Portrait of a Graduate 201 Article 1
A Three-Article Series on Moving from Portrait to Practice
By Dr. Tovah Sheldon
The Michigan Virtual leadership series Portrait of a Graduate 101, released in March 2026, emphasized a simple but essential truth: a portrait is not just a branding exercise or a polished poster on a wall in your school. It is full of paradoxes, such as the idea that process is just as important as product. At its best, a Portrait of a Graduate, which goes by many names including Portrait of a Learner, Learner Profiles, and Vision of a Learner, is a community’s shared answer to a deeper question: What do we want our young people to know, do, and become? The strongest portraits move beyond abstract aspirations and define the durable skills, mindsets, and dispositions learners need for life, work, relationships, and citizenship. But this is not the end, the work never ends, and will never be perfect. A Portrait of a Graduate is a key foundation, and eventually, every district reaches the same turning point. That creation is no longer the main challenge or opportunity. Implementation is! The real test is whether or not the portrait becomes something learners of all ages and roles recognize and own, educators wholeheartedly teach and celebrate, families understand and contribute to, and communities reinforce.
This “Portrait of a Graduate 201” series is for districts asking: “Our Portrait is approved. Now, how do we make it visible, usable, and sustainable without turning it into one more initiative?” More specifically, in article 1, we will define and make visible the components of implementation, examine both design thinking and implementation science as strategic approaches for integrating, iterating, and evolving a district’s Portrait of a Graduate. We provide example activities your district could use and explore the greater context of this implementation work. Then, in Article 2, we will hear from three districts that are in the thick of it. These districts are implementing and iterating their portraits. We’ll learn from them what is working. You may see your district as similar to these successful examples and be inspired to try a version of what they’ve done. Lastly, in article 3, we will notice “breakdowns”, when the portrait or a strategy to implement the portrait isn’t working, and the “build-ups”, what you can do about it. We will close this final article with a little more on decision making and innovation– bringing it back to design thinking and implementation science as providing many right ways forward and many on-ramps to this continued work to better the field of education, increase student and adult success, and positive impact.
In short, this series, “Portrait of a Graduate 201,” explains and explores how districts make their portraits come to life, last, and improve. Much like James Clear’s description of building habits in his book “Atomic Habits”, we’ll go from “motion,” including planning, thinking, exploring, etcetera, to “action,” including operationalizing the portrait and executing ideas. James Clear states you need both motion and action, but motion without action is just busyness and procrastination. You don’t need another plan or more meetings to wordsmith a definition one more time. Instead, let’s make an intentional shift to action with implementation, communication, culture, iteration, documentation, and on-ramps as the throughlines.
Article 1: From Approval to Everyday Purposeful Practice
Whether a district approved its portrait last night or adopted it several years ago, implementation depends on the interaction of people, processes, products, and perspectives. Education leaders know how quickly strategic plans, initiatives, frameworks, and programs can lose energy when they are layered onto existing work without sufficient coherence. They also know that a promising idea can thrive in one district and falter in another because local history, relationships, capacity, timing, and trust shape how change is experienced.
Implementation is the disciplined and relational work of making an idea part of how a system thinks and acts. In the case of a Portrait of a Graduate, implementation asks the system to make the portrait visible in curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional learning, student voice, family communication, hiring, onboarding, partnerships, school improvement processes, and leadership routines. It also asks the system to protect time and attention for learning while ordinary school responsibilities continue.
A national analysis from the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) found that many district portraits define competencies clearly, while fewer specify how the competencies will be measured, taught, supported, or developed over time (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2026). That pattern will feel familiar to many education leaders. Naming competencies can generate energy and alignment. Building the infrastructure that helps those competencies shape learning experiences requires a different level of system design.
Building the infrastructure that helps those competencies shape learning experiences requires a different level of system design.
Table 1. Implementation Features Often Missing After Portrait Adoption
Implementation Feature | Percentage of Districts Integrating the Feature |
|---|---|
Clearly defined competencies | 80% |
Measurement or accountability processes | 15% |
Instructional guidance for teachers | 11% |
Developmental milestones or grade-level progressions | 5% |
School support systems defined | 5% |
Portrait of an Educator or adult competencies defined | 5% |
Source: Adapted from CASEL's national analysis of district Portrait of a Graduate implementation features (CASEL, 2026).
It is worth noting that the limitations of the CASEL research include, but are not limited to, the way they deduced and named the implementation features. Basically, this CASEL report is a good place to start when thinking about what implementation works for Portrait of a Graduate, but don’t stop there, and those aren’t the only features!
Seeing Better With Two Useful Lenses
Two well-defined, well-researched fields that offer valuable guidance for this phase of the Portrait of a Graduate work are Design Thinking and Implementation Science. Each field has its own history, language, and practices. Together, they can help leaders attend to both human experience and system conditions. Design thinking supports empathy, imagination, and contextual fit. Implementation science supports clarity, infrastructure, measurement, and sustainability. Their integration is especially useful in education because portraits are both deeply human and deeply systemic.
Their integration is especially useful in education because portraits are both deeply human and deeply systemic.
Design Thinking
Design thinking has evolved from product and service design into a set of human-centered practices used in education, civic life, and organizational change. In education, design thinking centers the lived experiences of students, educators, families, and community members. It invites people to notice, listen, define problems with care, generate multiple possibilities, prototype, test, and revise. Stanford d.school describes common design modes as empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test, while educational applications often emphasize practices such as noticing, reflecting, building, testing, and sharing (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University [Stanford d.school], 2018; IDEO, 2012; Panke, 2019).
When applied well, design thinking can help a portrait remain connected to the people it is intended to serve. It can illuminate the gap between a district's stated competencies and learners' daily experiences. It can also build adult and student agency by inviting people closest to the work to shape the practices, rituals, spaces, and tools through which the portrait becomes real. Educational research on design thinking suggests that it can support school improvement and innovation when leaders attend to context, equity, participation, and the cognitive demands of the process (Peterson, 2022; VanGronigen et al., 2023).
Implementation Science
Implementation science brings a complementary orientation. It studies how evidence-informed practices become routine in real-world settings, and it pays close attention to the conditions that allow a practice to be adopted, used well, improved, scaled, and sustained (Fixsen et al., 2005; Lyon, 2017). The Active Implementation Frameworks (AIF) developed by the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) emphasize usable innovations, implementation stages, implementation drivers, implementation teams, and improvement cycles (National Implementation Research Network [NIRN], 2015). For Portrait of a Graduate work, implementation science can help districts clarify what each competency means in practice, identify the infrastructure required to support adult behavior change, create data routines that inform learning, and sustain momentum through leadership transitions. The field also offers practical methods such as Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, which allow teams to test changes on a small scale, learn from evidence, and refine before expanding the work (Langley et al., 2009; Moen & Norman, 2010). In Michigan, many leaders will recognize related habits of mind in the Michigan Integrated Continuous Improvement Process, or MICIP, which emphasizes needs assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation as an ongoing improvement process (Michigan Department of Education, 2024).
Portrait work benefits from both lenses because it asks leaders to hold a complex set of questions. What do our learners and educators experience? What practices are already helping the portrait come alive? What conditions are limiting access or consistency? Which parts of the portrait need to remain stable across the system? How will we know whether the portrait is influencing learning in meaningful and equitable ways?
Table 2. How Design Thinking and Implementation Science Contribute to Portrait Implementation
Lens | Primary Contribution | Guiding Questions |
|---|---|---|
Design Thinking | Human experience, empathy, participation, creativity, and contextual fit | What are students, educators, families, and partners experiencing, and what might make the portrait more usable and meaningful for them? |
Implementation Science | Shared definition, infrastructure, adult behavior change, measurement, scaling, and sustainability | What needs to be defined, supported, measured, and protected so the portrait can be used well over time? |
Intentional Integration | Human-centered change supported by disciplined learning routines and system conditions | How can the district test, learn, adapt, and sustain the portrait without losing coherence or local ownership? |
Note: This comparison is intended as a practical synthesis for Portrait of a Graduate implementation, drawing on design thinking and implementation science literature cited throughout this article.
In short, intentional integration means the district does not choose between human-centered design and disciplined implementation science. It uses both: one to understand and shape the experience of the people closest to the work, and the other to build the routines, supports, and evidence systems that help the work last. Intentional integration of design thinking and implementation science might look like:
Students see the Portrait in a reflection prompt after a group project.
Teachers see it in a Professional Learning Communities (PLC) protocol for reviewing student work.
A principal might use it when deciding what professional learning to prioritize.
Boards of Education might use it when asking whether a new initiative advances the district’s graduate vision.
But there could also be a million other ways! It is ‘both-and’ thinking, actions, and decision-making.
An Integrated Approach to Moving from Portrait to Practice
Intentional integration does not require a district to adopt a new initiative with its own language, branding, and compliance routines. It begins by using design thinking and implementation science as practical lenses for strengthening the work already underway. The following moves can help districts translate an approved portrait into coherent practice while preserving the human-centered spirit that made the portrait meaningful in the first place.
Table 3. Key Ideas & Possible Actions. Below are seven key ideas, each supported with specific, possible Implementation Science and Design Thinking actions.
Translate each Portrait competency into observable practice
Design Thinking Strategies/Actions | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
Conduct adaptive initiative inventories
Design Thinking Strategies/Action | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
Co-design learning experiences and rituals that make competencies visible
Design Thinking Strategies/Actions | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
Develop learning progressions and assessments with key measurement infrastructure
Design Thinking Strategies/Actions | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
Test implementation through small learning cycles
Design Thinking Strategies/Actions | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
Create feedback loops that connect practice, policy, and systems
Design Thinking Strategies/Actions | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
Attend to adult learning and sustainability from the beginning
Design Thinking Strategies/Actions | Implementation Science Actions |
|---|---|
|
|
*Many of the promising practices listed above are sourced from NIRN's AIF, MICIP Process Guide, Stanford's D. School, and IDEOU. Note the full citation and resource section at the end of the article.
Portrait Coherence Across Practice, Policy, and Systems
The most successful portrait implementation work tends to become visible at three connected levels: practice, policy, and systems. Practice is the daily experience of learning. It includes the tasks students complete, the questions educators ask, the ways students reflect on their growth, and the routines that help a classroom community name the competencies in action. Policy includes board goals, graduation expectations, grading guidance, course design, strategic plans, and improvement plans. Systems include, but are not limited to, professional learning, coaching, data tools, communication channels, schedules, partnerships, and leadership structures that help people sustain the work.
When these levels are aligned, the portrait becomes easier for people to recognize. A student might see the same language in a classroom rubric, a career-connected learning experience, a student-led conference, and a graduate celebration. A teacher might see the portrait reflected in curriculum conversations, PLC protocols, observation feedback, and professional learning choices. A family might hear consistent language during enrollment, conferences, newsletters, exhibitions, and board presentations. These moments of coherence help the portrait feel less like a separate initiative and more like a shared way of describing learning.
Coherence also protects the work from depending on a single champion. Many portraits begin with the energy of a superintendent, assistant superintendent, director, principal, or teacher leader who can explain the vision with conviction. That leadership matters, yet sustainability requires the vision to become distributed across roles and routines. Implementation teams can help by documenting decisions for knowledge management, maintaining shared tools, reviewing evidence, onboarding new staff, and creating feedback structures that survive personnel changes. In this sense, documentation is not bureaucracy. It is a form of stewardship that helps the district remember what it is learning.
Communication deserves particular attention because portrait implementation is both technical and cultural. A district may have clear progressions and assessment tools, while families and community partners still experience the portrait as abstract. Communication mapping can help leaders identify what each audience needs to know, what they need to see, and how they might contribute. Students may need language that helps them connect competencies to their own goals. Families may need examples of how the portrait appears in student work. Educators may need stories from colleagues who are testing practices. Community partners may need invitations to help students practice competencies in authentic settings.
A coherent system also creates multiple on-ramps. Some educators may begin by using a reflection prompt. Others may begin through performance tasks, advisory, project-based learning, career-connected experiences, or student exhibitions. Some central office teams may begin with strategic planning or MICIP alignment. Some community partners may begin by helping define authentic audiences for student work. These entry points can look different while still reinforcing the same Portrait of a Graduate. The work becomes stronger when leaders can name which parts of the portrait are common across the district and which parts are intentionally adapted to a more focused/individual context.
Conclusion
This article has focused on two useful lenses and possible conditions that help a Portrait of a Graduate become meaningful and recognizable in the daily life of the district: student reflection, educator planning, leadership decisions, family communication, community partnerships, and improvement routines. We hope you experienced or uncovered possible individual and collective actions for coherent implementation. In our next article, we move from framework to field, examining how Michigan districts are bringing their Portraits into practice and what other leaders might learn from their choices. Stick with us for Article 3, where we will name paradoxes and tensions that you should expect when integrating both design thinking and improvement science and iterating your Portrait of a Graduate. We provide look-fors, noticings, and breakdowns of what might happen, as well as the build-ups, tweaks, or solutions you might try to really make your portrait of a graduate living, lasting, and impactful.
Citations
Anaissie, T., Cary, V., Clifford, D., Malarkey, T., & Wise, S. (2021). Liberatory design. https://www.liberatorydesign.com
Benedetto, A., & Erickson, K. (2026, April 27). From understanding to ownership: When students tell their story through the Portrait of a Graduate. Getting Smart. https://www.gettingsmart.com/2026/04/27/from-understanding-to-ownership-when-students-tell-their-story-through-the-portrait-of-a-graduate/
Brown, B. (2025). Strong ground: The lessons of daring leadership, the tenacity of paradox, and the wisdom of the human spirit. Random House.
Bryk, A. S. (2020). Improvement in action: Advancing quality in America's schools. Harvard Education Press.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2026, February). From vision to action: How Portraits of a Graduate align social and emotional competencies and future readiness. https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CASEL-From-Vision-to-Action-Portraits-of-a-Graduate-report.pdf
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/Active-Implementation-Overview-M1.pdf
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. (2018). Design thinking bootleg. https://dschool.stanford.edu/tools/design-thinking-bootleg
IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators (2nd ed.). https://designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Lyon, A. R. (2017, July). Implementation science and practice in the education sector. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://education.uw.edu/sites/default/files/Implementation%20Science%20Issue%20Brief%20072617.pdf
Ma, X., Shen, J., & Reeves, P. (2023). Measuring integrity and fidelity of program implementation: Validating an instrument designed for school renewal. Evaluation and Program Planning, 100, Article 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102341
Michigan Department of Education. (2024). MICIP process guide: Fall 2024 update. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/-/media/Project/Websites/mde/MICIP/Resources/MICIP_Process_Guide.pdf
Moen, R. D., & Norman, C. L. (2010). Circling back: Clearing up myths about the Deming cycle and seeing how it keeps evolving. Quality Progress, 43(11), 22-28. https://deming.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/circling-back.pdf
National Implementation Research Network. (2015). Active implementation frameworks. FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/Active-Implementation-Overview-M1.pdf
Panke, S. (2019). Design thinking in education: Benefits and challenges. In Teachers as designers: Creative solutions for complex challenges (pp. 1-15). Cast Publishing. https://edtechbooks.org/teachers-as-designers/kttnynptiw
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826
Peterson, B. E. (2022). Using design thinking as an instrument for school improvement and innovation in public schools [Doctoral dissertation, Murray State University]. Murray State Theses and Dissertations, 253. https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/253/
Schell, J. (2018). Design thinking has a pedagogy problem... and a way forward. https://designcreativetech.utexas.edu/design-thinking-has-pedagogy-problem-way-forward
VanGronigen, B. A., Bailes, L. P., & Saylor, M. L. (2023). Stuck in this wheel: The use of design thinking for change in educational organizations. Journal of Educational Change, 24(3), 401-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09462-6
Wise, S. (2022). Design for belonging: How to build inclusion and collaboration in your communities. Ten Speed Press.
Wolfe, R. E. (2026, January). Can't get there from here: A framework for the start, spread, and scale of bottom-up innovation in education. Hoover Institution. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/Wolfe_Can%E2%80%99t%20Get%20There%20From%20Here_web-260116.pdf
Tovah Sheldon
School Design Strategist
Dr. Tovah Sheldon is a School Design Strategist for Michigan Virtual. For 20+ years, Dr. Sheldon has served pK-12 and higher education as a dynamic leader and educator driving positive change. Her expertise ranges from instruction to capacity building to systems change. She has a passion to cultivate relationships, bring innovation to spaces managing complex change, and promote equity and opportunities for ALL. Additionally, Dr. Sheldon serves on various boards while enjoying time with her family and going on adventures.
Related Posts
Kinds of Thinking
We all have a default way of thinking and most of the time, we don’t even notice it. In a complex, fast-changing world, how we think matters just as much as what we think. Overusing one kind of thinking can quietly limit our decisions, our leadership, and our growth. Becoming more intentional about how we think is one of the most important shifts we can make.
Leadership Coaching for Innovation Part 3
At Michigan Virtual, innovation is not a one-time initiative, it is an ongoing, human-centered process. Through the Innovator’s Journeys framework and Leadership Coaching for Innovation, leaders are supported in navigating complexity and driving meaningful, lasting change.
Leadership Coaching for Innovation Part 2
At Michigan Virtual, innovation is not a one-time initiative, it is an ongoing, human-centered process. Through the Innovator’s Journeys framework and Leadership Coaching for Innovation, leaders are supported in navigating complexity and driving meaningful, lasting change.
Leadership Coaching for Innovation Part 1
At Michigan Virtual, innovation is not a one-time initiative—it is an ongoing, human-centered process. Through the Innovator’s Journeys framework and Leadership Coaching for Innovation, leaders are supported in navigating complexity and driving meaningful, lasting change.
Portrait of a Graduate 101 Part 4
For decades, education systems have relied on familiar benchmarks but struggle to capture what young people actually need to navigate a rapidly changing world. This gap between what we measure and what truly matters has led many districts to a powerful organizing idea: the Portrait of a Graduate.
Portrait of a Graduate 101 Part 3
For decades, education systems have relied on familiar benchmarks but struggle to capture what young people actually need to navigate a rapidly changing world. This gap between what we measure and what truly matters has led many districts to a powerful organizing idea: the Portrait of a Graduate.