Fairfax County School Board approves new social studies instructional materials after debate over costs, shipping and IB parity

The Fairfax County School Board on April 24 approved the titles recommended by the Instructional Resources Review Committee for a divisionwide social studies instructional-material adoption, approving the motion by Maron with a second by St. John Cunning. The motion passed with one recorded abstention (Mr. Dunn).

Board members and staff said the adoption is intended to align classroom resources with new Virginia Standards of Learning and to give schools consistent supports while the division plans professional development and measures to maintain equity across Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate pathways.

Assistant Superintendent Noelle Klimenko told the board the division reviewed IB needs and the adoption would include a mix of digital and print licensing options and a professional-development rollout tied to new SOLs. “For our ninth- and tenth-graders at our IB schools, they will be receiving the textbooks,” Klimenko said, adding that IB courses select specific topics and require different resources than survey-style texts. Klimenko said staff estimated about $500,000 for parity purchases to support IB students and roughly $400,000 for a divisionwide professional-development plan.

Discussion at the dais centered on how to balance digital access with physical textbooks and how to contain costs. Board member Maron described three purchase scenarios presented by staff — (1) digital and print for all students, an option staff estimated at about $17,000,000 including shipping, (2) digital for all with print class sets for many grades, and (3) a mixed approach with digital for all and larger percentages of print copies for high school. “If we want to save a million bucks, can we rent some U-Hauls and some of us go on a road trip and pick up these books?” Maron remarked, criticizing the large shipping estimate and urging staff to seek lower rates.

Board members pressed staff for clarity on logistics and costs. Klimenko said the high shipping estimate reflected publisher drop-ship costs directly to schools; she said staff would explore shipping to a central warehouse instead. Dr. Anderson urged staff to pursue lower delivery costs and questioned the decision to drop-ship to schools rather than use the county warehouse, saying: “A million dollars for shipping just seems to be probably not the most conservative thing that we can do.” Klimenko agreed to produce options comparing drop-ship to schools versus centralized delivery.

The motion approved the list of titles; the board did not vote on contracts or final ordering details at this meeting. Board members and staff described the procurement as a seven-year licensing cycle and said the division will continue to refine the mix of print and digital purchases, and the professional-development plan, before final expenditures. Klimenko said class sets for secondary courses typically mean a teacher receives about 30 print copies; a higher “40%” option would equate to about 48 copies to provide additional checkout capacity for students who need print at home.

Board members also discussed equity and access. Several speakers called for print copies for middle- and high-school students because some families lack reliable home internet; others warned about students carrying multiple heavy textbooks in addition to laptops. Board members requested more data on how adopting the materials would interact with upcoming math and other adoptions and asked staff to produce cost comparisons and a clearer shipping plan before final purchase orders.

With the motion approved on the titles, staff will proceed with procurement steps and return to the board with implementation details, including professional-development schedules and refined cost estimates. The division indicated it will keep the seven-year replacement cycle for central purchasing and work with schools to ensure IB courses have parity of resources.