Miss Dockery, Mr. Hillyard, present, Miss Now, >> Miss Singleary, >> present. >> Dr. Stout, >> Miss Winters, >> and Chair Kernas.
>> Chair Kas, point of order. >> Yes. >> Um, members, uh, please use your mic when you're talking. I ask that you keep it off when you're not, just in case, you know, sneezes, all those things, heavy breathing. Um, but if you are talking, please use your mic. Uh, members, feel free to remind each other.
Do do the nudge, do the elbow. Um, it's okay if we miss it. It's just for the recording so that they can hear discussion. >> Chair Kaggus, you have a quorum. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. I move that the recording serves as the
minutes for today. Do I have a second? >> I second. This will be by voice vote. All those in favor of using the recording as our meeting minutes signify by saying I. >> I.
>> I. >> I. It looks like we have a quorum for I. And the motion carries. Members and presenters, please raise your hands or say, "Chair Carnegus out
loud to be recognized unless I call on you." Members and presenters, please turn off your microphone in front of you unless you are speaking. Please remind other speakers to turn off or turn on their microphone if speaking without it,
so the recording can capture all discussion. For the benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid the overuse of jargon and acronyms where possible and define any acronyms if used. We will now proceed with the next item on our
agenda. Are we ready? What is our next item? >> Great question, Chair Kagas. Uh would you all like to start the team building activity? >> I think that would be an excellent idea. Actually, I think our team is very well built. Uh we've been working together
for quite some time, but uh we we have a an enormous uh assemblage of intelligent intelligence and experience here. What we don't know yet though is whether
or not you're willing to put that forward and how you're going to reinforce your opinions is important. Some people are a little shy. Some people are type A like myself.
We're going to do a little introduction here right now. We're going to call the exciting sponge. Do you know how exciting a sponge is? A sponge can be very exciting, especially depends upon when and where you use it.
What I'm going to ask each of you to do now is to try to sell us on a random item anywhere in this room. It could be in your purse. It could be on your
tabletop here. It could be somewhere in the ceiling. I want you to tell us why we would want to buy this particular item. We want you to use all your skills
of sales and being able to convince others of your position. Okay. So, uh we're going to start. We're going to give our vice chair
an opportunity to begin the discussion. >> I'll jump right into it. I didn't have a lot of time to plan. So, this is going to be improvised. I'm going to pull on some >> I I should have I should have said uh I'm going to use the Brightling here to time you. And I think given the length
of discuss of time that's dedicated to our team building activity, I would say we would take no more than 3 minutes. >> Okay. >> But you should take a minimum of one minute. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We'll do. Um I'll go ahead and jump right into it. So um I have here my my
trusty Nene water bottle. Um this is a favorite of mine. I know the water bottle consensus has not really been met. Um if you teach in a school building, you will see such a wide range of water bottles represented. Um students feel very strongly, especially at the high school level. I can't speak to other grade levels, but uh there's a
there's a strong passion when it comes to the water bottle at the uh at the high school level. Um and and they're divisive. Um they become a status symbol. They become a way of of obviously conveying water. Um but
ultimately um I I'm partial to this particular uh brand and this particular device um for for a number of reasons that I'll outline here. Um for one, relatively inexpensive. Some of these water bottles get quite expensive, especially as they innovate and there's a new trend that's emerging at any given
time. It feels like about every uh 18 months or so, I see a new water bottle emerging amongst all my students. Um but this particular water bottle, it dates back a little a little further. Um, I've seen this one represented in a lot of communities. Um, you know, I know some outdoorsy folks that have been toing
this around for quite a while. Um, I believe it's really effective for a number of reasons. It I I hate the sound of a clanking metal water bottle. Um, which as a high school teacher I is is a symphony that I hear at almost all times. Um, as they crash off of desks and onto the floor. Um, this makes just
a nice satisfying thud uh when it lands, which is a lot more satisfying to our ears than the metal, at least in my experience. Um, it is pretty waterproof. I can flip this thing upside down. No water's going to come out. Uh, which we can't necessarily say for all water bottles. They they tend to leave a bit
of a spill. Um, with the water, it's not so much of an issue, but once other items end up in there, that sticky residue that can be left behind after a spill can be can be quite annoying. And I just want to think about our our uh cleaning staff, you know, and make sure that they're represented in this whole experience. Often a voice that goes
unheard that I want to make sure is heard. Um I also uh it's relatively lightweight. Um it's pretty durable. This thing's been around a lot. I've had this for years and uh while it's got a a few scuffs here and there, it is still structurally sound. U so that's
ultimately my case for the Nene water bunnel. >> Team, would you buy it? I would thank you for and I knew if I called on uh coach Hillyard uh it would
be an excellent demonstration and we're simply going to go around the horn here and Britney you would be the next. >> I chose my reusable zipper pouch. Um as a teacher these come in very handy. I
use them to pretty much put everything that I store in my cabinet. Um, they are uh similar to a ziplo, but you can reuse them over and over again. Um, they are uh durable and they're not going to
easily tear. They have a zipper on them and you can put many things. I just chose to bring a few things that I thought that I might need today. But I use them in my classroom. I um to when in my cabinet I put um they come in the
different sizes. So some of them I have crafts and I have glue and I have paint and scissors and all the things. And so each one has something different in it. Just kind of keeps everything straight. Um I also I like fun bright colors and
they all come in very bright colors. Um each size is colorcoded. So the larger ones are a lime green and then a little bit smaller. There are some turquoise um but fun bright colors um for a fun bright classroom. So
>> excellent. Would you buy it? There you go. So good job selling right. >> All right. Uh Rosemary. >> Uh good morning. Uh my device is a iPhone. Oh,
>> I use the iPhone for my accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities. I use it to uh download information to help them and reading and writing. I also use it for our students
to do research uh on their uh papers as far as reading a passage and also I'm able to accommodate and modify by annotating their text for them as well as the earphones are used for them to
also be able to be able to hear and the passages read to them. So in the technological world where we're headed to the century, this is where we're going for special education utilizing technology. So this is my product.
>> Would you buy it if I could afford it? >> Thank you, Rosemary. Dr. Stout. >> Good morning. I promise this was not pre-planned. But the only thing that divides people
more than plastic or metal water bottles is Android or iPhone. And I am here to be team Android today and tell you why you all need an Android. First of all, we all know that
Apple and iPhone use Android technology that they pioneered. You do know this, right? That Android was the pioneer. Secondly, you're switching to our plugs, our our USB plugs. Why? Because it's the better product. So, once again, team
Android is winning and pushing the technology ahead. Um, with now the new versions have the seamless AI integration, which is great for class because it's good for spellchecking, grammar checking. As English teachers,
we know how important it is to have that information readable. It's also very good for accessibility for some people who might have a language processing disorder. Android reads everything out loud very seamlessly. And selected read
to text instead of reading all of the commands. So, selected read to text is one of the features I use all the time. Um, Android also has animated reactions on holidays. So, every holiday I'm super excited to send a text message because I
get fireworks on the 4th of July. I get Santa on Christmas and I'm always recording it to send to my friends because apparently those grab iPhones don't do that. So, this is a super super fun thing that I get to see every holiday. And the last reason why you
should all be team Android is because oftent times when my iPhone friends can't get cell reception, guess whose phone they borrow. All right. And so that is why I have been team Android for
more than a decade and think you should be too. >> Dr. Stout, thank you so much. Will you buy it? Yeah, I already did. All right. Well, I guess I better take a turn myself.
It wasn't the exciting sponge, but it is the George Castanza wallet. If you don't have for the for the Seinfeld fans, if you remember, George had a wallet that could contain all his
important papers. Now, this doesn't have all my important papers, but it has most of them. And the reason it does is because it's got all of these openings. It can open four, count them, five times.
Okay. And in the center, I get to put my license plate or my my license, which is pretty easily accessible when I get to the airport. Okay. Then I can put credit cards and I could put my IDs from various organizations I belong in. And
then all of these credit cards and receipts that I have to give to my accountant when I get home to make sure that the books are balanced. So I would recommend to you the Castanza wallet at
any opportunity you have to buy a Christmas present for your friend or loved one. The Castanza wallet. Will you buy it? >> Yeah. All right. Thank you,
Annie. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to be selling this chair. >> Oh, yes. >> Um, so the first great thing about this chair is it is adjustable to meet the the height needs of the tall and
vertically challenged alike like myself. Um, it has a wonderful armrest so you can feel nice and relaxed. It's got some great lumbar support for those who have back problems. Um, it also is a wonderful um thing for a teacher to have because uh at the end of a long day you
can relax in a nice comfortable chair um before you make your way home. Um it is also great for races because you can get in the chair and race around. Um, if you have worn the wrong pair of shoes to work and your feet are killing you, you
can use the chair to scoot around and meet with each of your students without having to mess with your feet further. Um, it can also uh um it has wheels that you can use to run over the toes of your enemies and that's
it. >> Well, thank you, Annie. Will you buy it? I will, that's for sure. I didn't know the state had this kind of budget. This is great. >> Okay. I miss now.
>> Hi, Miss Now. >> Hi. Um, my students would say this is a nice dose of karma right now because I teach AP Lang in argument and I make them do these things and they're going to love
this. So, um, but it's also, um, a nice chance of fate that we have Post-it notes in front of us because I'm kind of famous for loving the Post-it note. It's multi-purpose. It's multi-use. Um, I think as Tom Hanks said in a
really old movie at this point, uh, You've Got Mail. It can express, uh, not only a defining purpose, but also a defining sense of self. You have lime green, you have blue, you have hot pink, you have orange. And so the sky is the
limit uh to express yourself. It's also uh very useful for the the writer that may want to look uh slightly organized and yet not be you can throw them in your desk and you can you can stick them all together. They you know they stay sticky for a long
time. You can use them as a bookmark. Um, if you are like me and you lose bookmarks all the time, you can use them in the classroom for all kinds of purposes. You can use them for nice short pure feedback when you don't want them to say too much. Um, and yet enough
so you can use the post-it notes for yourself, your classrooms, and yes, apparently here at the state board. So, >> will you buy them? Oh, yes. I have a question for you. When you take notes on your notes, do
you use block printing or do you use cursive writing? >> Um, if I'm writing for other people, I will print. But if I'm writing for myself and I want it to look pretty, then I will use cursive. >> Thank you. We may get to that discussion
later on today. >> That's true. >> All right. Last, but certainly not least, Patty. Good morning everybody. Patty Beard and what I have to deliver today is the most serviceable item you
can ever have. Look at all these laptops. But what do you only have one of a screen? I on the other hand have two screens. And this I can tell you you can order on Amazon and I have multiples
of them. And it's only if you get it on sale like down as low as $79. You plug it in, you've got two screens, you can travel anywhere and everywhere and never be like, "Oh, oh, where where's the this but where am I?" in
terms of your meetings, etc. Or what I use it for when I'm writing a proposal. I have the proposal in one place and all my reference documentation on the other. So, I would highly recommend you too can have a portable screen.
>> Oh, the hands, too. Who's going to get one? >> I'm sold. >> Well, I am now convinced that every member of our team has the ability to convince us of their position. Now, which brings us right to our next
activity. Oh, a point of order. Where's the coffee? the most important question. Cheer Kagus, it is behind Josh Walton in that other room. Um, and there are snacks that have not been touched and they they would love your love and attention. >> Okay. >> Please help yourself at any moment.
>> Well, uh, yeah, I hate to I hate to break. I don't want to break. Okay. But I want to just take a brief procession to the coffee room so we can get ready for our next discussion which will may
be lengthier and we really made up a lot of time here. Agreed. Okay. So, uh, who wants coffee? Raise your hand. No, forget it.
Okay. So, uh, you I know you want to go to your priority sharing Q&A. Okay. So, um, what's the, uh, order that you usually do this in? Uh, you've been
you've done this a lot, right? Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead. Tell us. >> So, in full transparency, this is actually something new we're doing. Um, based on sort of predecessors. Yep. This is something new we're doing based on your predecessors. So you can go in any order you like. I just ask that everyone
present at some point and be open to ask and answer questions. >> Okay, we'll reverse the order then from our first exercise and we'll begin with Miss Screen here. Patty, are you ready to present yet
on what you have as your priority? Uh remember that little home piece of homework that we had? >> You're ready? >> I can do it. Oh, okay. Excellent. >> Um, obviously not being in the in the
world of education, um, from the perspective of our students within Tennessee, although I would say that we are all teachers in some way or another. Um, I I consumed as much of all of this
as I thought humanly possible. And I think and I told um Brianna this that I probably could consume another day, multiple weeks worth before it ever really sunk in. Um but what I did find
across the board was and I know that we don't use AI. Um but I think as these standards move forward um into the future that is the one thing that I saw throughout that really struck
me is how I mean we can't wait. we've got to figure this out because it's going to be the world our children move into and our grandchildren uh so forth and so on. And I think um overall and I did at late at night um on Friday
evening, I did read some of your very lengthy um inputs and some that were not so lengthy, but I found myself agreeing for the most part in that what we saw was very straightforward um and well
well delivered, if you will, in terms of the future look um across the board and I just um again I think that the if you read only the the net new um
you would you would probably say yay great it's when you look back in with the comparison um as we were asked to do um then I think that we need to be sure that we haven't left anything important out
>> and that's all for me sir Okay. Um, as we proceed, uh, if you you can get as specific as you want to on your recommendations and and emphasize the high if you want to, uh, but you can read them all. Uh, and let us know uh,
where you're coming from and what you're beholding to because I know that you couldn't convince us of that, but uh, let let's get your positions uh, exposed. just now. >> Okay. Um I went I went by each section
in our reflection document. So if you can bear with me. Um I went by uh the point of order. I have yours up. Um members, just quick note, they're all in the drive if you'd like to follow along, but I have it on the screen as well. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Point of order. We We'd like to thank them. >> Oh, thank you. Proceed. >> Thank you. >> I don't think we need him more higher, though. [Music] >> It's a long four days. Dr. Stout.
>> Okay. Um, the introduction. I found the revisions to the introduction clear and concise. Um, I liked the supporting research, the visual. um Scarbo's reading rope. Um I think it provides a quick snapshot for all educators um providing um the the purposeful
collaborative work, the purpose behind it, what they're supposed to be doing each day. Um I did wonder about um the brief introductory remarks dedicated to the interconnected nature of reading, writing, listening, and speaking in an advancing society. Um but then it goes
into um a a large portion of it is dedicated to the necessity of reading instruction. Um and without then going further and explaining how explicit reading instruction, writing instruction and academic speaking and listening instruction are also essential interrelated processes. Uh to me it
appears as if the introduction could perhaps provide a more thorough explanation of the importance of all English language arts standards to continue the education of our students to not only prepare them for subsequent grade levels but also to equip them for unforeseen challenges in college and in the workforce. Um as far as priorities
go um it's a lower uh priority but just worth consideration. Uh the foundational literacy standards uh they've undergone significant re isions with a new standard edit. A large part of these revisions centered on the inclusion of phonics phonics
instruction. Um it seems to me that um it's a medium concern because the committee could primarily concern themselves with refining the language and alignment of the standards in this case. Um there have been some public concerns raised about the language of
some of the specific standards. um the progression writing standards three through five. Um my primary concern is with the alignment however of the writing standards between the fifth grade and the sixth through eighth grade band. Um for the language standards uh there
needs to be a clear progression among grade levels to ensure all grammar and conventions are taught effectively with horizontal and vertical alignment. Um of particular concern seems to be L.CAE.1 CE.1 in the middle grade bands and the progression of standards from 5 through
12 for um L.CA.2 and the wording of vocabulary standards. Um maybe we could see clarity in the vocabulary standards or at least continuity regarding expectations for student knowledge of technical meanings in domain specific meanings and the
reference sources students are to use. Uh the reading standards um to me these were a higher priority. The introduction to the reading standards seems to be written with a a different tone than the other standards. Um, apart from the introduction, the bulk of the public and TDOE feedback is regarding the reading
standards. So, I would prioritize those as well as the writing standards, R1 and R2 of particular interest uh from K through 12. Uh, the progression of the level and type of analysis expected needs to be clear to students and it needs to be clear what exactly they're analyzing, identifying and or
summarizing. Um, speaking and listening, um, these were of medium concern. Um, they could benefit from some minor edits for clarity. Um, I'd also like to ask about the in particular about the note-taking additions. Um, might we also add
objectives for those skills linked to digital literacy? Um, writing standards. The committee from my perspective should devote a significant portion of our time to examining the progression of writing standards in K through2, especially between grade bands. Um, I applaud the EAT's revisions adding clarity for
teachers and students regarding expectations for writing task, purpose, audience, length, content, and style. Uh, the standards would benefit from consistent subheadings, language, and expectations that clearly vertically align among all grade levels. I'm interested to discuss with the committee the specific revisions to the writing
standards regarding paragraph length, and requirements for the inclusion of evidence. Students and teachers need clearly outlined standards for writing content that does not limit students but does provide clear expectations for content that progresses through the grade levels resulting in proficient academic writing suitable for college in
the workforce. Uh this includes the expectations for research. In addition, the language regarding the incorporation of digital multimedia sources to produce clear and coherent writing, research, and presentations would benefit from further discussion to ensure that it's broad enough to meet the demands of a
rapidly changing, increasingly digitally immersed world, specifically um regarding AI use yet contain specific updates appropriate for students. Um digital use specifically AI has become
and is becoming an essential skill as part of how we communicate. Um and as ELA is designed to create literate communicators, I question not whether AI should be used as part of the reading and writing process because we can all agree that students need to be competent and independent readers without those
tools. um but whether we should incorporate AI literacy as part of our expectations when teaching students how to use quality academic sources, how to avoid plagiarism and to evaluate its usefulness as a tool under the appropriate circumstances uh just as students would be expected to use any
other digital tool or reference source. Um, and then the the glossery references and appendix and electives um did not have as many suggested edits and would I'm sure we'll edit those as we go and progress throughout the standards.
>> Thank you so much for the time that you put in on that. We know where you're coming from certainly. Um, and we'll expect to have a lot of input from you as we go through our progression,
Annie. Um, so to to begin, we I do believe that we need to put quite an emphasis on our foundational um standards, foundational literacy standards. I do not have a lot of input
for that just because it's not my area of expertise, but um we do need to make sure that we're spending adequate time on making sure that those are are very strong because that's our beginning with our students. Um next priority for me is making sure um looking at our grammar
standards. Um I do think that we our standards could benefit from being from being streamlined because I think sometimes we do overwhelm our students with a lot of grammar. um that sometimes isn't always directly um applicable um well is
applicable but maybe is not the highest priority for getting them um ready and good to be good writers. Um so looking at that and what uh the EAT committee has done and trying to come up with a consensus between um what the TDOE has
asked and what the um EAT committee has proposed. I also want to make sure that we are preparing our students for the ACT and SAT. I don't know if that's been something that's been looked at before, but making sure that they are prepared by our by our standards to succeed on those tests so that our Tennessee
students are competitive. Um I'd also like to discuss um the feedback about ask teachers asking for vocabulary list and root word lists. um whether that is um getting into curriculum or is this is
an area that we should um be uh prescribing. Um next is I want to make sure that we are um upholding the request to be more specific in making sure that our students are reading from a variety of
cultures and perspectives. Um a aspect that another um committee member pointed out that I would like to I guess emphasize myself um is um how students are constantly surrounded by um
content that is meant to persuade them. Um and we have some really good standards to prepare them for encountering those things at the 9 through 12 level, but I feel like that's maybe could be emphasized a little bit more in the six through eight um grade bands. Um the next aspect that I feel that
we're probably going to need to spend a good amount of time on is um is the writing um discussing again the I guess the contrast between the EAT committee's proposals and the Tennessee Department of Education's um proposals um and how
we can maybe come to an agreement between the two um as well as um writing links. Um, a lot of survey feedback asked for um, how much should our students be writing? And, uh, perhaps instead of looking for a minimum, maybe we should kind of work backwards. How
much do students need um, to be prepared for college? And then, um, how can we prepare them at each grade level to work up to that standard? Um and then my my last aspect is something that's been um on my heart a lot as a teacher and um
coming to the standards committee. It kind of popped in my head as maybe a possibility is that you know we often say that students move from learning to read to reading to learn between that fifth and sixth grade to jump and on. Um but students really are still learning
to read um in 6 through 12. maybe not um being able to sound out words on the page um but they are learning to deal with um more complex sentence structures, having to incorporate background information, um having to make more complex inferences. Um so in
doing some research, I found that Texas has a standard for um teaching students reading comprehension skills um and metacognitive skills to help them in that 6 through 12 band. They also include it for five through um or K through five as well. But I think that's
something that maybe our Tennessee standards could benefit from is making sure that they are getting explicit instruction on how to work through difficult texts in that six to eight 6 to 12, not just K through 5. >> Thank you, Annie.
>> I have a few things. Uh mostly big picture stuff though. Um, my high priority is probably the writing standards. Uh, and I do it from both ends.
Uh, you don't need to expose that. >> I can't read it anyway. >> It's all right. It looks better that way. >> I believe the chair would like to talk about handwriting standards as well. Cursive is in the standards and
generally well loved by the public. Do it that way what you will. >> Well, that's that's the first thing I wanted to talk about was cursive writing. Is there anything in there about cursive writing? Do we need to do we need to go back to that? I mean, uh
where's our little things? Uh can I borrow your pink? >> Absolutely. Now, 20 years ago when we first created these standards, uh, with everybody was saying, "Well, it's all about computers. We're going to keyboarding now. We're
never going to have to write anymore." But if you look at the 3M company and the Office Max company, they must think that we're going to be able to take notes and communicate with notes with other people, okay? Not just the
computer. So, is there still a need for us to learn cursive writing? Is there time in our curriculum to be able to teach and learn that and when is the best time to do that? That's a question I would pose and see if there's any
interest if we should if we should uh include that. Okay. And on the other end, it has to do with AI. I really uh uh was im enchanted by uh what the folks at SCORE had to say in terms of the use
of AI. That was a very complete position paper. Uh and I think we need to give that uh a quite a bit of thought. Um they they talk not only about uh the use
of AI but the ethics involved. Uh I know in some like the science standards you see them refer to ethics in there. Uh we there's nothing in there about that. Okay. So maybe we need to talk about uh
when it's appropriate uh to use AI and uh acquaint students with that uh information. So, uh, those are my, uh, major points that I'm beholden to right now. Okay. And again, just listening to
you, uh, I know we are in great shape with a lot of opinions and direction. So, all I'm going to do is to try to uh help you guys work together uh
and get the best information that we can from each one of you about this. All right, Dr. Stout. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you to everyone who has shared. Uh first of all, I just wanted to again express my appreciation to all of the educators
across Tennessee who have spent months working on revising these standards. um to make sure our students are prepared for 2030 and beyond. So, um if you had a part in the revisions, uh thank you deeply. Your your work is well noted and well appreciated. Um I spent the
majority of my time focused on some of our elective standards because I felt like there was so so much robust conversation about the required classes and I knew I had really strong people in the classroom to look at the required classes. Um, but I I'll say two things about some of the required courses and
then skip to the elective. I echo the comment about digital citizenship as part of digital literacy. I think that there could be uh more discussion or precise language about that in the standards uh throughout the grade bands. So a focus on digital digital
citizenship as part of digital literacy and what do we mean by digital digital literacy at each grade. I also had a couple of thoughts about um the kindergarten and fin found foundational standards only because we know so many of our students are not coming to school
kindergarten ready. What would it mean to have something in the appendix that say these are the 15 behaviors and uh items that students need to know from day one when they step into the classroom. How can we as a standards
review committee help echo that message to help make sure more of our students are coming to class kindergarten ready and starting as close to the starting line as possible. Um, so those were my two kind of big comments about the required courses.
When I read the electives and I focus most on the journalism elective because that is my background and the Bible elective because that is also my background. Um my big comment was that that there could be more integration
uh between the core ELA standards and the electives. The elective standards should embed the precise language and measurable outcomes from the 912 core standards creating more authentic opportunities for students to apply and
demonstrate mastery of the ELA skills within the specialized content. Um, and I think such integration would strengthen both the academic rigor of the electives and then also provide more meaningful alignment across the ELA program. And I look forward to talking
to you guys about that more. >> Thank you, Dr. Stout. >> Rosemary, >> as I review this, >> um, the first one is overall introduction.
um pretty much is well defined there except there's a question is there additional research and resources for educators foundational literacy standards introduction was a area of high for me
specifically standard 5 R I K2 describe the connection between the theme and central idea of a story are there other strands for example make connection ctions and improvement and comprehension
and is there additional research for resources for educators for the language standards uh introduction was of a high as well specifically standard 5 LCA1 explanation of pronouns
other strands for example need scaffolding and continuation additionally the development at each grade level for reading standard introduction. Low is the score uh the reading standard uh
five RLCS6 change the word perspective to point of view and changing the word from recall to retail. Speaking listening standards introduction was a score below 5 SLCC1.
The speaking and listening standards and introduction prepares our students for note-taking skills. The standard is relevant with a collaborative skills and expressing one's own idea clearly.
As far as the writing standards and introduction, the writing standards provide support on linking ideas within and across information using traditional words, phrases, and clauses. The writing standard for fifth grade is moreformational and explanatory text to
examine a topic. Whereas high school, there is less paragraph format than third through fifth grade, which is five paragraph format. what expectation for writing for grades five in middle school grades 6 8
the glossery referenced in appendex um I want to add this to that session by being a special educator uh in that area I would think there need to be references in the appendix for genad teachers that may have needs for modifications and accommodations how to
meet those students needs um and use an updated language Now the glossery in reference and appendance is understanding for our our new generation of teachers where I am a mentor for teachers in Memphis Shepby County Schools. But I think that
modification accommodations plays a big part in helping our new teachers uh elective standards. The elective standards and Bible standards are aligned with the electives and Bible as literature. They have any area concern there. And lastly, overall the overall
the standards were revised to uh emphasize emphasize student interest in writing to enhance motivation for our educators. We need to visit the clarification progression, coherence of the revision of the standards and a deeper dive this week. Uh coherence does
the standard build upon learning within the grade level and clarification. Can the standards be understood by all teachers? Thank you. Thank you Britney. >> I think that um for the most part the
committees that have met before us have created strong vertical alignment ensured that um the reading cornerstones are at the core and that the standards were more concise um with an emphasis on the right priorities. Um some of the
main things that I found that we probably um need to kind of focus on were um part of the foundational literacy standards. Just some of the things that um I found um there was a lot of feedback from the TDOE on the
standard to FLPA2. Um and then a lot of um comments on the cursive writing um actually beginning in second grade and then um through fifth grade and into fifth grade being able to
read the cursive. Um and I'm I'm not like saying that I'm for or against cursive. I just think that it needs to be something discussed. um the language standards um just clearing up some of the eliminations that um were made and just I was hoping
that um the EAT chairs maybe could provide a little bit more reasoning on why some of those were eliminated. um the reading standards, the um one that I was looking at was with
the vocabulary um and I saw a lot of comment back on that was there were um three parts um to the five LVA6. um it goes from
vocabulary and then it's broken up by figurative language and then it goes back to vocabulary. Um in the um in grade five it is actually one standard broken into a ABC whereas in middle school it was three different standards
but still the figurative language broke those two up. So, I didn't know if maybe the figurative language needed to be moved down or maybe um the two standards that are own vocabulary might could be written together. Um
and then I noticed there was a lot of talk about the speaking and listening standards about the uh two strands being combined. There were some um that thought that was good and then there were some naysayers. So, just some clarification on that. Um the main thing
I think for me personally and for my students um is the writing um just the um especially last week we really broke down um at our school our 2025 TCAP
scores and um it's not been very long that we've actually gotten writing um we've always gotten writing scores but there's not ever been a breakdown of the writing scores and so this is kind of you one of the um we're still in this kind of new beginning of being seeing
what they score in the four areas of writing um and so I just as a teacher it is frustrating what is expected and I know that it's I mean as a student as well um and then I know that I've talked
to and I have two middle schoolers of my own and they're like you know mom you pushed five paragraphs five paragraphs and we don't even have to write five paragraphs in middle school and so that's frustrating that I have made them do that and then you know it kind of
goes back I feel like they're going back and and not that it's not diving deeper I'm not saying that I just feel like we're going back um and so if if they're if these students I feel like I have done them a disservice of pushing them
to teach five paragraphs if that wasn't really what the standard was asking like I need to know what multiparagraph means you know And even from the state, it's still multiaragraph. Okay. Well, multiparagraph, what is multi? Is it two? Is it to 20,
you know, or beyond? I just I think that we need to specifically say what are our expectations for our students. Um, and then, um, again, just some clarification on the elective standards. I feel like that's not really my forte,
so I just would like to hear some, um, from, um, the rest of you. And um and then for the other just some proof reading and editing for the most part. So that's it. Thank you. >> You Britney,
>> last but not le Yes, dear. >> Um quick question, Britney. I wanted to make sure I wrote down your question. What was it exactly? Um members, for the record, if you have a question for any of our experts, I'm writing them down and checking them off. >> Oh, for the clarification. Um that for the EAT chairs, is that what we're talking about? Yes. I just wrote down
this was from our meeting on Friday. Um there were I think Annie had asked a question about some of the eliminations made in the language standards and so I was just wanting to get some clarification on that. Um I and I was
told this earlier. I um really didn't realize like I do teach fifth grade and so our language standards are actually under uh the fluent foundational literacy and then language standards really don't start until sixth grade. So that was kind of a an an eye openener I
think for me as well. But um so I just wanted some clarification for that. >> Great question Miss Singleary. I have Miss Doer's question on our list and our EHE chairs are prepared to respond at the beginning of the language section. So FL uh flag for our chair and our vice chair to call on them when the time is
to talk about language. And you're absolutely right. That's why we're tackling language and foundational literacy today so that we can get things smooth hopefully. Um members, did I miss any other questions so far that are new not from Friday? Okay, perfect. Thank you, Vice Chair
Hillyard. >> Vice Chair Hillyard. >> Thank you. Um, so before I get into and I'll kind of walk through the the major sections that we'll be working through in just a moment, but I I I think it's important to a as a as a committee to
kind of think about what our role in this larger process is. Um, we are given a great deal of of power. Um, we are given a great deal of of of say in this process. Um but I think it's incumbent on us to kind of constrain ourselves to
some extent. Um we have four days. Um, I think while overarching large-scale changes might be productive in the grand scheme, um, I think ultimately if we're going to put out a a set of professional, well-edited, well-composed, vertically, and
horizontally aligned standards, um, at the culmination of these four days together, I think it's incumbent on us to to think about, um, you know, our positionality within this broader process. Um and I think it's also incumbent on us to to appreciate the feedback that we've received um from eat
from the public um uh looking into the work done by the people who composed the previous standards um that we are um one step in a much much larger chain. Uh so I think it's incumbent on us to to view ourselves as a step within a much longer process rather than viewing ourselves as
as people inherently bringing about a sea change. Um, now that that is not to say that I don't think we should be making edits and changes. Um, but I do think it's important to to keep that uh positionality in mind. Um, as far as the individual sections, um, I feel like the
overall introduction has been improved. Um, I I like the the kind of um, almost grandiosity of the old introduction. Um, but ultimately I think for use, for functionality and a standards document, I think it's ultimately there to be functional. Um, I think the new
introduction, um, with its kind of more straightforward pros and emphasis on, um, on research backing, um, I think is is positive. I think we could add a little bit more language, um, perhaps around, um, other research other than
just the Scarboro reading rope. I know that other language is there, but I feel like the Scarbor reading rope seems to be the the central conceit um, for most introductory language throughout the document. Um and and there are moments where that's integrated throughout the smaller um introductions opening each of the other sections. Um there are moments
perhaps like the the writing section um where that it's less prominent. Um there's another rope that's introduced um at the beginning of the writing section. And so I wonder to if there's a possibility of kind of introducing that language earlier um as a way of creating a more coherent um document. Um,
foundational literacy standards I have marked as a low priority, but I think I that's important to kind of recognize a caveat there. I think I'm thinking in terms of my own role per se. Um, I that's definitely a moment where I I want to to listen to educators in the room who have more experience. Um, I
both do not teach um the students represented by the foundational literacy standards and I I am not someone who who has a child of my own. So I don't have that kind of firsthand experience like Miss Singleary um spoke to. Um so I think while I I I certainly seem there certainly seems to be an important
conversation there. I think that's a moment where I you know I'm going to recognize my position and kind of take a step back and listen to the the feedback of others. Um when it comes to language standards um I had that labeled as a medium priority. Um I believe that the language standards are uh largely uh
effective. I think um that there were some um I I I concur with some of the the ideas of the TDOE as far as incorporating some of the old um substandards that were originally present. Um uh and then also would just like to see um some efforts towards
vertical alignment and some places where where that might be um uh slipping a bit. Um, for reading standards and introduction, um, I had that marked as a high priority primarily because I just these are in many ways kind of the central
standards of of that we are tasked with. Um, I guess when most people think of standards for ELA instruction, this is where most people's minds go. Um, I ultimately feel like the amount of work to be done here is perhaps less than in some other standards. I think the the
the final draft will likely look much more similar um in this section than perhaps in some other sections. I think the language here is pretty consistent. Um but I think it's just because of the the weight of these particular standards. I think it's worth a lot of careful attention here um just to ensure
they are are perfectly constructed or not perfectly constructed but constructed as well as we can construct them. Um, and I'm scrolling through. Um, speaking and listening standards I also had labeled as as a high priority. Um, there there seemed to be some debates um
regarding what exactly um is expected to be spoken versus what is uh expected to be listened to. I like the um the focus on listening as a as a a component of the standard. Um while it's always been labeled speaking listening, it's always been predominantly a speaking standard. Um so I think the the efforts from the
EAT to incorporate uh listening meaningfully within um this this collection of standards is is an effective one. Um I do think there uh just more efforts to kind of integrate vertical alignment and horizontal alignment also um will be will be
crucial there. Um writing standards I think uh will be our highest priority. Um I find that currently this is the place where I see the most discrepancy in vertical alignment. Um uh the the conversation I won't belabor we've we've
other members have brought forward this this conversation but the idea that uh about multi paragraph versus uh prescribed numbers of paragraphs um in the middle grades um versus that that prescription kind of disappearing once again when we get to the higher grades um in 9 through 12. Um so I think that
discussion is important. Um I think uh some of the language um surrounding response versus essay um I think we could we could take a look at that and kind of uh reach a consensus. Um I am of two minds about it. I I am I can see the
arguments of of the original argument standards and I can also see the argument for the the work of the EAT. So I'm curious to hear from from a lot of very capable educators and um and uh stakeholders in education about what uh what we think we should proceed with there. Um
I am someone and and to be to be honest I am just someone who loves glosseries. Um I I I think we are we are not utilizing a resource properly if we don't make that glossery a really strong document. Um, I think there's so much
desire uh among educators to to you hear this, at least I hear this in my in my personal life as an educator. Um, but I've also seen it in the public feedback that we've received for specificity. Um, for what does it mean when you say to teach this particular thing? Um, and then there's these calls to implement
this into the standards. But sometimes when that becomes the case in the standards, we get these burdensomely long standards that are just full of countless substandards and it just becomes a checklist. Um I think the glossery is a moment that allows us to kind of bridge those particular gaps. Um
if we have uh you know a certain strategy referenced in the actual standard itself. If the glossery operates as a as a pair to that and can provide context for what exactly we are meaning by that particular strategy. If we can list primary primary strategies
within the glossery um I think that's useful. Um the glossery also right now is just a little inconsistent. Um it there are moments in the glossery where it's providing very detailed definitions. There are moments where it's providing very brief definitions. There are moments where it's not even really providing a definition. It's
mostly talking about the effectiveness of the tool. Um and I just there I have a desire for some consistency there. Also several new terms that we've introduced that are not uh prominent in the in the glossery. Um but then also terms that we have sunset that are still
present there. Um, so I think a fine tooth comb of looking through that glossery once we've composed the standards I think is going to be very meaningful. Um, so that's kind of a a pet project of mine. Um, the references I I think are are quite clean uh though and the um I think the appendix is worth
the conversation as well. Um, I think there's a huge push and pull there. I think these appendix items are often very useful, but the longer we make this document, the less likely we are to have educators read the document. Um, we'd like to imagine an ideal world where every single educator is carefully analyzing every single page of this
document, but that's not realistically the world in which we live. Um, and so we have to to fight that that that double-edged sword um of of concision versus specificity. Um, elective standards are relatively low priority, though I think there are some moments
that we should look into. I think a lot of work has been done um by this particular uh by the EAT um in in improving these substandards um or sorry the standards here. Um I think a little bit of consistency across different electives could be useful. Um it seems
like the formatting for standards across different electives can be quite different. um that's likely to not have come up in conversation quite as much because anecdotally I think people who teach an an elective tend to be pocketed into a particular type of elective and
so there's not a lot of people teaching across multiple elective courses. Um but I think for our own professionalism it's important that we put out a product that is that is consistent um in its in its syntax and and structure. Um overall, um
I think these standards are in pretty good shape. Um I think they're primarily primarily we should be concerned with alignment, vertical and horizontal. Um I think consistency with language. Something I noticed just and this is the old editor before I was a teacher. I was a copy editor. Um, so just the
inconsistency in some of the the small structural decisions like we we use EG, we use IE, we use EX, we use for example, we use u just an endless uh paniply of of different ways of introducing examples within a parenthetical. Um, and that just speaks
to me like this is it demonstrates that this is a product that has been cobbled together by many different minds. And while that is the case, and I think that's something to be proud of, that it's not just one room, one group in a in a in a private room constructing this, I think it's important to to create a coherent document that that looks like the product of a of a
coherent group rather than a number of people working at different times and places. >> Thank you, Coach Hildard. Uh now that we've exposed our ability to convince and those things that we want to convince everybody about, it's almost
time to dive in. A point of order and and this is just my ignorance. Uh coming up here in the agenda, you talk about introduction. Uh in in the document there is an
introduction, right? Uh is there any reason why we wouldn't do the introduction first? I mean we we're we're advanced in terms of our time and there has been a couple of comments about the introduction. >> Thank you for your question, Chair
Carnegus. I just want to make sure I'm answering it fully and properly. Are you referring to the overall introduction that Vice Chair Hillard spoke to? >> Yes. >> Great. That's helpful. We have some time on Thursday, but it's certainly at the will of the leadership team and as feedback from the members to tackle the
pacing guide in whatever way you see fit. >> Can I speak to that? >> Yes. >> I think it would be wise to wait until after we've worked on the standards to to retroactively go back if we want an introduction to the broader document. I think we need to to make the the more
smallcale decisions um before we go in and edit the language of the introduction. Okay. I see a lot of nods. So, let's just do as you had recommended here. Uh, now that would bring us now to uh comments from the TDOE, right? You had talked
about that happening right now before we dive in to uh our next uh part of the agenda, which would be language standards. >> Yes, that would be great. Chair Kane I guess um Nicole one moment I'm going to direct some folks to the drive resources
if that would be helpful so that you can follow along but Nicole maybe two three minutes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh members if you go into your folder and follow along you've got in your SRC folder you've got workday documents. Just so everybody knows where
they are. This is the document that I spoke to at our meeting on Friday with the spreadsheet. You should be able to view everything and that's what Vice Hillyard will be working on. You've als we've also got a slideshow that as much as possible um the foundational literacy standards are a little bit lengthy so I had to break them up per slide um but as
much as possible show the trajectory and so I'll have that on the screen for your perusal but you're also welcome to pull up all of these documents on your computer if that would be more accessible or feasible for you and if you're as cool as Miss Bar you could just have it all. um trying to think. Oh, the last thing I'll
say is that Vice Hillard is absolutely right. Our intent is to combine all of the elective documents and the um main ELA document so that we can match our our compatriots in ELA, I mean in math, science, and social studies. Uh but for now, they're still in their two separate documents so that you can see their full
historical trajectory. So, that's where we'll do those pieces. So, just for context, Vice Chair Hillard is working on this document. I will have this document up for y'all to peruse and then finally when it's time to do the introduction both specifically and
overall they'll be in this document for everything and then this document for electives but you're welcome to be in all of these documents concurrently as it's helpful. Does anyone have any what questions do we have about these documents? But this is this is where your work lives going forward.
I just want to make a request as the person who's going to be putting the words on this 25 SRC ELA standards revision um Google sheet. Um I would ask if if you would just have that um up on your on your uh devices. Um I think it
will be up on screen occasionally, but I think primarily it's going to live on on their devices. And I I want to make sure that my language that I put into this reflects u what members of the committee feel. >> Appreciate that, Vice Chair Hillard. And members know that you've got the original standards in paper. So, one orientation, if you want to try this out, see how it works, you could have
your original standards in front of you, paper, you could have the spreadsheet in front of you on your computer, and you could be looking at the slide deck in front of you. Just just one option, but it's limitless. As you all know, I'm going to get the slideshow pulled
up, but Nicole, would you like to speak to the pronouns question for members? >> Thank you. Oh, you're the mic would be great for the record. >> Please. >> It's kind of hard to hear up here.
>> Okay. So, as Nicole is walking up, just know we'll have a different color so that we can mentally organize each day. And I've broken them up by section, but presuming we'll start with language. This is our K12 trajectory here. You've got the cornerstone at the bottom. They're numbered. And this is just
exactly from the spreadsheet as your predecessors wrote it. But if there are any errors or I missed anything, please let me know. Can you say your name? So my name is Nicole Moore. Um so to answer a question that we had on Friday,
um why pronouns were removed from the sixth grade standards. Um the rationale that we came up with as a group was for better better vertical alignment. um pronouns are already taught and mastered in K through five and you can see that in the standards and then it's kind of
just thrown in there for sixth grade and then it's taken away in seventh and eighth grade. Um so we just felt like the flow would go a little bit better. Um we also felt that if you look at the original sixth grade standard it was like had the bullet the four bullet points underneath it and it was like pronouns pronouns sentence structure
sentence structure and then in seventh and eighth grade it was sentence structure sentence structure. So, we just felt like removing those all together um would just make more sense. Essentially, we felt that the bigger struggle was the run-on sentences, the fragments, and the sentence varieties.
Um we do not feel like when they come to us in sixth grade, they don't understand pronouns. We feel like they do. Um so, yeah, that's all. >> Thank you, >> members. There's any follow-up questions for your EAT chairs or TDOE before we
get started. Okay, let the games begin. I have convent we're welcome to go in any order. I just went in the order that it was in the spreadsheet, but first up you have language conventions of academic English one. >> Yes,
>> I think it makes sense for us just to kind of give ourselves a structure. Um, and I'm I'm obviously open to other feedback on this. I think it would make sense um if we kind of look at one standard strand at a time um as a way of kind of organizing ourselves. Um or one progression at a time. Sorry. Um using
the wrong terminology. Um I also think it might be worthwhile to kind of open by talking about uh the feedback we've received from various stakeholders when we get to a particular standard. Like I think it would start it would make sense to kind of open with what is the TD TDOE feedback. um what feedback have we
received from community stakeholders? What have we received as primary feedback from uh the survey of of of teachers as well? Um I just I was curious to know if other people agree that that would be useful at the beginning of the process.
>> I agree. I think that we could come from the position that the second goround of recommendations of the standards is
where we start and if we don't have any comments, we would accept what's been done and we'll deal with the exceptions first. would talk to those areas that we want to change and then see how they
integrate in the existing document. So we'll assume that things are okay unless we want to change it. So could you just could you clarify what that process might look like then? I I think I'm I'm
slightly confused. we would proceed in the order that you had recommended. Okay. But the assumption is is that what's been given to us looks okay. >> Right. >> Unless we say that maybe it's not.
>> Yes. And that that is how the the the spreadsheet will work. Um we the spreadsheet if if you're looking at it has the the standards as proposed by the EAT um uh that have received public feedback. um if we choose to accept these standards um as is then then we
will just simply acknowledge that and and then we'll move to the next standard. >> Okay. >> Just as an example, this is what Vice Chair Hillard is speaking to. >> Okay. Um I guess we should go ahead and start with uh the
L.CA CAE.1 um progression. >> Miss now, did you have a question? >> Yes, it was about that. >> Oh, okay. Um so but looking backwards um
at the fifth grade standard um and some of and we've discussed the continuity of language um among these standards some of the language standards um and it's in the the TDO feedback as well um the suggestion to add back um
the the terminology to explain its function and so that is there in some standards but not in others. And so, um, I was curious as to the rationale behind adding in that language because to me it indicates
identification rather than usage. When when when we speak of usage, we're we're thinking that there is inherent knowledge of identification. And this this may be um and I just wanted uh I wanted to hear the the thinking and the
rationale behind either keeping that terminology or removing it or adding it back in. >> Thank you. Miss Now, can you give me the standard code and I can run I'll run the slides to the foundational literacy component. Which standard are you talking about for fifth grade?
um five LSC5 >> which I believe might have changed numbers. It might in the original standards have been six and it is now five. I'm looking at a comparison document. >> Does this look right? I mean K1 only. This is where it gets a little lengthy.
So our trajectory is a little a little less cute here but here we are. Is that what you're talking about miss now? >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. Great. Just wanted to have that context. Also members know that on the spreadsheet um if you download it on the prep work for your standards if you
download it you can sort by strand cornerstone number all the things if you wanted to see the full trajectory on spreadsheet I just know spreadsheet doesn't translate as well on slides uh eat chairs would are you available to talk about it now or would you like to circle back
okay um Dr. Stout the bathroom >> I I I did and that was not helpful. You have to go out the door, but that it's a cool spot in there. I highly recommend, you know, if anybody
needs to scream into the abyss. There's no windows in there. Trengas, >> this sounds like a good opportunity to take just a little We're going to do a 10-minute break. Okay. >> Absolutely. Um, by my calculation, that would bring us back at 10:02. Members,
>> thank you. >> Okay. It is now 10:03 >> B. Okay. Is this video >> it is still 10:03 and we have at least five members of the
table. So, we have a quorum and I call this meeting back in session. >> Sorry about that. >> That's okay, dear. >> And we're going to uh uh get a comment now from our uh Department of Ed.
>> Hi, good morning. Banks Lions here again. Uh I just wanted to give um a little bit of what'll hopefully be some helpful context. A I do have a question about do they have access to the standards guides in their folders? >> It does not. Okay, great. So, the ELA standards guides are some documents that
the department created to support teachers honestly all stakeholders in just understanding the standards, right? So each individual standard um in this document is kind of explained. We call it unpacking the standard. And then we'll talk about all the different
pieces of that standard, where the standard overlaps with other standards or connects with other standards, key terminology within those standards and and so forth. So this is just a supporting document that we create. And the reason I wanted to kind of bring it up here is because there's a
relationship between the standards document and this document. you know, the standards document is obviously the core of everything. It's it's the official document that teachers are instructing students with and so forth. And also more importantly, or very importantly, I should say, is that once
the next materials adoption comes around, all of the vendors that are proposing materials have to meet the requirements of this standards document, right? Because because that's the official document. So, but there are some things, for example, you know, you
were talking about the glossery and how it was kind of hit or miss. And when we created the standards guides, we kind of had to clean up some of those gaps, you know what I mean? Kind of because some of the definitions were vague or just really wordy and not helpful. So, we tried to clarify some of those things. So there are certain pieces that I
wanted to kind of give you peace of mind about that um not to stress over too much for example in the glossery or with terminology that sort of thing because some of those things can be better unpacked explained in the standards guides and that helps keep the standards
document from being way too wordy and wieldy and all of that sort of thing. So did that just make things more confusing or was that helpful? >> And we have access to that. So, she's going to get you access to these documents so you can kind of see what information is provided in them. And
obviously, we're wide open in any recommendations that you have of helpful information that you think that we should include. You know, if you think, hey, we don't want to include it in the standards, but this would be great to include in the the standards guides, like absolutely open to that. Um, thank you. But that's a these are supporting
resources that will be there for uh they're there for teachers, admin, coaches, anyone who um needs to understand the standards better. So >> I think that's very important information to have because as you said, we may think that the item is not
consistent with language in the standards yet it needs further explanation. So we could make that recommendation to you. >> That's right. Yep. >> Thank you, Banks. I appreciate you. Um, one other point of clarification that your EAT chairs can speak to in more
depth is my understanding is that there's interest from your predecessors to link, articulate, connect the standards guides into the appendix because to Banks's point it some folks did perceive it as redundant or you know confusing etc. So that is definitely
within the purview of this committee to decide you know we'd like it all on one web page so that teachers can find it but separate documents you know once they're available we want them hyperl my understanding of the current proposal now um banks might have spoken to this
but they are on understandably it takes a couple couple minutes to get them together so we wouldn't necessarily have them for voting and nor do we expect them to be so obviously the hyperlink would be on a little bit of a delay but that's the proposal thus far that this committee has full discretion over. Any
questions about that? I will work on updating or uploading the standards guides into your folders for review. >> Thank you, Brianna. >> Mhm. >> All right. Now, I want to suggest that we all take a deep breath >> and get ready to jump on the train now.
You have uh some more comments >> from uh TDO uh Department of Ed. while she comes. Um, co-chair heelier, I would just like to affirm that proposal. I know you're
making a dock of notes and I think that's an excellent proposal to hyperlink them. Um, and so I just want to say that for the record. >> Hi. Um, I just wanted to give the rationale behind the fifth grade
standard for the language. Um, we took out the um conventions of standard English grammar and usage including the capitalization and punctuation because it was and the removed
substandard J because it was redundant with the writing standard and we wanted to add clarity and not have that redundancy. So that is why that change was made. Thank you for that clarification.
All right, let's get this train moving. It's going to chug along the beginning, but I think we'll catch a rhythm here in a bit. But we're going to have our engineer, Vice Chair, uh Hillyard, start us off, please.
>> Sure. Um, so if we're looking at L.CA, CAE.1. Um there are a few pieces of that we need to look at. Um there's obviously the conversation about um whether to um to keep the standard as currently
written from the EAT when it comes to the uh removal of of the substandards related to pronouns in six and then the references to verbs and verbals in 8. um or if we would uh if we would revert
back to that language from um the the existing standards. Um so I think that's kind of a conceptual question we probably want to ask ourselves is do we think that those are sufficiently covered um like the EAT has has said in in foundational literacy standards or is
that something that we feel is necessary to uh reintegrate into um the 68 standards. raise your question or raise your hand if you'd like to speak and then we'll uh move along that way. Who
who would like to speak to that? Anyone? >> Any? >> Yes. >> Um so I think I am sorry. Um so I am a little bit caught between on this because I have to say I'm not
Grammar is the thing I hate teaching the most. So, I'm a little biased, but um I do think that our grammar standards could be streamlined or perhaps in the sixth or eight level. Um perhaps we need
to um bulk up our foundational literacy standards perhaps if there's something missing. Um, but I think one of my primary concerns is making sure that um our students have the necessary information for um the ACT SAT. I had
difficulty finding any particular list of um standards for the SAT, but I did find for the ACT um verbals is not on there anywhere that I found for the ACT. Um but I do see how it could be useful in understanding sentence construction a
little bit better. Um and uh pronoun anticedant agreement is in the ACT standards. Um as well as um sorry let me find it. I should have made these notes a little
bit more um combined. Um okay so it does mention reflexive pronouns uh possessive pronouns and relative pronouns on the ACT. So, that's just something to consider. Um, is that something that should be re reviewed at some point or
but I do I did like the standards of the document that had the arrows um to imply that we continue reviewing these things. Um, so I guess what I'm saying is that I'm caught between my my gut reaction is to agree with the EAT,
but I also do not want to um have our students missing out on something that that will be tested on the ACT. um because I as teachers, you know, when students make mistakes, we correct it, whether it's on the standard or not. Um but I want to make sure that we do not
just leave out something um that is important for that secondary level. So, those are my thoughts. They're not very definitive, but I just wanted to kind of let you all know what I what I was thinking. Um I do think we need for sure voice in eighth grade, though. Active versus passive is is quite important,
but I I think I would like the the wording maybe changed a little bit. just voice for me personally when I read reading that like I had to be like what what does that mean? Oh active and passive voice in my head I feel like if it just said active versus passive it might be a little bit more clear because I googled it which is kind of makes me
feel kind of stupid and I was like oh duh. Um but I think maybe just some clear language there might be uh useful and we also kind of just skip uh over seventh grade where we don't add any of the um I guess parts of speech aspects. Um, so for me, if we are going to do
verbs uh versus except for if we do verbals, I think verbals should be moved down. Personally, I think maybe that's a little bit too too late to be teaching that. Personally, uh, they need that a little bit earlier, especially if we're asking them to um do the variety of
types of sentences. >> Yeah. You spoke to a number of different uh standards, correct? >> Yeah. Well, it's the same standard strand, but across the great >> Okay, that makes sense. So, are we speaking to the strands or we are we talking to each specific standard
right now? >> I think at the moment we're working on standard progression LC AE1. Um, I think that's going to be I think the more uh dilute our conversations get, the more we're going to kind of just get stuck in
a place and not move forward. So, I think it's best >> let's confine our discussion to specific. Now, I will I mean, uh, Miss Dockery is is discussing other standards that are that are relevant in this particular context because the language standards begin with six. So, if we're
going to see what students know when they're coming into sixth grade, we do need to look at those foundational literacy standards that she's proposing. So, I think in this particular context, it makes sense to we're not editing those standards yet, but I think it's worth bringing them up to ensure that we know um what's the content there. I did want to make sure um just for our own
sake um I'm kind of like misckery in this regard where I kind of have of two minds about this language um around pronouns and this language about verb voice and and verbals. Um the language in the foundational literacy standards.
I just wanted to to make sure we we have that uh just out in the open. Um, prepositions seem to be last or not prepositions, sorry, pronouns seem to be last referenced in the fourth grade foundational literacy standard SC.5.
Um, so it does also seem to, if I'm looking at this correctly, >> yeah, it's not. So, it's not in fifth grade either. So, um I think that would seem to be either if we're going to
maintain the fifth grade um standard to not include a discussion of pronouns. I think it would therefore that would lend support for what the eat has done um because that creates kind of a continuum between fifth. Um, if we feel that students are are mastering pronoun usage
by fourth grade, um, then I think ultimately something needs to change or or or not. Well, I think if we're going to change the sixth grade standard to include pronouns, we probably will need to go in and change the fifth grade standard to additionally include pronouns because we need to create that
continuum. Um, if we're not going to um, alter, then I think things can likely stay as is or that's a conversation we'll we'll have more when we get into foundational literacy. Um, as far as verbs, um, those are discussed. Obviously, verbs are are are very prominent in
foundational literacy standards. Um, and they're discussed K through five. Um, though this language of verbals is not there. And I don't believe I see any reference to voice, though I I'd need to clarify that. Um, and I do think Miss
Dockery, were you um, you looked at the ACT standards was did you find references to active and passive voice in the standards? So that Okay. So that would be something that I I think would be useful to to reintegrate in the aid standard. Um do we have data and this I
guess could be a question for for any person in the room um on whether or not I know we anecdotally we've we've had people reference that uh they feel like middle school students know pronouns. Um but do we have test data? Do we have um
any sort of you know statistical support for that idea? Okay. Yeah, I think that would be useful. >> Yeah. >> Um I wanted to speak to a couple of things. So, um the the progression to
me, the the way that the EAT has revised them make sense. Um pronouns in the fourth grade because as a former sixth grade teacher myself, um pronouns and this is just my own experience. um pronouns were less difficult to master
than sentence constructions. And so pronouns in the fourth grade make sense and then moving into the fifth grade standards. Um when you are focusing more on verbs and how they operate and those are are critical that knowledge of verbs
is critical to understanding how sentences are constructed than in the sixth grade standards. And then the concern was about verbals. And then in the seventh grade standard, there's the added effectively placed modifiers, which to me encompasses verbals. Again,
this is just my interpretation. Um, but I'm I do wonder if if it's too open to interpretation. I suppose that would be my question because I'm of two minds on that. Um, I don't I do see the value in adding in
active and passive voice specifically because those are very those are difficult skills to master and um and and they are um they are used so much um going up through the upper grades into the ACT um standards as well. So uh and
my original initial question was just about the terminology and that's just just asking about staying consistent because I really have no preference one way or another. It's not about my preference but um the terminology about explaining the function of because when because in
the fifth grade standard there's the terminology about explaining the function of but then in you know in the progressing standards that language is not there even though we're introducing new grammatical terms and so in the other standards again the language is
there in some grade levels and not others. So, I would just I would like to see consistency with usage either one way or the other. >> Yeah, I just want to say that I agree with that. And um I that's something else I've noticed if if we look at this
progression here. Um if you look at the verbs and the substandards in 6 through 8, um we have typically a use something as the first substandard and then the B substandard is uh use produce and produce. So there's an inconsistency of
verb there. Um in the high school uh standards we have utilize and analyze and as the A substandard and then identify and utilize as the uh B substandard. Um though those substandards disappear entirely um when it comes to 11th and 12th grade English.
Um so I think some some consider consistency in our verb. I mean use and utilize I think we can just we need to reach a consensus on which one of those two words we're going to use. Um since I think they're pretty interchangeable. I think >> please use from from from the communications person who does it in the
real world use. >> Okay, that sounds great and that's what foundational literacy is using. Um they they use use. Um so do we all agree that use would be the the best choice there? Um, do we also I I think
there's this conversation um because like I said with the high school LCAE.1 um we have this utilize and analyze effective phrases and clauses and then we have when writing or speaking identify and utilize parallel structure.
Um so I guess the the verbs we're considering are um identify them use them and analyze them. Um, and I would guess explain its function is is a pretty close analog to to analyze, I would say.
But I I feel like that is because we're having this moment of uncertainty, I think it would be better to to have consistency across that. So, do we have a what do people think uh is what verb I mean, we we think use should be the the correct verb um for like being able to
integrate these grammatical concepts into their writing. um identify I think is yeah absolutely >> Nicole um I just ask you to so for the recording as somebody who watched the last recording where there were not
microphones it was it was not fun um to this is actually perfect uh vice chair Hillard in terms of your question about data I'm happy to reach out to so these fabulous folks in front of you are a part of the academics and instructional strategy team um which is just one of the many parts of the department of
education your question could potentially be answered by the assessment team. I'm going to reach out to them via email um to see if they'd be able to get us an answer. I don't I can't confirm that they have that level of granularity or can turn it around, but I will of course always ask. >> Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm just supposed
to raise my hand if I want to speak. I'm trying not to. But um as far as the use of verbs, we tried really hard and you will see um we looked at DK1, DK2, and three. So, we use those words. So, you'll see the progression. There'll be different verbs, but they're supposed to
progress on each other. That's what we were really like intentional about. So, that was our conversation as far as that. As far as whether or not this was tested or not, last TCAP sixth grade standard, it was not tested on directly. So, I don't have evidence of that. But, I would say that in their writing
directly, if they use the wrong pronoun that it would be, but there's no evidence. I don't have anything like that. Do we need to take a vote on any verbiage change? >> Great question, Chair Carnegus. You
only, you don't have to take a vote on anything other than Thursday afternoon confirming that you, you know, are in favor or not in favor of the standards as revised over the course of the 4 days. In the event you reach an impass or you know want to move the discussion forward, you're welcome to take a vote at any point as long as it's a clear
question with a yes or no answer. So, you know, would we like to use the word yet use in place of all instances of utilize? Yes. No. You're welcome to vote on that, but you certainly don't have to. basically one efficiency, two disagreement
>> us to take uh a record of those changes that we want to make. >> And I am um but I I think to my understanding the vote is primarily being used in moments of of you know I don't want to say contention but moments
of divisiveness. Um and I feel like from thus far we haven't really run into anything that I I feel like we as a as a collective are are kind of at loggerheads about. So, I think we can we can vote if we get to a moment like that, but I think right now we're still in the midst of of kind of the formative state. >> Note that we're going to use use.
>> Um, is that how we we feel as a as a committee? >> Anybody you'd like to arm wrestle me over use versus utilize? >> Great question, Dr. Stout. >> We have consensus on using use. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Um, >> so noted. >> So, that will that will not affect um
the 68 standards. that will affect the the uh English one and two and English three and four. Um well actually I think it will just affect English one and two. So well when when we get to that particular moment but um I guess the the the the
decision that we have to make at this particular moment if we're going to start with six here is the question of pronouns. Um I I think that is we've had some discussion of that and and I I I guess I would like to just kind of hear from voices in the room about where people um are standing currently on on
this discussion of whether we uh reintroduce the substandards um from the old standards about pronouns which was um something that was recommended by the TDOE or if we're going to uh stick to the the edits that were made by the EAT um that they spoke to earlier. Does
anyone have any um you know input on that one way or the other? >> Britney, >> I think that we should just uh go with the edit since it's not discussed in fifth grade now. >> Okay.
>> And uh can you tell us what the edit says? >> So the it's right behind you right there. So if you if you look you can see um 6.l.cae.1 CAE.1 um demonstrate command of the conventions of academic English grammar and usage conventions. Substandard A use
dependent and independent clauses. Substandard B when writing or speaking use simple compound and complex sentences. So uh and then the I I will personally say I think at this point I am I was of two minds. I think I'm leaning towards
maintaining the EAT's recommendation here. um especially now that I've I didn't notice it's my first pass pass through, but the fact that pronouns are absent um in four in fifth grade foundational literacy standards, I think it that kind of streamlines uh I think
if we reintroduced here at six, that creates a little bit of a of a flaw in progression. If we're if we're removing a concept and then returning it um after a year off, I think that that creates a little bit of a gap. So I I think my my standpoint at this moment is is to maintain what the the eat is providing
>> assume that's going to be mastered. >> I I think I think that's a fair assumption. Um and I would >> consensus on that. >> Be happy to hear any other voices. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> We have consensus. >> Okay. Then I I think the last remaining question we have really about six is is
the question that that Miss Now has brought to our attention about um currently it just uses the language of use. um that is the primary verb for both substandards. Use dependent independent clauses and then use simple compound and complex sentences. Um do we
need to do we feel um that use and explain the function or explain the function of um would be an improvement of these um substandards. >> And to be clear, I'm not I'm not asking to introduce explain the function of. I agree with the terminology used there. I
just like I said just for clarity >> and and now I understand that that that terminology was based upon DK levels. So I understand that. So if we if we choose to later on address the usage of that terminology and other standards that's fine but I'm not advocating for that in
this standard. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll not touch it. >> So are we agreeing then that the the six standard here should be kept? Yes, I see that consensus. >> Then we have done one standard.
>> How about that? >> Many more to go. >> Yes. >> All right. Um and >> comment. >> Yeah. >> I wanted to revisit >> Okay. I wanted to revisit Miss Noun's comment about voice. Uh is that in this
pair of standards as well or is it later? Okay. >> Yeah, it's in eight. Um it was it lived in in the eight standard previously. Um but it has been removed from the eight standard. Um would we like to have a conversation about seven quickly and then move to to eight after that?
Because I think seven does not seem to I mean the only TDOE comment on seven standard um was considering changing the phrasing of use phrases and clauses um as effectively placed modifiers into use phrases and clauses with effectively placed modifiers. Um if I I would be
curious to know if anyone from the EAT would like to speak to that suggested recommendation. Um uh if if not that's okay. Um so as it currently is written it says use phrases and clauses as effectively
placed modifiers. Um and then the the TDOE recommended to change use phrases and clauses with effectively placed modifiers. I personally think that the the substitution of with would be an effective change. Does anyone disagree with that? Okay. So, this will be our
first edit. So, can we can we switch over to the spreadsheet just? >> And you're going to redline that, correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. mic on. Someone yell at me. Okay. Um, first half is what's already been done by your predecessors. You only need the
second half if you're making an edit. And the three most important columns are, I guess, two most important columns, revised standard, and edit rationale and evidence. So the edit I am making um if you look in there and I'm not sure hopefully it's
updating live and and you can see yeah um it's just to change as to within that standard. Um and the rationale what would our rationale for that be? um that uh that the phrasing of of phrases and
clauses as modifiers seems like perhaps a bit of an advanced concept for the seventh grade level that instead we're focused on the use of more conventional modifiers. Would that be >> clarity? >> Clarity. Okay. Okay. Um that sounds good then. >> So all you need to say is clarity.
>> Yeah. I I'll make a note and then I'll formalize these uh these rationes later um when we have a little more time. don't want to hold up as I'm writing out the the the rationale. Um,
and then also I think it is worth and this is something that would probably be caught in copy editing, but I can't help but notice that the the the word use is capitalized um in the substandard A. Um, so are we in consensus that we'd like to
to change that to a lower case? >> Okay. Vice Chair Hillyard, one note. You're welcome to use any of the tabs of the spreadsheet to take any additional notes. If there's like big decisions that you all have made that you want consistency on, you know, feel free to make this document your own. >> Um, while Vice Chair Hillard's doing
that, um, members, this is your parking garage. Um, and this this is also your wish list. As we've spoken to, you know, the 100page document is our locus of control, but we have incredible dedicated folks helping us. If there's any requests, I will communicate those with the understanding that they are they're requests.
Um, but it includes LEAs, Department of Education, textbook publishers, all of that good stuff. Okay. Um, so I just wrote lowercase U's in substandard A. Um, does anyone else have anything they'd like to draw our
attention to in uh the seven standard? Okay, then we will uh move to our conversation about uh the eighth grade stander. Um this is where the conversation Dr. Stout uh about uh voice.
Um so if I think it will might be useful if we look at the the TDOE recommendations um because they proposed uh substandards. So I think it would make sense if we are going to reintegrate this language. It would it makes sense to to start from the basis of the language that the TDOE proposed.
Um so I'll just read that language aloud. Uh they're proposing uh three additional substandards and we had a conversation about maybe not all of those substandards be add being added. Explain the function of verbals. Um explain the function of the voice uh and mood of a verb and its application in
text. And uh produce and use varied voice and mood of verbs. Um does anyone want to speak to their thoughts on that? >> Well, again um we I I had one I had pondered whether um the the the
rationale behind the words effectively placed modifiers would also encompass verb or or verbals and verb moods. Um, but I wondered also if it would not be
of benefit to to add explicit language about active versus passive voice. Um, because to me that would not necessarily fall under effectively placed mod modifiers. Again, that's how I I read the standard. >> I agree with that. Does anyone else want
to speak to that? >> I agree. >> Are we in agreement that Yes. Go. >> Oh. Go ahead. >> No, no, no. I >> I was >> Okay. No. >> So, >> sorry. I want to do this probably every
time. Um, so we're saying that we are wanting to eliminate the verbiage of um verbals. >> Are we all in agreement about verbals that we don't feel like that needs to be present? Okay. I I would agree.
I will say when I taught English to ninth grade that was the worst lesson I ever taught. So, >> okay. So, we we will we're in consensus there. Um, are we in agreement that some language about uh voice and mood of
verbs or is it just voice? I'm hearing more conversation about voice. Um, yeah. >> So, mood for me seems like something that's a little bit more intuitive if you are um a native English speaker. um whereas, you know, that might be an area
for um non-native speakers in their ELLL class. Um but for voice, I feel like voice definitely needs to be somewhere. Um I always teach voice with my eighth graders anyway, but um I could see it maybe being effective in like the ninth
grade level just because they're getting to the kind of nitty-gritty of writing at that point. Um, so I guess my my suggestion would either be to to keep it or to move it up to the ninth grade level or voice and then mood I don't know that
it's necessary but I would love to hear other opinions. >> Does anyone feel that mood should be present within >> I want to clarify what's meant by mood? I'm reading this as connotation versus denotation, but am I reading that
incorrectly when I think of mood of verb? >> I believe it's in reference to like the the verb mood um like subjunctive mood or uh You have a better explanation >> is mood appropriate at this grade level
>> or should be >> would people like to speak to that? >> Yes, I'll speak. Um, so I feel like if it if we are teaching mood should be at a at a lower grade level. I think they do learn like types of sentences. Uh,
what what are imperative? I don't teach that part. Interrogative. It feels like that would fit more with that type of standard rather. This feels too late to make. It just seems we teach in eighth grade when they're about to move on grade.
That's my personal opinion. It should be lower. So, do we feel like verb mood should be returned to when we get to the foundational literacy standards then rather than at this moment? >> Perhaps, but I would definitely defer to my
uh K5 educators on that. >> Anyone have anything to say on that? Britney, >> I was going to say we do not in fifth grade do not teach the types of sentences, but there are some
um they are taught. So maybe teach it at that time would be would make more sense. I agree that it's probably too I mean it's kind of weird to put it in in an eighth grade standard.
voice is voice being taught at the at that level. >> The main thing in uh like in the lower case is just kind of the introduction to to the verb. Um in fourth grade it's pro progressive verbs and then we in fifth grade teach perfect tense verbs. So it's
more about forming the correct and incorrect verb shifts in a sentence. That's the more focus. >> Okay. I do think voice likely should be added. That's my perspective on this. Um if if it's something we know is going to
be tested on the ACT, I think it's worthwhile for us to integrate that into the progression. Um do we feel like 8th grade is the right place for that? >> Annie, you had an opinion. >> I personally feel like it is a concept that might benefit at the high school
level. Um But it's always nice when you're because I teach eth and nth grade. It's nice when ninth graders come with some of those skills already mastered. But I would say I I've never had a class where I haven't had to teach um active versus
passive very thoroughly in ninth grade. So I'm not sure if it's something that think if the purpose of it sinks in. I I guess I would echo um eighth grade and ninth grade. You know, I just think it's it's so important especially when
you talk about uh uh postsecary, right? What they're going to do in college, what they're going to do in the workforce. We know one of the elements of styles is concision. We also know with the use of AI and assisted technology, it's doing more uh passive voice and active voice. And so, I think
trying to catch and teach that as an element of style early. Uh I would love to introduce that into the in the eighth grade and actually uh emphasize it in other grades. I think it's going to be more. >> Thank you.
>> We Yes, dear. >> Um I had I I was looking back to the foundational literacy standards for exactly when any language was included that had anything to do with whatsoever with verb moods or moods in general. um there was some mention of you know
imperative sentences um in I think in the first grade standard and then in the K5 standard um there is some mention of interrogatives and so um of course I'll defer to the experts
about whether we um include uh what what we include in the um in the foundational literacy standards as far as uh verb moods go. Um, my question was, um, because I can't I don't recall being tested explicitly over verb moods in the
middle grade band. So, I did wonder about that. Um and and moving on into the high school grade band. >> Do we have any comments? >> Uh is this something that we should put in the parking lot or are we ready to
just say let's add voice? >> I would say let's add voice. I would say it should be in eth and ninth. And I'm also wondering if um we should add be specific about active and passive voice
or are we am I losing something if we have that level of specificity? And just to recap, if you have a recommendation on the standards guide, that's what would go on the wish list under the department. >> Okay. I'm
I'm thinking it it took you looking up on Google to find out what they meant by voice. So perhaps we better include it in directly in the standards. >> And it's not going to add a lot of verbiage. I mean, active and passive
voice is is not a lot of verbiage to add. So I don't feel like we're at the risk of becoming clunky um by adding that language. So, I I would personally recommend if we're going to include this language about voice that we just um that we specify active and passive voice. >> All right. Would we like to agree with that recommendation?
>> I see nods. I don't hear any disscent. All right. Let's put that down as a red line. >> Okay. So, then how do we want to actually fray? Because this is the first time we're adding a substandard. Um and it seems like we're deviating a bit from the recommendations here um provided by
the uh uh the TDOE. Um, so would this be would we be adding two substandards like they have in the TDDOE recommendations or would we consolidate this into one substandard? They currently have explained the function of the voice and mood of a verb and its application in text and then
produce and use varied voice and mood of verbs. This language about producing and using is more in keeping with the kind of language that we have elsewhere in substandards. I do wonder if explaining the function of voice is important. Um because we
typically tell students to avoid passive voice, but it is also a rhetorical choice. But is that is that something that's so important that we should include it in the standard? Is that just something a teacher discusses? I I'm I'm not super committed to either. I don't think I want to throw out. So, in my
head, this reads, if we were to go with a revision, explain the function of active and passive voice and the mood of the verb. Um, to me, it's just that simple, but maybe I'm missing something.
I guess my uh what I'm trying to to normalize is as our language with uh with other substandards because we're using use and analyze phrases and clauses produce simple compound complex and uh compound complex sentences. So
I'm just trying to trying to keep that that language we haven't used explain the function of anywhere else. Um so that's that's I'm just trying to keep that phrasing um similar. Uh so I suppose if we were going to maintain the verbiage that we've used elsewhere, we
would say something along the lines of um uh use and uh I guess it would be use and produce active and passive voice of verbs. Vice
Chair, uh, sorry, Vice Chair Hillard, um, Nicole Moore might have a thought that could be helpful. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> The original standard up here in the document, is that our edits or is that the original standards? >> Okay.
If you go to the one we're currently using right now in the classroom, the edits you guys are trying to make are already there. >> Okay. >> So, if you just go, it's literally the words that you guys are using. So, it might make it simpler if you just copy and paste that. >> Thank you. Um, so I pulled that up. And
we have um when in the old standards we have when reading or listening explain the function of the voice and then in parentheses active and passive and the mood of a verb and its application in text and then when reading or speak when
writing or speaking produce and use varied voice and mood of verbs. So, do we feel as though we should maintain the language of the old standard and simply remove the language about mood? >> I agree on that. >> It makes sense.
>> Does anyone feel differently? >> What do we think about the latter part of that former substandard in its application in a text? I don't feel as though that language is necessary. Do people disagree?
>> Are we still saying would we say explain the function of active versus passive or active passive voice or are we keeping it exactly the same? Explain the function of voice. My reluctance about explaining the function of is that that language was
very common in the old 6 through 8 language standards and the the edits that the EAT has made has eliminated the use of that phrasing. Um so if we reintroduce that phrasing here it will be not in keeping with the edits that have been made elsewhere. >> What what phrasing are you recommending
it? Well, if what we are using at least in the 68 band um is this language of use and uh produce. Those are the only two verbs we've used in the substandards. Um, so it it seems to be
in keeping with that. Um, at least in my estimation to say something along the lines of uh when uh if I find when reading or listening um well I guess we would need to eliminate the language about when
reading or listening because it wouldn't make sense to um to well use and produce. Do we need to find I mean what is the distinction between use and produce? >> Is there is there a distinction to be
made between using and producing? >> Is produce relative to the written i.e. you're a production of something >> that it seems to me um but it seems to me that using encapsulates producing.
So, >> but I don't think we just want students to use active and passive voice. I think we're also look asking them to identify um active and passive voice. >> Did you have a comment on that? >> I was just going to say I'm the K5
chair. Um in K5 foundational literacy, we have when um speaking and then we have when writing. That's how we distinguished. >> I see.
>> So that's probably what they were thinking and I'm not sure. >> So um I just want to make sure that we we're kind of moving towards a decision point. I think the conversation is are
we going to say explain the function of or if there is there another way we want to phrase that that is more consistent with the language that's found in the rest of the standards. Am I tracking? >> Yes. >> Teachers, am I tracking? All right. All right. All right.
>> All right. And then I would say whatever however we explain it. Do I think it's important that students can articulate how active voice and passive voice impact the text? Yes. I think it is
important that by eighth grade and beyond students are able to articulate how active voice and passive voice impact a text. >> My good. Yes. >> Yes. The language that is used in the the 9 through12 standards in lie of
explain the function of is analyze. Um how would we feel about the language of analyze? Use and analyze being our verbs here. Does anyone feel that that would be inappropriate? >> Okay. >> I think that follows along with the DK
too. >> So would it Could you speak again what was the exact language? um used in K through five. You said when writing and >> when speaking when speaking and when writing.
>> Okay. So would we phrase this then? Uh I guess in the other substandards here we're using when writing or speaking. So we should keep with that. Um the new substandard would be let me actually start writing it.
When writing or speaking, use and analyze active and passive voice. Or do we want to say and like it says in
the original standard it said function of voice parenthesis active and passive. Do we want to say active and passive voice or do we want to say voice and then have a parenthesis that says active and passive? >> I don't think parenthesis is needed. >> I'm always going to go for the fewest
number of words just my bias. >> I would like to say for the parking lot I don't think this is a discussion for now. I would like to see us repeat that same standard for nth grade. We have a chart for the parking lot
and we'll be moving to the ninth grade standard immediately um after this. So we'll we'll shift immediately into that conversation. So what I've gotten written right now um is um when writing or speaking use and analyze active and passive voice. Um, do
we need to specify some of verbs >> use and do we just think it's fine as is? Okay, so we have substandard C. When writing or speaking, use and analyze active and passive voice. Do we feel good on that? Okay, then then it's done. >> Okay, everybody good with that?
>> All right, then we are on to 910 and we don't even need the parking lot because we're going right. We are in the parking lot. Oh, you're fine. The 910 um standard
um has a lot of the same language up top. And then substandards about um when writing or speaking, utilize and analyze effective phrases and clauses to convey specific meaning and add variety and interest in one's own writing. And then substandard B when writing or speaking
identify and utilize parallel structure. I don't see that the TDOE had any feedback on this particular standard. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at 6 through8. Yes. >> Um some something that might be helpful as you're doing your corrections is at
least for six through eight, I went through and I copy and pasted in one column um exactly what t recommended as it's written if that's helpful um for you. But um their comment is in
substandard A, please consider adding or presentation at the end. It currently has writing, but this doesn't encompass the speaking element. >> How do we feel about that recommendation? >> It says writing at it says speaking at the beginning of the standard. So that
would make sense if we're going to follow along in the type of production expected. >> Do we feel as if this language in one's own writing is necessary? Um is that not implied with A's beginning uh when writing or speaking?
>> I would say it's implied. >> I agree. >> So should we just remove the language about in one's own writing? >> That's how I feel. >> Do we all are we in agreement there? I don't want to move too quickly. Yes. >> I feel like >> mark it down. >> Okay. It's getting marked and do we feel as if the language
otherwise is uh correct? I will say there is a semicolon at the conclusion of the primary standard, the parent standard I believe is what that's called. um below ahead of the substandard um we use periods elsewhere. So do we want to edit that semicolon to
a period? >> Yes. >> Did you already mention utilize versus use in the standard? >> Oh yeah. Do we want to make that change as well? >> Do we want to make that change as well to change utilize to use consistently? Okay.
is the wordage in six sorry this is Nicole Moore sixth grade ELH here or yes okay um the sixth grade does it say when speaking and writing we we were having a discussion back here it looks like for
eight uh a it doesn't have when when reading or listening when speaking or writing but everything else does and so just for uniformity parallel structure. Wanted to see if that needed something there.
>> Six and eight. >> Yeah, good catch. Um, do we want to add for substandard A on six and eight when reading? Um, well, some places we're using when writing or speaking and then other times we're using when reading or listening,
which I guess those are distinct things. Well, are we looking at them as like when reading or listening and then it follows that after reading or listening then you're writing or speaking? Is that >> we're looking at that sequentially? >> Right. >> So in in if we're going to include that
language then it needs to be intentional in that order elsewhere. So do we want to add the language of when reading or listening to substandard A and six and 8 to keep it in in consistency with seven or do we want to alter seven so that it is brought into
alignment with >> six and eight >> 8 a um we have use and analyze use would be writing or speaking and analyze would be reading or listening so I feel like
that's why it got dropped Um, so >> yeah, and it wouldn't make sense in 6A to add when reading or listening because it says use dependent and independent clauses. Um, and you wouldn't use that when listening. This might be controversial, but do we
need the when writing, when speaking, when listening? Is that necessary or is there is that >> understood? I feel as though it's it's implied. Do other people agree? Does do people feel as if this language is important? >> I I think and she's poised to speak that
you made the point that it's used in fifth grade. It's it's there in eighth grade and we kind of skipped it in sixth. So I think we were just trying to be consistent. >> Trying to be consistent. And then going back to some of the discussion you've had when you talk about the word use if it's productive speech you for 7A it
says when reading or listening that's more receptive than productive and so there may be some confusion there as well. So it could be worth taking out or it could be worth changing somehow to make it more consistent from six through
eight. It's also used K through five uh when speaking when writing. >> To me, the easiest um alteration here know that that may not necessarily be the best would be to just simply remove the language of when reading or
listening from substandard A of seven. I'm wondering if it's necessary in K through five due the nature of their level where they're still learning how to speak really in a lot of ways. I mean, they know how to speak, but how to construct um spoken sentences in a in
proper academic English. So, I wonder if that's part of the reason it's in K through five. I'm just not totally sold on if it's necessary for 6 through 12. I'm not married to either idea, but that's just a thought. >> I'm not married to either idea either.
So, does anyone have a strong feeling about this particular issue? Um, how do we feel about simply deleting when reading or listening from substandard A of seven to bring it into consistency with six and eight? >> I agree.
>> I agree. >> So then I will remove the edit about lowercasing used because now it does does need to be capitalized. Um, Okay. Um, it's probably worth then because if we look at substandard A of English one
and two, um, that we were looking at, um, it says when writing or speaking, utilize and analyze. Um, if we're talking about when they're reading, um, if reading is to be encapsulated within that, if that's where the anal analysis of effective phrases and clauses is
coming in, um, then that's not currently entailed with because of when writing or speaking. Um, we're just specifying when they're writing or speaking, not when they're reading. So, do we feel like that language should be eliminated in substandard A of English one and two as well, or should we use some sort of
other terminology there? Why would you do that? >> Because if we're the to me um and and this is open I think to some interpretation the the word analyze is being used in lie of explain the function of it's being used to to in to
imply that students are reading other texts and examining their use of effective phrases and clauses. Um, but because of that opening phrase there, when writing or speaking, um, we're we're eliminating reading from this
particular skill. It's written as if they're analyzing their own writing or speech. I don't know if that was intentional or if it's just kind of a oversight >> and it's in the standard itself before
you get to the substandard when you're speaking. So are we not then we don't want to in we are not this is outside the purview then of of the standard to include reading then okay so >> oh we have a hand in the back
>> yes >> hi Tammy Marlo I was the head of the 912 um group >> we intentionally did writing and speaking here because we would address the reading and the readingformational standards that was our thought feel free
to do what you But that I just wanted to explain where that came from. >> Thank you. >> Then do we feel as though then that language of when writing or speaking should just remain then? >> Okay. Um
then I suppose the only additional edit we would need to make is as our consistent choice to use use rather than utilize. Okay. So we have deleted in one's own writing from substandard A. We have changed the semicolon at the end of the parent
standard to period and we have to a period and we have replaced utilize with use. Does anyone else feel as though there's anything else that needs to happen to the standard? >> Is this where we were wanting to add that voice >> and passive voice? Do we want to use the exact same verbiage that we used in ETH?
>> Yes. >> I want to hear if there are alternative opinions. Uh I just think this is such an important concept and I know there are a lot of things that we do have repeating in multiple grades. I I think this is one worth repeating in multiple
grades, but I hate to add to teachers plates. So if there is some push back, I definitely want to hear that. In other words, how would you scaffold this skill of teaching active and
passive voice 8th grade to 9th grade? What what additional um complexity would you add to that uh task? I think it primarily serves a functional purpose. Uh, I mean, if active and
passive voice is going to be on the ACT, if students are are tasked with taking the ACT their junior year of high school, if they have not been exposed to active and passive voice since 8th grade, and that was the only moment in which they were introduced to it, um, I think there's value in adding that to the nth and tth grade level as well.
>> I think the scaffolding might already be there u because eth grade standard says demonstrate command of in the ninth grade and says demonstrate proficient use of. So if we're adding active and passive voice um then proficient is is
more rigorous than command. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Good. That is in the language of the the the old standards but it's not in this language we've added ourselves. Our l our language around passive voice was just when writing or speaking use and analyze active and passive voice. >> It's in the main like the main standard
I think is what she's talking about like demonstrate command and then provision. >> Okay. Yeah. I apologize. Um then we just I mean, is that >> that makes sense to me? >> Okay. >> Yes. So, just add the exact same language to 910 then. >> Okay.
>> What about the the verb identify for substandard B? We haven't used that elsewhere. It's been explained the function of >> to me to encompass analyze and or identify. >> Identify seems to kind of push towards this conversation about reading versus
uh speaking um and writing. So I I I personally think deleting identify and would probably be an effective revision there. Does anyone have an opposing perspective? >> We have a hand in the back.
>> Tammy Marlo, chair of the 912 department. The reason we put identify in this is the first time parallel structure is addressed. So when you're in our opinion when you were introducing something you had to
identify it then move to using it and analyzing it >> makes sense. >> So if that's the case then should we alter the language of the eighth grade standard to say identify and use and then the nth grade nth and tth grade standards to use and analyze
to demonstrate that progression >> voice for the voices >> for voice. Yes. >> Oh, yes, we are. Sorry. I apologize. Um I apologize. Um but we are adding active voice in these two places as well. So do we feel as if that would be a trajectory? I I unintentionally stumbled
into that. I'm sorry. >> Well, I agree with her point. If if you are just first in introducing the parallel structure, that's the first time that they've seen it. Obviously, you would want them to identify it first. So then I'm also in agreeance with Lucas that when we edited the
eighth grade instead of saying use and analyze maybe we should put identify and analyze the voices and then in the ninth and 10th use that the verbiage use and analyze. So would that be kind of our
our way of progressing would be saying when a concept is introduced we say identify and use and then when it's reiterated upon we then say use and analyze as a way of progressing. Does that >> I think so. >> Yeah. I think we're making a habit of not
reiterating those things that have been mastered. >> So the identification's been mastered >> then you move on >> for the the do that kind of brings in that as well. >> Okay. So then if I'm hearing this correctly, um we would need to go back
and change the substandard of eight to when writing or speaking identify and use active and passive voice. Um keep use and analyze active and passive voice in 910. Then we would edit the well we would essentially leave one and two
substandard B the same. um it would just say identify and use and then we would add an additional substandard to uh three and four English three and English four with use and analyze. >> Is that how people feel? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Does anyone want to challenge that?
>> I would just ask if that's parallel with our experts in the back and what's been done previously that work for you? Nicole Moore, ELA chair. Um, as far as I'm fine with everything you guys are saying as far as 6th through 8th grade. Um, my content is not 9
through 12, but it looks like it's progressing the way it's it looks good to me. >> Okay. >> Tammy Marlo 9 through 12 chair. Um, my only comment, nothing about what you've
changed, but if we add an A to English three, English four, we need to add a B at least so it's parallel. That's my only comment. >> Can I ask you as the uh 912 chair um and I'm I'm just super sensitive
about adding anything. Are you comfortable with us adding the um active passive voice in ninth grade as well? >> I am fine with it in um our the way we view the standards and the way that we read them in the room that day.
The final standard should almost mirror the cornerstone. We should be as close as possible. And that's the reason we didn't put A, B's, and C's. It should encapsulate everything they have done. But with new teachers, you may need to delineate that.
So if you needed to add an A, just give me a B. No, just again, you know, any of those progressions will also be outlined in in detail in the standards guides. So kind of whatever you feel like is a is a fair progression to put in the standard
itself, we will really elaborate on that in the standards guides um as a resource for teachers. So just as a reminder for that. >> So where do we stand? >> Well, we like A, but we don't want to add words just to come up with words for
a B. Yeah. Um, >> yeah. All decisions are at the discretion of the committee. Um, I also want to give you a quick time check. Lunch will be ready in about 50 minutes. >> Did you say 50 or 15? >> 50. At 12, we'll have lunch. It's 11:11
now. So, 49 minutes. Um, and you had you still have some time after lunch to do language within the current pacing guide. So, if you don't finish in the next 49 minutes, that's okay, too. We are moving quite slow though, so we should probably pick up the pace.
>> I think our EAT chairs can tell you the first one's always the hardest. Okay. >> When people get tired, then you know, >> we are identifying and using and then we will go to okay, we're we're scaffling too. >> Are we okay to just stay with the A for
right now? >> And so we would have a substandard A with no substandard B for >> for right now. >> Three and four. There was some push back on that from the EAT chair. >> If we want to rethink it later, maybe something will come to us.
>> Eight. >> Okay. Um then I will um change that language to identify and use or one and two. And then add use and analyze active and
passive voice as substandard A for three and four. Yes. Anyone else have anything to add there? >> And then you need to edit.
>> Nothing to add. Grade eight. Grade eight says use an Allen. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Uh what are we going to next? Vocabulary acquisition or >> Sorry, I'm just making this edit. >> You're doing great, Vice Chair Hillard.
Um as is all the members, I appreciate all the consistency comments because that helps everyone be well now and going forward. Um, would it be helpful to move back to the slides or stay in the spreadsheet? I don't have any strong preferences. I just want to keep up with y'all. You're doing a great job.
>> This is helpful. Okay. >> All good with the spreadsheet. I'll just keep it rolling. >> Okay. >> Okay. Then I suppose we are ready to move to LCA. 2 um and that progression. Let's see.
page 22. Oh, you're looking in that. Okay. Okay, I got you. >> The for 6 through 8, uh, the TDOE, um, had this comment. The wording of the standards at these levels only includes guidance for students to explain the
function of X. Please consider adding language such as and use correctly or demonstrate understanding of to explicitly indicate that students are not only expected to explain what punctuation is for but rather also to demonstrate how to use it correctly. Um so we might be able to
um so where it says when reading or writing explain the functions of commas um including combining clauses. Um, we would then therefore add some language about uh
using commas correctly. Did you have a question or a comment? >> Oh, just I was looking at my Do we feel as though we need to add this language about using rather than just
explaining the function of >> about our middle school folks? >> Yes, because we have elsewhere. >> Okay. >> Um, another suggestion from the TDOE was potentially using demonstrate understanding of which to me kind of encapsulates both. I don't know if I'm
incorrectly but straight understanding of me conceptual understanding as use it just for um I guess concision that would be preferable. >> In the earlier part of these standards
we say demonstrate command of the conventions of academic English capitalization and punctuation. Could we repeat that phrasing demonstrate command of? >> Do we need to twice? >> It would be clunky. Um, could we combine
I mean I wouldn't think we'd want to combine it into one sentence though because that would get a little verbose. >> Maybe I should clarify. Um, so demonstrate command the conventions of academic English capitalization punctuation reading or writing demonstrate understanding of commas
including Right. >> Or I don't really have a preference for either, but it's just maybe a little more nice. >> Does anyone have a strong preference on the the verbiage used there? >> Can you say that one more time? The the
second part. >> Um, so TDOE recommended either and used correctly. Explain the function of and use correctly or when reading or writing demonstrate understanding of commas
including combining clauses. >> So do we want to say demonstrate understanding of in lie of explain >> I think explain indicates that you understand it and you can then also verbalize it
>> or in either a written or spoken manner. So I think Yes. Um, I do feel like it's a little like it seems to imply when writing if we're saying explain the functions of commas, it means that it almost feels like we're doing a kind of an analysis
of the of the choice of a comma rather than like truly just using the comma correctly. If we say explain the function of how do we feel? Would you like to miss >> read read what you think it should be
again? Um, I think I'm in kind of in concurrence with what uh, Miss Dockery was saying, um, which is something along the lines of when reading or writing, um, demonstrate understanding of commas, including combining clauses or demonstrate understanding of the
functions of commas, including combining clauses. Um, and then in seven, it would be when reading or writing, demonstrate understanding of the functions of colons. And then for eight, it would be when reading or writing, demonstrate understanding of the functions of semicolons and dashes. Do we feel as if this language about
explaining is better in some way? Anyone? >> I I prefer the understanding you mentioned. >> Okay. >> We have a comment in the back. Please, we we really want to hear your voices. I I don't want to speak for the
committee, but I I think we all benefit from hearing other voices. So, >> I'm going to read your faces the whole day. >> So, Nicole Moore, my subtitles are all over my face. Um I agree with the proposed change that you're making.
Explain is not I think it needs to be a little bit more like when reading and writing or however you worded it. But I definitely do agree that the word explain needs to be changed. >> That's enough for me. >> So do we feel as if demonstrate understanding of would be the correct change?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Then I will >> I believe the uh expert has spoken. So yes. >> And is that something we want to do consistently across six through eight? >> Okay. Then I will go ahead and make that change.
>> Clarity and consistency. Do we feel anything else needs to the to change across six through eight? These standards look very similar. Um, with the one change being commas and six, colons and seven, and semicolons and dashes and eight.
>> Sorry, I'm being very difficult, but this is the one I have the most opinions about. So, I think I'll calm down after this one. I'm sorry. No, you're fine. >> Um, okay. So looking at some survey feedback I that I agreed with is uh personally as someone who teaches eighth and ninth if my kids come to me and just
have a solid understanding of commas in nth grade I am happy I can teach them colons semicolons dashes all of that um and so in some of the survey it mentioned like too much in too much too early um for six through eight um I
think my one concern about and all speaking hypotheticals here but in eliminating them is I think they should be able to identify them understand their function but maybe not have command of them and be tested on
semicolons and colons until later grades is my thought. Um, I love how K through five has very well and the sixth grade has very specifics has about what they want them to do with commas um like including combining clauses or mentions
the lists in uh uh K5 uh standards and so as um I don't for me when I look at okay like they were before especially okay I got to teach everything in eighth grade that's what it is basically built commas colons semicolons and dashes and
I don't know that they're going to truly I guess that's a the master of none um concern I have is if we a little bit more on commas in the lower grades and introduce some of those other things higher um or just maybe a little bit
more selective like I I feel like semicolons are a little bit easier to understand than so maybe even switching out semicolons versus colons um but I'd like to hear other people's perspectives who've taught these grades >> yeah and I'd like To build on that, I had I I did wonder about the progression
um because the former sixth grade standard said uh explain the functions of commas, parentheses, and dashes to set off parenthetical elements. And of course, in addition to understanding the other uses, but um now it's limited to explaining the functions of commas,
including combining clauses, which is sufficient to me. um and then colons and then semicolons and dashes. And so I was just curious as to the rationale behind
grouping semicolons and dashes as opposed to maybe colons and dashes if we're going to group them together. Um and then of course progressing into the high school standards, semicolons, colons, and or dashes. That that makes
sense. Um, and I I hear Miss Docker's uh point of view on that as well. So, uh, again, I I was just curious as to some of the rationale there. >> Would anyone from EA like to speak to that?
>> Nicole Moore, um, middle school chair. Um, I know it was a conversation with which direction to go, semicolons or colons first. Um, I don't think anybody was married to the decision. It was just whether or not you enjoy teaching one over the other. So, honestly, I don't
think I think if an eighth grade teacher knows I'm only supposed to teach, not only, but if I am required to make sure that students are mastering colons or semicolons, it doesn't matter as long as there's something direct in there. Um, so change it. However,
>> I feel as though the introduction of semicolons prior to colons makes more logical sense in my mind. Um, when I teach my students because I I mean I teach sophomores, but I I still introduce a lot of these concepts because they don't come to me knowing them. Um, I think it I I start with
semicolons and then progress into colons and then progress into dashes. So that that would be in keeping with my classroom, but I understand mine is one classroom. To me, it feels like colons and dashes are a conversation that go together in
introducing list. >> Agree. I know that's not the only function, but I think that's one of the primary functions. So, I would pair those together. >> I agree with Dr. Stone. So, how would we want that to because we kind of had two conversations here. a
conversation of do we want them to just focus on commas at the at the middle grades or do we want to just maintain the focus on commas in sixth grade and then shift colons to eighth grade and semicolons down to seventh. Those seem like two different decisions that would both been proposed and how do we feel
about that? I personally, just my opinion here, but I'm not this is not something I'm married to, so I'm very open to to being persuaded. I feel as though an entire focus on just commas across the middle grades would be a little a little overextensive. Um so I think introducing these concepts now obviously we're going
to continue to iterate them iterate on them in in one and two in English one and two because they do appear again. But because we've got that language about semicolons colons and or dashes I think it would make some sense to introduce these conceptually in the middle grades before we get to the the high grades and and ask students to kind
of master their understanding. Does anyone disagree with that? So, do we want to then alter the seventh grade standard to focus on semicolons and the eighth grade standards to focus on colons and dashes? Okay, then I will
make that edit. >> When we say dashes, are we referring to M dashes? >> Do we want to do we want to be I mean I I would think so. I mean, I talk to my students about n dashes, but I I don't It mostly just helps them so they can be pedantic with people. Uh
>> yeah, I think >> are we talking about the Oxford comma or >> I don't I feel like maybe some specific >> do we want to specify M dash? >> I've been confused when I looked at the stand. Are they really talking about a hyphen here? Are we talking about N dash mash >> in some of the TDOE? It was referred to
as the M dash. So that might be something that we want to consider. >> I mean I'm I I love talking to my I I you said you don't like teaching grammar. I love teaching grammar. It's like my favorite thing to teach. Um, so I I would love to add that specificity of Mdash if we feel like that is is an
appropriate decision to make, but we do we want students to be um expected to know the difference between an N dash and an M dash and if so, do we want them to be able to utilize just one effectively or both
effectively? Do we want to differentiate between a hyphen and a dash? My only comment is if we go to the level of specifying indash and having them call it call it that, are we going to be causing unnecessary problems for lower
students? That's my only question. The ones who don't have the background they need, do we try to get them there? Of course. But can we always >> I think I'm looking more for
the clarity for teachers personally. So I mean perhaps that is standards guides perhaps or a glossery entry or something. Um but just for me that's always been confusing of what what are they expecting me to teach? Is
it a true M dash N dash or >> I also would like to zoom out to 2030. Uh remembering that these standards are written for 2030, right? Um I believe more and more over time when you look at
usage dash is meaning the longer dash and the shorter one is becoming the hyphen. Um, and if we zoom out to 2030, I think that kind of distinction will be more and more common, but that is the way the language is trending. Uh, will we be there completely by 2030? I don't
know. But if I had a crystal ball and you guys come find me in 2030 and see if I'm right, I bet we would be there where we're just calling the shorter one just a hyphen. Well, >> well, if we're going to spec if we're going to to specify at that level, then
we all we have not also specified uses of semicolons to separate various lists for example or interrelated clauses and we haven't specified the uses of colons, you know, to to set off a list and or to, you know, separate clauses and and
all the other uses. So if we're going to do one, then I would think we would need to do all. So should we just use the the broader encompassing term now dashes and and have that separation introduced
later as as necessary I suppose is my question. >> Can I ask a question about the the guides? Will they be updated in real time like in 2029 if we feel like hey
language has changed a bit we need to like specify this versus that or does that have to be finalized in 2025 as well? >> So the the standards guides themselves would follow whatever the standards set right. So once those are in place then
we will go through the revision process of looking through the standards and making sure that we're spelling out everything that that standard means for teachers. Um am I answering your question? >> I guess what I'm asking let me try to uh clarify uh language evolves. >> Yeah
>> and shifts and is actually shifting and evolving faster. So if there is something we are saying today in 2025 that has evolved by 2029. Right. >> Would that be a place where it can be clarified? >> Absolutely. Yes. Sorry, I didn't catch the question on the front end. Yeah,
>> I think given the the breadth of work that we need to do here, I think for the sake of time, we probably should just stick with the language of dashes. Does everyone agree with that? >> Okay. Um, so the edit then will be to to switch the location of colons and
semicolons. Okay. anything else on 68 for this? Okay. Um then we just need to look at one and two and three and four for CAE.2. See if TDOE had anything for us. Does not seem that TDOE had any comments
on this particular standards uh on these standards for the the high school grades. Does anyone have any they would like to suggest for these standards? Looking at E1 and 2 LC AE2. So
demonstrate command of the conventions of academic English capitalization, punctuation and spelling when writing when reading and writing. Demonstrate understanding of the functions of semicolons, colons, and or dashes to separate related ideas. Write and edit work so that it conforms to a style guide appropriate to the discipline and
writing type. >> That sound good to you? >> Then let's school. >> Are we content to keep it? says okay. >> Okay. And then um I'll quickly read the three four and we can see if there's anything. Uh demonstrate command of the conventions of academic English capitalization, punctuation, and
spelling when writing. When reading and writing, demonstrate understanding of overall punctuation to enhance sentence style to support the content of the sentence. Write and edit work so that it conforms to a style guide appropriate for the discipline and writing type. Anything there? Okay.
Then we can move to L.VAU.3. vauu3. >> Moving right along. We got about 15 minutes left, coach. >> Um I believe >> Okay, this is okay. >> 15 to 35. Um I just checked the food is
not here yet. >> TDOE did have comments on this set of standards. Um they said in grades K through 5 and 9 through 12, the standard includes an additional section where students consult general and specialized reference materials to determine the
pronunciation and precise meaning of words and phrases. Note that this phrase is included in the cornerstone standard as well. Um please considering adding the following to grades 6 through 8 for appropriate vertical alignment and their proposed standard is C. Consult reference materials print or dig to
locate information such as spelling and pronunciation or to clarify the precise meaning >> using a dictionary >> I suppose. Yes. >> If if it's in 9 through 12 and it's in K through five, I definitely think it should be 6 through8. If we're going to
have a broader conversation about whether it should be at those other levels, then we can have that broader conversation. But I think if it's going to if it's going to stay at both early grades and high school, then I think it needs to be in the middle grades as well. >> Agreed. >> Yes. Okay.
>> So, do we want to add exactly as TD recommended? Okay. That's what we pay for. Is there anything else on the 6 through 8 band of this standard
that we would like to discuss? I'm fighting out the head there. Yes, I am. No, you I'm sorry. I was going to say this is the one that um had the conversation I think in the lower grades and in this one where this
one is talking about vocabulary and then the next one that we will get to is the figurative language and then the next one goes back to vocabulary. So I just wanted to bring that up. >> I think that's conversation we'll definitely have with I believe it's five
where we get into um is it standard five? Am I right on that? that gets into figurative and connotative meaning. >> Yes, it's the standard effort. >> Oh, it's so it's four. Okay. Sorry. >> Next one goes back to >> Okay. So, yeah, I think it's just that's a conversation we'll probably have more
when we get into those kinds of meaning. I feel like there's more bleed over here. I don't see um at least personally, I don't see suggestions of interpreting figurative or quantitative meaning in this particular standard as it's currently written. I just want to um this is not a direct
revision but it was a thought that I had as while reading and I think this is really I had this thought when I was reading 11-12. LC.1 but I think it pertains to here as well.
Um there was a space in there where the word contested was used and here is what I wrote on that note and I'm just introducing this thought. uh for us to think about as we talk about language and vocabulary. Replacing contested with creative refrains the standard from a
conversation about conflict to one about innovation, reflecting how young people are driving language change in the digital age. Additionally, should we introduce this concept of linguistic evolution earlier in the standards before 11th grade? Doing so could boost
student engagement and interest by validating their roles as pre-teens and teens as drivers of language. >> I think those are strong recommendations. Um I do you see a spot in these particular standards where that would be
>> No, I'm just moody in the water. >> Seven. I think it needs to also like the spacing like A B C like it's almost written like paragraph style and on the other ones like it's inner has been included. Does that make sense? 7 LV A
U3. >> Oh, you're talking about like the formatting for seven, >> right? Yes. I don't know if >> is that something that would be within our purview or Okay. And I believe the department or the EA teacher, somebody has flagged that sometimes we use ABC, sometimes we use
like Roman numerals. I've tried to catch it as much as possible when I was putting it out for survey, but welcome any and all of that feedback. Okay. >> From what I saw, we always use letters for the initial set of substandards and then if we have sub substandards, we shift to Roman numeral relief.
>> Um, so I guess what would I just formatting? Um, I not exactly sure how to phrase that for the suggested change. >> Um, I just um >> A through C
>> list style rather than paragraph style. >> Yeah, that sounds great. Most important thing is the um what is it? Revised standard. And you probably know this, Lucas, but you should be able to I think it's option might be different on a Mac to get the rows. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um and that's only something we see present in seven. Correct. >> Mhm. >> Okay. There's also a moment in seven where it says see appendix. >> Um do do we know what that's in reference to? >> Nicore alien. What am I supposed to say? All right.
The reason why we put C appendix was because we wanted the root words to be in the appendix so we had specifics so teachers weren't just teaching every root word out there. We were being direct with that. Um, and I believe it was added into the appendix if you go
and look for it. And that was just one of those references that we wanted to put in there. Like essentially if this was an electronic document, they would be able to click the C appendix and it would take them directly to the root words is what we were getting at with that. Thanks, Nicole. And that's
definitely on the table, whether that's the table of contents or specific things, if that's the will of this committee, if I remember correctly. Is that one of the new proposals, Nicole? >> I think it's um I think it's in progress on the TDOE wish list if I remember correctly.
Um, we wanted to we didn't want to make any assumptions about the will of this committee. So, if that's something you'd like to continue, that's something we can work on in partnership. Uh, but if not, we will. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I that was one question I had because there were several pieces
of public feedback regarding, you know, wishes for or lists of words in in for specific standards in in this one, too. So, um, I did wonder if that was something that could be added in in that case. So, that would be great. >> Great question. So,
essentially, if the committee if this committee, including the leadership team or the EAD chairs, would like to draft something and it's within the appendix, that's your full discretion to word it down to the comma of your preference. If for whatever reason the committee doesn't have the time or feel that they have the expertise, they can make a
request of the state board and the department to try and work on it with the understanding that the department of education is an independent body and may or may not have capacity to do it. So, but if you do it here and now and it's in the appendex, we're we're done.
Is the proposal for I guess words or root words by grade level or is it just like a general here's roots we should teach in general at some point? Nicole Moore um this was per grade level. So if you notice like
on B it says use common grade appropriate roots. Um obviously they would progress with different levels. So I don't believe in our mind we were thinking here's a group of middle school root words. Um but it was grade specific in her mind.
>> The the standard says grade appropriate. >> Yeah. >> So it would be specific to each grade level. >> So when you went to the appendix you would see okay as a sixth grade teacher I need to teach these 10 root words essentially and then seventh grade you
would have 10 additional ones and so forth. >> Thank you. >> Is that something we feel would be best housed within the appendix versus the standards guide? Okay. >> Well, just for practical use, if you're
uh getting ready and lesson planning that day, are you going to go to the standards guides? You're going to look up the standard. Can you hit that appendix uh hyperlink and and find those roots that easier that in in the standards guide? What what what are you going to
be using as a teacher? I know in the fifth grade like it specifically says like we teach the Latin and Greek. So we know specifically which ones to teach. So and it says it in the standard. >> I just I I can I can definitely
understand the value within an appendix. I worry a little bit about appendix bloat um if we if we keep adding things to the to the appendix. And I think we we want to make sure that this standards guide is is a tool that that teachers are using more frequently. I think that's that's something we're trying to >> this is banks lions that yes it is those
guides are certainly determined to be used in planning sessions so we explicitly give guidance around their use in like lesson planning sessions so they would the expectation is that they're on the table um when teach so as a resource so it would be there
presumably right for them to use um to answer your question but >> we may want to reference both of them the appendix and the the name of that >> the standard >> standard. >> Would we want to have the same content
in two different places? >> As a teacher in fifth grade and six seven8 is appropriate in the standards as well as dependence the same language. >> Yeah. I I I I hear your point about bloat. Um I think in a digital age, most
people aren't printing this out. They're going to do control F to find what they need. And I don't see the harm in having it in both places. Uh I think if it's so important that they have specified like these particular groups, right? Uh then
let's make sure let's make sure that our educators can find it in as many places as possible. >> Okay. All right. Um, then I suppose we just need to decide on if we're going are we going to have references to the appendix
within the language of the standards because currently we do in seven but we don't in six and 8. Um, and then the language within seven just says star C appendix. >> I wanted to ask a clarifying question because I don't I would want to avoid us
adding lists off the cuff and further convoluting anything. Is is the challenge with is the challenge in that it might not actually line up with what we do. Is that the is that what I was hearing was the
challenge there when we talked about this here just a minute ago? >> Um Department of Education feel free to jump in. My understanding is that you know you will pass these standards will be voted on on two readings presumably will be passed on final reading May of 2026 and then from there the department
sort of takes it and runs with it in alignment of those standards. In my mind the first challenge that comes along is sort of the delay. But as you know we've intentionally built out this process so we're not passing standards in May 2026 and asking educators to implement them in August 2026.
So one note from our perspective is your standards that are being voted on by the state board of education. If you were to continue the proposal from the EAT chairs, it would say standards guides forthcoming and then we would update those hyperlinks accordingly. So timing comes to my mind
as one challenge, but again the standards to folks previous points won't be implemented until 2029 2030, but I'd have to defer to the department on their initial plans for timelines. Banks, what am I missing? and Kim. >> So, you can't answer that. How long
after the standards are approved, will you have the standards guides ready for teachers to use? >> Uh, as quickly as possible, for sure. And I think it would be certainly one of those things that by the time that they are implemented in the classroom or even, you know, as far ahead of time as
we can, we get those prepared. >> Okay. So, that's not a problem. >> It'll be ready. Yes. >> Okay. >> Should I have just said that, Larry? >> Yeah. So, that's that's what we wanted to know. >> I'm pulling up the This is in your folder as well, and we've gone over it in your initial calls, but this is the
timeline that I'm referencing. So, from let's see, we're looking at ELA, we started in summer 2024, so about halfway down the document. Final reading, we're looking now more at May 2026, although that's not confirmed. So from 2027 until
2029, that's when the department, textbook publishers, textbook commission, that's when everybody's taking your standards and running with them. >> So we can put a hyperlink for both of those. >> I I suppose that would be within our our purview.
>> Extremely useful. >> Would But where is that hyperlink appearing? Is that going to appear within the stand >> or and standards guide? see the appendix. Okay. And standard. >> So, but what what language are we going to put? Because we need to decide on the actual standard right now. Are we going
to have language about seeing the appendix within the actual standard? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Because we're not specifying all the FXs and prefixes and roots. >> I will say this does not seem to be completely in keeping with our decisions elsewhere. We don't seem to have a lot
of references to the appendix within the actual language of the standard. So, this would be a a change from our our traditional approach. >> I would agree. I think it may be a necessary change because otherwise that then you're going to have to go into a lot of specificity here.
>> Okay. Then that that's just something we'll need to be attentive to as we move into the especially the >> and if we add it to seven then we would need to add it to six and eight. >> And do we want to keep the star C appendix approach or do we want to use
some other type of of >> I don't know. I don't know if we need a star in the digital age. I think we could remove the star, but C appendix hyperlink. >> Would we want that in in a parenthesis
or would that C appendix and standards guide? >> Okay, one thought. It sounds like there's some some ends we want to tie at some point. That could be something good to put in your parking garage for when it comes time to look at the appendix. could also
be, you know, I think Miss Now asked a good question about timing. It could also reference that in some of the introduction or other pieces to just let folks know. Obviously, we'll communicate um when we present the standards, but for that lag time, putting that language
somewhere of why something isn't hyperl could be helpful for public transparency. >> Just making this edit. Is there anything else on six through eight for this particular sequence? Okay, then we should turn our attention to
uh the high school L.VAU.3. Um I will see if the TDOE had any comments. There does not appear they did um there are quite a few substandards here. So
um or I guess they're well they are substandards I suppose but they are not in in full sentence form. They are a list. Uh we have determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multi multiple meaning words and phrases based on
English one and English 2 texts by choosing flexibly from a range of tools including context clues, morphological elements, reference resources both print and digital and etmological regional, cultural and spelling patterns within and across words. Um, and those seem to
be identical standards across one, two, and three, four with the one exception of changing the the the the course name English one and two versus to three and four and the three and four standard. Does anyone have any edits they would recommend to that?
They're a more uh public friendly way to say morphological and animological. That's my only comment. If the public was using this, what are these educators mean? >> Could that be defined in the glossery?
I think that would make sense. >> It sure would. If it's not >> So, do we want to keep the language and then define morphological elements in the glossery? >> Any before I I select to keep, does anyone have anything for these two
standards? >> Nope. Okay. So, do we want to go ahead and start on L.VAU.4 or is this >> Yeah, >> good. I I it smells like lunch, but we'll wait till she comes back in with a
positive indication. >> So, I I'm losing track of the hours, which is for scheduling purposes. >> I'm watching it. >> Okay. Um >> which way this is? >> And then we have we only have 45 minutes after lunch. And this is not the last one because we've got uh >> two more.
>> We've got we're halfway. >> Well, no. >> No, we're not. We're we're three fifths. Our discussions have been thorough. Yeah. To the point, not excessive. >> Yeah. >> Let's keep going. >> Okay. Let's look at four really quick. Um >> there is a TDOE uh comment for 6 through
8. Um they said the revisions to the standard change the intent of the original standard. Please consider the standard originally pertain to figurative language and nuances in word meaning. Specifically, students were to be able to explain the function of them and use them correctly and effectively. The revision changed the standard to be essentially the same as the new standard
L.VAU.3, determining the meaning of unknown and multiple meaning words and phrases. Please consider that it would be helpful for these standards to be clearly distinguishable and to support vertical alignment with grades 6 through 12. Um, so I think this is the main thing
we're trying to accomplish here is is making a clear distinction between the kind of dimitative meaning um implied by three and the more quantitative meaning implied by four. Does the standard as proposed do that?
>> TDOE did not feel so. But do we feel >> what modifications do we need to make in order for that to happen? >> I am open to hearing what people think about that. >> Anyone? >> Um, basically going back to the original
standard accomplishes that. um keeping in mind that the when reading and listening change um continues to to limit it uh to lack of use. Um so if it if we keep just when reading and
listening then it kind of doesn't make sense if we also add a component of using it. So I I personally think the original standard got the job done. I also like that the uh I well I I'm of
two minds here. The original standard has h substandard being a complete sentence. Um and oh no I'm looking at the wrong standard. Sorry. Um the original standard this was originally L.VAU five.
Correct. This is because we eliminated the standard. Am I am I right on that? Basically, they took out the writing and speaking portion of it. But we do want them to write with figurative language. And then we also changed determine the
meaning of from explain the function of Elsewhere we were saying so in standard one we were saying when writing or speaking here we are saying when reading and listening. So those are different tasks.
>> Chern are you all on 6 LVAU4? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, your lunch is ready and hot. If now would be an appropriate time to pause, but I'd defer to the committee and the leadership team. >> I make a motion that we break.
Uh, we'd like to be back in here since it's so close so we don't have to drive anywhere. >> Could probably get ready and be back here in under 35 minutes. So, let's reconvene at 12:30.
All right. Agreed. All right. Thank you. Proposed English 1 2 3 4 with the idea that you know we have some students accelerating moving as they learn and we have some students who may be remediating for whatever reason for extra support so that the grade level doesn't always especially at the high school level represent where a student
is. So your current proposal in front of you is English 1 2 3 4. Uh, one thing that was flagged today was that uh, under the language standards, it may be perceived to read as the word evil. I will let the committee discuss that at
their leisure. Did have flower power at one point in foundational literacy which was well loved by some of our eat. I don't know if it's still there to this day, but just don't have to settle it right now, but for for awareness and discussion potentially.
I for one don't think that's an enormous concern, but um >> I would think that the language standards are not particularly divisive standards either. So I think we should probably be okay in that regard.
Um I did have something I wanted to kind of talk to uh the committee about or and I I mentioned it to to Miss Summers a moment ago. Um, as I'm working through this spreadsheet, um, and and documenting the changes to the standards, I'm finding that it's a little hard for me to maintain that
while also maintaining the parking garage, um, of like the ideas that we might pursue later. I would love if someone would be willing to take on that responsibility of being the parking garage person, the person who just kind of documents things in the parking garage as we come across ideas that we want to return to later. Um, you would
just be in charge of that one tab on this larger spreadsheet where down at the bottom where it says parking garage. Um, is there someone here who would who would be interested in taking on that? >> We can do it.
>> Oh, you're conveniently located, Britney. >> Either way, >> you wanted to do this. I know. >> Yes. >> Um, and that's that's convenient to you, too. That's parking garage stuff if you
want to take it and put it on there. >> Larry, we've got the digital parking garage up here. um so that we just have it on a on a document we can all share and take home and and have access to. >> She has access to to >> she does not currently but but she can be given access.
It's going to be missing. >> Miss Laauo miss now. >> Thank you miss. Okay. Now, are you guys ready to make your comments? You had a comment, but nothing more.
>> The evil comment was the comment. >> The comment itself was not evil. >> All right. Before we start up, we we we want to get through uh language and then foundations this afternoon. It seems to me like uh we
have been thorough in our discussions and brief enough. So probably ought to stay within the same pacing going through order to get through everything we've got to get through. >> Yeah. I mean I would say that our pacing
is perhaps like a touch slower than than what it would be to get done with everything we have outlined today. Though we do have additional flex time at the end of this week, but we don't want to we certainly don't want to slow the pace. Um, and if anything, if we can make it just a touch more brisk, that might be beneficial. Um, all right. We ready to jump back in,
>> please. >> All right, let's do it. Um, so we were looking at the uh, uh, L.VAU.4 standards. Uh, these are the ones pertaining to figurative language, quantitative meaning, um, technical
meaning. So meaning outside of the realm of just denotative meaning outlined in in the previous standard that we broke down before lunch. Um I just want to reiterate that the TDOE felt that the revision of this standard brought it too close um to the previous standard um
that there was a little bit of overlap between the types of meaning discussed there. Um, so I would like to hear if other people feel that they are in agreement with the TDOE on that um or if they feel as though the edit is is sound. So the the current language um for six
is when reading and listening determine the meaning of words and phrases including figurative language, quantitative meanings and technical meanings. >> I agree with the TDOE's uh suggested revision. I don't see that the TDOE
um has exact language that they would like to to revert to. Um so do we have any ideas about what that language might look like? Just to speak to that briefly, I think
um it should probably been spelled out, but I think the thought was to look at the current wording of the standard and to kind of keep it in that vein. >> Okay. So >> um so to read what the current version of that standard looks like, it says when reading, listening, writing, and
speaking, explain the function of figurative language, word relationships, and connotation/denotation and use them correctively correctly and effectively. That is page 25 of the original standards. Um, we I think we had a brief
conversation before lunch about this language of do we just say reading and listening? Do we say do we include writing and speaking as well? In other places, we've just included two of those four uh terms. In the original standard, it said reading, listening, writing, and
speaking. and the the EAT revised it to just reading and listening. >> I agree with reverting. Um I did wonder about the the the intent behind the term technical meanings there. Um was that
just to encapsulate denotation because that's or but what was meant by technical meanings? >> Would anyone on the EAT like to speak to that? Okay. Yeah, we'll just continue. While they're looking that up, we can perhaps
have a conversation about just saying reading and listening versus saying reading, listening, writing, and speaking. Um, do we feel as though all four of those should be there or do we feel as if we should maintain just the two? >> I think we should have all four because reading and listening,
figurative language. >> I agree. >> Okay. So, should I go ahead and make that? Do we feel confident in that edit? >> Okay, because it does go back to it in the high school levels, all four of them.
Okay, so I've added that change. I would be curious to know how other people feel if we do revert to the language of the old standard where it says explain the function of figurative language, word relationships and connotation slashdenotation. To me, denotation is encapsulated within the
previous standard. Um, so I would recommend and I would be open to other people's feedback on this of perhaps eliminating the word denotation and just leaving connotation. Assuming that denotations has been mastered, >> denotation, not mastery per se, but the
the the previous standard which is all about determining or clarifying the meaning of unknown and multi-meaning words and phrases based on English three and English four or I'm looking at specific grade levels, but determining the meanings of words using context using uh um you know roots and aixes
that seems to be gesturing towards a denitative meaning of the word whereas this seems to be at least in my mind the standard that is interested in studying um nonliteral meanings of words and that is how we explain it in the
standards guides as well. >> So would we want to revert to that language in the build standard or we do we want to wait for a conversation about technical meaning? So this is Nicole Moore. >> So I notice in the original standard 678
it has connotation denotation but in the the new revised version it only has one. So I will go with the one that the revised version. >> Okay. Um I think >> that's the connotation
>> right. Um, now we do lose we lose word relationships in the revised version that that language about word relationships from the original. Um, do we feel as if that language about word relationships does need to still be present? >> What exactly do we mean by word
relationships? >> Could you speak to that? It's not clear. So the way that we describe it in the standards guide is the relationship between particular words that contributes meaning to each word individually. So you think about like cause effect, part to whole, item to
category, or synonym to antonym. So, it's kind of the relationship between those and the meaning that each provides to the other word. >> That does seem pertinent. I think that would be something that we should keep within the standard. >> Um, so would then we change would we
essentially just readopt the 6 through8 uh language that we see um in the 2015 standards except eliminating the word denotation? >> I agree. >> Is there any challenge to that? No. Everybody okay with that?
>> Well, is is denotative mentioned elsewhere? I'm trying to look. >> This is Nicole Moore. Um, it is presented in the L.4 standard. >> If you look back because that was part
of our rationale with why we changed it. >> Do you mean the L.VAU.3 VAU.3 the previous standard to this one don't see the exact word denotation Do we feel as though we've got this added language? Um we we reference
meaning several times um in the the L.VAU.3 standards. Um determine or clarify the meaning um use context as a clue to the meaning um as clues to the there are three different references to the word meaning. Should we add the word
denotative prior to those references to meaning in the previous standard to draw a clearer distinction? Any thoughts on that? That would address
the uh comments or from changes that they're not they wouldn't be the same anymore. It would drive I think a a starker boundary between standards three and four here which can get a little
muddled as currently >> otherwise it's exactly the same. >> There's no new challenge for over >> Okay. So the proposed wording is what at this point? >> Um I guess this would be a changing of the wording of the previous standard.
the one we finished up before lunch. Um, which frequently refers to the meanings of words. Um, but we don't currently have any direct reference to the word denotative as far as I can see in that standard or denotation. Um, so if we added the word denotative before each
use of the word meaning in standard L.VAU.3, that would, at least to my mind, it would draw a starker contrast between what's happening in the standard and what's happening in in standard 4. >> I agree. Are we all good with that? >> Yes.
>> Do you all you're also going to add reading, writing, listening, and speaking? >> Yes. And I've already made that that edit to uh to the standard four. Um but this is a conversation about returning to three. Um so if if we have a consensus on that, I will I will make
that edit, but I I want to make sure that that's something that everyone agrees with. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is there any more rigor you want to add between sixth and seventh grade.
Annie, the only thing that I thought which might just be over complicating things unnecessarily um is uh later on they make some suggestions. There's I think with the uh the ril
uh 4 they mention specific types of figurative language if I'm remember remembering correctly I think that would be the only way to to make it um more complex but otherwise I think just the increase in text complex comp complexity
naturally makes standard a little bit more rigorous as they go are we looking at the six seven and eight and trying to make sure that they are distinctive between one another. >> That's what we're doing.
>> Um I do actually Oh boy, I'm getting the stairs from the teachers. I I do actually like this thought of do we need to name specific types of figurative language. I will accept push
back on that. The reason why I like this thought is because I'd like to push kids beyond similes and metaphors and Is there a place to be more prescription here as we go to the higher grades?
>> Excellent question. >> We have any more comments from our middle school or would that be housed within the language standards rather than in the the reading standards? Where would that kind of language need to show up?
I think I have some issue with the redundancy between the VA.4 BS4s and RA IS.4 anyway. So that to me that's the the mess in my brain. I can't figure out what I think is best or so
take somebody else uh have an opinion on that one because that one makes my brain scramble. >> Parking lot item. We need to stew on this for a while. >> And so specifically this would be inclusion of specific types of of
figurative language here. >> Yes. >> Um I would love to know a little bit more about what types of figurative language are tested on the TCAP and the ACT SAT to make sure that we're giving
them that full range. Um and is there a way we can scaffold that in? But they are given in the RAI CS4. So would we just use the same ones? This is
the question cuz they are specifically they're not specifically said here, but they are specifically said somewhere else in the standards. Well, at least my understanding of of this particular standard is it at least at my understanding and I could be
wrong. Um it's not meant to be like an exhaustive encapsulation of all figurative language. It's talking about figurative language as it can um can result in multiple meaning words because this is really about language understanding meaning of language um as far as uh these figurative meanings of
language. So I I guess it could encapsulate other types of figurative language, but it seems it's it's a little bit of a narrow whereas I feel like that reading standard is more of like the big encompassing standard about figurative language. >> This has swayed me. So
to agree with Lucas um we took and speaking for 912 group only we took an idea when we went to this and we tried to differentiate the language from the reading standard and in language we were looking at the
best choice to make the sentence make sense the best word choice but with determining how that figure of language the figurative language affected the meaning that was reading. So, I don't know if that muddied the water or if
that helped the water, but we tried to differentiate the two. And this was just truly meaning. What did it mean? in like um you'll get to our standards in just a second in the 9 10 11 12 but we've
actually added a phrase where it talks about the using words that have similar denotations but maybe the figurative language helps clear and clarify the vision we had in it for choice did that help any
>> we try to differentiate >> is there a distinct level of complexity or uh difficulty that we can specify level to level. >> In high school, it's more the text we're
doing. It's more the level the student is at writing. So, we would expect higher level things from an AP student than we were from a ninth grade student. We would expect higher level things from a ninth grader reading most dangerous game to a senior reading McBth. So
sometimes it's just the material. Well, and that was I I kind of struggled with this standard because of at at first glance the seeming redundancy with some of the other standards. But when considering the spirit of the standard which is to understand word meaning and
nuance then to me if if we are going to revise those to clarify complexity then do we need to add language in the middle grade band um specifying that you know it read when reading and listening in in
this grade level text the meaning of words and phrases would that solve would that level it sufficiently Would that add sufficiently? >> You're adding the words grade level text
>> because it's added to um the uh the E1 through four standards. Um it's there in in the E3 E4 ELA text and the E1 E2 ELA texts. So would we want to do the same
in the middle grade band to then clarify the the level of rigor? >> I think that's a good idea. >> I think so. I agree. >> Um so what would that phrasing look like?
>> Can you restate that phrasing for now? um when when reading, writing, speaking, and listening. We were going to add that back in. >> It could just go at the end. >> Yeah, I think >> as it currently ends if we're reverting
back for six through eight to the um the old standard. It would read explain the function of figurative language, word relationships, and connotation, and use them correctly and effectively. Um, so if we add it at the end, it's just going to be encapsulated with any usage >> in an eighth grade level text.
>> Um, do we want to then um it's just my concern is if we add it at the end of this entire phrase, it's just and use them correctly and effectively in an eighth grade level text would be assuming that they are using them themselves >> rather than just interpreting the work.
to explain the function in in an eighth grade level text to explain the function of figurative language word relationships and connotation denotation and use them correctly and effectively. That'd be a better placement. >> So it would go before explain there >> potentially
>> when reading, listening, writing and speaking. >> Yeah. Explain in an eighth grade text >> explain in >> or at the or after connotation. I'm not married to either content,
>> but you would add the words grade level text to both six or six, seven, and eight. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And 910 as well. Well, I think it's already there. It's already >> It needs to happen. It needs to happen before and use them correctly and effectively. I think >> Dr. stout. Does that
does that take care of the specificity that you were looking for in terms of defining uh all the sorts of figurative language that students would need to know and be
able to use? >> Uh I I'm not going to belabor the issue. I think it's it's fine. I just want to um just make sure that they're exposed to a lot of different types of figurative languages. I know a lot of our teachers are doing a really great
job at that. Um and some might have can use some more, you know, push to think outside the box or think about things other things, but it's not think anything I would slow down the deliberation on this on. So I'm I'm happy with more
>> about that. that we're doing this for a million kids for five years. So, it needs to be said. It needs to be said. Is there anything in the standards uh guide about the increasing
specificity of different uses of figurative language? >> Um somewhat. Yes. Um, and that's been um, we base that bas basically on the
history of these standards and what has traditionally been taught in terms of specific uh, types of figurative language at a given grade level and we do include that in the standards guides. Um, so yeah, the long the short answer is I guess
yes, we do. >> And you don't do you have a a sample of that >> of the standards >> readily available? >> Sure. that we could post. >> She's going to direct you to where that is. >> The standards guide and how they refer
to the different levels of figurative language used at six, seven, and eight. And >> yeah, I'll have to see specifically those grade levels um because I'll admit I don't have them memorized. Um but I will have to go back and look and I got
them. They are they are told though in the reading standards they are specifically so even though it's not in this standard when we get to the reading standards it is told in the grade ban what type of figurative language is expected
and >> personally I feel like in our efforts to differentiate standards I feel like we've got these moments where standards kind of overlap and they become a little hard to parse I think if we if we allow that standard to be the standard where that kind of language is provided and this is the standard that's focused more
on the like connotative meanings of words then that creates a starker contrast between these two standards. Um I also do want to quickly just just for you know readability purposes. Um our current draft of the standard would be when reading listening writing and speaking explain the function of
figurative language word relationships and connotation in sixth grade level texts and use them correctly and effectively. I'm a little concerned about that word them um because the anticedant of them there becomes a little ambiguous. I obviously we know it it's referring to figurative language
word relationships and connotation um or or words that that convey these things. Um but the word them could also grammatically be referring to texts there which is closer to it. So I think it gets a little little clunky
um and use the devices. Do we is that language we've used elsewhere? I'm not exactly sure to your question, Vice Chair Hillyard, but I wonder if you control F for devices on the spreadsheet if anything fun pops up.
>> Anything under language, I can check reading as well. >> I can divide and conquer. I'll start from the back. Um I guess there is one reference to devices um in that's in reference to sound devices that that does not seem to be
terminology we previously used. We could also just say use these words and phrases uh correctly and effectively if that's the terminology we've used elsewhere in this particular standard. It's a bit repetitive, but it that is
the antecedent for this. So, it would just be >> feel much more comfortable grammatically then let's do it that way. >> Do we feel okay with that? >> I do. How about everybody else? Yes, I see a bunch of nods. Were you trying to put those up here? The
>> Oh, okay. >> Not following my own rule. Um, I was trying to answer Vice Hillyard's question about devices, but our good friends at TDOE are sending those over and they will be in your drive in just a moment now that I have access to my laptop again. I'm a I'm a new person
and I was just going to recommend real quickly because I know it's come up about the overlap of the standards of certain standards like especially these vocabulary related standards. The standards guide specifically explain like what the intent of the current standards are and where that overlap is.
And so that may help kind of give you some um like perspective in terms of like how you can differentiate them in these revisions as well. So I'll once you get access to them I'll point out where that is and I think it might be helpful. So
I have done a complete change to opinion on this and I don't think we should say words and phrases anymore. Um as I read again I'm using language from the the version that we are moving from. So I think that would be that would be wrong. Um I have moved it back to them. Does anyone else have anything else or do we
think them is sufficient? I'm okay with them. Just wanted to make sure that didn't read ambiguously. Obviously, we've been in this room and we so we know what them is referring to. I just want to make sure that that would be something that is easily conveyed to an educator who has not been this room.
The the language would be explain the function of figurative language, word relationships and connotation in eighth grade level texts and use them correctly and effectively. >> Yes. >> Okay. then we'll move on. Okay, moving on. Um, so we're at the high school version of this particular standard. Um,
do we have any TDOE feedback on that? >> Doesn't look like it. >> He changed that. >> Yeah, that's where I got that's where I got mixed up. I don't see >> no there does not to be appear to be any TDOE feedback on this particular
standard. So unless any of us um have something that we would like to >> draw its attention to >> um >> did we circle back to technical? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> We did >> what's that about technical meetings?
>> I think we just brought up why the technicaled I don't think we ever answered it. Did that happen or no? I don't think it happened. >> Okay. Nicole Moore, 6th through 8th grade ELA chair. Um technical was not um it just
says add technical. There's not a rationale behind it. So, >> and I will say in a revised version of the standard that word technical is no longer present. >> To me personally, I don't see that technical meanings I I while I can I can contort myself into a way in which I can
see it fitting within the standard, I don't feel like it's probably the most common way in which this is going to manifest in in writing reading. Um, okay. So, if we're looking at um the English one, two, three, and four versions of the standard, there does
seem to just this is just an editing uh correction. There seems to be a missing comma after the word listening um in the English one and two standard when reading, writing, speaking, and listening. And then it goes straight into explain. Um so, I believe there would be an an added there. Do we agree
on that? This might be a little nitpicky, but the order is different between >> I was going to say that too. >> Um, no, that's not nitpicky. I I think we should correct it.
So then we'll change when reading, writing, speaking, and listening to when reading, listening, writing, and speaking. Yes, cuz that's what was in our middle school. >> Reading, writing, listening, and speak. Oh, we have English educators in the
room. >> Sure. >> Kaneas. >> Yes. >> Um, my understanding is that it would be helpful to go through the standards guide super quickly. >> Yes. >> Um, please. >> In your SRC folder, there's a new folder called resources. Anything we collect from here on out that's just general,
we'll put in there. There is a link um and this is the link that Bank shared and he's got some additional context he wants to share with you. If you want to just right there open the sixth grade language standards, that'd be perfect. If you'll scroll down to language
standard five, >> which is the new four, right? And so there's two things I just kind of wanted to point out. You can see in the middle column there that figurative language it gives the EG. So it gives examples of types of figurative language
that are common at this grade level. And then in the lefth hand column is where I was saying like you know it notes that there is an important relationship among standards language four, language five and reading language or reading literature and readingformational standard 4. And then it breaks down
exactly kind of what each of those are intended to be. Um which might be helpful in parsing out which direction you want to go with those standards because there is a lot of overlap. Um but I think that it's also one of those
things where you know the language standards have their own intent about you know the use of language and and that sort of thing and the reading standards are more about analyzing text and how language appears within that text and students understanding how language is used by authors and text. So
very much kind of you know language is like student use reading is how authors use it and very much connected though because if students understand how authors use it then they'll be able to use it better themselves. >> How does this compare to number six?
The next one >> seven >> uh are you think oh seventh grade for Oh >> yeah. >> So while we pull that up and I am so glad that you have the standards guide on the list. I'm thinking again of all
of the comments we received and the notes from teachers uh about specificity, right? Um do you want me to teach all modes or do I go deep into narrative? Uh how many types of punctuation do you want me to teach? And so if I go with
that train of thought of they are pushing us to specify, specify, specify. I do think there is a place in the guides perhaps where we talk about figurative language for each grade level to see what it means to remove the eg. >> Sure. Yeah.
>> And say these are the five, we want sixth graders to know, these are the eight, we want seventh graders to know or something. And for us, is there a way to put that officially in the parking lot? Just be >> Yes. Can you put that in the parking lot? That's a recommendation we want to
make. >> Okay. >> To clarify. >> I'm sorry. >> Thank you. >> I apologize. But thank you for holding our feet to the fire. Apex. I would recommend Please
minutes after. >> Okay. >> Chest for 9 through 12. I don't Hey, accurate. vocabulary knowledge. >> Okay, let's go back to Can we go back to the
um grade to the guide standards guide and see what they have to add more specificity at each of these levels? Yes.
Well, we do. We all do right now. Hey, there it is. Uh, sixth grade. >> Right. But >> yes, I was just going to ask is what's the current standard that we're operating under? >> Five. Okay. So, go one more. Okay. Got
it. >> We we kept those the same. >> Uh but we said that specificity would be added in the standards guide to show the difference.
>> That was about Right. Right. Yes, I understand. But these are basically the same. And are we going to show different levels of uh complexity
at at each grade level Well, and that was that was my comment and I when I read the TDOE feedback and I looked at it myself. Um, so there there's a lot to unpack to me in those um in those high school level standards. Acquire and accurately use general
academic and domain specific words. So domain specific if we start adding lists of domain specific words then we're going to probably get into territory that we that's going to overlap in crosscurricular ways that we don't necessarily want to happen and then um
sufficient for communication at the postsecary and workforce readiness level demonstrate independence and building vocabulary knowledge and context through a variety of tools and strategies. The tools and strategies portion of those standards to me was um a little vague,
but to my understanding, the feedback was considering eliminating that portion and then adding back in uh what was there in the first place. Demonstrate independence in building vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to
comprehension or expression. Is that the intent behind the feedback? because if so I would agree with that >> that yeah it's it's a lot of words basically to say that it also needs to include building vocabulary so they can
express that vocabulary. Yes. So >> um so something I'm noticing as far as um complexity is that we do for the six through eight bands have the words grade appropriate similar to the addition we made in the previous standard. Um, and
then for the 9 through 12, if I'm being accurate here, um, the addition of the, uh, building vocabulary to express themselves, um, would build some complexity, not necessarily grade by grade, but by, uh, level K5,
68, 912. Can I just ask a a question for clarification? What do we mean by domain specific? And do we do we think remember our charge of staying away from jargon as much as possible? Do we think that that is a
a word that conveys u widely accessible meaning? It looks like it means subject or discipline specific. In other words, math or science or >> social studies. >> I think discipline specific is much more
accessible than domain specific. But um open to push back. >> I agree. I think that that is more in keeping probably with the language that is used in school buildings per se. Um, so for readability purpose, I I think that
would be defensible. >> Would you have a comment? >> I I mean, I'm in agreement with that and yeah, I was just going to say that this is the current understanding of what it is, but I think that the discipline specific is absolutely a good upgrade. >> Yes. Those that would like to change it
to discipline specific, are you okay with that? >> All right. >> I move to utilize discipline Thank you. >> Okay. So, I will that that pertains to all of the standards in this uh progression. So, I will I will make that
edit across to check. >> Can I add one more thing? I'm sorry to be difficult about this. Um, so it says to a particular subject or discipline and that may be parsing words just a a little, but discipline but subject or discipline seems to me
uh good phrasing there just to be absolutely clear to encompass all meanings of the word domain specific. >> So would we been instead of saying domain specific we would say acquire and accurately use grade appropriate general academic and subject
and disciplines. >> Well, I know it doesn't sound I mean we need to acquire and accurately use general academic and or as well as subject or domain specific or or excuse me subject or discipline
specific still not great but >> I like what you did as well as yes that takes the ends out of it. >> Okay. So just to kind of what is the distinction between a
subject and a discipline do we >> a subject is broad a subject is broader discipline is more specialized that is how I understand it so >> that's how I understand it >> well then would subject not in entail discipline then could we just say subject specific
>> u discipline is so discipline is social studies subject is geography subject is history subject >> okay >> does that make sense >> so if those are I mean if they have different meanings then we probably should try to encapsulate both of those
like miss now specified um so it would be accurately and acquire and accurately use grade appropriate general academic as well as >> subject >> subject >> and subject hyphen and
>> discipline hyphen specific >> but this is well as is in there so close um I think for clarity we we should just say and subject specific or discipline specific like I would just add the
hyphen twice I I think it's fine >> so it would but so what so that would be I'm just Trying to make sure we un I guess it would be >> keep as >> general academ we could do general academic comma subject and domain
specific. Well, but then that's in then that's entailing the word specific onto the word academic as well. And that's not what we're saying. >> I like as well as >> okay >> just forget the hyphens. >> Well, the hyphen should be there. Um,
but I don't want to I don't want to spend all of our time on phrasing. Um, but I also think phrasing matters. Oh, do we reorder the sentence as well as language specific to disciplines and
subjects? That removes your hypen issue. So what I suggested was as well as language specific to discipline and subjects. Okay. So that would be acquire and
accurately use grade appropriate general academic words and phrases as well as language specific to domains and disciplines. All right. >> Is gone. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, is that Yes. That that's I think that's the best phrasing we've had so far. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> I'm done for the day. >> Put a wrap on it. >> Um if you guys want to start looking at 9 through 12, I just need to uh it's going to take me a second to make this. >> Thank you. Turn right.
And >> there isn't much difference there. The only difference is going to be in the subject that they're going to be taking in their 11th and 12th years.
So that vocabulary is going to be different than what they're taking is in their freshman and sophomore year. We covered that and how Any other comments about high school while
he's scribing? All right, everyone. This one's just a little lengthier since taking Okay. >> I would say use the same wording for high school as well. Yeah, use the same wording for high school.
>> Okay. Um, do we want to maintain because there is a different ending to high school where it says demonstrate independence in building vocabulary knowledge and context through a variety of tools and strategies that is not present in the 6 through8. >> Leave that. Okay. >> Leave that part. Just
>> just the portion prior to the semicolon. >> Okay. An increase in complexity and rigor. Yeah, that would wrap put a wrap on language. And now it says uh language standards and introduction.
What are we referring to on the introduction? >> That section. >> Okay. And where does that appear in the >> official standards document? >> Okay. The current standards document.
Do you think that would be a good that makes sense to me of looking at all the introductory language at once because we have time later in the >> we really dug into this language thing. So >> we did. Um, so but I do feel like these
these introductions do kind of operate as a unit to some extent. Um, because >> each section has its own introduction. >> It does, but some of the like the Scarbor reading rope for instance is kind of a a throughine of all of the the revised introductions. Um, and we
haven't really even talked about its usage and the overall introduction yet. Um, so I wonder if we we really should have a conversation about the overall introduction before we get into the um specific smaller introductions. Well, earlier you had said let's hold
off on it till we get through some of the standards. >> I'm I'm We can look at it now. I >> I think we ought to do the individual standards >> because we're really hot on language right now. Let's take a look at take a
step back. It' be my suggestion and take a look at that introduction and see if it says everything that we did. Okay. If I'm correct on that, um, we edit that differently. That is not through the spreadsheet. Is this the revised version?
>> Great question. You read my mind. Um, yes, that is the revised version. Essentially, this is these are all of the culmination of the red lines of the committees thus far with accept all changes, you know, regardless of grammar, etc. You should have comment access which should give you track changes access
like we talked about on Friday. So in that top right hand corner there should be just under where it says shared with 17 people there's a little pencil. Just make sure you're under suggestion mode. Obviously scroll down to language and that introduction and you'll see it.
You can find this by going to your SRC folder and then going to workday resources or workday documents, excuse me. And then it is titled August 5th, 2025 SRC ELA support language. So if everyone can make their way to
that document, that would be great. >> And what pages of this particular one? >> Good question. If someone can control F for language standards, that would be super helpful. It's the one not benefit of having my laptop over here. >> It's 10. Am I
>> members? There it is. >> Does page 10 look right? >> Back to your work. >> No, go back to >> Yeah, I see Britney. I'm going to do my positive narration. Really bring me back to the classroom. I see Britney. I see
Annie. No. Thank you. Banks is always two steps ahead of us. What's new? Page six, everyone. Yeah, we'll do a little buler. Please turn to page six. No. Um, so go there. One way that you could approach
this, depending on how members and your leadership team feel, is to, you know, read it independently, see how you feel, see how it vibes, especially now that you've, you know, really dug deep into the language standards. You could do independent comments and track changes and then sort of come to the group or you know feel free to use the chart
paper you're making these rules up whatever works best for the committee works well for me. I just ask that all of your suggestions and decisions and comments are in this document and as a reminder if you do make an edit that is
substantive in nature just a quick note you know like chair Kerniguson Dr. just out, you know, clarity, I don't know, accuracy, whatever it may be, in a comment. >> This this is the general introduction right here.
>> Yes. If you keep scrolling, I believe Bank said it's page six. That should take you to the language >> I can scroll down now that >> this is adjacent to what we're doing. I saw this in the introduction, but I I just want to point out in the introduction um to language standards, it has the
cornerstones and I'm now noticing, yeah, I'm now pointing that out. We um our we're going to need to change our cornerstone. um because we have domain specific uh words and phrases used in there and since we're moving away from that terminology um I will make a rei if everyone's okay with that I will make a
revision on the spreadsheet related to the domain specific language reverting it to the language about um discipline and subject that we've used elsewhere that's okay with everyone >> that is music to my ears um one note you probably picked up on this vice chair Hillier there's a cornerstone for each
and every one so you can fix it at the top one and then you should be able to drag it down or copy and paste so that you don't have to edit it. I don't know. Yeah. Six times. How many times >> do I suggest changes for the cornerstone in the same way that I suggested changes for the because I don't seem that I doesn't see that I have I don't have the
ability to edit the cornerstone. I attempt to do that. It just says there was a problem. You're trying to edit a protected cell. >> Oh yes. >> You know, yes. Um, >> I can just change I can just say in the suggested uh change I can specify that
it's in the cornerstone. >> Oh, I see what your question is. Yes, the original ones are protected. If you scroll over to the right, there should be revised cornerstone and that's where that goes. But yes, um, just to preserve the record of the hard work of the AAT, those their cells are protected for the record
>> and you know my well-being. Members, what questions do we have about reviewing the introduction and discussing it? I guess we've been committed historically to Scar Bro's reading rope.
>> That is the proposal before you, but as all fun things that is at the discretion of this committee whether they'd like to continue with Scarboro's reading rope or you know >> can can uh the folks from TDOE tell us about your commitment to Scarboro's
reading rope? Um Leanne Potter K5 ELA chair I mean the chair for K5. We um used the Scarbo reading rope as a anchor visual so to speak to help us see the continuation
from K all the way up to a skilled reader. um and how the two language comprehension and um word recognition and the strands begin separate at the lower end kindergarten and how all of
them then as the skills are learned they start weaving together and then by third grade they start coming together as a rope to get a skilled reader on in. And so that's kind of how the word recognition and the language comprehension, the skills, the
foundational literacy skills, the phonics, phmic awareness, those things end after second grade. And so we have kids know then how to decode words in third grade. So then they can work with
the comprehension skills and work on multi-elabic words and deeper um word work in order to comprehend more complex text. >> Okay. >> The state of Tennessee also the reading
360 both um the younger grades and the middle school high school bands um reading 360 is based on on the rope. So most of your educators are going to have a an understanding of the rope that
aligns to Scarbo's reading rope. It's um part of the the base research within that. >> My question was this is both a a public document
and a teachers document. >> Yes. And should references to the scar bros rope be better contained in the standards commentary or standards guide
and then leave that complicated stuff uh off for the public to consume. I feel like as teachers use the standards, they understand Scarbo's reading rope, so they see how the
standards work with the strands and where they are with because when we do professional learning, we show where these standards live in the ropes like foundational literacy standards are in the bottom ropes. the uh FL I mean the
RIL they're up in the top ropes. So when we have our um professional learning we can make a correlation to where does this align to the rope? Which strand are we working in and how is it correlating to
how does it align and help students grow and start weaving their rope or strengthening their rope? or if you're analyzing student data, which strand of this ro their rope is weak, where do you need to really tailor in your
instruction to help a child strengthen their reading? >> Okay. Well, my question was was not about the validity of the research or or the model to be used by teachers, but >> is it necessary in a public document to have this reference to the research?
In my opinion, it's something that everybody can understand when you look at it's an easy visual to understand. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. Well, >> the thing about it is is I feel like the what we're doing here and I'm not saying that the public it's not a public
document, but it's not intended for the public use. Like this is to guide your teachers to plan the lessons. So to me, it needs to be in there because this is a document for the teachers. I'm not saying it's not public and other people
don't look at it, but at the end of the day, the people that are going to be looking at this are your educators. When teachers plan, their standards are sitting in front of them. They have their standards in front of them. They have their guides in front of them. They have their their textbooks in front of
them. Everything needs to align to the standards. So, they need to understand how all of that works together to where they're headed. >> I will also say Scarbo's reading rope is not French critical theory. Like, it's it's pretty parsible. It's it's not in a
particularly like academic um concept. It's got a nice diagram built with it. Also, just for the sake of time and energy, um this Scarbor's reading rope is is integrated throughout nearly all the introductory language in in this. So, if we're if we're making large scale
revisions um about the Scarbor's reading rope, we're going to be making a lot of revisions to introductions. And while introductions matter certainly, I I wonder if our time and energy would be best spent on the the language of standards themselves. >> Okay. So are there any changes that
you'd want to make in this introduction to the language part on page six? >> So I'm wondering going back to kind of the thought that I had earlier about recognizing students not just as users of language but also innovators and
shaper of it. Teacher to laugh at me. They're like don't do it. Don't do it. Okay. Uh I wonder if the introduction is the place to make that. Here is kind of what I drafted. Um and you guys can tell me if this works or you can say nope we don't want
to go into that. Um so the first part of the this is the last sentence of the introduction. So together the first part is the same together these interconnected standards create a strong framework for developing proficient literacy and effective communication
recognizing that students are not just passive users of language but also active innovators who shape it. Yes, >> I think that sounds good. >> Those that want to put that in, raise your hand.
>> Okay. Thank you, Dr. Stout. Guess there's a place to put it. >> And I do want to clarify, I'm not keeping some sort of master document for this. This is we all edit this. Um, so we all have equal uh capability of of leaving notes there. >> Uh, so where where does that edit need
to go in the parking lot? Um I was conferring with Michael so I might have missed the question but um vice chair Hillard it's absolutely correct. Members all please join this document. Please turn on your suggestion mode and go wild. Um what was your specific question chair Kaggus? >> Well she had already made a suggestion
to change the the wording at the end. >> Yeah. >> Uh and where where we're going to keep record of that >> this document >> 8525. I just I just put it in the comments. >> But if there's a better way and if anybody wants to spell or gram check
that you know or make it better >> if you can put it in the track changes that will be great and then the comment would be like you know I think you shared some I mean language on like how they're 21st century learners etc etc something short and sweet does not have to be a complete sentence. Good to
>> go but yeah go wild friends. All right, that brings us to foundation liturgy literacy. Okay, we have three hours to do this. I don't know we could do it faster than that,
but let's see how it goes. >> We do it faster than that, I will be a little surprised. >> All right. Um, this is one where I I'm just letting you guys know I don't feel like this is I mean I can certainly uh comment about like you know parallel
structure of of phrasing of standards, but this is outside of my academic domain. Um, so I'm going to take more of a backseat here and kind of take uh the recommendations offered by people who who teach these standards. Um, but we will begin with K.PC.1. Um, this one only runs KN first. So,
this is a pretty short progression. As far as I can see, there are no TDOE comments on this. Um, so unless anyone has anything from the general public that has been offered or any personal feedback on these,
like this could likely be a place where we end up keeping. >> Okay, hearing no comment. Does that mean we want to keep this one? >> Do we feel confident in that? Well, that was pretty quick. So, do we have people had time to read the standard? >> It's the first day. We should
>> just flag. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. >> No, you go ahead. >> Just real quick on the the TDOE feedback document, I noticed that it looks like they're not some of the standards are out of order. Like, you're right. There's none on that first standard, but like it starts with standard five and
then it goes to standard two. So, apologies for that. Just kind of check around there. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you for flagging that because I would have I would have missed that. So, thank you. >> Um, I was also going to point out we recommended that first grade be
removed from this one because it's print concepts and print concepts should really be secured in kindergarten. So, we recommended that anything in first grade that was not in kindergarten be
moved to kindergarten and first grade not have print concepts. So, do they have the recommended like what what they feedback was on? >> That's my understanding. But let's do you mind coming over here and we can connect on the spreadsheet to make sure we've got our >> Yeah, because tees crossed and our eyes
dotted. >> Yeah. Uh, one thing I wanted to flag that I just noticed, um, on language, there are your first two standards on language, the cornerstone is identical, but they have two different standards codes. And in other parts of the language standards, I believe it's 6A, B, and C.
Please correct me, ELA people. Um, in the event that there was an identical cornerstone, they used a letter to signify that. No preferences on my end just to to note the difference there. I have something that is now off topic but um maybe could go on the parking
lot. Um Engleary mentioned the kind of awkward order of the VAU 3, four and five, how we had meaning or like denotation figurative and then denotation again essentially. Um so that might be something to consider. I know we've kind
of moved on but consider in the future parking lot. We need to talk about the kindergarten standard then. Well, if we are going to that they I believe are figuring out if if we're deleting one or if they propose to
delete one or not. But yeah, I I guess that's a good question. Are we is there anything we see on the kindergarten standard because we know that one's going to stick One thing I will say is that I mean this is a small a small thing but I think under substandard C where it says
demonstrate one to one correspondence I believe there should be a second hyphen any any anything else? Okay. So, we'll just I guess we'll wait on some decision over there and then we can discuss if we think the one standard
should be eliminated. Was that Oh, I was just wondering for clarification about that. >> But so go with what you've got for right now. >> Okay. >> Yeah, you're also welcome to skip around. >> Looks like we might have went back and talked about um
advanced features of print. Um I will also flag under first grade um version of this standard. This is the first time we use a parenthetical with examples. Um and I I flagged earlier that throughout the standards we use a number of different um shortenings for
that. Uh we use ex in places, we use eg in places, we use IE in places. Um I personally feel as though we should probably normalize that across the standards. And I agree. >> Um, print concepts 2030.
Do we mean text? Because print has a very specific denotation. Oh, sorry. Say that again. Uh, just even the phrase print concepts thinking 2030.
Is there a word that we could use instead of print? Because this this this is print. Not saying that they won't be using that, but can we also incorporate something that includes
that makes reference to and digital? I don't know how to phrase it. >> Well, we have a digital standard in writing that I think we might can address it there. I don't know. So let's think about that. What do you think? >> So I I also think this is um Kim Resen TDOE. Um I also think there can be a
difference in meaning. So when we're talking about print as in letter versus printed, you know, and then text uh meaning connected text. So when they're saying print, um I think that really can get down to the individual letter um
words, things of that nature. So it's a connotation. Again, going back to denotation, connotation, but I think in this case, it's it's intended to be more like how letters are written, how words are written across the page, not a printed text.
>> So, it might say um point to the first word of the sentence. So, it's identifying a word versus the space in the word or the end of the sentence instead of this is a printed book, this
is a printed or digital article, that type of thing. Does that make sense? I would love to hear from our early um elementary educators. Am I overthinking this?
She says I'm overthinking it. >> But I do see where >> I do see where that would be an importance in the future. But I think there she's on the right page of print not meaning the same thing as like
necessarily paper. >> Is it written word versus print? the written word look at the the ABCs because it's follow from left to right, top to bottom, page to page.
It's um spoken words are represented in written form. It that that's the things we're talking about. So >> I would just add in in elementary education in reading language all of
that features of print or using print is a very common terminology. So for elementary teachers it should be pretty well understood. Um but that is also something that we should have uh define we can define if it's not just to make sure that there's clarity there. if
somebody's moving from an upper grade level to a lower grade level and that's a question. So features of print, we'll definitely check on that. >> Was that something that we would want to put in the parking garage for the glossery perhaps of defining?
>> Yeah, I would say for the glossery. >> How are we feeling then about this standard? What do we want to use as our example? Our letters. Are we going to do E X E G I E? >> I believe we've used EG the most
frequently throughout the standards >> and that would probably be the most applicable for instance, not specifics. >> No preference on my end what y'all use. would just remind folks that in the introduction there is a table that gives
a definition and I believe an example of EG and IE. So it could be helpful whatever decision you make just editing that table to reflect as such and I want to say it's on page four of the current standards.
>> Yeah. And and EG and IG and IE aren't aren't necessarily used interchangeably. Um but um but then we've also got ex in there and then we've got lots of other instances where we just say for instance at the start. So I think just normalizing that even if we maintain eg
and ie I think at least not using ex um and not using like for instance um just having that consistency. Um so do we feel like eg would be for this particular instance we'd want to maintain that eg? >> I think eg is good. Okay. Then >> exemplaria.
>> If that's the case, unless we delete one, then we will we will keep it. If does everyone agree with that? >> Agreed. >> Okay. Then we are done. >> I did want to add one more thought for print concepts. Um, we had removed
recognize and name the lowercase and uppercase letters of the alphabet and moved it to fluency and we've been modeling around with that. And we really believe it should be in both standards because they should be
fluent once they know them, but they have to learn them first. So, we really think that it should be in the print concepts and in the fluency. Could you point us toward that standard code for the fluency standard so we can find that language?
>> Um, it it actually should be what it was origin in the original. >> Okay. >> Um, it should be Hang on. I'll tell you exactly what it should be. >> It looks like it. >> Recognize and name all upper and lowercase letters of the alphabet in
isolation and in connected text. >> Yes. >> So, do we feel as though that should be added? Is that just to kindergarten you think? >> Okay. >> Do we all agree that that should be returned? Okay. Then I will add that.
>> Would it be F or does it need to be in between? >> Okay. Does anyone have a strong feeling about where it should be laid as the substandard? And I'll make it F. Miss now, could you possibly put that in
the the parking garage just the to return to the first grade standard for this particular uh progression since they're going to consult with the people from their EAT to see what their recommendation was there? Okay. Are we ready to move to the next? >> All right.
>> One moment. >> Okay. >> We need to check the eg e.g and then and you can remove the etc because eg is a whole spirit of things. >> Good. Good recognition.
are we going to and I I I frankly can't remember if we do this or not. Um if we eliminate etc. are we going to put and before infographics or are we just going to do a series of commas? Okay.
Um, it's advanced. I'm clarifying that. But if that stays, then you're probably advance.
Okay. So, I think for now we've gone about as far as we can go with uh this standard. So, we can shift to standard two. [Laughter] All right. Um, so now we've got
standard two. Um, this originally was a two standard se uh progression. Now they they the EAT has proposed a second grade addition to this standard sequence. Um, so the old standards will just be K1 for
this. Um, they are now K1 and two. Um, this is a pretty lengthy standard. If anyone wants to look over the standard for a moment, >> there's feedback about the cornerstone,
>> right? Um, it was amended to demonstrate understanding of spoken words, syllables, and sounds or phone names as they later apply to written language. >> Did we hear from the EAT about that that edit?
So, um, we now have, we've been doing more research on this. We agree now with the state, take it out of second and amend the cornerstone. >> Okay. So, both eliminate the second grade
standard and um revert back to the original cornerstone. >> Yes. Okay. And the other thing because we're taken out of the um second grade in first grade
um for D add the word delete like and delete on letter D. I think it was letter D. Mhm. Yeah. after segment. So could could someone just reiterate to
me what that edit was to D in standard 2 >> after take out the and segment occasion and move put a comma the segment and delete. >> Okay. So count, pronounce, blend,
segment and syllables. Mhm. And I do have the rationale why we did that to first grade long time ago. And do you just recommend that edit in the kindergarten standard, not in the first grade? As >> the delete was in the first grade
standard, not kindergarten. And we recommend keeping that um PC1 standard because we did use research from the letters program. >> What was that standard that you recommended? >> Uh the standard one in uh first grade.
>> Okay. So yeah, not to delete that standard. Okay. Does anyone are we all in agreement therefore to to eliminate the second grade standard here since the the EAT has altered their opinion there? Um and then revert back
to the original cornerstone. Um we we have a couple instances of EG. So, I'm going to go ahead and correct those as well. Um, with the the comma and we have a show of hands for agreement and change making that
we have consensus. Do we have anything else on those two standards in this progression? Anything? >> I think we're ready to move on. >> Okay. Well, then if that's the case, we are ready to move to standard three.
Now this is I believe is this the new stand? No, this one has a new naming convention. Correct. >> Mhm. >> This is no longer flower power. >> No longer flower power. >> Can't help it.
Um I was a bit confused and I would love to hear an explanation of how um the naming convention where decoding and encoding are separated in the in the code um that like the the
standard code >> um but still housed within the same standard themselves. um because it's still standard three even though that that and normally it feels like we go from >> most inclusive to most specific. Um so that is a little bit of a deviation from
that pattern. >> So when we teach a new skill we teach them first can you differentiate the sounds of this new skill and then we work with can you decode and then we move to encoding in and out of context
for both. So they're reciprocal they work together. So what we um wanted teachers to understand is that they work together. They complement each other. So we looked at taking those two and
putting them in a column side by side kind of like the RLRI standards work together. The same thing for decoding and encoding. So that's why we decided to make a two column and show the
teachers how that that correlation is >> and there's one cornerstone correct >> there's one cornerstone for both to show that >> just trying so on the page itself it would look >> it would look just like the RLR I
>> this would be >> it would be a ladder >> it would have the same >> it would be a ladder and there's also Alo a um you know we want to be very systematic and explicit with our trajectory. So the ladder also shows the progression okay
>> of how the skills build throughout. >> I do have a copy of that. It just doesn't translate well to the spreadsheet. But of course as always I'll keep saying this. It's at the discretion of the committee if they want to move forward with that proposal. Um one quick note circling back to that language cornerstone that we said was
the same. Looks like there was a misunderstanding in the previous spreadsheet and made it onto one but not the other. Um, if you go to the language introduction for standard 2, that is the correct cornerstone as proposed by this committee.
It should be on page six, what we were just looking at. So, page introduction, page six, cornerstone 2. That is the correct one. Just didn't make it into your latest and greatest. >> Should I make that edit in the spreadsheet? >> That would be great. just when you have time. But assuming that that's what the
committee wants to go forward with. If you're good with that one, copy and paste it. If not, do your revised version. >> Yes, let's do >> I will do that now as we take a look at uh foundational literacy 3 since this is another slightly lengthier.
They get very specific in >> Oh, yeah. >> We wanted to be very specific because we want teachers to know exactly what they're teaching in each grade level. Um in first grade decoding
um three we um we we didn't put the word schwah. We said that they will be including two syllable words. So they will encounter the schwah. So you might want to put in parenthesis
um in that one. But other than that, just to be a little more specific, >> I will need someone to spell schwah for me when we get there. >> S C H WA. >> And where did you say that? That would
be best included. What level? >> Uh first grade. >> First grade. And then what substandard? >> Uh it's um Oh, let me find that for you. Hold on a second. I think it's E. >> It says read two syllable words
following basic patterns. >> Yeah. Then >> after what word should I include then? Um at the end >> I really like this because it shows the u different
instruction >> the scaffolding. >> I think that's important >> for students with disabilities. I noticed that >> whereas this one was more broader. >> Okay, hang on. >> This is broad. >> Is it broken down my understanding?
>> They were telling me >> so one of my kind of like overarching comments and I >> once again I'm just muddying the water because I don't know the best place to put it. Um, we talk about like foundational literacy, but foundational
digital literacy. When they get into the older grades, we're asking them to use text, but have we actually made a standard to say this is how we're introducing it? And I also feel like teachers are doing that every day. Um, but we're not capturing it in
here >> using text. Oh, technology. >> I I I feel like in the way and if someone else sees it, then please feel free to point it out. But I see a lot in some of the older grades use use technology, use media, but where have we
kind of like introduced and taught best practices? Um, and should we be pushing to start that a little bit younger? I think that would be introducing a whole different standard or something.
However, I also think it speaks to the reality of what's happening. >> I'm going to look, but I think there's maybe some the speaking and language. It's in here somewhere because I know that. >> Yeah, I saw some in I feel like in the reading, but once again, it was kind of
like, well, use um where are we laying the foundation? >> Yeah, that's what I was going to look cuz I know we do it in fifth grade. I just don't know like where it starts. We put that in the parking lot for now.
Let's put the parking lot off. This is much smaller in scope, but I just wanted I don't want to put anything on the document that isn't something we've talked about as a group. Um, there are several instances of EG here. we we're adding commas after eg. I just wanted to clarify that we're all good with doing that. Um there's also a
moment here in substandard C of the kindergarten.3 standard um that um that pertain that that says VCCV CVC.
Um I don't know what those are. Uh >> that's vowel consonant. >> Okay. Oh, okay. >> Consonant vowel consonant vowel consonant. >> Those are not those are not examples. That's meant to be an exhaustive list. >> Um if that's an exhaustive list, do we want to include the word and? Um
what was that? I can't hear you. Um, no. So it just says it says blend letter sounds to read one syllable words including regularly spelled high frequency words parenthesis uh vca
cva cvc >> I don't know you need to >> it says it >> it says it but for a non educator reader would they know so it should be spelled out first use and it can stand for the rest of the document
So, so would we change it to then say vowel hyphen consonant comma consonant hyphen vowel? >> Look down at number B. You got you've got eight of them in there. You're going to have to really
>> glossery or >> that in the glossery. Yeah. Too much in there. So, okay, I I'm I'm getting a little lost here. Um, what
>> glossery? >> What is going in the glossery? >> The VC what what VCCV stands for? >> Okay. Um, so for the sake of right now because that would be more of a parking lot issue because we haven't moved to the glossery. The glossery will be
edited similarly to what we edited as a group of lot. >> Okay. Um, But as far as so are therefore we're going to leave VCCV and CBC. >> Yes. >> And what are we just going to simply have those as a as a series of listed
items? Are we going to have any sort of introduction to that? IE or EG or anything like that? >> You said it's an exhaustive list. So you don't need EG. >> Okay. Then we will leave it as is. >> Moving on.
I do think there's some sort of punctuation missing still in that C substandard though where it says blend letter sounds to read simple one-cllable words including regularly spelled high frequency words VC CV CDC and then it just goes straight into introducing
short versus vowel uh long vowel patterns found in open versus closed syllable words >> also So versus is abbreviated and then spelled out. I guess I I'm having a little bit of a hard time trying to parse the the
intended grammar of C. What what is introducing what exactly is introducing short versus long vowel patterns? So, is it meant to be regularly spelled high sequence high frequency words that
introduce short versus long vowel patterns found? This is so this is line block eight on foundations of literacy and that's letter C. I think it's just a
grammar question and not grammar as in what we're teaching grammar. Grammar as in is there a word missing in letter C. So blend letter sounds to read simple one syllable words including regularly
spell high frequency words that introduce short versus long vowel patterns. Is is it should it be changed to I would defer to someone who who has taught this. I don't really know.
>> Let me make sure I'm on the right one. Let me look at yours. Okay. blend letter sounds to read simple one syllable words including regularly spelled highfrequency words VC CV and
CVC introducing short versus long vowel patterns found in open versus closed syllable words at closed me open sit closed
>> question is who's doing the introducing and we have to make it studentbased rather than teacherbased >> like >> they're yeah they're introducing the short versus long patterns >> that teacher is not the student
>> no this is the teacher directions of what she's teaching >> should that be separated by a semicolon from what comes before it or but this needs to be studentbased this is a standard for the >> yeah this is what the expectation of
what the student will know and be able to do. >> But there the student's not going to introduce teachers introducing. >> That's my point. >> Correct. So >> So what what do we what do we have to do to get the student to do this?
What do we need to say that the student will do that it begins >> like I think he's saying like at the beginning the blend the student is going to do the blending. >> So if the if the teacher introduces the
short long vowel pattern what are they going to be doing to show? Are they going to be blending? Are they going to be you know like what are they doing? >> Right? I understand it up until the end of the parentheses. Um, but then afterwards I I get kind of muddled and I don't completely understand how that relates back to the blending of letter
sounds >> or like if they're intro teacher's introducing is the student understanding short versus long vowel patterns. >> No, we're asking them to blend. >> So are we So is it >> Yeah, I know. So that's what I'm saying. But the verb is going to have the
introducing that word is going to have to be changed to studentled. So that's what I'm saying. Is it blending? Is it understand like what is what are they getting from it after the teacher introduces it? >> So is it saying that
yeah that the teacher is showing students how to blend letter sounds to read simple one syllable words including these words for the purpose of introducing short versus long vowel patterns. >> That's what Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. the for adding for the purpose of before introducing. Okay. That is for the purpose of indicated studentbased learning standard. Yeah, I think one of the issues is that
the sentence may be just too long. What the the letter may be too long. What does it look like broken up into two sentences? Would that just add clarity? I mean, I think we can have two sentences or I know >> maybe it needs to be its own letter. >> Um, or I just think we just because it's
a lot going on in one >> sentence, phrase, bullet. I think maybe just what does it look like if we break it up into two sentences um might clarify. >> And I'm saying sentences although I know
these are not complete. How about instead of saying introduce just put the word and >> you're asking them to blend. Mhm. >> So take out the word introduce and blend
short and long patterns found in open. >> So is the purpose of blending letter sounds to read short versus long vowel patterns found in open versus closed. >> So instead of put introduce just put and. >> Okay. If if we're in agreement on that.
This is outside of my depth of of knowledge. So >> well and one one thing it is a little murky to me the the at colon close me colon open s colon close it took a second to recognize that at is a is an
example of a closed syllable word the way I'm reading it me is an example of an open syllable word so could that portion be revised just for a little clarity like maybe at dash
closed me dash open. I don't know if a dash would clarify or not versus a colon. >> It may require more words to explain what you really mean. I will follow the lead of of what you all think on this. I don't I don't feel like I I know what the best way of
representing. >> Can we phone a friend? Is there is there a kindergarten teacher who wants to phone in? >> Those examples could be included in the guide stand. >> I have a suggestion.
>> It could be in the print. You could put at in PNS and then put is closed and then you could put oh then the next one me again in PNS and then
is closed and then sit in PN so that >> so you see that those words are the ones you're talking about. >> I like that. So it would be replacing at colon closed with me in
parentheses is closed and or sorry at is closed me is open. Yeah. So >> so that the at word stands out. >> Yeah. Me word stands out in the >> puppy dog.
>> Or you could put them right after the words as they appear in the sentence where it says open. Is that what you said there? >> Okay. >> Okay. I did not catch that the first time. So that would be within the actual
sentence, not at the end. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So after the word open, you would put the PNS and give the example right there. >> Okay. >> Versus closed and then more parents in the examples right there. >> Should I put
>> we're talking to >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Right. Should I put if I use say at and and me as the two examples provided there since we have three we'll have to shorten to just two. Um would I put
those in u quotation marks >> or >> no? >> Okay. >> Good question. >> I think so. >> Yeah. I think probably needs to be in quotation marks >> because I feel like that's going to confuse the grammar of the sentence.
>> Yeah, >> that's how I felt. >> I'm open to other feedback. >> Letter E has qu in quotation marks. >> Yeah, it does. >> Any thoughts on that?
>> Good enough. >> I agree. quotations >> personally open do your >> open example which was >> me so me is in quotes >> and then
we have a preference between at and sit for closed My mother would say sit. >> Sit. >> Then let's do sit. >> Can I add just a um going back to the VC CBC? So you have two letter words and
then you have threeletter words. And so we have examples there of two and three. That's why we had the three examples. So I'm losing it. But, uh, sit is a three-letter word and at is a two-letter word, but they're both closed. They're both examples. So, that's what it was
meant to, I think, from the team, what it was meant to clarify. Okay. If I include both of them, how should I different? Should I just put a comma between the two? Should I put >> the word and? What do we think? >> Put a comma in between the two.
>> Comma. How are we doing with time? >> 2:27. >> We're doing okay. Um we've got about two more hours um left today and we all we have left on the agenda is foundational literacy, which we're on at the moment.
>> Um how many foundational literacy standards are there overall? >> Uh seven. Looks like the revised version is down to six, but six is a bear. It's got some big substandards. So, we're okay. I'd say we're doing all
right. >> Have you finished writing? >> I am in the process. Um >> All right. Well, we can then we can go to inspecting the next one if you'd like. >> I'm not 100% sure we're done with this one yet. Uh Um, we need to I think I forget who it was
who brought up verses. Um, I think it was Miss Now maybe. Um, who mentioned that we have versus spelled out once and we have it um abbreviated once. Um, how do we want to do that? I think it should be consistent throughout. Do we want to spell it out?
Okay. >> Yeah. What did you say? >> And what did you tell them? >> I would say abbreviate. >> I like the abbreviation. People know versus pretty.
>> Yeah. >> Abbreviations. >> Okay. If we're using the abbreviation, should we add a period after the abbreviation? Yes. >> Yes. >> This is the right group to ask. And then I may be incorrect here, but I believe
open syllable and closed syllable should be hyphenated. Am I am I wrong there? And open syllable words versus closed syllable words. Um, should open syllable and closed syllable be hyphenated?
Yes, >> answer is yes. >> So for clarity, I think you cuz right now it says open versus closed. I would say open dash syllable word or open hyphen syllable versus closed hyphen syllable. Okay, >> I would repeat the syllable. >> Sounds good.
>> I hate that double dash with one thing. Can I ask on E? Is there a reason why the QU is in uh quotations and the CH and C K and NG aren't? They're your diagramraphs. >> Diagrams. >> Diagramraphs.
>> Okay. >> C H C N G. Am I correct? >> So the qu they it doesn't have the H, but it still comes together to make a new new sound. >> Okay. As as long as there's a reason. I
just noticed it was different, but as long as there's a reason. >> Okay. That's the kindergarten. Um, should we have a comma after um in in substandard E where it says voiced and unvoiced comma? Is that comma appropriate there?
It does not read as such to me. Okay, >> I'm sorry. Add a comma after QU. I forgot my microphone. >> Is it saying that it's a list of diagraphs? So, chk all the way down to q. So, that's the last in the series. I
think with all of the parentheses it gets a little mudded. >> I would uh be more concerned about the wording establish the connection. Uh I'm not sure how the students demonstrate that. Uh and I would suggest
maybe the word recognize instead of establish the connection and being studentbased. Where was this again? >> Letter E. >> Okay. >> Letter E. >> Okay. So, we're continuing with this.
Okay. Does establish the connection uh give you an indication whether a student can do that? Is it testable? back. >> Oh, I I think I Okay, now I see. Would
adding the word the before combination clarify that because I did not initially read as combination qu as part of the other. >> Yeah, that was my shortcoming as well. >> Okay. >> So, do we want to add the word the before the combination? >> Yes. And then you wouldn't need the
comma. >> Yeah. Then you don't need that. Okay. I think to the chair's point of establish the connection, I think identify is the word that we've kind of been using in earlier standards is um just for clarity and consistency sake is
is identify the connection versus establish the connection or do we feel like there's something substantively different there? >> It's not about the connection. It's identifying or recognizing that diraphs our twoletter
recognizing the diagraphs or recogni recognizing that the diagraphs >> but I don't think we're asking the students to recognize the diagraphs um like they they are not I don't think our kindergarters are going to be talking
about diraphs graphimmes um but it does the wording of of several of these substandards right now is really more teacher directed than student directed So, so they will um use the word diraph and
they will use talk about um differentiating the sounds. They'll make connections between the differentiation of the sounds. They'll also in the decoding they'll break apart the sounds in words and realize that the ch is one
sound in a word and they'll when they break those uh sounds apart they'll recognize that as one sound and then in their writing they'll recognize that the ch goes together when they hear that sound >> recogni recognize and
>> use they'll also I mean so they are making connections to the printed and the sound and or when they see it to read it or when they need it to write it. >> Recognize and reproduce
see it and write it. >> That'd be my reation. If it if we change the language to recognize and reproduce, then that's going to be a little con the the re reproduce the connection that the diagraphs >> leave the connection out.
recognize and reproduce the diagraphs. >> So, also remember this is the decoding standard. I believe this is the reading standard. There's an E which is the writing standard. >> So, this would really just be recognize.
>> This is the reading standard. >> So, would we just want to change the word change the word establish to recognize? take up establish the connection and just recognize the diagraphs. >> I I think you are establishing the mental connection, the written
connection, the reading connect, right? I think it is establishing the connection. So, I see what he he's saying. Um, is it common for K5, because this is totally new for me. Is it common for K5
standards to read um as more of I guess a teacher directive rather than a student outcome? Is that common or intentional? I think the argument is that the students are that that is the verb that they're establishing because they have
they're h as the established they're recognizing that they've been taught that this letter makes this sound and for the first time they're realizing that two letters go together to make one sound. So I think that's why we have to have the word connection in there
because there is a connection and they are establishing like in their mind that connection. I think that I think that's why they're using that verb. It's not that the teacher is establishing the teacher is teaching them for them to establish that. Am I
right? Okay. I like the progression of the verbs because they're active and specific so that teachers know what to do with each standard with with students with each substandard. Demonstrate, associate, blend, distinguish, establish. To me,
the progression makes sense and flows. >> I I've been one over. Um I think they can stay as is. If if anyone disagrees though, I'd like to hear. >> Yeah, we'll leave it as is. Um, do we feel as though substandard F needs
a comma after suffix X? Uh, S, sorry, not X. >> Yes. >> Okay. Anything else for this? Been here a minute. >> What about grade appropriate? Right. Hyphen appropriate. >> Where's that?
>> Uh, sorry. Substandard G. No. Okay. >> Elsewhere we do hyphen a grade appropriate. Oh, we we go back and forth. We have 11 instances of non-hyphenated. We have seven instances of hyphenated within
foundational literacy. Now in language standards, we always hyphenated. We have 11 instances of hyphenated and zero instances of non-hyphenated in the language standards. Do we want to come to a consensus that it's hyphenated then to be in keeping with the language standards we've already been
anything else? Okay, so that was the decoding standard. Um, now we need to move to the encoding version of this exact same standard. Before we do that, I want to suggest that we take a five minute break.
Get us on the back side. Got one more. We've had lunch, so may need to take a little visit here. Um, so we'll be back in session at uh
247. So we're continuing with uh foundational literacy. We are still on kindergarten. So, um, we've we've been here a bit, and if looking at the rest of these, uh, three standards, it seems like we're going to be here for a bit. These are
quite lengthy. Um, but we're now on in uh, encoding versus decoding. So, k.l.e. Um, don't believe we had any tdoe commentary on that one. So, I guess it's just we take a look ourselves.
I think it could be different ways. So they could actually write it or you have might have manipulatives like on a piece of paper where they move the letters to form the words. That's just my interpretation of it. I think so.
More in detail with the um kids that are like a tier three, they have more of the blocks they can manipulate as well, manipulatives. So, I think that's fine. My hands on. Um this is an easy one. Just wanted to This is in keeping with everything we've
done, but I'm just going to keep saying it. Um, there are several instances of EG. I'm going to add a comma after every instance vg Thank you. Do we feel as though we need a comma after um graphimmes in substandard A?
Oh, okay. We also this is a this is probably being too granular um because I have a tendency to do that but um in in other instances we're we're using eg to provide examples but here in in
substandard a we we actually use the words such as rock or rope. Um, does that bother anyone else or am I just being really >> well and in substandard B we also have IE.
So we have such as EG and IE >> in that standard. >> Yeah, I definitely think we need to change that IE to EG. Do we agree there? >> I also question the comma in D. All right. some common frequently used words. Do we need that comma there?
My instinct is yes. But okay, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Okay. Elsewhere we have said instead of well I don't know I I in substandard E when we say >> make a meta comment.
I think it's really interesting and fun that you have a bunch of people who've been trained in English um really parsing punctuation and I think it really speaks to the difficult job our teachers have. So, I just want
to recognize that like even us are we're going back and forth and so just wanted to recognize that it's hard work what they're doing every day and if we stumble over it, you know, uh I can only imagine what they're doing with kindergarteners.
>> Thank you, Dr. Stout. So for the E sub standard where it says by referencing K's decoding standards um I think elsewhere we've we've been a little more we've like been more likely to spell out um I think we say kindergarten in other places rather than saying K. Um should we replace K with
kindergartens decoding standards especially in the context of all this granular discussion of of consonants. I think that could be a little confusing. I also think in F where it says print all upper and lowercase letters um the fact that it doesn't say uppercase seems
to indicate that upper letters would be the the thing we're referring to and I think we're actually meaning to say uppercase. Is that correct? So I would suggest that we shift upper to uppercase. Can I get a little clarity on the
know every syllable has a vowel or like blends or not? Uh, no. So, like in a a word with multiple syllables, every syllable will have a vowel with it. So, l fent.
Um, l e l has a vowel. Uh, you know, it it all has a vowel. Um, if you had the word like chalk, you couldn't say ch as a syllable. That's a diagraph and a phone. So, it just to be a syllable, it has to have a vowel. And there may be
consonants, but not always. Hope that clear. Do we have anything else on this particular standards? Okay. If not, we will move on. Okay. We're out of kindergarten, first
grade. I would say that there will be a lot of things in this particular standard um now that we're to first grade version given we had so many edits to the uh the K.L.D..3.
Um I I think we should probably pay attention to ensure that that the edits that were made to that kindergarten standard is is comparably made in this particular standard. elsewhere when we when we've had an exhaustive list, we have not included the word and. We have just listed with
commas separating each item. Um in substandard C we have an exhaustive list um including R controlled vowels A R E R I R O R and UR. Um so should that and be deleted? Do we feel
just for consistency? Yeah. Take the energy. So, let's take the hand out. and also a letter J. There's a N as well. Would that is that intended to be an exhaustive list or is that intended to be examples of common prefixes? I would
think that there are other prefixes that could theoretically be included there. So if so, we might want to shift that to an eg. Do we feel like it should be an eing? Okay. And remove the and
I heard that. Yes. Is that an exhaustive list of inflectional inflectional suffixes? That's not all of them. So, it would need to be an eg situation as well. >> Yes, a eg situation as well. and take
out the word end. I am a bit confused by the parenthetical on G. >> You're just playing the floss rule. What's the flosser rule? >> My dentist is always complaining about that. the flosser. Um, if you have a
short vowel ending in F, L, S, or Z will almost always double that consonant. So, any word ending in F with a a E, it'll end with, um, doubles there. So, um, they give examples,
um, but I think, yeah, it's not necessarily communicating what we want it to, but yeah, that that's what the floss rule is. F LS and sometimes Z. Thank you. I >> mean, it seems to me in keeping with where what we've done in other places, we would probably eliminate LLSZ
doubling and just go straight into EG, fluff, fell, kiss, and buzz. Don't know how others feel about that. >> I think most would know floss rule. We put doubling just to emphasize that you
do double those and the curriculums also explain the rule in depth. Um so oh okay >> probably if it's a pneumonic then yes so
that would be capital F ls rule. Generally you capitalize the letters. >> I would say yes. >> And that does differentiate it from you know the the thing our dentists are telling us >> from the dance. >> Oh yeah. >> Bring that one back.
>> Can you demonstrate? I don't know the dance. Um, I do still feel like either we need to condense a little bit in that par in that parenthesis um that we have there or we need to um rephrase a little bit because I think as is it is a little
little muddled how it goes from the examples of what the letters are that contribute to the floss rule and then can goes straight directly into words that >> I think we were just showing each short vowel with it. Any
thoughts on that from the committee? >> Do we want to leave it as is? Then >> I would say letter G, leave as is and just capitalize the F and plus. Nope. >> Do we have anything else for this
standard? You can't see what you're typing. So, uh >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. But >> you should be able to see it now. I believe >> go to L. >> Okay.
>> Prompting and support words that contain soft sounds for both blop and bl period. Then your example, do you see that extra period? Then there's another period. >> Oh, you're right.
>> So, we want to delete that first period, >> I think. So, yeah. >> And then, of course, in M, if we're hyphenating grade appropriate, then it appears there in M as well. >> Thank you.
>> I add one like extremely minor editing >> just to hopefully save a headache later. just whenever you do use e EG that there's a comma after it each time. So, oh, perfect. Okay. >> Uh, under subheading E
to um words into syllables with knowledge of syllables types syllable types just a minor thing. Yeah. everything else. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, I think for one FLD3
with the corrections, I believe everything else looks uh fine. >> So, we feel good about this standard. Anything else here? Okay. Then we can move to first grade uh encoding standard. >> Okay. Um can I add to this? I'm sorry.
Just going back. We're we're looking at the floss rule still for G and just how it reads that it may be confusing. Um, and so we were talking about potential changes uh to make it easier. So we were saying something like in the what's in
the parenthesis now if it said after a short vowel the consonants F ls or Z double and then eg it lists those words. But right now, I think it's trying to explain the rule, but it doesn't fully
explain the rule. And then it just kind of continues with examples. So, I think it's a little hard to follow maybe. No, you weren't schooled at all. No, I And I meant to say great questions. I understand completely. Like I I'm only K5 and Banks will talk about things in 6
through 12. I'm like, I have no idea what language you're speaking. So, I'm happy to just be able to share a little bit of what I what I bring to the table. So, thank you for asking. >> Would it be possible for you to reiterate? >> Sure, I can try.
Okay. So, um after a short vow, the consonants F, L, S, and Z double. And then it gives the eg. I don't know how you want to word smith all of that,
but that just explains the rule a little bit more. >> I think technically it would be in two separate parentheses, but that looks very odd. Um, >> agree, but I think that would make it more clear. >> I think it's going to be easier to read in that instance. It's going to look a little funky, but I think it's going to
be more parsible. >> I actually don't think you need the first parenthesis. And if we were just explaining it, read words following the false rule. Period. after the consonants blank blank blank these
double period and then put just one parenthesis. Yeah. Or you could do that because you're just explaining. Yeah. >> Yeah. You could use no positive there, >> but we've got it as a complete sentence at the moment. And so that would read
like a like a comma splice. >> Yeah. Sorry, I have to click out of the box before it updates. >> You could use a long hyphen to explain it. So the floss rule and then one of those long hyphens FL blah blah blah.
than what she said. >> Honestly, that's one of the better ways I think. >> Then you could do your PNS with your EG. >> We feel okay with that. Okay. Can I make a comment for just a second? Um,
we heard just a little bit ago you guys reference referencing we used IE and EG quite a bit. Correct. Um, I know our initial thing when we were in the committee, we were under the impression that IE was implying that you have to teach that. Um, so it wasn't that we
were just going back and forth using different letters. Um, but there was a purpose for that. So, just kind of just keep that in mind when you see the IE and the EG. Just because if we change it on one standard as EG, we're going to have to go change it on another standard or you will have to go change it.
So either one are fine. Um I do think we don't currently have IE on the introduction in that table. So if the committee would like to use that is or IE we would just need to add it and and know that it would be exhaustive in that case. >> We're going to use IE for exhaustive
lists and we've had quite a few exhaustive lists thus far that we have not used IE. >> Yes. Thank you Nicole for flagging. So it's it's up to the discretion of the committee but eg would be non-exhaustive. The other options on your introduction currently for
non-exhaustive are I believe including such as an EG. So those would mean you know more further clarity for educators of options like a EG to kill a mockingb bird le whatever you know but you wouldn't necessarily of course have to teach those texts kind of thing.
>> I for one think whatever we do we need to do it consistently throughout. Um, so if we do think I IE should be used for exhaustive lists, I kind of think we should always use IE for exhaustive lists. You have a comment. >> I I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Oh, um, I I just I think it is a pretty important distinction, especially, you know, think about being a teacher, whether like, okay, is this something I could teach or something I have to teach? So, I think uh that we probably should fix that. >> Uh, I I agree. And I mean and I
understand the distinction between the two but I don't know that your your average educator is going to understand that that IE means this must be taught. So >> I think the hope >> can we clarify that language somewhere >> in our introduction we do have a brief
uh table that is intended to explain what IE and EG and and other and such as are meant to to represent. So I think hopefully that would clarify but I do understand that that that has its own hang-ups because if someone doesn't read that then >> if someone doesn't read the introduction
then are they going to understand that in that standard? We would have to add IE, but even then we still run the risk of people not >> even. >> But is there a is there something we could use in lie of IE that would more clearly convey that this is
non-negotiable >> including >> specifically? >> Yeah. >> Spell words with inflectional endings for specifically s iing e d e s e r. >> Yeah. One other thought is like the and or the or could mean something
different, right? If I say, you know, to kill a mocking bird, the bluest eye or whatever, that means something different than blank blank and blank. Just a thought. But again, with whatever you decide, but you could put this in the parking lot, but I appreciate Nicole
flagging. >> This is something that will require me to go back at some of the older standards that we've already discussed. Is this something where I would need to discuss with this entire group as I make that edit to every single standard or if we kind of reached a consensus and that would therefore be something I would be
permitted to. >> I want to uplift the two comments that were made earlier about um teachers want clarity. Um and there is a big difference between you may do this and you have to do this.
I do like the clarity of the word specifically and so I think if there is are things that are required that we are requiring them to do I think we should say specifically. I also think our
charge was to steer clear of jargon as much as possible. And so introducing IE versus EG, um I'm not sure if that really gets us to our global goal. Um and so I just want
to keep the global goal in mind of reducing jargon and clarity. And I think specifically for those things that are um intentionally meant to be taught and I'm so glad you pointed that out. I think we should just state it. >> Do we feel like we should say for
example instead of eg? If we're going to say the word specifically, do we need to say the words for example? Because that's less jargon. I mean we're it's not exactly complex jargon, but >> think we should just conquer one problem
at a time. >> Okay. To circle back on your previous question, vice chair Hillyard, I'd be okay if the, you know, committee takes a vote or, you know, decides in unanimous consent that they instruct, you know, by eg we would like all of that to be
replaced with specifically it sounds like or for IE this is what we mean by this. Like that blanket level instruction should be plenty. >> Um, and we can put it in the parking lot and we can also do some control FS because I want to be thoughtful of your capacity. >> Yeah, I I I mean I don't I don't mind doing it. It's just I don't want to do
it right now because I want to make progress with the of the standards themselves. >> I get board members can make technical nonsubstantive edits to the standards. So there will be people who look at these carefully after you all are done
and can correct those sorts of things through vote if that makes sense. I would say these are non substantive. Okay. So we're thinking specifically instead of eg specifically instead of
>> I sorry I was the one where you guys were intentional these must be taught right so I think specifically instead of I >> because to me that that's substantive that's that's an urgent that that's an urgent need for clarity there for
educators so that they understand what is meant by that terminology. >> Okay. I do want to then very very briefly and I know I don't want to go backwards instead of forwards but there was that list on K.Fl.E3 um where we had spell VC EG and CVC EG
and then we noticed that after spell V it was IE instead of EG. I want to make sure we assume that that was just an oversight. I do want to specify from them just to ensure that that's not something we're overwriting something they did intentionally. >> Yeah. So, we've had this conversation
about EG versus IE. And if I'm understanding correctly, when you were working on the standards, you were going under the assumption that EG was a non-exhaustive list and IE was a required list. Like these are things that must be taught. Um and then on K.FL.E..3.
Uh we notice that um substandard B has four different parentheses. Uh three of them use EG. One of them uses IE. We operated under the assumption that that was just a small oversight. Um but we wanted to clarify that that was
um substandard B. The only thing I might offer while you're looking at that is there are very few one one vowel words. So I think they might have been saying just a and I those are the ones that >> you can't really
>> Is that accurate? Okay. >> Would that be an example of a inventory we would use specifically? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah, I will do that after we after we depart for the day.
Okay. Um I think we're back to the encoding standard for first grade. Or did we finish with the decoding standard for first grade? Can't recall. I think we did. >> Okay.
>> First thing that jumps out in FL E3 is um because we changed the wording of the examples, FL LSC, doubling, EG, fluff, all of that. That should be changed for continuity. This one is a little bit trickier if we use the exact same language we used in
the previous standard because >> agreed >> in the midst of a of a list continues after it >> and it's encoding as opposed to decoding. >> Right? So, I'll leave it to the experts to >> I'm not sure all of that language would
necessarily need to be repeated given that we just did it in the above standard. They will be side by side on the page trying to save us about five minutes of syntax. I'm just thinking out loud. I'm not even sure that I want this to be on the
record, but I'm not saying anything bad. So, um I if these are side by side, I can see the having it written out in one and then not in the other because it's there. Um, I can also see moving the
language of the rule to the appendix or a glossery or standards guides or all of the above and changing the language completely. That would mean we'd have to go back to the other ones. So, I I see the looks on your faces, but um I think you know there are options there. But
yeah, I I understand syntactically why it would be difficult to repeat that. So, just offering some options there. I for one would prefer to just define the floss rule in the glossery and just make reference to the floss rule in the
standard itself. And then um >> I think it would be great to have all the rules defined, but that's just me. Don't think we did that. But now I'm thinking that might be a great thing for
y'all to do. right there. >> I'm talking about all the spelling rules that we teach children like the floss rule and the we would I'll get you an example. >> I think she was talking about the glossery.
>> Yeah. Well, it would be in the appendix. >> Yeah. And I I do just want to be cautious there because of the wording rule. So we try and use generalizations about language and spelling, but when we say it's a rule, then it's finite. There
always exceptions. Um, and so I think just if we stick to what's in the standards, we can clarify what's in the standards in the appendices. Adding another list, I think that's up to high quality instructional materials. Um, so
I I agree with that. That's true. My only thought about whether or not someone, not us, is going to define the rules is uh while this is being used by teachers,
uh you would be surprised how many homeschool parents are looking at our standards. Um and you know um how many people are working outside of public education looking at our standards and so I'm just wondering if it would be helpful. Um, particularly thinking of the homeschool community at this at this
moment. If these are things that we think are really important to acquiring reading skills, I think I'm going to retract what I said off the top of my head in the moment and agree with her on the high let the high quality instructional materials define the rules
as they're teaching. So, let I say take that off the table. That was just an in the moment >> sitting here brainstorming out loud. So, so what is our consensus then? I because I want to make this sure this is right on the page. Are we removing the language about defining what a floss
rule is? We're just going to simply leave the examples and and that will be sufficient. Great. That makes for a lot easier editing. on C here. So standard C we have an IE list um that is an exhaustive list of
inflectional endings. Can I clarify how we're speaking about this? Um, when we're saying it's an exhaustive list, exhaustive the intent of this committee, not exhaustive in the English language, just so yeah, we're not saying teach everything in first
grade ever, but this is what's intended by the committee for first grade. >> I should be more precise that I don't >> No, it totally understood. And you don't have to say that every time. I just want to say it. So, thanks. H has upper and lower case. I think earlier we made that uppercase.
grade instead of grade ones like we >> Yeah. >> Yes. When we're doing first grade, are we writing? Have we done the word first or have we done numeral one ST? >> I think the only one we've had to write
out is kindergarten. Is that correct? So, however we do it on this one, we just >> My instinct is the word, but I want to confir >> first grade. Is that what you're saying? Say first grade. Not not the Roman numeral because that would be an No, I
was like the the Arabic numeral. So the word first then so first Third book. Anything else for this standard? Okay. Um, and then we're on to second grade. I'm sure it will be a lot of the same things.
One thing we had put in the parking garage for later was that in the uh glossery that we were going to um that we were going to spell out the acronyms VC, CP, etc. And so I just want to make
sure that I don't also need to put in the parking garage that we need to spell out BC/CV. I think it's apparent what that means, but want to make sure for the committee. >> I would just note that it's written differently with slashes instead of
commas separating them. And that's not I don't believe that's intended to mean something different. So they should be written Well, I do think it's meant to be different because it's multi-elabic words, isn't it? Instead of um
I think the slash is meant to indicate. >> So that's I mean correct. Y >> but the the letters still mean the same thing. >> Yes. So Yep. Okay. We in substandard A we have vowel and
then hyphen E and then we have vowel R without a hyphen. Um which of those would be correct? and consonant. Um, L E. If we do the hyphen, then it there needs to be a space there as well.
>> What exactly is signified by vowel E, vowel R? Um, just that's a common syllable pattern. Just a vowel plus the letter E. A vowel plus the letter R. Okay. >> I think that it probably needs a hyphen.
>> Should it have a space before the hyphen or should it just be vowel hyphen E without a space? Like no space. That's kind of what I >> Yeah. So, >> because it seems like it's implying that >> then we need to take this space out of the other two, right? and include the
hyphen with the R. >> You have something similar on um line E with the vowel hyphen R. >> That seems to be done the way that we're we're saying we >> Okay. >> Okay. Substandard K read words with
the consonant doubling rule. question mark mine. >> What was that again? Sorry. That was Seems like it should say the >> So the propos proposed change would be to add >> the >> the word the after with
>> that. Well, I think so. when we have listed the words with on substandard C where it says read words with triple letter blends triraphs and above. Um I think we're missing the Oxford comma with triraphs
and above. I think we've used that elsewhere. Um, and then in the parentheses we have SPR hyphen, but then none of the other. I don't know if those are triple letter blends or triraphphs
or something else, but they're not. There's no hyphen afterward. I don't know what would be correct. >> So, the hyphen after SPR, it's saying that that starts at the beginning of the word, but TCH would be at the end. So
you'd want a hyphen before. Dge would be at the end. You want a hyphen before. And a could be either. It would be in the middle. So before and after. I don't know. Okay. Um, do we want to just simply not use the
hyphens then? Because if we're going to have one that doesn't have a hyphen, like that's going to like Well, I I actually don't know what is correct. Um, in a in a >> I don't know what a style guide would say about that. >> I think it's just about conveying
meaning. And so, TCH, you in the English language typically don't start a word with TCH. Do would teachers know that or do they need the dash to understand that it comes at the end? I think that's up for you all to discuss.
>> How do people feel about that? >> I would say um the SPR dash because that lets the teacher know that that's the beginning and dash. Tchd g should be a hyphen before the t and the d to let the
educator know that it's uh the ending. And then e i g h kz without a hyphen. >> Is that how we feel? >> Cool. Then I'll do it. Oh, I broke the door. stronger than me.
I think we may need we may need That's got a battery. While we're on our tech break, I think the fact that we spent most of the time doing copy edits really speaks to the quality of like the core of your work.
You know, we're not saying we think you left out something students need to learn. And I just I know this feels nitpicky, but I think it actually speaks to the big picture that the stuff that kids need to learn, it's there. I agree.
>> Hey, where are we? Uh, coach. >> Um, I think we're still looking at this uh standard. I was just letting people get the mic settled before we get into it because right now I feel like we're not really operating as a quorum. >> Don't actually close it, though.
Good job. Loud, too. I can >> I think the red indicates that the battery's getting low. I have one. Okay, just to continue with this, um, substandard D uh has a lengthy list
provided and there is a co a semicolon uh toward the end of it instead of a comma. I don't believe that is intentional, but I want to make sure that that is not. It's possible if there was intent behind that that it would be conveying um dip thongs, separating the dip thongs. I'm
not sure. You're you're looking at D. Okay. No, they're kind of mixed in. So, I don't think so. We're going to change that to EG. But we want that period by the J
and of G. Is that intentional? Substandard K needs the the before the constant doubling rule again. And then our other edits from before would apply the period after versus
and substandard Jen and grade appropriate substandard There we go. Um, in substandard J mint versus pint, putting just the period uh for versus and then substandard L hyphenate grade
appropriate. I asked for clarity on what Jay Okay. Um, Yes. >> Okay. I think this is where we need to put in a G and give more
notice to write many upper and lowercase letters in cursive. I will defer to other people there. I don't know about the the I the cursive thing always seems a little antiquated to me, but I understand that I am
probably the majority opinion there. >> That's only one person's opinion here. But uh I think if if we're going to talk about it, they're two different thing. They're both writing, but they're two distinct standards, I think.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have some person in here? >> There's language in here already about >> This is the first one, isn't it? >> It says for F here, it says, "Print legibly in manuscript. Write many upper and lowercase letters in cursive." Are you proposing uh chairman that we're
just gonna move that what's after that semicolon to a G substandard? >> Yes. >> So not adding any additional language, just moving. >> No, we're going to say write upper and lowercase letters in cursive. Not many, but just write upper and
lowercase letters in cursive as a G. >> And we want to eliminate the word many. >> Yes, that's what I would suggest. just from me looking at them as a progression. >> Yeah. The next uh in third grade it says
write all lower and uppercase cursive letters. So I think mini probably serves a purpose there. Is it? >> I didn't go that far. Thank you. But are we in agreement that that could move to a substandard Gity paragraph? It just says that they haven't mastered
it at all. They're writing some. Yeah. >> I just signed her name. I'm like, you have to be able to sign your name. That was one of the biggest inputs I received when I announced to the Rotary Club that I was going to be on this committee.
They all the real estate agents says, "Teach them to sign their name because they're having to use X's." Now, this this generation that's coming through are buying houses and they can't sign their name. Yeah.
letters, >> but I think you brought something up. That's a good idea. Can you do that at the second grade level? Can they sign their name or no? introduce the letters and curs it. And then the third grade skill is write,
read it and read. Make it a studentbased standard. Not introduces is a teacherbased. How would we write it as a student base? I like what it's in there right now. Write many upper and lower case.
>> I see no letters really change that. I mean ultimately they're going to learn by third grade. It's not like between while it is necessary to know how to sign your name. I don't think most students are going to need to be signing contracts in second grade. >> Yeah. And if many is an issue, you could
change it to introduce all letters um in cursive and then move to write all letters. He didn't like to introduce >> so maybe like be become acquainted or
um in substandard D. It says grade hyphen level appropriate. Elsewhere we've said grade appropriate. Should we consolidate that to grade appropriate? Okay. Um, are we going to spell out second grade?
>> I went ahead and added that. I'm sorry if I didn't specify that. I just thought since we had already talked about it in the other context, I want to >> Yeah, >> for the sake of time, we're just trying to expedite some of these processes when we've already reached a consensus on
analogous case. I don't see it in a >> she's on the next one. >> Okay. Do we have anything else for second grade? Okay. And we'll move to third grade. There's no difference that I'm aware of. Was there any intent? I think it's just
written two different ways. So, you can choose whichever one you think would be best. >> Is this an A? >> Where are we? >> Thanks. She's saying replace. Oh, syocation syllable patterns. Okay, we just change syllocation to syllable
>> only. What else? Where is this? >> We're not there. I don't think we're there yet. >> Yeah, we're in We're still decoding, right? >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, all right.
Do think the lettering is off though. It goes C to E to G. Is that intentional? le anything else for that decoding standard? I'm not seeing anything else. >> There's an extra period in A. >> Oh, right, right, right. Yeah, there's an extra period on A.
Okay, other than that, are we ready to move on to the next one? Okay, third grade encoding standard. Go ahead and make the the changes we've done throughout. I'm going to add the comma after EG. I'm going to change grade three to third grade. So, I'll go ahead and make those consistent changes.
>> I think one where we want to make that's the one that's 15. Yes. E. Yes. to eat like the it was the may want to we may want to do that. I
mean, well, we could do that in fifth grade. I think fifth fifth grade is the last time that they're going to have it. So, that might be something we want to add in fifth grade. Make sure By that time, if they they've been introduced to cursive, they should have
it down pat by fifth grade. And that's the last time that they're going to have that skill or that standard. So >> this is granular but previously we've said upper case and lowerase but here um in the new substandard E it's it's
written as write all lower and uppercase so it just inverted the order. I propose we switch that order back to the way we've done it elsewhere. >> Yes. I think like if they come with a word that they're not sure of like how to spell, they can use those
patterns and rules they have learned to try to apply it to be way I interpret it. >> It's basically saying use everything you've learned about language to read. Um they just list it out more specifically. So, letter sound
correspondence, sy uh syllable patterns, and then morphology, which is more meaning. Um, so when they're reading multi-yllable words, use those different things to figure out what it says. >> Is there something we could clarify that
might make it easier to read? This is substandard A has quite the parentheses. Several almost 10 lines long. We feel okay about that. It's just just talk talking about all
the rules they should have learned up until that point. By that time, I mean, third grade, they're just kind of reviewing all those. >> Okay, >> those >> we've got single quotes around T and S. Um, silent letters, single quote T. um
and single quote s. We have not done that elsewhere. I think we've just presented letters without any um quotation marks around them. So would we want to delete those single? >> Yeah, it's silent letters T and after S. >> I can be less detailed if you want me to
be. It looks like the C in CL is capitalized and it should be a lower case right under dip thong. >> You see it? >> Yes. >> The V.
>> I think that's supposed to be vowel consonant E, right? >> Oh, okay. Okay. is intentional. >> So, that one's right. Okay, gotcha. >> I'm learning. >> Put me in a third grade classroom tomorrow. on what's happen. We have another grade
level appropriate. I'm going to change that to grade appropriate third graders are probably using check. Um, how would we phrase that? That sounds great to me. I like digital resource.
Um yes I have I have done that. Yes. Um, should that say including a dictionary, thesaurus or digital resource or and digital resource? Should that they had and so Do we have anything else for the third
grade encoding standard? It might be a reasonable goal for us in the next 23 minutes to get the fourth and maybe fifth grade done for this particular standard. So, we could at least get to Okay. Okay. And I'm going to quickly say we've got a syllabocation here in the decoding
standard for four. So I'm assuming we're going to change that to syllable. Uh I'm going to oh I'm going to try this mic. Um if we since we have um included the revision the dictionary and
thesaurus or digital resource in the previous standard then um could we consider consult print or reference print or digital reference materials in C there?
>> That makes sense to me. Okay. This is the first time. Well, we do in fifth grade as well. And so they are in cursive especially Yes. Especially we do um like the schools and things like that. And so when we look at
those Yes. they're all in cursive they can't read them. So everything that's been in cursive I've had to go in and type it if I want to get or I have to read it. 30.
I'm gonna be retired by the addive and Right. I skipped it. >> It is back. Um so hooray. Um I would ask we look at the standards. Um um so do we
have anything else for um for decoding? Well, would we want to introduce credible the word credible when we get to and I I don't know when we get to introducing text evidence
or within that discussion? Well, that's uh I mean I know in fifth grade they're using text evidence. I know in some degree, you know, they're using and now we're getting into the reading standards, but uh the word credible to me denotes understanding of
credibility in all its in all its meaning. So, is that too early for that concept? >> Yeah, the term relevant. So, I don't know if we want to go along the same.
>> Well, and this is also checking for spelling um or pronunciation. And so those are going to be different reference materials that you may just assume are credible in a classroom. Whereas when you're talking about evidence, that's when you are assessing
is this really reasonable. Yeah. >> Because right here we're we're discussing strictly language spelling, right? So, we're just looking at print and digital resources as reference resources, not necessarily >> for decoding. It is in reference to
pronunciation. >> Do we have anything else for for decoding? >> Then we'll move to for encoding. Change grade four. Can we get to the K through2? If you're your background knowledge. Not not a
student understanding other standards that also included that language. So, we would need to go back and eliminate that as well if we're going to make that change. >> Someone quickly tell me levels add that to
>> three and four in grade B. Okay, Dr. St. There were a few things that they came in relatively short order. I'm not sure I got all of them.
it would just be write legibly in manuscript new standard right legibly in cursive Okay. Anything else? Nothing else. Okay. So, we've got last two for this progression. Um, decoding fifth grade and encode.
F L E3 remove the language again in substandard B understand spelling solidifies later than reading. Did we have anything else left for decoding on five since we kind of shifted to encoding? No, you're fine. I
appreciate pushing us there. Usual things for five in coding. We need to change to syllable. So, um, I taught third grade, but what I would do is, um, because it's not a tested subject, I would I waited
until after TECAP and then I taught after. So, that could be something that they use as our because there are teachers that are not going to want to teach it because especially right now, trying to get their kids fast in third grade, you
know, and I get that. Um, so that might be something that they want to do afterward. Elsewhere, we've deleted the single uh quotation marks around letters or letter groups. Um, we have silent S and I here.
We're going to delete those. a little faster. So, if anyone want I'm really trying over here. In K2, our high quality instruction materials have assessments that let us identify where students have
gaps in the trajectory of skills for foundational skills and teachers. Then it gives direction to how we teach them to close those gaps so we can identify where so we teach
them grade level too but it also gives direction on how to help close gaps as well. I'll add that speech articulation is a big part of how phonics is taught um all of the foundational skills and it's developmentally appropriate for there to
be speech um difficulties or inability to you know pronounce articulate sounds the way they're intended. So that's to be expected. It's noted in the materials especially high quality materials and that's something that you teach them in small group to make sure that they're
overcoming that. Um and if they're not overcoming that at an appropriate pace, that's when typically services are provided. So that's the intended uh sort of progression there. I believe believe we have You're looking at four. Um, that's a new
standard we have not broached yet. So, are we trying to forge into a a new standard now? We can. We have seven minutes left. Um, so entire progression. Okay. Um
okay. Yes. >> Yeah. This is No, we haven't. But that's the beginning of a new progression of standard 4. We just finished standard 3 here. Sorry, we've got floating mics. Um, let me start there. So, there was a
question earlier about the sixth grade standard related to pronouns. And I want to make sure that I understood the the question specifically. So, I had a good conversation with David Leairard, uh, assistant commissioner of assessment and accountability. My understanding of of
your question was, can we assess how well students are doing on the assessment with respect to that standard? Is that right? Yeah, I I brought forward that question because we had heard anecdotally that students were coming to the middle grades with a firm understanding of pronouns and I just wanted to see. Got it. Perfect.
>> Okay, so here's a a hopefully straightforward but slightly complicated response. Um, so the ability to assess any given standard on assessment is actually pretty difficult. Um and to do so with a high degree of confidence is a
challenge because however you know the standard could be assessed one or more times. There could be one or more items on the assessment and the degree of difficulty of those items could vary significantly too. So in one year you could have a test
question a single test question on that standard that is difficult. in another year you could have a question that is very easy simple uh and so you can't really look across years so that that poses some challenges um
so to keep the test as light and still appropriate for high stakes purposes performance has to be summarized across the blueprint I don't know if you all are familiar with the blueprint I had to educate myself um and not make it diagnostic so it's not really a question that can be answered
if that makes sense Is anybody curious to know how it is assessed? Because it is um was that >> I can talk to you. No, no, but if anybody I mean because he gave me that information as well. That would be helpful. >> An editing question.
>> Correct. Yeah. I was like y'all know this better than I do. So Okay. Thank you, Michael. I appreciate it. Um, so members, as a result, you don't have to handle it right now. Just wanted to get you an answer ASAP. I put it in your parking garage so that you have it to if you want to take action on
that at all. Um, and I did ask Miss Stalker, no, this question. Oh, Vice Chair Hillyard, maybe it was you. You asked about like sort of doing homework to catch up on the language introduction. I reached out to our legal team for advice and they wanted to just
confirm it. So, they're going to get me an answer by tomorrow and I'll follow up. >> Yeah, I was just asking the content, not even just a language introduction, but to have that time committed to just looking at introductions and glosseries and the movies >> um on the final day and if we are a little behind, I didn't know if that was
a possibility since we do that collectively rather than funneling through one person. I thought maybe that would be possible, but I don't want to obviously do anything. >> Yeah, it's a good idea. I'll get back with you if is the long and short of it. But those are my two updates. Do Yes.
I think we should probably go home and look over the rest of these for sure so that hopefully we can get these knocked out in that 45 minutes that we will have we get started on tomorrow's Change the