A public feedback summary presented Sept. 5 to the Tennessee State Board of Education’s ELA Standards Recommendation Committee showed broad support for the draft ELA standards, while flagging specific areas for revision.

Measure Learning analyst Jackie Phillips presented analysis of the March 3–31 public survey and told the committee that out of 23,358 individual standard ratings across K–12 (respondents could rate multiple standards), roughly 82% of ratings recommended keeping the draft language as presented. The survey team reported 696 individual returned surveys overall; teachers accounted for about 74% of respondents.

Key findings presented
- Overall counts: The presenters reported 696 surveys returned (389 for K–5; 166 for 6–8; 141 for 9–12) and 23,358 total per‑standard responses. Kindergarten, grades 1–3 and grades 8–10 received the highest numbers of responses. Kindergarten had the most comments by grade.
- Recommended actions: Of the total per‑standard responses, 82% were “keep,” about 8% were “change,” 5% “move” and 5% “remove.” (Round‑1 feedback earlier this cycle had informed the draft that was reissued for round 2.)
- Concentrated concerns: Survey commenters most frequently asked for clearer wording, more precise verbs in standards, explicit vertical progression between grades and clearer paragraph/length expectations for student writing. Respondents also asked for foundational phonics instruction to be explicit before grade 3 and for grade‑by‑grade lists of high‑frequency roots and affixes.
- Geographic response: Of county-level returns, Shelby County provided the most surveys (79 returns), followed by Rutherford and Hamilton counties.

“I do have to warn you before I begin that I am nine months pregnant,” Jackie Phillips said at the start of her presentation, adding point-of-fact about the team’s availability to answer detailed analysis questions. Brianna Summers, the State Board official coordinating the review, noted that the survey link was distributed to more than 300 organizations and to the 297 applicants for EAT membership.

Why it matters: The survey results were used by the educator advisory teams to shape the draft standards that the committee is reviewing; the committee must now reconcile public feedback, teacher input and research evidence as it finalizes language next week.

Ending
The survey team left detailed tables and comment appendices in the committee’s shared drive. Committee members asked whether the EAT chairs had seen draft survey data during their deliberations; staff said the EAT used round‑1 feedback and that round‑2 feedback informed the draft now before the committee.