{
  "id": "2023-02-07_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2023-02-07",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — February 7, 2023",
  "date_display": "February 7, 2023",
  "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.023532Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2023-02-07\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 15:13 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees — Board Workshop\n### Tuesday, February 7, 2023\n\n---\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript of the meeting. They may contain errors or omissions. Please consult the official board minutes for the authoritative record.*\n\n---\n\n## Overview\n\nThis was a board workshop (not a regular meeting), focused primarily on reading instruction and literacy in Conroe ISD. The workshop featured presentations from community advocates, an outside literacy expert, and district staff. No formal votes were taken. The meeting lasted approximately 4.5 hours.\n\n---\n\n## Citizens Participation\n\n**Dr. Sarah Nall** — Parent and grandparent of CISD students. Referenced the podcast *Sold a Story* and advocated for the district to shift from balanced literacy to the science of reading. Cited research showing balanced literacy produces proficiency in less than half of students, while science of reading approaches yield ~95% proficiency. Noted that Highland Park ISD (Dallas) made this transition and that Texas House Bill 3 is pushing science of reading training.\n\n**Amanda (Mandy) Shepard** — Mother of three and CISD teacher. Two of her children have dyslexia. Shared her daughter's relatively smooth identification journey but described a years-long struggle to get her son identified. He spent three years in RTI, was initially deemed \"globally low\" and did not qualify for dyslexia services. A private evaluation confirmed dyslexia and auditory processing disorder. CISD would not accept the private evaluation; a fourth evaluation through the district finally identified him. Urged the district to streamline the process for parents.\n\n---\n\n## Item 2: Reading Presentation — Community Advocates and Outside Expert\n\n### Community Parent Advocate (Laurie)\n- Founder of the Conroe ISD Parent Dyslexia Group and member of the Texas Dyslexia Coalition\n- Shared personal experience with two sons who struggled with reading; one required three years of private dyslexia therapy\n- Presented CISD STAAR reading data (3rd–5th grade) over four years showing roughly 15% of students not passing reading STAAR, with economically disadvantaged students performing significantly worse\n- Emphasized that economically disadvantaged families cannot afford private tutoring\n\n### Dr. Allison Peck — Chief Academic Officer, Neuhaus Education Center\nKey points from Dr. Peck's presentation:\n\n**What is the Science of Reading?**\n- Not just phonics — it is an organized body of knowledge drawn from 50+ years of research across developmental psychology, cognitive neuropsychology, linguistics, and educational intervention\n- Reading is NOT hardwired in the brain; it requires explicit instruction\n- English has learnable patterns that can be systematically taught\n\n**Student Impact Statistics:**\n- 5% of students learn to read effortlessly\n- 35% learn with some general instruction\n- 45-50% require explicit instruction in the structure of language\n- 10-15% need intensive intervention (likely reading disability)\n- **Implication:** Without science of reading instruction, ~40% of students may be adequately served; ~60% may not\n\n**National Reading Panel \"Big Five\" (2000):**\n1. Phonemic awareness\n2. Phonics\n3. Fluency\n4. Vocabulary\n5. Comprehension\n\n**How instruction should be delivered:**\n- Explicit\n- Systematic\n- Evidence-based\n- Sustained practice\n- Progress monitoring\n\n**Demonstration:** Dr. Peck walked the board through a closed syllable lesson as a concrete example of science of reading instruction, showing how patterns in English can be explicitly taught and then applied to decodable texts and multi-syllabic words.\n\n**Key Assertions:**\n- Two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by end of third grade will end up in jail or on welfare\n- Prevention in Pre-K through 1st grade is far more cost-effective than later remediation\n- If high-quality Tier 1 instruction follows science of reading, the number of students needing intensive intervention should decrease, approaching the true 10-15% who have reading disabilities\n- University teacher preparation programs have historically not adequately taught science of reading, placing the burden on school districts\n\n**Board Member Discussion:**\n- Board Member Williams asked about ESL students' contribution to struggling reader statistics\n- Board Member Datron pushed back on whether science of reading is a \"silver bullet,\" noting that dyslexic students will still be dyslexic regardless of curriculum and that multiple teaching methods can be valid\n- Board Member Hubert asked for tangible ROI data from districts that implemented science of reading; Dr. Peck referenced Mississippi's statewide implementation but acknowledged meaningful results take ~2 years\n- Dr. Peck acknowledged science of reading won't eliminate all reading struggles but stated it will significantly reduce the number needing intervention and allow faster progress for those who do\n\n### Kristen Meetings — Parent Advocate, Texas Dyslexia Coalition Member\n- Presented PEIMS (Public Education Information Management System) data showing CISD identifies only ~3.5% of elementary students as dyslexic, well below the expected 5-20% prevalence\n- That number jumps to ~9.5% at the middle school level, suggesting students are not being identified early enough\n- Argued the district is under-identifying dyslexic students in the critical early elementary years\n- Noted the district has 49 dyslexia teachers (elementary and middle school) who are at capacity\n- Reported that the district budgeted for a 3-year CALT (Certified Academic Language Therapist) training plan but did not apply for the HB 1525 dyslexia grant that neighboring districts received\n\n**Significant Board Discussion:**\n- Board Member Datron challenged the 20% dyslexia prevalence figure and questioned whether implementing science of reading would truly reduce or increase identification numbers\n- Multiple board members debated whether low identification numbers reflect under-testing or appropriate screening\n- Discussion about whether trained dyslexia staff leave for other districts after receiving CISD-funded training; the district acknowledged this is an ongoing problem\n- Board discussed whether non-compete or payback agreements could be used for staff who receive district-funded training; Dr. Null indicated the only enforcement mechanism would be to sue, which is impractical, though such agreements can serve as a deterrent\n\n### Stacy Evans — Director of local dyslexia nonprofit, former educator, parent\nPresented recommendations based on observations and feedback from community members:\n\n**Positive Observations:**\n- October Dyslexia Awareness Month activities\n- Newly formed Dyslexia Parent Advisory Committee\n- Strong department leadership under Dr. Henry\n- Enthusiastic and motivated K-6 reading intervention teachers\n- Professional development conferences for dyslexia staff\n\n**Recommendations:**\n1. **Hire** more reading intervention teachers, diagnosticians, and support staff\n2. **Communication** — Provide parents with clearer information about processes, acronyms, timelines, parental rights, and options (504 vs. special education)\n3. **Accept outside evaluations** — Create district guidelines for private evaluations to reduce redundant testing and parent costs\n4. **Reduce re-testing** — If a private evaluation meets standards, accept it rather than requiring additional district testing\n5. **Tier 1 instruction** must follow science of reading methodology\n6. **Support and retain staff** to prevent burnout and turnover\n\n---\n\n## Item 3: Reading in Conroe ISD — District Staff Presentation\n\n### Presenters:\n- **Dr. Upshaw** — Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction\n- **Mark** — Coordinator of Elementary Language Arts\n- **Dr. Carlisle** — Staff member (literacy/intervention)\n- **Dr. Sharon Henry** — Coordinator of Dyslexia Education\n- **Dr. Kendra Wiggins** — Director of Special Education\n\n### CISD Reads & Writes Framework\n\n**District Approach:**\n- CISD uses the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) as curriculum standards, with various resources to deliver instruction\n- The district has four instructional frameworks: CISD Reads & Writes, CISD Solves (math), CISD Investigates (science), CISD Remembers (social studies)\n- The district identifies as a \"Science of Teaching Reading\" school district\n\n**Reading Academies:**\n- Mandated by HB 3, CISD began implementation in 2012\n- CISD is one of only 16 districts in the state authorized as a Reading Academy provider (does not need to contract out)\n- 835 teachers completed the program from 2020-2022\n- **100% passing rate** — the only authorized provider in the state with this distinction\n- 74 instructional coaches and administrators passed the cohort leader screener\n- Training is job-embedded (not just online)\n\n**Instructional Framework (Blue Tiles):**\n- Interactive read-aloud, phonological awareness, phonics, small group instruction, writing, and more\n- All components are interconnected — none taught in isolation\n- Framework is not based on a single literacy program\n- District recommends a range of resources aligned to current research\n\n**Science of Reading Timeline in CISD:**\n- Work began around 2016\n- Progressive initiatives from 2016-present including:\n  - Comprehension instruction (2016-2021)\n  - Phonics resources (multiple adopted, including three different programs)\n  - Heggerty program for phonological/phonemic awareness (daily)\n  - Small group instruction training (guided reading, strategy groups, phonics groups)\n- District adopted three phonics resources, but acknowledged the need for a **unified, district-wide systematic phonics resource** — identified as a key next step\n\n**Assessment System:**\n- Comprehensive literacy assessments from Pre-K through 6th grade\n- Assessments vary by time of year (Beginning, Middle, End of Year)\n- Progress monitoring serves as a \"swinging door\" — students enter and exit interventions based on data\n\n**When Students Struggle — Menu of Options:**\n1. Differentiated small group instruction (Tier 1)\n2. Imagine Learning (computer-based, designed for emergent bilinguals; hits all 5 reading components)\n3. Amplify K-2 (TEA-approved, strong in phonics)\n4. Response to Intervention (RTI) — tiered process\n5. Dyslexia services\n6. Special education services\n\n**Key Board Discussion Points:**\n- Board members asked detailed questions about how teachers choose appropriate interventions — explained that problem-solving teams (including literacy coaches, diagnosticians, dyslexia specialists) meet to review cases\n- Board Member Duncan raised concerns about teacher workload during PLC time and independent station time during small groups\n  - Noted that in 30 years of experience, she has not found a teacher who says differentiated small groups and independent stations work well\n  - Questioned whether kids are productive during independent station time\n  - Advocated for teachers to have more direct instruction time\n- Board discussed the idea of a **district-wide annual teacher survey** to centrally collect feedback on instructional practices (currently surveys are campus-specific and informal)\n- Board Member Hubert asked what single thing drove improvement in emergent bilingual STAAR scores (36% to 26% not passing) — staff said it's difficult to attribute to any single factor\n\n**Emergent Bilingual Students:**\n- District population of emergent bilinguals has grown from ~15-16% to **19%**\n- 27% of students not passing STAAR are emergent bilinguals (improved from 36% to 26%)\n\n### Ongoing Literacy Work — Identified Needs:\n1. **Dedicated literacy coaches** on each K-6 campus (currently have instructional coaches but want literacy-specific)\n2. **Preserve reading interventionist positions** funded through ESSER (39 positions, ~$3M annually) — ESSER funds expire September 2024\n3. **Unified district-wide systematic phonics resource** — transition from three separate resources to one cohesive approach\n4. **More decodable texts** in classrooms\n5. **Continued training and resources** for new teacher allocation growth\n\n**Financial Discussion:**\n- 39 reading interventionists on ESSER funds = ~$3M annually that must be absorbed into the budget\n- Reducing class size by one student district-wide = ~$3M\n- Board noted CISD operates at $1.11 per student when peer districts average $1.24\n- A unified phonics resource and additional decodable texts would have associated costs\n\n### Dyslexia Services — Dr. Sharon Henry\n\n**Dyslexia Data:**\n- End of 2021-22: CISD identified 6.08% of students as dyslexic (end-of-year number)\n- PEIMS snapshot number (October): 5.72%\n- State average: 4.99% (snapshot)\n- When Pre-K and Kindergarten are removed, CISD's elementary identification rate rises to **4.83%**\n- 4,167 students identified as dyslexic at end of school year\n- 1,431 students currently receiving dyslexia intervention\n  - ~1,300 at elementary/intermediate level\n  - ~100 at junior high (many finishing programs)\n- 117 students moved into CISD this year already identified as dyslexic (equivalent of ~4 teachers' caseloads)\n- ~300 students newly identified so far this school year (up ~420 students total, one semester in)\n\n**Comparison to Other Districts:**\n- CISD's identification rate is comparable to other large districts in the area\n- Katy ISD slightly higher; CISD noted within a few tenths of a percent\n\n**Staffing:**\n- In 2009: 11 dyslexia interventionists\n- Currently: 47 interventionists at elementary/intermediate, including:\n  - Some in CALT training (15 currently, 1 bilingual in training)\n  - 4-5 expected to complete certification by summer/early fall\n  - New CALT cohort starting this summer\n- 2 lead interventionists (supposed to coach but have been pulled into direct service)\n- 1 unfilled dyslexia specialist position\n- All staff at capacity; no one has extra time\n\n**Dyslexia Staff Survey (44 of 49 responded — 90%+):**\n- 75% strongly agree / 22.7% agree they feel valued\n- 100% confirmed training on the dyslexia handbook\n- Top requests:\n  - **Hire more interventionists**\n  - Better communication with problem-solving teams\n  - Teaching spaces (not closets or storage rooms) with proper supplies\n  - More campus-level support\n- 97.9% said their supervisor (Dr. Henry) treated them fairly\n\n**HB 1525 Grant:**\n- District did not apply last year due to existing CALT training budget and competing Autism grant\n- Dr. Henry confirmed the application is currently on her desk and partially filled out for this year\n\n### Special Education Assessment — Dr. Kendra Wiggins\n\n**2021 Handbook Changes:**\n- Now offers Full Individual Evaluation (FIE) as the preferred pathway for dyslexia identification\n- FIE allows examination of the \"whole child,\" not just reading\n- Parents can still request Section 504 evaluation if they refuse FIE\n- Very few parents are choosing 504-only (most choosing FIE pathway)\n\n**Evaluation Numbers:**\n- ~1,006 evaluations completed so far this year\n- Trending to exceed last year's ~2,000+ total\n- Predicted to reach ~2,100 for the full year\n- **Currently 29 evaluations past deadline**, but only 3 are truly out of compliance on the ARD timeline; 18 had evaluations done on time but ARD scheduling was delayed\n\n**Testing Denied:**\n- 39 students were denied testing district-wide this year\n- Board requested data on how many of those 39 were IEEs (Independent Educational Evaluations)\n\n**Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs):**\n- 57 IEEs this year related to 23 students\n- District provides criteria to parents for IEE evaluations\n- Cost guidelines based on regional service center rates\n- Parents disagreeing with district evaluation have the legal right to an IEE at district expense\n- District does NOT reimburse parents who independently seek outside evaluations before the district has completed its own\n\n**Outside Evaluations:**\n- District is required to consider outside evaluations\n- Often, outside evaluations are missing required components, necessitating additional district testing\n- Parents are encouraged to contact the district BEFORE pursuing private evaluation so specifications can be communicated\n\n**Staffing Shortages:**\n- Speech-Language Pathologists: **10.5 vacancies** — district spending millions on contracted services\n- Diagnosticians: shortages exist\n- Assessment staff share offices (sometimes 3-4 people)\n- Staff spend up to 7 hours/day in ARD meetings, leaving minimal time for testing\n- District contracts staff and offers Saturday and summer testing to address backlogs\n\n**Assessment Staff Survey (190 of ~240 responded):**\n- Top concerns:\n  - Paperwork burden\n  - Need for more staff and increased salaries\n  - Workspace issues (shared offices, lack of testing rooms)\n  - Need for ARD facilitators to free up assessment time\n  - Campus duties taking away from core responsibilities\n- Compensation comparison showed CISD competitive but not leading in the region\n\n**Next Steps for Assessment:**\n- Looking at retention incentives (signing bonuses for early commitment to return)\n- Exploring ARD facilitator positions (less expensive than full diagnosticians)\n- Recruiting from university programs — partnering to bring in students during training\n- Pursuing the HB 1525 dyslexia grant\n- Saturday and summer testing options continue\n\n---\n\n## Item 4: Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Hard-to-Fill Positions\n\nDr. Null led a discussion seeking board feedback on whether the district should explore more flexible employment options:\n\n**Options Discussed:**\n1. **Work from home / hybrid model** — Assessment staff (one day/week for report writing), IT staff\n2. **Flexible scheduling**\n3. **Contract modifications** — Potentially through District of Innovation process (10-month teacher contracts, 11-month admin contracts, more calendar flexibility)\n\n**Board Feedback:**\n- General consensus: **Yes, the district should explore flexible options**\n- Board acknowledged the need to adapt to compete for talent\n- Concerns raised about consistency and fairness across positions\n- Dr. Null clarified this would likely start as a pilot (e.g., assessment staff one day/week) and be limited/cautious\n- A four-day work week was explicitly ruled out as impractical for a district of CISD's size\n- Contract flexibility would require reopening the District of Innovation plan — identified as a longer-term conversation\n\n**Board Member Datron** made significant statements about teacher morale and retention:\n- Emphasized that teachers feel under scrutiny and are afraid to speak up\n- Urged the board and leadership to create a more supportive, less adversarial environment\n- Stressed that recruitment and retention isn't just about pay and flexibility — it's about culture\n\n**Dr. Null** responded:\n- Noted CISD was recognized as the highest-rated school district employer in the area and top 50 in the state\n- Emphasized that all conversations are meant to support staff, not criticize them\n- Acknowledged the district needs to explicitly communicate that support to teachers\n\n---\n\n## Key Themes and Takeaways\n\n1. **Science of Reading** — Strong advocacy from parents, outside experts, and district staff for strengthening explicit, systematic phonics instruction aligned with science of reading research\n2. **Unified Phonics Resource** — District identified need to consolidate three phonics programs into one unified, systematic approach — acknowledged as a top priority\n3. **Early Dyslexia Identification** — Data suggests students are being identified later than optimal; numbers increase significantly from elementary to intermediate/middle school\n4. **Staffing Shortages** — Critical shortages in dyslexia interventionists, diagnosticians, speech-language pathologists, and assessment staff; all existing staff at capacity\n5. **ESSER Cliff** — 39 reading interventionist positions (~$3M) funded through ESSER face elimination when funds expire\n6. **Parent Communication** — Multiple speakers identified communication gaps between the district and parents regarding testing processes, timelines, rights, and resources\n7. **Teacher Workload** — Acknowledged that teachers are overburdened with competing demands during limited PLC time\n8. **Recruitment & Retention** — Board gave general approval to explore flexible work options (hybrid, scheduling) as pilot programs\n\n---\n\n## Items Requiring Follow-Up\n\n- District to provide data on ESL students' contribution to struggling reader statistics\n- District to provide information on the 39 students denied testing (including how many were IEEs)\n- District to consider a district-wide centralized teacher feedback survey on instructional practices\n- HB 1525 dyslexia grant application in progress\n- Exploration of unified district-wide phonics resource\n- ESSER-funded interventionist positions need budget planning for continuation\n- Parent communication improvements (Dyslexia Parent Advisory Committee notifications, school newsletters)\n- Flexible work arrangements to be explored as pilot programs\n\n---\n\n## No Votes Taken\nThis was a workshop/information session. No formal action items were voted on."
}