District 20 board rejects two proposed social-studies textbook adoptions amid bias concerns
March 14, 2026 | Academy School District No. 20 in the county of El, School Districts , Colorado
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Academy District 20 Board of Education on Thursday voted down two proposed social-studies textbook adoptions after trustees and public commenters raised concerns about political and cultural bias.
Public commenters urged the board to slow the review and questioned the materials’ framing. ‘‘It is not well researched,’’ said Catherine Chukas, a school advisory co‑chair, who urged the board to meet with the publisher’s local leadership before acting. Liz Wilcox told the board she was worried the governance changes would let a single official make controversial changes without broader agreement.
During board discussion several trustees described specific examples they said showed overt bias. Director Waldrep said the materials appeared to highlight negative language around “Western European societies” and de‑emphasize the district’s historical demographic makeup. ‘‘That’s blatantly political bias,’’ Waldrep said during debate. Director Wilburn said replacing one form of bias with another ‘‘is a mistake’’ and that the books risk alienating students by assigning one group collective blame.
After discussion, the board voted on Resolution 171‑26 (National Geographic Learning, K–12 and pre‑K materials). The roll call was: Vice President Payne — No; Director Tripp — No; Director Wilburn — No; Director Waldrep — No; President Shandy — No. The motion failed, 0–5.
The board then considered Resolution 172‑26 (Gibbs Smith Education, K–12 and pre‑K). Trustees again cited concerns about framing and factual accuracy; that motion also failed on a 0–5 roll call.
District staff said textbook review is ongoing and that the board expects materials to be academically rigorous, historically accurate and appropriate for the district’s students. The board directed staff to continue seeking materials that meet the district’s standards for balance and instructional utility.
The board’s rejection does not prohibit staff from returning with alternative or revised proposals; trustees said they want clearer documentation of vetting and stronger evidence of historical accuracy and balanced perspectives before approving curriculum adoptions.
The meeting closed with other business and a series of approved items unrelated to the textbook votes.
Public commenters urged the board to slow the review and questioned the materials’ framing. ‘‘It is not well researched,’’ said Catherine Chukas, a school advisory co‑chair, who urged the board to meet with the publisher’s local leadership before acting. Liz Wilcox told the board she was worried the governance changes would let a single official make controversial changes without broader agreement.
During board discussion several trustees described specific examples they said showed overt bias. Director Waldrep said the materials appeared to highlight negative language around “Western European societies” and de‑emphasize the district’s historical demographic makeup. ‘‘That’s blatantly political bias,’’ Waldrep said during debate. Director Wilburn said replacing one form of bias with another ‘‘is a mistake’’ and that the books risk alienating students by assigning one group collective blame.
After discussion, the board voted on Resolution 171‑26 (National Geographic Learning, K–12 and pre‑K materials). The roll call was: Vice President Payne — No; Director Tripp — No; Director Wilburn — No; Director Waldrep — No; President Shandy — No. The motion failed, 0–5.
The board then considered Resolution 172‑26 (Gibbs Smith Education, K–12 and pre‑K). Trustees again cited concerns about framing and factual accuracy; that motion also failed on a 0–5 roll call.
District staff said textbook review is ongoing and that the board expects materials to be academically rigorous, historically accurate and appropriate for the district’s students. The board directed staff to continue seeking materials that meet the district’s standards for balance and instructional utility.
The board’s rejection does not prohibit staff from returning with alternative or revised proposals; trustees said they want clearer documentation of vetting and stronger evidence of historical accuracy and balanced perspectives before approving curriculum adoptions.
The meeting closed with other business and a series of approved items unrelated to the textbook votes.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
