Mesa Public Schools staff outline curriculum approval, supplemental materials and course‑catalog processes

Dr. Islas, a curriculum presenter for Mesa Public Schools, told the governing board in a study session that the district’s curriculum work begins with state standards and moves “big to granular,” and that multiple stakeholders — from the State Board of Education and the Arizona Department of Education to local teachers, parents and a Community Curriculum Advisory Panel (CCAP) — participate in designing and approving course materials.

The presentation outlined three tiers used by the district: standards (what students must learn), curriculum (how students will learn the standards) and instructional resources (the textbooks, digital courseware and supplemental tools teachers use). “Standards are really intended for teachers,” Dr. Islas said. “The curriculum is how our students are going to learn that.”

Why it matters: board members said clearer, consistent public documents and predictable review timelines matter to families and to the district’s stated goals on instruction and college and career readiness. Board members pressed staff on how the district ensures materials align to Arizona academic standards, complies with state and federal rules, and makes content accessible to families.

Most of the presentation described the formal adoption pathway for districtwide instructional resources and a separate new process for supplemental resources, created after changes in January 2023 to state law. Dr. Islas said adopted resources follow a request‑for‑proposal and evaluation track involving purchasing, information systems, subject matter evaluators and a 60‑day public review before recommendation to the superintendent and the governing board. Examples cited for K–5 and secondary adopted materials included Scholastic (K–5) and HMH (grades 6–8); staff said districts may adopt a bundle of courseware rather than a single textbook.

On supplemental materials, Dr. Islas said the district collected every tool teachers were using, applied evidence‑based rubrics (including ESSA evidence tiers for Title I purchases), checked technical and student‑privacy compliance (FERPA and COPPA), removed duplicative items and assembled an initial list that the board ratified earlier in the year. She said supplemental resources are student‑facing and intended to fill gaps that an adopted resource cannot cover; she offered PowerUp (Lexia) and Hegarty as examples.

Board members and staff discussed pilot courses and off‑label uses of approved materials. Dr. Islas said one piloted course, Changemakers, was developed at Mountain View and will be brought to CCAP in April and to the board for approval in May after staff overlooked its earlier submission. Several board members said they would like pilot or re‑packaged courses — where preapproved materials are combined into a new course outline — to go through CCAP and come before the board so parents can see a consistent syllabus or course description before enrolling students. Board member Miss Chaffee said, “I would like to request that when a school is teaching in their course ... that that course should go through the CCAP process and come before the board.”

Staff emphasized the difference between curriculum and lesson plans: building administrators and teachers typically create syllabuses and pacing. Dr. Islas said the district is working on a consistent syllabus format for secondary teachers but that teachers retain day‑to‑day lesson‑planning authority.

Several board members asked where parents and board members can view “content” — the specific units or topics taught. Dr. Islas pointed to the competency documents adopted this year (the new public‑facing curriculum templates), which include “content considerations” and “I can” indicators; for example, staff said sixth‑grade social studies lists the time period (Early Civilizations to Renaissance and Reformation) and associated indicators. Board members asked staff to make it easier for parents to access the actual instructional resources and suggested links to online vendor materials and district displays during the 60‑day public review.

Dr. Islas described CCAP as a board‑appointed advisory committee of 10 members (including three principals and a superintendent designee) that follows Arizona open‑meeting laws, requires a quorum of six, and makes recommendations to the governing board; CCAP provides feedback and recommends curriculum for board approval but does not have final adopting authority.

Board members asked for clearer timelines and better data on what works in classrooms. Member Hutchinson said the board needs to know not only that grades are improving but “what is working and what's not working” so the district can “stay the course and or alter the course.” Superintendent Forliss and staff agreed to follow up with cross‑departmental analysis and to return with summative semester metrics that link classroom interventions, adopted and supplemental materials, and student outcomes.

The presentation did not propose new board action beyond routine approval steps; staff described ongoing cycles of review, a biannual supplemental‑resource ratification process, and longer timelines for course catalog revisions (some curriculum updates have taken two to 2½ years, Dr. Islas said). Ending the session, board leaders and staff reiterated they would return with updated materials and recommended process changes to increase transparency and consistency for parents and teachers.