This work is grounded in the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP) Coherence Framework which builds upo Tushman and O’Reilly's (2002) congruence model.
The PELP Framework emphasizes interrelationships between theories of change, organizational strategies, and the school environment, with an emphasis on the instructional core dynamic between students, teachers, and core content.
The exploratory research in this study involved interviews with 15 school district leaders
from across the United States. We employed purposive, non-random sampling to ensure
representation across a variety of district sizes and geographic regions. Participants were
recruited through professional networks and each district was known to have begun PoG
implementation. The 15 districts represented in this study ranged in size from 750 to 82,000
students, spanning all four U.S. Census regions . Districts also varied by length of
PoG implementation. Some districts were in their first year of introducing their PoG, while
others were in their eighth year of implementation. This diversity enabled rich comparison across
different contexts and implementation phases.
Interviews were semi-structured and questions were open-ended. We determined our initial set of qualitative codes through ongoing, open, inductive
coding. We then engaged in selective coding to validate the relationships between themes against
the data. Our analytical process evolved throughout the study as our initial set of codes and
subcodes was refined and expanded based on the data set. Detailed notes were kept on each
transcript, and we tracked emerging patterns through visual mapping on chart paper, allowing for
constant comparison across interviews.
Results:
This qualitative study examined Portrait of a Graduate implementation across 15 U.S. school districts through interviews with district leaders and document analysis.
Implementation Depth:
Using a four-level continuum from Symbolic Presence to Transformational Integration across seven domains (Vision & Systems, Leadership & Planning, Curriculum Alignment, Instructional Strategies, Assessment Approaches, Professional Learning, and Stakeholder Experience), the study found:
Nine districts operated primarily at Level 2 (Emerging Integration), with implementation efforts underway but not yet systematic
Five districts operated primarily at Level 3 (Substantial Alignment), showing more coordinated implementation efforts
Only one district existed at Level 4 (Transformational Integration) across most domains
The majority of districts had not achieved full transformation aligned to the POG, with most operating between emerging integration and substantial alignment.
Key Findings:
Curriculum Alignment: Districts varied regarding how much they incorporated POG competencies into curriculum guides. Some had rewritten district guidance documents to explicitly embed POG competencies; others let teachers experiment within professional learning communities. One leader described the POG and content as "sort of parallel and sometimes occasionally they weave together."
Instructional Shifts: Many districts experimented with project-based learning, collaborative structures, hands-on learning, and inquiry-based approaches. However, the majority noted shifts in instruction were minor and/or occurring only in pockets. The shifts that were occurring may support POG competency development, but connections were not always explicit.
Assessment: In many cases, assessment of content knowledge and assessment of POG competencies remained distinct. Several districts used student portfolios, capstones, defenses and exhibitions, and performance tasks to enable students to reflect on POG competency development. Only two districts currently require POG-related capstone experiences for graduation, although several others are piloting similar approaches.
Professional Development: District leaders underscored the importance of both educating teachers and supporting them as they found ways to bring POG competencies to life in classrooms. Several districts balanced central office direction with teacher or school autonomy, though too much autonomy was a barrier to achieving district-wide POG alignment in some cases.
Leadership and Vision: The majority of participants referred to the POG as their district's guiding vision, using terms like "north star," "promise," and "foundation." The POG was anchored or referenced in many districts' strategic plans and consistently promoted by district leaders. However, delivering on that promise remains fragmented and not fully realized, with leaders frequently saying "We are not yet where we want to be."
COVID-19 Impact: Nearly all district leaders mentioned the pandemic. Several pointed to COVID as stalling or derailing implementation progress, while others saw it as a catalyst that created hunger for unified vision and collective purpose after isolation.
Educators nationwide recognize the urgency of preparing students for an uncertain future. The competencies found in Portrait of a Graduate frameworks—collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, adaptability, agency—represent essential capacities for navigating rapid technological, economic, and social change. Districts invest significant resources developing these aspirational documents, yet this study reveals a critical gap: creating a POG does not automatically transform what happens in classrooms.
This research demonstrates that system coherence—not vision alone—determines whether POG initiatives move beyond posters on walls. The findings provide practitioners with tools to identify specific gaps in alignment across their systems:
Where POG competencies appear in curriculum documents but not in actual instructional tasks
Where professional learning raises awareness but doesn't build capacity for instructional transformation
Where leadership messaging about POG lacks consistency or specificity
Where assessment practices remain disconnected from stated competency goals
The seven-domain implementation continuum enables district leaders to diagnose their current position honestly and identify highest-leverage intervention points. The research suggests specific strategies for moving forward:
Using assessment (capstones, portfolios, performance tasks) as a catalyst for instructional change rather than an end-stage addition
Building leadership coherence through consistent, specific articulation of implementation expectations
Designing sustained, job-embedded professional learning rather than one-time awareness sessions
Creating structures that balance central direction with teacher autonomy
Understanding what separates symbolic from substantive implementation has significant implications for how districts allocate resources, design change strategies, and set realistic expectations for this transformational work.
References
Alsbury, T. L., & Whitaker, K. S. (2015). District superintendents as instructional leaders? In G. Ivory (Ed.), Quandaries of the small-district superintendency (pp. 35-54). Palgrave Macmillan.
America Succeeds. (2024). Durable skills advantage framework. Available at https://www.durableskillsadvantage.org
Battelle for Kids. (2024). Portrait of a graduate gallery. Available at https://www.battelleforkids.org/portrait-of-a-graduate/portrait-of-a-graduate-gallery
Berger, A. R., Turk-Bicakci, L., Garet, M. S., Knudson, J., & Hoshen, G. (2013). Early college, early success: Early college high school initiative impact study. Available from American Institutes for Research at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577243
Camara, W. (2013). Defining and measuring college and career readiness: A validation framework. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(4), 16-27.
Chingos, M. M., Whitehurst, G. J., & Lindquist, K. M. (2014). School superintendents: Vital or irrelevant? Brookings Institution. Available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SuperintendentsBrown-Center9314.pdf
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education (Vol. 30). Harvard Education Press.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2024). What is the CASEL framework? Available at https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/what-is-the-casel-framework
College Board. (2019). Research foundations: Empirical foundations for college and career readiness. Available at https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/research-foundations-college-career-readiness.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common core state standards. Available at https://corestandards.org
Conley, D. T. (2012). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school. Jossey-Bass.
Del Mar Union School District. (2024). Destination 2028! Available at https://www.dmusd.org/Our-District/Strategic-Plan/index.html
Herren, R. (1986). Controversy and unification: The passage of the Smith-Hughes Act. Journal of Agricultural Education, 27(1), 39-44.
Honig, M. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals' development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12443258
Johnson, S. M., Marietta, G., Higgins, M. C., Mapp, K. L., & Grossman, A. (2014). Achieving coherence in district improvement: managing the relationship between the Central Office and schools. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB20646115
Jolly, J. L. (2009). Historical perspectives: The National Defense Education Act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50-53.
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & McCullough, C. (2019). How school districts influence student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0171
Malin, J. R., Bragg, D. D., & Hackmann, D. G. (2017). College and career readiness and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 809-838.
Mattern, K., Burrus, J., Camara, W., O'Connor, R., Hansen, M. A., Gambrell, J., Casillas, A., & Bobek, B. (2014). Broadening the definition of college and career readiness: A holistic approach. Available from ACT at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555591.pdf
Mishkind, A.. (2014, September). Overview: State definitions of college and career readiness. Available from American Institutes for Research at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555670
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24(2), 213-236.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113-130.
Savitz-Romer, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Fancsali, C. (2015). Social, emotional, and affective skills for college and career success. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(5), 18-27.
Shek, D. T., Chau, C., Zhou, K., Chu, C. K., Chu, K., & Li, A. (2023). Nurturing holistic development of university students: The role of non-cognitive skills. International Journal of Child & Adolescent Health, 16(2), 111-122.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2024). Profile of the South Carolina graduate. Available at https://ed.sc.gov/about/profile-of-sc-graduate
Ståhlkrantz, K., & Rapp, S. (2020). Superintendents as boundary spanners: Facilitating improvement of teaching and learning. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 5(2), 376-415.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. Basic Books.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494270.pdf
Yettick, H., Cline, F., & Young, J. (2012). Dual goals: The academic achievement of college prep students with career majors. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 27(2), 120-142.
Other presentations in this group:
Back
Trips and Tours