Scottsdale Unified presents first read of recommended high school social science materials; board hears public concerns about content

The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board received a first read of a committee recommendation to adopt new social science instructional materials for five high school courses and to request $674,542.13 to buy teacher and student materials, professional development and AP exam preparation materials.

The recommendation covers materials for world history/world geography, American and Arizona history, AP World History: Modern, AP Human Geography and AP United States History. The district’s presenters said the adoption aligns with state standards and recent College Board changes to AP assessments.

Dr. Dodds, the curriculum committee presenter, opened the packet: “I am proud to be joined this evening with Dylan Bullard, our Social Studies, Curriculum Coach, to present to you the work of the social science curriculum adoption committee.” Bullard walked board members through the committee’s rubric, public review process and final consensus recommendation. The committee reported 7 members with a combined 55 years of teaching experience, including two nationally board‑certified teachers and one community member. Public display for the materials opened Feb. 19 and will close May 13, the presenters said.

The presenters said the committee’s rubric evaluated accuracy and alignment to standards, ease of use and support, engagement and ability to meet student needs, and assessment tools. Dylan Bullard said the committee eliminated products that did not align to Arizona standards and used a consensus process that considered public feedback at every meeting. Presenters said 25 people visited the public display at Oak Campus and staff logged 65 entries on the public viewing feedback form.

The committee recommended the following publisher materials: for world history/world geography, a Cengage title; for American and Arizona history, U.S. History Interactive (Savas); for AP World History: Modern, The Earth and Its Peoples (Cengage); for AP Human Geography, Human Geography: A Spatial Perspective (Cengage); and for AP United States History, A Fabric of a Nation (Bedford, Freeman & Worth). The presenters requested $674,542.13 to cover materials, professional development and AP prep, and noted the district expects these resources to impact more than 20,000 students over the next seven years if adopted.

Board members asked for more detail on the committee’s rubric and how supplemental digital content will be vetted. One board member said the rubric scores are recorded and can be provided to the board but are not published; staff offered to share the committee’s point‑by‑point scoring with board members. Presenters clarified that committees look at recommended supplemental items (podcasts, video clips, ListenWise content, etc.) during curriculum mapping and said staff expects to embed and review supplemental items before classroom use.

Several board members and public commenters raised concerns specifically about content from the Savas U.S. History product and the items it links to online. Concerns cited by board members included recommendations in some teacher guides or supplemental modules that, according to the comments read into the record, encourage students to explore contemporary protest movements and outside advocacy websites. A board member asked whether the committee reviewed every third‑party video or podcast embedded or referenced in the materials; presenters responded that the committee did not review every single external clip but reviews core texts and the principal supplemental resources during mapping and intends to embed or vet other items through teacher and coach review.

In response to concerns about balance and political perspective, staff offered to prepare a memo showing point‑by‑point balance within sample units and examples of how the committee considered multiple perspectives during review. Presenters said the committee documented public feedback in meeting minutes and reviewed that feedback at each meeting.

No adoption vote was taken. The board acknowledged the packet as a first read and asked staff to return with additional documentation (rubric scores and a memo comparing perspectives within controversial units) at a future meeting or second read prior to any final adoption or procurement action.

Ending: The board did not vote on adoption; presenters said procurement decisions must observe the district’s timeline (May 13 is the stated procurement deadline for materials). Staff and board members agreed to a follow‑up briefing that will include rubric detail and examples of how supplemental digital items will be vetted before classroom use.