Tennessee committee finishes draft language for etymology and linguistics electives, parks credit questions

NASHVILLE, Tenn.

The Tennessee State Board of Education's English language arts standards recommendation committee met electronically Oct. 14 and completed its review of the etymology and linguistics elective standards, agreeing on wording changes and a set of supporting documents while leaving final credit-reporting decisions to technical staff.

The committee, which met by electronic call because members could not convene physically in Nashville, worked through the remaining elective course standards and supporting language for the ELA elective table. Members accepted edits to the etymology strand (including language to emphasize regional dialects and the role of history) and to the linguistics strand (clarifying morphology, phonology and syntax items) and agreed to add technology as an influence on language development.

Brianna Summers, who read the meeting's statement of necessity at the outset, described the session as one intended "to continue proposing revisions to the ELA standards." The committee accepted several wording changes proposed during line-by-line review and marked a small set of items for follow-up.

Why it matters: The revisions will affect the optional high-school electives that districts can offer under the State Board's ELA framework. Although the committee did not change graduation requirements, the final phrasing determines what teachers must cover to claim the course aligns with state standards and how districts document elective offerings in the Tennessee course catalog.

Main decisions and edits

- Etymology strand: The committee kept a standard tracing "how the English language has changed" and revised a standard to read that students should "trace how American English became identifiable from other countries and how history, peoples and geography shaped regional dialects throughout the country." Members removed a duplicate use of "history" across adjacent standards and agreed to retain study of Latin and Greek origins specifically in a standard that links word families across content areas.

- Research and skills language: Members replaced vague phrases such as "understand how to research" with active curriculum language: "use research skills to identify language origins and track word developments." That mirrors language used elsewhere in the elective standards.

- Linguistics strand: Committee members clarified lists and formatting (for example, lowercasing morphological terms and using "including" rather than slashed lists), removed an apparent duplicate standard (ELL2), and reworded phonology and syntax standards so they read as student-performance expectations (for example, "trace the phonology of language, including intonation and the organization of letters and/or sounds into words"). The committee also simplified a long, mixed-purpose syntax list to emphasize core analysis tasks such as "identify sentence structure through the analysis of grammatical rules."

- Pragmatics and technology: The pragmatics standard was amended to list rules of conversation, speech acts and language of persuasion as elements of pragmatics. Members also directed staff to add technological influences to the standard that asks students to "explore how social, political, economic, and technological influences shape language." Chair Kurnegas and Vice Chair Hilliard said adding "technological" better reflects how language is changing.

Table of electives and credit reporting

Committee members adjusted wording for the supporting table that explains half-credit versus full-credit expectations for electives (for example, "teach all standards for a half credit; teach all standards in greater depth and/or teach more than one [topic] for a full credit"). The group did not finalize how the Tennessee Course Catalog should record possible multiple credits for a repeated elective (for example, advanced creative writing offered in multiple years). Banks and other department staff were asked to check the course-catalog rules and report back. Committee members explicitly parked the credit-number question for follow-up rather than making a policy change at the meeting.

Votes and formal actions

The only formal recorded motion was a procedural vote to use the meeting recording as the official minutes. Chair Kurnegas moved that "the recording provided so well by Mr. Walton serves as minutes for today." The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; members indicated at least six "ayes." No formal adoption or board-level vote on the revised standards was held at this session.

Follow-up directions

- Staff were directed to update the master document with the committee's wording changes and to reconcile code/label inconsistencies (for example, course code formatting and removal of ampersands in titles).

- Department staff (Banks and course-catalog managers) were asked to confirm whether and how local education agencies may record repeated electives (single-course multi-credit offerings) and to advise whether the committee should add sentence-level guidance for districts that want to offer a course for multiple credits.

- Committee leadership asked members to continue work on the glossary and the document introduction; leadership recommended each member review assigned glossary blocks and return suggested edits in advance of the next meeting.

What remains

Committee members said they consider the standards text for etymology and linguistics essentially complete for the committee's review, pending the minor parking-lot items: final glossary entries, the introduction/supporting language, and confirmation from course-catalog staff about how to record course credits. The committee scheduled a follow-up meeting hold for Oct. 21 for additional editing if needed.

Ending note

The group closed the meeting after nearly four hours of discussion and asked staff to circulate the revised document with tracked changes and a short list of outstanding items prior to reconvening.