State and local school boards like the process of developing a portrait of a graduate: it gets everyone talking about what they value, launches discussions about students' different postsecondary goals, and generates lots of community input.
Unfortunately, it also leads to consensus around unverifiable metrics, statements that conflict with other requirements (state, federal, or higher ed), and ambiguous language that everyone agrees with until they actually start working on the practical side.
Supporters of the process say that it recognizes that "college for all" was never realistic and not actually what everyone wants. They say that rather than downplay traditional academics, it elevates the trades, technical schools, and enlistment.
I'm not convinced a single system can elevate all of those without downplaying traditional academics. Too much of the education system here and abroad is built on a hierarchy, in part because everyone agrees there isn't enough time to do everything. Is it a bad thing to downplay traditional academics? I'm conflicted on that. The best answer is probably to have multiple systems as you point out.
I'm confused about why this is good for "schools of choice" but not neighborhood schools. As a middle school educator we were developing the idea of "the successful student" as a way for students to see success as something more than GPA and as a way to reinforce positive behavior overall.....transition from "Stop doing that" to "Hey, you're doing that well."
While academic achievement wasn't a direct goal, it did have the idea that you could be making C's and still be a good student in a general way. Continued effort at academics was always part of it. There was not any aspect that suggested you only need to behave a certain way and grades don't matter.
There are students that see themselves in a bad light. The wall to making a B or an A is too intimidating. Why not offer some encouragement to succeed in an area that they do have control over while pushing habits that can only help their academics improve?
They can do several things at one time, and these things compliment each other.
Why is that bad for the kid that gets on a bus and goes to a neighborhood school?
Hi Andy. You make a good case. (And to be clear: I went to traditional public schools from K-12, and my kids are doing the same.)
My argument is that it's hard, in a diverse America, to come up with "profiles" that make real choices without offending people. "We value this but not that" is inherently divisive. That's OK for schools of choice because nobody is mandated to attend them. Parents and educators can choose schools whose values align with theirs. It's not so good for traditional public schools, where attendance is compulsory.
And if the profiles don't make real choices, or express values, they tend to be meaningless pablum.
But maybe not? In what kind of areas is your school highlighting success? I assume you're doing it in a way that's unobjectionable? But still real?
My reply can be found here: The real risk is not that Portrait work will make expectations too broad. The real risk is that we keep graduating students with records that are too narrow
State and local school boards like the process of developing a portrait of a graduate: it gets everyone talking about what they value, launches discussions about students' different postsecondary goals, and generates lots of community input.
Unfortunately, it also leads to consensus around unverifiable metrics, statements that conflict with other requirements (state, federal, or higher ed), and ambiguous language that everyone agrees with until they actually start working on the practical side.
Well said, James. In your experience, does it also downplay traditional academics?
I think that's accurate.
Supporters of the process say that it recognizes that "college for all" was never realistic and not actually what everyone wants. They say that rather than downplay traditional academics, it elevates the trades, technical schools, and enlistment.
I'm not convinced a single system can elevate all of those without downplaying traditional academics. Too much of the education system here and abroad is built on a hierarchy, in part because everyone agrees there isn't enough time to do everything. Is it a bad thing to downplay traditional academics? I'm conflicted on that. The best answer is probably to have multiple systems as you point out.
I'm confused about why this is good for "schools of choice" but not neighborhood schools. As a middle school educator we were developing the idea of "the successful student" as a way for students to see success as something more than GPA and as a way to reinforce positive behavior overall.....transition from "Stop doing that" to "Hey, you're doing that well."
While academic achievement wasn't a direct goal, it did have the idea that you could be making C's and still be a good student in a general way. Continued effort at academics was always part of it. There was not any aspect that suggested you only need to behave a certain way and grades don't matter.
There are students that see themselves in a bad light. The wall to making a B or an A is too intimidating. Why not offer some encouragement to succeed in an area that they do have control over while pushing habits that can only help their academics improve?
They can do several things at one time, and these things compliment each other.
Why is that bad for the kid that gets on a bus and goes to a neighborhood school?
Hi Andy. You make a good case. (And to be clear: I went to traditional public schools from K-12, and my kids are doing the same.)
My argument is that it's hard, in a diverse America, to come up with "profiles" that make real choices without offending people. "We value this but not that" is inherently divisive. That's OK for schools of choice because nobody is mandated to attend them. Parents and educators can choose schools whose values align with theirs. It's not so good for traditional public schools, where attendance is compulsory.
And if the profiles don't make real choices, or express values, they tend to be meaningless pablum.
But maybe not? In what kind of areas is your school highlighting success? I assume you're doing it in a way that's unobjectionable? But still real?
Mike
My reply can be found here: The real risk is not that Portrait work will make expectations too broad. The real risk is that we keep graduating students with records that are too narrow
https://rsquier.substack.com/p/a-portrait-is-not-a-substitute-for?r=1riq22&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true