{
  "id": "2020-02-04_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2020-02-04",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — February 4, 2020",
  "date_display": "February 4, 2020",
  "type_display": "Regular Meeting",
  "types_display": [
    "Regular Meeting"
  ],
  "item_count": 0,
  "has_agenda": false,
  "has_notes": true,
  "pdf_filename": null,
  "packet_url": null,
  "generated_at": "2026-06-18T19:45:20.656245Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2020-02-04\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-27 22:18 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees\n### Regular Meeting (Workshop) — February 4, 2020\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Public Comment\nNo members of the public signed up to speak.\n\n---\n\n## Compensation / Pay Plan Presentation (TASB HR Services)\n\n**Presenters:** Jennifer Barton and Amy Campbell (TASB HR Services), with acknowledgment of Board Member Ray Sanders' participation in the process.\n\n### Market Competitiveness Findings\n- Conroe ISD remains **competitive with the local Houston-area market** across most employee groups.\n- **Teacher pay at Year 0 (starting salary):** $55,500 — exactly even with the local market median.\n- **Years 5 and 10:** Slightly below market at **98% and 99%** respectively (gaps of $1,322 and $701).\n- **Years 15 and 20:** Even with market.\n- Board members noted that these figures reflect **base salary only**, not total compensation (insurance/benefits), which would further close the gap.\n- The Year-over-year market shifts were largely driven by **House Bill 3 volatility**, which required some districts to give large raises to experienced teachers.\n\n### Teaching Area Stipends\n- **Masters degree:** $1,000–$1,800 (at or above market median)\n- **Secondary math and science:** No stipend currently offered; Dr. Sharples noted it's becoming increasingly challenging to fill these positions as the hiring season progresses.\n- **Special education self-contained:** $2,000 (at market median)\n- **Bilingual:** $4,500 (above market)\n\n### Non-Exempt / Hourly Workers\n- Starting rates are **at or above market** across the board.\n- Targeted efforts have been made for special education aides and bus drivers.\n\n### Other Exempt Groups (Administrators, etc.)\n- Administrative education group: Very competitive.\n- All groups generally competitive due to consistent annual pay increases.\n\n### Police Department Pay\n- Police pay structure was noted at **86%** of market for employee pay.\n- Internal equity is currently strong, but the department faces significant recruiting challenges:\n  - **11 vacant officer positions** currently\n  - Losing candidates to other agencies by **$8,000–$10,000** in total compensation\n  - Experience credit policy is outdated (1 year credit for 5 years of experience, unchanged for ~18 years; most agencies now give 1-for-1)\n  - No **certification pay** (intermediate, advanced, master) currently offered, unlike competing agencies\n  - Applicant pool has dwindled overall for law enforcement\n- **Chief and staff are developing a survey/proposal** on certification pay and experience credit adjustments, expected within approximately one month.\n\n### Recommended Pay Models\n\n**Model 1:**\n| Group | General Increase |\n|-------|-----------------|\n| Teachers | 2.5% |\n| Other Exempt | 2.0% |\n| Non-Exempt | 3.0% |\n| Bus Drivers | $0.75/hr (3.8%) |\n| **Overall with adjustments** | **2.9%** |\n\n**Model 2:**\n| Group | General Increase |\n|-------|-----------------|\n| Teachers | 3.0% |\n| Other Exempt | 2.5% |\n| Non-Exempt | 3.5% |\n| Bus Drivers | $1.00/hr (5.0%) |\n| **Overall with adjustments** | **3.5%** |\n\nBoth models include **0.4% in targeted adjustments** for:\n- Teachers at years 2–15 (incremental, not full correction at once)\n- 1% above minimum for employees falling below pay grade minimum\n- Placement scale improvements: reduced from 15 years to **12 years to midpoint** for most support/auxiliary; **10 years to midpoint** for instructional support (aides) and police\n- 2% above teacher daily rate for educator career pathway positions (counselors, APs, principals)\n\n**Budget was built on Model 2.**\n\n### Significant Board Discussion on Compensation Philosophy\n- Multiple board members expressed strong support for paying employees well but emphasized **fiscal responsibility** and not exceeding 100% of market.\n- **Board Member John** argued that Conroe ISD's desirability as an employer means it shouldn't need to pay above market; noted total compensation (including superior benefits) makes the district more competitive than salary alone suggests.\n- **Board Member Datren** questioned whether the $500–$1,300 gaps were truly causing teacher attrition and urged a more holistic perspective.\n- **Dr. Null** cautioned that parts of the district (those adjacent to higher-paying districts) struggle to recruit teachers and the district cannot adopt a \"land of plenty\" attitude across the board.\n- **Amy Campbell (TASB)** noted that Active Care insurance volatility could affect competitiveness, as some districts are standing up alternative insurance programs.\n- Several board members expressed that **administrators should receive the same percentage increase as teachers** (not less), citing the demands of their roles and the lean central office staff.\n- **Board Member John** specifically advocated for **3% across the board, possibly 3.5%**, noting CPI inflation is 2.1–2.6%.\n- Board expressed interest in seeing a **third model** with more uniform percentages across employee groups.\n\n---\n\n## Preliminary Budget 2020–2021\n\n**Presenter:** Darrin Rice, Chief Financial Officer\n\n### Key Budget Assumptions\n- **Enrollment growth:** 1,400 new students (total projected: 66,198)\n  - Current enrollment as of meeting date: **64,916**\n  - Significant board discussion about whether pre-K expansion would add students beyond the 1,400 projection; Dr. Null and staff noted projections are based on existing pilot data and are intentionally conservative\n- **Property value growth:** 5.5% estimated ($2.1 billion increase; total: $40.2 billion)\n- **Opening Stockton Junior High School** and adding 12th grade at Grand Oaks High School\n\n### Fund Balance\n- Ended FY2019 at ~$140 million\n- Board transferred $32 million out: $12M for technology/2019 bond; $20M to establish capital maintenance fund\n- **Unassigned fund balance:** $134.7 million (24.5% of budget) — within target range of 20–25%\n\n### Tax Rate\n- Conroe ISD remains the **second lowest tax rate** in the greater Houston area at $1.23\n- **15 cents below peer district average**\n- **Proposed 2020–21 tax rate:** $1.2135 (decrease of 1.65 cents on M&O; debt service unchanged at $0.26)\n- House Bill 3 now limits tax revenue growth to **2.5% annually** regardless of actual property value growth\n- State will calculate the district's maximum compressed rate for the first time this year\n\n### Revenue & Expenditure Summary\n\n**Revenue:**\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning Revenue | $555.62M |\n| Local Revenue (5.5% AV growth) | $13.83M |\n| Net State Funding (1,400 students) | $8.76M |\n| TRS In-Kind | $3.5M |\n| **Total Revenue** | **$581.71M** |\n\n**Expenditures:**\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning Expenditures (amended) | $552.33M |\n| Salary Increases (Model 2) | $12.0M |\n| Substitute Pay Increase ($5/day) | $0.3M |\n| Additional Personnel for Growth | $12.0M |\n| Other Expenses (utilities, fuel, etc.) | $1.5M |\n| TRS In-Kind Offset | ($3.5M) |\n| **Total Estimated Increase** | **$24.3M** |\n| **Remaining for Intermediate/Elementary Staffing & Retention Stipend** | **~$5.08M** |\n\n### Intermediate and Elementary Staffing Needs\n- Dr. Null identified intermediates as having the **highest student-to-staff ratios** and struggling both academically and with climate/culture.\n- Consideration being given to adjusting staffing formula (currently 26:1) and/or adding specialized positions (e.g., student support teachers for testing, 504).\n- Elementary schools with only one AP and one counselor also need relief, particularly those with specialized programs (504, bilingual/ESL).\n- ~$5 million placeholder; any remaining funds could be directed to an **employee retention stipend**.\n- A **budget amendment** of $2.75M will be brought to the board for the current year to cover 600+ additional students above projections.\n\n### Capital Maintenance Fund\n- Built-in annual contribution of **$10 million**\n- Has been used to purchase land and buses\n\n---\n\n## Academic / Policy Updates\n\n### Effective Schools Framework (ESF)\n**Presenter:** Dr. Taylor\n\n- State model for school improvement with five levers: strong school leadership, effective teachers, positive school culture, high-quality curriculum, and effective instruction.\n- Used at **Sam Houston Elementary** last year with reported success.\n- Will serve as the **foundation for the new school improvement team/department**.\n- Campuses identified as needing improvement undergo a diagnostic; this does not replace existing accountability systems but supplements them.\n\n### House Bill 3906 — Assessment Changes\n**Presenter:** Dr. Taylor\n\n- One of the largest assessment bills passed; key changes include:\n  - Assessments may be given **over multiple days** and at **multiple checkpoints** during the year\n  - **Stand-alone 4th and 7th grade writing** assessments eliminated by 2021–22; writing integrated into grades 3–8\n  - By 2023: only **75% multiple choice**; remainder short answer/fill-in-the-blank\n  - **Full transition to electronic STAAR** by 2022–23\n- iPads were recently added as acceptable testing devices (previously laptops only)\n- District is piloting new devices (larger screens, touchscreen) as Chromebooks are not touchscreen\n- Board expressed concern about reliability of electronic testing systems, referencing past state-level platform crashes\n\n### House Bill 3 — Board-Adopted Goals and Plans\n**Presenter:** Dr. Upshaw\n\n**Required Goals (minimum 3):**\n1. **3rd Grade Reading** — 60% of all students at \"Meets\" standard by 2030\n2. **3rd Grade Math** — 60% of all students at \"Meets\" standard by 2030\n3. **CCMR (College, Career, Military Readiness)** — 60% of seniors graduating ready; district currently at **71%** (up 6 points from prior year)\n\n- Goals must include **disaggregated data by subgroups** (economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, African American, etc.)\n- Board may adopt additional goals for bilingual/ESL populations\n- 3rd grade assessments can be taken in **Spanish** (through 5th grade)\n- District has updated its bilingual model from early English acquisition to a more comprehensive bilingual/bi-literate approach serving the full population\n- **Targeted professional development** required for K–3 teachers in reading\n\n**Reading Academies:**\n- Every K–3 teacher, reading intervention teacher, instructional coach, and campus administrator must complete reading academies (~1,500+ teachers)\n- Conroe ISD has been **approved as its own authorized provider**\n- Model includes job-embedded coaching, not just \"sit and get\" training\n- Curriculum details still being developed; emphasis on **phonemic awareness**\n- Staff plans to return in spring with baseline data and recommended goals for board consideration\n\n### Class Ranking Discussion\n**Presenter:** Gregg Colschen\n\n- Current practice: Students are ranked multiple times from sophomore year through senior year; more often than board policy requires.\n- **Seven Texas districts** (including Westlake, Friendswood, Katy ISD schools) have moved to only ranking the **top 10%** (as required by law for automatic admission) and providing quartile information for others.\n- Survey of **15 universities** confirmed that class rank is **not a major admissions factor** outside of Texas automatic admission rules; schools emphasize holistic review.\n- Campus profiles sent with transcripts help universities understand each school's context.\n\n**Board Discussion:**\n- Board members generally expressed **interest in exploring** the elimination of individual class ranking beyond the top 10%.\n- Concerns raised about reducing competition and \"coddling\" students, but also strong recognition of student stress.\n- **Dr. Null** recommended forming a committee of administrators, parents, and others to study the issue further and bring back a recommendation.\n- Board Member Datren used the analogy of a relay race: \"Stay in your lane, run as fast as you can.\"\n- **Consensus: The board supports further study** of the class ranking policy, with a committee to be formed. No policy change was proposed or voted on at this time.\n\n### Additional Days School Year (House Bill 3)\n**Presenter:** Dr. Phillips\n\nThree options presented for elementary schools:\n1. **Option 1: Optional summer learning** — maintain 180-day calendar, add up to 30 summer days with half-day ADA funding (similar to current summer school but with state funding)\n2. **Option 2: Year-round calendar** — space 180 days over full year with intermittent breaks for targeted remediation\n3. **Option 3: Full year redesign** — up to 210-day calendar with reduced daily instruction time, more recess/enrichment\n\n- Historical context: Conroe ISD tried year-round schooling previously; it was **expensive, confusing, and phased out**.\n- Dr. Hines and staff shared examples of nearby districts with different calendars (weeks off in October/February) but noted community feedback consistently supports the traditional calendar.\n- **Consensus: Option 1 is the preferred path** — aligns with current model and adds state funding for summer programming. No further action needed from the board.\n\n### Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA)\n**Presenter:** Mrs. Green\n\n- New House Bill 3 provision for recruiting/retaining effective teachers, especially at high-need and rural campuses.\n- Districts must create a **local designation system** with three tiers: **Recognized, Exemplary, and Master**.\n- State funding of **$3,000–$32,000 per designated teacher** depending on designation level and campus demographics (poverty level, rural status).\n- **90% of allotment** must go to teacher compensation on the designated teacher's campus; 10% for administration.\n- Plans must be approved by **TEA and Texas Tech University**.\n- Designations follow teachers for **5 years** and become part of certification — even if they move to a different district.\n\n**Board Discussion:**\n- Significant concerns raised about:\n  - **Subjectivity** in teacher evaluation and potential for bias\n  - Principal-teacher dynamics affecting ratings\n  - Irony of removing student class rankings while implementing teacher performance rankings\n  - Risk that state funding could be eliminated in future legislative sessions\n  - Potential for competitive disadvantage if district doesn't participate\n- **Conroe ISD has chosen Cohort D** (last group) to allow time to learn from other districts' models.\n- Board and staff agreed that **not participating is not viable** — surrounding districts will participate, and designated teachers' ratings transfer between districts.\n- Dr. Null emphasized this will be a competitive policy and the district needs to prepare even though details are still emerging.\n\n---\n\n## Items Noted / Deferred\n- **Police certification pay and experience credit proposal:** Expected from Chief and CFO within approximately one month\n- **Intermediate/elementary staffing model:** Still being developed; placeholder of ~$5M in budget\n- **Board-adopted goals for reading, math, CCMR:** Staff to return in spring with recommended goals and baseline data\n- **Class ranking study:** Committee to be formed; recommendation to come back to the board at a future date\n- **Teacher Incentive Allotment plan:** Very early stages; Conroe ISD joining Cohort D (latest timeline)\n- **Budget amendment** for current year (~$2.75M) to be brought to the board\n\n---\n\n## No Formal Votes Taken\nThis was a workshop session; no action items were voted on. The meeting served as an informational and feedback session for the board.\n\n---\n\n*Meeting adjourned at approximately the end of the workshop session.*"
}