{
  "id": "2023-10-03_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2023-10-03",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — October 3, 2023",
  "date_display": "October 3, 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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.130546Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2023-10-03\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 16:07 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees\n### Workshop / Board Training — October 3, 2023\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Overview\n\nThe meeting consisted of two parts:\n1. **EISO (Evaluating and Improving Student Outcomes) Board Training** — a state-required training conducted by John Connley from Region 6 Education Service Center\n2. **Board Workshop** — presentations on district accountability data, ERG performance analysis, and STAAR results with departmental next steps\n\n---\n\n## Part 1: EISO Board Training (Afternoon Session)\n\n### Presenter: John Connley, Region 6\n\nMr. Connley delivered the state-mandated EISO training, which board members must complete every two years. Three board members (newer members) had already received this training months earlier; the remaining four were trained at this session. Mr. Connley noted that an updated version of the EISO training is forthcoming from the state but has not yet been released.\n\n### Key Discussion: Training Timing\n\n**Board President Scott Hubert** expressed frustration that the full board was not trained together, stating he wished all seven trustees could have gone through the training as a group. He noted the board's responsibilities have shifted \"drastically\" in recent years, with trustees being pulled into more areas like safety policy.\n\n**Dr. Null (Superintendent)** explained the scheduling was driven by different expiration windows — new members had a required window after being seated, while veteran members' training didn't expire until October. The expectation was that the state would release updated training before this session, which would have allowed a full-board retraining together.\n\n**Trustee Datren Williams** pushed back on the idea that board roles have changed, stating: \"Our roles have not changed. I think people have a misconception of what those roles are.\" He argued that board members sometimes try to \"creep into the day-to-day activities\" which should be avoided, emphasizing the board's role is oversight, not implementation.\n\nPresident Hubert agreed the role is oversight but noted the board has been given additional responsibilities over time, particularly around safety. Both trustees agreed the board should maintain a 50,000-foot view.\n\n### Training Content Highlights\n\n- **Adult behavior's impact on student outcomes** — Research over 25 years shows teacher, principal, superintendent, and (more recently) school board behavior significantly influences student achievement.\n- **Mindset** — Emphasized as a critical factor for educators and leaders.\n- **STAAR Testing** — Reviewed sample 3rd-grade reading and math questions, noting the reading comprehension demands embedded in math questions. Trustee Nelson highlighted vocabulary challenges for students.\n- **A-through-F Accountability System:**\n  - Three domains: Student Achievement (Domain 1), School Progress (Domain 2), and Closing the Gaps (Domain 3)\n  - 70% = better of Domain 1 or Domain 2; 30% = Domain 3\n  - **New change:** Six performance levels instead of four (Masters, Meets, High Approaches, Low Approaches, High Did Not Meet, Low Did Not Meet)\n  - **New change:** Larger campuses now contribute more to district weighting (proportional to enrollment)\n  - **CCMR cut point raised** from 60% to 88%, generating significant pushback from districts statewide\n  - Ratings delayed until later in October (originally expected in September)\n\n- **College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR):**\n  - College readiness: TSI criteria, AP scores of 3+, IB scores of 4+, dual credit (9+ hours), or UT OnRamps\n  - Career readiness: Industry certifications, CTE coherent sequences, special education completers\n  - Military readiness: Now requires actual enlistment (previously just \"interest\"), ASVAB passage, and enlistment after graduation\n  - **Question from trustees** about whether 17-year-old graduates who can't enlist until 18 receive credit — deferred to Dr. Povich for later in the meeting\n\n- **Relative Performance (Domain 2B):** Adjusts for economically disadvantaged populations; Trustee Williams asked whether this effectively lowers the bar for disadvantaged students. Mr. Connley clarified it measures opportunity, not aptitude, and expectations (same test) remain the same.\n\n- **Statewide 60x30TX Goals:** By 2030, at least 60% of Texans ages 25-34 should hold a certificate or degree. Progress report shows 48.6% as of 2021 (educated population) and student debt metric trending the wrong direction (49%, down from 55%).\n\n- **District Goals:** HB 3 requires three goals — early childhood literacy, early childhood math proficiency, and CCMR. Recommended districts maintain 3-5 total goals to maximize effectiveness.\n\n---\n\n## Part 2: Board Workshop (Evening Session, beginning ~6:09 PM)\n\n### Citizens Participation\nNo one signed up to speak.\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 1: ERG Performance Analysis\n\n**Presenter: Heather Tower, President of ERG**\n\nERG is a third-party Performance Management tool (not an accountability system) that has been operating since 1999 and is based in the Montgomery area. Key points:\n\n- **ERG measures both effectiveness and efficiency**, as required by Texas statute.\n- Uses **relative performance measures** — ranks districts against peers, adjusted for demographics (economically disadvantaged population).\n- **87% of Texas districts are rated A or B** under the state system, making it difficult to identify truly high performers.\n- ERG's balanced scorecard: 20% each for Approaches/Meets/Masters, 10% graduation rates, 10% each for TSI graduates, SAT, and ACT.\n- **Conroe ISD Rankings (2022 data):**\n  - **Effectiveness Index: 90.9th percentile, ranked #19** among the 200 largest districts\n  - **Productivity (efficiency + performance): 97.5th percentile, ranked #6** (effectively #5 after removing NISD data error)\n  - Conroe has been in the **top tier consistently year after year**\n- ERG noted Conroe outperforms neighboring districts that the state accountability system rates similarly.\n- **Trustee Nelson** asked about data sources — all data comes directly from TEA; ERG does not modify data even when errors are identified (e.g., NISD misreported economically disadvantaged data).\n- Dr. Null confirmed the district contracts with ERG for deeper campus-level data, but ERG's district rankings are based solely on TEA data regardless of contract status.\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 2: State Accountability System Overview\n\n**Presenter: Dr. Bethany Medford, Deputy Superintendent**\n\nBrief overview of the accountability system structure (Domains 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) — consistent with earlier EISO training content. Key notes:\n\n- TEA has delayed official accountability ratings release.\n- **District rating is capped** if any single campus receives a D or lower — this has impacted Conroe in the past.\n- Domain 3 (Closing the Gaps, 30%) examines: all students, lowest race/ethnicity group, second lowest, and the \"super group\" (economically disadvantaged, emergent bilinguals, special education, and highly mobile students).\n- The transition table for measuring growth awards 1 point for students maintaining Meets/Masters, 0.5 points for maintaining in certain lower categories, and 0 for regression.\n- **Conroe High School (~5,300 students) accounts for approximately 10%** of the entire district's accountability score.\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 3: School Improvement Department\n\n**Presenter: Jeff Fuller, Executive Director of School Improvement**\n\n- Department is relatively new with a small team (3 people plus data coaches and assessment staff).\n- **Key lessons learned:**\n  - Without proper monitoring, schools can decline quickly\n  - Administrators need support with observation and feedback cycles\n  - 19 new principals and 64 new assistant principals hired in the last 2 years\n- **Three tiers of campus support:**\n  - **High support:** 12 campuses — intensive involvement from deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent, and school improvement team\n  - **Medium support:** 8 campuses — trending upward\n  - **Monitor:** 4 campuses\n- Implemented leverage leadership framework, campus improvement plans, root cause analysis, data-driven instruction, and problem-solving teams.\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 4: Teaching and Learning Department\n\n**Presenter: Dr. Edith Upshaw, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning**\n\n- **Bilingual/ESL Education:** District is 20% emergent bilingual (~15,000 students, 85 languages). Grew 25% in 5 years. Implemented K-12 Summit program at 26 campuses to improve language proficiency testing, particularly the speaking component.\n- **Instructional Coaches:** Board-approved math and literacy coaches for all campuses — described as \"a dream for the last 5 years.\" Developed an Instructional Coaching Symposium for ongoing training.\n- **Reading/ELA next steps:** Systematic phonics rollout (through 5th grade), in-person Reading Academy training (4th year, ~700 teachers currently in training), year-long targeted test prep for online assessment skills.\n- **Math next steps:** Focus on K-2 math foundations, small group instruction differentiation.\n- **Science:** New TEKS being implemented next year; new science coordinator (Albert Kangi) leading alignment work. Science materials adoption coming to the board in the future.\n- **Social Studies:** Intentional focus on 4th and 7th grade precursor curriculum that feeds 8th grade performance. Added a dedicated social studies coach for junior high.\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 5: Elementary STAAR Results\n\n**Presenter: Dr. Shelley Winkler, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary**\n\n37 elementary schools (with Hindes opening this year). Conroe consistently outperforms the state across all areas.\n\n**3rd Grade Results (approx.):**\n- RLA English: 86% Approaches, 63% Meets, 28% Masters (dip in Masters, but state also dipped)\n- Math English: slight increases in Approaches and Meets\n\n**4th Grade** (cohort that was in kindergarten when COVID began): 86% Approaches, 61% Meets, 31% Masters. Masters dipped slightly.\n\n**Key clarification for trustees:** Approaches/Meets/Masters percentages are cumulative — 86% Approaches means 86% scored at Approaches *or higher*; the 63% Meets includes all students at Meets *or* Masters.\n\n**Staffing improvements cited:**\n- Hiring at 22:1 ratio (vs. previous 23:1) allowed earlier teacher placement — zero additional allocations needed between July and start of school (vs. 15 added positions the prior year)\n- Two instructional coaches per campus (freed Title I funds for other needs at Title I schools)\n- Second assistant principal added at campuses with 850+ students\n- Additional front office paraprofessional support\n- Sam Houston State year-long student teaching residency program\n\n**Intervention/Enrichment focus:**\n- Domain 2A individual student growth is the primary focus area\n- Acknowledged the district is historically strong at intervention but needs improvement on enrichment for high-performing students\n- Data dashboard tracks individual students across interim, campus, and district assessments by TEKS\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 6: Middle School (Intermediate & Junior High) STAAR Results\n\n**Presenter: Jeff Stickler, Assistant Superintendent for Middle Schools**\n\n5th-8th grade results presented across RLA, Math, Science, and Social Studies. Conroe consistently above state averages.\n\n**Key discussion point — 7th Grade Math:**\n- **Trustee Nelson** noticed the 7th grade math numbers appeared low. Dr. Stickler explained that the highest-performing 7th graders take Algebra 1 or 8th grade math and are therefore *not included* in the 7th grade math scores — their scores appear in the 8th grade or Algebra 1 data instead. This means the 7th grade math cohort excludes the most advanced students.\n- **Trustee Duncan** caught this discrepancy and asked about accounting for students taking above-grade-level courses. Staff committed to providing a breakout of those numbers.\n- Potentially 150-700+ students per junior high campus are in advanced math not reflected in grade-level scores.\n\n**8th Grade Social Studies** — described as \"probably the hardest test\" across all STAAR exams.\n\n**Junior High Improvements:**\n- PLC (Professional Learning Community) process refocused on fidelity\n- Board-approved associate principal positions for junior highs — significant impact on allowing principals to be in classrooms\n- Schoolwide behavior/procedures focus through Foundations teams\n- Morehead Junior High: 48% fewer disciplinary referrals despite moving into a new building\n\n---\n\n### Presentation 7: High School STAAR/EOC Results\n\n**Presenter: Dr. Chris Povich, Assistant Superintendent for High Schools**\n\n- **English 1:** Greatest increase in Approaches percentage; increases across all performance levels\n- **English 2:** Approaches up (78→81), Meets/Masters maintained\n- **Algebra 1:** Positive growth (noting many freshmen are in Algebra 2 or Geometry and not included)\n- **Biology:** Continued strong performance from science teachers\n- **US History:** 95→98% Approaches; slight dip in Masters\n\n**Key initiatives:**\n- PSAT prep unit development for language arts\n- 10-week TSI prep implementation for juniors/seniors\n- SAT math exemplars and practice items\n- **Lead Forward training** for all core and special ed teachers on Tier 1 best practices\n- Data dive academic meetings with each high school\n- CCMR student-level roster tracking — by January, down to specific student lists\n- **First-ever district AP Symposium** planned for November 7 at College Park HS\n- ELC course-level student growth tracking within classrooms\n\n**CCMR Goals:** Increase CTE completers from 25% to 37%; improve overall CCMR from 65% to 69%; maintain dropout rate under 2%.\n\n**Military Readiness (follow-up from earlier question):** Dr. Povich confirmed the state now requires actual enlistment documentation (beyond just recruiter contact). The state still lacks a great mechanism for collecting this data, and the measurement remains challenging.\n\n**Cultural shift:** Moved from \"test analysis\" (aggregate numbers) to \"student analysis\" (individual rosters and names) — getting to student-level and even TEKS-level specificity.\n\n---\n\n### Board Member Questions & Discussion on Presentations\n\n**Trustee Chase Nelson** asked several follow-up questions:\n- **Domain 2A reporting to the board:** Staff confirmed they will present new KPIs once TEA finalizes cut scores; they plan to return with detailed domain 2A data once available.\n- **Data rooms on campuses:** Staff acknowledged importance but noted capacity constraints sometimes force electronic alternatives. Portables and classroom space compete for priority.\n- **Super group-specific interventions:** Staff clarified that intervention is individualized to the student/TEKS level regardless of demographic group; some targeted actions exist (e.g., for emergent bilinguals) but the primary approach is student-by-student.\n- **What more can the board do?** Staff highlighted the 22:1 hiring ratio as transformative and noted the need for more central office support staff — Dr. Null specifically identified this as the next area of need, noting division leaders oversee 16-37 schools with only 2-3 support staff.\n\n**Trustee Datren Williams** asked about how Conroe's economically disadvantaged rate compares to the state. **Dr. Upshaw confirmed:** Conroe is at 43% economically disadvantaged vs. state at 62%; emergent bilingual at 20.3% vs. estimated state ~24%.\n\n---\n\n### Staff Introductions (Notable)\n\nThe presenting team collectively represents deep institutional knowledge:\n- All started careers in Conroe ISD (most in 1997-2003)\n- Combined experience spans teaching, coaching, campus administration, and central office leadership across dozens of Conroe schools\n- Many have children who attended or currently attend Conroe ISD schools\n- 1997 was identified as a particularly strong hiring year for the district\n\n---\n\n## Items of Note\n\n- **No votes were taken** — this was a workshop/training session, not a regular business meeting.\n- **State accountability ratings remain delayed** — expected later in October; cut scores still being finalized, which impacts Domain 2A, Domain 2B, and Domain 3 calculations.\n- **CCMR cut point increase** (60% → 88%) is a significant concern with potential negative impact on high school and district scores.\n- **New science TEKS** will be implemented next year, requiring new materials adoption and teacher training.\n- **Bond election** referenced as upcoming in November.\n- **District serves ~15,000 emergent bilingual students across 85 languages.**\n- Staff committed to returning to the board with additional data once state accountability details are finalized.\n\n---\n\n*Meeting adjourned at approximately 10:01 PM.*"
}