central time and I'd like to call this meeting of the SRC standards review committee together. And in order to do that, we'd like to have a roll call vote to make
sure we have a quorum. So, Vice Chair Hillard, will you please call the role? Yes. Uh, the appropriate response would be here or present. Uh, Miss Baird. Present Miss Dockery present
Mr. Hillyard present Miss Now present Miss Singleary present Dr. Stout present. Miss Winters, it's not present.
Uh, Chair Carus present. Uh, Chair Kaggus, you have a quorum. Well, thank you, Co. Uh, Vice Chair Hillyard. Since this meeting is uh done by video,
uh we would have to make sure that you all accept that as the minutes of the meeting and that will take another vote, but we can do that by either saying I or nay. Uh all those in favor say I.
I. I. All right, the motion passes. Now, we have some uh information to go through because of we're doing this uh online and we're going to have Brianna
Summers talk to us about that. Yeah, I can read your statement of necessity given the fact that the meeting's online. The Tennessee State Board of Education, English Language Arts Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC, called an electronic meeting at
3:30 Central today, October 7th, 2025. This meeting is called to continue proposing revisions to the ELA standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items on the committee's agenda and the fact that committee members reside across the state, it was determined that a physical quorum of
members could not be assembled in Nashville for the purposes of this meeting. As such, this meeting should be conducted electronically. Notice of this meeting was posted on the state board's website along with the agenda and instructions for accessing the meeting.
Well, thank you, Rihanna. Members and presenters, please raise your hand or say Chair Carnegus out loud in order to be recognized. Members and presenters, please turn off your microphone in front of you unless you're speaking. remind others to turn
on their microphone if they're speaking without it uh so the recording can capture all the discussion for the benefit of all Tennessans. Please avoid the overuse of jargon and acronyms where possible and we certainly have a lot of those. Let's make sure everybody
understands what we're talking about if you're listening in. We'll now proceed with our next item on the agenda. Coach Chair Hillyard, where did we leave off, please? Um, we left off with the final few remaining journalism standards for
journalism 4. We were nearly done with journalism. Um, but we had a few remaining conversations to have there. Um, and then once we're done with that, we can move on to a new elective. Um, that is on the elective tab. And then we left off on um I believe it is row 103.
Actually, maybe we had not I don't think we had finished conversation about uh row 102. I apologize. U. So, we're still on row 102. I think we left off because there was some um uncertainty about how to proceed there. Okay. Give everybody a second to just locate
that tab. So, we added something. Yeah, we were uh if I could recall we were we were having this conversation because normally for the J1 through
three standards, we had largely not had a ton of progression in the standards. It was pretty comparable. And then in this J4 standards we were introducing um language about um along with the teacher andor administration along with the teacher
andor administration. Um evaluating uh appropriate language conventions or evaluating things. Um here we were not sure whether to use the language of evaluation that we had used elsewhere and I think there was perhaps
some conversation about whether this should read along with the teacher andor administration or it should just say along with the teacher. Um so on J412 was reading along with the teacher andor administration. uh manage roles and procedures and
demonstrate knowledge of production techniques to create various media. I don't have a problem with that. Anybody have a problem with that? Hearing none, let's pass it and move on. Okay. Um the the one distinction there
and this is I'm fine with this but it's just we have been using evaluate along with along with the teacher and administration in the previous standards in J4 um rather than manage and demonstrate but I am I am fine with shifting to manage and demonstrate if we feel like that's the appropriate language. I'm just flagging that so that we
I think that's the next step uh in the progression. Well, that would not be part of the progression. This we that is the progression is moving from to evaluate at the J4 level is was our was our intentional choice with other standards to create a progression. Um
but I think we had decided in our last meeting that maybe evaluate was not appropriate here. Right. U just just was simply flagging that as we progress forward with the next few standards. And I agree. Okay. I don't hear any problems. Okay. Um, and then let me find I should
have done this prior to the meeting. I apologize. Um, the previous standard that corresponds with demonstrate knowledge of business management including advertising, distribution, our J3 version of that um reads demonstrate knowledge of
business operations including advertising, promotion, distribution, and accounting procedures. Um would we still like to include that language about along with the teacher and or administration um like we've done with previous J4 standards?
Um I don't I don't see any controversial uh items in there. That's more of a business operation. The other had to do with content. I believe we wanted to
make sure that they knew how far they could go in uh a school newspaper. Um yeah, I mean I think there's a dist an extent to which that would probably be necessary and especially accounting for like accounting procedures. Um anytime a student's dealing with anything related to money, that's
probably something they should work alongside uh teacher and administration for. Um, but I I I'm just simply trying to emulate the the language that is in the proposed standard, which doesn't I'm good with that. I'm good with that
because of what you said. Uh, sorry if I might be repeating something. My baby's being a little distracting. Um, so along with teacher, demonstrate knowledge feels weird to me.
I feel like if they're going to do something along with the teacher, it should be something above just demonstrating knowledge. Has that been discussed? Yeah. I mean, what we've used other places was uh evaluate or manage
um I mean I guess it could be manage business operations including advertising, promotion, distribution and or and accounting procedures. I think you have reached that uh perfect word. Yes. Does that sound appropriate, Miss Docker?
Say it again. I'm sorry. It was manage business operations instead of demonstrate knowledge of business operations. That sounds much better to me. Okay. Thank you for bringing that up, Annie. Yeah, let's let's make that work.
Okay. Just did All right. Um and then in our previous iteration of this standard, the J3 version, we said
identify and use multimedia elements that adhere to a style to enhance visual appeal, eg graphic design, design procedures, layout, video production. Um do we feel as though we need to make any edits to the language of that standard
to move it to the J4 level? I don't think so. Uh unless there's something about creativity, but um so the the progression that was built previously um in the J3 J4 jump was
shifting the verb of understand and utilize to the verb uh apply. Um, but I I don't know if I necessarily see a huge jump in the language of use
versus apply. Those to me seem like they are essentially identical. I agree. Anybody have anything else to add there? I think we crafted a good one that we can move up.
Okay. um we had then deleted the subsequent two standards um on the previous levels. Um are we comfortable doing the the comparable thing and removing J416 and J417 feeling as though that those are
both captured within our absolutely yes economy. If that is comfortable for everyone then we now have one remaining um journalism standard. This one is a new journalism standard. um it is not present in any of
the previous courses. So we don't really have a predecessor to work from. We'll just have to work from the proposed standard. Um and that reads, "Identify entry-level media work experiences. Research educational paths within these industries and research how careers in these industries are evaluated for job
performance." I take that back. There is a predecessor to this. I apologize. Um yeah, and we added um contest to that one. Right. Right. Right. Um are we comfortable? I Yeah. My my apologies for that. It it wasn't in J1, J2, but it was in J3. Um, our language was identify
student journalism contests and entry- level media work experiences, research educational paths within these industries, and research how careers in these industries are evaluated for job performance. Are we comfortable um maintaining that language for J4 as well?
I am. I I would assume there might be some internships they're talking about here, but uh again this this leaves the flexibility for the teacher and if they have that internship a possibility uh they could still use it under that
standard. I think yeah, I would say that entry level media work experiences would would encapsulate some extent. Um, I did have a note based on uh Cherus mentioned um for J14, we could
potentially change it to identify and use multimedia elements to create a style to enhance visual appeal if we wanted to level it up. Um, I think it's fine as it is, but if we wanted to level it up, that that could be a way to do
that. Okay, that added that. Uh I I'd like to hear from uh Dr. Stout about that. I know that you talked about creativity in this before. I like it. You like it? Yep. No objection.
Let's roll with it then. I like what you said. So So then that the expectation would then be for all journalism for students to create a a style. Okay. Do you think that's u feasible? I worry a little bit about the confines
that places on classrooms. I thought we had had the conversation that that adhering to a style allowed for the possibility of creating a style and then adhering to said style. Um I thought that was our intention with our language previously. I I'm not opposed to it and this is not my world. Um doc certainly
Dr. Stoutton knows way more about this world than I do. Um I just that's my only misgiving. Yeah, keeping it the way it is is fine with me. Well, uh, I liked it when I heard it. I still like it. Uh, because I think it's
just one more level. Uh, and, uh, I think it has some, uh, more difficulty to that and challenge. It does. I'm just not 100% certain that that is a challenge that we want to consistently apply to every single
journalism for student in the state. Um if if we feel that that is the case then then I I'll I'll fall in behind it. I just um I don't know. I I I my my intention with all the elective standards is to try to create enough range of possibility that we don't in in
accidentally put confines around how the class is instructed just because of of language that we're trying to to it. I I don't want to create in our attempt to create rigor. I don't want to place confines around the class that might otherwise cause difficulty for classroom teachers. So, let me offer another suggestion. Um,
we're looking at J14, right? Yes. Um, identify and use multimedia elements that both innovate and adhere to a style to enhance um,
visual blah blah blah. I can live. and we ask them to innovate and adhere to a style. Not necessarily innovate that style, but use these methods innovatively. Um,
is what I'm trying to communicate. I like what you're saying. I I I have I have lived through a number of uh seniors who are there just in body. Okay? And I'm not looking for fellow
travelers in journal journalism 4 that want to be there uh and and not advance themselves. So in in my opinion, I think if if we ask them to innovate, if they're going to sign up for the class, they need to know what's expected of
them. And that's my take. So Cher Kane, is that in agreement with Dr. Stout's language? It certainly is. Okay. Um, I feel more comfortable with that language. Um, how about you, Miss Dockery? I'm good with it. Yeah, I like it.
Thank you, Dr. Stout. So, the language would be It's just adding the word innovate uh multimedia elements that innovate and oh, and adhere. Okay. So, identify and use multimedia elements that innovate and adhere to a
style to enhance visual appeal. Okay. Are we comfortable with that? Okay. Yes. Um, then we are done with the journalism standards. I would propose in keeping with what we've done elsewhere,
we go take a look at the supporting language for journalism just to ensure we feel good about that supporting language. Um, there is a little bit more of it just because um, it is four separate courses. Um, it is on pages
six and seven of the uh supporting language document. I know I'm not teaching high schoolers because no comment was made on the fact that I said six and seven. [Laughter] So proud. I'm pulling it up as we speak. Thank
you, Mr. Hillyard. Can you remind me what folder that's in again? Yes, happy to. Okay, so SRC and I can put the link in the chat if that's helpful. SRC, then prep work. Prep work. Okay, perfect.
Then standards, then proposed standards, and then this is uh specifically the one for electives since we're merging them after this. and I will put that up on the screen and put it in the chat. Let's see.
Okay, chat. There we go. And y'all are experts at this point, but just a reminder, if you want to make a change to the language, please use track changes up here and just go for it. If it's a substantive edit, just give that rationale, you know, clarity for
educators, whatever it may be. And if it's just a correction, then just go for it. I'll put the comment and then oh that's visual literacy. Oh, here it is. Journalism one. And so it takes you, as Master Hillier
mentioned, a couple pages through. Okay. Do you want to walk us through piece by piece? Sure. Uh, I can do that. Um, yeah. So, journalism one with uh I believe that's yeah, Dr. Stout's proposed edits would read uh the primary
goal of any journalism program should be for students to improve communication skills through experiential learning. That would be our course description. I think we might want to pull some of the language from the other journalism courses because if you look at the other
journalism course descriptions, they say this course provides blank or this course provides blank and this course provides blank and this one just jumps straight into the primary goal of any journalism program should be to do this. Um, so maybe an additional sentence that that says what this course provides uh
might be beneficial there. Um the journalism 2 standard or uh course description for instance reads the course provides a continued exploration of skills necessary in media writing and publishing. So perhaps we could add a language uh add a sentence to this that just simply reads this
course provides an introductory exploration of skills necessary in media writing and publishing. I agree with that 100%. we have to discriminate it from just a plain generic speech class because we didn't say enough about writing I don't think in the initial uh iteration that you
talked about. I like the way you worded it. Does anybody have problems with that? hearing none. Let's accept that and move on. Um there is an additional lang uh sentence in the journalism 2 standard
that reads in addition to actively engaging communication skills students will explore ethics uh particularly uh or sorry paying close attention to plagiarism and disinformation. Um they do that at the journalism one class as
well. So are we comfortable moving that sentence up um to the journalism one course description as well? Sure. Actually, I given how close the the standards are for journalism one and two, I would think that the course description should read very similarly.
Do does everyone agree there? Yes. Okay. Um, so then I think the the additional language after that that reads, uh, journalism programs should provide students opportunities to strengthen speech,
research, grammar, interviewing, and content creation skills along with practicing production for publications, broadcast, and digital media. Um, probably should move up as well just for the sake of consistency. Yes. Yes. Okay.
Okay. Um, nothing to add. Anybody? Nope. Okay, roll. Just one second. You guys might want to go ahead and just take a look at the at journalism 2 and three as well because I'm going to need to make a few just
like because when I copied and pasted this over, it it incorporated both the track changes and the original changes. So, I just need to make a few uh edits. So, I don't want to hold everybody up while I'm doing that. No. Did Did we just finish two, three? Are we doing three, four? I do think we need to look at content
standards as well because well, I know we need to look at content standards because the one of the writing standards were aligning this to no longer exists. Um, so we'll need to take a look at that. But I just would, if possible, I would like to go ahead and and just
finish up these edits to the the first course description before we do that. Okay, Brianna, can you make it just a little larger, please? I'd be happy to. And I made a mistake and I'm so sorry. Um,
which is weird. I guess you'll have commenting access. So, this is the um cuz I was like, why are my track changes on here? Cuz first of all, I just pulled over the track changes from your predecessor. So, it says me, but it actually isn't me. It's just when I copied it over, it made me the author.
This is your review version. Who is on the right version? Annie is on the right. Miss Dockery, Lucas, Ver Hillyard, and Dr. Stout are on the correct version. I put the wrong one in the chat. That's on me. I apologize. Um, let me put
cuz basically there was a version for you to see the track changes and then there was a clean one that's so you could see what your predecessors did and then there's a clean one that assumed that you were okay with all those changes which of course you can revert. And then the version that we'll move forward with, let me know if that's unclear. But I will put the correct one
in the chat. I was like, something is not looking right. My name should not be on this. So, let me put that one up. And yes, uh, Cher Canus, I will zoom in. Thank you. Let's try that again.
So, Dr. Stout, this version is in that was the other reason why I was like, this does not feel right. Um, it's in your workday document cuz those are all the working versions of all the files. No, one more time. Hold on.
Let's see. Yeah. So, it should say four member feedback. I'm just double checking all this before I lead you astray again. There we go. Yes. Oh, thank you. I can read it.
Talking to you. Okay. Yeah. Here are all of the edits. Okay. Okay. Um, so are we ready to take a look again? Yes, please. Okay. Um, so the content standards portion for journalism 1, 2, 3, 4,
they're pretty consistent. Um, reads, "The student will understand and use oral, written, and visual communication." Uh, this elective expands on writing standards. WTTP1 through WTTP 3 and WPDW6 as well as
speaking and listening standards. Standard for this course will align with the English one 2 ELA standards. Um it the one thing we absolutely have to change here is that WPDW6 no longer exists. Um that was our
previous standard about the use of technology. um use technology including the internet to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others. That got collapsed into uh a different standard. Now um so
either we need to just simply eliminate that language or we need to uh align it to the the the standard that best aligns with that. Um, so I I thought I if you don't mind I could read you the cornerstones for the the writing the four, five, and six writing standards and we could see if those we feel like
are are necessary to include here as well. Okay. Um, writing standard four's cornerstone reads develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach. Do we feel as though that aligns with
what's happening in the in the journalism course? It's not the technology piece, but I would say it's a pretty huge part of a journalism class. I would agree. I thought I had it. Yeah. Digital. I I
tried to add them to the rest of them. Yes, you read my mind, Dr. Stout. I'm transferring any changes y'all just made over so you don't have to do them again. And I'll just Oh, did I put them on the wrong thing? I sent you the wrong thing. So, that's fully my responsibility. So, I'm mov I'm double checking that everything moved
over and this was you read my mind. So, I'm just change them and I'm gonna write who they're from. What's the number of that standard that we just added? WTP? That would be WPDW4.
Okay. So, we can add that. Take off the six, make it a four. Okay. Um, and then Um, R the writing RBPK5
cornerstone reads, "Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focused questions demonstrating new understanding of the subject under investigation." Well, that's certainly part of journalism, is it not?
Yeah, that's good reference. And then RW6 says, "Write routinely over extended time frames. time for research, reflection, and revision and shorter time frames, a single sitting uh or a day or two for a range of task purposes and audiences.
Yes. So, if that's the case, then um because that was kind of my suspicion was that all the writing standards would apply here. I think we could simply say this elective expands on the writing standards and speaking and
listening standards. Why not? Therefore, that would be all writing standards as well as all speaking and listening. Yeah, I agree. Just take off that all the W's and P's. Okay. So, now the C content standards would read, the student will understand
and utilize oral, written, digital, and visual communication. Uh, this elective expands on writing and speaking and listening standards. Standards for this course will align with the English one two ELA standards.
What does that mean? I can speak to that. I think it's mostly driven by the fact that this is a 912 course and we know that generally students who are taking journalism one would probably be in grades nine and 10 or taking English one and two. I think
the only significant scaffolding there is hopefully in journalism four. Yeah. You move on to the the 34, but of course we know, you know, a random senior might randomly take journalism one. And that's that's good, too. Yeah. And I I also we actually make that
jump to English 34 in the journalism 2 class and maintain it through journalism 2, three, and four. Um given what what was just said about the various levels at which people take these classes, I'm not 100% sure um we
should include the language about English one and two standards, especially since we've already specified writing and speaking and listening standards in the previous um I I get the intent. Um, but I worry about putting confines around English one, English two, ELA standards. Uh, given that that older students might be taking this
course or for the higher level courses that you know there's the potential possibility of of younger students taking them as well. I go along with that for that reason. Um, no, I don't want to lose anything essential. Um, so I mean we could just
simply stay say standards for this course will align with the English one through four ELA standards just to encapsulate everything. Um, which is kind of what we're already doing with writing standards and speaking and listening standards, I would think. But
if that feels too broad, then I I understand. Why is it necessary to make that statement? Um, I don't know. Isn't that an assumption? I suppose so. Um, I I I
would suppose I I just didn't want to lose something if it was necessary to have there given that this is not my world. But if we don't feel if we feel like that is that is assumed, then yeah, I think it's superfluous. Yeah, I defer to Tammy. I want to say
that this was existing language from the predecessor predecessors like the currently active standards but I could be wrong there. Um yeah it was we just maintained it. Amy, do you feel like anything would be lost by deleting it?
I don't think so. Um, they should follow good grammar and content and communication rules always when they write, but you don't always know what teacher is going to be teaching that. We're assuming it's going to be an English
teacher. It may be someone who's not doesn't have that experience. So, that's the only iffy part I'm worried about. If they send someone in there that's never really taught a grammar class. Could could we take the previous
sentence where it says this elective expands on writing standards and speaking and listening standards and just simply say this elective aligns with and expands on language standards, writing standards, reading
standards, and speaking and listening standards just to just to run the gamut there and to make it clear that we're building on the English standards. I hate to use that long of a list, but that may be what you have to do. I like that.
I think that covers it all very well. I I apologize if I'm misremembering, but in our previous meeting, I think that we had had also a discussion about the elective standards and how we had uh intentionally said in some of the
standards that they wouldn't align with um the ELA standards that or not not that they wouldn't align, but they would not completely align. And so I would think that the language where we're expanding upon the standards would be more appropriate. Okay.
Okay. So, this langu this exact this elective expands on language standards, writing standards. Uh, you said reading standards. Yeah, I was I was blanking on what the four types of standards were there for a
second. Um, and speaking and listening standards. So, this elective expands on language standards, reading standards, writing standards, and speaking and listening standards. Um, so should we specify
all of those standards for high school ELA courses or do we feel like that's understood? It's understood. It really should be when they're offered because it's listed grades 9 through 12. So, that should be understood.
Yeah. So just take off that last sentence. Okay. So this elective expands on language standards, reading standards, writing standards, and speaking and listening standards. Yes. Well said. No problems with that. Okay, let's roll.
Okay. Um the language for journalism 2 for the course description reads exactly the same as journalism one except instead of saying um provides an introductory exploration it provides a continued exploration. Um
so it's building rigor in that way or I guess the rigor is built in the class not in the in the course description but that reflects the increase. And then I presume we would want to just keep the same language for content standards that we edited and move it down to journalism 2 as well.
Yes, sir. Okay. All right. One second as I do that. All right, journalism 3. Uh, course description changes up a
little bit. Um, it says, "This course provides in-depth and hands-on work in journalism. Activities in this class should include production techniques for broadcast and publication. Students will also research and understand the work environment in journalism fields. I like that.
Um, my only concern is are is journalism one and two not hands-on. I think somewhere it says uh experiential learning. Was that a sentence or did we take that out? I think that got removed. So we I'm happy to add that back to journalism one
and two if though because I think I I see where that is useful. If I recall correctly from you all's previous conversations the biggest jump was like the doing it myself coaching my peers sort of leading the group that felt like one of the big scaffolds.
So I don't feel like hands-on is necessarily happening just at the journalism 3 level. So perhaps we could just even eliminate the the hands-on since hands-on is applying to all of these courses. Yes, the course provides I guess I would be in favor of adding it
to all instead of eliminating it to kind of I feel like you have to call to attention to what you have to call attention to and this is a practical class. Okay. Um anybody have any objection to that? Then let's add it on.
Okay. Um the language is slightly different. So if if we take a look at journalism one and two um if someone could kind of identify the place to add that language about hands-on um that would be helpful. This course provides a hands-on
introductory exploration. I I mean I just keep it simple. So hands-on comma introductory exploration. And then then with journalism 2's course description read this course provides a
hands-on comma continued exploration. Any problem with that? That phrasing sounds a little weird to me, but I'm probably just caring too much. No about small things like that. None of us have cared too much.
Right. Annie, do you have alternate language to offer here? So, you could put in the second sentence. In addition to hands-on engagement in communication skills, you could just put hands-on in the
second sentence if it feels better. So, that would say in addition to hands-on Yeah. engagement in communication skills. Okay. So either I don't care either way where it goes. I think that reads a little better
personally if others agree. Yes. Okay. I think you need in in addition to hands-on engagement in communication skills or with you need a preposition. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. So, in addition to hands-on engagement in communication skills, students will explore ethics. Okay. Okay. So, are we good with that then? Mhm. Okay. So, again, journalism 3 says, "This course provides in-depth and
hands-on work in journalism." Um, are we good with that language for the course description for journalism 3? Yep. Could we add in that language um that Miss Summers was mentioning about here like the coaching aspect? Is that
beneficial to add in there? And in journalism and coaching peers, something like that. Um, I don't I don't know what if this if this is the place. We've added it back
in there in the standards, I believe, but I don't know that we need to put it in the course description or content standards at this point. We've got it in there. Um I think
um students will also research and understand the work environment in journalism. Um I think some language about coaching peers could be useful. Um students will also
coach peers on important journalistic concepts as well as research and understand the work environment in journalism fields. Anybody have any difficulty with that?
Okay, we accept it as amended. Okay. Um and then I suppose the language we've done elsewhere. Um we'll just simply move down. Um, which I didn't do a great job of copying and pasting for journalism 2. So, I'll
need to clean up journalism 2 as well as journalism 3 there. Did not realize with track changes how clunky copy paste is. Mhm. Yes. It makes a lot of assumptions. It wants you to do it yourself every time,
which annoys me as well. Don't you know do whatever is fastest. Vice Chair Hillyard. As long as we have that rationale to look back on, I'm I'm not too impressed. Yeah, I think we've we've basically got it now. Um Okay. And then
journalism 4 reads, "This course provides students with hands-on production training in various areas of journalism. Activities in this class should include production techniques for broadcast to publications. Students will also research and understand the work environment and leadership expectations in the field of journalism.
Um so probably just bring the convers the the language down about coaching peers and important journalistic concepts. One flag that when you when you copy pasted that um it didn't carry over from journalism one your correction to align
with in favor of expands. So, in journalism two, journalism three. Yes. Thank you. I don't know that we need to carry over the coaching uh because they've been coached and they're ready to rock by the
time they get into four. It's certainly in the standards um that we've got language about coaching peers. So, that's why I would bring it over. There's also some language about that I guess shared decision- making between
um the teacher and admin as well. Yeah. And there's also talk about uh experiential learning uh or exploring uh vocational opportunities
in journalism that is not contained in there that we might want to put in there. I think that's in the course description where it says students will also research and understand the work environment and leadership expectations in the field of journalism.
It doesn't talk about vocational opportunities though. Um, okay. Then if we're going to add any language about vocational opportunities, we need to add it to three as well because that language is the same in three and four. Well,
uh, when we looked at journalism for and the objectives or the standards, there was that one standard about, um, looking. Yeah. And that was in four and not in three.
That was actually I misspoke there originally. It is in three and four. Oh, the the same standard is in both. Okay. Well, then yes, I think we need to put that in there because I think that's important. Okay. Could someone since we all have
the ability to to track changes on here, could someone potentially draft up that language or three and four if we feel like it's not captured there currently. Annie, I see you thinking. Are you writing too?
currently reading, but I'll make an attempt. Oops. understand the work environment and vocational opportunities in journalism fields. work environment and vocational opportunities I think are two different
things. Can you add that in there? Um, so how so it currently reads research and understand the work environment and vocational and vocational opportunities. Okay. So, it would read
research and understand the work environment and vocational opportunities and leadership expectations in the field of journalism. Um, I suppose we would want to say work environment, vocational opportunities and leadership expectations. Yes. Okay. I can add that to the previous standard
as well. There's some rigor. takes us out the door. Um, I've been trying to tra draft something about the the the additional role that journalism for students have in kind of
managing. Um, but I would certainly like to hear what other folks think about my language I'm using here since journalism isn't really my do domain. So, I'm probably not using the exact language that would be preferable. Um, so it students will also coach peers in important journalistic concepts, manage
production alongside their teacher and/or administration and research and understand the work environment, vocational opportunities and leadership expectations in the field of journalism. I'd say that's perfect. I see a lot of head nods, co-chair, so let's take it
as amended. Okay. And move on. Okay. Um, let me just add that language really quickly, um, to the content standards portion of the standard or the the course description, which should not
take long. Um, and then we'll be done with this one. All of journalism. So, we're ready to move on to a whole another set elective, I believe. So, yes, if we're good with those uh those edits to the
We are. Okay. What's next? I think for the sake of Dr. Stout so that she could be involved in the Bible standards conversation. I think um we can move to Bible standards next if that feels to folks. Um
what other standards are there besides the Bible? We have Bible. We have linguistics and etm or etmology and linguist linguistics. Um we have visual literacy
and that is it. So v visual literacy etmology and linguistics and let's speed through the Bible chapter and verse. Okay. Um Bible are at the bottom of this uh uh spreadsheet. They are starting on
row 173. One thing I'll draw you all's attention to is um these standards were last updated in 2009. So um your predecessors did make some significant changes mostly related to updating them and modernizing
them since they had not been looked at since 2009. They paid particularly close attention to a statute which Rachel Sup, our general counsel, you may have remembered, covered in your training and it I can pull the statute and put it
in the chat, but one of the most important things is it talks about it'll be taught in an non-devotional non-con conversion, you know, it's an academic study and obviously as an ELA elective. Tammy, please jump in. But my understanding of their approach was to, you know, treat it as a, you know, very
influential piece of literature and build off from there. So the other piece that they built in were um adding strands. You'll notice it's literature, context, and art. And I heard them speak in detail about like the Bible is literature, the Bible is art, and the
Bible in context. Tammy, what am I afraid to hear? That is what we tried to do. We tried to keep it as not that anyone would, but if they wanted to lay another um religious doctrine down on top of it,
they could almost mimic a class just following the literature standards and then the art standards and then the context. We tried, we took the whole direction to keep it as non um doctrine oriented as possible. So we really approached it as okay if this was
literature what would we teach in it and it would be literature. Yeah. And I thought they did a beautiful job. I know I totally agree with all that you normally look at the standards and look at the course then look at the course description but I thought they did a beautiful job revising the course description to sort of reflect their
their vision there. If that's helpful if folks want to see that in writing. Anybody have any problems with B11? Are you saying BL1 the BL1? I can't read that. Yeah, I I thought for the sake of just
grammar, I made some some small tweaks and I've reflected those in um I 173. I have not changed any of the content just um the original read identify, analyze, and apply knowledge of text structures, symbolism, theme, motifs, and the use of language, eg figurative language,
diction, etc. as well as additional literary elements to support and create meaning. Um, I just changed that to identify, analyze, and apply knowledge of text structures, symbolism, uh, themes, motifs, uses of language, eg figurative language, diction, and additional literary elements to support
and create meaning. Um, apply knowledge. Is that something that we've something we've used somewhere else? That phrasing, I think analyze would probably capture the idea of applying knowledge. I guess they're trying to say use, but using
what? You know, is kind of vague. So, I'm fine with just identify, analyze. I would agree if if the rest of the committee does, it it seems to be an additional step. You're you're asking them to want to
identify and analyze the content and then you're asking them to summarize or apply it to other um situations.
I don't feel especially strongly either way here. So, I I'll just follow what the the rest of the committee thinks is appropriate. I would like to keep applying and applying knowledge. So can you give me example of where they would apply the knowledge just so I can
kind of understand um what's meant by that. So not challenging I guess I'm just clinging for clarification. All right. uh in their analysis of the text, are
are they um are they looking at um the the style in which things were written? And are they then going to be asked to uh replicate that in in another way to
to write something similar u about uh current history using the that text structure. And while that may be one thing that
could happen, what we were leaning toward was that maybe you identify that the psalms are poems and then you analyze them as a poem, but they also have to be looked at at how they carry the story forward
in context where it was. That's kind of what we're looking at. Yes, it's a poem, but it also added to the story and created meaning for the whole story. That's where we were going with it, that you could analyze it as a poem or as a
proverb, but how did it add meaning to the entirety of the text and and adding meaning by applying that knowledge? Yes, sir. Then let's keep what you written.
Does anybody have a problem with keeping apply knowledge in there? Are we okay with it? If there isn't any problems, let's move on. They did a great job. Okay. Um, BL2 reads, "Analyze and
provide evidence of how point of view, perspective, and purpose shape content, meaning, and style within writing of the biblical texts. I don't have any notes on that if no one else does. We uh beat to death point of view and
perspective. Are we okay with the duplication of it there? I think it's given that we have tried to make a clear distinction between the two. I think it makes sense to reflect both of them. We reflect both of them in in the cornerstone for that standard. now.
So I think it makes sense. That is the list we give in the cornerstone for that reading standard. Now says point of view, perspective, and purpose. So this would just emulate that. It looks like a good one to me. Anybody got problems with it? All right. Next.
Okay. BL3 reads, "Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific characters, events, or ideas develop and interact within biblical texts." And that S is in. So I think wherever you have characters,
you also need figures. Um because some of these are historical figures. So I would just add both specific characters, figures, events. I would agree with that. Okay. So, analyze a complex set of ideas or spec a sequence of events and explain
how specific characters, figures, events, or ideas develop and interact within biblical texts? Yes. Um, is there a reason why we're we're putting that s in parenthesis here but not in the previous standard uh for
biblical texts? Tammy, not that I know of, but I didn't type the last version of these. I'm not unless they're talking about pulling out maybe the book two different books in the Bible of John and Mark and comparing
those. I can't imagine or like versions of the Bible, right? King maybe, maybe versions. Okay. Um, yeah, I was just flagging that because I don't, it seems every other time we say biblical texts in the standards, we just say plural texts
without any parenthetical around the s. Just lose the parenthetical. What was that? Sorry. Just lose the parenthetical because you're right. I did look everywhere else. It's just a straight S.
Yeah, just take them out. Okay. And and to that end, um I'm sorry going back to BL1, I think my initial confusion, I mean I I still agree with uh including identify, analyze, and apply knowledge, but I think my initial confusion was towards
the end of the standard um because BL2 and BL3 both include within biblical texts. And to me, um, BL1 makes more sense, um, in its entirety if we say and additional literary elements to support
and create meaning within biblical texts or throughout biblical texts, either one. I would agree. Okay. So, are you use both of those situations or do you want to choose one?
Um, either way. Yeah, I I went ahead and just threw it up. I threw in within biblical texts if that sounds all right to folks. Sounds good with me. Since we're back on BL1, I think you need to add genre from I was thinking
that in my mind and then from the explanation we were given. Um that was the explanation used. Um so text structure, genre, symbols. Okay. Okay.
Is everybody good with those changes? Hearing no objections, we move on. Okay. BL4 reads, "Explore the influence of the biblical texts in classic and contemporary drama, poetry, pros, and
other media." I have an extra L in the Lord. Oh, you're right. Thank you. Okay, move on. Is that good?
There are no objections. Let's accept it as I don't think you need the word the. Can you just say explore influences of biblical texts? Yes. So just instead of the influence, it would just read influences. Influences. I said that
the second the explore influences of the biblical text. I think you just can say biblical text or the second the in the sentence. Oh okay. So, so keep the first the B then. Yes.
Got it. Totally defer to the committee. But is media I know we've had lots of debates over like texts, media, digital tools. Does that feel consistent with what the
committee has previously decided? I'm drawing blank. Um I think we've deferred to just using texts um to encompass like a wide because it wouldn't be digital tools here. Definitely. Yeah. Yeah. I just know we had that big discussion of like and it wouldn't be multimedia components
which is the other language we've used. I think the issue here is that we keep saying biblical text and so I think they're trying to distinguish between how we have used text to cover
everything and actually the writings in the Bible. So this would be one place I would say the media makes sense even though it's breaking from what we've done before. Yeah, I agree with Dr. Stone.
Cool. agree with me. All right, we were good with that. Let's move on. Okay. Uh BL5 reads, "Demonstrate an understanding of the characters, narratives, poetry, and stories in the Bible and explore how they are used in
literature." Um, obviously we need to add the word figures to keep consistent with what we've done elsewhere. I don't understand. And why we're singling out poetry when they're like
several different genres of writing in the Bible. I guess my question, that's my question. Unless we just really want them to understand poetry, but there's law, there's history, there is poetry, um there's narrative, there's allegory.
So, Dr. S, are you are you suggesting we add other types of writing found in the in the Bible here or that we remove poetry, characters, figures? I guess I would say characters, figures,
and stories. uh characters, figures, genres, and genres in the Bible. Um what does that mean? Well, I guess I understand narrative. I guess they're trying to distinguish
between narrative and story or narrative and poetry, but I would just say you're also then excluding a lot of other genres. And if we're okay with that, that's fine. I'm just pointing that out that the Bible is made
of several different genres beyond narrative and poetry. Tammy, what did you guys do in putting this together the first time? Honestly, the very first time these standards were put together, the legislature did it did that if I'm not
mistaken. Um, I can check. I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that's what we got told. Um, did you rewrite this then? we did in this past summer
and we were looking at primarily the things that people would be able to analyze to truly analyze because when you look at the the law part of it, you can understand it, but there's really no true interpretation of it. You either
understand what the law says, this is the way the law was at the time. there's no um analytical analyzation of literature in it. There's no may or whatifs. So we tried to stick
with the things that would actually increase their ability to analyze things. So we did the narratives, we did the stories, we did the poetries, we assumed proverbs could fall under poetry. We didn't really touch the history or
the law in that standard. Yeah, I have the current active Bible standards in front of you. It does appear that there isn't. Just glancing at it briefly. Y'all are the experts. I see one section on biblical narratives. I see one section on biblical poetry.
Um, you're of course welcome to focus on poetry if you think it's of value and you're welcome to go in a different direction. Oh, sorry. No, go ahead, Miss Shakri. That's it. I was going to say I'm wondering if an EG might be beneficial here. Like have
the genres like Miss Dr. Stout mentioned and then have an EG because personally like if I had been told to teach this class, not being a Bible expert, I think some of the things that she mentioned would be helpful to me understanding
some variety of of the the genres within within the Bible. Can you suggest some wording then for us? So would it would it read demonstrate understanding of the characters, figures, genres of writing, eg and then
we would provide the list. That's my thought, but I would defer to Dr. Stout. I was just wondering if that could kind of uh make it an informative list without feeling like it has to be a comprehensive list.
What would be so the genres then would be history, art, law, but again going back what Tammy said, uh we're not asking them to do all this in this course. How far do we want them to
go in this analysis? uh do we want them to go in the other areas or is this sufficient for their knowledge to read this as a literary text? So I mean we have talked about the
importance of non-fiction literacy. So this is a text that is uh where you have non-fiction and fiction mixed together. There are some things that were just Roman law, whatever you think about them. And there are some things that are fiction that
are allegory that are meant that poetry that are meant to be fiction. Um, so here's a stab edit demonstrating understanding of biblical literature including narratives, characters,
figures, poetry, law, and historical accounts. explore how these elements are used in later literature. That's that's a stab or historical writing if you don't want to say historical.
Did you possibly throw that in the chat? Uh yeah, I'm looking I'm working on my from my other screen. Let me see if I can put that over here. Just to kind of advocate for what she's mentioning about the the u non-fiction.
Um, so a thought that came in my head was how the law uh of the ten commandments is used in the crucible and how crucial it is and that would be an example of how the law would be used in literature. So I feel like law could still be
be useful in this standard personally without and eg makes it to where they could use it or not if they don't find a good application for it themselves. If it is added, I do think it needs to be an EG because in some cases, this
class will only be one semester. So, you don't want to put so much in it that they go so swiftly through it. They don't really make connections. They don't really utilize the information. So, we don't want to make it too much.
I agree with you, Tammy. That's a great point, Tammy. Um, and yeah, good reminder to keep checking this table as we're going through folks. So, for example, creative writing is assuming that you're doing 1 through 5 and 3 through 18. So, we might want to take another look at it. That occurred to me after we did creative writing that
meeting. Currently, and this is all up for the committee's discretion, the way it's proposed currently is teach all standards at the one semester mark and teach all standards in greater depth. You could choose to go in a different direction, but I do think Tammy's scope
comment rings true here if you were to move forward with this proposal. Right. So, use of the EG would provide it uh provide more depth if it is to go to a uh year-long course. So it it would
be worthwhile including those EG elements that we talked about. Yeah. Or the inverse if it's one semester, there might not be as much to cover. Or the alternative option y'all could choose is to focus on specific strands or sections or number of
standards and really beef those up. It's just really however the committee wants to approach it. Okay. It's more similar to like this creative writing one. Yeah. I I actually wanted to have a conversation about the creative writing is now is not the time and place for that but I yeah
okay I put a stab sorry I was transferring from one computer to other I put a stab at it in the chat um fine with using the EG I do think we need to recognize that is a is a purposeful mix of fiction and non-fiction or poetry and
po and pros however we choose to articulate that um I pasted over Dr. Stout's proposal which reads, "Demonstrate an understanding of biblical literary forms including narratives, poetry, law codes, and historical writing, and explore how
they are used in literature." Um, so I guess if we were going to make that EG, we would just be simply changing including to EG, comma, and then, okay, so if we change that to an EG, it
would read, I believe, what is currently an I 177, which reads, demonstrate an understanding of biblical literary forms, eg narratives, poetry, law codes, historical writing, and explore how they are used in literature. One second.
Go ahead. I was just going to say um to get at what Dr. Stout mentioned about information theformational part, should we change it to demonstrate understanding of biblicalformational and literary forms? Would that be beneficial
and kind of um get the emphasis your asking for Dr. Stout onformational text? mixing apples and bananas there. I think it's okay as it is, but if anybody else thinks we need to add more clarity, I I can listen. Yeah, I'm fine
with that. Looks very It looks very clear and wellcrafted to me. Does anybody have any objection to what's there right now? Okay, I think you did a good job. Let's move on.
Um, we are losing language about characters here. Um, I'm I'm fine with that. Uh, especially since we talked about specific characters earlier. Yeah, standard three. But I just wanted to to throw that out there. I'm personally fine with it, but I just wanted to to
make that clear. Okay. Okay. The only thing is I think characters in the previous standard is more about the characters within the Bible whereas this standard is more about I guess illusions really.
So that's that that feels like we are losing a piece of that. I'm okay with losing it but just I guess want to make a distinction there. So do you feel like characters is captured in narratives? Like, can you have narratives without characters? To me,
they kind of go hand in hand. Agree. I'm fine with that. If Miss Dockery, are you okay? So, let's go with it. Accepted as revised.
Okay. BL6 uh reads, "Explore a genre across multiple biblical texts, exploring similarities and differences in themes, craft, form, and meaning. To me, this one seems a little bit out
of sequence." Yeah, I would say that about several of them. I noticed that as well. Yeah. So we need to switch numbers or is it necessary? We were thinking of six as being like a
capstone almost for that group. Uh that you would have to go through the different characters in the Bible itself, the genre it represented. And then if you talk let's say the and you may think differently. This is how we phrased it. If you took the flood story
and looked at in different text across history, do those similar characters appear? Do those similar themes appear? Do those similar stories appear? So, we saw this one as, okay, we've gone through everything else. Now, let's look at a story that appears in more than one
biblical text or religious text. So that may not be the way it reads though. Are we talking about six? Okay. Yeah, that that's not the way that would come across to me. When I hear when I read that, I'm thinking
uh about like looking at a particular poem structure or something here versus another place in the Bible. That's how I would read that personally. And unless you change it from biblical text to religious texts and then I might read it
more like what you are saying. Anybody else have anything to contribute to this? I guess the way I read it was um almost like a a compare and contrast different biblical references or
biblical accounts across biblical texts within across texts within the Bible. And to me, if if that were the case, then to me it would seem out of sequence because then once we understood how
those references developed, then we could explore the influence of those biblical texts in classic, literary, drama, etc. And then within literature that was the way I read it, but again is uh that that might not be the way it was
intended. BC3 reads more like um how I would interpret what Tammy was saying. Is this asking for more BL5 for more
than what we've done already? I didn't read it how Tammy said it either. I thought I was comparing like two books of poetry in the Bible, two books of laws in the Bible, two allegorories in the Bible.
Um that that's how I read it as well. And I think compare if we go down to I think you referenced line 81 181 create a comparative comparative
analysis of a biblical story or writing from a distinct culture. I think that is what she's trying to get at. Like yes, there are flood stories in
almost every sacred book, right? Yes, there's an origin story in almost every sacred text or in in almost every like um ultra forming. So I think that that's what that one says to me in 181. I
that's not what it said to me in 178. So is BL6 necessary? Is it clear? Is there another way to state this to get at what the intent is? Now something interesting. This would be
a totally different standard. But if we're going to get rid of this one, if you come back to characters and figures, you could talk about character development in the Bible. Um, you know, how David, I mean, character development is a big part of the story of the Bible,
right? Um, so that would be an interesting thing to add. That's not this um that's not the standard though. Yeah, I think that's partially captured within BL3 where it says um explain how
specific characters, events, or ideas develop and interact within biblical texts. Just that explain how specific characters develop and interact um I think would capture a lot of that. But I mean I see what you're saying. Okay. Is BL6 necessary?
I think I personally like BL6 and the way I'm reading it seems clear. Um I just don't know that I'm interpreting it the way Tammy was. Um but I like it. If you were a teacher that volunteered
to teach Bible, would you understand what this says? You would. Okay. Would it be better to use um another term instead of biblical text and then make it more clear for
what you want? What do you suggest? I kind of feel like what Tammy's talking about is captured in the BC.3. I feel like they're different, like they're distinct standards, but we could potentially beef up BC.3.
I I feel like BL6 is necessary if we're interpreting it the way that maybe we mentioned or maybe the way that I had mentioned. I'm not sure if we're having different interpretations or not at this point, but VL3 to me is just talking about
and it may be it may be that that uh preposition there, you know, analyzing uh those ideas and sequences, events and characters events and ideas developing and interacting within biblical text. It doesn't necessarily say across biblical texts. It doesn't say analyzing
similarity and differences among or between texts. It just says within texts. So do we mean do do we need a standard um that's exploring those complex ideas
etc or exploring a genre across texts exploring those similarities and differences to me we do if that's not what's intended in BL3. Okay. Does the uh language contained in BL6
uh stated clearly for uh all teachers to be able to understand and uh implement? I think the fact that we all had different interpretations means we probably need to look at the language.
An eg be good here. explore a genre aging and then give some other genres. I guess the first thing we need to do is decide what we want students to do. Do we want them to do a genre study or do we want them to
know a story and how that story transforms as you approach other historical or sacred writings? I think those are two different skills. And the question is which one do we want them to do? I think I the way I'm reading this I
think we're asking them to do both. We're asking them to explore genre in BL.6 and we're asking them to explore um uh a story across cultures in BC3.
Although I think we could maybe make BC.3 a little bit clearer. Maybe use the word story in there to make it clearer. Perhaps some language other than biblical texts might be useful um if we're trying to get them to compare
[Music] from outside of the biblical context into other religious and historical texts. um just because to me, at least in my mind, that makes me think across different books of the Bible. But if that's what was intended, then
then that's fine. Well, we've done such a great job cleaning up language here. I I hate to move away with this one because it there there's so many different interpretations about what it says.
One quick quick flag, Vice Chair Hillyard. I don't know if this captures your idea, but BA4 talks about artistic and thematic similarities and differences from important texts from a range of cultures and beliefs.
Right. So, I say that we move on and then we come back to it at the end to see if we feel like we really need it. It feels a little unclear. That's a good idea. Let's parking. It's repetitive.
Yeah, a good idea. Okay. So, we'll put that one on hold. Um, just to clarify something for my own sake, just because we're seeing the word genre in this standard that we're putting in the parking lot and then
we're also we added the word genre to BL1 in the list and identify, analyze, and apply knowledge of text structures, genres, symbols, so on. But then in BL5, we're saying biblical literary forms. Are we viewing literary forms and genres
as being different things? Um, or are we viewing those as being the same thing? Anyone? I think forms includes genres. I I'm fine with putting and demonstrate
an understanding of biblical literary forms and genres if you think it has clarity. They are two different things. Or is forms larger than genres? I think forms is larger than genre, but
that's just Stout's opinion. Most I don't I don't have a strong preference on the language. I was just trying to since we're using one lang one verbiage in BL1 and one in BL5. I was just trying to create consistency there. Um I don't I don't have a strong
preference one way or the other. Let's just leave it then. Unless we get a strong preference. Well, my my preference would be to make it consistent. That's really my preference. I don't care about whether it says genres or forms. I just or or andor forms or and genres and forms.
Just as long as it's kind of doing the same thing in both places. That's really my only What's your proposed language then? I just that it'd be the same in both places. I I don't Okay. Forms. All right. Put it in one place in what
language you want to use. Um, I was just saying that because for me, at least in our purposes, it sounded like we were using them interchangeably. Um, and Dr. Stout doesn't think they're interchangeable. So, I I I think either way is fine. If you
want to change biblical literary forms, biblical genres, it's it's fine. Like, it it says the same thing. Okay. We're going to keep keep it the way it's written. Uh, so changing literary forms to genres in five, is that acceptable to everyone?
Yes. Okay. Sorry to bog us down. Just Nope. Be consistent. Okay. Um, and then if we're going to hold BL6 in the parking garage for now, we can move it to BC1. Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. Uh, BC1. Now we're on the context strand. Um, and that reads, "Contextualize the creation of biblical texts, including their origin, artistry, and development." So, I think that's really, really difficult. I think that's too difficult
for high schoolers. So I've tried to simplify a little bit compare and contrast I put in the chat compare and contrast two or more biblical texts by understanding how historical events and cultural settings uh influence their creation literary
style and purposes. Um I just think as written that seems really really a high bar for high school. Okay, I just moved the language the doctor put in the chat over to I
179 um so that folks can see it. I like it. I think it's simpler. Are we all good with that? All right, let's let's I agree. I I agree 100% with the change. Um, can we make purposes purpose? Would
that be better? Yeah, just singular for parallel structure. Yeah. Okay. Well done. Thank you, Dr. Stout. ready to move on. BC2 reads, "Analyze continuities and
changes in the translations of biblical texts over time. Once again, I don't think we're really asking high schoolers to analyze different translations of Greek and Hebrew. Um, I think we mean
interpretations." So this is what I propose. It's in the chat. Analyze how biblical texts have been interpreted over time and how these interpretations reflect different historical periods and
purposes. Um that's that's my suggestion. I think you could also just change translations to interpretations or revisions or updates, but I think we're not really asking them to compare translations or versions.
Versions. I don't know. If you worked at Lifeway Christian Resources, you would know that they've uh have a new interpretation of the Bible or a new iteration of the Bible every 10 years.
And it's it's using uh language that is more popular yet uh explains uh what's going on in the Bible in a different way that it's just using different language. It's using modern
language. And I think that's what they were talking about here. But that's uh maybe Tammy can reveal what they had intended here. Yeah, I'm I'm tracking with you, which is why I say like revisions. Well, it's just a lot of times that when
they're published on the front of them, it says um translation. So, we were trying to make it easier for them to find it. They're wrong. I get you, but I'm just trying to think what the ease is.
I like translations and and there are people studying right now translating the Bible into uh just as we're doing uh into different words that would carry the same meaning
in our current culture and then they'll come up with another one. So translation is from language to language. stove from Greek to Hebrew, from English to French. Um, that is and
yes, there are people who study that. I don't think that's what we're asking high schoolers to do. I think we're asking them to study different revisions of an English translation. Okay, I I like that. Revisions of the English translations.
Yes. Instead of revisions, how about just versions? That's fine. In my mind, revision, I think somebody's revised it and they have, but I think versions is fine. Are we just changing the word translations to versions? Is that
Yes. So, analyze continuities and changes in the versions of biblical texts over time. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Are we okay with that as changed? All right. Let's make a note. I do really like I it's
different, but I do really like the standard that Dr. Stout created. I don't know if we want to do something with it or not, but I think that is a an interesting um and valuable thing to look at um
what her proposed language, but but I also feel like that wasn't necessarily the core of maybe what the the intention of the standard originally was. Yeah, I defer to the group on, you know, what you all want to do, but just know that you don't have to stick with the
original intention if you don't want to. Well, we already got one where I don't know what we're going to do with we can come we can come back to the chat if everybody feels fine with versions. That's fine. And then maybe maybe that's
where we put the um the one we're holding for now. I if it's all right with everyone, I'm going to throw Dr. Stout's proposed language down here in I 189 just as a holding place for it for now and then we
can come back to that language if we feel like it needs to to be added um potentially as a new standard or in lie of something else. Sure, let's do that. And let's approve this one as uh as revised translations to versions.
Okay. Okay. VC3 reads, "Create a comparative analysis of biblical texts and writings from distinct cultures from a range of geographic regions. This is the one I'm wondering if we should just
beef this up and steal some of that language about uh like theme, craft, etc. from six because I do think these are two two distinct standards. one is within and one is AC across
cultures. The one thing we need to be conscious of there is we do have strands um and this is within the context strand rather than in the literature strand which is I think it was captured in the in the BL6 standard um for literature rather than this which is meant to be
more contextual and you're welcome to move something out. I just ask that you you know reumber them and recode them appropriately. So there's, you know, no, and Tammy, please correct me, but like I there might be an even number of all. Nope,
there's not an even number of all of them. So, you know, if you wanted seven in one and five in the other and three in the last one, that's fine, too. I think we at least need to change biblical to religious. So, I don't know if it's I don't know that I've really heard
before the word biblical used in reference to other religions. What are we talking about? Are we talking about 181? Uh, yes. BC3. So, I assume they meant texts found in
the Bible. Are we talking about text beyond the Bible? From the way it's written, I agree with you. So, I assumed that they meant texts found within the Bible, within the pages of the Bible. But if that's not what they meant, then
I think you're right. Tammy way in there possibly. Yeah, we try to keep it as focused on just the Bible as possible since it is the Bible as literature. So again, it may be
it's a lot of pressure on this one on this whole standard uh strand. So we tried to keep it as much related on the Bible as we could. So what would an assignment or a lesson look like for this? Because I don't I
thought I understood it and now I'm thinking I don't understand it. So the Bible is an anthology that covers hundreds of years across a dozen or more countries.
So for me, I could compare literature in the Bible from that was written in Egypt versus literature in the Bible that was written in Rome. Yeah, I'm I'm reading this as
uh are we talking about comparing texts in the Bible to the the writings of Joseph Smith in the Mormon religion and the writings of Confucish in China.
Okay, we were looking at if you take a story from the Bible and the dates that it's been given as being written and finding something from that culture that was written around the same time and seeing if there are any similarities between it, not from another culture,
but from the culture that B that Bible story was supposed to have came from. And that's actually beyond a lot of my depth of knowing exactly when each story was written. Yeah. So, would this relate back to Dr. Stout's point about like law codes? So,
you like see a story in which law like Roman laws impacted a biblical story and read as best as you could to triangulate go back and check some kind of record with it and see how close they were being accurate. So would it be something
along the lines of create a comparative analysis of a biblical text and of a biblical text and writings from the culture? Could we say authentic writings? So you would say writings from the same
culture and time period and other writings from the same culture and time period. I think is what you're trying to say. But then you also have the different geographic regions. So I
So do you want them to compare something from the same culture and time period within that region and something from the same culture and time period be outside of that region? something from the same time period outside of that region.
My intent and when we first started like it was mine and two or three other committee members were looking at um the laws and comparing them to the actual laws that we have records of. We had a couple other people who said, "Well, then let's compare them to the laws in
other areas." I don't know if that's really doable. Um, but that is the intent is to take this the story we read, look at the laws that were actually appropo at the time and
then to look at other cultures and see if they were had the same laws. I don't know if that's really feasible. Not necessarily comparing writings. Yeah. Um, committee members, I think
Timmy's doing a great job sort of recalling everything. I would just encourage you to go back to Dr. Stout's question of like what do you want students to do? If you want students to compare historical to biblical, great. If you want them if you think it's a good use of their time to compare across regions that Dr. Sto spoke to of like
Egypt versus, you know, what is now Israel, great. Like you you'll do what you think is best and just reor reorganize or reidentify as needed between literature, context, and art. The main thing is really to have it
clear. Yes. And I'm not sure it is now. No. Then I think the the open question is what do what do we want this standard to ask students to do? We've had about four different interpretations of what it could possibly mean, but what what is
the interpretation we feel is most useful? To me, we this is one step up from what we're asking students to do in BC1 because BC1 we're reading and here to me
we're writing creating a comparative analysis especially with the suggested language which with some finagling could almost mirror what we've said in BC1. Does that make sense?
[Music] So is that what we want students to do? Is the primary goal for them to create a comparative analysis? Do we want them to write a comparative analysis? I think so. So here's what I have.
um create a comparative analysis between a biblical text and a text from a different culture within the same time period. We're excluding any reference to
geographic regions. Correct. Well, I said a different culture, so you can say from a different geographic region. Not necessary. No, I was just asking the question. I was good with your language. I'm just saying that I I think from a different geographic
region is fine. I think you're going to land the same place. basically um create a comparative analysis between a biblical text and a text from a different geographic culture within the same time period. I do think you need to
limit those both to the same time period because if you're saying look at different regions and different time periods and it's you know you can just pull anything I I would say other geographic reason or culture. I don't care which one we say,
but I I don't see the need to include both. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think geographic region is fine because that takes you outside of the Mediterranean. Basically, the Bible covers the Mediterranean basically. So, that takes you outside of the Mediterranean. Um, I'm wondering if culture might open
up more opportunities though because you could even maybe take a similar geographic region but a different culture within that geographic region. Um, I don't I feel like culture makes it a little bit broader. Um,
but I'm not I'm not in uh divinity school right now, so maybe one or the other would be more applicable to the Bible. I just like the openness of culture. I agree. I only brought up geographic region because it wasn't mentioned and I'm good
with leaving geographic region out. I like culture. Dr. out. Does what I have in I 81 there reflect your proposal. Think so. I think that's clear. What do you guys think? I agree.
Yes. Yeah. All right. Then let's keep it and move on. Okay. uh BC4 uh analyze one or more biblical traditions and its influences
on we say sorry since this is a comparative analysis compare create a comparative analysis between a biblical text and a text on the same subject from
another culture or is that understood? I don't think it's understood. I think that's clear. And a text on the same subject from another culture. I like that better. Okay, I added that.
Yeah, very clear. Okay, so are we good to do BC4? Yes. Um, based off of how hard I found it to read this one, we might want to do something with all the parenthetical S's. Um, but maybe that was just my reading. I analyze one or more biblical traditions and its influences on
contemporary cultures. The first thing I'm going to flag is instead of saying biblical traditions, and this comes up a few times, traditions found in the Bible, um because the Bible wasn't inventing
traditions, it was capturing the traditions of the day. True. Okay. Um, am I wrong here? And and I'll defer to other folks. Um, I think this is especially a misbeared question. Um, if
that there should be there, I think generally when you do a parenthetical s, you're you move forward with the assumption that grammatically it will function like a plural. Okay. So, it would be analyze one or more traditions found in the Bible and their
influences on contemporary cultures. Yes. Well said. Keep it. So, are we good on BC4 then? Yeah. Let's proceed. So, we got Dr. Stout till she has to go teach.
Okay. Um BC5 reads, "Use appropriate research skills or using appropriate research skills. Identify, source, and utilize different forms of evidence, including primary and secondary sources, uh to investigate and explain biblical
traditions and their influences. Anybody want to make some changes? I don't like source in there. We can we just say identify and use. I think that is better. Biblical traditions the same um
revisions we made on the previous one. Okay. I always ask would you say using inappropriate research skills Good. I suppose the effective I suppose the same argument could be made.
It can stay. I always just have to read it twice. Um, I also wonder about this parent this parenthesis with including primary and secondary sources. We've generally tried to avoid parentheses with including primary and
and secondary s or including language because we've wanted to use either eg or specifically. Um, do we feel like we should switch this to either an eg or a specifically? And if so, which one should it be? My thought would be this would be a
specifically situation. I agree. Are we going to keep appropriate or take it out? You can keep it. Okay. Okay. So, it reads, "Using appropriate research skills, identify
and use different forms of evidence, specifically primary and secondary sources to investigate and explain traditions found in the Bible and their influences." Any questions, additions, corrections? All right, let's move.
Okay. Um, BC6 reads, "Identify diverse interpretations of biblical texts and compare the responses they elicit. semicolon illustrate diverse interpretations of several prosaic and poetic biblical texts.
I don't understand the responses they elicit part and I feel like this is what we did with analyze continuities and changes in
versions of biblical texts over time. that feels very similar. If I'm reading this correctly, I think the distinction would be that those were meant to reflect different versions of the Bible and this is meant to reflect different interpretations that people
make of the Bible over the course of time. I guess like text on the Bible rather tech rather than texts in the Bible, but I could be wrong there. Anybody else have any thoughts on that?
So, if that's the case, then are we are we identifying those interpretations and comparing the responses they elicit in in other writing? I'm just confused about where we're supposed to find those responses or what
they're supposed to be. So, is this where we come to the one that's on the parking lot at the bottom? Analyze. This is um line 189. Analyze how biblical texts have been interpreted over time and how these interpretations reflect different historical periods and
purposes. Is that what this is saying or is that in the ballpark? That seems like it to me. Yeah. Yes. Also, the illustrate word there. Are we What's meant by illustrate? Are they Are they literally illustrating?
I wish they were. That'd be fun. Dream big, you know. the book of Kels. Okay. So, do do we want to take the language that Dr. Stout wrote for the previous standard and use it as the revised standard here or do we want to
work from the proposed standard? I think so. Uh do is there any objection to that? All right, let's put that in there. Okay, it's in I 184 right now. analyze how biblical texts have been interpreted
over time and how these interpretations reflect different historical periods and purposes. That seems to be appropriate within the context strand. I would say yes, that sounds that sounds to me like a clear just a description of what we're doing here.
It does. Okay. If there's no objections, then let's move on. Okay. Um we have the last remaining strand for Bible which is art. BA1 reads
analyze the artistic presentation of the biblical text through music, theater, the visual arts and writing from various culture and historical perspectives cult from various cultural and historical perspectives. I think you've changed through to in
analyze the artistic presentation of the biblical of biblical text in I don't think you need of the biblical text. So analyze the artistic presentations. So hold on it's a lot of extra words.
analyze artistic presentations plural of biblical texts in music, theater, visual arts. You don't need the why wouldn't you just say literatur
literature from various cultures. Oh, from various cultural and historical perspectives. Yeah, well said. I like those present. I like that. Anybody have any objections to that?
I don't know if she said this, but Oh, it's there. Texts. Okay, good. Text is plural. All right, so we're ready to move on. The only question, Dr. Stout, your your recommendation was to change writing to literature. Did I hear that correctly?
Um, yes. I'm I'm open to changing it back. Yeah. No, I I'm not I wasn't proposing that change. I was just trying to make sure I captured everything that you I think it's more precise. I like what you said. Okay. Okay. Um if we're good with that, then we can move to BA2,
please. Um which reads, "I interpret ideas, subject matter, symbols, and themes found in music, theater, the visual arts, thought, and writing derived from the biblical text. Is there a better word for thought? That
feels odd to me. Philosophy. I don't know. Thought just feels weird. How is it different than the standard above? So I think and it's I that's a great question. I think one is trying to cover
art and the other one is trying to cover philosophy and ideas but I don't know why art is thrown in there and music is thrown in there again. Um, I would just kind of make those two distinct standards with one covering art
and one coming covering the development of ideas. And I I would agree with that. My my interpretation of it um and I I could be very wrong. This is just how I would have interpreted it if I were a classroom teacher is that BA1
is about like onetoone depictions of biblical texts. like this is the story of Noah's arc depicted on screen or depicted in musical theater whereas BA2 is more uh like elusive like like I am
writing a text in which I use a symbol from the biblical text in my own writing that is not inherently biblical. I'm I'm alluding to those ideas, interpreting those ideas, subject matters, uh symbols, and themes rather than just simply creating a artistic
representation of the text itself. Um, but that could be a that could be totally off base. refer to Tammy here, but I do remember conversations about how, and you all know this well, like sometimes if a student is not familiar with the biblical tradition and they're reading a book like The Crucible that
requires them to or that they would better understand the Crucible if they better understood the biblical tradition. My understanding was that was one of the goals of this course. So, your interpretation sounds right to me, Vice Chair Hillier. Yes. One is more the direct and two is
more this is how we see it and this is how we're going to expand on it. So yeah, one is analyze, two is interpret. That's what we were thinking. Uh I would agree and um that verb there I think is key derived from
the biblical text or biblical texts. That's why it when we revise it. Okay. So, do we want to make any more changes than are presented there in that cell?
Um, I I'm welcome to to hear other ideas here. I would say instead of subject matter, I would say subjects because that's just it maintains the parallel structure and I think it kind of sounds a little more concise than subject matter. Just subjects.
Yes. So then with the standard read interpret ideas, subjects, symbols, and themes found in music, theater, visual arts, thought and writing. I don't know about thought. I don't know why thought is there.
Philosophy. I like I like what uh Annie said using philosophy. Okay. And then we would I assume change writing to literature to reflect what we did in the previous standard. Yes. The progression still though I mean if
we're going to mirror what we did in BA1, it to me it seems out of place to include philosophy in there. So we would just eliminate the word thought
to to me it would make sense to because philosophy is expressed through writing typically. So it seems a little redundant but if we if we need to specify philosophy that's fine. I just don't know that we do. We could just
change literature to writing in BA1 and then just have writing encapsulate thought and writing in in BA2 if just so we could keep the list the same. Oh, the only reason why I like philosophy or ideas or thoughts is
because I don't think this is just about writing. I think it's about mythmaking. um and how origin stories, national origin stories, mythmakings, their their roots. And so I do actually think it's
about ideas, I don't know how you communicate that to a high schooler. Um, so when you talk about the myths that made America, the virgin land, um, you know, and some of those different things, the nation on a hill, I know we're going back to Rome, but I
think it's about mythmaking is what this is pointing to, and how those ideas, some of them have biblical roots. So, is ideas a better word than thought and philosophy? Yeah, I don't. Yeah. I mean, and I think
you have ideas there. So, I don't know. Okay. I see. I need it repeated it. Okay. All right. Because ideas and thought to me are very simil. Sure. All right. So, we can eliminate that thought. So if
we're all okay with the way it's represented in that cell, we can move on. Any any suggestions? So does the list then read musical the music, theater, visual arts, and literature? Is that what we're settling on for that second list?
Yes, I see heads being nodded. So would literature include historical documents? is the constitution literature. This is why I would just say writing rather than literature for both of these last two because then that kind of is
more inclusive, but I don't that's not I don't know. I don't know exactly. Any suggestions? Are we good to keep writing then on both of them? So would I be changing literature to writing because that's not what it reads
currently. Yes, you would be changing literature to writing in BA1 and BA2. Are we all okay with those revisions? All right, then let's move on. Okay. Uh, BA3 reads, "Create a response
to biblical texts through a variety of methods such as music, theater, the visual arts, and writing." Um, we have been using eg instead of such as. Is this should we put music, theater, visual arts, and writing in as an eg here or do we feel
like it is important enough it should be within the language of the standard? I think EG is good. We have not done many such ases, have we? No, we have not. Okay, let's put EG in there. Also, do you need creator response? Can
you just say respond to biblical text? It's just a question. Well, I like the I like the act of creation. Okay, that's fine. To the next level. Yeah. Create a response to biblical text through a variety of methods. Eg. music,
theater. We had said visual arts, not the visual arts, writing. Okay. Any changes? Speak now or forever. Hold your peace. All right. On to the last one. Well, we do have to go back to the BL6,
so not quite. But last new one. Um, BA4, explore ways that biblical texts build on the artistic styles and conventions of their contemporary texts, um, as well as ways that they provide artistic innovation, explore artistic
and thematic similarities and differences of important texts from a range of cultures and beliefs. I just don't see what this adds that we haven't already asked them to do. I agree. I think it's redundant
and and and um in terms of its difficulty exploring really doesn't mean much. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think the only way if you and I feel like the problem with this standard as currently written is it's a little it's a it's a lot. It's
got a lot going on. Um, if you interpret what comes after the semicolon as comparing and contrasting major religious texts from multiple different faiths, which I said, which it sounds like we had tried to avoid, right? If that's what it was doing, then that
seems new to me. Um, but if that's not what's intended here, then yes, I would agree with Dr. Stout and Sheriff Carnegus to say that this seems largely reflected in other standards. Yeah. Just to clarify on the Tennessee statute, the three things that
they contemplate in the law is, and it's in the link that I sent you. I'll just read it. Um, the course provided in this section shall be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students.
Not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of the Bible or texts from religious from other religious or cultural traditions and not disparage or encourage a commitment to a particular set of
religious beliefs. So I think just to reiterate too, not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of texts from other religions or cultural traditions. I think that the thing they're guiding away from is
doctrine and sectarian interpretation. I think we I think we've covered it already and I would I would suggest we just eliminate it. Does anybody have problems with that? Okay, I see a head shaking. Uh, if we
want to eliminate it, then let's move on and let's go to that six that's in the parking lot. So, is that a final decision here is to remove BA4? Yes. Okay. All right. Um, then if we're going to go
back to BL6, um, just reminder, this is in the literature strand. So, it's interested in the in the Bible as a work of literature rather than its context or as its manifests in other forms of art. Um, and the language of the standard read, explore a genre across multiple biblical texts, exploring similarities
and differences in themes, craft, form, and meaning. What if we just change the word genre to story? That sure would be clear. And once I I think yes, there are multiple versions of stories of the same
story found in the Bible. I've been doing research on the enunciation or the passion, right? So there are multiple versions of that same story. But do you mean within the Bible or beyond the Bible? I guess that's my only
question. I do think there is value in studying m multiple versions of the announcement of the coming of Jesus. The version that is told from Mary's perspective versus the version that's told from Joseph's perspective. Like it's literally told
from two different perspectives. I think there's value in studying those stories from multiple perspective within the Bible. Um, one crucifixion story has Jesus' mother there at the cross. The other one does not.
So, I think that's valuable for students to see. But is that what you mean? Within the text or beyond the text? I was thinking within for that interpretation of the standard, but I do like substituting story for
genre because it it it would fit into what Dr. Stout was saying. Just could we say to to parallel what we've said in other standards, we've included characters and figures. So, could we say
stories or accounts? Oh, I like that. That works. I think that's better actually. Stories. Would it be stories or accounts? Stories and accounts or stories and/or accounts?
So, I would just make it singular. Explore a story or account. Okay. I mean, we already asked them to do so much. Like, you just have to do one. So, explore a story or account across multiple biblical texts. I think
similarities and differences in theme, craft, form, I would say purpose and meaning because that's often why the stories are written from different perspective because it's for a different purpose. Yes, I agree with that. So theme, craft, form, purpose
or meaning or was what was the language there? Sorry. I think you can say do we want to and or here? I I would say so. Yeah. Purpose and or meaning. So, explore a story or account across multiple biblical texts, exploring
similarities and differences in theme, craft, form, purpose, and or meaning. Now, Dr. Stout, if you don't leave, is your class going to leave? Oh, well, I'm not teaching. I'm I'm a student. Oh, okay. Well, you're missing a lot of
missing class to be here. Capture this on record. I'll write you a note for divinity school to revise biblical standards. I'm going to send this to my dean. I'll write you a note. Thank you for hanging in there with us. I believe we have revised all the
biblical standards. So, I know we got to do some other stuff with the Bible before we move on completely, but I think that uh I'd like to declare a supper break now uh of uh 20 minutes,
which would put us back in session at uh 6:05. Is everybody okay with that? All right, time to eat and we'll see you at 6:05. Thanks. So,
Annie, are you back around? How about you, Britney? Well, we still don't have a quorum, so we can't deliberate. But I know Coach Hillard, you've been busy plotting the next step.
It helps if I unmute myself. Um, the next step will be to look at the supporting language for the Bible standard. Okay. And uh Dr. Stout, you're playing hookie. Dr. Stout, I think you're muted. Can I go back to one thing? It's very
little. Once we changed that uh standard about genre, the one that we skipped and came back up to, I realized I didn't understand the word craft and I don't know if it made sense in there. And I was wondering if we could switch craft with um perspective.
So that is 178. So it says, "Explore a story or account across multiple biblical texts exploring similarities and differences in theme, craft, form, purpose, andor meaning." I don't think we've used craft before, and I'm wondering if we could just switch
that out for perspective, which seems like it fits better with that genre, with that standard, with that revised standard, excuse me. Tammy, what did you mean by craft? Let me look at the standard one more time. Typically, it means the the methods they
used, but let me make sure I read it correctly. Whether it's the rider or got too many things open. While while she's doing that, I just would like to propose that we move that
standard to be the new B L 4 and move down BL4 and BL5 to be talked about. Yeah, craft is going to be the the methods they use, the the skill and
techniques they use to actually get their point across. Does that uh further explain for you Dr. Stout or do you see the necessity to make the change that you had proposed? I still think making a change would
help. Um because I think perspective is important given the way we've rewritten it and I don't think we've really talked about craft before in other standards like I don't see the sequence leading up
to that. I'm okay with making the change. Is there anybody that objects to making the change as proposed? If not, we'll accept that and we'll now go back to the supporting language. And then I just want to say really
quickly, uh, Miss Now, I did I make those edits to the the numbering correctly where our former four and five become five and six and our former six becomes four. Yes. If the if the committee agrees that
that progression flows a little bit better, I agree. Thank you for watching that closely. Okay. Um if if so then we're we're good to go to the supporting language. Yes. Um the supporting language for Bible is
at the very end of the document. So you just have to go to the last course description in the document and you will find it there. Yes. Thank you, Vice Hillyard. I also just want to one more time reiterate that currently if this course is taught
on a semester basis it's teaching all of the standards and if it's being taught across a whole year it's all of the standards in greater depth and or teach more than one religious text and that's at the full discretion of the committee if I'm remembering correctly we do need
to offer a half credit and a credit level I can double check the statute and confirm with Rachel super general counsel but in terms of like the scope and this like this language is all on the I'm concerned about the word religious
as it relates to the state law. Uh I I think we're treading on some um sacred ground there. Yeah, I'm happy to bring in Rachel. Um I'll give her a call. She's on standby
with any questions. I can get her on this call. Maybe if we want to circle back to this and everyone sort of marinate in the words of Machery on this row. Um, that would be a good idea. Okay.
I think we're going to have to look at this table just in general because we're we're definitely going to need to take a look at what they've done with creative writing. Um, I I because I have I have my issues with that. Um, and then some of this language. I think some consistency about what creates a half
credit and what creates a full credit across these different courses that have some anal analogous elements would would be worthwhile. So whenever we do decide to tackle this table, I think we should just tackle it in its entirety. That's good with me. I have it on the parking garage. Okay.
Okay. So, what can we work on now? Well, if we're going to put that conversation in the parking garage, then we can just go down the supporting language and take a look at it. Um the course description reads, "The purpose of this course is to enable students to acquire a literary
understanding of the Bible. The course will include the study of the Bible as literature in its sociological, artistic, and cultural contexts and its impact on later cultures, societies, and texts. As stated in TCA4961026, this course is to be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with
no attempt made to indoctrinate students. instead allowing them to explore the literary elements of comp of a complex text. Also, as noted in TCA 4961026, this uh the course may include the impact of the Bible on literature, art,
music, culture, and politics. So, that is the course description. Pretty well says it. I think I don't see any need to make any changes. Does anybody else? It comes in under the purview of the law. So,
okay. And then the content standards language reads, "A study in biblical texts expands on reading standards and writing standards. The structure, organization, and progression of this course may be used in example as an example of how additional elective courses could be developed that focus on
other religious texts as literature. that last sentence seems to be kind of relevant to our conversation that we were having elsewhere the table on right um so just
I think one worth worthy of some conversation um regardless of how we come down. So, we may have to parking lot that until we define the word religious as it relates to the law. Okay.
I'm okay with that if other members of the committee are okay with that. Okay. All right. Let's wait till she our consultant gets on. Okay. So, otherwise, are we okay with the supporting language? Mhm.
Okay. If so, then we now have, I believe, two electives remaining. Great. Let's move on. We're going to make it. We've got visual literacy and we've got etmology and linguistics. Uh, literacy
shows up first in the spreadsheet. So, my recommendation was would be that we take on visual literacy. I agree. Um, that is on row 128 of the spreadsheet. Um, and then I'll I'll pull up the course description for visual literacy
since I think this is a course that does tend to confuse some folks. Also, somewhat of a rare elective. Um, the goal of this course is to interpret visual media and to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of various types. Visual forms of media can include film, print, photography, stage
productions, short videos, and graphic design. Students will improve their ability to understand messages conveyed visually. Uh throughout the course, students will examine and analyze the effect of various forms of media in order to broaden their cultural literacy.
Um so in a lot of classrooms, I think this manifests largely as a film course. Um but obviously it's it's meant to be more encompassing than that. Do we see any need for changes in what's been written? Yeah, I wasn't really reading the course
description so we can go. We tend to do that after we've edited the standards. I was just saying that so that people would have some context on what the course is. Okay. Hey, Brianna. Brianna, can you put the cells up? Sorry, Cheras. I'm coordinating with Rachel Super General Counsel. What would
be helpful? The just the switch back over to the spreadsheet. Oh, happy to. Okay. What part? Row 128. Thank you. Um, and just as a quick update, Rachel is going to review everything and then
she'll join us when she has a guidance to share with you from a legal perspective. Okay. Spoken like a true attorney. Oh, definitely not an attorney. Sher can I guess just I have a great attorney on the phone who
would love to help. All right. Are we ready to do some visual literacy standards? Mhm. Okay. Um there are 21 of them. So there are slightly more standards on this than some of the other electives. Um VL1 reads, "Identify questions raised
by the visual text. Any edits proposed there? Hearing none, it sounds like there's uh general acceptance. Let's move on. Okay. Um, VL2 reads, "Re, use research skills to find answers to questions
raised by the visual text. No revisions recommended. Dr. Now, uh, I just I How do you accomplish that standard? using research skills. I'm looking to see I because I seem to
recall analogous standards in like mythology and uh genre literature. So I'm curious to see how those are worded.
Dr. S put in the chat appropriate research skills. Okay. So, that would that would read would it just be use appropriate read? Oh, that's a joke. You could tell we're getting near the
end. The original standard said advanced research strategy. So, you know, why advanced at this point in time? Why are why are the kids in this class able to use advanced research skills as
opposed to any other class? I guess I'm also wondering why we just have to use research skills to answer questions. Because I guess when I'm thinking of questions raised by a visual text, I'm not thinking of factual questions and certainly I know research can be used to answer
non-factual questions but I I think in a in a visual literacy course where students are interpreting visual texts I what I would want them to do would be to attempt to to ponder or think about what the
answers may be to the questions posed by the visual text rather than just seeking out the answers others have provided. um ponder. And then what else? What will they do to react after they ponder and I think that may be addressed in the
next standard. This one, the notes I've got seems to be focused on the image itself, what it might refer to. And all of these do not have to the way we took this. All of these standards would will not and probably should not be addressed with
every image. So I guess that was what I suppose that was where my confusion li I mean if we're if we're looking at a political cartoon from historical time period then I could see where using research skills would be appropriate. So um
so then should we say when applicable? Yes. Or when appropriate? When appropriate. After research skills. Um I'm wondering because I just I do see
what you're saying, Mr. Hillyard. um could be be like use a variety of skills and then maybe give an eg research discussion writing uh to find answers to questions raised
by the visual text. That's just an idea. Um I don't know if that's useful or not. Also, I feel like maybe V1 and V2 could be combined regardless. Well, I don't know. I guess I guess maybe the way V2 is written it
would limit Never mind. I just wonder if the original intent was to focus on uh them using research skills and uh in other words adding some rigor to this
course. I suppose the using research seems out of place then in the progression. So then and almost if we're going to I I because I again somebody help me interpret it differently if if there is a different interpretation but I just
can't imagine using research skills outside of any other context other than trying to investigate the social andor political or the the the impact historical impact of the piece at the time. So VL5 might be a good place to
combine those research skills when appropriate. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's to me like you're using research in a couple different ways probably in this context. You're using it to provide some historical context, but you're also using it to
find like what are the common interpretations or how do people feel about this text? What are how do people read this particular visual text? Um, but those feel like a lot to encapsulate within just one standard. And I certainly don't think the wording of the standard as written captures that. It
seems like much more of a onetoone process. And I would think that the act of reflecting would occur prior to researching so that I would uh move
uh VL5 up to the place we're in VL2. Should we just make the research standard more broad like we do in our regular ELA standards? Uh uh how would you state it then? Um I don't have our others but I think it's like something like conduct short
as well as extended research projects something like I can't remember exactly off the top of my head but looks like someone quick glance through this these standards for visual literacy and see if any of them reflect research other than this particular standard. I I was
already looking at them. Um to me, not not really. Yeah. Then I think it needs to be a a broader research standard because we don't just want to use research in this very narrow context of identify some
questions being asked by the text, then go research how those questions. That feels like it's narrowing research quite a bit. Here is the what I think you were referring
to, Miss Dockery, from writing RBPK5. Let me see what y'all revised it to if anything. Here's the revision, but I'm happy to flip back. Just tell me when you're ready. I can also put them side by side if
helpful. I think the research here is slightly different because it's within a particular context where this is really just the expectation that they will do research um more broadly. So I think we'll probably just need to craft our
own language about research for visual literacy as a course. But I'm happy to hear other takes. I I mean unless they have inherent background knowledge. I just don't know. I mean to me it seems like an
appropriate place to put research skills when you reflect in VL5 because they're just not going to understand the political and social and historical impacts of a piece otherwise. Then do we want to edit VL5 and then see if we still feel that VL2 needs to
exist? Makes sense. Let's do that. Okay. Then VL5 reads, "Reflect on the personal, social, and/or political impact of the visual text." Um,
yeah, go ahead, Miss Um, use use uh research skills when appropriate to analyze I don't necessarily love reflect. analyze the personal, social,
and/or polit I I don't live personal either. Um, historical, social, and or political impact of the visual text, social, cultural. What does the committee think?
I don't want to limit it to just something historical. I know it's broader than that. Okay. So would it use research skills when appropriate to analyze the historical, social, and/or political impacts of the visual text? Is that
Yes, that says it right there. One thing I'm wondering if it might be useful to add, the correct word is not coming to me, but so hopefully somebody else will have a good word. um like the the motivation or inspiration for the text because so often there's there's
something going on in the world that led the artist to create this piece. I'm wondering if we put a or in there. Um but I can't figure out the right word and AP Lang. I like the two lang teachers both.
Um, but I don't know if we want to really use the word accident in this particular context. Say that word again. Exodence. Exogence. Oh, okay. I know that one. Okay. I mean, that might be put it in there and then throw it in the glossery situation if that's, you know, the best word for it.
Put it in there. We got to put in the Bible standards because we say it in in biblical history, too. Yeah, I say we stay away from exigence as much as I have to spend days teaching it to my my AP students. So, I don't know if I want to just hope that a glossery will do that work.
No, these aren't AP level students that are taking this course. Not necessarily. I like that's why I thought maybe we should include historical, social, cultural, andor political impacts. Okay.
So, I think she's saying origin and impacts agree. Okay. Origins or impacts. Research skills. Use research skills when appropriate to analyze the historical, social, cultural, and/or
political origins or impacts of the visual text. Oh, that's beautiful. It sounds rigorous. We all okay with that? Okay, let's move on. Are you good, Miss Dockery? You look
like you're still pondering. I don't know. Oh, I don't know if origins I I know in the context, but I don't know if I read origins outside of having my thought if I would know what that
meant. Inspiration. Inspiration or impacts of the text. Yeah. I feel like exigence is the word I'm going for honestly, but um but I think they're right in that that's kind of
something that's probably a little little much for this level. I would consider like inspirations to be a pretty close uh synonym to to exigence in most instances. You want to substitute the word
inspiration. The origin just indicates to me h how it all began and where it's going. origins and impacts. There's also purpose, which doesn't talk about how it starts, but it does talk about what it's
responding to. So, you can say purpose or impact of the text. I I'm good with that. Now we have three foils to vote on. I have no qualms with I think my preference would probably be either
Origins or uh Inspirations. Um I think I my my top choice would be Origins. Um because inspir like with inspiration I'm thinking of like this thing directly like there was a a a
explicit process in the creator's mind that they were taking inspiration from this thing and using it to create their work whereas origins I feel like is kind of this work is in responding to a certain cultural millia um which seems a little more reflective of
what I think of as the historical social cultural and political origins of a But I I don't think most teachers are going to be parsing it. What was that? Motivation. So motivations or impacts of the visual
text. I'm good with that. Go ahead, Dr. Now. Oh, I was I was telling Dr. S. I I thought Dr. S was speaking. Oh, I just said catalyst. I'm just joining another word. Catalyst, maybe. I
don't know. I think I like catalyst. How do other people feel about that? My previous comment was going to be if we were going to say motivation, then it to me we would have to say motivation behind
the visual text. to make that clear. That's why I like Origins along with Vice Chair Hillyard. I I think I'm more in favor of origins if we're not going to go with that
technical term. Can we live with origins? Yes. Okay. If you don't if we if you want to come back to it later, let's put origins in there now and you can stew on it. Okay. And let's kind of temporarily
approve it. Is that all right? Yeah. Let's move on. Okay. Do we want to now go back to VL2 and feel like and make a decision on its status? I'm sorry.
I I personally don't think that we need it now. I agree. Okay. Everybody okay with removing that BL2? Okay. Let's move on. Okay. I will try to be attentive to
making sure I change the the numbers of standards as we move, but just if I miss something, flag that for me, please. Okay. Um, former VL3, our new VL2 reads, identify what is outside the frame of the visual text, both literally outside
the frame and the background knowledge needed to understand the visual text. Anybody see any edits needed there? Seems a little ponderous. I would say the background knowledge portion seems to be reflected in our new
wording for what was formerly VL5 and is now our VL4 because the background knowledge is is the origins that we are researching for the I Yeah, I was kind of I was wondering about the purpose of the standard
because it's almost reading to me like uh what do I need to know about this visual text? What do I need to know in order to understand this visual text? It's more meta kind of. Um so what is meant by
what's literally outside the frame? Are we talking about any information about the author of the piece or the I mean I I can pull on my my one film class I took in college but I I think there's sometimes this conversation about like anytime you're creating a
work of visual art you're creating a frame. Um and there's an intentional choice about what exists inside of the frame and what exists outside of the frame. Um, and so I think in film classes you're often told to think about why those intentional choices are being made of including something in frame versus something outside of a frame. Um,
and that's on a literal level. I don't know if that's necessarily what's intended here, but that's what it's calling to mind from that one class I took over. I appreciate that expect that explanation that I can understand better what they're getting at here. I feel
similar. think that that second piece isn't necessarily there and it feels kind of like an odd I don't know feels like an odd place for that to be and I think it makes more sense
without it. Well, you talking in the parentheses or you talking the whole standard? uh well at least and the background knowledge you need to understand the visual text. Those just
feel like two different things to me. Well, and looking ahead to the next standard, I mean, that's the literal content. I really don't see why we couldn't. I mean, literal content is literal content, but why can't we identify
what's outside the frame of the of the visual text literally and the literal content within the same standard? I would agree. And I also think that this is language that probably belongs in the introduction. Like, it's kind of editorial. It's flowery and it's nice,
but it's probably better suited for the introduction. um versus here. Well, if it's a studentbased standard, then u this is something that we're asking them to do.
Um what was the language that you would contemplate? Uh Dr. Now, um I'm proposing we combine in some form or fashion VL3 and VL4 and simply say something along the lines
of identify the the literal content of the visual text. Identify literal content both within and outside of the visual text. I don't love that either, but outside of the frame of the visual text,
if we need that language, should we include something about uh like author's choices regarding what is kind of getting to what uh Mr. Hillier was saying. So, it would just be
identify the literal content within the frame of the visual text semicolon. Um, consider what the author chooses to leave outside of the frame. I don't love that phrasing.
Capture and omit, I think is what you're trying to say. Choose what the as what the author is tries to capture or meant. Okay. Am I hearing at least correctly that we're thinking of just removing the former VL3 and then just building off of
what's currently in VL4? Yes, that's what I heard. Yes. Okay. So, I'll just mark remove that and then we can work to deepen what's happening in VL4 which currently just reads
identify the literal content of the visual text. I would think we would need to include some language of the frame since we're deleting the language of the frame and that I know the frame is an important concept in visual literacy. Okay.
So, well, what if you just did kind of what you proposed I think which was to put a semicolon and then identify what is outside the frame of the visual text just for simplicity sake. Okay. Okay. So, identify the literal
content of the visual text. Semicolon. Identify what is outside of the frame of the visual text. Identify the literal content outside the frame of the visual text. I feel like we need to beef that up a little bit.
Um, something about like author's choices or the impact of what is included versus left out. Some I don't I feel like that would that stare as it is feels very odd where it's like, okay, what's in the frame?
What's not in the frame? I feel like it it's a little flat. Does anybody else feel that way or I'm overthinking it? Well, BL9 talks about the author. Maybe we can include what you're talking
about, Annie, when we discuss BL9. Maybe I'm trying not to muddy the waters here. I I think if I'm understanding co-chair Hill, you're correctly. I mean, we we need that element, that content outside of the frame of the
visual text. I don't know that we need to include the word literal twice in the in the standard. I think it's enough in the in the first there. So, just identify the content outside of the frame of the visual text. I still don't love it. I don't like how
it's worded, but if anybody has other suggestions, but I think the intent behind the standard is captured, but I'm open to what the thinks. I like what you've got now. Would it be I mean, would it be better
to say identify the literal content both within and outside of the frame of the visual text? Whoa. Yes, I like that. How about you, doctor? Now she's got a nod. Yes. I Well, I had I had originally in
my head I had said both within and without. And I and I thought that was too I don't know archaic. So, but I I like that better. That's fine. I don't really think we're losing any rigor here because these two standards
that we're condensing down here were both just identify standards and and it simplifies it. I think so. I think you just need to say inside and outside of the frame instead of within and outside or in and Yeah, I think it's inside and
outside. Yeah, I agree. That's that's parallel language. Yes. Okay. Okay. Any more changes to that? Okay. If not, we're moving on.
Okay. Um, then we are now on to V what was VL6 but would be our VL4. Analyze the relationship between the image and any displayed text. Any additions, corrections to that? No, I think that's a great standard.
Let's keep it as displayed. Um, their VL7, which will become our VL5, reads, "Evaluate the effectiveness of the visual text against relevant criteria for judgment.
How about a set of criteria? I don't know what relevant that seems so like slippery slope because the students always say that's irrelevant. How about a set of criteria?
Okay, I go along with that. Okay. So, evaluate the effectiveness of the visual text against a set of criteria for judgment. Yes. Any more additions, corrections? Okay. Next. So, I think it Okay, so it's too many
verbs. Judge the effectiveness of the visual text against a set of criteria. We haven't used judge much. Well, evaluate the effectiveness and then for judgment. Isn't that basically what you're saying?
And I think in art you do judge. We don't need to put for judgment. We're just against a set of criteria. Yeah. evaluate the effectices of the visual text against a set of criteria.
Period. Annie says yes. And Dr. Now, Katherine, you okay with that? Yeah. Or you could say a set of judgment criteria. Are you saying like use contest rules? Basically,
rubric. Okay. You could say judgment criteria. just create criteria. Either way is fine. Yeah, I'm looking at Mr. Hillier's face is why I'm offering the other work. No, no, I wasn't trying to imply anything. I'm sorry.
He's cogitating. I judge. Let's move on. No, I I I promise I wasn't. All right, let's move on. So, are we sticking with evaluate the effect the effectiveness of visual of the visual text against a set of criteria? Yes. Okay.
All right. VL8 reads, "Evaluate the ethics of digitally altered media prior to publication." Does that mean I don't know. Is it talking about AI there? Well, maybe it's AI or or it's
photoshopping. Uh putting one putting one of your president's bodies on another president in a different situation. Can I guess um should it would it be clear if it
read evaluate the ethics of media digitally altered prior to publication? Say that again please. Just moving digitally altered after media. So evaluate the ethics of media digitally altered prior to publication.
Oh yes, that to me reads clearer, but that just might be a Why why are we evaluating prior to publication? Are we evaluating a finished work or are we evaluating our own use of our own understanding of ethics and applying the the digitally
digital alter alterations, excuse me, of media? So we just eliminate prior to publication. No, I think what it's asking is before you publish, should you have made that photoshop correction or not? Um,
photojournalists talk about this a lot and so they actually do look at what they photoshop and if it's ethical or not before they print it. You think it's necessary to keep in prior to publication?
Is the student creating the art or they're just analyzing the art? That's that's my question. This is not a an art class. Students should be evaluating the work of others. So, is this looking Sorry. Go ahead. You go ahead. I think my thoughts still
So, if they're not creating the art, then it would be evaluate the original and altered video visual text or something like that. like this is deeper. This is ethics,
right? So, what you're asking them to do is look at the original image and evaluate the ethics of the alterations that were made. Like, is it ethical to remove that wrinkle? Yes, maybe. Is it ethical to
put somebody else on somebody else's body? No. So, I think you're asking them to compare the original to the altered if it's not their work. So, are you looking at misleading or inauthentic
alterations here? I assume I think so. Okay. But but the the uh operant word here is ethics, I think.
Is it right or wrong? I would say evaluate an original and altered visual text and the ethics of the alterations.
I've been kind of drafting something similar to that. Um, so, uh, we can see if if that kind of captures what people are saying. Um, I have
compare an original and digitally altered visual text semicolon. evaluate the ethics of the digitally altered media. I shouldn't say media at the end if we said visual text previously, but other than that
I think that says it. I don't think you need digitally altered. I just think you need altered because it could be they just cut it in half, right? And you get half the picture instead of the whole picture. So I don't know if digital is necessary there.
Okay. So compare an original and altered visual text. Evaluate the ethics of the altered visual text. Yes. So I would say evaluate the ethics of
the alterations like because you're asking them to make a value on the changes or evaluate. Yeah. alterations of the visual of the visual text.
I like that. Also, the numbering. Don't forget to Oh, right. Okay. So, does this capture what's there right now? Does that capture what we're going for? Compare an original and altered visual text. Evaluate the ethics of the alterations of the visual text.
Yes, that speaks to it quite well. I guess it would be alterations to the visual text, right? Not of Okay. You say the ethics of the visual alterations. It's fine. It's fine. Let's not overthink it.
Okay. All right. Let's go with that. Everybody good with that? All right. Let's move on. All right. VL9, which we'll change to VL7, reads, "Analyze the author, purpose, andor intended audience of the visual text
other than changing the numbering. I don't have anything here." Anybody have any revisions? Hearing none, we're going to accept it as presented. Next. Okay. Um, VL10 reads, "Using the language of the
discipline, discuss the techniques used to create the visual text. I don't know that you need to use use the language of the discipline. That's what that's uh what they've got to do. It's I think it's just there because there are so many different disciplines
that are captured within visual literacy. I mean, it could be photography, it could be painting, it could be um it could be film. So, I think it's just trying to capture that that range. I see. Okay. Yeah, I think it's valuable.
All right. As presented, we were saying discipline specific language. Is that how we phrase it in earlier standards? using discipline specific language. Yes.
That's an excellent memory. Dr. Stout. Okay. So, using discipline specific language, discuss the techniques used to create the visual text. Yes. Amen. Yay. Verily, yay. Okay. Uh VL1 reads, "Compare and
contrast presentations of the same subject, theme, or topic through similar media formats and different ones." I would just say through similar and different media formats. I agree.
Is that acceptable to everybody as revised? Okay, move on. Okay. Uh, VL12 reads, "Analyze the impact of propaganda techniques or bias on the presentation and reception of the
visual text." Pretty straightforward. Any recommended changes? Nope. Okay. Should this be an instance where we say andor instead of or? Yes.
Yes, it is. Okay. As revised, accepted. Okay. Um, VL13 reads, "Analyze the role of parody and satire on the creation of specific lit visual texts." Yes, everybody looks good with that. No
changes. I say in the creation rather than on the creation or am I being very nitpicky there? No, I was thinking the same thing. Then it must be right.
Let's make it in. Otherwise, are we good there? Yes. accepted as revised. Okay. Uh VL14 reads, "Analyze the role of symbolism in reading a visual text. Does it need to say in reading a or does it just say analyze the role of
symbolism in a visual text?" I was thinking the same thing. Yeah. Comparable language to in reading anywhere else. So, yep, I agree. Accepted as revised. Yes. Can you hear me?
I can hear you, Rachel. Um, members, once you have a chance to wrap up VL14, Rachel has an update for you. Okay, we we got that far. Yes, we're done. I guess. Yeah, now VL12. Okay, great. Um, first this is Oh, Rachel, can you
hear us? Yes. Uh, what we were what we were discussing was whether I think Rachel can't hear us. I think she's working on her audio. Hold on one second. We don't use WebEx every day, so I think she's probably messing with her settings. Rachel, let us know if you can hear us.
I'm going to message. Rachel, can you hear us now? Raise your hand if you can hear us. Okay, while we're waiting for Rachel, you guys take a look at your other uh VL. See if you've got anything you want to work on.
Great idea, Chernus. We can go ahead and just do VL15 and then when she's ready, she can jump. That sounds good. Let's do it. Okay. Uh VL15 reads, "Consider the role of background knowledge in understanding visual texts."
Okay. So to me, our new VL 3 is what we do to build the background knowledge referenced in the L15. Okay, we've got Rachel back. Sorry, I missed now. Yeah, go ahead.
Rachel can hear us. Oh, no, I can't hear you, Rachel. I find that if you you probably know to do this, but the only thing I know to do is next to your mute button, there should be a little carrot and I have to mess with my settings. So, like for example,
my microphones through my webcam, but my um speakers are through my computer cuz I don't have external speakers. So, I sometimes mess with those until the vibes are correct. Dr. Now, were you saying that we don't need this standard
because of VL3? That was my opinion. I would I would say and also we're not asking them to use background knowledge to understand visual text here. We're asking them to consider the role of background knowledge at large in
understanding visual text in general, which doesn't really seem what this class is meant for. I agree. Uh let's take it out then. If there's no objection, we will eliminate this.
And uh Rihanna is checking over the phone to try to coach our new consultant. So, uh we'll continue until she's able to make that uh breakthrough on her voice.
Okay. Um, VL16 reads, "Analyze the artist's perspective toward the topic in a visual text point of view." Stand by. Oh, I hear you. You can hear me? Okay. Brianna. Hi, Rachel.
Rachel. There we go. Thanks for joining us. One second. Sorry. I appreciate you. How about now, Rachel? I heard myself through her phone. Oh, that was through the phone.
Yes, I called her to help her with her tech. Okay. And now she's left. Okay. Sorry, y'all. I appreciate your flexibility. Keep on sir. We're moving in and out of this and we're doing a real good job, I think. under the circumstances. So is do we need to put point of view in
here because we talked so much about perspective and point of view. I think that gets complicated in the context of visual text since we've used point of view to mean something very specific within written texts. So I think perspective on its own here would likely be my vote.
Okay, I'm okay with that. Okay. Are we all okay with this? I just don't like the toward the topic phrasing. But if the committee is fine with it, I'm fine with it. It's probably a little nitpicky. Do we hit?
Yeah. I mean, just say on the topic or subject subject. Yeah. So perspective on the subject in a visual text. Is that correct? Is that what you're
saying? So analyze the artist's perspective toward the subject of a visual text or was it on the subject of On the subject? I think analyze the artist perspective on the subject of a visual text. Yes, it sounds very simply stated.
Thank you, Patty. This will now be all right. VL13. Okay. Okay. Um, analyze or no, wrong one. Um, respond verbally and in writing to
various visual texts. That seems appropriate to me. Yes. Accepted. Okay, move on. Okay, I think Rachel may have rejoined us. Rachel, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay,
we sure can. Oh, finally. I'm very sorry for the delay. I was having some technology issues there, but I think we're all We have We all went through this. Uh, and luckily, we've got consultants that can help us through just as they helped
you through, Rachel. Yes, I am thankful for your help. We don't plan to take a lot of your time, but we're just concerned that we're going to be uh within the confines of the law when we talk about the standards. And when they start to mention the word religious, we are
concerned about uh how close we can get. Sure. I'm happy to answer any questions if that would be helpful. Any specific questions? Um the specific one is uh it is uh teach
all standards in greater depth andor teach more than one religious text and that comes from uh what we would have as expectations for a full semester class.
Okay. It's not it's not in the standard but uh it's what supporting language. Yes. and it would be passed as part of the standards package. So, this um would go into that 100 plus page document. You know, we talked about how
we're moving electives in. This table's currently in the active electives document. Although, because the Bible was from 2009, it did not have this. So, like I said, we're going from three documents to two documents to really one at the end of the day. So, all of that to say, it would be in your official record of the standards as voted upon
and passed and, you know, sent to all teachers as part of the standards package. Okay. Do you have a a visual on that frames, Rachel? Yes, I I do. Thank you. I see that table. Looking at the statute at
4961026. It it does reference uh that the course may include the impact of Bible on literature, art, music, culture, and politics. I I know you know this already. Um and it cannot include
number one teachings of religious doctrine or number two sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of texts from other religions or cultural traditions. So the way I interpret that
is you can include texts from other religious or cultural traditions so long as those the ones you're including are not a sectarian interpretation of those texts if that clarifies it at
all. So the sectarian interpretation in that sentence, I read that as referring to both the Bible number one and number two to other texts from other religions or
cultural traditions. So I think the current wording um of your proposed standard I apologize I'm pulling it up now. uh the the full credit where it
references um teaching more than one religious text. I don't think that would conflict with the statute in any way as long as it's being taught in a non sectarian manner. I hope I haven't made things more
confusing. What questions do we have? So, if I'm hearing this correctly, essentially, because we're not allowed, we're not permitted to teach the Bible in a sectarian manner. And so, if if any additional religious texts were being taught, they would just simply need to be taught in the same way that the Bible is being taught in the context of this course.
That's how I interpret it. I think that's an accurate reading. Um, the sentence in the statute, uh, let me pull one pull it up. Um it says not include teachings of religious doctrine or
sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of the other texts um of other religions or cultural traditions. So yes, I think your interpretation is exactly correct. Uh would it be uh best to direct all the
teachers that reference this for the next seven years with the parentheses that say that it's got to be done in a non sectarian manner. If you have, you know, the ability to add that in, I think that would certainly help clarify and also show
your intent to conform to the statute's requirements. So I think that's a great suggestion. Agree chair Krenaggus I think we could add it to this table very easily and then would also love Thank you vice chair Hillyard my reader as always. Um
the other place I would direct your attention to I know we normally look at the standards and then look at the course description but this is what I was referencing before. We could beef this up in any manner that the uh members see fit.
This says, "As stated in TCA 4961026, which is what uh Rachel, our general counsel is just quoting, this course is to be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt to made to indoctrinate students." So yes, this whole description is on the table
and that is the main guidance they will receive on electives. I think that's very helpful to include the statutory language about how you're allowed to teach the course and and not allowed to teach the course. So, if you have the ability to include those kinds
of, you know, instructions in the description, I would certainly, you know, recommend that. Okay. So, we would keep that as uh as it currently stands then because it does a good job with that. Yeah, that's totally up to the committee's discretion, but
what it it is permitted under law based on what I'm understanding from Rachel. Well, we we paid a lot for this advice. I think we ought to accept it. So, uh let's keep it the way we have it here. I think that's going to put everybody on
notice that we expect uh teachers to comply with the law. Yeah. And I would draw your attention to the and or. So yeah, that does give some teachers some some optionality there. Did you have any other questions
regarding the Bible statute? I'm happy to stay on, of course, as you continue to work work through them, but I didn't know if you had any at the moment. I don't do any of the other committee members have any questions regarding the Bible standards as it's related to the
law. No. Well, thank you for joining us. Thank you for all the work you all are doing. I'm on Have a nice evening. If anything else comes up, just let me know. Now I know how to sign on. Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Thanks. And thank you for Brianna for uh finding that great resource for us. We feel more confident in what we're doing now. Um so just one quick question. I mean I I I understand I think her explanation
was very clear of the law. But going back to the supporting language um the course description and the content standards um particularly where there at the end we have the
structure organization progression. This course may be used as an example of how additional elective courses could be developed that focus on other religious texts as literature. Um should we also include either in the previous paragraph and or in that paragraph
um the language um that any sectarian influence should be avoided from the statute? Yes. Um, so I think I would just say um the second half of that last sentence
and the progression of this course may be used as an example of how additional non sectarian elective courses could be developed that focus on other religious texts as literature. like you I think
you can just use non sectarian as an adjective to cover what she was saying if you know I'm always to keep it short and sweet but if if y'all don't that makes sense push back we appreciate it Dr. out one other thing
and Tammy is the expert here. I think that this sentence was also designed to function as um so folks may be familiar and I feel like Cherus has spoke to this in detail that districts can apply for special courses. So um I don't know if you're familiar with facing history and
ourselves. They have a Holocaust education course that Memphis Shelby County offers and the middle school I student taught at you know that kind of stuff. You know, if you want to teach, I'm sure your schools have really cool electives that are not, you know, on any of the lists, including this. We had a course in beekeeping.
There we go. Perfect example, Cherrenus. So, I think this my understanding of this last sentence on the course description was also designed to say like if you want to do a special course, you know, we have limited time on this document, but you know, feel free to use
as you see fit, which this committee could continue that guidance, build upon it, or revise it as always. Tammy, what am I forgetting? Uh, thank you, Dr. Nell, for uh adding that to this. I think that that's going to help uh clarify it for everybody and
keep us safe. And just my um appreciation for Tammy and the original committee, I actually read the 2009 standards. You guys did a lot of work uh to even bring them to where we were able to edit them. So, uh
kudos to you guys for that work. Absolutely. I agree, Dr. Stout. I appreciate you. If anybody wants to take a look, it's um this is what's actively being taught in Tennessee classrooms for Bible. Uh are we having to review this uh language here now or are we done with
that? I'm going to feel good. Okay, we're good. Let's roll. Let's finish. We're so close. I can smell it. Next, coach Hillyard. Sorry, I had I had muted myself. I
apologize. Um, so VL18 that will become our VL15 reads, "Slect and evaluate a visual text or texts for a desired effect." I find this a little confusing. Is it asking people to evaluate the
effect of a visual text or is it asking them to select a visual text to create some sort of effect? If so, it feels outside of the context of what we've asked students to do elsewhere in this course. We just say evaluate.
That's what I would propose. Just evaluate the effect of a visual text. Agreed. Yeah. Can you put in your proposed language, please? There it is. Is everybody uh okay with
that language? Okay. I see a lot of head nods. Let's move on. Um I have a question about VL14. And sorry, I keep going back. I feel like I'm just a bit of a takes me a while to
think through things. Um I don't think we have like a a standard here that calls for discussion. Should we include some language about discussion? Is that encapsulated by verbally? Um I think so.
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I would I would feel comfortable with verbally doing that one. I think that covers it. All right. Next. Okay. Um, VL19, which will become VL16,
reads, "Write a film or a book critique for a fulllength film or a graphic novel. Uh, just language. Um, I mean I typically see book reviews I suppose we could say film reviews. Film critique
is better but so just changing the word critique to review. Yeah, I think that would be better. So, write a film or book review or a fulllength film or a graphic novel.
Okay. Anybody want to make any more changes? All right, let's go. Okay. uh VL20, which is a bit of an odd one, um reads, "Develop a portfolio of
visual texts that create a cohesive theme or answer a specific prompt question and features a variety of media types. So, you're creating visual texts." I don't I think what because that's how I read it at first, but I think now it's actually taking visual texts that
already exist and creating a portfolio of them or creating like or like gathering as many of them as you can that fit a specific theme. So taking works that already exist and and then finding thematic connections across those visual texts I think is what's intended here. Otherwise, I mean,
I think it should be that because I don't think we should have one standard that reflects the creation of visual text after n after a bunch of other standards that don't. I agree. So, should we just say develop portfolio of existing visual texts just for clarification?
I I think that makes sense. So, develop a portfolio of existing visual texts. Can we just say on a cohesive theme rather than that create a cohesive theme?
Thoughts there from anybody? I guess I don't understand why we're asking them to put together a portfolio of other people's work. Like what's the purpose? um comparison contrast to try to develop that cohesive theme.
It's a high higher order thinking skill. Yeah. I mean, I think I think the intention, like Cher Krengus has said, is essentially to to consider more broadly how various media attempt to address the same topic
or theme. I just feel like that I feel like it's that wording of the word portfolio because it's not really a portfolio. Like a portfolio seems to imply a creative process. And this is really not a creative process as much as it's asking them to identify multiple texts
in various media that address a common theme. At least to me, that seems like what we're asking them to do, which I think is a worthwhile thing to do. But it because as soon as I hear the word portfolio, I'm thinking of a creative task. I like the way you stated that.
I think Maybe the original teacher that wrote this up was going to use that as an exercise and they were going to create a portfolio. But uh in terms of a standard that addresses all all of the students
in the state, I don't know that that's necessary. Sorry. Go. Miss Dra, you have the floor. Um, I'm wondering if maybe if we add because I I get what Dr. Stout was saying about why.
So maybe if we had some language about like an analyze their approaches or something to that effect uh just to give the the why are we just collecting a bunch of visuals?
You're comparing and contrasting in your summarizing. Now, a cohesive theme would be created with a specific prompt or question. I don't know that we need the that back end of it. If you're if they're if
they're answering a specific prompt, that's still a cohesive theme, is it not? No, maybe not. I mean, I I I see where Miss Docker is coming from on this. Like, if we're want to say identify visual texts of a variety of
media types on a common theme, Um or sorry present and analyze a analyze and present analyze and present. Um then the second part of what you just
said a variety of media text connected by a common theme. Well, I don't know. I can we just say I don't love it, but I mean they're just compiling the texts, right? They're
really developing a portfolio, right? So, compile a variety of visual texts with a cohesive theme or an answer to a specific prompter question. I like that. So, compile a variety of
visual text on a common theme or an answer to a specific prompt or question. I would just say compile and analyze. I mean, compile just seems very like third grade.
Okay. So, compile and analyze a variety of visual text on a common theme or in answer to a specific prompt or question. That's more rigorous for sure. I don't uh this this that this that level of rigor wasn't contained in BL20
originally the analysis portion and I'm good to add rigor they call me Mr. rigor. So are we good on that standard then? Yes.
Okay. Then we have one remaining visual literacy standard. Um that is learn the language patterns and vocabulary for discussing the various image formats. We've already got a standard that says using discipline specific language
discuss the techniques used to create the visual text. Do we need to have an entirely separate standard on? Absolutely not. I think we can remove this one. Right? Yes, I agree with that. Anybody have a problem with that? No, we got to get our calendars out,
boys and girls. We've come to the end of our time. Oh, how are you doing, Rosemary? Pretty good. Pretty busy today. Rip and running, but I came in and out. Well, I'm glad to have you with us. Uh,
we have been uh discussing this all day. How many more standards we got, coach? We have one elective course left and it has, let's see, it has 13 standards. Okay, we'll knock that out. We'll knock that out real
quick. Well, after that, what do we have to do? Um, after that, Brianna, Brianna, what do we have to do? Oh, you have your overall introduction, your appendix, your glossery, your references, that sort of bucket of work,
and then you have your parking garage, and then you say goodbye. Okay. All right. So, we have to come up with an estimate. What do you What's your best guess? Rihanna, you've been through this before. How long is it going to take us
to do that last task? Good question. Let's look at your parking garage to see how many items you have. Of course, it depends on the scope. Right now, you have 43 items on your parking garage. How did that happen? Okay. We can't say that you're not thorough.
Yeah, we cannot say that. I will say about half of those in the parking garage are glossery items. Um and I will say at once in my in my mind that will likely be the thing we spend the most time on um remaining is the glossery. I would say in order of priority your glossery is your most important and I
think banks has sort of alluded to this because they will take that your interpret they will take your standards very literally and they will take your glossery very literally. So I would encourage you to spend the most time on glossery then on the introductions and sort of the language that Dr. Stout and Miss Barrett have been leading. Then your
references. I'm always happy to clean those up. You know, I love I love to pull out my APA. You know, I don't get to use it as much these days. And then I would say your appendix. The Department of Education has very kindly offered to support you with the appendix as much as y'all would like.
I think we'd like a lot of help. So, uh, my understanding on the appendix would be we would simply tell them what we want and then they would make it. Is that correct? Yes. putting your comments like let's focus more on comments than track changes if that makes sense. Okay. Excellent. Um
well well okay estimate 4 hours enough for all this? I would say two meetings personally. Okay. I'm open I'm open to revisions on that answer but all right we're going to target four
hours but um we'll see what happens. I said we was going to take five more meetings when we left the last time and this is our fifth meeting. So, um we have been cussing and discussing and I I just can't say enough about how
uh how wonderful we have come up with these things. It's take the creative process is still there. Uh and we're not exhausted yet. Uh so, uh what about schedules? What uh what's a good time for everybody? Uh we got any time the
rest of this week? Say we probably need to look into next week. Um I cannot do Wednesday. I can't do I can't do Monday. Okay. Tuesday and Thursday. How's that
resonating? Both of those days are open for me. Just a question. Feel free to throw rocks at me. is an early Saturday morning completely out the picture. Pro rocks.
I mean, I I can't because of cross country mates, but you know, if that's that's but I'm just one person. Well, that's No, that's enough. You're a very important person. So, yeah. I appreciate the creativity, Dr. Stop. Yes.
No bad ideas in a brainstorm. Um, okay. Tuesday. Thursday. I cannot on Thursday. I'll be out of town on Thursday. That's very fair. And we'll just say we do need a quorum 3:30 next Tuesday.
Um, is it possible? Is it for me to be like late but then be here? My my work is an hour away. Can can we do can we do 4 to 4 to 8 rather than 3:30?
I do want to be mindful of our Eastern time folks. So, currently when we meet at this time, our Eastern time folks are 4:30 to 8:30. I don't love sending them into but I would say, Cheras, I defer to you.
What we have to do is we have to have a quorum at any given time that anything is being discussed. Who can make it? Who can make it at 3:30 next Tuesday? One, two, three, four, five. There's a quorum right there. Okay.
I will say even if though I mean, yes, it's a quorum. I will say if as we draw closer to the end, I would I would ideally like to have as many folks as possible since we're making final decisions. Yes, there's a piece of that. I agree, Vice Chair Hillier. The other flag I'll make is what I do plan for a
quorum, but when I'm planning for a quorum, I try to make sure there's at least six of you because as we know, life happens. So, in my just full transparency, in my mind, a quorum is six. So, that you know, life happens. Okay. So, 3:30 next Tuesday.
I don't know that we had did we have six? I think we had five. I think I saw Vice Chair Hill chairus two single three four five and Annie would be late and then I believe Miss Wyinners would
also be late right and then Dr. Stout would be late right I would be in and out again I would have to take I can't I can't miss any more school so I have to take that whole 90 minutes this time yeah I totally understand um would so what would be your entry time Dr. out. I
guess I'd be here at 3:30, but I would leave this time at 5. And so I would basically be gone from 5 to 6:30. So I think if Miss Wyers is late and Miss Docker is late, but Dr. Stout's here, then you have 6. And then hopefully, you know, Dr. Stout and those
two could high five. If y'all are catching my 7:31 reference, so we would have six at any point and then I would feel comfortable moving forward. Okay. If this winners, I put my time in the chat. is 4:30 on Tuesday and Thursday.
Okay. So, that that means we'd have between 6:00 and 7:00 at any point if I'm understanding everybody's availability correctly. Vice Chair Hillard, how does that sit with you? That's fine. Um, I do have a just an idea and people can shoot this down if they want, but it we would have a a week
between meetings and obviously we can't deliberate outside of that time, but since we're predominantly working on the glossery in our in our next meeting or at least I think that's where a lot of our attention is going to go. if we like independently without deliberating at all kind of started to to draft some
language for the glossery and just if people kind of thought about the words that they felt were most essential to add and started to kind of draft some language there I think that might expedite the process um just just a proposal um I think it could I think it's a wonderful idea and I
would uh be willing to do that and hopefully it looks like everybody else is going to give it some due consideration so that sounds like homework work. It would be homework. Yes, that is that is true. It is homework that if you don't want to do, I'm I'm comfortable
with you opting out of which is not what I'm saying to my students. Okay, Josh, can can you start the session for us when we need it? Yes, I can. All right, that's great. And then th I heard Thursday, Miss
Singleary cannot do Thursday. Are there other folks who cannot do Thursday the 16th at 3:30? I can't do Thursday because I I have to preach on Thursdays. Totally fine. Okay. So, that would give
us What would that give us? That would give us six. So, we'd be sitting right at our threshold. Is everyone comfortable with that? I have no problem with that. Okay. So, I will get those set up for
the 14th and the 16th at 3:30 with the understanding that we're sitting at 6 at any given time for most of them. So, just if you have conflicts, please, please, please tell me so that we can I'd rather reschedule and you know, I would I would hate for all of you to show up and then us all have to, you know, move our lives and then have
to disband long enough. So, just please let me know. As your servant leader, I will swear that we will be done by the 16th. I will push as hard as I can. Y'all are doing great. Um, okay. And
then I'll connect with adviserss. I appreciate y'all staying three minutes over. Okay. Any questions, comments? All right. Then I declare this session to be adjourned and we'll see you next
Tuesday. Have a great week everyone. Thank you. Appreciate y'all.