{ "id": "2024-08-06_regular", "meeting_date": "2024-08-06", "meeting_type": "regular", "meeting_types": [ "regular" ], "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — August 6, 2024", "date_display": "August 6, 2024", "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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.350745Z", "highlights": "", "sections": [], "agenda_breakdown_md": "", "meeting_notes_md": "\n\n\n\n\n\n# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2024-08-06\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 17:14 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees\n### August 6, 2024 — Board Workshop, Regular Meeting, and Budget & Tax Rate Hearing\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## I. Board Workshop (Commenced at 5:06 PM)\n\n### Public Comment\nNo citizens signed up to speak during the workshop session.\n\n### Item 2: 2024 STAAR 3-8 and End-of-Course (EOC) Preliminary Results\n**Presented by: Dr. Medford**\n\nDr. Medford presented preliminary STAAR results, noting several important caveats:\n- Results are **preliminary**; the accountability subset will be released August 15\n- Data represents a **single moment in time** (spring 2024 only; does not include December or June high school EOC retakes, or STAAR Alternate students)\n- This was the **first year AI graded written responses**, which caused some anomalies (e.g., high rate of zero scores in 5th grade)\n- Year-over-year comparisons are **\"apples to oranges\"** since different students are tested each year\n- **Peer district averages** were included for comparison throughout\n\n**Key Findings by Subject:**\n\n**Reading/Language Arts (RLA):**\n- Grades 3–4: Slight dip in \"approaches\" but still above peer district averages; cohort tracking showed improvement (3rd graders from 2023 moved from 84% to 85% approaches as 4th graders; 5-point gain in Masters)\n- Grades 5–8: Similar patterns; Masters numbers increased above peer districts\n- EOC (English I & II): Strong performance; English I at 77% approaches, English II at 79% approaches\n\n**Math:**\n- Grades 3–4: Above peer groups; district is emphasizing computation skills and daily \"math review\"\n- Grades 5–6: Scores jumped significantly, particularly 6th grade (pre-algebra), well above peer districts\n- **Grades 7–8: Notable discussion** — 7th grade was 10 points below peers, but 8th grade was 10 points above. Dr. Medford explained this is due to different districts handling advanced math tracking differently (CISD students skip 7th grade STAAR and take 8th grade; some peer districts do the opposite). About 300 more students took the 8th grade test this year. New HB requirement mandates students at the 40th percentile and above be placed in accelerated math in 6th grade.\n- Algebra EOC: Numbers \"even back out\" since all students must take it to graduate\n\n**Science:**\n- 5th grade: Scores lower than desired, but CISD outperformed all peer districts\n- 8th grade: Numbers higher\n- Biology EOC: Very successful\n\n**Social Studies:**\n- 8th grade and US History: Consistently well above state and peer averages\n\n**Significant Board Discussion:**\n- **Trustee Odenweller** expressed concern about approximately 30% of 3rd graders not meeting grade level in RLA, noting this has been consistent across years. She requested the specific state-set scale score thresholds for each grade level and content area.\n- **Trustee Williams** clarified that 60% of students are at \"meets\" or \"masters\" level and pushed back on characterization of students being \"left behind,\" noting the district provides intervention and enrichment.\n- **Dr. Vinson** emphasized that CISD performs 10+ percentage points above statewide averages, that CISD's 98% graduation rate demonstrates long-term student success, and that the state's qualitative descriptors may not fully apply to CISD's context.\n- **Trustee Williams** asked whether cohort tracking exists (following individual students from 3rd grade through graduation). Dr. Medford confirmed the district tracks cohorts and is graded by the state on student growth, noting high mobility rates complicate long-term tracking.\n- Dr. Medford noted the state sets passing standards **after** tests are scored, meaning the \"goalpost\" can shift year to year.\n- **Trustee Hubert** asked about the relationship between approaches scores and graduation requirements. It was confirmed that **\"approaches\" is the passing standard** for EOC exams required for graduation.\n\n*Workshop concluded at 5:43 PM.*\n\n---\n\n## II. Regular Board Meeting (Commenced at 5:43 PM)\n\n**Members Present:** Quorum confirmed\n\n### Invocation & Pledges\n- Invocation: Trustee D. Williams\n- Pledge: Tiffany Nelson\n\n### Citizen Participation\n**One speaker:** Emily Doyle, RN — Snyder Elementary nurse (12-year CISD nurse)\n- Spoke on behalf of fellow CISD nurses regarding **Item 4** (Texas Board of Nursing medication administration changes)\n- Emphasized that nurses must practice within their legal scope under the Texas Nursing Practice Act\n- TAC Rule 225.15 requires nurses to follow the **most restrictive** requirement when governed by multiple laws\n- Requested that any delegation to non-licensed personnel be developed **in collaboration with experienced campus nurses**\n- Offered a nurse panel for future discussions if needed\n- Expressed appreciation for past board support\n\n### Item 3: Consent Agenda\n**VOTE: Approved as presented — Unanimous (by show of hands)**\n\n### Item 4: Information on Texas Board of Nursing Changes to Medication Administration Guidelines\n**Presented by: Chris McCord, with Barbara Robertson (Director of Nursing) and Dr. Mark Merle (Executive Director of Operations)**\n\n**Background:**\n- The Texas Board of Nursing is expected to issue new guidance that would require **signed physician orders** for licensed school nurses (RNs and LVNs) to administer **both prescription AND over-the-counter medications**\n- Current practice (based on 2006 Board of Nursing guidance): A signed physician order is NOT required; a current prescription label plus parent permission is sufficient\n- This is a **new interpretation of existing law**, not a new statute\n- The information came to the district approximately the previous Thursday; the ruling is expected within \"a few weeks\"\n\n**Key Points:**\n- CISD has licensed nurses (RNs) at all campuses and clinic aides — not all districts have this\n- Under Texas Education Code, **designated non-licensed personnel** (trained by the nurse) can currently administer medications and are NOT governed by the Nurse Practice Act\n- Barbara Robertson explained that the Nurse Practice Act defines a nurse's role as administering medications **prescribed by a physician**, creating a conflict with the 2006 guidance that accepted pharmacy labels as sufficient\n- Pharmacy labeling errors have occurred, underscoring the rationale behind physician orders\n\n**Potential Impact:**\n- Extra burden on parents (especially low-income families) to obtain signed physician orders\n- Families without a current physician face additional expense and effort\n- Could impact instructional time\n- Nurses face licensure risk\n\n**Options Presented:**\n\n*PreK–6:*\n1. All medications (OTC & prescription) administered by licensed nurse with signed physician order\n2. Prescriptions administered by licensed nurse with physician order; OTC by designated personnel\n3. All medications administered by designated school personnel\n\n*Grades 7–12:*\n1–3. Same as PreK–6\n4. **Parents may choose to allow students to carry and self-administer age-appropriate FDA-approved OTC medications** (a neighboring district has done this for a decade with no reported issues)\n\n**Board Discussion:**\n- **Trustee Williams** expressed strong concern about the burden on parents, particularly the requirement for physician orders for OTC medications; noted unintended consequences of students self-medicating unsafely\n- **Trustee Hubert** initially reacted negatively to Option 4 but came around, noting it could reduce burden on non-nurse staff (coaches, band directors, etc.) and empower parents\n- **Dr. Vinson** disclosed he has contacted **Senator Brandon Creighton's office** about the issue, as the Board of Nursing is governor-appointed; suggested there may be a political solution\n- Multiple trustees noted the **irony** that unlicensed designated personnel would have more flexibility than licensed nurses\n- **Trustee Odenweller** suggested the **SHAC (School Health Advisory Council)** could be involved in reviewing these options\n- The board agreed this is an information/feedback item; **no formal action was taken**\n- The district will await the Board of Nursing's formal ruling before making final decisions\n\n### Item 5: Legal — Election Items\n\n**5a. Joint Election Agreement with Montgomery County**\n**VOTE: Approved — Unanimous (by show of hands)**\n\n**5b. Election Services Agreement with Montgomery County**\n**VOTE: Approved — Unanimous (by show of hands)**\n\n**5c. Order and Notice of November 5, 2024 Board of Trustee General Election (Positions 4, 5, 6, 7)**\n**VOTE: Approved — Unanimous (by show of hands)**\n\n### No Executive Session\n\n**VOTE to Adjourn Regular Meeting: Approved — Unanimous**\n\n---\n\n## III. Budget and Tax Rate Public Hearing (Commenced at 6:32 PM)\n\n**Presented by: Karen Garza, Chief Financial Officer**\n\n### Timeline\n- Multiple budget workshops held throughout spring and summer\n- Certified estimate property values received July 25 from Montgomery County Appraisal District\n- District-level Planning and Decision-Making Committee met July 31 and reviewed the budget\n- **This is the first of two required public hearings**; second hearing and adoption vote scheduled for August 20 regular meeting\n\n### Key Budget Assumptions (FY 2024–2025)\n- **Enrollment:** 74,000 students (~1,500 growth over 2023–24)\n- **Average Daily Attendance:** 92.5%\n- **Property value growth:** 8.25% (~$4.2 billion increase)\n\n### Proposed Tax Rate: **$0.9496** (per $100 valuation)\n- **Overall decrease of 1.25 cents** from current rate\n- **Maintenance & Operations:** Decrease of 3.25 cents (due to continued state compression under HB 3)\n- **Debt Service:** Increase from $0.26 to $0.28 (due to 2023 bond passage)\n- At time of 2023 bond, community approved rate of $0.9821; proposed rate is **3.25 cents below** what voters approved\n- Since 2021, the tax rate has decreased by **26.29 cents** total\n\n### Revenue\n- **Total estimated revenue increase: $27.3 million**\n- Local property revenue: Decrease of $14.35 million (due to Senate Bill 12 recalculation of over-65 tax ceiling, resulting in ~$25 million local revenue loss, offset by property growth)\n- State funding increase: $38.9 million (includes hold-harmless for SB 12 loss plus student growth funding)\n- Teacher Incentive Allotment: $1 million increase (pass-through)\n- TRS in-kind entry (pass-through)\n\n### Personnel\n- **147 new positions** recommended at $10.8 million cost\n- **Over half** of new positions are for **special education** (significant growth area expected to continue)\n\n### Expenditures\n- **Total estimated expenditure increase: $17.7 million**\n - New personnel: $10.8M\n - Teacher step adjustment: $1.6M\n - Utilities, fuel, insurance, appraisal fees, supplies: $2.5M\n - Pass-through items (TIA, TRS): remainder\n\n### Budget Summary\n| | Amount |\n|---|---|\n| Beginning Revenue | $672.77M |\n| Revenue Increase | +$27.3M |\n| **Total Revenue** | **$700.07M** |\n| Beginning Expenditures | $694.27M |\n| Expenditure Increase | +$17.7M |\n| **Total Expenditures** | **$711.97M** |\n| **Estimated Budget Shortfall** | **-$11.9M** |\n\n### Budget Composition\n- Payroll: ~89% ($633.3M)\n- Contracted Services: 4.97%\n- Supplies/Materials: 3.99% (largest item: bus fuel)\n- Equipment/Other: 2.09% (largest item: property insurance)\n- **Total Proposed Budget: $711,969,241**\n\n### Public Comment on Budget\nNo members of the public came forward to comment.\n\n*Budget and Tax Rate Hearing concluded.*\n\n---\n\n## Summary of Key Actions\n\n| Item | Action | Vote |\n|---|---|---|\n| Consent Agenda | Approved | Unanimous |\n| Joint Election Agreement | Approved | Unanimous |\n| Election Services Agreement | Approved | Unanimous |\n| Election Order & Notice (Positions 4, 5, 6, 7) | Approved | Unanimous |\n| Board of Nursing Medication Guidelines | Information/feedback only | No vote taken |\n| Budget & Tax Rate | Public hearing; adoption scheduled for Aug. 20 | No vote taken |\n\n---\n\n## ⚑ Items to Watch\n\n- **Texas Board of Nursing ruling** on medication administration expected within weeks; could significantly impact campus nursing operations and parental burdens district-wide. The board took no formal action and is awaiting the official ruling before deciding on a policy response.\n- **SHAC involvement** suggested by Trustee Odenweller for reviewing medication self-administration options for grades 7–12; constituents interested in school health policy may wish to monitor SHAC meetings.\n- **Estimated $11.9 million budget shortfall** (FY 2024–25): revenues of ~$700M projected against expenditures of ~$712M; no resolution presented yet.\n- **Second budget and tax rate public hearing** and adoption vote scheduled for **August 20, 2024** — the public has one remaining opportunity to comment before the budget is adopted.\n- **STAAR accountability ratings** (including 2024 data) to be released **August 15, 2024**; results flagged concerns about 3rd-grade RLA proficiency rates (~30% not meeting grade level).\n- **November 5, 2024 Board of Trustee General Election** ordered for Positions 4, 5, 6, and 7; constituents should watch for candidate filing information." }