Meeting of the English Language Arts Standards Recommendation Committee to order. Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role to determine a quorum. The appropriate responses here present or nothing. All right. Um, Miss Baird is not present
at the moment. Uh, Miss Dockery is present, but for the sake of her safety, I will mark her present. U, Mr. Mr. Hillyard is present. Uh, Miss Now is not currently present. Miss Singleary >> present.
>> Dr. Stout >> present. >> Miss Winters is not present currently. And Chair Carnegus >> present. >> Chair Carnegus, you have a quorum. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Hillyard. I move that the recording serves as minutes for
today. Do I have a second? >> I second. >> Thank you. This will be a voice vote. All in favor of using the recording as our minutes signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> All right.
>> I. >> Thank you. Members and presenters, please raise your hand or say Chair Carus or do as we've done all through this point to uh get our attention so we can call on you. Members and presenters,
please turn off your microphone unless you're speaking. Remind others to turn their microphone on if you can't hear them. For the benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid the overuse of jargon and acronyms. And we have plenty of that in our business. We'll need now to proceed
with the next item on the agenda. And uh Coach Hill uh Britney Brianna, geez. Uh what do you have for us, Brianna? >> Couple notes. First, the statement of necessity, if that's okay to read, and then second, just a couple housekeeping items.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Thank you, Chair Carnegus. The Tennessee State Board of Education English Language Arts, ELA, Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC, called an electronic meeting at 3:30 Central time, today, October 21st, 2025. This meeting
is called to continue proposing revisions to the ELA standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items on the committee's agenda and that committee members reside across the state, it was determined that a physical quorum of members could not be assembled in Nashville for the purposes of this
meeting. As such, this meeting should be conducted electronically. Notice of the meeting was posted on the state board's website along with the agenda and instructions for accessing the meeting. Okay. In terms of your housekeeping items, we talked about attendance.
Couple updates. You all had some questions for me. I'm happy to answer. One, I confirmed with the Tennessee Department of Education IT team. Microsoft Copilot is allowed in the event that you're using Microsoft Copilot specifically.
Of course, it's a committee decision whether you want to use it, but you are allowed to use it. And that's one. Two, you had a question about credit hours and that table that we were discussing for the electives. I did confirm with folks in the academics division at the department of education
that credit hours are a local decision. So we will need to remove the credit hour numbers. That's just the name of our game. Sometimes if we don't look at a document for a decade, it becomes out of date. I'm sure schoolbased documents sometimes have a tendency to do that too of sort of combining all of these for us to get up to speed.
>> Can I stop you just for a second? H >> I I know I know what we tried to do was we tried to put in language that would enable that decision to be made. Is that where we our status is then with that? Uh so we have sufficient language in
there to enable the uh addition awarding additional credits. >> Great question. So what I've done is I've gone in and proposed some language of just what we need to remove and I would love your feedback on it. So essentially what I heard from the department is that the number of credit
hours that's where the sort of hinge point is. So we might want to remove those. And then of course as the ELA experts you could provide guidance to districts like you've mentioned about like you know if you want to teach Norse mythology and you want to teach Japanese mythology great. Like that sort of
guidance is definitely on par. It's the sticky part is where we get into the numbers since it's currently a LEA decision and a school decision. >> Okay. Thank you. I I didn't mean to interrupt, but I wanted to get a little clarification there. >> No, that's super helpful. Um, and these
are a week old, so I'm sure I'm jumping back into things as well. So, yes, I've proposed track changes. When the time comes to talk about it, I'd love your feedback and pushes there. And I did check uh science and social studies and their electives do not have credit
hours. So, for example, uh social uh social studies offers African-American history. They have their standards, but they don't have any like credit hour guidance there. Okay. In terms of what's on our to-do list in any order that y'all see fit, glossery,
references, just making sure those are squared away. And the appendix, which remember the appendix is just sort of adding comments for your leaders or for the department of education to sort of clean those up for your glossery. I will put this in the chat, but if you're
building I know we're building a couple new words out if helpful. The department has a glossery that you're welcome to reference. It is broken down by the current standard. So, if you're having trouble finding something, please tell me and I'm happy to look it up.
>> While you're taking a breath, I wanted to ask in terms of references. Uh I was as I looked through that I wasn't sure which item the references uh were drawn from
and I don't know which ones to throw away because if you threw away you know those words that we are are not going to include in the glossery how what effect does that have on references?
Timmy, I'd love your thoughts if you're able. Um, or if you've stepped away, that's totally fine. My understanding is that the references were mostly in regards to the introductions, like some of those intex citations. I believe y'all talked about like Scar Bro's reading rope and some of the what was
the other one called that we debated last time. I think that's a lot of the driving force of the references, but Tammy, what am I forgetting? >> I think that's the most that's the majority of it. maybe some of the um the um actual
terminology we were afraid new first year teachers didn't understand but I think that's the majority is to the knowledge we expect them to bring the scarbur rope what that actually entails >> okay thank you
>> good questions and then finally your parking garage um let's see as always if we don't finish today let's spend last 10 minutes rescheduling our next meeting or scheduling I should say our next meeting trying to think if there was anything I forgot
that's everything members any questions >> miss now has been uh the keeper of the keys to the parking garage but we probably ought to wait until she gets on board till we enter the parking garage
what do you think >> that's that's worthwhile Um, and I think I mean that's we're not heading there directly at this moment anyway. So, >> okay, >> I I to me at least it seems like the parking garage should be the final thing we do. Um, since that is kind of the
>> the keeper of all the the unanswered questions. >> Okay. Well, it sounds like we're all ready to roll. Uh, Brienne, if you could make that readable for us, that would be helpful. Uh, and we're going to start with the appendix.
Uh, Coach Hillyard. >> Okay. Um, so to my understanding, we're not um we're not making anything in the appendix. We don't have to make like large scale adjustments here. We're just
kind of, you know, are there things that we would like to see added to the appendix that are not currently there? Are there things we see in the appendix currently that we don't think should be there? Um, I think that's kind of we're we're looking in broad strokes here. Um, so, um, I figure we can just kind of go
appendix item by appendix item and just kind of think if if that's something that that we think should remain. Um, appendix A is the text complexity framework. Um, some revisions have been made by Dr. Stout to the language there.
Um we have this graph this figure here um for how to estimate a text complexity for a reader. Um and then some credit for where we adapted that from. Um we have quantitative ways of doing that, qualitative ways of doing that. Um
another graphic detailing qualitative analysis of literary texts. Um we have uh that continues onto this next page. Um and we have reader and task considerations
um to consider when uh electing a text. So just a series of materials offered to teachers about selecting the appropriate text for for appropriate levels. >> I think this is uh even more important than it was when it was first written because I believe now we're talking
about a responsibility for reading uh through all the high school teachers. I I'm not sure what uh when that legislation was in put into effect and perhaps somebody from the department could comment on that but I think for them to understand the complexity of the
texts that they are given and and the reading level of those textes is is very important. So I say we keep all that stuff on Tennessee text complexity. >> I would agree. I think it's useful to have there.
>> Any disagreement there? Okay. So be it. >> Um this this is a question for Miss Summers. Really quickly, um I noticed that for the tables and figures, um we currently just have table x.x or figure question mark.quest mark. Um is that all
right for us to leave it as such or do we need to codify exactly what table and figure each is? >> Great question. Totally fine to leave as is because we'll number those at the very very end. I always find if I, you know, I I like to do them and I get
excited, but perhaps waiting is gives y'all the most flexibility and the department once they ultimately implement. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. >> So, let it be written, let it be said.
>> Okay. Um, so are we good then on appendix A? Does anyone have comments? I know that's a lot of material. So, I know it's not really possible to have read all of that at that point, but I know Dr. Stout has read through it because she's offered feedback. I've taken a glance through it as well.
>> As I have, and I I think uh if we're ready to go, let's go. Let's don't belabor it. >> Okay. Um, appendix B then is the language and conventions progression chart. Essentially identifying at what grade levels and through which
standards. um various uh parts of speech or or grammatical concepts are taught. Um this is certainly out of date currently. Um it is well out of date. Um so we should
definitely leave a comment asking for it to be updated. Um I believe that's permissible for us to do, correct? Where we can just simply say, "Hey, can this be updated with the standards that we've made?" >> Yes, that's exactly correct. and sort of why I'm very grateful that the department has offered help.
>> Yes. >> This would be pretty pretty nuanced work for us right now. >> Okay. And and Britney, I would assume that uh you consider this information valuable >> to have. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. All right. So, that's what we'd like to do. >> I will leave a comment saying such Thomas Barrett, how are you? >> I'm good. Sorry I'm late.
>> That's okay. We're just working through the appendix. Your comments on figures have been very helpful. All right. Next. I'm just about done with my comment. Don't you wish you could use cursive?
My cursive is not particularly strong. >> Well, if you come up under these standards, your cursive will be better because I think we've tatted it back to the standards. >> That's right. I should go back to elementary school again. >> Single Terry, would you like an
outstanding fifth grader? >> What do you feel? >> I have my screen pulled up. Yes, >> I could be a troublemaker. I don't know. All right. Um, I made the comment now. So, I I just wrote uh this chart is currently out of date
as as it is not updated for the standards we have drafted. The chart should be updated to account for the new standards. Uh Miss uh Miss Summers, does that feel sufficient to you? >> That's good with me. Yeah. Just um if you have any guidance like if you were to, you know, want something added or
something that now would be the time to tell them and just say, you know, I'd love for you to add XYZ. >> The only thing we could do is to reinforce its importance uh for to uh elementary school teachers
in ELA. Okay, I will add a little something about that, >> Patty. While he's doing that, we decided to uh hit the appendix, the lowhanging fruit first, get rid of this, and then
we'll uh jump into the glossery. And that'll give us enough time uh to kind of tread water until Miss Now gets here with the keys to the parking lot. Okay. Um, so are we good on appendix B then? >> Yes.
>> All right. Um, appendix C is pretty straightforward. It's just going to be the uh the standards guide. Uh, standards guides. Um, I are we are we going with an apostrophe
for standards guides? Possessive. Um, I know we don't currently um the state of Tennessee has not been using that currently. If you look at the standards guides, it's just standards with no apostrophe guides. I guess to me, I I wouldn't see the need for the possessive there. I think it
would just be >> Well, we'll defer to your experience. I would agree with that. >> Okay. Uh but otherwise, I don't think there's much for us to add there. um the standards guides are are the perview of the department and >> right >> um they will be adding that >> and we made comments as we moved along
and I think they've notated those comments so >> we'll be in good shape >> thoughtful with the wish list >> okay um appendix D uh is the implementation resources so
guidance on implementing these standards um about some language about universal design, some language about intervention, uh some questions for PLC's uh to guide uh conversations around the
standards. Um and then we have a diagram uh about professional learning communities. Um, and so yeah, that's that's appendix D. Uh,
does anyone have thoughts there? Well, we made we made a wholesale change uh in Tennessee over the last what 15 years. And now you don't have to call kids names in order to get them special help.
You put them in different levels of intervention. And I don't know if we need to make reference to that in here or not because it it is much more extensive than when this document was originally written to my understanding.
Everybody following that Britney? >> Yes. So give us the levels of intervention please for the people of that aren't in the classroom. >> So your tier one would be your
um your regular ed um and then there's tier two and tier three. >> And how do they get to those intervention places? So they have your universal benchmark screener, whatever that might be. Ours
is um what we call star. And if they're in the bottom so much percentile, then they have to be in tier three, which is um kind of the students that are going to get intervention that could possibly
test and receive an IEP. And then um your tier two would be they're not as severe as the tier three um but they need just a little extra help.
>> When and how often do they access that extra help? >> Um the tier two and tier three have are supposed to be daily an extra I think 40 minutes to 60 minutes a day for >> Yeah. And that they are not extracted
from the regular curriculum in order to do that. Correct. >> Well, they are, but uh I mean they're they are pulled from the class, but they're not supposed to miss any core instruction while they're gone.
>> Okay. All right. So, I I just wanted to get have everybody get an understanding of how well we've built this. Uh I was a director of special ed for a long time and I said we're doing this all wrong. We have to we call have to call kids
names in order to get them some special help. And now they don't have to do that anymore >> and the help is available. It's it's programmed now in terms of uh teacher schedules, school schedules. So it's out
there. Uh and I I just wonder if maybe we need to say something. about how do we fit into that system? How do we uh uh uh um allow or or encourage the use of that system to to make up for any uh
lack of achievement of the standards? What's the name for that system that you what do you call that? >> We just call it tier. >> Okay. Rihanna, do you have any a name that we can use to refer to
>> at the state? It's often called RTI squared or MTSS. >> Okay. >> Yes. RTI. Yeah, that's what we do say RTI. >> RTI. That's what it is. Response to instruction. >> Yes. And there's also an I mean, which
this would be it, but the other part of the RTI is also behavior. They've tied that in recently. All right. Well, I just was uh waxing philosophical here. I don't know if if uh you all need to uh talk about that in
here or uh if what it says you think is sufficient. >> The language pertains specifically to tier one instruction. um if if we feel like more language is needed, but it seems to be in this current draft a
description of what tier one instruction with these standards should look like. >> And and I think that would it it would be an error to not talk about tier two and tier three because we've got to get the kids to keep up. Uh, and if we don't get them at tier 2 and tier three,
they're going to be failed at third grade and they're going to have to repeat because they haven't achieved the reading level that is required by law. I pose that as a problem. I do not have a solution in terms of
words, but if you think it's worthy to be put in there, then maybe we should say some more. I don't feel equipped to describe this myself um accurately. Um so I don't know if I could draft something, but I I'd be
more than happy to leave a comment if you feel that we should leave a comment asking for uh perhaps the department to draft some language or if >> I I agree with that. I think that'd be a great idea. What about you, Brianna? You think they can handle that for us? >> Definitely. And there's been a lot of
work in the literacy space on >> Yeah. If you use the words RTI and including the different levels in that intervention, so uh we can get kids to be uh reading at level by the time they get to third grade.
>> Okay. be something where like for instance I'm going to pay attention to what fourth grade standards are and sixth grade standards are but my obviously my focus is going to be on fifth grade. So because I teach tier one but your tier 2 and tier three they're
going to be working in all different grade levels because if you have a fifth grade student not on level obviously they're going to have to dip down into the other standards. And so I think that might be why maybe it's not there. And so I agree with Lucas. I don't know how
you would say it. Um, but I think that's probably why it just says the tier one because at tier you're only really going to be focusing on your grade levels standards, whereas a tier two and tier three interventionist is going to be kind of all over the place depending on
the level of the students that he or she's working with. And yet all of those students are going to be held to the same standard. >> Yes. >> Even those who are in special education. >> Correct. >> So idea says,
>> okay. >> All right. So you made a note then, right? >> Yeah. I just wrote we would like to see some additional language about RTI and the various tiers of intervention here. >> Thank you. Um, this is very minor, but down below in the questions for professional
learning communities in number 10, it says, "Do our students have a process for getting out of the learning pit?" I have not heard that terminology before. I don't know if that's something that's familiar to other folks, but I I'm not exactly sure if I know what the learning pit is.
>> It's a colloquialism, I bet. Quick Google makes it sound like productive struggle like zone of proximal development. Maybe I'm just spitballing. >> It might be that the RTI that might be
one way to get out of learning pit, you know, not not to fall too far behind. I don't I don't know what they're talking about the learning pit either. >> I think we should throw it out. >> Yeah. When I read that initially, um, what I took it to mean was
if there are on tier one, do they have a way to move out move up to tier two or tier three? I might be going in the ladder backwards, >> right? >> But are they advancing to the next level? And if they're struggling with something, are they actually um
improving or do they just continue to face that same struggle in that area? Yeah, I I just did some googling as well and I saw I found a graphic. I don't I I cannot speak to the veracity of this, but it's just meant to be a graphic description of what the learning pit is.
And it's a person standing at top a or above a a valley and they say, "Challenge accepted." And then they're sliding down the hill or down the into the pit and it says, "This is harder than I thought." At the bottom of the pit, it says, "I don't get it." And then it's wait a second. Aha. And they're
emerging out of the pit. Uh so I guess it's the sense that you know in the midst of learning something there is always the period in which it befuddles you and and kind of emerging from that and not just giving up you know emerging out of the difficulty one's experiencing but from what I can tell the learning
pit is not terminology that is used frequently. Um so I think we should probably articulate that in a slightly different way. Yes, advancing to performance on standard. Um, yeah, I think I think what it's
reflecting is like emerging out of learning difficulties. So, like when when there's when it's not clicking, like do they have a a process for getting out of that kind of stuck state? But I don't I don't know how to say that without resorting to the same kind of colloquial colloquial language we're trying to
avoid here. I wasn't sure what why this was in there anyway. I mean, it's like uh it was like an advertisement for professional learning communities which were popular emerging, you know, 15 years ago, but
it's secondhand to everybody now. I don't even know that we need it. It's like scaffolding, but everybody I mean that's just kind of understood now that you do that. So I don't I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean do we even need these
questions in general? >> I don't think so. >> I I I guess I just have a hard time envisioning that anybody is going to be consulting this list of questions when planning
their PLC. I I I just have a hard time envisioning that that will be where they go. >> I recommend we eliminate that entire section. >> Do you have a second? >> Second. >> Okay.
>> I assume that is a a joking second and we are not instituting an official B. >> No, we are not. Are we are we okay with that? >> I'm okay with that. >> All right, then let's eliminate it. It's old hat. We've gone beyond that. We've advanced as a c as an education
culture. >> I used your exact language, chair Kenus. The education culture has advanced such that these ideas are old hat. >> Okay. Next. >> Okay. Um, then are we going to also delete this professional learning
community diagram? I would think. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> They already know how to do it. They've been doing it well. >> Question. Hillier. Would it be okay if I did some track changes?
>> Yes. Yes. >> I think the comment is really helpful. I just want to make sure. Mhm. >> They understand y'all's intent. >> There we go. Fancy. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Appendix E.
>> Mhm. And context on my end. These are proposed from your predecessors similar to y'all. Given that the department's leading on them, they haven't been drafted. So, you're welcome to ask questions and I'm happy either if Tammy feels comfortable asking them, great or answering them, great. If not,
I'm happy to connect with Lyanna and Nicole. But, um, yes, these are things if you all agree with the proposal or want to make edits to it, this is something that the department would create as a result of this committee. We obviously just didn't want to put the cart before the horse in the event y'all did not agree
or wanted to build on it or do something different. >> Thank you. Is foundational literacy in there because of some new legislation using those exact words or not? >> I can double check with Leanne on the
legislation. My overall impression, Tammy, please correct me. My overall impression of the foundational literacy standards, as you all probably saw, is that they are they are meaty. They are long. They are not playing around. And so I think they wanted some extra support on sort of
interpreting this. I can go back and look at their rationale that they put. Let me see one here. Here. Oh, okay. So they wanted clarification and deeper understanding of the points made in the introduction. So I guess a lot of this would have to
do with like Scar Bro's reading rope and stuff like that. So of course if you all made substantial revisions to the introduction that could potentially impact this. Uh, I would just say yay, verily, yay, and and let the department go after this.
>> Yeah, I I think all of these things seem meaningful. If if if educators have said that these are useful items, this is also not my domain, so I don't want to speak to to foundational literacy folks about what they need.
So, it it seems worthwhile to me. And I would I would say the same for appendix F, the 6 through8 roots and Aixes progression chart. >> And appendix G would given all all the
writing exam that the kids have to take, they really need to know what it's all about, what they're going to be graded on. So >> yeah, I would agree. And I think if we're going to try to make it seems our objective was to make the standards document as inclusive as possible to have kind of a one-stop shop for
educators and and I know that I'm frequently having to show writing rubrics to my students. So I I think it would be useful to just have it all in one place. >> All right. So is that enough comments, Brianna, for them to take off with?
>> Yeah, that sounds great. >> Okay. I think the only remaining question would be are there any other things that we need to add to the appendix that are not currently there? Um, anything >> I have none. >> Who has nothing comes to mind for me personally. I just wanted to open that
up in case anyone had something. >> Miss Oh, Miss Dockery is still driving. Um, okay. Uh, Patty, Katherine, anything? >> No. Um I I put some comments in there
earlier and I think you guys have reviewed and addressed those. So nothing further from me. >> Thank you for all your work ahead of time on that. By the way, >> nothing from me. >> Great. >> Okay. All right. I think we're okay.
And we can also as as some of the other folks join us, um we can also just quickly ask them if they see anything that that perhaps they might want to add to the appendix or potentially we could add that to the parking garage since we're still going to look at that. >> Sure. >> But if we're good on the appendix for
now, I think that moves us to the uh I mean, we've got the references, but I don't think we really need to do anything to the references. I don't think we've added any new references. Um, the only question I w I had when I
posed earlier is are those references in there uh or any of the uh the glossery items that have been uh extracted have been redlined and if they are then
those references could be redlined. >> Yeah, it does not seem so to me. Um, but also I have not I I'll I'll be honest here. I have not done the checking, but I don't think we have cited this many sources in our particular document. Um,
>> no. And I'd hate to have to go through that. >> Some of these do not seem to be present. And maybe I'm just missing it. I I I certainly could be. I have not gone through with the careful approach. Um, some of these don't seem to be
elsewhere. don't remember some of these names um in the in the document. So, I wonder if some of these are vestigial references from from a prior version of the document. >> Good question, Vice Hillard. Again,
Tammy is the expert here, but I know she's having a multitask. my we did have a point person for the references. So I'll look that person's name up and see if there's to answer your question about um any glossery references just to double check. I also
believe that they were pretty thorough in terms of like if they took inspiration from things even if they weren't like directly cited. I think they aired on the side of caution. >> So that might be some of the extra ones. >> I'm open to thoughts from the committee.
I just ask that if you pull a word for the sake of clarity going forward, if you do pull a word from, you know, wherever, um, maybe put that APA in text citation next to it so that your successors know where you pulled it from
so that we have a better answer to that question going forward. It seems to me and and you can tell me if I'm wrong on this, Miss Summers. Uh, as far as I can tell, the definitions that have been provided are none of them are cited. Um, >> yeah, exactly.
>> Which I'm going to I'm going to optimistically hope means that they have they have been generated by prior committee me members or other drafters of this particular document. Um, so maybe that is kind of guidance for us. Maybe just to maintain consistency, we
should largely draft our own definitions of in the glossery just to kind of maintain that consistency. I do feel like it would look a bit odd if we had a glossery that was composed of some cited definitions and others that were not. I mean, >> I agree wholeheartedly a bit chair. Yes,
>> let's proceed. >> Are we done then with the references so we can proceed to the glossery? >> I I think I don't know if this has to happen right now. I'd kind of like to at some point go through the references and just and just note which ones don't appear currently in the um in the
document. I just did a quick search for the first four and like Kavanaaugh here does not appear currently. Uh the Hayne 2009 and 2020 2020 do but not 2013. Um so it seems like there's a little bit of a mix here and like and like no
summer said some of these likely were were inspiration and they may not have been directly cited. Uh, but I would like to at least just guarantee we're not putting references in here that have no bearing on on what's in the document. So, I think it might be worthwhile to just flag that. I don't think that necessarily has to happen right this
minute. Um, it won't take a long time, but it would be one a one person job and I know we're trying to move onward. Uh, so maybe I'll slip it in while we're taking a look at the glossery. Um, but I I think it's worthwhile to at least flag that so we can be aware at least of of
what may be in there, but that is not currently in the body of the writing. Okay. >> Um, but other than that, no, I I I certainly don't think we've added any new references currently, so I don't think there's anything to be added. >> Good. >> I would say, sorry, one last thing. Um,
it looks since you all cut out professional learning committee, this one just jumped out at me because there was a quote. You could delete some in this. >> Yeah, delete that one. Absolutely. I don't know if there were other citations for professional learning community
PL. No, where were those down here? >> Oh, in the glossery, you mean? >> No. Didn't you all take out PLC's in the um appendix? So, it's like >> we did. Yes, I did. >> You could take out the citations related to it in the spirit of >> Okay. >> making those match up.
>> Yep. I follow what you're doing. I agree with it. >> Yes. >> Might have just been this thing before. Yeah. Do forward. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Great. Got it. >> He was a guru.
>> Sorry for the whiplash. Okay. Yep. That's him. >> Great. Fantastic. >> Oh, professional learning committee model. Just going to delete these. Oh, resolve. Resolve.
Oh, it looks like um Dr. Jackson Ske was the um or SK Jackson, excuse me, was the uh lead for the references. So, I will reach out to her. A one, it sounds like asked the question, were there glossery references to be aware of? And two, it sounds like your second question was
related to was your intention for the intext APA citations to match up exactly with the references and if not, why? >> Yes. Okay. Um, so it sounds like we we've done the work on the references we can do at the moment.
Say, um, which leaves us with the glossery in the parking garage. Um, I don't think there's any point in going to the parking garage quite yet. >> Nope. >> Um, so I think it is a matter of of getting into the glossery. Um, to me the
easiest thing to do at the at this exact moment with the glossery is to simply go through the the words right highlighted in red and just to make a determination if we think those words should be deleted. Um, those words highlighted in red, if I understand correctly, Miss Summers, are not included in our
standards. Um, but are currently in the glossery. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I think we're we're operating from the assumption that this glossery is for the standard. So I think our assumption would be that these words likely would be removed. Um but it's
worth just I think taking a look and ensuring that we feel that way before we we eliminate words from the glossery. So chair, do you think that would be a fair >> I think that's an excellent idea. I wouldn't uh I I didn't have that in mind but I think it's a good thing just so we
don't trip over those words and get them out of the way. >> Yes. And please check members, I flagged this, but for example, I believe form does show up technically in the standards, but the way that I saw that y'all used it was like form a sentence versus like look at a poetry's form.
>> I am not an ELA expert, so I I will be overjoyed if you correct me. >> All right. >> Okay. Um, so I think this is probably just a go word by word. If someone feels a word needs to be defended, um, sort of
speak. If not, then we'll delete the word. That seems what I to me the best process if that feels right to other people. >> Okay. Aesthetic impact out. >> Yeah, we we were pretty intentional about eliminating that term because we didn't know what it meant. So, >> um, I think that one's gone. Allegory is
a term that's worth knowing, but I think that's more of a standards guide thing if it's not showing up in our language uh in the standards. >> You talked about extended metaphors, but um and that's I think she's actually uh redlined that one, too. Okay. Allegory
out. >> Um alphabetic code. We have make no reference to that. Um so I I don't think that would need to be there. >> Alphabetic code out. I'm going to say out. And if that's the last time anybody could jump in when I say out, you got to
you got to you got to come in. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. That's like the hammer at an auction. >> I could see you being an auctioneer. >> Sorry. >> That radio. >> All right. Alphabetic writing system. I
also think uh can be deleted. Alphabetic writing out. >> Um, analogy if it's not in the standards, I think shouldn't be there. I think that's more of a standards code thing likely. >> Analogy out >> or standards guide, not code. Um,
animation. Um, if we have addressed that, I think it should be eliminated. >> Animation out. >> Um, audio. Uh, I think we can remove that. >> I think I know. I think people know what
audio is as well. Uh, author's choice. Um, a bit surprised that doesn't show up in the standards, but if it doesn't show up, I I I really am a believer in having the glossery be things that are in the in the
>> author's choice out. >> Okay, that moves us down to counter/pposing claim. >> Yeah, I had a question on that. not use or do we not? I think what you're indicating here, Miss Summers, is that we use the phrase opposing claim.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> But I heard Miss Nell talk about counter claim. And haven't you talked about counter claim? >> I use that terminology in my classroom. But if the language we use in the in the standards is opposing claim um then I
think we should the language. >> So we've not >> Yeah, we're not proposing to remove this definition. We're just proposing to eliminate the part that says counter and just say opposing claim as the as the >> that's going to be the prevailing language now in English language arts rather than counter.
>> Right. >> Okay. Counter out. >> Yeah, I do think then we need to rem we need to move this because it will now be in the O's. So, I'm going to take a second to just move that down to the O's. >> And I'm checking author's choice. I also
feel like y'all talked about it a lot, but wasn't there another way that y'all described it? I don't know. author's craft authors. >> There's some sort of debate I recall y'all having. >> Right. I I recall that conversation to an extent, but I can't I can't recall
exactly what that what we can't do there. >> Okay. There are no instances of authors craft the apostrophe s and there are no instances of author's choice apostrophe s and that's on all tabs of your current revisions. >> Thanks. >> So that means it wasn't even in your
predecessors. Um, we do have uh I I just found in we do say author's choices plural. >> Oh, interesting. Let's see. >> Um, in the >> I'm not seeing that. Where are you? It's
revised E3 E4 ri 3 analyze how an author's choices regarding the introduction and development of ideas. >> Okay, you said >> see this is where the the computer is
only so smart. Y'all are smarter. This is good. Okay. Um Okay. >> Yeah, it probably needs to be in there then if we have that's that's close enough. One more time. Can you read the standard by SH Hillyard? >> Yeah, it is myth.
>> E3 E4 RI kid 3. Analyze how an author's choices regarding the introduction and development of ideas. And it continues from there. >> It should pick up the plural because I don't have a space at the end, but let me That's concerning. Okay. >> So, let's look at what we have as the
definition then. If you could scroll down to that. to Rihanna. >> That is bizarre because I just I searched the same way you did and I I also did not it didn't flag for me. So I don't know why. >> H Okay, that makes me feel better. Um
yeah, I don't know. Auth Well, let me do author's choices find. Okay, it does find author's choices exactly, but I don't have match entire content. That's very strange. Okay, so yeah, you all please jump in and double check me. That seems to be the only
instance of that phrase I can find. But since we do include it, I I think it might we might as well keep it. >> Does that language that is describing it in the glossery describe our intention in that standard? >> Um intentional decisions by an author
that may impact meaning, style, development, formatting, conventions, andor plot progression. I I would say so. uh authors I I mean I guess at the sense there also author's choices is really not a that's not being used as an academic term per
se. I mean that's just saying the choices an author makes. Um so I don't know if this absolutely I mean I I can't imagine a scenario in which someone doesn't understand what it means when we say an author's choices. I can't I mean
>> well I think this elaborates I I I would like to keep it in myself. Okay. I I have no qualms with that. That's fine with me. >> All right. Author's choice is >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we'll excuse me. There we had
some purple language. Did somebody write a new one in there or are we even doing that purpose? >> Yeah, I mean we're we're adding some new language um because but I think that's something we'll get to in a moment. >> Okay. Thank you. We're doing reds now. Okay.
>> Yeah. Um, we have Dip Thong. Um, >> Hillyard, quick note. I must have missed the loop closing on opposing claim. >> Yeah, I just moved it. I just moved it down to >> Oh, thank you. I forgot. I appreciate
you. Um I I if that's not specified uh in the standards, I don't see any need to include that here. Why is knitting the standards? Britney, do you talk dip thongs?
No, that that's younger. Probably K2. >> Okay. >> Who's out there in K2 land? Tammy. No, >> I'm happy to reach out to um
Leanne and see what she thinks. Um, it is also it is in the it is in one of our standards. >> That's what I was just looking but I can't find it. >> It is in 2.l.D3. >> Right. I'm there too. Do you see it in
there? >> It is under substandard D. >> Okay. See, this is good. Keep checking me. So, we're going to keep it diff long in >> diff. Yes. Yeah, I definitely think that's
that's definitely worth keeping. Um, if it's in the standards because I I personally don't know what that means. >> That's that is as good a description as as you could have. Um, if you listen to Reva McIntyre, she
dip thongs. Owl. That's my kind of foundational literacy lesson. Orange. Um, I created a new system because we had some weird ones. I had it was hyphenated. So, it appears as if there's zero instances, but it looks
like y'all removed domain specific vocabulary and opted for. I forget what y'all ended up calling it. uh we did language specific to uh disciplines and uh subjects I believe was the language. Yeah, we were very intentional about removing domain specific vocabulary. So
I definitely think that definition should be removed as well. >> Domain specific out. >> Okay. Um we have facious meanings uh fallacies. Um, I'm going to do just a quick check to make sure that that
didn't appear because I don't recall us talking about that, but it's the kind of thing I could see appearing somewhere, but it doesn't seem it's it's not showing up for me at all. Uh, so I mean, if it doesn't show up, I think it should be removed. >> Meaning out um we have form
defining structural characteristics of work, especially a poem. Yeah, that one definitely seems like one that would be in there, but if it's not, it's not. I do just a quick control. >> The same question myself.
>> My the Google Sheets kind of glitching out for me. So, I apologize. I'm take a second to refresh. Um it comes up quite a bit in foundational literacy but that obviously form in the context of foundational
literacy is not the same thing. Um that is that is like like Miss uh Somerset that is a different kind of form that we're talking about there like to to form something. >> Mhm. >> Um so if there are 50 instances of the
word form in our standards but so far I'm on number 35 and I have not left foundational literacy yet. >> Yeah. Are there any times you'll talk about like I don't know poetry in a standard that we could check.
>> Um just for peace of mind I can also start at the back. >> It would I mean it would be in the reading standards if it were somewhere. >> Oh we've also got all many of them are also in your rationale. Mhm.
>> See? Oh, you also had word form. Is word form the same as form? I assume not. >> It's not the meaning of form that we're using in this um in this definition here. >> Okay, cool.
>> Um well, the one problem with doing a com command F search for this is I'm catching lots of information and lots of format. Um, >> yes. I think if you put a space in front of and after, but then you run into other, >> it helps narrow it down, but it also
misses some stuff, >> right? I added a space beforehand, so I got rid of the informations. But the problem with the space after is just in case it was at the end of a sentence. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Technology is always imperfect. >> So, we don't use it then.
>> Um, not as far as I can see yet. I'm going to do a little much a little more searching. I should be done pretty soon. I I'm kind of flammix that we haven't
used it. But >> you said it most likely be in reading. >> I would certainly think so. >> I can see. >> But I just went through all of the reading standards and could not find it. >> Okay. Yeah, I must see it in your rational.
I'm checking writing right now because I could see a world in which it might come up in writing, but it's not I'm not seeing anything yet. Yeah, I I don't I don't think we use it.
>> Are you ready to throw in the towel? I would say so. >> All right. Form out. >> Okay. Um Okay. Uh we have glide, a type of speech sound that glides immediately into an vowel. Um if that's not in the
foundational literacy standards, I don't I don't think it should be included. And I have I have no recollection of glide. >> Neither do I. Glide out. >> Uh we have gradual release. Um,
we've been pretty intentional about removing references to like scaffolding or gradual release because we think those are more like instructional approaches than pertaining to the specific context. >> Gradual release out.
>> Um, we have Okay, this one I found kind of interesting. Um, and maybe Miss Summers you can kind of clarify for this. Um, there are three different types of irony that are addressed here. Dramatic irony, situational irony, and verbal irony. Um, I assume that means
that verbal irony was included in our standards, but the other two were not. >> Yeah, I was confused. Open to thoughts. >> Okay. Um, I'm just going to do a quick search and find where we use verbal irony just to get a sense of in what context because I I can't recall off the
top of my head. um seems like it's just in one eighth grade reading standard, but we list it as one of the types of figurative language. So, we do use it. Um so, I think it's worth defining. Um and if we don't if we
don't include the other two types of irony, I I think it would likely just be a matter of defining verbal irony and and not defining the other two. >> Annie, are you home yet? I think she said um she was taking care of some child care stuff, but she would jump in as she's able.
>> Okay. >> But maybe she can hear us. >> So you say verbal irony is used at the eighth grade level. >> Yes. But dramatic and situational are not >> and you don't use those at the high school level. >> I mean I I would certainly say that
verbal irony is the most commonly discussed form of irony. Um, but I mean I as situational and dramatic irony come up, I teach them, but I also teach them in the context of an of an AP lit class >> and and they're not in the standards >> and I teach them in freshman and junior
and senior English all the time. >> Um, I I can hear you by the way. Um, we ended up for that particular standard making it effects on the reader cuz it
was I think only explicitly mentioned in the eighth grade standard and we just made it a little bit more open-ended. Uh, and dramatic irony being one possible effect. Um,
so I think that's why it it's not in the standards anymore. >> Yeah. And to me at least, this is my theory of the glossery and and obviously I'm open to other theories of the glossery, but it to me, we're we are
including glossery items because they are within our standards and it is it is on us if we use a term in the standards to ensure that someone knows what that term means. um I don't think that confines someone and forces them not to teach dramatic irony or situational irony, but we don't use that
terminology. Um so I don't think the onus is on us at that point to provide a definition. And also I mean these are quite easil easily obtainable definitions. Uh these are words that can be quite easily found. Um so my stance would be to include the
definition of verbal irony or keep it. Um and to remove the definitions of dramatic and situational irony. >> I agree. dramatic and situation out. >> Um I I do think if we're going to do that, there's no reason to do irony, verbal, anymore. I think we can just do
verbal irony in the V's. Um does anyone disagree with me there? >> Nope. Okay, let me move it down to these, which will mean it's now the pretty pretty low down there.
Um, all right. Switch around the order as well, so it's not irony, verbal, which I didn't love in the first place. Okay. Um then we have literary merit. Um that
is a term that we used to use but we have moved away from the term literary merit um to just refer to texts at an appropriate grade level of of complexity. So I don't think this term needs to be included. >> Okay. I agree. Literary merit.
>> I have a note for that. Um, so for our standard already standard 10, I kind of forgotten about this and all the hub of that conversation, but um, Banks had mentioned that he thought we should add that language back into
reading standard 10 um, to make sure that the textbook companies were providing uh, solid um, writings and not like he mentioned
like not putting in AI work or something. Um, so I kind of personally felt like if banks thought it was important that it might be a good thing to add back into reading center 10, but I realize that's also kind of a can of worms at this point potentially. It's
not a lot of language to add, but um >> I'm I'm impressed that you remembered that. Um, I I think that uh it what you say has merit for sure. Uh, literary merit. >> Um,
I think um if we want to change it, we can make that change now. It's all changeable until we say it's not. >> Yeah. So I mean if we want to look at that now um the language we're currently using at the K through five level we
just say appropriate I guess at all levels we're saying uh text of appropriate complexity for X grade. Um so that is the language we've used. I mean I think if we wanted to include literary merit we could just simply say
texts of appropriate complexity and literary merit for Xgrade. Um I think that would be a relatively relatively simple way. >> I'm good with that. How about you, Miss Dockery? >> Yes, I think I'm good with that. Um, I'm not I don't know that I'm attached to
this idea or anything or this language, but I think the language was in maybe reading standard nine initially and we eliminated it and had talked about putting it in standard 10 and then kind of forgot about it. Um, but it was like
literary or historical significance or maybe literary or historical merit. I don't know if we want to add the historical if that matters. I don't know that that matters personally. I think maybe literary covers it. >> I agree. Britney, do you have any
comment? >> I'm good either way. >> We could also just say merit um instead of saying literary merit if we if we just want to say merit. And so that it's inclusive of both literary as well as historical and other forms of merit. We
could just say of appropriate complexity and merit. >> I think that's fine. That encompasses non-fiction better as well. >> Okay. >> A good compromise. >> Um so so is that what we would like to
do? Um, so I guess if we go to cell one, uh, 190 or row 190 of the reading standards, that's where I'm at currently. >> Um, so it would now read um, in in column P where I'm at currently, it
would read read a variety of literary genres of appropriate complexity and merit for kindergarten. And then I would just make that corresponding edit to each of the remaining standards.
>> Is that clear? Our use of merit there as you read through it. I just uh was taken back >> just for some context in terms of the textbook commission. I know that they
have an 80% quality threshold that they evaluate textbooks and instructional materials through prior to sending it to us at the state board of education. And I believe that they developed that rubric in partnership with the department of education. So I'm happy to look into that if it's
helpful, but um it's one point of consideration that they have. I I mean I think appropriate complexity essentially covers the ground that we're trying to cover here with merit. Um but if I mean those are not the same thing.
I mean when we talk about merit for literature we're talking about something slightly different from its complexity. I mean merit is bestowed upon something whereas complexity is an intrinsic quality. Um, but I mean that almost seems to be waiting into like a canon debate if if
we're including literary merit and I don't know if that's one we want to wait into. >> Yeah, it just it it just stuck out there to me. So I I I kind of agree with you. >> I don't I don't feel particularly strongly either way. I just want to know
so that we can make that edit or not consistently across the the stage. >> Well, from what Brianna said, it sounds like they're doing their job already making sure that we get good quality material and we don't have to use that word literary merit in order to get that
done. >> Yeah, I'm happy to look at how they define it. I would I mean they are looking for 100 they're also looking for 100% standards alignment. So, whatever you put in these standards, they will prioritize. Let me see if I can find a rubric by chance,
but I agree with Miss Dockery. If uh Mr. Lions flagged it, Banks um you know, their team is part of the folks that put together the rubric, so he would have more insight into the process than I would. Are you still searching, Brianna?
>> Yes, it might. I don't know that they publish these to be perfectly honest. I mean, of course, anyone can request them. If I can't find it in just a hot second, I will message Banks to see if he has one handy. >> All right. So, do you want to just put this in the parking lot and stew on it
and come back to it later or do you want to just say put it in or take it out? >> Um, uh, I mean it it's it's relatively easy to add. I mean, it's it's not going to
cause us a lot of hand ringing. Um, so if if we do feel like it's adding something, then I mean that can be done. I I I just don't know. I It's not something that I feel particularly needs to be there. But if I mean I I do trust Banks and I think of Banks as someone
who's got thoughtful contributions to make here. So if he feels that that is valuable, then I I would defer to him. If I remember correctly from when I was on the textbook committee, the rubric was developed from the standards so they
could put the 80% quality text in there because we had literary merit if I'm remembering correctly. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Tammy. She's done it all, folks. >> Oh, that's I mean that that's very
useful context. >> Yeah. And if um I think I was hearing maybe there was conversation about contacting um banks, but uh I mean I could potentially be overemphasizing what what he said, but I would be
interested maybe for it's been several meetings ago um for some further explanation from Banks if he's available at some point. >> Is Banks available tonight? >> He is available by phone. I'm going to
call him right now. Okay, let's let's go on and and just put this one on hold for a second till we get more clarification and you jump back in. Brianna, let's move back down through uh the glossery, please. >> Um I guess my conversation is I I don't
know if we're going to include the word merit. Um do we want to make the definition merit versus literary merit? Because if we're not going to include the word literary there, then we don't need to have the definition be literary merit. And secondly, do we even feel as though we need to define the word merit?
>> I heard I heard Tammy say specifically literary merit. So that must be some magic word. Uh >> okay. Um my own I mean I prefer the word merit to literary merit just because it gets complicated when we're talking
aboutformational text versus literature. um when we're using the word literary merit, it kind of implies uh since we're intentional about driving that distinction. But I again this I mean the more common term is literary merit. I I will grant that. But I think it might be worth at least thinking about that if
we're going to include that language in the >> well the it defines sophisticated creativity, artistic craft, stylistic choices, rich diverse concepts. I mean it it pretty much uh gives the definition of literary merit there.
So, so are we just then going to maintain this definition? And if so, then we're we're going to need to just if we do include that language, we'll need to to make sure we include the phrase literary merit. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um
I I guess we'll just kind of leave that one as is for now then, >> right? >> Okay. Um >> don't take it out yet. >> Okay. Um, main idea is something and I I I saw Miss Summer's comments. Um, we were pretty intentional about switching out
main idea for central idea um, in pretty much every place, but Miss Summers flagged a few places where we maintain the language uh, main idea. Um, unless we were intentional about distinguishing between those, uh, I think we should
probably stick to central idea. Um, my understanding was we were using those terms interchangeably. Um, but obviously if we are using them interchangeably, we should stick to one version of that. Um, I don't know. Obviously, we don't have the whole crew here. But am I right in
saying that we were pretty in we intended main idea and central idea to mean the same thing and we just elected to use the phrase main idea or central idea. Sorry. >> Annie, what do you remember? >> That's what I remember. I think we were I think we're trying to be intentional
about using central idea because that's what we're >> using primarily. >> Yeah, there were just and also I think a lot of this is that there the only instances of main idea are in the speaking and listening standards and so we likely made that decision afterward
um as we progressed and so therefore we we didn't make those edits to the speaking and listening standards. >> Do we need to go back and do that? Um, I will go back and do that if you if you trust me to do it. I mean, if we want to go back and do it right now, we can go back and do it right now or I can it
Miss Summers has already flagged it for or me. I just didn't want to go ahead and make the edits quite yet until we had deliberated on it. >> I trust you. Does everybody else trust Vice Chair Hillyard to do that? >> Very much so.
>> Okay, there you go. >> In the previous standards, it was main idea up until a certain grade and then it changed over. So it would probably be better if it was mainstreamed. >> Yes. And that was a significant debate from your predecessors. I think my recollection of their conversation is
they were on the fence about it. Um one example I found just if it's helpful is three RI K2, but I do think you're right, Vice Chair Hard for across the board it was mostly speaking and listening. >> Okay. So we're good with that. Um
we'll wait uh to proceed if you would just modify that when you get a moment >> um okay so uh then that would mean that we would just eliminate the definition of main idea correct >> yes >> okay um next we have media techniques uh
I don't I don't recall any reference to media techniques so I think we can delete that >> media techniques out >> um extended metaphor. Um, if we don't make reference to that, I don't see that it would be necessary to define extended metaphor.
>> Extended metaphor out. >> Um, mode of writing. Um, Miss Summers has left a comment saying may be implied within the standards deferred to the committee. Is that does that mean we we did not use this phrase
mode of writing, Miss Summers? >> Yes. I don't recall finding an instance of mode of writing but looking at it obviously y'all do talk about you know there's the whole set of narrative standards there's the whole set of argumentative standards so that's in orange >> I think we deferred to the language
genre most of the time instead of mode um I think that was where we went most of the time and I knew and we we do have a definition for genre >> okay mode of writing out Okay.
Um, nasal blends. Um, if that's not there, I certainly don't think it needs to be in the standard or >> sounds infectious. >> Um, if you thought that sounded infectious, we've got nasal phone. >> I think that one can go as well.
>> Nasal blends and phonms out. >> Yeah. And please correct me, Miss Singleary. I I couldn't find them, but they sound important. I have never heard such. >> Okay. Um, we've got onset rhyme. Uh, I I think that one can pretty safely be
eliminated. >> Onset rhyme out. >> Uh, we have orthography. If that one didn't even appear in the uh linguistics course, I think we can probably delete it here. >> Orthography out. >> Um
we have overarching theme. We did not use any language about overarching theme. We mentioned like the multiplicity of themes, but I I don't think we've been intentional about discussing overarching theme. So I think the definition for theme would suffice. >> Overarching theme out.
Um, we have parse tree of sentences. I think that one can go. Do you concur, chair? >> Yeah. So, that's when we talked about uh diagramming, right? Yeah. >> Decided we're not doing that anymore because that's ancient
ancient work and it didn't prove to be of any value. parse tree of sentences out. >> All right. Um, we have purpose of reading. Um, I think we should definitely
eliminate this definition. Um, especially since it kind of conflates with the other meaning of purpose which we are intentionally using in the standards. So, I would certainly recommend deleting that. >> Purpose of reading out >> um reading fluency. Did we really not say that? I thought I
heard fluency in the uh K2. >> Please double check. >> Yes. >> So have one for onset item for onset rhyme for consideration. When you have a second >> Tammy, you got anything K2 on reading fluency?
>> I don't do elementary. Sorry. >> Oh, okay. I mean, we I know like I mean that was in the one of the lessons that I taught today and we do a reading fluency passage every day but I don't know whether
it's really in the standard um >> right >> which is for comprehension. I did a quick check um and we don't use the word uh reading fluency at any point, but we do use the phrase writing fluency in the
standards. Um so we don't have reading fluency, but we do have writing fluency. I don't see that we have a definition for writing fluency. So perhaps we just define fluency
>> and then you can use it across >> reading and writing. Um so I think just defining the word fluency >> but in reading it's to uh support comprehension. >> Yeah, >> you know
>> yeah I will say >> kids get stuck in phonetic analysis and lose the comprehension because of the disfluency. Um I why didn't we talk about this? So you
said something similar in um under reading standards under point 10 your cornerstone is read and comprehend complex literary andformational text blah blah blah blah independently and proficiently and again this is a limitation of technology so
you know I don't know if reading proficiency and reading fluency are the exact same thing but you do you know speak to the concept generally >> yeah I don't think so I think reading fluency is different take it from a pro from a person that
had a reading fluency problem when they went through school and I had to go through Evelyn Woodhead's reading before I got into college because I had reading fluency problem. That's just personal experience.
>> Totally. Didn't anybody consider this to be important? Well, we never talked about it. There wasn't a there wasn't a standard in there before. So, we didn't necessarily have
uh something to react to. U >> what did we say? Fluency. Okay. So it is Oh, there's 23 instances of the word fluency. It's all over the foundational literacy intro. Oh, see and this is what also gets
complicated. Okay. Foundational litery. >> Oh, right there. Yeah. >> But see you not reading fluency together if you control F. This this is one of the limitations of technology. So now let me look. >> Uh okay. Now do we have fluency down in the >> Let me check what you did to five. Hold
on. in the glossery. >> Isn't that what we're just debating? Reading fluency, right? >> Well, it we it was reading fluency and we redlined it, but uh now you're you're exposing that we have talked about
fluency specifically and uh 5 LF.5. >> Yeah. >> That we've I mean we've altered the language some because that's the the currently existing standard. Um, we do use the word fluency with some regularity. We just don't use it in the phrase reading fluency. Um, so my
recommendation would just be to define the word fluency. >> Yes. In the glossery. >> Um, so I think we would eliminate this particular definition and then just add a new definition for the word fluency. >> Um, because we we use the phrase both we we use fluency to refer to reading
fluency, but we also use the word writing fluency or the phrase writing fluency. So I think it would just be worthwhile to just define what it means to be fluent in something. Um uh that way we can just kind of have something that operates for both if if other folks agree there. >> So are we good with doing that?
>> I Yeah, I think we need to talk about fluency. I don't know if we needed to to address reading fluency and writing fluency separately. Uh >> um we >> we're talking about different things are are we not?
>> Yeah. >> My only misgiving with including the phrase reading fluency is that it's just it's simply not in our standards. I mean we we have reference to something that is that we ref we refer we refer to fluency in the
foundational literacy standards and and so we can infer that that's reading fluency but I I mean we never call it reading fluency so that I think that limits the effect of the glossery because I think someone might be looking at that and going wait is this the same kind of fluency or is it a different kind of fluency um I think we want to
make sure the the verbiage is identical >> um so I think I've seen something like this before in glosseries because we do have writing fluency mentioned and then we know that in the context what we just looked at it's talking about reading
fluency rather than writing fluency. So I'm wondering isn't there something where you can do fluency comma reading fluency comma writing or maybe it's in parenthesis fluency in parentheses reading
>> I would like to see I would like to go in that direction Annie >> um okay uh I just are we certain that someone's going to be able to to to figure out that we're talking about reading fluency when we're talking about
in the foundation literacy standards. Um, I'm just not sure if that one connection is going to be obvious to folks. It pretty well states it in the standard there or >> I personally think they'd be able to figure it out. Um, especially if there's
some indication saying a difference between the reading fluency and the writing fluency. >> Okay. Um, then how do we want to format that again? >> Fluency. And you can put an A and a B if
you want to. A reading and a B writing. And use the definition that you've got there for reading fluency as the definition or a reading. And then let's come up with something
for writing. Annie, do you have anything to say about writing fluency? >> Um, no. Other than, you know, if it's in in the standards, then we probably need to have an entry for it. Um, I guess formatting wise,
um, I would have to find an example. I think we should probably figure out what is the the correct way to do it. I know I've seen that sort of thing before. Um um if someone has it available, it might also be worth a quick scan of the standards guides to see if um the
department has defined writing fluency. Um I don't know if they have or not, but I think that's a word that they might have defined >> where I'm assuming it'd be in the writing strand. >> Um yeah, it would be um >> and it would be Is there a particular
grade that you think it would come up by chance? I don't I mean I can see what we have it in currently, but I don't know that might be entirely different from where it was in the previous standards. >> Okay, this is their definition of writing fluency. It was but this is all
the way down to kindergarten. So, >> okay, >> I'm curious if they changed their definition. Writing fluency, the ability to write accurately, quickly, and with expression. Let me just go up to 12th grade for fun. Oh, let me just do fluency.
That's what we ask them to do when they're being tested >> or writing. Is that Oh, I see. Maybe I have to do it. No, the
embedded PDFs don't like me very much. Oh, here we go. Okay. It seems to be an earlier grades definition. Oh, here we go. Okay. So, they have the definition K5 and it's the same. >> Okay. Um, I see no reason not to use that
definition if other folks agree. I agree. >> Okay, I am copying it over right now, >> the simple solution, >> and then we'll just maintain the definition of reading. Um,
>> yeah, that's right there. Uhhuh. >> Okay. Okay. Um, are we good to move on? >> Yes, we are. I think we did a good job with that and I think the teachers will appreciate that. >> Um, we we might have come to a different
decision since I was focused on trying to find an example. Um, I was struggling to find a glossery with an entry like that. Um, honestly was difficult figuring what even to type in, but just looking at an index if we would if
that's maybe how it' be formatted. it. So, example, I have one that says teachers and teachers is all the way to the left in the index and then it's got uh it's like sub entries just indented underneath that. I don't know if that's
a correct format. I'm I'm not a big formatting person, so I'm not sure, but I was just trying to find something to go off of. >> Yeah. I mean, my instinct, and I'm I'm totally open to other people's ideas here, would just be to treat them as two separate things and just have reading fluency in the Rs and writing fluency in
the W's. Um, since we're we're using these terms pretty differently. Um, but I'm also open to other >> I'm okay with that. >> Sounds good to me and less complex. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah, let's do that. >> Okay.
>> Decision made. We next up on if we're going to keep going through this glossery. Um next up we have rebuttal. Um I think we went with refute instead of
rebutt as our terminology there. So I think it makes sense to >> um recall. And this is this uh forces us to recall the the lengthy recall versus recount versus retell um conversations. Uh, we ended up going with retell. So, I think recount and
recall can both get the axe if >> recall recount out. >> Um, all right. We have rhetorical analysis. Um, as an AP Lang teacher, it pains me a little bit to remove that. >> I know.
>> But if it's not in the state standards, then it shouldn't be here. So, I I think remove it. >> Why isn't it in the state standards? I mean, that's not that's simply not one of the types of writing that we ask students to employ. I mean, the three
primary modes of writing that we that we ask students to complete, one of them is not a rhetorical analysis. Um, in the way that it like in at for for an AP Lang class, one of the three modes of writing is what we would call a rhetorical analysis, but I I just don't know if that's really a something that we
>> It's not for all children. It's for some, but not for all. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think it's I think it's something that is I mean, of my opinion, if purely speaking outside of my role in this committee, I think it's worth students knowing, but I think we're far too late in this process to be
making those kinds of scale of change. >> Unless you object to us passing on this, >> we move on. >> I agree. >> Rhetorical analysis out. >> Okay. Uh scaffolding. Uh, we've been intentional about removing language like
that. So, I think I think scaffolding should go. >> Scaffolding out. >> Um, we have simple sentence. Um, I'm going to do a quick search just because that's one of the ones that I
kind of expected to see in the standards. Um, as opposed to complex and compound. >> Yes. But I'll just do a quick little search to make sure it doesn't appear in any I
could also see a situation where we said like simple and compound sentences and therefore simple and sentence got separated. I'm not saying that did happen. I just could imagine that happening. So I'm just doing a quick little scan just to be just to be sure.
Um we do say simple comma compound comma and complex sentences. So we do actually do that. So I I think we should maintain the definition of simple sentence. >> I agree. Keep it in. Simple sentence in.
All right. Let me actually verify that's actually in the revised standard. Yeah, that is in the revised standard. Okay. Um, next we have sound symbol correspondence. Uh, I I would say that we probably
delete that. >> Sound symbol correspondence out. Um I I don't recall us making any reference to stream of consciousness uh as a form of writing. So I think that can likely go as well.
>> Stream of consciousness out. >> Um technical meanings. Uh we have been very intentional about removing references to technical language. So I think that one can go. Can you scroll, Britney? Brianna, uh, technical meanings of language out.
Um, text complexity. I mean, we've certainly used other ways of of defining of referencing what we mean by text complexity, but I don't think we've used that phrase text complexity. So I think if our de if our onus of if if the if the onus on this glossery is to define
words in the standards I don't see the need to define a word that or a phrase that is not in the standards. So >> did we use complex text? >> Um I mean that's going back to that same reading standard 10. We I mean the
language as it currently stands is uh where is it? Uh texts of appropriate complexity for Xgrade. And then we had talked about adding texts of appropriate complexity and literary merit. Um but we have not so we've used like texts of
appropriate complexity but we have not said >> I I' I'd leave it in. I think that's close enough because that's defining what we're talking about there. >> Okay, I'm fine with that.
>> That's my That's my take. Anybody else? >> Okay, leaving it in. Text complexity in. >> Um All right. Um, I don't see any need to keep text complexity banned because we actually separated some of those bands into just saying instead of six through
eight for for instance for the middle grade standards, we just said grade six, grade seven, grade eight. So, we kind of broke apart some of those bands. Um, so I would I would remove that definition. >> I would too. Sounds like a great name for a garage band. >> All right. Um,
got some weird page breaks here. So, just bear with me as I kind of get rid of those weird breaks. Um, I guess Well, I don't think we have any more words in red. >> Well, yay. >> Those are the red words.
>> We've done the red words >> if that's helpful. >> Thank you, Brianna, for that walk through that you did for us. you help us move quickly through this. >> Of course. And appreciate extra eyes. Speaking of extra eyes, so while I did not find I I had a sneaking suspicion
some of these foundational literacy ones makes me nervous cuz I have no earthly idea what they're referring to. I did find a reference to was it onset rhyme? Again, it's one of those ones where we were talking about it, but it wasn't written exactly like that. Let's see
where it was. I also have a update from Banks on the um he does recommend literary merit both in the standard and the glossery is the too long didn't read version of it. I'm happy to read his whole statement. Let's start there cuz I've got that handy. Hold on. Okay. And
I quote, I think it would be important to define literary merit. Most of this would involve meeting quantitative and qualitative metrics as outlined in the appendix. But I'm also thinking about the importance of creating a definition wherein AI produced text would be avoided. This would be particularly
important with material text selection including TCAP. >> Okay, so let's tackle these one at a time. What about onset rhyme? Do we need to revisit that? >> Onset rhyme. I think I found an instance of it. It'll just take me a second. I
was looking at something else. So, I have to go back. Nope. One second. Basically, it was control. I think if I just look up onset, it came up. Actually, it's in >> like 300 pages long. Hold on. You see
it? >> I do. It says uh Well, I lost it. blend and segment onsets and rhymes of single syllable spoken words. So we don't say onset rhymes, we say onsets and rhymes.
I So they seem to be different terms based off our our language there, but I I have no idea what an onset or a rhyme is. >> Okay, I can flag these forly. Why don't I just flag the >> I mean, if you look at the definition,
it basically defines it for you. Uh the onset coming before the vowel and the rhyme, including the vowel and what follows. So, um an onset rhyme is the natural division of a syllable into two parts. The onset being anything that comes before the vowel and the syllable and
then the rhyme being the vowel and anything that follows it. So, I mean, yeah, that makes >> I'm okay with leaving it in if it's in the standards. if it's close enough. >> I mean, I think we would just simply change instead of onset
hyphen rhyme, I think it would need to read onset and rhyme. Um, >> I agree. >> Yeah, >> just to match what we've done in the standards. >> Okay, good. Now I don't I mean this is a bit unusual for for a glossery but I think since these kind of go hand inand
there's some I think it's justifiable to keep these terms together in one glossery entry. Um I know that's a bit unusual to do but I think given that they kind of work in tandem perhaps that
would make some sense. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And I'll just call in in just a moment and double check some of these foundational literacy standards. Make sure I'm not misunderstanding ones that I propose we take out. >> Okay.
>> But y'all feel free to discuss literary merit. Of course, you can, you know, implement Banks's recommendation, ignore it, or something in between. >> Yeah, I don't think we want to ignore it. Uh where did we put literary merit now? Um, I mean to me, uh, if you look on the
spreadsheet, it would be starting with row 190 of the reading tab. So, reading down to 190. And if we're looking at P,
every single standard has some variation of the phrase read a variety of literary genres of appropriate complexity and oh well it previously read a variety of literary genres of appropriate
complexity and uh for X-grade. Um I think what we'd be adding is appropriate complexity and literary merit for X-grade. So it would just be adding the phrase and literary merit after complexity. >> I agree. I think uh the advice that we got is
solid and if it's going to affect how the textbooks are prepared and and I like I really didn't understand it until he talked about uh trying to avoid AI produced uh materials and I think this
is this is very important. >> Okay. Say it again. >> I say, "Hello, Miss Dockery. We haven't seen your face for a while." >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> Back for good. >> Good.
Um, that is, I believe, like 20 standards that I'll need to add that to. So, it is going to take me just a minute to do that. And I don't really want to leave it to do later because I worry >> you take your time. And what we'll do is
we'll start uh going back through the glossery. And if I remember it looked like we left off uh around in the seas, but uh maybe some of you remember. Yeah, I this is
something I I I think could be really useful uh for our time is just if we took I don't know how long exactly 20 minutes, half an hour for everyone who's here to just kind of scour the standards and see if
there are any terms of phrase, any uh terms that we use that are not currently in the glossery that perhaps could be worthwhile to add to the glossery just as a check. I know we we were intentional about putting things in the parking garage, but I worried perhaps we just let something slip and there might
be a term that needs to be added. Um because once we know what words we're going to add, we've already thought about what words we're going to delete. Once we define what words we want to add, then the the exact the the what exactly will appear in the glossery was set at that point. Um, so I
I think it could be really useful and and obviously tell me if you disagree, but I think it could be really useful to just have maybe 20 minutes of just people scouring through the standards and seeing if there's anything that is not currently in the glossery that that might be worth adding. Um, but obviously
I'd defer to what you think, Cherus. >> Well, I would like to add on to that. I would think that what we should do is we'll take a total of 40 minutes and we'll do 20 minutes of scouring and then 20 minutes of eating
and we'll be back in here at 5:50. Does that suit everybody? So, you get a chance to eat if you want to eat and scour uh or eat and and just relax or scour first and then eat. It's
up to you, but we'll reconvene at 5:50. Okay. >> And we'll be doing uh doing some work while we're doing it. Be a working lunch or no, a working supper. >> Okay. So, just just to make sure I'm clear on this. So, we'll be operating at 550 under the assumption that the words
that are currently in the glossery are the words that should appear in the glossery. >> That's correct. And if anybody has any new words to add, we will all jump in. No, no. You'll jump in singularly and we'll all uh discuss that. >> Fantastic. Sounds good to me.
>> All right. Thank you. We'll see you at 550, everyone. Hey, darling. How you doing? >> I'm fine. I'm scheduling meetings. >> Okay. I just called for a supper break. Uh, did you want to just like do an
instant replay on the pizza? >> Honey, whatever you want. I'm stuffed. I can't eat another thing. There's spaghetti. There's one bowl of chicken. I'll just have a piece of pizza. Thanks. >> All right. Bye.
Okay. Pressure Hillary, are we on break? >> Oh, I already muted. >> Yes. Yes, we are. Um, I'm just doing some work right now. >> No, I appreciate you. Um, okay. Okay, I do have some updates from Lean. Yes, she agreed with our edit on onset rhyme and
she had two other thoughts on some words. >> Okay, >> her recommendation again, you're welcome to keep with it or not. She said alphabetic code is implied and that it could be helpful to have maintain it if y'all are interested. >> Okay.
>> And she said the reason why we couldn't find sound to something is Oh, it's they called it something different in the standards. It's not called sound symbol. She's recommended sound print
would be more recognizable to K2 educators. >> Okay. Um, could you possibly flag that for us again when we come back together as a crew? >> Copy to print. Okay. Are you all good on the banks
thing or was there anything else you needed there? >> Um, I think we're good there. I think we've made the decision to to do what he recommended. >> Okay, cool. Do you need anything for me? >> No, I'm good. just making a few line
edits since we we I'm I'm currently just going through and adding that um literary merit language into the standards. >> Okay, I appreciate you. >> Yeah, of course. Hey, Vice Hillard. I think I missed this when um I was on the phone with Lean,
but what time are we coming back at? >> One more time. 5. What? >> Sorry, I was muted. Uh 550. >> Oh, perfect. Thank you so much. Yep. All right, it is now 5:50, folks, and I declare this meeting back in session.
Would love to see some cameras of all those folks that are still out there. Uh if you're still eating, that's okay. Uh just come on and join us.
And we don't have this now with us yet. There's Brianna. >> Hey, Chernagus. Uh, Miss Now is joining at seven. How are we doing quorum wise? One, two. >> Oh, okay. >> We're okay on quorum. not great, but
>> and and we've lost I I wanted to uh uh tell Carolyn goodbye and thank her for all her good work with us, but who knows, maybe we'll have another session, but I sure doubt it. >> But I know we we're all wanting to get
this done. So, uh let's not waste any more time. Uh Britney, you're out there. Patty, you're out there. Do just to clarify, if we have three members with cameras on and we're not hearing anything from the other two members, is that still a quorum just because they're
on the call? I mean, I I I don't want to imply that Britney and Patty aren't here, but I'm just a little nervous that perhaps they're not. They're they're still up on WebEx, but maybe not currently in the room. >> Good thought. Britney, are you there? Or
Miss Singleary, are you there? I can text her. She might not be back from her dinner break. Let's see. Patty, are you there? >> Oh, there's Rosemary. >> That helps.
>> Yeah. Hi, Rosemary. >> I've had a day. Excuse me. Hello, everybody. Well, we're so glad that you could join us and and enrich your day even more. We had some special ed stuff while you
were gone, but I think we handled it pretty well. >> Yeah. >> Talking about RTI. Go ahead, Briana. What do you find out? >> Oh, no. You're I just said Cherus was carrying the torch for special education. Yes, I was.
Uh, >> could you fill me in a little bit? >> Well, we were talking about RTI when they where they're talking about interventions and and it was in the appendix when they were speaking of interventions.
uh and the the the way that this uh appendix was written uh I don't know was probably in its first iteration because uh since then we have RTI. We didn't have that when this was written and there's a lot more uh that's going on in
RTI to help kids to learn how to read. And since then we had legislation passed that if they're not reading at the third grade level they're not passing. So, I mean, it's pretty high stakes. Uh, and we need to intervene. Uh, that's for
darn for darn sure. So, we asked that the uh department um revise that. And Annie, you might not have been maybe you were listening. I don't know. You could have been occupied in a traffic jam and
and didn't get what we were talking about. But it was it was basically about RTI and uh what we can do through RTI to uh help promote uh accomplishment of the standards by all.
>> Okay. So nothing was added to RTI. You had an idea what RTI was? >> Yeah. Shelby County Schools, uh, we utilize, um, I Ready as our our intervention program. Um, and actually do four
different testes per year. One one in the fall, actually three, I'm sorry, one in the fall, uh, which is a benchmark test for reading and math. We do another one and, uh, December to see if there's any growth and that
determines what level there are functioning on. So I can use for example for middle or the grades that I have. If I have a fifth grader that's age appropriate and they're function on the first some some of them are functional on kindergarten first grade level then
we have to um meet them where they are and build them up to the actually age appropriate level. So that's why we use the I the Ready um program here in Memphis Shelby County Schools. And do
you have an RTI period for your school? >> Yes, sir. >> How long is that period, Tam? Uh, Rosemary. >> Uh, yes. The intervention uh for the sped teachers as well as the gened teachers are from 2 until 2:45 45 minute
block 5 days a week. uh two days online with the program I ready reading I already math and then uh three uh Monday, Wednesday and Fridays face to face where you work with them in small groups so oneonone and then Tuesdays and
Thursdays is computerenerated uh I ready while they do their lessons online >> and do you see primarily tier three >> actually I have six I have a total of 22 students huh >> no do you see tier three students on on
the RT TI. >> Uh yes, I my case load right now is 23 students. >> Okay. >> I have uh six, seven, eighth graders. Uh I have 11 seventh graders. I have five sixth graders and five eighth graders.
>> My goodness. >> But the group that my principal signed me were the students that were very below tier three. Uh and I have six students >> below tier three. Goodness. So >> you have you have a challenge.
>> Seventh grade, eighth grade. I have a little bit of all. Out of those six students, I have all three grade levels and I'm pretty much by myself. >> Yes. >> Bless you. >> So I have >> Thank you for taking the time to be with us. >> Yes, sir. >> My goodness. >> Yeah.
>> So Britney or Patty, are you with us? We want to make sure we have a quorum here. >> There she is. Okay, we have a quorum. And Annie's just not on camera, but there she is. All right, we're ready to rock and roll now. Who found some things
that need to be in the glossery that aren't in the glossery? Words that appear in the standards that we need to pro provide definitions for for our users, the teachers.
Chair, can I guess I do have a update from Leanne with the questions. Okay, so she did agree with the edit that we moved from what was it? The thing about rhymes, onset rhymes. >> Okay, >> she agreed with our edit there and she
said it made sense. She did have a recommendation of and this is totally up for the committee to discuss and decide pulling it up. She felt as I guess alphabetic code is implied in the
standard and so while it might not come up in a keyword search she felt like it could be helpful for foundational literacy educators. I don't know if Miss Wers has any thoughts. We had some K5 questions come up while you were elsewhere. And then the other piece she recommended was
sound. She said the reason why sound symbol might not have come up is because they use different language. She offered sound to print correspondence could come up more frequently. >> Is
sound to print in the standards? >> My understanding is it is not directly in a control F search but the concept is there in I think it's FLPA2.
What does it say in that FLPA2? >> Let's see. Sound print. And Miss Winter, you jump in at any point because I am certainly not a foundational literacy expert. There's a couple pieces. It seems like there's with prompting and support,
reverse sounds within a word. with prompting and support. Delete final sounds, initial sounds, solidify previously learned phmic awareness, stuff like that. >> Yeah, I don't I don't see anything though that requires that uh definition.
I mean, why would we put sound symbol correspondence if it doesn't appear in there? I understand what she's saying. That's an important concept, but it's not a word that's used that we have to define. That's totally up to the committee.
>> That's my stance. Anybody else have anything to say about that? >> My instinct would be to agree. Um, I think I'm someone who would generally prefer a smaller glossery. I think if we want anyone to use this glossery, it needs to be pretty concise um, and just
hit things that are in the standards themselves. I mean, obviously there are concepts that could be included here. I mean, we deleted allegory. I think allegory is an important concept for many uh, students to learn, but it's not in the standards. So I think this is kind of analogous to that at least in my mind. But this I am not a foundational
literacy person. So obviously I am I am going to listen to to folks who teach that domain if if they disagree with me there. >> So where you have sound symbol correspondence that is uh crossed out. Is that where we're going with that to
take it out of the glossery? >> Yeah because it doesn't appear in the standards Rosemary. That's what we're doing right now. That's what all the red lining does. We did we did all of those. Yeah. >> Right. Okay. So, I do agree with the sound symbol correspondence is not uh listed in any of the standards that we
have reviewed and revised. So, I would agree to take that out of the glossery. >> Okay, great. It's out. >> Okay. Um let's see. Where were we? You came in uh Brianna with something.
We were oh we were just soliciting uh words that appear in the standards that need further definition that we haven't addressed yet in the glossery. >> I just intervene really quickly. Um I
believe and Miss Summers can correct me. There was also the the idea of alphabetic code should be reintroduced. It wasn't >> I'm sorry. Yeah. Um a code is an code without the word alphabetic code can mean anything
even and code is is used throughout but um I don't know that we use alphabet if the phrase alphabetic code doesn't appear and if we're to be consistent with our
our stance on just defining words or phrases that appear it I don't think it needs to be in there. >> Yes. So alphabetic code is something that um we don't use uh at this time and
I haven't seen that also in the standards that we have um revised the foundational literacy. >> Thank you Rosemary. >> So I would take that as well as well as alphabetic writing systems. So you could tell the the person that gave you the
input that we did consider it but we didn't think it was necessary in our in our stance trying to remain consistent with what we've done in the glossery. Just look for readily identifiable words or phrases that appear in the standards.
>> Yes sir. >> Thank you. >> I did just stumble across something that I think might be noteworthy. Um if you look at the definition that we deleted for sound symbol correspondence, it says same as phone graphine correspondence. Um implying that those words are
interchangeable in uh K FLF4 we actually use the phrase uh phone graphim correspondences. So I think what we really need to do is not uh is to
just simply add a definition of phone graphim correspondence um that uses the definition already used for sound symbol correspondence except it just is under the the name FM graphim correspondence. >> I agree. Rosemary, will you agree with that?
>> I agree. >> Okay. >> Okay. I will do that now. >> They'll put it in. So, uh, Annie, what uh new words did you come up with that we haven't put in the glossery?
>> So, I kind I have a question about that. So, I found quite a few in the elective standards, but I don't know how specific the one I get because it's it's quite a few and I accidentally deleted my list and I was working to refine them. Um,
but um words like Uh, hold on. Sorry. Um uh we have parody and I I haven't double checked some of these things yet cuz I anyway um
biographical sketch parody satire and and then a bunch of words from um the etmology course that are very specific to that course. Are we
including those sorts of things or are we kind of leaving electives alone? >> My preference is to leave them alone, but parody satire and biographical
sketch seem to be uh used more than in the electives. No. Did you turn yourself off, Annie? >> Yep, I'm good for that. Um, we do have
satire in the glossery still. >> Okay, good. Um, is parody in the standards? >> Not that I can recall other than just in the um elective.
>> Which elective? uh >> creative writing. >> It is in visual literacy. Yeah, >> I guess that's just I guess we just need to make a larger decision about do is
this glossery pertaining to specifically the grade level English standards or are we going to feel it is the expectation of this glossery to also define words from uh elective courses because I don't think there will likely be much defining happening from elective courses since those were previously I believe separate
documents and this was previously the the glossery for specifically um for previously just the grade level standards. So >> I I I suggest that we do it just for the grade level standards. Is everybody okay
with that? Keeping with the history of this glossery? You okay with that, Rosemary? >> Grade level standards. >> Mry, how do how do you feel about that? Yeah, I think
I think my preference would be to have them, but also just I don't I didn't even really get finished looking at all the standards and it would be >> quite a few new words to define. So, just I don't I don't I feel like we'd have to have a whole new meeting probably just to work on defining those
words. Well, we we've been very generous with our time and we do some more, but I don't know that uh it's going to be very much use to many people. I mean, it might somebody might pick it up, but uh
nothing like what we need to have for the uh grade level standards. So, >> Miss Summers, can I or I just have a question like so when this was presented, my understanding is this will all be combined into one document. Correct. The
elective standards will be housed within this document as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Everything you've said so far has been accurate that the glossery was only for the K12 standards. Previously, the electives were separate. We are combining and it's certainly at the committee's discretion.
>> Okay. Um, yeah. I mean, if it if they're going to be in there, I mean, I think it's a decision. If we're going to have it just be a glossery for K through2 standards, then I think we need to specify that. I think it needs to be specifically named like K12 standards
glossery or something along those lines. Um, if we're going to call it a glossery for the entire document, I do think it would be a it would be an expectation, I think, that it would include language like parody that um that Miss Dockery has flagged. I agree with what you said. Let's define
what kind of a glossery this is and I like the one that you used. >> I mean I to be entirely honest I I wouldn't I don't mean to cut off Miss Winters but I I agree with Miss Dockery in that like
if if we're in an ideal world I do think it would be best to define some of these terms from the elective courses. Um, I also agree that I think if we do that almost certainly we'll be pushed to another meeting. Um, which I know is
not, you know, uh, it should not be the thing that makes the decision for us, but just logistically I think that would be the case. Um, but I I just wanted to just throw my two cents out there. >> So, you want to look at the glossery,
rename it from glossery to um, standards K12 glossery or K12 standard? Oh, standards K12 glossery instead of just having glossery there, but make a K through 12 standard >> standards. If
>> if I were to rank my my options here, I would say include language from the elective courses in the glossery is my first option. Second option would be to if we can't do that for the sake of time or or necessity or whatever. Uh my second option would be to just simply
specify that this is that this is a K12 standards glossery and not a glossery for for the elective courses as well. And then my third option would be to leave it as is. >> I would go with this I would go with the for me my choice would be the the second choice that you mentioned.
>> I agree. Dr. Now, >> hello. >> Hello. Nice to have you. >> Thank you. >> We're doing we're doing a a buzz through uh the glossery to see actually looking
at the standards to see if there's any words that have been out defined in the glossery. And the question was there are many words that come up in the elective courses. But uh our discussion now has been whether or not we should just
continue to follow the the process that they have in the past which is only define those words that are in the K12 standards. >> I honestly um I I see both sides of this
um not only for the sake of time but um continuity. Um, however, I to me it makes the most sense at this point in time to to just confine it to a standards K through 12 glossery because um we are stand we have
standards for K through 12 that are tested standards. The electives are not tested standards and they are open in some form or fashion to interpretation for the instructors teaching them. And so, um, I think by standardizing the
language surrounding the elective standards and and defining those terms might be somewhat limiting to those teachers who are not, uh, who are not tested subjects. So, my preference would be to just say it's a standards K through2 glossery.
>> Okay. Anybody else have a comment about that? I think we're establishing uh a consensus here. All right. The consensus is that we ask you to rename this as the K12 glossery appropriately
and that we move on. Who wants to nominate some words that are in the K12 standards that need to be in this glossery that aren't there? Patty, do you have any nominations?
I don't think I do. I just think we need to be sure that we've covered the important things. I mean, we could cover words at Nauseium, right? >> Yeah, you're right. Yeah. Thank you. >> Forever and ever and ever. Let's just get the important ones.
>> Okay, Britney, do you have any? >> I do not. Okay, two down. Um, I know that, uh, Lucas, you've been working very hard at this and you've
been anxious to talk, but you wanted to give everybody else a chance. Now, it's your chance. What words have you found? >> Um, so I don't know if I have all the words yet. I'm still sort of in the process. I I've kind of focused more on the foundational literacy because some
of those words are unknown to me. U so I think that's why I'm kind of defaulting there. Like I for instance, I haven't gotten through all of them yet, but just like in the FLF4 standards, we have reference to juncture.
Uh like J U N C T U R E. Um in the context of foundational literacy, I'm not entirely sure what juncture is. Um is that in our glossery? I had not had the chance to check.
I see that one. I saw Jandra. >> So to me I I think that might be a word worth defining. >> How was how was it used in the standard? >> Um it is read a wide range of grade level text with appropriate proity which procity
might be another word worth defining. >> Yes. specifically phrasing, expression, juncture, pause, intonation to demonstrate understanding. >> Okay, I'm good with proity and juncture. Who wants to uh put forth uh some
definitions? >> I I would love Oh, so proity actually is already in there. So, good news there. >> Good. Um, I I unfortunately I don't feel equipped to define juncture.
>> Nor do I, but I'll bet you Britney is. >> This is kind of out of my I looked it up because I do not teach um phonics or phonetics, but it says that it's the set of features in speech that enable a
hearer to detect a word or phrase boundary. So being able to determine the difference the example here is from ice cream from ice cream. >> So that seemed like that's more of a
>> like detecting the sound differences, >> right? Sounds like speech like the speech students that receive those speech therapist services and the related services. So that that kind of would go with that particular um
area. But as far as a teacher implementing it, I haven't seen that. But I have seen it uh in related services like our speech therapists or even maybe our um special ed teachers may um
utilize that in the earlier grades like K through third. Well, you have a good definition there. You want to put that definition in >> it? It's this is from I guess um like
dictionary.com. So, I guess we can't do use that exact one. >> And I do think we had had conversation about trying to avoid using uh >> someone else's >> someone else's phrasing and instead using our own. Now, we may run into our
limits of this because it would still be better to reference someone else if we simply can't define it. U so but I yeah I just wanted to throw that out there. >> Okay, let's establish the need. Is the need there to define this word?
>> Um >> if it's in the standards, do you think that there are teachers that need to know what this is? I agree to to leave Prodigesty because that is used very often. Uh but this word here I haven't really heard a lot
>> and I will say I mean I I brought it forth as a thing that needed to be defined. It is offered up as as an element of proity. So perhaps just by defining proity that >> it's
close related. I'm good with that. So, it would need to be defined as it's uh C proidity. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. >> I just I just always want to air on the
side of of of caution when it comes to the uh the foundational literacy since that is what I think of all these standards I'm least equipped to offer advice on. I know >> like Prody is like reading with expression to support meaning and some
of the examples that Miss uh Britney gave it looks at the phrasing, the emphasis and the inonation. So that kind of still following the same definitions Prodacy. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We're good with that then. So, uh
on to the next one. I know that uh right now while we're talking, Dr. now is researching uh because she came in after we were talking about this. But uh so at any time Dr. Now if you find a word just
shout it out and we will uh work on it and deliberate and see whether or not we should include it in the glossery. But uh Mr. Hillyard, do you have some more? Um, I mean, I'm I'm just kind of going
through and and checking words that I I I see in there that I think are probably a little hard to know and just checking. Like I just checked aix, but we already have that, so that's covered. Um, so I'm still kind of in pro in process a little bit, but I have not found anything yet.
>> Okay. >> I have a question um for we got rid of facious meaning, but we do have facious reasoning in in there. Um, should we include facious reasoning or I think I kind of missed I kind of
caught the tail end of that conversation and wasn't totally sure of what the reasoning was there. >> Um, I just our entire reasoning was just that the the phrase facious meaning or fallacies was not used in the standards. Um, so I I do agree that facious
reasoning should likely be defined. Is facious reasoning used in the standards? >> I think Miss Dockery just said yes. Am I hearing that right? >> Yeah, it came up. I'll double check myself, but I'm pretty sure it it was.
>> Tell us tell us where it's used and how it's used. >> Should be in speaking and listening 9 through like 9 through 12 as well as uh RL.cs dot sorry ri.cs.6 six, I believe.
>> Okay. Can you define facious reasoning for us, Annie? >> Um, and not only for us, >> not only for us, but for thousands of >> ELA teachers. >> I would also say we had facious meaning. So, we could probably base our
definition off of the definition that was previously already existing, fellacious meaning a little bit. I I don't. >> All right, let's let's see how we can craft something. >> We do definitely have facious reasoning. >> Okay.
All the more reason to put it in. I mean, I I don't love the language that was used to define facious meaning here. But I think we could if we
wished to we could adopt it and just switch out where it says uh it is imperative that students are able to clearly identify facious language and just swap out for facious reasoning. So it would read something along the lines of
>> facious to base a claim on a mistaken belief. A fallacy is anything that intends to deceive. It is imperative that students are able to identify f uh facious reasoning within in text. Examples of facious arguments include slippery slip fallacy, the red herring fallacy, and the ad homonym fallacy.
>> I would lo I would lose the words it is imperative that just say students are able to clearly identify >> it is imperative that they learn all these standards. We don't need to repeat that. >> I really don't see the necessity of that
sentence at all. Yeah, I I think Yeah. Okay. So, just eliminating the sentence. Should we have something in there about like flawed logic or something? Something about this
definition isn't feeling accurate to me. I haven't sat down and tried to write down a definition, but I feel like logic is I don't know. I guess you usually hear I usually hear logical fallacies. Um >> yeah, >> I don't know.
>> It doesn't always like I don't know if facious reasoning always implies intent. If it always >> Yeah, it's a deception. >> Mhm. >> Sometimes it's just a mistake. >> Thinking thinking.
What if you said fellacious means to base a claim on a mistaken belief or flaw in logic or fallacy is anything that deceives or misleads. >> I like it. >> I don't know if I like the word anything
there. Like anything makes it really broad, but maybe a fallacy intends or wait a minute. uh >> a fallacy is a deceptive or misleading idea
or line of reasoning if we're going to use atplang terms which I don't know that we want to >> I mean we are define we are using facious reasoning so I think >> uh that's the word we're defining so fallacy what was the language again I'm
sorry I lost it >> sorry I was on mute a fallacy is an idea is a deceptive or misleading idea was a line of reasoning. Okay, so facious reasoning definition facious means to base a claim on a mistaken belief or flaw in logic. A
fallacy is a deceptive or misleading idea. Examples of facious reasoning include slipp slippery slope fallacy, the red herring fallacy, and the ad homonym fallacy. I think I prefer the misleading um line of reasoning. I feel like that might be
a little bit more accurate. >> So, a fallacy >> a fallacy is a deceptive or misleading line of reasoning. >> Mhm. >> Yes, I'm good with that. >> Okay. Is that good the way it sets now?
All right. Felacious reasoning is in and facious meaning is out. All right. Any other words that need to be defined? Miss now anything. >> I'm looking. I haven't come across
anything yet. >> Okay. Um while while we dance through this uh let's proceed down uh through the glossery and see if any of those other things jump out at you. But let's
let's go through and qualify all the rest of these as the way we like them. Okay. >> Okay. >> Where did we leave at? dependent clause. Is that where we left off? We got I thought we got through the C's or
>> I think it's around there. I I wonder though because I I mean I think that's going to be a really timeintensive process to go word by word. I wonder if maybe um just saying like spend the next I don't know 30 minutes everybody going
through and looking over proposed edits to the glossery proposing edits to the glossery and then we come together after that half hour and look at the proposed edits might be the best way of going about this. Uh that way we could all kind of divide and conquer a little bit and which I know we're not actually dividing and conquering. we'd come back
and and deliberate, but I I I wonder if that might be an effective use of our time. >> Uh I'd go with 20 minutes. Uh well, and that would put us at uh
6:47 and that would give us 45 minutes to conclude. Okay, >> I agree with that. >> Let's take 20 minutes. That allows people just some time to check and see if there are any additional words to
add. We have some words without definitions. So, if anyone wants to take a stab at those, like we're looking at digital citizenship and digital tools. Um, so if anyone wants to attempt a definition of some of those words without a definition, that would be beneficial. Um, just kind of do what you
see needs to be done. Eight more minutes to examine. If any if everybody's ready, raise your hand. Saying no hands, take your eight minutes. 3 minutes to curtain. Keep it up.
All right, we're back to collaboration. Did anybody note anything that needs to be changed in the glossery? speak out. >> Well, I um this Miss Wyinners, I put some things in the chat. So, I gave you an idea for digital tools
and digital citizenship and I felt and maybe um correct me. I actually observed the word scaffolding and I saw it marked out. But from a special ed perspective, a lot
of teachers don't have an understanding what differentiation mean. So I did give a a definition of that in the chat. >> Um appreciate your contributions. We we have been looking at words in the
glossery that are on that are in the standards and differentiation is very important >> strategy but it's not in the standards. So we >> in the standards okay >> thank you. No, thank you,
Annie. What have you? Um, well, I went back through and was looking for some more things that might not have been because I during our previous break, I was
looking at the um electives primarily. >> Mhm. Um, so just things I don't know if we necessarily need to define them or not, but persuasive techniques, quantitative, stance, premise, rhetorical techniques. We do have rhetoric, so I don't know if
that's an encompassing there. Um, and then academic discussion. Um, I think I just put a couple notes on current definitions. I didn't make it very far. I think my other thing is I still would definitely prefer that we weren't using
AI for our definitions. I don't know if we ever came to a decision about that at our last meeting or I might have not heard another discussion about that while I was in the car today. But >> yeah, we did talk specifically about us crafting the words. We may beg, borrow,
and steal particular words or phrases, but we're going to put it together the way best way we can. So, we're going to avoid any of that. That's been our stance at this point. That was my understanding. Yeah. That that we would we would craft our own definitions and therefore that would
kind of circumvent the the AI issue as well. >> Miss now. >> Uh I typed in some draft definitions for a few words. Uh digital citizenship, digital tools to start with.
>> Digital citizenship is in is in the uh uh standards. Yes. >> Okay. Let's take them one at a time. Digital citizenship. Okay. I'm I'm going to really quickly go through the standards and just verify
that digital citizenship is there. I know that it was in that it was added because we had it in our um parking garage um to add that to the glossery. So, I'm just gonna Yes. Oh, well
um it is actually just in our electives. Um and if we're going to have this just be a K through 12 gauery, I don't know if we even need digital citizenship because it is only as far as I can see. Um unless I'm missing something.
>> Thank you for your very well-crafted uh definition, Lacy, but I think we can hold off on that for right now. What about digital tools? >> We certainly use digital tools.
>> And Rosemary, was this yours? I believe mine is in the chat, but I think the uh laces and the typed into the >> Okay, >> so I like hers digital tools are those
technological tools approved for teachers by teachers and used by students in the classroom setting. Some examples might include confer with the committee here. And the one that I had,
let's see, uh, program and resources that support educational activities and learning processes. So, I like hers because it's it's similar, but but I like hers.
>> The technical reference to technological Right. And I had programs and resources that um where I say programs for me, I should have said um technology technological tools. So I like the word technological tools rather than programs
and resources. I put in confer with committee here because this was where I was because we had those discussions when we did discuss digital tools as to whether we wanted to limit our our um our language
uh or potentially limit our language um thinking about the future and what tools might might come about in the future that we just can't anticipate right now. So, um, I I thought about including examples and then I thought maybe we don't want to include examples so as not
to limit ourselves. What does the committee think about that? >> Yeah, I don't think I don't think we need to include examples. I think just keep it general because as everybody's saying, life's going to look different 7 to 10 years from now. So, >> that's my instinct as well. Yeah, I
really I really like Lacy's uh digital tools are those technological tools approved by teachers and used by students in the classroom setting. >> So, let's just let's just get rid of some examples might include >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Everybody good with that? >> I also just wanted to verify really fast that we're good to get rid of the definition of c digital citizenship. >> Yes. Okay. You're still searching for that in the You only found it in electives?
>> Yes, I it only shows up in uh in an elective as far as I can tell. Yes. >> Yeah. So, >> one thing I wanted to ask about was um we have we we had the term features in there, but when I was looking down through we also have text features, which to my knowledge are the same
thing. So, um, we don't need features. I don't believe if we have text features. Let me do a quick scan to see if what term we use in the in the actual
standards themselves. Um, yeah, we we use text features in the standards. So, I think I think we're good to get rid of that definition of features if we >> I agree. So, how would we say text features?
>> I think we've got it. >> We've already >> It's already there. >> It's already there. Okay, good. >> Okay, >> one quick note on the co-pilot. I think we need to revisit author's purpose if that's the decision that the
committee wants to make. Okay. How can we restate that and not have to give credit to co-pilot? All you wordsmiths out there. All right. I'm going to start um just verbalizing and just talking aloud. Um so
um how I usually explain it in my classroom is that it's usually express it's it's a verb. It's an action. uh it's something the author wants you to do as a result of listening to the argument. Um
so it yes it's the reason why the author writes a particular piece of text but it is also uh the author's goal. >> Yeah. I mean my definition is pretty similar in my classroom. It's what an author wants their audience to do, think or feel as a result of uh reading the
text. Can we just say that? That was very precise. Sure. >> Thank you, Annie, for keeping us honest and out of Dutch. All right.
>> Okay. Author's purpose is is modified. >> Next, >> I I made an attempt at defining text, which I found to be a little fraught given that we've used a pretty expansive definition of text. So, I would love to
see what folks think. I'm I'm not 100% sure I I nailed it. So I just would like to to know what people think. Um I defined it as a created work that can be analyzed and or interpreted. A text can be written visual or auditory
since we we're including like films and an a verbal speech or a song as a text as well. >> Uh when I had drafted a definition on my own, I came up with something similar. I had said a written observable or spoken element that can be analyzed to determine its meaning. So essentially
the same thing. I like yours. >> Okay. >> So do you want to propose any change to that miss? Now use of the word meaning. I if if I I might propose that we add the language a created work that can be
analyzed and/or interpreted to determine its meaning. >> Yep. >> I like that. >> Yeah. I had taken a stab at thesis statement. >> Okay, we're good with text, everybody. >> All right, text is in.
>> I like the definition you provided for thesis statement. Um, I think we've been writing out one and two, so I think I'm if there if that's all right with you, I'm going to go and write those two out. But otherwise, I I I think that's a good definition.
And if you two think it's good, it's good. Let's keep it in. >> My only thought and I'm wondering just there was a lot of conversation about us getting rid of
claim as a thesis like in the argumentative as the thesis essentially. I wonder if we should put any language in there about claims um as a main claim in an essay.
I'm not married to that idea. I'm just wondering if that might help bridge the gap a little bit for teachers who are used to the claim. >> I hesitated to use the word claim because of the changes we made. >> Okay. So and and because we do have the word the
word claim defined in the glossery already and in that definition we said to state or assert. So if we are in the thesis statement um
writing that main assertion I think to I I was trying to be intentional yet broad uh yet specific enough in that definition that it would offer clarity but not
but not be too restrictive. That was just my thinking process about it. Somebody else might have a different take and and I understand where um I see Lacy's name. What was the young lady
that mentioned before? Lacy, what is what is her name? >> Annie. So, uh I can see where Annie is mentioned about claiming that's introduced in middle school sixth grade whereas the K through fifth is not. uh and I like the way the claim is uh inserted here already in in the glossery
uh a state or search something is true in essay writing and that the thesis should remain one or two sentences um earlier. So yeah, I think claim should be in there, but claim is already in the glossery. That would really help our
middle school teachers in middle school and up, but claim was not. It's not introduced in K through fifth grade. >> And you took out the last part of that in the standards. It could be used synonymously with thesis. That's not in
there. Correct. Well, thesis is should be in there, but I don't think we should use the word claim in the definition of thesis. And I like the way that Miss Lac is Lacy revised the definition of claim what
we're looking at now on the screen. >> Right. I've just took that's been yelled out this the last sentence. We're not going to use that, right? >> No, no, it will stop after supported by evidence. >> Okay. Very good.
Uh, so >> the word that to say or assert something is true. >> Are we good with that? Hearing no objections. Claim is in. As far as I can tell, the only words we
currently have with no definition are formatting and there was another print. Formatting and print are the only two as currently written we don't have definitions for. >> How are they used in the standards that
will help us craft a definition? I know print was kind of fraught I think when we talked about foundational literacy. Um it's used often in the context of features of print. Um demonstrate understanding of the organization and
basic features of print. I think it's it's essentially meaning like words written on a page essentially. Um but I don't I don't know. I I I also this is every anytime I step into the foundational literacy world I get a
little shaky because I get nervous that I'm gonna say it wrong >> simply. >> So there's print awareness and print concepts from the department. If at any point you want me to reach out to some folks I'm happy to just let me know. Let
me zoom in here. I don't know if that's the same as what we were thinking here. I mean, we use the word print within the within the category print concepts pretty often. Um, so I think I think
they're they're slightly different, but I think they're interrelated. I also wonder if we need to add the definition of print concepts. We don't use print concepts within the actual language of the words in the standards, but we do have it as one of our categories of standards. >> Yeah.
How would you define print concepts then? >> Um I think Miss Summers you said that the uh department had already defined print concepts. >> Okay. Yes, >> I can move this over into a comment for your
>> Yeah, that would be great. I I think adding that definition certainly wouldn't hurt. We'll >> do it under print concepts or print awareness. or print. >> We use print concepts in the actual
uh standards. So >> I would think print concepts. >> So be it. Let it be written. >> Okay. Other thing I'll flag is it looks like we're using a colon space and then a lowercase letter and then a period at
the end. So if anyone catches those that would be helpful. Um, I thought we were making a distinction and tell me if I'm wrong here. Um, if the if the definition was a complete sentence, we were capitalizing the first letter and if it wasn't a complete sentence, we were not capitalizing the first letter.
>> That's totally fine with me. >> Um, I think that's what we were doing here. >> And then with the periods regardless, right? >> Yes, I I believe that's what we had done thus far. >> Okay, cool. All right,
>> move around that definition. >> We're good with it. I hear no objections. Print concepts is in. >> And does do we feel like that adequately covers what what was asked for print? I I just The reason I had included print was because we had an item in our uh
parking garage that just said define print. Um, so do we feel like that definition of print concepts covers that ground? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then I think all we have left without a
definition at all is formatting. Don't know exactly what context we use the term formatting, but I can take >> uh we did well I know we used it when we discussed uh writing and research. um formatting a research paper
according to a particular style. >> Okay. >> Having had that reference then how would you define formatting Lacy? >> I was kind of playing with that when we reconvened here.
I'm looking at the standards and uh so like for writing I'm seeing an instance of formatting here where it says utilize and incorporate feedback as needed to improve content formatting or style. Um so yeah I mean it seems to be
uh the the way one presents the content of one's writing Does this include like citations like that kind of formatting? >> Um, so like if you look at this is the
longest standard code in the world, but E3 E4 WRBK5. >> Um, we have a substandard that reads format writing and site sources using a style guide. And then we have a subsequent substandard that says utilize and
incorporate feedback as necessary to improve content formatting or style. So I think >> so I'm organizing and two what goes into formatting. Okay.
What are students doing when they're formatting? >> I mean, in our in our definition, so like I guess I guess I go back to where we use it in the standards. In the standards, we say utilize and incorporate feedback as needed to improve content, formatting or style. So by that definition by by that language
that makes me think formatting is discreet from content and style. So it's not content, it's not style, it's I guess the intermediary between content and style. >> Okay, I just typed in something. We can
eliminate it completely. We can play with it. Just a starting point. Okay. So, it has to do with organizing in presenting content. >> I think we have typically used formatting as a noun um rather than as a
verb. So, maybe >> the organization and presentation of Yeah. And and since we have since we have distinguished between formatting and style in the standards, I wonder if
that if what comes after the semicolon might not be necessary here because I mean that is that is what I think of with formatting. I agree. I just wonder since we've drawn a distinction in the standards Unless we think style in the standards
is signaling something else. >> I I think if we're if we're going to eliminate it there, then I think we might need to define style. >> Okay. >> Which might be more accurate. But um
for clarity's sake, >> I agree putting style in there. Yes. >> Um I think I I actually like what she has after the semicolon. Personally, I am wondering we mentioned like or you mentioned maybe not putting content. Would text maybe work better than
content there? or maybe the uh foundational literacy term of uh print which is any kind of I guess written word. It was my understanding.
>> I mean I think you can format images as well. So I I think I like >> I like content. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess I I to me formatting and style are kind of synonymous. Like I those are kind of the
same to me. I was just throwing that out there since in the standard we we do mention those as separate things. But if if we feel like the formatting and style should just be kind of collapsed into the standard like this, I I have no qualms with that at all. >> When I think of style, I usually think
well style style guide, but then you have writing style. >> Okay. I think we'd had to be I don't know particular about maybe separating those two out if if we were to do a style definition and style is standing
alone without the word guide next to it. >> Okay. I I'm I'm fine with just keeping the definition of formatting then that makes sense to me. But uh Lacy talked about having style in there as a separate concept.
>> I I think Miss Dockery had I think if I'm correct here, Miss Now had said that if we were to eliminate the language after the semicolon, but I think we're we're deciding to keep that language now. Um, and I think if I had understood correctly, Miss Dockery had had kind of suggested that if we did come up with a
definition of style, we'll need to be pretty intentional about dividing because style can kind of have two alternative meanings. Um, and so I think it might be for the best to just kind of keep style out within formatting here. >> I would defer to your experience.
>> Yeah. I mean, I was the one who originally said that we should separate them and now I'm saying we shouldn't. So I I think um >> it sounds like you've duly considered it. >> I have I have been persuaded by the very intelligent people in this committee. >> Yes, we are very lucky for that. Well,
what else do we got? Uh we're running on the bewitching hour, boys and girls. >> We got uh 17 minutes left. >> Were any of the ones that I mentioned, did we think they were necessary to define? There's like one really one
particular standard that list listed several things that weren't in the glossery. Um, >> name them again. >> Uh, stance, premise, rhetorical techniques. We also have the phrase academic
discussion. So maybe we do academic conversation slashd discussion. Um, there's quantitative. I don't know about that one so much. And then we have persuasive techniques. And then also the academic conversation is currently a a co-pilot definition.
>> Have we used uh both conversation at discussion in the standards? >> I didn't check conversation but when I was looking through standards I saw academic discussions. >> I am doing a check for conversation at
the moment. So I will I will let you guys know in a second. >> Thank you. I'm sorry I'm giving you all whiplash. Did we have something else related to techniques? Hold on. >> Okay, we we do use the phrase academic
conversation. So, yeah, I think we use both academic conversation and academic discussion. >> Are they the same? >> Certainly seem to be to me. I would say so. I I like the idea of putting a slash
in there if we use them both. >> Um, now we do need to rewrite this definition because it's a co-pilot definition. >> Okay, Annie, you ready? >> I'm terrible at writing definitions.
>> I can try, but I think somebody's going to rewrite it. >> I can also look in the whatcham call it. That's where I'm at. Um, okay. >> The standards guide. >> Yes. Thank you. >> I would have to think this the department has defined academic
conversation or academic discussion. Maybe I'm wrong. >> Conversations. Well, that's not quite a definition. Think that's more of an explanation, but defer to the committee. We Oh, this is also kindergarten. Let's Let's go up a couple grants just as
we're collecting our thoughts academically. Hold on. Let's start in sixth grade. Oh, no. collaborative uh sharing of ideas. No. Okay, let me try 12th grade. I mean,
excuse me, English 34. Oh, yeah. See, they this reads more to me as like examples, but I'm open to y'all's thoughts. >> Yeah, I would agree. >> RIP. Sorry. >> Okay, Cherus, you were ideating,
>> collaborative sharing of ideas. What about studentled discussions surrounding academic content characterized by collaboration and usage of academic vocabulary? >> I love that. >> I'm sorry. I
>> think I think Miss Now has a calling as a definition. I I just wanted to jump in really fast. Um it it's increasingly looking like unfortunately given the time we're probably not finishing this tonight. Um since we have not gone through the
parking garage at all. Um I think that opens up the possibility between now and whenever that next meeting might be for like for instance I know Miss Dockery had has had some words that she thinks might need to be added.
um it gives us the the rest of us some time to to do similar work and we could perhaps come in and and have a relative brief conversation about finalizing the glossery at that point. We do have a glossery that is complete now. Every word has a definition. Um but if if Miss Dockery or anyone else feels as though
additional language needs to be included, they could come to our next meeting with that language ready. Um and we could perhaps make any quick decisions on finalizing glossery then then immediately shift to parking garage. >> But even if you don't have any ideas,
we'll need to have everybody here to vote on passing the standards. So >> we got to have a quorum, kids, >> right? >> Uh how we doing on uh Tuesday nights? Are we good now? Uh Lacy, are are you only available
at 6? Uh that was just for tonight. I'm checking my calendar. Uh next Tuesday night I am good. >> Okay. Cuz I was thinking we could start
later. I I only anticipate a couple hours and we'll be out of here. We're just kind of mopping it up. Now, Annie, >> may I ask if there was anything that was, but since I came in late, if there was anything that was put in the parking garage that we needed that we decided to
address later uh before I came in or anything like that that needs to be >> we started to then we extracted it. >> Yeah, I think I think Miss Summers and I have have kind of manned the the parking garage. Um Okay. Yeah.
beautiful servant, Miss Snow. Um, >> okay. >> Can you give us a run through? We got 10 minutes left. What's in the parking garage? >> I don't think the parking garage will take too long. I think most of the things in the parking garage have
largely been settled. I mean, there's quite a few glossery items, but I've been trying to introduce that language from the glossery as we've gone through. So, I think most of that's already been covered. There were some moments where I think we've gone back through and and wanted to relook at some of the wording a
little bit of some standards. Um there were some moments where we kind of reached a conclusion but people weren't entirely satisfied um with our conclusions or there were people who weren't loving what what our conclusion had been but we moved forward with a certain way of
doing it. So I think it would just be a matter of looking back and saying okay are we content enough with how things are? Uh, I don't see I don't see especially substantive work on the parking garage. >> Are there any additional items that you have that haven't been mentioned, Lacy,
by co-chair Hillyard >> in the in the parking garage? >> Uh, I don't believe so. I was looking for one thing while we were talking, but it is there. Nope, not not to my knowledge at this time. >> Okay. I think it would just be a matter
of us going item by item through the parking garage and just checking off the things that we feel have already done or if we feel like they haven't been done just taking a look at those things before checking them up. >> We put uh there was >> uh I believe a man who wrote in something about foundational literacy.
Was that public feedback like discussing that put in the parking garage? So it only needs to be discussed or it only needs to be in the parking garage if you'd like to discuss it. You certainly don't have to discuss it. So
it would just be a matter of any or mary if you'd like to talk about it, we'd add it to the parking garage. And that's true for any of our submiss submitted feedback. >> Okay. Well, I don't really know much about foundational literacy. So I don't I I remember reading it and not being
totally sure of what I thought. So, in my opinion, I think it might be worth visiting and seeing if he has a solid argument for his changes. >> We should have some folks from the state board then who are up on foundational
liturgy literacy available if we're going to discuss that. Brianna. >> Yes, I can speak to the um sort of uh rationale behind the feedback. My
understanding of it is that uh they believe that pronoun should be this is a fun one for 7:22 p.m. Central time. Um,
they want more clarity on pronoun usage related to gender and gender identity in the standards. >> What's that got to do with the literacy standards?
I'm sorry. Um, I think there are some references to the word pronoun and it's just a matter of whether this committee would like to take up adding more specificity in the standards related to pronouns. If I remember the feedback, uh, there's some additional language around like pronouns
have like gender nominative something something something. Um, Mr. Aer, if you'd like to discuss, then it could be helpful for members to re-review that or I'm happy to reread it on the record since it's definitely been a hot minute. Okay.
>> So, uh, let's talk about six hours then. >> Uh, never mind. I'm saying that could be a lengthy discussion, but we could probably >> Yes, that one specifically. >> I'm saying we might get by on two hours the next meeting. Um, and it's just
uh we don't really have much more to do on the glossery. Uh, no need to beat it to death. I mean, we we've uh searched and researched. If we find some something else in between now and the time we meet, let's discuss it. Um
>> yeah, I I personally, and I don't mean to intervene um or interrupt, but I I think it would make sense to me to have the expectation is if you if you wish to add to the glossery, please be prepared to propose that as soon as we start meeting on on our next meeting date. Um
that way we don't have to really have lengthy iterative conversations about the glossery. just a matter of between now and then propose or compile any language or uh compose any language you might want to add and and propose it as soon as we we come together.
>> Rosemary, you proposed meeting on a different date or a different time? >> I'm just throwing it out there. Is anyone available any other day like Wednesday, Thursday? I know Mondays are off. I'm just just asking. >> No, it's a good flag, Miss Wers, because
I think we've got a couple reoccurring conflicts on Tuesday. Okay. So, we can always try and circle back. Hold on. Uh, I am good. I could not do Monday, but I could do Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday. I could probably make work. Um, does Wednesday work better for folks? What conflicts do we have at 3:30 Central Wednesday? Note, of course, Dr. Stout and Miss here. Like Dr. Stout had something on
Wednesdays as well. Is that when she preaches? Of course. You know, we would still have a quorum. I'm just trying to recall. >> I'm open on Wednesday. Miss, does Wednesday work better for you? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I want to make sure. Uh Annie. >> Um yeah, I'll need just need to check about uh child care. Um because that really didn't go well when I had my child the whole time, which is not a good situation. Um but I can check on
that. But I'll be in the same boat. Unfortunately, I have an insane drive to and from work every day. So I'll have be in the same boat just every day now that I'm back to work. So I can I can call in again. I just the meeting will have to be opened up early for me and all that.
>> That worries I will say that worries me just a bit because I think this conversation about the glossery I think you you might have some additions to make to the glossery and I worry about you not being fully able to participate at that at that beginning moment when when I think your your contributions
would be useful. >> We could start the meeting at 5 have no supper break. That's why with me, I would just ask how confident are we that we can end at 7:30. If we feel very confident that we can end it, I would just hate to do two
half meetings. You know what I mean? Then that's um asking more of y'all to show up and leave and asking the the state board team. How confident are we that we can meet get everything done from 5 to 7:30 central? Annie, you're
shaking your head. >> I was gonna say I was very confident. >> I have no confidence in this team speed. >> Diligence, yes, but not speed. >> Miss Miss Dockery, do you think there's a possibility you could if you do have additions that you would like to offer
to the glossery? Do you think you could add them between now and our next meeting and then we could deliberate um on the contributions you've made at the start of the meeting even if you are not able to immediately jump in and speak in those moments? Yeah. Um, so should I put
that in the document or email it to Miss Summers? Like what's the protocol there? >> I think our general counselor would request the ladder. Let's also are there Oh, no. Because this is your commute. So, that'd be every day. Never mind. Okay.
So, there were no conflicts on Wednesday other than Mockery. Did I understand that right? Other than of course >> and the stock may be able to get somebody to do for child care, right? >> Yeah. >> Hopefully I can check in. It might be
another thing where I have him for an hour or two and hopefully he doesn't scream too much and then >> Oh, that'd be fine. Yeah, that we're with a a very understanding group here.
>> I'll bring mine if you bring it. >> You know what? I said, "I'll bring mine if you bring yours." >> Oh, yeah. I just have two screaming babies at the same time. It'll be great. >> I can start screaming, too. I don't have a baby. >> I have a 17-year-old. He could, you know, scream or laugh.
>> All right. So, we're good for next Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. >> Yes. I will confirm with colleagues, but good news. Even if Miss Singleary and Dr. Stout, we'd still be sitting at an okay quorum with the five. >> All right. I see the light at the end of
the tunnel and it's not a train. So, um I would declare this meeting adjourned and see you again next week. Thank you all.