Did we wear your eyes out, Dr. Laauo? We are recording and we're live. Uh, Brianna and chair chairman. All right. Well, it is now 4:31
Eastern time and 3:31 central time. And I call this meeting of the English Language Arts Standard Recommendation Committee SRC to order. Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role to determine a quorum.
The appropriate response would be here or present. Uh, Miss Baird, present. Miss Dockery, present. Mr. Hillyard, present. Miss Now, present.
Miss Singleary, she is absent, I believe. Yes. Yes. Um, Dr. Stout, present. Miss Winters, I believe, also absent at
the moment. Chair Kaggus, present. Chair Carus, you have a quorum. Well, thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. As this committee is meeting virtually, we have prepared a statement of necessity. Miss Summers, please read that
statement. Sorry, I am pulling it up. One second. Miss Summers, do you copy? Oh, thank you, Chair Kagas. I'm pulling it up. I appreciate your patience. Okay. Okay. Thank you. The Tennessee State Board of Education's English Language Arts Standards Recommendation Committee,
SRC, called an electronic meeting at 3:30 Central Time Tuesday, September 30th, 2025. This meeting is called to continue proposing revisions to the ELO standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items
on the committee's agenda and the fact that committee members will reside across the state, it was determined that a physical quorum of the members could not be assembled in Nashville for the purposes of this meeting and as such this meeting should be conducted electronically. Notice of the meeting
was posted on the state board's website along with the agenda and instructions for accessing the meeting. Well, thank you, Miss Summers. uh TCA8-44-108 requires all votes taken during electronics meeting of the board to be
taken by the call of the role at this ver as this is a virtual meeting that's being recorded. I move that the recording serves as minutes for the meeting. Do I have a second? I second. Chair Hillyard, please call the role.
The appropriate response is I or no. Miss Baird. Hi. Miss Dockery. Hi. Mr. Hillyard. I Miss Now I
Miss Singleary is absent. So Dr. Stout I. Miss Winters is also absent. Uh, so Chair Kaggus, I uh, Chair Kaggus, you have six eyes and zero nos. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. The
motion passes. Members, advisers, and staff, please use the raise hand function or say Chair Caragus out loud to be recognized unless 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 aren't speaking. For the benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid the use of jargon and acronyms where possible and define any acronyms if used. We will now proceed with our next item on the
agenda. Vice Chair Hillyard, where did we leave off? Um, Miss Summers, do you have your hand raised? Okay, I do. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillard. Couple notes, reminders to check the spreadsheet ration and flag anything for Vice Chair Hillard if you have any
questions. I'll share my screen in just a moment. Two, I think we got past this, but um Miss Singleary will be here for part of the meeting. She had some last minute family health conflicts and Miss Winters emailed a few minutes ago about another conflict. So, we sort of
discussed this, but K5 is in flux, but I think for the most part, we'll be talking about electives today. So, I trust our leadership team and our members to um move through the K5 standards as they feel comfortable or pause as needed. In terms of what's coming up today,
by my count, we have 34 reading standards to get through. We have 176 elective standards that we will hopefully get to today. And just reminder, pull out all your documents. Feel free to blast me around on the screen. I'd love to help and pull up things as needed. And then finally, we
do have one written comment that was submitted. It is in your written public comment folder. It's called 9.25.25. Don Anderson foundational literacy. So, as you can tell by the title, it's related to the foundational literacy. I just ask for you to read it sometime
before tomorrow in the event that anyone would like to act on it. But as all feedback, it's all, you know, on the same playing field. No feedback is superior to one another. So, all I ask is that you read it sometime before tomorrow. And if anyone would like to discuss it, we can do that tomorrow.
There was no one who's Oh, go ahead, Miss Summers. How lengthy is that public comment? less than a half a page. About a half a page. Uh would it be possible or or appropriate for you to read that into the minutes for us now so we can hear
it? Yes. Give me one second to And would you be so kind as to turn your mic up? Um I'm I'm fighting interference here and I will change this as soon as we have our supper break. I'll run over to my room and get rehooked.
Okay. Let me see. I'm going to try my settings and you tell me if this is better. Okay, I just switched to my AirPods. Is that better or worse? Yeah, it's better. Better. Okay, I'm happy to do that, of course. Okay, so it's in your folder. You're welcome to follow along with me.
Yeah, it's couple sentences. And this is just exactly how it's submitted to me. So, I have made no edits or changes to the language. I'll just read it out loud. taken directly from Warner's English grammar and composition and Webster's dictionary and
approved by two holders of the English PhD and two of Bedford County's most respected English teachers to be added to ELA academic standard 3. LSC6F. It is now to read. Here's the
recommendation. Ensure subject verb and pronoun anticedent agreement. Pronouns have four characteristics. Number parentheses singular or plural. Gender parentheses masculine, feminine or neuter.
Case parentheses nominative, possessive or objective. And person, second, or third. And I can share my screen ever so quickly so you can take a look at it before we jump in. But just as a reminder, this is about the foundational
literacy standard. So if you wanted to act on it right this second, you'd have to obviously switch gears a little. Give me one second. Okay, this is the feedback. Oh, thank you for that. This helps.
Now, is um is it a good idea just to take this under advisement at this point and parking lot this and then perhaps come back to it after we taken care of today's agenda?
Will that work for everybody? All right, let's do that. Uh but uh we appreciate that public comment for sure and we'll certainly take that under advisement at the appropriate time. Thank you. Um
are we ready to proceed then Vice Chair Hillyard? I believe so. All right, let's roll. Okay. Um really quickly, and I hate to look backwards, but this was one small thing I just wanted to clarify really quickly before we moved on. Um, as I was
doing some of my, um, you know, filling out the spreadsheet and rationale work, uh, as I was looking at the reading standards, I looked again at the cornerstone for standard 8. Um, you can see it in, uh, F 157.
Um, if you'd like to look there, um, just to see the language of that. We have elsewhere tried to avoid um the use of as well as in lie of and um since it does kind of function slightly different grammatically. Um so we've replaced a
lot of as well as with and um this as well as we kept. Um I I thought it read a little odd last night after I reviewed it. Um but uh so I I think it might make sense to uh to say evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text including the validity of the reasoning and the
relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. Um but if others disagree um I'm fine with not making that particular edit. So uh you have a proposed language for us then? Yes. It would just be simply changing as well as to and.
All right. Is there any objection to that from the committee? Well, hearing none, I think we accept what you've done and appreciate that. So, let's put that into effect.
Great. Thank you. Just wanted Sorry to to point us backwards. Just wanted to make sure I got that clarified before I move forward with finalizing that particular standard. Okay. Um then with that in mind, we are now um further down the spreadsheet. We
left off yesterday on the fourth grade um IKE9 standard. So this is G uh 177. Um I had drafted some language of this standard. Uh we didn't have a chance to deliberate on it last night though, so I thought we could begin with that. Um, I
just am simply adopting the edits we've made elsewhere, changing which to that and putting it next to the topic. Um, so it now would read integrate information from two texts on the same topic that align to the Tennessee science and social studies standards in order to write or speak about the subject
knowledgeably. Any thoughts on that? Um, also just to clarify, do we have the three people who served it? I think the singleary was doing K5. um TDOE feedback. So, could someone else perhaps jump in and and be the flag for
that? I have it tabbed if and and I can do it. Anybody else wants to? That'd be great. Thank you, miss. Now, um do we have anything for this particular standard? Yes. Um I think this goes back to our discussion the cornerstone if I remember
correctly but should we change integrate to synthesize or some other similar I'm not sure about the word integrate there person um yeah so integrate was in relation to our previous standard um I believe or
maybe I'm wrong um can't recall when we had that conversation about integration Um but yeah, we did have a conversation about integration. Yeah, I think you're right from the last one, but I'm I'm still not sure about that word. Um yeah, so
um I mean I think we have used synthesize in place of integrate because integration um implies like an act of creation. Um whereas synthesis can be something more of a mental
process. I think we spent some time on it. So and and synthesize seemed to be the preferable word. We haven't used the language of synthesize much at the lower grades. Um I think we've tried to maintain it at
typically higher grades and this is fourth grade. Okay. The word synthes um the word synthesis at the lower grade levels is still used especially in in terms of comprehension. So I think it would be adequate. Either one I think
would be fine. Okay. Um, if that's the case then then I I think it would make sense to change the word to synthesize. If everyone else agrees, everybody agree. I don't hear any objections. Let's move on.
Okay. Um, then we will move to the fifth grade. Um, the fifth grade will the edits will look very similar. Um, I will quickly draft up something that incorporates those edits.
While you're doing that, we do have feedback on that one. Um, okay. Please consider changing the standard back to its previous version. Compare and contrast stories in the same genre on their approaches to similar
themes and topics. As the new version applies to informational, not literary texts. When students compare literary texts at this level, they are comparing how each author approaches the same topic. they are not integrating information for the purpose of building knowledge.
So I can speak to that just a little bit. You know I was I think I mentioned last night that you know in theformational side in K5 is when they're building knowledge and then in 612 is when they're comparing approaches but in the literary strand pretty much all the way down I believe they are
comparing approaches. Um but the revision here at the fifth grade level is like the odd one out. It's the only one that suddenly reverted back to building knowledge. That's why I was providing feedback on that particular standard. Could someone please put the language
from the TDOE recommendation into the chat? I can do that. Thank you. It does look as if this fifth grade RL standard is is not really because we haven't been keeping that language about science and social studies standards in
any of the RL standards. It's only been in the RARI. Um so I I do think that that makes sense to me. Um I will copy and paste the language that Banks put into the chat and we can take a look at that. Okay. So, the recommended TDOE language
is compare and contrast stories in the same genre uh on their approaches to similar uh themes and topics. Does anybody have any objection to that? It seems to be rigorous.
Yeah, that seems appropriate to me. All right. If no objections, then let's accept it and move on. Okay. Um then fifth grade RARI uh standard reads integrate information
from two or more text on the same topic in order to build content knowledge which aligns to the Tennessee science and social studies standards. Um we'll make the edit we have made elsewhere of changing which to that and then moving the location after topic. I'm drafting
that very quickly right now. Um otherwise I don't have any um changes. I would recommend um if we don't have any TDOE feedback or other comments from the committee. The TDOE feedback is just regarding the language of the alignment to the
standards uh as we've discussed before. Okay. Yeah. So, so the current language would read integrate information from two or more text on the same topic uh that align to the Tennessee science and social studies standards in order to build content knowledge.
Would we want to change integrate to synthesize again here? Uh yes. Yes, we would. Any other comments on the standard? So, are we good as it sits? I feel so everybody's nodding yes. So, let's move on.
Okay. Um, then on to sixth grade. Um, sixth grade RL reads, "Compare and contrast an historical account with a fictional portrayal of the same time, place, or character." Um, do we have TDO feedback on that?
Yes, we do. Um, it says, "Please consider adding the following phrase to the end of the revised standard as a means of understanding how authors of fiction use or alter history. It helps to clarify the purpose of the
task and how it connects with the cornerstone. So the proposed language is at the end of the revised standard as a means of understanding how authors of fiction use or alter history. So I think use history
is fine. The word alter history lands is troubling to me. The phrase alter history at lens is troubling. use history I think is okay. Um I think maybe what the thing is trying to say is affect history. Um
or no not necessarily interpret. Yeah. Yeah. But that would imply that writers of non-fiction don't interpret history. And they they do comments. Y'all are my grammar experts, but would
it be a historical account? I believe so. I think it's there's kind of an an oldfashioned instinct to sometimes say anhistorical. Um but I think it's most modern um grammaticians would say a.
Okay. Defer to the Does anyone have any proposed language in place of alter? I see what they're saying. This idea that um that you know one might write some sort of historical fiction that you know alters history for some sort of
uh you know narrative purpose or thematic purpose. Um but I I agree that the word altering history is is perhaps a bit loaded. I agree with Dr. Scott as well. I'm wondering if I don't know if this is the
best word, but perhaps reimagine uh something like that. I think there's some language we used to have about uh with archetypes that uses some kind of language like that I can look into real quick.
Can you say reinterpret instead of reimagine? Was that the word? I like that language. How do we feel about reinterpret? I like it. The language from the archetype one though just for good for I don't think it fits well but is rendered
a new. I don't know that works as well. I'm wondering if reinterpret might focus it too much um in the sense of it kind of con the connotation there is that they're
changing it. Um I'm wondering because the the well the suggestion here was the original wording of the standard a while back. The main reason we were suggesting including it is just to make sure that the purpose is clear for why students are comparing and contrasting in a
historical account with a fictional portrayal. And I think the sense of like is is probably appropriate. So as a means of understanding how authors of fiction appropriate history. So, it's how they integrate history, whether it's, you know, trying to stay as true
to their their interpretation of history or trying to reimagine history. To me, it kind of seems like it could be all of the above. But anyway, just sharing that. Uh, thank you for that explanation. Do we think youth history
just doesn't encompass that? You know, it can re it can encompass uh reinterpretation, reimagining. I I think just use history to me just says it says enough. I agree. Catherine,
do do we need the phrase do do we need that anymore uh with our revised standard? I'm just looking at our progression thus far and I realize we're in the middle grade band now, but we've not put we've not explicitly spelled out in the other standards.
um what they're supposed to do with that. To me, it's kind of understood. Uh give us an example of where we've covered that. I mean, we have not
included something like that in the other standards within this progression thus far. I mean the the five RL standard we've just said compare and contrast stories in the same genre on their approaches to similar themes and topics. We've not said as a mean to
doing XYZ. So in this case compare and contrast a historical count with a fictional portrayal of the same time place or character. to me mean I interpret that to mean that is
how we are understanding how authors of fictional texts um in interpret or use history in that case but if if committee feels like we need clarification there as the revised
standard stands then that's fine but I understand what you're saying lacy I think that if we included that in the standards book uh explanation and
that might be further clarification that we need rather than changing the standard. Can I what do you think about that banks? I can I ask a quick clarifying question for banks? Um is analogous language to
this going to be proposed in the the seventh and eighth grade standards as well? um or is this something that we're just kind of looking at the sixth grade standards for this kind of additional language like Miss Now has has pointed out. It's just the sixth grade and I can
certainly see what she's saying as well and I do think if you know the committee decides that it's not necessary in terms of the staying true to the progression that it's certainly something we can add to the standards guides as support in kind of understanding the why behind it.
So, yep. I I personally think Miss Now has has convinced me just for the sake of consistency across the standard progression. Um I don't know how other folks feel about that though. I agree that's why Miss Now is on the committee.
There are many reasons why Miss Now is on the committee. Um so with that is that the case then we want to just simply uh keep the standard I think so. Oh no I guess we we made the revision of a in place of an
okay we accept it then with that revision. I hear no objections. Let's move on. Okay. Um, then the sixth grade RARI reads, "Compare and contrast two or more authors presentations of the same topic
or event." That's pretty feedback on that. Lacy, do you have a comment? There's no TDO feedback on that. Okay, let's accept it then. Okay.
Uh, seventh grade RL reads, compare and contrast texts in different forms or genres in terms of their approaches to similar themes and topics. We do have feedback, excuse me, feedback on that one. Uh, says, "Please consider removing forms as this is easily
confused with format which is in R seven. Consider replacing it with genres for clarity. Elsewhere we have used genres to to signify what I think this is trying to signify. So which one do we want to use?
I think the TDOE recommendation would be genres and I think the genres would be more in keeping with what we've done elsewhere. Um so I think the new language would read compare and contrast texts in different genres in terms of their approaches to similar themes and topics. Thank you. Does everybody accept that as
revised? I see head nods. Speak now or forever. Hold your peace. Okay. Ready to go. Okay. Um, the seven RARI standard reads, analyze how two or more authors writing
about the same topic shape their presentations of key information. Do we have any TDOE feedback there? No, we don't know on that one. Do we have any SRC feedback there? I hear none. It sounds like acceptance.
Okay. All right. So, um the 8.RL standard reads, "Compare and contrast how a contemporary text was shaped by a more traditional work, uh eg myths, poetry, etc." Um, we have been deleting, etc.
elsewhere. So, I think that edit would be made. Um, do we have any TDOE feedback there? We do. We do. And I and I had a question about this one as well. So, the TDOE feedback um says, "Consider changing the wording of the standard to something
closer to analyze two or more thematically related texts in order to compare the approaches each author takes. This simplifies the wording, clarifies the level of rigor, and is closer to the intent of the cornerstone standard, which is to compare the approach each
author takes. That's a very wellconsidered recommendation. Um, one note is that that would be a pretty big change because it's taking out illusions essentially there. Um, I'm not necessarily against that because I I
feel like it it fits better like in in high school um to have a whole kind of standard dedicated to it. But am I reading that that's essentially a copy and paste of the seventh grade standard that way based on their suggestion?
Not quite. Uh, this would be analyze two or more thematically related texts. The seventh grade standard would be compare and contrast texts not necessarily thematically related although they could be.
Okay. Thank you. So we have some increase in rigor and scaffolding between the two grades. Yes. Okay. Uh so do we accept it as read by Dr. Now?
Um, let me drop it into the suggested change box so everyone can see it in the chat too if anybody's looking for. Yes, thank you. Okay, so I believe uh this is the language that uh that Banks dropped into
the chat. Um, yes, analyze two or more thematically related texts in order to compare the approaches each author takes. Any any objection? Hearing none, let's approve it. Well, I guess mine would be a grammar thing. Analyze two or more thematically
related texts in order in order to compare each author's approach. I I see doctor now agreeing with that. Okay. Do we accept it as recommended by Dr. style.
Yes. Okay. I hear no objections. If you would make that modification, co-chair Billyard. Okay. I just did. So, it now reads, "Anal analyze two or more thematically related texts in order to compare each author's approach."
Thank you. Well said. Can I make a quick suggestion based on um Miss Docker's comment about illusions is to include in the parking lot garage um wherever it's appropriate that we can include a note about emphasis on
illusions at the eighth grade level um in the standards guide to really support in that regard. Yes, I think that's a great suggestion. Thanks. Thank you. So, do we have a standard that talks about illusions? Because I feel like
this is the third time this has come up and every time we kind of veered away from like just saying illusions or directly referencing illusions. So, I see no references of the word illusion
in the reading standards, in the language standards. Oh, go ahead, whoever that was. I'm so sorry. Um, in uh English one and two it says allude to and so I think it might be a good one
heading that direction. It has been an RL4. I'd have to check and see if I don't remember whether you're the revision there was a revision away from that but it was an RL4. Okay. Unless it's a I can try a loop.
Hold on. That was a good flag. Oh, we have 13 allude two, but I don't know if elude 2 is always illusion, but there's 13 references of the word elude in the reading standards. Let's see. We our revised version of the at least
high school CS4 standard directly includes the word illusions. Um, it says interpret the figurative and quantitative words and phrases and interpret the intent of illusions used in a text. That's kind of what I was remembering that conversation, but Mr. Banks just said something about we can
say in the standards, guys, how important this is for middle school. And I feel like I'm old, so my memory might not be great. I feel like every time it's come up in high school, we've kind of pivoted away from that language. So I
I feel like there's been like an unofficial decision that illusions are high school, not middle school. I'm mostly seeing it in CS5. Lucas, what number standard did you say? Um, that was four. Um, it was our
revised version of CS4. Um, the the second half of the standard for the high school level. Is it just um but okay. Intent of illusions used in the
text. That's English 34. Yes. and and one two um but Dr. Stout is correct that there is no reference to illusions in the middle grades version of this standard. I see. It is something that is introduced at the high school level.
I'm wondering if we do still want an emphasis on illusions in this standard and if we want uh the instructional materials to include that if we should have some reference to it. um just because I don't know as if I'm looking
at if I'm I'm probably not going to read all the standards guides, but I'm probably going to go to the ones where I'm struggling. So, realistically, I feel like if it's just mentioned in the standards guide and yet it's an expectation, I feel like there might be a bit of a disconnect there. Um but I'm
fine with if we feel like middle school is not the place for illusions, I'm fine with nixing it for middle school. So, are we good to go with it then? I don't personally agree with Nixon in for middle school, but I feel like we kind of coalesed around that. And so,
I'm just trying to make sure there's some consistency is really what I'm I'm saying. Are we in? Yeah, I would say that Dr. Stout is correct. Um, if we want to truly kind of align our our focus on illusions, it
should really be introduced at the nth grade level based off of the current iterations of the standards that we've drafted. So, how would we say that then in the new standard? Well, we we're working currently on the eighth grade standard. So, I think the
it would just be by simply not referring to illusions directly. Yeah. when we do when we do get there. My original question had to do with the wording uh um specifically with the word traditional work. I had um I had an
issue with the wording there um as the word traditional could be interpreted several different ways and um the the example list did not necessarily correlate to me with the word traditional work. So, um, just just
for when we get there to the nth grade standard. So, I think what we have is consistent. I guess my kind of comment is then directly to uh, Dr. banks. I don't think we need to add direct reference to
illusions in the standards guides for middle school because it appears to me that we have kind of moved illusions to high school curriculum. Okay. Yeah, sounds great. So, are we then content with the
currently drafted eighth grade standard that reads, "Anal analyze two or more thematically related texts in order to compare each author's approach." I hear no objections to that. So, I believe we have consensus. Let's move on.
The eighth grade RARI standard reads, "Analyze how two or more texts provide conflicting information on the same topic and identify where the texts disagree." No feedback there. No feedback from the committee.
Are we okay with that? diverge rather than disagree only for I don't feel like this has to be negative. I I I think that's a little thing, but different versions don't have to be, you know, competing versions. They can just be different versions. Just a thought.
I'm always like on the lookout for negative words. I'm good with that. Yeah, I think D I I I I see what Dr. Stout's saying and I think there's I mean that that introduces some nuance as well. Um so is Diverge
in lie of disagree? Um it would now read analyze how two or more texts providing conflicting information on the same topic and identify where the texts diverge. Any thoughts on that? Are we okay to move on?
Sounds good to me. Okay. Um, then we're on to high school. Um, high school English one 12 RL standard reads, "Analyze thematically related texts of literary merit across
place, time, and/or voice considering how the texts draw on, allude to, or transform source material." Um, do we have TDO feedback there? Yes. Sorry. Um, consider changing the wording of the standard to something closer to analyze thematically related
texts in order to compare the approaches each author takes. Semicolon evaluate the significance of each approach. This is closer to the intent of the cornerstone standard, which is to compare the approach each author takes.
And that's for uh 9 through 12. I will I think Banks you just dropped that language in the chat. Is that correct? Okay. Um I will copy and paste paste that language over into the spreadsheet so that we can take a look at what the TDOE has recommended.
Okay. So that language um just to reiterate is analyze thematically related texts in order to compare the approaches each author takes. Evaluate the significance of each approach. Just note there again uh we are taking out any reference to illusions with
that. Did you have a change you want to recommend then? I mean, I could think of something, but I think we have to decide if we want to eliminate illusions from this standard completely or not or the strand.
What say ye SRC committee? Do we want to eliminate reference to illusions? Well, to me, another question is I mean though it that's illusions are within a
list of things regarding source material and and essentially how those texts interpret or transform that source material. So to me um the question might be also do we want
to consider the it's a little bit of a shift in focus. Are we just analyzing thematically related texts or are we analyzing thematically related texts that go back to some sort of source
material? Um, so I I don't I think I like the the ability to have both. Um, I think the way I interpreted it myself in teaching was always kind of both. Um, but I do have fear from a curriculum standpoint
if we have no standard that really gets to the heart of I mean I know we mention illusions but illusions can be a passing reference whereas this is giving um I guess you know classic text
um more weight. Um, so I think I am a little bit concerned with eliminating it completely and the impact it might have on on curriculum. Could a potential compromise here be to take the language of considering how
text draw, allude to or transform source material and using that um after the semicolon instead of evaluate significance of each approach. Um, it would read, "Analyze thematically related text in order to compare the approaches each author takes.
Consider how texts draw on, allude to, or transform source material." I would kind of marry the two standards a little bit. Uh we do kind of miss out on the like the tdoe
sorry feedback um asking us to make sure that we are comparing the approaches of the authors. Okay. Um well I mean we still would have language that says in order to compare the approaches each author takes. That would not go anywhere. We would just be
the evaluation of the significance. Yeah. Yeah, the changing the language after the semicolon. Yeah, I I I think that's fine. So, we're adding like the first half of the new one and the second half
of the old one. Basically, could I suggest there to say to compare and evaluate the approaches? um which might even capture that increase in rigor that we were aiming for in that final phrase. I would just say evaluate then
since I feel like in evaluating you can also compare um yeah I think evaluation will cover it. Okay. Um so if incorporating all of that um the standard would now read analyze thematically related text in order to evaluate the approaches each author
takes. Consider how text drawn allude to or transform source material. Um that is I 186 if anyone wants to see that written. Does that satisfy everybody's concerns?
No objections to what we have just heard. Okay, I think we have figured it out. Let's move on. Okay. Um, we have now the E1E E2 RARI standard which
reads, "Analyze two or more topically related texts in order to compare the approaches each author takes. Evaluate the significance of each approach." Um, I do think we should probably mirror some of the language we just changed in
the literature standard here. Um, since we issued the language of comparison and instead used evaluate, um, it might make more sense to read analyze two or more thematically related
texts in order to evaluate the approaches each author takes. Um and then perhaps we would not need the uh the language after the semicolon. Uh one flag uh evaluate is mistyped in
both changes the previous one and yes yes sorry. Okay. So, is there a change that we need to record? Um, I'm kind of drafting. It's really just a matter of creating consistency
between the RAI and RL versions of the standards. Um, uh, it would just sound more similar if we said, uh, analyze topically related text in order to evaluate the approaches each author
takes. Is there a reason why we're saying two or more in the RARI standard, but for the RL standard, we just said texts. We didn't say a specific number. We get rid of two or more person. If I remember correctly, that was just a
carryover. Okay. Do we need to carry over? Um I I just I would just ask that whatever we do, we do it in both places. I I think the fact that we're using a plural word indicates that we're talking
about two or more. So I wouldn't say two or more, but if someone feels like two or more is necessary, we can keep it. We've been pursuing consistency all along. What revisions do we need to make to make it consistent?
Okay, so the edit that I have made that would I think maintain consistency both horizontally and vert vertically would read analyze topically related text in order to evaluate the approaches each author takes. Is that acceptable to everyone?
I defer to the committee. One note, the cornerstone says two or more texts. Does that change how y'all feel about anything? No is a very appropriate answer. No, we're not afraid to change a cornerstone. Don't temp. We haven't been afraid.
Um that is a that is a good flag because we we have used two or more pretty consistently throughout this progression. Um, we like we're using it in the seventh grade, sixth grade, eighth grade, uh, fifth grade. Yeah, we've been saying two or more pretty consistently throughout this
progression. So, we probably should say two or more for the sake of consistency. And also, I'd like to circle back to our previous discussion now that we've moved to high school. Um, in the wish list for this standard, do we still want to
include in the standards guide? um information supporting the intent that the standard should address how authors um use history. Historical texts, text of literary value, historical significance
that was in the original standard. Um that is something that was you know in part in the revised standard. Comments. Comments. What's it seems as though I mean we're using
this language at least for the RL standard that says consider how text draw on allude to or transform source material. Um that does seem to be calling in sort of a conversation about history. So I think at at the high school levels it might make some sense to have that language in the in the
standards guides. Yes, that was my question. And and in the in the originalformational standard, it also specified uh related texts of historical and literary significance. Thus far, we've
only we only have this language about literary merit. um in the literature standards do we see a problem with not referencing historical significance or other significance in theformational?
Yeah, we we have dropped the language about literary merit in the RL standard at least on our revised version. So then back to my original question, do we want to specify in the standards guide um about the high school
progression that um that this should also address how authors use history or or text of literary or historical significance. I think that would be worthwhile. Um yeah, I think so.
I don't believe if if my memory serves me that we have done that elsewhere. So my concern would be if we don't address it somewhere that we would be leaving something essential out. So and I find it's
Yeah, I agree. All right. So do we have on including that language in the standards guide. I I am in agreement. Um I I'm I'd also be open to toting the
standard if we feel like it needs to be in the standard, but I I am content with the standards guide if if other folks are. Do we have anybody that object should put it in the standards guide? Well, hearing no objections, I think
we're ready to go on. Um, one quick question. We we don't have a clause after the semicolon here. Um, this language we had previously was for the RL standard reads consider how text drawn, allude to or transform
source material. Um, I don't really thinkformational text would likely transform source material, but they seem likely to draw on or allude to source material. Do we want to uh have consider how text draw on and allude or allude to source material in the RARI standard as
well? Just genuinely curious what folks think about that. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that one more time? I was typing in the wish list. You're great. Um, I just was essentially implementing some of the language from
after the semicolon in the RL standard into the RARI standard. Um, I I've drafted it here on the suggested change. Um, consider how text draw on or allude to source material. It seems to me like our uh informational text would would be like would be relatively unlikely to
transform source material but would be likely to draw on or allude to source material um in anformational text. So um it made sense to me to include that language there so students are thinking about you know sourcing with anformational text and thinking on you
know illusions could certainly appear in anformational text as well. I I agree with that. That alleviates some of my concerns um about what we were talking about the literary historical sign text of literary historical significance. So I think
we've covered bases if we incorporate that language in the standard and then include specifics in the standards guide. And I'm wondering a little bit um if you know we've talked about how standard 10 will in some ways kind of
set the bar or the types of texts of complex texts that are to be included in materials and testing and so forth. I think the big flag with the text of literary and historical significance obviously is yeah that's as you said
earlier our idea of that has changed over time you know there's the traditional cannon and that sort of thing but you also we also need to set a certain bar because we don't want um AI created texts for students to be reading
of you know what I mean um and I think that's certainly something the committee should consider uh once you get to standard 10 in particular to find a way to to make sure that that's kind of staved off a bit. I would suggest
Yeah, I agree. I think that's a worthwhile conversation to have. Um but I do feel like perhaps standard 10 would be the place for that to happen. Okay. Are we prepared then to move on to E3 E4? Do we feel good with that?
I think our chairman has has departed for a moment. So, um I will kind of steer that conversation if everyone's cool with that. So, um if you don't mind just unmuting yourself if you have a comment since uh it's hard for me to track the the hand raising feature. Um so, E3E4
uh currently reads, "Analyze thematically related texts of literary merit considering how the text treat similar themes or topics across place, time, andor voice." Um, did we have TDO feedback on that E3 E4 standard? It was exactly the same as the feedback
for 910. Okay. So, do we then just want to to carry over the standard that we drafted into into E3 E4 for this particular standard
and just let the increasing the complexity of the text increase the How do I feel about that? Okay. Um I assume the the TDOE feedback on the RARI version of the English 3 English 4
standard was was the same as well. Okay. Um, if so, then I think it would probably make sense to do the same edit that we have otherwise made. I do too.
So, the E3 E4 standard would would once again read for RL analyze two or more thematically related text in order to evaluate the approaches each author takes. consider text drawn, allude to or transform source material. Um, and then E3 E4 for uh R I would read uh analyze
two or more topically related texts in order to uh evaluate the approaches each author takes. Uh consider how texts draw on or allude to source material. Any objections to that? I think we figured it out. Let's approve
it and move on. Okay. Um, if that's the case, then we are now down to our final reading standard. So, our final progression for the core English standards. Exciting. Um, this cornerstone reads read and
comprehend complex literary andformational texts independently and proficiently. Um, do we have any TDOE feedback on that particular uh cornerstone? any I don't believe so.
Okay. Um All right. Then we are ready to go ahead and forge onward into the standards themselves. Um they do we do have some the return of substandards here. Um so just flagging that for
folks. Um we do have those to to look at. Um all right. Uh the kindergarten RL standard reads with prompting and support read a variety of literary genres of appropriate complexity for kindergarten. Uh substandard A consider
own and others uh unique perspectives through literature. Um and B select literary texts of personal interest. Do we have TDOE feedback on that? Uh just wording. Uh please consider
changing the wording of substandard A to one's own instead of just own. Yeah, I I personally agree with that if if others do. Any other thoughts on this particular standard? Any
objections to having what we've got written in the box? No. Let's move on. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I might have missed something as well. Uh, okay. Uh, should know how to be added to
the beginning of substandard B. What's the problem with substandard B? It looks like that's just a question. I'm sorry. It looks like in first grade it says knowhow and so it's probably looking for consistency of language. Yeah, we it does seem looking through
this progression, we we switch back and forth pretty pretty frequently between know how to and just select uh texts. So, I think it's just a decision of which we prefer. I would say just select I mean I don't know I don't know how if I'm thinking what
Dr. Carneg said um student center language as a student how do I show you that I know how to select text of my interest I just select them. So know how this seems unnecessary to me. I would agree.
I would agree. So we want to approve it. I think I made everybody a doctor here too. So that's just for Do we want to approve it as written? The one with the one addition of ones own instead of just own with that
addition. Okay. All right. Move on. Okay. Uh the KRI standard reads with prompting and support read informational texts of appropriate complexity for kindergarten. A consider own and others
unique perspectives throughformational text. Um B selectformational text of personal interest. Um just few small things. We would want to capitalize kindergarten. Um we would want to include ones
um like we did in the previous standard. Um, I think shouldn't text be plural in substandard A? Consider one's own and others unique perspectives throughformational texts. Or am I wrong there?
No, I think it's four. Otherwise, do we have any feedback on that particular standard? Nothing. Okay, it looks like we're ready to move.
Approve it. Okay. Um, first grade RL standard reads uh with prompting and support read a
variety of literary genres of appropriate complexity for grade one. A consider how one consider one's own and others unique perspectives through literature. B know how to select literary text of personal interest. Um I
think just for consistency we would want to change grade one to first grade. We would want to say one's own instead of own. And we want to say simply select literary texts
of personal interest. and that throughout the rest of this K through five um the the feedback has been the same um except for there is the additional consider defining what with prompting and support could look like
for a given standard. So are we incorporating those changes? There's no there's no actual change proposed. is just consider what that means. That is language we've used pretty consistently throughout the standards uh with prompting and support. Um so we
have not deemed it a a concern elsewhere. Um but I'm I'm open to a conversation about it if we feel like it needs to be clarified here. We felt it very appropriate in the early grades. I'm curious from the TDOE as to what the concern was.
I don't I'm not Kim, you may speak to this. I my guess is there was some feedback from uh teachers and so forth about what that phrase means. So, it may not something be something that needs clarifying within the standard. It could be something we could clarify within the standards guides, but it may be helpful
to get what the committee's idea of what that phrase might mean for a classroom. Kim, do you have anything else to add there? I think that's right. Um, the only other thing I might flag is I don't know how late into the grades prompting and support is used elsewhere, but I think
in this case it makes sense. Um depending on the will of the committee, it can make sense because um it's about selecting texts that are appropriate for that grade level and students may not always know the text complexity just by looking at a book. So
very well said. Thank you, Kim. I think that helps to clarify it and I think that just uh amplifies the need for including that language here. Are we comfortable with keeping that language?
I am. I think it seems appropriate at this level. Okay. Do I hear any objections? All right. Let's keep it and move on. Um, one quick. Yes. Go ahead. I was just going to say going back to what Bank said, um, we just want to make
sure that we have a note somewhere, uh, to add that information in the standards guides or to clarify. I think yes if you could make note of that banks or do we need to tell you somewhere else? You can include it in the um
wish list I believe is where it goes. Yes. Are you managing wish list there doctor? Now so I'm typing it now. Thank you dear. Really quickly before we move uh any further in this progression. Uh I did notice just now that in A and B for
theformational standard we're sayingformational texts and then once again we're sayingformational texts. Um, for the literature standards, we've been saying literature in in standard A or substandard A and then literary texts in sub substandard B. So, I think we just need to decide, do we want to say
literature or literary texts? Um, so that we're consistent across the substandards. What do you propose, Mr. AP? I I think literary texts just seems a closer analog toformational texts. Um,
just for consistency sake, that's what I would propose. And I see some nods. Yes, let's do that. Thank you. All right. And I I will carry that through as well as we progress. Okay. Um then we're on to first grade
which reads with prompting and support readformational text of appropriate complexity for grade one. Consider own and others unique perspectives throughformational text. uh selectformational texts of personal interest. So I will carry over the edits we've been making consistently. So like
first grade and adding the word ones and then making text plural. Um do we have any other feedback on this particular standard? Anyone here? None. Let's move on.
Okay. Um, this next standard reads identically to the first grade standard except for grade first grade becoming second grade. Um, so are we happy to just simply adopt the language from first grade switching only uh first to
second grade? Is that acceptable? Yeah, I hear no objections. Let's move on. Okay. Um, we have the exact same situation forformational texts. So, I would propose we do the exact same thing once again. Um, simply change the
reference to first grade to second grade. Uh, otherwise maintain the language from the first grade standard. I agree. I have a question about uh increase in difficulty. Is it about the text difficulty
containing that? I mean this this standard directly states um this I mean this is the standard about complexity of text that is that is what its purpose is but we are using the language of appropriate complexity for X grade. Um so as it as it progresses upward we're changing the
grade. Um so okay this is essentially the standard requiring people to to not just keep reading you know picture books and and eighth grade. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, hearing no objections, let's move on. I have a note. Sorry, it's coming a
little bit late, but my baby's been having a meltdown. Um, so I'm wondering if uh so from what I mentioned yesterday with the letter we we received, is there a way we might could be a little bit more explicit with um including a
variety of cultures in these at least the literature version of these standards? I don't know if that's within our scope. Can I guess can you say more about that so I can be helpful in terms of scope? Yes.
Where uh can you tell me more about your scope concern so I can hopefully get full guidance? Are we to um uh talk about um uh the addition of uh crosscultural
uh reading uh at this level? or is that something that would be addressed at in in another set of standards really? Oh, you mean like social studies? It's I would say as far as I understand the
proposal, it could be within the committee's discretion. What I would advise you is, you know, and think back to your presentation from our general counsel, Rachel Sup, the main limitation here is the prohibited concept statute, which I'm happy to pull up for you to take a look at. So depending on the
exact proposal of the language and Rachel is on call on me that we have any questions but that's the one scope limitation that comes to mind in my head. I'm open to others thoughts but of course you could always decide that it is or is not developmentally appropriate
is or is not within you know the discipline of English language arts. Okay. Well thank you for that input. What do the rest of the U committee feel about this uh proposed addition?
Well, in I'm sorry, bear with me. In in R2, RL2, um, in the second grade, uh, we said, identify the central
message or moral of stories, fables, and folk tales from diverse cultures. Recount their essential elements in chronological order. So we have addressed in a specific reading standard cross-cultural connections
to me and in R10 um to me when we say that uh we are uh considering one's own and others unique perspectives we are are that those can include
diverse crossculture al perspectives without being said. I I think it's understood and I think we've specified elsewhere, but again, I I'm I welcome what the committee thinks about this as well. I I agree with what you say. I think
it's already been said. Uh when you reference the folktales, what um block were you in? I'm just curious. I can see uh let me uh see I can just do a control F so I guess
there we go. Um I I did the same uh G29. Oh, okay. And I I will just quickly say we include that language about diverse cultures in the third grade version of that particular standard as well. Um so that
that language carries over once uh once more more comments. Chime in committee. Uh I was just gonna say from the TDOE side one thing. um you know if the committee decides that it is uh
important to include diverse texts that standard 10 that I would consider it to be important to be in standard 10 um because that is a key place where publishers look or guidance on types of texts for each grade level um they
obviously look at this each standard as well but you know I think in some standards it may be more assumed in other standards it's spec explicitly articulated, but if it's the view of the committee that there should be, you know, a fair amount of diversity with of
texts in each grade band that uh the cornerstone of standard 10 would perhaps be a good place to include that. So, uh Kim, feel free to add anything else to that. So, you would say go back to the
cornerstone and include that. I think it could be something as read and read and comprehend complex and diverse literary andformational texts um independently and proficiently. You know, however the committee decides to word it's something that there and then
that would ensure that that is a core component of text selection that publishers look at when they are selecting texts. Well, that's that's important information for us. Absolutely. But well, I'm asking you again if you think that we can address that in the
cornerstone and not have to talk about it in each of the standards. Well, I I will say if it's in the cornerstone, it should be in the standards as well because the cornerstone is meant to reflect the sort of the entirety of the standards. So, it's if it's something we do add to the cornerstone, we will need to incorporate
comparable language in the standards as well. Okay. The other thing I might add, I I um appreciate what you were saying this now about um sort of being encompassed in the standard as it's written. If we are explicitly stating it and it's only
explicitly stated with regard to folktales and fables, not contemporary literature or anything of that nature, it might heavily weight certain kinds of texts over others. Um, and I think it's up to the committee to decide um
where that wants to be. Not if it's going to be in second and third grade only. It's going to be certain kinds of texts that should be diverse and not others. So, that's worth discussing. So, how about
um on substandard A, consider one's own and others unique perspectives from diverse cultures throughformational text. I think that addresses it. Dr. St. standard are you on just so I
can Well, I think we're on 195, but I think we're probably talking about the entire Yeah, I don't know what to call it. Column. Yeah. Okay, that was perfect. Thank you. How does everybody else feel about Dr.
Stout's proposed language? I'm I'm drafting what I believe I heard right now um in I90. Um so the new substandard A would read consider one's own perspective and unique perspectives from diverse
literary texts. Diverse cultures. You said just diverse literary checks. Do we need to put the word cultures in there? I thought I heard Dr. Stout refer to that.
What would the Yes. Go ahead. Can you say your proposed language again, Dr. Stout? All right. So, I was looking at 195 and so I was looking at a 195. Consider
one's own consider one's own and other unique perspectives from diverse cultures. ational text. So the perspective of those from diverse cultures if um that's one way to kind of
integrate to kind of make it more explicit. I think what this standard is trying to do when it says consider one's own perspective and others perspective is actually making a nod towards that. Do we want to make it more explicit?
Okay. So, say that more is what I is what I've got in I 195 um your language there. Consider one's own perspective and others unique perspectives from diverse cultures throughformational texts. Yeah, that is a suggestion and I think
Miss Dockery has been trying to uh chime in. Dr. Dockery. Um yeah, so I I do like that. Um my my concern is that if we aren't explicit with culture that it will get left out
of um instructional materials. Um and I do think that should be added to literature as well. Thank you, Annie. I I agree. I really didn't know that it was this standard or this group of standards that the
textbooks looked at. So that was very very good information that we've got from banks and uh I I think that it's important that we do it here. Okay, I am making that edit uh
throughout what we've done so far. One moment while I do that. Just a little bit of word smithing and then would we need to go back and and make an corresponding edit to the cornerstone since this is something that
seems to be foundational to our standards. I think so. Agreed. Yeah. I guess looking at the wording now, you know, once you change one thing, it changes something else, right? Uh do we need the word unique?
So, could it be just consider one's own perspective and other perspectives from diverse cultures through literary texts? I think that's sufficient. I don't unique is implied. It's one or the
other. So I don't know that that's necessary. I think that's a good idea to exclude that. Are we okay with that? Yep. I see not. So just just to clarify, we're saying and we and
others would no longer be possessive if Did I hear that right, Dr. Stout? Yeah, because I think what we did was clarify what we meant by unique. So I would just say other perspectives from diverse cultures.
Okay. So it would now read consider one's own perspective and other perspectives from diverse cultures through literary texts or through informational texts. Well said. Okay. Um I will make that edit across this
progression. And then while I'm doing that, if anyone wants to take a look at the cornerstone and uh suggest any uh proposed language there that would match the the edits we've made in the standards themselves.
Would it just read? Would it just be read and comprehend complex and diverse literary andformational text independently and proficiently? Just add diverse and or I mean I guess it doesn't matter what order, but just complex and diverse or
diverse and complex. Or do we feel like the the language of diverse is is sufficient and standard on its own? What what number are you on now? 194. Oh, sorry. Um, it's uh it's F the F column 190 down. Just the cornerstone.
They're identical. Yeah, just looking at the cornerstone. Yeah, I feel good about the standard itself. Just just making sure the cornerstone uh now matches the the we made. And you haven't made the change in that yet? No, I haven't. Um my my suggestion was
just complex and diverse literary andformational texts. U just adding and diverse there alongside complex. Does diverse uh describe diverse cultures. Um, yeah. I mean, I guess I I can see
where that would perhaps, you know, there are diverse texts within a culture, not just across cultures. So, yes, I guess that that could lead to some misinterpretation. I see Dr. Stout grinding it out there. Uh, she may have language. Dr. Now might
be working on it, too. Andy, you might I was actually I I was looking back at R2. I just wanted to make sure that we were now that we're changing R10 and looking at R2 um and we included diverse cultures in the in the found in in the
lower grade levels and I wanted to make sure that the progression still remain true to our changes we're making here. Good. Annie, you started this. Where do you want to put it in the
cornerstone? How do we address that diverse culture? Because we are putting it in the standards. It should be also duplicated somehow in the corner and maybe read and comprehend comprehend
complex literary andformational text from a variety of diverse cultures independently and proficiently. Wow. I think you've solved it. Um, so it would just be adding the
language from a variety of diverse cultures after texts. Yes. Well done. Okay. Glad to have you with us today, Annie. What was that?
The corner. I said, "We're glad to have you with us today." Causing trouble. No. Making sure we stay on task and get this done for a million I'm talking a
million students in the state of Tennessee. They're all going to have to do it. Okay. Go ahead, coach. Okay. The cornerstone now would read read and comprehend complex literary andformational texts from a variety of
diverse cultures independently and proficiently. Are we all good with that? Yes. Okay. Okay, let's move on. All right. Um, the third grade RL and RI standards should be really easy now that we've made this edit because they are
identical to the second grade standards except they have the word third grade instead of second grade. So I would propose we just simply make that corresponding edit. I agree for for both of those standards. Two for
the price of one there. And the the uh increase in difficulty is going to come with the level of texts. Correct. Correct. All right. Hearing objection. Let's move on.
All right. Um we are now fourth grade is same thing. Um so I I would propose we do it once again um and change third
grade to fourth grade. Thank you. Yeah, we we have a masterfully written standard. So let's continue to use it. Fifth grade, vice chair. Um, it appears that fifth grade is once
again uh same language. So, I would propose we we do it again in fifth. Agreed. This was the speed that we were anticipating. Amazing. We're doing great. I think it Are you timing this, uh, Miss
Summers? You're doing great. You got 29 minutes until lunch or dinner. Lunch. I'm gonna try I'm gonna try to get this reading part done before we go to dinner. We We only have 10 standards remaining. So, we're nearly there.
Okay. Unfortunately, the language now changes. So, you would do that. Okay. Do we have any information or any comments from TDOE on this next one on the middle grade standards? Uh does
anyone uh that language up? Not on the sixth grade. We do on the eighth grade when we get there. Uh oh, it that the 8 RL standard
seems No. Yeah, that the 8 RL standard seems to be inadvertently missing that we only have eight RL. Um that yeah I I uh it seems to be there um now
I don't it may have been missing in a previous version that's the only now okay I think let me know if we're missing any columns I think we're good now okay if there's no addition to sixth
grade or no comments how How do you like the way it reads right now? Yeah. Yeah. Let's let's go ahead and read it. Um, it reads, "Read and comprehend a variety of literature throughout the grades six through eight. Text complexity band proficiently with a gradual release of scaffolding at the
high end as needed, interacting with both curriculum dependent and student chosen texts. I have a thing or two." Okay, you guys are going to hate me again. Okay. One
is Sorry, let me find it. Um, so for Oh, I just I was on it and then I clicked off of it. Um, okay. So, I like some of the wording and the way it's done in the high school
level. um where it says including extended and/or complete works as well as shorter and or excerpted text. Um so I would like that language to be included in the
middle grade bands as well as including the word multiple in there. Um because um I think this probably comes from teachers who have had similar experiences where uh previous district I got one full full text and five pages of
Romeo and Juliet. Um, and so I think it would benefit Tennessee students to read multiple fulllength texts per year, um, instead of, um, one or as I have heard rumors of, uh, no full-length texts.
And you want to include that at the sixth grade level. Yes, I think sixth grader, sixth through eight is very capable of reading full length texts and multiple at that. Good for you. I think that's a great idea. I see a lot
of nods. And it's about Do we want to move the language then from the high school standards down and try to modify the high school language since you liked the language of the high school more? Um, and see if we can sort of massage that into the sixth grade
language. Personally, yes. And then I have another thing. This one is a a little bit more extraneous, but I think it could be beneficial. I mentioned this in our um when we gave our initial like wish list
or whatever. Um but I I mentioned at the meeting how um reading comprehension um one thing 6 through 12 teachers aren't really trained um to help students work through reading comprehension issues. And I hear
from colleagues over and over again of like, I don't know how to help this kid. This kid is in eighth grade or ninth grade and and really um can't comprehend texts. So, I'd love if we could the addition of the language.
Um I mentioned Texas had like a whole standard for it, but obviously we don't have time for that. um something to the effect of uh use a variety of metacognitive and comprehension strategies to read and comprehend
yada yada yada the rest of it. So that's that's my proposal. That one's a little bit more extraneous, but I I think it could be could be beneficial and uh could give teachers and students some more some more support both in uh materials
and then perhaps even with things like professional development and such that would come from the addition and the standard. But your concern uh and feedback from colleagues was outside of the English
ELA area. So you're talking about the students inability to read social studies or science texts. No, I'm talking about an ELA. So, I mean that it's one thing like for I mean at the lower levels they
obviously are learning how to decode, but when you get to six through eight there's there's another level of rigor um and they have to work through texts that are um much more difficult and have require a higher level of of inferencing
and um problem solving while they're reading. Um and so I would like to see something like that included. Again, this is a little more extraneous. So, I just it's I would like to hear other people's thoughts. Um I've been reading some books to go along with that sort of
thing, and I feel like it could be it could be beneficial. I I have no doubt it would be beneficial, but I'm I'm wondering if it's more a uh a staff training issue than it is something that needs to be addressed in the standards and which
also would be included somehow in testing. Uh, I don't want to put ourselves behind the eightball here. Um, just those are my thoughts, initial thoughts in response to what you're saying.
Okay, let's hear from everybody else. I you've got some great ideas. I would just ask Miss Dockery, if you don't mind, could you kind of include that language that you had recommended in the chat? Um, just so I can have a written record of it. And while she's
doing that, let's hear from everybody else. I know Dr. Now is ready to talk. I just I I I hear the feedback on that and I sympathize with that. Um I do
think however that um to the extent that it can be addressed in a standard it's been done with uh with the phrasing there with the gradual release of scaffolding at the high end as needed and we could add further specificity
there uh regarding strategies I believe in the standards guide um to to help uh teachers with that. So, I I would hesitate to include that in the standard itself.
I also, just as a side note, I've never loved the language uh throughout the grade six through eight text complexity band. It's not in the other grade bands. I don't know why there band
that was foreign to me, too. I agree there. I don't I don't know why we're being specific about the grades in K through five, but then we're suddenly talking about broader bands um at the the higher levels. And I have a little difficulty with
that. I I understand what they're trying to say, I think, in terms of uh release, but um I've not quite heard that used before, that phrase uh release of scaffolding. Uh we know what scaffolding
is. What are they releasing in the scaffolding? Well, it's it's the it's the middle grade version of with prompting and support. Um it's now we've we've let go of that in the lower grade band. This is my interpretation. Somebody else can
chime in. But now um we're using strategies, you know, allowing for a gradual release of those scaffolding techniques that we use to help students read and comprehend. So again, that's my interpretation.
Um, I I would tend to agree. This is again not my grade level of expertise, so Banks, please feel free to chime in and tell me I'm wrong. Um, I think that with prompting and support sounds a little
more student focused, whereas gradual release sounds more like an instructional practice. So that's something to consider. I agree. Yeah, a lot of this language was just carried over from previous I don't think that this standard was tended to a lot uh personally in the
last revision. So I think it was just carried over from a long time ago. And I think a lot of your reconsideration of like you know the gradeband language and and this part is good. And I was going to say as far as Miss Dockery's feedback goes um absolutely love the feedback
about the length of text. 100% love including that here. I think that's that's a great addition and I I 100% also agree with the emphasis on I know the department is going to move toward an emphasis on supporting teachers and helping students learn how to read in
the upper you know in the middle and upper grade levels. Um it might convolute the standard a bit because it is getting a little bit into the how piece and that is something we can provide support on in the standards guides if that would be something that
the committee uh would desire. That is obviously a place that we can uh provide support there. Make note yes that's where we need help. That's where the teachers need help. Absolutely. One other option I'll throw on the table for consideration is we have on the wish
list an option for professional development whether it's from the department if we want to put that in writing or recommend that for leas but I hear you miss dockery I was teaching seventh and eighth grade social studies trying to get students to read executive orders from governor fobis in the little rock nine and
not everyone was necessarily ready to do that and I was certainly underprepared as a social studies teacher. So, um, just throw that out as one more option. You have that down, Miss N? Okay, great. Thank you.
Um, I will say really quickly, um, Miss Dockery's proposal that we incorporate a lot of the language from the 9 through 12 standards rather than the 6 through 8. um if we were to do that that language about gradual release of
scaffolding at the high end as needed um is not present in in the 9 through 12 uh standards. So if we um do make that change, I know some of it seems like some of us didn't really like that language. Others of us might have liked that language, but just letting just
flagging that that language would be gone if we um incorporated the language from uh the high school level. Okay. So, are we are we for a reddraft now from Miss Dockery? I think Miss Dockery had proposed some
language to add to the beginning of the standard. I have gone ahead and drafted I I brought over the the language from the high grades um and in kind of made some edits to it if we want to just kind of look at the differences between the proposed sixth grade standard and the
the sixth grade standard if it sounded much more like the high school standard. um those are side by side and G202 and I202 if we want to look at both of those and see um which we might prefer. Um one note uh I mentioned adding the
word multiple uh in front of complete works and I I think I remember um Mr. Kra saying there were head nods about that um but I could be wrong. It would be including multiple It would be including multiple extended andor
complete works. Yes. Yeah. I was um quiet during that discussion, but uh I agree with multiple complete works. So that's been added. I also um think that it would be
beneficial to include some more of that uh more explicit language about culture in here. Kind of kind of dance around it, I think. And and going back to the the idea about this is informing a structural materials, I think it'd be good to be more specific
in the 6 through 12 grades as well about culture. I agree with that. I was I was going to say, what if we added um in diverse cultural perspectives across places and times? That seems like an appropriate place to me.
Excellent. standard that you have you incorporated that coach Hillard I I think I'm I I don't know if I see that where where are we talking right there at the end of the standard okay and so and perspectives from across
places and times what was the proposed edit there and diverse cultural perspectives across places and times diverse cultural perspectives across places and times there's There's a lot of meat here.
Have we talked about multi-modal range? I was about to bring that up. Yeah, we I don't think we'd use the phrase multi-modal range of literature elsewhere. Um I definitely think if it's language we're going to keep, we need to
put in the glossery uh because that does seem quite academic in comparison to some of our language used elsewhere. Is there a significant difference between multimodal and multidia? Um, I don't really know how we would fit
multimedia into the grammar of the sentence. I I it's not like we would say a diverse and multimedia range. I guess you could say multimedia range of literature. Um, it's not doesn't sound great. It's a reading standard.
I I don't know why diverse range of literature is not sufficient. Yeah, that that to me sounds sufficient. Multi- multimodality is captured within diversity since we're using diversity to mean just wide ranging rather than
diverse culturally. Can you use a different word so that we don't confuse it with diverse cultures? Is there another word that we could substitute there that means diverse
variety? Um, uh, we could say a variety of literature and sort of a diverse a diverse range. Yeah, we're reserving diverse for cultures as
an adjective there. I just think that might help clarify things. Okay. Um if if it's all right with everyone, I'm going to read this this somewhat lengthy standard just to ensure that that we're hearing it all out loud. Um, so the currently drafted version
would read, read and comprehend both independently and collectively a variety of literature, including multiple extended and/or complete works as well as shorter and/or exo excerted works of appropriate complexity for sixth grade, ensuring that both curriculum dependent and student chosen texts are interwoven
to provide a wide range of narrative and authoral voices, experiences, and diverse cultural perspectives across places and times. Uh I don't know that assuring is got is a student-based objective or student-based standard. That's a
curriculum. That's a central office thing. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. And I know Miss Miss Bay had expressed some anxiety about the word insure in standards as well. just say reading both.
That might be better. I was wondering about the word interwoven because that to me goes back to interwoven within the curriculum. Yeah. And that's the text the students don't worry about that. That's the textbook guys. They can be
reading both curriculum dependent and student chosen texts to provide a wide range of narrative and authoral voices perspectives uh sorry authoral voices experiences and diverse cultural perspectives across places and times
to provide are is a student going to provide or to be exposed to um I think the language we've used in the K through five is consider so it could to consider a wide range of narrative and authoral voices
like that. Yes, we're rocking and rolling now. Yeah. How do people feel about what's in I202? I will say just because what we do in I202 will likely have a lot of downstream impact on what we're going to do for the remainder of this progression. I feel as good about this
one as we've done on any of them. I think this we have we have added some terrific rigor here. I'll bet everybody else are we comfortable with all the words in there? Is there anything else? Are there any
commas or semicolons that need to be in there? That's what I was thinking. Chair K, I guess we've got a meaty sentence, but I defer to the grammar experts on the semicolons. Okay. So, is that R I or RL? I'm sorry.
This is RL. This is 6. RL. Never mind. I thought we had literature instead of information. Can I get clarification on one thing? Um, because I know we took multimodal out. Um, and I'm reflecting back on the
conversation I think at the very beginning that Dr. out kind of flagged about um texts and our understanding of text and how and the evolution of texts and not just being print and so forth. Is
that something that the committee feels should be included here um or not? I think is something that I would present and I and I'm thinking ahead mainly about in the year 2029 2030 students will be
interacting more and more as they are now with not just printed text but texts that are presented in in multiple different formats that include images and and video and all of those sorts of things. And so I'm just presenting to
the committee, you know, the option to consider of whether that should be included here elsewhere or not at all. So my question is it's a reading it's a reading standard. So if it's presented visually, I don't know that it refers to
reading. I don't that's my initial reaction. Speaking for the the 912 group, that's what we were thinking because you could have and I've had students come through who like to watch things with subtext and that's what they're reading, but
it's still not a straight story. It is subtext on a video. There are uh texts even in the elementary level picture books where you can use an app and it has augmented reality going along with the text. So, I
think there are lots of examples now and there will be even more examples in the future that are possible. I think that I'm also on board with bringing that language back. Um, especially thinking about instructional
materials as well that that might get left out. And I do think as English teachers, we think of text more broadly than just print. Um, however, I think being really clear is probably beneficial. And it does, I will say it will align
well with reading standard 7 where students are comparing a text they read to a text presented in some other format and so forth. And so including it here would ensure those texts are there as well, you know. Um, yeah.
I guess my question wasn't about print text versus digital text which I feel like is what we're talking about. It was about the word multimodal which you know I just like to get rid of jargon as much as possible. We haven't used it before. I think we've been
saying digital text or I think we can say print and digital text just make it plain language digital text come across that can also be videos or I guess multimodal I'll think like music
videos uh art does that does digital text get all of that across could we say text and multimedia text, multimedia, and holograms. I'm still advocating for holograms. I think my my concern about drawing that
distinction would be that I think we've used text to be more inclusive earlier. Um, we have used text to mean a wide range of things. So, if we here draw a distinction between text and multimedia, I think I'm I'm concerned about the the impact that's going to have on previous standards. Um, where we did
we do a EG It could. Yeah, just pulled up the digital text definition. So you all at least from the current active standards if you have that in front of you. Looks like audio, video. Okay. So it is inclusive of audio and
video. I I personally just like saying print and digital text since that is inclusive. asking if we we're starting to talk about all of this now, aren't we into listening standards as opposed to reading standards?
I believe this was in the parking lot for y'all to reit. I believe this was in the parking lot for y'all to revisit at some point or parking garage. My world of high school. No, in my world of high school, college, and grad school, and you know, you teach college
students. I'm talking to a professor. you you read anything and you can read an object, you can read an artifact, you can read a plant, you read the built environment. Um so we use the word read more flexib more flexibly flexible.
Yeah. Uh but I don't know if that is um widely kind of considered or widely used in that way. So we would say he read the, you know, ancient artifact and that's how they knew that they were from upper Egypt or something
or the musician read the room and my students read me daily. Let me just tell you. True. I we've used this language of print and digital texts elsewhere. Um so that I
guess that would be my preference but I am also very very open to other language if we feel like other language is important. Um my only concern with multimodal is the concern that we've raised about I mean that that is extraordinarily jargony. Um and uh and it is language we
have not used elsewhere. Um so I just I worry a little bit about the use of multimodal. Um if we could capture the idea of multimodality um in other language such as print or digital I think that would be preferable. I think my my only concern currently and
I might just be a little crazy um because I think this is just something that's majorly on my mind is not having curriculum with one one book in it. Um but if we have it written in that order, does that could that be interpreted that
they could have like a movie and one full book and that's mo and that's multiple fulllength texts or am I being way too nitpicky? uh the TDOE might have information on
that that that I wouldn't as a teacher. Um I mean we can give them guidance on that. Um you know I think in this partic this is not really a standard that teachers interact with that much. It's a little bit more of a standard that kind
of sets the bar for materials. Um I you know and that's why I was suggesting multimodal because it is it is by all means a term that publishers are familiar with and that we could define for teachers and it's certainly one that's because of the evolution of types
of texts um that is be that will become increasingly common and will certainly be in common usage I think by the time we get there if that's the only concern but if the committee still decides to go print or digital we can still give them some guidance around
what that means as well. So based upon what you said, I think I'm moving towards multimodal. I could I could agree with that. Yeah, regardless of what the committee decides, I can add a column for textbook commission
and we can send that directly to them. I think you does um the department of education also develop rubrics that go into the evaluation piece. Yes, we do. Okay. So that's another sort of well I say we do I it it's in
collaboration so I'm not quite sure but yeah we're usually involved in that process to some degree. Okay. I personally have no issue with multimodal. Okay. Uh can you put multimodal where it should be then in the wording
where it's been proposed? It's in I20 I drafted in I202. um language incorporating the old language. I incorporated I reincorporated the old language but multimodal. Um so it now reads read and comprehend both independently and collectively a range
of varied and multimodal literary texts including multiple extended and/or complete works and shorter andor exerted texts of appropriate complexity for sixth grade reading both curriculum dependent and student chosen texts to consider a wide range of uh narrative and authoral voices experiences and
diverse cultural perspectives across places and times. Yes. Think we need a semicolon. I'm in favor of a semicolon. At least one. Are there any?
So the semicolon would be um maybe after sixth grade. After sixth grade and just change reading to read, right? Yeah. So read and comprehend both independently and collectively a range of varied multimodal literary texts including multiple extended and/or
complete works and shorter and/or excerted works of appropriate complexity for sixth grade. Semicolon read both curriculum dependent and student chosen text to consider a wide range of narrative and authoral voices, experiences, and diverse cultural perspectives across places and times. I I will just um draw your attention
back to the K through five standards. Feel free to shoot this down. Um, it's really kind of structured the same with A and B instead of separated by a semicolon. So, they appear to be similar if that's an option that you prefer.
Do we need to draw separate attention? And I think A and B draws separate attention rather than continuous attention. I like the way it reads. I don't know that it needs to have a separation other
than a semicolon. Anybody else? I think it's just a matter of emphasis. Um, so I mean if we did do substandards, what exactly would be the substandards?
I guess what would be the main standard and what would be the the substandards? I'm just looking back at our at our other standards. We've really we've only really done this with R2, the A and the B.
And should we do it with R1? There's a lot in writing, I believe, and there's a lot in foundational literacy, right? But not necessarily the reading. That sounds accurate to me, Miss Mo. And if that's overly complicated, feel
free to disregard. I'm just pointing that out. I only I only see an A in there. I mean, if we did it, I only see that after the after the semicolon before read both curriculum depended. Uh I think it it's good the way it sits.
That's my personal opinion. Um, so let's see what everybody else it could I mean I think what you would do is you would make the the parent standard read and comprehend both independently and collectively a range of varied and multimodal uh literary
texts period. Um, and then substandard A would be something along the lines of include or read multiple extended and/or complete works and shorter andor exerted works of appropriate complexity for sixth grade. And then substandard B would be read both curriculum dependent
and student chosen text to consider a wide range of narrative and authoral voices so on so forth. All right. I think that's what it would be if we were going to do that. I don't know. I'm not necessarily advocating for that. I just I think that's what it would that's how you would break it up at least.
I'm fine with either. The the only I guess um thing that pulls me in that direction at all is just that that would help relieve my anxiety about the one text being uh or multiple texts being misinterpreted. But it sounds like from
what Banks was saying that that's not an issue. So are you saying that you feel that uh the substandards A and B would be more clear
to the teacher and student? If we separated it into substandards. Um, I think it was for me it was more about uh my anxiety all comes from from the the curriculum side, not so much the teacher side. Um, but I think either
either works. Um, it is a long standard. So, I I could see things getting a little bit more lost um as it's written, but I I don't think there's anything wrong with the way it is. So, I guess I'm saying I'm leaning a little bit more towards A and B, but at the end of the
day, I I don't really care. Okay. So, let's have a little cleverite here. Go ahead. I I just drafted an AB. If we want to I mean if we wanted to break it down that way. Um the one concern I think right
now would be that we have read and comprehend as our verbs in the parent standard read as our verb in the substandard A and then read again in the as the the verb in substandard B. So it's a a lot of reading but then again that is what the
standard's about. So okay. Uh just a question about collective. Are you doing a lot of collective reading? Well, I think it's the idea of independent reading versus like whole class reading. Like we're all going to read Lord of the Flies versus here's a
list of potential book options or you choose a book of your own choosing. Um, which is certainly happening at the at the high school level, I can say. Um, and I would assume is happening to some extent at the middle school level. Okay. So, we're not talking about oral reading.
No, taking turns. Okay. I think and the EAT can correct me if I'm wrong, but the but the intent here was to make sure it was explicit that student choice um was in each and every grade level to increase um interest and engagement.
Yes, that was the intent because we wanted to make sure they hopefully will someday start reading on their own again. Thank you, Tammy. Yes, I agree. Again, uh I I think um this is one of the
finest standards that this committee has put together and I think as it's drafted it it is in great shape and I would propose that we do this. Do I want to hear if there's any objections to using
it as presented right now? I don't hear any objections. So, I think that we're done with this and we can move on. Now, this means that you've earned your lunch ticket. Um, so I would declare a 23 minute break
and ask that we all be ready to re-engage at 700 p.m. Eastern time, 6:00 p.m. Central time. Is that acceptable to everyone? All
right, let's do it. I'll see you later. How many games is a wild card series? How many games is the wild card series? How many games is the wild card series? This is cheat. Here it is. What's up?
How you doing, coach? I'm doing all right. How are you doing? F fantastic. You're certainly earning your keep with all these revisions. I'm just doing my best. Want to be useful. You are useful.
Hi, doctor. now. No. Were you grading papers again during your intermission? I was not. I was talking to my son. Oh, that's important.
Making sure he knew how to eat up food. Maybe we have a uh Britney coming in too. Yeah, good question. Check. She maybe I'm not sure. She said that she definitely wouldn't be here at 3:30 and she might need to leave before 7:30, but
I don't know if something changed on her end. Okay. Hey, good evening everyone. This is Winters. I made it in from tutoring. Well, hey, thank you so much for joining us. I know that tutoring is very important
and I'm glad that you uh helped out one of your young charges. Oh, yes. I have third grade uh for the touring. I have like seven students. They're meeting after school, huh?
Yeah. Uh tutoring is Tuesday, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 3:30 to 5. Okay. So, we'll miss you again tomorrow for a little bit. Yes. Yes. But hopefully we'll be taking care of a lot of elective stuff and I don't know that there's a lot of electives in
elementary school. So, uh, but it'd be great for your input in terms of, uh, that of a special educator, making sure that we're not, uh, uh, missing some things in in our
consideration for the electives. Yes. So far, I see four members of our committee, so I can't reconvene until somebody else pops up. I think you're good. One, two, three,
four, five, six, seven. Oh, I I guess I need to My layout is wrong. Yeah, I had to, um, extend my box pretty significantly to get everybody. Okay. All right. Well, then if we have
that, um, it looks like we have our quorum. So, I declare this meeting back in session at 7:03 Eastern time, 6:03 Central time. Coach Hillyard, where are we?
Um, I believe we had essentially reached a consensus that substandard A or sorry, sorry, um that the sixth grade RL standard was written as we liked. I I spent some time over the the uh break workshopping the language of substandard
A a little bit. I tried not to change the meaning at all, just shifting around the placement of things because I the phrasing previously um I found a little muddled and seemed like it was suggesting that only the short works needed to be of appropriate complexity for sixth grade.
Okay. So, can we reread that and see if uh that is still our liking? So if there are changes, we need to reertify those. Uh yeah, I I made the change to substandard A and please tell me if if we want to revert back to the old language, but my my substandard A
reading was read text of appropriate complexity for sixth grade, including multiple extended andor complete works and shorter and/or excerted works or texts. Um so just simply moving around um that language of of appropriate complexity
for sixth grade since it seemed to just be modified. Well, to clarify that if there are no objections, let's accept it as written. I have one thing. I'm sorry. Again, it's me. Um, so I'm wondering if we should
move uh from B to consider a wide range of narrative and author the last part of that um up to um I think we've been calling it the parent standard if I remember correctly
um just to make sure that that um from an instructional or I guess instructional materials point of view that they aren't just going to relegate uh a variety of cultures, voices, etc. to independent.
And again, maybe I'm overthinking about this, but I get a I get a little uh anxious about curriculum. Okay. So, it would just be everything after to consider um would be moving up to the parent standard. I think to consider on read it read and
comprehend both independently and collectively a range of varied and multiply multimodal literate text to consider and the rest of that. So like what I've got in I 2022 right there.
Uh yes. Okay. Will that proposed revision be acceptable to everyone? Okay, I hear no objections. So, let's prove it and move on. Okay, I I apologize for doing this. One last thing. Um I I still I've just the
work substandard A's wording has bothered me because I just it sounds clunky to me. We've got this andor and and andor thing. Um we also say including multiple extended works, but we just say shorter and exerted works. Could we say a variety and a variety of
shorter and excerted works? Is everyone okay with that? Just keeping multiple. Yeah. No, it would still reinclended works, but we don't have a quantity of shorter and exerted works. Obviously,
we're not going to say, you know, a specific number of shorter works because that's going to vary widely, but I just thought a variety gave a little bit of parallel structure to that that I love it. Did you say you loved it, Miss Doc?
I did. Then I guess it's going to be okay. Um, I would approve that. Thank you. So, do we want just if everyone just would take a look at I20 before we move on here because I think this language is
essentially going to be identical for the rest of this progression for RL standards. Um, so once we're good here, I think we're pretty much good to just transport this um across other grade levels as well. You know, I think it's very precise.
I thought the one we had before was one of the best. Now I think this one's one of the best standards we've written. Thank you. Okay. Um, I know this is not the the what we've conventionally done, but just for
the sake of just moving more quickly hopefully. Um, would we be okay with just adopting the standard for 7, 8, English 1 and two, and English three and four since we based it off the high school standard? Um, and then just altering where it says sixth grade,
seventh grade, eighth grade, English one and two, English three and four, or do we feel like there are there places where we need to build rigor into this particular standard? Uh, okay. Now, now I get to be play the part of you. Can you scroll back up? I'm
keeping multiple. Yes. Do we need um including multiple extended and or complete works? Like do we need extended? Thank you. I wanted to say that but I thought it was time for me to shut up.
including multiple complete works and a variety of shorter or shorter works or shorter or excerpted texts.
Are some are some complete works not extended? Yeah, I don't think we need extended andor. Uh because I don't know what's the difference between an extended and an excerpt and a shorter. I mean it's just kind of a little bit of word soup. I
think multiple or excerpt like that's cool. Um so do we I mean I'm just talking about I'm just talking about uh I'm just talking about extended. I know I went on a tangent there, but I I don't think we need extended and or is is really what I'm
saying. Yeah. I mean, I I see what you're saying. I think the the only possibility would just be because I know Miss Dockery has been has been attentive to this is like you could have a complete work that is two pages. Like that would be the complete Yes.
the complete two-page short story. Um so I personally wouldn't be concerned about that because I think people know what we mean when we say complete works. But um I I feel like um we've we've applied something of a of a lawyer lens to this
one. So I I just thought maybe I just don't know what extended adds. Does extended mean lengthy? Yeah, it would just essentially it would essentially specify that the that the complete works have to be also lengthy works. That's not what extended means.
We were trying to not give teachers wiggle room to get out with just saying, "Oh, I read this short text, but it's complete." So, we were trying to keep them from finding a way out. Okay. I've been persuaded. I was I think
I was reading it I was reading about excerted excerpted. I was afraid that that for example that excerpts from Romeo and Juliet if it's more than a couple pages could be counted as not a complete. So I guess that's where my
brain was going but I think I've been persuaded in in the opposite direction from what I'm not persuaded yet. So we could read a instead of reading the entire Odyssey, you could do maybe a couple books out of it and that's
extended, but it's not the complete. I I understand what you are trying to achieve. I don't think that word achieves it. Okay. So I think what we're talking about is age appropriate complexity and age
appropriate length. So read texts of appropriate complexity and length for sixth grade. I have concerns about that. I think we need to be more specific, but I'm wondering
do we put books including uh multiple complete books as well as excerted and shorter. The only other thing I can think of is like challenging, rigorous, or putting
something in the glossery. But if we use books, what you mean by extended or what have you. Yeah. If we use the word books, it may give people reasons not to read plays or longer poems even though they might be
produced in format. Down at the bottom, you talk about shorter So I think it would be appropriate to compare that to lengthy. The first part would be lengthy, the second part would be shorter. I guess my question is if we're talking
about com age appropriate complexity and we all feel good with that. What is the hesitation about age appropriate length? Like if we say read text of appropriate complexity for sixth grade, what is the hesitation to
say read text of appropriate length for sixth grade? So I would say from my experience, I guess in more current teaching um is that that language kind of as you're saying is similar to what we had before.
And like I said, I got at a previous district where I had one book I could teach and five pages from Romeo and Juliet and that would be considered age appropriate. Well, I'm keeping your complete works.
I'm It's the word extended that just seems useless to me if I can be just candid. But if we substitute it lengthy, doesn't that doesn't that um and doesn't that mean the same thing?
And now and somebody said earlier that you could do a complete work that's only two pages. Well, that's what I'm saying. Age appropriate. If we're saying read text of appropriate complexity for sixth grade, then someone has made a decision
of what complexity is appropriate for sixth grade. Is there not someone who makes a decision of what lengths of text are appropriate for sixth grade? I don't think so. think I well I think the difference is is that
generally like complexity is I I feel like there are there are kind of largely agreed upon measures of complexity of texts. Um I feel like there are there's a huge fight within the like within the educational community right now about
the l whether or not long form text should be included within um a curricula and and I think I think that's something that is kind of disputed. I think there are people who would argue that that it isn't necessarily there isn't an appropriate length for a certain age
level. I don't I'm not saying that's how I feel. Um but I'm saying I think there would be people who would argue that. Um so I think it's by leaving that ambiguous we're opening up the possibility of of people across different sides of that particular debate. Um
being able to kind of interpret the standard as they see fit. Dr. Banks and then I'll I'll No, doctor. Uh I mean I appreciate it but um I I mean I would suggest just you know because I think this one really is
uh publisher facing more than anyone else um that from their perspective when they're identifying the types of text the length of text I think the specificity you have here with um what
is it extended andor complete works that they'll know what that means and I do think that's better because I mean I understand what you're saying Dr. out that like as far as we're concerned is that like content people we know what grade appropriate complexity is but the more that you kind of identify here
especially length because there has been a trend among certain publishers to shift more towards e excerpts only and that's precisely because of testing if I can be candid um and I think that
longer more extended works as all of you know, are more complex for students to operate in. So, it actually increases the rigor. And I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think that if you specify that in the standard, it helps
set the bar for publishers to know what the committee and the eat uh really are wanting to be included in the materials. So, um if that's if that's a helpful perspective, that it absolutely is. I think that's
that's very important going back to what we said in the beginning. This this is instructing those people that are going to provide all the curricular materials to support these. So the clearer we could be the better. And if you think that this is adding the clarity, I'm I'm
ready to accept it the way it's written. And uh I agree to accept it um the way that it's written. And I do understand Dr. out what you mean about extended, but uh from hearing from Mr. Banks, um I'm going to go ahead and agree to
accept it the way it's written as well. I Okay, I see you in Dr. Stout. That means that you may acquies to this one. I'm overruled and I'm I'm fine with being overruled.
Okay, Dr. or now um I I just wanted to make sure because we we were having two a little bit different discussions there about the word extended but then also the meaning of appropriate complexity.
So when we when we refer to appropriate complexity I mean the terminology um especially the past few years has been you know high quality instructional materials. So should we in the standards guide
um specify high quality instructional materials to be more in alignment with so what I the expectation there yeah what I would recommend there is uh the current appendix for the standard for the current standards one of the
appendices outlines how to analyze text both by quantitative measures and qualitative measures. My suggestion would be to keep that appendix in the new version so that we can directly refer publishers to, you
know, hey, when you're assessing appropriate complexity, you have to use these measures to determine that complexity. Um, and that's that's adopted nationwide. That is a common standard among states and and publishers. So,
excellent. Yes. Consider it in the appendix. Okay. So, there are no other uh suggestions. Let's just keep it the way it is and move on.
And uh uh chair co-chair Hillyard uh our next step is uh going to be uh adopting the same language through all the rest of the grade levels. I just
wanted to ensure that we were okay with that. I think that since we're adopting the high school language um essentially uh with our edited version, I think it would make sense to just maintain this language 6th through 12 and just alter the language as far as the grade where it specifies sixth grade and just
changing that to 7th, 8th, English, English two. I agree. That to me seems appropriate for what we're doing. Um and it would also save us the trouble of going through each of those individual standards. Well, we don't mind the trouble. We've been troubled through this the whole time through for several days. But
right, we've got to get it right. I don't know that there's I don't know that there's anything more we can say except appropriate complexity and that's that's already done in in the standard. So I think that addresses the
uh increase in rigor. And I is there anybody that has any objections to that or think that there needs to be something special included for any of those other grade levels? I just had one very minor thing to kind of present to the committee's attention
and I don't know if it's necessarily significant. It could be that for theformational uh standards where it identifies a variety of literary non-fiction andformational text. Literary non-fiction is that weird obviously hybrid text where it's, you
know, it's narrative, but it's non-fiction. But so because it's non-fiction, we included in the in theformational strand. Does that deserve to be called out? Um, you know, I think right now you just have kind offormational texts maybe. Um, should
you and I and I presenting this is an open question. Should you identify it as literary, non-fiction, and informational text, or do you feel likeformational text is all-encompassing? I just really quickly clarify when I was talking about applying the standard. I was saying we we still need to go through the sixth grade uh informational
standard. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I dropped the gun. I was just just talking for the the sake of literary uh since we have drafted that. Oh, my apologies. Well, while we're talking Thank you for pointing that out. I I do I think it's good to point out
literary non-fiction as well just because I think it it gets overlooked. Okay, so we're on the next standard in the literary column and how how does that are we going to transfer wording and change that word?
I I've been going through and and transferring that wording. I just wanted to confirm with everyone that they are they're comfortable with that. I I also just wanted to flag really quickly for Miss Summers that it looks that some of our standards seem to be missing here at the bottom.
Yes, I was I had the same question for Tammy. Tammy, can you help me? So, it looks like the standards code that was pulled over was EIV for English 4, but the description of the standard says E3
E4. So, and I know at some point sometimes we distinguish between like grades 9, 10, 11, 12. It's not often. I feel like y'all had significant discussion. Do you recall what the intention was? I'm happy to go back and check.
I don't, but I'll check my notes. I've got that pulled up, so let me just see. Okay. Yeah, you check that to just a second. Okay. Thank you. Um, I think while that's getting sorted out, it would make sense for us to look at the the sixth grade standard.
Are we as a as an SRC, does that seem like the appropriate next step for everyone? Yes. Okay. Um do we do we want to um take the the
I guess the question is this is somewhat different because it'sformational text but we've made quite a few meaningful edits to the literature standard. So, do we want to take the literature standard and then just kind of adapt it as we see
necessary to create theformational text standard since we've done so much work on the literature standard? Is that how people want to kind of start with this rather than starting from the proposed standard? Okay. All right. So, if I move over the RL standard, um it reads read and
comprehend both independently and collectively a variety of multimodal literary texts. Um we had said instead of um instead of literary texts we were saying literary non literary non-fiction and informational text. Correct. That's
what we wanted to have there. Yes. Okay. Yes. Um, and then what we're considering would likely be different because it says to consider a wide range of narrative and authoral voices, experiences, and diverse cultural
perspectives across places and times. Um, the high school standard reads um well, no, it actually says the RARI standard for the high school reads to pro to consider a wide range of authoral voices, experiences, and perspectives
across places and times. So um at least in the proposedformational standard they they use that same language. I think it works because of literary non-fiction. Okay. Um well they they did not say what they
do what they do drop is narrative where it says narrative uh and authoral voices. They just said authoral voices. Especially if you're going to add literary non-fiction, you need author uh narrative. Okay.
Okay, I'm fine with that. So, are we good with the parent standard then? read and comprehend both independently and collectively a variety of multimodal literary, non-fiction, and informational texts uh to consider a wide range of narrative and authoral voices, experiences, and diverse cultural perspectives across places and
times. It's well said. I have no objection. No objection here as well. Okay. Um, and then the substandard would read, read text of appropriate complexity for sixth grade, including multiple extended and/or complete works
and a variety of shorter and/or excerpted works. Um, my only concern there is if we include the language of multiple extended works for both literary andformational standards, that to me reads as though we need to read
multiple fulllength literary works and multiple fulllengthformational works. Um, which I think would I mean that would be asking quite a bit. Um, we could do it but I think it would be asking quite a bit.
How would you know how to how would you I don't know how to I don't know how to word around that because I think if we lose that language then we're saying okay we only want you to read full length uh narrative text or we only want you to read full length uh literary texts. And I don't think that's the
case. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to read a longer work of non-fiction, but if we include the language of multiple in both of the standards, I think you're asking for multiple of of both. Um, I think Miss Dockery has been the the defendant of of the word multiples. So,
I guess I would just be curious to know what what you think in this particular instance. I think I'm okay with not having multiple for informational. Um, I always have my students read anformational like fulllength text as as
well as an independently chosen one, but um, but I think I'm okay with not having multiple here. Um, I'd be interested to see hear what TDOE uh, has to say about that. Thanks. You got any comment?
I think Sorry, I'm kind of processing it. I think um I think the language would be fine as is. I think there's going to be certain supporting documents that we're going to have to provide to ensure that publishers know kind of what the
expectations are for both literary and informational texts. And I don't think it would necessarily be the case that they would feel compelled to have just like all you know complete works or anything like that. I think that they would recognize that it would be a variety of both
uh extended slashcomplete and or shorter texts in both literary and informational. Um so yeah, so to whether to keep multiple there I think is really just a judgment call. I don't think it's going to be terribly significant either way.
Okay. How can we recraft this to make it as clear as we can for the teachers that are going to have to implement this crafters? Could we just say a variety for both including
a variety of extended and/or complete works and shorter and/or accelerated texts? It's still chunk clunky, but if that's really what we mean, it clarifies it. It may be clunky, but
it clarifies it. We say and or aren't we still giving them the choice of the or of not reading complete works? Good point. I'm struggling to think it. I mean, we we're doing all of this, you know, as to
what's appropriate for grade level. I'm struggling to think when uh a sixth grader would be reading a complete non-fiction book. That's not typically what they do with non-fiction at that
level. Now at you know at the high school level sure my my my subject area absolutely um I'm not trying to give an out but I am thinking about you know we are
already including this language about appropriate complexity and I think considering appropriate length falls under that umbrella for the grade And
so would we just delete the language about extended andor uh or or sorry extended and shorter works for theformational standard and just have it end after sixth grade. I wasn't necessarily saying that.
Okay. I w I was mostly talking about considering the andor portion that Dr. Stout mentioned. And again, I'm just reasoning this in in my mind right now. Um, someone who has taught middle school
recently um might be able to chime in on this. Annie, well, I teach 8th through 9th. I've taught 10th through before, but 8th and
9th is my primary area. Um, so, uh, is Nicole Moore still here? As far as I do have to say, I think I I I would guess or assume that sixth graders
probably aren't reading full length uh, non-fiction, unless it's like a narrative non-fiction perhaps. Um, but if Nicole Moore is on here, I think it'd be great to hear from her. Okay. So, for middle school, for sixth
grade, they from what I've observed in the past five years, they are only reading narrative passages, not an entire non-fiction book.
So I do agree with you about um narrative pieces of of uh text not the whole non-fiction chapters or books. So the and or conjunction words do we need both of them extended and or complete
work as well as shorter and or I'm going to keep both of those words or are we trying to eliminate one of them? I'm going to keep I mean I I thought it gave the flexibility we needed. Okay.
Um to I mean I I I see what you're saying just just to eliminate multiple and just saying a variety of extended or complete works. and a and a variety of shorter and or exorted texts.
Okay. So, including a variety of extended andor complete works and shorter andor excerted works. Again, I don't love the wording,
but Yeah, I wish there was some way. So, you love it. I wish there was some way to get around this and or and andor situation because it just makes such a word salad. But, yes, if we think if we think that
but if we think extend I mean we we drew a distinction between extended and complete and I think we can draw a distinction between shorter and exerted. So, I I suppose I see the usefulness of these words, but it does result in some really
unloly English. Um, I'm not totally sure how I feel about this yet, but I have a potential proposal maybe including a variety of extended comma complete, comma, shorter, comma, and excerted. I can't say that
word for some reason. Excerted texts or works. They're just combining this all into a list. I like that. It wouldn't eliminate the problem of the the andor salad at the in the RL standards, but it would eliminate it in
the RAR and it also would work us around this this multiple concern we had. Uh Dr. Stout put something in the chat, I believe. I'm not sure. I couldn't see it. Well, I mean, excerpts can just work by
itself as a noun. Right now, we're taking a noun and turn it into an adjective. Um, so I just said shorter text and excerpts. It's just trying to smooth out the language. It doesn't really change the meaning. It's just trying to smooth out
the language and make it less jargony. Makes sense. Can you try that? The the only issue with that is it would add I mean we're adding another um another noun in there. Um so it would make Miss Dockery's
proposal impossible. Do but I mean I'm willing to try it out. I I just want to know we we've had a couple different proposals and so I'm just curious which one people want to to see attempted. Okay. So to revisit Miss Dockery. So
miss were you saying extended comma complete comma shorter comma andor exerted texts with authority? Yes. Sorry not okay. Uh I was drafting that um before we we looked at Dr. Stout's proposal. So
I can put that up on the screen but obviously still very open to a conversation about Dr. Stout's proposal. Um, but in I203 right now I have the language that that Miss Dockery proposed. I
if we were worried in the first place about the possibility that we were allowing wiggle room for uh you know only shorterformational texts then the list to me allows even
more wiggle room. So I'm more inclined to agree with Dr. Stouts language I think don't try Dr. Stouts. Yes. Okay. Um so are we eliminating the word
because that doesn't sol I mean that that I can work on that. It doesn't eliminate the concern about multiple. Um so are we saying we would eliminate the word multiple? I I thought we should eliminate multiple for that one, but that's
in in this instance. Yes. Are you okay that with that, Miss Dockery? You need multiple information. Um yeah, I think for for informationational it's fine for it to be variety instead of instead of
multiple. So the language now would read uh for substandard a read text of appropriate complexity for sixth grade including extended and/or complete works and a variety of shorter texts and excerpts. I guess it sayor excerpts. Did we put variety before that?
Say including a variety of extended andor complete works. Okay. Yes. So you're going to have a variety of both. Okay. including a variety of extended and/or complete works and shorter text and/or excerpts.
Once again, I think you've done it. Okay. Um I do think we should probably make a corresponding edit to the RL standard since we're using that shorter texts andor excerpts language. Um so I will quickly do that. Okay. Um, so are we are we good on
substandard A then? I say so. I see no objections. Yay. Okay. And then are we good on substandard B? Read both curriculum dependent and student chosen texts. Absolutely.
Student chosen text is so important. Okay. Um, if we're good on those two, then I I I I believe that the this would simply be a matter of of transferring the RL and the RAR standards upward
um incorporating the language uh or just simply adjusting the language of the grade level. Um is that increases the complexity for each grade level? I mean, I guess the only possible change would be if we wanted to reintroduce the word multiple on theformational uh uh
standard at any point, but I I still don't think even at the high school level, it's it's relatively rare to read multipleformational uh texts in the same grade. I would just like to say that breaks my heart. I'm not going to disagree with the group, but it just breaks my heart
that I feel like there's a focus over on fiction over non-fiction. And I'm not sure if that's setting us up for success. That's my my rant. I'm done. I Well, I in in my subject area, we read
multiple non-fiction books a year and um I agree that I I I would like an equal waiting of both. You say you would like to keep it at the
high school level. Well, English one, two, and three and four. We might consider it. Typically in the students tend to struggle more withformational text. So to me, it makes sense to progress
um the level and complexity and length of theformational texts through the grade bands. I can go along with that uh especially based upon your experience and that of Dr. Stout.
Okay. So, if I'm hearing this correctly, we would maintain the language throughout seven and eight of not multipleformational texts, but then when they got to 9, 10, 11, and 12, we would then shift to the the multiple language for for high school for both
informational and literary. Yes, that's what I'm This is where we add literary non-fiction that Mr. Banks mentioned. Is this where that addition comes in? We've we've we've had that all the way through. It's we introduced it in sixth grade and and are carrying it
throughout. So, um are we all in agreement with that addition to English one two and English 34 for multipleformational texts? M Mr. Hillyard, I I wanted to make sure I I wasn't speaking out of turn, you
know, with my own perspective. I want because I I know you teach at the same grade level that I do in subject area. So, um, you know, I I want to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting experiences here.
Um, I mean, it would it would represent a sea change for my classroom. Um, because I I'll be frank, I am I am an excerpts classroom. Um, I I most of the reading is is student chosen whenever I mean they read full-length text. They
read four full-length texts over the course of my course, but they're never text that I select for them. Um, they're text they're student selected texts. Um, and I I would say I would have to I would have to alter my expectations then
to make two of those literary and two of those informational. I think generally they skew towards uh literary texts, but I I I'm comfortable doing that. In fact, that probably is the thing that should be done. So, I think that's what Dr. Stout's whole purpose was in making that statement.
We would be that if we didn't. So, I I'm not I'm not in any way opposed to that. Okay. Well, thank you for being so flexible. Yeah. I think it I worry a little bit about at least the the nine10 maybe um
I think it would be it would be a major shift in the way teachers are teaching if it was two non-fiction and two fiction a year and there's the aspect of it's kind of hard to find appropriate accessible fulllengthformational texts
at like the 910 grade level. Um, and I know I was the one who was advocate for multiple, but I have a little bit of hesitation. Uh, at least the 910 level. I think the easel 12. Sorry. I'm not sure it'd be a good fit to do multiple complete works of
offormational in 910 if we're talking complete novel length. Um, I I also think it would be hard to find stuff that's really appropriate. Well, maybe and interesting. Well, what banks said
earlier that this is uh a uh a direction for the textbook companies and the resources to be prepared to accomplish these things. If we want the kids to be able to readformational text as opposed
to be uh reading literary text, uh we're an information society now. And um I I think that Dr. Stout makes an excellent point. I I know it it's not something that's been
done at this point, but maybe it needs to be done, especially we're looking seven years from now. what what uh what's going to be uh uh the the call for uh our students to know and be able
to do at that point. So, oh, I'm sorry. Provides some just like some historical perspective on this. So, historically, like with the standards, you know, there has been a 50-50 split in the elementary grades with
literary text andformational text. And the primary purpose of that is because they need to be building knowledge, background knowledge before they get into the upper grades where the emphasis becomes literature. And the reason why the emphasis becomes literature is because there's other subject areas such
as science and social studies etc. where they are readingformational texts in those classes but they're not reading literary texts. And so that's why traditionally ELA has always emphasized literature in the upper grade levels um
a little more than it's informational text. Not that information I mean they're very much integrated. It's just that um it would be a pretty major shift. And I I will say that the majority of the feedback from teachers
are that they want the emphasis on literature. This is not Banks. Banks' perspective. I I I do share that perspective, but that is very much like the feedback from teachers. I will say that is actually what I was trying to pull out was in the current document it
in high school English emphasis should be on literature. Um so I I would I guess like like to say two things. Um, one is like for example the way I I teach like my first book in uh in eighth grade like every two
chapters I have um anformational article I pull and we we use we synthesize the the what we just read in the novel um withformational articles and do writing on it. Um, so I
I think if if we were to have multiple I and that's something we we were kind of feeling like we really want to push, I would advocate for keeping multiple at the 112 grade level um and maintaining
variety at the 910 level. um because it is so difficult to find appropriate interesting non-fiction at the 910 level. Unfortunately, I wish it wasn't that way, but
as far as fulllength books, Dr. Stout say information, are we also considering autobiographies? Um because I feel like there are tons of autobiographies that are written for teen audiences
that are that would fit into this standard and capture their interests. Um I guess I'm going back to the skills I feel like they need to set to set them up for success in society. And I
literature is wonderful and it's important and they need to understand literature. But I also think I also wonder if we're setting them up as strongly as we could if we're not also getting them to read multiple
non-fiction texts. I mean, a a child could go through their high school their career in Tennessee or high school career and read four non-fiction books like
So for my clarity and I because because I I mean I agree with you for the most part is is the is the question the question is not to get rid offormational text. It's about the length. Correct. Well I guess we're deciding if basically everybody's saying this is
what I think I hear. They're going to read probably about four fulllength books a year. Are we saying we want that two and two or we saying we want that three in one? And I'm saying I I'd like to see that two and two. I'd like to see that balance.
I agree with you, Casper. I I also agree. I'm sorry to interrupt, Cher Krengus. What were you going to say? No, that's that's enough. Um I I also agree. I just I I wonder if I'm interpreting what we've written the
same way that others are because when we say retext of appropriate complexity including multiple extended and/or complete works we did not we did not say books yes complete works implies books but extended does not have to mean a
full length book and we also said shorter texts or experts excerpts so I I don't know that but by the time we add the literary standard in there. I don't know that we're saying four full length books a year. That's that's not the way
that I interpreted it at all. It this gives us that flexibility. I just have to mention one more thing. I know Miss Dockery brought this up earlier in the evening about uh the students problems with comprehension. I
I think being able to comprehend anformational text is a little bit different than comprehending a a literary text. And I think if we're going to uh work on that comprehension, we need to work on thatformational text
comprehension. I know as a student myself, I had a heck of a time comprehendingformational text. It it's something else. Uh, so I I have to agree with this. I'm glad that you brought this up.
Uh, I guess I do have one thing that I I wasn't thinking in the moment about literary non-fiction. Um, I think literary non-fiction like tonight it's technically literature, but also can be, you know, would fall under
that literary non-fiction umbrella. And I agree with that. Literary non-fiction is not something that would be, for example, in a science or social studies class and would be very much appropriate to kind of fill that slot in
ELA. Um, because it's still it's certainly informational, but still concerns uh narrative. So, when you sayformational text, does that include literary non-fiction? To me, it has in the conversation, but now I hear
Okay. I didn't realize that. Okay. Okay. But maybe I'm reading it wrong. So I mean that's why conversation is good. I think we do have literary literary non-fiction in there if I'm if I remember our discussion correctly. So yeah,
our standard our standard reads read and comprehend both independently and collectively a variety of multimodal literary non-fiction and informational texts. I think that relieves my anxiety about multiple because I was just thinking like what is it like the
omnivores dilemma or I feel like it's always like something about eating that they choose forformational and like the 910 grade band. Okay. So are we getting more comfortable with thisformational two and two
or one and a half and two and a half? We'll leave some flexibility in there. Yeah. I mean, I I'll just add that I again, I the way that we've written these standards thus far, I don't see a particular I don't see a
major shift the way they're written, not the way that I'm interpreting them. I see an emphasis on on incorporating the necessity of reading longer or complete works, but I don't see an undue waiting
of of of genre or type of text. I just see that we've allowed for the possibility for both and the necessity of both in some form or fashion. Does that make sense? I mean, it makes sense to me.
Yes. But that's not the way that we've written it. And if and if I'm misinterpreting it, then someone else could. So, does it have to be rewritten to say what you want it to say?
I like the way it's written right now. Who else likes the way it's written right now? Who wants to change it? I like the way it's written right now as well. Okay. Thank you, Rosemary.
Uh, so we're ready, I think, to call the question. Uh, if it's okay right now, then forever hold your peace if you don't want to object to it. The only thing
that we had talked about previously that is still there is the word multiple. Yeah, just to clarify, we're all on the same page. We've used the word multiple for extended and/or complete works for literary texts all the way 6 through 12.
Um we have only we have not we have not used that language uh 6 through 8, but we have used that language 9 through 12 forformational texts. Um just wanted to clarify that that's where we currently stand. So if we're moving forward with that, that is what we are going forward with. So I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page about what
currently I think we need to be consistent. Yes. Are we okay with that then? Well, so your language of consistency, what what exactly do you mean by that? Well, keep multiple in there. So you had
it in for literary, keep it in there for information for for 9 through 12 or all the way for 9 through 9 through 12. Okay. 9 to 12. Okay, great. So, it would be as written. There would be no further changes to
this. That correct? All right. If everybody agrees with this, we're moving on. That means we're done with this. Yes. That would that is the final that is the final reading standard. Yes.
Hallelujah. And when we have another half an hour to dive into electives just to get our feet wet. So are we ready to go? Are we ready to Well, we haven't looked
at We haven't looked at the supporting language for rereading standards. So we have been doing that after we finish. Okay. I think I I think Miss Beard and I revised that on our last day. So hopefully we're in good shape. Let's see. Awesome. So, we can just take a really
quick look at that. Hopefully that um Okay. Thank you. Great. I'm sure it does. And then so just so that we can say we deliberated on it since we're not supposed to edit. Uh we're not supposed to just simply make edits and then accept them outside of deliberation. So this would be our chance to deliberate on those edits that have been made.
All right, let's deliberate. Language. Um uh that's so that's a separate document. So, that's the one we all have the ability to edit. Um, we all have we're not all the ability to edit, but we all have the ability to to make
comments. Um, so it would be best if possible if we could all pull that up. Yes. And I'm going to pull it up on my end. Thank you, Vice Chair Hillard. One quick note, you might I might have missed this. My dog was um very upset with the UPS person outside.
So for just to circle back, Tammy and I did determine that the three four should be a band, one two should be a band, and that they're they intentionally chose to collapse those because they felt like it was redundant. And I think we might just need to update the standards codes in
column I. Yep. Perfect. Yeah. Uh sorry about that. Yeah. No, no, you're good. Um um Dr. Summers, what folder is the supporting documents in? Is it resources? Not as cool as you, Dr. Stout. Um, it is
in your workday's documents. I'm going to put it in the chat so we're all on the same page. And then it's I I just put it in the chat since I had it pulled up. Thank you. Continue. And then I can put it in front of us so
we're all looking at it. Thank you. Break in here. Okay, here we go. So, I'm going to go to the reading page, which um one thing I did also want to flag, I didn't want to interrupt the flow of conversation, but there is some guidance in the reading section about length, and
y'all could double down on that if that is of interest to the community. Hold on, let me see where it is. I go to roughly page 27 for those following along. No. Oh, just kidding because we did take out all the text. So, no, don't go to
page 27. Go to page eight. I saw something about length. Where was it? They might have cut it. I was looking at the active standards. Oh, I also did want to flag diverse text
is in the glossery and it's not related to diversity of cultures. Y'all may have discussed this, but it's related to complexity, genre, length, style, and authors. If that Mhm. is of interest. Oh, here it is. Nope. Go ahead, Vice Helard.
Yeah, just to flag that because we wanted to avoid that confusion, we largely moved to varied texts in our in our standards. So, we might want to flag that for when we look at the glossery. Great point. Love that. Okay. So, it does look like the committee there was if you look at the and I can pull this up side by side so you can see what I'm
talking about. Um, in the current active standards, there was a reference to length in the intro to the reading standards. Let me find it. Here we go. Okay. So,
originally they had this table called background to guide decision making and it talked about um students need to experience a range in text variety, complexity, and length. if that's of interest of this committee to add some of that back to the reading
intro. Obviously, as we know that this is just guidance and mostly teacher facing. So to BA's point about some other things related to textbooks, you know, they don't this wouldn't necessarily be a directive to textbook publishers, but if
you wanted to further instruct educators talks about a balance offormational text, too. Great point, Chair Carnegus. Yeah, the only other thought I had on the discussion withformational um reading literature and reading
informational is you could also give guidance. So, we're doing the science, we're doing math standards next, but after that we'll do science and social studies. If you wanted me to communicate any messages to those EAT committees in terms of your intent for them to be reading in those courses, you could always do that. I have a running list of
feedback for them when that time comes. So just to recap on the left is the current active standards for the reading section and on the right is what you are actively um proposing changes to and the request is that your edits or in track changes like we have right here from
whoever this lovely person is Hillyard and then if you have a substantive change to just put in the comment you know why you did what you did but don't worry about any grammar changes is. We'll know what that is. Are there any changes that need to be
made? I updated the cornerstones based off of the uh edits we've made to cornerstones. Um so those are just that we've already made. So nothing new there. Just updating language. Thank you. So, have we finished this task?
Yes. If the committee feels as though we have, then then I feel comfortable moving on. Is the committee comfortable with this? Um, sorry. Did we note apologizing change did we change 10? because I think
we changed the cornerstone to include um culture if I remember correctly. Is that a change that's been made here? Um if we if we made an edit to the
cornerstone. Okay. Yes, we did. I apologize. I missed that one because I had not Yeah, sorry. No explanation needed. I just missed it. Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Annie. Yes. I also see down in the last paragraph of
the reading supporting language there, it says by emphasizing student choice and savvy adept. Question marks. Yeah, I didn't know which one sounded better if it if savvy sounded too playful. So, whichever one you think is
best. Any suggestions there? mission. Now, I mean, I if if we're going to pick between the two, I I think adept just in keeping with the with the tone of the rest of the language we've used.
Yeah. Everybody agree? Not that I don't love some savvy every now and then. Yeah, that was the one time where I was like, "Okay, Katherine, have we gone too far? Rosemary, did you say?"
Yes, I was reading that. Um, so Dr. S, I'm no savvy, but I'm going to go with um adapt. All right. I think we've got uh consensus now on this part of our job.
And that completes all the reading standards, ladies and gentlemen. Well, sorry, one note. I keep doing that, but I was still reading. Um, it says it almost completes the reading standards. It says the core tenants and it looks like the was kept, but there's nothing
else to go along with the paragraph. Are you the last paragraph. Okay. Five lines up. There's just a the hanging out by itself. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think I I moved the tenants up higher. So, you're right. That one should be deleted. If you can
see in that second sentence, that's where the core tenant kind of line is. So, so I have deleted that extra the Are you good with that any? I believe so. I didn't I didn't catch anything else. Everything sounded good to me.
Good. All right. Do we have consensus? We're ready to move on. Yay. We We do have consensus. I would just say once all these Somebody needs to read these carefully
after the all the changes are accepted because it's just just to to make sure. And I know, Bina, that's probably on your to-do list, but if you need a second set of eyes, I'm happy to help. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm sure if I I'm sure she will be,
too. She's going to be dizzy by this by this task. I know. So, thank you for that. Um, all right. We still got 23 minutes left to just stick our toes into the electives and
just kind of knock around, knock pads for a while and see what we're what we're into these electives. Uh again, I can't say enough about how how you folks have really up the game
for our kids in Tennessee in these standards. Um, you should feel very proud about what you've just done. Totally agreed. Um, these electives are in no particular order, so feel free to direct me
wherever the spirit moves you. The only place that would probably be hard is journalism because there's four of them. Unless you'all want to sleep on journalism. I would say let's not start with journalism because we probably need to do it in Yeah. a complete conversation. Yes. And creative writing and advanced
creative writing. They're not super long, but they are also, you know, siblings, if you will. So, we could somewhere else if the spirit moves us. Let's see what's after that. Um, speech and comp would be a standalone option.
Uh, visual literature and comp speech and comp if I remember correctly, is relatively short. Yes, very 11 standards as it stands. So, that could be a Let's do a quickie then. Let's do speech and comp. Okay, here we are.
Miss Summers, I know there was a document that had descriptions of each of the uh the elective courses that we had access to. Um is there a possibility you could link that in the chat? Of course. One second. Just because some of these courses might
be unfamiliar to to SRC members. What um line does speech and comp start on? Um it is 107. Okay, great point, Vice Chair Hillyard. That is open and it's also your supporting text. And just as a reminder,
one of the the few goals that state board was hoping to accomplish is to take the elective courses and eventually move it all into one document so that you match your compatriots and math and other subjects so that it's very clear which electives go with which. So, this document is separate now just for the
purposes of you seeing the descriptions and stuff, but I will combine those if that is okay with this committee. Okay. And and so that means we would need to make edits to this um supporting language document just like we've been making edits to the the core uh the core
standards uh supporting language. Correct. Exactly. And if you look if you scroll down and I can pull this up over here. Hold on. Let me get back to my just so we're all on the same page. Well, thank you for outlining our tasks. Uh Brianna, we would have skipped that
if we didn't uh if you didn't point that out, I'm sure. Oh, I think that's all the vice chair. Hold on. See? Okay. So, essentially, assuming you'll want to continue with speech and comp this sort of this table,
I think is the intention to keep just to guide folks in terms of number of credits and half credits and full credits and things like that. And then if you scroll down to speech and pop, there's a little description that again, you're welcome to edit to your heart's desire.
It's on page seven. Thank you. There it is. Okay. So that's what Vice Chair Hill is referencing. Okay. Um so speech and communications um is a speaking course um about different types of communication using a variety
of digital media. Um it expands on speaking and listening standards. We probably need to be attentive to make sure we adjust those speaking and listening standards um based off of the edits we made to the speaking listening standards. Um and
then uh there's a note there at the bottom as well. Um, but we probably shouldn't look at the sporting language first since we typically do the standards and then do the supporting language, right? Just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of what the course was. Um, so if
we go back to the spreadsheet, um, we're on the electives tab, row 107. Did we do something with media formats in other standards or that was that typical language?
You remember anybody? Apparently not. So, um, a couple like, um, multimedia I think has been used. Multimedia was up for discussion, but I think cut maybe question mark.
Yeah, I think we we've had we've we've used multimedia at places. We have used um obviously we've used text and uh or print and digital at places, though that isn't really pertinent to what we're doing here per se. Oh, so dia formats is
in speaking and listening under SLCC2, at least in the current standards. So that could be a good place to check for consistency, which is I think why you have some of that guidance in the course description for electives. But there's 10 instances of something similar to diverse media. Here we go. 10 instances.
Yeah. So, oh, you've also got it in the original intro of the reading standards, but I'm pretty sure that's been cut. Okay. So that's pretty consistent language then assuming that you all kept it in this in the speaking and listening that would be my only flag but it is not defined in
the glossery. Does it need to be in the glossery? Go ahead. I I I just uh I just did a control F on speaking and listening. We've mentioned media 98 times in speaking and listening. Excellent.
Diverse media formats. Okay. Yes. Yeah, we've we've used that phrase pretty frequently. Okay. Uh does everybody like SC1? We need to make I didn't I didn't realize we were looking at SC1 yet.
Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Um sorry. My bad. Um, so SC1, yes, reads, integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse media formats. I like it. Anybody got any objections? All right, that's good. Approved.
We are first done any electives? No, we actually have done so we did some electives back when we were together in person. So Oh, that's right. I forgot that. Okay. reads, "Evaluate the credibility and accuracy of each source and note any
discrepancies among the data." We've used data before. We have. Any objections to that? Does it sound rigorous? Um, each source feels kind of weird to me.
Should we just say uh of sources? I like that. Yeah, each source just doesn't quite get it for me either. Okay, so just changing each source to
sources. Mhm. So it would reevaluate credibility, accuracy of sources and note any discrepancies among the data. And honestly, we just put the each in there so that each individual source would have to be looked at. That should be assumed. We were just trying to cover
a basis. Are you comfortable with sources? I'm okay with it. Like I said, we were just trying to make sure there was no wiggle room. Well, and especially as we move forward when we think about that term that we
now call digital tools, right? But AI and whatever generation XYZ is for AI in 8 n years. I think sources is okay. I think each source is okay.
I'm okay with either. I see your argument. What's more powerful? What's more consistent? I mean, I think they essentially say the exact same thing. Um, I think we're parsing a difference that isn't really there. Um,
but I I suppose each source does give some degree of direction because by saying each source, you're saying you have to assess or evaluate credibility and accuracy of each source rather than kind of like collective sources. But that again, I I think those are going to be read the exact same way by by
Tennessee teachers, I think. Okay. So, if there's no other changes and we would leave it just the same, are we okay with that? Speak now or forever hold your peace. All right. SC2 has been approved as written.
So, are we going to then we're going to keep it? Then we're going to keep the language and not change the sources. Okay. Right. Keep it as written. Okay. Um SC3 reads, "Initiate and participate effectively with varied partners in a range of collaborative discussions on appropriate topics,
texts, and issues, building on others ideas, and expressing their own clearly and persuasively." I think that's nearly identical to one of the speaking and listening standards. Am I Am I wrong there? It sounds like it to me, but I wonder if
we should just make sure there's no differences between the two. Yeah, there probably are. Is this it by chance Lucas? I mean Hillard, what was the question? I just found this under credible.
Okay. English one, two, if that's drawing into your memory. Um, that we moved on from the credibility standard. We're on the initiate and participate effectively with varied partners. Um,
oh, sorry. Where are we? The same language as speaking and listening standard one. Oh, here we go. Okay. Thank you, M.
Yes. Yes, it is. This is the cornerstone. Yeah. So, should we just take the language of the cornerstone and move it over to the selective standard? Because we made some edits. Um, I can
copy and paste it over. Instead of saying initiate and participate, we said prepare for and participate. And then we also changed some of the other wording in other places. I I posted I pasted that over in case
people want to look at uh I 109. That's great. I like I do I do wonder about the small difference though between initiate and prepare. It is a speaking class. So we do want them to initiate.
How do you define initiate Dr. Now start. What? Start. Okay. Passively participate but start. You want them to start the conversations then. Yes. initiate and participate in
conversations ongoing. Do we need this language? We have this language of in a range of conversations and collaborations with buried partners. I I think since this is a speaking course, we might just want to say conversations. I think I think collaborations is a
little bit uh more sophisticated than conversations. there's a little bit more give or give and take in a collaboration. I think I think I would just say that I think I'm agreeing with uh coach co-chair
Hillyard. Sorry, it's hard to say. Um just because in in a speaking class I would say the conversations are a little less collaborative and a little bit more I'm I'm giving a speech and the audience is listening. I mean, I will also say we we're we
we're saying conversations, which is already um I mean, collaborative by nature, but I I mean, I see what you're saying um and I'm fine with leaving conversations and collaborations. I'm I'm thinking about you know uh
teamwork at the at the corporate level uh and uh the idea of preparing students for that collaborative activity. So um it has to do with give and take
and uh developing ideas among uh a group of partners or uh a small group of students that uh comes up with a a synthesis
of um results. So it it's more than a convers it's much more than a conversation in my opinion. We were thinking debates also and that's more collaboration than just a speech. Mhm.
Okay. Then I'm fine with conversations and collaborations with me. So, are we okay with it as stated right now? Um, well, I mean, we made the change to There are some small edits um that I
pasted into I 109 just to mirror what we did in the uh in the speaking and listening standards, but it's mostly just phrasing. The content is is identical. Okay. Anybody want to make any changes to what appears in that box right now? Um, well, I guess I take that back. It
it does say there's language about onappropriate topics, texts, and issues. Um, which we don't have in the edited version of the standards. So, that should probably be there in the speech class. Okay. Can you put that in there so we
can take a look at Yeah, I am doing that right now. Okay. So it would read, "Initiate and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations on appropriate topics, texts, and issues with varied partners, peers, and adults. Building on others ideas and expressing
one's own ideas clearly and persuasively, rigorous. I like that. Anybody have any objections to that? Additions, corrections? No corrections.
Okay. Thank you. All right. So then uh SC 4 um so SC4 this is row 110 again. Um this one has substandards just so we're all aware. Um present information, findings
and supporting evidence. So that is the parent standard. Um substandard A is convey a clear and distinct perspective that is relevant to purpose, audience and task. Uh B is provide a cohesive line of reasoning. Uh C is address alternative or opposing perspectives.
Um and D is or provide organization development uh substance and style appropriate to the task. That's meaty. We we talked about address I think earlier in our conversations.
Did we use a different word? Yeah, we well we had a long conversation about acknowledging and addressing and refuting. Um and we we went on for a long time about that. Um I think we ultimately came down to um initially you uh acknowledge um
something and then you move towards addressing it. Um I think in a speech class you would want to address you would not want to acknowledge. Okay. All right. So what about the word substance? Uh I'm not sure about that word there. Content
in substandard D provide organization development substance and style. Would we like content better? So where letter D provide organization development and you said take substance out and put content.
That's that's what I'm proposing. Okay. Yeah. provide or provide organization comma development comma uh content comma and style appropriate to the text. I like that. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that's more in keeping with what we've said
elsewhere. Excellent. So, with that revision, is that acceptable to everyone for SC4? Hearing no objections. I think we've approved that. Let's move on. Okay. SC5 reads, "Make strategic use of
digital media and visual displays in presentations to enhance understanding of findings, reasoning, and evidence." Digital media. We've addressed those words. Is that what we've said consistently?
Yes, I believe so. Dr. St. is that correct? Dr. Stout, I'm trying to look for the unmute button. We said digital media and digital tools I think are the two things that we've been using. Okay. So yeah,
that sounds like uh a standard we've one of our uh English reading or speaking listening standards. So I just want to make sure if it's consistent. Okay. So if someone could try to find
what speaking and listening standards is the analog to that one that would be helpful. Found 22 instances particularly in a cornerstone. Okay. Uh yeah I found it. It's it's the cornerstone for uh for standard five. Um
I will let's see if it's identical. So our cornerstone for standard five reads make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations. Um so it's there is a slight difference um between what we're
saying here and the cornerstone if we want to make those corn that identical to the cornerstone. It's a small difference but it is a difference suggestions anything that would improve clarity consistency I mean in I like the word enhance
instead of express oh I'm sorry it is there never mind to express influence Um, I mean, we did make some edits. Sorry if I cut someone off. I apologize. But we did make some uh edits to the other standard here that is an analog to a
speaking and listening standard. So, we're it it's not it's fine if our uh if our standard five here does not match exactly the the speaking and listening standard. Okay. Then, we're comfortable making any changes if we need to, but it would be
still okay to keep it the way it is. I have a question you guys are probably hate me for. Um I'm racking that up today, but make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data. I don't know how I didn't catch this earlier, but are we saying they're only
using visual displays of data? No other kind of visual display. So, do we want to make that edit to to the cornerstone for uh for speaking and listening? I'm sorry, but like is that what we meant? only only visual displays of of
data. No other kind of visual display. Was that the intention? That was our intention then. And I guess let's keep it. But I don't know if I I mean I don't I don't think that was our intention. No. Um I think we likely we we started paying more attention to
cornerstones later in the process if I'm being entirely honest. Um so I think this is likely a situation where we just did not catch it. Okay. So, what's your proposed change to the language of the course though? The
cornerstone in this dock, right? It could be a parking lot item because I think you'll have some other speaking and listening stuff you might want to attend to. I mean, I I think we could I mean, are we all comfortable with just removing of data, just make strategic use of digital
media and visual displays to express information and enhance understanding of presentations? That seems to be what we were intending. I I think so. Ditto. So, I mean, I can I can make that edit across the board to our speaking and
listening five um to delete of data from the cornerstone. Okay. Having made that change, then do we need to do anything to this particular standard SC5 to make it acceptable to the committee?
Yeah, I guess the question at this point is do we want to use the the cornerstone language um or do we want to just use the language as was originally proposed for the standard? They're slightly different. They essentially say very similar things, but which which language do we want to use? They're both on your
screen on row 111. Um, one is in G and one is an I. So, just whichever what we prefer. Okay. Who prefers one or the other and why? I think I personally like the specificity in the
uh speech class version that we have, but I don't know if we have an issue with it not being consistent. Anyone else? I I liked I agree. I like the original language even though I I kind of have a
little bit of an issue with the term findings. Um maybe conclusions might be better there but um but otherwise I agree with the original language. I like your I like your conclusions word better than findings.
Okay. So make strategic use of digital media and visual displays in presentations to enhance understanding of conclusions, reasoning and evidence. Yes. Well said. Are there any further changes to that requested?
Rosemary, you good? Oh, I'm good. Yes. Okay. Well, great. I think we've we've actually gone through five standards. Count them. Five standards from the electives and we have a pace, a rapid pace for
reviewing and approval established. I think we're going to get done tomorrow, folks. Uh, so let's keep up the good work. It is now 8:32 here in the mountains and it's 7:32
there in the plains. Uh, and there are there any other final questions or comments before we dismiss? Well, with no further business, this meeting is adjourned and we'll see you
tomorrow again at 3:30 Central, 4:30 Eastern. Have a great night, everyone.