And we're recording whenever you're ready, chair. >> And we're off. It is now 3:33 p.m. Central Standard Time. And I call this meeting of the English Language Arts ELA Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC,
to order. Vice Chair Hillyard, please call the role to determine a quorum. The appropriate response is here, present, or nothing. >> Miss Baird. >> Present. Miss Dockery
is not present currently. Mr. Hillyard present. Miss Now >> present. >> Miss Singleary also not yet present I don't believe. Dr. Stout >> present.
>> Miss Winters not yet present. and Chair Carnegus >> present. >> Chair Carnegus, you have a quorum. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Hillard. I move that the recording provided so well by
Mr. Walton serves as minutes for today. Do I have a second? >> I second. >> This will be done by voice vote. All those in favor of using the recording as our meeting minutes signify by saying I.
I >> I >> I >> I >> I heard at least six. So, the motion carries. Members and presenters, please raise your hand or say Chair Carus out loud to
be recognized. Unless I call on you, that's never been a problem. Members and presenters, please turn off your microphone in front of you unless you're speaking. Also remember that uh to turn speakers on when you're going to talk
um so that the uh your speaking is recorded. For the benefit of all Tennessans, please avoid the overuse of jargon and there's lots of it in our business and acronyms where possible and define any acronyms that you use. We'll now proceed with our next item on the
agenda. Coach Chair Hillard, what's the next item? I believe the next item will be the completion of the one remaining elective course that we have. And I see Miss Summers has raised her hand. >> Yes, Brianna. The chair recognizes
Brianna Summers. >> Thank you, chair. Is it okay if I read the statement of necessity since we're meeting online? >> Well, I think that's a good idea. Thank you. And I I forgot that. I was going to turn it over to you, but thanks for raising your hand.
>> All good. Okay. Thank you. Um, the Tennessee State Board of Education, ELA Standards Recommendation Committee, SRC, called an electronic meeting at 3:30 Central today, October 14th, 2025. This meeting is called to continue
proposing revisions to the ELA standards. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the items on the committee's agenda and the fact that committee members reside across the state, it was determined that a physical quorum of the members could not be assembled in Nashville for the purposes of this meeting. As such, this meeting should be
conducted electronically. Notice of this meeting was posted on the state board's website along with the agenda and instructions for accessing the meeting. >> Thank you, Miss Summers. Co-chair Hillyard, take us off.
>> Okay. Um we have like I mentioned one remaining standard or one remaining uh elective course we need to uh look at the standards for and then once we've done that we'll we'll be done with all the standards. We'll we'll have supporting materials left to look at. Um I see Miss Singleary has joined us. Hello Miss
>> Yes. Hello Miss Singleary >> after after which there will be a little small celebration. >> Yeah. Yeah definitely worthwhile. Um we will then need to move into looking at the supporting language um for this particular course as well as the
supporting language overall for uh the elective courses. Once we've looked at the the supporting language for those elective courses, we should essentially be done with electives. Um we'll then turn our attention back to the overall supporting language for the um for the
document more broadly. Look at our introduction. Um we'll need to turn our attention to the glossery to the uh appendix briefly. Um and then we will need to look at our parking lot and that should be the remaining tasks I believe. >> Okay. >> Um but our starting point will be um
etmology and linguistics. Um our our last remaining elective course if you look on the spreadsheet that is in row 160. >> Brianna, could I ask you to enlarge that a wee bit please? Well, more than there's better. Yeah. Thanks.
>> Then just so that we're all on the same page about these courses, thought it might be worthwhile to just simply uh look at the course description that's provided for etmology and linguistics.
>> Yes, please. Um current the current drafted uh course description is students of etmology study the origin and development of words recognizing that their history affects their current meaning and use. Additionally, linguistics focuses on the structure of language. Together these two areas build students conceptual
knowledge of language, reading comprehension and writing proficiency. So it is that is a brief description. So it's the the study of the origin and development of words as well as the study of the structure of language.
Do they teach this at your school, Lacy? >> Dr. >> This specific course? No. >> And And how about you, Coach? >> Coacher Hillyard, do they teach it at your school? >> No. Um I have not personally known any
teachers of this particular subject. Um my understanding is it's a somewhat rare elective course. Um, but um, obviously we're we're offering the standards. It's an interesting course, so uh, we want to make sure it's as good as good as we can make it. >> Well, I guess I'll I'll jump in. I took the course in high school and it was my
favorite high school course, hence the reason I'm a nerd today. >> Okay. Wonderful. >> One flag, Chernigus and members, this course. So, you'll see um, it's etmology and linguistics. You can offer it currently and this is up to the
discretion of this committee. Currently you can take just the etmology standards as a half credit or just the linguistic standards as a half credit or if you want to do you know one semester of each. So just something to keep in mind when you're thinking about the number and scope of standards as it's
currently designed and that's reflected in the substandard. I guess it sort of takes the place of a strand if you will. So you'll see the EL and the EL non-English language learner but etmology linguistics linguistics.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I would assume that this is an honors level course. >> Um I don't believe so but high school educators please correct me. I mean schools might be doing that at their you know respective institutions. It is off
it is available at the 912 level. The only subjects that we currently restrict in a similar fashion are the advanced journalism courses three and four and advanced creative writing. But it's really just for anybody but nth graders.
>> Did you say anybody but ninth graders? >> Just for journalism 3, journalism 4, and advanced creative writing. So this course is open to any students grades 9 through 12. >> Okay. Thank you. I just want to kind of get a common understanding about that.
>> It is pretty niche to vice versa's point. >> All right, let's dig in. >> Okay. Um, in row 160, we have the first we'll go through the etmology standards and then we'll or the standards within the etmology strand and then we'll move
into the linguistic strand. Um the first standard in the uh etmology strand reads trace how the English language has changed from its origin to the present day. >> Anyone >> proposed revisions there?
>> Hearing none let's accept it and move on. >> Okay. Um, EL2 reads, "Trace how American English became uniquely identifiable from other countries and how history, peoples, and geography shaped
regionalisms throughout the country. >> You got two standards in there. It seems to me regionalism is are we talking regionalism linguistically or just the
concept of regionalism? Anyone? certainly seems to me that it was talking about regional dialects of language um is my understanding of what is indicated by regionalisms here rather than just regionalism more broadly
>> right that it would be just the language >> okay then if we do that can we say that uh can we add that appropriately so there's no confusion about that I liked your word dialect I don't know
if that would uh better describe >> uh that that's a language I would use. I I I'll be frank and say that I I'm not an etmologist, so I I can't definitively say that's the right term um in that place, but that is what I would use at least.
>> Would you care to speak to this topic, Katherine? >> Oh goodness. I wouldn't consider myself an expert. I'm just a 12th I was just 12th grader in the class. But yes, I think um dialects does matter when you talk about regionalisms, geographies
shape regionalisms throughout the country. Yeah, I think you could replace it in that instance. >> Okay. So, if we were to make that revision, it would read trace how American English became uniquely identifiable from other countries and how history, peoples, and geography shaped regional dialects throughout the
country. I like that. Well said. Any problem with that? >> Um, since we've changed it anyway, I think you can remove the word uniquely. >> I just think identifiable from other countries is fine. >> I wasn't going to say it, but since we
revised it. >> Yeah, I would agree. >> Yep. Okay, everybody good with that one? >> Great. Good job. Let's move on. >> Okay. EL3 reads, "Explore how history, social, political, and economic
pressures shape the language." Um, is it is it meaning historical pressures or is it saying meaning to say explore how history and social e political and economic pressures shape the language? Because I don't think history is modifying pressures
as it's currently written. or at least if it is, that's not how it should be phrased. >> Well, and then you have history in the one above, too, which is kind of interesting. >> Yeah, you're right. >> I could see removing history from the one above and just making the one above
about people and geography and then dealing with history, social, political, and economics in the next one. I agree with that. How would that look then? >> Um well, if it's removed from the previous standard, then this previous standard would now read and how people's
and geography shaped regional dialects throughout the country. Um if it's maintained in EL3, um I guess our main decision would be are we talking about something we would refer to as historical pressures?
Because if so, we would just change history to historical. If we feel like history is separate from social, political and economic pressures, then we would need to say explore how history and social, political, and economic pressures shape the language. Um,
>> do we like the word pressures there? And is it not as opposed to influences? >> Yeah, I I would think either influences or forces perhaps. >> I think influences. And I think you have a now and adjectives. I think that's what you're pointing out. History is an
is now. Yeah. And social when political are adjectives. >> Yeah. >> Historical. >> So just historical. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well, I I would prefer to keep history in the one above and eliminate history in the one down below. Then all that has
to read is social, political, and economic pressures or whatnot influences. Yeah, I think e either is fine. I just don't think we need it both places. I'm whichever decision. >> Okay. Uh Chair Kas, I'm I'm fine with that.
>> Okay, we'll put history up above. Take it out below and then we're just dealing with social. Yeah, good. All right, everybody okay with that? All right, we moving on. >> Okay. Uh, ELE4 reads, "Understand how to
research language origins and the impacts on language development. Do we just want them to understand how to do that or do we actually want them to do it? I I hear your point. I think you can say research language origins. I don't
understand impact on language development. I don't actually understand what the second part is asking students to do. Um, yeah, I think what it's attempting to say is that they want students to be able to research the origin of a
particular word and then also research what has led to the development of that word or or words over the course of time. Um, at least that's how I'm reading it. But I agree. It took me a good 30 seconds to parse that and figure
out what it was trying to say. So I do think it's ambiguous in its wording. Can you say it better in starting with research? >> Okay. Um I I I can attempt to I'm a little nervous that I might not reflect exactly what is
intended by the standard because I'm not 100% sure what is exactly intended by the standard. Well, that's all we could do is is do attempt. Uh we've we're a forgiving lot here. So, uh you just throw it out there and
if we want to change it, we'll change it. But let's start with uh don't don't use understand how. Just um I mean I don't know if this is I don't think it's precise enough but my first
attempt was just to say research language origins and developments >> and their development or its development Um >> well then we would need to say language is origins um because it language is
functioning as a modifier of origins right now rather than a possessive noun. >> So is is it word development research language origins and word developments? I I don't know. I'm just trying to add some clarity. For example,
English is language origin Latin, right? I don't know. >> But Greek, but there are some words in English that are not of that origin, right? There are some words in English that are, you know, of different origin.
So, word development Do you have anything on this uh at the department? >> Kim, you got anything on this? >> I do not. I can contact banks and see um if he has anything.
>> I personally do not. >> Thank you. in in other elective courses we have um because to me this is also it it's just incorporating research skills. So in
other elective courses we've also said use research skills or use research skills when appropriate. Um >> we might consider using that language as well. Um, could we That opens up. Actually, if
we say use research skills, we could say use research skills to identify language origins and track word developments. >> Yes, that sure is better than what was said
before. I see uh doctor now nodding. I'm good. >> How about trace? >> Okay. Yeah, that that mirrors the language we've used elsewhere. >> Great. All right. Any problems with
that? Any improvements? >> No. Let's move on. Thank you for throwing that out there, co-chair. >> Of course. Um, ELE5 reads, "Apply knowledge of Latin and Greek origins to the study of English words and word
families across content areas. >> Specifically identifying just Latin and Greek here. No Anglo-Saxon I'm okay with it the way it is. I think it's very important. >> I'm also okay with it as is.
>> Okay, I see nods. Let's move on then. >> Okay. Uh, ELE6 reads, "Study the quantitative and denotative meanings of words in a variety of contexts." >> And that's got references back into the other standards, right, Dr. Now,
do we have to indicate that anywhere? >> No. Okay. >> I don't believe so. I mean, that that's the language we we used in the I believe language standards. We were intentional about differentiating between quantitative and denitative meaning. So, it seems appropriate to do so here as well.
>> All right. I accept it. Everybody else okay with it? Hearing no objections, let's move on. >> Okay. Um with com by completing that standard, we are now done with the uh etmology strand and we're now onto the linguistic strand. >> Wonderful.
>> Uh just something I wanted to flag really quickly. Um for all but one of these linguistic standards, you'll notice that they are essentially using what we have been using as substandards as ways of providing lists. Um we have been pretty intentional about not doing
that uh throughout the standards. So, I think it might be worthwhile for us to consider how to just, you know, not not change the wording of what's being provided, but but just slightly alter how it's presented. U because as it currently stands, we're we're presenting as substandards, just essentially
individual words or phrases. >> I agree. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so for ELL1 we have trace the morphological elements of language uh words and morphes, neogisms, inflections, derivations
and exceptions. >> Do we have to say including? >> Um I think we would either say including or we could use the specifically uh form that we've used elsewhere as a parenthesis. Um I I don't have a strong preference there. I just would defer it
to the committee. >> Do we have to proceed that with IE or no? >> Um I don't believe it would be an IE because I think this is intended to be the complete list of more flexible elements. >> So >> since it is the complete list, I would think specifically >> okay
>> what we've been >> and then I I believe we should lowercase morphological and then I think we should also lowercase each of these words within the list. To my knowledge, these are not uh these are not proper nouns.
>> I agree. >> Um would words and morph themes, if we were to make it this into a specifically list, would they be two separate items within the list or are words and morphes considered an item that needs to be presented
together? I don't have enough knowledge of linguistics to to answer that myself. >> Vice Hillard, I do not have an answer to your question, but I am currently looking for other states that offer etmology and have core standards on our website. It's not turning up super
fruitful yet, but I will report back if I find it. >> Thank you. Okay, I I've separating words and morph themes I have presented what this I think would look like um in I 166.
>> If we get inspired later on and want to change that, we can do that. I'm I'm accepting somebody thought through this. Uh I I don't see any need to change it right now. I'm comfortable with it. Are you all comfortable with it? I see nods.
All right, let's move on. >> Okay. Um, >> we have the same language in here. >> Yeah, I am a bit confused. Uh, I I don't think I think we can simply remove ELLL2 because it looks to be a duplicate of the previous standard.
>> It sure does. >> Yeah, take it out. I can double check to make sure that wasn't a coding error in STA if you want to circle back. >> Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. >> I I'll mark it as removed right now and then if if it were if there is a
standard that just got eliminated there, we can we can take a look back at that afterwards. >> That'd be great. Yeah, sometimes if the coding is just one dot off, it'll sort of set everything off. >> Okay. Um, I did notice that morphological is lowercase in the second standard whereas
it was uh uppercase in the the previous. So that could have theoretically had some impact. >> Yes. >> Um, moving on. Uh, ELLL3 reads, "Analyze phonetics of language with a focus on speech sounds and their physiological
production and acoustic qualities." Sounds good to me. Yeah, I see. Knots Let's move on unless we want to change. Hear no recommendations for changing. We accept it.
>> Okay. Um, ELLL4 reads, "Study the phenology of language, including organizations of organization of letters/ sounds into words. Uh, be in tonation." Um,
I think would if we were to move this into a sentence uh like we've done elsewhere, would we want to just maintain including and turn this into a sentence form? Um, or would
this be an example of something we would need to turn into an eG or a specifically? I hate to interrupt, vice chair Hillyard, I think something happened with the STA coding where it's all one
off. So, I can quickly update those. Let me see if there's a place you'all can pick back up. Looks like EL7 is correct. Looks like E or I should say E L 7 is correct as intended. It looks like ELL6
is correct as intended. Looks like ELL5 is maybe when we're having issues. If you can give me one second, I can update these so that they reflect. Does that make sense? So, if you'll circle back to six and seven, I'll fix these.
They're all correct. They're just because I guess the coding got messed up. They're oneoff. Oh, and Mr. joined us. Hi, Mr. >> On four. That sounds more like an activity rather than a standard to me. If we just want them to have them study, that doesn't say anything about what we
want them to learn or be able to do. Okay. Um, is there a another verb you would prefer there? >> We've we've used trace in other instances thus far in this strand.
>> I'm content with trace if >> I'm content with trace. That's better than study indicating that they're going to be able to make some connections. So it currently reads trace the phenology of language including the
organization of letters slash sounds into words and inonation. We haven't used letter we haven't really used slashes very frequently. So would that be letters andor sounds? Would that be an instance of andor?
Where would that be an instance of and? >> I like I like what you said andor is good for me. >> Any other changes? Okay, I'll keep it as uh coach Hillard had amended it. Please
moving on. Is it clear that inonation is a separate item here with the current phrasing? Trace the phenology of language, including the organization of letters and or sounds into words and inonation. I'm a little worried it feels like into words and into like I'm a little worried that intonation reads as
the object of of the preposition into in addition to words, but I may just be misguided there. >> No, I see your point. >> We need to revise Uh, I I I get the sense that they were
intentionally listed one after another for a reason, but could it be that we say just simply say including inonation and the organization of letters and or sounds into words? Is some meaning lost there? >> I'm okay with that.
Everybody okay with that? >> Yes. I think that >> so yeah >> that clarifies it. >> Okay. So it would now read trace the phenology of language including the inonation including inonation and the organization of letters and or sounds
into words. >> Yes. >> And keep moving on. >> And that's a revision of what is actually three since we've we've been Brianna. Have you had the chance to to change all those now? Are we looking at the correct standards?
>> Yes. Thank you. Um, so yeah, that would be three. And so maybe you're keeping two, it looks like. Or have you looked at two? That might be new. >> I think we we kept this, right? Yes. >> Yeah. So from here on out, we're good.
>> Okay, great. All right. Um, ELLL4 reads, "Analyze the elements of syntax, competence/performance, structure and ambiguity, constituent structure and tree diagrams, transformations,
phase structure and rules. All right. Well, first of all, uh, take out the of Yeah, true. I think I skipped over that when I was reading >> analyze the elements of syntax including
or specifically whatever we decide. >> I think the best way to me to do this since it is going to be a pretty lengthy list, we could do uh lists within a list kind of do use semicolons to separate the items. >> Agreed.
What's it going to look like then? Are we going to say specifically? >> I believe so. That's at least what I'm drafting right now. I'm obviously open to other ideas, but that's what I started preparing, >> but the all of the elements don't seem
to match up to me. specifically the um well um you use rules you don't analyze the rules you use tree diagrams you don't analyze the tree right so we have functional items and then we have what we actually the the actual content
>> I agree so we could eliminate those if they want to use tree diagrams to analyze that that's fine but I don't know that that it needs to be in there it's not equivalent And what else did you have in there?
Rules. >> Another instance. Yes. >> Okay. So, the proposed edit would be to eliminate and tree diagrams and then also and rules. Am I hearing that correctly? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So what I have currently is analyze the elements of syntax specifically competence/performance structure and ambiguity semicolon constituent structure semicolon transformations semicolon and phrase structure.
>> Uh can anyone explain competence performance? >> I cannot. Katherine, you want to take a stab at? >> I I I think I understand what they mean by performance. I don't know if what they mean by
competence. Performance is um >> Okay. I I just looked it up really quickly. >> Okay. >> Um in linguistics, competence is the unconscious study is the unconscious knowledge of languages grammatical rules
while performance is the actual use of language in real situations. Okay, >> that's what I was going to say about per performance. That's what I knew. I I've never heard confidence before. >> Okay, thank you. It belongs in there.
>> Um, should they be slashed like that? It seems like they're separate things. So, shouldn't it just be a comma separating these two? >> Specifically, competence, comma, performance. >> I think so. >> We haven't used slash as much, have we?
>> No. Yeah, I think that's better. All right, looks good to me. Anybody got any more changes? All right, we're moving on. Okay. Uh, ELLL5 reads.
Okay. Uh, discovering sentence structure through formulating grammatical rules, which is a sentence fragment. That sounds more like a teaching strategy than a standard.
Yeah, I mean that that boundary will get a little fuzzier sometimes with elective courses. We definitely have some things that that air a little more on the side of strate strategy for like for instance the creative writing courses, but I I see where you're coming from there,
>> Dr. No. >> I I just I'm a little confused as to what the intention behind the standard is. Are we supposed to use standard grammar? Are we supposed to use grammar to help us discover how to
formulate sentences or construct correct sentences? >> Yeah. >> Are we supposed to be studying how grammar rules formed? The ing are throwing me off. I don't
know. I don't know what the intent is. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure myself. It sounds as if currently worded. I mean, if you're formulating a grammatical rule, it seems as though you're you're developing one yourself. Um, and I don't think students are likely being asked to kind of create a new grammar.
>> I can pull the or currently active elective standards. It looks like there were edits to this one. >> I wonder if it's formulated instead of formulating. I'd be in favor of just dropping it, but if there's something in there of
substance, it does seem to be also kind of slightly analogous to the the standard above when it comes to sentence. I mean, I guess sentence structure and syntax are not the same thing. Um, but there is a little a touch of
overlap there. >> Unfortunately, the current standards are even more sentence fragments. >> So, and it looks like they've done some consolidation given the fact that some of them are two words or one word.
>> Okay. >> So, I can put these side by side. I don't know how helpful this will be. And I can zoom in. Give me one second. So, thank you to our predecessors for making these Complete thoughts. >> Yeah, that's interesting.
>> Okay, where were we? Y'all are on five. This five or no, you're on this four. >> We are on standard five on our own document. But I I think the the old
standard that we're adapting would be the old L8. >> Oh, there you go. Okay. So, that's where your ing came from. >> Yeah, it seems to be just kind of a they've added the word sentence, but
otherwise it's been moved directly over from the currently existing standard. So, one clue that you can review or not review if helpful is that it looks like there's a connection to a language standard. At least in the currently active. It looks like what is it?
Language standard one and language standard two. At least in the currently active. I can pull that up as well. I wonder if they're talking about inductive reasoning here. Um. Oh gosh.
Also, I did look for a bunch of states. It does appear that Indiana teaches etmology, but I was only able to find the course description. So far, I have not looked, but I'm happy to. Okay, so it looks like command of
standard English grammar when writing or speaking is the one cornerstone that the standard is supposed to link to and then the fairly similar one capitalization, punctuation, spelling when writing. So I guess it's just what's the connection between
linguistics and grammar etc. But I defer to you all here. Yeah, I mean it seems to me like it's gesturing and ask asking students to identify the grammatical structures within sentences. Um, but I also noticed that the previous
linguistic standards had these subcategories of morphology, phonetics, phenology, and syntax. Um, this is the only other syntax standard alongside the standard we just did previously. our version of the former L7 is the current
EL4 ELLL4. So, these do seem to be kind of working in in analog with each other. >> I like what you said, Coach Terry Hillyard. That seemed to make more sense. Can you say it again?
>> Can try. I'm not sure if I know what I said. >> You said Identify something. identify correct sentence structure using grammatical rules. >> Um, I I threw it together. I don't love it, but I threw together something and
kind of an attempt that just identify sentence structure through the analysis of grammatical rules. I don't know if that's exactly what is intended here, but I'm just trying not to to dramatically alter the the standard since there is some ambiguity about what it's asking
for. Is it analyze the sentence structure through or by using grammatical rules or using grammatical tools?
>> I like that. >> I do too. Yes, I would go for that. Can you write that on there and then we can see if we've got consensus on that? There it is. Are we okay with that? I look I see a bunch of nods. So, let's
move on. I think we've got the answer. >> Just so you're aware, I I'm asking Banks about it. He is typing back. I'm not sure what he has to say, but I'll share that in the chat with you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> If we need to roll back, we'll roll back.
>> Okay. Um, then ELL6 reads, "Analyze the role semantics play in language development with a specific focus on theories of meaning. um don't believe semantics would be a proper noun. Um
>> you know, >> our theories of meaning, um I those don't seem as though they would that would be a proper noun to me, but I don't want to to speak out of turn there. >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Well, you're you are this one person
wrote these uh standards. Uh if somebody else wants to use this course, they may not use theories of meaning uh you may need to just say analyze rule semantics playing language development. >> Um so theories of meaning is a um it is
not a proper noun but it is a technical term. Um I just Googled from according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Um these are uh theories by which uh we explain how symbols convey ideas. Um and
then there are many subcategories of theories of meaning such as correspondence theories, referential theories, semantic theories. So it does seem to be a term within the field. >> Okay, sounds important to me then. I like the way you have it right there. >> Yeah, but Stanford Stanford does not
capitalize it. So I think >> Okay. Are we good then? The way that co-chair heard has described it. I see no objections. Let's move on. Okay. Uh then we are on to our final
standard. >> Um ELLL7 uh reads analyze the effect the effects pragmatics have on language development. A rules of conversation. and B speech hacks. C language of persuasion
are those >> I would say pragmatism but is pragmatics supposed to be specific to the subject? >> I am doing a quick Google at the moment. The pragmatics is the branch of
linguistics that studies how context influences the meaning of language. Well, I guess as a yes. >> Okay. So, how do we take the little letters out? >> Okay. Um, I assume those are examples of ways in
which language develops rather than examples of pragmatics. Are we interpreting that the same way? And if so, would this be a specifically or an EG situation? I think you can use your commas uh
language development in and then list them all with commas. >> I I was doing some looking up as well. So it seems to me that elements of pragmatics are rules of conversation, speech acts and language of persuasion.
>> Okay. So those are elements of pragmatics, not instances of language development. >> Uh if we're going to be more precise, uh somebody else can also do a quick uh little bit of research as
well, but I I believe so for my brief understanding. >> Okay. Um, so if that were to be added after as a specifically list after pragmatics, it might read something like analyze the effects pragmatics, specifically rules
of conversation, speech, acts, language of persuasion have on language development. >> I like that doctor. for now. >> Okay, Patty. >> Yeah. >> All right.
And anybody else have any comments? Otherwise, >> so yes, before you say otherwise, we're >> Okay. Um, I guess what this feels like it's missing to me is any reference to
um the role technology is playing in accelerating language development, accelerating language evolution I should say. Um, I also don't see any kind of practical skills in here. It's all like analyze, understand, trace, but like
there are no projects. um you know nowhere where they're applying these and I just feel like those two elements are missing in this strand of standards. >> Well, I think applications are are more
activities related to learning the standards. So, I I wouldn't be uh wouldn't be wanting to include too many of those applications in there. But I think technology and the use of that we
already eliminated a standard. We could create a new standard for that. >> I will also say if we go back to EL3 it reads explore how social, political and economic influences shape the language. We could perhaps add some language about technological influences.
Explore how social, political, economic, and technological influences shape the language. >> I'm good with that, Coach Hillard. That's a great idea. >> Dr. out. Do you feel that better captures what you're >> Yeah. Um I think that's fine. We could
do it there. We can make it its own, but we can I think it's fine to do it there as well. >> Thank you for uh remembering that uh and putting that in there. Uh especially as we talk about uh getting the students to
uh see their selves as a future citizen in a window not a mirror. Okay. So then using that modification to three are we okay with our last one hearing no objection then I would say
that we are complete and we'll keep that as revised and did you say we are done with all of the standards vice chair Hillyard? >> Um Dr. I saw you just dropped some language in the uh chat.
>> Well, I was trying to think if it was his own standalone, but I think you kind of solved the issue. The question is, do we think it's important enough to make it a standalone standard or do we just want to put it in there? I either way is fine. >> I like the way you modified three just
personally. >> All right, then let's let's move forward. >> Okay. Once again, is this the last standard that we have to review? >> Kim, did you hear anything from uh
banks? >> Uh so on the first one that you mentioned, the EL4, you just said that the change you made sounded reasonable. >> Um and then the one about
what was it? formulating grammatical rules, something like that. He didn't have any context on that and he liked what you all created better. So, yeah. >> Thank you, K. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um
I we have complete the supporting for specifically etmology andics and then more broadly for um like that table at the at the introduction of the supporting language for uh for the elective courses.
>> Okay. >> It might have just been me but you might have cut out. Did you want to go to this or did you want to go to the table? >> Um I think we should look at the atmology and linguistics first. um uh just to because I think that should be quick and and we've done that elsewhere when we've looked at the course
>> and we're hot on the language. >> Let's do it. >> Okay, so course description like I read earlier currently reads students of etmology study the origin and development of words recognizing that their history affects their current meaning and use. Additionally, linguistics focuses on the structure of
language together. These two areas build students conceptual knowledge of language, reading comprehension and writing proficiency. And then under content standards, it reads, "A study in etmology and linguistics expands language standards. Students not only develop accuracy with the conventions and word choice, but they also
understand the logic behind the constructs and build sophistication in their own writing." >> Well said. >> I think it probably should say language standards and writing standards um where it says expands on since there's a later reference to how it built sophistication
in their writing. Do they need to be capitalized? >> We've done that elsewhere. Um I that is not something that I feel particularly strongly about, but since we've done that elsewhere, I just was doing that consistently. >> Okay.
>> I don't have any real revisions outside of that for the course description or content standards. If no one else does, >> I hear none. Let's move on. >> Okay. um then we we should be good on
the individual elective courses and um I think we've looked at all of the course descriptions and content standards for each of the elective courses as we've gone through those courses. So I think we're in pretty good shape there. Um, so I think we would just simply need to look at page one and then the very top
of page two uh for the supporting language for the elective standards. Um, which primarily would be the uh the table there though we have some language up at the top as well. >> Can you expand that Brianna?
>> Yes. We can start on the table or the long form writing if that works. >> Okay. Um, >> we can get it bigger. >> It's good. Thanks. >> Let's see. There we go. All the way to 200. One uh grammar question that I
would love my ELA experts thoughts on. Would we normally capitalize these subjects throughout? >> I think since we're treating them as courses, probably. So, >> okay, cool. >> I'd agree with that.
>> There might be an extra space here. Yep. >> I do think and and I don't if if other people disagree. I think we've we've intentionally avoided the amperand um throughout the standards itself. And so, I don't know if in especially in the context of an etmology and linguistics
course, I think maybe we should use the word and rather than the amperand there. But that might uh I'm I'm obviously not going to die on that hill. >> Well, we've been a a stickler for consistency, so I think we ought to remove it.
>> Yes, I think you might want to also change it here. Oh, and you in terms of precedent, you do have speech and comp here. So, or comm here. >> Okay. So, we would need to change it in the table as well. >> Yes. Be great. Thank you. Okay. I was
just checking the other ones. >> And Brianna, when you do these, do we not normally call out a a definition of the table below and give it a number so that you keep
content and tables together and then have headers that repeat at the top of each if a page if a table breaks across a page. >> That's certainly what I do when I write reports. Please.
So, it sounds like we have a unofficial motion for a And you can just write um table X or figure X and I can make sure they're numbered properly. >> Yeah, >> good point.
>> Would someone else like me to to write that or is someone going to write that themselves? We would love for you to write. >> Put it in for reference. >> Okay. >> You can title it. >> Would that just go right above the the table? Just table
>> tables usually are called out on top. Figures are called out below the figure. >> Okay. >> So, this would be table X dot whatever and then whatever it represents. Yeah, I don't know wherever we call it
out. >> You'll need to find the call out above the following English electives. Are these electives? >> Yes, they are. Then it should go the table call out should be table right there between electives offered.
>> Okay. So it would just be a parentheses table x whatever. >> Yeah. Do we need a table below? >> We need a title. Yeah. English electives. >> Maybe guidance. Kim, I'm open the
>> Yeah. Whatever. Whatever we're calling it up above >> like English language arts electives guidance. I don't know. Because really you're just trying to tell I mean you're connecting course management to standards. >> Yeah, >> in my mind. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay. So, and that would need to go after the table X above >> table X period >> space and the title. >> Okay. Is that in title case or is that in sentence case? >> Title case.
>> Okay. Um, and what was the language we had said, Brianna, for that? >> Open to thoughts, but maybe English language, arts, electives, course guidance, and then some help in the word standards.
Let me see if the course management system has some thoughts here. So, the formal name for the course management system, Kim, feel free to correct me at any point, is the Tennessee course catalog. So, maybe I don't it's it's not quite a quite a
crosswalk, is it? I don't know. You're connecting the Tennessee course catalog and the Tennessee elective standards to provide guidance is the purpose of this table. I'm gonna get that written, but go ahead, Miss Bar. >> No, I think I was just going to say
course guidance in relation to the whatever else you said. It's a long title for a table, but >> yeah, I'm I'm good with the way I think vice chair >> I think it's fine there. Yeah. Is it courses guidance or course guidance?
>> I was just mimicking what uh because the title of this document is English language arts elective courses. So I was mimicking English language arts elective courses down below alongside just adding guidance. >> Okay to correct that. I'm not I'm not married to that language. If y'all feel
that it's clear >> I'm good with it. I would just request that we say in the in the spirit of our church guidance just is everyone okay with identifying that so that y'all can use it going
forward. >> So I suppose we would also want to put it here. Feel free to stop me. Hold me back. >> There you go. >> And then I think you >> And that should that should be bolded. >> Yes. I should the tab call out, but as
you clean it up, that'll get done, I assume. >> But you're good. Let's Let's do it. Do not want to forget. >> Call out in text would be bolded. >> Yes, that too. >> Okay. Including the parenthesis.
>> No, >> no, not the parenthesis. >> No, not the parenthesis. Thanks for keeping us on the straight and narrow, Miss Bear. Okay. >> Okay. Are we good now? Co-chair Hillyard. Uh if I'm good if
everyone else is good with those those opening two paragraphs um as written. >> I'm good with them. Does anybody have any more recommendations for changes? >> Hearing none. I say we're done with this discussion.
>> Okay. And all that remains for this document is the table. Um, so I I think it would make sense to kind of go rowby row through the table. Um, >> cuz some of these decisions are
relatively weighty since we're making decisions about what exactly entails a half credit and a full credit and how many possible credits a student can earn. >> Yes. And one thing I think is outside of the scope of this committee are the number of possible credits to earn. So I
would just work backwards from those numbers. Okay. >> But in terms of like the allocation of standards, like if you know if you all wanted to change any of this, that's would be very helpful. >> Okay. Okay. So, genre literature currently
reads uh grades 9 through 12, teach all standards for a half credit, and then full credit is teach all standards in greater depth and/or teach more than one genre of literature. Okay. And my understanding of half credit versus full credit. Educators,
please correct me, but it's semester versus school year, >> assuming, you know, minus block scheduling, >> right? >> So, what do you think kids can get done in a semester versus what do you think they can handle for the whole school year? >> Um, and I would just say we we
workshopped Bible in our last class um to or last class um our last meeting to uh uh to include language about teaching more than one religious text in a non- sectarian manner. Um we in intentionally kind of mirrored the language we had
done um for genre literature in Bible. Um so if we do decide to alter any of this language for genre literature, it would likely have downstream impacts. Just wanted to to flag that for folks. I personally am fine with the current wording for >> I am fine with it. Anybody have a
problem? All right, let's move on. Brianna, can you expand it just a little bit? >> Little bit more. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, next is mythology. Uh, which currently reads
9 through 12, teach standards M1 through M9 for half credit and then full credit is teach all standards. Um, I personally we we intentionally um Dr. St proposed some some edits to I can't remember if I think it was mythology, but it might have been genre literature, but I know
there was there were edits made to kind of make sure these classes mirror each other. Um, and I do think they can do so pretty easily. I I don't know why we wouldn't mirror the half credit and full credit expectations for genre literature on mythology as well. So just simply ask
them to teach all standards for the half credit and then teach all standards in greater depth and or teach more than one mythology uh for a full credit. Um I'm good with that. I think that's going to provide a little bit more meat in the
curriculum rather than uh just a happy course. >> And mythology generally does have fewer standards already than than several other elective courses. So I don't feel as though that's giving a particularly difficult onus on mythology teachers.
>> Mhm. >> Yes. You also have it mirrored where the there are topic options. So in genre literature you have you know all of these topics and in mythology you also have topics. Okay. Any more changes to that?
Accept it as read or as printed now. Okay. Okay. Um, etmology and linguistics. Um, I don't where where it says on the the course on the side. I don't I don't know
why it says etmology and linguistics e etmology linguistics. I'm I'm a bit befuddled by that. I think it should just read etmology e and linguistics l correct. >> Yeah,
>> I agree. And we take off the but those are course those are part of the course codes, >> right? >> So the course codes were EL and ELLL. I think >> but the overall course the overall course I'm hearing I remember correctly was just e right miss now
>> excuse me >> I do think you have appointments now I think I let me look on the course management system >> yes you're current >> um oh wait
>> it does bother me just a little that They do look so similar to English language learning, but that's a completely separate idea and concept and framework. So, I I'm going to hush about it.
Lucas, just for consistency, take the space after mythology on the line on the row above out so that they're it's mythology and then immediately M P M close parenace.
>> Yeah, I see it now. >> I think it might be a paragraph spacing issue. Nope. It's >> like there's a space stuck in so that broke the broke the line. >> Yeah, I think >> like all the others. >> I think it may just be double spaced
there rather than >> maybe that's spaced elsewhere. >> Yeah, just just mark it so it can be fixed. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. Do we have anything on the third line? Any more changes?
If not, let's move on. >> Um, well, I do think we still are kind of sorting out. Uh, I may be wrong, but I thought we were waiting. Miss Summers, did you have something from the the course description or from what you were looking at for about etmology and
linguistics and whether we should use eel or separate E and L as they currently are? I I see what was meant now I think um which is that you know in the in the standards it's e it's e >> and eel l so they're trying to
differentiate between e and l >> but >> I still think the overall course is e though and we have not we have treated it as as one course and the only reason they would be separated would be for a half credit
and we haven't really used strands as ways of providing a course code. So I I think it would be still eel because I mean like in English three and four we we lump those together into one thing and those are very much two separate courses.
>> That's a good point. >> Yeah. If column C row this relevant row stays the same I think that's sufficiently clear. I think if you were to omit that I would be confused personally on y'all's intention.
And I do think we need the parenthesis of some sort so it matches the other ones. >> Yeah, I think my proposal would just be to say etmology and linguistics parenthesis eel and then remove e etmology and linguistics. But if other people think that makes that confusing,
then I I don't want to make anyone. >> Fine. I do think your point's well taken m vice chair Hillyard about strands have not functioned as course courses. So the other option would be to change
the course code or to change the standard code. Let me just hopefully this to you could technically just remove that. You could make them separate rows if you're worried about that. Defer to the committee on your preferences there.
We just want to make it as simple and clear as possible rather than muddy the waters. >> Right. I I just think since since we're currently treating it as one course, I mean like we have one course description for the course. >> Mhm.
>> We have one standard code for the course. To me, we're treating it as one course. And I feel as though maybe I'm wrong, but I I think if someone is is knows that a half credit entails just teaching the etmology standards or just treating teaching the linguistic standards, I think that's
relatively clear without breaking them up in the course uh title. Just an idea under the column that says full credit, why don't we use the uh EEL
and then under the half credit, use the subtitles that you wanted under under those columns so that they know that uh if the if it's under the full credit, we're using that uh etmology and
langu and linguistics. And then on the other one is just etmology or linguistics. So we would stick the the different uh courses under the credit column.
Just an idea. So chair would it look something like what I'm typing right now. broke strangely. >> Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
>> If we did that, would we then feel comfortable removing what I just removed on the the course under the course heading? >> Yes. Yes. >> I don't want to I I don't want to railroad anyone. Just this is just my
personal preference. So if other people disagree, I I don't want to overstep. >> I'd say remove them and call column under the course column and put them in the credit column. That's my take. >> I think I think you need to showcase the
e together though because that's over in the standards themselves, right? >> Yes. I think I think this way works personally. >> Which way? >> The way
>> the way it's written right now. >> Okay. Any other changes recommended there? If not, then let's go with the way we've got it. >> Is there a is there a dash or a star after the L in the third column there?
Ethmology, standards, linguistics. Yeah, there was a little star up there >> or something. >> I think it was just um a backspace here. I can get rid of it. >> Okay, >> this is that what you're talking about. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we're good. Yeah. And I appreciate
you flagging the spacing by Hillard. I think when I because some of this is on Word and some of this was on Google Docs for its various purposes. It hates I promise to clean up the tables. >> Okay. >> I'll make a note. >> You're doing the cleaning, Brianna? >> It's a group effort, but I will >> Okay. ensure that we look at the tables
for the because that would drive me >> and you'll inform us if if anything's out of whack, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Miss Summers, do you do you feel all right with what we've currently done on this row? >> Okay.
Okay. Then if so, then I think we're ready to move on to the next row. Visual literacy is pretty self-explanatory since a half credit is not available. So, I think we can probably move on from that. as well as journalisms one through four. I think those are also pretty straightforward.
>> Yes. >> Uh speech and communication as well. Okay. Well, we do need to make a decision because we refer to the course as speech and communications plural elsewhere. Um, >> do we want it to be speech and communication or do we want it to be
speech and communications? >> I can also check course management. Course management has it at plural communications. >> Okay. >> Communicate with the department if y'all felt differently. >> Yeah, I I I feel like making it plural is appropriate.
>> Yes, agreed. All right. Then on creative writing we divide we uh are we going to have them teach all the standards and then teach uh with less intensity and uh
>> I I think I I mean that's my personal preference is is the teach all standards versus teach all standards in greater depth. I I think once we start parsing out specific standards, I I it's easier to do with etmology and linguistics because they're really two separate things that have been kind of together,
>> but for creative writing, it feels a bit arbitrary. Um I also don't understand like I don't know. I it to me it feels strange to just eliminate some of the standards especially since we made in we made an intentional effort
to ensure that the standards were not specific tasks anymore and were more like broad uh skills or types of knowledge. Uh >> I agree. We we had another course that
we did that for though where you used the wording you just did and you made that change in it. >> It was it's a little harder for creative writing than it is for mythology because we can't just say teach all standards in greater depth and or teach more than one type of mythology. Um we can't just say
teach more than one type of creative writing because the course standards themselves already require someone to teach more than one type of creative writing. >> No. Okay. But I would put that >> say teach all standards in greater depth. I think that is >> I like that. Is there anybody that would
like to change that? Why don't you go ahead and put that in the in official column right now? And >> I just did. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Any change to that?
Hearing none, let's move on. Okay. Um advanced creative writing is not available as um a half credit. So that is is easier. Um and then advanced creative writing says
the focus areas for the two classes need to be distinctly different. However, students can build upon work from one course to the next. >> I think we need to define what two classes are talking about. >> It just means the two times you take the class. um because you can get to possible
advanced creative writing uh credits. So the two instances in which you take the class. >> Oh okay. Okay. >> Anybody have any problem with that? >> All right let's move on. >> And then we had we had workshopped Bible already. Um, so if we were still good
with the Bible language that we had workshopped in our last meeting, then I think we're >> I think so. >> Yeah, we had cussed and discussed that. So, um, I think we're good. >> Sorry, I may have missed the
conversation. My spouse needed something. So, what would be the focus areas for two classes being different with advanced creative writing? What's the is it an analogous to mythology or no? >> I just want to make sure I'm understanding y'all's intent. >> Yeah. I I mean I think what they're
trying to say is perhaps at the advanced level students would start to maybe study they they might have a class that was specifically dedicated to a certain type of writing and then another course that was specifically dedicated to another type of writing. Um like another genre of light writing. But I will say
our standards did not really reflect that. Um I could see where that would be functionally possible. Um, but I I have not nec I don't think our standards reflect that as as written. >> Okay. I'm looking at course management and currently it's only offered as one
credit. So, this must be state language. Would you all prefer that it be two credit options or would you prefer that it maintain as one credit option? Um, I mean, I get the intent because I could see a student I could see a pathway being kind of
developed where a student would stay within creative writing for several years >> just like they do in choir in band, >> right? But I don't know if I do feel as though with the way we've currently written the
standards, it doesn't necessarily feel appropriate to say the focus areas for the two classes need to be distinctly different because I don't see how someone could really meet all of the standards for the course while having a distinctly different
focus in each of those two courses. if they're both meant to teach the advanced creative writing uh credit uh standards. >> Right. Kim, does how much if at all do you all work alongside the Tennessee course catalog
and course management? >> My team does not at all. Um I can ask I don't know if his team does. >> That would be helpful. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Kim. Is making a change here really within our our purview? Do we
have the capacity to to make that change? >> Great question by Streilliard. I would say whatever is currently in course management generally is how I think districts schedule things. So I would say if you want to keep two here, that
would be a proposal to the folks who lead the Tennessee course catalog. That's sort of why I was inquiring. It sounded like y'all were leaning towards the one credit anyway. and then that would align with what's currently in the course catalog. I'm certainly I I'm happy to request the two credits, but I
think this might just be a mismatch between these two systems. >> Why Why did it appear there then? Why did it Why is there a two up there? >> Yeah, I'm not sure. I think you know the left hand and the right hand. >> Well, you want to just simply change
this to one. >> I don't know. I I don't know if I'd want to be that fast. I I I I I like the scenario that you painted. Uh to people that are, you know, have the vision becoming a novelist. Uh why not allow
them to uh take two two years of creative writing? Um and uh some districts have not enough kids in creative writing one to conduct a class or creative writing two and they may be
offering the classes simultaneously with the same teacher. So one person's getting credit for the second level while the other kids are in there getting credit for for the first level. >> I I like it too. Is there is there a way
that we could include language under the full credit option to distinguish basically what we're trying to distinguish in the other column and the number of possible credits to clarify.
>> Yeah, we we haven't done that in the other courses where a half credit is not available since we've mostly just used the full credit option as a way of specifying the difference between a half and a full credit. Well, but this this is a this is a unique instance, right, to my understanding.
>> So, in this instance, then a half credit would still not be available, >> right? >> But then we could build the two courses and keep the credit the same. >> What uh what uh wording would you have
to offer then for that block, Dr. Now? Well, I I'm proposing keeping the majority of the existing language, just moving it into the full credit column and then revising that
to be clear. Does that make sense? Yeah, we do have my only concern with that is we do kind of have language analogous to this language up in genre literature mythology um in the the last column.
>> Yeah, one thought. Oh, first I want to flag Kim. You said Banks handles this. Would be able to speak to this in writing or in meeting at any point? Yes, I believe he's still in um his meeting uh with the number of questions he's
gotten today. I think he's going to try and pop over. I'll just mention uh that we would like to speak with him if possible, but if not in person, then in writing for sure. >> Okay, that sounds great. I appreciate you all. Um so, we could put this at the end of the parking garage and circle
back. The only thought I had in terms of your options, I think we talked about this briefly before, but how it says the type of mythology needs to be different, the type of genre focus needs to be different. If y'all had specific ideas, you could build out a list similar to
this for advanced creative writing. I think I heard something about like novels and etc., etc. My only concern about that is just that the I if I remember correctly our standards for creative for advanced creative writing some of them are specific to drama and
some are specific to um poetry and some are specific to pros. I may be misremembering that but I I thought I remembered that. >> Let's take a look. Okay, we've got >> Yeah. So, we have drama pretty directly
set. I mean, you've got short form writing here, public service announcement, poems. So that's why to me if if there's a if we have a course that's just poetry or long form writing it's it's inherently
not going to hit the other standards there. To me the easiest thing to do would just be if we go back to advanced creative writing instead of saying the focus areas we could just say the two classes need to be distinctly different and kind of allow for that situational distinction to be made within buildings.
um since it is something that we don't want to over structure I think um so just eliminating where it says focus areas for the for the and just simply say the two classes need to be distinctly different however students can build upon work from one course to
the next >> the content of the two classes if we start saying the classes need to be distinctly different that would not allow them to offer the two sections simultaneously But if the content needs to be
different, right? I' I'd be fine with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can you >> ultimately, but that makes a lot of sense to me. >> Okay. We're going to generate some novelists now.
>> Okay. So, maybe parking garage and then this is What do you mean by content in this context? >> Well, there she is.
Um the um the additional rigor and uh subject matter offered uh in the class needs to be different than advanced creative writing one. They need to be doing uh uh
more advanced work. Well, that's not really what it's talking about here. It's just saying that if you take advanced creative writing twice, it can't be you retaking the exact same class again. Um, so that's where I think the content being different would I do think it would serve that purpose. Just essentially say
if you're going to offer creat advanced creative writing to the same person twice, they can't do all the exact same tasks. They can't complete the exact same types of writing. They need to be doing it differently the second time. So, I do think content accomplishes that. Um, but I think that would be the distinction to be made so that students aren't just taking the exact same class
twice and getting two credits for it. >> I agree. >> Uh, I still I still see you frowning, Annie. Uh, again, you may have to act yes on this. >> Oh, sorry. Um, I'm sorry. >> We beat down a number of people during
their opposition before you got here, so >> Oh, yeah. No, you go ahead. >> Um, I don't know. I'm just wondering if content is the best word there. >> What What would you offer as an alternative, Annie?
>> I don't know. Like he he mentioned tasks. Um, I don't know if that because when I think content, that almost feels like the standards to me. Like when I hear content, maybe that's just me, but to me content isn't super clear. But if everybody else is like, "Yeah, it's
totally clear." than ignore me. >> I I'm content with tasks if if we feel like that better. >> I'm all right with tasks. >> Yeah. So, can we change it that way and see if we have uh a consensus?
Um Brianna, do we have Oh, Katherine, you're still here. What time do you have to leave in about two minutes? >> Uh five. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is uh Did Miss Singleary come? Yeah. Okay. Perfect. No. Yep. Perfect.
>> And Annie's here now. So, >> we still have our forum. >> Okay. One one other note. Um if the tasks are different, can students still build upon the work from one course to the next or
does the building upon it make it a different task? I would say so. I mean, okay. >> I think we would likely use different tasks to build upon a a short story that you composed in another course. Okay. So, are we ready to offer language
in there now? You already have it. >> I do. Yeah, I I have tasks currently. >> All right. Are there any objection to that? All right. So, let's move on. Okay. And and Miss Winders just put in the chat that she has has been here
since 4:35 as well. So, we have we have a crew. >> Nice to have you with us, Miss Winters. >> Oh, welcome. I'm glad to be here. >> Okay. Um if we are good with that table
then I believe we are we have looked at the entirety of the uh of the supporting language for the elective courses. >> That means we're all done with the standards. >> It means we are yeah we we are we are done with all we're done with the
standards or well we we're done with the standards barring the parking lot or parking garage. Um we are done with the supporting language for electives. We do still have a a supporting language obviously for the the overall document.
Um the overall introduction um importantly the glossery as well. Um so I think that would be >> well having having been done with the standards I think that this is a great time for celebration. For those of you that are so inclined would you like to join me in a verse of happy days are
here again? Uh thank you all for being so patient with uh me and each other in this process of getting this done. Uh you you have uh produced a lot of I would say uh very specific
uh very eloquent language and I think we can do the same for the rest of it. I just hope it doesn't take any more than the half of this session but if it does it does. Let's continue. >> Okay. Um
>> I think Banks has also joined us if we wanted to put a bow on that table. Banks, um I tangentially work with course management, but it sounds like y'all are the experts here. My understanding of our latest question was when I looked up
actually two questions. When I looked up advanced creative writing and course management, it looks like it's one credit offering. And again, I'm not an expert in this area, but our standards said two, and I assume those two things to need to
align. And I don't know which is the dog and which is the tail here. But would love any thoughts you have. the members were debating, you know, if it's, you know, whether they would, if it's within their purview, their feelings on one credit offering versus two, and if so,
sort of how they would differentiate beyond the standards, similar to her compatriots and mythology and genre literature. >> So, that's a great question. I don't think that the I don't think the credit um amount would be within the purview of
the committee. I don't want to say that for sure because I'm >> That's okay. honestly not certain. I've just never um never even considered that to be honest. But my understanding is that each of these typically when it comes to electives, it's within uh it's
it's an LEA decision as to how and when and that sort of thing, but I've never heard of them being more than one credit uh one elective credit per course. Um you know, of course, unless there's multiple and so forth. How did the
number two get in that column then? And then some language explaining the conditions under which a second credit would be preferred. >> So can you direct me to it? I'm not exactly sure where it says that. >> Great question. So they are revising I
mean this is a snowball document if you will so far on the supporting language but if you go to the current ELA standards >> Yeah. >> It's right here. So my thought is I mean wouldn't a
school in just enroll a student in mythology let's say they're a freshman right and they want to do I don't know what was it Norse mythology what have you >> and then the school would just then enroll them the next year when they're a sophomore let's say they're you know big mythology buff and they want to take Japanese mythology and the district
decides to offer it great it's kind of two separate courses I feel like maybe if I'm understanding you correctly the most important thing is >> that could be within the perview of this committee and you stop me banks fully and with force if I'm misunderstanding that they could maybe talk about like
the distinctions between the genre literature offerings but maybe not the credit course because that sort of seems neither here nor there. Am I tracking or am I totally off base? >> Yeah, I mean I that seems right to me to be honest. I think um and I see what
you're saying now on this as to why it's two and I think that's exactly right as to whether it would be kind of the specific course and the LEA could decide to have two of those offered. It's pretty like I just don't see it. Um but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just doesn't come up to the state level
in terms of our awareness. Um, but I mean I would think that it if the committee feels strong about something, they could always suggest something and then the board either recognizes it or doesn't, I suppose would be the way that it goes. Is that right, Brianna? >> I mean, I don't even know that the
course catalog is within our perview with the state board of education because a rule, a policy, a standard, a guidance document. >> I just use course management from time to time to answer questions for districts. So, >> yeah. And we just kind of do coding
here. And um at least as far as my position goes, I just kind of help uh direct eleas to certain courses and what the proper code is and so forth. Um we do take some questions uh obviously in terms of like graduation course
requirements. >> Um and we would simply go to this document to do that. Um and because most of the time the the focus is the student has to get the core requirements and then they have to simply meet the elective requirement you know in some
fashion. Uh but the LEA really determines that as to what as to how the student's going to do that. Yeah. >> Well, we created enabling language to allow the students to get two credits in that course. Can we keep that?
>> I think so. I Yeah, I think so. >> Okay, >> I agree with Banks. I guess my only thought now based on what Banks said it maybe this sentence based language is the most important thing because it sounds like
ultimately an LEA could potentially enroll a student in visual literacy and build off of it. So, if there's specific courses that you think could be retaken and be of value, putting that sentence based guidance in here would be helpful. Someone please stop me if that doesn't
sound right. And if anybody offers any of these courses multiple times over in their school, please let me know. I think we're also to Banks's point talking about a very small number of districts, but I do want to get this right in the event there is one. >> Does anyone does anyone work at a high
school in which they offer this level of depth on like a genre, literature, mythology, etc. Course? In my experience, we've we've taught these courses, but it's generally just been teacher discretion. If they have a
focus, they kind of just choose it and students would not repeat the course typically. Um, because they wouldn't have even they wouldn't have even necessarily signed up for a a Norse mythology course. They would have signed up for mythology and then the teacher would elect to make that a specifically Norse mythology course. Um, but I that's
just how it's been in my building. I don't I don't know if that's indicative of anything else happening in the district or in the state. >> Okay, >> that seems to be from my understanding how is pretty standard. So, yeah.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, are we good to move on? My proposal deferring to the committee's ultimate decision-m would be to uh remove the credit numbers and to just focus on this guidance and then
potentially change that table title knowing that this might not be in our discretion. And I'm happy to follow up with banks if you have any thoughts on who might I mean I'm obviously happy to sample district leaders and see if they have thoughts um or if there's anyone at TDOE that would be knowledgeable on
this. Yeah, I can I can elevate this question and see if I can find some more information about it. >> Okay, >> my only before I uh pay attention to class, my only kind of thought on the conversation is whatever it is, it needs
to be very clear uh because we always run into issues with questions about whether or not students have enough credits and so uh to graduate. And so I guess I would just never I wouldn't want to see vague language and the student
thought they could repeat the class for extra credit and they couldn't. So I guess clarity is my only uh request. >> That makes a lot of sense, Dr. Stout. >> Thank you. All right. So we're going to put that on the table for right now till we hear
more from uh the department. Now can we move on? Is there is there more for us to hear there? I I wasn't sure. >> Well, I thought I thought I heard Banks say he was going to run it up the flag
pole. >> Yes. Banks, would it be fair to say that we could get a hold of said flag pole at 511 central? >> Um I don't know that. >> Okay. So, >> yeah.
>> Let's see. because I know um I I just don't know some of those people are in different time zones that and it's >> Yeah. So, >> okay. So, open to thoughts leadership team and members. Um we could put this at the bottom of our parking garage and
lay this out. >> Yeah, go ahead. Put it at the bottom just so we can move on. >> Okay. Now, uh, Quo Vadis, co-chair Hillyard, where we're going. >> Um, if we're going to parking lot this
table, then I think the next thing we should do is take a look at the supporting language for the overall document. Um, specifically, I I don't believe we looked at the the language of the official introduction to the overall document. Um,
>> okay. I would also say we're going to be with this document for outside of this table essentially the remainder of the uh well not necessarily the remainder because we're going to return to the parking garage but um we're going to be there for a while and since we all have
the ability to propose uh edits here because we're just tracking changes I I do think it would be best if everyone was able to pull up that document just so because I when we get to the glossery in particular I think it's going to expedite the process quite a bit if we're all able to to make those uh
proposed changes rather than um kind of running everything through me as a funnel. Um Miss Summers, did you just drop the link to the the document in the chat? >> I did. One quick note, are any of the parking garage items substantial enough
to change any of the intro language? >> Do you feel like it would be better to do the parking garage now rather than going to the sporting language, Miss Summers? only if there's like substantive decisions on the table that would impact the language. I'm looking it seems
mostly glossery in nature, but are any of them jumping out at folks as they look through them? I would just hate for you to have to revise parking garage revise again. We might be good.
Like with this one, this text structures, would that change anything about the reading introduction for example? No is a perfectly appropriate answer. >> Don't think so. Um I think we we had a conversation about what text structures to include within the reading standards,
but I don't think that would necessarily appear within the overall introduction. >> Okay. Going once, going twice. ignore me. Okay, keep on keeping on. And it is in the chat for everyone to jump in. And it seems like a fair bit of
books are here. But if you have tech questions, please let me know. But just as a reminder, you should be in suggesting mode. And let's say you hated this word, you would just delete it. If it's substantial, you would tell me it's not needed in this comment. And then just press reply.
If it if you are making a correction, don't worry about the comment. I'll, you know, know that you're making a correction. Did you say go paragraph by paragraph? >> Uh, >> go ahead. >> Yeah, we've done this differently. So, I was going to I was going to ask what the committee preferred. We've at moments
we've kind of gone piece by piece and done it collectively and then at other times we've just kind of set aside x number of minutes to let everybody silently read it and and propose any edits and then we take a look after that time period has elapsed at what people have come up with. Um, I I'm open to
either way of doing it, but we've we've done both. What's your pleasure, folks? Annie, you want to read the whole document and then make changes or you want to go paragraph by paragraph? >> I don't think it would be the entire
document. I think we'd probably just start with like the first two pages and then convene and then maybe look at the table of contents and convene look at the next piece convene um kind of chunk it a little bit but >> or where do you >> not chunking it to the level we've done
elsewhere where we're going >> can you uh can you propose some chunks just so we can write that down? >> Yeah, I mean I well I mean I think we would start with with pages one and two. Um, okay. >> Introduction and then >> um that that that introduction spills into the second page and then there's a
a figure on the second page as well. >> Okay. So, uh, hearing no objections, we're going to go take a look at page one and two. If you have recommendations, be ready to do that. Do you want them to uh to write them on the
document or do you want them to write them and then announce them when we reconvene? I think write the suggested change on the document and then when we reconvene we can kind of I mean we're going to see people's changes on there so we can kind
of if we have any dis disputes or discrepancies or debates we can have those u but I think probably just leave the comments as as we see fit as we go through. I know Dr. Stout has done so and and Miss Baird has done so already. So we could just simply add to what has already been done there and then convene
and talk about the overall thoughts. >> All right. Uh so be it. So we will take uh what do we need about 10 minutes for this first walk through and then uh after that we're going to do supper.
>> 10 minutes. Is that enough time? >> Do we want 10 minutes to read it and leave comments and then we come back together and discuss number of >> Yes, that was my proposal. >> Okay, that's fine with me. >> Okay, 10 minutes starting now.
And Brianna, can you just make it bigger there? Or I can go to my other sub document. Thanks. If anyone's have any tech questions, feel free to call me on my cell phone and I'm happy to walk you through that.
We have two minutes left for reflection and revision. Okay, let's get back at it. Uh, where are revisions? There were a number of great suggestions in there. Annie, I noticed you had made a couple
comments that suggested that we might want to take a look at some some individual places if you'd like to draw attention to those. >> Sure. Um, let me pull back up. Let's see. Um it just feels odd to me that we give we
we mentioned two models the simple view of reading and scar bro's uh reading rope but then scar bro's reading rope is given its own paragraph we don't mention simple view of reading at all after that unless I miss
something >> I had the same And then um I might be being nitpicky here, but I never really like a this without something like a noun beside it. Um for
clarity. >> Yeah, I I agreed on the this for sure. I I also think I mean I think we're referring to the standards right there, right? I mean these standards provide students the to with the tools they need to become competent, capable and literate members of society is my
understanding of what we're implying there. >> Absolutely. >> So would we just want to change the language to these standards provide? >> Right. Is does that feel more appropriate, Miss Docker?
>> Yeah. >> Right. At the end of that sentence again I wanted to starting to wax poetic again according to David Daido but I would like to add illiterate members of society
and invites them to take their place in a wider world. I mean it uh it kind of takes us from the uh common here and goes much further on
what kids having their own vision of what things look like after they've accomplished these standards. Just an idea. I don't know if you like that or not. Would chair do you have the document pulled up
to propose edit? >> Yeah, it would just be at the end. It would be and invites Oh, it says all students tools they need to become confident, capable, literate members of society
and invites them to take their place in a wider world. I don't know if that means anything to anybody, but it it's rung with me. And if that doesn't ring with anybody, forget it.
Yeah. I mean, I I see what you're gesturing at. I do think that the they need to become confident, capable, and literate members of society. I think that language about members of society is kind of gesturing at the same notion. Um >> Okay. I I'm good with that.
>> Okay. I'm good with that. Yep. All right, let's move on. >> Um, well, we we still haven't had a conversation about Miss Docker's uh suggestion about the simple view of reading. >> Oh, yes. Well, that's where I wanted to
go to. Um, yeah, unless we wanted to eliminate the figure uh for Scar Bro's reading rope because uh I mean >> No, you can't. I don't think you can because everything else from there forward is the reading rope.
>> Yeah, we talk about that reading rope a lot. So, you wouldn't want to do that. Um I think that the options here would be either to add some language about the simple view of reading or simply to eliminate the reference to the simple view of reading. or we could just simply maintain it as
is and which I I I see what Miss Docker is talking about to to mention it alongside something that we then spend a lot of time discussing when this only gets a passing reference does seem a bit odd, >> right? Uh Brianna, is there anything that you might add? Can we can we just
kind of put this in a little holding pen until maybe you guys have some research for us that might uh be equivalent to how we describe the reading rope. >> Want to make sure I understand the
question. I was trying to get to the bottom of your course management system which we do have next steps on but I did want to flag for youall I might not be able to get to the bottom too. something that would something that would describe briefly the model of
simple view of reading by goen Turner it >> got it okay I my guidance here would be that members should put their oh here we go something in the chat members should put their feedback in the comments and
the respective leadership teams will do their best to and rectify and finalize and copy edit and stuff like that. So I think it could be appropriate for Machiary to put a comment like and maybe she already has to speak to like oh can this be flushed out further and
then we can finalize on the back end. >> And I guess from my perspective sort of like Annie's it's a case of you you talk about multiple models and you highlight two and then you you wax poetic for the
rest of everything against scarbras. And so I I get that you wanted I get they wanted to say there are multiple models, but it's almost like the only one we pay any attention to is Scarbor's reading rope. >> I I can add a little bit to the
conversation. I was not there when this was being formulated, but I do know that the simple view of reading I just put a bunch of language in there. Um it is in fact simple. It's supposed to be just a mathematic equation that shows that what is it? decoding and language comprehension equal reading
comprehension. And then the scar bros rope broke that down into further um sort of strands. So they're kind of dependent upon each other. And I think that's probably the assumption that the writers were making is that others understood that. Um but I can understand
what you all are saying that not everybody will know that and so that could need some explanation or it could be taken out. I I mean it's it's a well-known model. I agree. So I but I I see the point. Could
we not just include the simple view of reading model alongside Scarboro's rope and then we have what what is proving our researchbased strategies that we're then supporting in the in the standards documents.
>> Right. So let's just have a small uh brief explanation. you put it really brief, but there might be something that's more detailed uh and then uh connects us to Scarboro
if you say that there's that in that they're dependent upon each other >> and and really the paragraph probably isn't that bad where a simple view of reading is is called out. It just leaves you wondering that I mean
why we chose to base everything else it appears on the scar's reading rope. It's it's just a gap a one sentence may may be for purposes of this set of standards
we follow scarboras or we we I don't know if follow is the right word but >> that it just puts something to say oh by the way everything else is about scarbor from here on >> right I had the same question three weeks ago so uh I'm glad that somebody
else uh questioned this Um, is there anything else that we want to put and notate for our further cleanup uh by the leadership team? >> I have a couple of things. Um, one, now that we've discussed that, um, the file
the two sentences thereafter are a bit repetitive to me. Highlight the interconnectedness of decoding skills and language comprehension and developing proficient readers. These models show that reading comprehension depends on the interaction between decoding skills and language comprehension.
seems kind of to me two ways to say the same thing. >> So, but I didn't want to eliminate it um or suggest an elimination without discussing it with the committee. >> That makes sense to me, too. >> I I would agree.
>> Yes. >> Same thing. The first paragraph is like it's repeated over again. >> Okay. >> Right. decoding skills and then the last sentence also states decoding skills and language comprehension. >> So let's mark that we're going to
eliminate that >> next other questions. My my other question was about the sta um a little bit above that um when we were introducing the developmental stages um the standards are thoughtfully designed to align with students
developmental stages of what exactly um because those are those are our grade bands. So um are we saying uh developmental stages of
I was commenting and then I stopped. Hang on. Let me find my comment. Where's my comment? >> Is it students develop? Is it student stages of development? >> Well, it student developmental stages of >> learning
>> of mastery of English language arts. I don't know. Yeah, that's that's what I wanted to ask the committee. >> So, you want further definition there? >> It seems like it's left hanging to me. Yes. >> All right. Well, we can word smith that.
Uh so, your your concern is duly noted and as Briana said, we're going to work that out. We'll word smith it. Anything else up to the table of contents? >> Should that word should that word
smithing happen happen now since it's just word smithing? I understand with the research, but I think for the word smithing perhaps now would be the time to do that word smithing. >> All right, I'm good with that. I just following up on Rihanna's suggestion. Yeah, I would say if it if the committee
is not in agreement on the recommendation or has a specific proposal, that would be worthy of discussion. If it's sort of an instruction, then that would maybe take more time
since the leadership team is finalizing. So, I would just encourage you if you see a comment that you do not agree with or would like to build on or have really specific instructions to, you know, name that here. So, for example, like Miss Bair, I believe, agreed with Miss Dockery on something.
It could be helpful for Miss Bard to just add that to the comment of like, yes, I agree. So that it's clear that those are instructions to the leadership team. >> I'm fine then to try to word smith uh your uh >> I think what she did is good. Yeah, I I
like what Miss Now has has written. So, >> and I'm good with it, too. Let's keep it. >> Thank you, Miss Now. All right. Now, did uh did 10 minutes suffice for reflection as we go through this or
was it too long? Can we do it in five minutes? I'm just looking for a number here. I think it it will likely vary depending on what section of the document we're looking at. Um, >> okay. What's the next section of the document we're looking at? >> Next up would be at least
chronologically would be table of contents. I would recommend we wait on table of contents until the end since there will be lots of shifting and moving parts. So, I would recommend we we end with the table of contents. Um, >> if so, then we would move on to and I do think this is worthy of of definitely
some attention. Um, page four has some brief notes on coding. Um, but mo most importantly we have the note on terms uh where they explained what eg such as and including meant. Uh, obviously we have chose to go with eg and specifically. So we'll need to we'll definitely need to
take a look at that language >> and ensure that it mimics what we have done to make it very clear what we intended by eg and what we intended by specifically. >> All right, page four. And what's the next bite of the apple? We want page four.
>> That would be my recommendation. >> Just page four. So that'd be >> immediately after page four, we get to the foundational literacy standards which we've already looked at. Uh >> okay, page four should take five minutes. And uh we'll do that in five
minutes after we've had supper. And it is now uh 5:40. want to declare a supper recess until 6:00 pm. All right, it's time to eat.
We'll see you back here at 6:00. >> Thank you, chair. Call me if you need me all. >> All right. chair. Can I guess do you happen to be there? It's totally fine if you stepped away. Okay.
Hey y'all. Quick note, leadership team. Um I don't know that we're going to totally get to the bottom of the final column on the elective standards. So in the event that we don't get just cuz it's after business hours for most of the department
once we get I was thinking y'all could just give us instructions that if this then the in the event we're finishing today you can just give me instructions if this then do this if not this then do this that way I can you know fully achieve y'all's vision and we can keep moving forward but of course if we have
another meeting then we'll just give you the update at the next meeting. >> Yep. I I don't want to I don't want to eliminate the possibility of us finishing. Um obviously I think it's not completely out of the realm of possibility, but I think most likely I don't know if we'll need a full meeting on Thursday, but I think we might need a
little bit. So I think that would also likely be an opportunity then. But I mean obviously if we can get done I I would be thrilled to be done. >> Yeah. Try to keep good positive energy in the universe. But I agree with you, Vice Chair Hillard. Um I cannot meet on Thursdays. I misspoke. I have a um
dental appointment to do a filling that got moved. So, I cannot do Thursday, but I will work with y'all to reschedule. >> Well, we're long as long as we're talking about it. Um so, Thursday doesn't work um next
Tuesday. Does that is that in that possibility? >> Tuesday generally works for folks with the >> um I'm good with Tuesday. I would just >> the 21st. >> Mhm.
>> Anybody got a problem with that? >> Well, let's let's look at that. The >> Tuesday the 21st of October. >> I don't know if we have everyone back would be my only flag, but I I can certainly send it out as a calendar hold and ask folks to let me know if that
does not work. >> Well, let's see how fast we can fly. And I'm with you. I don't know that we're going to do it because we just don't like to rush through this. Uh we just have so much to consider and we're doing such a good job. We don't want to pick
our heads up too fast. So, um what did we find out? Did anybody do some uh homework on that uh page four and have some uh revisions re uh recommended? >> I have not personally looking looked
closely at it. We got five minutes right now uh to take a look at that. And uh Dr. Scott, are you playing hookie or are you with us? >> I think she just left her. >> She said she needs to be in class. So I don't know that
>> but she left her computer on. Okay. I just >> did I hear correctly that we're cancelling the meeting this week on Thursday? Good question, Mr. Great. Um hopefully I sent this out via email. Let me know if not. Um I have a dentist appointment
that I could not move at 3:30 on Thursday. So look, we're looking at Tuesday in the event we need to meet again this coming Tuesday. >> And we would not want to proceed without you, Rihanna. >> I appreciate it.
>> All right. Who's the first one to recommend? No. No. You got four more minutes left. 2 minutes in counting. All right, let's hear your comments or see them. Tell us about your recommended
revisions. First up is chair. I I think unless we if we want to have a whole conversation on the note on terms section, I think we uh we could do that as a whole group, but otherwise I don't think we've had the chance to to all look through that and recommend
edits there. Um I was kind of in the process of doing so. Uh but I I don't this certainly still needs >> check another couple minutes and if you're done, yell out, "Hey, I'm done." >> Okay. Um, uh, if other folks would like to look as well, I'm working on the EG
section, but we will need to add something for specifically. So, if anyone wants to kind of mirror what what I'm doing for EG, um, >> I'm working on specifically. >> Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Mocha, who's ready? >> I have drafted something for EG. Um
let's take a look at that and if anybody has any comments speak now well stated keeping it's in keeping with the way we've done things all along. Okay. Such as is is good in the way it
sits. I should we eliminate such as? I don't believe we've been intentional about the use of such as. Um, so to me, this list should likely just be eg specifically. Those are the only two phrases we've been very intentional about having them mean something very specific.
>> Okay, let's eliminate them. >> Do others agree there or or I'm speaking out of turn? >> I can double check this one while we're discussing seven or >> I know we've used instances of such as and include. I know we've said including. I don't know about such as, but I know we've used including
elsewhere, but I don't think it's been something we've been intentional to to indicate that this means something very specific in this particular instance. >> If we've used it, we should keep that in there. But if we've never used such as, >> right? I I think the only distinction is
is that I think in the previous iteration they were doing something very intentional with with such as and with uh and with uh including but I think we have not been so intentional about how such as and including are being used. >> Um I think >> Oh, go ahead. Sorry. No, I I just was
simply saying I think the only two that we've I mean at least in my experience the only two we've really returned to over and over again is such as and specifically um as those being being very specific meanings in very specific instances. >> Yeah, I've looked through seven instances and they're reading standards
alone and you've moved every such as to EG so far. I can let you know if that changes. >> Yeah, I think we were pretty intentional about eliminating such ases. Um, I do think there are instances, like I said, I know in the elective standards we had instances where we kept including, but mostly that was just because it fit the
grammar of the sentence, not because we were in using it to introduce a list. >> My proposal would be that we uh that we just have the the terms EG and specifically since those have been the two that we've been very intentional about. But if others disagree, I I don't
want to die on that hill. >> Well, if >> I would agree. >> I I don't know. I think as a teacher, I would question though. Um if if
the intention behind the standard was was to mean one thing with EG and another with specifically, then I would question what the meaning behind including would be. Does that make sense? So >> it does. >> I think I I I agree with maybe
eliminating such as um if we did not in fact use that um which I don't know that we did. I did a quick search myself but I didn't do it exhaustively and then u but including we have used um so I feel like we should keep that.
>> Okay. >> I I agree with you. >> Okay. Do you recommend any further clarification? If we include the word including, does that specify how we have used it? >> We will we'll certainly need to include
we'll need to change the example because I I don't know if we even still have that exact language. We'll have to well at least we'll have to verify to include that that standard is still as it is written. >> Agreed. I also just to me personally I don't
know if we've been intentional about what including means. That's my only anxiety there is I don't I don't know if we know exactly what we mean by including >> I thought it was an an inexhaustive list of possibilities but that's also what you meant in EG right
>> well EG can mean I almost said specifically but not EG can mean examples of of a concept. Should I say that without saying specific concept? Um but but including
can mean a list including that concept and also that's the way I interpret it. Including that concept and also XYZ >> but I mean as the as the definition says I thought I thought the definition was fine.
I did too. So, uh, are we wanting to do the example now or are we going to put that on hold until we can do it later? >> I see no reason not to do it now. Um, well, I'm sorry, I interrupted someone.
>> No, go ahead. >> No, I was just saying I I think if we're going to maintain that language, we should go ahead and find the the the example we're going to use now of including so we can go ahead and put this table behind us. Okay. >> How about uh R K RL K2 with prompting
and support orally retell familiar stories including key details. Oh, that's the original standard. Never mind. I'm sorry. Ignore me. Hang on. >> I found it corresponding standard it looks like, but it's extremely long.
>> We don't want long one. Not here. Are you doing the search with the word including? >> I am. Reading standards are normally shorter, right? >> Yes. >> I am too. >> I think like six RLCS4 reads analyze the
impact of author specific word choice on meaning and tone including figurative language such as repetition, simile, metaphor, personification, and hyperbole. >> Such as >> Yeah, I guess that is the word. But
>> oh that though that's the original standard. Never mind. We got rid of we got rid of such as. Um >> okay. All right. >> See I don't when you do the search those little green boxes they make you >> throw you off. >> It looks like we have it. I hope I'm
looking the right thing. But for 6L cae.2 two. Uh, the second sentence is when reading or writing demonstrate understanding of the function of commas including combining clauses. It says revised standard.
Um, >> yeah, that would be Can you copy and paste that language over to the chart? >> Yes. >> You said onto the chart. Yes. >> Yes. >> I think an issue I have that this
language as like an educator seems very vague. It may have some importance. So my question is like well is it important or not? is it going to be on the test or not? Um, that language just feels vague
to me. Like it it feels like including to me in my mind should be I guess the same definition of specifically unless we have an instance where that doesn't fit. >> This is this is my worry about including because I think we I I don't know. I
just don't know if we were that intentional about including. Um I think there are instances where it functions kind of like how we did specifically and there are instances of which it kind of functions like how we used EG. Uh my understanding okay maybe this help my understanding of how we used including including in this standard um
was that we I mean they have to demonstrate their knowledge of and understanding of the functions of commas including combining clauses but that is not the only function of a comma. And yet we want to emphasize at that grade level in that standard that they should
be using commas to combine clauses. >> So should our definition say indicates that something mentioned is part of the group and is and its importance is emphasized
or something along that line. Y'all can help me revise that. Yeah, I think that that is better. I think should we include some language about but it's not intended to indicate the
totality of uh that's not good language but something along the lines of to to suggest that that is not meant to be the entirety of the of the examples that we're looking at >> part of the group not the entirety of the group would that
work and then say and its importance is emphasized I don't know you could put in paren not the total group or There you go. >> Yeah,
>> I like that. Does that uh tell the tale to the teachers? Teachers. >> Um what? Maybe I'm wrong. It is or its I'm just
group and it's important is emphasize. We put apostrophes or I'm sorry, never mind. I see. Um, so I I typically think you're like when you're reading something with parentheses,
if you it doesn't make sense without the parentheses. So indicates that something mentioned is part of group and its importance is emphasized. >> Oh sorry I was moving >> sorry here let's do this.
>> Yeah I I don't like that. Okay. Let's indicate >> it's okay. >> You could say not the total group. It's okay to say group twice. Then it would be very obvious what we intended. >> It's part of the group
>> the total group. And my only concern then at that point is I think the the anticedant of it becomes a little ambiguous. Is it is it I mean I I know that it's indicating that the something is the anticedant for it but
it seems like perhaps it could be >> okay something part of the group and not the whole group. I I get the antecedent connection >> and it support.
>> That's better. >> Now I see what the it's it does make sense now. >> Do we have a consensus on that? >> Lucas, you working on something? I'm not I'm not working on anything at the moment. I'm just looking at it. But I I
I do feel just a I I think it's been improved. I still feel a little uneasy about that end. Um and its importance is emphasized. I I think the idea is I just worry a little bit about >> what if what if we took out the the comma and and puts around not the whole
group and then it would make then I think it would rewrite is part of the group by the way not the whole group right and its importance then the its doesn't stand out is weird
>> I I that's better >> he's part of the group >> should we maybe I'm sorry I'm I wonder if we need to move emphasized earlier in the sentence like some like indicates that something mentioned is emphasized
maybe apart from a larger group or as part of a larger group. >> Oh yeah. >> Is an emphasized part of a larger group. >> Say again. >> Um something along the lines indicates that something is an emphasized part of a larger group but not the whole group.
>> What if we could just say empa emphasizes the importance of something as part of a group? >> That works too. >> Yeah. Yeah. or something like that. >> Yeah, I like that.
>> Okay. Well, we got including in there. We've included it. We will need to rewrite the interpretation because it's still about writing letters from memory. >> Oh, >> and our including currently is about combining clauses.
Lacy now is hard to uh work on that. She's I don't know. Something along that line. >> That says it. >> Everybody like that. >> Is it a butt or an and? And and must
show or and must But must also show >> show how to correctly combine clauses using commas. >> Yes. >> Your attention. >> There you go.
Yes. Nice. Okay. Uh, are we good with this now? All right. So, we've got >> I don't know that the new I feel like we need to figure out some way to show that emphasis because I feel like as it's
written now with the the revisions, we no longer have an emphasis. >> Go ahead. Should the butt be an and? And and must show. So you do the one demonstrate correct usage and must show how to correctly combine clauses.
>> Does that give you the emphasis any? >> I I don't know that that that conveys it. Um, is would it be appropriate here to maybe include something by the teacher, but the teacher should particularly emphasize
students uh instruction on correctly combining clauses using commas. >> Yeah. >> I just feel like as it's currently it doesn't it doesn't show the actual emphasis. >> Yeah. Something like students must demonstrate correct usage of draw of commas generally but
should uh should focus particularly on com correctly combining clauses using commas. I don't know that doesn't I don't know if that's exactly right >> are from the teacher standpoint. >> I don't know but I'm a little worried
about teacher because we've been intentional about using student language. Um but maybe this the student should emphasize u correctly combining clauses. Yes. >> Using >> that's got the emphasis. >> You good with that? Annie
>> shouldn't it say combining rather than combine? >> Yes. Thank you. Sorry you guys couldn't hear that. Um, it feels weird to me to say that students should be emphasizing something >> uh commentary
uh with particular attention to correctly combining clauses or >> that's that's why I had included that language because I I I didn't know how else to word that. >> Am I just rewriting what you said to begin with? Is that what I just did?
>> It's okay. >> I am sure that co-chair Hillyard does not know what that feels like throughout the process >> from all of us. >> Are we good with that now? >> All right. >> I'm good with that. I think it sounds
good. >> Annie's good. And Lacy, of course, has been uh a primary author for that section. Do we feel good about what I rewrote wrote for EG and what Lacy uh rewrote for specifically or wrote for
specifically? >> I'm hoping that there is a typo for miss now. >> I'm sure there is >> because otherwise I think we might have a standard issue. Um that Oh, sorry. I keep not getting the
right window open. Oh my gosh. Uh, while you're opening that, um, so I I did see your comment earlier about wanting to use a shorter standard for that example, but I started looking and I I for the life of me did not see a
shorter standard where we had used that language specifically because it always had to do with something that was very intentional and a long list of things. And so I condensed that standard ju to just provide that the parent standard
and then letter C. So um >> I I do think we would need to include Well, never mind. No, I was going to say we should include >> what we could do is typically because if you look at the uh if you look at the
previous example for EG, it just said F.SC. 6A and it left off the parent standard entirely and just included the substandard. >> Okay. >> Um so perhaps we could just include the substandard if we include the letter C after the three.
>> I'm also fine with the way it's written now if that's if you're trying to accommodate that. Um I just uh when she initially had it written down I was like whoa that's a lot to read. But she um yeah so it's that end part where it says and relevant conclusion. I'm hoping that
that just >> deleted. >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. Because I was like, I hope we don't have to revise that standard. >> I didn't catch that. >> All right. So, are we good with this now? And we've taken out such as. So, there's no mention of that now.
>> Is this W needed? Wouldn't it start with the grade level? >> Yes. Uh, that makes sense. Okay, are we ready to go on to page six? >> Um, I did have one quick thing. Um, up on notes on coding above this table, we
we have uh in a few cases a letter might also be used to delineate subsections. I think we've been referring to that as substandards. Um, would we want to just use the language substandards there rather than subsections? >> Yes, we were pretty intentional about that, I think.
Okay, that was all I had. >> Okay. >> Uh, sure. Hillary had one question. Don't we have a standard that sort of breaks out very intentionally? I believe it's like 6 A, 6 B, 6 C. Would that still be a substandard if it's the in the code versus in the body? Does that
make sense? >> Yeah, you're right. >> I'm trying to think of an example. >> Do you have an in I can't recall what instance that is. I think we only have perhaps >> I think it's one >> it's in the foundational literacy. That's where it is. Um it's Yeah, standard six in foundational literacy is
the one that does that. >> Yeah, I'm fine with whatever you'll want to call it and yes, encourage you to put it in the document. I just >> what is this versus what is this for my understanding? >> Um we did maintain the same cornerstone for that entire for all of those. Um, so
I but I mean subsection versus substandard I I don't I don't feel that strong of a preference. It doesn't really matter what language we use. I was just saying substandard because we've used the language substandard pretty consistently throughout this process and I think that's what most educators use. >> Oh yes, I like your edit. My question is
what do you call 6A? I would I suppose I don't know. I I mean to to be honest, I didn't love that in the first place. Um uh but I obviously I think we we're going to stick with it, but I >> Okay,
>> it's not really a substandard anymore. You're right. Because they have different parent standards. So, >> okay. So, this still I guess that language is still true with substandard. Let me go back and read it. >> Good. >> A letter might be Maybe if we just put an example then
it'll be clear. I don't know. >> You want us to come up with an example now? >> Well, I just mean like right here for example. >> I mean if you look at foundational literacy uh 34 for instance um row 34
that one is 2.l.va.6a. But then even within 6A it has substandards. So that is yeah I don't know that I guess technically what would be the code for that standard? >> Well I guess that's the standard number 6A.
I think we're good. >> What is the coding system for a substandard? Because I know historically it's been you don't add a period at before the the substandard. You would just go straight into 6A or 6B or 6 C. But if in that instance if we were going
to refer to only substandard A of 2.fl.va.6A, it would be 2.fl.va.6A. It would be a repeated A back to back, which would look a little strange. >> Right. It doesn't look like that we standardized it on the state level if
y'all would like to. So you could add >> Yeah, I mean I think I think we would need to add a period there. Um, so Lacy, I had deleted your your period below. Um, but I think it should come back. So, I'll I'll add that back.
>> Oh, I see. Okay. So, the period means that it's a substandard and the lack of period means that it's part of the standard number. That makes sense. Okay. I think we're good >> now. Are we good?
Can we move on to page six? Or have we done >> We've done page six. Um, we've done >> six through we've done six through 14. Um, next up would be something we're going to spend quite a bit of time on, which is the
glossery. >> All right, >> all of the supporting intros. Hold on. I thought there was one on the parking garage. >> All right. Uh, >> looks like we need to finalize the language one. Um, no preference on what
order we do that. If you don't want to jump into the glossery, that's cool with me. Looks like we might want to do some stuff with speaking and listening. >> What What is the >> issue? So, in the parking garage where it says finalized language
intro, it just says TBD. Does anyone have any recollection of what exactly we wanted to finalize about the language intro? >> Sorry, I'm talking. Uh that would had to do with we were waiting on an update about the pronoun standards and TCAP
data. >> Yes, I think the if I recall correctly, someone jump in. They could I think Miss Dockery maybe had a question about like would there be an impact on the standards you know and I think the answer was we couldn't get to that level
of granularity since that is so specific and the test wouldn't have a good good enough representative data. I'd have to look back how that impacted the intro. So I think the update was like not enough or representative of enough data
unfortunately. And then SNL speaking and listening just says C notes and then it talks about something about blending. >> Um that was about circling back to wording about linking standards.
>> Okay. >> So I think we're complete on both of the language standard intro >> as far as the parking garage goes. >> Yeah. I >> and then the speaking and listening standards.
Have we resolved the linking standards conversation? I think >> yeah I my understanding was we were we were going to push linking standards onto the standards guide was my understanding of the decision we' reached. But I know that that was a
topic of quite a bit of conversation. So we could we could continue that if we wished. I think maybe we can if everyone's good with that, we can just strengthen this language to say, you know, request to add linking standards
to standards guides. >> Okay, >> I'm good with that. >> I just want to make sure. Um, so are we working through the parking garage right now or are we going to are we working on the glossery or are we just in like a back and >> we're getting ready to go to the
glossery until we finish this conversation right now? >> Yeah, we were we were moving through the in the section introductions um and and just making sure we had addressed everything on the gloss or everything on the parking garage that was pertinent to those. >> Okay, thank you. Sorry.
>> Yeah, I'm okay if you all want to go in a different order. I think someone just said that they were done. So, I just want to confirm that we can check those things off. >> Um, can I mention one thing though while we're in the parking garage because I believe there is something that we had discussed and I remember Tammy had
specifically mentioned as well, but it was in the speaking and listening standards. It's that very first one, um, KSLCC1, and we only have an A still. And I think we had intended to circle back to that
to discuss adding a B, but we never did. >> Okay, let's look up the standard. >> Yeah, you're saying you want to add it to the parking garage, Lacy? Uh, yes, potentially since we are in the parking gar the parking garage right now. Excuse me. Yes. But I still see that in the
revised standard we still only have an A currently. >> That is correct. >> How does it read? >> Currently reads participate with varied peers and adults in collaborative conversations in small or large groups
about kindergarten topics. Substandard A. demonstrate appropriate conversational interactions, including taking turns, listening, speaking, answering questions, and allowing wait time. I I don't really see why we couldn't just combine that into >> just put a and. Yeah. Or just not.
>> It doesn't even have to have an. It could be a semicolon. It could be just Yeah. I mean, >> yeah. Uh semicolon is good with me. >> So, can you put what that looks like and then we'll resolve that? >> Just did. >> Thank you. hasn't refreshed yet on on
your screen, I don't think, for some reason. But >> is everybody good? Just adding a semicolon and getting rid of the A. >> Agree. >> All right, let's go. Next. >> So, are we are we done with the parking
garage for now? Are we going to return to that later? Is that what I'm understanding? >> I feel a lot of energy wanting to be dedicated to the glossery right now. So, uh, I have a question though and just looking over the glossery. Uh, a
lot of these words we didn't talk about in standards. Why are we talking about them in the glossery? >> It's a good question. Oh, go ahead, Mr. H. >> No, I was just going to say I've had the same question. Um, there just there are quite a few words I think there are
words even that are in the glossery that are not even in the standards themselves. >> No, that's what I meant. Yeah. >> Yes, I do know. And I think Nicole's on the call, so Nicole, please jump in. My understanding is that they did a lot of work to cut down on words. And your
predecessors have cut down on the glossery up until this point. And their intention was to only have words that are in the standards in the glossery and not go beyond that. >> You can build on that decision, reverse that decision, align on that. But that was their
intention and I do remember them removing a fair bit of words during their discussions. One last place, >> if that's true, we're going to lose half these words. I bet >> um you could probably do a search uh while we're going through these and see
if they're included and let us know. >> Yes, I'm happy to if somebody wants to split up. I know you can't do it by Well, they Google or um Sheets is a little bit more powerful than Google Docs, I believe. Hold on. Let me see if
I think you can only search across. Oh, here we go. I can do all sheets. So, I think this will help. So, but you know, someone can do this faster than me. I'm totally fine with that. Other thing I wanted to flag is in your folders there's the
standards guides. They have a glossery. So, if you wanted to pull from any of that information, that's totally fair game. And in fact, it could be strong to align those where it makes sense on y'all's end. And um two,
you're welcome to I've gotten questions from folks. You're welcome to use existing definitions from other places, whether it's, you know, Miriam Webster, you know, any reputable sources that you would of course allow your students to use. That's totally fine. Especially so that we're not like word smithing down to the the period of a definition that
may may be out there and could save youall some time. I just ask that you site it in the references. >> Okay. So, uh, while you're doing that, can we all look over this for like 10 minutes for
the page 15 through 17? That would be A through D. And see if there's anything that stands out uh that we think is in the is is in the standards that we want to change. Is that a workable uh way to put this
together? >> I think so. I I think the the I don't I don't know exactly how to sequence this. I'm a little conflicted myself, but I think what we have to know is what is currently not in the glossery that needs to be there. Um I think most of that we need to have a list of what's currently
in the glossery that doesn't need to be there. And then we need to have a list of what is currently in the glossery and needs to be there but needs to be tweaked in its wording. Well, yes, but it's going to take a while for us to get those that we're going to eliminate. So, I was just I was just suggesting that we
walk through having the background knowledge of our uh work with the standards and just look at those items we think are going to be in the standards. If we have any problem with them or we want to uh recommend any
change in the way that they're defined in the glossery, uh then then we write that in there. But uh let's just walk through it one piece at a time or several pages at a time. Uh let's just go through A through D right now. Uh
which is page 7 15 through 17. Does that work for everybody? Let's try it this time for 10 minutes and see what we come up with. And in the meantime, Brianna is doing her walk through each of these words A through D that are going to be eliminated. Okay,
set. All right, let's let's walk. 15 through 17, 10 minutes. 656. members. A red highlight means that I can't find it, but please correct me. And I am looking to make sure that it's only in a revised standard. So based on
my read, aesthetic impact was in some older standards, but it appears that y'all have taken it out thoroughly. >> So please check me though. Brianna, did you put the red marks on those?
Who's got their red crayon out? >> She's She's marking them in their names in red. >> Okay. So, Brianna did that. Okay. >> So, you're glossy, but I was surprised to see you put red
on allegorian analogy. We got two minutes left. You need more time than that? I will definitely need more time than that. I'm looking at the the uh parking garage at the recommended words we
wanted to add. Um, and so I'm kind of working through >> Okay. >> over there, but I think it's going to it's going to take me a few more minutes. >> Okay. >> I I'm I'm sorry. I just want to clarify. We The red ones are the one I know this was just said, but just so I can confirm, the red highlighted words are
the words that are not there. Is that right? >> That is my understanding. >> Okay. Well, then I found active voice and it's in our language standards. It's just it's just listic as active and passive voice.
>> Yeah, that should be in there. Allegory is not in our standards. An analogy. I'm questioning. >> I I've looked for it and I don't see it. >> Okay.
>> Author's choice. Are you sure? Boy, I sure recall those words. We've discussed author's purpose. I don't think we've discussed author's choice. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> But I I know active voices there.
>> Do we need to put author's purpose in here? >> Probably. >> You said probably. >> Yes. >> Okay. Can Can you add that? Um, >> somebody added some stuff in there.
I notice there's quite a bit of uh italics are used a lot. Is that are those words that are also in the glossery? Is that what the italics are for >> means different things in different instances as currently written.
>> I agree. So, it could be helpful for y'all to decide how you want to handle that and maybe put it up at the top because I think your predecessors put sort of a purpose statement at the beginning. So you could obviously or you could give any sort of guidance that you'd
Two minutes to discussion. I like that we added grass. glossery definition for acknowledge and address. >> Yeah, that was something that was in our parking garage. Okay, it's 7 o'clock. Let's uh see how
we can get through this first A through D discussion and just take them one at a time. If we got any changes, let us know. I see one for academic conversation eliminating that is
I'm assuming we're going to move ahead with this unless there's some objections. Academic dishonesty. I don't remember talking about that. >> We did talk about plagiarism. >> We we talked about ethical and
responsible use. um or of digital tools. So, it may be worth conversation later on. I hate to I hate to define academic
dishonesty because we didn't did we didn't use that term, did we? >> We sure didn't. And that's more of a that's more of a it's in the student code of conduct, you know, >> right? That's a that's a school level definition to me.
I suggest we eliminate that. If we have to do a plagiarism or ethical maybe we need to address that then we we do use it. Um I it is I'm currently trying to find it. I
did a find and replace search and and it is there. I'm trying to find it within the very long standard that it's flagging us. >> Okay. Well, I'm surprised, but if it's in there, it's in there. >> Format writing and site sources using a style guide. Avoid plagiarism and academic dishonesty through proper
citations and attribution. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh, so does this pretty well describe what we're talking about? Yeah. Unauthorized use of AI. That sounds good to me. >> All right. Um,
>> I know we'd had some conversation and and I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but we'd had some conversation about the fact that this glossery frequently uses the term in its own definition, and I can see that happening right here with academic dishonesty. Um, I don't know if that's something we are
bothered by or not, but I I know someone brought that up at some point. I'm just recalling someone making that contribution at some point that they didn't like that we do that throughout the glossery. But just flagging that since it's happening here with academic dishonesty.
>> I don't feel really strongly one way or the other about it. I just >> If you don't feel strongly about it, let's let it roll. >> Um the only thing is this feels kind of that last sentence feels kind of odd to me because it's not really
defining it. It's giving the effect of it. Are we wanting to give impacts and effects in our glossery? >> I I think you're I think you're correct. Let's eliminate that last sentence. You're very correct. What it says is true, but it's not part
of a glossery. It's not defining what the word means. Okay. Thanks for redlinining. active voice. We've got that. >> Could we going back to academic dishonesty because could we at least eliminate the word your
>> I don't like that attempting to present another person's work as your own >> as their own. Should it read as one zone or >> one zone? >> Yep, you're right. Thank you.
Okay, we're good with academic dishonesty. Speak now or forever. Hold your peace. All right. Active voice. Um, I wanted to mention we we use uh the term academic English quite a bit. I feel like that could be a good one to
define. >> Uh, it's in the Yes, we do, don't we? >> Yes, your predecessors worked on that. Nicole, feel free to jump in. My understanding was that they they discussed like code switching and things like that meaning you know there's a
time and place to use informal language like in poetry or what have you and but they wanted to particularly use academic English when talking about you know >> grammar that may show up in a job or or you know a resume etc etc. >> So that would be inserted right after
academic dishonesty. Can you give us a new column uh coach Hillyard academic language, not a column, but a new heading. And uh
would you care, Annie, to uh profer some definition of academic English? >> Sure. Although I think it might I feel like this is one that might end up being group effort. Uh might be debated. >> Sure. But you got we got to have a starting point. Okay. No, nobody gets it
right all the way from the beginning. Uh I think we use both academic language and academic English. Um do we need to define both or is there some way to indicate that we kind of use
these two words interchangeably? Uh, I would put paren language in parentheses academic English and then parentheses language. >> Do we have anywhere? Is there anywhere else in the glossery we've run it? There's got to be somewhere else in the
gloss there in the rest of the glossery that's used alongside of slash like counter opposing claim. >> Okay. So, it would just be academic English language. And Annie, are you still crafting a definition?
>> Uh, working on some research. So far, I'm not finding like a like a Webster's definition type thing yet. Uh, >> how did we use it in the standards? A lot.
We uh >> what did what didn't we mean by it then? I >> I think we meant like essentially I think we meant language that adheres strictly to the rules of conventional grammar and um is appropriate for an
academic setting. >> Okay, I like that definition. How about let's use that as a starting point. Can you put that down there? >> I can. I I'm a little reluctant because
I I I think this might be an instance where a published definition might be best because that's not I mean that is a term and I I I I don't want to I'm a little anxious about defining what academic English is for the entire state of Tennessee for eight years just because I had a spare thought at 7:08 in
the evening. >> All right. But by the same token, uh there there's nuances in the glossery and they're based upon our intent in the standards. What we were talking about a
a a manufactured uh or a a ro thesaurus uh definition uh would not be able to capture that. So, as a starting point, I I'd like to
put down what you just said. I I think it's a good point. For some reason, my uh internet browser has stopped working. This is working, but um so my efforts of looking up an official definition are not going well. So I have something I just researched.
It's academic English. It say it's a form of language style used in educational settings, especially in higher education and communication. It includes vocabulary, grammar, and conventions needed to read, write, speak, and
understand complex ideas written academic context. That's what it stated when I looked it up on and research. So I mean my I I am I am certainly not
Miriam Webster, but uh my attempt was just something along the lines of language that adheres to conventional rules of usage and that is appropriate for an academic setting. >> You said exactly what she said in a heck of a lot less words. >> Right. I I like what you've written there
personally. Everything I say is is the same as is more simplified than what Hillyard just uh mentioned. So yeah, >> are we good with coach's definition here? And I'm not going to tell anybody,
Coach Hillyard, that you wrote this. >> Well, this is a matter of public record, so everyone can can see it in process. Uh but but everybody had a chance to look at it and I think from what I'm hearing we all agree that it states
exactly what our intentions were when we established the standards. >> Okay. I'm I'm fine with that then. >> Everybody good? Okay. Active voice. Do we include examples in any of our stuff
like they did here? >> No, I haven't seen it with examples. Just basically the definition >> is the example absolutely necessary in understanding what the definition says. >> I don't think so.
>> No, unless let's eliminate >> Yeah. I I I really don't like the the contrast with passive voice. The essay was written by the student portion. >> I don't I don't either. We're going to have a definition of passive voice. If they need to know what passive voice is, then they can.
>> All right. So, let's eliminate the example and we're good with active voice. >> Accuracy. >> Accuracy. We talked about it. phrase. >> We talked about accuracy in a lot of different ways
more than reading fluency, did we not? >> Do really quickly to go back to active voice. Do we need to say active voice and then inactive voice? The subject performs the action expressed by the verb like >> that. >> Okay. Okay. simp simply stated.
Thank you. >> Yeah, we also use periods sometimes for are are y'all reading it as like academic conversation allow students and that's why there's a period at the end so that it's a complete sentence. For example, like this would be a
fragment, right? But if we're reading this al together, this is the complete sentence. Going back to that, sorry, I just now noticed it. That one also feels like a like a here's the benefit of academic
conversation rather than a definition of it. Am I reading that incorrectly? >> You are correct. in academic conversations in our standards. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Can we just say builds ideas through conversation and language? Although that's really not a definition. That's how it's used, isn't it? Let me ask
pilot. >> Is there anything about there uh in the conversation does it have to do with collaboration at all or was our intention to talk about collaboration?
Okay, here's what here's what it says. Um, purposeful dialogue focused on learning and deepening understanding of academic content. >> That's beautiful. >> Casual chats, academic conversations,
blah blah blah. >> And it has key features. >> I like the first sentence. >> Excuse me for jumping on top of you, but I like the first sentence that you had there. That's wonderful. >> I'll drag it over.
>> Miss Summers, am I correct in in thinking that we should it? Miss Bear, is this something you're citing from another source? >> Yeah, I'm looking it up on chat GPT or whatever. >> It's like the dictionary.
>> What does What does citing that look like? So I'm glad you asked for sure earlier. Generative AI is co-pilot is allowed other form in of in state government and for state government contractors which
is what y'all are. Um so chat or um Microsoft co-pilot is allowed other forms of >> I'm on co-pilot. >> Okay, perfect. Um, and then I would just ask I guess that you, again, this is the new territory we're figuring out at the
state level. But normally when I do stuff like that, I just say like, can you give me a definition and can you offer a citation or offer a source or something like that? So, I don't know how, again, this is an emerging field, so I'm open to thoughts. And Patty, you might be at the forefront of this. You
would still want to site another source versus or would you site Microsoft Copilot? >> You would site Co-Pilot. I have a feeling if you looked in Webster, you'd get a similar description, >> right? >> I feel like it might not look super
professional, but have uh like a AI definition. Personally, I I do sometimes they are a little they seem a little bit more I guess accurate than some of the other versions. Like when I was looking up academic English, the the
like AI version seemed better than anything else I was finding. But I just don't know how how professional it looks. >> Well, it doesn't mean you can't edit it to make it professional
as you so choose. >> Yes. Were you going to copy that into there, Patty? >> Um, was going to. You all can choose to edit at will. They also have multiple key features.
I think what you said is enough right there. And if we're required to put in a reference, how do you set that up? if you put it in parentheses >> and and some of these are cited by the professional
education of teachers, the center for the professional education of teachers. It only gets better from here, guys. >> So, that's where the original statement came from,
>> among among other things. I'd hate to have to put citations in every one of these things if we got a we're required by law to do that. I mean, or is it ethical? Uh >> well, you could say a structured
purposal and take out dialogue that focuses on I mean you can change it any way you like like you would do anything in writing. Or you could just hang it on the bottom of that whole litany of stuff there.
Well, I I'd want to keep dialogue in there as a substitute for the word conversation because we don't want to repeat conversation in there. And I don't think there's any better way to state the academic conversation than what you just expo what you've just
written there myself. >> The only question I have for Brianna is you know there's a they source the educators in here. Do we have to source both of them or do we need to source any of it?
Do we have have to put in a citation for anyone? And that would get ponderous in here. I >> I think it though we're we're creating standards for the students of the state of Tennessee. So the very next definition is about academic dishonesty.
So we need to um model um good good ethics and good appropriate responsible use for our students whatever the decision is. Okay. So, how are we going to site?
>> I think it comes down to what do you want to use? Do you want to use a Webster? Do you want to use I mean, I think you should site it. Don't get me wrong. Um, I think you just need to decide how how you going to do
that. You guys use MLA or what do you use to site? How how do you site at the end of the statement? >> I believe it's APA down here. >> APA. >> One second. >> What would it look like?
>> Oh, sorry. Vice Hillard. What did you say? >> I believe it is APA. Yes. >> Yeah, it's APA. So, um I don't know. Maybe this is trying to split the difference, but you could use Copilot and ask them for a citation. Ask them to
make you an APA citation while you're there. >> We We need to verify the source that Copilot is citing though. >> Well, Patty already did. She told you where it came from. >> I think Missing the website.
>> We sourced the source. Patty, what was the source they gave the public educators? >> Let me go back to it. They've also got four really good I mean and it's the same in in in Google.
That's an AI overview, but they and they all give four items. Purposeful exploration, building ideas, evidence-based, collaboration, meaning dashmaking. Interestingly, so I think it's we need to decide what
source we want to use. If we use multiple ones, >> can you use just tell give us the one that you used? >> I'm going there. They have the key characteristics
and then sources. Huh. PreAP College Board. >> Oh, excuse me. >> Taylor and Francis ebooks, references and collections, words and collections. I mean they've got there is a long
litany of of those. >> Okay. How would APA give that >> because it talked about it gave examples and talked about various things. >> I'm happy to pull a source. Just tell me which one you want to pull because they
all say basically exactly the same thing. Doctor, now in the interest of academic honesty, how would you cite this? I can't play the fifth, can I? >> No way. Not at this point.
>> Just now, we do have seven minutes left. One thing I can do, I will say the state of Tennessee's sort of guidance on AI is pretty ever evolving. I'm happy to get some consultation and get back with y'all on sort of what they recommend and
why with the understanding that, you know, we're figuring this out alongside y'all. Um, we've only got about seven more minutes. So, Chair Carus, if it works well for you, we could talk scheduling. >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Um,
we're kind of at the point where we're trying to have fun with this. So, uh, but we got work to do. So, let's talk about meeting again. And, uh, uh, chair, our co-chair, Hillyard, what do we have
left to do? >> We have the glossery, which seems like it's going to be a a lengthy process um, from what we've done thus far. Um, it we need to look at the appendix and just offer recommendations. We're not drafting the entire appendix, but we're making recommendations for what we'd
like to see or not see. Uh, we'll need to take a glance at the references. Um, especially once we make decisions about what we're doing with the glossery as far as referencing. Okay. >> Um, and then we'll need to do the parking garage. But to my knowledge, that is it.
>> Well, I think that's doable in one session for sure. Perhaps less than a whole session. depends upon how we get stuck with words. So, um we all have an opportunity to look over the the entire glossery if we want to just uh do do
that for homework. >> Yeah, I would I would just I think that would be greatly beneficial to us if we if we had came in with a plan for the glossery rather than just kind of doing it on the spot. I think if we perhaps had words that we knew we wanted to add and then we had words that we thought should be deleted and then we had you
know proposed definitions for some of these words I think that would be greatly beneficial and would make the possibility of getting out of this in one more meeting feasible. >> Okay. >> Getting rid of all the ones that we don't need to worry about would be the first big step.
>> Right. And and I know that you were doing that walk through. Uh Brianna, if if you can complete that walk through somehow and then indicate that with your red lining on here so that we don't uh
double over. That would be good. And otherwise, as we're walking through, we could just use our our recollection of of our uh inclusion of those terms in in the standards. So, uh, we may miss a few, but, uh, I think by and large we're
going to be, uh, much better prepared and it will go a lot faster. So, uh, we're talking about meeting on the 21st, uh, here virtually again at, uh, 3:30 p.m. And again, it takes as long as it
does till we do as wonderful a job as we've done so far. Do we have conflicts from the group? I believe we have the the recurring conflict. Uh, Miss Winers, do you have a you still have a conflict on Tuesdays, right?
>> I could get in at board. >> I I have a conflict that night. >> Okay. >> Until 6. >> Until 6. Okay. >> Miss Dockery, do you have a conflict this coming Tuesday? >> Uh, no. Tuesday's ideal for me because I
have child care. I hear you. Okay. Any other conflicts on Tuesday? >> I will have to leave early. Um probably around six. >> Well, that's perfect. You can double over with Lacy then. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, that' be 1 2 3 4 5 Miss Runner's 30 minutes. So, we should be good. >> Oh, sorry. Also, my hour commute I'll probably be a little late. So, I don't know if that's
>> okay. >> Maybe I could like join if that's okay. I could I could join my phone. >> Yeah, >> because I could do that if >> Yeah, just don't look at us. You watch the road. >> Okay, I think we'll be good. So, hold
on. If Britney and Lacy are one or excuse me, if Miss Singleary and Miss Nau are one, Vice Chair Hillyard two, Chair Carnegus three, Miss Baird four, I assume Dr. shot has her reoccurring conflict, but she was able to get here,
right? And then she had to leave. >> Yes. On Tuesday, she's been able to join us initially, but then she has to leave for her class. I don't want to speak on her behalf, but that's what it's been thus far, I believe. >> Okay. My brain is about I've got about three brain cells that I'm counting with. So, I think that Do we have a quorum with everybody passing through
the night? >> We got five. >> Okay, perfect. >> And we'll go as long as we can. And if we don't have a conflict, we'll do it again. >> Um, will I need to join by phone for us to have a quorum?
>> I think so. That's what I was trying to get together. Okay. >> Okay. >> Chair one, vice chair two, Miss Singleary and Miss Now is three. Miss Bair is four. Miss Wait, you and
Miss Wyers will be late. >> So four, but Dr. Stout would be there. So I think at the beginning we would only have five. So it would be very quick alert for everyone who says they're going to be here to be here and then we'll be good going forward. Is
that right? >> If we also if we have a couple people joining at four, we could theoretically just move the start time to four if that's going to um I mean we would only be losing 30 minutes. Um and if that's going to make the quorum more comfortable, I'm fine with starting at 3:30. I'll be here regardless, but I if
that makes things easier good for me. >> Yeah, I just worry I hope I hope we can do the glossery speedily. I wonder if we need the 3:30. Um but I appreciate the idea. Um yeah, I think we're good. Someone please correct my math if I'm off. Um, just know that if you cannot
come, if you said that you can come and you're one of those five and you can't, knowing ASAP would be really helpful so that we can go ahead and reschedule and not everybody shows up. You know what I mean? Um, okay. I will send out the things. Well, thank you, Brianna, and thank you
everybody else for your contributions today, for stepping forward, for standing up for what you believe is correct, because we're creating standards now to put our kids in the top
10%, not the top 50%, the top 10% in the country. So, let's shoot for the moon. Keep up the good work. And now I declare this session over and we'll see you again next week.
Don't forget your homework. Thank you. Bye.