Mesa Public Schools details how curriculum, course approvals and supplemental resources are chosen

Mesa Public Schools staff on Tuesday outlined the district’s formal processes for developing and approving curriculum, adopting instructional materials and vetting supplemental resources, saying the work is shaped by state standards, board policy and multiple stakeholder review steps.

Dr. Islas, who presented the overview, told the governing board that state statutes and the State Board of Education set the standards teachers must teach and that Mesa’s procedures layer governance, specialist review and community input on top of those rules. “This is a very complex process that involves a lot of multiple stakeholders,” Dr. Islas said, describing how state authorities, the Arizona Department of Education, local site leaders, teachers, families and a board‑appointed Community Curriculum Advisory Panel are involved.

The Community Curriculum Advisory Panel (CCAP), Dr. Islas said, is a 10‑member, board‑appointed advisory group that must meet open‑meeting requirements and provide feedback and recommendations to the governing board. CCAP does not approve curriculum; it reviews drafts and issues recommendations. The district brings curricula — for example the recent competency documents for grades 7–8 English/language arts and math, algebra I and introductory statistics — to CCAP for review before a final board approval step.

Board members and staff emphasized several checkpoints that shape what reaches classrooms. For formally adopted instructional resources the district uses a procurement process: a scope of work, request for proposal, a steering committee (including teacher association representatives), trained evaluators, and a 60‑day public review of recommended resources. Dr. Islas said evaluators apply rubrics and check for alignment to Arizona Academic Standards; if a resource does not integrate with district systems (for example, Canvas), it is eliminated early in the screening.

Supplemental resources — materials used to fill gaps that adopted resources do not address — now follow a separate, public process created after state legislation in 2023. Those criteria include evidence of effectiveness (for purchases made with Title I funds the district must also consider ESSA evidence levels), alignment to standards, accessibility, and data/privacy protections. Dr. Islas described a biannual ratification schedule in which teachers or teams pilot a supplemental resource at a school, gather data and, if it meets the criteria, submit it for district review and board ratification at the end of the year.

Several board members sought clarity about what constitutes public‑facing “content” parents can review. Dr. Islas pointed to the new competency documents (which list grade‑level indicators and content considerations such as “early civilizations to Renaissance and Reformation” for sixth‑grade social studies) and said families may review adopted instructional resources at the district curriculum center or through vendor access codes. Board members asked staff to improve links and visibility so parents can more easily see the units and “I can” indicators tied to standards.

Board members also discussed pilot courses and “off‑label” uses of approved materials — cases where teachers assemble materials already approved for different courses into a new course outline. Member Trappier asked that pilot or “repurposed” courses go through CCAP and come before the board so families can be assured the course has been vetted. Member Hutchinson and Dr. Islas cautioned that syllabi and lesson plans remain the prerogative of professional educators and building administrators, while the district will work to standardize a simple district syllabus format to increase transparency without morphing the board’s role into lesson‑plan approval.

Dr. Islas gave several concrete process clarifications: teacher‑led pilots require principal approval before implementation; administrators must address use of unapproved materials and may take disciplinary action if teachers use unapproved resources; and CCAP meets regularly and may be near capacity, so the district will balance CCAP workload with timeliness. She said the Change Makers pilot (developed at Mountain View) will go to CCAP in April and to the board in May for approval; a Skyline pilot (Introduction to Visual Arts / social media content creation) will be brought forward in May as well.

Dr. Islas flagged data and privacy checks for digital tools: Information Systems reviews all digital supplemental resources for FERPA and COPPA compliance and for required data‑sharing agreements before a resource is accepted. She said any third‑party research requests for student outcomes would go through standard data‑sharing agreements and be anonymized by the district first.

Why it matters: the presentation touched on several items that affect everyday schooling — which textbooks and digital tools teachers may use, how new electives and pilot courses are approved, where parents can view curricular content, and what protections exist for student data. Board members said they want clearer public access to competency documents and adopted resources and asked staff to return with options for making curricular content and syllabi easier for parents and board members to find.

The district will bring several items to CCAP and the board in the coming weeks, including the Change Makers pilot and supplemental‑resource ratifications at the May board meeting. Dr. Islas said the district will continue refining the course‑catalog approval timeline so new courses allow time for certification, staffing and budgeting.

Ending: Board members praised the staff for the detailed overview and asked for follow‑up reports that show which specific materials and pilot courses will be posted for public review before formal approval steps.