Maine: Widespread local adoption for proficiency-based diplomas and postsecondary counseling.
• Montana: Local programs support Big Sky Career Pathways and work-based learning.
• Nebraska: State guidance encourages district PLPs with career assessments and course planning.
• New Hampshire: Local implementation supports competency recovery and career exploration.
• New York: Regional CTE hubs provide CCP frameworks; district discretion.
• North Carolina: Local career development plans encouraged alongside ECHS pathways.
• North Dakota: Districts lead ILP development tied to career guidance counseling.
• Ohio: OCP mandated only for CTE; general ILPs district-driven.
• Pennsylvania: Statewide encouragement for K-12 career awareness and planning.
• South Dakota: Guidance supports local CTE pathways and career cluster exploration.
• Wyoming: Districts implement voluntarily alongside Hathaway scholarships.

The Future of Personalized Pathways: Beyond the Mandate

State mandates provide the framework, but the true value of an Individual Learning Plan lies in its ability to evolve with each student’s personal and academic growth. For that reason, schools are largely moving away from checklist compliance and toward solutions that bring about meaningful career storytelling over time.

• Durable skills integration: States are increasingly using ILPs to track human skills, such as critical thinking, AI literacy, and adaptability, that are difficult to measure but essential for workforce readiness.
• Data alignment: With tools like MajorClarity, districts can bridge the gap between classroom learning and labor market realities, keeping each student’s goals aligned with high-demand careers of the present and future.
• Program design: When leaders have a clear picture of which courses students want to take, they can use that data to provide more relevant career pathways that increase both enrollment and engagement.
• Access to real opportunity: ILPs act as a leveling force, providing first-generation and non-traditional students with a clear roadmap to scholarships, apprenticeships, and credit recovery options that might otherwise be hard to access.

Ultimately, an ILP is so much more than a graduation requirement; it’s a student’s very first professional portfolio. By strengthening the connection between K-12 learning and postsecondary career goals, states that mandate ILPs are providing an essential service, making sure every high school diploma offers both purpose and promise to the one who earned it.

For guidance on meeting ICAP mandates and scaling the implementation, we also recommend: Why ICAP Implementation Often Falls Short and How Districts Can Make it Work at Scale.