ready to go. >> Thanks, Josh. Welcome everyone to the second follow-up meeting of the ED ELA standards recommendation committee meeting. Thank you so much for being here. I I tell these people they're the the hardest working people in showbiz
because they not only wanted to stay after 4:30 each day, but they wanted to meet a couple more times to make sure we get this right. So, appreciate everyone's steadfast dedication. I know these are long nights. really excited to be joined by chairman Robert S. Eie of the state board of education. He he is
no stranger to public ed. He's been at the Oakidge school board and has been on the state board of education, was vice chair, and is now our chairman and we're so grateful that he he gave an hour of his personal time to the cause. So, I'd love to pass it over to Chair Eie for a
few words. >> Thanks, Brianna. And let me thank each one of you for the service that you're providing to the state of Tennessee. Um, I think about the responsibilities that the state board has and I would arguably say that the number one responsibility
we have is setting the standards of what each one of our students should know in K through2 and obviously it starts with ELA. And uh I'm not an educator by training. I'm an engineer by training. The only reason I got to be an engineer by training was because the good
education I had through the Oakidge school systems. and each one of you are providing that opportunity for our students across the state of Tennessee. I know it is taking a lot of time. Brianna's told me about uh how many hours you've been spending on this and
uh that you're all eager to do it and I appreciate it. You're giving your time for our students and thank you so much for doing that. We look forward to seeing the recommendation uh at our board meeting uh and look forward to uh
many questions. uh you will see that our board is not one to hesitate to ask questions, but I got a strong feeling that this uh ELA committee is going to be able to answer any questions that we have. Again, thanks for your time and I'm going to sit in for the next hour or
so and just kind of watch the process work. Thanks, Brianna. Back to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, so I have a couple housekeeping items before I turn it up turn it over to our real leaders. One reminder, I'm going to share my screen in just a moment for the
spreadsheet, but just, you know, follow along with us and make sure that, you know, anything we're writing down in that spreadsheet reflects your your thoughts and beliefs about what we're doing here, cuz that spreadsheet represents all of us as our permanent record of what's going on in these meetings. In terms of what's coming up
today, last I checked, we have 96 reading standards to go. Lucas, check my math. Vice Hillard, I should say, check my math. I I did a count and and I did my own count and I I believe I got 87.
>> Oh, nice. Okay, perfect. Um, we have 87. >> The kids say 67. 67. >> Oh, Dr. Scott, you're two steps ahead of me. Um, I'm I'm deep in newborn land, so that's good. I'll write that down. Um,
then I'm hoping we can maybe get to some elective standards if that if that feels fun and that feels right. Last I checked, we've got 188 of those, but as we know, they're sort of shorter in nature. I want to remind you, you've got your discussion questions to hopefully,
you know, obviously let's dig in, but make sure that, you know, our discussions are the highest use of our power and and our energy here today to double check vertical alignment, horizontal alignment, all the things. Don't forget about your feedback documents. It was so impressive watching you all at our last meeting, you know,
sort of divvying up everything and being super efficient and awesome and and thorough in your work. Um, Miss Wers will be joining us at 5, so we might need a K5 to designate when we begin for public feedback. Finally, in terms of written and spoken
public comment, I did not hear from anybody who wants to give spoken public comment today. So, you have those 20 minutes back in your schedule to reallocate as you all see fit. I have not received any written public feedback formally yet, but as soon as I get any,
I will let you all know. Uh, with that, does anyone have any questions before we formally commence? Okay, over to you, Chair Carnegus. >> Well, thank you. Uh it was it's a privilege to have you with us. Um Chair
Eie, and I just want to let you know that we're taking so much time because our intention all through this process has been not to put uh Tennessee in the top half of the country, but in the top 10%. And we're making sure that these
standards are rigorous and that they will apply to all the children in the state of Tennessee. So, uh, with that, uh, I would have to say that it is now 4:35, uh, Eastern time, but it's 3:35 Central
time. And I would like to call this meeting of the English Language Arts ELA standards recommendation committee, SRC, to order. Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role to determine a quorum. >> Right. The appropriate response would be
present. Uh, Miss Baird, >> present. >> Miss Dockery, >> present. >> Mr. Hillyard, present. Miss Now, >> present. >> Miss Singleary,
>> present. >> Dr. Stout, >> present. >> Miss Winters is absent. and Chair Carnegus >> present. >> Chair Carnegus, you have a quorum.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. I move the recording serves as the minutes for today. Do I have a second? >> I second. >> This will be a voice vote. All those in favor of using the recording as our meeting minutes signify by saying I.
>> I. I've determined that we've heard at least five eyes. So, the motion carries. So be it. Members and presenters, please raise your hand or say Chair Carus out loud to be recognized. I don't think we've had much of a problem with that.
Uh because everybody's had a chance to speak. We try to move things along um because it takes a lot of time to get through all these standards. Uh but we want to make sure everybody has a chance to provide input. Uh members and presenters, please turn off your
microphone in front of you unless you're speaking uh on uh the WebEx. For all the benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid the use of jargon and acronyms where possible or define any of those acronyms that are used. We'll now proceed with
our next item on the agenda, which vice chair Hillyard is. >> All right. Um we are currently in the midst of the reading standards. Um as we mentioned earlier by my count we have 87 remaining um reading standards 165
remaining remaining elective standards uh plus the supporting language um that we need to take a look at as well as um just to ensure that we have completed our parking garage um and wish list. Um so that's kind of where we stand at the moment. Um I believe we should probably
continue with our progression. Um I think Miss Summers has her hand raised. Um, are you just checking that or do you have something to throw in? >> Thank you, Vice Chair Hillard. Uh, if it's okay with you, Chair Kaggus, can I read the statement of necessity?
>> Please do. >> The Tennessee State Board of Education's English language arts standards recommendation committee called an electronic meeting at 3:30 Central time today, September 29th, 2025. This meeting is called to continue proposing
revisions to the ELA standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items on the committee's agenda and the fact that the committee members reside across the state, it was determined that a physical quorum of the members could not be assembled in Nashville for the purposes of this meeting. As such, this meeting shall be conducted
electronically. Notice of this meeting was posted on the state board's website along with the agenda and instructions for accessing the meeting. Back to you, Coach Hillyard. >> Great. Thank you. Um, so, uh, where we left off, we were in the midst of
reading standard six. Um, so we're on the reading tab of the spreadsheet. Um, the particular row we are on is 125. um if you'd like to follow along on your own copy of the spreadsheet. Um just to ensure we're all kind of on the same
page about where we're at. It's been a week, so I I know there might be some some uh for forgetting that might have occurred in the interval. Um we are looking at the standard uh the cornerstone for this particular standard in our latest iteration. We've made some edits to the cornerstone. Um but our
current cornerstone language is analyze how perspective, point of view and purpose shape the content and style of a text. Um we were working intentionally to ensure that we were clearly distinguishing between um perspective and point of view. We had completed the
K through five uh progression uh for this particular standard for both RAR and RL. Um and we were about to move into the six through eight. Um, are we ready to go ahead and start right into the sixth grade? >> We are. That's where the rubber meets
the road. >> All right, then. Let's do it. Um, so we're all uh on the same page. This standard is located in G125 of the reading tab of the spreadsheet if you'd like to follow along on your own. Um, especially since at times I found
that in our last meeting it was helpful if we were proposing edits to the language to type out that language and then post it in the suggested change box. So by following along there you guys can see the uh specific language I've typed up. Okay. Um so with that in mind, our 6.rl.cs
uh6 standard proposed by the EIT is explain how an author establishes and conveys the perspective of the narrator or speaker in a text. >> Okay. Are there any suggested revisions
to that? We do have TDOE feedback and again this was before the our current revised changes. It says please consider changing the word perspective to point of view since the standard only concerns narration. >> Is that acceptable to everyone
hearing? No problems. Let's say that that would be approved and move on to the next. Yes. >> Sorry I'm difficult. Um, so there we're just asking kids to identify like how they use the pronouns essentially. Is
that what we're asking them to do in that? How it establishes the point of view? So first person, second point, >> let's hear some feedback on that from TDOE. >> Yes. essentially at the the sixth grade
level, it would be uh just identifying basic narration types. Um I believe and I don't remember what the revision was in fifth grade, but in at least in the current version of the standards, that was the expectation right now is in fifth grade that they would learn kind
of the basic uh first person, second person, third person um points of view. Um and like the difference between uh third person omnisient, third person limited, you know, just the really common uh pieces of those and then they
would move obviously as they progress into the upper grade levels into increasingly u into more more and more knowledge about kind of the nuances around those different types of point of view. So the feedback here was really just about um I know there's been a lot of confusion
about the overlap of point of view and perspective and how those are often interchangeable but uh just trying to capture that the terminology at least for literature in terms of the narrator um you know that it would be advised to
um to use the proper term which is point of view there. Now, it's obviously that includes the perspective of the narrator and so forth and you can certainly talk about all of those things as well. That would be well within that, but just using that proper terminology as far as narration goes was the feedback. Did I
answer your question, Annie? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay, great. I can clarify really quickly the progression we worked through. Um so in our current iteration of this particular standard um from roughly K through three we haven't used
the language of point of view at all. Um we use perspective. I think we in the first grade iteration of the standard we make some reference to um something an analog to point of view but we don't really use that language of point of view quite yet. Um in fourth grade is where we introduce um distinguishing
between point of view and perspective. And that's the first iteration of of point of view we see in the standards in fifth grade. The standard reads um compare and contrast the point the effect of the point of view uh from
which different stories are narrated. So we're comparing and contrasting the effects of various points of view. Um so that has been introduced at the fifth grade level. We're now moving into the sixth grade level. So we we should be advancing beyond that. in the current reading of the standard would read explain how an author uh establishes and
conveys the point of view of the narrator or speaker in a text. Um so the question I think we need to ask ourselves is does that feel like a logical progression from um the previous standard which read compare and contrast the uh the points of views uh points of
view from which uh the effects of the point of view from which different stories are narrated. Uh yeah, I guess that's where I guess my true question was in that it feels to me like easier than what we had the fifth graders do.
Um I don't know if that's just me um or not, but that's kind of the way I was feeling about it. >> Well, it refers to the author's perspective or point of view.
we're talking about different author it's talking about how the author establishes it um rather than just uh the author's perspective. So it's it's the narrator or speaker's perspective but it's it's emphasizing how the author establishes that. I guess I miss
Dockery, I I think if if there were to be and I I see your your misgivings here. U but I think if you were going to argue that there is a progression happening, it's from simply uh comparing and contrasting the effects of point of view to thinking about point of view as something intentionally crafted by an
author um and being established by and conveyed by an author. So we're kind of introducing the author's role in establishing point of view at the sixth grade level. And that seems to be the um the progression if there is one. though I I can see your your perhaps misgivings about this not being
>> I I certainly appreciate your explanation. I believe you're correct. I wonder if it would be helpful to include this in the uh standards guide that just uh your explanation of that
>> that would be super helpful uh as far as on our end of understanding the rationale of having the record of your rationale behind the this standard would be great. >> Yeah. Can can we do that? H how do we do that? How how do we record that?
>> And and I believe we have already um said that in our in our glossery definitions in our parking garage that we will uh address that when the time comes. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Then let's move on. But that's if
>> I have to agree with the the comment made earlier that this seems like an easier um task. And the reason why I say that is if I am playing the role of a sixth grader and you ask me to establish how the author created point of view,
I'm simply going to say by the use of pronouns. other comments. >> I also think um we are clearly differentiating between point of view and perspective here. Um but the previous iteration of the standard did not um so I think the not from the eat I
meant from the previous iteration from from the currently existing standards. Um, so we at other places in standards, I know fourth grade we did this pretty intentionally where we outlined um something that students are expected to do with point of view and something they're expected to do with perspective.
Um, I worry a little bit we we don't mention uh we don't mention perspective in the fifth grade version of the standard at all. Um, and now we're moving into sixth grade and we still would be not mentioning uh perspective at all. Um, so
I wonder if there's a possibility of even if we see this as not necessarily being a huge progression, and I agree, um, when it comes to point of view, um, we could perhaps build in some progression through just asking students to do something with perspective at this level, which they're not currently being
tasked with doing. >> Yeah, that would be my recommendation as well, is to add the and how the author establishes perspective and point of view. um because that is testing two different skills. >> Um we could even if we want to think
beyond just the narrator and and speaker, we could even say something along the lines of explain how an author establishes and conveys the perspective of the narrator or speaker and the or sorry explain how an author establishes and conveys the point of view of the narrator or speaker in a text and the uh
perspectives of the characters in a text. um to kind of differentiate between not just thinking about perspectives of of the narrator or speaker. >> Would you like to create some new language for us to react to?
>> Sure, I can do that. Okay. Uh, I drafted something in the suggested change box. That's I25. Um, it reads, "Explain how an author establishes and conveys the point of view of the narrator or speaker and the perspectives of characters in a text."
>> All right. React to that. Is there any objection to any of the wording in that modified standard? I hear none. Speak now or forever hold your peace. All right, I'd say that this one sounds
approved. Let's move on to the next one. >> Okay. Um, we're on to the RARI iteration of the sixth grade standard, which reads, "Determine an author's perspective or purpose in a text or media format and explain how it is conveyed."
I my my concern would be this use of ore between perspective and purpose. Um, to me those it's presenting it as if one might have a perspective or a purpose as if they might be mutually exclusive and I I
don't think those would necessarily be mutually exclusive. >> I can see this being a situation. Yeah. Go ahead, Miss Ducker. >> Uh, I think you're about to answer my question, so go ahead. Um, so I think the question would be whether we would use and slash or or if
we would use and. Um, and and I would like to hear if if people agree with me that we shouldn't say or what which of the two they think would be better there instead. >> Anyone any um I am rereading real quick.
>> Okay. Britney, are we prepared to do this from what we've done in the fifth grade? >> I think so. >> Say at this point we have established perspective. Students have spent a decent amount of time with perspective. Um the real extension here is purpose.
Um and considering about and considering author's purpose in a text. Um so that would be the uh the distinction there. >> Is it confusing to say perspective or purpose and and maybe not just in we talked about perspective already? Can we
just say determine an author's purpose? >> I think we might lose something if we get rid of purpose. That is important. Um I think my my vote would be for the use of an and. I'm not against and or,
but I think I might prefer and. >> Yeah, that was my instinct as well, Miss Dockery, um, was to use and there. Um, >> I think you're spot on. >> I did I did have one flag in that regard, and I think this was in, um, part of the conversation of the EAT was
that there are someformational texts, you know, particularly texts where the author's intent is just to inform and convey facts. And in those texts the perspective is not really relevant of the author because they're just conveying factual information and
they're just you know the objective in the background providing it. So in that sense that would be I I think the suggestion from TDOE would be to be to to have andor there to have that kind of distinction for that reason. >> Does that make sense?
>> That makes sense to me. >> Okay. >> Makes sense to me. >> I've been persuaded. All right. So, we had those that that change to andor >> either, but I'll move forward. >> All right. Sounds like we're okay with it.
>> A couple additional things. Um, we would need to change the language um to uh it would be instead of saying how it is conveyed, it would be how they they are conveyed since we're now plural
purpose and perspective. Um and then elsewhere in the standards we have not drawn a clear distinction between texts and and multimedia texts like multimedia format like is mentioned here. We've just simply said texts. Um assuming that
text was encompassing of of a wide range of of different writing formats. Um so I don't believe elsewhere we've really drawn any distinction between text and media formats and I don't see language like that elsewhere in our reading standards. Um so my suggestion would be
to just simply say in a text um rather than in a text or media format um because we have we have kind of considered a text to be a more inclusive term than just something printed on a page. Um but I would obviously be open to to people's ideas if they think that language is important.
>> No, I agree. We can find the multimedia language to other standards. So I I don't think I think it's out of place here. And I also agree with the and or um revision. I I had hesitancy at first about that,
but um but I see your point about that. So, um I just want to make sure that as we progress in alignment throughout these uh upper standards that we we also look back at author's purpose in particular through this um because it
seems uh it's it can be an exclusive uh standard and so I want to make sure that we we uh we do that right. Just for the record. >> Thank you. You're on record. Um, so the current draft I have of the
standard is determine an author's perspective and/or purpose. And what was that? >> You have a hand. >> Okay. Yes. Who is that? >> I just wanted to share really quick just to flag uh that the cornerstone currently says or. And so you also might want to change that to andor.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, actually we changed the cornerstone to read uh analyze how perspective, point of view, and purpose shape the content and style of a text. Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Wait, it does it's not present there, right? >> Um well, that is the that is the
existing cornerstone. If you scroll over to uh column uh O, uh you can see the rebiased cornerstone. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um so the the standard as currently written reads, determine an author's perspective andor purpose in a text and
explain how they are conveyed. Um, does anyone have feedback on that iteration of the standard? >> All right, hearing no objections. >> No objections. But I do say we should put the uh definition of text maybe in
the glossery because for me it always means all the things, right? But I maybe some people don't see it as that. So I think that would be useful. >> Yeah, I I agree. >> I agree.
All right, let's move on. It's approved as >> Okay, changed. >> Okay. Um we are um moving to 7. RL now um which reads analyze how an author establish conveys and contrasts the
perspective of different characters or narrators in a text. comments. >> Hearing none, it sounds like everybody wants to accept this one. >> I do think we should, and tell me if I'm wrong here, but I think we should make perspective plural. I think that would
read better. >> Yes, absolutely. anything uh from TO DOE in terms of recommended changes. >> Do we have people looking over? >> Yeah. Not for RL for RAR. Yes.
>> All right. Very good. >> All right. >> We have anything other than making perspective plural for this particular standard? >> Nothing here. All right, let's move on. >> Okay.
Um, for seven. Um, I believe Miss Now said we had TDOE feedback. Um, so would you mind? >> We do. It's a minor edit. Uh, it says, "Please consider moving the phrase if applicable to be placed before the word analyze instead of at the end. Standard would then read determine an author's
perspective or purpose in a text or media format and when applicable analyze how an author distinguishes Okay. Um, so the current standard reads, I should have read that before we get the feedback. I apologize. Um, 7 reads, determine an author's perspective or
purpose in a text or media format and analyze how an author distinguishes his or her position from that of others if applicable. Um, so where was the recommended movement of applicable? It was to after um analyze. Is that correct? before analyze
>> before analyze >> and comma when applicable comma. >> Okay. And then I I believe we should replicate our andor from earlier between perspective and purpose since uh we did that in the prior iteration of the standard.
>> I think so. >> So it would read determine an author's perspective and or purpose in a text. Um I believe we we also should delete or media format in keeping with our decision elsewhere. Uh so determine an author's perspective andor purpose in a
text and if applicable analyze how an author distinguishes his or her position from that of others. Um are we making a clear distinction between position and perspective here? I know that um like within College Board there is a distinction made between those two
terms, but I don't know if that's a distinction that that we are intending to make or if we're using position as essentially a a synonym for perspective. >> It's the first time we've heard that word. >> Is it just argument >> instead of position? I feel like
argument is a term we've used um earlier in the standards. in the uh bear with me. Um in the fourth grade standard, theformational standard, uh we we were comparing and contrasting two accounts.
Um in this standard, to me, I mean, this is stillformational. Um, and to me it would make sense uh here instead of position because that does uh denote argument um
and change it to account or something similar. >> I I like the language of account >> encapsulate both argument and and non-argument. I was just flipping through the current standards that are active in Tennessee
classrooms. I don't see position any other of the current standards other than this one 7th grade one. And I'm looking through the glossery right now. And one thing that's interesting in point of view, as we've talked about before, they sort of use perspective and point of view sort of interchangeably, at least in the glossery, but then it
also uses position interchangeably. So, let me see if there's any other instances. No, that sounds very specific to foundational literacy. Yeah. So, this is this is the only other substantive use of the word position in the entire current standards document. I'll zoom
in. >> I would argue unless we're going to have an intentional distinction being made between purpose and uh or not sorry purpose uh perspective and position that we should likely just stick with perspective for the sake of consistency.
>> I like perspective. Okay. Okay. >> Um, so the current iteration of the standard would then read, determine an author's perspective and/or purpose in a text, and if applicable, analyze how an author distinguishes his or her account from the accounts of others.
>> Um, sorry, I thought we were going. Account feels odd to me. account feels like um I guess telling like the events of something that have
happened um to me. So I feel like to me that feels a little I don't know just not not as clear. >> So would we just use perspectives then here? >> I think that's probably a lot of the
word perspective though. Um, but I'm not sure if there's a a better word. >> Yeah, I don't I don't I don't want to use synonyms just for the sake of synonyms, especially since the more synonyms we use, the the more possib The whole revision of this particular
standard is to avoid confusion over what was deemed to synonymous words that a lot of people did not read as synonymous. >> Can I u make a suggestion? Later in the standards progressions, we have the word viewpoints. Should we I think that comes up for the
eighth grade standard um RARI standard. Should we introduce viewpoint here >> as opposed to point of view? >> Um no, I think we're talking about account or position.
Um, if you go down to 131, no, 130, it says, "Determine an author's perspective or purpose in a text or media format and analyze how the author acknowledges in response to conflicting evidence or viewpoints." And I'm wondering if
position is the same thing as viewpoint in this particular standard. I just I think that's a good flag. I wonder if because I feel like all of these position, perspective, viewpoint are are essentially being used
interchangeably. Um, and so I wonder if if we just should stick to the language of perspective consistently throughout. It may lead to like like Miss like Miss Dockery pointed out, it might lead to somewhat repetitive language in the standards,
but I mean essentially what what we're most concerned with is conveying a clear meaning. And I I I guess I just go back to the fact that this standard has been a source of confusion because of the use of both perspective and point of view to mean essentially the same thing. Um so I
wonder if fewer iterations of this word um will >> that makes sense to me, coach. So, how would you rewrite this standard then? >> Um, well, what I've got currently is just determine an author's perspective and/or purpose in a text and if applicable, analyze how an author's how
an author distinguishes his or her perspective from the perspectives of others. >> Is that acceptable to everybody? >> Is it rigorous? Is there scaffolding? >> I believe so.
>> That's good with me. Hearing no objections, I say we prove it and move on. >> Okay. Um I do just want to recognize missed out that Dr. Stout that was a that was a good flag. So we should definitely look at the word viewpoints um as we move to that as well just to ensure that we're we're creating this
consistency because I I had not considered that previously. Um okay. Um, the 8RL standard reads, "Analyze how similarities and differences in the perspective of the audience and the characters create effects such as
suspense, humor, or dramatic irony." Um, do we have TDOE feedback on the 8.RL standard? Um, I find this standard I can parse it if I sit with it for a moment, but I find it a little a little hard to parse
on first glance. I don't know if that's just me or if that's uh something other people are feeling about the standard as well. >> I have always kind of had disdain for the standard uh because of as well. Um, one aspect is, um,
to me, correct me if I'm wrong, but dramatic irony is a, um, like device, not an effect. And I feel like when you put the language of contrasting uh, narrator's perspective from
character perspective, that's basically dramatic irony. Um, let me read that again. Uh, >> I think you're on to something. >> Yeah. So, it feels like to me it should be, but please tell me if I'm
overlooking something. Analyze how um either keep the language of analyze how similarities and differences and perspective of the audience and the characters create effects such as suspense, humor. Uh, we could add tragedy there. Suspense, humor, or tragedy.
um or analyze how dramatic irony uh creates effects such as suspense, humor, or tragedy. I'm just throwing tragedy out there because that is a common effect of dramatic irony as well.
>> Any other comments about that? Dr. Now, >> I was just looking back in our previous revisions. We've had a similar discussion and um uh the last time we met um and I was looking to see what we
did in that case um to make sure that we're in horizontal alignment. Uh >> seems analogous to our aesthetic impact argument a little bit. >> Yes, agreed.
And I think in that case we had just tried to streamline the language and say effects. >> We did. >> I think we just simplified it to effects on the reader. >> Would that work for everyone?
saying effects on the reader instead of in specifying suspense, humor, and dramatic irony. >> I think that's better. The focus is clear for the standard in that case. >> And if I remember correctly, did we put
effects on the reader and then put the other stuff in parenthesis or did we just I remember the conversation. I just don't remember what we started, how we ended. Excuse me. We we had a long conversation about that. We ultimately decided uh not to put the the various effects in in the
parenthesis. We just left it as effects on the reader. >> And I I vote for consistency. >> Okay. Can you tell us now how the new one would read? Um, it would now read, "Analyze how similarities and differences in the
perspective of the audience and the perspectives of the characters uh create effects on the reader. >> I'm struggling with the word create effects on the reader. >> What is it about that?" because we're
we're essentially we're keeping create effects that was already in the standard. We're just simply adding on the reader. >> Just seems stilted. I don't know. >> I I think I I get where he's coming from, but we also I think had the same
language, you know, for the sake of consistency in the other standard. But uh my initial reaction is uh like impacts the reader. Um, but that might lack specificity that gets brings in some confusion. So, I
guess I'm not I'm not against the current writing of it, but I also uh see what Mr. Carrenus is saying. >> I'm I'm agreeable. >> I'm agreeable to it. If it didn't affect anybody else, it it could be just
something I had for lunch. Um I I will I pulled up the the standard that we were referring to that they included in the language about aesthetic impact just so we can kind of mirror that language. Um and it reads analyze how an author's this is going back not our current standard but the one that
had aesthetic impact reads analyze how an author's choices concerning plot structure andor time manipulation contribute to the text's meaning and effect on the reader. So it was contribute to the text's effect on the reader. So it was slightly different wording there. than what we're employing here.
>> I like that wording better. >> I do too. >> So, I think it's I I agree the contribute to and create. Um I don't know. It's the connotation of create. >> So, if I employed that language, it
would read something like analyze how similarities and differences in the perspective of the audience and the perspectives of the characters contribute to the text's effect on the reader. >> Absolutely. That sounds brilliant. Is that is that
>> is that agreeable to everybody? >> Hearing no objections, I suggest we move on. Okay. Um then for the 8.RI, we have determine an author's perspective or purpose in a text or
media format and analyze how an author distinguishes his or her position from that of others if applicable. Um, this is very similar in wording to the seventh grade standard. So, I think we should probably base a lot of our decisions off of our wording for the seventh grade standard. Um,
the difference is in the back half of the standard where instead of saying analyze how an author distinguishes his or her position from that of others, we have analyze how the author acknowledges and responds to conflicting evidence or viewpoints. >> But the first half should read the same. Yes. Go ahead.
>> I have a note. So, when we did um the speaking and listening standard um that kind of mirrors this where the ninth grade begins rhetoric, we had some scaffolding added. I forgot the exact wording, but we added
something about like persuasive techniques. Um I think we avoided the word persuasive. um something about sixth grade that being confusing, but I have to say in in eighth grade I've never had an issue with students being confused about like
p like the word persuade. Um but I don't know if we if we want to add that scaffolding again here or we think that the speaking listening scaffolding was enough to bridge the gap to get jump to rhetoric in the ninth grade. Um
I just wanted to bring that up for discussion. Who has comments on that? >> I don't see an obvious location to add that language to the standard. Um, do you, Miss Dockery? Let me see if I wrote anything out. If
>> I did attempt while she's looking um to kind of meld what we did to the seventh grade standard to what is currently in the um eighth grade standard if anyone wants to look at what I've got in in I30 there. um I the only thing I can think that'd
be clunky and like I said if we don't think it's necessary then we don't need to put it but um maybe analyze how an author uses persuasive techniques or acknowledges in response to
conflicting evidence and perspectives. Uh um yeah, I'm not really great at the the word smithing of these standards, but um I don't know. I guess a question is do we think it's even necessary before we
try to add it in? >> I I don't know if personally I don't know if it's 100% necessary because this is really we're really kind of viewing this as the perspective point of view and purpose standard. Um and so we're
really just looking at how how an author develops their own perspective. how they but really since this is reading we're we're thinking less about how they develop their own and more about how they engage with the perspectives and points of views of others. >> Um and I I feel like the current iteration of the standard mostly
accomplishes that. But I I'm I'm totally open to uh other ideas. To me, what we've created, I'm sorry, not the word created, but um to me, uh what we've revised here, uh aligns well with the eighth grade speaking and listening
standard because in the as as a reader, as a writer, as a speaker, we're evaluating the purpose of others motives. We're analyzing that speaker's argument and claims, assessing the soundness of the reasoning and the evidence. That's in the eighth grade speaking listening standard. Whereas in this one, the focus is on the author.
Um, and so we're determining the author's perspective and how they acknowledge and respond to conflicting evidence and and perspectives and it's up to us as the audience to examine those later. So I I agree with the wording here as it stands. >> Okay. So there are there any more
suggestions for changes? If not, let's move on. Okay, then I think we're ready to move to the high school standards. Um, the E1 E2 RL iteration of the standard reads, "Analyze how perspective
and/or author's purpose shape the content, meaning, and style of diverse texts." Um, I would say this is a small linguistic difference, but we have I did not mean to accidentally delete that standard. I apologize. Um,
we have said analyze how an how an author's perspective how or analyze how author's perspective andor purpose. So just moving the possessive authors to include perspective as well because that's what we've done elsewhere just for the sake of consistency >> that mirrors the TDO feedback. I'm sorry
who I don't remember who had high school. >> Anybody? >> I think it was me actually. So I can >> sorry I can do that. I'm letting letting everybody down on my job. Um, okay.
>> So, yeah, let's actually just have that conversation now and make sure we all know who's looking at TDO feedback. So, um, so Miss Now, you'll be looking at the middle school. Um, Miss Dockery, can you look at the 912? >> Yeah.
>> Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah. And Miss Winters was looking at K through five, but she's not with us currently. Um, would someone else be willing to to hop in and keep an eye out for the K through five TDOE feedback? >> I can do that. >> Thank you, Britney. >> Thank you, Miss Singleary.
>> Um, Miss Valkyrie, what what did you have to say? >> Um, so TDOE for the 9 through10 RLCS.6 or E1 E2. Um, so consider removing the phrase and or author purpose as that does not apply well to literary fiction
and Tennessee literary non-fiction literary texts that are appropriate for analyzing author's purpose is categorized asformational text. So the RARI standards would apply to those texts. >> That is true. We have Yeah.
>> Do I paste that into the chat? Is that helpful? I I think I've got it. Um I edited correspondingly um just to remove andor author's purpose. Um since we have viewed purpose as being something that lived withinformational text previously.
Um so it would now read analyze how author's perspective shapes the content meaning and style of diverse texts. >> Are those changes acceptable to everyone? Now, >> could I get a clarification from the
committee >> please? >> Here. >> So, um the addition of author's perspective here is something that we've kind of had conversations about just in the sense internally in the sense of, you know, there's often cases where there are uh literary texts that are
written that maybe the content of the story is actually not reflective of the author's perspective. Um, and so in that case, it wouldn't be so much that the students would be analyzing the author's perspective because they'd be really analyzing
perspectives that are contained within the text, the narrator, the characters, you know, and that sort of thing. Um, so my my suggestion would be to have it broad enough to where um it would encapsulate cases where students would
not necessarily be analyzing the author's perspective in a given text. understand. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um yeah, I think >> that's my response to that is do we
think eighth grade is the appropriate grade where they can determine the difference between the author's perspective and the characters perspective? Like is it do they have the sophistication level to do that at eighth grade? I I see a head nod. So I
I'll I guess they do. Okay, thank you for that input. >> I don't know if that was my head or not. Was that my head? >> Well, maybe I saw two head nods. >> Okay. Okay. Because I was like I I I think so. I think it is a little bit
challenging, but I think it's doable. So, Banks, if I'm if I'm hearing the the recommendation correctly, um, we would want to emphasize the perspective of the narrator or speaker and the perspectives of the
characters would that if I'm I believe that rather than of the author themselves here. >> Yes. Um, yeah. And I mean, I don't know. I feel like maybe just the perspective of the narrator or speaker um would be
sufficient. Uh, but if the committee feels like adding the perspectives of the characters in the standard itself, it would be kind of included and that would be something we'd elaborate on in the standard guide. But um I I personally don't know that it would be
necessary to include it in the actual language. Okay. Um the language I have drafted to kind of reflect that would read analyze how the perspective of the narrator or speaker shapes the content, meaning and style of diverse texts.
How do we feel about that? >> I do like this. It's just if we add character, I'm afraid it's going to overly complicate the process. So, I like this a little better. >> Okay. Yeah. So, we we don't currently have character in there. So, it would just be
about narrator and speaker or or speaker. >> Okay. That are we okay with the current or with the uh standard as revised? >> Okay. It sounds like everybody's in >> Did we lose purpose?
Um, shape I see purpose in the original. >> The T the TDOE recommendation was to we have not used purpose in in the context of literary text just in the context offormational text. >> You're right. We're just sticking with perspective. Thank you for minor
thoughts about this one from anyone. >> I think we've revised it. Well, if we don't have any objections, let's move on. No objections. >> Go.
Okay. Um then the uh E1 E2 RI standard reads analyze how an author's perspective or purpose shapes content and style. Determine how rhetoric is used to advance the author's perspective or purpose when applicable. Um do we
have tdoe recommendations there? >> Yes. One moment. >> Okay. So, TDOE says Oh, no. Oh, are we doing I'm sorry. Are we doing RAR?
>> We are doing RI CS6. >> Okay, I am in the right spot. My bad. I got it myself. Okay. Consider moving the phrase when applicable from the end of the standard to right after the semicolon. The second part of the standard would then read when applicable, determine how rhetoric is
used, dot dot dot. Elsewhere we have used if applicable rather than when applicable. Should we should we use if applicable again just to maintain consistency or is there a distinction being drawn between if applicable and when applicable?
So, >> and then I added and slash before or here since just to to marry what we're doing here with what we've done elsewhere. Um, so I think the revised version would read, "Analyze how an author's perspective and/or purpose, um,
shape, content, and style, if applicable, determine how rhetoric is used to advance the author's perspective and/or purpose. Any thoughts there? It sounds like we have consensus for dealing with what we got. >> Okay. Um, does everyone feel that way?
All right. Um, then we can move to the E3 E4 standards. Um, E3 E4 of RL reads, analyze how perspective and/or author's purpose shape the content, meaning and style of diverse text. This reads identical to the E1 E2 version of the
standard. So, um, unless we want to build in rigor, um, and outside of just obviously the natural rigor of increasingly difficult texts, um, I would recommend we we simply just read the language that we edited for E1E2.
>> The TDOE feedback was identical as well. >> There is >> sounds like we're good. There is one uh piece of feedback on there. Um do you want me to share Miss Dockery? Do you wanna Do you see it? >> Go ahead. I must have overlooked it.
>> No, no, that's okay. Um >> Oh, there's two different pieces on there. That's why I see what you're saying. So, the flag is basically that uh TDOE likes the revisions to the standard. Um, and I especially like that you're just kind of mirroring the 92, but that that the EAT did remove the
phrase, and uh, Tammy, feel free to jump in if you disagree with this recommendation, but did remove the phrase requires distinguishing what is directly stated in text and what is implied, which is particularly important with satirical text at this grade level.
Um, and so the recommendation from TDOE was to consider keeping the the revisions but adding some version of that phrase so that once it comes time for materials to be adopted that there will be satirical texts at the 11 12
grade level because satire is just incredibly difficult for students to grasp but they really need to have that instruction before they get to college. Um so yes >> our hope was that that would be that
would be taken care of in purpose of let me see what was the um uh purpose shape the content mean and style but we may need to explicitly say it that way it will be taught because if we don't say satire you'll have teachers not teach it
so that may be a good ad >> and I can put the phrase in the chat >> yeah that would be helpful thank Sure. And obviously just you can build refine that whatever. This is just what was used previously.
So it would be you know something like uh where is the right? So the the current standard right now that the teachers are using now is analyze how point of view andor author purpose requires distinguishing what is directly stated in text and what is
implied. And so I think what the recommendation would be is to keep the way that you've kind of encompassed all types of texts in your current revisions, but maybe to include some type of version of this phrase so
that materials will have to include satire as part of that at the at this great band. Um would that be possible by uh kind of appending something onto the end of the
standard and sty diverse texts uh including texts in which what is directly stated and what is implied I can't I can't figure out exactly the wording Could
you just say including texts which require the distinguishing of what is directly stated and what is implied including texts which require the distinction between
what is directly stated. Okay, I just attempted to add that to the end. This may be clunky. So, so everyone, it's uh I 33. um reads, "Analyze how the perspective
of the narrator or speaker shapes the content, meaning, and style of diverse texts, including text which require the distinction between what is directly stated and what is implied. >> I don't love that. I would rather just say satire."
Um, and from my perspective, uh, I've taught high school. >> Kids love satire. Like, they love learning satire. Like, it's usually one of like the most fun units. Um, so I'm not sure like I don't know if I follow like the hesitant hesitancy to just say
satire. I I think from TDO's perspective, satire would work fine. Uh, this was just the previous version of the standard, but if I think it's clear enough to keep it that way. >> I would like to add that I never knew that was supposed to mean satire. I just
thought that was kind of in any text. There's things directly stated and implied. So, I think satire would make it more clear for teachers as well. >> Yeah, I read that as undertone. I'm sorry. I read that as undertone, not satires. Um, sorry, Miss Now.
>> No, no, no. Um, I'm sorry. Um, I I guess I wonder if we might be limiting the standard though in scope if we just said satire. Um, because we can have texts with satirical elements but that are not
sat that are not of the satirical genre. So, um I I I think I agree with the implied meaning. Is that something that we could or maybe already was specified in the standards guide uh that we could say explicitly
uh include satire in instruction for that standard? >> We can um the recommendation to the reason why to include it in the standard is it'll impact the materials adoption more strongly. Um so the materials will have to include texts you know to meet
that. So we can certainly provide any wraparound uh support in terms of instruction but yeah >> I mean I I agree it's imperative to uh to include that instruction. So that I mean that personally for me uh would not
make me uncomfortable. Um um but I'm I'm open to hearing others. >> Mr. >> Oh go ahead. Mr. >> Oh, I was just going to say that maybe we could kind of steal some of the language that M now used and say something like including uh elements of satire or satirical
elements if maybe that helps. >> Including text with satirical elements. >> I would say including satire or text with with satirical elements. I've never said
the phrase satirical elements in my life. So that's why I'm laughing. Uh, I would say including satire or text with satire. >> Is that necessary? >> I mean, I guess I hear Miss Nell's point to distinguish between something that is
the genre of satire and something that is another genre but may have some satire included within it. >> Okay. trickering. I guess my only thought if you all are worried about sort of mutual
exclusivity etc is if you wanted to now would be an option to use eg so that you can hint for the mistocies of the world that satire is on the table without forcing educator like you know giving other options if there are other options on the table. I believe the way
including is on the standards now is that it does lock you in. Hold on. Of course, you all could change this when you get to your overall conclusion section. Oh gosh. 95. Hold on. Oh, here we go. May have some importance. Okay. So, this was not this would not be this
would serve a similar purposes. EG as it's written now, just as a flag. >> I do think we had made an effort to to kind of collapse that into just simply eg and specifically though. So, I I don't know. I don't know if we've used language like including very frequently.
Um, now that doesn't mean we can't, but it it hasn't been at the the forefront of what we've done. >> That's a great point. >> Vice Chair Hillard, defer to the group on what they'd like to do moving forward. >> Um, th this might be I I don't know that I like this either. Y'all feel free to
to um eliminate this, but analyze how the we're talking about meaning. So analyze how the perspective of the narrator or speaker shapes the content meaning either directly stated or implied and style of diverse texts
that solve our problems. We don't like it. >> I just worry in the midst of that list like it is um it just gets a I think syntactically it might get a little muddled. We would we would we would need
semicolons. >> I I wonder I mean if the if our main motivation here I mean I don't think we we came at this with the desire to just make this the satire standard. I think we mostly just wanted to have a reference to satire within the standard so that adoption might include satirical
texts. Um, if that's the case, I feel like EG largely accomplishes that language desire without having to fundamentally alter the standard per se. Um, now the one question would be, would we want to go back and add EG language
to the 910 standard other than satire? Um, just to mirror what we're doing here. >> I I don't know that I would feel comfortable including satire at 910. Oh, I I I misspoke. I wouldn't I wouldn't be saying satire in the 910. I'm saying
would we want to give an some sort of example of a type of diverse text at the at the 910 level that would be 910 appropriate just to to mirror what we're doing here with 1112 with satire. >> It certainly would help in terms of
scaffolding, I think. Well, I think what bills to satire would probably be comedy, I would think, eg comedy. That is the building block often, not always, but often to satire.
Um, yeah, I think that makes sense. Um, we I just want to see if everybody feels like this is a decent wording for the E3, E4 before we turn back to E1, E2. Um, analyze how the perspective of the narrator or speaker shapes the content,
meaning and style of diverse texts, eg satire. Um, Miss Now, how do you feel about that? Uh well, we had said EG meant optional and we put that in there. That to me
takes away from the urgency or from the original intent of the standard. I don't know. I I still I still don't hate the directly stated or implied language wherever we choose to put that modifier, but
that's just that's me. Do you have alternative language you would like to recommend? Are you still thinking? >> I am thinking. I'm sorry. Yes. Does anyone else have any other suggestions?
I mean, these are academic words, but I would say you could say including irony, understatement, and satire if you're trying to get to this.
What's being said and what's understood are two different things. So irony understatement and satire. It's just a suggestion. I'm not like wedded to it, but it's just
>> I think that language is good. My only concern is that it if it were to follow immediately after diverse texts, it seems like we would be include those would be examples of types of text. um at least in that particular phrasing. And I don't know if that's exactly how I
would think about those are elements of texts rather than than types of text for the most part. I guess like with satire, satire is a type of text. So I think that one fit a little more comfortably there than than otherwise. I I don't I think
it ultimately comes down to are we considering satire or something that is is essential for 11 11 and 12th graders to be to be studying um and we want it to be the a core focus of what's happening for the standard at the 1112
level or um do we want to simply have the language of satire present in the standard in hopes that therefore satire a satirical text will be present within stand within curricula that are adopted um but not necessarily a
100% necessary core component of 112 uh instruction on CS6. Um I think those are both acceptable. Um but I think they're slightly different interpretations of the standard. >> I feel like if we >> I think that's excellent point.
>> Go ahead. the entire focus satire, then that's probably getting away and limiting. Um, but I'm wondering if we just marry the language from the old standard and basically just get rid of point of view and change it out with
perspective from the original standard um as in what's in effect right now. And then maybe if necessary, we add in um uh whatever's the the must version of EG. I
forgot what what we've used, but we could maybe put satire in there. Uh with the What did we put for when they have to teach something? I forgot what it was. >> Specifically. >> Specifically. >> So maybe we put in specifically
satire. um and just tack that on to the old language. Um >> that would answer the question that you had co-chair and I think it would be to the first alternative that you because
it gives uh more emphasis on making sure that all kids in Tennessee understand satire. >> It does. Um my my only misgiving about that is we've been intentional about the language of this progression and having
it be a clear progression upward throughout the standards. And now by reverting back to old language that we've moved away from pretty substantially um the progression would kind of have a a sharp left turn here at the end um away from the the language we've used elsewhere.
>> We don't want to do that. >> I guess my only thought and however you vote is fine. and how the group votes is fine. Is that now that I think about it, we haven't talked a lot about specific genres. Um, we just talked about fiction and
non-fiction. Like we haven't really pushed them to think about types of genre and is that um I don't even know if we said the word genre to be quite honest. We probably have. I don't know. But it might be
interesting to to say what does it mean to like make sure our students know different types of genre. I don't know. It's just a thought. >> Yeah, I think that was I think it could be and this is my preference, but I I'm very open to other people's ideas. Um,
but this is why I kind of went to the EG list as an option. Um, because that would allow us to introduce the language of of satire, but then we could also, if we wanted to, introduce other genre types as well. um and just kind of uh and then we could even kind of shape what genres we wanted to place at the
910 level versus at the 1112 level. But again, I I I'm very very open to other people's ideas here. Uh mostly I just don't know how to marry the language from the old standard to the standard um phrasing wise. >> Can you reread the current iteration and
let's see if we have consensus on that? Um, well, the current reading, the current phrasing is identical to the E1 E2 standard, but it does not contain any reference to satire, which was the the jumping off point of of this. U we've had a couple different iterations, but I
think as soon as we've had those iterations, we we pretty immediately had misgivings about those iterations. So, I just reverted back to the original language that we had, um, which once again does not contain any reference to satire. Okay. So, do we want to accept it as
written then? >> No, I think we need to have some reference to satire, I think. Uh, >> can you re can you rewrite it then having reference to satire so we have something specific to react to?
Um, I mean, my most recent version was the EG satire version, but I I think we we had pretty consistently agreed that was not the best phrasing. Um, but I mean it reads currently analyze how the perspective of the narrator or speaker shapes the content, meaning style of
diverse texts. We had at one point it said including satire and text with satirical elements. We had then shifted away from that because the word including was um was considered to be stronger than just eg. So, we moved to EG satire. Um, but then we we didn't
love that phrasing. Um, so as we currently stands, I don't I don't know if we've had an exact I think Miss Now had a had a phrasing that incorporated um some of the language from the old standard within the list um which would
just require just a little grammatical finangling finagling if we were going to um implement that with with punctuation. Well, we can we can beat this to death right now or we could put it in the parking lot and move on.
>> If we don't have a solution, apparent >> I we could um I'm not 100% sure that moving on from it now is going to because we're just at the end of a progression. So, it's not like we're going to it's not like we're going to reach higher in this progression and then have more information about it. This is the culminating point for the
progression, right? Um >> uh what about throwing it out there uh semicolon at the end of what we have now uh distinguish what is directly stated in text and what is implied. Does that work?
Does that cover everything? Then >> we could still use an EG perhaps if you wanted to. I mean, I I've I've always been okay with distinguishing what is directly stated in text and what is is implied.
It's it's in the old standard. Um I I think it covers uh some bases. I I if we included that, then I would be okay with putting in EG for satire. Um
>> let's see what that looks like. Uh Coach Hillard. Okay. Um, I tried to just implement everything that was just said. Um, if we want more or less, just let me know. But it's in I3 right now. Analyze how the
perspective of the narrator or speaker shapes the content, meaning style of diverse text. Semicolon. Distinguish what is directly stated in text and what is implied. Eg. satire. >> If that's the will of the group, that's fine. My only thing is I don't think you need int text. So I think you can just
say including what is directly stated and what is implied. >> I would accept that change. >> We okay with that, Miss Now? >> Yeah. No, I agree. >> Okay, great. Just make that small change
and uh read it one more time. I think we're close. Okay, so without that it would read, analyze how the perspective of the narrator or speaker shapes the content, meaning and style of diverse texts semicolon. Distinguish what is directly stated and what is implied. Eg.
satire. Excellent. All right. Is there anybody that has any objection to that? Speak now or forever hold your peace. All right. Hearing none, let's move on.
I think we've done it. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, and then our E3E4 RARI version of the standard reads, analyze an author's perspective and/or purpose in a text, analyzing how style
and content contribute uh to its effectiveness. Do we have any TDE feedback on that? >> Sorry, I'm looking. Okay, you're fine. >> I I'm not saying anything, but I'm
paranoid that I've overlooked something again like I did last time. >> No, there's none there. >> Okay, good. >> You're good. You're good. >> Do we have any comments from members? Does it bother anyone else that it says
analyze and then says analyzing shortly thereafter or am I just being nitpicky? This is a very minor concern of mine. >> I think >> I think your question is legitimate. Should it be determining house style?
Would that be an appropriate substitution? That would mirror our previous language um which has said analyze and then determine. >> All right, let's do that. Okay. So, it would just read, "Analyze an author's perspective andor purpose in
a text, determining how style and content contribute to its effectiveness." >> Very good. >> You read out the revised cornerstone one more time. I just want to make sure it aligns too with the K5. Keep I'm just thinking the whole thing.
>> Yeah. So, the revised cornerstone reads, "Analyze how perspective, point of view, and purpose shape the content and style of a text." >> Okay. Okay. That's what I thought it was. I just want to make sure. >> Does that sound appropriate to you? >> Yes.
>> All right. Uh, hearing no objections, we're going to move on to kindergarten >> or move back to >> Are we good on the sixth grade then? >> Yes. or sorry, not sixth grade, sixth, standard six. I apologize. Um, all right. Uh, if so, then we're moving to a
new cornerstone. Um, this cornerstone reads, "Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including visually and quantitatively as well as in words." Um, do we have any TDE feedback on the cornerstone?
No feedback. >> What was that, Miss Singleary? I'm sorry. >> No feedback. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there anybody good with that cornerstone? >> Yes.
Everybody good with that? Okay. Approved. Um, okay. So, our K.RL47 is with prompting and support orally describe the relationship between illustrations and the story in which
they appear. Does anyone have any comments on that standard? Okay, hearing none. Let's move on. That's good. >> Okay. Uh K.I. Um reads with prompting and support
orally describe the relationship between visuals and the text in which they appear. Are we drawing a distinction between uh visuals and illustrations there? Um, I think we seem to be and and I think that perhaps makes sense to have illustrations.
>> That's what we were doing. >> Okay. >> Are we okay with it then? >> Yeah, we were working to align the visuals aligns withformational genre in that standard rather than illustration. >> Okay,
I think that makes sense to me. >> Are we good as it's written then? They hearing no objections. Let's move on. >> Um okay. Um in first grade RL we have orally andor in writing describe the
relationship between the illustrations and the characters setting or events. Um I don't think we've ever done orally andor in writing. Um, I'm I'm okay to to do that if we feel that's appropriate, but but that would be a new um kind of
opening phrase for us. >> Um, yeah. Hang on. Let me look at that one real quick. That's the RL, right? >> Um, yes. >> Okay. >> For first grade. Yeah, >> but it it it's in first grade as well. So, it's in RL and RAR for first grade.
>> Yes, I think it should be both. >> Um, so it should should it read orally and in writing? >> Yes. and or in writing. >> So, we should So, you you think we should should keep and or? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm trying to remember. Were there some options in the intro foundational
literacy standards? I'm trying to rack my brain. >> Um, maybe if I control F orally. Let's see if I can find it. Thought we gave some options in kindergarten. >> In a lot of the curriculums, they're starting to use the graphic organizers.
So they're writing and talking. >> Um because these are the more around the complex text. These standards are with the complex text. So they're >> doing that along with the teacher and they're starting to um
later in the so it's it encompasses all of it for their oral language and their writing skills. >> Gotcha. Maybe it was in speaking and listening. I'm looking. So the K FL F4 at least how through SDC had it was
orally read and reread not quite it read and reread. See >> I guess to me it would be a question of are we comfortable if a student only orally describes the relationship between the illustrations and the
characters setting or events. Um because as soon as we introduce the possibility of or we introduce the possibility of a student just doing one or the other rather than both. >> Well, I think because it's a complex text, the writing is going to be a little more complex than just like we're
doing in foundational skills. So I think we did that because some kids will be able to do the writing. Um, so it doesn't limit teachers to just oral when there are children who
can >> okay >> move forward. I mean, what do y'all think? >> That makes sense to me. I understand the logic there. >> I did find one presented orally or through other media. Was that when we were talking about the graphic organizer
thing and the HQ? >> I think so. >> Okay. Okay. So, this is K SLCC2. And it looks like y'all might have kept it. Miss Singleary, you look like you're about to say something. Am I making that up? >> No, I I mean, I think that it it
probably needs to be both. It was just my thought. >> Both like and both like and or. >> Yes. >> And do I mean do how do y'all feel about taking the or off?
I mean because >> that was mine. >> They I I mean I'm okay taking the ore off because they will be writing about things that they've done with the teacher. They're using resources in the room to do the writing.
They're using what they know about words to write. It doesn't say it has to be conventional writing. >> That was my instinct. I just didn't want to create some sort of loophole where wherein someone could technically master the standard.
>> I'm okay with that. >> So, I'm looking at what where we go to second grade and it's just demonstrate understanding. And I think that that tends to sort of be the intent. It's not about how it's demonstrated. Maybe they
need to demonstrate through. >> Well, I I think what I'm advocating for is just >> and or in writing both are ways to demonstrate your understanding of it. >> And I think it's developmentally appropriate to do one or the other or
both. >> So, why don't can we just say demonstrate here as well or should we just keep it as I see your point. I think I've essentially looped back to being okay with the original wording.
Um, if if others are in the same boat since I'm the one who started this whole mess. >> I'm okay with it. >> Does anybody want to insist on a change in the original word? >> No, I'm okay with it. >> All right, let's keep it then and move
on. Okay. Um then the first RARI um reads, "Orally and/or in writing, use the visuals and words in a text to describe its key ideas." Do we have any TDO feedback on that? >> No feedback.
>> Okay. Do we have any >> we have any suggested changes? >> All right. Hearing none, let's keep it and move on. >> Okay. Um secondgrade.RL RL reads, "Use information gained from illustrations
and words in a print or digital text to demonstrate under understanding of its characters, setting, or plot." Um, I I is this a place where it would be appropriate to distinguish between print or digital texts? I know we we did quite
a bit of that in the like foundational literacy standards. Um, but this is outside of my domain. So, I want to defer to people who who live in this domain. >> Didn't we take digital >> Did we Did we take take digital text
out? >> I think for the most part we've just been using the more inclusive texts rather than distinguishing between print or dig. >> That's what I thought. I think that would be cleaner. Okay. So, do you have a new recommended
um iteration? >> Yeah, I think it would just be simply the exact same standard just with deleting print or digital. Um so, just use information gained from illustrations and words in a text to demonstrate understanding of its character setting or plot.
>> Is that acceptable to everybody? My only concern is I'm wondering if they are being specific here and wanting to make sure that at this grade level they're being introduced to digital texts instead of just print. I don't
know if that was the intention of the EAT or not and if we are losing something by taking out digital or not. I do think that piece tends to connect it with the cornerstone since the intent of standard 7 is to make sure they're
being exposed to a variety of types of text and especially like multimedia types of text and that sort of thing. >> Okay. Yeah. Well, and I and I was looking while you were talking at the writing standards, too. And we're introducing digital tools at those grade
levels for the writing purposes. And so, I I think we should pair it with the reading digital text as well. >> Okay. I agree. >> So, what will the new standard look like? >> I believe it would just be keeping the standard as written.
>> All right. Are there any uh recommended changes then to that? All right. I hear none. So, let's move on. >> Okay. So, the 2I would read ident or reads identify and explain how visuals
and words contribute to and clarify a text. Any comments? How do people feel about clarify? Um, they I mean I can see where it's coming from with like a visual because we don't think of a visual though often it is
part of a text. We think of it as something kind of additional to it. So it might clarify the the language. >> Um I just I have a hard time envisioning someone ever talking about how words clarify a text since we typically think of the text as being composed of the words.
>> Further explain I get what you're saying for the words aspect, but I feel like the clarify might be an important >> to clarify the understanding of the what they read.
>> Um, how could that be? clarify an understanding of a text. >> What's a synonym for clarify? >> Clarify the meaning or uh clarify contribute to the meaning of a text. like contribute to the meaning of a text.
>> I like that. That works. >> So, it would read, "Identify and explain how visuals and words contribute to the meaning of a text." >> I like that. That's a lot simpler. >> That That reads pretty clean to me. >> Yeah. >> All right. Everybody in in agreement
with that? >> Thank Thank you for that suggestion. It looks like we have consensus. Let's move on. >> Um, third grade RL reads, explain how illustrations in a text contribute to
what is conveyed by the words. >> If that's a place where we should use clarify, >> I guess it's not. I >> think clarify fits well there. Where are you going to put it? >> Um, it would just be I think in lie of contribute. Um, or I guess it could be
in addition to. You could say explain how illustrations in a text clarify what is conveyed by the words. Or you could say explain how illustrations in a text contribute to and clarify what is conveyed by the words. I don't have a strong preference there. I think and is
probably good there for going include clarify because contribute and clarify are two distinct uh aspects. >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> So it would explain it would read explain how clear illustrations in a
text contribute to and clarify what is conveyed by the words. >> Good. Do we feel >> questions comments? No here. Hear no objections. We're moving on. Okay. Um, 3 RI reads, "Use information
gained from visuals and the words in a text to demonstrate understanding. I I have no comments there. >> Anything from TDO?" >> No, no feedback. >> All right.
Anyway, if nobody wants to make changes, let's move on. >> Okay. Um 4.RL reads, make connections between the print version of a story or drama and a visual or oral representation of the same text.
>> I do. We have any TDOE feedback there? >> No feedback. I'm content with that. >> I'm content. Any objections? Hearing none, let's move on. >> Okay. Uh 4RI reads, "Interpret
information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively, and explain how the information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears. orally or quantitatively? What? >> Yeah. Is quantitatively that I mean, wouldn't quantitative
information typically be presented either visually or orally? Typically visually, but that doesn't seem like it would necessarily be a third mode separate from the other two. I I agree with you there, but also I think when I'm thinking about elementary
levels, I'm wondering if they're specifically wanting them to learn how to like interpret a graph and then if that is left out. >> I see. >> And that scale is not taught. >> That was my point. >> Can we say can we say graphically? I mean, is that what we're looking for?
>> I think graphically can be interpreted in multiple ways. I think that could be misconfa would you want students to look at a data table and know what a xy axis is because that wouldn't necessarily be a
graph but it would be quantitative. >> Yeah, that to me seems like more of a of a type of information though than a type of presentation. um like it would read something along the lines of interpret information including quantitative information presented visually or orally
and explain how the information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears to me at least that it seems like a type of information more so than a type of presentation. I'm getting more accepting of the word quantitatively given
u the necessity to describe that activity. >> I I certainly think it's important I think it's important for it to be there. I'm just not sure. Um it to me at least it feels like I understand the idea of like like depicting it in some sort of
graphic or or some sort of um visual mode but it it feels like that is captured within presented visually. Um I still think that quantitative I I think it's important for students to be interpreting quantitative information. Um I just wonder if >> yeah visually orally or
>> is captured visually. Yeah. Um, I just wonder if that could be if the qu if the language of quantitative could be incorporated elsewhere in the in the standard. Well, I I was looking at the the standards
and I mean, we know that students do and must interpret graphs in order to be able to synthesize information, especially when you get into your research standards and your synthesis and and all of those types of things. So
I I look elsewhere and I just don't know where else it would be incorporated incorporated other than here. So >> yeah, >> I I liked Mr. Hillier's suggestion because I think it would still contain
quantitative as an example or it could be even specifically, you know, words and and numerical something like that. But I think it it does make sense that it is a visual and or oral presentation. It's a type of information
um that you're trying to specify there that that clarifies it. I don't know if I'm making sense, but I agree with what you said. >> And I would fly whichever direction you decide to go just you might want to consider the wording of the cornerstone as well in case it has implications
there or vice versa. It's a good point, Ms. since we've got quantitatively here. >> That's true, >> right? >> My fear is if we eliminate quantitatively then it will then people
will generally think that that just means pictures or visual rhetoric. Why don't we have orally? Why don't we have orally in the cornerstone? >> I think the visually is being used here
primarily as a way of um scaffolding up to higher levels. Since they're in K5, it's more likely they might receive information orally rather than through other modes given their age. >> Traditionally, the intent of kind of this cornerstone is just for students to
understand information presented in text, but also in in interpreting visual information or or information presented visually or in or in other modes. You know what I mean? So that's kind of what makes this standard unique is that it's not just students reading text,
analyzing text, they're also reading and analyzing multimedia texts or digital texts and then the ways that information is presented in those texts as well. So hopefully if that gives you some context for what the standard has been. >> If it's also diverse formats in media,
could that include podcasts or you know interactive where it has other forms? So I I can understand why orally would be there. Um and again I I agree that quantitative should stay. It's just where does it belong in the writing of
the standard. >> So I I think quantitative is misplaced just in the sentence. So I kind of echo what Miss Kim Miss Kim I'm not gonna try the last name. >> No problem. Miss Kim just said, um, I think it is
interpret written or quantitative information. I would probably move just quantitative to earlier in the sentence. Um, that's my that's my suggestion.
>> Yeah, I'm I like where you're coming from. Would we just I mean if we're introducing quantitative at this level do we just say qualitative as well or I don't know that maybe academic >> that's got a completely different
connotation I think >> um so I'm wondering if we miss Stout's idea I like putting it potentially early. I don't that I'm against the current reading. Um, but I think if we put written or quantitative, then that kind of defeats the purpose of this
including the v the visual oral. But could we put interpret information and then eg quantitative? Uh um but I mean information can be I don't
know I don't know that I'm against the original writing though. Um, but that's an idea. Maybe maybe use an egene. >> Yeah. The only other thing I can think of is just data, which would then give you flexibility of qualitative and quantitative because you could have qualitative data that's written but not
necessarily be a text. I guess everything's a text if you think broadly enough. But if you're worried about it being a a Y word. >> So are you saying would it would be interpret information or or data presented visually?
or or >> up to the committee. But that's what I was thinking to get if you're worried about the ly items in a series and you want to put it somewhere else. >> I actually really like data because I think that's really what we're trying to say. Yeah. So, thank you for >> then you don't have to do the quantitative qualitative battle and
educators can go where their heart leads them. >> All right. So, who wants to put forth some language that we can react to? I think Vice Chair Hillard's working on it. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillard. >> Yeah. Um, so with that wording of the
inclusion of data, would quantitatively still remain or would the data take the place of quantitatively? >> My intent was to help you out of the quantitatively bind if that was the language that folks were having trouble with. I thought I thought that that
meant we would just simply place that elsewhere and eliminate quantitatively interpret information or or data presented visually or orally. >> Okay. So, what I've got then is interpret information or data presented visually or orally and explain how the
information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears. >> Right? because you get your data on a podcast and that could be something that you're playing to your students and this that the other. >> We just have a if we say then explain
how the information contributes then we had also said interpret information or data. So >> yeah, >> mirror that. >> Okay, I added that or data to the second portion of the standard. How does everyone feel about that
wording? >> I think it's good. >> Okay. Um, then are we ready to move on to fifth grade? Is thatable to everybody? >> Yeah, I think we have consensus.
Let's move on. >> Okay. Um, fifth grade reads, explain how visual and multimedia elements contribute to the meaning or tone of a text. >> There is feedback. It says, "Consider adding mood back to the standard. The
end of the standard would then read the meaning, mood, or tone of a text. Okay. Um, so the altered wording would read, "Explain how visual and multimedia elements contribute to the meaning, mood, or tone of a text." >> Yes.
>> Okay. Any thoughts on that revised wording? It sounds good to me. >> I agree. >> All right. Speak now or forever hold your peace.
>> So here we're distinguishing between multimedia elements and visually and is that an intentional switch? Yeah, we have elsewhere essentially just said multimedia elements to encompass both.
>> I think multimedia here would be fine on its own since the multimedia is the new thing and they've already done the just regular visual. >> Okay. So then the wording would be explain how multimedia elements contribute to the meaning, mood or tone
of a text. That sounds correct. >> All right. So, you have you rewritten what you need to write? >> Yes, it's it's in I45. >> Okay. Are there any >> 45? >> Any objections?
>> Have we included mood in anywhere else in any of the reading standards? I don't believe so. No, >> not according to >> I personally don't know if I understand the difference between mood and tone. However, I don't teach I've never taught
fifth grade. So, I always try to save room for maybe this is something other teachers understand. >> I know we discuss it in the middle grades. Um, but I am curious as to why we're
including it here and not elsewhere. >> I just pulled it from the glossery and it looks like we've got multiple moods at least in the currently active standards. Mood for reading, mood verb, subjunctive mood.
>> I can help with the definition on that. um like the mood is typically kind of the emotional atmosphere in a text that the author creates and then the tone would be more about the the author's attitude toward the what's being
conveyed. Um so that would be the distinction between the two and we clarify that a lot better in the standards guides because the glossery didn't we felt like that was an area of improvement. So >> that is that is that is the way we look at it is tone is how the author approaches a subject and mood is how it
makes the reader feel. >> Yeah. >> I will I will say I just I just did a command f search and and this would be the only inclusion of the word mood in our entire standards >> versus five different instances in the
glossery. Imperative mood, indicative mood. >> I'm gonna do >> I'm going to do a quick search. >> Yeah, mood. Mood appears um three times in the currently existing
standards. So the the standards currently used in the classroom. Um but the other two instances of mood are just mood of a verb. actually in this in this meaning of the word mood this in the currently existing standards this is the only reference to mood um in the meaning that we're we're talking about now so
this has always been the only place where mood has lived >> so is this the it's not the same but essentially the effect on the reader like is that >> which is language we have used because if you tell me it's how it makes
the reader feel then is that effect on the reader or we talking about mood like setting I it's unclear as written to me let me just say that the problem I see is unclear as written and I'm just trying
to give suggestions to clarify >> yeah I I have misgivings about this being our only reference to mood in the entire standard set um just because it then kind of seems to imply that mood is the product of multimedia elements. Um, which I I don't think I mean it can be
the product of multi media elements, but it's not like a text that does not contain multi media elements cannot contain mood. Um, and this would be the only reference to mood >> currently within the standards. >> One thing, so I do think it's kind of weird that we don't have mood in the standards other places. I do think there
is a difference. I see what Dr. just out of saying, but I think there is like a small difference between I guess what I would think of effects on the reader versus mood. But um I I kind of feel like tone was out of place here because that was our
our CS.4 if I'm remembering correctly where we talked about tone. So this this standard kind of struck me funny anyway. It feels a little out of place. If we talk about move, we have to scaffold it
prior to and afterwards. Just as a side note, I do a lot of discussing mood under CS4 and then under um because that has to do with the impact of word choice and then I do a lot of discussion of mood on um
one RL1. That's just where I personally throw them in. we have elsewhere um in RS in in CS4 um we don't use the word tone until fifth grade um and in
fifth grade we start thinking about how figurative language um affects the tone of a text um so by fifth grade elsewhere we have introduced tone what what grade level are we on at the moment I'm
>> fifth Right. >> We are on fifth grade. Okay. So, so they I mean we will have standards that are introducing the concept of tone. We have not introduced mood at all. So this would be the
the only instance of mood. I I part of me wonders if I mean like I teach my students mood. Um I think mood's worth knowing, but there are as the standards have gotten less prescriptive. It feels like we've moved away from kind of an exhaustive list of
every single literary device that needs to be known. And it seems as though mood is one of the the fe the sort of descriptors of a text that has kind of fallen by the wayside to some extent. um is is not as central to understanding.
It's it's certainly worth knowing. I mean, it's it's something I glance at in AP Lit, but it's not something that we spend certainly don't spend as much time on it as we do as tone. Um, so I there's a part of me that wonders if if mood even needs to be referenced
here, especially given that it's not referenced anywhere else. But I'm I'm certainly open to to including mood. I don't hate mood. I just don't know if this is the the one and only place for it. >> Oh, I I' I've always I thought it was
out of place here. It bothers me especially if we if we include it here that we've not elsewhere. I think we would have to go back and revisit other standards. Um, if we're going to include it there,
>> my vote at this point would essentially be to not include mood here. Um, just because I I feel like it has not been a focus um for us at all and I don't feel like this is the place where it should live as its only introduction. Um, but
I'm certainly open to other ideas. I would be fine with eliminating it here. Um, but I I don't know. We might want to put this in the parking garage. That's just a suggestion to revisit mood elsewhere
in the standards. >> I agree. >> Okay. >> Um, just another note. So, this is for RL, correct? Um, these numbers are kind of small. Um, >> I don't I keep going back to like tone
feels odd to me when you're talking about images for a literature, literary text. I might just be having a narrow focus. But >> yeah, I mean, I think it might be, you know, like if you're reading some sort
of suspenseful story and there's some eerie picture there, it's going to create a sort of a tone. Um, well, I guess what you mean that is more mood, I guess. Um, yeah. I mean,
>> I think if you all were going to put it in a parking lot that as far as to consider those pieces that five RL I think what Tammy was saying five RLCS4 would be a great place to consider putting those. Um, as far as TDOE feedback on this, that's if the
committee decides those are not important to to specify here, it is certainly something we can include in the standards guide as kind of wraparound um supporting elements. What does EOE have to say about mood?
>> It won't be the standard. >> But I I do agree that I think that if it would need to be an RLCS4, that is the most important standard for mood and tone and that sort of thing to kind of be understood in. um this was just going to support that in the sense of students
would understand those devices within the context of multiple types of text, you know, multimedia text, that sort of thing. But if the committee decides not to specify that here, um I think the recommendation would be to certainly try to consider including it in RLCS4 as an
option. But again, the standards guides are an an element to include things as well. I took a look back at 5.rl.cs4 and I mean I think we could include this language pretty easily there and it reads determine the meaning of words and
phrases as they are used in a text including figurative language with an emphasis on similes metaphors idioms and proverbs analyze the impact of sound devices eg alliteration repetition on meaning and tone. Um, so I suppose it would just be >> it would just be simply the addition of
meaning, mood, and tone. >> I like that. >> Are we good to just add that to the CS4 and then keep mood here as well? So mood has a little more of a footprint that
are we all in agreement there? >> Yes. Are we going to incorporate the language of mood other places in I guess in other grades for that rl.cs.4 or is that going to be the only place
again >> it being taught I think we need to include it somehow. Um, I mean, I I wouldn't I would have added it anywhere where tone isn't already there because I think those kind of tend
to travel in in pair. And also, I I I don't I don't know if I my response to uh I don't know if I want to just make mood a really foundational uh concept within our standards. I just I just don't know if it's that important. Um, and I feel
like if we're just going through and really hammering mood, we're we're really putting ourselves out of sync. I mean, I I just think about like an AP Lit like the the particular textbook I use for AP Lit has one glancing reference to mood at one moment and then it never mentions it ever again and but
yet tone is hammered over and over and over again. Um, so I don't feel like mood and tone are are equally important in in literary analysis, at least at the higher grades. That's obviously where I live.
Well, if we're going to include it at a at a lower level um in as a um example um then we may need to consider that
at the upper levels if it's actually being taught otherwise they don't have any legitimate reason to teach it. >> Yeah. I mean, I my my camp was was just not talk about mood in the standards, but if we're going to include it, I guess it it would likely just be a
question of do we want it to be something we're mentioning at the lower grade. I mean, in the in the previous version of the standards, there was one reference of mood and it came in um and so the current in the standards that are currently being used in Tennessee classrooms, mood is referenced once in
the fifth grade RL7, the one we were editing previously, and that is the only reference to mood in the entirety of the standards. M >> um so I I feel like if we add mood to CS4 like we've done currently and then we
keep it in in IKI7 or I guess we're not using I are we using IKI is the I don't think we are anymore we >> are using the II >> yeah we're using CI
>> yeah um well no we are using IKI sorry I got turned around but That's that's an irrelevant point. But I think if we if we're including a reference to mood in iki7 and in um in the four in the fourth standard, then we're already doubling
the amount of mood that was already there. I think we're already putting more emphasis on mood than was present in the standards previously. I don't know if an ground swell of additional mood is really necessary. I dropped in the chat how we currently
define tone um in the standards guides. So that may uh support what you're saying in the sense of if you decide not to keep it in the standard, we would still provide information about the difference between mood and tone when considering texts that teachers would
have available. So that support would still be there in understanding it if that makes sense. >> Okay, that's good information. Uh I guess it's just a matter of emphasis as uh you brought up in the beginning uh co-chair Hillyard. So uh
we've cussed and discussed this. Uh do we have a recommended wording to get consensus on? To my understanding, we I think we've come to an agreement that for the fifth
grade, both CS4 and IKI7 standards, we need to include reference to mood just to kind of pair what's happening at four with what's happening at seven. >> Um I I think the question more broadly is does the committee feel that mood is an
essential enough concept that it needs to be integrated elsewhere in the standards or do we feel like that is sufficient for references to mood? I suggest we just move on those two areas that we've talked about and if it comes up again as we go to the higher
standards u we'll talk about it then >> okay I would agree >> I agree I I think just including it where we have um will help clarify its use in one and the other
and then and then we're not adding any further emphasis on it. Yeah, I agree with Miss Snow. >> Okay. So, are we good with the the two versions that have been written? Uh, have you rewritten those yet?
>> Yes. Yes, I have. And I I went ahead and made the full spreadsheet edit to the C the standard 4. Um, I just did the quick edit to to seven because I need to go back in and add my um my uh
justifications, my rationale. All right, it appears we've reached consensus. If there are no objections, let's move on. >> Okay. Um All right. Then the fifth grade RAR reads, "Integrate information from multiple print or digital sources to
answer questions and solve problems." Do we have any TDOE feedback on the fifth grade? >> No feedback. >> Okay. I don't personally have any feedback. >> There is. >> Oh, there is feedback. Hold on. On the back page,
it says, "Please consider replacing the word or with and to indicate that students are integrating information from both print and digital sources. >> That makes sense to me. >> Have we changed our language from
digital to multimedia elements?" I thought before we were doing saying just digital. >> I think we we used multimedia elements and then digital textsources I think was what we were doing. >> Miss Barrett, I thought you made an
earlier point that we got rid of digital text. Did I make that up? >> We specify digital tools instead of multimedia tools. Oh, okay. Maybe that's what it was here. I can look it up. Digital. >> No, I think I think digital text
>> got combined or dropped >> not. We had talked about dropping print or digital text in the second grade RL standard, but we elected to to keep that. And so the second grade RL standard reads in a print or digital
text and we kept that language. >> Okay. Okay. And there is an or there. So if you still were to move forward with the and that could be perceived as a intentional distinction. That will be perceived as an intentional distinction I assume.
>> Yes. I think the difference is there we're just using information gained from a text a singular print or digital text whereas here we are integrating uh we're integrating information from multiple sources. And so I think that's where the and came from is now it's multiple
rather than just a singular text. >> I see. >> Okay. Those are the only instances of digital in the reading standards. I'm happy to check another strand of >> we we revised it in the writing
standards um to clarify what was meant by technology at the time. Um but but no, we we've kept this language elsewhere. Okay. All right. So, uh, are we good with how it's been revised?
Well, if there are no objections, let's move on. >> Next. Um, all right. Um, the sixth grade RL standard reads, "Compare and contrast the written version of a story or poem to the experience of listening to or
viewing a multimedia version of a text." >> We do have TDO feedback on this for six, seven, and eight. Um, >> okay. >> For RL, >> um, it says consider adding drama back to the text list and standard.
standard would then read of a story, drama or poem including drama ensures alignment with high school standards, exposure to genre and promotes grade level alignment or rigor. >> Yeah, I think I think we have made comparable edits elsewhere in the reading standards as well um to to
include these three together at the middle grades. a note, I'm not sure if we've already talked about this or not, um, but there was quite a bit of feedback for the standard about um, teachers perceiving multimedia as just being movies
um, and them saying like their principles don't want them watching movies or don't want them watching a lot of movies. So, if I if we don't already, can we make a note that our glossery should kind of define what multimedia is and expand on it being outside of just
movies? >> I'll put it in the parking garage. >> Yeah. So, this is the definition we're working on in the current standards. I know y'all have gone back and forth about like C appendix C glossery. Uh your predecessors I believe discussed
like bolding terminology, but that could be a a pretty big time lift. But it looks like they're doesn't just say movies here. Full motion videos, which sounds very 2030 if I may say so myself.
I I move that we add holograms to the list. You know, >> are there any other recommendations? >> I I have one. Um just for the sake of parallelism, we're comparing and contrasting the written version of a story, drama, or poem, but we're not comparing and contrasting it to the
multimedia version. We're comparing and contrasting it to the experience of listening to or viewing. Um, so I would suggest we say compare and contrast the experience of reading a written version of a story, drama, or poem to the experience of listening to or viewing a
multimedia version of a book. >> That's much clearer, I think. I would accept that rewarding. Is that acceptable to everybody else? All right, I see everybody nodding. And this is good because now that we finished this part, I think it's time
for supper, boys and girls. So, I would like to suggest that we take simply uh 20 minutes and get back online at uh 7:00 Eastern, 6:00 Central. Uh well, let's go uh 7:01
or 6:01 and that'll give you 20 minutes. Okay? And if you need to bring some stuff to the camera uh later on when we reconvene, feel free. It's been a busy time and we're working hard.
I'll see you in 20 minutes then. I declare a recess. PayPal customer service You or any other person may be recorded or monitored for quality of Welcome back.
I'm checking to see if we have a quorum yet. Not yet. It looked like. >> Did you grade some papers, Miss Nell? >> Yes, actually. >> I knew you would.
>> I have to. >> Yep. That's the heck of it when you're teaching righty. You've got so much to grade. >> Is this for seminar or for another course?
>> Uh laying and seminar. >> Okay. mock IRS this week and uh laying laying assessments this week and and a project paper this week.
>> Wonderful. Well, we >> as if you didn't have enough to do this week with um your work here with the board of education. Well, I hope that your students appreciate that and I'm sure that you're taking a lot of time
grading them according to a very strict rubric. So, uh, let's continue where we were. We got about an hour and a half left. I don't have no idea how to estimate how far we're going to get, but we'll get as far as we can. So, Coach Hillard, where
did we leave off? Can you unmute yourself? >> My apologies. Um I we left off on G 148. Um I took the liberty of um and obviously we'll discuss just going through the next few standards and
making comparable edits to the language of them for the remaining middle grade standards. Um, obviously these are still open to discussion, but I thought I might be able to expedite the process a little bit by just incorporating the adjustments to language that we made in the sixth grade uh RL standard to the
remaining standards in the middle grades. Um, so uh just wanted to to flag that for everyone. Um, we have not gone through all those standards, but I did make some some quick edits just for consistency sake. Um, the current reading of 6.RI reads,
"Compare and contrast the text to a multimedia version." Um, to me it seems important that we mirror the language we're using in the RL version of the standard um with the RAR. I don't see why it would be so much more concise on the RAR version when when it's
essentially asking the same um intellectual process. Um, so my revised version was compare and contrast the experience of reading a written version of a text to the experience of listening to or viewing a multimedia version. Um, was my 6.
Does anyone have any comments on that? >> I like it. >> Okay. Are we good to move forward with that? Okay. Um and then uh seventh grade previously read compare
and contrast the written version of a story or poem to the experience of listening to or viewing a multimedia version of a text that reads identical to the sixth grade standards. So I mirrored what we had in the sixth grade standards. Then after that they have comma analyzing the effects of techniques unique to each medium. that felt like enough of a task to me that it
probably shouldn't just be captured within this little like Jiren phrase here at the end. Um, so I added a a semicolon and just had analyze the effects of techniques unique to each medium. So not changing the meaning, just altering uh how it's conveyed a
little bit. Um, so my version would read compare and contrast the experience of reading a written version of a story, drama, or poem to the experience of listening to or viewing a multimedia version. Analyze the effects of techniques unique to each medium. Do we feel okay with that wording?
>> Hello everybody. I'm I'm here Rosemary. Um yeah, I was reading over it on the break and sounds great and I do agree with the semicoloning after text and analyze the effect of techniques unique to each medium. >> Great. Thank you. And also hello
Rosemary. All right. So, are we good on the sevenrl? Um, Miss Summers, I I don't know what happened to the spreadsheet, but the drop-own menu of of decisions is no longer showing up for any of the remaining standards. Um, it it
disappears on H149 and anything below that. Um, I can go ahead and type in revised there, but I just wanted to flag that for you, but those don't seem to be present. >> Great flag, Mr. Hillard. I will drag it down as we speak. Now, I'm making a long
This is not like that. Let's Let's not do that. Let's Let's do it the right way, Brianna. Okay, let's see. I'll work on it in the background, but I'll make it revise and then we'll drop it down once I'm ready. Okay. Um, so the 8.RL
um reads currently um compare and contrast the written version of a story or poem to the experience of uh listening to or viewing a multimedia version of a text. Evaluate the effects of techniques unique to each medium. I
uh essentially just turned that comma into a semicolon and then married the language to what we were doing in the previous versions of this standard at six and seven. Uh so my version reads compare and contrast the experience of reading a written version of a story, drama or poem to the experience of listening to or viewing a multimedia
version semicolon. Evaluate the effects of uh evaluate the effects of techniques unique to each medium. Does anyone have any feedback on that? If anybody has anything, please just
unmute yourself. I believe our our fearless chairman is otherwise uh on on a phone call perhaps. So, um I I won't necessarily see any hands raised. So, if you have something just just hop off mute mute and and throw something in. Okay. Uh, if I don't hear anything, then
I'll assume we're feeling good about that. Um, the 8.ri, compare and contrast a text to a multimedia version, evaluating each medium's portrayal of the subject. I did similar edits to what I've done elsewhere. Compare and contrast the experience of reading a written version of a text, the experience of listening to or viewing a multimedia version.
Evaluate each medium's portrayal of the subject. Thoughts on that? Okay. Um, >> do you have do you have a change suggested, Coach Le? >> Um, yeah, we've just been working through I during the break I I made some
changes to the the standards just in keeping with what we did to the sixth grade standards, just hoping to expedite the process a little bit. So, uh, we were just looking through those suggested changes and seeing if anybody additional changes. >> Oh, you're great. Um, so
are we good on that 8. RL then or sorry that should be 8 R I not RL. I hear no objections. Let's move on. >> I'm sorry just really quickly. Portrayal of the subject. Does that seem vague
>> to you or anybody? >> Yeah, it does. Um, >> could we at least say portrayal of the I don't know if content would be better. >> I'm fine with content if >> subt.
>> I agree. >> Yeah, I we have that language of content in the cornerstone. So, yeah, I I agree. that acceptable to everyone? I see a lot of nods, so I think we're ready to go. Coach Hillard, would that change?
>> Okay. Okay. It has been made to both seventh and eighth grade. >> Thank you, Miss Now. >> Okay. Do we have anything else for the middle grades for this standard 7?
Nope. Let's go. >> Then we can move to E1E2. RL reads, evaluate content and meaning as it is presented in two or more diverse formats or media. Um I did not get to these during the break so I have not this will
be my first pass through these today. Um does anyone I guess first of all do we have any TDOE feedback on this? We don't have any. >> Okay. Um, does anyone have comments on the standard?
>> I hear nobody anxious to make comments. I assume that it's acceptable to everybody. >> All right. Well, hearing that, then we will keep it. Um I I will just flag that the the language of this standard is the exact
same for both E RL and RARI for all of high school. Um so unless we want to build in additional rigor through any particular language um if we're content with just the rigor coming from the increasing complexity of text um we can just keep the next three
standards as well. That's been pretty much our take on it up to this point in other standards that the com that the increase in difficulty is going to come with the text. Is that acceptable to everybody?
I hear no objections. >> I'm I'm sorry. How do we feel about the fact that still in the cornerstone Unless we took that out. I don't think we did. Uh it still reflects the word quantitatively and it's it's appearing
nowhere in the high school standards. >> Yeah. I mean our our language for the high school standards is essentially kind of a watered down version of what the cornerstone says. Um, and it it eliminates integrate and and then also eliminates including visually and quantitatively as well as in words.
How do we feel about just mirroring the language of the cornerstone exactly in the the high school standards? >> I like that call out, but I think we were saying data instead of quantitatively. We did that before, didn't we? Yeah,
>> we did. And I I mean, I guess I'm back to do we want to use that word quantitatively at all in the cornerstone um or or do we want to streamline it and say data in the cornerstone?
And I also think we've lost that integration piece in the high school standards from the cornerstone as well. >> I definitely think we should add the phrase integrate and at the beginning of each of these standards just to mirror
the cornerstone integrate and evaluate content and meaning. Well, now I don't know about content and meaning because that is slightly different from the the cornerstone because we're not really integrating meaning as much as we're integrating content. This is probably going to sound dumb,
but I'm a little confused about the word integrate used in a reading standard. Like >> because integrate to me sounds like something like the the student does like you're integrating multimedia into like a presentation or something. And I'm just not
understanding how that actually fits into reading. >> I get what you're saying because really what you're really evaluating integrated content, >> right? I mean, we're integrating visual
and you know, printed media and diverse media formats. So do we just need to eliminate integrate and from the cornerstone? >> I this is not my uh grade level expertise. So it's just a question. Are are they sort of implying synthesis
>> with integration like synthesize pull from multiple sources put it together? I >> mean that's my interpretation of it. I mean I I you know I welcome other other people's perspectives but that's my interpretation of it. Um, but when we
but when we synthesize in the upper grade levels, we do so in writing and we're not this is the reading standard and so we're really synthesizing our
understanding of of integrated content. >> Uh, Banks, what do you have on this? Yeah, I think that kind of the way that we've interpreted it as is the student is synthesizing information from both printed texts as well as digital or
multimedia text and they pull that information together and then they analyze it but then they reproduce in either written form or in oral form their analysis. So that would be why the integrate would fit integrate/synthesize
whatever would fit fine in the reading standard here is because they are pulling that information together analyzing it and then preparing to reproduce that analysis either in speech or in writing. >> Okay. Thank you. That's very clear. I I
for that reason I I prefer the word synthesis. I think it's better uh more accurate. It describes the uh the thinking the level of thinking that's required. So we might change it to synthesize and
evaluate content. What do you think about that? >> I think it would probably be evaluate and synthesize because I think you would do evaluation first and then you would synthesize after evaluating. Um but I I do I do agree. I think that language synthesis is a little more like
integrate I think does kind of imply an act of writing in a way that uh that I don't think is necessarily appropriate here but you can you know mentally synthesize I think in >> in a way I think it's clear to me >> so that we just to clarify that's that's a conversation about the cornerstone
correct we're we're adjusting the cornerstone >> okay so >> so that would be back >> that would be revising the cornerstone to read evaluate and synthesize content.
And then we still need to have a conversation about qualitatively uh or quantitatively sorry quantitatively um since we have not used the word quantitatively at any point in the the standard progression. Um since we now we
previously said data or or it was or information or data is what we used to work around that. Um, I guess we could we could change content in the cornerstone to information or data to
mirror that or we could we could >> I like that >> information or data >> and or data. >> We have we have used the word content I believe in other places as well. I don't know that I love information for the
cornerstone. Um because when we're thinking about literature, literature isn't so much information, >> right? I mean content would capture data. I mean data is content. Um so I I do feel like data I don't feel as though data
has to be in the in the cornerstone. Um though I but my my my suggestion would be I don't think we need to say quantitatively in the in the cornerstone if we're not going to say it anywhere in the actual progression itself.
>> So my wasn't for dad in the cornerstone but it seemed like we dropped it um as we matured through the grades. And I actually would argue that analyzing, synthesizing data is a very important
skill that just needs to be re-emphasized over and over and over again. Probably even more so in the higher grades. I agree. >> Mhm. to me in the upper grades when I'm teaching well either I've taught eth 9th
and tth that's kind of implied to me um but I'm fine with emphasizing it as well it just uh it might just take a little work to get it not to not read in a clunky way >> honestly the word that's always giving
me trouble is quantitatively how many do you mean what are we looking for is it a number of text. So, that's that's always been a hangup for me. >> I think if you decide to go with content that uh we can certainly break that down
into the different ways that information can be presented, we can represent that in the standards guides. If that's if that's helpful, >> that would be helpful. Are we okay with that then considering that that would be addressed in the
standards guide? >> Yes, I'm content with that. I just simply want us to kind of mirror the language in our 9 through 12 standards to the cornerstone. Um because in the cornerstone currently we don't just stop with diverse formats in media. We continue to including visually and
quantitatively as well as in words. Whereas in the standard itself for the 9 through 12, we just end with diverse formats and media and presumably are going to have that clarified in the in the standards guide. Um, so I just feel like we should either bring some of that language over to the standard or we
should eliminate that language in the cornerstone. >> What say the rest of you? >> I'm good with eliminating quantitatively. I'm sorry. I was u typing in the wish list if if that's what you said. I was I'm good with eliminating that in the cornerstone. I
think that makes sense. >> Is everybody okay with that? >> Just just to clarify. So the the cornerstone would now be quite short. It would read evaluate and synthesize content presented in diverse formats in media. >> It's pretty clear to me.
I think that that's less confusing language to me with the emphasis being integrate and synthesize or synthesize. >> So as we create a clear progression in
the standards >> yeah so uh can you rewrite that for us or did you already >> Yeah. So it it is in 0 0156 because it's a cornerstone and I'll and I'll I'll move it across the across the progression. I just haven't had the opportunity yet. But the the language is
just evaluate and synthesize content presented in diverse formats and media. >> That's acceptable to me. Is it acceptable to everyone else? I see a lot of head nods. Uh hearing no objections. I'd say we're done with that.
>> Okay. So with that in mind, then we can then return our attention to the 9 through 12 versions of these standards, which sound very similar to the cornerstone, though not exactly. They're kind of saying the exact same thing, just in slightly different words. Um, where it says, "Evaluate content and
meaning as it is presented in two or more diverse formats or media." Um I I think we either need to essentially mimic the language of the cornerstone here and just say evaluate and synthesize content presented in two or
more diverse formats uh or media or and media. Um >> I like adding the word synthesize. >> Yeah. Um >> because it adds some rigor to that. But I I think the other question would
be would this be the place we want to we want to get more specific um as far as like types of data or like is this where the the quantitatively stuff would come in or is that something we're just going to simply um allow to live in the standards guide?
>> I are you suggesting like a EG? >> I would argue in high school that we should specify data. Um, I just feel like it's an important skill and by noting it, we kind of make the statement that it's a important skill. I guess
what I hear you saying, someone said that it's assumed because they did it in the younger grades. Um, I'm not sure if our students across Tennessee have the strongest quantitative reading skill uh reading skills and or quantitative
reasoning skills and how can we really emphasize how important that is. >> I I echo that. I I agree with that. Um, and it's also something that's assessed um in one way or another on the ACT, the PSAT, the FCAT.
um you know that those are things that uh and of course in in laying we you know students need to interpret graphs and increasingly it's part of the reading and interpreting quantitative data is part of um other standards as
well in other curriculums. So I I agree that I think it needs to be specified. I think it needs to be explicit. Um, I think that could be relatively easy to incorporate into the language. I mean, we have evaluate and synthesize content. I think that would be a logical
place to add an EG there um with some specific examples. Um, would we want that those EGs to be the same for 910 and 112 or would we want there to be a progression between 910 and 112? >> Well, let's see what you come up with and let's see if we can divide them.
What are the EGs? Um well that that I'm gonna open that up to you you all because I don't want to I don't want to >> data is one of them. >> Okay. So do we want to say do we want to say specifically quantitative data or do we want to say data? >> Data. You don't really have to say
quantitative. >> Okay. So eg data. I've added that. Uh what else? our our word that we're giving examples of is content. So it's quite large. I mean there are many many different
things that could fit within the the broader umbrella of content >> visuals. Okay. I'm not sure what to add here. Um, the initial standard did include theme, but um, I feel like we need something that
makes a bit of a nod to literature in our EG. If anybody has any ideas for that, >> yeah, I suppose data would not necessarily be the most logical inclusion for for literature. I mean, obviously there can
be data in literature, but it's relatively rare. This is our RL standard. So, >> yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I can easily move it down to the RAR. Um, I'll just kind of create a placeholder for for both RAR
and RL, and we can kind of make decisions. Would visuals, are we comfortable with visuals existing in both of our EG lists for RAR and RL? >> I think so. Okay, so I have visuals in both. I have data
in just R I. What else would we like to see added to these two example lists? I don't know if we want to specify this or not, but um
graphics or um or cartoons. I mean, of course, I'm thinking specifically political cartoons. Um yeah, but um I don't know if we'd want to specify that or just leave that under visuals.
>> I think that's a visual. the old standard listed sorry I'm um listed topic subject andor theme
um and well we're not at 11th grade but um I I don't know if we're the way it's worded now I feel like if I read the current standard without having read the previous current
the standard that is now in practice. I think I would interpret this standard differently um without that background knowledge. I think I'm a little bit concerned about if it's still easily understood by teachers.
Well, I do I do think, you know, now that I'm I'm looking at it again, um maybe maybe if we move the the parentheses, um so that it's the we're really talking
about the formats that the content is produced in the the the visual format or you know the or a graphic format or a a table or a chart or a graph. Those are formatting features, right? I mean, those are those are presentation
features, graphic features, whereas, you know, we're really we're evaluating synthesizing the content as presented in those formats, right? So, wouldn't it be better? Oh, you've already done it. I see. Coach, you're >> I was doing I I was just doing it as you
said it because you're right. Yeah, >> I I don't uh I don't necessarily see that uh that there needs to necessarily be a reference to theme here. I I mean I I I get what it's gesturing, but that doesn't really seem to be what the
standard is about. I mean, we have no reference to theme in the cornerstone. Uh we've made no reference to meaning at any other grade level. It's just simply been um an evaluation of the of the media, the multimedia components and the
formats utilized, not really gesturing towards a broader meaning. Um, I'm thinking back to like benchmark questions that I've gotten on this standard and it's typically like
we'll get two texts, two versions of like King Arthur, like two versions of uh of the same text or idea. And then there's questions about um about like comparing them and
like evaluating their differences or how is the theme portrayed differently in this one versus that one. Um so that's what I've seen. Um but correct me if I'm wrong. Uh I guess Mr. Lions >> I was just going to say that one
typically is like reading standard nine. Um, now I haven't seen your benchmarks, so I don't know what it's been aligned to, but yeah, typically that practice of like um analyzing how a theme is represented in this text versus this text, you know, and the similarities and
differences that Yeah, that would fall more under the R9 realms. >> Okay, my bad. I must be getting the numbers mixed up. Okay. So, are we then back to considering these example lists that we were working on for RL and RI?
>> The only thing I can think of and this does not solve the problem of literature is citations. I think it's healthy for students to evaluate the quality of citations and that to me is like a type of content
that is not necessarily the main body text but that does not help with literature mostly. >> Yeah. I I my understanding if if I was understanding uh Miss Now correctly is that we were kind of moving the examples
away from content down to the diverse formats or media. Is that is that correct Miss now? >> Yes, that's that's what that's what I had concluded. But I see what Dr. Stout is saying. Although I
guess in a way we I we did address that to an extent in another standard. Um I mean that is something they do have to do though. They do have to evaluate and synthesize that
um their understanding of citations and references. But >> I'm just not sure if I it could be it could pertain to the standard. I just wonder if this standard is more about like different types of content in different media formats. Um, and and
sure there are differences in how you how you site in the context of of written work versus visual work, but I'm not sure >> if that's a real major focus of what we're doing here.
I mean, I what we've created, I I think, you know, as as the texts progress in rigor, so will, you know, like like our other high school standards have typically as the as they progress in rigor, so will the standards. So, I mean, I'm
I I'm good with what we've created for 11 and 12, but uh again, I'll defer the to the committee if anybody else has any suggestions. I'm good with what we've created.
Who wants to make a change? So would that then you said for 1112 would that then be we're just going to eliminate these EG lists and just keep the language of the standard without the example list of examples or >> what we've created just just um copy and
paste the same things for um >> okay >> E1 and two into E3 and E4. Would we would we want to just have EG visuals on the literature and EG data on the uh RARI just to kind of keep it one
to one so there's one item on both lists just for the parallelism of it all >> is it necessary >> I I probably not just there's a part of me that's just like bothered by saying visuals in both locations but just
saying data in one application and that's but that's just me being that's the the copy editor in me I think. >> Well, why don't you write >> visuals I don't as long as I get data I I don't care where you put it.
>> I I agree. I I like data in there and I think we're aiming for clarity for our teachers and what they are to teach and I think that that clarifies that for them. >> Yeah. No, we're going to include data. >> Yeah, I I definitely wanted to include data. I was just asking if we wanted to
eliminate visuals from the RARI versions just to so that we had one example provided for each standard rather than >> I understood. I was just saying like, yeah, that's fine with me as long as that is is what I was trying to convey. I probably >> Great. >> No, I think I think my brain's just
right. Um, >> y'all are doing great. Only thing I'll flag on the e um English one two versus 3 4 it looks like in the original standards it went from two oh no you have two or more never mind retract
it covered okay so so essentially we would have the same 910 standard and 1112 standard for RL and and same for 910 RI and 1112 RI um we would say evaluate and synthesize content present in two or more diverse
formats or media, eg visuals, um or the RL version and then evaluate and synthesize content presented in two or more diverse formats or media eg data um in the RARI version.
>> Um I just wanted to mention something that's in the old 1112 for RLI.7. Um it says including how the version interprets the source material. I don't know if we're just want to make sure we're not losing anything.
>> What do they mean by that? I guess it's it's kind of gesturing towards adaptation like you know probably in most classrooms like film adaptations but I mean there obviously other adaptations but an adapt a visual adaptation of a of a written work or a
you know a written adaptation of a visual work um asking how they interpret the other but >> feels a bit >> that feels a bit restrictive to me. It feels like that could be contained within the standards that we have currently,
but >> there are enough words in there to address that. Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the EAT took that out for that reason that it was just too almost too specific and that if they kept the wording broad enough, it would include instances where
there is a version interpreting the source text and and but that's also something that you can specify that we call out in the standards guides as as an example of how to how students can practice the standard too. So, yeah.
>> Do we need to do that, Annie? >> Uh, I'm fine with either. I just wanted to bring attention to it. >> Well, if we're just fine with it, then we probably won't ask them to do anything about it. I I do have one quick uh and sorry to
look back at the EG, but it's quick. Um I would just ask that perhaps we consider adding texts to each of the EG lists. Um since that's the primary format or media we're we're considering and we there's no reference to text at all in the standard unless we do that.
Um so just EG text visuals, EG texts data, EG text visuals, EG texts data. >> I agree. >> Yes. Good ad. >> Does everyone feel okay with that? And then we actually have a list here
instead of just the the one item. Any objection to that? I see none. Let's move on. >> Okay. Um if we are good there, then we have finished the seventh standard and so we just have 8, 9, and 10 remaining.
Um eight, good news on eight. Um it's just an RARI standard so we should get it done in half the time. Knock on whatever available that you might have. Um >> so uh the
KRI uh or sorry the the cornerstone for this particular standard is evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.
So this is the evaluation of the line of reasoning essentially of uh a text. Does anyone have any edits they want to propose to the cornerstone or did the TDOE have any comments on the cornerstone? >> No feedback. >> Okay.
Cornerstone. >> It looks pretty powerful. >> Okay. Um if we're good there, um I'm going to go ahead and and move to the kindergarten standard. Um, the kindergarten standard says, "With prompting and support, identify the
reasons an author provides to support points in a text. Thoughts there? Any suggestions for a change? Does the TPE have anything?" No, >> no feedback until second grade on this. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Hearing no recommendations for change, I suggest we move on. So, are we good to keep that one then? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, then the first grade iteration of the standard reads, "Identify the reasons an author provides to support
points in a text. It's the exact same language as the kindergarten standard. It's just removing prompting and support." >> Oh, okay. Sure. Yep. That sounds like a good uh way to scaffold it. Um, I am just going to make a quick note
that there is extra there's a double space after the colon here. So, I'm just making an edit to remove that extra space. Obviously, not a substantive edit, but just just one for formatting. >> Okay, everybody good with that? >> What year did we skip? Did we advance from points to argument? I know it's not
these grades, but just cognizant of that that we had a long discussion on that in another standard. The switch from points to argument >> was that the five six jump that we talked about >> they argumentative I know in argumentative writing it's not in
introduced until sixth grade. So that might be >> so I'm looking back at the argument writing. So we say opinion pieces until up through fifth grade and then we shift to
argumentative writing in sixth grade. >> Correct. >> Um for writing >> and um that's currently what we're working on now in sixth grade is argumentative writing this week. >> Okay. >> And that's sixth grade and fifth grade is not.
It seems as though the language of these standards as currently written seems to mimic that. Um, if you look down to the fifth grade, it says reasons and evidence. And then in sixth grade, it shifts over to claims and counter claims. So, it's defying and identifying the argument. So, it seems as if the
language here kind of mimics what we the decisions we made on uh on argument writing. That did that answer your question? >> Yes. I just remember a long conversation about the word point. So I just want to know >> I do too. >> Yeah.
>> We'll watch for it. >> Okay. So move to second grade. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Uh second grade reads, describe how reasons support specific points an author makes in a text. So we're not just identifying the reasons. We're now describing how the
reasons support the points. And there is feedback. It says, "Please consider replacing describe with explain." They essentially mean the same. And it helps with demonstrating that there is no meaningful difference between the second
grade and third grade standard aside from increase in text complexity. >> I'm I'm fine with that. If everyone else is fine with that. >> Me too. >> I think we actually addressed that elsewhere. So it would read, explain how reasons
support specific points an author makes in a text. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, if we're okay with that, that would be then we would have the identical same language in the third grade standard. So would we want to go ahead and lock in that language for the second and the third grade standard?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> We've talked a lot about the the difficulty of the jump to third grade. So maybe it'll be nice for the third grade teachers to get to stick to the same language for once. Okay. Um fourth grade reads, explain how an
author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text. So we're just introducing reason uh evidence. We've been talking about reasons for a while, but now we're talking about uh evidence as well.
Sounds good to me. Sounds >> great. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Um, fifth grade then says, "Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support points in a text, identifying which reasons and evidence support which points." So, just instead
of just saying there are there is evidence to support the reasons, we're now connecting evidence to specific reasons. Sounds good. >> Sounds great. Okay. Everybody feel good about that? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. This is a lot of keeps in a row. I'm I'm thrown off. >> All right. >> Sixth grade now reads, "Identify the argument and claims and counter claims in a text, distinguishing claims that
are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not." Do we have feedback on that? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um, >> go ahead. says, "Please consider changing the wording to identify and explain instead of just identify to make it clear that students should be doing both at this level since students have
already been explaining elements of arguments in grades three through five." >> That seems fair to me. Does anyone disagree? >> Nope. Good idea. Okay, we're ready to go.
>> Um, do we want to throw an and or in instead of and between claims and counter claims since some texts may not possess a counter claim? >> Yes, makes sense. >> I think we have agreement there. >> Yes, it's different. Yeah. Yes.
>> Okay. Let me just type that really fast. >> How you doing, Rosemary? >> I'm doing good. I had a great meeting today. >> Oh, good. That's good to hear. So, if you have any more objections, we want to hear from you. Okay.
>> All right. >> Okay. Are we good to move to seventh grade now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, identify and explain the argument and specific claims and counter claims in a text assessing whether the evidence is relevant and sufficient to
support the claims. Um, I think we should just add that change and andor like we did in the previous um standard, but otherwise I don't have any comment here. Does the TDOE have anything?
>> No, they don't. Not not in the middle grades. >> I agree with your recommended change. Anybody have any objections to that? >> All right, let's roll. >> Okay,
>> then eighth grade will read identify and evaluate. So, we're no longer explaining, we're now evaluating. Identify and evaluate the argument and specific claims and counter claims in a text. Assessing whether evidence is relevant and sufficient to support the claims and the reasoning is logical.
>> That's rigorous. >> Yes, >> good job. I say, >> should we add a should we add a second weather there for just clarity assessing whether evidence is relevant and sufficient to support the claims and whether the reasoning is logical or is that just I just misread it the first
time. >> Did >> So, what are you saying? Yes or no? No, I don't think you need the second weather. You're just saying for grammar purposes. No, I don't really think you need it for >> Yeah. Yeah, it definitely doesn't need for grammar purposes. I just didn't know if it needed it for just clarity. But if
if no one else thinks, then I'm then I I'm good with not adding. >> Keep it as is. I see everybody agreeing with that. Let's roll. >> Okay. Um then E1E E2 reads trace and
evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text assessing whether the claims are supported by sound reasoning and relevant sufficient evidence. Identify reputations of counter claims, false statements, and facious reasoning.
>> Any TDOE comments? >> Nope. >> Uh trace, what does that mean? and of your predecessors had a big discussion about their feelings on trace. I don't know if Tammy recalls the nature
of the discussion. >> It's traditionally been assumed to be the same as identify. So, >> oh, I think you're on mute, Amy. That's helpful. Thanks. Thank you. >> We haven't used >> I can unmute you, Tammy. I think
It's more than just identifying. You have to take it from the first time it's mentioned and talk about the entire argument and how it actually develops. If the argument develops and if it doesn't develop, is it a good argument? So that's how we interpreted trace. It
wasn't just identifying. It was actually looking at how it developed through the text. >> And we say that better. Uh >> yeah, >> how it develops. >> So um Brianna and I mean um Miss Lacy uh
is it the word trace is it in the glossery for teachers to understand what that word means >> because I was looking I didn't see the word trace but >> we can we can definitely put that in there.
>> Okay. There's something about tracing the key points just in the introduction of the reading. It's just in this icky um piece and then yeah, Miss N is absolutely correct. It's not in the glossery.
>> I guess my only counter to that would be why are we using a verb once? Like if we haven't like referred to it anywhere else in the standards kind of like mood like
it it it feels out of place if this is the only time we've used it. >> Well, I felt the same way. But I think she said earlier in her explanation that it's it's more than identify. It it
talks about a sequence. Um, and I don't know if there's another way to say that without using the word trace, but it's more than identify it from what I understand.
>> I have an idea. I I keep on I'm really struggling with switch back windows, so I'm sorry for that. But um maybe if we put evaluate the development of the argument and specific claims in a text
um I'm okay with the word trace. Um I interpreted like my initial interpretation of trace is exactly um what Miss Oh, Miss Tammy I forgot your last name. I'm sorry.
But um what she said, but I I do think if we use the word trace, it would probably be beneficial to put it in the glossery or use that word develop instead or development. >> I like evaluate development better
myself. >> My my only I think I like trace and here's why. Um just because we've maintained this structure throughout the middle grades um of identify and uh
explain or identify or identify and well it's identify and explain and then identify and explain and then identify and evaluate and now it's trace and evaluate trace and evaluate. So it kind of maintains that you know uh track the the development of the argument and then
also evaluate it. Just kind of maintains that structure which would also allow us to make a corresponding edit to the uh cornerstone because the cornerstone if you look right now just reads evaluate. Um evaluation is the only verb in the cornerstone at the moment.
So I agree with Hillyard u leave trace as it is but if we could add it to the glossery so that teachers will be able to understand what that meaning of the word trace is. >> I could I could deal with that. >> Thank you Rosemary. >> That'll be an important um I I agree
with that as well because currently uh trace is used at the sixth and seventh grade levels only. It's not used in the upper grades. So if we're switching it to the upper grades, that'll certainly be something we need to identify exactly what that means. So yeah.
>> Okay. Comfortable. >> You have traced how much we have used the word trace. Is that what you're saying? >> That's right. That's right. >> Yes, that's what he said. >> That it does make me ever so slightly anxious if we're viewing trace as being
a more rigorous version of this, but we've only ever used it in sixth and seventh grade. So that that does give me a little pause but >> but I understand the logic. I mean it makes sense to me that that tracing would be a more extensive version of
identifying. So >> we need to add trace to the cornerstone. >> I I I think we need to have either identify or trace there since we're identifying and tracing from 6 through 12. Um, I think we need to have some verb that captures that idea. And I
guess since we end with trace, it makes sense to to end with trace in the cornerstone as well. >> I I agree. I think uh we've already uh certified among ourselves how important the word trace is in uh identifying the
activity that we're asking the students to do. So how would you put that in the cornerstone then? Um, I mean, I think it would just be as simple as saying rather than evaluate, just trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a
text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. >> And you would insert that where at the sixth grade level. >> Uh, well, cornerstone runs constantly. So, the cornerstone is K through 12. So, it would just be all of them.
>> Are we okay with trace being in the cornerstone? >> Yes. >> Yes. I think we've identified that it's an important uh skill. >> Okay. Then are we
are we good to accept that E1 E2 standard as well without any additional edits? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Or I guess any I guess any edits at all because we we stuck with trace and evaluate. >> I don't see anything. Do you see
anything from a grammatical standpoint? Any commas? >> Nope. >> Semicol. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um then E3E4 reads trace and evaluate the argument and specific
claims in a text assessing um whether the claims are supported by sound reasoning and relevant sufficient evidence that to that point it's the same as the previous standard and then it alters after the semicolon. Um instead of identify reputations of counter claims it says analyze
reputations of counter claims semicolon identify false statements and facious reasoning. Um, I guess I don't really understand why we're just analyzing the reputations of the counter claims and not also analyzing the false statements and facious reasoning. Um,
seems to me as if we could just say analyze reputations of counter claims, false statements, and facious reasoning. >> Agreed. >> I agree. Yes. Make that change, please.
>> Doing it as we speak. Okay, >> I have the next standards. Oh, great. >> What was that? >> These kids are going to be critical thinkers. >> There we go. I was just saying, Vice Chair Hillard, I know sometimes there's a lag, so I was going to say we have the
next couple sters pulled up, but you're okay. >> Speeding ahead of me. >> I've gotten faster at this. >> Not just faster, fast. Okay. Are we good to move to the ninth standard then? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. We're back to RAR and RL. So, this one won't go quite as fast as the last one probably, but uh onwards and upwards. Um the cornerstone reads, analyze how two or more texts assess, sorry, analyze how two or more test texts address similar themes or topics
in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches an author takes. Um any uh feedback on the cornerstone from TDOE or from any of us? >> No feedback from PDOE.
>> Um I have one note. Um we got those uh those letters about incorporating um more language about culture into the standard. Um, but when I was looking at it myself, I felt like that fit maybe
better in the reading 10 standard rather than here. But I just wanted to to mention that was we got two letters about about that folks want to pull those up. I believe it's um the Ed Trust Tennessee and the Tennessee Alliance for Equity and
Education letter in round two. And Annie, are you also or sorry, Miss Darker, are you also talking about the letter from round one from that same group? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. Yeah. So, it's only in one of your
one pages in your prep work. I'm happy to put it on the screen if helpful. But yeah, also another note, feel free to boss me around, tell me what to do on the screen. I'm happy to show it over. It seems that this uh this group uh
primary ask is that we um they say the changes we made are in the right direction. Uh however, we believe that explicitly including a requirement to compare literature across diverse cultures and perspectives is imperative
is the language they're using. I have with this particular standard putting in in the standard I have some fear that it might get a little too boxed in for teachers. Um, so I kind of felt like it might work better in the in the 10 standard where we say something about from a divi
diverse culture. We kind of have a nod to that, but it's not as explicit I think as they're wanting and I think it it's a little up for interpretation the way it's written currently in that R10 standard myself. Um, but I think if we incorporate it into this one, it would
probably need to be like an ore situation just because I do have fear that it would become where we can only compare thematically across cultures instead of that being one option. >> Right.
I would second that from the TDOE perspective just that I know that when it becomes the materials adoption that standard 10 is kind of the the place they go to for you know what types of text are included in materials. So I think that that feedback would best be
included in 10 and then standard nine would be this the practice that students do with those types of texts. So, >> so how does this affect the writing of the cornerstone and standards for 10?
What do we want to do? I mean, it sounds as though we mostly think that this language about uh diverse texts is better suited to the the 10 cornerstone perhaps. Um, so this
might be something we come back to. Once we finish the nine standard. Am am I hearing the the temperature of the room correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, are we good then with this nine cornerstone?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> See all the nods. Let's roll. >> Okay. Then let's look at KRL. Um, KRL reads, "With prompting and support, orally compare and contrast the experiences of characters in familiar
stories." >> Uh, do we have any TD TDOE feedback on that standard? >> No. >> Do we have any? >> Sounds very familiar to others. >> Are we good to keep that one? >> Keep it.
>> Yes, keep it. Okay. Um the nine or sorry KRI um reads with prompting and support orally compare and contrast basic similarities and differences between two texts on the same topic which aligns to the TN
science social studies standards. I do have just a quick clarification. I'd love to hear from any EA team members um on the on the call or or TDOE. I I noticed this particular standard is when we start to have references to which aligns to the Tennessee Science and
Social Studies standards. Um I guess I'm just a little confused by I I guess it's an attempt at interdisiplinarity. Um but it seems a bit odd to only include it here. Um so I I just would
love to hear some some explanation of why this language is included. So by looking at this uh well they use compare and contrast but they also come back and say basic similarities which means compare and differences contrast
between two texts. They're looking at two texts and I'm assuming integrating the science and social studies within that text. The article could be on a science article. It could be a social studies article. That's just what I'm reading into that because I've seen that and I've done that. But maybe I can get
more feedback from the Tennessee Department of Education. >> Leanne, are you still here? Um, I don't want to speak out of turn. >> Yes. >> Okay. This is your
>> Sorry. The way I the way I understood it, they wanted to make sure that a lot of the texts that were being used did go back into the science and social studies so that those two subjects could be addressed better in elementary. Is that
right, Leanne? >> Yeah. It was also an equity move just so kids could have um be exposed to the science social studies topics within their reading. So they'll
get some background knowledge and then they can take that back into the content and then you know it also will help on the assessment if we we don't talk about that. it. >> And to echo that is, you know, with this
standard, it kind of has a split where in grades K through five, the reason why they're analyzing two or more texts that have similar themes is to build knowledge. And so, whereas in grades 6 through 12, it's to compare the approaches the author takes. But, so I think that the EAT and Leanne, correct
me if I'm wrong, was trying to like emphasize that building knowledge piece. Yes. in K5, you know, which would naturally come through the science and social studies alignment. >> Yes. And we know that we're not saying this is taking place of the content of
science, social studies, but by having texts that align, then it helps that build that background knowledge and that um frontloading or just making connections and deepening
their understanding of the knowledge that they're learning in those contents. and it builds year after year. So, it kind of keeps it consistent throughout the years, whereas um and that that is just for all
kids. It's just it's like I said, it's an equity move as well. >> Okay, that makes sense to me. So, it's >> it does and I agree with that because I noticed in our Wonders curriculum, we utilize that for our kindergarten on up as well as our I Ready teacher toolkit.
So I agree with that as well. >> So if if I'm hearing this correctly, it's the the texts themselves are aligning to the science and social studies standards. >> Yes. So like the curriculum >> units would have texts that align in with the
science social studies curricul. >> So with the wording I think because the phrase which aligns I guess I'm having a hard time because which kind of fun functioning as a relative pronoun there. Um, it seems as though the topic is the antecedent for that pronoun, but if we
want it to be text, I think we could say something along the lines of with prompting and support orally compare and contrast basic similarities and differences between two texts on the same topics between two texts on the same topic that align to the Tennessee science. >> Yeah. Standards rather than than rather
so that align versus which align. I'm okay with that. Are we okay? >> I heard the word similar topic. similar better than same. >> Well, if they align, then I think as long as they're within that realm of
content, they should. I mean, I don't know. Same topic, similar topic. >> Yeah, we use the language similar in the cornerstone. And for that reason, I think it should be here.
>> Uh, so it would just be on similar topics rather than on the same topic. >> If it's not the same topic, would it align to the science and social studies? >> Okay.
I think I prefer same here for >> I do too. I think >> yeah, this is kindergarten. Um it's pretty early on. We probably don't want them >> for it to align. I think it's got to be the same topic. >> Okay. >> Since the impact is really on your um
textbooks and instructional materials as you put your textbook on, >> they can have like the the standards build all along. So like a fifth grade They could have topics in their curriculum or any science associates
from fifth grade below because those are all things they should know. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. So, is our language then going to be with prompting and support orally compare and contrast basic similarities and differences between two texts on the
same topic that align to the Tennessee Science Social Studies Standards. I've heard >> I've heard people affirm that that's correct. >> Okay. >> If there's no objections, let's move on.
>> Okay. Um then first grade RL reads, compare and contrast the experiences of characters in stories, including written details and illustrations when development developmentally appropriate. Um I think there should be a comma after stories there.
Well, are wait are is the never mind. I don't think that is the case because those are stories including written details and illustrations. So, never mind. >> I I I guess my
question would be do we need when elementally appropriate? Like isn't that understood for every single grade? Yeah, >> so >> I would agree. So, can we just delete when developmentally appropriate? >> Yes. >> I guess the whole point of a standard is
that it's developmentally appropriate. >> Exactly. >> I think and I don't know, I'm not an elementary person. I'm wondering if the phrase is not referring to the standard as a whole, but just to the illustrations. >> I agree. And I think if you were to take out when developmental developmentally
appropriate that and or might be appropriate um like you've used in the past. >> If if we're referring exclusively to the illustrations, is that my understanding? Then >> should we say developmentally appropriate illustrations?
>> I I think you also have to remember that these are very complex texts that they're using. So you have to pick and choose which ones you like some may not be appropriate for this age group in the book. You know to
go >> to expand on that. It's it's not saying that illustrations are developmentally appropriate. It's saying allowing writing or drawing basically um is appropriate to accept as a demonstration of understanding of
compare and contrast. Is that is that correct, Liam? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's not about the illustrations. It's about >> Go ahead. Sorry. >> Go ahead. No, go ahead. >> Uh, I guess it's just are the written details and illustrations being produced
by the student to reflect their comparison and contrast or are they written details and illustrations within the stories? >> It's a great question. >> I think those are within the stories. >> Okay. But I think because the stories
are complex, there are some parts of the story that we may not go to because they're deeper. Maybe I can't I'm trying to remember what we were thinking to put in the developmentally appropriateness. >> So if I think that's a the crux of the
issue there. If we're talking about the written details and illustrations in the text, then I don't think when developmentally appropriate is needed. But if we're talking about students response >> because well okay hang on we're asking the kids
to compare and contrast the experience of characters. So how are they going to do that? Right? They will do that they stories including I think it needs to be rewarded >> in in kindergarten it says orally
compare. So they're talking about how they compare. >> So it's what they're doing. So it would be written or illustrating the comparisons. >> What was intended? I don't know. >> Yeah. I would say since that one's orally compare and contrast, this is in
writing or through illustrations. >> Compare and contrast. >> We just then we need to change where that is in this in the sentence. I should probably read comparing comparing contrast in writing or andor through illustration the experiences of
characters in stories. >> Well said. >> Could we what? But to me that's still we want to show that it's the student doing it. So what if we said compare and contrast the experiences of characters
and stories semicolon produ produce written details and illustrations when developmentally appropriate to mirror the language above. It has orally compare. So would it be in writing in
illustration andor illustration something like that. >> Put in the orally. >> Well, instead of orally. >> Oh. Oh. Oh, that's what you're saying. Write it instead of orally put in.
>> Yeah, that that was my intention, but with compare and contrast in writing andor illustrations, the experiences of characters in stories just because it would mirror the location of orally in the in the kindergarten standard. But that's not what's in the revision currently that I see.
>> Oh, I I am I'm Oh, sorry. I I I had it typed up, but I hadn't clicked out. >> Okay, that's that's where my confusion was. Okay, so >> Okay. >> Um, so it would read, sorry, uh, compare and contrast in writing
andor illustrations, the experiences of characters and stories. >> Yes, that says it quite simply. I'm open to whatever the committee um prefers. I was just pointing out that it
could be in writing and or illustrations compare and contrast rather than compare and contrast in writing and or through illustrations. It has orally first uh in standard above. >> Okay. Um,
so I made that edit. In writing and/or illustrations, compare and contrast the experiences of characters in stories. Is that acceptable to everyone? I see head nods.
I say we're done. >> Okay, good work. Right. uh first grade ri um is going to have well uh yeah it's going to be similar I think because it says compare and contrast basic similarities and
differences between two texts on the same topic including written details and illustrations when developmentally appropriate which aligns to the uh Tennessee science and social study standards. So I guess it should read this one's going to take some workshopping I think. Um so it would
read in writing andor illustrations just to mirror what we did above. Compare and contrast basic similarities and differences between two texts on the same topic that align to the Tennessee science and
social studies standards. Okay. I typed out a version of that. It's in I 171. Um, >> if that looks all right to folks. >> Looks good to me. Anybody else have questions or want to make any more
changes? >> Hearing none, let's move on. >> Okay. Um, second grade RL reads, compare and contrast two or more versions of the same story by different authors or different cultures. Do we have any TDOE feedback there?
>> The the uh not not till the R. Is it the RI? >> This is the RL. >> The R no RL. >> No. >> Does anyone >> Does anyone on the SRC have any or
anyone else on the call have a comment on this one? >> No comments. I'd say it's approved. >> Okay. Um and then second grade RARI reads, compare and contrast the the most important points presented by two texts
on the same topic. Um which aligns to the Tennessee science and social studies standards. Outside of just changing which to that? Um do we I think we had TDOE comment on this. They did they want to move that that well they say which aligns but
that aligns to behind the word topic >> as it makes more sense so it would I guess >> that topic >> already >> the rephrasing that that you've already been doing with that >> because it was confusing originally yeah I think it's working so
>> okay >> that was it >> so it would read compare and contrast the most important points presented by two texts on the same topic that align to the Tennessee science and social studies standards. I will say we have in this standard spelled out science and social studies rather than doing
science/social studies. Do we have a preference on science slash versus science and? I personally prefer science and are we good with me changing slashes to and's fine.
>> I just like words rather than symbols. Okay. Um All right. So, we good on that one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um 3 RL reads, compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories written about the same or
similar characters. >> Do we have any TDOE feedback on there? >> No feedback. Where, if someone could could check for me, I I can't recall. Where have we gone? At what point in the progression have we moved from just stories to stories,
drama, and poems? Um, because here we're just saying stories. Um, so I just wanted to make sure we're keeping that in alignment with elsewhere in the standards when we have reached a certain point and we've expanded that out to include multiple genres.
It was either first or second grade. >> I found a fourth grade with poems, dramas, and stories. Let's see if it how far it'll take us back. >> I'm saying fourth or fifth. >> You added it to second, it looks like.
>> Yeah, we revised it at second. >> Yeah. Yeah, we added it to a second grade. So there is a precedent for us doing that at this level. So would we want to say compare and contrast the themes, settings, and plots of stories, dramas, and poems written about the same
or similar characters? >> I think so. >> Yes. >> Do we um and again I'm going to like pick this up to my elementary folks. Do are there dramas and poems at this grade level uh typically especially with
characters that you would compare? Probably not. Not not a I mean I haven't really seen many at all. What grade level is this again? >> Second. Oh, no. I've seen in third grade. I haven't seen it haven't seen it
in second, but third. Yes. >> No poems in second grade. poems. Yes. >> You have them, but not as many much not as many >> characters to compare and contrast and they're more understanding.
>> They're more simplified one. >> Yeah. Just just so we're all aware of what we've done on the second grade RLCS5, we have the standard reads. to describe the overall structure of stories, dramas, and poems, including how the
beginning introduces the story and the ending includes the action. Um, so we've looked at the sort of like the the structure of stories, dramas, and poems at this level. Um, but if we feel like that's not pertinent to this particular standard, then then I'm fine with that.
Just wanted us to to know what we've done elsewhere because this would be third grade. So we we have elsewhere in third grade. Um in third grade RLCS5 we said refer to parts of stories, dramas and poems using terms such as
chapter scene and stanza describe how each successive part of a text builds on earlier sections. So we've mostly talked about like parts like of structural elements of dramas and poems rather than rather than themes, settings. Um more
just plot I suppose. >> I'm good with it as it stands. Is everybody else good with it as it stands? >> Yeah. >> So, we're we're not going to include the language of dramas and poems here. >> I didn't hear any change.
>> They struggle with just understanding a poem. If they're having to take two poems and compare and contrast things, that's I don't I don't think that it's developmentally appropriate. >> All right, then we'll leave it as is then.
All right. Um, three RI reads, "Compare and contrast the most important points and key details presented in two texts on the same topic." Um, which aligns with the Tennessee Science and Social Study Standards. Obviously, we'll make the the that align edit, but does anyone
else have any other edits to this one? >> No. It's just Okay, my hair done. Let's roll with it. Okay. Um, fourth grade RL reads, compare and contrast the ways authors approach similar themes, topics, and patterns of
events in stories from different cultures. What is a pattern of events? that that plot >> about Leanne, do you remember the discussion? >> That's what I was just trying to think about that discussion. Um,
>> I'm looking up the notes, Lean, if that's helpful. See if I can find it. It's icky nine third grade. Okay, hold on. >> The patterns might be in the original standard. That's what happened last time.
>> No. Okay, so the original Wait, are we all right? No, >> sorry. >> Be a sequel. I I don't know. Maybe >> is it is it talking about you know like like say for example the typical heroes journey across cultures across texts
>> it could but I don't think at that level in fourth grade it would be using that terminology it just >> might be like beginning middle and end I mean it would get a little more complex in fourth grade but >> not too much >> okay so as suspected it was from the
original current standards I believe I can check that God, that would have been their predecessors. Let me see. >> Yeah, this language was kept all the way back. Um, and in the original version of the standard when it said pattern
patterns of events, it has eg the quest as an example. >> Okay. Um, so >> those kind of plot tropes archetypal stories. Okay. Do we have any changes to this?
>> Uh, I mean >> I don't really like the patterns of events. >> Yeah, I don't love it myself. I mean to me I I don't know that teachers would understand what they're looking for or trying to do there. >> Right. If this group is confused then
>> banks in the standards guides is that mapped out pretty clearly >> or >> uh let me double check for that grade level >> or is there room for >> sure. Yeah, we can obviously whatever the committee decides
>> spell that out. Yeah, this is just not language we've used elsewhere. Um, but we have consistently I mean like a pattern of events to me like the pattern of events in a novel is a plot. Um, or not just a novel but any like narrative writing is kind of like a a common plot.
Um, so to me I think we could accomplish mostly the same ideas but just compare and contrast the way authors approach similar themes, topics and plot. we have anyone who wants to make a stab at the loom language.
>> I will say the only thing I have found in a EAT um rationale document, it just said the word treatment was changed to the way authors. So, I'm not sure that really cleared everything up, but
>> yeah, the treatment of similar themes versus the ways authors approach similar things. >> Is that your recommended language that you've got in that box right now? Um >> what I've done right now is just simply
copy and paste it over um from the current writing. I I don't think that I don't personally think patterns of events should be maintained. I I think that's a really if none of us really know what it means. I I and it's not a like there's some phrases that maybe people don't know what they mean, but
they're common parlance like we just we they're academic language that needs to be learned. I've ne I've never really heard patterns of events as like an academic. >> What would you put in the guide for that? Like I don't know what >> guide I would put whenever
>> y'all decide for it. >> Right. That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah, I think um I I think honestly it was probably just kind of kept and never got questioned at a >> and I I agree. I would as far as like TDOE goes in from my perspective that it
doesn't add a whole lot >> right >> the standard >> the basic comparison is from different cultures so um if you're talking about themes and topics that's enough >> I say the when I looked it up other
phrases that mean the same thing it says plot progression was what came up >> right Hillard recommended plot I think that would be very accessible to fourth great teachers. >> I mean, it seems to me like the original EG was quest. So, we're talking about
plot archetypes is what we're talking about here is what they intended, I think. Um, and but if we don't want to use like plot archetypes, pretty academic language, and we haven't used archetypes elsewhere. So, I think plot just kind of accomplishes that notion. Um, so we're not losing anything, but
we're also clarifying it so people actually know what it means. You want to include, you want to substitute the word plot for >> I would just say plot. I would say compare and contrast the ways authors approach similar themes, topics, and plots in stories from different
cultures. >> Okay, that's acceptable to me. Is that ac acceptable to everybody else? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Well done everybody. uh we
had done I think a marvelous job uh struggling with uh all the wording and the the rigor and the developmental nature of all these standards. I I can't
say enough of uh your dedication. Um but it means we got to meet again. But that's okay. Um because these are going to be allstar standards. >> So uh if the way I read it, our next meeting is going to be tomorrow
at 4:30 Eastern, 3:30 central. And hearing no other comments from SRC members or TDOE staff, I would say that this meeting is
adjourned. Anyone else? All right, we are adjourned until tomorrow. Thank you so much for coming in today. >> Thank you, By. Thank you. >> Yeah, be sure to hydrate for tomorrow.
>> It's a marathon. >> Yes. All right. Bye-bye. We have