And we're recording. >> It is now 3:37 p.m. on October the 28th and I call this meeting the English Language Arts Standards Recommendation Committee to order. Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role to determine a
quorum. The appropriate responses here present or nothing. >> All right. Uh Miss Baird >> present. Miss Dockery is not yet present.
>> Mr. Hillyard present. >> Miss Now >> present. >> Uh, Miss Singleary >> present. >> Dr. Stout is not yet present. Miss Winters, I don't believe, is yet
present. Chair Kaggus, >> present. >> Chair Kaggus, you have a quorum. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. I move that the recording serves as the minutes for today. Do I have a second? >> I second.
>> This will be a voice vote. All those in favor of using the recording as our meeting minutes signify by saying I. >> I. >> The motion carries. Uh now, do you have an orientation for
us? Uh Brianna, >> I do. Thank you, Chair Kigus. First, I'll have the statement of necessity and then I'll go through our logistics. First, uh the Tennessee State Board of Education, ELA, English Language Arts Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC,
called an electronic meeting at 3:30 central on Wednesday, October 29th, 2025. This meeting is called to continue proposing revisions to the ELA standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items on the committee's agenda and the fact that committee reme
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 will 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. Okay, jumping into our logistics, we talked about attendance. Um, I have a legal reminder for all of you. Um, please do not add comments. Particularly, please do not respond to
comments in any of our Google Docs. This is to protect the sunshine law and public deliberation and all of that good stuff. Of course, you know, if we're in the meeting, feel free to put as many comments as you'd like and please do cuz that's how we get this done. If a complaint is filed with the state board
of education, we would have to start the standards recommendation committee over from scratch. So, not to scare you, but just um I I I beg and plead that all of your comments have timestamps during meeting hours on meeting days for everyone's benefit. Um but we are so
close to the finish line. So, I'm very confident that we can make that happen for the next, you know, hopefully maybe our last meeting or our next couple meetings. Okay. Next, um I did speak with the person who was in charge of the references last time. They said that
their intention was to similar to this group do the glossery of their own brain and did not require any references. So you should not see any intex citations there. However, their intent was to not have additional references beyond the
intex citations. So I believe Vice Chair Hillyard's assessment was there might be some extra ones that need to be deleted at the committee's discretion. Next, any questions about the references?
or anything so far. >> Just want to make sure I get you all's work time because this is just the fluffy stuff. Okay. Next. Um, you should have received an email at 3:30 that was scheduled to go out with Miss Dockery's recommendations. Let me pull that up. U,
this was to avoid deliberation from Google comments. Uh, just for the record, um, she had some ideas on rhetorical techniques, the word premise, the word stance, and she had a couple other
parking garage items, if you will. Um, she said that resources was not spelled correctly in one of the standards. Um, that we might want to combine purpose and author's purpose. We might need to update the definition
of diverse texts. And she has some specific language about perspective to make sure we incorporate character perspective. And this Oh, sorry. She's proposing that we delete something because it talks
about the why versus the what. And I I believe this committee's intention was to just describe the what and all our glossery references. So said that out loud so that it's clear for the record, but feel free to bring those up as appropriate or as they resonate with members. Any questions about Miss
Dockery's email? Did anyone not get it? Okay. I will also upload it into the drive for your reference. Okay. My understanding is that we need to maybe wrap the glossery and we need to wrap the parking garage. We may have some work that we want to do on the
introductions. both overall and electives. We may have some work we want to do on references and we may have some work we want to do on an optional executive summary. Uh members who joined after this conversation, uh the executive summary is whatever you want it to be.
Generally, it's a public statement from members or leadership team to generally the general assembly, state board members, and the public about your intentions. But it's pretty open-ended and as we talked about before, not required. So that was that. As always,
we'll spend the last 10 minutes either voting on the standards and that is a very important roll call vote that we must get right or scheduling our next meeting. Uh you do not have any written or public comments since our last meeting. Members, what questions,
thoughts, concerns, anything I missed? >> Nope. >> Okay. Appreciate y'all. We ready? >> All right. I want to remind members and presenters, please raise your hand. Say,
"Chair Kane is to be recognized unless I call on you." For benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid the use of jargon argot acronyms where possible. We'll now proceed with our next item on the agenda. Co-chair Hillyard, please re
remind us where we were. >> Okay. Um, we have been working on the glossery and I think we're finalizing the glossery. Um, I think it would make sense to begin with Miss Docker's recommendations. Um, since she had a few on the glossery. Um, so I think I I'll
begin with the with the elements of her email. I've moved over. She proposed a definition for rhetorical techniques. Um, so I've gone ahead and added that to the document if we want to take a look and and make sure we're we're happy with that definition of rhetorical techniques.
This is an an addition to the glossery that was not in there before. >> Yes, Miss Dockery has proposed several additions to the dog glossery. So, I figure we should look at each of those proposed additions. >> What necessitated this being included in
the in the glossery? >> Um, I mean, she did not write a justification. Um, but I would presume it's because it's a term that's used in our standards that she feels would need clarification for for users.
>> Okay. >> Um, the definition for rhetorical technique she provided as a writer's or speaker's linguistic and/or presentation choices that are meant to advance the purpose of the work. >> Is that sufficient
doctor? Now cue your mic if you would. >> I'm fine with it. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I am as well. >> Hearing no objections, I would say that it's good. Put it in.
>> Okay. Um, next up we have Primise. That was the next one she proposed. Um I am putting in her proposed wording of premise at the moment. Um she had an accepted idea or assumption that a
writer or speaker uses as a foundation for a line of logic leading to a conclusion. >> Any comments? I >> think we've used line of reasoning rather than line of logic. If that's Correct. So, I think we might want to
switch out logic for reasoning. >> I'm good with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Is everybody good with that? As amended by line to line of reasoning. Okay. I see all heads nodding. Let's roll. That's good. Keep it in.
>> Okay. Um, she has written a definition of stance that I am in the process of copying and pasting over. >> I just did to save. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um, yeah. So, we've got
the position or viewpoint of a writer or speaker concerning a particular issue or topic. >> Is it necessary to say position or viewpoint? I'm I'm a little hesitant to say viewpoint because of our definitions of point of view and perspective.
>> Yeah, >> I think we've just been using the word perspective here. Um, so could we just say the perspective of a writer or speaker concerning a particular issue or topic? >> I'm good with that. Okay,
let's keep it in as amended then. >> Okay. Um, and then she has on the glossery um, she's got a few other edits that we'll need to take a look at um, from her email that are not related to the
glossery, but she says we have separate entries for purpose and author's purpose. So, I think we should look at those and decide if those both need to be there or if we can delete one of those. So y'all feel free to boss me around,
but here's author's purpose. I can duplicate and get us to authors or what is it? Just regular purpose, >> right? Where does regular regular purpose come up in the in the uh
standards? And I want to see if that is uh used in a different context. Um I can't speak to the standards in their totality but I will say the purpose definitions provided um for just
purpose seems to be indistinguishable from author's purpose in in definition I would say that author's purpose being or sorry purpose being the reason for writing a text andor author intent and message. I mean we're specifically
dictating that it's the author's intention. So I think author's purpose and purpose seem to be um interchangeable there. I would say there are instances where we talk about the purpose of a text but don't say author. Um we imply author but it's not directly stated. So probably just stick with
purpose >> and then and take out author's purpose. >> Yeah. I mean I think then it just becomes a possessive word. Um >> I'm okay with that. Dr. Now is okay with it. Patty that makes sense to you? She nods. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Okay. I will >> I will delete the definition we have provided of author's purpose then. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um next up she said our definition of diverse text needs to be updated
based on our changes to RLI10. Um so can look at diverse texts. You've also got diverse media and formats just >> are you in the in the standards
themselves or from Miss Docker? >> Uh in your glossery. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Pull up. I assume we want the cornerstone, but if there's a specific standard, please tell me. I'm happy to pull it. Let's see.
>> Yeah, I think we I mean, we talk about in I think it was primarily in there's a few places, but I I know it happens in RL10. >> Oh, maybe not in that corner, but never mind. >> Um,
>> okay. I can just go to 11th 12th grade. English 34. >> I can't. Yeah, I'll try to I'll try to locate it. >> Okay. I have this this >> what she's referencing. This this is RL, not RA.
>> Yes. Um, in this I mean we we don't we don't always say diverse text. Sometimes we say diver like text from diverse cultures. Sometimes we uh
say text with diverse cultural perspectives across places and time. So I don't know if the phrase diverse text is necessarily one we use, but I mean I think the implication is that we're talking about the text being diverse. Um
so our our definition currently for diverse texts is writing texts in terms of complexity, genre, length, style, and authors. Didn't we get some input from um the uh department about putting this
in so as to direct the uh textbook publishers to provide that diversity? >> I think that was in large part our intent um for the use of this language was to encourage um curriculum makers to
to do that. Um, I guess my question would be whether we feel the current definition which reads a variety of text in terms of complexity, genre, length, style, and authors captures
what we're intending there. >> Do you see it not capturing it? I mean, I I I see what I think Miss Dockery is indicating where we were talking about we wanted a a wide range of cultural perspectives. Um, but I I wonder if perhaps a variety of text in
terms of authors kind of captures that, but it doesn't explicitly capture that. So, um, I am not sure. I'm a little up two minds about it. So, would love to hear what other folks think. Yeah, diversity in the context of the of
those standards is is different than what we're referring to here. And I think that's pretty well I don't know that it needs a gloss glossery definition. >> I think we could add the word perspective. We've mentioned diverse perspectives. So we could say a variety
of text in terms of complexity, genre, length, style, perspective, and authors. Just to document that we're reading from a wide range of perspectives. Just adding that to the list. >> Does that capture cultural diversity?
>> It gestures at it. I don't know if it completely captures it. Um, does anybody have another word that would capture cultural diversity better than perspectives? >> Lacy, I see you thinking. >> I'm similar to coach Hillyard. I'm of
two minds. I I I think it's fine the way it is. >> Yeah. I mean, we could say cultural origin, a variety of text in terms of complexity, genre, length, style, cultural origin, and authors. Um, >> cultural origin, I think,
>> uh, gets back to that better myself. Patty, did you have something to say? I saw your window light up. Yeah. No, I was just going to say I think them that we need to leave it somewhat generic >> as we move forward.
>> I'm good with generic. >> I'm fine with it as is. I I don't feel as if I don't feel like we're a miss in what we've got. I think more specificity could be provided, but I don't feel like it's a necessity. >> I see a plurality of members shaking their heads. Yes. Let's leave it as is
generic. Okay. We gave it due inspection. >> Great. All right. And then she has some notes on uh the definition for perspective. So there's a whole section of the I
guess everything after understanding she thinks we should delete. Um, so as it currently reads as author's perspective refers to the unique stance an author adopts when writing a text influenced by their personal beliefs, experiences, and cultural background. And then she thinks understanding this
perspective is crucial for comprehending the purpose, tone, and underlying messages of a literary work as it shapes how the narrative unfolds and how characters are portrayed um is unnecessary. >> I think she's probably right. And we've taken that stance on other glossery
items where people try to uh add some uh education ease into it uh or teacher perspective. Uh I see you nodding Lacy >> okay everybody's agreeing with the elimination. Let's eliminate it. Thank
you Miss Docky. And then her other comment on perspective definition is that we need to add in some language about character perspective in addition to just author perspective because we have used and I I agree with her here. We've used perspective to refer to not just the
perspective of the author but also character perspectives. Um, I think we could just simply remove the part at the front that says authors and just say perspective refers to the unique stance that an author or character adopts when writing a text influenced by their
personal beliefs, experiences, and cultural background. >> I like that. >> The character wouldn't write the text though. >> True. Um, an author
and or character adopts in a text. >> I'm good with that, too, Lacy. If you're good with it, I'm good with it. >> Better. >> Um, I do think now it reads a little clunky at the end. Perspective refers to
the unique stance that an author and/or character adopts in a text. Um I think perspective is probably a second
sentence maybe or maybe a semicolon. Perspective is influenced by one's personal beliefs, experiences, and cultural background. Or else >> you're nodding to the semicolon, Lacy. >> Agreed. Yes, sir. Okay. >> And I think ones rather than there just
my personal opinion that seems to be what we've done elsewhere since we're staying singular in the first part of this philosopher definition. I I don't have anything else beyond that if if folks are good there.
>> Okay, we approve it as amended. >> Okay. Um if I am looking correctly at Stocky's email, now we should have covered everything in our email except for one quick note on EL4
SL PKI5. Um, so I think we should probably like it is quite literally she said I spelled the word wrong. So we probably should just take a very quick look at that and it probably take 30 seconds and then we
can put away her email and I'm sure I did spell wrong and I deeply appreciate her checking. Okay. Yes, I said rescrasing error about 400 cells. I'll let it slide
by Hillard. >> Thank you. Um, unfortunately, I also made that error in the subsequent cell. So, I >> I don't know what you're talking about. >> I'm falling down on my duty. Um, I have made that correction. So I I think are
we good now with this strange thing to deliberate but we're we're good with it spelling it correctly I assume. Um okay I believe it's correct now. Um obviously would love to have everyone double check me on these things.
>> Yep. Also Dr. Stout joined us. Hi Dr. Stout. >> Hello guys. >> Hello. How are you Rosemary? No, that's not. It's Carolyn. >> It's Catherine. >> I'm doing fine. I'm just leaving class
where I actually had to teach class today. So, awesome. >> Preaching or something. >> You probably won't occupy too much of your time. We're rolling here. >> We're hopefully we're shooting to get done before supper. So, um we're moving
along quite well. Uh it to me it looks like we just have the parking garage to of substance right now or do we have more glossery yet? >> Yeah, we're we're just about done with the glossery. Um I does anyone have any additional words? Uh we went through
Miss Dockery's words. I just wanted to open the floor for anyone else if they felt there are words that are not currently in the glossery that should be included in the glossery. >> Are nine that's closed. >> Okay. Um, the last thing on the glossery, and this is just a formatting thing I found when I was looking back
over it. Um, it seems that previously in the glossery, and I know some definition, some dictionaries do this. Um, they have italicized any instance of a word that is defined elsewhere in the glossery just to indicate, hey, this is one of the terms that will be defined elsewhere. We have not done that
consistently. So, the the italics are pretty inconsistent. Um, do we want to do that? Um, and if so, I think we'll need to kind of take a look and and make those italics happen. Or we can just simply say we don't feel that's necessary and we can remove the
italics that are currently there. Um, I don't have a strong feeling either way. We just need to to make that consistent. >> Vote to remove. >> I vote to remove. >> Yeah, let's remove them. No objection.
Consider them removed. Okay. Um, I assume since our intention is to vote tonight, then those changes need to be happening now and not just a matter of doing it later. So, I will do a quick run through and remove italics
as I go. >> Um, Mr. Hillier, I might be misunderstanding. Would it be possible to highlight the entire glossery and then just italics and italics to save you some brain space? >> I I think so. My only concern with that
is if there was there any possible instances where those italics were intentional. Um >> um the only reason I can think about that is I think about that is like for instance if you look at the definition of conjunction >> um they talk about words in
>> as words. Um, and so the italics, I think they are intentional. Um, and likely we'd want to hold on to those italics. I believe though I mean we haven't really done that in the standards. Um, so maybe we don't want to do that. Maybe we just want to remove those italics as well. Um, in fact,
actually, I think we probably don't want to hold on to those italics. >> Theme has uh it references Charlotte's Web currently, so we would need to keep that italicized. >> Yeah. So I I do think it's probably best to go through case by case. I don't
think it's going to take that long, but um just just to ensure we don't lose anything in the process. That's my >> Why don't you tell us while you're doing that, why don't you tell us where you left where we left off in the glossery?
>> Um I think we're done. I mean, that is all I've got left in the glossery. I think we may be done with the glossery after this. Um unless people have anything else they want to add to the glossery. Um, what I would propose we do while I'm doing that is if if other folks would look at the references, um, and see if
the references if the the the items listed in the references correspond to intex citations. Um, if they don't and if we're going to eliminate references that do not correspond to intex citations, then we could start making those revisions now to ensure the the uh references are up to date. That way,
kill two birds with one stone in there. >> A good plan. Thank you. Coach healer, we now say feed two birds with one scone. No violence. >> That's much better. As a veget as a vegetarian, it's a real shame that I'm
the one who's who's using that updated Does anybody see areas that need to be eliminated under references because they're not being used in our text?
>> I'm doing a control F. Um, and so far the I'm working from the bottom up in the references. William one, I was wondering if it was misspelled and then two, I did not see it in the document. So, I commented
about that. Somebody else can check me to see if I'm if I've overlooked it. I just did I think hopefully all the variations. Williams 2 L's William
1 L you know plus or minus an L and plus or minus an S and I did not see anything. >> All right. So we can with confidence eliminate William. >> Okay. The same would hold true for um the next one up.
>> Torus. >> Yes. I don't I don't see that one in the document either. >> I don't remember it. All right. Toruson is out. And Briana, you uh jump in if you should find that for us.
>> Yeah, I'm happy to. I'm trying to remember. Did Vice Chair Hillyard or someone say um there might be one other place that this would be? Oh, the electives, but that wouldn't impact getting rid of stuff. That would just impact adding stuff. Was there one other place we needed to check that I recall from our
last meeting? My Is this a figment of my imagination? Isn't the search that you do exhaustive both for the regular standards and the electives? No, the electives are in a different tab, but I'm pretty sure we don't have
any citations there. So, I think we're good. I'm just trying to cross my tees and dot my eyes to make sure that if I'm deleting something, it's right. I mean, we shouldn't have any citations on the standards members. Is there another place that a citation may show up other than this? The only thing >> the only thing I can think of is we
am I right that we cite the state statute um for the Bible standard about what the course should be and if so do we need to site that that statute? >> That's a good point. So that' just be the 10th Tennessee code
annotated. Um was a couple years ago so that you'd have to do which it's not a public chapter so you wouldn't have to say which assembly. >> Hopefully it's pretty straightforward. I haven't done APA for staff. Uh, Vice
Chair Hillyard, have you done your work yet and making the modifications? >> I am in the process of doing it right now. I'm on letter M, so I'm about halfway done. >> Yeah. >> So, Torus out. >> Yeah. Somebody wanted to start from the bottom. >> Yeah. I I keep working my way up. I
haven't found Stanovich or Seidenberg. I'm nervous that they are somewhere that we are not currently thinking of, but >> I'm working in the middle. >> Thanks. >> Yeah, all of your work looks right to me
now. So, >> okay. >> Um Oh, I meant um somebody to help. Vice, >> I'm just wondering if the people that wrote this use that as part of their general research on the subject, but um
it's not referred to in the standards. >> Yes, that's what I confirmed with um Dr. SK Jackson who led the references last time. They said their intent was to not have any additional citations. Okay. So, we would eliminate Stanovich
and Sedenberg unless Brianna can find them. >> I just did Sedenberg. So far, Miss Now has been very correct. >> I did find Sadita and I did find
Scarboro. Scarbor's robe. Um, Kilpatrick is the next one up. I have not found. The good news is um I will always keep a record of this document. So any you know this will not be the I don't know overarching version of it. So if anybody thinks of it you know a week from now
please tell me. It's not too late. >> And did you say there's no Kilpatrick? Yes. >> Yeah. I wonder if a lot of this was the um appendix >> Denton. I don't see
>> Oh, if they're in the appendix, >> they would be in here. I've got the appendix. >> Yeah, it's already there. Okay. So, it wouldn't be any additional appendix items that are not currently there yet. Not unless they have not yet be been created and I can work. >> So if those if those new appendix
>> So if those new appendix items are created, those references will get added then at that moment. Okay. >> You said Denton missed out. >> Yes. >> I put comments um on all the ones I did.
I finished from uh what was it? Uh, Hoover up. >> Okay. >> So, you say there's no Hoover, Annie? >> Um,
no. I I'm going to double check Hoover real quick because I did. >> I believe I found Hoover. I did not see Kavanaaugh and I did not see that. And >> what about Go? >> Go's there. Okay.
>> Okay. I'm trying to keep up. Hold on. Okay. So, >> my bad. I misspoke. Yeah, that one was mentioned. Um, it just the 1986 for the one above should be 19. Well, one of them is wrong. It's mentioned within the
intex citation is 1996 and here is 1986. >> Okay. Do you mind checking? >> That was just a mistype. Yeah. Do you mind um checking on that link? It should have the date in the I forget what these are called. The stable links. >> Yes, that's a great idea.
>> Okay. What were some of the other ones missed out I'm supposed to be checking? >> Um Denton and Kavanaaugh, I believe, were the last two. >> Okay. >> De Hane is in there. >> I double checking again. Yes, Deain is in there. I only see four instances
though, which may lead me to believe, do we need all three versions? Are all three versions cited? Let's look. >> Okay, it's I see 2009 and 2020. >> So, I don't know that we need
>> 2013. Please check someone. >> I see the same thing you see. Okay. Okay, >> Hoover we decided is good >> and >> Okay, so I think that's everybody. >> So what I see from your summary is that
we keep Sadita, Scar Bro, Hoover, Go and De >> and Wolf. >> Wolf. >> Wolf. I didn't >> Okay, I didn't see that. There we go. >> It is 1986, not 96.
Nice. Thank you. >> Once again, S um Sadita, Scar Bro, Wolf, Hoover, Go and De Hane are in. >> The rest of them are eliminated. And and how is your uh search going,
Co-Chair Hillyard? >> I am down to the TE's now. Um so I am I'm nearly done. Annie, you should know that we did a painstaking review of all your recommendations and we thank you for
taking the time to do that and by and large we uh suggest we went along with many of your suggestions. Some of them uh we said yeah but probably not necessary. So thank you. You and you'll see them
reflected now in the final document. >> Folks who use APA more recently than I have since grad school. Isn't it most recent in the years for sim author or no?
Does anyone teach? It's been a minute, but I think you're correct. >> Uh, but I will double check. year order. Same author. Is that going to get us where we want to go?
Oh, oldest to newest. Assuming this little thing is right. Hold on. Well, no, that's same date. Here I'll pause so you do not have to be subjected to this torture. Well, if they're in the same year,
apparently they are listed as A and B. >> Okay, I lied. They were correct. Earliest comes first. according to Purdue. >> Okay, I think we're good then.
>> So, we don't need to make a change in that then. >> Okay, great. Uh, can you open the parking garage then while we're waiting for Coach Hillyard? >> Um, >> I am I am done by the way. If anyone
wants to take a look at what I've done just to ensure I did it correctly, um, I would appreciate that. There were some instances where I maintained the the italics because I think they were intentional rather than um just an instance of of formatting.
And then also just do we need to add that did we add the reference for the for the Bible um language that we included or is that still outstanding? >> Outstanding. Good flag. >> Okay.
not done APA general assembly or um state statute in a second. Hold on. But if anyone knows, please tell me. Okay, no one stopped me. But this is what produces. Oh, this is for That's not exactly what
we need. Just kidding. Uh, Coach Cochair Hillyard, sorry. Um for the definition of purpose um the third sentence really most texts are
written to fill a broader purpose. Purpose is italicized? Did we mean to keep that italicized? The same definition. >> That was that that was just an oversight. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Okay, this one is very close, but most
bills do not have an act title unless it's something big like the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement, that kind of deal. Um, in phenology phone names is still Does it come out of the uh state code? What's the document that all of these
laws go into? >> It's the Tennessee code annotated and it should be Oh gosh. 4910 1026. Hold on. >> I think then isn't that the way it should go? Tennessee code annotated and then the numbers. >> I think that's close. I just, you know,
I'm with English teacher so I have to be on my best behavior, you know. Yeah. Oh, excuse me. I was slightly off. 496 1026. So that's how we use in text in government, but it just doesn't have an act title, which is what Purdue was
asking for. I would assume Tennessee code annotated would be sufficient because the number is the way it's identified within the code.
What is the number again, Brittany or Brianna? I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Uh 496 1026. Is that right? Yeah. Um I'll drop this here, but I I don't want to
step. I suppose this would be in the TE's, but feel free to move it. Uh, Cochair Hillyard, sorry, I know we're all doing two different things right now, but um in wait a minute. Oh, I lost it. No, I didn't. a conjunction
um for inor but or yet. So they're they're at italic size currently and nor is it's supposed to be nor but it currently says not. >> Ah okay. Um I left them I italicized
because I because they were referring to the word as a word. So I thought that was intentional but thanks for the flag on on nor. Um, you abbreviated PCA uh for the purpose of anybody that might
look at references. Okay. I'd like Tennessee code annotated so people understand what TCA is about. >> That's fair. Um, I'm looking at the Legal Information institute at Cornell,
um, which is not exactly APA, but these are all acceptable according to them. But yeah, this is how we site it in rule policy and statute or this one is also very like well accepted. >> I would suggest that one. I just think
it's clear people might not know what TCA stands for. Okay. Now, are we are we ready for the parking garage? >> Just want to double check before I act on behalf of committee. Committee members, is there any issue or thoughts
on this? >> I hear none. >> Okay. >> Um I think since Dr. or you you got me calling her doctor now. Um um uh since Miss now has
>> prophesizing it. We're speaking into [Laughter] >> um she deserves one. Um I if anyone wants to do a quick little scan, I'm not saying a full uh you know careful check, but a quick little scan of the glossery
just to make sure it feels ready to go since we are about to leave our baby behind. I think the glossery should be formatted correctly. Now, I tried to make consistent um little differences like
sometimes we're using a colon to introduce, sometimes we're using a hyphen um to to introduce the definition. I tried to keep it consistent with um capitalization at the start if it's a full sentence and lowerase if it's not.
Tried to keep the parenthetical list consistent. So, I think it should be consistent throughout. Now, I just did my last scan and and so I think I'm I'm good on my front and everyone else's. >> Everything looks good to me. Um,
appendix A, I just one little thing. I know that's not the glossery. >> Um, the first figure we currently have listed as a question mark. Yes, I will go back and do those at the very end once I have everything. Okay.
Just so that they reflect the most current version because I'm not sure if you know TDOE were to theoretically make five figures on an appendix y'all have requested or one, you know. >> Okay. >> I promise to do that part. I love doing that part. >> Good. Thank you.
Um, Miss Summers, um, would now be an appropriate time for us to go, uh, edit the table of contents or should we just leave a note asking for the table of contents to be updated later after I would assume page numbers will will
shift. >> Yes. If it's just related to page numbers, leave me a comment. If there's anything substantive you'd like to edit, feel free to do that. In terms of appendices, I will add.
>> Does anyone have anything substantive that they would like to edit? >> I think we we did. I may be wrong, but I think we added some appendices. Do we need to to add those additional appendices that have been requested? >> Un are they already reflected below at
the end? >> They are reflected at the end. Yes, >> totally fine. I will do that because I want to double check and see what's within TDO's capacity, etc. based on our timeline. >> Okay. >> Did we land on a decision about the what
is it the roots list >> in there as a proposal unless this committee would like to make a dec different decision. I think as it stands we've asked the TDOE to to draft the U as appendix F the 6 through8 roots and aixes progression
chart. >> Okay. >> And name agreed to do it. >> Tenatively we've discussed that they would like to help with the appendix. >> Is there a time
six through eight? Uh my understanding Tammy please jump in is um it was a specific request from the 68 team. So if you remember that first group they were broken up into their grade band. So Nicole led her group of seven people or six letters I should say
and they specifically requested it was interest from your committee Tammy or um >> yes they they asked for it. um they were the ones who who wanted guidance in what they were supposed to teach each year.
I want to say foundational literacy has some level of specificity on this but please please please someone correct me. So the foundational literacy standards are quite um specific about what exactly is being taught at each level. So I
think that would kind of correspond. Um I think gen there are a lot of example lists provided in those standards. Um yeah I can double check. >> That sounds right to me. So I guess it's just a matter of like is
that relevant at the high school level and what would be helpful for y'all. Okay. Yes. Read words with common Latin aixes and roots for anti-post subput. I think this is what this is but someone stop me.
This is in fact literacy. That's how I read it. Yes. Um, so I guess it would just be whether or not we want the a 912 uh roots and aix list. Um other high school teachers, how do you feel? I I I'll be honest, I don't spend
much time on roots and aixes. Um but I I don't know if that's something that others might find useful. >> And I know I'm not a committee member, but I would hate to limit people to just a list. >> I agree.
I agree too. >> Yeah, that is something that y'all could put in your guidance to the department like a non-exhaustive list cuz the way I read this right now with the EGS is, you know, it may come up but not necessarily come up. That's something
you can certainly specify in the comments to the appendix. >> So, we would want that that 6 through8 list to specifically not be exhausted so that they know that that is not the full extent of
roots and apexes. Is that my understanding? >> So is that something we would like to include in the wish list for the TD? Yeah, I think if that's what the committee wants to do, you can just put it in this comment and just say like, "Note, we would want this list to
specifically not be non-exhaustive." >> Um, if that's the case, if we want the 6 through8 list to be non-exhaustive, then do we want it to be a 612 list or a K12 list or do we want it to just stick to 68? And I guess I'm going back a couple
standard um time periods, but at one point every time they saw a list, some teachers would only teach what was on the list. And that's what scares me. >> Do we want do we even want the 68 list then?
I'm not particularly attached to either idea, but it was something that seemed like it was highly requested in the survey. Um, I don't know how this was one of those things I was kind of iffy about. I I know that I think having a vocabulary
list, which was highly requested, feels like a really bad idea because then kids aren't learning vocabulary in context. Um, but I feel like roots and aixes could work. Like I wouldn't be mad about that personally. I think I would be mad if I was given a vocabulary list though.
Um, so I think either way I I think it could be beneficial potentially if it was very like explicitly given as as a guide. Um, but again, I'm not really super attached to having it or not having it.
Yeah, I think my main my main question is um I guess I I I'm trying to understand our justification for doing a six through eight list but not including other grade levels within it if we're going to do it at all. Um >> only because it was that group of teachers that that suggested it in the
survey and we were trying to respond to it. But um I agree with what you're saying. Uh why why sight just that grade level? >> Were we okay to throw it out then? >> I'm nervous about throwing it out since
it was something that we wanted. Um but at the same time I don't want to set a precedent that this is the you know exhausted list and then I also don't want to have a scenario where only six through8 have that guidance and others don't. I I don't know I I think
ultimately I'm going to take a backseat on this because I don't know how exactly I feel >> to the question of exhaustive list isn't that the difference between our specifically an EG. So, if we say eg is not exhaustive, then we're saying it's
not exhaustive. >> Um, >> if 68 asks for I I mean I understand what you're saying about consistency, but >> if they ask for a list, give them a list. I guess their Christmas here's
list. >> And I will say they do have lists from K5. So, if y'all were interested in pulling those for a greater trajectory K8, I imagine that would be a pretty light lift for the department because they can pull it from the standards. But
totally up to you like pulling these into some sort of like y'all have already done the hard work here. >> Yeah. I guess my my thought is it does it hurt that it's there? No, I don't think it hurts. No, potentially yes. So
I don't see any harm in it. >> Is the only place in the standards that roots and aexes aexes are mentioned is in grade 6 through 8. >> Uh here's an example of a third grade
standard that has roots and aixes. I think it's pretty It's pretty much entirely >> in K5 in the foundation of literacy. I don't think there's much reference in six through8 standards in general. >> Isn't there I'm pretty sure like one of
the VAU standards it says something about common uh like roots a morphological element something like that. I'm forgetting the wording. >> Um >> yes you're right.
>> Yeah. Yeah. roots and fixes >> and it is only Yeah, you're right. And it's only in the 68 standards that we specify that in the in the high school standards there's there's morphological elements. So I mean that's a
same thing. >> I feel like we're circling back to this was a discussion that we had before. I mean um the wording in the standard is that they're using common grade appropriate roots and so what is common to one person versus another and I think
the the the teachers had just expressed the frustration that they be given some sort of guidance to not necessarily limit them but to somewhat somewhat reframe what is meant by
common. I have no I have no qualms with the list. I guess I my main thing was why 6 through8 and not 9 through 12 I guess was my my >> I understand why 6 through 8. Um if if we're going to do it I understand why going up to the eighth grade. It does
not make sense to me to limit the high school grade band. Um, do we make it? Well, I'm not sure what grade we start doing roots, but I mean, if you know, say third grade was the first year that they specifically have that list mentioned, maybe it's
like a 3 through eight or wherever that begins. >> Why not just have it non-graded? Just say list of roots and a faxes. A progressive list of roots and axes. Ax >> not exhaustive. >> Yeah.
Well, it is it's framed as a progression chart. So, I think it it's probably going to say like sixth grade, seventh grade, eighth grade um as the progression. >> To answer Miss Docker's question, I only see instances in grades three through five.
>> What did you say again? I I didn't hear that. Brianna, >> uh Miss Docker asked the question, is this applicable K2 not based on the word roots? I can check aixes. More instances of the word aixes. So, take that for what it's worth.
>> You said it's in 35. >> Yes. I'll double check. Aixes just to be sure. >> Oh, some of this may be relevant. 35. >> Okay. Okay, so their roots are 35, but
aixes apparently start in as early as kindergarten. >> Well, did y'all take that out? Hold on. Nope, just kidding. Yep, y'all have it as early as kindergarten. >> Potentially a Ka list.
>> Yeah, I a non-ex non-exhaustive list. So is that our consensus is a K8 list? >> Yes. >> Language about not having it be exhausted. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I changed the six to a K. And then I wrote, "We would like some
language introducing the chart that makes clear that the roots and a fixes provided in the chart are not intended to be the only roots and a fixes taught. This list should provide common examples, not an exhaustive list." >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Well said. Does that satisfy everybody?
Okay, let's move on. >> Um, I did wonder if, and I mean, feel free to overrule me, but because we have so many parking garage items that that are in the glossery before we moved on from the glossery, if it wouldn't make sense to try to check off just those
items from the parking garage. >> I I think, and I may have been wrong, I think I brought those over as we did the glossery. Um, >> we just want >> each of >> Yeah, I think we can do a quick check and just check those off. >> You want to check that and then just put
an X by them, take them out. >> I I'm happy to like read them aloud for folks and if they want to check and see if they're present. >> That's a good idea. Let's proceed that way. >> Okay. Um, I think we I I can't recall what our
decision was on this. I think we may have decided to not take this advice, but one that we had was define print and print concepts in the glossery. >> We have print concepts. >> Okay. So, we do have print concepts. Okay.
>> I'm not saying print itself though. >> I think we decided not to do that. >> Yeah. If I'm remembering correctly, I think our conversation was that print concepts covers that. >> Agreed. X. >> Okay. Um, next glossery was to spell out
acronyms VCC CV CVC CBC VCC CVCC CC VCC in the glossery. >> That was that was skill. >> You did that. >> I I I believe I did. Um I yes I do think I did that
>> my last survey of that was that you did that. >> Okay. Um next up glossery wise is define thesis statement versus claim. I believe we did that if anyone wants to verify. Damn
>> exhaustively. Check. We did that. >> Um we next wanted to define refute. I believe we did that. >> Check. Uh, next we have define acknowledge versus address.
Believe we did that. I'm not 100%. Someone can check. >> We have address. >> Yes, >> we have acknowledge. >> Okay. >> Check. >> Um, we had define digital tools and
digital citizenship. We have digital tools. We don't have digital citizenship >> because mentioned in the standards, >> right? >> Yeah. I think we had eventually removed the language of digital citizenship in the standards and so I think we
ultimately decided only to define terms that were in the standards. >> Did we not use digital citizenship in journalism? No, I think we said ethics. Journalism. What did we say? Ethics maybe. Okay. So, we don't say digital citizenship in our standards.
>> Wow. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> I can do a quick search if if we want to just make sure digital >> I think we did and found we did not.
I think that would be unfortunate if we didn't unless we feel like we got to that concept some other way. Um we did we did use it in um we did use it in the standards for uh speech for the speech
class. >> How was it used? >> It is just demonstrate digital citizenship. So yeah, we probably should define it since that definition that standard is quite literally just demonstrate digital citizenship.
>> Thought we weren't doing definitions in the glossery for elective classes. >> We were not. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Yeah. Or else we have a lot more work to do. >> Right. Right. So that's right because we did we specified that the glossery is just a K through2 standards glossery.
That's right. >> I forgot about that. So is our consensus then we're not going to define digital citizenship. >> Yes. >> Okay. The the next glossery item was define formatting and define features.
>> Formatting is there. >> Formatting is there. We eliminated features. Okay. But I do think we we introduced the idea of defining those and then we reached a consensus that it shouldn't be defined. So I I feel I feel okay moving forward
without features if if other folks do based off of >> conversation or features. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's set or not. >> Yes. Um we have uh to double check and ensure
that our definition of central idea conveys the intended meeting. So I think there was some concern that maybe we needed to alter the definition of central idea and miss now has left a comment there as well. Um so we we probably should look
at the definition of central ID. Our current definition is a broad concept that can apply to a larger body of text and emphasizes the core message the author wants to convey. >> Like a broad concept doesn't say much.
I think I feel like we had when we discussed this before, a big part of our hesitation was going from K5 to 68 and um Miss Singleary, do you have um a comment
about how central idea would be defined at the elementary or fifth grade level >> as opposed to what's written already? >> Yes, ma'am. No, I I mean that's exactly what we would use. >> I think we also talked about it in in
relationship to to uh substituting central idea for all reference to main idea. >> Yes. So that students now in Tennessee from the get-go will be using the word
central idea and not main idea. >> Yes. >> Does the definition as it's defined right now in our glossery uh suffice? >> Yes, I believe so. Anybody
have uh anything else to offer >> us? Now, um did y'all cover this comment? Because I'll just resolve it if you're good. >> Yes, I believe we did. We just I just wanted to be sure that we had um when I left that comment at the time,
>> but we did eliminate the definition for main idea because as um Chera said, we we did want to students to begin using the word the term central idea. So yes, I think I think we've resolved it.
>> Okay, so let's move on. >> Okay. Uh the next glossery parking lot item is define ret. Oh no, we did that one already. Define text elements. Thought we had it >> a bunch of text ones. We do have text
elements. >> Oh, it's just it's not in alphabetical order. >> Uh I'm also going to add a period. Isn't that what we decided? Or no? >> Yes, it needs a period. And also it's Yeah, it's out of alphabet a quarter
as is textual evidence. >> And you'll alphabetize these. I think we've been alphabetizing them. So, I think we just need to make that correction now. >> Okay. >> Yes, I will double check everything, but anything else can do on the front end will save your >> evidence needs to go with Okay, never
mind. It's textual evidence. >> Oh, right. That's a good point. Jiggus, does that mess up the alpha? So, maybe textual evidence is correct and really just text elements needs to move. >> Okay. Right.
textual. Yeah, that's right. That's right. >> It looks like we eliminated textual anyway, >> right? You could say text element. Oh, wait. No, sorry. Text evidence. Just depends on what y'all prefer.
I think we >> I don't think we intentionally delected the textual evidence. I think that just got deleted now because I was trying to move it. Um so I I think not not intended to be deleted. >> Okay, there we go.
Looks pretty. Are we done with that discussion? All right. Next. >> Okay. Um, we had define time manipulation. >> We did that.
>> Okay. And then we had define point of view and define perspective. I'm pretty sure we did that >> exhaustively. Um, we define we wanted to define text.
Um, I I I wrote that definition. So, I do know we defined text. Um, we had provide a definition of multimedia or actually it says multimedia definition. consider revising to specify other than just movies. So,
>> I think I'll do that. >> Check it. Believe we did. >> Yeah, it says audio and visual output such as images, full motion video, sound recordings, audio, visual, written, and/or digital medium. >> Sounds like we did that. Uh, can we
remove that first and I mean not the first and but after full motion videos. Yeah, I think you're right. So, images, full motion videos, sound recordings, audio, visual, written, andor digital media.
That sounds right to me. So are we good on multimedia? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh we wanted to define trace. >> We did do that. Okay, done.
>> Um, I think that's all we got on glossery. So, I think that's everything in the parking garage related to the glossery. >> All right. What's left in this parking garage? >> Um, mostly things related to the standards themselves. um
some things that are briefly in there I think related to perhaps the appendix or the electives but I think for the most part we're looking at uh things from the standards. >> Do we just go one at a time then? I
think if I think we wanted to just make sure I think Miss Summers had had flagged that we want to just take one last look at the intro at the overall introductory language for for both this and for the electives just to ensure we're 100% good to go there. Um just really quickly before we move to the
next step. >> So let's all take a few minutes to do that. Can you put that language up? >> Yeah. Just know that I know we talked about it, but know that you know if we end today, you'll be voting on this as well, minus any like very specific
instructions you've given for your leadership team to do. So, I will note if you've added sort of comments that are more questions for the group, if they remain at this document after you voted, that's up to your leadership team to decide.
And Miss Simmers, if when I am taking a look over this, I find some mistake. Um, that's just a a a wording or formatting mistake. Um, would it be possible to make any edits
at that point or would that be confined by the vote? >> We call those technical non-substantive edits and that's totally fine. if there's a clear like back to the citation question like yes this is APA or no this is not APA that sort of thing but if your members have left questions
like I don't know if we should say it like this question mark that would also be up to the leadership team to decide because they're leaving those questions open at the vote >> okay >> can you scroll up >> uh
down. >> No, the other way so we can read it. >> Oh, the comments. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hold on. >> Oh, you don't need that one. Start there. Well, you don't really need any of these. I'll start with Dr. Stones. That's most relevant.
It sounds like a statement of philosophy from the committee upon which all of our decisions were based. Does anybody have any additions or corrections? >> I do not. Yes sir.
>> I'm good. >> Tell us. >> Just said I do not. >> Okay. >> Okay. This also applies to like this sort of section if there's anything here on coding any of the overall introductions like these sections. I
believe we've taken a look at most of them. But >> I think we did those as we went as we went along to each of the areas, did we not? for most of them. >> So, >> yeah. All right. So, that part's good. Did we have anything specific to the um
electives? >> The only thing I can think of with electives is that chart um with the credit thing. Um I think we need to make sure we get sorted out what language is going to go there. Obviously, since it's outside of our purview to decide how
many credits someone can earn. Um, I think Miss Summers, you had recommended some sort of language here. Do you mind reminding us of that? >> Yes, you read my mind. My proposed language is in green based on talking to the Department of Education. Not to say that, you know, y'all are the experts
and can provide guidance on, you know, if you're going to teach mythology more than once, please teach different mythologies, that kind of stuff. Where we really run into issues is the numbers since there's an explicit stateboard rule, which is, you know, the other half of my job. um that says districts come
up with those numbers. So take this as guidance from experts to districts but we can't specify numbers. So you'll see I changed the language from need to to should
knowing that it's guidance. That's generally how that works in our policy rule world. And yes, open to any edits on this. This was just like I was thinking like if this is half, this is one, what's more than one? You know, that kind of thing. Open to any thoughts. >> Not like that.
Does that satisfy everybody else? Would the uh the cells in which we don't have anything currently, would those just be blank or would they be NA or or what would go in those?
You you have options. Um you could for the ones that are not available, you could say teach all standards or you're welcome to put NA. I guess if you put not available in NA, that might create some confusion. >> Okay. >> Open to thoughts.
I I say teach all standards. I think I agree. >> Can we add teach all standards then? I can add that if if we want to add that. >> I think so. >> Oh, I thought you meant the empty boxes like these. No.
>> Yeah. Yeah, the empty box. Those >> Oh, okay. I I guess I I was less concerned about those. Um those seem pretty pretty um understandable to me. I guess I'm concerned more about than the more than one credit category. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Um, yeah. I'm open to
y'all's thoughts. This is where the content expertise sort of weighs in of like do y'all have any thoughts on like if a in the rare case that a school wanted to teach visual literacy twice, how they would distinguish it? You know, obviously mythology is one of our more obvious examples because,
you know, different places in the world have done their own mythology. um >> cuz more than one it yeah >> I don't know that it's necessary to include that. I think the progression is obvious in journalism. I mean they
they're going to get credit for each each of those courses and there there's the the built-in progression there. >> I would say more than one credit for speech and communications. >> I'm I
I don't know. I'm I'm still conflicted on this myself. Um I'm starting to wonder if we even need this column at all. Um if we're if that's really outside of our purview here, what exactly they do if it's more than one credit? If that's kind of to the other
people's decision-m I wonder if we even need to be providing that kind of guidance or if that's something they can decide on a >> smaller scale. So I heard the conversation that this is outside of our purview. Uh I remember when we had that opinion.
I guess we are leaving a note to um the folks on the state board. I just would like to like beg for clarity there or consistency because I have seen incidents where I know a district is
supposed to set the policy or somebody sets the policy but kids are getting caught in the gaps because it's not clear and I have seen that play out firsthand. So I know it's not our role but if we can make the request that it is like crystal clear um I think that
would help students not fall through the gaps there. Yeah. Um, again, in my other hat, we've been in active conversations with districts about particularly dual enrollment. You know, is it most important that they're taking the course over the semester or the year or the rigor or the comparative rigor from the
institution versus the county? I mean, versus the district. Those are some of the other things I wrestle when I'm not hanging out with y'all. And so, I'd love to talk to you about it, Dr. Stout. Um, we're thinking about rule revisions and what makes the most sense. Um, >> and guess who had to notify those families?
That's how I know this. >> Yeah. >> I was going to say I have some fear that if we eliminate the column then maybe districts won't I don't think that it would be an option because I'm I don't know if it's like I don't know if they have an English board or anything. Uh
but I did just say like with with journalism I I had eight journalism credits >> by the end of my uh high school. So I took it every semester. So I I think you there is a progression there but you can still I think it's still valuable to
take it you know more than just the four times. >> I definitely kept learning. >> Just to be clear on my end what's in your purview is any guidance you want to provide with the assumption that districts may or may not follow it. What's not in the preview of this committee is the number of credits. As
the rule currently stands, there would need to be revisions to our rule, which is a whole separate fun thing. Um, so it's just a matter of what text you want here and why. Uh, one thing I'll highlight since y'all have brought up the journalism progression multiple
times, which could or could not be clear based on y'all's description, we do also have a progression with creative writing, but y'all have given guidance around like duplicating advanced creative writing. So, if you want any internal consistency
there, that would be my thought. >> I'm wondering about maybe just stealing that language from creative, sorry, creative writing, teach all standards in greater depth. I would say that was probably accurate to what I was doing in taking journalism multiple times.
>> Oh, I was talking about this one. The tasks for the two classes should be distinctly different. However, students can build upon work from one course to the next. So, I think your options are to get rid of this column, put guidance in the column and all the categories, put
guidance in some of the columns. I think the language you mentioned is good. So then would be moving the language from the uh advanced creative writing course to all of the currently blank cells in
the last column. Am I hearing that correctly? >> I think that works. Um, check. My only question there just so I understand y'all's intent is would you
take creative writing twice theoretically and then maybe take advanced creative writing twice? Would you take journalism twice? You know, like is this language only applicable for the culminating highest rigor is not the right word, but
highest offering course or is it relevant for truly all courses? Mockery, when you earned eight credits, did you take journalism one twice and journalism two twice and or was it just journalism four a bunch of times? You
know, I I don't I feel like it was coded more as like almost like it was like ninth grade if I took it twice in ninth grade. Like it was coded as journalism one twice, but that's been a few years ago and I couldn't say with any um
reliability. Now, I I do still stay in contact with my newspaper teacher, so I could potentially test text her and ask her if she knows how that was. You said you took eight semesters, not eight credits. You took eight semesters.
>> I'm pretty sure it counted as eight. Yeah, it was eight credits. >> Wow. So, you were double booked. Like you had a double block of journalism, it sounds like all four years. >> Well, it was we had block scheduling. So, it'd be, you know, first semester
and then I would take it again the second semester and there'd be >> got it. um some some kids would move out of the class, some new kids move into the class, you know, so it was it was a you know a start over essentially, but we just she did a good job of
scaffolding what we were doing. >> And now you can see why I'm asking for clarity. Uh >> yeah, >> because what happens is at the end of the year, these kids are seniors and they think they have credits that could count multiple and then we got told that
they couldn't or somebody coded it wrong. Uh and it's the kids who suffer. So, uh I am so glad it worked out for Miss Dockery and she is obviously expert in journalism. Uh but I just want there to be clarity
for students across Tennessee. Then perhaps the clarity can be delivered in a statement, a general statement about credits at the bottom of this list and then eliminate that far right hand column and not make any statement about credits saying that's a
district perspective district uh determination. Yeah, I I do I think there might be something to that if we perhaps even in the language above the in like the introductory language above the chart if
we just said if courses are offered for more than one credit, the tasks for the two classes should be distinctly different. However, students can build upon work from one course to the next just to kind of capture
all of the courses without having a separate column to do that. Um, but I I'm not married to that. I think that's fine. I think my my only concern was it maybe districts feeling like they were limited and couldn't do
more than one credit. So I think if there's a note about that then that's sufficient. >> Brianna, did you offer language earlier in this discussion about offering about how we would state that?
What I did was uh retitle this to be less focused on credits earning and just removed the number since that's outside of the purview of this committee. And then I changed everything to should because our guidance is non-binding here.
That's what I did. But you can certainly remove this column and add a statement if you feel like it would capture the the column that is on the table for sure. Should we give any particular shout out to genre literature and mythology about
changing genres or mythologies or is that implied in the uh what the language that Mr. Hillard proposed? Well, the question is, do we want to make a general statement about the
awarding of credit or do we want to get specific for each of the classes? It seems to me that the only classes we really have specific guidance on are genre literature and mythology like Miss Dory just noted. And even that is just
if you're going to do it a second time, make sure the genre or the mythology is different. But I wonder to what extent that might also be true for visual literacy, also true for creative writing, also true for advanced creative writing. Um, >> yes, I agree. though I I want I think
the language about the tasks for the two classes should be distinctly different largely captures that I mean it doesn't completely I guess there's a way could be elided there but I think it mostly does that >> maybe like task or focus maybe there's
some other word that we could just insert that encapsulates >> the tasks the tasks or folky for the two classes should be distinctly different. >> You're working on a statement you're working on a statement that generally
applies to all these classes. >> Yes. >> If if we were going to do that, yes. Um but I I don't I I want to know what people want to do. Um and then also if if we were to include the statement, would it go above the chart? Would it go below the chart?
Physically on the page, where would it go? >> I would put it below the chart. Multiple credits may be offered according to district guidelines. In this instance, uh
we need to make the statement that we did uh here that the curriculum would be distinctly different from one course to the other. Multiple credits may be offered. Thank you. I read my mind.
>> I like what you're doing there. And we would eliminate then the final column there and take ourselves out of that mix and give that guidance. uh for clarity
uh in terms of awarding credits so that students aren't falling through the cracks. And the teachers know and the principles know that if these courses are being offered and the students
successfully complete them, they are to be awarded credit. Do people feel like this language is I mean I I don't want to lose anything. I don't want to to anything to be lost in translation here. So do do we feel as if this does the job or or do we still want
to work on this? >> Perhaps get rid of two and just say area for the classes. So I don't know if somebody if they wanted to offer genre studies for three credits or something then they could >> uh
should we say classes? >> Yeah, that's it right there. The classes. You don't need to say the two. Just say the classes. You don't need to put the number in there. Would it be course to match your consistency at the top?
>> I think what we were trying to do there is the course name is genre literature. So like you're you're taking the course again, but each instance of the course would be a class, I think, is what we were going for there. >> Okay, that's good with me.
If that's but if that's not clear then we need to be more clear about that because that that's important. >> So should we say the I mean we're saying >> I just want to make sure I understand y'all's intent because um quite frankly I get lots of questions from districts and you know random school counselors
will call me be like hey can I do this? Can I do that? Can I do this? Uh, we could say since we use the word offered, we could say the tasks and or focus area for the offering should be distinctly different. We could say
offering instead of classes. Um, but if that if we're >> I don't think so. I I think the second one should be courses also.
Uh just since we've specified up in the C in the chart that we're each course is genre literature mythology, it makes it seem like we're talking about a course progression like from journalism one to journalism 2 to journalism 3, which is true, but I think what we're really saying is from each instance of the
course taken. Um so like if you're taking journalism one twice, then the second time you take journalism one, you're permitted to build upon the work that you did in the in the first instance of journalism one. Um, okay. If we say course, I think it that gets
ellighted a little bit. I think credits are award are awarded based upon courses completed as opposed to classes completed. I think the word course would be better
there. That's my personal opinion. >> I just worry that the meaning we're trying to convey here might be lost in that instance and some of the courses directly build into the next iteration. Uh or each course some of the courses build into an higher level course. So I worry that they're thinking I'm worried
that someone might read that and think okay then when they go to advanced creative writing they can build off what they did in creative writing. not if they take creative writing a second time, they can build off of what they did in creative writing the first instance. I see what you're saying. Um I don't love the word class to be honest, but I don't I worry that saying course
again um gets a little a little muddled. >> Would the word iteration help each iteration of the course or I I'm trying to come up with andor focus areas for
each iteration of the course. So, >> I guess a compromise maybe. Is there some other word we could add to make it clearer? I can live with that. And then do we put like an example
perhaps even to make it crystal clear? >> EG or IE. >> I think we should put Miss Dockery's example. For example, you could have eight credits internally >> and one day you too could be appointed
to the state state committee. Yeah. And use those skills. >> They tried not to put me in at one one semester and I about botm. So >> yeah, if you're um Mr. If I recall correctly, you expressed a desire to want to talk about mythology or genre
literature, this could be your opportunity. Or if you'all want to get into the, you know, finer tuned details, you can pick one of the harder examples. >> Personally, I think mythology and genre literature would would suffice here
unless we want to really like Yeah, I mean, I guess Miss Summers has a point if we wanted to get into one of the weedier examples. >> No wrong answer. I think you're talking about a really small population of folks. Not everybody is as cool as M dockery. So no wrong answers here
friends. >> I would prefer to remain moot on the issue. >> Uh we could do two examples. >> Maka, you always want more. >> She does. >> True. Um so if we did say
uh genre literature since it's the first one for example if a student takes a genre literature course focused
on historical fiction. I just picked a random one from the list. If there's another one that we would prefer, then let me know. Um, then they would not be permitted to take
another course with the other iteration of the course. the same content. But they would but the student
would be permitted to take another iteration of the course focused on
um young adult literature. I am I just threw something together. So if anybody has anything that they would like me to change, please let me know. >> Would that language at all make it seem like you couldn't take journalism eight
times? >> I have no idea. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. It just means you're going to be doing things different in journalism. >> And we can just delim eliminate the language about then they would not be permitted to take another iteration of
the course. We could just say, for example, if a student takes a genre literature course focused on historical fiction, the student would be permitted to take another iteration of the course focused on young adult literature. >> Yeah, that works well for me from a policy perspective. Since this is guidance, we want to be careful about like shall, must, permit, not permit
kinds of words. Okay. I can live with that. Everybody good with that? All right. So, we'll take off that far right column then and this will suffice for the um
direction there to districts in terms of awarding. >> So, are we all good there? Do we all feel comfortable with this? I hear no objections. Let's move on. We are very close, boys
and girls. Okay. Um I I I'm loathed to slow us down, but I don't think we ever really took a look together as a group about the genre literature or mythology
um introductory language. Um, I don't think we need to do a lot of looking at it, but I just think, you know, for the the sake of completeness, we might just want to take a really quick look because these both do have somewhat lengthy lists of suggested genres. So, we might want to
take a look at those suggested lists to make sure they have what we want. So long, I cannot fit it on one page. So if I need to scroll at any point, someone tell me. I feel like maybe science fiction and
fantasy makes sense to be split up. Am I wrong there? >> What What did we do to that? >> I I split it up. Um, I I I agree. I think it's worth splitting up if if other folks agree. >> Okay.
>> I could imagine certainly a course on just science fiction or just on fantasy. >> It sure is very open. >> Author studies is listed twice. We have author studies plural underneath poetry and then at the end we have just
singular author study. So do we want to keep a differentiation there or is it essentially the same thing? >> I it's the same thing. I think we can delete >> it's the same thing. Okay. Any other changes to that?
>> Do we need to spell out >> um do we need to spell out >> AAPI instead of using an acronym without >> defining it? >> I don't know what it is. >> Is that Asian Pacific? I believe it's Asian-American Pacific.
>> Yeah, Asian-American Pacific. Yeah, we should spell it out. >> I think we should spell it out, especially since you do African-American, Hispanic. >> Okay. Is Native American in there?
>> Indigenous. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is that where you >> do we feel that I mean I don't this is probably not waters we want to wait into but do we want to do we need to have
Latin X Latin I know that within his like Latin X and Latin communities there's a lot of dispute about which one of those terms is right and which one's wrong. So do we just want to keep it the way it is? because um
they're already influx of changing like they're they're already evolving. So I would just uh what do we have currently? >> We have Hispanics/Latinx and then parentheses e literature. So we
we kind of just did it all. Is there a need to change what's there? >> Yeah, I I don't I mean I don't there is not a consensus I think on this. I think the this is divisive within the community. So I don't know if
I I certainly do not feel prepared to make that decision. I have not heard of Latin E yet. So, what's the alternative? >> I mean, traditionally, I think it was Latin or Latino, and then that's where
Latinx came in, gender inclusive, and then I think, um, some folks within that community felt like that was kind of an imposition, and so then they moved to Latine. Um, but I I frankly by the time
the standards are out, this will likely have shifted some more. >> Yeah. So, just leave it the way it is. >> Okay. Everybody okay with leaving it the way it is? >> I hear no objection. Let's move on.
>> Okay. Um, and then are we we can take a the mythologies list is quite short um or incomparatively short. So, um, if we're good on that, >> um, the bullet points here are side by side. Would it be beneficial to do
sidebyside bullets for genre? >> Yes. Keep the structure the same. >> Yeah, we might just want to move some of these uh longer ones down to help with it. Like poetry, all the ones with parentheses essentially. Erica can help with that if we're all in agreement.
>> Yeah. If you would do that, Brianna, that would be good. Just just organize it for us. >> Um, do y'all y'all want semicolons here or you want commas here? I don't know that you'd want Wait, where's poetry? Did I lose some edits there?
>> Yeah, I I had deleted the semicolons and replaced them with commas. >> Okay, perfect. Yeah, I just want to make sure I capture your edits because this is what I hate about Google Docs. It does not transfer. So, >> all right. Let's go back to the content on the mythology. >> Oops. Um, well, if I'm doing this, I
cannot look. Well, hold on one second. I can send you down there and I can pause it. One second. I'm glad to see we included Zoroastrianism. Is there anything else that needs to be included here? No, that's just suggested
mythologies. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list. No, >> I think the list is is sufficient. >> Okay. And no objection to that. No
changes recommended. Let's move on. >> Okay. So, are we therefore we are we good on the supporting language for the ELA elective courses? >> Well, that's what I hear. No objections. Okay, we're good.
>> Okay, if that's the case, I think we're done with supporting language outside of anything that might be in the in the parking garage. If >> Okay, what else is in the parking garage? >> Do we just want to just now just go through each item in the parking garage?
Just work through one at a time. As far as I know, that is the last thing on our agenda. Am I missing anything there? >> Nope. I guess if we would want to have a conversation about a potential executive summary, but that would come after the parking garage. Okay, then we can move to the parking
garage. >> Okay, the columns are >> so I'm just going to make a note to do it at the end. >> Okay, I can pull up the parking garage as soon as I fix this. >> Yeah, I the first item in the parking garage is is I think pretty simple. It's
just about linking standards and I think we made the decision that those were going to exist in the standards guide and I think we've notated that in our wish list. Um so I think we should be okay to check that off. It just says linking standards if where and how. Um but I believe we have we've covered
that. Do folks agree there? >> Agreed. Okay. Yep. Okay. Um, next up we have um a recommendation for
the English three, English 4 language standard one um to add a substandard A that reads when writing or speaking use and analyze active and passive choice.
>> And the question was whether or not we wanted to just have an A as a substandard. >> I thought what we did was to revise that so it was included so we wouldn't have to go with an A. >> Currently there's just an A in our
revised standards. So >> okay. >> Yes, we did. I thought we discussed just combining it so we were not left with just an A. combine that then Lacy. >> Sorry.
>> How would we combine that then? >> Having trouble seeing the entire standard. It's okay. There we go. I mean, yeah, I don't see why a semicolon wouldn't work there. I'm good with a semicolon. Actually, I
have a se when my um Yes, I think that would work well. So, the only thing it would deviate from the previous standards in this progression that do have substandards, but if um if we're comfortable not doing that, I'm I'm I'm comfortable go ahead and just moving it up and making it a
semicolon. >> Yes, since it's only an A, if there were multiples, I wouldn't feel the same way. We all good with that?
Okay. So be it. Let it be written. Let it be said. I believe I have done it. Um make sure it corresponds with what people have requested in P7.
Oh, I thought I did it and then it just came back. I think that was me. I clicked on the box to get to see the entire standard and then I just clicked out of the box. I'm sorry. >> Oh, you're >> I will I will not click.
>> No clicking. >> So, does that look right to everyone? Oh, I guess it's not on I guess we're on the parking garage, but in P7, >> I don't know if I'm looking at this incorrectly or not, but are do we just have active and passive voice in junior
and senior year? I feel like we talked about having it throughout quite a few standards or grade levels, I guess. Okay, I see an eighth. Yeah, it looks like we skipped it for 9
and 12. Somebody tell me if I'm missing something or 9 and 10. I think I misspoke. >> Yeah, you're right. It's It's not in 910. I believe it. >> Yeah, I think we added it to 1112
because of the note in the parking garage. And then I I I think we didn't add it to 910 because there was not a note in the parking garage correspond to that. >> Well, then we would have an AB. We
wanted to have Oh, never mind. That's nice. Ignore me. But >> I think we would I think what we would do is we would add a C to E1 E2. Yeah. >> Are we good with doing that then? >> Making that modification
already. Was it you who was about to make a comment or I thought I heard someone >> I thought we had uh discussed the fact that we were basically introducing it in the middle grades and then building upon um sentence structures using phrases
effectively in 910 and then ultimately doing that with proficiency in in I'm I'm saying 910 I mean uh 34 um and then and Then we're introducing that concept of analyzing the active and
passive voice there. That that was the I think that was the thought process. I don't know if that shines through. >> Yeah, that is true because the language in eighth grade is identify and use and in E3 E4 it's use and analyze. So there
is a progression and difficulty there. So, are you saying that was intentional for us to skip 910? That feels odd to me. I >> I don't think it w I don't think in our conversation we were necessarily skipping it. I think the conversation was um and this feels like a long time
ago, >> but ago, >> I think the conversation was um introduce it in the middle grades. um begin being begin create be begin creating effective sentence structures
in E12 and then bring everything together uh with proficiency in 34 and we wanted at the time added emphasis on active and passive voice because we not only use it by that point but would be
then also analyze it through through sentence structures. Now again, I don't know that that now that we're looking back at it if that is apparent. >> I recall the discussion. >> I'm sorry. >> I said I recall the discussion and our
rationale at the time. Does that not stand good anymore? Did we fail to look at something? >> I just remember talking about how important it was. Uh Dr. Stout talking
about that a lot too and I I say I have to agree and just as I I don't know that I realized that it was being left out of 910. Um which was probably my fault. >> I don't I don't think necessarily leaving it out of 910.
I I'm reading it as they are demonstrating more effectiveness in their writing, incorporating it, incorporating active and passive voice in 910 and then ultimately doing that with proficiency in 1112. But again, if that is not
apparent, then we need to make that clear. >> Yeah, I don't know that that would be apparent personally. >> Can you put it in so that it looks apparent, Annie? Um, let's see. I
>> think only Kosher Hillard has editing capability there. >> Yeah. Um, so I would just be adding would it be the exact same language from 1112 just moved to a substandard on E12 and where would it go with?
>> Okay. Would it just be our new C? Would it maybe be just potentially just use active and passive voice instead of use and analyze? I think I did a discussion about how um analyzing how passive voice
can be a rhetorical tool. Um, I'm fine with copying pasting the language, but if we wanted to make it more of a progression perhaps just >> Yeah, I think it's just because we we
>> I guess we elsewhere we've said identify and use or use and analyze. So, the first time we introduce something, we typically say identify and use and then subsequently we ask them to use and analyze. Okay. >> But I mean I I I put the language up
there in E1 E2, but if we want to just say use, I'm I'm okay with that as well. >> I'm not particularly attached to either one. So I'm fine with either. I just I'm concerned about leaving it out completely.
>> Okay. So do you want to uh >> tell what you put in there, Coach Schiller? Yeah, just I mean I added a C that reads when writing or speaking use and analyze active and passive voice.
Um I guess now I'm wondering to do does it even need to be in E3E4 because E3E4 I thought our understanding was since it says demonstrate cumulative understanding of the conventions of academic English grammar and usage that's why we didn't have substandards attached here. Um because otherwise I I
don't know why we would lose the substandard we have in in the E1 E2 standard if we're going to maintain this language about active and passive voice once it's been introduced elsewhere. >> I agree. It feels like we're going backwards a little bit there. So as it
currently stands. So if we're going to use and analyze and do that proficiently in E1 E2 then we need to indeed demonstrate our cumulative understanding of all conventions and
usage in E3 E4. So I >> you think that would be >> that best accomplished through sub >> yeah I'm sorry go ahead. >> So no I was interrupting you. So I guess what I'm asking is would that be best accomplished through just saying demonstrate cumulative understanding of
all conventions of academic English grammar and usage or would that be best con uh conveyed by adding the substandards from E1 E2 to E3 E4 if it's cumulative I don't know why you have to specify the substandards
>> so I would think we would eliminate what's after the semicolon in E3 E4 for >> that would be my thought as well. >> Okay. So then how will it read? >> Um it would read demonstrate cumulative understanding of the conventions of
academic English grammar and usage through proficient utilization in context when writing or speaking about grade level tasks and texts. >> And there's an increase in rigor between 910 and 1112. Yes.
Um yeah, it moves from proficient use of the conventions to cumulative understanding of the conventions. >> Okay. Is everybody satisfied with that change in iteration?
Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Let's have So, what else do you have in the parking garage? Um, I have
sorry I'm I'm just doing a quick uh doing a quick fix of the uh editing notes that we had because we have the suggested change box and I just want to make sure that accurately reflects what we actually changed. So,
I'm just taking a second to do that. Okay. Um, next up is add list of add lists of roots and aixes to the appendix. That's already been done. Are we in agreement there?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um the next item on the parking garage is differentiate between IE and EG. Potentially substitute for example for EG and specifically for IE. Um are we
comfortable with the decision we've made to use IE and for exam or IE and specifically? >> I am we we talked about that at each at for each standard. So I think we've addressed that quite uh quite well.
Everybody else feel that? >> Agreed. >> Okay. >> Did we update the table? I'm just trying to remind myself. >> Yes. >> Okay, cool. And then it looks like it was flagged for
language and foundational literacy. We went back and looked there. >> I have been checking that as I've written rationale. Um, so I think that's been covered. >> How many more items do we have in the
parking garage? >> I was just checking. Got 61, but you've done fair bit of them. So here I can get you a more precise number. Yeah, because we do have our dinner break soonish.
Let's see. and false. >> I counted them 32 on a very quick scan. I'm probably plus or minus two or three, but I would I 32. >> Precise as ever. 32. You're halfway done
essentially. >> Okay. So, if we can't do those in 15 minutes, then I want to suggest that we take a uh 20 minute break for supper and finish this as soon as we're done. If you want to take a look at those other
items, it may only take us 10, 15 more minutes if we get a chance to look at it. >> Yeah, they're also very different in scope, I would argue. >> Now, will we will we have a uh quorum if we come back at uh 610?
>> I believe so. It's just Miss Singleary that needs to leave. Am I missing anyone? >> Okay, just miss Singleary then. >> 6:30. Let's do this and we'll declare a recess for 20 minutes for supper. We'll come back invigorated and ready to
conclude quickly and we'll take a vote at the end on all the work we've done. See you at 610, boys and girls. >> Thank you.
leadership team over here. Do y'all need anything from me? >> I don't think so. No. Hello everyone. It is now 6:10. We're ready to reconvene and finish up our work here standards review committee.
Uh I don't see pictures of Katherine or uh Patty yet. Are you with us? So, we know if we've got a There's Catherine and Patty. Do you have the baby with you?
Not necessar Britney, you decided to stay. >> I'm here until 6:30. >> Okay. Well, we're going to talk fast then. We might get done because I I really wanted to uh wish you well and thank you for everything that you've
done along with the rest of the committee. So, uh, Coach Chair Hillyard, will you please take the items one at a time that we are that we still have in the parking lot and let's tick them off. Uh, next up we have language standards
3, four, and five. And the note that was left uh was consider resequencing these standards to create cohesion. Um, I don't know if I completely recall what was meant by that.
>> I think I I had to look at it again, but I think if I remember right, like two of those were about like like roots and aixes and context clues. And then there was another one that was something
it was like it was broken up like word meaning was broken up. Um, but I'll I can look back at that. I think essentially if we if we just make VAU5 VA4 and just flip them,
that might solve what we were discussing at the time. >> That sounds like a simple solution. Annie, does that do it for you? >> I think so. I'm ready now. But >> VA3 is determining the meaning of
unknown words, context clues. VA5 currently is acquiring and using general academic vocabulary and then the current VA4 is demonstrate understanding of figurative language. So I think our
conversation was just create the sequence That works. Okay. So, >> so Brianna, that would just be suggesting a change in the standard code.
>> Yep. >> Okay. Um, give me just a second to do that because that is a a little bit of editing. I know we're trying to move quickly, but I I don't want to my my concern about not doing it
now is that I I don't want to have 30 different >> understand. We completely agree with you. >> Um if I may, the committee could look at the next item. It looks like that's how we feel about returning progression of advanced features to grade one. So if
everybody wants to go to one FLPC1 and collect their thoughts is advanced for first grade than advancing beyond kindergarten. >> I think so. It's do you want to define advanced features I think is the
question at hand. And if so, what? I feel like it's defined in the standard already. >> Yeah, I was looking at that one a minute ago and that was my perspective is that I felt like it was properly defined in the standard, but obviously I will take
other perspectives. I agree with that. Does anyone disagree with that? It's addressed in substandards, too. No. Okay. So, we've done that. That's good. Next. Okay, I just finished making edits to
the language one that we had asked to do. So, if we're good on advanced features, then next up is add language regarding use of digital technology to K through five. And then the subsequent note is look for appropriate standards to incorporate this language. So, I think there was just a desire to add
some language about digital tools or digital technology um to standards K through five just in writing, reading and language um is what's listed here. I feel like we did that, didn't we? >> As we went along, we did.
If we searched under digital technology, Brianna, would what would we come up with? >> That's what you've got on the screen. You've got print or digital text in second grade. Well, let me make sure that's a revised standard and that's an original, but
let's see if I'm assuming you get it. Um, yep. You've got printer digital text. You've got printer digital text. Printer digital text. Catherine, were we talking about digital
text or digital technology? I >> think we were talking about digital citizenship. >> Well, not in this one. I if we I think we would have said that. >> Oh, hold on. You're talking about in this specific example. >> Yes. Yes. You've got digital tools here
in writing for I'm just looking up um digital chernagus because it sounded like some people wanted to do digital tools and some people wanted to do digital technology. So I wanted to make sure y'all are aware of the landscape. >> Right.
>> You've got more digital tools in writing. >> Well, I would think from that example y'all gonna give me whiplash with that moving screen. I would think from that example it's digital schools because
this is for writing and publishing. >> Well, do you think it's been adequately addressed then uh as we moved along? I think it it might have been a uh something that we noted that we wanted to make sure we did, but I I believe I
as part of our discussion, we continually u uh made that uh part of the standards as as they came up. >> Yeah, I I don't have a problem with the standard as written. What are we what
are we solving for? What was the um original concern? >> Yeah, the the item >> in the parking lot, Katherine. And >> the item the item in the parking garage was that um I'll read it exactly. Um it read
um add language regarding use of digital technology in K through five. Look for appropriate standards to incorporate this language. >> I think we Yeah, I I feel comfortable with what we did throughout. >> Okay. Sounds like we've done it already then. Is everybody satisfied that we've
completed that? >> I see a lot of heads. Yeah, let's we're good with that. >> Okay. Um, >> let's move on. Next. >> Uh, language. We have one that says language 2 quarterstone language should be pulled from intro copy paste error. I
was looking at that during the break and I think it was one of those instances where one of the standards did not come over properly where we didn't have one of the standards so we had to add it back in and I think we had accidentally or I accidentally copied and pasted the wrong cornerstone. Um but I switched over to the correct cornerstone now so
it it should be correct now. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Next >> um next up is KLD3. This one's a really quick one. Um it's a foundational literacy three thing.
Uh every other instance where we talk about it's in substandard E. So if you look at substandard E for that every other instance we talk about word or letter combinations. We do not put them in quotation marks but then we put QU inside quotation marks. So my only ask
was that we just perhaps get rid of those quotation marks around QU just to be consistent. >> I'm good with that. Everybody good with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do >> Yeah, that that you're going to see a few of these which are things that I think we we definitely want to do. I
just didn't when I I I noticed them when we were doing rationale and I didn't want to just do it on my own accord. Um I didn't want to act without >> um next up we have speaking and listening introduction. So this is the introductory language for speaking and listening. Um and it reads potentially
add language explaining rationale behind speaking and listening standards progressing from information to ultimately blending information and argument. So this was request that we provide that rationale to the introduction to speaking and listening not to the standards themselves.
>> Okay. So what is that introduction look like Brianna? >> Yeah one second. Let's look at the other similar speaking. It looks like it's on the Google doc pages 11 and 12. >> Thanks. No.
I'm just checking. You said we got rid of the linking standards language. [Music] [Music] >> Yeah, I don't see any language about leaking standard. So, I think we're good there. The other piece was Um
>> it was >> adding language. >> It was add language explaining rationale behind standard uh the standard progressing from information to ultimately blending information and argument. I kind of personally think the standards
speak for themselves in that regard. But if other folks think that language should be added, we can add it. >> It's not necessarily the standard. It's it's why we're moving in that direction
from information to blending >> my I just don't >> sorry go ahead >> uh to me the second paragraph of the speaking and listening intro I mean the second to last paragraph of the speaking and listening intro justifies that um
specifically the len language regarding the workplace demands and if they're verbally conveying con complex concepts with confidence and clarity. I mean concepts to me includes information and argument. I don't I don't know that we necessarily need to
differentiate there. So I I feel like it's fine but I'm open to what the rest of the committee thinks. >> I happen to agree with you there. Yes. I also just think by and large we haven't used the introductions to justify progressions very often. Um and we have a lot of progressions that we
have not justified in the introductory language. So >> right >> I don't know why this one need to be justified. >> Thank you. I think it was enough said what you the workplace applications was enough. >> Okay.
So are we good there? >> Yes. Okay. Um this one was uh Patty's recommendation. Miss Bear's recommendation that we edit the word insure andor when documents use the phrasing insure all just to eliminate instances of us saying we're going to
insure something for legal reasons. I believe >> went through and check for that. Uh but I guess a quick control F will suffice. >> So it's been eliminated that we were >> diligent. Yeah, we were diligent when we
were doing those edits to catch them all. Oh, >> hey, Miss Baron. I didn't mean to speak for you. I'm sorry. I didn't know you were on the call. >> That's all right. I'm just not on the picture. >> All right. So, Patty, you're you you're uh competent then than then in our
discussions we did as this had directed. >> Yes. >> About ensure student interest >> except for this one. >> That's okay. Okay. It's on the electives document and I mean student interest feels >> slightly different than the context I
think you brought up but it's certainly one we could still remove. >> We can just say garner student interest. >> That works for folks. >> Yep. Work. >> I'm good with that. Thank you.
Is there any place else that occurs? >> I just checked. We're good. Okay. >> Um, next up we have one that says for standard, it says production of writing standard. Um, I'm not sure exactly what code that would be. Um, and it just says
incorporate original standard language for using multimedia elements, etc. in oh in PDW6 standard. Um, we don't we no longer have a PDW6. So, I think this is saying to incorporate some language from the old
PDW6. >> Yeah, we're not four. Uh, I can pull up the edw six. Okay. Including the internet. Okay. So, you've got the current
standards on the right with the original 6 and you've got the new standards on the left. anything we want to pull over? >> I I think we've addressed technology to an extent in the language of the standard itself. I mean, if you look at
7.WPDW4 now, our current set version of that, it says use digital tools appropriately to produce, publish, and refine writing. Same in 8th grade, same in E1, E2, same in E3, E4.
So I think >> yeah I agree with you uh co-chair Hillyard. This is the current language is awfully limiting and I think using the digital tools is is really opened up uh uh the
world to us. >> You also talk about ethical use which is new. we talk about it at multimedia components as well. Um I personally think that's covered but if if I guess maybe to the cornerstone
but even then I think it is covered within the standards themselves. >> I think it's fine. >> Okay. I agree. >> Does anyone disagree? Nope. Okay. Um, next we have uh item from
reading standards and it just says add text struct adding text structures compare contrast problems solution descriptive sequential cause effect. Am I wrong that we did that? I seem to recall doing that.
>> I think you're right. I think I remember having a whole conversation about it. >> Gosh. see how the reading standards are something happened to them formatting wise. >> Um, right. Yeah. I mean like in R it's 6.cs5
for instance our revised version says analyze the structure an author uses to organize in a text eg sequential coffin effect. Um, we also include that in the seventh grade version of the standard, the eighth grade version of the standard.
>> It sounds like we've included it. Danny, are you satisfied with that? Okay, everybody else satisfied that we added that? All right, that's good. Been addressed. Okay. Um, next we have writing standards
edit proposal revisit to determine if we can modify language to emphasize one style or another per grade level. So, this was the conversation of modes of writing. Um, I I would hope we're not going to revisit that conversation. >> That was an hourong discussion.
>> I think we did that. >> An hour long. That was like a three day long. I think >> several years of my life on that. >> I say it's done. >> This might not be the appropriate time
to mention this, but it's that's also on our wish list. We might be mindful that we're not I don't know if you you all are planning to visit the wish list today or not, but we probably be mindful that we're not giving false >> today or never.
>> Okay. Oh, but you do want to make Miss Arur, if I'm understanding you right, you want to make sure that you're not asking for anything in the wish list that doesn't reflect your most current thinking so that TDO doesn't do something you don't actually want them to do. >> That's a good flag. I had not thought about >> correct.
>> Yeah, that is we should we should do that. Yes, >> save that for our final our final at bat. >> Okay. Um, >> I was a little confused by the next item on
>> What's that? >> Just a flag for the group. We've got about an hour. >> Okay. Um, the next item on the parking garage confused me a little bit. It is for standard 8.W.TP3. Um, so the third writing standard for
8th grade and it just says synthesizing language. >> I'm I'm going there to the standard. We we had a conversation specifically about the word synthesizing, >> whether that was appropriate at that grade level.
>> Question. They have another writing standard. >> Tammy, what do you think? >> I don't teach middle school, but I would think it would be. I have time school and I don't have a problem with the word synthesize. >> I use that word with my eighth graders
all the time. >> And my freshman normally come in knowing it. So I'm sure someone's used it with them. >> All right. So let's keep it in then. Don't worry. Um I think it would in there. >> Okay. >> It's not.
>> So where was it previously? Let me look at the I think your predecessors did have it, it looks like. And that was okay. So this is that right? Okay. This is what your predecessors came up with up here. I don't see
synthesizing. Was that something new someone introduced? >> Yeah, I think so. >> A discussion I think we had for vertical alignment. >> I see. Okay. Am I am I just missing something? Or do I not even see reference to
synthesis in the 910 or 112 versions of these standards? [Music] >> I mean, got to be careful because we've got synthesize synthesizing, >> right? >> But I would think Syn would probably get
most instances. We >> got 11 instances. Everyone close your eyes. Let me just start from the top. Okay. One suggested change ignore. Okay. Revise standard. Um, you've got it. It looks like you've got it in English one
two. As to where it is. Someone see it up here in this box. Um, doesn't look like you've used it as one of the like introverbs, which is where I thought it would be. >> Hi, Rosemary.
Thanks for coming. >> Oh, you're welcome. My p my video is not working. I've been trying to figure it out. Let them hear. >> Maybe Josh can help you. >> Um, was it your cover, Miss Winners? I thought it might have been like half on, half off.
>> I don't know. I But I keep I'll keep working with it. >> Okay. Yeah. I think if you move the cover at the top of your computer, like the physical computer, it'll pop back up maybe. I don't see synthesis in here at all. Am
I losing it? >> Um, I saw it in theformational writing standard. I'm wondering if maybe we're wanting to incorporate the same I don't know, keep consistency and incorporate incorporate the same language in the argumentative.
>> Yeah. Um, as far as I can tell, it's in standard one and standard five are the only two that that include language about synthesis. >> So, what's our solution then? >> When do we first introduce it in standard one? 8th grade
>> believe so. >> Yes. Um and we introduce it by saying develop the topic by synthesizing multiple pieces of evidence organize and synthesize ideas.
That's how we use it in that context. So for this argument, would it just be instead of use credible sources understanding the topic or source material, wouldn't it be just synthesize credible sources?
I like that. >> Does that address it everyone? >> I feel like it if it does make sense to because synthesize I would say is a higher level than use. So, if we're going to have it in one type of writing, I think it makes sense to have it um in the others
applicable for >> you want to do that 8 8 9 10 and 11 12 for the third standard, the the argumentative writing standard. >> Yes. >> Is it 9 through 12 forational as well? Did anybody check that?
I'm looking. >> Um, I believe so. I think I just checked that, >> but I would be very happy to have that double checked. >> I'm having a hard time locating anything. I only see it in English 1, 2,
English 3, 4. Yeah. So it's it's in substandard C of the 8.W.TP1 standard. It says develop the topic by synthesizing multiple pieces of evidence. So yes, so we should mirror that in the
argument standard. Okay, I am nearly done making that edit to the argument writing standards. if folks want to check me there.
>> Um, I didn't see it in the 912 uhformational standards. Oh. Oh, you Oh, sorry. I thought you >> in the Oh, oh, are we talking about there? You don't see it in theformational standards? I was talking in the argument,
>> the the proposed edit to the argument. It's an eight, but not 9 through 12. >> No, it's there. It's in uh >> where >> organize and synthesize ideas for E3, E4.
>> Oh, the wrong column. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the original. My bad. I'm so sorry. >> Okay. So, the modifications we made then are sufficient. >> Yeah. All All I did was just change the substandard that did say use credible sources to synthesize credible sources.
>> Excellent. Is that okay? I see everybody nodding their heads. Let's move on to the next one. Okay. Um Oh, well I I should have I should have not noted this for the glossery. I
apologize. Um this one was listed as a writing standard something, but it's actually glossery. It says define reasons versus logical reasoning. So I think we got to that that conversation about reasoning means one thing and a reason in support of an
argument means another thing. >> I think we' had a conversation about defining that in a glossery. I didn't flag that appropriately. I'm sorry. >> It's okay. It was marked underwriting. >> Yes, it was my bad. I'm sure Okay. So, you have logical, don't have
reasoning. Is that what it is? >> I'm looking right now. Um, >> just looking. Okay. You have logical. >> Yeah. I don't see that we've got reasons or reasoning
in there. Both of those appear in the standards both reasons and logical reasoning. I mean I recall conversations about it. I will have to do a quick search to see
what language exactly ended up in the standard. Yeah, I don't see either. Let's see >> other than I think it's Isn't it more in like K through five standards, main idea, details, reasons?
>> Yeah, I think it's that that shift we made from from reasons in support of the claim and argumentative writing in to claims in support of the thesis. Um, we do have references to logical reasoning
throughout the uh the argumentative writing standard progression. Um, we we use that phr logical reasoning. Um, >> do we need to put it in the glossery then?
>> Yes or no? And I mean we we do say reasons at an early age supply reasons to support the opinion. I I mean I don't know I know what's meant by logical
reasoning. Um, >> to me in the definition for logical, if we're going to do that, then I I almost feel like we should just add the word reasoning to the current
definition of logical. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> Yes. Absolutely. That's perfect. Okay, I can add that. So, logical reasoning, employing a systematic approach to developing or evaluating an argument using concepts such as reliability, credibility or
ability. I mean that that I don't even see that we need to change the definition. >> I don't either. >> Well done. >> We don't have to reasons. Reasons is I would say >> um okay so are we good on that?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um we have a note on the reading cornerstone six revisit word assess revisit adding in point of view. So if we look at cornerstone,
the revised cornerstone is analyze how perspective, point of view, and purpose shape the content and style of a text. Um, we've already changed the word assess because it was assess how perspective or purpose and we changed it to analyze how perspective.
>> That's we added point of and then we added point of view because we talk about point of view in several of the standards. >> I think we've addressed I believe address them. Well, we all say it's been addressed. Let's move on. We're getting close.
I can see the finish line. All right. Um, next one is revisit mood. Consider including elsewhere in the standards. It was previously only in standard uh fifth grade standard 4. We also added it to fifth grade standard 7. So, we now have two places where mood is
discussed. Do we feel like any other places need to discuss mood? >> I feel like we ended up deciding that it wasn't focused like it wasn't a big enough focus. >> That was certainly what I thought. Yeah.
>> Um that was my understanding of the conversation. >> So are you saying that this has been addressed? >> Yes, I believe it's been addressed. Let's move on. Okay. Um, next up we have continue to
keep appendix specifying slashdefining high quality instructional materials. We did we did not remove that language from the appendix. >> Is that just like the Lexile >> aspects? Okay. >> Yes. >> Done.
>> Okay. Next we have revisit attention to cornerstone and standards specifically regarding the language visual displays of data. Um so this is speaking and listening cornerstones as they relate to the language visual displays of data.
>> Uh sorry vice chair Hillard I don't see any instances of HQIM or high quality instructional materials. >> My understanding was I mean, the point of appendix A is to assess text complexity and and to allow
teachers to select appropriately complex texts. So, I guess that's what I was taking as a reference to high quality instruction materials. And we didn't use that language exactly, but I thought complexity was a pro a proxy for that. >> Cool.
Um so just revisiting uh parking garage 41 is uh the language of visual displays of data in the speaking and listening cornerstones. Let me just see if we still have that.
We removed we removed of data. We just have make strategic use of digital media and visual displays to express information and enhance understanding of presentations. So we removed specifically of data to just visual displays generally.
>> I don't remember that conversation exactly where we landed. Were we wanting to add that back in? Is that why we put that in there? I remember that being a very convoluted conversation that I can't really remember where
here. >> Oh, great. >> That's that's the beauty of the rationals. They're not only for your successors, but they're for your your future self. >> Great job, extra. >> I think we threw it out there and decided to address it. And that's how we
addressed it by eliminating the word data. >> Are we comfortable there? >> I am. Everyone else, it's visual displays then. Okay. Um the next one is just
overarching. It just says double check cornerstones against E3, E4 or trajectory. So just basically ensure that our cornerstones are right. Um, I did this since our last meeting and added one, two, three, four, five cornerstones that you'll see at the
bottom of the of the parking garage because those are the ones that I was a little concerned weren't aligned. Um, so we can just get to those as we get to them. But I I think think we have I I certainly don't want to say that that was that I am the be all end all there. I mean, if other people think
cornerstones don't match, um, please let me know. But those are the ones that I flagged that seemed like they might be in slight misalignment. >> We'll address those at the end then. >> I appreciate you doing that.
>> Yeah. And then of course um if anyone I guess this is more this is Miss Summer's question. If like if people look at these standards after this meeting um and notice anything that we didn't notice in this meeting but we've already voted, are we then just committed to what is done?
I would need to double check. It has not happened. It did not happen in the last cycle to my knowledge except for when the general assembly the social studies meeting to reconvene. I think off the top of my head, my gut says that the leadership team could call another meeting, but
that part of voting on the standard says like, you know, there are no meetings until further notice. >> It's like blackjack, no tradebacks. Okay. Um if anyone wants to do a quick scan of the cornerstones as we're moving forward to ensure those cornerstones look right.
Um be my guest. Um but it seems like we have a desire to proceed. So um is that what we would like to do? >> Yes, let's proceed. >> Okay. Um this just says electives table creative
writing in general. Uh I think we've sorted out that electives table. I think we sure did time on that. >> Um, okay. Uh, this next one is language for credits allowed for advanced creative writing needs to be clearly distinguished. I think we we worked on
that, so I think we're good there. >> Yep. >> Um, then we have TDOE thoughts on advanced creative writing credit hours. Um, we've already learned that that is not within our purview, so I think we can mark that one off. >> Addressed. >> All right. Um, we have current draft of
6 through 12 RLR RTC10 seems to suggest that all of the texts themselves should be multimodal, not that the students should read a variety of text created in different modes. Um, this was one that I added and please feel free to tell me if I'm wrong here. Um, but this is just something as I was
writing rationale I I found a little confusing if we go to those standards in that progression. Um, so we uh so I guess P202 would be the first
instance of this. >> Thank you. >> And it carries through. >> Um, it's just read and comprehend both independently and collectively a variety of multimodal literary texts. There was a small part of me that worried that we were that people were going to think
that the texts themselves needed to be multimodal, like an individual text needed to contain multiple modes. And while those are certainly texts that we might encounter, I think what we really intended was that we would read texts from different modes um or in different
modes. Um but please feel free to tell me if I'm just overthinking this. I understand your your concern is from or in better words
>> or if you're trying to convey like AC across the year or by the end of the year >> um based on how we've defined texts can we just get rid of multimodal and that's implied but I know this is also publisher facing so I'm not sure if
that's >> well we could also just say a multi a multimodal variety of literary text rather than just because then that's the the variety is what's multimodal not the the text themselves. >> Okay. >> Seems to specify there. >> Excellent.
>> Could you just say a wide range of see a variety of literary texts representing multiple modes. >> We could do that as well. Only thing is that multimodal in the glossery, right? >> Yeah. We I think we were intentional about the word multimodal. Um I think
that was a a bank's recommendation maybe. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Right. >> Keep it. >> Are we are we okay? >> I think that's good. >> Yes. And I don't think we end up
accidentally nixing something important that way either. >> Okay. Do you want a hot second to do that? >> Yeah, I I will need just a hot second to do that. >> So granted. Okay.
That brings us to I think we solved the main idea central idea debacle. Is that correct? >> Yes, we certainly have. >> Okay. Put a check mark there. >> Okay, I'm going to take us to four,
five, back where we were a second ago on writing. Oh, we're already here. Beautiful. Okay, looks like we want to take a look at the progression. It's going to be hard to look at both of these because they're um they are um chunky, but hold on.
Okay, y'all wanted to change as well as to including and it looks like in fourth grade and fifth grade. So where is as well as substandard?
>> Thank you. I assume this is one that's similar because it's the discipline and subject specific blah blah blah. I felt like that was a carryover across the board. Any thoughts here? >> This may have been one of the ones I
added. So if I'm nearly done with this so I can join you all in just a moment. >> All good. Looks like F is identical for four and five. So we can just take a look at one of them at least for substandard. Yeah, I'm thinking that's
correct usage. The precise words and phrases including discipline. >> Great. Yeah. >> And subject specific. >> Yes, this is one of the ones I added.
Um, yeah, that to me is just when we're talking about words and phrases, generally discipline and subject specific are examples of that, not something separate. So that's why I wanted to say including instead of as well as >> I'm going along with that
doctor. Now >> agree. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay, >> Annie, you good with that? All right. >> Okay. Well, if I sure Hillary does that,
I can take us to icky 8 NRI. Oh, so it's change. Oh, the cornerstone. >> It's in the cornerstone. Yeah, it's just the um cornerstone 8
for reading. >> Okay. >> So, you want to change as well as to what? I think just and is what I had proposed. I think we we've just been trying to avoid saying as well as and just using and instead because as well as kind of
place something in a subsidiary >> um phrase and so I think and creates a little more balance. So are we good to do that? >> I'm good with that. >> Yes. >> I see no objection. Let it be written. Let it be done.
What's the keyword? >> Okay, I'll take us to Okay, it looks like we want to Okay, this is kind of a reword, so we might need to flip back and forth, but I'll get us to two FLD3.
Oh, this is >> Yeah, this one is a another little small one um that I found for wording. >> Okay, I cannot display the whole standard. >> This is the prefix. >> It is it is substandard I in the revised
standard. Um, it's just read contractions with am, is, has not, have, would, and will, as well as homophones. Um, I just thought it made more sense to say read homophones and
contractions with am is, so on. >> So, just moving where the word homophones is in the sentence. >> What was that? >> So, you're just moving the word homopones where it is in the >> Yes. just simply switching it for clarity sake so it doesn't seem like
homophones is part of that list. >> Are we good with that? >> Yes. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. >> Excellent suggestion. >> I just figured the foundational literacy we hadn't visited revisited in a while. We hadn't looked at in a while. So, I kind of spent a little time there to
just make sure our wording was what we wanted. Um, okay. Uh this is not one I added this next one but it's one that we had talked about considering public feedback on foundational literacy re pronouns. That was the the public comment we had
received. >> Bri Summers, could you possibly pull up that public comment just so we could have it in front of us? >> Yes, I'm pulling it up right now. One second. It's in your if you want to follow along, it's in your SRC folder. written public comments ongoing and it
is 9:2525. Um I don't this is on Google Chrome. See if it'll let me. Okay, this is the public commented question.
We can't say insure. >> You cut out for me, Cher. Can I guess what' you say? >> I say we can't say insure. >> There you go. >> Can anyone locate what our current code for this would be because we don't have
um >> Yes, I think it moved down at least a couple. I want Is it 04.3? Maybe >> there's only one SC, so I bet it's five. I bet it's standard five. >> That sounds right.
>> And what grade what grade level had this person proposed to be? >> Third. >> Third grade. Okay. >> Third. Um, and for your context, um, this person also submitted public comment to your predecessors and originally their
feedback was in an appendix given the length of the feedback, but your predecessors separately um, cut that appendix in favor of the standards guides. So our language about pronouns just I
believe currently says explain the function of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs as used in general and in particular sentences. So I think we we opted for a more general language about the use of pronouns rather than this very specific language that the public comment proposed.
>> Our current substandard F says ensure subjectverb and pronoun anticedent agreement. We don't want to ensure it. >> Well, I think if if I'm speaking correctly after a conversation I had with Miss Baird about this, I think it was we didn't want to say that we were
insuring, but it was okay for the students to ensure something. >> Um, if that was I think that was less concerned about that. >> It could be verify, validate, but ensure doesn't is not a problem. You're telling
someone that they must ensure Right. >> We're not we're not binding ourselves to that. We're we're asking the students to ensure agreement. >> Okay. So, do we need to talk about the characteristics of pronouns
anywhere in here or is it >> I think if we were going to if if we were going to include anything, I think it would likely just go in the glossery. Um, we don't have a glossery entry for pronouns currently. And so if we wanted to use his language for defining a pronoun, but I I don't know, especially
the second sentence of what he proposed doesn't seem like standard language. It seems like philosophy language to me. Those what we say address what's included in the comment. I mean the the comment seems to ask for
a much I mean we we have we have tried we've ensured subject verb and um pronoun and agreement that's there we've got that language um it's just about the the language about pronouns have four characteristics number singular or plural gender uh case and person which
is all really just all related to agreement Yes. >> So, um I I don't know that we need to put that in there. >> I certainly don't think it should be in
the standard. It's just if if we feel the need to define what a pronoun is in the in the law or not. And that's that's characteristics of a pronoun, but
uh it doesn't define what a pronoun is. >> I also think that if we were to enter a pronoun in the glossery, we'd have a lot of other parts of speech enter as well, >> right? >> Yeah. I I think we're fine to leave it out. I'd say we addressed it and we
would say that it's contained in in agreement. Everybody good with that? We will not change what we've written. Okay. Okay. Um next up we have 5I.
7 that is within reading. >> Is that seven? Okay. >> And you said five. >> Yes. So it is P46. >> Thank you.
Again. I just need to press my locus button. Okay. Um, this was one I added because we say integrate information from multiple print and digital sources and we have largely uh tried to avoid language
about integrating things. We've said synthesize or >> yes I agree. >> So what I had written was just do we want to change integrate to synthesize here? >> I say yes.
>> Only question totally up to you all. Um, icky is integration of knowledge and ideas. Does that would you all be interested in changing the code or do those feel separate? >> Yeah, I mean the previous cornerstone used to read integrate and evaluate
content and we changed it to evaluate and synthesize content. >> Oh, interesting. >> Um, I think synthesize is more accurate. So, do we want to change the code then to synthesis of knowledge and ideas instead
of integration of knowledge and ideas? >> That seems appropriate to me. >> Yes, please do. >> Okay. I imagine that might take a hot second.
>> Yes. Um, and then so would the corresponding edit then be to change integrate information to synthesize information in the fifth grade standard? >> Yes. >> Um, we do I mean we probably need to change
the standard code then because icky was from integration of knowledge and ideas and so now it would be ski instead of icky. Good luck with that one. >> If you say so.
>> So, is this the is this the end of Icky? >> Tammy, are you okay? Should we hold our funeral? Feel like Tammy likes. >> Yes. >> No, I'm just giving you a hard time. >> So, is that changing the cornerstone as well?
>> Think y'all already addressed? Oh, cornerstone. I think that's just a misrepresentation on my part. That's new. Yeah, we did edit the cornerstone. >> Yeah, we need a new category. A K12. I'm sorry, Mr. Hillary. >> I am doing I'm doing the I'm doing the
category at the moment and then I think it's just changing the code to ski instead of icky if if that's what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. >> While he's editing, Brianna, can you take us to the next one? >> Happily. Where were we? Okay. Bam.
Okay. Oh, these are our fun cornerstones. So, maybe everybody can look at these silently. >> Okay. I I do actually have some I have a follow-up question. Sorry to disrupt. Um >> we're very close to the end. >> Our
our so the next cornerstone um or not sorry the next category after the seven is also integration of knowledge and ideas. Um, so it was we had another icky. Um, we actually have
>> three ickies. >> There are three ickies. Yeah. So, >> are those going to become skis as well? Here's the revised for eight if folks want to look at it. And then I can go down to nine.
I don't think we have language about synthesis in those standards, but we also don't have language about integration. Um, and it would seem odd to me to keep two categories that closely related with different terminology. I agree. I think I think they need to
change. >> Okay. >> I mean, I I don't think any of the language from the cornerstones of the standards themselves would need to change. I think it would just be the category would change. >> I don't know. It always seemed a little odd to me anyway because that's what we
do when we learn is integrate knowledge. >> So, how would you change the category to icky? >> I think it would just icky would would in every instance icky would become ski instead of just in one instance. >> Okay, I'm good. Everybody good with
that? Going to the ski from the icky. >> In a weird way, this feels like the most substantive thing we've done. It's rather icky to me. >> Yeah, definitely big feeling. >> More like it's sticky, >> right? I look forward to fielding
questions. No, this is all good. Okay. Um, so now direct your attention to these cornerstones. It looks like if you'll take a look at two through six and see how you feel compared. I won't give
everyone um whiplash, but look at the TW. Please correct me if Mr. Hillard, but my understanding is we I mean generally the way corner my understanding of the cornerstones is that the English 34 should look very close to the cornerstone if not in some cases I believe Tammy's group made them
the same with the idea of like you're walking out the door with that skill obviously because it's the end of K12. So just check 2, three, five, and six of the speaking listening cornerstones against the English 34 standard. >> Yeah. And I I proposed and people are
welcome to take them or not. I proposed edits to each of those um in the edits column. Um under the >> is listening skills broader than listening. >> I just know that we really hated utilize
listening skills. We had we had deleted that thing in every instance that existed except for in the cornerstone as far as I could tell >> and we had a reason for doing that. So I would suggest that your change is legitimate. Everybody okay with that? To change to listen.
Yes. Yes. Consider that one accepted. >> Which which cornerstone was that again? Can someone >> see SLCC3? >> Three. Okay. >> Okay. Um so now the the cornerstone will
now read listen to gather information to enhance understanding. >> Yes. >> Are we good with that everyone? >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So >> that one's done. Um, next up we have I mean SL2. >> Mhm.
>> Yeah. Let's go back to two. Um, SL2 we had these. This one is pretty similar to a cornerstone that we had um in writing um or sorry in reading. This is similar to the reading standards
we've uh cornerstone we looked at um where we say here we say integrate and evaluate information and like I said in the reading standards we we were pretty intentional about changing integrate and evaluate to evaluate and synthesize. Um so I didn't know if we wanted to do a
corresponding edit to the speaking and listening since we made that decision. >> Yes, let's keep it the same. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then we also we in this reading standards we
had tried to avoid this language about such media types of media formats in the cornerstone. We just said diverse media formats and then let the glossery define what we meant by diverse media formats. So we had deleted this corresponding
such as list of visual, quantitative and oral formats. Um, so I was asking if we wanted to uh make a corresponding uh deletion of this such as list. [Music]
>> I'm good with that. Delete it. >> I have a question. Um, for the new cornerstone, the evaluate and synthesize information presented in diverse media formats. Um,
would you actually be synthesizing? Because this isn't SL.cc.2 all about someone else's work. So, you wouldn't actually be synthesizing. Am I reading that correctly or incorrectly?
>> Here's the 34 standard. >> Yeah, you're right. Yeah, it's just about evaluation. So, do we just need to delete the language about integrate and and just say evaluate information? That's what it concludes with. There's I
don't see where we're integrating things [Music] >> unless you say so. >> I mean, they're two different they're two different requirements. They could take information received in a variety of different ways and put it all
together to gain uh a another mean a a new meaning, a deeper meaning where they can evaluate it. Two different things. Do we want to address both of them in
that standard or just evaluate? I'm okay with either. >> I don't see any instances of the word integrate in our standards themselves. And I would feel a little uneasy about having a verb in the cornerstone that's not in the standards for this progression. >> I'm good with that.
>> So it' be just evaluate then. I I don't know though. I synthesis to me is almost understood when you're speaking you're presenting logical reasoning and you're linking ideas which and the
linking ideas part is in E3 E4. So, are you good with the way that it's been revised, Lacy, where it just says evaluate, or do you want to put include synthesize in there?
I I'm I'm I'm looking down through the rest of the speaking and listening standards to see what I actually think about that. So the fifth grade standard for that cornerstone mentions synthesizing ideas
across different mediums. U but I so I I don't know that it would that we couldn't have something in there but I feel like as it's as the cornerstone is written it's kind of misleading. I feel like we'd have to reward the cornerstone.
Trying to see if there's anything else. [Music] Yeah, to me it seems a miss that if we don't include synthesize in that particular speaking and listening standard, but that might that that may require
revising the standard itself just a little bit. >> I'm good with that, too. I'm I'm open up to others thoughts on that. >> Well, if that's what we're asking them to do, then let's say it.
If that is an essential part, if that if that increases the rigor moving from one grade level to the next, it seems like there's I'm seeing language about in the lower standards
gathering information, gathering additional information, clarifying understanding in the lower grades, but I'm not seeing anything hitting on synthesis or integration in the upper grades. trades. So, I'm not I'm not against
having synthesis in the cornerstone, but I feel like it just needs to be rewarded like I don't know, maybe have an an additional element like the and says and synthesize uh information from a presentation or
something. That's like as it's written it doesn't make sense. I think evaluate comes first. Evaluate and synthesize. Lacy agrees with that. Can we change that? Would that be acceptable? Evaluate and synthesize.
We make any corresponding edits to the standards or is this just going to >> Yes, that's that's what I was proposing. >> Okay. Okay. >> To make that more clear. >> So, where would that show up originally? >> Well, which one are we talking now? Are
we talking about the cornerstone or the standard? >> Um, well, I mean, for the cornerstone, it would be all it would be throughout the entire progression. I guess I was talking about the standard. >> Okay. So, I'm going backwards. So E3 E4
um to me it almost makes sense to in E3 E4 um say assess the stance, premises, word choice, points of emphasis, bias and tone have a separate semicolon that
then says uh synthesize synthesize ideas. So just synthesize ideas, >> synthesizes speakers as apostrophe ideas if you if we want to do that because we're we're evaluating a variety
of media. So if we're evaluating a variety of media, then we are going to synthesize the ideas among those that variety of media. >> Agreed. >> Okay. I I made it to P24. I made that
edit if we want to take a look at that. >> And then did we make the decision to say evaluate and synthesize for the cornerstone? >> Yes. >> Yes. And then um are we going to just synthesize speakers
ideas at the E3 E4 level or does that need to happen at earlier levels as well? Well, if we keep it there, then we do have a built-in uh increase in rigor
uh going uh from one, two to three, four. >> I we created a nice I think progression among those standards. So the sequencing makes sense. I I I feel fairly comfortable with leaving synthesize
where we did or synthesis where we did. >> Yeah. >> I've got one other thought. Um is that kind of what our what we're asking them to do now in our revisions is that what we're asking them to do essentially in SL.C3 CC3 where the
cornerstone is listen to gather information to enhance understanding. I don't know that's bad to add it. I'm just wondering if we're overlapping at all. [Music] I think I I'm fine with what we have,
but I'm open to opinions. >> Fine with what we have too as well. If Miss Docker is >> okay, she she acquiesed >> and sometimes that's okay. >> This is a tiny thing I just want to throw out really fast because when we
were looking at this progression, I saw it. Um, we have generally tried to separate sentences within a standard by semicolons rather than periods. But I know several of the standards in this progression have periods. Are we cool with me changing it to semicolons? >> Yes, please do it. >> Okay. Just wanted to get it on the
public forum. >> Okay, Brianna, do you have the next one that we could address so we could finish this up in seven minutes? >> Appreciate y'all. We're very close, friends. Okay. So, should we go? We just wrapped two,
right? So, we should go to five. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the question at hand is in the fifth cornerstone under speaking and listening changing I'm assume multimedia components because that's what's in our glossery versus whatever this is and I think we already agreed to this
somewhere else cuz we talked about oh we talked about the data thing never mind very close okay let's go to the fifth cornerstone okay are we okay with getting rid of digital media and visual displays days in place of multimedia components in the
glossery. >> Well, it's a little bit more specific. >> I'm okay with that. >> Yes, >> everybody's okay with that. Change it. >> Yes.
>> Next, >> I'm just going to put these in parentheses. So, >> Okay. Because I I'm getting a a little little caught up at the moment. Is that helpful? I'm happy to >> you take your time. We we're uh we're proceeding. Uh
>> I did want to I did want to have a really quick because I don't think we ever reached a full consensus on the such as list in the the second cornerstone. Are we we good with the recommendation to remove that such as list? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I think we have consensus.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm adding so far. Yes. Yes. Yes. Just keep on keeping on vice chillard. Okay. two different cornerstones. Oh, excellent. Thank you for finding that. That brings me a lot of joy. Okay. So,
looks like we'll try to find them. Okay. So, this is option number one. Speak two and for a variety of real world contexts and formalized settings demonstrating a command of academic language appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
or >> excellent adopt speech to a variety of contents and communicative tasks demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate. >> I like the first myself.
>> Well, actually in the eighth grade standard, it says academic English. >> Yeah. >> Instead of formal English. >> That's a good flag. I do think the Tammy, please correct me, but I think the intent of the committee was academic English because uh formality is more or less important
depending on the exact thing you're talking about. I think we've talked about this before, but like poetry, you know, formality isn't always helpful or artistic. >> U your cup. Yeah. >> So, I would I I thank you for the flag.
Now, I think I believe the academic English would be the um formal I think that was your your predecessor's >> but I like the way I like the way that the the first iteration that you had
um it seemed to be more specific and address everything. >> Well, I like the wording of the second one though, but just could we add in could we kind of merge the two? adapt speech to a variety of contents, tasks,
purpose, a contents, communicative tasks, purposes, and audiences demonstrating command of academic English when indicated or appropriate. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So, it sounds like
>> a fusion. >> Yeah. The middle parts getting swapped out is what I heard missing now. >> So, we did not choose one or the other. We integrated them or synthesized them. >> No integration. >> Definitely synthesized.
>> Could someone throw that language into the parking garage just because I've been kind of half in this conversation? >> That's okay. I will do my best. But Miss Now, please. Is this >> I think Miss Now has editing access to this as well. So, I think she >> Please go for it. I just put those next
to each other. >> I'm just I'm a little gunshy here, you know, with the click. So, I don't want to I don't want to accidentally delete something. >> We have version history. Don't worry.
variety of contents. You want that plural. >> Uh I think so. >> I think so. Would anybody agree with that or disagree? Well, everything else is plural. Okay.
>> Meaning like subject area sort of. >> Yes. >> Do we use language analogous to that in the in the standards themselves? >> You have that one about language where it's like domain or subject specific. I don't know if you have a preference
between subject. >> The sixth grade. Yes. In the sixth grade standard, we have a variety of contexts and tasks. Yeah, we we use the word contexts a lot in this progression. So, we might want to
>> There we go. >> That's rigorous. Very good. Everybody agreeable to that one? All right, check it off. We have one left. Okay. Uh, everyone's going to hate me so
so much. Um, but I just want to revisit something really quickly because I was just looking at the standards. I think it will take 30 seconds. Um, if you look at P uh uh 17 through 19,
we have standards that read uh details of a text presented in diverse formats including visual, quantitative, and oral. I think we we've opted out of saying including and instead eg lists. Are we good with me just making that into an EG list? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Wanted to
>> That took less than 30 seconds. >> Okay, >> which is all we had left. Do we have one more to consider? >> I think this one was already checked off from Miss I added this from Miss Docker's list to make sure we got to it. >> All right. So then, will you all join me
in a verse of Happy Days Are Here again? Do we want to look at the wish list? >> No. >> No. >> I have one wish right now. That's to be done. But
you're welcome to to take a look at it. >> I just I just said that since we had had some conversation earlier in this call about wanting to take a look at the wish list before we send it off. >> I think it'll take all 30 seconds if everyone wants to review it. Definitely. >> Now, uh, while you're looking at that,
uh, prior to everybody getting on board here, we did talk about maybe creating an executive summary. if you want to give uh your leadership team and Brianna uh your blessing in creating if we think
an executive summary is necessary that we could create craft something that we would use when we send this to the state board kind of like a letter of transmitt here's the work we did and this is basically why we did it
>> Miss Summers because the executive summary can be drafted by the leadership team. Is it permissible for folks to send us things they might like in the executive summary outside of the public forum since that is something that doesn't seemingly have to be completely
deliberated on since it can be drafted by just two members outside of the context of the meeting. I'm just simply asking. >> It's a good question. Taking one step back before I get there. If you if the committee decides they do want one, one thing that is important from a voting perspective is you would need one member
would need to make a motion instructing the leadership team and or me, however youall want to do that, um to draft an executive summary. You would need a vocal second on the motion and you would need a roll call vote with a quorum. So
that >> Okay. So moved. >> Oh, so are you making a motion, Chair Carnegus? >> I am draft. Okay. >> As you had described, do you have a second? Anybody? Anyone? >> Um, do I mean first of all, before we get into that, do we want do we need an
executive summary in agreement that we need one? >> Yes. >> Okay, then. Yeah. Sorry to interrupt. >> I did hear a second. So, I think at this point we could take a roll call vote. I know you're otherwise busy, vice ch.
>> Yeah, that's fine. Uh, I'll pause what I was doing and and move to the roll call vote. Um, so this is a roll call vote to have the leadership team draft a an executive summary. Correct.
>> Yes. And to allow for input from the committee, you can email uh Brianna and she could be uh summarize all the input we receive.
>> Yeah. >> Give a week or so to do this. >> This is permissible and could we could >> I think it would fall similarly under Miss Dockery. I want to check with our general counsel that because I believe we're closing this committee at the end of this meeting until further notice. Um
I would want to double check, but I think that sounds right. >> Okay. So the motion is for the leadership team to draft an executive summary with uh taking into account comments from
team members sent outside of convening hours. >> I would just say based on feedback and we can >> Okay. Take >> clarity on what that looks like. I'm sure there's a system. We'll just want to follow whatever the system is.
>> Okay. Okay. So, we're voting on uh leadership team drafting an executive summary based on the team's overall. That sound good? >> Uh, after the conclusion of this meeting or after the conclusion
>> after Okay. Roll call vote, please. >> I'm just drafting the motion really fast. >> Then, while you're drafting it, I'm going to give a couple of hints. things that are that I wanted to talk about was
we said this all along or I said this we're not only looking to be in the top half we're looking to be in the top 10% that's what that's the way we're presenting these standards we're we maintained or increased rigor in these standards we uh did uh we were cognizant
of consistency uh in in our writing and that we were uh uh looking for clarity uh in terms of uh identifying uh the important words through the glossery and through the
standards and that we have a progression in terms of rigor and difficulty among grade levels. Those are things that I thought we might include that kind of stuff. So if you think of other things that's what I need to know
that's what we need to know. add that we were the best standards review committee >> that yes that was going to be my first thing an all-star team. >> Okay. So, um are we ready to take this vote now?
>> Yes. Summers, do we need to restate the motion since we've discussed since? >> Uh yes, that'd be great. >> Okay. So, Chair Kus, could you restate the motion? Where is it?
Um I I believe you're just I mean I can also state it. I I move Yeah, state it. You wrote it down. >> That we have an executive summary based on member feedback as uh permitted by state laws and policy.
>> Great. Great idea, Dr. Stout. >> Thank you. >> And I second that. Okay, so we will now take a roll call vote. All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no or uh abstain. Uh
Miss Baird >> I. >> Miss Dockery >> I. >> Uh Mr. Hillyard. I miss now. >> Hi. >> Is Miss Singleary no longer with us? I believe.
>> No, you just need a quum. So she's um I think there's an absent spot. >> Yes, there is. Dr. Stout. >> Hi, >> Miss Winters. >> Yes, I mean I sorry. >> And Chair Kus, >> I chair, you have seven eyes. The motion
passes. >> Thank you very much. And now committee members, thank you for your steadfast dedication to the next generation of Tennessans. I make a motion to vote on the standards
as revised on all of our work days. Is there a second? >> I second. >> Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role. The appropriate response is I or no.
>> Just not. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Hi. Hi, >> Miss Dockery. >> Are we looking at the wish list first? Sorry. Or are we allowed to still do that after this?
>> This would be binding, I believe. >> Okay. So, we have some things on there, right, that we need to get rid of on the wish list, like the the separation, the weirdness with the writing standards. Sorry to >> if that's the case, then I suppose we
would need to vote no on this motion. >> If that is your intent, then yes. Um the the next line that Cher may or may not say is that the committee is adjourned. So there's that. Um and just so you know, members, you're voting on the entirety of the standard.
So that includes everything in your supporting material or your supporting language, etc. Well, that that would say that we all accept whatever weirdness there might be in the standards as presented
and that we're all comfortable with it, that it's not too weird for us. >> Yeah. a motion withdrawn and you could make a new motion instructing the leadership team to clarif >> and then take a vote on the standards if
exiting this meeting is a top. Okay. So, I'm going to with I'm going to withdraw my motion and I'm >> I'm going to wait for a new motion from Miss Dockery. Miss Dockery,
>> uh, I don't know if I'm doing this right, but I I move that we clean up the wish list before making a final vote. >> Okay. >> We >> if we're making it before the final vote, then we would need to clean it up now if this is
>> right. That is the correct order, right? Like if we vote then >> Yes. Right. >> I don't want to be a pain. that's if that's what you want to do. Uh we're How long is this going to take? >> I mean, I hope not long, but I mean, we
have in there things about uh that original writing proposal where we weren't students weren't writing full essays. Uh >> I thought we had addressed all this. >> Yeah, but it's in the W. So, focus
writing and middle grades on two modes instead of three. we trust that >> but it's currently still written in the wish list. >> Um >> if we vote on this and go ahead. >> Yeah, there's two options. You could
instruct your leadership team to do the wish list. Leadership team, I don't want to speak for you. Um and or me if you prefer. Um and you could also choose to deal with the wish list as a group before voting on the standards. Those are your two choices.
Or I get third choice. I guess you could vote on the standard roots in the wish list as >> Annie. Annie, I don't want to dismiss your concern, but I think we spent s a couple of hours addressing all of those uh proposals that we had received from the the junior high staff around the
state and we thought we came up with what was necessary for all the students in Tennessee. We did, but I mean I in defense of missy, it does literally say that in the in the wish list to to folks writing. Okay. >> We put prior to the time that we decided
to dedicate an hour of our time to to clarify it. >> Okay. >> We talked that to death in my opinion. >> Well, I I'm I'm not saying we didn't come to a decision, but my understanding is other people will see this wish list. And so if we have things in this wish
list that are inaccurate to what we want, then it might lead to confusion andor maybe major problems. I don't that's my understanding. >> So how many items on there and can we just run through them? I think we're probably spending more time out what to do with the wish list and we could
probably just run through the past and say we've already tackled this. >> Yeah, I would agree that there aren't that many. >> Then do it. Let's go. >> Okay. Um, change font to make difference between RAR and RO clear. I think we're good there. >> Yep. I will.
>> Um, provide instructional support, professional development for teachers to support reading comprehension strategies. I think we're good there. Um, linking standards guide. Linking standards and standards guide. We're good there. >> Yeah.
>> I thought we wanted the the linking standard. I thought we wanted the linking standards >> in the standards guides. Yeah. Okay. >> Um, we wanted a reference sheet copy of the rubric for testing purposes. I think we're good there. Um, we have
recommendations on how to change the rubric. I think we're good there. Um, definitions in the appendix. I don't think we need that. We made the definitions in the glossery. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we can get rid of that. Models for fifth grade writing. I think that's
great. Um, linking standards to the standards document. I think we can probably delete the reference above and just say that, right? >> Well, that's the standards instead of standards guide. So, >> oh, just put link standards document.
So, probably Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, so we just want to say add linking standards to the standards guides document. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm going to delete row three. So, I'll see you. >> Okay. Um, unpack effects on the reader
E1 RLC CS5 in the standards guide. Did we keep that language? >> We cleaned that up. >> Okay. So, do do we need to delete that then? >> I think we can delete it. Yeah, cuz we talked about that for a while. >> Okay. Uh, standards guide specify use of
satire in 34 RL6. I thought we did that in the standard. We I almost certainly have EG satire in the standard itself, I believe. Uh but we're specifying the particular use of it in the standards guide. >> Okay.
>> Aren't we? >> Yeah. I mean you could ask them to expand on it. It's just a matter of if you want to turn it out. >> That's fine. I think we can do that in the standards guide. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um standards guide continue to provide use of resources for teachers when teaching tone versus mood. I think
we're good there. um represent how content can be represented can be presented in the standards guide particularly in R seven. >> I don't know what that means. >> I don't either. >> Is that the one related to science and
social studies? >> Don't think so. R seven is inte oh it's integrate and evaluate content uh or it's the one about evaluating and synthesizing content presented in diverse formats in media. So I think it's show
>> giving examples I think >> um so do we want to say give examples? >> Yeah >> of how con um multimedia content I guess.
>> Yeah. >> Um provide examples in the standards guide of 4.l.iky9. Icky nine. Well, it's not icky anymore. Um I I don't know what that is. >> Uh compare and contrast the ways authors approach similar themes, topics, and
plots, and stories from different cultures. >> Are are we good to just leave that in the wish list? I am emphasize and explain illusions in 8 RL ski 9. We get that.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh for RL Sk9 high school standards include information supporting the intent that the standard should address the use of texts of literary and or historical significance when teaching the standard. >> That's fine. >> Uh clarify what prompting and support
means for each grade level in RL I RRTC not 10. >> Didn't y'all get rid of prompting and support or no? I will. >> No, we still have prompting and support for the little ones. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, we actually, yeah, we have we get
rid of it >> at the sixth grade level. It's in K5. >> That was part of our progression of uh rigor. >> Okay. So, do we just need to specify in the standards guide? >> Yes, standards guide.
um for R10. Sorry, I didn't mean to speak over some supporting language regarding specific instructional strategies teacher can use to support reading comprehension. I'm fine with that if other folks are fine with that.
>> That's it. Right. >> Uh we have one we have like five more. Okay. >> Um than the other category uh focus writing and middle grades. Okay, that's the two modes versus three. We're getting rid of that one. Correct. >> We said, okay, I lost the debate, but but we did decide
>> uh before testing, make an announcement in the spring or at another appropriate time before the assessment about the particular mode of writing to be tested. That was Miss Now's proposal, >> right? Absolutely. And he he agreed to talk about that. >> So, I say that goes in the executive
summary. Can we Is that something that would be appropriate to add in the executive summary? your predecessors and social studies made specific requests of the department etc. >> Okay. >> So I move second and finalize that that
goes in executive. >> That's that's a comment. Yes. >> Okay. Um and then elementary focus on narrative and opinion six through eight grades teaching all three. We did not settle we did not decide that. We decided that they were going to do all three as well. So I think we can delete
that. Correct. Yes. Delete. Okay. >> Um, puty issue with number of standards in the middle grades versus the elementary grade band and the high school grade band. Um, >> I think that he did a study and he sound he said we're pretty much on parallel
with that. >> Yeah. When Michael and I looked into it, actually, did elementary have the most? >> 68 was right in the middle. They weren't the most. They weren't the least. people when you control for um electives and stuff. >> Not an issue anymore.
>> We deleting that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Last one. School districts, administrators, decision makers provide more instructional time to provide educators with sufficient support to be able to thoroughly teach the standards, especially the writing. >> Yes. >> Yes. And so I would say if we're at
>> in the executive summary, >> Yeah. Especially the writing and especially in middle grades because there still is some tension in middle grades it seems. >> Yes. >> Yeah, >> definitely. >> Okay. >> Then is this is this our final wish list? Anything else?
>> I jumped the gun. Um as your servant leader, I apologize for that. Uh I just try to get everybody out on time. I appreciate you, Andy, bringing us back to go over this. I think uh it
just indicates how dedicated you guys are to be willing to spend any extra time it takes to do a very thorough job. Now, I should ask this question. Are there any further comments or
questions from members or uh team from the board of education or the department of education? >> I believe we need to did we finish voting on the standards. I think we need to reintroduce. >> No. Uh I was doing this as as a
>> as a prequel. >> Just wanted I just want to clarify something with Miss Summers and then say something to the team if this is if it works. So the current proposal is for the executive summary because we have not talked much about the executive summary. If they have something they wish to include in it, they should contact us with that information or run it through you.
>> Send it to me for now while I get any direct from our general counsel. She's at a conference. Okay. And then I will share the information out with the team >> on whether that's still >> be a good idea if you could do that and then we could have a a little confab together. >> Okay. >> All right. >> If you have things that you would like
to see in the executive summary, just send that to to Miss Summers. And we had some great comments on that already from this already. Thank you for your steadfast dedication. I'm going to miss this.
Uh but I hope to see you guys in the hallway somewhere. Um this has been just an an awesome activity, not an an adventure for all of us, I think. and to see how it gets done in
the state of Tennessee is is very encouraging. How what a what an open forum this is compared to what it's done in the in the back rooms in so many other states. So I really think we did a great job with that. I I feel very
confident that uh we're going to make a big contribution through this. Now, I'm going to make a motion to vote on the standards as revised over our many work days. Do I have a second? >> There was something else on the spreadsheet I wanted to look at. No, I'm
just kidding. I'm just kidding. >> Second motion. >> Do I have a second there? >> I second the motion. >> Yay. All right. Vice Chair Hillyard, please please call the role.
>> Okay. The appropriate response would be I, no, or uh present not voting. Miss Baird, >> I. >> Miss Dockery, >> I >> Mr. Hillyard I, Miss Now,
>> I >> Miss Singleary absent. Dr. Stout, >> I >> Miss Winters. I, >> Chair Kgus. >> I,
>> Chair Carus, you have seven eyes. The motion passes. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard, members, presenters, and staff. If there's no final comments, anybody want to say yay, verily, yay, no. All right. Well, with no further
business of this committee, the standards recommendation committee is adjourned until further notice. Thanks again. It has been such a pleasure to work with you all. I will remember this forever.
>> Brianna, >> no. Can't say. >> Are you ready to call call it quits right now? >> Yeah. Um work. Don't have many thoughts at 754 other than love and appreciate all of you. You know where to find me if you need me. Might be bugging you before
you know it. You know, cross your fingers your toes. >> We'll we'll hear from you then. And Josh, thanks a lot for your help. And Tammy, too. So, goodbye. Uh good health and uh
live in peace.