All right, Chair Geneas, we are recording. Okay, Miss Summers, would you conduct your welcome logistics and reflection? Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Kagas. Uh, members, we'll be short since I'm also asking you all to go over what I
originally asked. Reminder to check your spreadsheet ration and flag anything for Lucas. I'm sharing my screen over here. Y'all please let me know if I'm, you know, a step behind you per usual because y'all are so sharp, but I'll have it up to look at the rationals and make sure that we're accurately
summarizing how the group feels. In terms of our agenda today, we are I'm anticipating us to talk about the reading standards. Chair Carrenus and Vice Chair Hillier, that's absolutely up to you all. If we were to move forward with the reading standards today, there are 130 standards by my count left to do
and we have about three hours and 35 minutes to accomplish that today in the event that that's how you'll want to move forward. Quick reminder about discussion questions, make sure you have those ready. Your feedback documents, the 3 million digital and physical
papers I gave you, you know, continue to use those as they're helpful. And if if I can help or reorient folks, please let me I know it's always hard to be in person, do the thing, take a break, come back online. I myself am feeling a little disoriented. So, please reach out if you'all need anything. Finally, in
terms of written and sp written and spoken, public comment, we did not receive any requests to speak at this meeting. So, public comment has been cancelled and that's at your leadership team's discretion how they'd like to spend that time. I have not received any
written public comment prior to me signing on to this meeting. I will double check my email right now since it was technically due 3 minutes ago to ensure that there were no other comments. If I do have them, I will flag them for you. And I will also put them
in your folders just like always. And we'll have that same protocol for all of these virtual meetings. Potential public comment, potential written comment. And if you have any questions, let me know. Members, any clarifying or logistics questions before we conduct our formal meeting?
Okay, I'll pass it over to Chair Kaggus and Vice Chair Hillyard. Thank you, Miss Summers. It is now 3:33 and I call this meeting of the English Language Arts ELA Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC, to order.
Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role to determine a quorum. The appropriate response is here, present, or nothing. Miss Baird, present.
Miss Dockery, present. Mr. Hillyard, present. Miss Now, present. Miss Singleary, present. Dr. Stout present.
Miss Winters present. And Chair Carnegus present. Chair Carnegus, you have a quorum. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. As this committee is meeting virtually, we have prepared a statement of necessity. Miss
Summers, please read that statement. Absolutely. The Tennessee State Board of Education's English Language Arts, ELA, Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC, called an electronic meeting today at
3:30 p.m. Central time on September 22nd, 2025. This meeting is called to continue proposing revisions to the ELA standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items on the committee's agenda and the fact that committee members reside
across the state, it was determined that a physical quorum of members could not be assembled in Nashville for the purposes of this meeting. And as such, this meeting should be conducted electronically. Notice of this meeting was posted on the state board's website along with the agenda and instructions
for accessing the meeting. Thank you, Miss Summers. TCA 8-44-108 requires all votes taken during electronic meetings of the board be taken by the call of the role. As this
is a virtual meeting that's being recorded, I move that the recording serves as the minutes of this meeting. Do I have a second? I second. Thank you. Vice Chair Hillyard, call the role, please.
The appropriate response is I or no. Miss Baird. I. Miss Dockery. I Mr. Hillyard. I Miss Now I Miss Singleary.
I Dr. Stout. I Miss Winters. And Chair Carus. I chair Kaneus, you have eight I votes and zero no votes.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. The motion passes. Members, advisors, and staff, please use the hand raised function on the screen so I can I monitor that. Uh if you need to jump in, just yell
chair chair Kaggus out loud to be recognized. and otherwise hold on to it till I call on you. Since we're meeting virtually, I ask that all speakers identify themselves before addressing the group. Participants, please mute yourself if
you're not speaking. Now, for the benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid avoid the overuse of jargon and acronyms where possible and define any acronym if it's used. We'll now proceed with our next item on the agenda. Chair Hillyard,
where are we? All right. Um, so if everybody uh has the spreadsheet available, um, you can obviously see from uh, Brianna's shared screen, but uh, if you have your own copy of the spreadsheet pulled up, we are on reading uh, standard 4. Um, and
we completed K through five of reading standard 4. So, we're now on to the sixth grade. um uh version of that particular standard. Um that is uh cell G81 on the reading tab if you want to see
that. Um there are 10 standards within reading. Um the final cell we'll need to get to if we're going to cover all of them today is going to be G211. So um like like Brianna said, we've got about 130
remaining. Um, I I think it would be a reasonable and and and exciting goal if we could aim to get those those reading standards done in our meeting today. I agree. Thank you, co-chair Hillyard. What I'd like to do is to have everybody
draw their attention to the cell that we're working on as coach as vice chair Hillyard is making his edits uh go on to the next cell. So, we're ready to move ahead and you're ready with any
questions. So, uh what I'll say is that here it is in front of you. If you have any questions or comments, let us know right now or we will approve this as written. Questions, comments.
Really quickly before we get into this particular standard, I do just want to quickly say um Miss Summers has already said it, but um I have I have made I have written all the rationale uh and I have uh finalized the the standard language for all of the standards we've gone through up to this point. So that's
all language, all foundational literacy, all speaking and listening, all writing and the first approximate third of the reading standards. So, um if if when you guys have a chance, if you can take a look at those and just let me know if you have any feedback on anything, uh related to that. Um but yeah, let's
let's go ahead and look at uh the sixth grade iteration of the standard 4. Um so, just remind everybody where we're at. The cornerstone is interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including cog uh quantitative and figurative meanings. Uh and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or
tone. The sixth grade version of the standard reads, "Analyze the impact of author's specific word choice on meaning and tone, including figurative language such as repetition, simile, metaphor, personification, and hyperbole." Um, I propose that we make the edit we have made consistently throughout on turning
such as into eg. Um, if everyone is on board with that, um, just for the sake of consistency, I that is the only Is that okay with everybody? All right, hearing no objections, let's
move on. Okay, that is the only edit I have to that particular standard. So, if if no one else has anything, uh, we can move on to seventh grade or not, sorry, seventh grade, sixth grade RAR since we have a corresponding RARI standard. Let's do it. Can you read the objective
as printed? Uh, as the the standard is written. Yes. Okay. Um, yes. Analyze the impact of author's specific word choice on meaning and tone, including figurative and technical language. Um, elsewhere we
have moved away from the use of technical language. We've just been saying figurative and quantitative. Um, so I we and we've chosen to remove reference to the word technical in the cornerstone. Um, so I think it would make sense to eliminate the the words
and technical in this particular standard just to correspond with that decision we've made elsewhere. Um, does anyone have comments on that? Patty, we anything? No. Okay.
I don't think we are. All right. We agree with you. I have a question. I thought we were changing technical language to um like subject specific. That was domain specific. We changed domain specific to discipline and subject specific.
Sorry. All right. Give me I'm going to need refreshers. It's it's been it's been a week and a half. So I I I think we'll probably all have little things like that. Can I flag something? Um yes, absolutely. the TDOE feedback um
was really just flagging that in grades six through eight the wording of this standard um differs from the way it appears in K5 and 9 through 12. Um, and I just wanted to flag that it's it's that first part of the standard that you'll see is if you look at the cell
above in five RL, you'll see the determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text. That is excluded from the wording in grades 6 through 8. And I just wanted to flag that for um your your panel's consideration.
It seems Yes, it seems like the language in K through five is determine the meaning. In six through eight, it's just analyze. And then in uh 9 through 12, it says analyze. And then there's a subsequent part of the standard that
says interpret the meaning. Um so yes, that is correct. Um sounds like a progression in uh academic language going from level to level and it seems to me to be appropriate. Determine to
analyze. To analyze and interpret. Does anyone have thoughts on that? So, we want to keep it as uh written with the changes that um co-chair Hillyard put in there. Is everybody okay with that? I have a thought.
Go ahead. Okay. So, this might just be my interpretation of it, but um it feels like to me um interpret seems
lower than analyze to me. So, it feels weird that it because determine almost feels similar to to interpret to me and then we move away from determine or interpret and then have analyze and interpret. So, I'm not sure if that is a clear progression,
but I'd like to hear other people's um thoughts on that as well. A second note is um for our RL we have examples. We have the example the EG, but is there a reason why we we don't have EG for the
RARI versions? I can speak to that really fast. We that is something we've been doing consistently. um we have been providing um examples for RL standards in this progression but not for RAR I I I that is how they were proposed to us and and
we largely just adopted that language. Um so that is something in corresponding with our progression though I I think that's worth talking about. Um I think if we wanted to kind of mimic the language of the 9 through 12 standards
which like I said um says I'll just read the 910 standard. It says analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone such as evoking a literary historical context. Semicolon interpret the meaning of figurative and connotative words and phrases. We could probably do something
similar to that by saying analyze the impact of author specific word choice on meaning and tone semicolon um interpret the meaning of figurative language um which would mimic what we're doing in the 9 through 12 standards um and
therefore create more of a clear progression from 68 to uh to 912 if if that's what we feel is the appropriate choice. That sounds good to me. Is everybody good with that? Yes.
Okay, just one second because that will require me just typing that out really fast. But um if you don't mind, we can take a look at the the upcoming standard in just a second if you guys want to turn your attention to that while
Okay, that edit has been made. Um, are we ready to move on to seventh grade now? Yes. Okay. Um, so the seventh grade RL standard reads as analyze the impact of authors uh analyze the impact of authors specific word choice on meaning and tone
including figurative language such as repetition, simile, metaphor, personification, hyperbole and imagery. I would propose the standards we made the the edits we made to that standard are essentially the same as what we made to the sixth grade standard. We would make that list into an eg instead of a
such as. And we would um change the the structure of the the standard such that it would read analyze the impact of author's specific word choice on meaning and tone semicolon interpret the meaning of figurative language. Um just to mimic what we did in the sixth grade standard.
I'm good with that. Are there any objections? Annie, would you uh be able to put your light on the porch there so we can see your face? Sure. I think the sun keeps shifting on me. Okay.
We are all jealous that you're on the porch though, just FYI. Yeah. And just um letting you all know my attention is primarily focused on the the spreadsheet. So, I I'm not seeing um the cameras. Chair Kaggus, you're doing a great job of of of flagging when
people have comments. So, thank you for that. Just letting you know in case I if I seem to be moving on without taking into account your feedback, I'm not necessarily seeing the cameras. So, I apologize in advance if if Not a problem. All right. So, we're we're uh good with the changes. Then we can move on.
Okay. Uh the seventh grade RARI standard is analyze the impact of author's specific word choice on meaning and tone including figurative and technical language. Um I think we would make very similar edits to what we did in the sixth grade RARI standard. We would eliminate the reference to technical. Um
and then we would change the end instead of including figurative language to interpret the meaning of figurative language. So again just repeating the edits we've made elsewhere in this progression. I'm okay. Everybody else okay
hearing? No objections. Let's move ahead. Okay. Um the eighth grade standard reads very similarly. So I think that will likely be I think that is will likely be similar. Um eighth grade standard for RL reads analyze the impact of author specific
word choice and meaning and tone including figurative language such as repetition, simile, metaphor, personification, hyperbole, imagery, and verbal irony. Um, if we were going to keep the edits we've made elsewhere, we would change that such as list to an eG list and we would change including to
interpret the meaning of any objection hearing none. Let's move on. I think that's a great suggestion. Okay. Um, and then last in the 6th through 8 progression here, we have 8 RI. Analyze the impact of author
specific word choice on meaning and tone, including figurative and technical language. If we're going to keep with our edits elsewhere, we'll delete and technical and then change including to interpret the meaning of. Thank you. Now, uh, are there any objections to that?
No. Well, before we move to the high school had some discussions and you know we dealt with a number of national strategies here. Um where are we teaching
the kids to determine the difference between fantasy and reality? I mean, and if you if you have them read the Hunger Games and watch the Hunger Games, where do they know that that's
fantasy? So many of the people that we've got doing these crazy acts in our society now haven't been able to distinguish the fantasy from the reality. Are there any are there any
uh standards that we have that would encourage that to happen as we read and study and analyze? I'm putting that question out to the staff to the committee. I don't know if
this is the place to do that or not, but I think it I would say yeah I mean I would say the standard is drawing a distinction between literal meaning and and figurative meaning like we've done elsewhere. Um and I think there's an extent there. I don't think it's exactly
what you're referring to. Um but because I think it's really referring to more as like a literary device as a choice of of conveying figurative meaning rather than distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. I would say um as someone who's been kind of going over these standards the last few days writing ration I think Dr. Stout's
recommendation that we draw a clear uh distinction between characters and figures in the narrative writing. Um I think actually does accomplish that to an extent. Um where we're we are clearly demarcating a the difference between a character and and a figure. I thought as
I looked back over I thought those edits were were thoughtful. Um and so I think there there's an extent to which um that particular edit is also speaking towards that. So, so you don't feel there's any need to dis to have them particularly
distinguish between fantasy and reality as they are becoming involved and engrossed in a work. I personally don't know if this would be the place. Um I think I don't but I also
frankly don't know if I I see within the standards that we have currently a really obvious place to include that kind of distinction. Um, but I I'm also there are a lot of standards out there. So I likely could be forgetting something. So if someone else has has
another location within the standards where they think that I do believe there's a standard that talks about distinguishing between the different genres. Correct. I mean so that would you know if you're reading science fiction or if you're reading
myster you know like there is a place to have that conversation that's not as deep as I guess what you're trying to say. Okay, I think Tammy has her hand raised. Go ahead, Tammy. Oh, Tammy, I think you're breaking up.
She is on a bus from I guess her school to another school to um play volleyball. Tammy, if you want to text me a response, I'd be happy to read it on the record if your audio is giving you a hard time. I if if this doesn't resonate with
anybody, uh then we can just forget it. But if we need to maybe put it in the parking lot and and see if there's a place where this distinction can be drawn in, I think we'd be doing a great service to
our society through the uh education and language arts if we can help them to determine when they're not real. Chair Cargus, I think you'll see um as
uh Nicole was saying in ST reading standard 9, it deals with um it is asking students to discern differences between types of texts and genres of text. So I think that you'll see some areas there where you can apply that thinking. Okay,
I'm pulling it. Sorry for the whiplash. I was just also going to add um I think we've talked a lot about digital literacy. I feel like in some of the earlier standards we kind of beefed up the digital literacy. Um that's where I
see that more coming into play especially by 2030. Um and so um I think that's really important that especially online um students can differentiate between fiction and non-fiction, fact
and um disinformation, fantasy and reality. Thank you Katherine. Yeah, and Nicole knows the reports better than I do at this point. Thank you, Nicole, for doing that. I want to say either public survey report one or two had some public feedback around like
sort of speaking to Dr. Stout's point about like misinformation and biases and I can try and pull that up. The other piece I'd offer, I taught social studies, that's my background. There are some social studies practices that talk about like establishing validity, comparing and contrasting multiple
sources, factchecking biases, and those are practice standards that apply at K12. They're sort of differentiated in themselves, but there's that could be one idea to work off of for the committee's consideration. I can put that in I'll email it. It
might be hard for me to put in the chat with me sharing my screen. Was Tammy able to get any information to you, Brianna? I don't have a text message yet, but as soon as I get it, I will. All right. Well, I don't want to believe the discussion. Before we left junior high, I really think this is where the
roots of these of these ideas come in when when kids can't determine. So, uh, let's move on. I get off the box. Tammy did put information in chat. Oh, thank you Patty or Miss Patty.
She noted there is a standard in writing that discusses validity and reliability also. Okay. Excellent. Are we ready to resume with Yes, we are. Hillyard, why don't you go
ahead and read the next one? Fantastic. Um so continuing with the same uh cornerstone E1 E2 RLCS4 is uh analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone such as evoking a literary
historical context semicolon interpret the meaning of figurative and quantitative words and phrases. Um I would say since we've mimicked this particular structure in the 6 through8 standards it makes sense to maintain that structure here so that we have consistency in structure um that analyze
and then uh interpret. Um I do we see I see a such as so I think that such as should likely change to an EG um in keeping with what we've done elsewhere but that is the only edit that I have. Anyone else have an edit?
Hearing none, let's move on. Okay. Um, and then the E1E2 RI standard reads, analyze the cumulative impact of specific words and phrases on meaning and tone such as evoking a literary historical context. Interpret the
meaning of figurative and quantitative words and phrases and interpret the intent of illusions used in a text. Um, so it's nearly identical to the RL standard. Um, it just includes that reference to interpreting the intent of illusions used in a text. Um, so I think
the such as changing to eg uh edit should likely be mimicked here. I also would be curious to hear I don't know if I completely understand why there's language about interpreting the intent of illusions used in informative texts but not in literary texts. Um, but
I I'd be happy to hear if if someone feels like they understand why that distinction was made. Dr. No, what do you think? Uh well, first of all, the before we move on from that, um in the in theformational standard, we need to put
a in front of text. Right now, it just says in text. Oh, yeah. Standard. And it does seem odd um if we're going to mention illusions in theformational standard then it seems
to me especially with the example and the literary standard um that's provided that illusions should also be mentioned. Are we in agreement with that then everyone hearing? No objection. We accept your
recommendation. Then I will go back to the RL standard and just write make identical to RI standard since they should read verbatim now. Uh the same. Okay.
Excellent. I just want to note that uh Tammy just put an explanation in the chat if that was missed. Okay, so Tammy is saying in literature discussing illusion should be common practice. The group felt that the idea of analyzing illusion was often overlooked informational texts.
Including it in both would give clarity. Okay, so it seems Tammy is is in agreement um over the idea of putting it in both. Thank you, Tammy. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Tammy. Um, all right. Are we ready to move on
to the E3 E4 standards? As soon as Tammy takes her hand down. There you go. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Um, so E3E4 reads, "Analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, such as
evoking a literary historical context. Interpret the meaning of figurative and quantitative words and phrases." Um, I I will just quickly say this might expedite the process. Um, the E3 E4 standards for both RL and RARI are identical to the E1 E2 standards. Um, so if we don't feel as though um,
additional rigor needs to be added, we can just simply adopt the edits we made um, to the E1 E2 standards and bring them down to both of the E3 E4 standards. Well, I'm all in favor of rigor and I think I'd like to know where we could
add that. Um, once again, Dr. Now, you deal with this all the time. Where can we add the rigor in between E1 and E2 and then E3 and E4? What else can we say to have them think deeply?
Um, Miss N here. Um, I uh I mean I think the rigor comes from the complex increasing complexity of the text in this great and we does too. Okay, that would be my assertion as well.
Patty, did you have a question? No. Or you're just praying. I'm sorry. Okay. I was looking at your hands. Um, okay. Coach Hillard, I I could be on a lag, but I don't see where we um added
illusions, and I know that was the conversation. U maybe I just need to refresh. Yeah, I just I sent I just for the sake of time I just wrote make identical to RARI standard um on RL um which will incorporate the language about illusions
into the uh the RL standard. I did not write anything directly about illusions but the language will get moved up. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Or if we if we're confident the complexity of the tense will of the text will add sufficient rigor then we would make no more changes just as you
suggested. Is that okay? I did want to mention I'm not advocating for it, but um the original standard for L, sorry, for um 11th to 12th grade mentioned style. Um I don't think we
have that in our current. Um I can read out the original standard if you would like me to. Please do. Okay, let's see. Okay. Um, so for RL, um, it says,
"Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings. Analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including words with multiple meanings and language that is stylistic stylistically poignant and engaging."
Um and then the RI um mirrors that with that last bit multiple meanings and u the style. Okay. Um Katherine, Dr. Stout, you have
a lot to say about style. What do you think about that? Do you think we need to put style back in there? Always. Yep. So, how can it best be said uh without being contrived? Miss Tucker, can you read the um reread
that standard that you just uh read for us again, letting us know that style was left out? Yes. Um sorry, so many so many tabs right now. Um too, so that we have it side by side, but you go.
Okay. So it says, "Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings. Analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including words with multiple meanings and language that is stylistic. I don't know why I keep tripping over
this. Stylistically poignant and engaging. It seems to me what we would do is simply because they seem to have eliminated any reference to evoking a literary historical context in the 34 E3 E4 level. It seems like we would simply
sub in that information about stylistically poignant language or whatever the exact phrasing is in in the EG there um the parenthetical EG instead of saying evoking a literary historical context. That to me would be the that
seems to be functionally where it is it is sitting in the standard. I would also be curious to hear from those of you who teach 11 and 12 and if if you feel like that that's essential there or not. Um because I've never taught 11 or 12.
So in this one they're not really trying because this is reading not writing. They're not really trying to develop the students own style, but for them to recognize the unique traits of a particular author's style, right?
Is stylistically poant the best way to state that? I I as an 11th and 12th grade teacher at at a previous time in my life a few years ago. Um have always found that phrasing just a touch confusing. Um
yes, like to be poignant. I understand what it means for language to be poignant. Um stylistically poignant. Seems like it's kind of collapsing two different ideas into one a little bit. I mean, I think I know what they're gesturing at. Um but I do think that phrasing is perhaps that's my question.
Amorphous. So, I typed in the chat just so I'm like a visual person, so sometimes it's helpful to see it. Um, Mr. Cocher Hillyard, distinct style and traits of the author's voice is what I
believe that translates into. I would have to um put it side by side to see how that works in a standard. I probably added way too many words. I think I think it's a lot more understandable
for the teacher who is going to be expected to follow these standards. Uh I would agree as co-chair Hillyard said that's difficult to interpret stylistically
poant but what you said I think there's a lot more uh easily identifiable vocabulary in there. Um I I I don't know if it's exactly what we want and it it's still very much in
in a draft, but I've kind of thrown together an iteration of this standard um on in cell I90. Um if people want to take a look at that um incorporating Dr. Stout's language, I think it may still be in work in
progress, but I attempted to kind of incorporate those ideas. I'm satisfied with that, but I don't teach ELA. Katherine, unmute yourself if you're saying something. Thank Thank you for the reminder. I would just add a or or and uh between
style and traits uh distinct style or traits of the author's voice. I don't know the comma. I don't know if you need the comma. Yeah, I just put I I've just used um
I've used style. So, do we are you are you viewing those as different items in a list or are you saying distinct style and traits of the author's voice as one sort of one phrase together? I don't know if that was that was probably not very
Oh, that was clear. I think it's fine. I think we're overthinking it. I think it's fine as is. Um I actually think I think distinct style and traits of the author's voice actually is better. I think the original language is is better. I don't think
they're two different items. So, I changed that uh I changed that comment to the word and. Um I think that's a that's a good edit. Okay. Um just just to clarify because the originalformational standard did not
include the language about stylistically poignant. That was the literary standard. Um, theformational standard said analyze how an author uses and refineses the meaning of a key term or
terms over the course of a text. That to me seems like it's I don't see language in that original standard that isn't captured by what we're saying. I'm open to anyone who who disagrees, but I I feel like mostly that's captured with the language of the standard. I guess the question would be whether we wanted
to include the rank uh reference to distinct style and traits of the author's voice in the RAR and RL standards both which I I personally think is valuable in both since um informational and literary writers can both be have a distinct style and
distinct traits of voice. Dr. Now any parting remarks? I I do not love the refined uh key terms uh language at all. Um just wanted to point it out to make sure that we were all on the same page about a potential
difference between the literary and theformational standard. Um I mean I I think our revision is fine. Um I I did not like stylistically poignant. I thought it lacked objectivity. So um so
I'm I'm good with the revisions as as they are. Okay. Thank you. I I think we we worked that one well. And thank you Annie uh for putting the brakes on there. Let's go to the next one. Okay. Uh we are on to standard five. So
that's another standard down. Um standard five cornerstone reads, "Analyze how and why texts are structured as they are and explain the structures impact on meaning." Uh so we're thinking about the structure of text and the impact of that structure
on meaning as our ultimate objective. Um Dr. Now you have your hand up. I'm just It's okay. Um I uh I the the TDOE feedback here unless the TDOE wants to keep an eye on their own feedback
that that's that's completely fine with me. But um the the feedback for the entire R5 cornerstone um said, "Please consider changing the cornerstone standard to the edits made in K5. Analyze how and why texts are structured as they are and explain the
structures impact on meaning. Please consider adding the phrase or purpose to the end to encapsulateformational texts as well." I personally think that's a useful edit. I do too. And Banks, was that what you had your hand raised for?
Yes, it is. Sorry, I didn't I didn't know if I was flagging the feedback or um Yeah, it's perfect. No, you you were good. Thank you. Yeah, perfect. All All right. I'd say that's a great change. Yeah, everybody agree with that. Yeah, Miss Now, you're welcome to flag
their feedback and banks, if you feel like it's particularly pertinent, you're welcome to flag it. when we were in person, um I thought it worked well for someone to keep an eye on the K through five grade band and someone to keep an eye on the sixth
through eight and then 9 through 12. Um I know I personally at the time had the middle grade band. Um what I just read off was it it um of course it spanned all grade bands, but um that would keep everyone from having to scroll up and down the document,
but just a suggestion. Can we have a volunteer for K5? Raise your hand, please. And the winner is Rosemary. Thank you. And now for uh 68. I had 68.
Who's doing 68? I had it last time. I'm You'll do it again. Okay. Thank you, Lacy. Uh and then for what? 912. Do we need that? Who would like 912? Nicole's with a bunch of volleyballers,
so uh that's not going to happen. I can nobody else or All right, Rosemary, you're on. Thank you. I appreciate your volunteering. I think that was Annie Dockery for 912
and Rosemary for Oh, okay. I thought I saw Rosemary's hand up. Thank you, Annie. I think she volunteered for both. I think she's being really nice. I did want to flag on the feedback that was just um expressed that there was an
there was an additional part besides just or purpose. Um the flag was basically that, you know, of course the the cornerstone standard needs to be the same in every grade level. Uh and it's currently different in K5 than it is in 612. And so uh TDOE's proposal was that
we really preferred the K5 wording um because it really captures uh kind of the structure piece. We've really struggled with explaining to teachers the difference between standard 5 and standard 3 and the way that the cornerstone words standard five in K5 is
really addresses it perfectly in our opinion. So anyway, just wanted to throw that out there for your consideration. And to kind of piggyback on what he said, it does as a teacher who teaches the standard, this is my lowest scoring standard. I I don't understand the standard. It's a difficult standard to test. It's a difficult standard to
understand. Um, so just kind of keep that in mind that this one this one's a tough one. Well, that's good input. Uh, so do you think it would be easier to understand if we move to the K5 cornerstone?
I mean, I'm fine with the changes either way, but um I mean, it makes sense to make them clear across the board. Okay. Personally like the concision and uh the clarity of the the K5 cornerstone. So, my
does it lose does it lose any rigor if we move back to the K5 cornerstone? I don't believe so. Um I mean we're essentially describing the same task. It's just the the cornerstone and 6 through 12 currently adds some
additional specificity but I think that specificity can come through in the in the standards themselves rather than in the cornerstone. Okay. So we all okay with the recommendation of TDOE?
Yes. All right. Hearing no objection. and let's put it in. Okay, we'll go back to K5 uh cornerstone. Okay, are we ready to go through the grade level uh standards now? Let's
roll. Okay, so kindergarten RL is identify common genre types uh examples, fiction, non-fiction, poems, etc. Um I have changing example to eG since we've done that consistently throughout and then deleting etc since we've also
consistently been deleting that but those are the only edits that well a period is also needed. Okay we agree with those edits. Okay move on.
Okay. Um, and then KRI is identify various text features in a text and there was no feedback from the TDOE. I don't have any suggested edits. All right, let's roll.
Keep it. Okay. Um, one RL reads, explain major differences between genres, uh, eg fiction, non-fiction, poetry. Um I do not have uh
edits proposed on that and there was no feedback from TDE either. Okay, hearing none. Let's move on. Approve. Okay. Um one RI reads, identify text features to locate key facts or
information in a text. I do not have any suggested edits for that. And again, there were no TDOE um feedback. Okay. Hearing no objections, let's move on. That one's object not an objection, but I'm assuming that teachers know what
this term text features means. Or is that a glossery term that needs to be defined? I think most teachers would likely know what it means, but it definitely needs to be something in the glossery. Um, it is currently in the glossery. Um the definition of the glossery te uh currently reads components which bring
attention to important information in texts fiction non-fiction digital etc and include but are not limit but are not limited to table of contents uh glossery index chapter titles headings captions footnotes is that sufficient for you
um yeah I don't like when you use the word in the definition but other than that yeah yeah we we do that quite a bit in the glossery. So, I think that's something that we'll need to tidy up when we when we get to the the glossery itself because I agree. I don't I don't like the the word in the definition
and and we're not doing the glossery. Banks is doing that, right? I believe we're doing the glossery. Chair Kaneas, great question. Currently would love this group's thoughts. I have reading standards today. Our next meeting, elective
standards, the following meeting supporting language, which would include the glossery. That would be Tuesday the 30th I believe and then the final day sort of wrap up parking lot see what we need October. Okay. Thank you. All right. So let's move on then.
Okay. So are we good on one RI? Yes. Okay. Then two RL reads, describe the overall structure of a story, including how the beginning introduces the story and the ending concludes the action. And again, TDOE doesn't have any
feedback on that standard. Do you have any recommended changes, Coach Chair Hillyard? I do not have any. No. All right. Is there anybody else that has any saying no hands? Let's move on. That's
approved. Okay. To RI reads, identify and use various text features to locate key facts or information in the text. Um, so we're essentially just advancing from the previous standard by instead of just identifying text features to now
using them. Um, I don't have any suggested edits here. And neither does TDE. Okay, it sounds like everybody likes it. Let's move on. Okay, three RL reads. Uh, refer to parts
of stories, dramas, and poems using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza. uh describe how each successive part of a text builds on earlier sections. I think this would be an instance where we would need to use such as not eg because I don't believe this
would be an eg instance. Um so I do not currently have uh proposed edits. Oh, go ahead. Okay. And I just want to add TDOE doesn't have any feedback on this standard as well. All right. Who had a comment? This is uh
Katherine. I'd like to say that this is a to me seems like a big jump from second to third grade. And third grade is also a very high stakes test. I know we're not talking about the test, but this seems like a very big jump to me.
Um because you're adding different genres and then so you're asking them to find this information while also understanding these different genres. Any other comments
from our elementary staff or from uh TDOE? Am I missing where we have already scaffold the teaching of these genres, stories between dramas, between poems?
The only reference I can see previously would be in the first grade RL standard where we explain major differences between genres. Um, so they have been introduced to the concept of genre. though I I I do agree that this does
feel like um a bit of a of a step especially when we looked at the definition of text features um and I know the text I mean we've dropped text features and gone to parts of a story so that's
another jump jump because text features was like glossery and table of contents um so it just seems like a a really big jump that hasn't been scaffolded properly ly to me. I don't teach these grades. This is just observation. Well, is this something that we need to
add to the second grade so that it's not such a big jump? And yes, I was going to make that suggestion uh for to our LS CS5. We need to add something in there to introduce them to it or incorporate it in third in
second grade so they be familiar with it in third grade. But they are actually in third grade referring to parts of stories, dramas, and poems using terms such as chapters, scenes, and stanzas. They are doing that in third grade, but I don't see it in second. So, we may want to introduce it in second grade.
I agree. There does seem to be a big jump. I was trying to see what the original standard was before we changed. Does anybody have the originals out? I can pull it, they are. Okay. To RIS5. Yes.
Somebody put the u glossy the glossery of text features. See none of that is about standard chapters for the text features. Just for clarification there, the text features is in the RARI um segment of this progression and we're looking at
the RL segment of this progression right now. So the text features are showing up in third grade. They're just showing up in the RAR version of the standard. But it does seem like there should be something in there around the poems because there there is a big jump from
first to third. I think at least in my opinion the the jump is going from just talking about stories to talking about stories, dramas and poems and also thinking about chapters, scenes and stances. So I wonder if in the two RL standard if it
said describe the overall structure of uh stories, dramas and poems including how the beginning introduces the story and the ending concludes the action. That might kind of begin to bridge that gap. Um, but that's just the first idea that came to mind.
I like your idea. It makes it general enough, yet it requires uh some reference at that grade level. Leanne, did you have a question? Well, I was just noticing how we added in first grade
um eg fiction, non-fiction, poetry, but in second grade we didn't specify anything other than story. So, I think we're kind of like throwing
these genres around story and drama like they're the same and they're not right. It does look that way. Feels like there needs to be a a better flow. I would move to go along with
vice chair. Kindergarten says the same thing as first grade, but they just identify. Whereas first grade explains, but then second grade moves straight to
describe overall structure, but it doesn't really get into the different things. So it feels a little choppy and disconnected. Coach Chair Hillyard, can you read your
suggestion again for the second grade? Your change. Right. My my suggestion was just to incorporate the the the prepositional phrase of stories, dramas, and poems from the third grade RL standard to the second grade RL standard. So it isn't just focused on stories. um describe the
overall structure of stories, dramas, and poems, including how the beginning introduces uh the story and the ending concludes the action. I like that. Do you think that addresses what we need to do in terms of introducing that
concept at that level so that it's not quite such a shock at the third grade level? Uh yes, I agree with that. using a prepositional uh of story and then adding the drama poems and stances I read with u co-chair Illiard.
Oh good. And I would even say well yeah it looks like in first grade we're already talking about poetry. So that that makes sense to me. Makes sense to me. All right. I see some consensus. Coach
Chilliard, let's go ahead and put in your recommendation at the second grade level. I just did. Great. All right, let's move on then. So with that, now do we feel as though the progression to third grade is a
little uh a little more uh scaffolded? Um refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems using terms such as chapter scene and stanzas. Describe how each successive part of a text builds on earlier sections. Yeah, I heard consensus on that.
Okay, then we can move to three RI. Uh, use text features to locate information relevant to a given topic efficiently. Um, I don't love the placement of that word efficiently. Um,
is that meant to modify locate? I believe so. I don't love efficiently. Effectively, maybe if we're going to go that route. Yeah. Well, efficiently wants them to do it quickly so that it doesn't take them
forever. two different you definitely want to do it effectively as well. So obviously effectively yes. So we could say effectively and efficiently. That pretty well describes what we would
ask him to do. How do we feel about that? I would go with effectively and efficiently. doing and then doing it quickly. Okay. I don't know how efficient I expect.
What's this? Second graders, third graders, you know, like these are babies. I think effectively is fine. I don't want to pile on. All right. So, do we just want to change efficiently to effectively?
I think that's fine. And if you would to ask me the difference between the two, I would struggle to give you a working definition of the um do we even need either? Well, that's why I guess what what they're trying to
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I guess what they're trying to gesture at here is that by using text features, you can you can find information more quickly than you would otherwise. Um, if you use a table of contents, you can go to the place where you need to go more quickly than if you just flip through a book until you find it.
So, I think that's what they're trying to suggest with efficiently. Um though that that is obviously a little we're moving from the second grade standard where they're identify and using they identify and use various text features locate key facts and now we're using those text features to locate
information relevant to the topic. So to me that's moving us towards um understanding and using evidence text evidence um and whenever we discuss text evidence in other standards then we talk about the relevant and effective use of
it. So, um I'm if we if we eliminate effectively andor efficiently, then I feel like the progression between the second and the third grade standard it it needs something there because it seems as if we're regressing.
That makes sense. So, is our is our consensus then the to use the word effectively in lie of efficiently? Yes, I'm on board with that. Yes. Would you would you read it again the
way it's going to be, please? Right. With the with this edit, it would read use text features to locate information relevant to a given topic effectively. What if we move the placement of it? Yeah, I that's I really hate the placement of it, but I thought I was
nitpicking. Well, we we're all on the same page. Um, I mean, the problem is I don't know other than splitting an infinitive. I don't know how to say it in a way that that makes it especially clear. I think I mean, we could say use.
Oh, yeah. I was going to say you move it to the beginning of the sentence, but we're starting everything with a verb because it would be effectively use is what you probably should say. use text features effectively. Yeah,
I effectiveness effectiveness comes out in a test whether you could do it or not. So all we're telling them is do it and do it. I I think I agree with you. I thought if you're not going to use efficiently, I
wouldn't use anything there because we're asking them to do all these standards effectively. I mean, I I do think there's a because oftentimes we'll we'll mo move from just kind of like exploring something to starting to use it a little more effectively. There's kind of this progression, especially in the K through
five progression of just exposure to this thing at all and then we start to ask them to do it adequately. Um, so I do think the word effectively is an attempt to move from, hey, can you can you even find the table of contents, um,
and can you use it basically to now we're asking you to actually use it effectively and with some degree of of capability. Okay, read it one more time and we'll take a we'll take try to get consensus. Okay. So, um I believe uh the proposed
edit would be to say use t used text uh use text features effectively to locate information relevant to a given topic. Everybody in agreement with that? Yes. Okay. Hearing no objections, I say we
got a good one. Let's move on. Okay. Let me make that edit really fast. Okay. Um now we have four 4 RL uh which reads refer to the structural elements of poems dramas and stories
when explaining how those elements differ from each other and contribute to the overall meaning of the text. Do we have any TDOE feedback on that? Uh yes. Is it for RLCS.5? Yes.
Okay. Yes. As the TDOE does have a recommendation in its state, please consider refining the words wording to explain how structural elements of poems, dramas, and stories differ from each other and refer to those elements
when writing or speaking about a text. This clarifies that students are not just referring to structural elements when explaining the differences between them as they would necessarily have to do that, but rather that they are learning to refer
to the elements when talking more broadly about a text. Okay. So then how would that change the wording of the standard? Do they have a recommendation for the
wording? Please find the wording to ex explain how structural elements of the poem explain how structural elements of poems, dramas, and stories differ from each other. Okay,
I'm going to I'm just going to go ahead and pull up the TDOE feedback so I can hopefully maybe copy and paste their language over and we can work from there. So, just one second as I as I pull that up. I got Oops. I just put the proposed Here
we go. Hang on. Trying to navigate the chat here. One second. I'm putting the proposed wording into the chat. Okay. Thank you. That would be very helpful. I've got so many tabs up. Yeah. I just want to have that. Thank you. That is super helpful.
Okay. And the proposal is that this would read this would be the entire new standard. We would change the u this would not be just a portion of the the standard. This would be the entire thing. Correct. Right. Yeah. It's really just kind of rewarding it for clarity because its
current wording um is is really confusing. Um because the feedback was, you know, in its current wording, students will all they'll necessarily have to refer to the structural elements of poems, dramas, and stories when explaining how those differ from each other. So, it doesn't make sense to like
guide them to do that. Um, the proposed new wording that we have that the TDOE is suggesting just simply says like, you know, students are explaining how the structural elements of those pieces differ from each other, poems, dramas, and stories, and then they're referring
to those elements when writing or speaking about a text. So, um, it's really just a a recommended wording for clarity. I I like the TDOE's proposed wording and I' I've dropped it into the suggested chain of
I99. Um if anyone has any comments on that proposed wording. Yeah, it talks about student use of academic language and making that a part of their conversation. So yeah, I think it's rich. Uh I I like it. It's it's not that I I I
dislike it. I'm just wondering about the the portion that includes when writing or speaking about a text. And I I noticed that that about the original standard progression too. It's the only standard I believe in that progression that it incorporates that language.
Yeah, you're right. So it seems just a little out of place to me, but just that if we were Yeah. If we were going to keep with the structure elsewhere, it's almost like it would end after other just read explain how structural
elements of poems, dramas, and stories differ from each other. Well, uh again, as I said, uh that last part refers to them having that information and being able
to repeat it when explaining themselves and getting them converse it with the academic language. So, um I think that's important. Well, I think my hesitancy to include it comes from the fact that if we're going to
include that language there, then every other successive time in which we use that type of language, like in the in the original fifth grade standard, it said explain, then we would need to include that as well. Um, and to to keep an alignment. So,
and I think that's a great idea, Lacy. Well, I wasn't necessarily proposing the idea. uh uh to me if you're reading about it then we we've already addressed the writing and the speaking portion and the writing and the speaking standards but again you
know I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on that. It also seems to me if you're going to explain how structural elements of poems, dramas, and stories differ from each other um you will necessarily need to refer to those elements when writing or speaking about a text. I mean
explaining something and referring to the thing that you were explaining. I don't know how one explains these structural elements without referring to them. Banks, do you have any thoughts there? Yeah, I think that's I think that's fine. It um
absolutely. And some of this was coming from a previous iteration of this standard. Um that and I just thought this was a a better wording, but I would certainly think that um that if you take out that final clause that it's something that we could
clarify within the standards guide um to help teachers and so forth understand the standard for sure. So I don't think it would negatively impact the standard in in a in a big way or anything. Okay. As long as it's in the glossery, I
can go along with it. Okay. So, the new wording would read, "Explain how structural elements of poems, dramas, and stories differ from each other." How do we feel about that wording? Yes sir.
Okay. Then we can move to 4RI which reads describe the overall structures of events, ideas and concepts of information in a text or part of a text. Uh did we have TDOE feedback on that particular standard?
Oh no TDOE feedback on that standard. Okay. Does anyone else have thoughts on this particular standard? Hearing no recommendations, I say we keep it. Do I guess my question is describe the
overall structure of events, ideas, and concept. What what is a a concept of information? I guess I don't know exactly what that means. Should it be concepts or information? Is that what it's trying to is that a
typo? Carolyn, what's that mean to you? No, it's actually in the original standard. I'm sorry. So, it's not All right. I would propose just eliminating of information and just saying describe the overall structure of events, ideas, and
concepts in a text or part of a text. Um, I just I it seems as though concepts of information is meant to be a technical term, and I have never heard it. it uh I can say that it appears from the last standards revision that or was
inadvertently changed to of. Um so I I do I think it was actually just a a mis like translation of it. So I think that's a good flag for sure. Okay. Thank you. Let's make that change. So, are we just simply eliminating of
information like I proposed or do we feel as though we should change it to or instead of and? I don't love and concepts or information. It sounds a little clunky to me personally, but I'm open to other people. Why would you just say information? What?
Yeah, I think that works too. I feel like information covers concepts, but concept doesn't cover information. Yeah, I agree. I think I think Dr. Stealth's correct. So, we would just delete concepts of
Yes. Yes. Okay. I have made that edit. Okay. If we're good there, we can move to five RL. 5 RL reads, explain how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas work
together to provide the overall structure and contribute to the overall meaning of the text. Uh, no TDE uh feedback. I don't personally have any feedback on the standard.
All right. Hearing no recommendations for change. Let's accept it and move on. Okay. Five. Ri, compare and contrast the overall structure of events, ideas, and concepts of information in two or more texts. Um,
I would say we definitely want to delete concepts of uh to match our edit elsewhere. Yes, absolutely. And there's no TDE concept. Um, oh gosh, there's no TDE feedback
concept. All right, I think that one's ready. Move on. Okay. Um 6 RL reads, analyze how a particular sentence, paragraph, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text. Do we have any TDA TDOE
feedback there? Yes, we do. Okay. So 6 through 8 says, "Please consider refining the wording to analyze how the placement of a particular sentence, paragraph, or stanza fits into the overall structure
and contributes to the development of theme or plot. Adding the phrase the placement of helps to clarify the difference between this standard and RL3. Adding the phrase and contributes to the development of theme or plot highlights
the why piece. Students are analyzing the relationship of structure to the text's meaning. Would you like me to drop the Oh, he already did it. Never mind. Thanks. Okay. And I can go ahead and just say based off of this is Nicole Moore by the way. Um, based off of the original feedback
from the original standards, which is what we analyzed, the number one feedback for this standard was that that was pretty much a lot of information to be teaching at sixth grade. So, our purpose of changing six, seventh, and eighth was to build a progression. In sixth grade, you're going to look at the
overall structure. In seventh grade, you're going to look at it from the overall structure and the theme or I can't exactly see it, but it builds sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. Whereas, that was the number one feedback. They wanted clarific clarification of what the standard actually wanted. So just it says
stakeholder feedback has repeatedly asked for clarity to display the concerns about being developmentally de developmentally appropriate in effort to offer scaffolding scaffolding. We decided to do it that way. So that was just my note for that standard.
Okay. So, it seems that the question we have for ourselves is whether or not, and I I'll drop the TDOE suggested change into I 103, even though we're still having this conversation, just so we have it in front of us and can easily see it. Um, it's whether or not we want to include the language about uh
contributing to the development of theme or plot in sixth grade or if we want to wait until seventh grade to introduce that concept is is what I'm hearing, I think, um, is the question we need to decide. So, if anyone has thoughts there, um, I would love to hear them. this is kind of outside of my
instructional domain. So, I would I would be curious to hear from people more close to that grade level. Um I I can see that uh for sure. Um I'm wondering if maybe we meet in the middle
and maybe say just plot instead of theme and plot in the sixth grade. U but I think I'm as well open to just keeping it uh as it is. Um, I'm just thinking about how does it I didn't have time to go back and reanalyze, but h I think we
need to look at how does it um build from fifth to sixth because we don't want to take it down. Yeah. So, I didn't have time that yet. I I did look at that and in the fifth grade RL we are looking at the series of chapter scenes or stanzas work together to provide the overall structure and
then we're thinking about how that that structure contributes to the overall meaning of the text. So we are moving from choices to impact on meaning. Um so that is happening previously and then once again in seventh grade. Um so there
would be a slight uh alteration there. So, do we want to keep the language as recommended by uh TDOE? I I think that's worth discussing. I would love to hear more people's thoughts. Um because I don't I don't I I
see the the intention of the EAT proposal. Um but I also think I can see the the case made by the TDOE as well. So, I'm a little of two minds here and would love to hear people's thoughts. I'm also wondering if we need some more
specificity. Um, because when I think about structure in a literary text, I'm thinking about like plot structure. Um whereas in elementary school it's
looking at the like chapters and uh those elements. So I'm wondering like in sixth grade like I haven't seen what sixth grade benchmarks look like or anything but I'm I'm wondering like are they talking about chapters here um or
are they talking about a plot structure like exposition, rising action, etc. I can tell you from a question that we had today. Um, I mean it strictly said read paragraphs 1 through three and
determine how it contributed to the overall structure of the story and they had to go back and read paragraphs 1 through three and they had to tell me that it introduced the charact I mean it introduced the characters pretty much. Um, that that's what it looks like on a
test like a state test because that was a statebased question. Well, Annie, how would you how would you change the standard as it's written to reflect what your question was? That kind of sounds to me like she it's
talking about exposition, introducing characters. Um, but that's just one example. So, I I'm not sure. I I I'd be curious um if if Miss Moore thinks that it needs some more I guess defining. I I often find this standard a little
nebulous and hard to teach because I'm not exactly sure what they're looking for in eighth and nth grade as well sometimes. Um so as far as sixth grade, like that's I've never taught sixth grade. Um, but I'm wondering if it's if
plot structure is an accurate catch-all. I will say that like currently the the standards guide for grade six for this standard does say that students should learn the kind of the traditional elements of the literary plot like exposition, rising action, climax,
falling action, resolution, all those pieces just because it helps them that terminology helps them when they're analyzing structure in later gr. So just kind of getting acquainted with that terminology, you know, and referring to it and that sort of thing um does appear
in sixth grade currently. So um yeah, just wanted to flag that are those things. Thank you. What needs to be stated in the standard itself as a EG?
I I agree that this this standard has always been very difficult to teach and even when we get into the upper grade levels. Um I always think of it as the relationship of a part to a whole. So,
my I I I'm I'm struggling with this myself um at the in this middle grade band level because um I think it's the language and I I I want to see what others think about that. But it's the it's the
contributes to the development of theme or plot. It's it I wish there were there were a way that we could um that we could really specify what that means because I I hear what you're saying. It's the it's those plot elements, right? It's those it's those
structural portions. So, how do we communicate that in the standard if that's truly what we're looking for? If paragraphs one through three as um Miss Moore said um are are are truly you know the exposition in that part of the text
then how can we communicate in that standard that that is actually what is to be taught at this level. It it also can be something that you know and I don't want to I'm certainly not influencing which direction you go in terms of what to include in the standard but and and I agree that this
is also just a a really tough standard to break down. Um it but it's it's obviously critical, you know, with uh just like students understanding structure and like why a text is structured the way it is and how that influences meaning and the purpose of a
text and so forth. And so we really have included a lot of information in the standard guide uh to kind of scaffold for uh teachers and understanding the standard. So we do try to include as much as possible in the standard guide. But if you feel like um certainly
obviously if you feel like it would be helpful to have it in the standard as well um you know that's great. I just wanted to say like we do break down kind of specifically here's the best practice with this standard at this grade level in terms of understanding terminology or what practices a student should do and
that sort of thing. So it sounds like from the uh testimony of the practitioners that there's still confusion out there. So maybe adding more into the standard is going to
eliminate that confusion. Also, oh, if you go back to the standard where we kind of change the I don't know if you change it actually, but the objective summary and the theme allin one. I think maybe if you didn't include theme, I can't persuade you to do anything, but maybe it would be easier
as a teacher if I did if I only knew I had to teach like why paragraphs one through three help develop for the plot, not the theme. Also, I mean, that's just a lot of they barely can recognize the theme and now you want me to go find a
parag. I would like to add that we did increase the rigor for the writing standards for middle school. This could be adding some balance if we refine this portion.
If we did what, Katherine? I didn't understand. If we refine this portion, what I hear folks saying is A, the language is not clear. B, there are a lot of tasks being asked at of them at once. So, I know uh,
chair that you are very concerned about rigor, but I would like to note that we did increase rigor for middle school writing. So, is this where we kind of balance and maybe take something off the plate? I think it might be worth revisiting.
Um, I think it may have been Miss Dockery, though we've had quite a conversation, so I can't remember exactly who said what. Um the idea of the kind of compromised position of um maybe uh changing the language to analyze how the placement of particular sentence, paragraph or stanza fits into the overall structure and contributes to
the development of plot um instead of theme or and then introducing theme perhaps in the seventh grade level as a way of kind of creating a progression. um we're still thinking about and to me it seems like when we're talking about how um you know how each particular
paragraph or section of a text contributes to the broader plot structure, we're really talking about its contribution to the development of plot. I haven't really heard anybody throw out any theoretical questions about the the contributions of a particular part to the theme at this
level. So, I think that might kind of give a little more of a of a focus. I think that's also kind of what uh what Nicole was kind of gesturing at when she was talking about the idea of perhaps focusing on just just plot rather than theme and plot. I think that sounds like an excellent
suggestion. Can you put that in writing so that we could see if we have consensus on the wording? Um I believe it would just it would be pretty simple. I would just rem remove theme or from the proposed standard. So I just I did that now. Um, so what it
what reads in I 103 would be the that edit. I also wanted I guess to bring up again um should we include more specific language uh like plot structure in there or is that implied
um with the revision? Um, we just we've used this term overall structure pretty consistently throughout the standard progression. Um, I I I see where you're coming from with the idea of um well, I guess I say that I think
we've only used it in the fifth grade level now that I'm looking back. Um but in like the fifth grade RL standard we say um how chapters, scenes or stanzas work together to provide the overall structure. Um and here we're saying how a particular sentence paragraph for chapter in the or section fits into the
overall structure. So I think we have used this term. Now we could obviously go back to five and add plot before structure if we wanted to be a little more specific there. I'm I'm really open to to ideas here. I don't I don't feel like I've got this one figured out.
Should we put it in a parking lot or just say I think we're too close to put it in the parking lot. All right, then. If anybody wants to change what Coach Hillard put in there, let you know. Let us know now or forever
hold your peace. Okay. Hearing no objection, we're going to accept what you've written. Uh, and if it if it happens that we need to come back to it later, we may come back to it, but it's it's not all done until we
say it's all done. Let's move on. Chair, can I for um a fivem minute break? I think we've been on since 3:15, 3:00, 3:30. I would say let's take a 5m minute
break. It's now 5:00, so we'll go at um actually I was planning on supper break at at 5:30. Oh, okay. I'll I'll wait till then. That's fine. All right. So, dinner break. Let's uh let's hold it till 5:30.
All right. Next. Um then we'll forge onward to 6RI. um which reads analyze how a particular sentence, paragraph, chapter or section fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of ideas or of the ideas.
Uh we have TDOE feedback about that one. Okay. Um it says please consider changing wording to analyze how the placement of a particular sentence, paragraph, chapter section fits into the overall structure and contributes to the development of of ideas. Adding the phrase the placement of helps to clarify
the difference between this standard and RL3. Adding the phrase and contributes to the development ideas highlights the Y piece. Students are analyzing the relationship of structure to the text's meaning. That wording would seem to mimic what we've just done with the the six RL
standard as well. Um I I can take that. I believe that was Banks. I think you just dropped that in the in the chat I believe. Thank you for that. I really really appreciate you doing that. Of course. Yeah. I also
Go ahead. Oh. Um I wanted to add I guess I have a few thoughts. Um I think I find the RARI version of the standard uh even more difficult um and confusing. So there is a several
comments about like lack of specificity um from the stakeholder feedbacks and in the survey um with this um and request for giving listing specific structures to focus on. Um another mentioned uh
adding chronological cause and effect and just um some general comments about about vagueness. Um and I I we did take away the specific text structures from the writing standard if I am incorrect. I think we
talked about having initially in there we talked about having like them utilizing uh text structure such as chronological sequence, cause and effect, etc. So I'm wondering if this is maybe where we add it back in. And as a teacher personally, I feel like at this
level that gives kids something to kind of grab hold of. if they're identifying and analyzing these types of text structures, I feel like it makes it a little bit clearer to teach and maybe a little bit more developmentally appropriate. Um, I think the vagueness
is more appropriate in not vague, but I guess being more open-ended is more appropriate in 9 through 12 grades. Um, and I'm wondering if other people have taught sixth grade such as Miss Now and or middle school such as Miss Now and uh
Miss Moore have comments about that. So me personally, I mean I think this is me personally. Um I would love to know like compare and contrast problem solution. I would love to know like text structure as far as that goes. Um this standard was act is actually the standard. Now we did not make any
changes to it. However, I'm liking your proposals you're making. Annie or sorry, Miss Darker, feel free to boss me around. I think I found what you were looking for, but let me know if not about the writing standard. Now, did you have any comment?
I I'm I'm not opposed. I'm not opposed. Okay. Annie, then can you uh draft something or coach, can you draft something that reflects the comments
that Annie had? I don't know if I have the the understanding of exactly what she was uh suggesting to draft something. I think I have something written down in my notes if that helps. Uh but again, that's just
a a proposal. I'm not married to it. I just think this this one is a little bit confusing and and maybe have them having understanding of types of text structure might scaffold 9 through 12 better. Okay. So what I had for sixth grade um
of course just just something to throw throwing out um identify and allies the structure an author uses to organize a text uh eg sequence cause and effect um including how the placement of a particular sentence, paragraph, chapter
or section fits in structure and contributes to the development of uh ideas. Um, could you possibly chat? Oh, yeah. Uh, another note that I have,
um, this is I did this a while ago, so it doesn't have our EG in it, but um, I wonder if anybody else feels this way, but I kind of feel like looking at particular
like we move from particular um, sentences, paragraph or chapters to major sections. in eighth grade major section just feels easier to analyze to me than analyzing
the purpose of a particular like sentence. Um, but that might just be me. Okay. I have put Miss Docker's uh language into the I 104 uh suggested
change box. Um hers is the second paragraph. The one above is the the TE recommendation. I just have them both there so that we can look at both. What are the two intellectual activities you're asking them to doing in identify and analyze
and and and how If they analyze, they have to identify. Do we need identify? I would prefer not to include identify just because elsewhere we have used we're pretty consistently using the verb analyze from here on out in this
progression. Um, and we used just identify or we didn't we just used analyze in the six.RL version of this standard. Um, so for the sake of consistency, I I would prefer to just stick to the analyze verb. Would you be able to go along with that, Annie?
Yes, very much so. Very rough draft over here. So, all right. So, let's take off identify and we'll go with analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text sequence, cause and effect, including how the placement of a particular
sentence, paragraph, chapter, or section fits into the overall structure and contributes to the It reads development of ideas. I don't know if it's cut off, but
okay. Uh, is everybody okay with that? Hearing no objections, let's move forward. Excellent. Thank you, Annie. Okay. Um just just since we made a relatively we we've adopted some of Miss
Docker's language um for the six RARI, we'll just need to be intentional as we move through the RIS to make sure we we mimic the language she used there. Just flaging that for for future. Okay. Um 7 RL reads, analyze how a particular sentence, paragraph, or stanza contributes to the development of
the theme or plot. Um, I think we probably have some TDOE feedback on this because I know we shifted the six RL. Um, you got any the uh the the feedback that was provided for the sixth grade standard,
it was the same across the grade band. It's it's the same for six, seven, and eight. So, if you would like me to read that again, I can. I think I No, go ahead. Yeah, I think we've got it. uh would the um we in our
decision the only edit we made to the TDOE recommendation for the sixth grade was the removal of theme or um at the end instead of saying contributes to development of theme or plot we just said plot. Um would we then need to to introduce that language at the seventh
grade level of theme? Do we feel like that would be developmentally appropriate to to introduce that concept of contributing to the theme um at this level? I think so. with that to add additional rig rigor. Okay, so the standard would read analyze how the placement of a particular
sentence, paragraph or stanza fits into the overall structure and contributes to the development of theme or plot. Okay, are we good with that? Hearing no objections, let's roll. Okay. Um 7.
I reads, "Analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to the development of the ideas." Um, once again, this is something we'll probably want to marry whatever choices
we make to the language um from Miss Docker's uh suggestion that we used as the basis for our version of 6. Any comments? Do we still want to use the eg that we
used in six here as well? Um, and just change the including because now we're focusing on a different element. So I I can try to draft something up to see what I think it might look like. I think we can add you. Everybody says
that they need more specificity in order to know what to teach. So if we need to add that to get something more specific. Yes. Okay. One second. I think I'm putting it together in a way that would reflect both the
EAT's recommendation and Miss Docker's language. Okay. Um, so it's now in I 106. Um, I think it would read something along the lines of analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, eg sequence, cause effect, including how the major sections fit into the overall structure
and contribute should say contribute to the development of ideas. Everybody agree with that? Well said. Let's move on. Thank you. We've lost Wait a minute. We've
We've lost the hole in seventh that was in the EIT's recommendation. I think that was meant to be captured by how the major sections fit into the overall structure. Um though I I do I
see what you're saying. We could change the language from including how the major sections. We could just say including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to the development of the idea development of ideas just to mimic the eat language.
I think a slight departure. Okay. I can paste that over and see what we think. Okay. So now read, analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, eg sequence, cause effect, including how the major sections contribute to the
whole and to the development of ideas. Does that work for everybody? I hear no objection. So, let's move on. I'd say that's accepted. Okay. Um, the eighth grade RL reads, analyze how a particular sentence,
paragraph, or stanza contributes to the development of the theme or tone. Um, this reads identically to the seventh grade standard except plot has been replaced with tone. Um, would we like to take our seventh grade standard and make a corresponding edit to this?
We um, we have a a okay feedback on that. Let me make sure that we are Yes. Okay. So, we're Yeah, we're um I'm sorry, too many tabs. Okay. Yeah, it says ple please consider
changing tone to plot as students analyze tone in RL4. Okay. So the TDOE recommendation is to simply use the the seventh grade standard. Um so I guess it comes down to the TDOE
is recommending that we use plot rather than tone. Um because we have previously addressed tone earlier in the progression. I agree. How do we So So do we want to just say theme or plot like we did in the seventh
grade standard? Okay with that, Catherine. Yes, I gave it the thumbs up. Okay, thank you. All right, let's roll. Can I get one clarification from the group just so it'll be helpful for me when creating the standards guides for
the way that the RL um five is worded currently when you say analyze how the placement of particular sentence paragraph or stanza fits into the overall structure and contributes to the plot. Um, you know, in literature,
I would consider the overall structure to be the plot. Um, so it kind of in the in its current wording, it sounds like there's a bit of a distinction between the two. And if you are making one, it would be helpful for me to know what it is so I can
explain it better, if that makes sense. Um, and because I'm wondering, you know, if the student is really analyzing how the placement of a sentence, paragraph, or stanza contributes to the development of plot or fits into the overall plot and
contributes to the development of the plot, if that makes sense. It's just kind of when you use both structure and plot in the RL, it gets a little um, it seems like there's a distinction and I just want to be able to grasp what that might be, if there is one, if you're making one.
Does my make sense? I want to make sure. No, I I agree. And I've been sitting here pondering the the progression from sixth through eight myself and I I because I feel like we're losing the the impact on meaning
and if we I I understand we we have two different things going on. And I really think that uh when we are when we're saying in RLH analyze how the placement of a particular sentence, paragraph or stanza fits into the overall structure and
contributes to the development of theme or plot. Um really we are are are we really saying it fits into the overall structure and contributes to the meaning in some way? Um, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts
on that, but I'm not completely happy to be honest with the progression from sixth through 8th at the moment. I'm wondering what we're asking uh students to do. Going back to I just went back and looked at the um like the TCAP pool and
I know it's not about test, but I'm telling you how it's worded. Every one for the standard, the only thing it says is the overall structure. That is the only way it is worded. So, I don't really know what that means, but that's what it that's what it means or that's what it says. That's the only
way it's worded. Um, I agree that overall structure typically means the plot if we are referring to fiction. Is this exclusively to fiction?
The feedback is yes for the RL standards. I I don't have any feedback on the RAR standards. I guess my question is is the standard exclusively applied to fiction. This standard does not apply to non-fiction.
That's right. The reading literature standards. Yes. Uh strictly fiction. Well, then I agree with your comment that overall structure is plot or fiction. Would it would it improve the standards if
instead of these conclusions uh these standards reading fits into the overall structure and contributes to the development of plot it read just simply fits into the overall plot structure and then ended there for some clarification or does that not actually provide the clarification you're looking for?
I do think the meaning part that um Miss Na was indicating is is missing. it's it's in the cornerstone and kind of when we get up into grades 6 through 12, it it needs to be getting closer to what the cornerstone is capturing. Um, so I think you're right in kind of
simplifying it there, but I do think the meaning piece at the end would would help bring it closer to what the cornerstone is guiding students to do, if that makes sense. Maybe fits into the overall plot structure and contributes to the meaning or contributes to meaning um to kind of
mimic what is being said. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, something I just would like clarification on. Um, how are we distinguishing the difference between meaning and theme? I feel like I usually those are kind of basically the same in
my in my head. So, I just would like to hear clarification on that because I don't know if I'm completely following. I'm using it interchangeably in the feedback in my feedback. So, yes. Yeah, I I agree. Um I I hesitated to say
anything because sometimes I don't know if like this is teacher specific language but yeah in the real world I feel like meaning and theme are the same and I would uh opt for consistency and opt for um academic vocabulary
for middle school then I think we should be just saying theme. I I do have fears that if we eliminate theme then maybe students stop hearing that language of theme. Um but I would
say I use meaning all the time as like my nine honors we we do a lot of uh AP prompts and so they they see that interchangeably but I kind of worry at this level if that might be a detriment to delete the theme language. Um but I'd like to hear other thoughts
about that. I agree with you, Annie. I I'd be worried about that. If we want them to use that to describe uh the meaning and use the word theme,
then we got to keep it in there. Then we we do kind of seem to be circling back to language pretty similar to the language we already have. Um, I think if we're going to stick with the language of theme rather than meaning, um, then that kind of settles that. But
we still had this conversation about whether contributes to the development of plot says the same thing as fits into the overall structure. Um, which seems to be a slightly adjacent but different conversation. I I think I like your suggestion about
fits into the overall PL plot structure and contributes to the development of theme which maybe doesn't eliminate our initial concerns about especially the sixth grade level but
it would use vocabulary that um is uh more aligned with what we are expecting students to know especially when we consider the other standards. And and I also agree. I was sitting here looking at the sixth, seventh, eighth
grade standards uh at my school and I do agree with keeping the word theme within the standard. Thank you, Rose. I also I like um
uh Mr. Hillyard's suggestion of having um plot structure in there because I to me like as a teacher reading that I feel like that is more clear of what I'm asking students to do. Um and so I'm wondering like if you're
looking at sixth grade I mean I feel like Advances the plot still works there personally. Um because I'd say plot structure is a way that plot is advanced. So I think it
still works. Um I guess but I'm open to being uh persuaded or or proven wrong on that point as well. Where is this l where is this language about advancing? I don't I think I'm missing it. Oh,
my bad. That is in my notes when I was rewriting things. Um, but I guess contributes contributes to the plot. Uh, I think it's still I think that still works. Contributes. Yeah. I guess same same point I was
making just with contributes instead of advances. Okay. I think there was some concern I think from from banks that that fits into the overall plot structure and contributes to the development of plot. just kind of saying the same thing twice. Yes. Um
if we Yeah, I'm sorry. In in the fifth grade standard moving back, I mean, we did say um that it's contributing to the overall meaning of the text. And so if we're going to progress in rigor uh sufficiently and effectively from, you
know, fifth grade to the sixth grade, then we don't want to lose that meaning. And so again, I think I think it's appropriate to add theme back in. I understand, you know, the concerns about um you know, the difficulty at that
level, but if we don't, then again, it feels like a a regression essentially um into the fifth grade standard if if we do not include that. I agree. So, um, I think incorporating all of the
the comments that have been made, I think what I have in I 103 for the sixth grade RL standard, I think encapsulates a lot of those ideas and analyze how the placement of a particular sentence, paragraph, or stanza fits into the overall plot structure and contributes to the development of theme.
How do we feel about that? I think that's good. I was going to say also this go um in the the uh second reading standard they um in sixth grade well in all of them but in sixth grade
that's with the central idea but it also says determine central idea or themes of a text and analyze their development. So this is kind of building off that second one there's and so they're doing that in sixth grade deter determining the theme and
analyzing their development. So to me this kind of goes along with that. So if they're doing it already in the sixth grade I don't know really about like taking it away. I don't know. You know we're talking are you Britney? Are you proposing a
further change to what coach Hillard has put down there? No, I I think that's good. I'm just saying this is a lot. It's very similar to one that we have already done um for the second reading. So, I would saying
that these two more I guess this is just a deeper dive into it, but they're already determining the theme and analyzing its development. So I was saying I was going along with what he said. Okay, that's good. So it looks like we
have consensus. Now is there anybody else that wants to make any other changes to what uh our vice chair Hillyard has put in that cell? Hearing none, I say we have consensus and let's move on. Now uh where would we
take what would be our next step? I made course I made corresponding edits to seventh and eighth grade um to mimic what we've done to five and six. So you can see those uh the high school next I we still have 8 RI but we are nearly
done 8RI and then go to supper. Okay. Um so 8 RI will probably be very similar to what 7RI reads. Um, it currently reads, "Analyze in detail the structure of a specific paragraph or section in the text and including the
role of particular sentences in developing and refining a key concept." Um, we have um well actually this is worded somewhat differently from what we've done with the seventh grade standard. So I I guess
we just need to look at this on its own terms. So analyze in detail the structure of a specific paragraph or section in a text including the role of particular sentences in developing and refining a key concept. Um does anyone have thoughts on that particular wording of the standard? Anything from the department of
education? Yes. Um said please consider changing the wording of the standard at this grade level to be the same as grade seven. Analyze the structure and author uses to organize the text including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to the development of the ideas. This word more clearly captures
adequate rigor and avoids students only analyzing the structure of paragraphs and sections in texts. It also better clarifies the difference between R3 and R5. So do we want to simply just adopt the language we use for RAR or 7.RI for 8RI?
It would be my suggestion. One thing we lose is the and refinement piece. Um I'm not against taking it out. I did to say and the refinement piece is is a little challenging for eighth graders.
Um and also that to me, sorry, I didn't even Oh, and I was just going to say um yeah, so they look look at refining in 910. Um, and then I think TDE asked in their
revision this included it, but I also don't like the in detail. Personally, I like for in detail to be removed. How does anybody else feel about Annie's proposed changes? I like adding back in the refining. And
if we're fighting, then it should be in detail. So it seems a little redundant to say it's in detail. We did. So would it simply be then the language would read analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, eg sequence, cause and effect,
including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to the development and refinement of ideas. Would that be where we add refinement? That seems to mirror what the EAT did. I'm I'm on a totally other word
sequence. Do we just mean uh chronological? I believe so. That was Miss Docker's language. Um so, Miss Dockery, if you wanted to jump in. Um sequence, I usually I I find I guess
a distinction between sequence and chronological. I could be wrong, but uh sequence is uh I I think almost like in um uh like a howto like first you do this, second you do this, third you do that. Um
we still nonfiction. Are we still only in fiction? Uh this is non-fiction. Non-fiction. We're in non-fiction. Okay. Well, I got you. Yep. Does that satisfy your uh question? Catherine,
yes. If we are in non-fiction, yes, genre doesn't matter. Yeah, Miss Dockery, what was your other question? Oh, chronological. So, we do not have sequence that I can tell from short review of the current glossery. And you said, I do believe chronological
orders in here. Maybe. Well, I'm not. It's in text. It seems to be highly referenced. Another one. Sorry, I'm sure I'm giving you all whiplash. Um, I think if you're would sequential be
right if you're referencing chronological? Um, typically it seems like chronological is the traditional term for kind of thatformational text organization in at least in my experience, but I'm not
sure. Yeah, I guess I'm thinking like a scientific process like that would be in sequential order but not necessarily chronological. Sorry, Dr. St. go ahead. Yeah, I think we're meaning two different things. Um, but I I think
sequential I mean I know sequential and sequence are essentially the same, but to me sequential is is clear. Okay. So, do we want to change the language from sequence to sequential? I'm good with that.
Yes. Okay. All right. Now, look at the cell that our vice chair Hillyard has created and see
if there's any more comments you want to make about that about changes. I did not add that language about refinement. So, I can add that as well. Well, why don't you do that and then we'll take another peek at it. Okay. Just did. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Does that look acceptable to everybody in its current state? Well, hearing no objections, I'd say we're done with that level and we're going to go on to the high school here. It's now 5:33 and I would like to call
for a 20 minute supper break. Uh I don't want you to get indigestion. If you want to start and simply bring your dessert to the table uh and turn your camera off, I leave it on. I don't care. We'll watch you enjoy it. Uh, and
we'll get back here at uh 5:53 or earlier if everybody's ready. But take at least 20 minutes. You deserve it. We've been working hard and we'll try to plow through and get as many of this is done as we can.
Y'all are cooking. We're on 108 out of what? 135. Okay. Beautiful. Yes. And just remember friends, um, we are live. So, I'm going to turn my camera off and my audio off in the event we have any friends joining us. But, um,
feel free to call or text me on my cell phone if we need anything during the break. I will clarify really quickly. We're on 108 of 211, not 135. So, we we are still we're we're a little over half done with the reading.
Oh, was it 135 that we had that's how many standards we had left to do today? Uh, I'm so sorry. That was that was cruel and unusual punishment. I'm still very proud. Michael, not a problem. We are still moving. And we'll keep it up. Now, let's go have something to eat.
Okay. Okay. Huh. Are you enjoying the conversation? Is You know, Vanderbilt football's getting actually fun to watch these days. I'm having a blast with it.
Football fan. I'm a big football fan and an alma mater. So, this is a rare circumstance where I get to root for our team. I know. I sat through a lot of games at that stadium when I was in undergrad that uh were not particularly close. So,
no. This has been nice. Let's see who else is out there besides you and I. Catherine's out here checking in for the undefeated Memphis Tigers.
Oh my. Yes. Congratulations. Yeah. What a win, man. Long the longest win streak in the country. Memphis Tigers. Their team has won more games in a row in all of college football. We are very proud of our Tigers here in Memphis.
Absolutely. And rightfully so. Should be. Oh, there's Miss Summers. I'm late for class. Okay. So, I see you got us. Oh, there we are. Do you have E one and two
up there? Let's see. I think we're scrolled a little further down. We're on row 109. Okay. Can you roll us back? Yes, I think we're good. Do we have a quorum?
Not yet. Six. Seven. We're only doing logistics now. No deliberations. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, no. We're good. We have a quorum. But yeah, you feel free to call in the meeting whenever you'd like to officially have a start.
Oh, I have it paused. That's why. Hold on. How about now? Can you see 109? 108. 109. Yes. Thank you. That was on me. I had it paused while we were done. Have some apple pie.
Who's calling in? I know. I said have some apple pie. Oh my gosh. Okay, Rosemary, I was gonna I was going to have some strawberry shortcake. My sister made the apple pie some over
her house. Not that it was actually like two minutes from my school, so I have to drive all the way to German Town. Um Oh, yeah. Well, I was afraid of getting it on my computer. Chair, if you could look at the chat
before we start. Uh, tonight's our first night of rehearsal. And I didn't want to miss miss it because we have a October concert here in Memphis. I do stay with the Memphis Symphony Chorus. This is my 27th year. Oh, wonderful.
Yeah. No, that you got to have that for your soul. You You have to have that extra. That's what I do. What why I do what I do. Yeah. Okay. So, we got Rosemary. a moment of celebration. Uh chair, if I may, I
mentioned I think in one of our earlier meetings that my grandmother was an English teacher for 40 years. Well, she celebrated her 97th birthday yesterday. Wow. There is a picture. A y
how wonderful. And you got to be with her. Oh yeah. Wouldn't miss it for the world. Awesome. Annie, are you out there? No, I am. Oh, you are. Okay. All right. So, it looks like we have a
quorum with Annie and uh let's see. Dr. Now, are you there? Yes, I am. Okay. Uh I think we have a quorum. So, I'm going to call this meeting back into order now at 5:59.
And Miss Summers, did you have something to report to us? I don't believe so, but if you need something from me, call me. Okay, we'll do that. You've been very helpful along with all of the entire uh
staff that you've got there. Th this has been so much uh easier to get this tremendous task done with all your background help and all all of the time that's went in to come coming up with the recommendations that you've had
really have have made this uh job doable. All right. This labor of love shall continue. Now, with which cell? We are on row 109. So, we're looking at the standard in G 109.
Continuing the same progression we've been on. Um, wrapping it up here pretty soon after a few more standards. We're on E1, E2, RL, CSS5, which reads, "Analyze how an author's choices concerning text structure, plot structure, andor time manipulation
contribute to its overall structure, meaning, and aesthetic impact. Do we have TDO field?" Yeah. Do we have TDO feedback there? Whoever's looking at 912, we do not.
Okay. Um, do we have any elsewhere? We've tried to avoid and or. Do we feel like this is an instance where andor should be used? Um, or should we shorten it to just and or just or? I think andor might be appropriate here.
That's kind of what I was thinking, too, but I just wanted to to see if anyone else disagreed. I'm good with it. Um, I do have a a question I'm just curious about. Um, we initially had the H hold on, sorry,
too many tabs again. Um, the original was analyze how an author's choices concerning text structure, plot structure, and or time manipulation create effects such as mystery, tension, or surprise. I'm just wondering about
why we're eliminating it and if it's a good elimination or not. Well, that's a that says a lot of other things than what this says. I think those things are encompassed in the uh aesthetic impact.
Hey, can you hear me? This is Yes, we can. Okay. Um, we went a steady impact because we were trying to encompass everything. We didn't want to just limit it. We were trying not to
Tammy. I lost the last little bit. That might have just been me. We were trying not to limit. Yeah. I'm in the middle of nowhere in a jam with a storm. be safe. Feel free to use the chat.
Right. I think if I if I'm hearing correctly, she's she's saying that uh the aesthetic impact essentially encompasses the uh the original uh language in the standard. I will also say at least in my building, this has always been a standard of some degree of
confusion. Um, and we've also often I've heard the complaint that the previous wording was a little too uh specific at times, like it it didn't apply to so many texts. Um, and so it kind of didn't feel encompassing enough to encompass all literary texts. Now,
that's just a that's just colloquial in my colloquial experience. Um, that's what I've heard. Okay. Can the standards guide uh refer us back to the original wording
uh in explaining aesthetic impact? Yes, absolutely. We can break that down and kind of describe the different ways that can look in a given text. And we have also received that feedback that uh Lucas was talking about in terms of uh it being too limiting with those current
terms in there. So aesthetic impact uh according to the feedback we've received would be more all-encompassing. Okay. And and we could break that down specifically as to what that looks like though in the standards guide. Yes. Annie, does that satisfy your question?
Um, yeah. I just think, um, if the standards guide is going to like specify that teachers should be teaching like the mystery, attention, and surprise aspect, then I'm not sure if we should take it. I don't I think I guess
I just need to I want to make sure that it that the standards guide reflects the change because this would have a pretty major impact on the way this standard is taught. like most schools I've taught in with ninth grade, we always have like a
suspense unit um because of the standard, which I I have always actually felt kind of limited by it. So, I'm not opposed to it, but I just think it's one we need to think about as far as making sure that everything's aligned between the standards guide and the actual standard so that teachers don't
eliminate their suspense unit. And then on the standardized test, what do you know? We've got like specific questions about suspense tactics. We could also, and I don't know if this is something I even necessarily want to
do, but we could uh just simply include an EG list after aesthetic impact with mystery tension surprise. Kind of. I definitely think we should. Yeah. In the glossery, too. Uh, I'm not
opposed to what you just said, Lucas. I if you if we think that will help teachers to understand and um help us at testing time. Um, I can put that together really fast.
I just want to clarify that I'm not against taking it out. I just I guess I was saying that if we're taking it out that that needs to be reflected in the standard standards guide that they're not just looking at mystery, tension, and surprise anymore.
Yeah, we we we achieved we we have received uh asurances of that uh from the department. Okay. Uh, but Lucas, I I I don't I think an EG would
be good here. Uh, I went ahead and drafted one. It's in cell I 109. If Yeah, because you it doesn't give you that limiting factor that people have been concerned about before, but it just
gives you some examples. What's saying you doctor? Now you got your uh microphone on. I No, I I I that's fine. I think the original language said effects such as mystery, tension, or surprise. We're
essentially doing the same thing. Um so that's I mean that's fine if we want to include that. That's one thing I'm wondering is if we include an EG that has the exact same language, do teachers just read it as the standard has not changed. Um
I think they likely would. So So I'm wondering if like maybe include something a little bit different in the aesthetic impact or eliminate the EG. Um I don't I just feel like if I read that not being part of
this conversation be like, "Oh, they just decided to put this in a parenthesis, but I'm teaching the exact same thing as I was before." Guess I'm I'm struggling to follow the criticism for too much clarity or too
much specificity because I feel like every other uh kind of revision we've made has been to add specificity. And so what were the other things that teachers wanted to teach or felt like they
couldn't talk about because those three elements, suspense and mystery, surprise, whatever were listed. I think like from from my perspective as someone who's taught nine and 10, it makes you feel like you have to have a
mystery or suspense unit. Um whereas if you eliminated that language, it would kind of make it broader like the rest of the standards where it's basically structure for any any literature. Um
does that answer your question? It does, but I think this term aesthetic elements, was that the term? I think it's kind of vague. but vague in a way that seems less helpful.
Um, and so I'm wondering if that's just not the right term. It also doesn't seem like common education vernacular. Push back again if I'm wrong, but just from my six years in the classroom, I don't think I ever use
that phrase. I don't disagree with you. Um I think effects the overall structure meaning and effects I mean the effect the effect of surprise the effect of mystery um the effect of tension in the
narrative you know um that's I think that's more what we are talking about uh maybe literary effects I don't know if that is better at all. I think if we're follow if since we've
we've streamlined language in the rest of the standards and so that you know if if we're reading the rest of the standards you know eg indicates an example and that these are just examples um then it shouldn't be taken as limiting because we're not we're not
intending that elsewhere. I agree with that. So I I agree. Aesthetic impact seems odd there. Um but other than literary effects, I I
don't know. Does anybody have any other suggestions? I liked the language of just effects. Um I think that's essentially what we're describing. I think I like effects as well. I'm not when I hear literary effects I'm I'm not
totally sure what that means. Um yeah, but I I think maybe one thing just I guess as a nine teacher um if maybe we mix up some of those EGs to not be just mystery, tension, surprise to give us
some other examples um to kind of broaden what we're teaching and understanding of what we're teaching. Um, I'm not sure what those examples would be, but I'm just afraid that if teachers want it to be broader and we just give
the same examples, it's going to be interpreted and probably tested the exact same way as it was before. So, I'm working through this and what I think they were trying to get at with
aesthetic impact and then also reading with context, mystery, tension, and surprise. Is it emotional impact? Like how an author's choices evoke emotion in a reader. Is that the goal of
this standard? I hesitate to limit it to emotion, but I see where you're going with that. Um, what about an effect upon the audience or effect upon the reader? That's where my head was going
personally. Sorry, I've been teaching AP Lang today. Effective upon the audience. We've been talking about that. But but effect upon the reader. I could see that. Would somebody like to draft? Uh
I just I just did. Um Okay. Can we there? This is an easier conversation and I don't want to deviate from what we're doing right now, but I do think it's one we need to have relatively soon for the standard. Um, I don't love analyze how an author's
choices concerning plot structure is one of the elements in that list contribute to its overall structure since we've defined overall structure as plot structure. Um, so essentially saying analyze how author's choices regarding plot structure contribute to plot structure. Um, so I I think we could
probably do with just saying contributes to its meaning and effect on the reader and just eliminate that reference to overall structure. Oh, amen. I like that. Yeah, I I I
second that emotion. Okay, so with that effect with that edit made, um the standard now reads, "Analyze how an author's choices concerning text structure, plot structure, andor time manipulation contributes to its meaning and effect on the reader, eg mystery, tension, and
surprise." Um, obviously that still does not that does not mediate u Miss Dockery's concern that people are going to read this still as just being the mystery tension surprise standard which it always has functionally been but we'll address that in the standards
guide. They'll talk about that. Do we need do we need the EG list then? I mean we we included the EG list because we thought aesthetic impact was confusing. I think effect on the reader is substantially less confusing. My vote would be to delete the EG because I
think everyone in my department would interpret it as the standard is the same. I agree on that as well because I notic that in the previous standard at another grade level we did eliminate the EG but we didn't have the EG and Katherine and I were looking for
more specificity but I think you know you guys are going to be teaching that and and if you think it's going to have that negative effect then I'd go along with you just keep take it out. Yeah. I I think ultimately our choice is because I agree with Miss Dockery that
if we keep the mystery tension surprise EG there, people are just going to read this as a continuation of the same standard that was there previously. I think our options are essentially get rid of the EG or replace like she mentioned earlier the elements within the EG with other effects that text
might have on reader then then be an exhaustive list. So uh let's go with what you have. Any any other comments? Are we good with what um co-chair Hillyard has just created here?
May I suggest um including in the wish list uh your specific request to unpack that element of the standard so that we can have that on record for the standards? Yes, you have that request right now. You read my mind, Banks. Um I think Miss
Now has access to the wish list and we could add that. Although did we settle the matter by taking out the EG or am I missing something? Yes, we took out the EG, but we but but we now need to have it addressed more specifically with within
uh the standards guide. So, okay, I'm sorry. So, we are we are currently talking about wanting that in the standards guide as opposed to defining it in the glossery or both. We can do both.
I think uh when it was aesthetic impact, it felt like more like a more like a term. I feel like effect on the reader, it feels less like a like a glossery term. Um a little more generic. Agreed. Just checking. Okay. Thank you. No, that's great. I do think it's worthwhile to unpack
those various effects that can be had on a reader in the in the standards. Okay. And then next, my question again, this is for both fiction and non-fiction, which is why we have plot structure and text structure. This is for just fiction.
This is an RL standard. So why do we have plot structure and text structure? How are we distinguishing between those two? Good question. They they can be different, right? I mean, you can have a cause and effect structure within a piece of literature,
but that's not how the plot is structured. I'm just think through this in my in my mind. Correct. I mean, is that how we interpret that? Is that appropriate for 101 to be make 9 and 10 to making that
kind of distinction? Elsewhere, we've essentially treated structure and plot structure interchangeably. Um, so I mean, I would be I would be content with changing it to analyze how an author's choices concerning plot structure and/or time manipulation contributes to its meaning
and effect on the reader. But if we feel like the language of text structure is is adding something, then I'm also content to keep it. I think if like I I'm good with either, but I think if we keep it that is something that might need to be unpacked
as well because that's always confused me a bit too. What are we looking what's the difference here? So I mean and usually when we talk about text structure, we're talking about something that'sformational. So
I can see that it would be more appropriate in theformational standard. So, do we just want to eliminate that reference to text structure there? I'm fine with that. It seems like we have consensus there. Okay.
And thank you, Catherine. Okay. So, it now reads, "Analyze how an author's choices concerning plot structure and/or time manipulation contribute to the its meaning and effect on the reader." All right. All in favor? Hi.
Sorry, one thing. Um, do we have Okay, so it's Do we have a noun that's referring to there a text? You talking about the anticedant for its Yeah. Yeah. I I think you're right.
Okay. to with just the text's meaning and effect on reader. I think that rectifies it. I'm good with that. Everybody else? Annie, you good with it?
Yes. That's a good noun. All right, let's roll. Okay, good job every reads, analyze how an author's ideas or claims are developed and refined by the ordering or sequencing of text elements.
Um, first of all, do we have any TDOE feedback on that? No, we do not. No, there's none for this cornerstone for 9 through 12. Okay. Okay. So, do we have any feedback?
Hearing none, I would assume this is acceptable. Let's move on. Mery, you seem to to cringe a bit. Did you have something to say? You're muted. All right. I just I want to double check. I like to do a quick comparison
to make sure we're not losing anything. Okay. [Music] Okay. So again, I'm not anytime I say I was not necessarily advocating for anything, but um the original
mentions refined by particular sentences, paragraphs or larger portions. And this one is developed refined by the ordering or sequencing of text elements. Um right, am I hope I'm looking at the
right standard here? Um okay, good. Um, so I know for me like what what do they necessarily mean by text elements specifically? We define that that that's a term that really kind of um is a broader term that
captures just the essential components of a story um or or anformational text whatever. So in a story it would be you know the setting the character um the plot uh the theme you know those are kind of the essential components of the
story and then in anformational text it would be uh the people in the story the events of the story the um you know the development of the ideas in the story and so forth. So we actually define what text elements is. Um so I think that's
why the EAT was moving in that direction of including that in the standard itself. Would those text elements always be things that would be ordered and sequenced or it seemed Yes. Okay. Yes. It does seem like we have a that seems
like a significant change though. So um not the reason why they did ordering and sequencing is because it was to separate the standard from standard three which is also about text elements but standard three is not about the ordering or sequencing is the ordering or sequencing
of course is the structure right and whether it's literary text orformational text. That's why they changed the language here is to make it specifically about the like how the author structures those elements throughout the text as opposed to just how they develop or you
know the the meaning behind a given element and so forth. There's certainly still overlap but trying to distinguish it a little bit more than it has been is what they were attempting to do. So does that make sense Annie? Okay,
perfect. So, are we good with what we have written in that cell? Hearing no objection, we're ready to move on. A quick note, if you did want to define it, it is not currently in the glossery,
too. Okay. It's not in the active current glossery. Okay. Yeah, it likely should be added because I do think text elements is that's not necessarily the definition banks provided would be the one that I just intuitively would have produced.
Um, so I think that would be helpful. So that's a parking lot item and we would re I believe that's a that's a wishlist item or I guess it's also kind of parking lot. Yeah, that's kind of we have all glossy items in parking lot. I I had it. Okay. Yeah. If you want the standards guides
wish list if you want it in the glossery which is your Okay. All right, one more term. Time manipulation. Do we mean pacing or are we we all feel good with that term? I think we mean like foreshadowing
flashback. That's what I thought. But okay. All right. Sounds good to me. If it's not in the glossery though, that might not be one that probably wouldn't hurt to conclude that.
Oh, yes. I agree. You got that banks. That could be that'd be a wish list thing too about time manipulation. I got it. Time manipul. Well, if it's glossery, then it would be in that's us. That's perfect.
Um, so are we simply just going to maintain the language of the E1E2 RARI standard then? I think so. I didn't hear any changes. Going once, going twice,
going thrice. Okay, accepted in its current state. Okay. Um, then we have the E3E4 RL which reads, "Analyze how an author's choices concerning the structure of
specific parts of a text contributes to its overall structure, meaning, and aesthetic impact." Um, I think we probably um we we didn't like the word aesthetic and impact, so I think we'll we'll likely change that to effect on the reader again. Am I correct there? Yes.
Okay. And so that's effect on the reader and there was no comments from TDOE. So are we good with that as I think we may because we still have that analyze how an author's choices
concerning the structure of specific parts of a well I think that actually works contributes to the overall structure meaning effect on the reader. Yeah, I mean I think that's that's all I have. if unless anyone else has something to add. I did closer to the cornerstone.
Okay. Sorry. But I I did want to flag just that the theformational version has and evaluate. I don't think I noticed this the first time, but the literary one does not. Um, and it would be it was it would be our
feedback to include it in both since it's the same grade level. the just the phrase and evaluate. So analyze and evaluate well it's it's analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the structure an author
uses. Um so would we analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of how an author choices concerning the structure of specific parts of a text contributes to an overall structure meaning impact? It's not just simple evaluation. It's evaluating the effectiveness of a
structure. thinking it through. I feel like we train students more to to evaluate the effectiveness offormational writing than we do uh literary writing. Now, that's that's perhaps something we could criticize about how we teach those things.
I don't know. I think that's fair. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Are there any changes to this then? So the the E3 E4 RARI reads, "Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the structure and author uses, including
whether the structure makes points clear, convincing, or engaging." I I would recommend we say and instead of or there. Clear, effect, convincing, and engaging. I don't think those are mutually exclusive, right?
Any other things to include? Are we good with this? Um I I guess the only thing uh so we had text elements in the 910. Um I'm just wondering about the thinking
about not using text text elements in the 1112. Um, what would you say? I think we're trying to make a more I think we're this is attempting to to ask students to make a more like holistic
evaluation of the structure of a text. Um, rather than looking at individual parts as much, thinking more about like was this the appropriate structure to employ in order to make an argument or convincing and engaging. So, I I think that would make more sense to kind of
zoom out and think more holistically. I agree. Are we good as stated in the cell? Okay. I hear no objections. Let's move on. Okay. Uh we have a new standard. So we're on to number six. We're we're
halfway through the reading standards now. Well, that's good to hear. technically more than halfway because one of the standards only applies to one half of the and we have a whole hour left. So much time. All right. Um, new cornerstone is uh assess how perspective
or purpose shapes the content and style of a text. Um, so we're thinking about perspective or purpose and how they shape the content and style of a text. All right. Um, so K RLCS6 reads, uh, with prompting
and support, identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. There was no TDOE, uh, feedback. Thank you. Were you good with this then? Oh, I'm sorry. There was no Tennessee Department of Education feedback.
Okay. Thank you. Ready? Go. Sorry. We're going to keep this one. Quick note, um Lean had to go back to attend to her family matter, but I can text her with any questions y'all have about K5 for the rest of this
session. Okay. Thank you. All right. We accept this one as written. Yes. Hearing no objections. We do. Go ahead. Move on. That's our first keep of the day. um
with prompting and support distinguish between information provided by photographs or other visuals and information provided by the words in a text. Again, there was no Tennessee Department of Education feedback on that standard.
Is this adequate? Yes, I have. Yes. Okay, keep it. Okay. Um, the first grade RI standard reads, uh, distinguish between information. Oh, sorry, I skipped first
grade RL standard. Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text. So that does it's asking them to do it without prompting and support. So we're removing prompting and support from the kindergarten standard.
Uh, again, according to the TDOE, no feedback. Any changes? hearing. None. Let's keep it and move on. Um, the first grade RAI standard does the exact same thing. It takes the
kindergarten RAI standard and removes prompting and support. Any changes? Uh, no. No feedback from the TDE as well. All right. Hearing none, let's move on. Okay. Second grade RL standard reads,
determine when characters have different perspective. I would say different perspectives plural. Am I wrong there? That that should probably be plural perspectives with a s with a s. Yes, I I believe so. I think it should
be plural. Any other changes in that? No. Okay, let's move on. Take it as revised. Uh, second grade RARI reads, "Identify the main purpose of a text, including what an author wants to answer, explain,
or describe." Um, according to the Department of Education, no feedback on that standard. Any changes recommended? Question. Sorry, I'm I'm lagging. Um, my my audio is lagging. Characters were
just in fiction. or not because if if not we'll we should say characters and figures but are we just doing fiction? RL is just fiction. So it would just be in fiction. Yes. Other than that um should we keep it
done just the way it is hearing? No. Yes. Let's go on. Okay. 3 RL reads, distinguish reader perspective from that of the narrator or the perspectives of the characters and identify the point of
view of a text. I personally find this one a little confusing and according to the department of education uh their feedback was for clarity please consider changing the wording to identify the point of view of a text and distinguish reader
perspective from that of the narrator or the perspectives of the characters. this better captures the sequence in which students would approach the standard. So they're really not testing for point of view here then it's just perspective.
It seems like they're using those words interchangeably when we distinguish that they're not. Yes. Uh Dr. Stout Tammy and Nicole might have more detailed thoughts and lean if we're able to get a hold of her. I know that they spent a lot of time talking about
perspective and point of view and made a distinction. I believe it's reflected in the revised glossery in the prep work, but it does seem like this committee thus far has made some different decisions based on that. I personally in this progression see no
reference to point of view at any other point. Um and I think we have distinguished from between point of view as kind of a a literary device um and perspective as one's sort of stake on a particular issue. Um
um is it sorry um is it referring here to first person, second person, third person? Um so I mean I think that that is an important thing for them to learn at some point. That's how I was reading it
was this was identify what point of view it's written from with the first I thought so too until Rosemary read the TDOE language which didn't have the phrase point of view in it at all I don't believe.
Yeah, it's I put the proposed wording in the chat. It's in there. Oh, is it? Okay. I just missed it. I dropped it into I19 the the TDOE recommendation. It reads, "Identify the point of view of a text and distinguish reader perspective from that of the narrator or the perspectives of the characters."
So they just simply as as they said moved the process to what uh identifying the point of view first and then the rest of it came to support that effort. I was once again gonna flag that if they
want them to do both and distinguish the difference between a narrator viewpoint and the characters viewpoint. I think that's once again a big jump from second to third. I don't think we're scaffolding that jump well. So I don't know if we need to take something off a second or take something off a third or
add something to the second because that's a lot going on in that one standard that they haven't done in the others. Any comments about that? It's first time it's brought up. I would be interested to hear from
somebody who teaches elementary. I don't know the difficulty level of that, whether it's an easy jump or a difficult jump at that age. I'm open up to Miss Wy's thoughts. I think Britney's at her game and stuff and this is what happens. And yeah, I'm
happy to flag this for Leanne. Dr. Stout, my recollection of one of the survey reports, if not both of them, is that there was a question about the second to third grade jump like in multiple places. That was some of the feedback that the public gave. I'd have to go find exactly what page number it is. Annie, I'd be happy to flag this
standard for Leanne and see if she has specific thoughts or the these two standards, I should say. So for the standard 2L CS6 determine when characters have different perspectives.
So right there it should be rewarded. Determine when characters have different perspectives. What type of perspectives should should be rewarded right in there. Can you guys hear me?
Yes. Oh, good. Okay. Sorry. Don't keep going. Sorry. So, what I was stating was in the second grade standard 2 RL CS6, it states determine when characters have different
uh perspective. Whereas in third grade, the Tennessee Department of Education feedback for clarity consider changing the wording to identify the point of view of a tech. Now, second grade
doesn't say point of view or first, second or third person point of view in the second grade. So, how do they know about the different point of views when they were not introduced in the second grade? as a big jump from second to third without them even knowing the
usage of first, second, and third person point of view. Yeah, that's exactly my point. So, you're going you're jumping to point of view and you're jumping to distinguish between what the characters feel and what the author feels. Um, and I think
that's also a very sophisticated skill. I mean, I wrestle with that with high schoolers. I'll be quite honest. So, do we beef up the second grade? I believe so. Is where it says have different perspectives. Then we would come up with some
different wordings that would kind of look at point of view. They were definitely to know what first person point of view I mean and then a second person point of view and third person they for those point of views
in order to perspectives from that of the narrator that they definitely know about they definitely need to know the what a point of view is in second grade. Yeah, I think that the ultimate question we have to decide is do we want to beef
up sec because I do think there's a big jump from second to third. Do we want to beef up second to smooth that transition or do we feel because if we feel like it's too developmentally inappropriate for for third graders to be doing all the stuff in the third grade standard. By beefing up second grade, we're not
changing the expectation for third grade. We're just hopefully making a smoother ramp onto that. or do we feel like some of these expectations for third grade are better served happening at a later grade? I guess that's the question that we ultimately have to decide on.
And we didn't receive any of that particular feedback from EDOE. So it sounds like they felt like this was an appropriate standard for that grade level.
So I I would I would lobby to at least put identification of point of view in the second grade without getting it too muddy. And I agree with that as well. Uh chair.
Yeah. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. Vice Chair Hillard. I'm actively texting and she did encourage folks to look at grade one, two to see one, two, three and make sure about that progression
in her. Oh, go ahead, Dr. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My my audio is lagging just a little bit, so I apologize if I cut you off. I guess the overall trend I'm seeing is this jump from second to third is really hard and then this like pile on in middle school
is really hard and then we go to 9 10 and 11 12 and we like keep it the same. Um so I'm I'm really worried about our third grade babies and our middle school babies, you know, just if I take a
50,000 ft view. Um thank you Dr. Sh. Um, okay. So, I did get Leam's final answer, which you're welcome to implement or disregard, just as all of our adviserss thoughts. She said that in first grade, it does get at point of view, I believe, and I'm not a
ELA expert, so please correct me. First, I think it's one RLCS6 getting at point of view and then she feels that it builds from one to two to three, but totally at the discretion of the committee. But in first grade it says identify
who's telling the story at the var at various points in a text. So they saying points is talking about point of view but it says various points in a text. That might be an error. I'm happy to
ask. Good questions. Okay. I can tell you this is Nicole again. I can tell you that throughout third grade on we really wanted to change point of view to perspective and that's because there is a lot of confusion with you're like what's the point of the view of the author? What's
the point of view of the text? My kids automatically go oh it's first person. That's not what I'm asking you. But since the term point of view can be used in different ways. We were really trying to use the same language throughout. I understand that they do need to know first person, second person, third. I
They need to understand that, but is what she's saying they're teaching that already in first and second grade? We're just not really wording it that way. And then we could gradually move to perspective. Does that Does that make sense? Yep.
Yes, it does make sense. Thank you so much for clarifying. Okay, one more response from Leanne. Um, they could put determine perspective of narrator or character. Does that help at all? I'm not exactly
sure which standard she's referencing. I assume second grade. I don't really feel like that is the the point of confusion there. That's right. I just know that was a big discussion point when you you know when sixth graders and I know it's not about
sixth grade but we're trying to show the progression throughout and this was and I'm looking at our notes even through kindergarten first second third and we really just wanted to show the difference between the two. Oh, I want to hold the line on the distinction
between point of view and perspective. I know that people sometimes use them interchangeably. Um, however, I think most precisely they're not interchangeable. I also think there are ramifications for
the lack of clarity. And so I think we as a committee can make the decision that we are going to distinguish between these two um terms to provide more clarity in instruction and expectations
that certainly should be talked about in the standards guide. I think now, how does what you just said affect what's going to go into the second and third grade standards? I guess I'm confused about what they
want them to know. Do they want them to know point of view, which is first, second, third person, or do they want them to know the perspective, which is how the character or reader feels about
the action. In third grade, it seems to me they want them to know both. And I I mean, I would say that at some point they do need to know both. Um, so I think in third grade, they're wanting them to be able to look at
perspective and point of view using those terms uh as separate terms from each other. So my ar my whole suggestion would be to
keep the second grade standard and then add point of view but remove this language about um distinguish the reader's perspective from that or of the narrator or the
perspectives of the character. To me, that seems a pretty sophisticated kind of move that you're asking third graders to make. So, if you want them to identify the main purpose of a text, am
I reading the correct second grade? I know they jump around. Um, determine when characters have different perspectives. That's the second grade equivalent. Yeah. Mhm. So I would say determine when characters
have different perspectives and um the point of view of the text. That's the standard for third grade that builds that adds complexity. The rest of this language about distinguish the reader
perspective from that of the narrator or the characters. Um I I would move that to fourth for fifth. Um, so just looking at I guess
progression here, our third grade is also looking at distinguishing reader from the author. Um, and I I feel like that's something that's important for them to learn some somewhere. Um, then
be able to understand that my point of view is different from a character or an author. But I'm wondering if we get rid of narrator um because I mean that's also I I feel like the narrator versus characters is is a little bit difficult.
I would agree with that. So I'm wondering if we just get rid of narrator and be able to distinguish the reader perspective from that from the perspectives of the characters and and then author and ri.cs.6
is a little bit more I don't know uh concrete. I feel like narrator is a little confusing how they got narrator perspective and characters perspective. Um, so I do agree that that's a little confusing. So what do we want third graders to
learn the various perspectives or point of view? Or are we saying we really want them to learn both the various perspectives and identifying point of view? It seems to me, and I just want to I'm
kind of trying to understand because I went obviously I wasn't part of this conversation, but it seems to me like this is really the perspective standard. Like if you look at this progression, it's really focused on perspective. I think they're trying to make like a glancing reference to point of view to kind of differentiate between
perspective and point of view and then focusing in almost entirely on perspective from there on out. Um, I think that's the intended purpose here. Now, I I think that conf that muddles things a bit for me. Um because it seems like it's becoming the point of view and
perspective uh standard, but then when you progress, it's really just the perspective standard. Well, and to again to add on to that, the TDO feedback looking ahead for the sixth grade standard, it says, "Please consider changing the word perspective
to point of view since the standard only concerns narration." So, I do have I guess that I mean go ahead. No, Annie, you have so this is a really good conversation to be having. I just want
to say that because obviously there is confusion right now. Annie has the floor. Um, I guess I I would be concerned at completely eliminating the language of point of view um to where students are not learning point of view at all
because I do think it is important um like when I in my high school classroom we talk about the impact and this isn't a standard but I think it's something that's important to talk about with students is what is the impact of point of view on the reader when it's told
from first versus second versus third. Um, so I think that eliminating point of view completely is going to kind of lessen students understanding of text overall and we're going to have a gap. Um, that's we're probably going to see
ripple effects for I agree, Annie. Now, let me just remind everybody that uh our kiddos have been learning this stuff at these grade levels now for since these standards were initiated. So, it's not like we're
popping something new on him. All we're trying to do is identify clarity and establish a a a bet the ultimate sequence for learning that these concepts can be introduced to them, but they're already studying this
stuff and nobody said, "Hey, our kids can't do this." Yeah, there were actually there was actually a lot of feedback about the third grade standards in the public comments. Lots of I think that probably had the most feedback is the third grade
standards. So I think there is some sense that the kids can't do it. Okay. Um um the I'm sorry the uh I I was looking back at the glossery definition
in the old standards and there is no glossery definition for perspective but there is for point of view and it says point of view is the position or
perspective conveyed or represented by an author, narrator, speaker or character chiefly in literary literary texts. The narrative point of view can be labeled as in first or third person narration and literary
non-fiction the point of view might also be the perspective. Quick note, Miss Now, I do believe the committee worked on that. You're absolutely correct in the original standards. I remember that conversation if Tammy or Nicole can speak to it. Um, but if you look at the revised
standards that supporting language in your prep work, I'll pull that up. Give me one second. But go ahead, Nicole. No, I was just going to say that in the new glossery, we definitely defined the two like because I don't think it's the same thing, but I feel like the glossery you just read is pretty much saying it's the
same thing and it's not the same thing. And so I think that's where the confusion is with the standard because I know for me I'm like am I teaching perspective or am I teaching point of view because it says point of view but then the questions and what I'm you know the curriculum is giving me perspective stuff. So I'm a little confused. So I
think there has to be a distinguish between the two. They are two different things. Correct. I did just drop into the the chat um how we currently distinguish the two um for the current standards. Uh if y'all want to take a look there, that's it. It's
it's really just kind of emphasizing that point of view is the the vantage point from which a story is told. So it goes back to that first person, second person, third person, etc. um and that that point of view is then used to convey perspective which is a
person's attitude toward or outlook on something as determined by their vantage point and experience. So you know the problem is here is just like with a lot of other things in the ELA we have a lot of o overlap obviously with those two terms but the part that probably does need to be protected is the part I think
Dr. Stout was alluding to this earlier, like when we're referencing narration, point of view is the proper literary term for that. And so, um, however that's represented in these lower grade levels, I think that's obviously for the committee to decide, but as far as like
distinguishing between the two terms, hopefully that's helpful. It is. Okay. I located um I figured out how to find the chat while sharing screen and I put the propos this is in your SRC folder under prep work under proposed
standards under supporting language. So for for your ease I copy and pasted the your predecessor's working definitions of perspective and point of view and I would you know that theoretically should be the intent of
how to read their proposed standard. Oh, did I do point of view twice? Oh, hold on one second. Sorry. Where's perspective? It doesn't look like edits to perspective, but maybe. Hold on. Okay, let's try that again. Perspective.
So, so my proposed suggestion once again is to go back to um identify no distinguish reader perspective from those of the characters. I think that's
adding rigor for third grade um which is a very high stakes year. I would add point of view maybe to fourth grade because then that's adding another level of complexity. So instead
of adding two levels of complexity in third grade, I'm saying let's just add one additional level of complexity and scaffold the next level of comp complexity to fourth grade. I can get on board with that.
I can too. I think we're getting close. So how would we word then the we would just simply we would just simply uh remove identify the point of view of a text u from the third grade standard and have it just read
distinguish reader perspective from the perspectives of the characters um and then we could introduce identifying point of view in fourth grade like Dr. St proposed. All right. So can you make that change in the box and have everybody take a look at it?
There it is right there, boys and girls. Is that acceptable to everybody as it's written? Yes. All right. Hearing no changes, we're ready to move on. All right, we finally got there. Um,
three. Um, we've got distinguish reader perspective from that of an author of a text. Um, I would simply rephrase that to distinguish reader perspective from the perspective of the author rather than from that of an author of a text. I
think that's a little word wordy. I think we can make that a little less wordy. I agree. Any changes other than that hearing? None. I think we're ready to move on. So, here is where I think we need to
then add back. I'm moved on to fourth grade. So, now I'm in fourth. All right. I would make a clear standard that says well or add to the standard that says distinguish between
point of view and perspective. Period. Describe how the narrator's or speaker's perspective influences how events are described. Describe how they are described.
I would I think we need to make a clearer note to teachers and to students that we're asking them to distinguish between what is a point of view and what is a perspective. I think I'm fine with that, but I want
to make sure that we include that bit about where they are also identifying the p the point of view in of a text because I think that's an important skill as well. Yes. Okay, I can see that. Should they get I I see that and you can put it here
as well, but I do think we just need to have some language nudging them to clarify between the point of view and perspective. Are you then suggesting a whole new standard?
Uh I guess I'm making this standard kind of beefy. But I think it's appropriate because in the third grade series here, we've asked them now to make this to
have a sophistication sophisticated thought between what's my perspective and what's the author's perspective or what's my perspective and what's the character's perspective. So this kind of continues that but then adds point of view. Would you append would you add another
sentence to 4 RLCS6 or have a 4RLCS 7? Well, we we can't add an entire new progression unless we want to do a lot
of extra standard creation. No, I I like Dr. Stout's initial suggestion, you know, just the difference between the two. Period. Next sentence. I I kind of attempted to draft something similar to that. It's a little clunky,
but uh I I've thrown it into I uh 121. Um, it's a little bit of a lengthy standard now and it's got some some several clauses, but it does have language about distinguishing. I could buy into that, Dr. Stout.
Does that say what you intended? Um, yes, it's the first part is great. I'm on describe how a narrator's or speaker's perspective influences how events are described.
I guess I get that. Yeah. Basically, we're asking them to talk about bias. I mean, to be quite honest. So, yeah, that's fine. Quick, we're not talking about bias yet in fourth grade, right? We haven't introduced that term. Rihanna, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair Canise. Um, sorry to interrupt Dr. Stout. Nicole, she's having technical difficulties, but she asked me to flag if you add it sounds like point of view and perspective concurrently, it might impact the cornerstone. So, you might need to make revisions there if the committee wants
to move forward with this proposal. But that's what they just have for third grade. So, I don't understand that. I mean third grade it was they were using them interchangeably. So how does this now in in affect the cornerstone? It's just changed from third grade to
fourth grade. The cornerstone change. No no I'm just saying the the idea of point of view has changed from third grade to fourth grade. I think the only reason it would I think
this is a decision wanting to make when they integrate when they introduced point of view they did it in third grade and then never mentioned it again. Um and this standard then became the perspective standard. So they essentially introduce point of view just to clarify that it is different from perspective. But we're really just
focused on perspective and we're going to continue with perspective from here. If we feel as though point of view is equally important or at least very important and therefore needs to to progress alongside perspective, then I do think we need to go back and alter the the cornerstone if we're making that change throughout fifth grade and sixth
grade and seventh grade and eighth grade. If we're only making this one reference to point of view like they did in the original uh iteration of this progression in third grade, then we likely would not need to change our cornerstone. So, I think it's ultimately going to come down to what we're going
to do with point of view going forward. Just a reminder that TDOE did ask us to throw back point of view into sixth grade. We could just simply change the cornerstone to assess how perspective assess how point of view, perspective or
purpose shape the content and style of a text. Um, just adding pretty simple. Why not? That gives it adequate uh attention. Can you hear me now? Yes.
Oh, good. Okay. So, I I think um this is Nicole again. we would be okay with like I mean through the discussion that we had I think we would be okay with that. I just think there needs to be a clear distinguish between perspective and point of view. I think right now the standard makes it as in it's one thing
and it is not one thing. So if you say point of view and perspective or something like that and there's a clear distin clear distinguish between the two will be all right. Yeah. And that's what is proposed right now. Yeah.
All right. I'm good with that now. Um, so the new cornerstone I have is assess how point of view, perspective, and purpose shape the content and style of a text. Are we okay with that new cornerstone? So my only thought about that is
the cornerstone is supposed to be what we get to at the end. So that would mean 12th grade would need to say something about point of view. Am I correct in saying that? I think what we're talking about right now is essentially once we introduce point of view, point of view is not going anywhere like it's going to
be maintained. We'll need to make corresponding edits to most of the standards to integrate point of view in to some extent. Is that just because the addition of distinguish between point of view and perspective or other reasons? My understanding is that we felt as
though point of view was important enough to continue that it justified continued focus, but I I don't necessarily feel that way. I mean, I'm I'm willing to to mention point of view and then move on and make this a perspective standard. I think that's ultimately it just comes down to whether
we want this to be the perspective and point of view standard or if we want this to just be the perspective standard with a glancing reference to point of view to distinguish it from perspective. I think as the standard progresses it I mean really it's largely a perspective
standard. So point of view is necessary in these grades to understand the distinction between the two. But then as we progress then it's really becoming how you know perspective shapes the purpose of a text. So that's that's my
interpretation of it. Um, I'm I'm fine with keeping it, you know, as is the the cornerstone. But yeah, I think if we're if we're going to to mention point of view maybe once or twice and then focus in entirely,
especially at the higher grades on perspective, I don't think point of view needs to be added to the cornerstone since the cornerstone should largely mirror what's happening in the higher grades. Agreed. I think that's my understanding of the cornerstone. Banks, you jump in. I think what your predecessors tried to focus
on, if I'm characterizing Tammy's group's conversations well, Tammy, feel free to jump in. They wanted that 11th, 12th grade, or now English 3, four standard to look as close to the cornerstone as possible, but they understood that there were lots of little Legos along the way that may or
may not show up in the cornerstone or the 11 12 now 34 standard banks. Does that align or am I off base? Yes. No, that's right. And I, you know, I think that uh I think you're all right in terms of when they get into the upper grades, it's very much about perspective. And it's really they would
just need to reference, they would need to know the terminology of point of view when they're referencing narration in literature, right? So when they would say, well, this is written from a first-person viewpoint and uh or first-person point of view and that shapes the viewpoint, you know, that
you're entering the story because of how it's told to you. That's so they would maybe a glancing reference is is a good description, Lucas, in that sense, but it would certainly be an expectation that they still know that terminology in the upper grade levels for sure.
And we're going to it now at the fourth grade level. Yeah. If if they are still expected to know that terminology at the high school level, then we probably should reflect it in the cornerstone is my kind of gut instinct then. Okay. So, uh, who wants to keep it? Who
wants to change the cornerstone? Raise your hand. Am I the only one? There's two two changes. Who does not want to change the cornerstone? Raise your hand. I see uh one hand raised there.
So, we technically do not have a quorum in terms of decision- making. So based on the attendance you have, Chair Kigus, you would need five votes to make any voting based decision. Okay. Well, then we're going to have to table
this, I guess, until our next meeting. You're still allowed to uh debate by consensus, but any vote would need five. I also think there's a possibility we also reach a clearer sense of this as we continue on this progression and see how much we're actually bringing up point of
view. I agree with that. Let's just get to the 12th grade and then come back and see. Okay, let's move and put this in a parking lot. Okay. Um, so our fourth grade RL now reads, "Distinguish between point of
view and perspective. Identify the point of view of a text. Describe how a narrator's or p uh speaker's perspective influences how events are described." Are we good with that? Describe how described. Um, we could say how events are depicted.
Sure. Yep. Let's go with it. I'll buy it. Okay. Are we ready to move to 4RI? Yep. Okay. Let's move on. Uh 4 RI reads, describe the differences in focus when comparing and contrasting two accounts of the same event or topic.
Any TDO recommendations from TDOE or TDOE watchers left is here. Oh, yes. Sorry. I was on mute. Sorry. No, no feedback on that one.
Okay. Are we ready to keep it then? Yep. Hearing no changes. Let's keep it. Okay. Uh five. RL reads, "Compare and contrast the perspective from which different stories are narrated." See, I actually think they mean point of
view here. Yeah, it does kind of read like point of view to me. Now I'm thinking about the was it the real story of the three little pigs? Have you all read that children's book? And it's the the story told from the
perspective of the big bad wolf instead of the three little pigs. So when I read that, I think about um like that example. Um but I don't know. Well, it says narrated,
right? So narration is point of view. So maybe I retract my my statement. I I don't know what was their intention. The feedback from was to change that to point of view because it is referencing narration.
I get a award for that that I called that out. That's the only thing. So go ahead and make that change and then we'll vote. We Yeah, we can vote. No, we're not going to need to vote. Just consensus. We have consensus on making that change
as recommended by TDOE. Changing it from perspective to point of view. Are we content to make no reference to perspective in fifth grade? I'm also wondering what does that look like? Compare contrast the that just
seems like this one is told from first and this one is told from third. Like do we change narrated. I I don't know if I'm just Does anybody else understand what a deeper analysis besides identifying
and it impact on the I would add in its impact on the reader because that's I think that's what it's trying to get at like uh compare and contrast the point of view from which different stories are narrator and
how that impacts the reader or how those different differences in narration impact the reader. Um, I think that's what they're trying to say. Like first person versus third person versus second person will have a different effect when you read it.
I see that. But I feel like that might be a little hard for a fifth grader because when I talk about that with nth grade, it's always a bit of a I don't know. It takes a minute for them to wrap their minds around how first versus second versus third impacts the reader.
So, I don't know know if that'd be developmentally appropriate or not in the fifth grade if my ninth graders struggle with that. I'm good with it as it is. As long as this has been I mean we we this will be the only standard that makes no
reference to perspective if we choose to eliminate perspective entirely here, which I'm okay with, but I just it would be kind of breaking the the progression a little bit. Um, I wonder if this is the comparing and contrasting standard. Maybe it's comparing and contrast the the point of view from which different
stories are narrated as well. I don't know the exact phrasing it would be, but also comparing and contrasting the points of the the perspectives of various characters. Um, so kind of comparing and contrasting perspectives of characters as well as comparing and contrasting points of
views of different stories. That might be too much to take on in one standard, but I just there's a small part of me that's a little concerned about just completely abandoning reference to perspective in this level. I understand where you're coming from
because we kind of introduced it in the fourth grade and if we if we continue it in the fifth grade, they're going to be able to uh extend their distinction between the two. Yeah. And when we've been talking about perspective since second grade, so they
started in second grade with perspective and then third grade and then fourth grade. If we break from that in fifth grade and then suddenly we are back to perspective in sixth, seventh, 8th, it's just this one little detour here in fifth grade where there's no reference to perspective.
So can we just pull over the language from fourth grade? So the first sentence is compare and contrast the point of view uh from which different accounts are narrated period and then describe how the narrators or speakers perspective
influences how events are depicted. Can we just use that same like that? Um I'm I'm wondering like looking at the six uh sorry the the RARI standard for fifth grade is compare and contrast the
perspectives and multiple accounts of the same event or topic. So I'm wondering if it is looking at an example like I gave in in RL of the big bad wolf example if that's what they were going for in that standard. Um, so it said
maybe compare and contrast uh the perspectives. Uh, because a narrator makes sense there as far as if you're talking about like Big Bad Wolf versus Three Little Pigs, but I don't know. I can't seem to I feel like that's what they were going for. I could be wrong, but I feel like that's
what they were going for, but I can't seem to figure out how to make it work without using the word narrator. I'm gonna go back with kind of what I'm going to go with what you're saying. Um strictly because a lot of our prompts will say change, you know, you just read the story about how from a cat's
perspective of being chased or chasing a mouse now change it from the mouth's perspective, you know, and so I think that is what they were getting at because even in sixth grade, that's what I teach. Literally, I teach that story that you're telling like we listen to three little pigs and then we listen to it from a different perspective. So I
think that is what they were going for in this one. Yeah. Um, I'm happy to ask Lean and I wonder if it's in their spreadsheet of their rationality. It just depends on how many changes they made. I will also flag. We have no elementary folks on the call. So, if you wanted to circle back,
that would also I was looking at I was looking at their spreadsheet and it just it just says change point of view to perspective on all of them. Um, okay. Yeah. Okay. I'll send the standard
five ri six. We want to know what their intent behind the standard is as written or how it's applied. Mr. Dockery, would that capture your question?
Yeah, I think so. Um maybe we steal the the language from the RARI standard somewhat and maybe it makes sense just exchange stories. um compare and contrast the perspectives
uh in multiple accounts of the same story. I don't know. It does seem just a a bit narrow though because I mean we do have these few examples of of pretty direct retellings of a of a narrative but that is a pretty
small niche. Okay. So, are we on RL right now? I think we're kind of talking about both RL and RAR I a little bit, but um I mean we have not we have not finished RL. So, yes, we're we're still on $5. Doesn't R I solve our problem of RL?
Like we were saying like do we put perspective and point of view in both in the standard? Like R L talks about point of view especially with the guidance that they actually meant point of view and then R I talks about perspective.
They just broke them up into two different standards basically. So one standard is one standard is going to be point of view the other one is perspective. Um I would like somebody's opinion. I'm
just not seeing compare and contrast making sense or point of point of view. I I don't Can someone explain like what that would look like in a lesson? Comparing and contrasting point of view other than just saying that one's first, that one's third.
I can speak toward that because we gave an example in the standard guide. You know, for example, like a first person narrator who is a character within the story would likely have certain biases toward characters or events. And so, you know, the fact that it's first person
point of view narration affects that author's perspective. It might, you know, it's going to affect how they're telling the story. So, they would compare like that part of first person narration to third person narration where the person is outside of the story. They do not have those, you know,
biases or event or uh or like biases towards certain events and characters and that sort of thing. So, it would be really basic. You know, I'm going into a little bit more detail, but I'm It would be really basic differences between the different types
of narration and the effect that has on the telling of the story. Does that does that help, Annie? Yes, very much. Thank you. All right. Awesome. Would we just phrase it as compare and contrast the effects of points of views from which different
stories are narrated? Or is that what's being compared and contrasted? the effects of those various points of view rather than the point of view themselves. Because I do think I I see where Miss Docker is saying. It kind of reads as we're just this one's first, this one's second.
I think it makes it a little bit more rigorous. Yes. Can you put that in the box for us? Try to draft something. I don't know if I've got a perfect wording, but I can
try. We're getting close. Okay, I don't necessarily love my wording, but I've got compare and contrast the effects of the points of views from which different stories are narrated. I like that. This is really going to make a a a great
distinction between point of view and perspective. I think people are going to get a better handle on it by doing this, both kids and the teachers. Uh, does everybody like what is
contained right now in cell 123 as written? If there are no objections, then let's keep it. I hear no objections. We're moving on.
Wait one second, guys. Go back up and read the cornerstone on row 122. I'm on the F says how perspective point of view there is. Is there a comma or an or missing?
Oh, that is that's interesting. Um that's a mistake. Yeah, because it should be identical throughout. Um I think we're still we're still trying to decide if point of view is going to show up in the cornerstone or not. But it seems like one way or the other. Yeah, it's perspective or or or not. But
it's not that. And they shouldn't be all the same to Vice Chair Hill. I think whatever it is, it should be should be something that has the right words. Yeah. Um, barring Tammy and Nicole's thoughts, I think it's fair to take out
point of view on F122. At least that you have something to consistent to work from. Okay. So, we're going to revisit that. I will say about the cornerstone before we make a decision about perspective versus point of view. I don't like the word assess
in the cornerstone. That's what we do as teachers, right? students evaluate or determine or analyze. The language we're the language we're using in the in the high the high school standards is analyze. So I I think it
probably should read analyze. I agree 100%. Shape the uh content and style of a text. Make note of that, please.
Are we ready to go on to RI now? Okay. Um, so are so we're sticking with five RL then comparing the effects of the points of views from which various from which different stories I haven't heard any severe objections.
Okay, that's probably my least favorite wording I've done so far. So I don't love that one, but I'll take it. Um, you've been at this for four hours, so fair enough. Um, five reads, "Compare
and contrast the perspectives in multiple accounts of the same event or topic." I I see no qualms with that. Anyone else? No. Hearing no objections. I think we are good through the elementary. I would
suggest that we hold off on the middle school now until our next opportunity and allow our vice chair's brain a chance to revive um and everybody else's. Uh we've been
studying hard. This is um considering a lot of different points of view and everybody had uh just great quality input into this process. So, uh I think it's time that we uh uh come to a
conclusion in this meeting and then get ready to to move on. So, uh, I would make a vot make a motion uh that, uh, we adjourn until our next meeting, which would be
when, uh, Monday, September 29th, at 3:30 p.m. Central Standard Time. I'll be on Eastern time.
Um, are there any other questions or comments from uh our panelists or are folks from TDOE? I have one quick clarifying question about the standards and I know no one wants to talk anymore about the
standards, but I'm just going to ask really quickly. Um, it seems we did not reach a consensus on whether or not point of view should be included in the cornerstone. So, should I put that in the parking garage? Yes, please. We'll do because I mean we're not going to be again together here for a week, so I don't want to forget it.
I got it. I got And I think Miss about assesses. So go in that parking garage item. Yes, that's all I Sorry. No, that's great. Don't lose the thread. I'm looking for my script.
Sher Kus, you could say um with no further business of the committee, this meeting is adjourned. With no further business of the committee, this meeting is adjourned. We'll see you next week in a brand new show.
Bye all. Thank you. Don't dream about the standards. Be safe.