Graduation Portfolio implementation misses the target

For those of you who are not familiar with the BC Graduation Portfolio. It is a newly implemented initiative that the current grade 11 students (and below) will be completing (starting next year) as they prepare to graduate. The short definition is that the Ministry of Education intends to credit students for their self directed documentation of curricular and extra curricular accomplishments that should contribute to their success beyond grade 12. My experience, despite my initial thinking that this was basically a good idea, has been very disappointing.

First of all, some schools are imposing a compulsory grade 11 portfolio course, that is not required for graduation, thereby moving away from the spirit of what the portfolio was supposed to be; self-directed.

The second issue I have is that many students were led to believe that, until very recently, they “had to” fulfill their portfolio requirements using e-portfolio; a software package for storing, tracking and grading the various portfolio components. In actuality, the e-portfolio program is not student friendly, and the portfolio can in fact be completed using any medium, including storing material in a shoe box.

The third concern is that, at the provincial level, what I originally thought the portfolio was supposed to represent—evidence of “who” the students are and how to support them in documenting their innate skills in finding a niche in this world—I came to realize was a system of micro managing the development of each student within a complex Ministry-defined blueprint for success.

And finally, grade 10 students were recently led to believe that if they did not sign up for PE 11 they would have a difficult time completing 80 hours of physical activity core requirements on their own. While not all students may be physically inclined and some may need some support to accomplish these tasks, there are several issues that are at play here. To begin with, there is the attempt to manipulate students’ behaviour with the fear of failure rather than, without bias, provide school based alternatives and personal alternatives for the students to consider. Next, there is the perceived or real conflict of interest in the trying to conscript students, without their parents’ knowledge, into school based activities.

In conclusion, a metaphor comes to mind. Have you ever seen a meat grinder?
Imagine students as the meat before going through the graduation portfolio process. After students have been forced through a directed exercise of compliance with portfolio graduation requirements that do not reflect who they are, they will indeed be ground down into someone else’s definition of success.


What started off as a good idea; the evaluation of students on all of their academic and non-academic accomplishments to help the students succeed after grade 12 is not everything that it has cracked up to be.

Perhaps I am making too much out of this, but what I find disturbing is that—with teachers, students, and parents alike currently splitting hairs on what counts, what does not count, how to count what counts, whether to double count or not, and the subtle and the not-so-subtle school politics being played out in the classroom—the original intent of the graduation portfolio as a self directed student process about the student appears to be seriously diminished.

What is certain though, in the end, is that the education system will produce through a flawed implementation of the graduation portfolio nicely packaged individuals with documented homogenized attributes ready to feed the economy.


Bon appétit!