Derby board debate and public comment center on rejected HMH high school social studies curriculum

Mark, a board member, used his board report on Jan. 13 to press the board to reconsider the high school social studies curriculum that the board had voted down at a prior meeting, saying he would move to add the HMH (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) curriculum adoption back to the agenda for immediate action.

The request set off an extended exchange among board members and prompted lengthy public comment from teachers and parents defending the district's social studies staff and the piloted materials. Kendall Warkentin, co-chair of social studies at Derby High School, told the board the district’s teachers had selected HMH for its organization and instructional features and cautioned that material on a publisher’s blog “are the author's own and not necessarily those of the company.” Roe Kinkle, a DHS social studies teacher, cited the Kansas standards for history, government and social studies (KSDE) as the guiding mission for classroom instruction and said the department chose materials to meet those standards.

Why it matters: The dispute has highlighted two sharply different concerns: some board members objected to parts of the publisher’s public-facing statements about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and to certain textbook phrasing they said could indicate bias; teachers and classroom staff said the textbooks are only one resource in larger instruction and that rejecting the adoption undermines teachers’ professional judgment and risks classroom continuity.

At the meeting, supporters of the curriculum described how teachers piloted the materials and the instructional advantages they expected from HMH’s platform, including supplemental resources and Canvas integration. Kendall Warkentin said her department has “almost 300 years of experience” collectively and argued the piloted materials were chosen based on those educators’ judgment. Several teachers and parents said the board’s vote had been perceived in the district as a rebuke of teachers’ professionalism and asked the board to restore public trust.

Board members pressed each other on process and timing. Several members said concerns raised in the prior action meeting had arrived late in the decision sequence and that written citations or supporting documentation should be provided in advance of action. Ms. Behati (administration) described changes to piloting processes: piloted materials will be reviewed earlier with the board and, when possible, presented to the board in writing before an action vote so members can examine citations and materials before formal voting.

A motion by Mark to add the HMH curriculum adoption to the meeting agenda for action was verbally introduced, then withdrawn after discussion when he concluded the motion was “useless” given the conversation that followed. No formal vote on reintroducing the curriculum took place.

Public comments were heavily in favor of the teachers and the piloted curriculum. Teachers who had participated in the pilot told the board the textbook is one of many classroom resources, that the curriculum supports higher-order thinking and that some criticisms focused on passages or publisher statements outside the classroom context. Parents urged the board to trust teacher expertise and to avoid signaling distrust of district educators. Several commenters directly addressed specific textbook language that had been debated, including phrasing about the Trump administration’s policies; teachers said the passages were factual summaries and that some criticisms applied to subjects the high school course does not cover.

Process changes and next steps discussed at the meeting included: administrators will present a revised pilot-review workflow to avoid late-emerging objections; the district will host additional public preview sessions for other pilot curriculum items (on law and public safety, AP biology, language courses and math interventions) and will make pilot materials and citations available to board members and the public before the action meeting. Board members and staff agreed to pursue clearer norms for discussion versus action so long, detailed policy critiques presented at action meetings can be shared earlier in the sequence.

The meeting’s extended public comment period — and the number of teachers who spoke — underscored the local stakes. Speakers who piloted or teach with the proposed HMH materials described the adoption’s instructional features and decried what they characterized as a loss of trust following the prior vote. The board did not take further formal action on the HMH adoption that evening; the motion to reintroduce the item was withdrawn by its mover.

Ending: Board members said they will consider procedural revisions so curriculum pilots include earlier, documented review and that the district will schedule additional public previews for other pilot materials. The social studies adoption dispute remains unresolved and may return to the board when administrators and teachers can supply additional documentation and the board reopens the item for formal action.