It’s commencement season, including for my firstborn son, who graduates high school in less than two weeks. So it’s a good time to check in on the “portrait of a graduate” movement.
If that term is unfamiliar to you, CASEL defines it as:
A holistic look at the skills and competencies students need to master to thrive in work, postsecondary educational opportunities, community, and their personal lives.
Here’s how Education Week’s Libby Stanford put it a few years ago:
Rather than deciding that a student is a successful graduate based on the amount of time they’ve spent in the classroom, the portrait presents a more well-rounded view of what success looks like.
She also offered some examples:
In Kentucky, a successful student is an engaged citizen, critical thinker, effective communicator, empowered learner, creative contributor, and productive collaborator, according to the state’s portrait of a learner.
In South Carolina, successful students should be able to read critically, express ideas, investigate through inquiry, reason quantitatively, use sources, design solutions, learn independently, navigate conflict, lead teams, build networks, sustain wellness, and engage as a citizen, according to the state’s portrait of a graduate competencies.
And in New York, the proposed portrait, which the state’s Board of Regents will vote on in an upcoming meeting, describes a successful graduate as someone who is a critical thinker, innovative problem solver, literate across content areas, culturally competent, social-emotionally competent, an effective communicator, and a global citizen.
These “portraits” are being adopted at both the state and district levels—and surely by individual schools, too.
My question is: Should we applaud this?
On the one hand, these statements affirm what everybody already knows: School is about more than just academic learning, and success in life depends on skills that can’t be easily measured by standardized tests. Indeed, whenever parents are asked about what they want their kids to learn, “life skills” or something similar almost always rises to the top. Call it pragmatism or anti-intellectualism, but this reflects a longstanding strand of American thought and culture, and also common sense.
So perhaps these are harmless exercises just re-stating the obvious.
On the other hand, at a time when grade inflation is rampant, AI is making cheating easier than ever, and student achievement is in the cellar, do we really need another effort to downplay the importance of academic achievement? Even if these portraits take care to communicate “both/and”—as in, both traditional academics and other skills and competencies are important—should we worry that the academic piece will be overlooked?
* * *
But it’s not just the potential crowding out of academics that makes me nervous—especially if states, districts, and schools take these “portraits” seriously. That’s the intention in Arizona, for example, as Chad Gestson wrote in The 74 back in January:
Childcare providers weaving the profile into kindergarten readiness. PK–12 systems embedding it into curriculum, instruction, advising, and accountability. Out-of-school programs reinforcing mindsets, habits, and skills beyond the classroom. Higher education and industry evolving credentials, internships and work-based learning around the same vision. Government agencies and philanthropy aligning policies and investments to this shared north star.
If “portraits of a graduate” aren’t just feel-good visioning exercises, then we’d better pay attention to what they are promoting. Also writing in January, Dan Buck took to Education Next to explain what’s at stake:
These frameworks extend the scope of traditional standards from academic content and skills to personality traits, fundamental beliefs, and patterns of thought. Portraits of a Graduate change the question facing policymakers from “What should we teach our children?” to “What kind of people do we want to create?” In so doing, they extend the goals of schooling from traditional academics to values and character traits. That represents a seismic shift.
In my view, Dan does a masterful job explaining the many reasons why such a shift is problematic. I encourage you to read his entire essay. Among them:
- Some of the qualities these portraits address are not malleable, like inborn personality traits.
- The danger of political indoctrination often lurks beneath the surface, such as with New York’s intention to create “global citizens.”
- Sometimes the portraits step into mental health terrain, an area where schools have little expertise and sometimes do harm.
- While a focus on developing strong character goes back at least to Plato, concerns about not offending anyone lead these portraits to aim for the lowest common denominator.
I share those concerns. But I also understand the impulse at work behind this movement. So here’s where I see room for compromise:
We should embrace “portraits of a graduate” for schools of choice but not for states or districts or traditional public schools.
That’s not because I’m pro-school choice (though of course I am), but because schools of choice are intentional communities that parents and educators opt into, unlike traditional neighborhood schools, districts, or states. (Indeed, my son is graduating from a traditional public high school in the D.C. suburbs, and any “portrait” it would develop would either be pablum or would offend some families and their politics, religion, and/or cultural heritage.) As intentional communities, schools of choice can and should make it clear what they value. Which is the only way these portraits will do any good.
Indeed, the best private schools have always been clear about their intention to develop more than just students’ minds. Great charter schools, including what we used to call the “no excuses” ones, also have a clear point of view on the type of people they are working to develop. And that means they aren’t for everyone.
And in that context, a statement like a “portrait of a graduate,” if taken seriously, may in fact do some good. If a school says it wants graduates who “strive for excellence,” for example, then it should regularly celebrate excellence—lauding students who produce academically excellent work, as well as those who demonstrate excellence on the playing field or in the orchestra pit. If “honesty” and “integrity” are core values, then it better be sure that its code of conduct aligns with those aspirations.
But states and school districts, as governmental entities charged with serving everyone, should steer clear of these exercises. State standards can and should identify important skills that students should learn that aren’t explicitly academic, such as in the domains of financial literacy, personal health and fitness, and civic responsibility. (This is, of course, nothing new.)
But only schools of choice should paint portraits of a graduate—at least if we want those portraits to be clear and bright and not just a bunch of watery pastels.
