{
  "id": "2025-02-04_special",
  "meeting_date": "2025-02-04",
  "meeting_type": "special",
  "meeting_types": [
    "special"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — February 4, 2025",
  "date_display": "February 4, 2025",
  "type_display": "Special Meeting",
  "types_display": [
    "Special Meeting"
  ],
  "item_count": 0,
  "has_agenda": false,
  "has_notes": true,
  "pdf_filename": null,
  "packet_url": null,
  "generated_at": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.452781Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2025-02-04\n*Special Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 18:00 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees – Special Meeting\n### February 4, 2025\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Meeting Called to Order\n- **Time:** 6:02 PM\n- **Quorum confirmed.** Trustee Nelson attended remotely via Zoom but experienced bandwidth/technical difficulties throughout and ultimately watched via YouTube, texting questions to be relayed.\n- **Opening:** Trustee Dungan delivered the prayer; Trustee May introduced the veteran for the pledges.\n- **Veteran Recognition:** Keith Dupre, retired USMC Corporal (1987–1990), former assistant principal at Conroe High School and current district substitute, led the pledges.\n\n---\n\n## Public Comment\n\n**Susan Scruggs** spoke regarding agenda items 10 and 11 (technology in classrooms for instruction and career education). She cited studies recommending no more than 4.5 hours of daily screen time for children, warning of medical issues including digital/dopamine addiction (compared to methamphetamine effects), depression, insomnia, and myopia. She urged the board to thoughtfully consider screen time limits in their technology objectives.\n\n---\n\n## Item 3A: District-Wide Intruder Detection Audits Update\n\n**Presenter:** Mr. McCord\n\n**Key Points:**\n- 42 of the district's campuses have been audited to date\n- 40 campuses had **zero findings**\n- 1 campus had a finding in late January; remediation was scheduled for the following day (Wednesday)\n- Details on the finding would be shared in executive session and with the Safety and Security Committee (meeting in April)\n\n---\n\n## Item 3B: Accountability Overview\n\n**Presenters:** Dr. Medford, Jeff Fuller (Executive Director of School Improvement & Leadership Development), Lauren Heler (Coordinator of Accountability), Dr. Povich (Assistant Superintendent for High Schools)\n\n*This item was brought by Trustee Dawson, who had been working with Dr. Medford on the presentation.*\n\n### Background\n- Texas has not officially released 2023-24 A-F accountability ratings due to court orders\n- Conroe ISD independently calculated and verified its scores using data submitted to TEA, with Trustee Dawson's assistance in verification\n- Lauren Heler's calculations matched TEA's files for every campus except one (which was one point higher than calculated)\n\n### Accountability System Overview\n- **Purpose:** Improve student performance, eliminate achievement gaps, prepare students for post-secondary success\n- **\"Best Of\" System:** 70% of a campus rating comes from the best of three areas:\n  - **Domain 1:** Student Achievement (STAAR performance)\n  - **Domain 2A:** Academic Growth (year-over-year STAAR improvement)\n  - **Domain 2B:** Relative Performance (STAAR compared to campus economically disadvantaged percentage)\n- **Remaining 30%:** Always from **Domain 3 – Closing the Gaps** (the most complex component)\n\n### High School Differences\n- Student Achievement includes: STAAR (40%), CCMR (40%), State Graduation Rate (20%)\n- Domain 2B: 50% STAAR, 50% CCMR (through economically disadvantaged lens)\n\n### College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR)\n- Multiple pathways: TSI scores, SAT/ACT, AP exams, dual credit, associates degrees, OnRamps, advanced diploma (special education), industry-based certifications (IBCs), IEP/workforce readiness, military enlistment\n- Each student is scored as either \"yes\" (earned at least one indicator) or \"no\"\n- **District CCMR rate for Class of 2023: 81%** — highest in their peer group and an 11% increase from 70% the prior year\n\n### Domain 3 – Closing the Gaps (Detailed)\n- Evaluates campuses on multiple student subgroups (all students, lowest/second-lowest race/ethnicity groups, \"high focus group\")\n- High focus group includes: economically disadvantaged, emergent bilingual, special education, and highly mobile students (foster care, homeless, migrant)\n- Campuses scored on a 4-point system tied to current and long-term TEA targets\n- **District cap rule:** If any campus receives a D or lower, the district is capped at 89 in that area/overall\n\n### District Results (Calculated, Not Officially Released)\n- **Over 76% of campuses rated A or B**\n- Elementary schools: Improved from 9 A's to 12 A's, 6 B's to 12 B's; C's reduced from 16 to 9\n- High schools: Mostly A's and B's\n- 15 campuses rated C or D (calculated)\n- Conroe High School (largest campus, highest weight in accountability) earned a **B**\n- Woodlands High School (second-highest weight) also highly rated\n- **Virtual school** rated as K-12 campus (evaluated against high school standards): Was a **B** the prior year; first year adding high school made ratings more challenging\n\n### Key District Strategies\n- Data dashboards for campus-level monitoring\n- Quarterly assessment reviews and data dives\n- Priority standards identification through District/Campus Improvement Plans\n- School Improvement team (3 staff members + 3 assessment coaches) supports 23 priority campuses\n- Cross-campus collaboration: principals visiting other schools, \"Fishbowl\" modeling activities, coaching symposiums\n- All C and D campuses placed on tiered support\n\n### CCMR Challenges Discussed\n- TEA frequently changes IBC requirements (moved from any IBC → aligned IBCs → concentrators → completers)\n- Students choosing career pathways in 7th/8th grade face penalties if they change direction\n- Some students accepted to college without needing SAT/ACT/AP/dual credit still don't earn CCMR points\n- Transfer students in senior year are difficult to serve for CCMR\n\n### CTE/Career Exploration – New Initiative\n- **General Employability class** for all 7th graders (if not taking band/orchestra/choir)\n- Students explore all programs of study, learn about SAT/ACT/AP, use Naviance for career inventories\n- Generates high school credit and CTE funding (~5,000 student opportunities)\n- Conroe ISD is a top-tier district nationally for Naviance usage\n\n### MAP Testing Discussion\n- District team is \"very excited\" about MAP testing potential\n- Discussion is ongoing; data looks \"very promising\" for helping teachers pinpoint student needs\n- Would give back instructional time to teachers\n\n### Virtual School Discussion\n- Authorization uncertain; district has been \"one foot in, one foot out\" on advertising\n- Community interest is strong but parents want full K-12 program\n- Governor has mentioned expanding virtual opportunities as a priority\n- Board expressed desire to see improvement plans similar to those for struggling brick-and-mortar campuses\n- State determines whether CISD can continue operating the virtual school\n\n### Notable Board Member Statements\n- **Trustee Dawson:** Over 76% A's and B's is cause for celebration; loves focus on growth not just achievement; wants targeted intervention plans for C and D campuses similar to Grangerland\n- **Trustee Horton:** Commended district for proactively calculating scores\n- **President Odenweller:** Expressed concern about virtual school performance; asked about peer district comparisons; raised questions about MAP testing; emphasized importance of listening to teachers; noted district cap rule penalizes large districts; wanted to see school weights\n\n---\n\n## Item 3C: Grangerland Intermediate Targeted Improvement Plan\n\n**Presenters:** Dr. Stickler, Dr. Medford, Mr. Fuller, with Dr. Pearson (campus principal) and Grangerland administrative team present. Kristen Meeks (Region 6/TEA representative) also in attendance.\n\n### Background\n- Grangerland Intermediate fell in the **bottom 5% of Texas middle schools in Domain 3**, triggering federal Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) identification\n- This is a **federal requirement** (not state A-F), and there will always be a bottom 5%\n- The campus was \"8-10 kids\" away from not being identified\n- Campus was severely overcrowded before being split when Veterans Memorial opened; experienced significant staff turnover, late hires, leadership changes, and loss of veteran teachers\n\n### Exit Criteria\n- **Year 1 (current):** Must no longer be in bottom 5% of Domain 3 → moves to \"Comprehensive Progress\"\n- **Year 2:** Must remain out of bottom 5% AND score higher than the 2024 score that triggered identification\n\n### Timeline of Events\n- September 26: Effective Schools Framework diagnostic conducted by Region 6\n- October 15: Superintendent consultation with TEA (Dr. Null + ~15 staff)\n- December 6: Mr. Fuller designated as District Coordinator of School Improvement for the campus\n- January 23: Public meeting on campus (low parent turnout)\n- **February 4: Board presentation and feedback (tonight)**\n- **February 18: Board approval requested**\n- **February 28: Deadline to submit plan to TEA**\n\n### Identified Needs and Plan\n- **High-leverage focus:** Observation-feedback cycle for instructional leadership\n  - Frequent walkthroughs, specific actionable feedback to teachers, monitoring for implementation\n- **Curriculum & Instruction support:** District coordinators and coaches in every planning meeting for 5th and 6th grade math, science, and RLA\n- **Student Support Services:** Intervention plans, RTI, enrichment, small group instruction\n- **Additional resources:** Two full-time substitute teachers assigned to campus, extra intervention licenses\n- **Staffing challenges:** ~70% of teachers have 5 years or less experience; approximately one-third of those are on emergency permits\n- **Feeder schools** (San Jacinto, Milam, Hope – all rated C) also receiving School Improvement support\n\n### District Lessons Learned\n- Splitting an established campus requires as much attention as opening a new one\n- Staffing challenges in East County (competing district pay, distance, limited housing – improving with 242 Corridor development)\n- District acknowledges its own practices contributed to challenges and commits to applying lessons to future school openings (e.g., Campbell)\n\n### Current Progress\n- Data trending in the right direction, particularly in language arts\n- School Improvement team has drilled down to specific students (as few as 9 kids in certain areas)\n- Teachers initially resistant to increased campus visits are now seeing benefits\n- Dr. Stickler expressed confidence that reaching a C rating by May is a \"stretch but doable\"\n\n### Board Feedback\n- **Trustee Dawson:** Asked for more specific goals beyond \"no longer in bottom 5%\"; requested timeline for improvement; will hold Dr. Stickler to C rating goal\n- **President Odenweller:** Emphasized feeder school improvement as critical; stressed listening to teachers; offered personal support (including covering duties); urged making East County positions more enticing for staff recruitment\n- Board unanimously expressed support for the Grangerland team\n\n### Action\n- **No vote tonight** – feedback only\n- Plan will return for **board approval on February 18, 2025**\n- Recording of tonight's presentation + parent survey will be sent to all Grangerland parents\n\n---\n\n## Item 3D: Revisions to Local Board Policy AE – Educational Philosophy\n\n**Led by:** Trustee Dawson\n\n### Background\n- Three drafts (A, B, C) had been circulated\n- Draft C incorporated suggestions from President Odenweller (critical thinking skills, fiscal stewardship language)\n- Goal: Reach consensus tonight to allow second reading/consent agenda vote on February 18\n\n### Discussion and Amendments (Real-Time Editing)\n\n**Goal 1 (Academic Excellence):**\n- Trustee Semmler requested adding \"research-based\" and \"student growth\" language\n- After discussion, the board agreed to language: *\"ensure all students are provided a high-quality, research-based, age-appropriate curriculum that fosters student growth\"*\n- \"TEKS-aligned\" removed as potentially redundant with research-based (state already requires 100% TEKS alignment)\n- Trustee Horton preferred Draft A's placement of \"ensuring\" but said it was not a deal-breaker\n\n**Goal 2 (Recruitment, Development, and Retention of Staff):**\n- Trustee Semmler requested adding language about creating a \"positive organizational culture\"\n- Board agreed to add \"maintain a positive organizational culture\" within the goal\n\n**Goal 3 (Safe and Supportive Environment):**\n- Trustee Semmler asked about including bullying/cyberbullying\n- Dr. Medford confirmed bullying is a **required element** of the District Improvement Plan and would be addressed in performance objectives under this goal\n\n**Goal 4 (Fiscal Stewardship):**\n- Draft C language: \"maintain financial strength\"\n- **President Odenweller and Trustee Horton** argued that \"financial strength\" and \"balanced budget\" are not synonymous\n- Board agreed to add \"and a balanced budget\" → *\"maintain financial strength and a balanced budget while prioritizing a classroom-centered approach...\"*\n\n**Goals 5 and 6:** No changes requested; board expressed agreement.\n\n### Outcome\n- **Consensus reached on amended Draft C** with the modifications discussed\n- Dr. Medford explained the urgency: Campus Improvement Plans are built in a system that requires district goals to be finalized first; Title I campuses begin their planning process next month\n- Policy will proceed to **second reading (potential consent agenda vote) on February 18, 2025**\n\n---\n\n## Executive Session\n- **Entered:** 8:32 PM\n- **Purposes cited:**\n  - Texas Government Code §551.071 – Security personnel/devices deployment\n  - Texas Government Code §551.074 – 2025 Intruder Detection Audits\n- **Returned to open session:** 8:41 PM\n- No action reported from executive session\n\n---\n\n## Adjournment\n- **Motion to adjourn:** Made and seconded\n- **Time:** 8:41 PM\n\n---\n\n## Summary of Key Actions and Outcomes\n\n| Item | Action | Status |\n|------|--------|--------|\n| Intruder Detection Audits | 42 campuses audited; 40 with no findings; 1 finding being remediated | Informational |\n| Accountability Overview | District-calculated scores presented (76%+ A's and B's; 81% CCMR) | Informational |\n| Grangerland Improvement Plan | Feedback received; plan to return Feb. 18 for approval | Deferred to Feb. 18 |\n| Board Policy AE (Ed. Philosophy) | Consensus reached on amended Draft C | First reading complete; second reading Feb. 18 |\n| Executive Session (Security) | Discussed intruder detection audit finding | No public action taken |"
}