Tweeting the House Education Committee Hearing on the Common Core Bill

The House Education Committee held a hearing Wednesday afternoon on Senate Bill 167, the Common Core bill sponsored by Sen. William Ligon. The AJC has the formal write up.

The hearing featured 68 witnesses giving their opinions on the bill, including Charlie Harper, the Executive Director of PolicyBEST. He was accompanied by Eric Harrison, PolicyBEST Research and Policy Director. They, along with a few others, live-tweeted the three hour long hearing. Here are some selected tweets.


  1. Anyone But Chip says:

    A very poorly written bill. The only thing “transparent” about the bill is the amount of political pandering it performs in an attempt to shore up support from the far right fringe going into an election cycle.

  2. notsplost says:

    The hyperbole about “Sharia Law” isn’t helpful, Charlie. There are skeptics of the common core like myself who remain open minded. I don’t like the current bill due to some of the unintended consequences, but this kind of rhetoric only hardens my skepticism.

    • Charlie says:

      I agree hyperbole about Sharia isn’t helpful, but the problem with this hyperbole is that it is coming from the organized opposition to Common Core.

      I may or may not expand into a full post, but I’ll give you three data points: At the Common Core protest rally in the Capitol hosted by the “Concerned Women For America”, there was a prominent “U.S. Dept of Education Partners with the Muslim Brotherhood sign”. A member of Senate leadership was told at a town hall by an adult woman that if Common Core wasn’t repealed, within a year she would have to undergo a female circumcision because of it implementing Sharia Law. And Tuesday night in Warner Robbins, the Middle Georgia Republican Women hosted a 45 minute talk on the encroaching Sharia law, with Common Core being it’s current tool of implementation.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        *face palm* accompanied by a very deep sigh.

        Why is it that “the crazy” is always so loud?

        There are legitimate arguments for and against CC but they are overshadowed by the crazy. The very loud, very uninformed, crazy.

        • Anyone But Chip says:

          Seems to me that “the crazy” in this example is pretty one-sided.

          I’d love to hear clear, logical arguments against a common set of standards, but the only thing I’m getting from the opposition is “ObamaCore”, pictures of kids that look like zombies, and articles by a minority of educators that seem to put politics ahead of pupils.

          Until someone can clearly state that they understand the difference between standards and curriculum, use the definition of each in a sentence, and then logically argue why standards and evaluation against those standards are bad for Georgia these arguments will never get past “the crazy.”

            • Anyone But Chip says:

              “It wants more time for teachers to review the Common Core lessons the state has been promoting.” aka CURRICULUM

              “The union is also demanding that all questions on the new Common Core exams be released so teachers can review them and use them to shape instruction.” aka “Teaching to the test.” A great way to evaluate whether you have a ‘teacher’ or an ‘educator’. Sounds like these unionized teachers (which we don’t have in Georgia) want it to be easy.

              “Students across New York performed miserably on the first round of Common Core exams, given last spring. The NYSUT is insisting on a three-year moratorium on the high-stakes consequences attached to the exams; the union argues that no teachers should lose their jobs…”.

              Again, don’t confuse a failed implementation with a failed concept. Sounds like the teachers have “some” issues with the common core standards, but have a lot more with the impact on the way they educate and the increased level of responsibility that comes with an objective set of standards.

              No one said this was going to be easy. It won’t be easy for the teachers, the students, or the parents. It seems that they are saying because it is hard, it is not worthwhile. I’d contend that those things gained easily are rarely as rewarding.

              • notsplost says:

                Thanks for the reply, I agree that the concept may work but it is troubling to read about other states complaining about “high stakes testing” when we’ve just started recovering from a major cheating scandal in Atlanta Public schools, partly due to over-testing and a Machiavellian attitude.

                BTW I agree with the NY teachers unions if they are saying that teachers should not be evaluated only on their students test results. If anything our experience locally with the APS scandal should reinforce that.

                • Anyone But Chip says:

                  Couldn’t agree more. The testing is the trickiest aspect of this. The desire to tie a majority of a teachers evaluation to these results (again, because it’s easy) creates motivations that are not directly in-line with the best education of the student.

                  A well balanced approach that includes test results, student growth, peer and parent feedback, etc. would provide a more comprehensive understanding of a teachers impact. We ask these teachers to do a lot and sometimes the least of it is to convey knowledge.

      • notsplost says:

        I agree that the rhetoric needs to be toned down, tying it to Sharia Law is Alex Jones territory.

    • notsplost says:

      Sometimes it is just easier to chase imaginary bogeymen rather than deal with reality.

      In fact that statement pretty much explains our current state of political affairs quite nicely.

Comments are closed.