Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ela Textbook Adoption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danville school board approves ELA textbook adoption after cost clarifications
Summary
The Danville School Board voted unanimously March 5 to adopt new English language arts textbooks for multiple grade spans after staff explained contract timing, a $525,000 HMH line representing six years of materials, and credits applied for materials already used in middle grades.
Miss Barnes, the staff presenter on the English language arts textbook adoption, told the Danville School Board on March 5 that the HMH line item shown in the materials—$525,000—represents six years of instructional materials and that the district had a remaining year on its contract with HMH that affected timing and costs.
Barnes said the district received a credit for SAVIS My Perspectives because that program is currently used in grades 6–8; SAVIS for grades 9–12 would be a new adoption. She told the board the recommended materials are physical student consumables that include new textbooks for students to write in during the multi-year adoption cycle. "We have gone back and forth with these companies many times to get the best possible price on these textbooks," Barnes said, adding staff reduced the total by "over $300,000."
Board members asked for clarifications about lifespan and procurement. Dr. Williams asked about typical adoption lifespans; Barnes replied that the district uses five or seven years as a norm and that HMH's $525,000 figure represents six years because of the remaining contract year. A board member asked how many vendor quotes were solicited; Barnes said the team obtained three quotes. When asked whether the materials were physical or electronic, Barnes said the recommended materials are physical and include student consumables.
At the close of discussion, Miss Cunningham moved to approve the ELA textbook adoption process as presented; Dr. Williams seconded. The clerk called the roll and all voting members answered "yes," carrying the adoption and appropriation as presented at the meeting. The appropriation amount was read aloud in the meeting materials in a format that was not clearly formatted in the on-screen slides; the board did not ask staff to restate the dollar amount in an alternative format during the public meeting.
The board directed staff to proceed with the adoption steps described in the presentation and to report back to the board on any subsequent contract details or clarifications requested by members.
