Board members and community speakers spent a large portion of the Jan. 13 Derby Board of Education meeting addressing the board’s recent decision to reject a recommended HMH high school social studies curriculum and the tone of debate that followed.

Board member Mark moved to place the HMH curriculum back on the agenda for action, saying the packet of clarifying material he had prepared showed errors in the critique made at the prior meeting; later in the meeting he withdrew the motion. "I move to add the HMH curriculum adoption to this evening's agenda for action once again," he said during his report, then later told the board his motion was “useless” after discussion.

Why it matters: teachers who piloted the texts and many parents said the rejection communicated distrust of educators and deprived students of materials they had chosen. Supporters said the curriculum aligns to state standards and would aid instruction; critics at the prior meeting had said the materials showed bias.

Kendall Warkentin, co-chair of social studies at Derby High School, told the board he and his colleagues had thoroughly reviewed HMH materials and found them “well written, organized, and engaging.” Warkentin highlighted that several items critics raised about the publisher’s website were from the HMH blog and carried an author’s disclaimer, and argued the department could not be judged on a company blog.

Roe Kinkle, a high school social studies teacher, cited Kansas standards in defending the department’s selection and said teachers use textbooks as one of multiple resources and drive classroom discussion. "The Kansas standards for history, government, and social studies prepare students to be informed, thoughtful, engaged citizens," Kinkle said, reading the state mission text presented in the meeting packet.

Other classroom teachers and staff reiterated that the curriculum was piloted and recommended by the social studies department. Teacher Angie Draney and paraprofessional Karen Runyon said passages singled out by critics either were factual statements or represented material the district’s teachers would handle in class context.

Speakers described the effect of the vote on teacher morale. One board member who defended the curriculum said she met with social studies teachers after the vote and that they “unanimously agreed this process was very disrespectful.” Supporters asked for a full, documented explanation to be made available to board members and the public; one speaker noted the district would spend about $400,000 if it adopted the full curriculum package and argued that investment merited clearer, evidence-based discussion.

Board procedure and next steps: the board’s discussion included calls for improved norms — written, cited material before action meetings, clearer public preview of documents and more time for follow-up between discussion and action. On the Jan. 13 agenda a motion to bring the HMH adoption back for a vote was offered but later withdrawn; the board did not take a final vote on the curriculum at this meeting.

Community response at the meeting ranged from parents and teachers praising the piloting process to residents urging better public communication. Several speakers said they would continue to press the board to revisit the decision during the board’s upcoming workshop and action sessions.