Sweeping Ideological Policy Changes Coming to CISD
A breakdown of the nine draft policy changes, some of which heavily restrict access to books.
During the April 15th, 2025, meeting of the Conroe ISD Board of Trustees, a review of nine policy changes were presented to the Board by a Committee, which had been working with a third-party to review current Board policies and receive recommendations on which additions or changes to make.
As you remember in our last post, this third-party is Texans for Excellence in Education (TEE), which has been involved in several controversial activities within other school districts:
To summarize the article:
Conroe ISD has unanimously approved trial agreements with TEE, a relatively new organization aiming to replace the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) in providing policy guidance, legal services, and board training. TEE's limited track record and ideological leanings have raised concerns about transparency and the potential politicization of public schools.
TEE performed a policy audit for Conroe ISD, which was then reviewed by a Board Committee, and then shared with the full Board on April 15th. The Committee was made up of three Trustees - Misty Odenweller, Lindsay Dawson, and Melissa Dungan. Here is the summary as provided from the Committee, found within the April 15th Board Packet:
TEE’s Initial Policy Audit Results and Findings:
Committee members were thoroughly briefed on the 9 primary initial recommendations (AIB, BF, CL, EFA, EFB, EMB, FNAA, FM, GKDA) that were drafted/revised by TEE’s legal team, free of charge.
In a separate attachment, TEE also provided their Local Update 2025 (mirroring TASB’s 124 Update) to bring the district into compliance with law, rule, and court cases from Fall 2024.
Board Actions:
The policy committee thoroughly vetted the Initial Policy Audit, consulted with the Board Attorney, and made minor revisions that are presented in the Board Book.
The committee agreed to add these policies to the April 15th agenda for the Board to have the first hearing and a vote on them at the May 13th meeting.
The committee voted unanimously to subscribe to Policy Services and Policy Connect with TEE to get additional customized policies and necessary updates crafted by trusted legal experts. The first membership fee is waived through Aug. 31, and President Odenweller signed the agreement.
The last item means that the Board has already solidified its agreements with TEE, and that come August it will begin paying for their services beginning with ‘Policy Services’ and ‘Policy Connect’. TEE offers various other services, which you can reference in my last post.
Starting with Policy Connect, this is an online hosting of Board policies, replacing the TASB Policy Online service that holds our Board policies today. This is simply changing the website where our policies are hosted. It is not yet known the cost difference of making this change, but it is likely minimal. You can view the new TEE Policy Connect page here:
For the next service, Policy Services, this one does not have much documentation, but this is essentially the service they provided to the Committee by reviewing our district’s policies and providing these nine recommendations.
From TEE website:
We assist school boards in the development, review, and implementation of policies that comply with local, state, and federal laws…
We provide guidance on board governance matters, including the interpretation and application of bylaws, regulations, and statutes. Our team assists in maintaining compliance with relevant laws, ethical standards, and best practices, ensuring the school board operates transparently, effectively, and within legal boundaries.
Before we Begin
While we review these Board policy drafts, I want you to keep in your mind not only the policies themselves but the implementation of such policies. Imagine how administrators and teachers will be required to enforce these changes.
As always, these posts are very long. You can scroll to the bottom to find the Summary/TLDR.
Policy Additions
Out of the nine policy recommendations from TEE, let us begin with the new policies. Note that although the District may already have a Legal policy, they do not always have a Local policy. Legal policy provides the legal requirements from the state or federal governments. Local policy is specific for the school district. Local is where we are seeing these additions.
(NEW) AIB Local: Accountability Performance Reporting
Here is a summary of what the current AIB Legal policy provides:
This policy outlines the responsibilities of Texas public school districts in reporting performance data. Its primary purpose is to ensure transparency and accountability by mandating that districts collect, analyze, and disseminate information related to student achievement and other performance metrics.
Here is a summary of the new AIB Local policy:
Introduces a specific definition for "Subject Persons," which includes District employees, volunteers, or anyone directly interacting with District students. This is used throughout the other policy changes as well.
Prohibits programs involving Critical Race Theory (CRT), Systemic Discrimination Ideologies (SDI), gender fluidity, or the performance of equity audits.
Departments or programs that include prohibited content are to be reassigned or terminated immediately (pending contractual requirements).
Clarifies that it does not restrict students from forming student-led groups or discussing related issues in private forums.
I find this policy very odd to be listed under AIB, which is meant to address district implementation of state-mandated performance reporting. Why would we want to use AIB as a place to block CRT/SDI or gender fluidity? Do these programs even exist within Texas public schools or Conroe ISD? Are teachers performing “equity audits”?
This policy would be more appropriate under a new policy code, and based on its purpose this policy will have little impact on the district, especially as it does nothing to improve student outcomes or safety.
(NEW) CL Local - Buildings, Grounds, and Equipment Management
Here is a summary of the existing CL Legal policy:
Policy CL (Legal) addresses the management of school district facilities, encompassing buildings, grounds, and equipment. It outlines the legal responsibilities and standards that districts must follow to ensure the safety, accessibility, and proper maintenance of the District’s physical assets.
The new CL Local draft policy is short, so does not need to be summarized. Here it is in full:
Use of Bathrooms and Changing Facilities
The District will formulate, interpret and apply its rules concerning the use of rest rooms, locker rooms, changing facilities and participation in all extracurricular activities, including sports competition in a manner consistent with the biological sex of each student.
For purposes of this policy, a statement of a student's biological sex on the student's official birth certificate is considered to have correctly stated the student's biological sex only if the statement was:
1. Entered at or near the time of the student's birth; or
2. Modified to correct any type of scrivener or clerical error in the student's biological sex.
Similar to the AIB Local, it appears more ideological or symbolic in nature. I would be interested to see any data from the district on incidents regarding the use of bathrooms.
As for impact, this will yet again place a burden on educators to manage, and it targets a very small number of students, making it a highly ineffective policy. I covered this in a previous post:
Policy Revisions
(Revised) BF Local - Board Policies
This policy outlines the procedures for the development, adoption, and implementation of district policies. It specifies that policies must be reviewed by the Board regularly, updated as needed, and made accessible to staff, students, and the community. It ensures that the district's governance is transparent and that all stakeholders are informed about the guidelines that direct the district's operations.
The redlines for this one are very curious, which I decided to use the ChatGPT reasoning on these:
TO REMOVE:
"Legally referenced policies contain provisions from federal and state statutes and regulations, case law, and other legal authority that together form the framework for local decision making and implementation. These policies are binding on the District until the cited provisions are repealed, revised, or superseded by legislative, regulatory, or judicial action."
Removing this language means the policy no longer clearly shows it is based on state or federal law. This could cause confusion about whether the district is legally required to follow it and make it harder for people to understand where the policy comes from.
TO REMOVE:
“Legally referenced policies are not adopted by the Board.”
Removing this makes it seem like the school board has control over policies that are actually required by law.
TO REMOVE:
“At each policy code the legally referenced policy and the Board-adopted local policy must be read together to further a full understanding of a topic.”
Removing this could lead to confusion by making it unclear that both the legal and local policies need to be read together to fully understand the rules on a given topic.
The TEE notes do say that removing the Organization section of this policy will be addressed in a subsequent policy (not found in these drafts), but I am very curious why it had to be removed from this one.
There are two other areas removed from policy BF Local:
AMENDED:
“Policies and policy amendments may be initiated by the Superintendent, Board members, school personnel, or community citizens
, but generally shall be recommended for the Board’s consideration by the Superintendent.”
This one removes the Superintendent from the policy creation or amendment process. Board members, staff, or citizens can bring proposals straight to the Board agenda without the initial administrative review.
There is a great deal I could say about this one and is likely the most alarming of all of these changes. We will have to save this one for another day and hope the Board reviews this one clearly during the next meeting.
TO REMOVE:
“After Board review of legally referenced policies and adoption of local policies, the new material shall be incorporated into the official policy manual and into other localized policy manuals maintained by the District. If discrepancies occur between different copies of the manual, the version contained in the official policy manual shall be regarded as authoritative.”
Removing this is very curious to me. This language ensures that there is a single source of truth as it relates to Board policies, and that policy updates are incorporated in a timely fashion. It also designates legal authority, which is a backbone of any legal defense. If there is ever a dispute you would point to the official policy manual. Without this, we might not have a clear way to resolve policy confusion, which could lead to inconsistent enforcement across the district.
This is a huge liability in my opinion.
(Revised) EFA Local - Instructional Resources: Instructional Materials
The purpose of EFA Local is to align instructional materials with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and with district goals, which includes only using materials that are free of harmful, obscene, or sexually explicit material.
I am very familiar with both policies EFA and EFB as I did a deep dive on these last year when the district started removing books in bulk, causing chaos within English classrooms and raucous Board meetings.
Policy EFA and EFB Local are frequently the targets of school boards that wish to remove books from libraries and classrooms, many times referred to as “book banning”.
Here is a summary of what TEE would like to change with EFA Local, which is immense:
Expands definitions of materials covered as instructional materials:
“combination of book, workbook, and supplementary materials, including all media, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, pictures, film, videotapes, sound recordings, images, data, and data compilations of any kind, electronic resources, such as computer software, magnetic media, DVD, CD-ROM, computer courseware, online services, or an electronic media or other means of conveying information to students or otherwise contributing to the learning process through electronic means”
Shifts the authority and discretion of classroom instructional materials from the Superintendent to the Board, allowing the Board the option to bypass or override the Superintendent. This allows the Board to choose instructional materials directly or delegate the task elsewhere.
Prohibits instructional materials that promote:
Critical Race Theory / Systemic Discrimination Ideologies (CRT/SDI)
Gender Fluidity
Certain Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) concepts (defined later)
Use of the term “Latinx”
“Potentially Pornographic Materials” (defined later) unless specifically Board-approved
Prohibited materials must be removed from general circulation and placed in a “Parental Consent Area” with strict parental approval procedures.
This effectively removes the ability for parents or the community to challenge these book removals, as these materials are not “banned” but simply moved to the Parent Consent Area, of which requires a process for parents to allow their children to get access to.
Adds a lengthy list that details requirements to teach U.S. founding documents and promote civic knowledge and discourse.
Keeps formal procedures for parents or staff to challenge materials but bypasses it for content explicitly prohibited above as it goes through the Parental Consent Area process.
There is a lot of unnecessary and duplicate language within these changes. I am most curious how a “Parent Consent Area” (further referenced as “the restricted section”) would work at every school. In actuality, this policy is related to instructional materials, which means classrooms. I am interpreting this to mean that restricted books that may be used in English AP classes (e.g., Brave New World, The Bluest Eye1), would be stored in a restricted section in the school library, of which parents must consent to their students having access to (access defined as up to six months).
However, after thinking about this for some time, it is an interesting approach to dealing with the conflict that is book removals. Instead of removing/banning books, it places them into a special area that parents must consent to. Is this better than removing the books completely? I am not sure.
What I am sure of is that this will only encourage students to read those books. And can we assume it would be the job of the librarian to manage access to the restricted section? Will it be in a locked area?2
(Revised) EFB Local - Instructional Resources: Library Materials
Similar to EFA, EFB Local focuses on which materials (e.g., books) are allowed in libraries rather than classroom materials. However, these new changes from TEE include the teacher libraries under EFB, which seems to conflict with EFA in my opinion.
Here is the breakdown of changes for EFB Local:
Adds teacher classroom materials to the library collection development standards
All new library materials purchasing must now go through the Board, and follows a new process:
Librarians must submit all new purchase requests to the Superintendent, who adds these materials to the Board agenda which is reviewed during an open meeting
Board members who have concerns about any proposed library materials must notify the Superintendent at least 15 days before the Board vote
The Superintendent will obtain professional reviews of the materials in question
The full list of materials (including challenged items) will be presented to the public for a 30-day review period
Before the vote, Board members may argue for removing specific items, and the Board may amend the list individually or as a group
After approval, only materials on the final list may be ordered; any unlisted items received must be returned or destroyed.
Digital library materials must follow the same selection rules as physical ones, and student access must be age-appropriate, determined with input from librarians, educators, and peer-reviewed sources.
Wow. This adds an insane overhead of tasks related to ordering library books, for everyone involved. Librarians who curate their shelves must submit everything to the District and Board, essentially adding a months-long delay to ordering books. The Superintendent/District staff must provide and present this information to the Board. Board members must essentially review all of these book titles, which will likely include hundreds if not thousands of books and then present those concerns to the Superintendent and/or Board.
Each individual Board member can challenge books, providing their own evidence and personal resources as support for removal.
Once approved, there is a 30-day public review period, which any public challenges would then have to be debated by the Board to drop or approve challenges. And this is just for physical books.
This policy change brings in digital library materials under this same process, which as we saw in a previous policy brings in a huge swath of online materials for the Board to review and approve.
There is no way the Board is going to have the time or ability to review all of these materials. Either it will be outsourced, or they will have to hold special meetings every time library books or digital content needs to be ordered or reviewed.
This is not what Boards are meant to do. We hire professionals within the district for a reason: To do the work. The Board’s job is to set policy based on law and community values. Those values are codified into policy, and that policy is then enforced.
If librarians are purposely placing porn on shelves for children, then they are clearly violating policy. You hold them accountable for that. If any challenged book is removed because it was found to violate policy, then the Board has the Superintendent run down how it was placed on shelves, which may require more training for staff on the district’s policies.
Instead, the Board is taking on the role of the micromanager.
Moving on.
(Revised) EMB Local — Miscellaneous Instructional Policies: Teaching About Controversial Issues
EMB Local outlines the district’s approach to teaching controversial issues.
This policy draft vastly expands definitions on what includes “controversial issues”, and it hits all of the ideological talking points we hear today. This one adopts many, many changes.
Here is the summary of changes for EMB Local:
Teachers are not required to discuss controversial issues. If discussed, topics must:
Be age-appropriate and educationally relevant
Include multiple viewpoints
Avoid coercion or bias
Teachers should consult principals if unsure
Bans the following concepts from being part of any curriculum:
That any individual, by virtue of their race or sex:
is inherently superior or inferior
is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive
should face discrimination or receive adverse treatment
determines their moral character
Content that includes CRT or The 1619 Project3
That Meritocracy4 or hard work is inherently oppressive
That the delivery of slaves and the advent of slavery in the U.S. constituted the true founding of the United States
That slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the founding principles of the U.S.
Defines permitted and prohibited SEL-related content:
Permitted SEL concepts:
individualism; a rejection of victimhood mentality; conflict resolution techniques; aspiration to serve as entrepreneurs and spiritual and community leaders; financial self-sufficiency; importance of the nuclear family; liberty, hard work and perseverance as the basis for a successful society: and the virtues or self-discipline, forgiveness, patience, kindness, determination, hope, thankfulness, reliability, honesty, industry and responsibility
Prohibited SEL content:
anything deemed divisive, conflict with District policy, or inconsistent with District education goals
Bans any teachings of gender fluidity, including:
The view that gender is a social construct
That it is possible for any person to be any gender or none
That an individual’s biological sex should attempt to be changed to match a gender other than their biological sex
Supports hormone therapy or other medical treatments that would alter one’s biological sex
Bans use of pronouns that does not align with an individual’s biological sex unless written parental consent is provided
Defines and adopts rules around “Potentially Pornographic Material”:
Includes materials that contain human sexuality and/or nudity, sexually transmitted diseases, sexually explicit acts, and/or graphic presentations of sexual behavior (e.g., sexual education)
Requires that any of this material first be voted on by the Board before distribution to students, and that a public website provides all approved materials, locations, and Board votes5
For all of the above, prohibits unapproved materials, even from a staff member’s private collections
A list of prohibited terms is adopted:
“Latinx” is banned; use “Hispanic,” “Latino,” or “Latina” instead.
“Minor-attracted person” is banned; must use “pedophile,” which any material that includes pedophilia must be portrayed as a crime.
These changes are a real doozy, and each section needs to be unpacked. Classroom discussions are being increasingly controlled and limited as a district, topics are being more clearly banned through a political lens, SEL will seemingly have nothing related to inclusion of student’s mental health, emotional well-being, and social development, and we are now banning words?
Where in any part of our district are these words being spoken? Do we have curriculum where pedophiles are being labeled as “minor-attracted persons” or that pedophilia is taught at all? My issue with this is not with the banned words, but with the introduction of banning words at all. To begin to ban language in schools, even if it is focused on district staff, is to start what may inevitably become censorship.
Further, to implement a policy is the requirement to enforce the policy. What will be the punishment for using the word Latinx? Since this policy applies to school volunteers as well, are we now policing which words the PTO is able to say?
Lastly, this clearly puts into crosshairs any materials, classroom or library, that include any inkling of gender fluidity. This will effectively remove any and all books that may contain content related to transgenderism, even those that would reference a transgender character.
EDIT 5/14/2025: Parts of these policy changes for EMB Local are directly referenced from Texas law passed in 2021, which you can reference here: HB 3979.
(Revised) FM Local — Student Activities
Policy FM Local outlines guidelines for student participation in extracurricular activities.
It has one addition in TEE’s recommendation, which includes student participation in UIL activities:
Bans students from competing in an athletic competition opposite to the student’s “biological sex”
Allows female students to participate in an athletic competition designated for male students if there is no corresponding competition designated for females
This aligns with the latest Texas Education Code requirements.
(Revised) FNAA Local — Student Expression: Distribution of Nonschool Literature
Policy FNAA Local governs the distribution of non-school literature by students. The changes to this policy aligns with the other policies we have already reviewed, by basically saying that students cannot distribute anything already prohibited by the school district.
(Revised) GKDA Local — Nonschool Use of School Facilities: Distribution of Nonschool Literature
Similar to policy FNAA Local, GKDA Local governs the distribution of non-school literature by everyone else, such as individuals or organizations not affiliated with the district. This includes those that rent or lease school facilities, such as churches or other organizations.
The changes for this policy also aligns with the other policies we have already reviewed, where individuals or organizations cannot distribute anything already prohibited by the school district.
Wrapping Up
These policy changes are a clear, sweeping set of changes that hits nearly every conservative talking point we have heard in the last 10 years.
I have several concerns, much of which revolves around implementation of these policies and how it will impact teachers and administrators. We should also consider the impact to a very small number of students and their families.
There is also clear language that gives more direct responsibilities to the Board rather than the Superintendent, which I believe is the absolute wrong direction that the Board should be headed in. They are taking on a vast amount of work normally managed by the district, at least as it relates to selection of instructional materials. Do they not understand what this means for them?
Overall, my opinion is that these policies are mostly unnecessary, as they attempt to solve problems that do not exist (e.g., CRT/SDI in K-12 education, banning words like Latinx, bathroom designations, etc.), they inject curriculum requirements directly into policy (e.g., founding documents which are already part of TEKS), and as a matter of policy language, the changes are written more as contract language rather than school board policy (i.e., they do not fit the tone and structure).
My one curiosity is about how a restricted section in the library would function, as perhaps it would be a middle-ground between those who wish to remove books and those who wish to retain them. On its face it sounds like another way to blackhole books the Board does not like. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Summary / TLDR
The district has contracted TEE to replace certain services previously provided by TASB.
New policy additions and revisions have been proposed, with a possible vote during the next normally scheduled Board meeting in May.
Policy Changes Breakdown:
AIB Local (New): Bans programs promoting Critical Race Theory (CRT), systemic discrimination ideologies (SDI), gender fluidity, and any equity “audits” related to such programs. Departments supporting such programs will be terminated immediately.
CL Local (New): Requires bathroom and changing facilities to be used according to a student’s biological sex as stated on their birth certificate.
BF Local: Limits superintendent involvement in policy development, giving Board members greater control over policy decisions, and removes requirements to align official policy manuals with adoption of Board policies.
EFA Local: Expands the definition of instructional materials, prohibits materials promoting CRT/SDI, gender fluidity, certain Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) concepts, and the term "Latinx." Creates a “Parental Consent Area” (i.e., restricted section) for materials deemed not to meet policy.
EFB Local: All new library acquisitions must be approved by the Board, which now includes teacher classroom libraries.
EMB Local: Broadens definitions for banned topics, including CRT, SDI, gender fluidity, certain SEL concepts, the use of pronouns, introduces new concept of “Potentially Pornographic Material”, and bans the use of words "Latinx" and "Minor-Attracted Persons."
FM Local: Restricts students from competing in sports that do not match their biological sex, unless they are female and there is no alternative for sports designated for male students.
FNAA Local & GKDA Local: Restricts distribution of non-school materials by students or any person/organization that interacts with students that contradict district policies, based on the latest changes from the other policies.
Concerns & Implications
Increased burden on educators to enforce controversial policies.
Board micromanagement in instructional material selection.
Uncertainty over implementation, such as managing the restricted book section for libraries.
Potential impact on students and families, particularly those affected by gender identity-related policies.
Thanks for reading.
These books were removed from classrooms in the CISD 2024 bulk removal.
Will we read something odd about a rare bit of magic?
This was the first I had heard of this.
Selecting people based on their ability.
Interesting method to put pressure on Board members.