Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesa Public Schools outlines curriculum approval process, supplemental-resources rules and course-catalog changes
Summary
At a Governing Board study session, district staff detailed how Mesa Public Schools develops curriculum, adopts instructional resources and vets supplemental materials through the Community Curriculum Advisory Panel (CCAP). Board members asked for clearer public access to course content and stronger timelines for pilot courses.
At a Mesa Public Schools Governing Board study session, Dr. Islas presented an overview of the district’s curriculum processes, including how state standards, the Community Curriculum Advisory Panel (CCAP) and district staff interact to approve curriculum documents and instructional resources.
Dr. Islas said the district’s curriculum work starts with state standards and moves “from big to granular,” describing a multi-step approval process that includes teacher teams, CCAP review, a 60‑day public display of proposed adopted resources and final Governing Board approval. She emphasized that standards define what students should learn, curriculum documents explain how they will learn it, and instructional resources are the tools teachers use to implement that curriculum.
The presentation reviewed how Mesa defines and handles three categories of materials: adopted (formally selected resources such as K–5 Scholastic and secondary HMH), supplemental (materials used to fill gaps not met by adopted resources) and ancillary tools (platforms such as Nearpod that are content-agnostic). Dr. Islas described a new supplemental-resources process implemented after 2023 state legislation: teachers and principals evaluate tools against district rubrics, information‑systems staff reviews FERPA/COPPA/data-sharing issues, successful tools are recommended to teaching-and-learning and then are brought to the board for ratification in a biannual cycle.
CCAP’s role was stressed repeatedly. Dr. Islas described CCAP as a board‑appointed committee of 10 members (including three principals and a superintendent designee) that follows open‑meeting laws, provides feedback and issues recommendations to the Governing Board; CCAP is not itself an approver. The district said CCAP helped develop a single, public-facing competency template that lists indicators by grade band, content considerations (units/topics) and "I can" style indicators meant to be clearer for families and students.
Board members raised several operational and transparency questions. Miss Chaffee asked whether off‑label uses of approved materials — combinations of adopted resources or teacher-developed pilots — should be routed through CCAP and the board; several members supported routing pilot courses or new syllabi through CCAP so the board can confirm alignment with board goals before families enroll students. Mrs. Trappier asked for clarity about the difference between curriculum, syllabi and lesson plans; multiple board members said they want publicly accessible links to the actual instructional resources (digital or physical) so parents and board members can review course content.
Staff said the district keeps a curriculum room and digital access codes for adopted materials available for public review during adoption and the 60‑day display, and that competency documents and course descriptions are posted online. The district also described a multi-year effort to audit and refresh the secondary course catalog, removing unused courses and aligning remaining offerings to graduation requirements and postsecondary readiness; staff said some course documents (for arts and PE) are older and will be revised through teacher work groups over the next several years.
Staff noted examples of current pilots and next steps: the Changemakers pilot at Mountain View (a cross-disciplinary social-studies/ELA leadership course) will go to CCAP in April and to the Governing Board for approval in May after corrections. Staff also said AP and CTE approvals must meet external program criteria (College Board for AP, Maricopa Community College District / EVIT / ADE for dual-enrollment and CTE).
Why it matters: board members said clarity, consistency and public access to content are essential for families choosing courses and for board oversight of curriculum adoption. Several members asked staff to return with clearer timelines and a consolidated way for the public and board to view the actual materials used in classrooms.
Ending: Staff said the district will continue to bring competency documents to CCAP and the board, refine the supplemental‑resource rubric, and create clearer public access points for course content. Specific pilot courses referenced in the presentation will return to CCAP and the board for formal approval as required by district policy and the new supplemental‑resource rules.
