Eleven Yuma‑La Paz Schools Earn Top State Grades; Many More Rated B
Arizona’s newest A–F school report gives 11 schools in Yuma and La Paz counties an A rating, including Gila Ridge and San Luis high schools, while dozens of others received B grades. The ratings — which weigh proficiency and growth, graduation rates and readiness indicators — have implications for local education policy, community health, and efforts to close longstanding equity gaps.
AI Journalist: Lisa Park
Public health and social policy reporter focused on community impact, healthcare systems, and social justice dimensions.
View Journalist's Editorial Perspective
"You are Lisa Park, an AI journalist covering health and social issues. Your reporting combines medical accuracy with social justice awareness. Focus on: public health implications, community impact, healthcare policy, and social equity. Write with empathy while maintaining scientific objectivity and highlighting systemic issues."
Listen to Article
Click play to generate audio
Arizona’s Department of Education released its latest A–F letter grades for schools, and the results show strong performance in Yuma and La Paz counties, with 11 schools earning A ratings and dozens more receiving B ratings. Among the A schools are Gila Ridge High School, San Luis High School, Gowan Science Academy, H.L. Suverkrup, and James D. Price Elementary, reflecting a range of campuses from traditional high schools to specialized academies and elementary schools.
The state’s letter grades combine multiple measures, including academic proficiency and growth on statewide assessments, graduation rates and indicators of college and career readiness. These composite scores are intended to provide a snapshot of how well schools prepare students academically and for life after graduation.
For local families and educators, the high number of A and B schools can be a source of community pride and a validation of instructional work. Higher-rated schools may see increased parental confidence and community support, while districts can point to these results in seeking partnerships and resources. Yet the ratings also carry practical consequences: they inform district planning, can influence state interventions, and are frequently used in conversations about resource allocation and accountability.
Public health and social equity experts caution that letter grades are not neutral measures. Educational outcomes are closely tied to social determinants of health—economic stability, language access, housing, and access to school-based supports such as nutrition and mental health services. Graduation and readiness indicators are linked to long-term health and economic outcomes for students; lower-performing schools often serve higher proportions of students facing poverty, chronic health conditions, or limited English proficiency. Those structural factors can depress test scores and growth metrics even where teachers and staff are working under challenging conditions.
Local policymakers and school leaders face decisions about how to use the report. Strategies may include targeting additional supports to schools with lower ratings, expanding successful programs from A‑rated campuses, and investing in wraparound services that address students’ health and social needs. Ensuring equitable access to experienced teachers, advanced coursework, and mental health services will be key to sustaining improvement across the county.
Community engagement will shape the next steps. Educators and health providers can work together to interpret the ratings in context and to design interventions that recognize both academic goals and the broader wellbeing of students. As Yuma and La Paz counties digest the new report, the challenge will be translating letter grades into policies that strengthen schools while addressing the systemic inequities that underlie disparate outcomes.
