At the December 11 Board of Education meeting, Jericho administrators presented an overview of the New York State Portrait of a Graduate (PoG) initiative. On its face, the presentation was meant to reassure the community. Regents exams remain in place. Graduation requirements have not changed. No new mandates are currently in effect.

But when the presentation and discussion are reviewed carefully, a more important takeaway emerges.

While the district repeatedly emphasized that PoG is not yet required by regulation, it also confirmed that Jericho has already begun internal alignment work tied to the framework. That distinction matters. It marks the point where an initiative moves from monitoring to preparation, even in the absence of formal state requirements.

This follow-up explains what the December 11 presentation clarified, what it quietly confirmed, and why Board oversight now matters more than ever.

Several points were stated plainly and deserve to be acknowledged.

Administrators confirmed that the New York Inspires Graduation Measures Plan and the Portrait of a Graduate have not been written into Part 100 regulations, which govern K–12 instruction and graduation requirements in New York State.

Until the Board of Regents formally adopts regulatory changes:

This aligns with NYSED’s public guidance and reinforces a key point. PoG is guidance, not a mandate, at least for now.

The district also confirmed that:

These admissions undercut any claim that districts must act urgently or comprehensively at this stage.

At the same time, the presentation confirmed something equally important.

Despite emphasizing that there is “nothing to do right now,” administrators acknowledged that Jericho has already begun substantive internal work related to PoG.

Specifically, the district stated that:

That is no longer passive observation. It is preparatory alignment work.

Once a district builds internal frameworks, rubrics, and documentation, future implementation can be framed as continuation rather than initiation. At that point, the question shifts from whether to proceed to how far to proceed.

The December 11 discussion exposed a tension that remains unresolved.

On one hand, administrators emphasized uncertainty, lack of guidance, and the absence of regulatory mandates. On the other hand, they described concrete actions already underway to prepare for eventual adoption.

Both positions cannot coexist without clarification.

If there is truly nothing to do at this stage, then course audits, competency mapping, and planning for instructional adjustments should not be occurring. If preparatory work is underway, then the district is no longer simply monitoring developments.

This is not a question of intent. It is a question of process.

The presentation also addressed proposed changes that would significantly alter how graduation is determined in New York State.

These include:

Administrators emphasized that learning standards are not changing and that Regents exam scores would continue to appear on transcripts.

Board members raised a legitimate concern. When graduation determinations rely more heavily on local discretion, statewide comparability becomes harder to guarantee. The value of a New York State diploma increasingly depends on district-level rigor, enforcement, and transparency.

That shift places greater responsibility on local boards, not less.

The presentation made clear that the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining (CR-S) Education Framework sits at the center of the Portrait of a Graduate model.

Administrators described CR-S as emphasizing:

They also stated that the framework is intended to be infused broadly across instructional practice.

Regardless of how one views CR-S philosophically, this has practical implications. Curriculum, assessment, and professional development are the areas where instructional direction, staff workload, and financial commitments typically emerge. Those are policy-level considerations.

One of the most important moments of the night came when administrators stated that implementation would involve students, leadership, administration, teachers, and the Board of Education, which would provide policy-level support and approval for major initiatives.

That statement is correct.

Under Jericho policy, initiatives affecting curriculum, instruction, assessment, graduation criteria, professional development, or resource allocation require Board review and formal approval. Informational presentations do not constitute adoption. Internal preparation does not replace governance.

The district is currently operating in a gray zone.

There is no state mandate yet. There is no implementation guidance yet. At the same time, internal alignment work is already underway.

This is precisely when oversight matters most.

Once mapping documents are created and planning advances internally, future decisions can be presented as incremental or inevitable. Insisting on clarity now ensures that any next steps are deliberate, transparent, and Board-approved, with a clear distinction between state requirements and local choice.

Oversight at this stage does not block future compliance. It preserves governance.

Before Jericho proceeds further, the Board should seek clear answers to questions raised during the December 11 discussion:

These are governance questions, not political ones.

The December 11 presentation did not announce immediate change. It did not propose adoption. It did not seek a vote.

But it did confirm that Jericho has already begun preparing internally for a framework that is not yet required and not yet defined.

That reality makes one thing clear. The next phase of this conversation belongs with the Board of Education.

The Portrait of a Graduate may eventually become state policy. When that happens, Jericho will comply. Until then, any local action taken in its name must be transparent, deliberate, and subject to full Board oversight.