{
  "id": "2025-04-01_special",
  "meeting_date": "2025-04-01",
  "meeting_type": "special",
  "meeting_types": [
    "special"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — April 1, 2025",
  "date_display": "April 1, 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": "2026-06-18T19:45:21.483510Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2025-04-01\n*Special Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-28 18:16 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees — Special Meeting\n### April 1, 2025\n\n> **⚠️ These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript. They are not official minutes and may contain errors or omissions. Please refer to the official board minutes for the authoritative record.**\n\n---\n\n## Meeting Called to Order\n- **Time:** 6:02 PM\n- A quorum was confirmed present.\n- **Invocation:** Trustee Dungan\n- **Pledge of Allegiance:** Trustee May\n- No citizen participation was registered for this meeting.\n\n---\n\n## Action Item 3A: Consider and Possibly Take Action Regarding MAP Testing for the District\n\n### Presentation\nA team from the district's assessment, curriculum, accountability, school improvement, and Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) departments presented. Presenters included Wendy Tisdel (Coordinator of Assessment), Darren Carlile (Director of Curriculum & Instruction), Lauren Heler (Coordinator of Accountability), Linda Stewart (Director of School Improvement), and Terrell Jackson (TIA Coordinator).\n\nThe presentation was intentionally limited to four slides, as extensive discussion and data sharing had occurred over the preceding two weeks since the prior board meeting.\n\n### Key Points\n- **Three types of assessment were outlined:**\n  - **Curriculum-embedded assessments** (e.g., Quarterly Assessments/QAs) — aligned to instructional materials, formative or summative\n  - **Interim/benchmark assessments** (e.g., MAP) — diagnostic, adaptive, show whether students are on pace for end-of-year standards\n  - **Summative assessments** (e.g., STAAR) — used for accountability\n\n- **MAP (Measures of Academic Progress)** is a dynamic, adaptive assessment that:\n  - Measures both achievement and growth over time\n  - Predicts STAAR performance and can predict ACT/SAT performance starting in 2nd grade\n  - Identifies individual student strengths and weaknesses\n  - Provides data at student, class, school, and district levels\n  - Replaces certain existing assessments (shown on a replacement chart)\n\n- **Instructional time savings:** MAP replaces assessments that collectively consume approximately **21 instructional days for reading** and **14–15 instructional days for math** at the elementary level.\n\n- **Quarterly Assessments (QAs)** will continue alongside MAP because they serve a different purpose — assessing whether the district's written curriculum aligns with actual teaching and helping refine pacing in the scope and sequence. QA4 serves as the final exam at the secondary level (grades 7–12), with options for teachers to add questions and for students to exempt if eligible.\n\n### Survey Results Discussion\n- Pilot campuses had to administer both MAP and existing assessments, which generated some negative feedback about time burden.\n- The primary takeaway was that **purpose and communication** need improvement — many teachers and administrators did not fully understand the distinct purposes of different assessments.\n- Positive feedback was received about MAP's ability to show student growth, identify what students are ready to learn next, and provide actionable data for differentiated instruction.\n\n### TIA (Teacher Incentive Allotment) Connection\nTerrell Jackson explained how MAP testing supports the district's TIA expansion:\n- **Current state:** 869 eligible TIA assignments at 26 campuses; 384 teachers receiving designations this year\n- **Proposed expansion for 2025–26:** An additional ~630 eligible TIA teaching assignments, bringing the total to approximately 1,500+ eligible assignments\n  - Expansion of current campuses to all six TIA categories (+280 assignments)\n  - Adding campuses with >35% economically disadvantaged students (+280 assignments)\n  - Adding special education hard-to-fill positions (Life Skills, RISE, SDC) (+90 assignments)\n- MAP should help improve data validation correlation, which could allow more aggressive future expansion\n- TIA funds come directly from the state to designated teachers; strong data validation is essential\n- Board members emphasized the importance of accessing TIA money, noting legislators expect districts to use this funding mechanism for teacher pay\n\n### Board Discussion Highlights\n- **Trustee Dungan** thanked the team and highlighted instructional time savings\n- **Trustee Nelson** expressed strong support, noting the tool replaces rather than adds tests, saves time, and costs nothing additional (covered under existing allotment)\n- **Trustee Huey** thanked the team for additional mid-year pilot data provided since the last meeting; gave a \"shout out\" to Dr. Lori Jacobs (principal at San Jacinto) for her support of the initiative\n- **Trustee Dawson** asked about why QAs continue if MAP provides similar insights; was told QAs serve a distinct curriculum-alignment purpose\n- **Trustee May** expressed continued concern about the volume of district testing and the pacing element of QAs, and asked about QAs being required as grades. She was assured exemption policies remain in place and that QA4 serves dual purpose as a final exam.\n- Multiple trustees emphasized that MAP would help unlock TIA funding for teacher pay\n\n### Vote\n**Motion** by Trustee Nelson: To adopt Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and Growth for the 2025–26 school year.\n\n**Second received.**\n\n**Vote: Unanimous approval (by show of hands)**\n\n*Note: A trustee attempted to make an amendment after the vote was called but it was ruled too late as the vote had already been taken.*\n\n---\n\n## Workshop Item 4A: Receive 2025–2026 Preliminary Budget Overview\n\n### Presentation by Karen Garza, Chief Financial Officer\n\n#### District Awards\n- Conroe ISD is the **only school district in Texas** to hold all four Transparency Stars, including the newest Open Government and Compliance Star (with credit to Dr. Blakelock's team).\n\n#### Budget Challenges\n- Legislative year — awaiting state action on funding formulas\n- Working out of a $1.9 million deficit budget adopted for the current year\n- No funding mechanism in current formula for employee raises or to address inflation\n- Potential enrollment impact from education savings accounts (vouchers)\n- Growing special education population straining existing funding\n\n#### Key Budget Assumptions for 2025–26\n| Item | Assumption |\n|------|-----------|\n| Student enrollment | 73,500 (conservative) |\n| ADA percentage | 93% (slight increase from prior year) |\n| Projected ADA | 68,355 |\n| Property value growth | 5% (conservative; no MCAD data yet) |\n| Projected tax rate decrease | 1.48 cents (based on current law; expected 3–5 cents once compression rates updated) |\n\n- **1% in ADA funding = ~$5 million** to the district\n- The gap between enrollment-based expenditures and ADA-based revenue (~7%) represents approximately **$35 million**\n- ADA improvement efforts are underway under Dr. Taylor's leadership, including community awareness campaigns\n\n#### Special Education Growth\n- Special education numbers continue to rise significantly — **not because the student population changed**, but because **state eligibility rules changed** after TEA's cap was lifted\n- Over **1,400 evaluations** currently in the queue, not yet reflected in projections\n- The district **never imposed a cap** and always served qualifying students, even when penalized by the state for exceeding thresholds\n- The dyslexia population was a major recent addition to IDEA eligibility\n\n#### Basic Allotment Penalty (\"Disability Penalty\")\n- When special ed students spend time outside general education classrooms, the district's basic allotment funding is **reduced** by a corresponding FTE amount\n- This penalty is worth approximately **$18 million** to the district\n- The district already spends **$30 million more** on special education than it receives in special education funding\n- Combined, this represents ~$48 million impact on the general fund\n- **Multiple trustees emphasized** this penalty affects every student and employee in the district, and urged community advocacy in Austin\n- Trustee May and others have been actively lobbying the legislature on this issue\n\n#### Peer District Tax Rate Comparison\n- Conroe ISD accesses only **5 Tier 2 enrichment pennies**, compared to surrounding districts that access significantly more\n- This explains why some neighboring districts (e.g., Humble, New Caney) can offer higher starting teacher pay\n- Most peer districts accessed additional pennies before Voter Approval Tax Rate Elections (VATREs) were required\n- A new slide showed average homeowner tax bills across peer districts (e.g., Spring Branch at ~$5,600 vs. Conroe area)\n- **Gold penny value:** ~$12.5 million; **Copper penny value:** ~$4.7 million\n\n#### Revenue & Expenditure Projections (Current Law)\n\n**Revenue Increase:** $19.23 million\n| Source | Amount |\n|--------|--------|\n| Property tax (5% growth) | $7.36M |\n| State funding increase | $9.37M (includes ~$7.5M over-65 hold harmless correction) |\n| TIA revenue | $1.0M |\n| Interest earnings adjustment | -$1.5M (declining rates) |\n| TRS on-behalf (pass-through) | $3.0M |\n\n**Expenditure Increase:** $12.09 million\n| Category | Amount |\n|----------|--------|\n| Personnel changes | $5.89M |\n| Summer school reduction & reading academy stipend discontinuation | -$1.5M |\n| TIA offset | $1.0M |\n| Software costs | $1.0M |\n| Utilities, fuel, insurance, supplies | $1.71M |\n| TRS on-behalf offset | $4.0M |\n\n**Projected Budget Deficit: $4.76 million** (before any raises or additional spending)\n\n#### Personnel Changes for 2025–26\n- **Total new FTE additions:** 110.5 at $5.8 million cost\n- **Special education:** 78 positions ($4.2M) — 31 teachers, 39 paraprofessionals\n  - Dr. Kendra Wiggins requested 51 teachers; 31 were funded (20 short)\n- **New campus staffing** (Campbell and Isel): 14 police officers and custodians\n- **Support positions added:** TIA coordinator, HR staff, grant specialist for special education\n- **Technology coaches** (6 existing positions) moved from Medicaid/IMA funding to general fund due to Medicaid reductions\n- **No changes were made to allocation formulas** (e.g., art teachers) — any campus-level changes are enrollment-driven only\n\n#### Significant Board Discussion on Staffing\n- **Grant specialists:** The district's 3 grant specialists (plus the new addition) bring in far more revenue than their salaries cost. They have secured over **$4 million in bus grants** alone.\n- Special education job fair results were mixed — some campuses filled positions, others still recruiting\n- Almost every campus had special education openings\n\n#### Fund Balance Update\n- **Over-65 Hold Harmless Correction:** $17.5 million total\n  - $10M for tax year 2023 (certified, awaiting payment)\n  - $7.5M flowing through current year formulas (recurring)\n- **Projected unassigned fund balance end of current year:** $162.5 million\n  - An $18.3M increase over the $144.5M originally projected\n- **Fund balance capacity above 20% target:** $18.1 million (22.5% of budget)\n- Excess fund balance is **one-time money** — cannot be used for recurring raises but could potentially fund one-time stipends\n- Karen Garza noted this was \"strikingly similar\" to the $18M pulled for raises a couple years ago\n\n#### Items NOT in Current Budget\n- Employee raise\n- Additional special education staffing beyond what was allocated\n- Additional support staff\n- Inflation increases\n\n#### Budget Timeline\n| Date | Activity |\n|------|----------|\n| April–June | Finalize revenue/expenditure projections; monitor legislature |\n| July | District-level planning committee; July 15 board update |\n| August 5 | First public hearing on budget |\n| August 19 | Second public hearing + tax rate and budget adoption |\n\n---\n\n## Workshop Item 4B: 2025–2026 Health Plan and Premium Update\n\n### Presenters\n- Karen Garza (CFO)\n- Derek E. (Gallagher — benefits consultant)\n- Tiffany Mattfeld (Assistant Director of HR/Benefits)\n\n### Background: Self-Funded Health Plan\n- Conroe ISD operates a **self-funded health plan** (not fully insured, not TRS Active Care)\n- Advantages: plan customization, control over reserves, choice of third-party administrator\n- **Current TPA:** Blue Cross Blue Shield (year 3 of contract)\n- **Catastrophic stop-loss insurance:** Claims exceeding $550,000 per individual are covered by reinsurance\n- **District contribution:** $446/employee/month (state minimum is $225)\n- Revenue sources: employee premiums + district contribution\n\n### Plan Overview (2023–24)\n| Metric | Value |\n|--------|-------|\n| Total funding | $55.2M |\n| Employer contributions | $33.8M |\n| Employee premium contributions | $21.4M |\n| Employees covered | ~6,200 |\n| Total lives (including dependents) | ~10,100 |\n| Medical claims | ~$50M |\n| Pharmacy claims | $7.3M |\n| Fixed costs (stop-loss + TPA fees) | $6.9M |\n\n### Three Current Plans\n1. **HSA Pro Choice (High Deductible):** ~1,100 employees\n2. **Blue Essentials (HMO, wider network):** ~3,841 employees — **poorest performing**\n3. **Blue Premier (HMO, narrower network — Memorial Hermann/St. Luke's):** Better performing\n\n### The Problem: Significant Cost Increase\n- **National healthcare trend:** 8–9% annually\n- Conroe had been **beating the trend** since 2022 due to:\n  - Switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield (2022) — better negotiated discounts\n  - Pharmacy contract moved to Prime Therapeutics (2023)\n  - Estimated **$12 million in cumulative savings** from these changes\n- **Starting July 2024:** Claims spiked **15% over 12 months**\n  - High-cost claimants (>$50K individual) nearly doubled: 52 → 86 claimants\n  - Cost of high claimants: $4.2M → $10.4M (same time period comparison)\n  - Drivers: cancer (including late-stage breast cancer), musculoskeletal, heart disease\n  - No claimant hit the $550K stop-loss threshold this year\n  - Multiple claims in $70K–$150K range — not covered by catastrophic insurance\n\n- **All cost categories increased:**\n  - Medical claims overall: +42.3%\n  - Pharmacy claims: +41.6%\n  - Inpatient: Fewer utilizers but higher costs (longer hospital stays)\n  - Outpatient: Cancer drugs administered in medical settings\n  - Professional claims: Up (attributed partly to HMO PCP requirements driving more visits)\n\n### Fund Balance Impact\n| Year | Health Plan Fund Balance |\n|------|------------------------|\n| 2020 | $7.2M |\n| 2024 (end) | $7.8M |\n| 2025 (projected end) | **< $500K** |\n\n- The health plan fund balance is **separate from the general fund**\n- This money belongs to employees participating in the plan\n\n### Benchmarking vs. Peer Districts\n- Conroe's employee-only premiums are competitive and below average compared to peers\n- Family premiums are competitive — TRS districts generally have higher family rates\n- District contribution ($446/month) is among the highest in the area\n- Conroe's plan provides significantly better pharmacy coverage than TRS (e.g., Manjaro: $60/month after deductible vs. $1,024/month on TRS before deductible)\n- Humble ISD is an outlier due to a different plan structure (reference-based pricing with narrower network)\n- Most large districts in the area are experiencing similar funding challenges\n\n### Proposed Plan Design Changes for 2025–26\n\n#### Enhancements (Savings to Plan)\n| Program | Description | Projected Savings |\n|---------|-------------|-------------------|\n| **Hinge Health** | Virtual physical therapy app | ~$500K |\n| **AOSI** | Physical therapy (virtual + in-person) | ~$125K |\n| **Formulary change** to Performance Select Drug List | Excludes high-cost drugs with alternatives; prioritizes generics/OTC | ~$260K |\n\n- Formulary change affects ~500 employees, but most impacts are minor (brand → generic, capsule → pill, etc.)\n- Appeal process available for medically necessary exceptions\n- **Total plan design savings: ~$3.4 million**\n\n#### Plan Modifications\n\n**HSA Pro Choice (High Deductible):**\n- Out-of-pocket maximum increased (individual: ~$7,000 → $8,300)\n- HSA seed contribution of $500/year **eliminated** (migration goal was not achieved)\n- No change to deductible\n\n**Blue Essentials (HMO — largest plan):**\n- Individual deductible increased by $250\n- Specialist copay increased\n- Co-insurance moved from 20% to 25%\n- Out-of-pocket maximum unchanged\n- *Rationale: This is the highest-cost, worst-performing plan*\n\n**Blue Premier (HMO — narrower network):**\n- **No changes** — plan is performing well; goal is to encourage migration to this plan\n\n#### Premium Increases (Employee Contributions)\n\n**Premiums had been flat for 4 consecutive years** (with some reductions in 2022–23). This is highly unusual in the healthcare market.\n\n**Recommended increases:**\n| Plan | Increase |\n|------|----------|\n| HSA Pro Choice (High Deductible) | **6%** |\n| Blue Essentials (HMO, wide network) | **18%** |\n| Blue Premier (HMO, narrow network) | **8%** |\n\n- Additional premium revenue generated: **~$3.2 million**\n\n#### Funding the Remaining Deficit\n\n| Component | Amount |\n|-----------|--------|\n| Plan design changes savings | $3.4M |\n| Premium increase revenue | $3.2M |\n| **Remaining deficit** | **$3.4M** |\n| **Recommended: Transfer from general fund** | **$3.4M** |\n\n- The $3.4M general fund transfer would come from the $18.1M fund balance capacity above the 20% target\n- **This $3.4M will need to be addressed again for 2026–27** through future plan changes, premium adjustments, or improved plan performance\n- **If no action were taken** (no plan changes, no premium increases), **$10 million** would need to be transferred from the general fund\n\n### Employee Benefits Committee\n- 31-member standing committee that meets monthly\n- Reviewed and voted on the recommendation on March 19, 2025\n- **95% approval** of the recommended plan design changes and premium increases\n\n### Timeline\n- **April 15 regular board meeting:** Board will vote on plan design changes and premium structure\n- Action is needed promptly to allow time for benefit guide preparation and summer enrollment\n\n### Board Discussion\n- Multiple trustees acknowledged the difficulty of the timing (no raise announced yet) but recognized the necessity\n- Trustee Dawson requested a **10-year fund balance history** for the health plan to provide additional context\n- Derek (Gallagher) confirmed this type of cost pressure is being seen across districts in the area\n- The high-claimant spike (many claims in the $50K–$150K range below the stop-loss threshold) is not necessarily a long-term trend\n- Discussion about whether reduced preventive care during COVID contributed to current late-stage cancer diagnoses\n- Board was assured Conroe's plan remains competitive in value compared to peers and TRS\n\n---\n\n## Executive Session\n- **Entered closed session at 8:38 PM** pursuant to:\n  - Texas Government Code §551.071 (consultation with attorney)\n  - Texas Government Code §551.074 (personnel matters, including the dismissal of Michael Perry)\n\n- **Returned to open session at 9:40 PM**\n- **No action taken** following executive session.\n\n---\n\n## Adjournment\n- Motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved.\n- Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:40 PM.\n\n---\n\n## Summary of Key Actions & Outcomes\n\n| Item | Outcome |\n|------|---------|\n| MAP Testing adoption for 2025–26 | **Approved unanimously** |\n| 2025–26 preliminary budget | **Workshop/informational — no vote** |\n| Health plan design changes & premiums | **Workshop/informational — vote scheduled for April 15** |\n| Executive session (personnel) | **No action taken** |\n\n## Items to Watch\n- **April 15 board meeting:** Vote on health plan design changes and premium increases\n- Legislative session outcomes will significantly impact the final 2025–26 budget (raise potential, special education funding, basic allotment penalty)\n- Budget adoption scheduled for **August 19, 2025**\n- Special education staffing remains 20 teachers short of requested levels\n- TIA expansion contingent on MAP adoption and data validation performance\n- Health plan fund balance will need to be addressed again for 2026–27"
}