January 7, 2025 — Special Meeting
Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2025-01-07
Special Meeting — Unofficial Notes
Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.
Generated 2026-03-28 17:50 UTC
Unofficial Meeting Notes
Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees — Special Meeting
January 7, 2025
These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.
Opening
- Meeting called to order at 6:03 PM
- Quorum confirmed; meeting properly posted per Texas Open Meetings Act
- Prayer: Trustee May
- Pledge of Allegiance: Led by CISD Police Officer Andre Williams, a 25-year military veteran (Navy, Army National Guard, Air Force) who completed five combat deployments and joined CISD Police in August 2023
Item 2A: Special Recognition
Board President Odenweller recognized Sinthia Armat Tunga, a 12-year-old student who accelerated into high school through credit by examination. She is a freshman at The Woodlands College Park High School, earned perfect scores on multiple STAAR exam sections, ranked in the 100th percentile, has over 112 community service volunteer hours, and started her own foundation. State Representative Steve Toth previously recognized her at the Capitol with a state resolution. The board took photos with the student and her family.
Item 3: Citizen Participation
Two speakers addressed the board:
1. Lynn Greaves — Urged the board not to adopt the Bluebonnet curriculum, arguing it injects religion (specifically Christianity) into places it doesn't belong. Praised CISD as an independent district with scores above state averages and cautioned against lowering standards for additional funding.
2. Dr. Lynn Walters — Retired Texas A&M professor (35 years, last 15 teaching future teachers about reading). Argued religion belongs in Sunday school, not in children's readers. Suggested using secular stories with moral themes (Jimmy Carter, Guernica, King of Denmark) instead of biblical stories.
Item 4: Consent Agenda
Motion: Trustee Nelson moved to adopt the minutes as presented and receive the human resources report. Second: Trustee Dungan.
Vote: Unanimous (all in favor)
Item 5A: Representative Steve Toth — HB 1605
Representative Toth had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend. This item was skipped.
Item 5B: Dr. Audrey Young — SBOE District 8 Member Presentation
Dr. Audrey Young, State Board of Education District 8 member and chair of curriculum at SBOE, presented at the request of Board President Odenweller and Trustee May.
Trustee May's Opening Remarks:
- Emphasized importance of K-3/6 literacy
- Cited Texas Education Code 11.1051 regarding academic oversight
- Noted CISD literacy scores are consistently well above state averages and often ahead of peer districts
- Referenced the 87th Legislature (science of reading/reading academies) and 88th Legislature (HB 4545/HB 1605 — banned 3-cueing, focused on phonics)
- Highlighted that approximately 40% of elementary students are not reading on grade level
- 50% of Spanish-speaking third graders not meeting second-grade level expectations
Dr. Young's Presentation on Bluebonnet Curriculum:
Background:
- Dr. Young is a career educator (30 years), retired as executive director of student support services and special education
- Provided physical copies of Bluebonnet curriculum materials to each board member — teacher guides and student activity books (the only board in the state to receive a complete set)
- Units included: "Serving Our Neighbors," "America Our Great Country," "Fighting For A Cause," "Innovation and Industry and Energy," "Ancient Rome," "American Independence," "Sharing Stories," "Kings and Queens," poetry, and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" novel study
Key Points Discussed:
- Pilot Results: Temple ISD and Luling ISD pilots showed students grew by more than one year in reading capacity during the first semester
- Difference from Amplify: Bluebonnet is the Texas version of Amplify Texas, with Texas-specific content, names, stories, and additional materials. The underlying reading system from Amplify is nationally recognized as excellent.
- What Makes It Different: Builds on prior knowledge lesson-by-lesson; covers 100% of TEKS (vs. previous materials that only needed to cover 55%); provides everything in one place
- Pacing: Teachers in pilot programs have been able to stay on pace with the weekly structure
- Religious Content: Approximately 10% cites religious texts; six religions covered (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism); religious text is used to support literature, not to teach religion; the Bible is the most referenced book in Western literature
- Not Common Core: Would not have passed the SBOE rubric if it contained Common Core elements
- Cost: Free to download/access electronically; approximately $8 per student for printed copies; significantly less expensive than typical curriculum materials (~$300 per teacher kit average)
- Print vs. Digital: Available in both formats; teachers can print, copy, and annotate freely with no copyright restrictions
- Parent Access: Includes letters to parents with discussion questions; state law requires online parent portal access
- Cross-Curricular Design: Integrates social studies, science vocabulary, and other subject content into reading materials — based on research about benefits of learning to read through social studies text
- Teacher Flexibility: New teachers can follow it as written; veteran teachers can supplement and add their own materials; accommodations for IEPs and gifted students are supported
- Built-in Assessments: Weekly/unit assessments built into the curriculum, which Dr. Young noted sets it apart from many other curricula
- Professional Development: Free training available through TEA; first-come, first-served basis; HISD and Fort Bend ISD also looking to adopt
- Over 500 educators contributed to developing the content
Comparison with Savvas (SAVVAS):
- Both Bluebonnet and Savvas are the only two curricula currently approved as comprehensive HQIM (High Quality Instructional Materials)
- Savvas also covers 100% of TEKS per rubric requirements
- Dr. Young stated she is not familiar with any pilot behind Savvas
- She expressed personal confidence in Bluebonnet based on studying it since 2019
Dr. Young offered to return for future presentations or public hearings on other curriculum options.
Board took a 10-minute break at approximately 7:33 PM; reconvened at 7:45 PM.
Item 5C: District Assessment Schedules, CISD Reads and Writes, and Curriculum Evaluation
Panel Presenters:
- Dr. Edith Upshaw, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning
- Darren Carlile, Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Professional Learning
- Wendy Tisdel, Coordinator of Assessment and Instructional Materials
- Mark Smith, Coordinator of Elementary Language Arts
- Sharon Henry, Coordinator of Dyslexia Services
Assessment Schedule Overview (Wendy Tisdel):
State/Federal Requirements:
- STAAR (grades 3-8 plus 5 high school subjects)
- TELPAS (English language learner proficiency, K-12)
- K-2 literacy assessments and universal screeners
- Early math assessments (K-2) and math universal screeners (3-6)
- Dyslexia screener (grades K-1)
- GT screener (grade 2) and GT testing (K-8 by referral)
Other Required Assessments (not all campuses):
- NAEP (when randomly selected — CISD is frequently chosen due to diverse demographics; ~50 students per campus tested; results not shared back to district, used for national report card)
- Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) pre-tests
- Texas Middle School Fluency Assessments (7th graders who didn't pass 6th grade reading STAAR)
Optional Assessments:
- SAT, PSAT (grades 8-11), AP testing, TSIA
Local Assessments:
- Quarterly assessments (new this year) — cumulative, grades 3-6 (first 3 quarters), grades 7-12 (all 4 quarters); designed to replace one classroom test, not add one; released to teachers months in advance
- Released STAAR test — replacing STAAR interim assessments to build student stamina
- Color-coded assessment calendars shared showing the vast majority of assessments are state-required (pink), with minimal local (green) additions
Key Discussion Points:
- Board members noted testing burden is a common teacher complaint; the visual calendars helped clarify that most testing is state-mandated
- Quarterly assessments were designed with questions aligned to STAAR complexity; some released STAAR passages/questions may be used
- All assessments are released to teachers in advance so they can plan instruction around them ("begin with the end in mind")
MAP Assessment Pilot:
- MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) is being piloted at 6 campuses: Giesinger, Bush, Virtual, Vogel, Gordon, Reed (plus Lamar and Bozle as bilingual schools)
- MAP is an adaptive diagnostic assessment — adjusts to find where each student is; expected that every student answers only ~50% correctly
- Provides detailed reports by student, class, school, and individual concepts — plus parent reports
- Testing window: a couple of days vs. current 20-day window for existing literacy assessments
- Cost to implement district-wide K-6: ~$425,000/year (reading only) or ~$636,000/year (reading, math, science)
- Could replace current BAAS (Benchmark Assessment System), most of mClass, and other literacy assessments — generating some cost savings
- Could be funded through IMPA (Instructional Materials and Technology) funds
- Board members expressed strong interest; noted it could improve TIA application processes
- TIA consideration: If the board wants to move forward, the TIA application needs to be amended before May
- Board consensus: Interested in learning more and potentially moving forward with MAP
Dyslexia Services (Sharon Henry):
- Current dyslexia student count: 5,632 students (7.7% of population), up from 5% two years ago
- Screening occurs in K-1 per state requirement; additional screening happens at any grade when teachers identify struggling students
- HB 3928 expanded qualification criteria to include students who may not have strong cognitive abilities but still have the ability to learn to read
- Structured literacy programs (science of reading) would capture approximately 10% of the 20% statistically dyslexic students who could learn without specialized services
Structured Literacy & Curriculum Evaluation (Mark Smith):
Scarborough's Reading Rope framework was presented:
- Two main strands: Language Comprehension (orange) and Word Recognition (purple)
- Both contain multiple sub-strands of equal importance
- All bullet points matter proportionally; no single skill is more important than others
- The term "structured literacy" has broadened beyond its dyslexia origins to encompass the full scope of literacy instruction
Current Curriculum Status:
- February 2023: 40% of curriculum was Lucy Calkins Units of Study; 60% written in-house; multiple phonics resources creating near-chaotic conditions
- Current: Bridge curriculum written in-house (100% TEKS coverage); consolidated to one phonics resource (Benchmark Phonics, adopted June 2023)
- New literacy framework visual developed ("hot off the press") based on gradual release of responsibility (I do, We do, You do)
Identified Gaps/Next Steps:
1. Need more quality complex text options for students (both HQIM products provide this)
2. Need increased instructional time for complex texts and background knowledge building
3. Need to maintain attention to all aspects of Scarborough's reading rope — not swing too far in any one direction
4. Teacher voice should be the single biggest factor in resource selection
Key exchange: Trustee May expressed frustration that in February 2023, the board was told curriculum was covering all structured literacy components, but is now being told gaps existed. She noted that HMH Into Reading (which covered K-3) could have been adopted for slightly more than the $3.7M spent on Benchmark Phonics alone, providing a more comprehensive solution 1.5 years sooner.
Dr. Upshaw responded that:
- The Commissioner's approved list wasn't released until March 30, 2023
- The IMRA process/rubric didn't exist until November 2023
- The ARBY's rubric training came even later (November 2024)
- HMH was not the teachers' preferred choice (ranked #3)
- New HB 1605 funding creates different financial possibilities now
mCLASS Data Shared:
- For the first time in 5+ years of using mCLASS, CISD is at or exceeding state and national benchmarks in every grade level/area (as of September/October BOY data)
- District "well below benchmark" rate: 26% vs. 33% state average
- Board members expressed both encouragement at the progress and concern about the overall numbers
Curriculum Management Audit Training (CMAT) — Darren Carlile:
- 3-day comprehensive audit framework conducted over 3 years
- External audit would have cost ~$500,000; training cost was ~$20,000
- Identified needs:
- Unified curriculum maps (previously disjointed across content areas) — now completed for all subjects K-12
- Unified vocabulary instruction approach
- Lesson exemplars and formative assessments
- Priority standards identification (high-leverage TEKS highlighted in yellow)
- Stakeholder involvement — acknowledged need to better involve board, community, students, and parents
- Implementation actions: Teaching and Learning for Administrators days, classroom walkthroughs/lab sites, Instructional Coaching Symposium, principal feedback focus groups
Item 5D: Instructional Material Selection Process for ELA/Reading K-5
Dr. Upshaw presented the selection process framework:
Current District Process (per Board Policy EFA):
- Representative committee (teachers, coaches, principals, district staff — ~35 members)
- Committee reviews state-approved materials
- All campuses have a campus contact
- Every teacher at relevant grade levels gets to complete a survey
- Community component included (public review period)
- Board has ultimate approval authority
HB 1605 Implications:
- Additional funding for instructional materials
- New HQIM-approved list (currently only Bluebonnet and Savvas for comprehensive ELA K-5)
- Open Educational Resources (OER) designation — only Bluebonnet qualifies
- Prohibition of 3-cueing
Funding Available:
| Fund | Amount |
|------|--------|
| HQIM funds (cumulative) | ~$5.5M available |
| OER funds | ~$1.3M (use it or lose it annually) |
| Total new funding available | ~$6.8M |
| IMPA current balance | $5.9M |
| IMPA recurring costs | $2.1M/year |
| IMPA expected new allocation (Fall 2025) | ~$11-12M |
Bluebonnet Cost Estimate: ~$2.1M for Year 1 (one copy per teacher, per student, grades K-5, print materials)
Savvas Cost: Not yet estimated but can be provided quickly
Spanish Materials: Savvas Spanish is HQIM-ready; Bluebonnet Spanish is NOT yet HQIM-approved (estimated ready 2026-27). Spanish Bluebonnet materials exist but would need to be purchased from IMPA funds, not HQIM/OER funds.
Options Presented:
1. Continue with current resources and wait for future HQIM cycles
2. Move forward with teacher evaluation of Bluebonnet and Savvas through the formal selection process
Proposed Timeline:
- January-May 2025: Committee formation, material review, teacher surveys, community showcase, vendor presentations
- May 2025: Recommendation to board
- If Bluebonnet (OER) is chosen: Transition plan required by the state before funds can be accessed (webinar on requirements scheduled for January 15)
- Full implementation timeline could extend depending on transition plan requirements
Key Discussion Points:
- Board members noted this is a compressed timeline vs. normal adoption processes (which typically begin in August/September)
- Dr. Null emphasized being "right instead of fast" — implementation quality matters more than speed
- If teachers reject both options, money rolls over and additional products may be available after next HQIM review cycle (November 2025)
- Trustee May expressed frustration about the extended timeline given struggling readers can't wait
- Wendy Tisdel noted there are still questions about OER print vendor logistics
Board Consensus: Unanimous agreement to move forward with the instructional material selection process. No formal vote was taken as this was a discussion/workshop item; the process is initiated under the superintendent's authority per board policy, with the board providing guidance.
Executive Session
Board entered executive session at 11:38 PM pursuant to Texas Open Meetings Act Section 551.071 to discuss:
- Multi-district litigation involving youth social media usage
- Contingency fee contract with Island & Bonin PC and O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo PC
Board returned to open session at 12:22 AM.
Item 7A: Notice of Public Meeting and Proposed Legal Services Contract
Motion: Trustee Dungan moved to adopt the notice of public meeting and notice of proposed legal services contract posted December 2, 2024.
Second: Trustee Nelson
Vote: 7-0, motion carries
Item 7B: Resolution Approving Contingent Fee Legal Services Contract
Motion: (Trustee moved) to adopt the resolution approving the contingent fee legal services contract including findings required by Texas Government Code 2254 Subchapter C for submission to the Texas Attorney General for expedited review.
Second: Trustee Dawson
Vote: 7-0, motion carries
Item 7C: Contingent Fee Legal Services Agreement
Motion: Trustee Simler moved to adopt and approve entering into a contingent fee legal services agreement with Island & Bonin PC and O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo PC to represent the district in youth social media usage and related litigation.
Second: Trustee Nelson
Vote: 7-0, motion carries
Item 8: Montgomery County Central Appraisal District Board Nominations
Motion: To nominate the following candidates to the 2025-2026 Montgomery County Central Appraisal District Board of Directors:
1. Charles Shirley
2. Bruce Reser
3. Louise Pedraza
4. Dr. Jerry Nash
5. Dale Enman
Discussion: A late entry (Robert L. Walker) was received the day of the meeting but was past the submission deadline. Board members noted all candidates were well-qualified.
Process explained by CAD representative:
- Nominations due to CAD by January 17
- Ballot sent to all taxing jurisdictions ~January 20
- Votes due back by February 28
- CISD has 1,385 votes to allocate
- Top 5 vote-getters across all jurisdictions will serve on the board
Vote: 7-0, motion carries
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn: Made and seconded
Meeting adjourned at 12:32 AM (January 8, 2025)
Summary of Key Outcomes
| Item | Action/Outcome |
|------|---------------|
| Consent Agenda | Approved unanimously (7-0) |
| Rep. Toth presentation on HB 1605 | Cancelled (scheduling conflict) |
| Dr. Young/Bluebonnet presentation | Information received; extensive Q&A |
| District assessment/curriculum presentations | Information received; extensive Q&A |
| MAP Assessment pilot | Board expressed strong interest; staff to provide more information |
| ELA/Reading curriculum selection process | Board consensus to move forward with formal selection process comparing Bluebonnet and Savvas |
| Legal services contracts (3 items) | All approved 7-0 |
| CAD Board nominations | 5 candidates nominated, approved 7-0 |
Notable Items to Watch
- Curriculum selection process expected to culminate in a board recommendation ~May 2025
- TEA webinar on January 15 will clarify OER transition plan requirements (could affect timeline)
- MAP assessment: Board interest expressed; TIA application amendment needed before May if moving forward
- Spanish materials: Bluebonnet Spanish not yet HQIM-approved; cost unknown
- Savvas pricing to be provided to the board
- Staff committed to providing regular updates through Friday communications
- Trustee May raised concerns about timeline delays affecting struggling readers who cannot afford to wait