While the value of portfolio learning and assessment has gained much support from the educational community, many questions arise as specific implementations are attempted. This study examined one aspect, namely, the content validity of specific requirements, and addressed the question "How do various constituencies (methods students, student teachers, teacher educators, and practicing teachers) rate the utility of various requirements for student teaching and future teaching in general?" The secondary methods instructor at a small teacher education institution designed 15 possible outcomes to be met, and student portfolio submissions were required for all 15 during the spring 1997 semester. At the conclusion of the semester, these various requirements were validated for perceived utility by comparing the rank order data collected from the following: (1) students just completing methods courses; (2) students just completing their student teaching; (3) practicing teachers from the spring 1997 semester; and (4) teacher educators. Results indicated that there were no differences in rank order correlations, suggesting that all four constituencies agreed on the relative importance of the items. These findings have important implications for future designers of portfolios. They may trust that the perception of utility is equivalent across the various groups. (Contains 4 tables and 18 references.) (SLD)