Mesa Unified leaders present continuous‑improvement findings; district to ramp MTSS, instructional design and communication

Mesa Public Schools leaders used a July study session to summarize a year of surveys, focus groups and outreach and to lay out a districtwide continuous‑improvement plan that will use 8‑week PDCA (plan–do–check–act) cycles next school year.

"We're in the middle of continuous improvement processes and cycles in Mesa public schools," said Dr. Strong as he opened the presentation, describing the district's goal of turning survey and focus‑group findings into concrete actions. Staff told the board that preliminary projections show gains in multiple tested areas — "we're up in 16 of the 23 tested areas," Dr. Strong said — and a modest half‑percentage point rise in average daily attendance across roughly 54,000 students.

The presentation pulled together three major evidence sources: ALP focus groups, the district's annual staff/parent/student climate surveys and a Westgroup sample of roughly 1,600 students who did not re‑enroll. An ALP facilitator reported that participants defined student readiness broadly. "Readiness and success were consistently described not only in academic competence... but also preparing our students for adulthood," the ALP presenter said, emphasizing resilience, communication and adaptability alongside academics.

Justin Wing, chief of staff, summarized survey samples and results: more than 15,000 student responses, roughly 5,000 parent responses and about 4,000 staff responses across instruments. Wing and other presenters flagged communication and clarity about college‑and‑career academies as recurring concerns. "Communication seemed to be a common theme," Wing said of family feedback collected about the district's opt‑out and placement processes.

District leaders proposed operational next steps: (1) standardize data collection and registration processes across high schools so families receive consistent information and sign‑off where intended; (2) put continuous improvement into smaller, 8‑week cycles so schools can test and iterate quarterly; (3) roll out a district MTSS (Multi‑Tiered System of Supports) blueprint that ties academics, behavior and whole‑child systems to the continuous‑improvement work; and (4) conduct a website audit and expand regional listening sessions to improve parent and student access to information.

The board pressed on methodology and reliability: members raised survey timing and anonymity issues and asked how the "portrait of a graduate" informed question design. District staff acknowledged the tradeoffs of anonymous surveys (which make one‑response‑per‑person controls difficult) and said the portrait of a graduate did inform focus‑group prompts and emphasized durable skills in the qualitative analysis.

District leaders also outlined targeted operational pilots for next year: a Westwood region elementary alternative learning center to provide short‑term behavioral interventions while students remain enrolled at their home school; standardization of academy preference and opt‑out procedures across all high schools; and a communications push that will display high‑school outcomes and work‑based‑learning metrics more visibly on school web pages.

The board did not take formal action as part of the study session; the presentation set the frame for fall implementation and additional follow‑up items the district said it will return with in August and through principal and regional leadership meetings.