Mesa Public Schools reports rising graduation rate, mixed proficiency gains; board emphasizes targeted instruction and transparency

Superintendent Dr. Strom told the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board on July 8 that the district's four‑year graduation rate is trending toward 84.37 percent, an increase of about 2.6 percentage points from the prior year, and that the district has set a board goal of reaching a 90 percent graduation rate within the next two years.

Dr. Strom cited increases in school‑level proficiency: 40 percent of schools showed at least a 2 percentage‑point increase in ELA proficiency and 51 percent of schools showed at least a 2 percentage‑point increase in math proficiency. He said 56 percent of schools posted proficiency increases in ELA and that 64 percent of schools saw some increase in math proficiency. District‑wide combined passing (ELA across AASA, ACT Aspire and ACT) rose to a three‑year high of 37.6 percent, he said. The district also increased recorded service‑learning hours from about 180,000 to about 221,000, and 100 percent of schools met the district's service‑learning goal.

Board members and administrators discussed what is working at schools showing gains and where the district should concentrate professional development. Dr. Strom and Dr. Malherwein said progress is tied to coordinated systems: stronger cross‑campus sharing of practices, increased progress monitoring and instructional leadership teams that bring coaches, principals and content specialists together.

Dr. Malherwein described practical steps that contributed to higher graduation rates: coordinated high‑school teams sharing effective practices across campuses, systems for earlier identification of at‑risk students, expanded progress monitoring and a credit‑recovery program for students who fall behind. She said the district's approach gives campuses systematic tools to intervene earlier and keep students on track.

Administrators and board members emphasized the need to keep high expectations while providing supports, and they identified professional learning aligned to adopted instructional resources as a priority. Director-level staff said oversight for professional learning varies by funding source: Title I and other federal funds have additional compliance oversight (via the director of federal programs and area superintendents), while M&O professional learning is overseen by principals and supervisors and aligned to each school's comprehensive needs analysis.

The board asked for more granular explanations of successful practices at high‑performing schools so the district can replicate effective interventions and better communicate the story behind the data.