Unless you know how to get fruit from a seedling, don't expect much from the first report on North Carolina's public school students' performance under the year-old Common Core State Standards.
Pay even less heed to the voices being raised in opposition to the standards now being applied. The arguments boil down to these few: (1) This is new. (2) It's different. (3) Understanding it requires thinking. (4) Its success is not guaranteed. (5) It will cost money. You will rarely find a weaker set of sputtered protests against standards whose purpose is to graduate students better prepared for community college and university admission and rewarding work in a global economy.
It will take a few years to determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the standards. Next month's numbers - which will not affect students' grades - should be viewed not as a bad report card, but as a new perspective on the never-ending challenge to do a better job. What reason is there to believe that students will be harmed, rather than helped, by requirements that they write in social studies and science as well as in English class? What's so terrifying about testing their ability to master more complex material? Is there something sacred about the standard educational fare?
There's silly talk about "nationalizing" education and applying a "one-size-fits-all" standard. But the common core isn't federal, isn't a takeover and doesn't tell teachers how to teach. It originated with the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Not every state is a participant, or has to be. And crafting curricula remains a state and local function.
Some teachers think they've been inadequately versed in the new standards, and fear that they'll be judged because they weren't adequately trained or equipped. Now there's a legitimate concern, for which two remedies come to mind.
First, let's have a professional, outside, nonpartisan evaluation of the adequacy of the tools and resources made available by the state, to ensure that educators have a fair chance to prove themselves as the program proves its worth.
Second, drop the sense of urgency and see this for what it is: a smart, long-term project that requires patience as students, educators and administrators develop a feel for the standards without a lot of pressure to deliver high scores before the program has had time to mature.
The idea is to turn out graduates who are ready to learn how to do something. That's neither complicated nor sinister.
