I read the state graduation council report

 ...I am not going to say "so you don't have to," because I think if you have an interest in education, you probably should at least skim the report, which is online here.
As always, this is me writing as me on behalf of me only. 

This image deserves more space than it gets in the report, as it isn't bad thinking and it's a solid try at an outline. 
How is it, though, that they managed parallel structure for all but ONE of the items?
The upper left one is crying out for a noun!

First, let's talk about timelines

Something I don't think has gotten stressed in this discussion (so far as I have seen) is that the report is recommendations; it isn't, itself, a policy change. It's also deliberately addressed to the Governor and the Legislature, because it makes recommendations about graduation requirements that are beyond the scope and power of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to require with the authorities they have under current law. 

That means, note, that for all that there are new requirements that are, in the report, required of the class that starts high school in the fall of 2027, that either isn't going to happen, or there isn't going to actually be the four years of implementation districts need (at the very least) for implementing new graduation requirements (you can't require something students don't even have time to fulfill, let alone that districts don't have time to put into place). 

As we are already in the last six months of a legislative term (and the last few months don't, generally, count), this isn't moving this year. That means that legislation would need to be developed and filed next term--that starts next January--go through the full subcommittee process in the Legislature, go through both chambers and probably a conference committee process before anything gets to the Governor's desk. 

And only then would DESE propose regulations to the Board which would have to go through the regulatory process before being implemented. They've been having sixty day comment periods, so figure at least another three months, probably more. 

Are you familiar with passing legislation? with our Legislature?

And given the above, the thing that I think is a bit wild about the specificity here is that much of this requires legislation to implement. Have you met legislation? Even with our very top-down, tightly-controlled state legislature, once we send them into the realm of "what does little Johnny need in order to graduation?" I fully expect that things are going to get wild. 

This also isn't the Legislature's graduation council that reported; it was created by an executive order from Governor Healey.

Thus, I'd recommend this be taken as an opening salvo rather than a roadmap, a blueprint, or anything else that's more organized. 

About process

The Governor's executive order is from January 2025; the council first met in March, meeting a total of 14 times between then and their last meeting in May. 

These sorts of committees tend to break down into two kinds: there's the kind of committee one puts together if you want a group that's going to actually do the research, review and writing itself, or the kind of committee that says "we put some of everyone on this so we could say that we did." Meaning no disrespect at all to this one, this is the latter, not the former. 

As a side note: by the time they got done, they'd had three Secretaries of Education on the council, as we had a transition from Tutwiler to Zrike, while Peyser was the House minority appointee. This was a who's who, not the working group. 

That ends up meaning that this group can respond, object, debate, but the shaping and probably the steering is not coming from the group. 
And don't forget: it was created by executive order. 

I would also argue that it should take more time and more...overall than this to come up with new graduation requirements. The report goes to great pains to talk about the input--the advisory committees! the public hearings! the surveys!--but I really think this is a much more complicated question than is presented here. 

The upshot

The recommendations are, that to graduate from high school in Massachusetts:

1. You have complete MassCore--four units of English, four units of mathematics, three units of a lab-based science, three units of history, two units of the same world language, one unit of the arts, and five additional "core" courses--unless you're in a (sorry, still calling it this) a vocational program. I guess, despite the numbers of kids who come out of those programs looking to go to college, it doesn't matter if you haven't met the requirements to get into a state college or university, even though that is the cited reason for the requirement.
   
   
2. You have to complete a capstone or portfolio. Those will have a state-created rubric for grading but be graded locally.
   
   
3. You have to complete a post-secondary planning process (called "MyCap") because we have this broken idea that people who are fourteen should know what they are doing with their lives (thinking about what comes next? Fine. Making career plans? Please think harder about this.). This will include (sorry, lots of sarcastic quotes coming up) "financial literacy," digital AND "AI literacy," "workforce based learning," and completion of the FAFSA or opting out of completion. No word on how such a clear marking of one's immigration status is going to not be collected by schools, as is best practice. 
   
   
4. You have to "complete" a common final exam in English, math, and science, and possibly down the road, history. Those "will meaningfully count toward students’ academic record and path to graduation," in the hotly debated language of the report as released.
   
   
5. In addition to the seal of biliteracy, Massachusetts will create additional seals of distinction.

The implementation questions

The overarching question on all of this is have you taken any look at the state of K-12 education in Massachusetts right now? Schools are under an enormous amount of fiscal stress, which is (let's be generous and say) poorly acknowledged by the state. Districts cannot keep up with current costs, let alone new ones.

And let's talk about what some of the new costs that are being incurred here:

1. Implementation of MassCore where it isn't currently is the one that people are raising the most. The report goes to some pains (as the Department has in the past) to repeatedly note how many districts are doing this already (46%), how close others are (24% are one course away), and what the hold-ups are: 
   
   

   

   from page 27 of the report

   The two that I think are going to be the real issues are world languages--that, I'm willing to bet, is straight-up a local capacity question, where many don't have the teachers--and art, which is probably very limited staffing (due to previous cuts) such that not everyone can get through.
   
   
2. The creation and grading of the portfolios and capstones is I think the invisible one lurking here. Those are massive major projects that every senior (one assumes?) is doing. That's huge amounts of time working individually with students on the creation of the projects, the assembly of them, and the presentation of them.
   It's then locally assessed on state standards. That's new teacher time grading--in a standardly-trained fashion--a body of work from every single senior every single year.
   That's massive in terms of staff time. 
   There's also the question of what every other student is doing during the capstone presentations and how that new requirement of staffing is covered.
   Have you seen where we are with layoffs this year?
   
   
3. Students don't complete MyCap alone; either that's being done in class or in guidance (I just darkly laughed, thinking about how our guidance offices already don't have enough time to do what they already are supposed to cover). 
   Additionally, the literacies (as they're called) may well require either new classes or new units (into courses that I suspect don't have any time to spare already). 
   And while the FAFSA has gotten a lot easier to fill out, I say that as a citizen by birth whose tax return is filed electronically. The mind reels.
   I am also very very serious that creating a situation in which families have to out themselves as being unable to fill out a FAFSA is a horrifying thing to require for high school graduation. 
   
   
4. The creation of new exams with new assessment parameters is really expensive. This and the portfolio assessments together are going to, I forecast, make the MCAS look like a bargain. 

The bits I think I really must poke fun at

• The degree to which this state has a mania about being first, being innovative, being (this is a quote) "most novel" is really something we should see a psychologist about. 
  I am not kidding about this; such language is throughout this report, and it is not because it best serves students or the districts that they serve. 
  Sometimes, I venture to say, it is even good to let others try things out first, see if they work, then decide on implementing.
  And education is never a race. 
  
  
• "High expectations paired with the right supports lead to post-secondary success for all students" is exactly the kind of thing these reports always say, but I do not know that it is true.
  
  
• "Strong Foundations for Bright Futures" sounds like a preschool, not a graduation requirements.
  
  
• There are attempts made at pictographs, but sometimes they're more confusing than edifying. This one, for example: 
  
  
  
  

  comes just after there being "primary components" and "embedded components" has been introduced. The pictograph is specifically of the "primary components," which it would make a lot more sense for the top bar to say, as "Strong foundations for bright futures" is I think the theme (headed, no doubt, to a banner near you). There is also not a similar image for the "embedded components," just a chart.

  
  
  
  
• I'm disappointed that they didn't take this opportunity to fill the high school gym loophole: that the law is written in such a way that P.E. one quarter each year in high school counts as having it every year. We have this standard discussion of "units" for everything else, but they've stuck with MGL Ch. 71, sec. 3 which is "shall be taught as a required subject in all grades for all students" for P.E. 
  
  
• More on this below, but the ongoing notion that tracking wages is a measurement of post-high school success is broken. 
  
  
• As I noted above the "MassCore is VERY VERY IMPORTANT" and "oh, unles you're in a chapter 74 program" is really a circle that should be squared. It's also a tell that the two requirements skipped are arts and world languages; that's very much picking which ones the state thinks are actually important. Either they are or they aren't. Don't fudge.
  
  
• I would like to never again see the argument "you must take tests now so as to be ready for when you have to take them later." This is also true of homework. It doesn't even bear out as an argument.
  
  
• While they made us a whole pretty chart to show us how the end-of-course assessments are totally not the same at all as the MCAS, that it's math, English, science, and maybe history makes the chart moot.
  However, while we are on the topic, I would invite anyone who thinks "the clear intent of the voters" is being messed with to your local Facebook group discussion when the MCAS scores come out. Lots of people really didn't know what the ballot question did.
  And this, friends, is why we shouldn't make education policy through ballot questions.
  
  
• Having high school students "define their college and career expectations" is something I'd invite you to bring to your next dinner with a group of adult friends. We can make sure students have the foundations they need without narrowing them to plans that many, many of them are going to take in different directions. 
  I continue to think also that this is so far removed from the anxieties and needs of many high school students. 
  
  
• Stop thinking "work-based learning" is some sort of magic. Also, this is another place where students who might be needed to care for younger siblings, have lack of transportation, and other real complications might well be disadvantaged. It's also already been noted that getting such "opportunities" for every student in a city is different than in a small town.
  Also, these are time burners for the organizations that take students, too.
  
  
• The late addition--because it was not in the earlier report from January--of so-called "AI literacy" is rather revealing, isn't it? One suspects the same people who convinced the Governor that it'd be neat to have chatbots "assisting" our state employees also convinced someone that it was somehow necessary for all of our high school graduates.
  The revelation comes in the footnote attached to this assertion:
  

  The AI wage differential is even greater, with a 56 percent wage premium 

  when comparing workers in the same job with AI skills and without AI skills

  Where did that come from? The "2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer" from Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC; I had to look it up) in a report put together by their "Artificial Intelligence Services" division (slogan: "We don't just bring tech. We bring results.").
  Do I need to explain that these people are selling you something? Do I need to remind us all, as Audrey Watters does in her "Financial Nonsense" post, that we're talking about a sector of the business world that is still not making any money at doing any of these things? Do I need to walk you through their methodology (they get tiny kudos for sharing) to talk about how this isn't how you can actually tell any of this?
  Please. Let's not buy what they are literally selling.
  
  

• I understand the idea of honoring different kinds of excellence (let's note that they will not be "unique" kinds, unless we are creating a different one for each graduate), but this list... 

   

  

  I will personally be cheering for every student who leads a walkout or other civil disobedience to get the "civic engagement" one. How one will demonstrate "financial literacy" accomplishments, let alone "AI" accomplishments, one shudders to think. "Global competency" raises a host of questions. And while I am sure that "military readiness" is intended to recognize JROTC students, it makes me wonder what exactly it is we're aiming (pun intended) our schools at. 

What is completely and utterly missing

Massachusetts has---say it with me!--the oldest still-in-use written constitution in the WORLD!

The Massachusetts Constitution--say it with me!--is the first state constitution in the country to guarantee a right to education AND it does so as part of the governance of the state.
We have public education in Massachusetts for the defense of our rights and liberties.

And that concept, the foundation on which our entire edifice of public education in the Commonwealth is constructed?
NOWHERE to be found in the graduation report. 

As I have said over and over and over again: We don't need a mission or vision statement. We already have been given one. We already know BY CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE what our public schools are supposed to do for our students and what our students are supposed to be able to do when they graduate.

There continues to be far too much "workforce development" language in this report. We have a couple of nods to civics in here, but the idea that our students need to be prepared to be active participants in the democratic governance of our state, a state in which the majority of local governments still make many of their decisions through direct democracy, is nowhere to be found. 

We have, I think, a sacred charge. Not only are we not fulfilling it; we aren't even acknowledging it.