is running late. Um, so we are going to go ahead and convene this meeting. Um, Miss Summers, do you have anything you would like to add for us before we get going or do we want to just hop right into the business? >> Happy to start with welcome, logistics, questions, reflections if that works
well and then we can go into attendance. >> Call roll after that then. >> Yes, that'd be great. Thank you. Okay. So, first I wanted to start off with some thank yous. I don't know about you, but if I had 25,000 public comments, eight SRC members, two state agencies,
um, giving feedback on the work that I put my blood, sweat, and tears in, it would be hard, and they're there every step of the way to answer your questions. So, I wanted to start first and foremost by thanking our EIT chairs. Um, next, the Department of Education, which
Kim and Banks are your lovely representatives, and there's also a whole team of people that answered your question about math. Um, y'all are y'all are starting group chats, furiously trying to answer your questions. So, there's there's about five more other friends that are involved in this bigger group in addition to Dr. David Leair, but they have no requirement to be here.
Absolutely none. Their requirement is to implement whatever you ask for. And as we heard, Banks had homework every night except for last night, and I think Kim did, too. So, thank you. Um, state board staff, Vicki is in the other room, but I hope Vicki can hear me. Um, they have been behind the scenes and in front of
the mic helping you every step of the way and and make all of this possible. It is not just me by any stretch of the imagination. Um, so, thank you to them. Um, you've probably seen some tech people and general services who put together your parking, your Wi-Fi, um, room reservations at the last minute,
all of the things. Um, and finally, SRC members, thank you. At every turn, you've challenged yourself and our students to to do what's best and and I know the next generation of Tennessans are in good hands thanks to your hard work. It's pretty telling that you're like, can we stay after 4:30? Can we meet nine times after this? I'm like,
yes, yes, we can. So, thank you. We do not have any public comment today. So, you have those 45 minutes. Reminder to continue to review the spreadsheet and give Lucas one-on-one feedback if you have any about the revisions or ration today's schedule. Okay. So, I checked we
are on row 35 of the writing standards out of 68. So, that that is in the queue in terms of what needs to be I'm going to give you a list of everything that needs to be done before this committee can officially and finally gavvel out whether it's today or not today. Next,
you have 416 reading standards in their intros. Oh, in the writing intro. I think we maybe started it, but maybe maybe wrapped it, maybe didn't. Good morning, Chair Canas. Here, you haven't missed a beat. I hear you. Next, you have um 366 elective standards
and their introduction. And then finally, you have your Oh, you have your parking garage, which I checked. I think it has about 20 items on it just to be mindful of and then you also have supporting language across the board whether that's the glossery,
appendex, overall introduction etc. So those are the things I need from you before this committee adjourns whenever that is just to be aware. Um my understanding is um while this has not been substantive we have been trying to figure out what's the the best order of operations here. So, I encourage the committee to to get that settled before
you get too deep into today to know what the goal you've set is. Okay. Um, in terms of scheduling, like I said yesterday, I'm looking at the week of September 22nd. That's not limited to just September 22nd, but if you have a,
you know, I don't know, immovable life event, please email that to me so that I have that in my records and then I will try and send out some times to vote. And I just ask you be diligent to do that cuz I think your EAT chairs can speak personally that the longer we wait the harder it gets.
>> Um only just because I don't want to take up any of more of your time that I do. U but you're welcome to email me during the day and we can circle back at the end of the afternoon if I hear back from everyone. That would be great. I do need to check with some state board staff because they're Josh Walton is online and he will definitely need to be in the
mix for any online meetings. Okay, members, three questions. What's going well? What's hard? And what do we want to do to improve? I would like to see us go through this writing standards and possibly get the reading standards done today.
>> Thank you, Miss Wers. >> Yeah. Um, what's going well? I'm really, really enjoying working with this group. You guys make me miss just this much being back in the classroom. So, if you ever need a sub one day, let me know. >> Uh,
what's hard is that I think we're still in middle school. We might have moved to high school. Uh, I did a rough count last night. I think I do affirm that middle school has more standards and substandards than other grades. I'm not a mathematician. Uh, but the lower
grades are tracking in the 30s. Middle school was tracking in the 50s and high school is tracking in the 40s. So, we got some work to do to make sure that there is some equity across the board knowing it's not going to be the same from band to band, but we have some work
to do because I do think those concerns are valid. And then a reflection, and this is Rosemary's fault. She took me here this morning by asking me how my family was doing because she knows my family back in Memphis. And I shared that everybody is basically okay, but my
grandmother is in hospice. But I don't think what I have shared is that my grandmother was an English teacher for 50 years. She taught for about 20 years in Arkansas and for about 30 years in Memphis. And um everything I've ever learned about English was from her. She
read every single paper >> I had from kindergarten to PhD and I think she has dementia but if she knew what I was doing now she would be so proud. So thank you.
>> Thank you for asking about secretary and Miss Winners. Well I don't know about you but I think she's a she's a good person to think in my keep in mind while we're doing our work today and I appreciate you sharing Dr. Stout. Any other thoughts for members?
Okay, any questions? No members of the public. Okay, I will pass it over to your lovely and capable leadership team. >> Good morning. You've already called to order. >> Okay, I think it's proper that we call
to order. >> So, would you call the rule, please? >> Be happy to. Um, Miss Baird, >> present. >> Miss Dockery, >> present. >> Mr. Hillyard, present.
>> Miss Nell, >> present. >> Miss Singleary, >> present. >> Dr. Stout, >> present. >> Miss Winters, >> present. >> Chair Kaggus, >> present.
Uh, Chairman Carnegus, you have a quorum. >> Okay. In that event, uh, we call this meeting to order. And I would suggest that we use or I would move that we use the recording that is provided of this meeting as the
minutes of the meeting. >> I second. >> All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> It's been approved. So, so done. All right. If I remember correctly, we left off at the high school with our
discussion about theme versus claim. I had the theme versus claim dream last night. And my comment just to begin is that if we want to lead, let's lead. If we want to follow, let's follow. Is it important
for our students? I'm not talking about teachers at this point. These are studentbased standards. Is it important for our students to be able to discriminate the use of theme and claim in their work? >> Just want to quickly clarify. It's a
minor point. We talking about thesis versus claim rather than theme. >> I am so sorry. Thank you. I misspoke. Thesis versus claim. Thank you. >> Know we were a little divided on this yesterday. I was just curious to hear where people are in the in the morning
after having some time to to ponder on it. >> All right. Speak now or forever hold your peace. >> Said speak now. >> That was a nice one. Um I I I I said yesterday I will I I'll defer whatever the committee wants at this point,
thesis, statement or claim. Uh I'll I'll defer to the judgment of the committee. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um we we have been using claim for some time and uh so I don't think that it's going to be
something that that kills us. I just think that we need to make sure that um in our wording within the standard it's clear whether we're talk talking about the overarching claim or um subclaims. But I I'm good with with either. >> Okay. Thank you. I I think it's important that whatever choice we make,
we do it pretty consistently through the 6th through 12 band. Um because I think if we introduce the concept of a thesis in like 9th grade, which has not had been done previously, but I think we'd had some talk of perhaps doing that, I think that could create some confusion um about whether or not they were meant to be using thesis in the earlier
grades. Um so whatever choice we do make, I just want us to be um very intentional about our language there. Um, and I do agree with Miss Dockery on the on the need for clarification between sporting claims and and like central claim. >> Thank you.
>> Are there any other comments? >> I uh an element of style and in writing is preciseness. Um, and so I think the more precise term I think the term that they will interact
with in post-secary education for our students who do go on to college is going to be thesis. I think it's introduced in some of the other types of writing and so I'm just wondering why we wouldn't introduce it in all the types
of writing since it's introduced in other types of writing at the same grade level. Um, and we did actually get some public feedback in this area. Um, and I could see where students across Tennessee might be engaging with thesis versus claim differently and that could
lead to some um, frustration both in the classroom on testing and in post-secary education. Um, and so I side with leading and I think we got till 2030 for everybody to get on board. It's not like
it's something we ch we're changing tomorrow. Um, that we make a distinction between thesis and claim. >> Thank you, doctor. I happen to agree with you. Now, do we have access to that public comment?
>> Thank you for the question, Chair. or can I guess it is in your blue binder at your seat. Might be difficult to find, but thankfully Nicole is one step ahead of us. It I believe it was also in survey one. Is that accurate? Okay. So, um and was it in survey 2?
Okay. But I did not ask them to read survey two. >> Can we review that? >> Sure. Um what I can do is put it up on the screen if I can find it. Give me two seconds. >> Okay. Um, but if you're look if you want to look at survey one on your own computer, it's going to be under prep
work. Um, then it's going to be under survey reports, I believe, and then it would be survey one. Let me double check that as I'm well, you can watch me as I'm on the screen. >> What Dr. Stout said so eloquently was
what I intended to say, but couldn't put together the words in my haste to get in my seat. So, thank you for doing that. Okay, thank you. That's what I was looking for. Okay.
>> Yeah. And then there is a statement on if I'm on the same document on page 13 where I'm assuming this is about a sixth grade standard that talks about thesis statements um just supporting the evidence that some of our middle school teachers are
already doing this and I was on the 68 um survey. Can I ask what K5 uses um with I guess our opinion writing? >> We don't use either because it's not argumentative. >> Yeah. So it the language we're using in
the standards is just develop an opinion. So opinion is the language used. So regardless, claim or thesis should be new terminology at this point. >> Okay. Then I move that we clarify and use the word thesis and discriminate between thesis and claim.
>> Are we in agreement on that? >> Do we have a second to that motion? >> Oh, are we taking a vote? >> I think we should. >> Okay. Um, then we need to clearly state what the what the vote is over. Uh the vote the my my motion was to include both thesis and claim and discriminate
between the meanings of each as we include them in our standards >> across 6 through 12. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> To that motion and also put it in the glossery. >> Thank you. I accept that addition.
>> We need a second. >> Second, Miss Wyers. >> Okay. Then we will take a vote on whether to discriminate between the use of uh thesis and claim throughout the 6 through 12 um
uh argumentative writing standards as well as adding the terms claim and thesis to the glossery. Um I will call roll. Um just one second because I have to create a new vote action on the spreadsheet. Not spreadsheet. >> This is a while you're doing that. Um in
the parking garage we already have um defined thesis statement versus claim. It's there. >> Okay. >> Miss now two steps ahead of us >> always. >> Yes. >> All right. Just a reminder you can vote I you can vote no or you can vote
abstain. Okay. Uh the vote um is whether or not to um utilize the language of thesis and claim throughout the 6 through 12 um argument writing standards as well as to
add thesis and claim to the glossery. >> Thank you. >> Uh Miss Baird >> abstain. >> Miss Dockery. I >> Mr. Hillyard I miss now.
>> Abstain, >> Miss Singleary. >> I'm going to abstain too. >> Dr. Stout >> I. >> Miss Winters. >> I. >> And Chair Kaggus. >> I. >> Um Mr. Chairus, you have five eyes and
three abstensions. Uh, the motion carries. >> Thank you. All right, let's get to work. >> Okay. >> So, we should we want to go back to the sixth grade first? >> We do. >> One ch I guess if I may. One point of
clarification. Is the intention of this committee to finish writing and move into reading or finish writing and do something heard. Are there any other I just want to make sure I understand what the goal is getting out of today. >> We had some discussion of perhaps uh moving into electives because we might be able to get a lot of electives done.
Um >> but I think that would be easier to do online. >> Okay, then I don't think it's worth deliberating for a long time on this. I think let's just do reading then. Um okay, >> thank you. >> All right. Um then if we go to the sixth
grade standard, um we need to make some edits. Um, we have introduce a topic clearly using the introduction to engage and prepare the reader. Oh, sorry. This is I31. Um, include a relevant claim. Um, if we're talking about introducing the topic, uh, I believe there that would be
an instance where we say include a relevant thesis. Am I correct there? Okay. Um, then we move into B and say support the claim with logical reasoning. I assume that claim should change to thesis. Um, do we feel like logical reasoning
encapsulates the subclaims that one would use at this point or do we feel like we shouldn't even introduce the terminology of subclaims until we get to a higher level and instead refer to them as reasons which seems to be what has been done previously. I feel personally I feel as though like the concept of a subclaim is perhaps a
bit advanced for a sixth grader. Perhaps we at this point are mostly using the terminology reasons which seems a little more >> but you're moving from opinion to argument >> and the foundational principle of argument is supporting a claim. Right? >> So to me we're going to have to use that
terminology in there somewhere. >> Okay. >> To get to ultimately our question. And do we need sub anymore? >> Um, I don't suppose we would need to use supporting claims terminology unless we wish to. Um, I think because we're
drawing a distinction between thesis and claim. Now, I do caution that we are moving this is this is a paradigm shift. We have always used claim to refer to thesis within argument writing. So, the more specific we can be about what we were are referring to by saying claims, I think the less uh confusion there will
be in six through eight classrooms. Um, so I I would argue that maybe using the language supporting claims might be beneficial, but I'm I'm certainly open to to other feedback. >> I would agree with that wording. >> Um, so would we want to say then support the thesis with uh supporting claims,
logical reasoning, and by citing uh multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence? >> It sounds good. >> Okay. So support the thesis with supporting claims
and logical reasoning and by citing I should I put the parentheses around the s and claims as was previously done. >> Yes, especially for sixth grade. Um and this is their introduction to this. Yeah, I think one is fine. So the S
gives them an option. So it currently reads I'll click out of it so everyone can read and please give me feedback because I I do want to >> but they're creating a multi paragraph text >> right >> so supporting claims often correlates
with paragraphs supporting reason supporting paragraphs. So if if we're going to have multi- paragraphs, then to me, we need multiple supporting claims because we're supporting the thesis with multiple
claims, supporting claims. So and in in supporting our claims with evidence and logical reasoning and elaborating on the evidence. So that's the way I I think it's often interpreted, unless I'm mistaken. Okay?
you know, as far as testing goes. Again, I know we're not talking about testing, but >> So, does that require another change in our standard wording? >> I don't think so. I think the question was just pluralizing claim versus claims. >> Yeah. I just want to This is substandard
BI31. I just want to make sure because I think this is a is one of the substandards that's going to require the most like uh kind of massaging. uh support the thesis with supporting claims and logical reasoning and by citing multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence acknowledge an
alternate or opposing claim. Um if we're going to ask them to acknowledge an alternate or opposing claim, we probably should just make that plural because we don't want the only claim they make to be an a alternate or opposing claim. Can I say
since we were directed back to the survey, there was a lot of survey talk about what what is the age appropriate level for a counter claim and um so this is sixth grade. Um maybe I should take a minute to scan the survey and and pull out some of those
comments cuz now that we kind of looked at claim and thesis, I think there were a lot of comments about uh counter claims in sixth grade. >> Okay. And can we go ahead and approve the language? And if we need to revisit it based upon what you said, we can always
go back. Is that okay? All right. Do I hear uh that we have agreement on this particular change? I see a lot of head nods. So, let's move on. >> Okay. Because I don't feel 100% confident in myself. So, are we are we confident there?
>> Yes. I think you stated it well, sir. >> Okay. Are we gonna stick with the parenthetical S or are we moving to just an S without a parenthetical because we we had some division there. >> I think that will be decide it on the counter claim like if we are going to
introduce the counter claim. So I think right now it would be safe just to leave maybe. >> So if we go to um the 68 I believe this is a survey doc. Is this what we're calling it? 68 survey doc. um the one we
were just looking at, page 11 and 12. Uh near the bottom of page 11, uh I'm in the next to last box. Counter claim should be removed. The higher order of thinking for counter claim is not something that sixth graders can do
at this age. Um claims are appropriate for this age but not counter claim. They are moving to more complex thinking and we just with just the addition of claims and how to support them. Another comment said remove counter claims for sixth
grade. They do not. They need to identify relevant and effective claims of support before they can understand counter claims. Um the next comment seems to support
counter claims but the comment after that says this is not grade appropriate at this age. Students do not have the background to master counter claims. This needs to uh this needs to be limited just to claims. So I just wanted
to put that in the atmosphere. >> So the plurality is for claims and no counter claims. And this is specifically for sixth grade. >> Yes. And that's where we're at. So we would accept it as written then. >> Well,
>> we would need to revise if if that is >> I mean as you have revised it. >> Uh no, but we have language that says acknowledge an alternate or opposing claim. >> Miss Dockery, did you have a comment? I saw you. I was supposed to say that I have not
taught sixth grade, so I'm not sure where that lies, but we do have two people in this room who have. Um, but I do know that my eth and nth graders h I've been having I thought I had to give them a whole paragraph for both eth and nth grade. Apparently, I did not, but I do know that they uh my eth and nth
graders struggle with writing a counter claim paragraph. Um, so I could definitely see sixth grade struggling with that, but they have more expertise, >> especially since it's the first year. Sorry. >> If I remember our our previous discussion about this uh use the word
acknowledge to uh look at the level of critical thinking. All we were simply asking them to do was to say, "Hey, here's a counter claim." Not not to react to it in any way. >> The the progression currently as it stands is acknowledge in sixth grade,
acknowledge and refute in seventh grade, and then acknowledge, consider, and refute in uh eighth grade. And those were our additions because the language that the EAT proposed was just acknowledge in sixth, acknowledge in seventh, and address in eth.
>> So they there there's no indication there, you know, with acknowledge that they're having to write an entire paragraph. It's just here's another side. I can see that there's another side besides my side. >> Yeah. So, uh, I don't know that it's asking them to go beyond their level of
thinking just simply to recognize that there's another one. And I think it's adequate preparation in our uh, progress that we're making through the grades to getting them to recognize it at the sixth grade level. In my opinion,
>> just for a couple more comments, this is page 16. I'm just scanning as we go. Page 16. And this is like the third block down from the top. Remove acknowledge counter claim. Acknowledge an alternate or opposing claim. The focus needs to be on developing
effective claims with relevant elements and reasoning. And then midway down on that same page, 16th graders should not work on counter claims. They do not have the background. Um I would say the opinion from the
survey is pretty strong on this point. We could simply move the progression back one year. Um, and they acknowledge in seventh grade, acknowledge and refute in eighth and then acknowledge, consider, and refute in high school. That feels like a compromise.
>> Can we have some thoughts from our uh middle school lead? So I agree that it is difficult teaching them going from opinion writing to argumentative writing. That is very difficult. However, in my classroom because usually we are reading two text
and arguing two, you know, two different things. In order for them to pull te text evidence from both texts, they usually do have to acknowledge the other side. So that's how I teach that in my classroom. You have to use evidence from both texts. And in order for you to do
that, you're going to have to acknowledge another side. I personally do not think asking them to acknowledge the other side with one sentence is harmful. I'm still on the thesis and claim over
here in my mind. So, >> thank you. >> But as far as that goes, I acknowledging it. I'm fine with teaching that in my classroom. >> Okay. Should we maybe just be clear about the expectation? Because like I said, I've been teaching my eighth
graders a whole counter claim paragraph because I thought I was supposed to. Um, so maybe just being clear in that language somehow of the expectation is not a full counterclaim paragraph. But >> maybe we say briefly acknowledge. >> I'm okay with that if that helps to
identify that does it >> with at least a sentence. I mean, should how specific should we be? Can we say acknowledge the counter's claim with at least a sentence? >> Yeah, I think I think the word briefly
gives them uh more discretion and how far they want to uh want to go with that. Um given again the capabilities of a particular class that and that that changes year to year. Some are going to
uh go as uh our lead has said they're they're going to be able to to to rock with that. Now, others that have difficulty that haven't advanced as quickly, uh they may be very brief just with one simple sentence.
>> What language would we like to use? >> I like your suggestion. Briefly, >> adding the word briefly. Um, >> is that okay with everyone to add the word briefly? Acknowledge. >> No opinion on briefly. >> Um, >> if that adds clarity for people, then
that's fine. >> I I do think it would be worthwhile. Um, our language of support the thesis was supporting claims uh in parenthesis and uh logical reasoning and by citing multiple pieces of relevant. I think
that word of reasoning has historically, if I'm reading this correctly, has been used in in lie of what we have we are now referring to as claims. Like the the reasons used to back up the overall claim were the what we are now calling the claims that are supporting the
thesis. If we're going to make that shift, I think the reference to logical reasoning should likely be removed. Um because we still have language about organize the reasons and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships. that to me feels like it's addressing logical reasoning um in the subsequent
substandard. So I would suggest we perhaps change and simplify the the language to say support the thesis with supporting claims and multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence. >> I would be does that affect anybody? >> Is that okay? Yes.
Good enough. precise, clear. >> I just need clarification there. So you you're making a distinction. So we've been defining reasons as statements of support for claims and you're you're saying there's going to be
a shift here from my understanding. Okay. Um just thank you for that. Yeah. Okay. So it to me as I was reading it so I think I was reading it slightly incorrectly was that the idea that um if these if we view thesis as kind of the overarching argument of of a text
and then the claims are this sort of subsidiary arguments being made within that much larger argument. Um it felt to me by avoiding the word thesis we were elevating the word claim to kind of that overarching argument in the context of argument. Um, and then using reasoning, the reasons you hear organized the
reasons and evidence. It seems to me, um, in the substandard C, the reasons and evidence, the reasons were kind of the maybe the specific paragraphs that were used in support of the overarching claim. It seems as though, and I may be misunderstanding, that we are making the choice to move claim or thesis to the
the language that previously was claim and um and then elevating claim to the place where reasons was previously. So the reasons would now be what we were referring to earlier as the supporting claims. >> Correct. >> That was my understanding but but I I'm
certainly want that to be clear. So if >> so I I I needed a second to think about my thoughts. Okay. So the term logical reasoning is not used in informative writing because we this is argument. We've moved from opinion to argument.
And one of the very foundations of argument is logical reasoning. When we get into those upper level grades, we appeal through logos, pathos, and ethos. And we talk about that all the time. And that logical reasoning is it that's a that's a domainspecific
vocabulary term for this mode of writing that I'm really hesitant to remove. >> I agree. It's it's uh it goes beyond claim. I think it talks about higher order thinking. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Then we will maintain the
language. >> Okay. So, uh you have provided us with a uh an idea in B and everything that we've talked about is now included in your statement in B.
>> The language reads support the thesis with supporting claims and logical reasoning and by citing multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence acknowledge an alternative or opposing claim. That is what our language reads as it stands. >> Were we going to add briefly in front of knowledge? >> Um, yes, I can add briefly.
>> Okay. Given that last change, is that acceptable to everybody? Yes. >> I was going to say just for wordiness, just a suggestion, maybe it's worse. Um, but maybe after logical reason reasoning, semicolon site multiple
pieces of re relevant sufficient evidence. Would that make it I think I was hearing you had an issue with how lengthy that was getting. Would that be a solution or make it worse? >> I'm I'm fine with that if other people are fine with that. >> Sure.
>> Okay, we're good with that change. Are we ready to move on to the seventh grade now and and add some rigor to this? >> No. I I will say now it we do have two semicolons in B
now. Um and the first semicolon the first clause is about claims and reasoning which seems like its own unit and then we have evidence and then we return back to claims and reasoning. Um which feels like a bit disjointed to me. Um, do we think we need to move evidence
to its own substandard that says site multiple pieces of relevant sufficient evidence kind of keeping claims and reasoning within its own substandard. I wouldn't be opposed to that. I think that's a good idea. We're saying the
same thing only we're putting them in two separate substandards. So there will be a a new C and then we're going to go to I. I mean that I I think that makes sense
because if we're we're moving from supporting the thesis with supporting claims and logical reasoning, briefly acknowledge an alternate or opposing claim, then we move to cite multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence. And then we move to
organize the reasons and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships just to make sure that students and teachers know that they're related and they should be within the same paragraphs then
I think that flows. >> So yes, I think that's a good idea. >> Okay. Um, so here I would like to hear well your thoughts I guess specifically because this something you mentioned. I feel like reasoning and B and reasons
and C are being used in two different ways. So I feel like organize the claims there makes more sense. Um, and then clarify the relationship among the thesis and claims. Would I be incorrect in that or >> I think that's what Mr. Hillard was
trying to say. Um, and so actually I think this is a really helpful conversation because I think we're adding clarity and precision to our own language which is what we're asking students to do to use precise language. >> So restate what you what your proposed
change would be. Amy, >> organize the claims and evidence clearly and clarify the relationship among the thesis and claims. I I agree. I I think that's what it's getting at. I mean, I I think what we're
going to run into is, and again, I'm not a middle school teacher, so this is I could be so off base here, but I feel like the the the issue we're going to run into is historically there is a like we're in middle school where they're learning the basics of a structure. or they're learning how to format an essay and they've learned that like the claim goes up at the top and then each
paragraph is a reason. Am I am I wrong there? Um and so if we're shifting functionally, now I understand I understand a claim and a reason are not the same thing, but functionally the thesis is going to be the the the main argument and the the claims are
going to be the subsidiary paragraphs. Now, it seems to me in a middle school classroom, that's functionally how it's going to operate. Um, so I think we have to be pretty intentional about this use of reason because I think middle school teachers if they hear reasoning or reason their brain is going to go and
while I obviously understand the distinction we're making, I feel like they they've used this terminology for years and they're going to go wait now we have to there's a third thing we have to do thesis claims and reasons and they're going to get really muddled and I I worry about the muddling there. >> Good point Lucas
and you So evidence, support, those are that's language that we've been using throughout. Is there a way that we can sub some of those instances of reasons with evidence or support? Yes, that means we have to use a new
verb. then support your support >> it's language that you suggested Annie address that and clarify >> I believe it would >> all right >> so it would be instead of organize the reason it would be organize the claims
and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships among the thesis and claims I believe would be how this would We're shifting. >> That adds clarity and I don't think we need any more words.
>> I It's up there now if anyone wants to read it. It's the >> the new >> Oops. >> I'm um stuck on reading the surveys now. Thank you, Briana, because I'm reading all the instances of what we should not do. edit.
Sure. >> Um I guess we we've worked on A through D. Um, we were looking specifically at the revision to D where it says, "Organize the claims and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships among the thesis and claims.
>> Oh, it's the logical reasoning." >> Um, we had had a conversation about logical logical reasoning. Uh, I'm I'm very conflicted on that because I obviously understand what Miss Na was saying. Like you >> I to me logical reasoning is something different than the reasons you use to
support the argument. I do just simply worry for clarity sake about some people just seeing the the root word reason and just kind of thinking, "Oh, wait. We still have to use reasons." And perhaps that's something we can address in the standards guide that what logical reason
refers to as a higher order thinking skill as opposed to a claim or sub. >> Absolutely we can. It's helpful to hear this conversation because I mean like we were talking about yesterday terms can mean many things in English and especially in our area. So to help uh it
would help me to know what your intent is behind it when we do. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> That would help. Yes. >> Yes. I mean, I I think I think for the intensive six through eight classrooms, and I I may be hearing this really wrong. I think we're not asking them to really do anything that much different
than what they've done. We're just asking them to shift vocabulary. Um whereas what they've been calling a claim in argumentative writing becomes a thesis. What they were calling reasons becomes claim. >> It's what we call at the university academic language. And the use of that
by teachers and students consistently is what increases learning. And >> I think for me the selling point was they're already using the word thesis in informative writing. Informative. Yes. Informative writing. So we're using
thesis and informative writing in sixth grade. It just makes sense that we use this word consistently. So it's not even a new vocabulary word. is just aligning to me is what it feels like and to actually
try to clarify then for teachers across the state. >> Absolutely. Okay. Are we good with the changes then that we've made? I think we've done a great job here. >> We still do have an inconsistency and this is a minor one of whether or not to put the s and claim in parenthesis. Um I
would say if we're going to ask them to acknowledge uh an alternative or opposing claim, we should just simply make it plural. uh because I don't want the only claim they're making and and in in their line of reasoning to be one that is uh opposing to their own
>> plural in D. Yeah, we we've used a plural elsewhere. So I think just for the sake, but I did just write that so that >> Yeah. Okay. But please >> ch I guess um speaking of the standards guides comment and understanding intent, I'll just make another plug for the glossery so that the department can
understand your intent for standards guides so that educators can understand your intent. >> Yes. Thank you. So, our intent is to identify when we're talking about logical reasoning the higher order
thinking skill, but not a claim. Okay. >> And I believe Miss Now is three steps ahead of me putting it in the parking garage. Excellent. >> Okay. So as it I don't believe having looked over the remaining substandards I don't believe there are any references to anything that would be relevant to
this particular conversation. >> I think you are correct. >> Okay. And we move to uh to an I. >> Okay. I do want to make it very clear that we're all because if this is if this is what we're working with then the work that we will do in subsequent um argument standards will
essentially just be replicating what we just did. Um, so I just want to make very clear that everyone feels confident in in the work that we've done on this before we move forward. >> Everybody clear? Raise your hand. >> Okay. I see we still we got them up.
Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Then then let's move. Um, okay. Actually, I'm sorry. Um, we need to look at the parent standard again. Um, write, this is six still, I 31. Um, write multi paragraph argumentative text
to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence. Um, we don't need to have the language of reasons, I wouldn't think. Um, so would it be to support a thesis with clear claims and relevant evidence? >> Yes, I accept that language.
Yes, everyone. I hear I see head nods. Thank you for pointing that out. Okay, as we would have to do at the seventh grade level, same change. So,
so that would be now instead of in A we would change claim to thesis. In B it would read um well for B we're just simply going to re replicate B and C from the sixth grade standard except it will read acknowledge
and refute or what do we want to do about this briefly knowledge language? Do we want to say briefly acknowledge and refute or acknowledge and briefly refute? >> And can I go back to the claim and the reason? >> Yes. >> So if I'm I have to give a thesis I have
and I have to give a claim but I don't have to give a reason for the claim. So to me in this conversation if I'm tracking um evidence and support are functioning in the same way as reason.
>> Okay. >> Am I tracking? >> Yes. >> So it says give a claim and then give reasons. I mean not reasons. Let me give evidence and support for your claims. Is that what the word is? I can't see the board. I can't. >> Yes. That's what I heard her say. >> Okay. Thank you
>> for clarif Oh. >> Oh, please, please. >> Just say for clarification for me. So, you're also making a distinction earlier between reasons and reasoning, correct? So, the reasoning would be part of that, you know, explanation of how the evidence supports the what you're
calling um trying to keep it straight in my head, reasons. >> Reasoning to me is a verb and reasons is a noun. >> Correct. >> So, reasoning is a process. And >> it could be a noun, right? It could be the reasoning within that paragraph,
right? So it could be Yeah. I'm just trying to say how I I'm interpreting it. Like reasoning is the process of doing it. >> But I let's get it clear cuz if we're different than teachers going to think differently. within the language of like AP courses, um there's frequent usage of
the word line of the phrase line of reasoning which kind of refers to the the broader argument the structure of the overall argument being made in the way in which it develops over the course of a piece of argumentative writing. Um I think that is the sense in which reasoning is being used here. Um versus
like the traditional use of reasons as one particular or a reason as a moment of of support for the overarching claim or overarching thesis or whatever it is term being >> used. So it seems like we also need to define
re reasoning in the glossery. >> Yeah, we did we talked about >> that. I I know we say a claim in >> I have defined reasons and defined logical reasoning in there. Uh I can state it another way if we if >> in the glossery. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> And >> and in the guide >> and I think for the sake of clarity I think what we're already doing but we should steer away from using the word reason as a now to mean evidence and support. >> Okay. So back
>> helpful for me clarification for me to know that. Yeah. for sure. Yeah. >> Does that make sense? Okay. >> Do we then need to if we revisit the parent standard where it says write multi paragraph argumentative text to support a thesis with clear claims and relevant evidence that that does illuminate anything that would refer to
a kind of reasoning. Do we need to, and I'm reluctant, um, write multi paragraph argumentative text to support a thesis with clear claims, relevant evidence, and logical reasoning to kind of capture the the classic
claim, evidence, reasoning triad. Thoughts there? >> How classic is that? I mean, it's it's what I do all the time, but I I'm a high school teacher, so classic. >> Do you see be better? >> Do you see if if we were to change the
wording like that and how we have it right now, do you foresee any problems down the road? I know that's a broad question, but are there going to be any major hiccups that you can foresee
if we do that? right now in the sixth grade. Right. I I agree. I agree. I just I want to make sure that the the shift that there was already there was public survey feedback about there being you know a
misalignment in the expectations in the fifth grade and the sixth grade and moving in between grade bands. I want to make sure that we're absolutely clear about the expectation in the level of thinking here because it is such a it's such a different change in thinking.
you're moving from I think this to this is this is a supported belief based upon this and I want to make sure that that's clear in whatever we put in here before we move on. >> Does it require some additional
language? Your question, Lucas, was uh whether or not we should include logical reasoning in the parent. Um, >> I was just trying to vocalize I I heard
some concern that perhaps like we are now just simply asking students to make a thesis, give claims, and then give evidence for the claims without kind of including language that that explains that that connection therein. And I feel like logical reasoning is the thing that
does that. Um, and so I thought that perhaps would make the relationship between all these pieces a little clearer. Um, but I >> I think you're spot on and I think we should include logical reasoning. Does
everybody agree based upon the explanation given? Does everybody agree to add logical reasoning? Okay, >> I see head nods over here. Yes, head nods here. Okay. Yes, thank you for that
suggestion, co-chair. >> I I I hate to do it, but I do think there are downstream impacts of this. Um, >> well, that's okay. >> Um, >> we get it right from the beginning. >> Yeah. Um, so if it reads the parent standard and it's it's adjusted now, so look at uh I31 to ensure that everyone
feels okay about this. It would read right multi paragraph argumentative text to support a thesis with clear claims, relevant evidence and logical reasoning as it currently stands. We kind of have a substandard for both thesis and we do for claims. And I kind of think D is what is the logical reasoning where it
says organize the claims and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships among the thesis and claims. I think you would probably need to add some language after the at the end of that to say and clarify the relationships among the thesis and claims through the use of logical reasoning.
Thank you. Yes, we're talking about being precise here and I think that's what we're doing. >> Okay. So, that is that is where we're at. Is everyone content with that? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Then I'm going to move it over or I can't just move it all because then we're going to lose the progression. So I'm going to move it piece by piece over to the seventh grade as well. Trying to ensure that I don't lose any of the progression we built in yesterday.
>> And if I remember correctly, what we were doing at the next level was asking them to refute. >> That was one of the progressions. I think there might be others. We have changed the language of of a counter claim though to now say briefly
acknowledge an an alternate or opposing claim. The language we were using for B was acknowledge and refute. Um do how do we feel about um do we need to update that language at all as far as um acknowledge and refute
or do we want to include the word briefly? Is the word briefly gone? Do we just simply want to acknowledge now without refuting? >> Briefly is gone. Okay. And then should should we still ask them to refute or are we just asking? >> I hope so.
>> So I'll acknowledge and refute. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. So now that would read support the thesis with supporting claims and logical reasoning. Acknowledge and refute an alternate or opposing claim. Um C would say cite multiple pieces of relevant sufficient evidence. Um the new
D would read organize the reasons and well not reasons um organize the claims and evidence and clarify the relationships among the thesis and claims through the use of logical reasoning.
Then I think everything downstream of that should be the same. But if people would please check me on that because I don't want to miss anything. Well, I which I says restates the claim should change to restates the thesis. Correct. >> You got a double D in there.
>> I am updating that at the moment. Okay, as it stands, everybody accept that now the modifications. Yes. All right, let's move on. >> Great eight. >> Could someone other than just acknowledge, consider, and ultimately refute. Um, so we added the the language
about considering. I I assume we want to keep that. Um, was were there any other progressions here? here. I want to make sure I don't lose any progression as I move the the language over. >> That's in B. >> Yes. Um and I know I know about that, but I want to ensure I don't miss any
other progression as I move the language over from seventh grade >> anymore. Old language said address instead of acknowledge. But to me, acknowledge, consider, and ultimately refute to me
kind of means the same thing. So >> to me, that gives some specificity in what that looks like. >> What address means? I'm okay with that. >> I'm personally wondering what do what do we mean exactly by consider? Does that mean just like explain the
>> My intent was rather than just saying, you know, my claim is Saturday is the best day of the week. Some say that Friday is the best day of the week. Um but they're wrong. Um would be, you know, that would be addressing a counter claim or that would be uh acknowledging
a counter claim but then refuting it. Um some say Friday is the best day of the week. Now I will admit it there are high school football games on those days and I love high school football games. However, ultimately it's still not the best day of the week for this reason. That to me is the consideration. It's like cuz we were saying originally we said support but I I don't like that
language of support necessarily because I think that could muddle like what exactly is >> you're currently in the eighth grade. Does that is that a shift from what you are seeing either you know moving down or moving up removing or
>> Ireing I think that would be I think consider would be an increase. Um but I think it might have been in the original was that consider in the original language? >> Address. >> Address. Okay. >> It just says address. um consider um I'm a little bit I haven't tried that but I
what I'm typically doing with them is asking them to acknowledge the other side and basically give evidence as to why that side is not as good as you know their their side. I think consider could
possibly be a little much for eighth grade. Um, maybe not honors, but CP I I don't I don't know that they couldn't, but I haven't tried that. >> What What about support with evidence? >> Um, that too much.
>> So, I I think would be clear in that language because so oftent times, even my ninth grade, I have to like just drill this. um they will give me support for the other side as if they think that I'm asking them to write a paragraph
from the other perspective. >> Yeah. I just at the high school level I feel like I see that very frequently where I think they misunderstand. They think now it's just like we've we've taken a body paragraph from an an alternate reality essay that was arguing the other point and just copy and pasting it in here. And the word support makes me think that that's
>> going to end up being that. And then at the end they're just because they have to refute they're just going to say but ignore all that. Um, and that >> worries me. >> Would the word evaluate be more precise than consider? >> I also think we the the the standard for
the substandard for the support the claim and then the counter claim should be broken up into two letters. Uh, first of all, it's probably one of the medias letters there. But secondly, it is actually two different skill sets. I think we talked about that yesterday because I actually suggested the same
thing and I think the ultimate decision was like in sixth grade it's just like a sentence so it was putting too much weight on a substandard. I I agree with you in the the logic of the formatting of it but I can see with the progression of sixth grade where it's too much. I
think that's what we came to yesterday. But now we're on eighth um where we're using more than acknowledge like it's getting a little >> Yeah, that makes sense. I I'd be willing to do that. >> Yeah, I agree. Um the one concern there
is it would be breaking from what we've done across the standards where once we get to sixth grade through 12th grade, the number of substandards I believe has stayed pretty consistent and they've just been a steady progression of that one individual substandard. um we haven't gone and once we've gotten to sixth grade we've had a set of
substandards that are are consistent and have just progressively gotten more advanced whereas now this would be breaking from that a little bit. I I get what you're saying and I >> expecting that continuity uh or that uh that habit of reading
um the standards it makes sense doing what you're saying there and and and not change that. >> Did we just say elaborate instead of consider? Sure. >> To make it >> Yeah. I think just from a wordsmith point of view, acknowledge, consider,
and ultimately refute is a lot going on. >> Okay. >> Like just just say the one, as I always tell my students, if you need that many verbs, then you don't have the right verb. Let's just find the right verb. Well, >> the verb that they used was address. If
if we feel like a dress is doing all three of those things address and reviewed. Okay. Just so everybody feels better, do we need to define acknowledge versus address in the glossery?
>> Yeah, I think that would be important. >> Okay. >> I do addressing and refuting an alternate or opposing claim and then we need to move over the language. [Laughter]
body slam the count. I like to say, >> okay, are we okay with those changes now to the eighth grade level? >> I'm still making a few, so just bear with me. >> Oh, we've got time. >> Well, do we? >> Uh, >> I also don't think we need the word
ultimately. Okay, I think I got rid of the word ultimately, but I will I will double check because I am currently in big time edit land. >> And good job.
>> I'm glad someone passed away. >> You still got your double D there. >> Um, I'm working on that right now. finally hit. >> Yeah. Yeah. I have to I have to click out of it. Yeah. >> Okay. So, 8th grade. I think I've done it all, but please Well, no, I haven't
because I needs to say thesis instead of claim. Anything else there? Okay, then we will move to high school. Um, high school we were kind of in the process of yesterday. We didn't really have all of our progression stuff sort of sorted out.
Um, do we I I to me it seems sufficient to just bring over this parent standard from middle school and use it in high school as well. I mean, I still think we're asking them to write multi paragraph argumentative text to support a thesis with clear claims, relevant evidence, and logical reasoning. That
seems what we're asking them to do. I'm sorry. So the the EIT suggestion and the original language addage um you know support claims and analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning. >> Okay.
>> So I mean now we can make an argument for for valid versus logical but >> so let's let's just tackle the in an analysis of a substantive topic or text first. Um, do we think that language needs to be there? Um, so that would be write multiple paragraph argumentative
texts. Um, to support a thesis with clear um, uh, where would that go in our sentence? A phrase in an analysis of substantive topics or texts. Would it be write multi paragraph argumentative texts?
No. Okay. Would it just go at the end? I think that says it. Do we feel as though the language of uh valid reasoning is a progression from logical reasoning that we would like to
consist to to make or do we feel like logical reasoning just is what we want them to do and it's just a difference in terminology? I kind of prefer logical, but just because I feel like I use that terminology with my students a lot in high school and logic, but also I don't
know that it drastically changes. So >> to me, like as I teach it in AP Lang, like validity is a way of assessing logic like validity is a type of like a component of one's logic. Um >> well and so in the original standard just to try to gain clarity on what the
original intent was behind the word valid um in the 910 we're now um supplying evidence for each claim and counter claim while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both which would which lends itself to a valid
assessment of the claims of the evidence of the reasoning. So >> valid scene and logic is dropped. I mean not logic is dropped but the word logical is dropped in the progression from 8th grade to 9th grade.
So >> okay so there's a precedent >> progression. Yeah. >> And I think ballad talks about uh the prepundance of evidence and the validity of evidence. So it it's rather than the process.
>> That's great. I'm I'm happy to do that. So it would now read I added an extra space so don't don't yell at me. Um I um using Okay. So write multi paragraph argumentative text to support a thesis with clear claims, relevant evidence, and valid reasoning. And I'm missing the
Oxford comma as well. Everything's falling apart. Um in an analysis of substant substantive topics or texts. >> Yes. Well said. >> Okay. Yeah, it's all right. Um, so our old A read,
introduce a topic clearly using the introduction to engage and prepare the reader for what is to follow. Include precise claims. I think that is that is the substandard that is about introducing a topic. I think we're referring to the thesis there. So I think it should read introdu include or
yeah include a precise thesis. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. Um, substandard B is support the claim. Well, that's the one we broke up. Um,
oh, I'll add B and C. What our I don't think we had any progression here, did we? >> From the or at least not we kind of left off in the middle of this one. Um, but I'll copy over what our B and C were. Um, support the thesis with supporting
claims and logical reasoning. Address and refute an alternate or opposing claim. And then C, site multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence. Um, if there are places in which we feel like a logical progression can be made there. I think that would be useful. >> I'd like to bring up as well as we kind
of look at these standards and now I'm looking at the 912 survey and once again there is tension over counter claims. Everything is falling apart. >> Good catch. >> Once again, there is tension over
counter claims uh and the belief that students aren't able to do this well. We are not scaffling scaffolding it well. I just want to acknowledge that in the room that that came up in 68 as a
reoccurring theme. It looks like it is a reoccurring theme in 912. What are we maybe counter claims doesn't need to be buried in a substandard. Um, it just seems like there is a lot of
tension in our survey results over feeling like students don't know how to refute, address, acknowledge an alternative side. And I think that bears out in the real world too in the world
beyond the classroom. Just putting that in the atmosphere as we go through these conference. I think we did address that in the middle school so that they are better prepared at the high school to do those
things. >> If I'm hearing correctly, Dr. Todd, it's it's about whether or not that should be included within the standard A or should be its own substandard. >> I that could be one solution. >> I'm saying we should also think of a
solution. Maybe the solution is outside of the purview of the standard. Maybe the solution is in the curriculum. uh but it just seems like it's coming through a lot in the surveys that students are really really struggling with this skill. And so what I worry
about in only the part of the p the piece of the puddle puzzle that we can control is this thing that seems to be calling causing a lot of tension is just buried in a substandard. Um, is there something we need to do on our part to
elevate it or is that something that is best handled in curriculum? It just seems like our survey respondents are saying, "This needs more time. We're rushing through this. We're requiring them to do this. They're being assessed on it and they're not getting it."
>> Wait, do do substandards carry the same weight as the standards? >> Yes, 100%. >> There there's the answer. Okay. And I I did and this is maybe just in addition to what you're saying that one thing that might be helpful and might carry some weight is um I this certainly
sounds like an area that we could provide additional support in terms of instruction around it. I also think that maybe putting it in a note and I I never remember where the parking garage or wish list or what it's called but uh >> Dr. when it comes to the materials
adoption and we are crafting the criteria by which materials are selected. Um this would be a point of emphasis that we could make based on this committee's recommendation and say we need the materials to get this piece right because teachers are not getting
it right. So if you could add that I think that would be good. >> Absolutely. It's added. I could see it being added right now. If you know we are charged with thinking about what's best for you know hundreds of thousands of students a million
students across the state my gosh if Tennessee can get this right we would be a model you know for the country because this is something the country needs to get right right now and just to see it coming through in these survey results I think it models what we're seeing you know outside of the classroom as well
>> no longer satisfied with the top 50% we're going to be the top 10% >> okay So for as far as like functionally the question we're asking and and I just want to reach a consensus on that is do we want the second portion after the
semicolon in substandard A or sorry sorry substandard B um to become a new substandard uh specifically about alternate or opposing claim. Um, it does seem by doing so we would put an it seems a slight additional weight on that by doing so
>> and I would recommend if we're going to make that change we make that change all the way back to sixth grade so there is consistency across >> uh >> you could just make it in high school. >> Yeah, >> just in high school. >> Yeah. And I and I also agree with that because that that that the old substandard is very meaty and um you're
developing claims and counter claims fairly supplying evidence for each claim and counter claim while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience's knowledge level and concerns. I mean that's a lot. I feel like that can and should be broken up a bit.
>> Okay. Um, so maybe and pointing out strengths and limitations of of claims in that substandard, pointing out strengths and limitations of counter claims in that substandard, but then also making it very clear how we're refuting, you know, so that we're we're
expressing a clear strong side in 910. That's a lot. I do also think that increases the level of rigor, right? You know, in middle school, we're introducing you to this. We're having you practice with this. in high school, we're adding a little bit more weight to
it. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> oh, one one more thing before we proceed because it could um I think we've lost a little bit of um meaning behind the word evidence in the grade bands because we
um in um in the types of evidence that we use, >> we've moved from uh facts, examples, or quotes in the in the proposed revised standard before we did this facts, examples, quotes, or paraphrasing. paraphrasing is a whole different level of um you know rigor in in evidence. So
I think we probably need to add that language in the levels to so that teachers know what's expected >> at the ninth grade level >> in the in the uh in the middle grade band. Sorry to go back but in the in the middle grade band and then up into high
school. Um to me it's all on the table but >> okay um this is substandard C you're asking about where it says site in mult site multiple pieces of relevant sufficient evidence. Okay. So and and if I'm hearing this right just like an eg
list of >> specifically. Thank you. on EG or specifically um >> is it an exhaustive list or not an exhaustive list? >> If it's >> Yeah, it's ultimately I sorry I didn't
mean to cut you off. Um it it's I guess we're we need to make a decision of do we want these to be the specific types of evidence that we want to be the focus of that particular grade band or do we want to just give them an example of what roughly would be the types of evidence but they have freedom to kind
of deviate from that as they see fit. Um that would be the difference in my mind from how we've used EG versus how we've used specifically. I like the freedom honestly and this I'd be welcome to hear other opinions on this but I like the freedom because in we're talking about such a difficult standard in the first
place and then to add the absolute expectation for sixth graders for example that they must paraphrase that's yeah it's that's that's awful. So >> okay so put your appropriate letters that would give us freedom
>> that would be eg sorry what is it? So if you go back to the feedback um a lot of it was teachers wanted precise like we want to know what to teach. Um I have been to and again I know it's not about the test but this will go to that question where you um like grade the
field test essentially. What's that called >> like ranging or whatever and I'm sitting in a room with teachers throughout the state and I'm like oh they put text evidence in here. They they put facts like they they they cited the evidence and then somebody is like well they paraphrase and then somebody's and we're
giving different scores essentially because in my classroom we take text evidence I put it in quotation marks and we put the paragraph number that's not required but that's what I was looking for whereas somebody else was like all they did was copy and paste text evidence. So if the feedback is
essentially we want to know what you are expecting then I do think essentially putting in parentheses facts examples quotes or paraphrasing would solve a lot of the problems that we had to begin with which teachers want precise if we're not putting paragraph numbers
because I totally understand that maybe this would be like in sixth grade we're going to learn how to pull text evidence and put it in quotation marks in seventh grade we're going to teach how to paraphrase or whatever and then in eighth You can use any of those things that might answer the problem, but then
you are kind of going like what you said. >> Excellent. Okay. So, let's add them. >> Do we need to add a sequence with increasing rigor? >> I mean, there's a sequence built into the EAT recommendations. Um, so we can
look at their sequence and see if we want to just adopt their sequence. >> All right, let's do that. >> I like the sequence. I think the only question is the I mean to me the only question is surrounding the verbiage of how we approach that. >> Yeah, we have drawn a hard line between
EG and specifically here. EG being here are some examples of this thing but that is not the entire list. Um we're we're we're letting you know there are other things out there. Specifically being we want you to focus on these. Do not look outside this parenthesis. This is this
is what you need to know. Mhm. >> Specifically means something a little bit different to me. Specifically means focus on these. These are really, really important. This is what we're holding you accountable for. >> But if you do other things, that's great as well. But this is what we're holding
you accountable for is what specifically means to me. >> Yeah. If if I didn't say that then yeah that's >> I I I think that level of specificity I don't know another word uh is is is good for teaching writing. Uh also
understanding that a lot of our ELA teachers aren't writing specialists. A lot of them are amazing reading specialists and reading analysis specialists but a lot of them aren't writing specialists. Um, and so I think
if we could specify it would be great. >> Okay, that sounds great to me. We're in agreement. >> Has has it already been noted to include the differences between these things in the glossery? Okay. Um, I believe it was actually there's a
note in the introduction already um of the difference between IE and EG um and we'll we'll update that language for us. Okay. Um so we are going to say specifically and then there the sixth grade for from the EAT was facts, examples or quotes. Um do we want to say
specifically facts, examples, quotes? Okay. Okay. And then for uh Yeah. Do we feel like that's a that's an appropriate progression? Okay.
Okay. and >> eighth grade. >> Yes, 8th grade. There was no progression from the EAT. So, I I recommend we just maintain that. >> Is there anything else at the high school that you think needs to be
addressed in this regard at the eighth grade level? Okay. Well, we were still working on on the E1E2 standard. So, I suppose but Miss Alice correctly identified that there are some places >> Lucas, is there anything that would help you out if they had that skill developed
at the eighth grade level >> as far as for this entire standard or >> No, just for that particular substandard >> for that particular substandard. um >> the one that we just changed for sixth, seventh grade. Can we add should we add
anything more at the eighth grade to increase the rigor to prepare them for high school? I mean, this is not something I'm going to I'm going to go to any sort of war over. But to me, facts, examples, quotes, and paraphrasing, glumping all those
together into one thing seems like a little bit of a conflation. Um because you can you can quote a fact, you can quote an example, you can paraphrase a fact, you can paraphrase an example. Um >> in in my interpretation, it's left open so that if they don't quote or paraphrase, then they still they have
still even though they've not done it necessarily correctly. They've they've provided the evidence and they've done what they >> they're supposed to to support it. >> Okay, that makes sense. Um well then that and that seems to encapsulate I mean summary is really the only I I
teach my students about you know the the ways of introducing evidence as being you know quotation paraphrase or summary as the three primary methods. So >> would summary be adding to adding summary to the eighth grade?
>> Yes. >> I don't think for eighth grade. No, I'm not I'm not recommending that for the eighth grade. Okay. My question to the high school was, is there anything else that should be given to the eighth grade to increase the
>> rigor of that particular substandard? >> I would be thrilled if my students can meet the standard that is outlined here for eight. Um, >> okay. Thank you. You answered my question. >> Yes. Okay. Um, okay. then
910 or E1 E2. Um I believe we made it through this parent standard. Um we made it through A um we were on B and then there was this discussion of
uh of what to do with B. Um I think we we had reached the consensus that we wanted to make uh the counter claim its own substandard at this level. Is that something that I'm I heard from the room? >> Okay.
As long as we're retaining um what they're supposed to do to create cohesion and rel you know create and demonstrated understanding cohesion relationships and valid reasoning which is which would be to
um address um limitations I forget how it was worded strengths and limitations of claims and strengths and limitations of counter claims. >> Okay. Um, we need to include that language. It's not there currently. So,
where do we where do we build that into our phrasing? >> The EAT had proposed create an organization that establishes cohesion and relationships among claims, counter claims, reasons, and evidence. >> That would go into our substandard E, I believe, the new substandard E where it
says, organize the claims and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships among the thesis and claims, right? Um, do we want to build some of that language about cohesion and relationships into that into E or do we want to build that into >> That's fine with me. The the question
is, you know, do we need to um address strengths and limitations at the 910 level and which was in the old standard. Um, and again, I I I hesitate to lose rigger, so I'd like to avoid anything
there, but um, but is that something that we need to specify here? Is it sufficiently addressed in the wording establishes cohesion and relationships among claims, counter claims, reasons, and evidence, or um, do we need to make sure that we
specify that in our new revision? That's the question I'm putting before >> and the specifi I'm sorry to ask again but what the specifying what was the exact language that >> addressing strengths and limitations of claims. >> Okay. um
>> or excuse me, developing claims and we can play with wording, but developing claims and still addressing, you know, strengths and limitations, developing whatever wording we have here, opposing claims,
>> we build that into the substandards B and C. Instead of support the thesis with supporting claims and logical reasoning, we're saying support the thesis with supporting claims and logical reasoning. um semicolon address the strengths and limitations of the claims
and then replicate that for our new substandard C that says address and refute an alternate or a prozing claim. >> Does that sound acceptable? >> Yes. >> I think we need that language in somewhere for sure. Um
>> yeah, I do. >> Yeah. Um, we also lost the word fairly, but I'm wondering if the strengths and weaknesses gets at that fairly aspect. Um, I mean I could say fairly fairly
address the strength. >> Actually like strength and weaknesses more than fairly. >> And is address the right verb do we think here? >> I do too. >> Address is formal.
to address the strengths and weaknesses. >> Let's keep it consistent. What do we want at 910 level? Do we want them to acknowledge the strengths and limitations or do we want them to address them? Because that that's those are the types of language that we've
used elsewhere. >> Maybe acknowledge a 910 and address in 1112. >> I like that. Absolutely. There's a progression. like I don't see the clear distinction between acknowledge and I I guess I do
see a mild degree of intensity. I don't know if that would be read readily understood. and also in the standards guide, >> right? >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea. >> I feel that's developmentally appropriate here.
>> Yes. So, acknowledge the strength and weaknesses of the strength and limitations. Okay. Strength and limitations, not weaknesses. Yes. That's much better language. Yes. Um
and that is of the claims we we are providing. Acknowledge the strengths and limitations of the claims. Okay. All right. Would it just be strength and limitations of the claims? Just that would that just how I would
close just of the claims and then of the opposing claim in the subsequent substandard right. Mhm. >> Maybe you should elsewhere. We've is Okay, never mind. I changed my mind.
Okay. >> So, is every all the changes that we wanted to make currently on there? Vice Chair >> getting on there. Yep. Um I I made the edits if everyone will look at I34B and C to see if if
those look appropriate to them. Okay. So, uh, >> one quick question just of clarity. Did you did you already discuss the audience piece that was in the original? I decide not to Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Could
would it be better to put reputation after all of that about Um so so it would read acknow address an alternate or opposing claim acknowledging the strengths and limitations of the alternate of the
claim. I we probably eliminate that language of Yeah. acknowledging. >> Okay. I see. Okay. >> Yeah. I think that's an improvement. >> Addressing an and acknowledge first and then refute. >> And then would it say just simply refute
the claim or would it need to say refute the alternate or opposing claim? I kind of prefer the specificity. >> Okay. So, refute I what the way I've thought about it is though once we say refute and or address an alternate or opposing claim then it
becomes the claim then it becomes the one that's been used. Um it's like saying introduce a thesis and then every subsequent time we say the thesis. It reads right now address an alternate or opposing claim acknowledging the strengths and limitations of the claim. Semicolon refute
something. I just don't know what that language should be afterwards. Okay. What >> you said? Alternative. So that in the other thing I was going to bring up
that was that um the the um ultimately we're pointing out the strengths and limitations of the claims and counter claims in a manner that anticipates the audience's knowledge level and concerns. So we don't want to drop that audience
portion which is so key. So, we can add uh I mean it might be redundant, but um just to be absolutely clear, we could add that to the end of both of those because I think that was the
intent in the original substandard. So you could say um does for substandard B acknowledge the strengths and limitations of the claims that anticipate the audience that anticipates the audience's knowledge
level and concerns Should that just be comma anticipating? Ant >> that's fine. Yeah. >> Anticipating. What was the language again? >> The audience's knowledge level and concerns. >> Okay. I just updated it. We would want
to do the same in C because acknowledging, you know, or addressing alternate opposing or opposing claims is in fact addressing an audience's level of concern. >> Okay. So, would it say acknowledging the strengths and limitations of the claims and anticipating the audience's
knowledge level and concerns or would that need to go elsewhere? >> I'm talking about substandard C right now. >> I thought that's >> Are we talking about the same thing? >> I think it's Yeah. See where it says I'm just asking I agree that this language needs to be there. I'm just asking where.
>> Yeah. Uh >> to me it seems >> after after claim. Yeah. Yeah. That's what you think. >> Okay. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Do we feel okay with A through C now? >> Everybody. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> D is pretty minimal right now. It just says site multiple pieces of relevant and sufficient evidence. Do we feel like we're missing some progression there from the old standards? the types of evidence should be understood. I mean by the high school level should be incorporating all. So
>> we don't need to have the specifically list anymore. We just >> included other 910 teachers. >> What do we think? >> No. >> Okay. Right. >> Yeah. >> I guess my question is would the high school teachers be reading the middle
school standards? >> Okay. That would be good practice. Um, okay. So, we're good on C. Um, E is organize the claims and evidence clearly and clarify the relationships among the thesis and
claims. Do we feel like a progression needs to be made there or you feel like that's good? Um, F use F is use credible sources and demonstrate an understanding of the topic or source material. Um, it says understanding of the topic. We've used topic or texts elsewhere. So,
I think source material should be texts. >> You would like to add the parenthesis. I don't think it hurts anything to add it, right? It doesn't hurt >> around the S. Is that true? >> The par No, no, no, not the S. The parenthesis of types of sufficient
evidence. Does it is there some way it's unhelpful or harmful? I guess is my question. There's some way it's harmful. >> Maybe we use an EG list here instead of a specifically just to kind of give a little more freedom. >> Perfect. All right. Yeah, it's fine. >> Um,
>> if we're going to do that, I would add summarizing though. >> Yeah, I I agree. >> Thank you. >> So, it would be eg facts, examples, quotes, paraphrasing, examples, facts, examples, Oh.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Just trying not to explode. Facts, examples, quotes, paraphrasing, and uh and summarizing. Okay, great.
>> Sorry. Um, I believe I was just double checking, but I believe we use the the transitions with within and between paragraphs starting in nth grade andformational. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, to create cohesion and clarify
relationships among ideas between and um within and between. What was the language? Correct. >> We have it in H. Use appropriate transitional words phrases. Yeah, >> okay. So,
in the narrative, I guess I should go to informational. That'd be more helpful. I'm sorry. Um, most likely. I'm just looking for the language of the original. Our substandards are so long. It's hard to look through.
Okay. Um, so the informational was use appropriate transition words, phrases, clauses, and sentences to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among I Dang it, I looked at the wrong one. you know, uh I think it's a lot because
we're trying to speak to the request for specificity and when you specify sometimes it just becomes lengthier and the question is is there something we want to cut? >> So I think we're doesn't >> really pushing to speak to the
specificity that was requested. >> It's just what we have currently with the addition of within and between paragraphs. >> Wonderful. Okay. Thank you. Sorry it took me so long to not ac now to move to approving this set of
standards and substandards. >> Well, this is still this is still n uh E1 E2. So we still have the >> right >> E3 E3 people. >> Personally, I'm okay with keeping the same standard throughout high school. I think we've done it.
>> Is there anything that needs to be added to increase the level of rigor from English one and two to English three and four? >> I think we talked about yesterday with that was the text with increase in the complexity of the text would also
increase the rigor >> in the other Yeah. >> And and we're now we're back and mirroring our our cornerstone which is where we should be. >> Okay. So good. >> So I guess my question would be the opposite then. Have we actually piled on
too much in E1 and E E2 if we're saying this is really appropriate as well for E3 E4? >> I think we kept on the same in the other two for high school. >> Yeah, I think this is kind of been our practice for high school thus far. >> Yeah, I don't think so.
>> I don't feel like there's an enormous jump being made between middle and high school here. I don't I mean it feels like an appropriate one. I don't as someone who teaches nine 10 kids, I don't feel like this would be unfair to ask my my nine 10 kids. >> Remember also it's a two-year span. So they've got two years to get all this
even though they're tested each year. It is two years to gain all these skills. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um >> so you're going you're going Hey, just move that over. >> I have done so unless there's anything we feel like needs to be progressed. >> Is there anything? The one thing we do
need to do and this is very very simple um good news um is our our uh cornerstone needs to shift just slightly to say write argumentative texts um rather than arguments because we've used that phrasing argumentative
text elsewhere. >> What additional standards in the writing strand do we need to work on? So this is where we need to go back and make the big decision about 678. I believe the recommendation was to
limit the mode of writing for six, seven, and eight to one mode of writing per grade. And we said we would revisit that at the end. Um so I I'll pause there and then maybe we can all give thoughts because I
>> I had a dream again last night. >> This is what I dreamed about. I did not dream about thesis and and claims but I dreamed about this one. So I I would I would like to hear all comments on this again like we went around the room because I think this is the other major
shift if we do it if we don't. As we begin the discussion, I would like to say that we are talking about creating worldclass standards for our students
to attract people from all over the world to come here to Tennessee to get access to our well-educated super writers. Okay. Now
we have created very substantive standards in all of the areas of writing. If there happens to be a problem with time at a particular grade level, that's not for
us to worry about. That's for the administrators and the legislature to work out. If they need another 30 minutes a day in language arts, then the administrators need to create a uh a
different style of schedule to allow them the additional time in teaching. If that additional time requires some additional staffing, if you go from four periods in language arts to teach every day instead of teaching six and you need
more teachers, then the legislature needs to create a lit literacy initiative and fund some additional language arts positions. So, I don't want to sell our kids short
by trying to solve the other problems on the other end. Those problems of time and resources can be solved, but ours is to set forth those standards that create worldclass writers. That's all I have to
say about that. >> Is that a wish list item? on the wish list. Yes, >> I will add um I I this this has been keeping me up too. I I feel like it I know I know that
as a committee and and everyone who's been involved in this process thus far. We're we're all making a really good faith effort to do what what is best for our students and our educators in the state of Tennessee. Um that said
I I see I I really am conflicted. I really do see both sides and I hear all of these perspectives. I hear and have experienced you know the struggles in the classroom and I also see the validity of course in keeping the in and wanting to devote all attention to all
all types of writing equally because I do think they're all equally valuable and and we have been doing that in the classroom thus far. Um, I I had a question and um and I this was something I was thinking about this morning and I
wanted to pose that question and and just to see if this would maybe just put it out there. Okay. Um so I I know and again you know hear me when I say I I understand that these standard we're not looking necessarily at testing when we
when we are um creating these standards but we have some precedent in in AP courses for example um in some manner and I I won't go into detail right now unless I need to later um for releasing
um ahead of time a a a task Before that point occurs, students have been expected to practice all skills and and to devote their time to all skills and learning all of those skills until that announcement is made in the spring. And
then therefor students are working on that task. So my question is, is there a possibility that, you know, to to try to meet everyone's concerns? And again, I understand that's not always possible, but is there is there a way that um that
maybe an assessment could u an announcement could be made in the spring perhaps announcing ahead of time, okay, the test will be that type of writing, that mode of writing for that grade level that year. And so the the idea
would be that before that time all students and teachers would be preparing their students but then that extra focus time would then be devoted to that one mode of writing to try to to meet
concerns. So >> thank you for your question. Now I had a chance to connect with our good friend Dr. David Leairard at the Department of Education who's the assistant commissioner of assessment and accountability and he fully and deeply said that he would love recommendations
from this committee on the wish list and and specifically asked for it in writing as soon as y'all are done so that they can reflect on it and is is very open to discussion on all items related to assessment and reaffirmed that if any members were interested in applying for the assessment committees they would
take that under advisement. I do think there are some requirements. The textbook commission, I believe the um requirements are a little more broad. I'm happy to follow up and see what the options are. >> I'm happy to put you to more work. Dr. Stout, you just say the word. >> Thank you, Brianna.
>> I also just want to quickly I I miss now and I both teach a course that does this and we've we've spoken. I I do think this particular framework works pretty well. Um because we're trying to marry this this desire like I understand the desire to not announce the the type of writing because then teachers will
necessarily look I would do it if if I knew exactly what type of writing was going to be emphasized on the test. I'm going to emphasize that type of writing in my instruction. Um I think that's that's human nature. Um but also I understand that as a teacher who doesn't know that's incredibly stressful. You
know one of the first things I want to know um is you know what kind of writing did my students have to do? Um, so I I I am very conflicted. I've like, you know, I I similarly have been very conflicted on this for a very long time and still don't have an exact. This to me seems
like, and I know it's outside of our purview here, but um but this to me feels like one of the closest things I've heard to a compromise that would allow for instruction to still focus on all three types of writing and and in equity, but also gives the opportunity to to provide some additional emphasis
um without monopolizing interest um to the type being assessed. >> Can I perhaps suggest another compromise? We can have multiple types of compromise on the table. uh I think there is the one issue of the assessment.
I think there is another issue of is there more a higher level of expectation or more standards and substandards in the middle grades. I think there are more standards and substandards in the middle grade just from my rough count
because I think we're all like hold on is this valid right and from my rough count and I welcome anybody to double check the standards and substandards in um the lower grades were tracking in the
30s the middle grades is tracking in the 50s the high school is tracking in the 40s I actually think there are just more standards and substandards in the middle grades. Is that equitable to middle grade teachers?
So that's my question and that is beyond the world of the assessment. My possible compromise solution. If one group wants to teach all three and is saying it's important to teach three and another
group is saying we want to specialize on one, there is a number in between three and one. And what would it look like to say sixth grade is devoted to teaching two modes of writing, seventh grade is devoted to teaching two modes of writing, and
eighth grade is either devoted to teaching two or three modes of writing. My compromise is what would it look like to say two instead of three? Next, >> Annie.
>> Um, I think similarly, I'm very conflicted on the issue. Um, like my instinct is just to say yes, let's focus on one, I'd love to take a deep dive. Um but given some of the information that's been presented about um development of
curriculum materials um as well as uh especially I think the concern I had about it period um was the idea that teachers may just not because they don't they're not trying to do their best but
because there's just such a high pressure environment for teachers with testing that they might just focus on that one type. Um, and that seems to be um what happened with math from my understanding um was focusing just on
those or ignoring or letting uh or neglecting the other standards um by focusing too much on the focus standards. Um but I do have to say um the two idea was something I thought of as well. Um, but at this moment, um, I
really like Miss Now's proposal if it would be possible. Um, I think it solves a lot of problems while also allowing that spring quarter to be dedicated to, um, a deep dive on one type, which is kind of what we're looking for. Um, and
I like that there's precedent um, at the higher level. So, right now, that is if we can ask for that, I think that's what I would I would like. Thank you, Patty. Did you have anything that you wanted to say about the about
the proposal received from the public? Uh, basically Okay. Thank you, Patty. All right. Anybody else now? Rosemary. >> Oh, yes. I was collaborating a few minutes about special education. That's
a concern uh for students and instructional resource. There are eight categories for special education, but we're focusing on instructional resource inclusion, third through 8th grade. So, I would like I'm dittoing what Miss N and do Mr.
Hillard stated about uh selecting those top those modes of writing at least prior to the testing in the spring. But I would like to see for grades third, fourth and fifth graders looking at two
modes of writing specifically opinion and narrative. And whereas for sixth, seventh and eighth grade, they can look at the three modes of writing to introduce it earlier. >> Okay. Thank you, Rosemary.
Britney, >> I agree with I like Miss N's proposal. still teaching all three, but then having the option possibly to know in the spring which mode it would be
because that I mean I mean as fifth grade teacher I'm teaching all three but still I don't know you know there's still that you know I spent generally we will spend more time on opinion and informational because that is generally
as you said years past that's what the test has been and so um but if I didn't you know if I truly didn't know and then I wasn't good enough you know you would really I mean as deep as you could get deep dive into all three but then have
that last month or so to really dive deep into the one that you knew that they were going to be assessed over >> okay and did you say everything you want to say go chill Uh, Vice Chair Hillyard.
>> Yeah, I I do. And then just quickly just to alleviate, we've made many references to the spring. Um, I come from a a block scheduling district, so um like we we obviously test in the fall and in the spring, but just that would not be a concern. The test is different in the fall and the spring. Um, so if something
like this was implemented, um, that it wouldn't be like the the spring kids would have forewarning or anything that in addition the fall kids wouldn't be receiving. Um, it would be an entirely different test. So the forewarning would be a different kind of forewarning. >> I personally think it's abhorrent
the practice that we've been using now after the test is done. When I go in to observe student teachers, they say we're not doing anything. It's over. But we got a whole another
month of school. What a waste of time. what the taxpayers are paying for uh is it's a shame. So I think it's an excellent use of that time and the proposals though that I hear except with the exception of a couple do not change
the standards as we have approved their recommendation. So they would remain intact. So we would uh we can still pass those and talk about the wish list for our communication with the with the
assessment department. Is that correct? >> I do think you still have the issue of is it an equitable load in the middle school grades. >> Okay. And from my assessment there is
there are more standards and more and substandards in sixth, seventh and eth. Is that is something that we want to consider and address or because I think we that addresses the mode of writing
specifically problem. I do actually see there's another issue here. Thank you Dr. Stout. I caught the tail end of your question coming back from the bathroom, but I think I heard a you speak to it a little bit earlier. I have done analysis on the number of standards
K5 versus 68 912 and I can share that data with you. I'd be happy to do my best to sort of look at the substandards. It's a little harder to do on the Excel data analysis because it's within cell, but I'm happy to take a look at that and get you some answers as soon as I can. Would that be helpful?
>> Can you do that today? >> Yes. >> Okay. And can you look at the substandards as we have proposed them or are you going to look at them as the current? Yeah, I think either is fine just for probably the current. Yeah, I'm thinking
I mean do you feel like the my only concern about doing the new ones is that y'all may not be done and so it wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. Would that be okay to do the ones as proposed by the eat or would that not be helpful? I can also do an apples apples comparison to the text types. How about
we just look at what we're teaching now? Because I think this is where Yes, this is where the the the the pressure point is coming from that what we're teaching now, the middle school teachers feel like they have a higher load. Um I would love someone to check that to see are
there more standards and substandards in ELA middle school. >> You have a comment. Well, I was just con wondering because of the changes that our middle school proposed when they moved to to be responsive,
they added additional substandards to to those two that are responsive. So, the ones now that you've built back in
still have the additional pieces that they added in when they added it in because it's not now a full essay. So going back to a full essay, they now
have the full essay with the additional things that they did not have originally. >> Right. >> We have added more. >> Yes. Period. >> Yes. In the sentence. >> So that's something to consider. >> Yeah. >> Because they added it in to make those
beefier >> so that they weren't losing that type of writing is my understanding. And if the the original feedback, and she's looked at it, is very much we don't have time. We don't have time. We don't have time. And now essentially, we're putting more
on their plate. I get we were building progression, but like we're like now as an eighth grade teacher, you're going to have more writing standards. I I I responded to these surveys and I was like, I don't have time to teach these. And then I opened the new survey or the new standards and
now I have more work to do. It's not that we're opposed to doing more work. It's just we couldn't even get the work done that was originally in the standards. That's my only concern. It's just thank you. >> Are we meeting the feedback from the people
>> and I say give them more time. >> Well, we had to do was within our purview. But yes, I think would it be helpful for the rest of the committee to just have like let's just have a count of the standards and substandards that we are currently teaching. >> Okay. Yeah, >> I've been kind of doing that. Um, >> of course you have Vice Chair Hill.
that what was present in the prior standards I'm seeing a consistent what Dr. out has identified in the currently existing standards. Generally, there are more substandards for the middle grades than there were for high or or lower grades. Um, in our proposed standards,
however, for writing, I've just looked at writing. I haven't looked at other um areas. Um but within writing um currently high school has the most standards um substandards small amount increase um just an increase of of of um
one because we added that additional substandard in in argument um followed by middle grades and then the fewest substandards for for the lower grades. So we we have made some efforts to shift that. It's primarily been by increasing the number of substandards for high school though rather than decreasing um
at other levels. I don't go ahead. I think >> um I think another aspect when you look at the high school standards, they're they're written a little bit more in more of a concise manner because it's kind of implied that we're doing
everything middle school has done plus some extra. So, I think looking at a an exact number isn't always totally accurate for what is truly happening in the classroom because you're having to do everything. Yes. Plus,
>> and I will say I think one of the good things we've done with our work, at least in my opinion, is that we have kind of shifted that a little bit where there are fewer moments where we just suddenly take three substandards and collapse them into one. Our substandards stay pretty consistent throughout and then just the the language shifts to kind of create a clear progression.
Hopefully hopefully um that will lead to the student possesses a skill and we're only taking a small additional step with each substandard rather than having to take a leap. And in many cases the substandards remain identical across levels. So if a student is mastering, you know, at at sixth grade when they move to seventh,
they should already ideally be meeting the the substandard. >> I'd also like to point out that um we have we've attempted to to address the public's concern for uh specificity in the classroom. And so by doing so,
although it might it it some sometimes be a beefier standard, we've also eliminated some of the uncertainty I think in some cases. And so by doing so, we we can um we're we're better allocating I hope with the intent of
better allocating our time uh with the with what we've proposed. I think a final note for me anyway is I I would love to hear because like I've said before, I've never taught six or seventh. My experience is 8, nine, and 10. Um, so if there's something that doesn't seem developmentally
appropriate, I think we would all like to know it or something does seem too much at that age because I I can't speak for sixth grade. I wish I could. I really wish I could, but but I've just never I've never taught six. So I I think it is important that if something seems too much that
that somebody you know speaks up and says something about it. >> Yeah, thank you for that comment. Go ahead. I think what is filling where the development appropriate language or concern is coming in is not in the actual standard itself but
perhaps in the amount of time it takes for a sixth or seventh grader or eighth grader to master that skill and they need more time on those skills. And so one skill standing alone might seem
fine, developmentally developmentally appropriate, but when you I owe them, I think what they're saying is they actually need more time for this to sink in. And my point is
that there are schools that have gotten ahead of this and they create hybrid schedules for language arts to have 90 minutes instead of 60-minute periods or 120 minute period. They give them the time to do this.
It can be done. Don't sell yourself short. You have set great standards here. If I may respond to Miss Dockery's point. Is that okay? Chair Kneggus. May I respond to Miss Dockery? Chair Carnegus, I appreciate you naming that.
If you have any questions for the Department of Education or EAT on developmental appropriateness, I encourage you to to ask them directly so they they can help you. Just at any point if you have a question, just ask them.
>> Okay. Well, TDE and EAT. Uh, so I didn't realize I had to do a direct address. Um, is there anything in here that you feel like is developmentally inappropriate or is too much for the particular grade that we need to look at
and revise? And I'm going to hate to say this, but I do not think the standards the way you have written them is I think they are appropriate. I think our problem does not come with the standards. Um, but with that being said, we are basing our
decisions off a possibility of what test makers are going to do and that's my problem or with time. I mean, it's not fair that somebody in East Tennessee has 45 minutes in an ELA classroom and someone in Middle Tennessee has 90 minutes and that's not
a concern we're having today. But I do not think that's fair for our students. Um, >> excellent point. jump. >> Okay. >> No, I I do um agree with everyone that I do think they are developmentally
appropriate. I think that you all have done a great job of providing specificity um in the substandards in particular and I think um and I agree that maybe that you know maybe number of standards may not be the best gauge but it may just be um kind of assessing them
as a whole as as to whether they've you know create too much of a burden or or developmentally inappropriate but I do not think as in my professional opinion that they are developmentally inappropriate for those grade levels as currently stated and I do also want to fully acknowledge and hear and respect
all every single concern that has been presented around the surrounding pieces. Um I want to affirm that. >> Thank you. >> I would still like to know the number of standards and substandards for grade. >> I'm happy to Dr. St. >> understanding it's not an apples to
apples comparison. I do get that but I do think it's just a it is a piece of evidence. It is not you know the primary piece of evidence. If I may ask a clarifying question to make sure I get your request right. My understanding of your request is going into the original
standards looking at 68 writing and finding the number. Go ahead. >> I the original standards as taught right now as >> Yes. current active. >> Current active. >> Yep. >> And not just 68 writing. I actually want to see it across ELA >> because this is it's that same time
block, right? Like they have to do this in a year. So it's not just a stream. It is everything we're asking them to do in ELA in a year to me. >> Okay. And it would be a comparison K568 versus 912. >> Okay. I could definitely do that for the
number of standards by the end of the day for the substandards. I would need to look more into the data to see what my options are. >> Okay. I'm I'm fine. >> Would there be a >> I would like to see it with the substandards and that takes more time. I understand. >> Well, we're meeting again. So,
>> thank you, Dr. St. I I'd also like to say that that ELA is somewhat unique, I should say, but somewhat unique in that uh we are we we uh teach within a recursive process. So we we're not
teaching completely new standards each year. We're building upon a foundation each year and these are skills that they're that they are practicing each and every year. I understand with an increasing degree of complexity and rigor, but I just I wanted to go on on
record as saying that as well. >> Thank you. >> I also just really want to number of substandards. Just as part of this conversation, just want to point out we have made a substantial increase in the number of substandards in foundational literacy. Um so that's that's K5. Um, so
whatever numbers are calculated for old standards, just wanted to flag that that that number will go pretty substantially up um for for K5 teachers with foundational literacies um voluminous substandards. >> Thank you, co-chair. Now, co-chair, what is our next step in terms of reviewing
the writing standards? Are there additional writing standards we need to review? >> Yes. >> And what are those standards? I mean, we have standard four, five, and six that we have not touched yet. Um, >> okay. Might I suggest that we take a
10-minute break? >> Uh, and if you can get in here less than 10 minutes, great. We can proceed. >> Okay. >> So, are we going to make a decision point about the modes of writing after the break? Are we going to make it when
we follow up virtually? I think at some point we have to make the decision. >> I agree. Well, let's make the decision now. Uh, do we keep the standards as we have developed them intact? >> So,
for standard 123 is this are you asking for a formal vote here or >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so the I the proposal is that we I don't know. I feel strange about making a formal vote about locking in standards when we might make some minor edits, but
I guess the the question is >> to me the question is how many modes of writing are we teaching >> at each middle school level? >> And if we one proposal to teach one mode of writing, there was another proposal to teach three modes of writing.
>> If we would the vote then be >> and then I I said how about we meet in the middle and teach two? I don't think we spent enough time thinking about like how it would look to teach two modes of writing instead of three. And I actually would like us maybe during the break to
individually give that serious consideration cuz I think that is a meet in the middle maintaining the rigor allowing there to be comparisons between the modes which is actually really important and building uh and I'm also
open to and in eighth grade they get all three because hopefully they've had significant time to build in sixth and seventh. So I I I would hope that we would spend a little time thinking about is that an option that keeps the rigor,
gives a little bit of time back, allows the scaffolding, allows the comparison, um, and maybe it's a compromise. >> Hillard, thank you for your question. Can you repeat it? We were working on how we could most quickly address Dr. Stout's research question, so I didn't
catch all of it. What was the voting question on the table? I think I think we got around it, but I think the original the motion as originally proposed was essentially just are we going to use the standards we've got right now for standards 1, two, and three for writing. I felt a little reluctant about having a formal vote on that given that we might make small
additional edits even if we were to vote in favor. Um so I but I think we could reframe it as a question of you know either Dr. could propose a specific um could change or someone else could propose a specific change or we could vote on um essentially a motion of uh
all three modes of writing should be taught K through 12 in each year I think would largely be what we would be voting for >> right >> I think six >> okay I I know that Miss Winters had said something about um potentially limiting the number of of modes in the lower
grades so that would that would open up that conversation as well >> at some point either before after the break whenever it's most appropriate. I would like to hear from TDOE and EAT on their thoughts on uh I guess the new proposals.
Just so they're clear, the new proposals meeting Dr. Stout's proposal of two focus writing types and Miss Now's proposal on what was the other Oh, K5 Miss Wy's proposal. Okay. Does that work well for folks to to take the break time and then we'll maybe when we come back from break if y'all feel comfortable we
can start there. I have a slight go might um we've got four, five, and six. I think whatever decision is made on on this particular vote or if we end up having a vote or whatever decision is made, I think standards four, five, and six will not really be affected um because they are not related to specific modes of writing. They're are cross
modes. So perhaps we could um work on standards four, five, and six and then have an agreement that as soon as we finish six, we revert back to this particular question. Um and that would give them time to to think about what they're thinking. that would give um anyone else to come up with like numbers as far as number of substandards while also you know moving us forward making
progress but also still addressing this concern and not moving on from it before it's addressed. >> Are we okay with that? Okay, thank you. Well, let's do that. Let's take 10 minutes now. It is now quarter of 11. So, we'll be back here at 5 minutes of
11. >> Just a reminder members um to avoid any deliberation during this break. I know it's very tempting. talk about your weekend plans. >> All right, I'd like to call this meeting back to order and the next on the agenda
are uh four, five, and six in the inter in the writing standards. Before we go to four and five, I think it's very important that we review public input and this is where the memo we receive
from the organization score I think is particularly relevant. uh if you have that at your uh table there. Um and I'm I'm going to read from it to give you a few examples. Given research has found that secondary ELA
and social studies teachers are among the most likely to use AI in their work, the up uptake and impact on ELA instruction for guidance on resources for effective use. Students and educators are already using AI as a
collaborative partner to write, create, design, brainstorm research. Tennessee can lead the way and what should be learned in ELA to leverage using AI. There are recommendations at the back
page which I think are probably the most specific and it I would say the mo three the first three are the most important to our group. And what they suggest is that we establish AI literacy skills and
competencies that they should learn to use AI in ELA. Second, align and embed AI literacy skills with competencies in the AL and the Tennessee standards as a relate to
writing, composition, media and digital literacy, communication, research, and critical thinking. And then finally revise the current ELA standard on technology use for writing with updated language to
capture AI and the range of use cases that goes beyond writing. Those are the things that I think are most important that from my opinion that we address as we move through here. If
you do not feel there's any need to address any of these, then so be it. But I think I needed to raise your conscious level of what's being proposed here. And if AI is something now that's come into being uh before these other standards
were were created, uh we talk about digital uh use and technology use. AI is a whole different ballgame. It's a lot bigger. It's it does include that but it's a lot bigger.
There is one thing too that we've talked about and maybe you even want to talk uh they talked about acceptable use of AI on assignments projects in a classroom. That might be a more of a procedural thing but uh it may be something we want
to address. So let's proceed through the standards and if we think this is the time to include something if we want to include it about AI then let's do it. >> Okay. Um we are on cell G36. Um just to
focus everyone um with the cornerstone for this. >> Sorry I thought I saw Miss Bear reaching for the mic. No. >> Okay. >> Okay. So standard four um the cornerstone is develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising,
editing, rewriting or trying a new approach. So this is the standard that is intended to um encourage students to plan their writing and then edit it after writing. Um uh okay so the kindergarten standard uh G36 um reads with guidance and support from
adults and in collaboration with peers explore a variety of digital tools andor other resources to produce and share writing. uh respond to questions and suggestions from others. Add details to strengthen writing as needed. Editing should demonstrate command of all foundational literacy standards for uh
K. Um I personally um believe that uh we should probably reference editing before we get to the parenthesis um because it only appears for the first time there. There's no reference to editing. I think
it would be a logical place to add that into the B substandard and say edit uh and in edit in response to questions and suggestions from others. Um do we agree with that? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> I think too it's meaning like the language standards. So like whatever the lang for because we don't have language standards. So to keep in mind not just editing like the thoughts and that type of thing but >> right >> and then elsewhere we have just said and
or or instead of andor unless we really felt the need to use andor. Is this a situation where we think we could just say and? I think we've been leaving it in kindergarten to um accommodate the range of starting point for our kindergarteners. >> Okay.
>> So, do we want to keep andor then? >> And or >> Okay, sounds great. Um, anything else for that >> in the entire K area >> in in the K standard? Yes. >> Well, my question would be whether or
not digital tools covers AI or if we need to start mentioning AI. And Patty, I think you have something to say about that. I do. Um, I would tell you that given when these will go into
everybody's hands for implementation and use that AI probably won't even be AI anymore. I think that we are covering it sufficiently to use the global term of
digital tools. And while I appreciate the comments and what they say is accurate about the use of AI or the use of any digital tool, even if you're viewing something on
YouTube for that matter, um you've got to to understand how to effectively use it. And so I think calling out AI, it would be I think we would be remiss if we didn't expand digital tools to be
everything or potentially a lot of things that could be consumed by digital tools. I just think personally I think saying AI today, putting it in, recommending it takes us really out of
stream for when these really get implemented because AI may be something we use every day and don't even call it and think of it as AI anymore. >> Okay. Thank you. Would that then do you think the use throughout uh the
standards that we have here whether it's kindergarten or 12th grade using the words digital tools covers completely anything in what's called now AI >> I do I really do
>> and it clarifies sufficiently >> you know the only thing I think that we could and I haven't and I'll just admit I haven't read all of the the electives. >> You know, you might want to consider an
addition of elective in some of this more digital tooling space, right? But I think you're covered. I really do. And I think we would be remiss to be so specific on a particular digital tool by calling out AI.
>> Thank you. Are there any other Okay, I hear a lot of ascent there. So, uh, I think we can let the folks know who, uh, do we respond to these at all to them specifically? Um, what do they write in and say, "Hey,
what happened to my comments?" >> Thank you for your question, Chair Kagus. Are you referring specifically to score or >> Yes, I'm referring specifically to score. >> You're welcome to respond to them, but you are under no obligation to respond. >> Okay. Well, thank you. I I think we've responded by our discussion here in
saying that digital tools really covers the use of AI. And just for the record, my personal background is in information technology. So I could have a real passionate plea about this, but I think for the purpose
of the standard, it may go in separately as other um pieces of our puzzle as the standards are implemented. Um but I don't think we want to do that.
>> Thank you. All right, end of discussion. >> Fantastic. Um, so currently the only edit we have made to the kindergarten standard is to change respond to questions and suggestions from others to edit in response to questions and suggestions from others. Are there any other edits that anyone would like to propose?
>> Nope. Let's move on. >> I was going to say, have we done the parenthesis like that or do we need to make that another letter? >> We have not. Okay. Thank you for bringing that up because it was bothering me, but I was just going to let it go. Um, >> not a chance here. Not a chance.
Yeah, we are. Um, so I think the reason why that's done, yes, it has been a substandard everywhere else. Um, here it is not because it would not keep with the uh because we have a colon up in the parent standard and every substandard is a continuation of that parent standard
and this one would be very hard to logically um to to work into that. Um what we could theoretically do um proposal would be uh revert back to respond to questions and
suggestions from others um in B and then have a new substandard D that says edit to demonstrate command of all foundational literacy standards for K >> which would be kindergarten. >> Yeah, which we do need to change to kindergarten. That is correct and we have done that elsewhere. Actually glad you said that because I thought that
that in foundational literacy there was a substandard K, >> right? No, it's just like we went and all those others and >> Yeah, you're you're absolutely good catch. Um, how do people feel about that that language of reverting back to
respond but then creating a substandard D that reads edit to demonstrate command of all foundational literacy standards for kindergarten? Okay, then I will >> I move that we carry that with all of these parentheses
that refer to foundational literacy. >> Are you moving for a formal vote or >> concurrent vot I >> Okay, >> I think just to make it easier for you for editing purposes. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh okay. So edit
>> while he's doing that kindergarten through >> chairman Carnegus. Yes. Just read a quick AI definition of digital tool. It is any software application or online platform designed to help individuals or organizations perform tasks more
efficiently in a digital environment. >> Excellent. >> Very broad. And it goes to Microsoft Teams, Slack, Zoom, etc., etc., etc. Video calls, so on and so forth. >> And it's not in the glossery. So that might be something that we want to dig
what add digital tools to the glossery because it's not currently in there. >> Definitely. >> Miss Singleary, you've made me absolutely useless. Thank you. >> Thank you. Also in the standards guide.
>> You've trained us. >> All right. So currently everything has stayed the same except for the parenthesis becomes substandard D edit to demonstrate command of all foundational literacy standards for kindergarten. All right, then. Well, let's move to first grade. Um, first grade reads.
Does it read identically? Um, so I think our only change would probably be to um to to the same change in kindergarten with the exception that we're saying first grade instead of kindergarten. >> Yes. >> Also say the these are standards that
are condensing several previous standards. So, if you look at the old standards, you're going to see there were a lot more writing standards. Um, and there have been efforts to consolidate and condense. Um, we went from 10 to six um here. So, just just flagging that for folks. >> Okay. >> There won't be an exact analog in the
old standards that you're going to find for this particular standard. Okay. Um, >> any changes for first grade? >> Anything else for first grade? >> Okay. Things get a little different in second grade. Um, and we have our first instance of sub substandards. Um
I don't know if there's another terminology that's used for that but that that's what I've been calling them. Um okay. Um so we do have substandards and then within D there are substandards uh >> sub substandards within D. Um I
personally think given that there are only three of them we could just put that into sentence format and not have sub substandards. >> Yes. Okay. So, um, what was D now becomes E for second grade if we're making the
parenthesis. Okay. >> Yes. Do we want to in keeping with our style keep the D consistent and maybe move the strengthening down to letter E >> so the D follows throughout the progression? Yeah, I think that's a
smart edit. Okay, so we're just simply taking D making it into one complete making into one complete sentence. um changing uh the same change we've made elsewhere except moving uh that change we've made elsewhere up to um above the D
substandard and making the former D substandard a new E substandard. Okay. Um then three through five kind of we we lose we
lose the substandards here. >> Okay. So I we we discussed yesterday that in uh the previous informative explanatory standard that we had um we
were removing um like for example in the third grade including illustrations when needed and we discussed potentially adding those things in this standard um and to address some concerns but very very broadly because I'll just say we're
we're not technology teachers and uh but we do end up using these tools and we do and we do encounter issues of um ethical and fair use especially when we get into plagiarism and those types of things. So I I wrote up some proposed wording. We
can discard it, whatever. But um this is what um and it's not changing too terribly significantly the third grade revised standard, but with guidance and support from peers and adults. Develop and strengthen writing by planning,
revising, editing, and using illustrations when needed. Semicolon. Use available digital multimedia tools. digital tools and resources, whatever phrasing we want there, responsibly and appropriately.
>> Excellent. Anybody have any revisions to that questions? Yes. >> It's sort of the same process. In high school, we took that to um in high school, we use the words appropriately and ethically. So, that would be a
really good progression. >> My one I agree with the language. My one request is 3 through 5 are currently the only versions of the standard that do not have substandards. Um all other versions K through two and 6 through 12 all have several substandards. Um, so
just for consistency sake, um, I think we might want to bring in some of the language from the second, uh, the the second grade standard and then we can add that additional language in addition to Okay, then this is going to take me a second, so I
apologize in advance for that. Um, I I did that pretty quickly, so there's a decent chance I made a mistake, but I tried to kind of take the language from two that we proposed and turned it into a new three standard and dropped it into E39.
Um, so if everyone would just look at or sorry, I39, not E. um I39 and see first of all what is there and then also uh Miss now if you could kind of talk me
through where we could add that language into this particular standard Yeah. Currently, you have produce and publish writing, which is essentially what I meant by planning, revising, editing. >> Mhm. >> Um,
what if you just put at the end of that sentence, using illustrations? What did I say? Using illustrations when needed. >> Using illustrations when needed. Okay. Do we feel as though that language should appear here in in uh third grade or should it revert back to early?
>> I like I like the way you worded the use of digital tools and as uh and then we kind of moved on to the rigor at the high school. What what were the words you used there for how you were going to use digital tools
>> responsibly and appropriately? >> Yeah, I think I think that needs to be put in here at this level. and possibly the or on a by that time it could be and >> okay >> do you all agree?
Okay. So, third grade we move to and >> um so explore a variety of digital tools and other resources responsibly and >> and appropriately >> appropriately to okay >> not probably at this level but
um it's it's going to be more than just responsibly. It's going to have to be ethically too. >> Yeah. So >> we move into ethically a little, >> right? I mean, not here, but >> I think that's smart. >> The next future of AI is
hyperpersonalized digital twins. So whoever's still teaching, they'll be teaching digital twins that are AI. >> They'll have your digital twin teaching. >> It's happening on that. Yes. Okay. Um,
do we feel okay with the new A? Um, it should have incorporated the edits. So, um, it reads, "Explore a variety of digital tools and other resources responsibly and appropriately spelled incorrectly um to produce and publish writing, using illustrations as needed.
>> Do we want them to we want them to explore responsibly or use them responsibly?" >> Uh, I think probably explore at this point. third grade >> explore and use. >> I mean, we don't have a substandard here
about using u. So, I think exploring is intended to encapsulate both the exploration and the use. >> I'm just wondering how you explore responsibly. Oh, >> like at that time I know like not in third I mean but like in fifth grade we start talking about like not getting
your information from like the dotcoms because anybody get a com. So I kind of think it's like that >> like you want to start doing like the edu and the orgs and we kind of just talk about that type of thing. >> Okay. And I and I also I I did I looked
I read over the uh the feedback that uh you did as well and there were some takeaways that I took from that and there I mean we have level you know the okay levels regardless of whatever we do. Um but at that level you know what my takeaway was you know just understand
you know just understand what these things are you know and then the next level we start applying and then the next level then we'll start shaping our writing through the use of >> because at this time they're they sort of think that if they read it online that it's the truth. So you're just at
this point you're just trying to get them to understand that not everything that you see online is truth >> and that can also be covered in the standards guide. >> Yes, >> it's going to be a Bible by the time
>> I agree about this language about illustrations. Are we are we sure A is the place for it? Um because it this is about exploring a variety of digital tools and other resources responsibly and appropriate to produce and and publish writing. I I >> that's me. It didn't make sense to put
it in another substandard unless you're just going to make a different substandard, >> right? >> Um so we're talking about the use of of images within the writing, >> right? Um >> but I hated to limit it to just images, you know, illustrations, right? That
level. I mean, could we say incorporate into multimedia components as necessary? Like could that I that would be a new substandard I think more akin to multimedia components. Yeah. >> Um, >> it is typically presented as a
substandard on its own, >> right? And so it's I I don't know. I I still like illustrations here for third grade. >> Yeah, I think it's appropriate for third grade. You know, we can increase the rigor and the the breadth of the content
later on as we move up the grade levels. >> Okay. Um then I will carry over what we've got for third to fourth. Um and if there are moments we feel we can increase rigor here. I will say the original proposed 3 through 5 were all
identical except changing the foundational literacy standards. Um so >> so I I would propose that we carry over the um responsibly and appropriately language. >> Mhm. >> And also um yesterday uh out of the
informative standards instead of illustrations we took out include formatting features illustrations and media when needed. >> Oh yeah. So, >> so using >> we add that in there. >> Using what? What were those things? Using
>> formatting, features, illustrations and media when needed. >> Okay, I think I see what's happening here then. Why you ask if this should be two standards? Because one standard is actually talking about the use of digital tools.
The other standard, if we broke A into two, is actually talking about all of the supporting details you use to publish writing and make it engaging. I'm looking at a if we broke if we
looked at before the Ann and after the end, I guess I'm asking are those two distinct skill sets? you're picking. Now that you talk about formatting and what was the other thing
>> it was formatting features and then what was the third I forgot what the third >> I'm sorry >> multimedia to what you >> so one to me is what you are doing to help edit your
writing and the research of the writing writing construction. The other to me is what you're doing to make the publication excel engaging to an audience or a reader.
I I'm I'm not fighting a war over that. I think that's what Mr. Luke Hillier said earlier. But I can see why now you're saying are these two separate skill sets? I'm looking at our
>> Good question. as you taken it further in multi in multimedia. >> We're we're talking about the development of writing and that's the cornerstone and all that that encompasses
and um and developing and strengthening the writing. And so to me, all of those things ultimately and in the real world, correct me if I'm wrong, would be would be included in the quoteunquote publication process. You know, sometimes it does include multimedia components,
sometimes it doesn't. We have other standards that address other things. Uh we'll have a research standard in which we we may have to encounter some of this when we get to resources and plagiarism. Um we have another standard in which um
we are hang on let me get to writing routinely over extended time frames and shorter f time frames purpose of task or for task purposes and audiences. And in our other writing standards we've also addressed you know ultimately engaging
the audience effectively. So to me, we're we're okay in this standard, but that's that's just my perception of it. >> How does your reading end? What is the last words of your reading?
>> Sorry. >> So we're explore a variety of digital tools and other resources responsibly and appropriately to produce and publish writing using and then for fourth grade it was using formatting features. I I if you could finish off that list for me, I go, sir. >> Okay. Well, what I'm going to suggest is
maybe we need to move to produce and publish writing to the end. No, just rewrite the sentence and use use to produce and publish writing because you're using the multimedia and everything else as you said. You're
doing it as a tool. So you move that to the end. >> Okay. Sure. So I I'll make that edit to the A for third grade since >> Yes. >> that for consistency sake. >> Yeah. >> Um so it would you it would read
explore a variety of digital tools and other resources using illustrations as needed responsibly and appropriately to produce and publish writing. Um well no that I should put that after responsibly. M >> yes >> would it be after responsibly >> after appropriately
>> when I mean >> uh we're talking third grade now so >> really more concern I mean we're not concerned about the students using illustrations uh inappropriately I don't think >> so explore a variety of digital tools
and other resources responsibly and appropriately using illustrations as needed to produce publish produce and publish writing. >> It's just Yeah, it's just simply a question of where that uh interrupting
phrase using illustrations as needed should go after resources. >> I think after appropriately myself cuz you're you're talking about using digital tools responsibly and appropriately, not illustrations.
>> Responsibly and appropriately explores. What what if you move produce and publish writing to the beginning? I mean, isn't that the goal, right? Produce and publish writing. >> I think it's just so that it starts with a verb since all the others start with the verb.
>> Well, it would be to produce. Oh, um, >> produce and publish writing by exploring a variety of digital tools and other resources using illustrations as needed. >> That sound good? Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah. Did we lose responsibly? Am I
>> I can't >> I would just say him to do I'll wait for him to do the changes. >> Good. I think I think the what I would say is produce and publish writing comma
using a variety of digital tools and other resources using illustrations as needed. Period. >> I think we need responsibly and appropriately in that. >> Yes. Produce and publish writing
ex using a variety of digital tools and other resources. responsibly and appropriately uh and using illustrations as needed. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Let me give me a second to work
shop all that. Uh >> what do we do about this illustrations as needed portion? How about um I'm trying to have one verb carry for digital tools and illustrations. Um can we say engaging a variety of digital
tools and other resources responsibly and appropriately and illustrations as needed? Does engaging carry for both? >> We just say eg illustrations after uh resources. >> No, because we have the whole list of kind of illustrate. That's why I was
asking is this actually two separate skills? >> I see what you're saying. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, we just could we just make it a separate substandard. >> That sounds great. >> That's where we started. And you said at the third grade,
Britney, you just wanted to explore the appropriate use, not necessarily engage. I think that's fine here because that's kind of the first time that you're you're sort of going to talk about that >> at the fourth grade level. Do we need to
change that to engage instead of explore? No. Okay. >> Okay. So, just so we're all clear on the third grade standard, um I have the edited version on I39. And
there's been a lot of moving pieces here. So, I just want to make sure everybody feels good about what we've got in there currently. I think we probably should add a little something after use illustrations as needed in that system. Okay. Okay. >> We want them to publish writing.
>> Is it clear that it's with writing? Because right now it just says with guidance and support from adults and in collaboration with peers, use illustrations as needed. That seems to be a little divorced from writing. >> Writing. What does publish mean here? >> It could mean for their classmates. It
could mean for their grandparents. I mean, it could mean for their school newspaper. Some some classes have a intranet for the class. I think blog, they have class blogs. I think they do a lot of things to publish in lower grades.
This is something that I won't belabor now, but I think because we we shifted the verb in a I should go back to K through2 and change it to produce and publish writing by exploring a variety of digital tools and other resources. Just I will do that on our own my own time, but I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page about that. >> Um,
>> you've never read a first grade blog. It is the most interesting thing ever. I highly recommend it. All >> right. So, are we good with the third grade standard as written? >> Yes. Well done. >> Uh-huh. And then are we content with
just taking the exact same standard, moving it to fourth grade, and changing third to fourth? >> I think we're adding the other formatting and things by illustration. Right. So >> that's where it got wonky. >> Right. Right. Yeah. >> Um, so what were those things again? >> Okay. The things were
formatting, features, illustrations, and media when needed. Okay. Use formatting, features, illustrations, and media as needed in writing. >> Yes. >> Formatting features.
>> Uh, yes, it was originally. Yeah, there were two separate entities. >> Okay. Um >> fifth grade. >> Um yes. So fifth grade I presume will also adopt the edits prior. Um it will
change to fifth grade where it references the foundational literacy standards and then do we have different um >> I hate to be that person. Well, what what is a feature then? I thought it was formatting features as like a term like
what is a feature in this sub? >> Like we t we teach text uh features as like to be if they include an illustration there might need to be a caption under the illustration. That's my understanding. or like you get into
and maybe that is formatting too but like titles subtitles >> but >> if it's confusing here it could be confusing to the teachers out there >> sounds like a glossery item >> is that confusing to anybody but me I'm
I'm fine to be confused alone if everybody >> Oh I think it's >> I'm confused don't I look confused >> in my ear I was hearing formatting features as like >> I was Okay. >> I mean, I I will say as a young teacher, I frequently was looking at standards and trying to parse what exactly some of
these nouns indicated. So, I think that's something. So, I think that's where the glossery can come in to clarify these items. >> And no other uh additions to increase the rigor between the fourth and fifth grade. >> Just now, are we good to just keep
formatting features, illustrations, and media? Okay. Um, okay. So, >> okay. So, for grammar purposes, wouldn't that since I now know formatting features are two different things,
wouldn't it be formats instead of formatting? Formats, plural, features, illustrations, and media. Like, is formatting a verb or a noun? I guess formatting can be a noun. >> Yeah, I guess you would say the
formatting of the stuff. >> Okay. All right. >> But I don't I don't have a strong preference one way or the other. >> I I think format would be best. That's fine. Okay. Um I will
Okay, we have a bit of a choice to make here. Um do we want to There's a different parent standard starting with the 6 through 12 sequence. Um, do we want to maintain that or do we want to incorporate the the formatting that was used K through five? Um,
because there is a pretty distinct jump in formatting and the part of me that is an editor that bothers but then the part of me that wants to progress wants to progress. >> Technology seems antiquated. >> Looks great. Yeah, it does a little bit. Um,
so we we've moved to ethically. Yeah. And >> should we be using digital tools there as opposed to technology? >> Yeah, digital tools. >> So in lie of technology, we were going
to say technical uh digital tools. >> Digital tools. Yes. Um, where it says tools or technology, do we just want to say digital tools instead of tools or technology? No, we're eliminating technology.
digit digital >> digital tools is is a substitute for the word technology. >> This is where in the sixth grade we had I mean there were again in that original W2 standard including formatting
graphics and multimedia when appropriate. And so I was wondering if it might be better at that level to say something along like integrate multimedia and visuals when appropriate. building off of substandard D there
>> instead instead of the formatting and the features and the illustrations and all of that just saying starting to integrate multimedia components perhaps and visuals. >> So you want to add the word components after multimedia. >> We should for consistency. We've
>> Okay, let's do that. We had a whole conversation yesterday about when to put integrate where. Um so maybe be we should be consistent about that. >> Okay. Well, it's in the research. >> Was it consistent then? Brianna, did you have something to say
while we're coitating? >> How' you know, Chair Kagus? Thank you. >> It's in the current proposed revised standard we're working on right now. The word integrate, right? No, it's not. No, it's our proposed revisions. I'm sorry. Yeah, >> the word integrate is is in the EAT recommendations.
>> Yeah. >> Quick note, your lunch um has been ready for the last couple minutes. I just didn't want to interrupt the flow. We do have a microwave. You're welcome to start whenever. Um but it but it is hot at this time. No pressure. Feel free to break whenever makes sense for you all.
The discretion of your leadership team. Um Dr. Stout, I do have update one for the standards. You just let me know when that's most appropriate. Your substandards are in progress. >> We'll wait until the substandards. I know. >> Can we get through of the high school
here before we go? Yeah, >> let's do it. >> Just been flagged, Dr. Stout. I knew I could do this before the end of today. I will try to get the substandards done. I will do them. It's just a matter of whether I can get it done today or not. >> So,
thank you. >> If we're if we're going back to those do sort of levels, you know, loosely here, then um you know, the next level would be apply. So, you know, we've gone from understand to apply. So integrate would mean we're we're now applying, you know,
we're not just adding pictures, you know, but we're actually integrating it as part of our our publishing or presentation, whatever it is we're working on. >> So the verb integrate is perfect here. >> I mean, I'm I'm open to suggestions, but I >> Okay, let's keep it.
>> There was some language about adding as necessary in there. It currently reads integrate multimedia and visuals into presentations to clarify. Um, do we need any additional language or >> TDOE suggested to clarify content and we need to get rid of the word prompt
according to TDE. >> So ensure >> talking about this is writing to a >> should we just end B after clarity instead of and to ensure prompt has been addressed. Isn't that kind of implied? Um >> how about I I feel like I hear um some
of the teachers in my head now which is good thing. They're thinking like most of the times the kids are responding to prompt. Should we just make it broader and say task because that encap encapsulates a prompt
which is the reality of testing but makes it broader hopefully than just responding to a prompt. >> That's what TDOE recommended was task and I'll be fine with that. >> What did they say then? Tell us what they said.
They said in substandard B, please consider changing prompt to the task as this better and CA captures instructional tasks within HQIM and sounds less as if they were only referring to assessments. And the last substandard we may need to indicate what
is being clarified would clarify content work. >> So they said the task. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, we've changed technology to digital tools. Um, we have uh ch we've added components after multimedia and
we've changed uh prompt to the task. Is there anything else that needs to be done to the sixth grade standard? Yeah, >> we we I don't think we've seen technology pop like it did on this one, but we probably ought to be mindful as we look forward and back.
digital tools is the correct term versus technology because that would be like your software, your cloud computing, that sort of thing. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, are we good with six? All right. Let's move to seven. And we have
the same change there technology to digital tools. If I'm if I'm correct, I I believe six and seven as proposed by the EAT are identical.
So our our our revisions would be identical as well. >> Currently is only in the proposed standards, not the ones we've done. >> So we're good. >> And I'm trying to to make sure all technology turns over to digital tools.
>> Okay. Is is there no no increase in rigor between six and seven? I >> think for technology it's more we kind of treat it in much longer time frames when we make these leaps.
Okay. And then I believe eight is also identical. Um so with the revisions carry over there as well, >> right? No increase in rigor between six and eight. And that is relatively common for these
uh sort of standards that are interwoven within like the like yes there's always going to be progression in like you know the the core prime like reading standards but these kind of standards that are subsidiary to other standards in in a sense um there tends to be more frequent
uh slower progression on those >> more comfortable with that >> because they're pro they're progress these are going to be these three are going to be interwoven into the main three that we've already the the three modes of writing. So even though there doesn't seem to be progression here,
there is progression within our standards of the modes. >> Okay. All right. I I see that we're comfortable with that. Let's proceed to the high school. >> Um Chair Kaggus, you're not going to like
this, but the high school standards are also identical to the 68 standards of the proposed DAT recommendation. So >> well and at this point in the high school level then we should be making choices in our writing right? So should we make be making intentional choices in
our use in our integration of tools >> um >> and we're still being appropriate and we're still being ethical. >> Uh so integrate multimedia v and multimedia components and visuals into presentations intentionally to clarify.
I don't I I'll be honest with you and I've I've kept it quiet. I don't love this to clarify ending here for uh substandard D that we've used. I don't to clarify what um that one. >> Well, I mean >> I think it's just effectively integrate multimedia and visual into presentations
effectively. >> Okay. >> I like that. >> And are we okay to just drop to clarify and just say yes integrate multimedia and visual because I don't know. I think it's ironic to add clarity but to add the word clarify and to eliminate clarity in the process.
>> After presentations, Dr. Stout suggested the word effectively >> and I am marking that as we speak. >> Okay. And where are we going to include student choice in here? um in well we could say integrate
multimedia and visuals into or you know purposefully integrate multimedia and visuals into presentations. How about that? >> Effectively. >> Okay. >> Effectively. Yes. >> Purposeful and effective.
>> How much choice are you talking about about content or what? >> No, we're talking about making intentional choices. you know, just like we do in our writing at that point, we're also making intentional choices in our presentation modes and u multimedia components to enhance our writing. So maybe we should say something along
that. >> Are we giving the students choices of the content that we're asking them to write about? >> Choices are in standard six. >> Yeah, that that we get to that later. >> Got two more. The six is it six or seven? >> Yes, there are six. >> Yeah, we got six.
>> Thank you to the EAT for making it six instead of 10. I would also like to note in my little review, I think writing had the most standards and substandards of all the ELA. Does that feel instinctively right? >> No. No.
>> Reading's quite reading >> quite a bear. >> I can pull the data analysis. It'll just take me two seconds because I'm working on the other data analysis, but uh electives are technically the highest. Although it's not totally fair because what's the highest? >> Electives are technically the highest at 436. um
which is on the to-do list not to um the next highest is reading but as we've talked about reading in most cases has a parallel between readingformational and reading um you know fiction non-fiction text essentially um so that's the next highest
I would need to double I have my analysis just give me one second >> have we finished four Then >> um good question. Um >> what what about >> we never decided about effectively and purposefully >> what what about I know it's a little
wordy but effectively and purposefully integrate da da da >> I have no issues with that. >> Okay. >> Are we good with that? >> And we'll do that across 9 through 12. >> You good? been saying integrate
multimedia. Do we want to for high school make the new rigor develop an original multimedia aspect maybe for 11 12 maybe an or
what does that mean? That would mean um record your own video instead of using a video you found on YouTube. Write your own jingle instead of using a jingle from somewhere else. Like I think for me
it moves from integrating to innovating. >> Good question. I like the direction you're going in. >> To answer your question, Dr. Start writing is kind of right there in the middle. Not too high, not too low. >> Yes.
>> At English three and four, we're um we are making choices. Hopefully, we are throughout, but um we're also still responding to prompts. So, we I mean I I see including the language, but we're not only doing independent choice. So
>> will that be taken care of in standard five >> more about student choice? >> Six. >> Six. >> And that that does have to do with that. So I'm fine doing whatever.
>> Are we okay then with what we've done to this standard? >> Yes. >> Do we just this in this in the cornerstone it says develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting or trying a new approach. Um, I don't see that we've got any language about
trying a new approach in here. Should we just eliminate trying a new approach from this cornerstone? I think the try a new approach is speaking to the innovation piece. And so at some point I do think and
maybe it's 11th and 12th and with all the tech that we hopefully will have in schools in 2030 we need to talk about the shift from integrate to innovate. What does it mean to not just buy the model from the store but make the model
in the maker space? Uh what does it mean to not just get the video off of YouTube but create the video in the school media lab? >> Okay. Okay. So maybe in 1112 it's develop and integrate multimedia uh components and visuals into present. >> Well it I mean it our
we do have w uh writing six right routinely over extended time frames time for research reflection and revision in shorter time frames a single sitting or a day or two for a range of tasks purposes and audiences. To me, that also includes an
independent task or an innovative task. It doesn't necessarily have to be here. It can, but doesn't necessarily. I like the language you added, develop and integrate at the upper level
just as an additional um rigor. Just thoughts there. Two different things. Yeah, we do. >> Yeah, I don't. That's true. >> Yeah, but we're focusing on multimedia
right now. >> Yeah, we try to keep the the the unless we have a really intentional decision of progression, we try to keep the verb consistent throughout the progression. So, I think that's the the concern there. But I mean, so I guess instead of just saying we would need a word in lie
of integrate um rather than in addition to integrate, I think if we were going to try to expand. Oh, could we say this is just off the top of my head, so feel free to push back or wordsmith integrate multimedia and visual present and visuals.
Um, integrate an original multimedia or visual aspect element into presentations effectively. To me, original means you made it yourself.
>> So that they're still permitted to use non um the non-created. What could we say? I agree. We could say integrate original and what would be the way of of referring to nonoriginal multimedia? Original and existing. Does does that
seem to kind of marry the two? >> Okay. Right. original and existing. That takes care of that. >> And then original or existing. You're saying give them a choice. >> I think a lot of kids are doing this.
Teens are naturally content creators. I just want to like say, "Hey, you're doing this. Let me celebrate and and recognize this in the standards." >> We're doing that. I can only speak for my own classroom. That is an option for the students to create their own. It just gets them more possible points. I
just wasn't sure where you were going with the terminology. >> And then this is a small thing. We've used integrate multimedia and visuals into presentations. To clarify, we've never used the language presentations in the uh cornerstone. I think the way we work around that is instead of just saying presentations, we say written
presentations um rather than just presentations. is like you could have a extemporaneous presentation that would not be composed >> and I would think you could have a ebook like I don't know if this has to be a presentation like this could be an ebook
this could be a video >> elsewhere we use the phrase written work could we say written work rather than >> period >> I think uh we would probably if we do that we'd probably need to go back and look at the cornerstone because the cornerstone says
writing specifically and substandard a written work. >> Mhm. >> So this would just be normalizing written work um across the >> But if I write a script and it's recorded, I still wrote an element of
it, right? >> Yeah. I mean that's how I look at you still. >> So I think it would be encapsulated within written work. feel like writing oftentimes in our I don't know if I'm understanding the conversation correctly, maybe I'm not, but I feel like when I hear writing, I
don't just think physically writing because I mean some most of my papers I assign are digital and I still call it writing. I'd like to go back to original and existing in that wording. I think it says that they will need to create an
original as opposed to being having that being permissible. So I would say uh I would substitute original or existing rather than and whatever the intent of the committee is.
>> I had and but I I I can change it to or I can change it to andor. >> Or or Okay. Um, and then the for the cornerstone, is it ever all right with everyone if I change where it says writing to written work in the cornerstone just for the sake of
consistency? Okay, we did. And it's right at noon, so we would get back here at 12:30. We would declare a little recess at this point. Come back refreshed
and remember no collabor no uh >> deliberations >> deliberations >> except about misparag grandchildren. No. Um quick note members I want to remind you that at this morning um you committed to getting through the reading standards and um we are now halfway
through our day. I love you all dearly. Thank you. Add that. Let's go. Hope you appreciated your extra little lany there for a few minutes extra for lunch. Uh we're going
to be out of here by 4:30 today. It'll be the last time we meet in person. So, let's continue with our deliberations as thoughtfully as we have and try to do it as quickly as we can.
All right, Lucas. >> Okay, onward. Um, we're on standard five. Uh, that is G47 in our spreadsheet. Um [Laughter]
um I would just like to reiterate our cornerstone here is conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focus questions demonstrating new understanding of the subject under investigation. So this is the um the standard that is really about research
um in both short form and in an longer form. Um our kindergarten standard I have the only edit I have thus far is to change the K from kindergarten in keeping with what we've done elsewhere. I don't have any other edits I would recommend for this standard. Okay. And thank you Miss Winters for
flagging. I just want to celebrate the uh committee of teachers. I do see this uh student choice with favorite author and I know that's something you talked about in your presentation. So, thank you for that. >> Yeah, I think consistently throughout these uh these examples provided are
quite good. So, um >> any reference to technology at this level using >> we covered that one in the last one. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, are we good on that? >> Yes. >> On to grade one. Um, I have changed
grade one in there to first grade. Uh, otherwise I don't have any notes. >> Does anybody have anything to add? Hearing none. Let's go on. Grade two. >> Okay, grade two. Um, same change. Uh,
grade two becomes second grade. Um, I also think just to clean up that list, we have not been using etc. So I would just eliminate etc. Um yes. So that is it for me.
Anybody have anything else? All right. Let's move to three. >> Okay. Um we there is an advancement in the parent standard in three. Um, just to flag that, uh, it now says conduct short research projects rather than participate in shared research and
writing projects. Um, that seems developmentally appropriate to me. Um, but just wanted to flag that. >> So, we're talking about collaboration at this point. >> Well, they previously were in shared research and writing projects. Now, it seems like they're advancing a little
bit beyond just purely shared collaborative tasks. now perhaps working on their own test >> independent. >> Um, yes. >> Okay. Do those words collaborative and independent need to be inserted here for clarity or not?
>> I think that's implied. >> Okay. >> Especially if someone's tracking the progression and notices that it's no longer saying shared. >> All right. >> The only I've got is from grade three to third grade if people feel content with that. >> We're good with this change. >> Okay. Um,
>> cool. Fourth grade adds that supports analysis and reflection um to the parent standard. And then also instead of building general knowledge about a topic, they're building knowledge and investigating
different aspects of a topic, which seems like a logical progression for me. >> I'm good with that. And your current edit, just heads up, says grade three to third grade for the fourth grade. Thank you. >> Any other changes?
Okay, let's go. Okay. Um, as far as I can tell, the subsequent standard is okay. Um, instead of saying relevant source, gather evidence from relevant sources,
it says gather evidence from multiple relevant sources. Now, I don't know if that word multiple is adding anything at all because the the plurality of the word sources indicates that it would have already been multiple. >> I would also like to I'm sorry. I'd like to point out at um grade three seems to
be like the point where we're dropping andor and I see now we're carrying it in grade five and four or standard substandard A andor experiences. Okay. Um so we're looking at gather
evidence from relevant sources andor experiences. Elsewhere we have as we've progressed we've moved from andor to just and or do we feel like this is a moment where that change should be made or do we feel like we still need to >> we're talking about sources and
experiences experiences is different I like andor there but >> okay >> um how do we feel about just were I I don't quite know if I see the the and I I think I understand the intended progression from A to B um or for uh
from four to five and a gather evidence from relevant sources to gather evidence from multiple relevant sources, but I I don't know if that's actually accomplishing what it's trying to accomplish since sources is already implying multiple. So I I think deleting the word multiple
ultimately would for redundancy sake. We're >> okay with that? >> Okay. Okay. Any other feedback on that one? >> Nope. Proceed. >> Okay. Um, for sixth grade, we have
conduct research by gathering and integrating information from credible sources, developing further questions, and supporting analysis with evidence. Um, substandard A is use quotations to avoid plagiarism. B is integrate relevant data and insights from print and digital sources. And C is support analysis and reflections from evidence
with evidence from literature or informationational texts. Are those the only ways that we would avoid plagiarism? >> I think >> citations, but I don't know if that's appropriate for grade seven. >> We've been intentional about the word citing. Um, when did we Could someone
perhaps do a a check and see where we started in incorporating that language about sighting? >> Very young. I think we started like third or fourth grade. >> Yes, we do. But it's not like they don't there's not a citation page with the other ones. It's more of just um making
sure that you use those terms like according to the text just to let the the I always say to let the reader know it's not your ideas. It came from somewhere else. So I think in the lower grades the citing term is used loosely I guess. Just to
>> just to flag this, it seems like the progression um is a use quotations, b sorry, sixth grade is use quotations, seven is use quotations and paraphrasing and eight is use quotations, paraphrasing and citations. Um I will also say elsewhere we use the word
quotes rather than quotations. Um does that bother anyone? Um, also TDO TDOE has asked that we add for sixth
grade um for a D provide basic biblioraphic information for sources. >> So that is the citation element. Um, >> so do we just want to add that D that TDOE recommended >> in sixth grade? >> Um, okay. >> Yeah. the I don't know what I I know in
eighth grade we're we're doing citations but um have we when is that typically taught because EAT did not have that in there and is also putting uh citations in 8th grade. So when is when are I guess you know the
intex citations typically started? Uh I mean I I know I've done it in very very very simple form in the sixth grade before. >> Mr. Doctor, could you repeat that language about uh >> from TDOE?
>> Okay, never mind. I found it. Um >> I want to go back to plagiarism issue. uh is our intention here to talk about avoiding plagiarism or adding quotations.
So should we include should we begin the sentence with avoid plagiarism by the use of by using quotations and then avoid plagiarism by using quotations etc etc. Okay.
Change uh that is a I believe. Yes. Change a to avoid plagiarism by using quotations
[Music] >> and the same change would go into the seventh grade. >> Right. Um and then are we all in agreement on this substandard D provide basic biblioraphic information for sources that was recommended by TDO? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's for seven.
>> That is for six. >> So I think we have a discretion between TDOE saying six and teacher saying eight. Is that a huge jump that we going to talk about or
I know in not just in my classroom but across everybody that I've seen and like reviewed their writing um we all say according to when we put the author's name um there are some switching from according to the text to putting the author's name is a big jump from fifth
grade to sixth grade but that is a requirement that we do I don't I've never seen it in the standard so I don't know if that's what you guys are specifically asking for and then additionally in fifth grade, they're coming to us saying, "In paragraph 4, you will see blah blah blah." And I know
specifically for my class, we put in parentheses four. Like, I don't know if they I'm like, "Just pick the paragraph that it's in and put a four because later on your teachers will appreciate that. It's not a requirement, but that's what we do." So, I don't know if that's what they're asking for. Is that what you guys are
asking for? >> I'm hearing this is create a bibliography. Am I hearing this wrong? Um, so the the progression recommended by TDOE is provide basic biblioraphic information for sources in sixth grade, follow a standard format for citing
sources in seventh grade, and then follow standard follow a standard format for citing sources in eighth grade. Um, so it seems just providing basic biblioraphic information versus creating a citation in seventh. >> But I'm I mean I I don't have a strong preference there. I I think the main
concern from TOE was just to scaffold to whatever degree that the committee thinks is appropriate for when they get to high school and are doing that that they would be prepared by then. I think that's the main >> the substandard is repeated in seventh and eth recommended TDOE recommendations. So they're getting to the same place in eighth grade. If we feel like they should just start
providing basic biblioraphic information in seventh grade, that still would would get them to the same place in the in the progression. And so if we want to add that substandard simply in seven, um, if that would alleviate some of the concern, I think that would >> I'm fine with that. I, like I said, I haven't taught six, so I don't I don't
know. >> Yeah. >> Okay. just to follow a certain standardized format, you know what I mean? Um, >> yeah. Um, I think that would certainly, you know,
certainly be debatable. I mean, the APA is usually the common. So, um, but it, yeah, it depends on what field they go into and you know what I mean. So yeah, >> are we ready to move on? >> Do we need to EG
as some options to specify if we're hearing not specify to provide some options and clarity if we're hearing there's some confusion over this? Yes. I'm >> I think what Nicole is asking is would
sixth graders be expected to have a work sited page? That's that's what she's trying to get clarification on. I mean it it seems as as how I'm reading it is if for if if the culminating thing we're trying to get to by the end of middle school is follow a standard
format for citing sources and six is providing basic biblioraphic information for sources. It seems like the difference is they're not required to follow a standard format for that but they are provided asked to provide that basic biblioraphic information. That seems like some at least attempt at at
at some sort of bibliography. Um yes. So if we feel like that's better better begun in the seventh grade I mean I think that >> sure >> there any other way we can think of if we were to provide examples in EG beyond
a bibliography what would be another example if we were to give an example of how to do that I think bibliography is one a work sited page those the same thing >> so they're building from in the middle school standards or sorry in the elementary school standards they have been asked to provide a list of sources.
So, I think this is meant to be one step above a list. Um, so I don't know. I don't I don't know really what that would be called. Something in between a list and a and a bibliography. >> Yeah, I think I'm very unclear what that would be as well. And then I feel like
bibliography and work sit double checking, but they're not >> they're not the exact same thing. I feel like maybe work sited would be more accurate language perhaps. >> Yeah. But >> okay. So I don't Okay. So that's okay.
>> MLA. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It could be work cited in some discipline in some um styles. It could be reference list. It could be other things. >> So would it be like you list the websites and article titles? I I think I'm
>> okay. develop basic sources page. >> Is that different from fifth grade? >> I guess what I'm thinking is if if they're following a standard format for citing sources, I'm guessing they're getting introduced to MLA, APA, something. And once I get to that point, I'm guessing this is I'm envisioning in
my head if if I were a teacher and tasked with doing this, I would do something like a much simplified version. Whereas instead of providing the entire reference, you might just say like author's name and title of the source and maybe like publication date or something. Um, well, how does that look in fifth? Oh,
do you have something to say? Oh. Oh, sorry. I thought I saw you reach. What what does the list look like in fifth grade >> for we don't do we do not do a citation page or a bibliography or anything like that in fifth grade?
>> We're adding that correct is that what I >> the recommendation is to add it in six. >> Okay. Sorry. >> They've been I will say they we have currently and we're we're welcome to change this but we have language of provide a list of sources since third grade. What do we need to do?
>> I don't know. I I'm just thinking like I know at the end of the year they do we do a social studies um kind of research type project and then on their last page they just list usually the websites that they got but it so I guess that's kind
of going into that but it's not at all like a bibliography. Um, I just call it their work cited page. And like I said, they just copy the email or not the email, but the web address that they used or write down any
book titles, but no publication date, you know, none of that. And maybe that's what it should look like when it's saying the list in third through fifth. Maybe that's what we're going for. And then maybe more of a formal as they move
to middle school. Well, it says a standard. What's the language? Standard >> was pro um for sixth grade recommended by TDOE. So the the kind of segue between list to standard format was provide basic bibliographic information for sources.
>> So a standard format to me says you're choosing MLA or Chicago or Tabian or APA. That is what I would interpret that as >> but I don't know if that if we've even
talked about MLA or APA or Tabian or Chicago. So have we scaffolded this appropriately? If not then we need to go back to list. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think anyone is saying to to have a standard format in sixth grade. I think it's just when do
we go to the standard format, at what grade level, and what does the I think the provide basic biblioraphic information for sources was the attempt by the TDOE to scaffold to the the standard format. Um, they recommended seventh. >> I was going to say I don't think it should be in sixth because they're
already argumentative. It's already new. It's just a lot of new in sixth grade. A lot of changing. I don't know that. >> Yeah. I'm guessing that like provide basic biblioraphic information for sources I think was I mean we could even just provide a list of sources and their
authors in sixth grade. Um just as one step above the sources um as kind of an introduction to the idea of some sort of of reference list. >> You like that? All right. Put it down >> of source. What was your comments?
>> That makes sense. she provide who wrote it and like the website or whatever. So I think the word sources is and maybe that could be something that goes in the glossery. >> Okay. So maybe do sources instead of bibliographic information for six. That's a little bit >> okay. I think title and author is good.
>> Just keep the exact same language then from fifth grade. Write a list of sources. If we're going to in introduce the language of from a standard what was it standard
format then we actually have to scaffold that a little bit better in seventh grade because they actually have to introduce a standard format. I have actually done that work and that is not
That is not easy work. >> Do you have a suggestion for wording for the seventh grade standard? >> I mean we have to start with introduce standard formats
for citations. like you actually just have to start there uh before I get you to make something that now adheres to that. >> That sounds like a good progression. I I agree with that. Let's put that in. Is
that okay? Yeah. >> All head nods. >> Okay. So, this is And I don't care. It It's fine. Um but it it is a little unusual that we're going K through six with the same language. Typically we we or we kind of have a five to six be a
jump but I am I am happy to use provide a list. >> Somebody mentioned title and author which I think is fine if just specifying >> do you want to use an IE >> uh we have not used any IE at all. So >> um >> EG
>> we can just provide a list of sources is fine. I'm I'm glad the point >> I guess not. >> Okay. I mean, I was the one who proposed the difference, so I'm just I'm conceding. Um, okay. And then we're adding
a new C that says introduce a standard format for citing sources. Okay. Um, and I assume we're making the same change to seventh grade that said instead of um saying use quotations and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism, we're saying avoid plagiarism by using
quotations and paragraphs. >> Yes. And citations. >> Yes, I got that. >> Yeah. >> Are we carrying what are we doing with our seventh grade list? >> I was using the language that you had proposed. >> So, introduce introduce a standard
format for citing sources. Are we still providing a list or are we saying and practice producing the list in this format? I mean there is the introduction of the
new concept and then there is the application of the concept. Are we at application? Are we at introduction? Are we doing them both in the same year? I thought your intent was to introduce it here and then and have them apply it in the eighth grade.
>> I'm fine with that. So then we need to carry over the language of provide a list if they're not applying yet. That's that's my question. >> I do think there needs to be some language to practicing because I think this is
>> post seventh grade tdoe language was follow follow a standard format for citing sources. To me that means practice. But we could do that in the eighth grade. >> Yes. >> So we would use introduce in seventh
grade and follow in eighth grade. >> Yes. >> Am I following the the reasoning? Is that what >> I'm not sure what introduce means for the kids? Like what are they doing though? Are we just did do we need to repeat the
same language that was I think that might what you were saying repeat question that's not a student-based standard that's a teacher standard >> what is it what what do we want the student to do after they've been introduced hello
>> practice using a standard format for citing sources >> or include >> basic elements explore Sorry. >> What was that, Mcker? >> Oh, I said maybe include basic elements
of a standard format. >> Basic elements of a standard format for citing sources. I mean, explore basic elements of a standard format. >> To me, explore means like I'm I'm taking
an attempt, but I'm not I'm going to be held harmless. Isn't that a phrase in that? Yes. I'm going to be held harmless if I don't do it well. >> Whereas in eighth grade there is more weight on now I need to do it well. Is there a year and a space? And this is
how I manage. I always tell my team first time it's just a pilot. Just try it. Like there's nothing there's no you know penalty to it. Is there a place to be held harmless to practice and then master in the next grade?
It could also um this word provide has been central for us for for the list and that might also if we keep the word provide it might make it clear that this is part of a progression. Um so we could say and that doesn't capture the what Dr. Stout's saying. So I I recognize
that's a flaw. Um but I mean provide basic elements of a standard format for citing sources. Um >> fundamental elements >> fundamental elements. um >> provide funal elements of a standard
format for citing sources. >> Uh question eat correct me if I'm wrong. Um but I don't recall that in assessments for the middle grades that there is anything about bibliographic information in assessments
middle grade band. Okay. like >> I given that we're not prescribing a specific style, I feel like that would be pretty hard to assess. Um because we can't like say is this in a correct MLA citation if not everyone's
using MLA. >> I mean it's safe to say that none of the writing standards are tested except for the first three. So how do we feel about provide fundamental elements of a standard format for citing sortation? >> I feel good about that. Everybody feel
good about that? All right, let's put that in. Are we ready to move on to the next grade level? >> Yes. >> Eighth grade because we were going to extend and deepen our commitment to
exploring or citing sources. >> Done a lot of exploring the last few days. >> Just like to say it's okay for middle and high schoolers to explore. They need to explore a little bit >> and we're all we're adults and we're exploring slap happy here.
>> Um okay. So I think it this would be the moment at which we would say provide a standard format um for sighting sources. Okay. Um and then original recommendation by TDOE uh or by the EAT sorry was use quotations, paraphrasing
and and citations to avoid plagiarism. Um I think that would just simply be the same language we used above of provide uh quote uh avoid plagiarism by using quotations and paraphrasing. >> Yes. Okay. Anything else for this standard?
Anything else at the eighth grade level? >> No. >> Okay, we're on to high school. >> Okay. Um, so for high school, it says conduct short and more sustained research projects. That's mirroring the language from the um cornerstone, which is good.
Um, as well as several substandards, so I won't read them all. And I'll um just point you all to G56 to look at the the language of those substandards. Uh the only thing I might change is uh just to keep our language the same at
the end of substandard D. Right now it says in technology generated material. I see the intent there but just with um >> digital tools >> or resources. >> Um so format writing and site information
and sources using a style guide as appropriate uh >> according to the content >> according to the content. Avoid plagiarism and academic dishonesty through proper citations or attribution of sources and technology generated material. So I guess we would just say digital tools instead of technology
generated material >> you're attributing the >> tool not the >> right uh but we're doing two different things in that >> you what if you're go ahead
>> am I missing something if you're if you're doing the if you're attributing to sources period Do you need to call out technology generated material? I mean everything
they will use in this day and age will be technology generated. So >> good point. So should we just end with sources? >> I would. Yeah. >> Okay. >> We already addressed ethicality through
the other standard. So Uh >> anything to add? >> We do we want to where it says site information and sources. Um elsewhere we have just said site sources. So do we need to have information and
there as well because elsewhere we have not done that. Okay. So I think it's interesting. This is where Yeah. using a style guide. It just seems odd to me because
I actually need to you to know what the style guide says in order for you to do this and what we're asking for in seven and eight. Is it just more developmentally appropriate to start
this in nine and keep seven and eight with a list? Like cuz this is this is always one of the hardest things I've had to teach high schoolers and I've actually taught it to middle
schoolers too. And for them to get that formatting and to understand the nuances and the why cuz it's more than just giving the author credit. It is a we're entering into the conversation with these folks
and then also advancing the knowledge in this area. It can be it doesn't have to be a sophisticated conversation but it can be and it can be calm. I know we'll have tools that will make sighting easier. Thank God. Or footnote software.
Save my butt in grad school, right? But I I'm just struggling with us peacemealing this and them not really understanding and seeing the full picture because we're just inter introducing
the style guide in ninth or 10th. Ninth. >> It would be eighth. Am I correct? Uh provide a standard format. >> But in 9 D, so 9th grade line 56,
format writing and site sources using a style guide. Well, then what the heck are they doing in ETH if they're not using a style guide? Like it just like this is not making sense to me as a progre like >> we're teaching half of it here and other half there. It doesn't the jump doesn't
make sense to me. Well, in middle school, again, this is just my own experience. In middle school, I've given them a simplified MLA format that is that is scaffolded. So, it it shows them, you know, where where title, author, publication date, all of those
things. But in high school, I'm now teaching them how to find how to site that, you know, that that errant source or, you know, that that source that has two authors or whatever by using the style guide. So now I'm actually teaching them how to use it rather than
giving them the format. So you know we've we've formatted before but now we're releasing that that hold and letting in and teaching them how to actually find how to site the source. That's how I interpret it. >> Maybe instead of the language of
provide a standard format we say like follow a basic standard format as kind of a scaffold. I'm so I mean I we can change it to follow a list. Does the does the vocabulary style guide need to be added to the eighth grade level?
>> Understand how you teach them a basic format without looking at the style guide. Yes. one of their intents and maybe it's not being construed completely but the comma where it says as appropriate according
to content was to introduce them to the idea that it's not just MLA you also have APA you also have Chicago so what you have them do is dependent on what the assignment is so that was part of their intent and maybe it's not presented well
>> okay so instead of saying uh or So, and sources using a style guide appropriate to the content maybe like that. >> So, that's the progression. It's not. So, really, I mean, if they're going to do that, they have to know how to make a
to follow a format before because now you're asking them to to switch between formats. >> Okay. >> Are you talking that at the eighth grade or the ninth grade? Well, I mean, what the EAT has has proposed is that they need to be able to to shift between
style guides in 910. Um, and so that is I mean, we would certainly need them to come out of middle school knowing how to follow a style guide if if >> and is there anything in there about style guide in the eighth grade? >> Okay, it's time we put something in. >> Well, we I mean, we have to decide first
where it's developmentally appropriate for them to be doing that. And again, >> you teach you teach eth and ninth. Can they put a style guide in the eighth grade? >> So, I guess I kind of would echo what
she was saying where like with my ninth graders, it it better be exactly what Emila says. And even if it's a really complicated element that I might not even counter are some some weird ones and you have to go and I might have to
research myself, but it better be correct. Um whereas in eighth grade you kind of have like a good enough, you know, where it's like, okay, we got we got the most of it. We got the basics. Um we're not going to I'm not going to go and sit down and do research try to figure out the exact perfect uh way for
this to be in eighth grade. Um so I guess that I would echo what she said. Um as far as ninth grade switching between style guides, I don't >> two years remember it's a two-year progression. That's true. From ninth grade, we start off MLA and then slowly
by the end of 10th grade, maybe they've seen APA. >> Okay. >> And then it gets even more ramped up for junior or senior year because the progression is different. >> Okay. >> Is it important to add to the eighth grade the idea of to explore a variety
of style guides? >> Oh, no. I don't think in eighth grade. >> No. Okay. >> I think I mean, as it's written right now, I I don't know. I'm reluctant to as a 10th grade teacher. I'm reluctant to and and I think it's wonderful if that if that's happening. My students I I'm
I'm thrilled if they can master one style by by 10th grade. Um I mean I teach AP students and and it's oftentimes a struggle to get them in MLA format correctly in 10th grade. >> I teach grad students from time to time and I'm thrilled if they can master
that. >> I my thing I I love the idea of switching between styles. Yeah. because well that's a and that's a vital skill for for college because I mean you will be tasked with doing that so I think that's something that should mean maintained I just wonder if that's more of an 112 thing um that so maybe the
expectation is you can you can follow a style guide by 910 you can follow an appropriate styled guide by 112 for the content what we really just have to decide is what do we want seventh and eighth graders to be able to do um because we're going from we have to scaffold them up to being able to follow
a style guide um from providing a list so what is that our Current progression looks like 3 through six is provide a list. Seven is provide fundamental elements of a standard format for citing sources and then eight is provide a standard format for citing sources and
then 910 would be um follow a style guide. >> So seven and eight are the same. >> Um well we the we have differentiated by saying provide fundamental elements of a standard format and then provide a standard format. So, >> okay. >> That was the language that that was
>> Is that sufficient to bring us to the ninth grade? Yes, you're good. You're good. You're good. You're good. I'm good. >> Okay. You're good. >> Everybody else is good. I I'll move forward.
>> All right. He'll echo. Yes. All right. Thank you, dear. >> You have something? Okay. No, we have not finished the stuff. We're We're nearly there. >> We'll we'll wave. >> Um
Okay. Uh we I'm I'm kind of in the weeds right here. So, um follow format and writing and site information and sources using a style guide and just end it there. So, just delete as appropriate according to the content >> or 910. So, they're just following any
style guide. It's not lost on me that we are reducing a level of complexity for 910 but introducing more complexity in 78 noted. >> Um I mean I what I I just I don't know
what to do with seven. I I I'm genuinely flumxed here. I don't know what the what does that scaffold look like? I mean because we can't I don't think we can go straight from a list to a to a to a standard format. I mean that feels like a huge jump. Um so it feels like there needs to be some sort of not just the
name of your source but maybe you know a a couple of elements versus all you know seven >> as guided by a teacher follow a standard format. We've done it with others in essence.
So follow a teacher provided standard format for >> something along that line. >> Yeah. >> So that wouldn't be a standard. That would be follow a teacher provided format
because standard to me is a industry >> right >> format. >> So I I'm fine with provided format. Um, I don't think that's a standard format though. >> That makes sense. >> I was going to say like in the lower gra it says with guidance and support from
adults. I don't know if we want to use that same mortgage. >> Okay. So, what would that language then be? Um, with guidance >> and support from adults >> and then what would follow that follow? I think it just I I think it
would just be a provided at that point. I don't know >> a provided but then you could provide a lot of different things to do. >> Yeah. I think what I I guess how we're trying to scaffold it is saying
we need you to follow a format that someone has come up with even if it's not MLA and if the teacher has come up with a format that they think is age appropriate for 8th grade then that is
appropriate for this standard instructor provided format is probably what I I think the wording would be >> just one um contextual piece here that um
because of the shift to HQIM and implementation that the teacher provided piece may be a little tricky. It could be the format that the particular set of materials has chosen for that scaffold. Right? So, it
could be, you know, just wanted to put that in there and and because I 100% agree that something as basic as what y'all are talking about in terms of, you know, author uh text and page number, whatever that gets them there that they have a standard format, but that might
vary from material to material. So, okay. So, so the language would be with guidance and support follow a provided format for citing sources and would we want to duplicate that language from in seven and eight.
Okay. And then E1 E2 we had uh delete as appropriate according to the content. We had delete and technology generated materials and then I I don't know if someone could help me
remind myself what I was writing here. I had written delete and then open quotation information. Oh, information and yeah because we're just saying sources elsewhere. Okay. So D reads now for uh E1E2
format writing and site sources using a style guide uh semicolon avoid plagiarism and academic dishonesty through proper citations or attributions of sources.
>> Yes, correct. Do >> we need to make that or into an and? feels like we need them to if if you're going to site you should probably attribute to or do we is that an andor situation >> is or when we're talking about attribution here we talking about within
the quote like according to so and so >> I just I don't love the idea of a firm or because it makes it seem like they just got to do one or the other. Um, h yeah, that was something I forgot. I wanted to I'm going back, but yeah, I
mean, I would love for students to be able to introduce quotes. I forgot I wanted want to mention that they they've been introducing quotes for a long time up until this point. I mean, we could just say through proper citations and attribution of sources and just hold
them accountable to both >> since they've been doing the other for a while. >> Yeah. smoothly introduce quotes [Laughter] which is a skill.
Okay. Um sorry I'm just documenting there were surprising number of little things here. Okay. Anything else for the E1 E2 standard? Okay. Um,
Winters, you seem excited. All right. Um, so I think we had said this is where we want them to be able to perhaps switch between style guides. So um so instead of deleting and uh and deleting as appropriate according to content, we would change as appropriate
according to content to uh and uh follow form format writing and site information sources using a style guide appropriate to the content. Should we put I would like to put in parenthesis EG, MLA,
what would what what are the three basics? MLA, APA. I don't I know the basic ones, but I don't know what they're learning in high school. MLA, Chicago, APA. >> Yeah, those are the big three typically. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we'll do an E, G,
MLA. >> I actually didn't know that that's what you meant until you said it. Yeah. Okay. >> Now, are we ready to move on? >> Uh, I believe so. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um, we're on to the final writing standard for uh, which I hope will be an easy one. >> Finish with the >> Okay, we got Yeah, this is my substandards. Uh oh. W
can I fail or can I not fail? >> I had to count them individually. So I'm impressed that you were estimating. Uh >> survey said. >> Thanks to my colleague Michael Derlin who volunteered himself for the cause. I was able to finish this before close of business. It is in your folder members
if you would like to check my work which it's probably half good considering I'm listening to y'all and doing it. It's under resources in your SRC folder. Okay. So, first you asked my understanding of your question. I looked at the original standards and I looked at the number of standards by grade band
and the number of substandards by gradeb band. One thing that occurred to me halfway through I was like duh. The beauty of EA ELA is that you all have cornerstones in a progression. So, actually there's very little variation among grade levels or grade bands for number of standards. The range is
anywhere between 41 to 43. So, that's almost as narrow as it gets in in terms of ranges for whole numbers. Your lowest grades are 2, 6, 7, 8. Just run pure number of standards. And your highest are K 1 9 10 and 112 with the understanding that you're covering two
grade levels. For the purposes of this analysis, I treated them as one grade level. Okay. Substandards a little bit more interesting and I felt like it was most fair to divide it by grade because obviously K5 is going to have the most I hope because they have the most grade levels. But even when you divide by
grade, K5 is the highest. When looking by grade, K5 has 42 substandards approximately. 68 has 34. 912 has 25. Yes, first place gold star goes to 65 or
K5. The uh bronze medal goes to 68. And oh no, sorry. Wow. The met the metaphor is not working at 121 on a Thursday. Most is K5. Second most is 68, third most is 912. It's in the exact order of the progression. But
I think members made other good points about, you know, quality, depth, etc. This is just quantity. >> Okay. Now we're ready to go on to the next standard. >> Yes. Um so standard six is write routinely over extended time frames. uh time for research, reflection and
revision and shorter time frames, a single sitting or uh for uh or a day or two for a range of tasks, purposes, and audience. Basically, the idea that students should be writing short under short time constraints and then they should also be writing extended projects. Um for kindergarten, um a
couple quick notes just for consistency. Um elsewhere when we have substandards, we have capitalized the first letter of each substandard. So, I I recommend we do that. We've also always if if our parent standard is not a complete sentence and each substandard is a continuation of that sentence, we've used a colon um after the parent
standard. So I recommend we do that as well. We also have an EG list here that we do not have a comma after. So I'm going to say comma after EG as well. Those are just consistency things. Are there any other changes proposed? We good with kindergarten? Okay, let's
move on. >> Okay, then first grade. This first two recommendations are going to carry over as far as um the need to follow the the formatting we've used elsewhere. Um, does anyone see anything
else they would like to edit? Um, are we okay with that EG uh list provided in kindergarten not being present in any of the subsequent standards? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then it looks like second grade is
identical to first grade. So, are we good to keep the same edits? There's no increase in rigor. >> Um does not appear to be. Um >> should there be? >> That's coming in third grade, I believe.
>> Okay. Rigors in the task and complexity. Okay. Third grade, what do you have? >> Third grade, the language changes a little bit. Um no longer do they have guidance and support. Now they're writing routinely over varied time frames to um do the same three tasks that we've asked them to do elsewhere
and they're on their own now. Um I did just realize we need to add periods after substandards for all of these um well not all of them. Some of them have it, some don't um of the substandards. So I will note that as well. >> Can I four?
>> Yes. really quickly. Um there was some feedback from TDOE on this particular standard. It's very brief. Um just adding and audiences to the end of substandard B for each of these. It would be the same for each one. Engage in writing for a variety of
purposes and audiences. Yeah, that tracks to me. >> Okay. So in the substandard B and third grade, you're adding end audiences. >> All grades, I believe. Yeah. But >> kindergarten also
>> EG list in kindergarten even doing anything? I >> think so because it's just demonstrating that they might not be writing paragraphs, but here are some things that they can write. >> Sounds good to me. >> So, are we on to group uh grade four?
Um, I'm adding that edit to other grade levels, but we are nearly there. >> Okay. Okay. Um, on to four. I four looks identical to three. So, do I just want to carry over the edits for
three? Okay. Um, and then five also identical. Um, so do we want to carry over those as well? This one seems to be one that would make some sense to have a slow progression
with. Um, okay. We get to six. Yeah. six student was it >> since we've carried um five and four we carry what three
four and five over did we add the complexity in five so sixth grade is always not the biggest jump I mean since three four and five are basically the same maybe scaffolding the
jump some in I I kind of see what's happening now like this jump to sixth grade is like super difficult because everything is a jump in every area. >> As far as I can see, the big jump between five and six is in
in ostensibly the incorporation of personal choice. That seems to be because it does it says overextended and shorter time frames but in fifth it says over varied time frames which I think kind of captures the same idea as extended and shorter
>> even arguably when it says self- selected I mean similar to personal choice it looks like it's just written differently in my opinion there may be some slight differentiation is there anything that you want to add Nicole >> no perspective
So, do we need do we need this strand? It felt repetitive to me, but >> I I think what we could potentially do um is just uh currently I mean, do we just does it need to just
be kind of the same K through 12? It's just the same. >> The language to me progresses as the grade band progresses. We've used the same we've used mirroring language in K through five as to what's reflected there. Mirroring language in six through
8 is what's reflected there and mirroring language is you I mean it's it's the same through you know all the way through. Now we're progressing to ownership of the writing process. So >> okay so there it's just mirroring what's great appropriate for all the other standards that we've created.
and the rigor is created in the content and vocabulary. >> I guess my question I think Mr. Banks is going to answer it is is this strand of standards doing anything that is unique that is
not in the other strand of standards. >> This would be one of those that I think kind of as Nicole talked about, it's not something that teachers necessarily focus on. It's something that when it comes time for materials adoption, they make sure that they're designing the materials according to these criteria so
it's embedded in all those tasks and teachers don't have to kind of do these things on their own. >> Right. >> Right. So why can't I just add Joyce somewhere else? >> It addresses fluency. I think too, like he said, it's more of like write
routinely over very time frame. So when you're looking at your instructional materials, they have to have that embedded. If not, it's not embedded to write routinely >> and not understood. >> I think it >> Well, it should be, but I'm just saying
it's not stated. So I guess they could say, well, it's not stated, you know. >> I don't even think it's the routinely thing as much as it is. I I think there is an impulse towards just shorter forms of writing or short-term writing because that's what testing emulates and this is the standard that kind of forces people
to do extended processes. Um so they can't just do short-term >> and we need that. >> I do think this has a variety of important elements. Um >> all right. >> Are we content to just then keep the sixth grade standard because I don't
>> Yes. Comments. >> I say yes. Everybody else say yes. Sixth grade. Good. Well, if we're keeping sixth grade, then unless we want to progress, we're keeping the rest because they are identical. >> We doing ABC in sixth grade or we just
keeping it as one block. >> It's currently written as one block. Um, we can break it up into substandards if we wish. I don't think it reads well. And once again, the the rigor comes in
with the content and vocabulary. I >> think we well >> we do still have a decision. The standards are written. Um whether it's to be determined. >> We haven't done high school yet. >> Well, they're identical to
>> 12 are identical for this. >> All right. So, we're keeping that. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, is everybody okay with keeping? All right. So, yes, we are done now. And we had one more thing to talk about and that was the recommendation from uh several public and members of
our committee on how to deal with uh the use of the different writing formats in the middle school. Um, as I said earlier, I think this is a time problem, not a standard problem.
And uh, I would move that we keep the standards at written. Now that you guys have had an opportunity to think about the proposals or alternatives we shared, I would love
to hear some thoughts on those. >> Thanks. >> You were about to click in. >> Okay. Um so your proposal about the two modes um during the EAT there was a significant discussion about teaching
two modes of writing. Um if a grade level emphasizes two modes we still need to retain the standard for the other mode that's not being taught in a full essay and we need to adapt it accordingly. For example, in sixth grade students may be required to write a narrative and informational essay but
not a full argumentative essay. In that case, the argumentative writing standard could be modified to focus just developing claims and exploring counter counter claims which is an area repeatedly identified as a need in grades 6 through 10. Currently, since
time is limited, it has been expressed that teachers cannot go deeply into every component of argumentative essay writing at this level. Could only focusing on claims and counter claims and not the other parts of the essay writing serve as a way to strengthen the foundation of argumentative writing
without requiring students to master the full essay structure in this grade? That was my proposal to you and I'm speaking as part of the EA team because we had lots of conversation on this. Um, I'm going to reiterate what was and Nicole and I have talked about this
since last October, November. The real issue that high school came away with it is if they only do one deep or two deep and there are some steps skipped, it comes to us to have to put more in to
cover that material. And we all have those of us who teach have had students that will forget what you did in class that day if they go home and sleep. >> If it is 2 years between writing a type of essay, you're going back to ground
zero. So that's where high school issue came was where are we going to put the onus of building in the stop gaps? Is fifth grade going to have to be beefed up? High school definitely will, but what's gonna happen?
>> Thank you. Next. Did you have more to share? >> So, I would um kind of jumping off of uh what Tammy was saying with the 912 group and eat because they uh had some very strong opinions about this um in terms
of students not being prepared by the time they get to high school. uh they were plugging a lot of gaps and I think um our fear would be that that would worsen because there would be although all three would be in there that if there were only two that were likely to
be tested that third one would get even more short shrift because it's not full now of course we don't know how the test would be but the concern would certainly be still there would still be inevitable inevitable gaps right and that by the time students got to high school that
there would be issues In that sense, I think from the, you know, I I guess personally, um, and I can't speak for everyone at TDOE, and I don't want to, um, I just want to say that, you know, due to the unprecedented nature of it.
Um, I'm just I just worry that maybe we're assuming that it would correct the issues that have been identified. Um, and I'm not necessarily convinced that it would because I think there are so many of those external variables that are at play here that um, I really fear
that changing the standard itself is probably the wrong lever um, to correct the issues. I think as as Chair Carnegus was saying earlier and so um, yeah, I think I mean but again like as I've said like in every hate to be I feel like I'm the bad guy through all
this. Um, I affirm all of the expressed issues. I'm just not convinced, and I think I speak on behalf of TDOE, that this is the lever to um to attempt to correct those. And again, I'm not convinced it even would make a dent in it. So,
>> yeah. Thank you. And there are no bad people in this room. So if if we're expressing now that high school teachers are feeling like there are gaps, then again, why would we keep the standards almost identically the same as they were before? That just
doesn't like I can't process that in my mind. I understand taking a big leap is a big chance that we're taking, but we're not we're not changing anything. So teachers are still going to fill the gap. That's the part I'm not understanding. Well, I think when you if
you include less of the full completion of the standard, it the gaps that are currently there would worsen. Um, and I think we've identified some of the gaps that are there. Like there's a lot of things that need to be uh, you know, teachers need to be supported better. There needs to be more time. There's a
lot of those variables, but that the standard itself by which they're expected to reach that shouldn't lessen because the gap itself will widen if we do that. It would be our perspective. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, my vision for when we
provide our final report, I'm not sure how this is done mechanically, but our letter of transmitt to whomever we need to transmit these should include a serious consideration of extended time
at the middle school to uh to provide for this because of all the all the feedback we've received. And however that's done, let's let the other people handle that. But our job is simply to set standards, worldclass standards for
our kids for writing. >> May I chair Can I guess >> please? >> Two thoughts there. One, which would make your to-do list longer. If there were any shifts that you felt were worthy of communication, that is where an executive summary could come to play. And then two, if any of the shifts are requests of your colleagues, and that
would be the wish list to answer your question. >> Thank you. >> I I have a question. Um, so I guess my my first question is what would be the I guess TDO's perspective on Miss Now's proposal and
the kind of implications or downstream effects of of that that we as teachers may not foresee. Um, and then two, um, from your all's perspective, uh, without getting too lengthy because I don't take a ton of our time, but, um, do do we
have ideas of the lever? What is of a proper lever to fix fix that our problem uh with writing? >> I do not have >> not the first >> you can answer the first part of the question. I'd love to kick the second part of you.
>> Um um >> also I'm happy to we did talk about what so just for context and I might have explained this. They're on the academics and instructional strategy team. So that would be their perspective. Dr. David Leairard's perspective from the assessment team assessment and
accountability team said he's very open to it and would like the full wish list. So just wanted to clarify. So if that's >> we are low on the totem pole. Uh so >> high on my totem pole. Thanks. Um I I I think I probably need some more reflecting time kind of on that proposal
um of the implications of it. I think of all the things that have been presented in terms of like a compromise or what have you. Yeah. And again this would just be an opinion. I am not speaking for TDOE because this is an assessment question. Um but I mean of all the ones I think it would be the most reasonable that I've heard personally so far. Um
but I would also need to think about the potential implications of that. So, >> and just in terms of the question around levers that may be possible, I I think that's impossible to answer specifically and say this is the lever. I think when
you look at the ecosystem of education, there are so many pieces that may impact student outcomes, right? And so if we think about what's within the purview of TDOE and maybe associated organizations at we can look at instructional
materials, fidelity of instruction um with those materials, intervention, you have where students start, you have teacher quality, support provided, professional development, all of those things. I'm sure a number of things that I'm not listing. And so I think it's hard to say that the standards are the
problem. it could be part of a number of things that are leading to these outcomes and that's why this is an important process. Um, but I I think it's hard to say that this one thing will result in a better outcome. It's it's a big risk and I think what we need
to focus on in my opinion is just what do we want students to learn and then there are other avenues to think about how it's assessed or um so forth. So >> Miss Nell's proposal in my opinion is an
excellent proposal because it also talks about time. What hers is more efficient use of existing instructional time. The point that I brought up earlier was
an extension of time. Hers is use what you got and use it well. but keep the standards the same hold their feet to the fire. Is is there any more discussion on this? I think we should move on. We we really
uh done a good job, I think. Okay. So, hearing none, I we don't need to make any changes. We've approved these already. If if there's no recommendation for change what we've put in to these,
we just need to move on to reading. >> Hearing none. Hearing none, let's move to reading. >> Okay. >> Not to be the bearer of bad news, but have we looked at the writing introduction? And would you all be interested in looking at the writing introduction? No is an appropriate
answer. I think we should. say I think Dr. Stout made some Yes. taking a look. So I think it will be a pretty quick um glance. I think Dr. Stout has done a lot of the work that needs to be done on this introduction. Wonderful. >> Thank you Dr. Stout. >> Yeah. So >> and with that I will leave. No,
>> would you like to take the floor Dr. Stout? >> Yeah. Yeah, while she's looking, I'll just specify all I've done to the writing um subsection introduction is change the cornerstones. So, I've updated the cornerstones so they are accurate. Um otherwise,
>> this is supporting standards language for members. EG introd Yes. Yes, it is opening now. Opening slow and it's not the red one, it's the blue one. So, let me go to the
appropriate one. Give me one second. I'm trying to open the appropriate file. I keep opening the red one. This helps anyone who's in the document. Um, this is page 11 of the document that we're looking at. >> I'm sorry. It's just multiple documents
in my file containing the same thing. >> Yeah, it is. I've had that same issue. >> Let me I can I'm stealing Rosemary's now. Let me get on this mic. All right. Really the goal was just to uh make the
language more accessible. Um, I also think there was a phil philosophical thing that needed to be addressed because it started with writing in service of other skills instead of writing in service of writing. Like you
don't have to write just in service of learning another skill. So that was some of the philosophical things. Um, most of the things that look like new were actually just lines moved up from the bottom. So whether engaging in personal or academic writing, we must uh students
we must teach students to harness the transformative power that strong writing brings to their life. Writing is one of the most effective methods for personal development and reinforcing reading and communication skills. to illustrate the
multifaceted nature of writing skills. Uh, Sedetta 2019 writing rope model serves as an invaluable framework. While syntax and transcription components of the writing rope are primarily addressed within
foundational and language standards, it is crucial to recognize that all illustrated areas, including critical thinking, text structure, and writing style must coales to develop skilled writers. This
holistic approach underscores the interconnected nature of literacy development. As technology advances, it is imperative to emphasize that writing remains a vital skill rather than viewing
technology as a competitor. Educators should focus on instructing students to leverage technology and maybe technology and digital tools to enhance their writing when appropriate. Such an approach includes developing students
ability to evaluate the credibility of information and properly site sources. By fostering this understanding, educators can develop writers who are confident communicators and well equipped to navigate the complexities of
both the classroom and the real world. >> We changed uh in the second to the last paragraph to leverage technology to leverage digital resources. >> I think we've been using digital tools. >> Digital tools. digital tools. Yeah. >> Can you change that, Mr. Hillier,
because I still don't >> Yeah. Just any I'm just going to change any reference to technology to digital. >> Well, in the first part, I was thinking as technology advances, that's okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, so that states that second usage
rather than viewing technology you wanted to change rather than viewing digital tools as a competitor or is that >> yes? Yeah. >> Uh, I was actually talking about the third sentence. Um, I'm not sure it needs to be changed
as far as the competitor uh reference. in instructing students to leverage digital the use of legit digital tools. I just Oh, yeah. Okay, I see it. Fine.
It took me a minute. Sorry. We're using technology is the bad word and digital tools is the good word. >> Yeah. >> Say appropriate Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. I I feel good about this introduction if other people
>> I do too. >> And I think you caught my typo in the first or second. >> I I just I put what you said. So, >> thank you, Dr. Stout. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. That saved us a lot of time. So, thank you. Something we desperately need. Um All right.
Speaking of which, can we go on to reading? Sure. Woohoo. Can we get a collective? Woohoo. Woohoo. All right. Um, right. Uh, reading. Um, good thing there aren't many of these.
[Music] So, buckle up. >> Okay. Um, there are 10 different reading standards. Well, I don't know how to say this. There are, I
guess, 20 different progressions, but 10 of uh 10 that are distinct from each other. Obviously, the what's it cornerstones? Yes. Um 10 cornerstones. Yes. Um but within each cornerstone, there is literature and uhformational
texts. Um we'll just need to be very intentional about mirroring what we do. um with one to the other. Um so just uh just flagging that for folks as we as we head in. Um it looks like we are going to be looking at 205 reading or 204, sorry, 203. I'm
There we go. It gets smaller and smaller. 203 standards um listed here. Um >> cell number three. >> Yes. So just add 200 to that and that's where we'll be in some new geological period.
Um so all right um okay uh first cornerstone only way out is through um [Laughter]
uh no no we we have to do this um all right cornerstone is read closely to determine what a text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it. uh cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn
from the text. Um, another thing I would flag here is um I I would please ask that we we be very cognizant of TDOE feedback on these standards. Um just to because a lot of them a lot of the comments they left are they left a a good number of comments, but a lot of
the comments are quite small. Um they're just wording things, but I don't want to miss key wording differences um given that it's not going to be a huge substantive change, but but could still be. >> I have a suggestion. What if one of us keeps an eye on the K through five suggestions, one of us keeps an eye on
the six through eight and one 9 through 12? >> I think that would be a wonderful recommendation. Who wants to be the K through five reading standards person for TDE feedback? >> Britney. >> Britney, you got and Rose who wants to be 6 through8 person kind of flag 6 through8.
>> Okay, fantastic. And then who wants to be the 9 through12 person who kind of flags the 9 through 12? I'm miss now. Okay, fantastic. that I think will help the process considerably. >> Who wants to read the reading introduction and edit that? Okay, thanks. >> Okay, that sounds great.
>> All right. Um, so first standard k.l.kid1 um is with prompting and support ask and answer questions about key details in a text to demonstrate understanding. No TDOE feedback on that one. Um, it doesn't seem that TDOE has any feedbacks on the first standard for K through
five. >> Understanding or comprehension. >> I like understanding. >> Okay. So be it. >> Do we want to keep that standard? >> Yes. >> All right. Next. >> Music to my ears. Um, all right. So,
this is theformational text version of the same standard with prompting and sport. Ask and answer questions about key details in a text to demonstrate understanding. Exact same verbiage. So, I would recommend we maintain that verbiage. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Go. >> Two down already. >> Um, all right. We're first grade now.
Um, ask and answer questions about key details in a text to demonstrate understanding. >> Sounds good to me. >> No arguments. All right, let's move. >> Exact same verbiage in RARI Kid one. So, I think we would probably want to keep
that as well to keep those consistent. four. Um, all right. Second grade, uh, ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.
Sounds fine to me, unless anyone else has notes. >> You want her to do middle school. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. Miss Miss Winters has Miss Winters has middle school. Okay, great. Thank you, dear. >> We're uh yeah, we're just having for the
reading standards, we're just having a different person kind of be the person for each band. So, like K through five is going to be Miss Singleary, Miss Winters is going to handle 6 through8 and then Miss Now is going to be looking at 9 through 12 for the TDOE feedback. >> No, no, we're not dividing conquering the standards. Just just the the
feedback. Um okay. Um Miss Dockery, we're on G7 looking at the second grade. um standard one um ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details
in a text. Any feedback on that one? >> Meant to be an exhaustive list. >> I think since that one is phrased as such questions as rather than such as, I don't I think that one can stay within the within the confines of the actual language of the standard. >> Okay. >> Rather than having it in a parenthetical.
>> Any question? All right. Move on. Um, I assume we will keep the language for RI kid one since it is identical to the one above. >> Yes. >> Okay. Third grade. Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding
of a text. Semicolon. Refer to specific textual evidence as a basis for the answer. So, we're introducing uh pulling actual textual evidence here. Thoughts there. >> We good? >> Okay. >> I think that's move on. keep ask an answer. Okay, I'm not I'm not going to
repeat it again. U we're going to keep theformational as we I this is going to become tedious if I do this a hundred times. So I'm just going to as we move to theformational I'm we'll I'll I won't bother reading out the entire standard again. Just please shout out if you feel like there needs to be a distinction. There are times where there will be distinction between the language in the
two. Um so I'll flag those moments, but when they're identical, I don't I don't want to belabor the point. Um fourth grade, refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly. Semicolon. Refer to details and examples in a text when drawing inferences from the text.
Sounds good to me. >> Good. Keep it. >> And I'm going to also keep informational, barring any comments. >> Keep it. Okay. Um, fifth grade reads, "Quote accurately from a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the
text." Okay. And I'm going to also keep the RARI version because it is verbatim. >> Okay, move on. >> Okay, we're on to middle school. Um, >> uh, no middle school. >> No middle school at all for for one.
Fantastic. Okay. Um, analyze what a text says explicitly and draw logical inferences. Uh, semicolon site relevant textual evidence to support conclusions. >> Sounds good. >> Um, that is verbatim with RARI. So, I'm going to keep that as well. Um, seventh grade is analyze what a text says
explicitly and draw logical inferences. Uh, semicolon cite several pieces of relevant textual evidence to support conclusions. So, we're moving from just one piece to multiple pieces. >> Okay. Enough progression, enough rigor added. Next.
>> Okay. And then I will maintain that for RAR since it's identical. Um, eighth grade is uh analyze what a text says explicitly and draw logical inferences. cite several pieces of relevant textual evidence to support conclusions. This is verbatim the same as seventh grade. Um are we
>> so there's no rigor added >> the text I believe is what it would >> okay thank you. >> Are we good to keep those for >> Okay. Um for E1E2 we have analyze >> we have we have feedback. >> Okay. >> Okay. So yeah I'm sorry you can go ahead
and read it and then I can give you >> um analyze what a text says explicitly draw inferences from the text. uh semicolon support an interpretation of a text by citing and incorporating relevant and thorough textual evidence. >> Okay, so TDOE said, "Please consider changing interpretation to conclusion to
be consistent with the middle grades and to indicate a bit more clearly that the standard focuses on the explicit meaning of the text as opposed to more thorough analysis and interpretation which comes with other reading standards." >> That seems to I believe that is correct. Do we agree there?
>> I agree. So, how will you word that? >> We're just simply changing the word interpretation to the word conclusion. >> And that's it. Okay. >> And that that'll carry through to And then when it says analyze what a text says explicitly, comma, draw inferences from the text, I believe that should say
and correct instead of the comma. That seems to just be >> kind of a Sure. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is the wording there a bit awkward? And again, I may be wrong on this. Support a conclusion of a text.
>> Is that accurate? And it's just not >> resonating about. You mean a conclusion about? >> Yeah. Yeah. Support a conclusion of a text. Yeah. >> We need our proper preposition. >> Yeah. But even conclusion of a text that wouldn't be right. >> No, it' be conclusion. You're It's your
conclusion you're supporting, right? So, >> um, >> yeah. Support. You're not interpreting the text. You're concluding something about the text. >> So it would be support uh conclusion about the tech uh about a text rather than of
>> Yeah. I mean it's not a conclusion of you're not >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it would be a conclusion about >> that what was intended. >> Okay. to support conclusions um by societ by societing by citing and incorporating relevant and thorough
textual evidence. Is that what the language you want me? >> Okay. >> Okay. Let's let me write that really fast. Okay. And then I suppose we would carry over that same verbiage in the
RARI version of the standard. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then the uh 1112 seems to be identical. Am I wrong there? >> It looks like it.
>> It looks to be identical. So the same >> same comments would >> rigor is added by content and vocabulary >> when one last thing and I hate to slow us because we we're doing such a good job but um um where it says analyze what
a text says explicitly draw inferences from No I'm wrong continue I changed my mind um okay I think we just finished standard one >> did the last one says Um there there was a typo there
in the first place. It said support and conclusions. So we're just changing it to support conclusions. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Also, this is really nitpicky, but I don't know if I'm the only one who struggles with this, but for years I've squinted at I versus L to determine that
one little difference in the font. Yes. Like for years. I don't know if it's if younger teachers don't struggle with that. I don't know. But like I >> I also have struggled. >> We could just change the font or something. Not necessarily the whole
coding system. >> That's on your to-do list. Okay. >> Especially when I'm >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Sorry. This little thing, but >> Okay. >> A Sarah font would probably help. Got you.
>> All right, we ready to go on now to the next standard >> for reading. >> The intro for reading >> should be. Yeah, it's on page uh eight of the supporting materials document.
>> Okay, >> we're ready for the next standard. >> Standard two. Um the cornerstone is determine central ideas or themes of a text to analyze their development. semicolon summarize the supporting details and ideas. >> And so TDOE says just wanted to flag
that we still have the retail versus recount language in place and this is when we go from K1 to uh 23. And they also um want to consider changing the word
recall to retail. And it is that way in K, but it's Wait, no. Yes, it's in Yeah, it's in the RL, but not Yes. And not in the RAR. >> The need for consistency there. Yes. And DOE's recommendation was >> to retail.
>> Retail. Um, I am I have no preference there. So, retail sounds good to me. Um, if if that's good with everyone else. Um, are we good on it? Already says retail in the kindergarten RL version. Are we good with that? Um, yes. Keep that.
>> Keep >> um ri we would change recall to retell. Um, okay. There anything else we see for that KRI? Because these are not identical to the
>> hearing. None. Let's move on. >> Okay. Um, first grade RL is retail stories including key details and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson. already got the retail language so I
don't see anything there unless anybody else does. Okay. Um, first grade I is identify the main topic and recall key details of a text with prompting and support orally identify the main topic and recall key uh details of a text. I assume we need
to change recall to retell. >> Yes. >> With that change, are we okay? Head nods? Yes. Move on. >> Okay. Um, second grade is identify the central message or moral of stories, fables, and folktales from diverse
cultures. Uh, semicolon recount their essential elements in chronological order. >> Um, so that's the the TDOE comment about retail versus recount. >> Yes. So, so it says, is this clear enough for teachers to understand the
difference between retail and recount? >> What is the intended difference there for elementary folks? teachers do not understand what recount means. >> Okay. >> Um so it's been a struggle all along. >> Okay. >> Consistent. >> Yeah.
>> So want to do recal then >> with me >> instead of recount. >> Yeah. And understand >> like in this group we have >> you changed it or you No, they did use it. >> I do believe you used it yesterday. recount. >> We did. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, yearly. >> Yes. >> Cuz we had this discussion. >> In what grade level do you know? >> When is it first used in speaking and listening? So, so both EAT and TDOE are recommending the rechange here. So, um I
guess we need to go back to speaking and listening. Um and >> how many times how many times >> it's also in there plural. Well, I don't know if that'll pull it up plural if you just put recount, but I see where it says recounts. Okay.
Yeah, it seems like it seems like it's used, I think, in seven different standards um in speaking and listening because it's showing up 14 times because we we didn't delete it. Um so, it's duplicated twice in the document. Um So, this is just on the spot. I haven't
looked at all of them, but I'm looking at um like two SLCC2. So, it's recount or describe key ideas and details from a text. Okay, that is retelling. Nope, it take back what I'm saying. Just thinking out loud. Sorry.
Um, does recall substitute >> in planning? >> In planning, it trips them up a lot and they spend a lot of time trying to figure out what that means and it's varied across okay schools, grades,
school, everywhere. Well, do you want me to put it in the parking garage? Just go back and change everywhere we have in the I mean, where is appropriate in? >> Yeah. My only concern is there are some instances where the where the word retail would be used, but then there are other instances where retail wouldn't
really fit. I don't think um >> we can go back and look at it. I mean, >> if we could just do that really quickly with speaking listing um just to ensure that it sounds right. Okay, >> let's take a little detour up here. >> Yeah, I I will tell you what's what
sells. Um, so everybody if if they switch over to GL or GL SL uh speaking and listening. Um, the first instance of recount is uh G16 where it says recount or describe key ideas and details. Um,
>> what would our recommended? >> Recall. >> Okay. Did you say recall or retell? >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, yes. >> They want to change recall to retail. >> I mean, those are different things a
little bit. Like you can >> They do actually. We're looking and and it's saying that K1 retails, 23 recounts, and 4 through 12 summarizes. trying to figure out what they actually >> but >> that's what that's what they would need
to be in the glossery to specifically tell them what we're asking kids to do. >> Recount and recall seem analogous, but retell is like the telling of a story honestly. Like retell something again
whereas recounting something seems a little like a portion of said thing. is like >> but if I mean if the word recount is >> recount you're giving more detail
>> like more specific detail seems like the exact same fact >> when we're reading we're recalling but when speaking we're recounting I think that's where we end at the middle of the story the bear ate >> we could define it in the glossery just >> we just want to define
>> in this in the uh the structure >> yeah I guess that is a different >> okay so recount you're going through the structure of the story where we tell you're just telling events that happened where like you might not be saying in the beginning or in >> okay so there is a difference
>> that is not the distinction we're making in speaking and listening though as we say recount like key ideas um and that >> that would be recall >> that would be recall >> yes >> okay >> if they're giving at the beginning of the story the bear was hungry at the middle of the story the bear ate and at
the end of the story the bear left. Then that's recall. >> And if I remember correctly, that's why the team ended up putting recall with the RI because they felt like that went with the nonfiction better than retell. But
you can use retell withformational. So it's we had this what do you do? >> But am I assuming that it still needs to be uh addressed in the glossery? >> Definitely. >> 100%. Yeah, >> definitely. >> Like not really clearly. It's just we need to know
>> making a list. So recount to have clarity. That was clarity. >> Three options here. Recount, retail, and recall. And I'll be frank, I don't completely understand the difference myself. Um, so if you guys will help me as we as we edit these standards, >> that's about the cognition. I think
>> this I'm looking at it is recall, which would beformational text. You are giving information that you heard in the story. And recount would be like in a narrative. You're you're starting at the beginning of the story in the middle and the end. So I mean maybe you do one in literature and one in informational.
>> Yeah. I think it was just that the TDOE seem to prefer the phrasing retell rather than recount. >> Not correct. >> Or recall. No, instead of recall, but then the question was from the TDOE, what is the difference between retail
and recount? They I guess they don't want recall in there. Period. And then they want us to tell the difference between retail and recount. >> Again, it's just this like all of this feedback was based on directly what we got from teachers. They because the the
words would change and they wanted to know what was changing. As you know, if a word changes from one grade level to another, they want to know, well, what's is there a scaffold here? Is there something we just need to be able to provide clarity around what that is? >> Whatever the committee decides, we're perfectly fine with. >> And our reasoning for changing it was literatureformational,
not grade level. Now, it was for first to second because which we had it like recount is if you were having to tell a police officer about an something you saw, you're going to recount all the
things that happened. Whereas a kindergartenner is just going to tell you just generally things that happened in the story, but they might not get all the details. That's kind of how we thought it was, but we don't know. So that I mean you know we need it clear as to what the
difference we're what are we expecting a kindergarten first grade to be able to retell about a story versus a second grader to be able to tell about a story that's basically >> there's more clarity there and I think again we're going to address that in the glossery do we need to change the
standards that we had completed for listening and speaking >> I mean so what are the versions of I mean there are three versions we've discussed recount, retail, and recall. We need to decide which of those are I think we need to narrow it to two if we're going to to use
we're going to use them >> if we're going to have these clear distinct meaning differences. >> Well, have we used recall? >> We we just made a change to include recall in the speaking and listening standard where it says recount or describe key ideas and details from a text. >> Okay.
If you leave retail and K1 and recount in second, I think in the glossery, it just needs to be very clear on what the difference is. What are you expecting from a K1 and what are you expecting from a second grader?
So if we don't change to recall which um I can't follow all that but if we just use re retell and recount that's what we're using here will and not and so not using recall and the
speaking language could we do that or do does recall fit better? Um, I mean I I'm just looking at the that the example case like uh currently the language that reads recount or describe key ideas and details from the
from a text. Um, we originally using recount. We had then like five minutes ago we changed it to recall because we had heard that recount was confusing to >> to uh to teachers. Um, and now I'm I'm very confused about what >> so let's just keep it. Okay. So, let's
just keep it recount and then we put it in the glossery. >> I that's my I would recommend now that we're looking at some things to keep it and make it in the glossery. And from what the K5 team talked about,
we felt like recall fit better withformational because they're not retelling a story. Even though you can retell, there are some pieces. It it fits better to recall information.
>> Your your your story while I laugh though about the whole police officer thing with the second grader, that kind of like made me a little nervous though, so just I was want to make sure the implications were still okay. H >> how do you evaluate how do you evaluate
recall? I can recall my birthday, but if I'm not telling anybody, you don't know what it is. Yeah, >> if you read anformational text and they recall key details from the text, >> they >> they can recall it, but they're not
they're not writing it or saying it. >> Well, again, >> it's it's a memory function, that's all. >> Well, in our high quality instructional materials, we're looking for specific things to our questions from our readalouds and things. >> I I hear what you're saying. I was
thinking through the same thing just recount sounds more verbal whereas recall sounds like it's internal but I think it's understood for teachers typically it may not be so that's discussion that you all can have >> is that when you ask for a student to recall you're engaging them in a
conversation but that could be written in recall and share aloud or something like that as an option recall and share >> I understand I was thinking the same thing >> I think that provides more clarity it >> does and any clarity we can give is better
>> recall and thinking it retelling it is telling me it >> right recall and share >> or retell >> I mean that's up to you guys >> yes so we want to use retail
>> if I'm understanding this correctly all three are on table. Um, then we need to go case by case and identify which of the three is most appropriate if we're going to do this. I I mean I I I'll be honest, I don't feel equipped to do this on my own because I don't I still don't understand the I can't parse the differences. Um,
I use these words synonymously mostly in my own life. So um so the first instance is recount or describe key ideas and details from a text. What would be the appropriate word there? >> Retell.
>> Um it is second grade and it's by the way I think re recall and recount are the same cognitive function because you're not you don't have to say anything if you recount it. There's no way to to evaluate that unless you're
required to share it. But the act of recounting does not require telling. It simply says, "I remember it. I can recount details." >> Recount says it's a it is a a verb that tells someone about something.
That's the dictionary, Oxford language dictionary definition. >> I just don't How is recount different from retell? >> According to what I saw, it said uh recount is a more formalized version of >> I mean formality more so than like mentioned chronological order
>> functionally operating as >> long would be more basic. recount to be more advanced according to the inter >> and a glossery >> and in the standards guide.
>> Okay. Yeah. I >> feel like I'm just being really picky because I'm having to teach thesis now and argumentative instead of claim and that was something that we spent a lot of time on. So I'm like, you know what, second graders better be able to recount and retail. So, do we need to go through each of the standards that re that use one of these
words? >> I think we could do it very quickly, but I would >> Okay, let's do that. Ready, set, go. >> Okay, so the first example is recount or describe key ideas and details from a text. That would be >> Everybody shout what they think is best. >> One, two, three.
>> There were like four different things there. I think people said words that we hadn't even discussed yet. Um, here. >> Okay. [Laughter] >> You better be able to recount what
happened. >> Okay. So, they are so they have a they have a text. Um they are analyzing the CA key details and key ideas and details from that text and then they are telling them to me. That is what tdoe
>> retell. >> Sure. >> I'm okay with retell. Everybody okay with retell. This is second grade. But I thought they meant different things though. Like if they mean different things then it doesn't matter the grade, does it? All right.
Okay. >> All right. We heard retell. We had we had consensus. Let's stay with retell. >> Fantastic. >> Next. >> Okay. Um, we have recount at least one thing you or one point you remember
about the topic during classroom discussions. >> One, two, three. Chairman, chair Kas, I don't think that strategy is working. Okay. >> This this is I25.
>> I want to ask TDOE. What do you want there? >> I want to ask TDE. >> It re recurrenly reads recount at least one uh point you remember about the topic during classroom discussions.
>> TDOE. >> Okay. That's >> retail. >> Fantastic. >> Next. >> Okay. Um, >> we're just sharing our personal opinions. You all have the discretion to do what you want. If we can't tell the
difference between the words, we tend to think just choose the same word, be consistent, and then explain what you mean in the glossery. I I don't know that it's clearly explaining any sort of progression. >> And that was the complaint is the vertical. >> Yes,
>> that makes sense. Who wants to use retell? Raise your hand. Which makes sense forformational and fiction? Like in my does one make more sense to be with both? I >> mean I don't I don't think it can be recall because recall seems to imply a
cognitive process. >> I tend to think retail makes sense, but I'm I'm okay. >> Say the department suggest retail over recall. >> Okay. >> And that's great. >> All right. We can retail. Who wants to use retail? Retail and recount both is
clear. So we'll just use retail. >> Who wants to use retail? Raise your hand. >> Okay. Retail it is. >> Mark it down. >> Okay. >> Yes. Okay. I will. >> All right. We address. >> So now >> tonight I will do an exhaustive.
>> Lacy. You can take the recall and recount the glossery. >> Thank you for helping us address that. >> Just leave the retail. >> Okay. Can we go back to reading >> please? >> Um, okay. >> Hi, >> we are on cell G28.
>> Good news is the change we were making was to change to recall to retell. Um, so that's great. Um, and then second grade RL um says, "Identify the central message or moral of stories uh fables and
folktales from diverse cultures. Recount their essential elements in chronological order." I guess retail. Okay. Anything else for that standard? >> No. Go ahead. >> Okay. Second grade ri is identify the main idea of a text and the main topics
within a multi paragraph text. >> Good. >> Okay. Wait. Tdoe says, "Is the wording of the revised standard clear enough? Is the student supposed to identify the main idea of the text and focus of specific paragraphs in the text? If so,
consider making the wording a bit clearer. In its current form, it seems as if students are doing one thing in one type of text and another thing in a multiaragraph text. Second, >> G29 G30.
>> You just get rid of of a text. Identify the main ideas and the main topics within a multi- paragraph text. >> The previous iteration of the standard was to identify the main idea of the text and then to focus on the main topic of the specific paragraphs in that text, which I think is what the committee was
trying to communicate, >> but I think it the wording just got off a little. So, yeah. Can we could we borrow language from the RL standard there where it says retail their essential elements in I mean I guess you would say chronological order but
what what is the language of the old standard >> specific so just retell the focus of specific paragraphs in a text is a new okay perfect >> is that okay with everybody
okay mark it down Yes. Okay. Um, third grade reads, "Determine the central message or moral of fables, folk tales, and myths from diverse cultures, and explain how it is conveyed through key details in a text." Semicolon: Recount to their essential elements to in chronological order. I
assume we're going to change that recount to retell. >> I would hope. Um, anything else? Okay. Um, the following standard for RARI is determine the main idea of a text, recount the key details, and explain how
they support the main idea. I would ask and I am loathed to do so. Um, we are you the the progression we are doing here from second to third grade from identify to determine. Um, does that simply just indicate that the message is is more complex to identify
here and therefore it is now something you have to determine rather than just identify or is that >> um the no it's from second to third um so G >> third I think to like when you get to third grade it's not necessarily stated >> they might have to infer it.
>> Okay, that makes sense to me. >> Okay, are we comfortable with it then? >> Yes. Um I would recommend uh this language. Did TDO you have a comment about the third grade RARI kid 2? >> Yeah.
>> Um we need to have the the portion after the semicolon identical between these two standards because if you look at two and three for reading literature they are parallel to each other. But our new semicolon phrase is phrase uh our new
clause after the semicolon doesn't match what is after the semicolon between two and three for our i. Um so I think we would probably I think the retell the key details and explain how they support the main idea from three. Should we just move that language back
up to two rather than the retell the purpose of specific paragraphs or do we want the retell the specific purposes there's the purpose of specific paragraphs in a text in um >> I think it's retell the focus of specific paragraphs
purpose seems a little high level there. So what >> retail the focus of specific >> focus of specific paragraphs that's what we were looking for in second grade. Okay. >> Okay. And then what I'm saying is, and I think this was very confusing, if you look at G29 and
G31, that's the progression in second grade from RL um to second grade to third grade. Um we the what comes after the semicolon is recount their essential elements in chronological order both times. Um so that progression is staying the same in that secondary task here.
Um, so that makes me think that the progression needs to be the same for RAI to mirror that. Um, so if we're going to ask students in third grade to retell the key details and explain how they support the main idea, I think that's
probably what they should be doing in in second grade as well. >> So you're saying you want the second graders to be explaining how they how the details support the main idea. And second, >> um,
I guess it's just not necessarily. I was just trying to just mirror the language. It just bothered me that the language was shifting because we just >> I think in second grade I guess because it usually is dated, they just have to pick it out. it's not
so much about the details, but in third grade, they have to think about the details to be able to infer what the top what the main idea is because it may not necessarily be stated. So, I think that might be why that they gave that. >> Okay. Then, can we just instead of instead of in second grade saying retell
the focus of specific paragraphs in a text, can we just say retell the key details to mirror what's happening in three? >> It's different. I think here we don't want to worry so much about language, but like what can they do with this age?
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, we're going to keep it as as changed just with the word retell. >> Okay, then we'll do that >> next. Okay. Um third three. Um
>> can I say one more thing? Sorry. >> Yeah. Um, in second grade, RI, instead of saying having main idea and main topics, could you say main idea of each
paragraph? Does that make sense? Or is it um will it get confusing because you have the main idea of the whole thing and then okay, never mind. I think the I think the language about main topics was
an attempt to to pull the topics of each delete the language about the main topics and just say identify the main idea of a text. >> Yeah, I was just thinking off the top of my head there >> within a multi paragraph text semicolon retell the focus of specific paragraphs.
>> Okay, >> that does that sound all right? >> Oh, wait. I see your thing. Oh, I see your um your now. Sorry. >> That's two RI, right? Are we okay with that change? >> All right, move on.
>> Okay. Um, fourth grade RL um reads, determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem and explain how it is conveyed through details in the text. Uh, semol and summarize the text. Are we content with that?
Okay. >> Okay. This this one is in the next one. Sorry. In the next one. I know it's like the same. They want us to keep the wording the same instead of um can we change summarize a text to
summarize the text because it is the text in the previous one. >> Yeah. So, so for RAR I we'll change to summarize. So, change A to the >> Yes. >> Okay, that makes sense.
Um, the RAR reads, determine the main idea of a text and explain how it is supported by key detail by key details. Semicolons summarize the text. >> Okay, everybody good? All right, move on. >> Okay, fifth grade. Um, determine the main idea of a text and explain how it
is supported by key details. Summarize the text. Wait, where? There is an RL missing. There is a five RL missing. >> Okay. Well, uh, that obviously needs to be there. Um, fifth grade will take one to take away.
I mean if you want to take it away from >> you don't want to read any literature don't want to readformational text. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just added the row. So I I just don't have the standard itself. So I did
everything I could but I don't I don't have that. >> Who's got the standard? I >> believe Brianna's working on it. All right, we're gonna give her some time. Let's take a 10-minute break right here. And I was just going to ask real quick before that um
the main idea like it it shifts from the main idea like in uh to when it goes to middle school to the central idea. Would it make more sense to keep that the same or no?
I just know like on our test a lot of times like um with our ELS benchmark anytime except for the TCAP I guess because that's in our standard everything else calls it the central idea. That's >> agree that was a big discussion that we
had between central idea and main idea and I know our discussion was it would just make sense to call it central idea all >> all the way through. I think so too because in my fifth graders like we have to we the notes we put in our main idea because that's how it's going to be stated on the TECAP because that's
what's in our standard but any other time that it's assessed on any other platform it's c it's called central idea so we have to talk about what's the fancy way to say main idea central idea >> that's a big change between fifth and sixth grade is we are now not looking
for the main idea we are the central idea and there's no difference though So, >> let's continue that discussion after we take a break. >> Just wanted to put that nearby. >> Okay. And if you're done uh with your break early, we'll start early, but uh
10 minutes. So, we'll be back in here. Uh let's do 8 minutes. Quarter of three. Kid 2 G35. Um determine the theme. Determine a theme of a story, drama or poem and explain how it is conveyed through
details in the text. Uh so Michael wants summarize the text. There anything from the tdoe there? Um do we have anything there? >> Does that sound acceptable? >> All right. >> Okay. >> Let's move on. >> RI version of that is determine the main
idea of a text and explain how it is supported by key details. Summarize the text. Um did we reach a consensus on main idea versus central idea? So I looked it up. It says there is no there is often no functional difference between a central idea and a main idea.
They are frequently used interchangeably. And it goes on to say that with central idea sometimes being a preferred term in educational settings. It's just I know I get frustrated because like when in fifth grade when
I'm talking about verbs and in first grade they're talking about and I know no a lot of times they're like the action words >> right >> and then I'm like no it's a verb like why would you call it something different and then we have to change change it later on. So if there in sixth
grade if it turns to central idea like why are we calling it main idea in the earlier grades? >> Good question. At the high school level what do you call it? >> Central idea. >> Central idea. >> Um and I was looking at the old standard
if I'm on the right number. Um it was determined the central idea of a text in fifth grade. >> Okay. And what do you call it in middle school? Oh, like why you know >> Yeah, >> this would be going back. I mean, we've used the term main idea since second
grade. So, do we want to make the decision to unilaterally change the use of main idea to central idea? >> Start. Yes. >> Okay. >> I think we're trying to get consistent here >> in the language all along. >> That would be my >> and and and central idea will be in the glossery
>> and there will be even further definition >> in the standards guide >> and we're all aligned in support of that. So >> awesome. >> Rocking and rolling. >> Next. >> Okay, so um we're on the sixth grade. Um
which for RL uh kid 2 reads, determine the te uh determine the theme of a text. Um use uh text evidence to determine how the theme is developed throughout the text. Identify key details that would be included in an objective summary that supports the theme. Miss Winters, do we have comments from T? >> Yes. Okay. OE states there are multiple
areas of feedback for this standard at this grade levels. A please consider changing determine the theme of a text to determine a theme of a text as there are almost always multiple themes in a
text as currently worded. It suggests there is only one for the student to identify. >> I wholeheartedly agree with that. >> Yes. My proposal is just to go back to the original language
basically 6 through 8 on the K.2 standards from the current in use standard. Can I just interject with what EAT um suggested here? Here's the problem with
that one is that is determine a theme or a central idea. And this is the one we're talking about literature. And this is just where it got really confusing with the way that not just tests like TCAP, but even textbooks would word things. Sometimes they would say, "What's the central idea of the
text?" And then the options would be the message of the story because of the way they took the standard. So we were trying to get the literature and theformational two different things. So we're determining the theme and literature and then the central idea informational.
Additionally, the part where it says objective summary is I this is me reading the standard every single day in my class because this is a big standard. Why are we determining the theme and then also providing an objective summary
in the same standard? That doesn't make sense. The theme is the message overall what we're trying to get out of the story. and the objective summary is not the theme. So they do not make sense to go together at all. So if their suggestion was to put it back, make it
another standard. Put a the um objective summary in another standard is fine, but not with theme that doesn't make sense. All right. Sorry. >> Two very different tasks. >> It seems like
I mean, if we're talking about the objective summary in A, should we just put the commands for what we're doing with the objective summary in A? Provide an objective summary identifying supporting details that should be
included. I mean, Objective summary is addressed there number two and that in KI. So just remove it from remove the B from K I K L
and >> I'm I'm a little lost here. What's >> you mean an R and RL? >> I'm sorry. Yes, >> I know it's hard to tell the difference which is what what Miss N was talking about. >> I think that was the point we were trying to get is remove it for RL but
not for Ri. An objective summary is okay when you're describing central idea but is not okay when we are talking about theme. >> Amen. >> I'm good with that. Now, can we insert an a parentheses s after the word theme
in RL so that you could have the opportunity to describe multiple themes or a theme if that's all there is in a story? Does that answer the question that you had in in the beginning?
>> We did. >> Well, I I just want to make sure I'm understanding what the question is here. Are we are we trying to deter Are we Are we considering eliminating basically letter B? Is that what we're talking?
>> Okay, here's how I I don't know. I I was thinking about this. So, I agree separating those two sentences because it's too much to determine a theme and then do this over here. But to me, this is sort of a baby step towards literary
analysis. So, you're using text evidence to determine how the theme is developed, but then you're also finding those key details that you would use when I mean later on in the upper grades analyzing that literature, right? So,
this is the sixth grade version of that. So, is that I'm supposing that's the reasoning that was there. >> So, that's a baby step towards literary analysis. RL >> I think I'm confused because your original standard is a standard we made
and my original standard is the original standard we use currently. So when I think >> I'm looking at that >> which is the standard we proposed correct. >> Yes. So I agree with that standard. Yes. I agree with that too. The remarks that they like the comments that they made. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. That's correct.
>> So just to clarify um I it is by all means the the perspective of the department that objective that students should be providing an objective summary with literary texts that there is no contradiction to a student determining a theme and
providing an objective summary. In fact summarizing would be absolutely critical in both of those uh types of texts. I think the the feedback from us was just about the structure about like that there was the parent standard of determine the theme of a text and yes it did not make sense to place subjective
summary underneath that. It's just a second step within that standard. Uh because the anchor standard includes both and that's in grades K through 12. There's two things that students do. They always determine a central idea and they provide a summary of the text and that may appear in different ways and
and so forth in each grade level but that those two things are always a part of it. So the recommendation from the department was just to kind of construct the grade level standard in such a way where they know that like step one of standard 2 is that they're ident they're identifying the central idea I'm sorry
the theme and then step two would be that they are providing an objective summary of the literary text as a whole. So does that make sense? And I don't think that I mean um I get what you're saying uh completely that that's weird to me theme
and central idea within a literary text. So what I had written down uh because before we did this I kind of tried to marry some language is I put determine a theme of a text and analyze it de development uh semicolon provide an objective summary. It was kind of a
combo of the two. Um but the identify key details I feel like um I don't feel like summary I see what you're saying but I don't know that B
is maybe accurate what we want them to do um as like we don't write summaries to support a theme is my thought and I I saw there's quite a bit of public feedback about that as well. Um, so I I
guess I like how you all deleted or central idea. Um, but I don't know that I agree with the details or the additions that are in B. But I do think there needs to be and
this is not just me. This was a we had things all over the wall, okay? And this was a big concern that determining the theme and an objective summary. Like usually when you have like bullet points or something, they kind of go hand in hand, but they don't really go hand in
hand. If I give you a summary of a movie, how are you going to determine the theme off of a summary? Like that those don't go together. I'm not saying that we don't need to teach it. We do. Just is this the spot that we need to teach it? I don't know. Any other comments?
>> It feels like to separate them in the way that they're suggesting it. I I feel like if I feel like it would have to be separated into a different standard rather than trying to make summary a part of theme.
>> Well, that's like I mean in fifth grade it's the same way, but just >> Yeah, we've been doing >> divided it by I mean divided it by or divided by a semicolon. I just teach it as two separate I mean I just almost teach it like two separate standards like we talk about when we're
you know the theme and then we might talk about some things that some evidence that would prove that that's the theme and then I teach summary separate it's even though it's in the same same standard it's not the same skill so I
see where she's saying that they I I have always wondered kind why it's together, but nobody had a question, so I'm like, roll on. But but there was a suggest. >> Yeah, it's three different things. >> But there is a suggestion, letter D, please consider re v revisiting, I'm
sorry, revising the wording of the standard to determine a theme of a text and analyze its development. semicolon provide an objective summary. So they're considering re revising the
wording of the standard >> which would kind of fit more of how it's >> determined text and analyze its development provide an objective summary. I would like to um say that
that was not my words. That was TDOE's words after you read that for I thought I was taking both and combining them, but no, that was TDOE. But I like TDOE. >> I think I think it flows better um because the fourth grade standard I mean it had a semicolon summarized the text.
So, and then the the fifth grade summarized the text. >> Yes. And it's like that in all of them. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> it's like here they've just divided it into two substandards, but just throw a semicolon on it and summarize a text and
just it's one standard, but you teach it twice. Once for this, once for that. That's how we do it. >> I also point out the the the substandards here are unique to 6 through 8. Um, if you go to high school
level, it's the same basic format we had K through five, which is just the parent standard just to say determine a theme, provide an objective summary. Like it's just those two parts. So, >> okay. Would you like to repeat what TDOE has so that we can uh get some consensus
on this? >> Yes, sir. Determine a theme of a text and analyze its development. Provide an objective summary
>> and that there are no A and B. It's just all in one word. >> Is it divided by semicolon? >> U semicolon. Develop semicolon. Provide an objective summary. That's the standard. Now up under A, B and letter A and B it
states for B it is a bit confusing to include substandard B identify key details that would be included in objective summary that supports the theme beneath determine the theme of a text as writing speaking and objective
summary is not always completed in service of determining a theme. it can be an important task independent of that process. Letter C states the wording is sub uh substandard B. Identify key details that
would be included in an objective summary that supports the theme. Seems unclear as students should be writing complete summaries and not just identifying key details that would be included in them. Also, summarizes are
not designed to convey or support a theme, but to provide an overview of the main points of a text. Could this substandard be modified simply to say provide an objective summary? This would maintain the proper
rigor for these grade levels and support vertical progression into grade 9 through 12. >> So, let's just take away the A and the B. and like it is in the high school and elementary and just put a semicolon and
add the objectives, you know, write an objective summary, >> you know, >> write it as TDOE has prescribed it. >> I have >> and just have no A and B. Um, one note
uh to consider um TDOE's suggestions for uh RARI versus RL um RARI includes and analyze how did it is developed throughout the text. Do we want to include that throughout the text element
for the RL? I do feel like that adds a little bit of rigor. >> So in lie of analyze its development, it would be analyze >> how it is developed throughout the text.
>> How do we feel about that? >> Semicolon summarize the text. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I like that. Are we good with that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good rigor. Thank you, >> Doc. Just to make sure I get that right. Analyze how it is developed through the
throughout the text. Okay. And then am I hearing that we want to remove the substandards? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That was the proposal. >> Okay. Um, moving on. >> I would think we would need to make analogous changes to RAR. Um, so what
would the language need to be >> now? TDO U TDE suggests their feedback for letter A. Please consider changing determine the central idea of a text to determine a central idea of a text. As
there are almost always multiple central ideas in a text as these grade levels as currently worded, it is suggests there is only one that the student can identify. Letter B, it is a bit confusing to
include substandard B. Provide an objective summary of the central idea and supporting details throughout a text beneath. Determine the central idea of a text. As writing and speaking, an objective summary is not always
completed in service of determining a central idea. It can be an important task in independent of that process. The wording of substantial A. Substandard A identifies supporting details that
should be included in objective summary. Seems unclear as students should be writing complete summaries and not just identifying supporting details that would be included in them. Letter D. Could this standard be simplified into the following? Determine a central idea
of a text and analyze how it is developed throughout the text. Semicolon provide an objective summary. and letter E. Regardless of how this is revised, please consider adding the word analyze back into grades 6 through 8 for this
standard. In grades 6 through 12, students should be analyzing the de development of the central idea they identify. >> So we can just do the same thing that we did to RL. >> Okay. >> Yes. Basically,
>> I think we need to make a call about the a central idea versus a uh the central idea. Um >> I think a >> okay. Um if I would then ask us to look really quickly back at five because in five we have determine a theme. We've always used uh or four and five we've we
for K through three we used the but then in fourth grade we went from the theme to a theme but we stuck to the main idea. And then in fifth grade, same thing. We have a theme but the main idea. >> I did a central idea in the fifth grade.
Yeah. I just >> Yeah. I just want us to be I just want to I I don't have a strong preference on A versus the here, but I I think it needs to be consistently done. Yes. >> If we shift from the theme to a theme, we need to also shift from
>> we need to either or I I see what you're saying. >> I see your head shaking. >> But but I basically if we're going to ever shift from V to A, it needs to happen at the same time that we shift from B to A with theme. others.
>> Yes. >> So I guess the question is do we shift from D to A as at all >> central idea? We're definitely shifting for theme, but I >> Do you have feedback? >> The EIT have feedback about that or the
TDOE. >> Earlier on you said that there are often more than one theme in a story. >> Yeah, it's about centrality. Currently we say the main the central idea and the
theme until we get to fourth grade and then we shift from the the theme to a theme but we shift we do not shift central uh central idea but we had decided to shift central idea in sixth grade to a central idea. So I'm saying if we're going to make that shift, I
think it needs to be retroactively applied to the places where we've also made the shift for theme. >> I don't know if this makes a difference or not T- well, but I think I recall I can look it up, but I think that ACT has multiple central ideas and if we want to work towards that, but I can double
check that. I'm just going off of memory from two weeks ago. There there seems to be a conflict between what the EAT is recommending and the what the TDOE had feedback about along that line. So am I misreading that?
>> So are we in agreement on middle school at least on a central idea? >> Yes. What about but what about four or five? Are we a central idea? Are we the central? >> I was curious as to what there seemed to be. >> I think in elementary the central idea makes sense but progressing middle
>> then do we need to change theme to the theme and uh for four and five as well to pair that >> I the way I think we teach it I mean that's the way I've taught it has been a theme. Yeah. Okay. Well, okay. We were not consistent about that though. Um,
with theme, we we we said the theme in um Well, I guess that's not true. Never mind. We say the central message, which I guess is analog is distinct from Okay. Okay. Oh, you're ready to move on.
>> Okay. So, we're saying determine a central idea of a text and analyze how it is developed throughout the text. provide an objective summary for six RARI. Okay. Okay. Um are we just moving what
because I believe these are identical in the middle school level. So for six through eight, right, for this standard. >> So then we should just move what we did for six up to seven and >> eight >> and eight. Are we in agreement there?
>> Where is the increase in rigor occurring? >> The text Thank you. >> So I was moving to R. R. Sorry, I'm just saying thanks. 7.RL.kid.2. That's G39.
>> Okay. And the TDLE recommendations are for U 6 RL, 7RL, and 8 RL KJ. I >> I think these have always been the same 6 through eight. So um are we content with just we've we've shopped the six uh
standards. Are we good to just move those to seven and eight for both RL and RA? >> Yes. >> Okay. why we lost I mean I I I understand identifying supporting details could encompass all of that but why we lost
um the uh including its relationship to the character setting and plot in RL and including its relationship to supporting details in RARI that was in the original standard. If we feel like identify supporting details does all of that for
both of those standards then I'm fine with that. >> We don't have identify as the stand because we're getting rid of subs. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, now we don't have that at all. You're correct. So, >> yeah. So, if we're losing something, we should we should be attentive to that.
Um, so what what again was it that we were losing >> that was It was just in eighth grade. I'm talking about eighth grade currently. Yes, >> we we the original progression was Yeah, it was the same in sixth and
seventh essentially, but then in 8th grade we added those elements. So, but I don't I didn't hear any TDO feedback about that particular part of it.
about losing that part of the theme about losing that part of it. >> So, I think our perspective is that we um those are kind of pieces that demonstrate how students determine the theme and provide an objective summary and we spell all of that out in detail in the standards guides. Um so, those
are just kind of instructional pieces that would go along, but um certainly >> as long as we're fine. >> Okay, we're ready to go. >> Okay. High school. >> Okay. Um, high school E1 E2 is determine
a theme or central idea. Uh, this is for RL. So, um, determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze its development. Provide an objective or critical summary. >> There's no TDO feed feedback about this. So, >> any comments about that? say it's pretty
much the same standard, the old standard. >> Oh, so are we content there? >> Okay. Um the uh the same standard for uh for RAR is Oh, it's the same standard as RL except it doesn't include the
phrasing of theme. It just has central idea. >> Are we content with that? >> Yes. Okay. >> Can I just make one quick comment? I checked back in the glossery and just whoever is doing that might want to make
a note. You might want to uh look at the definition of of central idea in the glossery so you don't confuse teachers later. Okay. Something else I noticed that might not matter but um from 8 to 9 10 and 11 12
um we don't have um and analyze it development over the course of the text if we think that's important to continue or it's implied at that grade level and we have analyze its development. So, I mean I I guess if that seems implied
to me. >> Are we ready to go on to 34? >> Yes. Okay, let's roll. >> Okay, >> I am. >> Um 34 reads, determine multiple themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their development. Provide a critical
summary. >> Any feedback there? Anything? And then uh the I the RARI version is determine multiple central ideas of a text to analyze their development. Provide a critical summary. Any thoughts there? >> Are those acceptable?
>> Okay, we're done with that one. >> Oh, unrelated announcement. Um the state board staff is currently taking all of the materials from this building to our building. If you would like any snacks or drinks, now's the time to grab what you need.
Oh, beautiful. Thank you, Michael. Uber Uber Eats is here for you. >> We're good. >> Okay. So, want to go on to the next kindergarten? >> All right. Um, so we're on standard
three. Uh, the cornerstone is analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. Um, the kindergarten version of RL reads, "With prompting and support, orally identify characters, setting, and major events in a story."
>> Okay. >> No comments. And it's the same as the old standard. >> Okay. Rule. Next. >> Okay. RI version is with prompting and sport orally identify the connection between the two between two individuals, events, ideas, or pieces of information in the text.
>> No comments. And it's the same. >> Let's go. We good there. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Singleton. No problem. >> Um, all right. First grade RL is describe character settings and major events in a story using key details. >> No comments.
>> Good. >> The only thing that's not there is um I think the term using graphic organizers, but >> feels instructional to me. >> I think it's I think that's kind of maybe implied. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> So, good. Um, all right. RI version of
uh the first grade standard is describe the connections between two individuals, events, ideas, or piece of information in a text. >> No comments. >> Sounds good. >> Roll. >> All right. Second grade RL is describe how characters in a story respond to major events and challenges.
>> No comment. It's the same. >> We good there? >> Good. Um, RI is describe the connections between a series of historical events, scientific ideas, or steps in a process and a text. >> No comments. It's the same. >> Good.
>> Um, third grade RL is describe characters in a story and explain how their actions contribute to the sequence of events. >> No comment. It's the same >> rule. Um, third green is describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts or steps in technical
procedures in a text using language that pertains to time, sequence and cause effect. >> No comment, it's the same. >> Go. >> Fourth grade RL is describe in depth the character in a story or drama drawing on drawing on specific details in a text. Explain how a character's thoughts, words, or actions contribute to the
sequence of events in a story. >> No comments. It's the same. Keep Explain. The RAR is explain events, procedures, ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical text, including what happened and why based on specific information in a text. >> No comment. It's the same.
>> Go. >> Five. RI. We're missing we miss Summers. We are missing another RL. Five. >> The only thing is there is some uh feedback while she's getting that. It
says please consider changing story elements to details. It's confusing in the current form as character setting and or events are story elements. So students would not be drawing on story elements to describe them
>> for is that for five the one that we're missing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Let let's do the R RL while she's posting. >> That's the one we're missing is RL, but we can do >> Let's do the RAR. Yeah. >> Uh RAR is explain the relationships and
interactions among two or more individuals, events, andor ideas in a text. >> No comment. It's the same. >> Okay. Then we'll give >> is that where we're building in uh some uh rigor by two or more
And then yeah as well. Um seems to be yeah seems like it there's a focus on in fourth grade on uh on individual things rather rather than two or more. >> Okay. >> And their relationships. So it seems
like the relationship is the rigor there. Yeah. Do you have to click out of the box? Okay. No, I I I was I believe Miss Summers is adding it. Okay. >> This is a hard standard for fifth graders. I always
struggle on this one. >> Can we go on to six and circle back to five? R L >> Oh, it's okay. We Yeah, it seems we've got it. So, um, describe in-depth characters, uh,
settings, or events in a story or drama, drawing on specific story elements in a text. semicolon explain how they contribute to the plot of a story and what was the the >> So instead of drawing on specific story elements the story elements would be details >> drawing on just details or key details
>> I think specific details >> drawing on specific details so changing story elements to details okay so we're just changing the word elements to details and that's as stories already in there. >> Yes, I I so I have made the edit of of
changing story elements to details. >> Yes. >> Okay. Are we good on that standard otherwise? >> Yes. >> Okay. Then we can move to sixth grade. Uh six.RL is analyze how the elements of
the plot unfold to develop characters and move toward a resolution. Um, I would Okay. >> What's the TD? >> Uh, TDLE uh feedback. Please consider changing wording to something closer to
analyze how the elements of the text develops characters and move toward a plot resolution. This wording seems clearer. I just remembered seeing your work in your um priorities document and really liking
how you had rewritten these two. So, >> I have absolutely no recollection. >> You don't? >> But I can pull it up. That was a different meme. >> Okay. >> Um >> I'll never get that back again. [Music]
All right. Oh god. >> I personally felt like specific text elements and elements of the text were kind of vague as a teacher like reading that I'd be like what do you want me to what am I going for here? And I remember liking whatever you had written. I don't
remember it now but I liked it. >> Um oh I just uh this is which one? 6 RL >> RL I think something like okay my wording was analyze how complex characters events and ideas develop and
interact over the course of a text semicolon interpret how these developments and interactions impact the overall meaning of the text >> what grade level was that for >> oh that's 912 I'm looking at 912 no Yeah.
>> Don't have anything for six. >> I I don't see that I had anything for for middle grades. >> Okay. >> Well, no, I did have something on seven. Yeah. No, no, I did. Um, yeah, I did. I'm just Mine is in weird order. Um,
bad former me. Um, analyze how the plot of a story or drama unfolds as well as how the characters respond or change as a result of the unfolding plot. but I yeah um I can also just copy and paste it over but again I did this before we
even started this journey so who know I don't know if I stand by my work >> the main thing that was changed from the original to now is it was originally describe and I think they they've changed it to analyze just to get it
more. It's analyze all the way up and across and up. So, I'm sure that's the change there. >> My proposed wording I just dropped into suggest a change. Okay. Okay. So we want to do six
RL. How does this work for you? 6 RL. Do you want to keep it as is? >> What did you say? But Lucas didn't address six, did you? >> I did. I just dropped it in the document. Um, okay. So, I mean, my
proposed wording for six was just analyze how the plot of a story or drama unfolds, as well as how the characters respond or change as a result of the unfolding plot. >> TDOE likes that as well, better than TDOE's recommendation. Y'all want to hire me or
>> or I feel weird saying just do we want to take mine and >> well I proposed it so >> okay >> in reality it's M do um >> put that in the decision. >> Okay. Um, yeah. I'm glad Miss Docker
remembered that I did that because I sure didn't. Um, all right. Uh, >> copy and pasteed into the decision or no, >> it it's been copied and pasted into suggested change. >> Okay. >> Um, so are we ready to move on to RAR?
Okay. Um, RARI reads, "Analyze in detail how a key individual event or idea is introduced, illustrated, and developed in a text." Did we have feedback on that from TDOE? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh the added phrases helps to emphasize the why and it says please consider changing the wording analyze in
detail how and why a key individual event or idea is introduced illustrated and developed in the text. The added phrase helps to emphasize the wide portion of the cornerstone standard which should be included in grades 6
through 12. Okay, >> I liked it except I feel like in detail is kind of random personally. I don't know if other people feel that way, but >> it was already there. That I'm sure that that's probably the wording because that it's this is the exact same as the old
standard >> so we can pick it out. I'm just saying it's that's why it's probably there. >> We're adding and why. Do you need to take off the words in detail? to me if you analyze something it is in detail. So
>> yeah I don't love I don't have think >> out in detail and add and why. >> So it's analyze how and why a key individual event >> or idea is introduced
illustrated and developed in a text. Is that acceptable to everyone? All right, let's move on to grade seven. >> I don't know how, but this I don't know if this is better or worse, but I I think I had a drafted version of this
and since we used my drafted version of six, I can move that over. If anyone would want me to do that, please do. Okay. Um, I'm mostly impressed that Miss Dockery actually read my infinitely long. uh
>> she's been attentive to many many details >> as we all have. >> Okay. So my um my wording was analyze how specific details devel sorry analyze how specific characters develop as a story or drama unfolds as well as how
these developments propel the plot forward. >> Yep. accept it. Yes, as read. >> Okay. Um and then 7R I currently reads, "Analyze the relationships and interactions among individuals, events, andor ideas, and a
text." Did we have >> I have I have some concern. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. I >> not that one. Okay, >> Rosemary. >> Okay, >> you have the floor.
Okay. 7 R I K3 TDOE. Um, feedback. Please consider changing the wording to something closer to analyze the relationships and interactions among individuals, events, comma, in, or ideas in a text
and how these impact meaning or support the author's purpose. The added phrase helps to emphasize the Y portion of the cornerstone standard which should be included in grade 6 through 12.
>> Makes sense to me. >> This was the same exact as it was in the old standard what they have. So, >> okay. So, I I have a concern. Um, tell me if it's just my interpretation, but
to me, um, let me make sure I'm reading this right. I don't want to embarrass myself here. Okay. Yeah. So, to me, analyze the relationships and interactions among feels more complex than what's in eighth
grade. Analyze the connections among. So, I feel like they should be switched, but maybe I'm interpreting it wrong. >> What are What are we looking at again? >> Am I looking the wrong standard? That
could be >> seven. Okay. So seven the suggested change was analyze the relationships and interactions among but then eighth is analyze the connections among and to me
relationships and interactions would be more complex than connections. >> Okay. >> Do we agree disagree with me? So it's I mean these standards are identical except in seventh grade it says relationships and interactions and in eighth grade it says connections.
>> Eighth grade used to include techniques and no longer includes techniques. So I feel like especially without that technique piece it feels like it's flip-flopped. >> I think that makes sense. That's a good catch. >> That's a good >> So we'll we'll uh >> so the proposed seven move to eight
>> Mhm. and then eight move to seven. Is that acceptable to everyone? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And now that would mean we would go on to 8 RL. Already finished 8 R I. Um what
is the change then to to seven? So instead of saying relationships and interactions, we're now going to see connections. That's the the shift. Okay. Okay. Um then 8 RL. Um, analyze how particular lines of dialogue or events in a story propel the action,
reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision. Do we have notes on that one? >> Um, no comments. >> Are we good to keep? Yeah. >> Sorry. Um, okay. So, this one, I think the only aspect I don't like is that we just drop character development in 8th
grade. And I feel like that's an important one personally, but I'm willing to be overruled for sure. >> Well, how would you change this then?
>> The the 910 standard is kind of about that. Um because it talks about how they develop and interact over the course of a text. Um, but if you feel as though it needs to be present here, >> it would only be in in an attempt to prepare the students for the next level,
some sort of an introduction introductory activity. >> And this is the same as the old. So that's probably why they used it. Just throwing that out there. >> Okay. They did I mean there we did use the term character development in the seventh grade standard. So I see I see what you're saying.
>> Yeah. What would it help if we just added it to the end or provoke a decision >> to develop the character? >> We could also say reveal changing aspects of a character. >> To reveal changing aspects of a character. >> We already have that phrase reveal aspects of a character.
>> Or so we're going to say it twice. >> Yeah, it does change the meaning. That's true. >> Sounds bad. Um uh cuz I was struggling with this, but I had analyze how particular events or lines of dialogue develop characters, reveal character traits, or provoke a
decision. >> What was the Sorry, could you repeat the the end of that? Uh say it again. Okay, >> please. analyze how particular events or lines of dialogue develop characters, reveal character traits, comma, or provoke a decision.
>> You don't want to put propel action in there. >> Is that >> Yeah. >> Well, driving rain. >> Okay. So, let's uh let's approve her as red.
Yes, >> as modified. >> Um, >> close to rewarding very quickly. The crybab development though. >> Yeah, >> I think that was an important phrase. >> The old
>> illuminates characters illuminate. I hate to put in new words. >> You're playing with fire. I know. I know. >> So, the EAT had analyze how particular lines of dialogue or events in a story propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision. So, I guess it's really about breaking reveal
aspects of a character up into a couple different things. Is that really the the main difference here? Am I hearing that right? >> Show what I had was analyze how particular events or lines of dialogue develop characters, reveal character traits, or
provoke a decision. Um, we just add in propel action somewhere in that list. Propel action or provoke a decision or >> where should the reveal aspects of a character feels like it's it's essentially reveal character traits, right? >> Yeah.
>> So, um, we just need the show. Was it show character develop? What was the the first one? >> Um, develop the original or what I wrote. >> What you wrote. >> Okay. Um, I put develop characters, comma, reveal
character traits, comma, or provoke a decision. Okay. Okay. Pill action comes before provoke a decision. Your two mentions of character come together. Um the only thing I would throw out for
consideration but I you know it's f I think what you have is fine is show character development instead of reveal character traits because I heard you say initially that character development was the term that you that mattered to you. So I have analyze how particular events
or lines of dialogue develop characters reveal character traits or provoke a decision. Is that what you're meaning? >> I don't know if the line of dialogue is developing the character. I think it's showing character development. >> I would probably just say show character
development. >> Think our vents can develop characters. >> Oh no. I'm willing to abandon and go back to the original. >> Um, so we need to have four things is what I'm hearing. Um, we we do want to have propel the action. We do want to have
provoke a decision. Are we are we okay with reveal aspects of a character from the eat recommendation? And then so we just need show something along lines of show character development or is that what I'm hearing here or Well, if it's making it worse, I don't
want to make it worse. So, >> is it saying more? >> Does it add to it? If it doesn't add to it, then abandon it. But if it adds to it, then keep it in. Whatever. My feel is not going to be
hurt. >> Wonder character development is kind of captured within reveal aspects of a character. Like if a character changes that is an aspect of that character. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean that is true
because we are talking about developing characters in six and seven. >> Okay. Unless the action aspects Joe, >> I I'm I'm open to whatever
recommendations people have here. I I don't I don't really know. >> There's no recommendation on the floor right now. In hearing none, we would accept what's there. >> Yeah. Are we ready to accept the original?
>> Yes. Okay, I hear that's good. So, >> could I one tiny modification just I don't know if that I don't know if it's in our document, but just to add and why as well. So, analyze how and why >> and then the rest >> which mirrors the cornerstone.
>> Okay. Um, >> that's just presenting. >> Would are you recommending we we make that modification to the sixth and seventh grade standards as well? Because they also just say analyze how >> it's consistent with the cornerstone. >> Yes, I agree with that. Why? How? And
why? >> Oh, we did do it in and not in the RAR, but we didn't do it in RL. Okay. Well, and we have not done it consistently in RAR, I don't think. >> Can you make a note to go back and do that? >> Um, well, I'm doing it right now. It's
not that many. Um, >> seven is just worded in a way it because it doesn't have analyze how. It just says analyze the connections among >> it has. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay.
prepare yourself to go to high school one and two. >> So, are we are we good then on on those standards? Okay. >> Yes. >> Um E1 E2 RL Kid 3. That's G65. So, we're
all on the same page. Analyze how complex characters, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text to impact overall meaning. Use the methods of characterization to analyze character development over the course of a text. Fine. >> Well said. >> Do we have any DDOE? >> We do on the next one though.
>> Okay. >> Keep that one. >> Okay. E1 E2 RI is analyze how an author presents and develops key ideas and events to impact overall meaning. >> And the TDOE suggested that we add to the end or support author's purpose.
I'm good. >> Are we on do we remember how and why? Um the why piece is the why piece is captured in the the impact overall meaning and then and the author's purpose that would be the why piece there.
>> Okay. >> So in different words yeah >> not necessary then redundant. >> So what was that phrase we were adding at the end or >> or support author's purpose? Should it be or support the author's purpose or just author's purpose?
>> I mean, we usually say author's purpose, but >> okay. Um, E3 E4 uh for RL is analyze how complex characters, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text to impact overall meaning. Use the
methods of characterization to analyze character development over the course of a text. >> Good. I hear a thumbs up or I see a thumbs up. Are we good? >> All right. >> 34 RI is analyze how an author's choices regarding the ordering of ideas and events, the introduction and development
of ideas and connections among ideas impact overall meaning. >> We have feedback on that one. >> Yeah. um they suggested uh adding to the end or support author's purpose and also removing the words the ordering of ideas
and events. >> So how would it read then? So analyze how an author's choices regard analyze how an author's choices impact that's the I mean the introduction and development of ideas and connections
among ideas impact overall meaning or support author's purpose. We're going to have to work with that. It would be analyze how an author's choices regarding the introduction and development of ideas and connections among ideas impact uh overall meaning or support author
purpose. Okay, there we go. Yeah. >> Having made those changes, is everybody okay with that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. >> Moving on. >> All right. We're on >> knocked another one off. >> Three three ten of the way there. Um,
uh, >> all right. Fourth grade. Um, our cornerstone is interp I think. They're going to have to send me back to school. Um, fourth, uh, sorry, fourth cornerstone is interpret words and phrases as they were used in a text, including technical, quantitative,
and figurative meanings. Analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone. U, the kindergarten standard is with prompting and support. Ask and answer questions about unknown words and texts and identify words and phrases that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses.
>> Okay. I have a flag. Do you have a flag? Do we all have a flag? >> Yes. >> Okay. We all have a flag. >> Yes. >> Not until third grade though. >> Mine says, and I'm Miss Winter says, flagging that grades K through 5, 6
through 8, and 9th through 12 all have formulations of this standard that are not well aligned. Please consider tighter ver vertical alignment for K12. >> Uh same for middle school. >> Y um also wanted to mention that there was a lot of survey feedback. You guys
probably remember this about the dislike of the use of the word technical meanings in here. >> Elsewhere we have we've pretty intentionally removed technical meanings. So I think I think probably >> So do we want to just remove
>> Was that Yes, it was a typo on the elementary. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> So, are we proposing then a change to the cornerstone um interpret words and phrases as they were used in a text to say including quantitative and figurative meanings instead of including
technical, quantitative, and figurative meanings. So, just removing technical. Um, okay. I'll make a note for that. Yeah, we didn't we we I don't think we replaced technical with anything. I think we generally I not I can recall I
mean I don't want to say that definitively but I know we changed domain specific consistently but not technical. Generally we remove technical when we when we had technical Why are we removing technical? If I can recall correctly, when we got to it earlier, no one could really tell me
what that meant, >> Patty. >> It's not up there on the screen right now. So, um >> Oh, from the cornerstone. Um, >> it's not a >> I got it.
>> So, it's technical is an adjective to to the uh verb meaning. I mean to the noun meaning. >> Yes. >> Technical meanings. >> I think it's see a problem that >> we we've been defining it as uh
essentially what y'all have been calling um discipline specific or domains. I don't forget what y'all settled on. Discipline specific. subject that those were equivalent here. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> But then this uses it meaning or is meaning discipline
>> has nothing to do with vocational or real world. >> It's going to make this really grammatically it's going to be a nightmare. Syntactically it's going to be a nightmare if we try to do that. >> Okay, take it out.
>> There you remove technical from cornerstone. Okay. Um so back to kindergarten. Um that wasn't an intentional joke. I um with prompting and support ask and answer questions about unknown words and text and identify words and phrases that
suggest feelings or appeals to the senses. Actually, I know there was a flag that ran pretty much >> Well, yeah, there's no comment. It just says that flagging that all grades K through 12 all have formulations of this standard that are not well aligned. Please consider tighter vertical alignment. >> Oh, so it's the vertical alignment of
the issue. So, we'll just need to be intentional as we move forward to ensure this is vertically aligned. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Then let's get into it. Um, okay. For fourth grade, uh, with prompting and or fourth grade, fourth standard, fourth standard, sorry, fourth standard. Um, with prompting and support, ask and answer questions about
unknown words in a text and identify words and phrases that suggest feelings or appeals to the senses. Any thoughts on that standard? >> There's no comment. >> Seems reasonable to me. >> Next. Um, the RARI version of this is with prompting and support determine the
meaning of words and phrases in a text relevant to a kindergarten topic or subject area. >> No comment. >> We good there? >> And it's the same. >> Okay. Um, ask and answer questions about unknown words in a text and identify
words and phrases that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses. >> There's no comment. >> Go. Um, one RI is determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text relevant to a grade one topic or subject area. We have been changing grade one to first grade.
So, I'll change that. >> There's no comment and it's the same. Other than that, >> is there a reason why in RL's it says ask and answer questions about unknown words and then in the RIS is determine the meaning of words.
>> Ask and answer questions is new. Um before that for one it was identify words and phrases in stories and poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses. So that ask and answer questions is new. So
if we want to stay they keep it >> it runs through what we've looked at like the K through. Yeah. >> Yeah. K through two is ask and answer question. Well no. Yeah. Yeah. It's ask and answer questions whereas originally it was identify >> and then in third grade they have to
determine the meaning on them on their own. >> So do you think we should add ask and answer and first and second to the RARI as well. >> I don't know. I'm just wondering why there's a difference if there was a purpose behind that.
>> I don't know either. I just know that it's new. Um the RI's are exactly the same. the RL are the only are the ones that changed in first and second. >> I think it would make some sense to
change the language if we feel that ask and answer questions is the appropriate language. I think it would make some sense to change the the language in the RIS to be analogous with that. I I see what you're saying about why I don't >> because it doesn't matter if it's literature or information at that level. If they're asking for a in literature,
you would think that they would do the same thing forformational. So just change it to ask an answer for the RAR as well. I mean I feel like they thought it was developmental that's why it was changed because like I said before then it was
determined. >> I mean >> yes >> now I will say it is still it is still determined for RARI. So, yeah. I mean, >> yes, I No, I take that back. For the RL, it was um for the first grade, it was identify words and phrases and stories
that suggest feelings that appeal to the senses. So, >> can I say something? >> Yes, >> it I'm seeing it now. You that ask and answer questions is not brand new. That was in the kindergarten version of the standard. So, they've moved it up and there was a progression. and it was ask and answer questions, then it was identified, then it was describe, then
then they got in line with determine um that we've been consistently using in RI. >> So, they just brought that ask and answer up in first and second grade. >> I don't I still don't really understand why it would be different in RL than an RA. >> But in kindergarten for the RAI, it
still says determine. >> Yeah, they went straight to determine. Did we just use determine for >> I'm going to look up the rationale for it. I can't remember but I think whatever decision we make, we
just need to mirror what's happening in in RL and RI at each grade level. We have a suggestion put forth. >> We're waiting on the justification. >> So our rationale, it just says to continue to support the work of the
previous grade level. And then kindergarten says for coherence leading into first grade. That's for RL. And then for R I um we had no change proposed for K1 or two.
>> Yeah. So that which is causing the discrepancy between language, right? >> Um I I think what what is appropriate for us at this point is just to decide at each grade level for both RL and RAR which is the right phrasing to use. So >> we need to probably go back to kindergarten if we're going to do that
because they have an RL to ask and answer questions. So for kindergarten or I do the same. >> So do we feel ask and answer questions is appropriate for kindergarten? That's what we should ask them to do. >> Yes. And then so in first grade are we determining
>> and then do we want to move to determine after kindergarten? Once they get to first grade they start determining >> that's what they were doing >> previously in in RARI since kindergarten but >> it took away the pro with prompting and support. >> No it didn't. >> No didn't. Sorry.
>> Not in kindergarten. >> No it didn't. So kinder for they were we were working on a coherence where kindergarten is asking answering questions. Are they also identifying words and
phrases? So theirs is the same as first grade. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And then second grade describes. So that's the that's how it changes, right? >> Um for RL.
>> Yes. >> Um currently it reads ask and answer questions. Ask and answer questions. Ask and answer questions. >> They did add on the two identify >> and describe. >> Okay. >> And identify. Yeah. >> So K and one identify and second grade
describes. >> Yeah. I just think it's important that we mirror the >> ask and answer questions is the new part. The other part is identical to what was previously the standard. >> Okay.
>> I don't see describe. I see determine >> just on the RL. >> So are you asking should you put ask and answer questions on R I? >> Yes. Do you guys have a preference on that? I
mean whatever you guys decide on that one. I just for this task to me personally it doesn't seem like there's a real difference in in doing it in a literary text versus anformational text. So I don't know why we would use a different terminology to describe it seems like we're asking them to do a whole lot more in RARI than we are in RL
currently and I don't think that's appropriate. Um so I'm just trying to normalize. Um so we I think we came to a consensus on ask and answer questions about as the language for for RAR and RL for kindergarten. Um, for first grade, it currently has the difference between
ask and answer questions and determine. Um, which do we feel is the most developmentally appropriate language here? >> For which grade? >> For first grade, >> I would defer to our elementary people.
>> Determined. Okay. >> Determined. Okay. >> Everybody agree with determined? Yes. >> Okay. Let's roll. the missing ones. >> Okay. Um and then second grade we got this ask answer questions about unknown words in a text and describe how words
and phrases supply meaning in a story, poem or song. Um, I >> just going to say okay. Okay. So I think that if we're going to do in determined in first grade, it needs to be determined in second grade.
>> Yes. >> Determine. Do we want to include this language about um describe how words and phrases supply mean meaning in a text uh in a story, poem or song as well? So it would be determine the meaning. Uh
it would be determine the meaning of words and phrases of unknown words in a text and describe how the words and phrases supply meaning in a story, poem or song. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And is that acceptable to everyone? All
right. Let's roll. >> Okay. Um second grade I is determine the meaning of words and phrases in a in a text relevant to a grade two topic or subject area. I'm going to change that to second grade rather than grade two. Do we have anything else?
>> No comment. It's the same. >> Go. >> Okay. Third grade RL is determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text. Distinguishing literal from nonliteral language. Eg feeling blue versus the color blue. Um,
>> no comment. And it's the same. >> Go. >> Are you just Are you sad, Miss Bear, or is there a comment? Are you blue? You are. >> Oh, hold on. Well, it says R I Hold on just a second. It does say it's not labeled but the it does say it says since RLCS4
has students distinguish between literal and figurative language please consider adding this guidance to R I as well. >> Okay. Um but for as far as RL for three um I do think we need to change we have
used vss instead of versus elsewhere. So I I think started writing the word out. >> Yes. I >> think we should do that for consistency. But >> that's why it was labeled RAI because it's not related. >> Okay. Uh otherwise
>> um so for third they recommended we do what? >> Um how see please consider adding this guidance to RI that we distingu that they the students distinguish between literal and figurative language.
at the third grade level. >> Yes. >> Determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text. Um distinguishing >> I guess instead of determine the literal and figurative
meaning. >> Yes. >> Of words and phrases. >> Yes, that's a good addition. And then they also want us to consider adding the phrase as they are used in a text since it appears in R the third grade RL.
>> Okay. So you want to read that in its entire entirety now. >> Literally just copying the RL language directly over. I mean it sounds like it's the exact same language. I >> Yes. So, seems to me we should basically
just copy and paste the RL over to the RAR. >> Yes. Guess what >> we are going to have as they are used in a text though. >> Okay. So, I'm going to tell you I'm going to try
to fix put the two together. Determine the meaning, >> okay, >> of words and phrases as they are used in text, or in a text. Um, distinguishing literal
from nonliteral language. in a text relevant to a third or grade three or third grade, however been topic or subject area. Does that make sense? >> Yeah, that's what we have. Okay.
>> So, you're asking them to discriminate then? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, then we'll move to fourth. Um, determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text including figurative language with an emphasis on similes and
metaphors. I think there needs to be a comma before uh with there. >> There was no comment. >> Keep it. Keep it. They say
>> I I I would put a comma after language there, but >> I think that sounds like a good idea. >> Okay, we have consensus. >> Okay. Um, fourth grade RARI is determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text relevant to a grade
four topic or subject area, including figurative, quantitative, and technical meanings. Assume we're going to need to take some of the workshopping we did from three and move it over to four. >> Yeah, technical. We're taking that out. >> Um, yes, we were taking that out. So um
it would be so it would be determine the meaning of words and phrases as they as they are used in a text including figurative quantitative uh figurative and quantitative meanings relevant to a third grade or fourth grade topic or subject area. Is that what we're kind of thinking here?
What happened to sim simileies and metaphors? >> Um, I don't see that we've got anything about similes and metaphors here. >> RL4. >> Oh. Oh, yes. Um, >> yeah.
So, this is RAI. We're talking about >> RL. >> Are you asking why it's in RL but not in RI? I guess >> I I can't necessarily speak to that. I don't know. So I think in all of them um it is
specifically specifically said in RL but it's not in RI but it's also in the um foundational literacy the same figurative language that's expected at each grade. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So it now reads determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text including figurative and quantitative meanings relevant to a fourth grade topic or subject area. Are we good with that? >> Acceptable. Yes. Okay. I hear I see the nods. >> Okay. Um, >> good to go.
>> Okay. Our RL and our RAR are switched here for some reason, but so I I'm going to move down a cell and do RL because I like doing RL first before we do RAR. Mhm. >> Yeah, you're fine. That was in the original standard.
We haven't gotten there yet, but I a I um we compare and contrast the treatment of similar themes, topics, patterns of events, and stories. Of course in that in that other standards not only vertically in this strand but
for all strands and that they wanted to look at a tighter alignment across K12. So, you might want to think about that. Um, let me look at why our our rationale on that one. You said fourth grade.
>> Let me look. It was vertical. >> Right. They their but was just expressing even crosscurricular connections if we Oh, R L. Okay. Okay. It says that they revise for
clarity in uh in accordance to stakeholder feedback. We can hear each other. So >> it's different enough >> for eight. Oh, that's middle school. Do you have a recommended wording we could >> Would it be in our
>> And it might be because it's the only one that has it. Like third grade doesn't have it and fifth grade doesn't have it. Like nobody else has it. It's just kind of thrown in there in fourth grade. So I don't know. Okay. So it's just the what the including was changed with from an
emphasis on simileies and metaphors to this. I think I kind of prefer the old language like you have read aloud to the emphasis on similes and metaphors. I think the simileies and metaphors
I I mean if we want to add the literature and history in but I still think it needs to be because before in fourth grade it just said the meaning like it doesn't have anything about literal
it's almost just kind of thrown in there. It has nothing to do with figurative language. because it's the only one that has nothing to do with figurative language pretty much. And then all of a sudden literature and history. I don't know. But maybe that's because
sorry we've got 15 over here. Um and maybe and so I don't know that fourth grade teachers would understand that. So maybe we need to add illusions. ready for that. Like I know like and just when we do figurative language illusions is not in
our standard but I know a figurative specifically a figurative language activity that we do when we're reading one of the illusions is they are talking about the red slippers. Um and that's what I I talk to my kids about. Well if
they're talking about red slippers who do you think about and so we're talking you know Dorothy. So, we kind of talk about it even though it's not our standard. And it's not hard for my kids to understand it in fifth grade. I mean, I don't think that it would be basic illusions, but just reading it, I would
have never gotten illusions from the way that it's written. Does that make sense? Cuz I'm like, it doesn't even make sense to me why it's put there. Uh we've received a lot of feedback from teachers about illusions being um because it's currently at the sixth grade level being
um too early uh because they have not developed enough knowledge of text and so forth. And so the recommendation by a lot of teachers was to start it I think around 8th grade um or seventh or whatever. I think that's up to you all but I just wanted to share that feedback. That's something we get
regularly. Oh, that was >> I think >> always I was going to say specifically in fourth grade for the uh foundational literacy standard that fourth graders
their figurative language would be similes simple similes and metaphors common idioms and proverbs. which says in terms of the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text include figurative language with an
emphasis on simileies, metaphors, idioms and >> proverbs. >> Proverbs is that language acceptable? original. I can read. I've got it right here. It says, "Including those that refer to significant characters and situations found in literature and
history, >> but makes no mention of figurative language. Well, they're saying illusion illusions is too hard at this level. So, well, what about you said it was in one of the icky standards. Why?
That's what I call them. They are icky. >> The iki. Yeah, that's what I That's what we call them. So if we if if it you know if you think that we're losing something in that
standard then we could add when we get to that one we could go back and add that wording where it maybe fits more appropriately. Do you think Yeah. I told you this would happen.
[Laughter] Yeah. I mean, I think the the lower level would be references. I think references to a thing, but I I don't know if that's common practice in A5 classroom. We also I mean it says in the original
wording it said including those that refer to significant characters in situations found in literature and history. As you said fourth graders aren't you know they're not going to use kihotic. Um, but like they they might be able to including those uh including
those that refer to significant uh people and events found in pop culture and like and history or something like that. Seems like maybe like I think the literature is the real thing here. Um that is probably developmentally inappropriate. The only thing is like
all these all of these standards match the the figurative language that's discussed in our foundational literacy. So this would be something kind of thrown in that's not mentioned in that's the only thing if we add illusions here like it wasn't mentioned in foundational
literacy and all the other grades they match up. >> Okay. So there was intentionality in pairing these up with foundational literacy. Yeah, that's what this in every other standard vertically and you know in both of them it's figurative language you
know or unknown words and phrases but the literal meaning and the quantitative meaning so >> or figuratively is that where we're all at. I will say it's 4:20, so we have 10 minutes remaining.
or we >> there was was to use uh include including figurative language with an emphasis on similes and metaphors. It's also mentioned in the foundational literacy that they do um common idioms and proverbs.
>> Okay. >> Yes, that is our >> we've actually already done. All right. I would hope so. Um, all right. Um, we have determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text relevant to grade to a grade five topic
or subject area, including figurative, quantitative, and technical meanings. Um, no, that's RARI. They're in this is the one that they're in opposite order. Okay, that one confused me. Um, sorry, I apologize. Uh 5 RL is determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text including figurative
language with an emphasis on simileies and metaphors analyzing the impact of sound devices such as alliteration and repetition on meaning and tone. That one's a lot. >> Well, I think so. the um TDOE says to put a um semicolon after metaphors, but
I also think that since we added the comment, the idioms and proverbs, that's also a fifth grade skill in foundational literacy. So, we probably need to add similes, metaphors, idioms, proverbs,
and then and then the semicolon. >> Okay. Okay, this one's gonna I need a little workshopping here. So, just give me a second. Uh >> just simply add >> simply
>> idioms and proverbs and then a >> okay >> and then >> simileies, metaphors, idioms and proverbs. Semicolon. Analyze the impact of sound devices such as literation and
repetition on meaning and tone. Yes. Right. >> But what she's saying is that by the use of the semicolon, it is now sequestering the impact on meaning and tone to specifically alliteration and
repetition, not the other devices mentioned here. Yeah. Well, yeah, we don't do that. I can do that. That one's easy. No, it'll be an issue. Yeah, I I kind of think I'm fine with the TDOE recommendation here.
sure. Um, determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text relevant to a grade five topic or subject area, including figurative, quantitative, and technical meanings. Um, this feels like we should basically adopt the language that we used in the
previous standard. Exactly. Because this is this was originally the exact same as fourth grade and we changed fourth grade a little bit. So, we should just move over the changes there. >> Okay.
>> Ladies and gentlemen, person. He We will deliver. >> Yeah, they have not changed. >> That is correct, Miss Beard. No, >> they haven't changed anything yet. They have just simply left comments that we will we will review as deliberatively.
>> Yeah. >> Excellent. That sounds perfect to me. I appreciate you all doing that, especially from two expert writers and copy editors. Um, no, I just wanted to, you know, of course, thank everyone again. It's a dedication to the committee that we are here at 427
and and I'm so proud of y'all. and then just had a substantive question around given what we have left and I'll recount it as I best know it's on my computer but um we have some reading standards to go. I checked I think it takes us down to like row >> okay that sounds right because we do go
up to 10 still on these. Okay, so you've got about a wait but you said we have a third done or third to go. So, twothirds of the writing standards. We have some, let's see, all of the elective standards except for maybe genre literature. Did you all work on that?
>> Okay. And there's, I believe there's like 12 or 13 electives. Let's call it 10 to 11. And we've got some supporting language. And you've got, last I checked, 20 items in the parking lot. How many hours of online meetings do you think?
>> Oh, absolutely. Welcome, Representative Hardway. Thank you so much for coming. We're we're wrapping up, so it won't be too interesting from here, but we're so excited to have you. And if we can answer any questions, please let us know. >> It's interesting to see someone working on Capitol Hill. So,
>> I assure you this I assure you the SRC is working day and night and then some to get these standards right as their predecessors. >> Right. Thank you all for accepting the challenge. How necessary you are. Couldn't do it
without you. Thank you. >> It is our privilege. >> And all the way from Memphis, no less. So, thank you, Representative Hardway. Um, members, how many hours based on what I just described, someone one were to give me a ballpark
number? When you say a day, you're talking about like a full business day. Okay. You read my mind. Okay. So, three three to six days approximately is what I'm hearing from one member. Would love others thoughts.
>> Okay. 15 hours. >> Just flagging. So, I've heard a proposal for nine business hours. I've heard a proposal for 15 business hours. I'm not saying you have to have a, you know, crystal ball just so that I I don't overchedu you or undersched you. Of course, we can
always circle back from there. Any other proposals from committee members between 9 hours and 15 hours? Yes, that is my intention is to start no earlier than 3:00. Would that conflict with any teaching schedules? 3:30. Okay. Just know that that's
6:30, 7:30. Okay. If you could send that to me via email, that would be really helpful. >> Oh, your classes. Oh, very cool. Okay. Last call. [Laughter] Okay. So, I hear Miss Docker's official
vote for 15 hours. Would anyone else like to vote on 15 hours? >> Mhm. Yeah. And I'd like to cluster them together as much as possible so we're not switching contexts too much. Okay. Well, members, thank you so much. Um, I
sent my thank yous this morning, but could not do this work without you. And you know, they're they're committed to that time, too. So,