18:58Call to Order
1.1Roll CallProcedural
29:22Welcome
2.1Welcome by the School Board PresidentProcedural
310:12Changes to the Agenda
3.1Changes to the AgendaDiscussion
410:40Approval of Agenda (Action Required)
4.1Approval of AgendaAction
511:11Oral Communication - If you have public comment related to a Regular Board Meeting item, please post it on: (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd3rKbPfVCTpOsK5ILqjnU2u-h-NuNx-vUq4OZxYNVR8lc4aQ/viewform?usp=sf_link) prior to the Special Board Meeting or immediately upon the meeting opening.
611:20Public Hearing
Kathryn Stewart (1min) — Suggested pooling all school funding into a lottery system where families choose preferred schools and the least-chosen schools are remodeled after the top choices.
Roberta Land (2min) — Expressed strong opposition to reassigning her Kentfield Commons neighborhood to Garfield, arguing it is not a walkable neighborhood school and that Henry Ford is a more sensible option.
Katherine Hagman (1min) — Voiced strong support for Scenario 2 and keeping the Mount Carmel neighborhood together at one school, noting Clifford is safer to bike to than Roosevelt for their area.
Megan Maxwell Bay (1min) — Asked whether students currently attending a school of choice (Roy Cloud) would be grandfathered in and allowed to stay under any boundary change.
Michelle Smith (2min) — Urged the board to include demographic data in its boundary analysis to avoid de facto segregation and to ensure more equitable distribution across schools.
Meredith Park (3min) — Advocated for safe, walkable neighborhood schools, criticized the schools-of-choice model for fracturing community bonds, and urged the board to rethink the broader school model to build neighborhood cohesion.
Cameron Matthews (2min) — Asked how population trend projections were derived, requested walkability mapping resources for boundary fringe areas, and inquired whether additional scenario options beyond Scenarios 1 and 2 would be presented.
David Knox (2min) — Asked for clarification on whether current Roy Cloud district residents would be reassigned to another school under the proposed boundary changes.
Eurydia Aquino (3min) — Asked whether her children, who attend a district school on an inter-district transfer while she works for the district, would be affected by boundary changes or need to reapply each year.
Andreas and Ann Hildebrandt (1min) — Shared that moving their son from private school to Roy Cloud created a wonderful sense of community in Woodside Hills and voiced strong support for Scenario 2.
Stephen Gay (4min) — Asked about the rationale for a small boundary cutout on the Goodwin/Fernside side of Alameda in Scenario 2, citing safety concerns about crossing a high-traffic area for such a small number of students.
Denise Hannig (1min) — Argued that children in her neighborhood could safely walk to Roy Cloud without crossing major roads, making it a better fit than Henry Ford.
Bill Brown (2min) — Asked whether PTO funding impacts had been analyzed in relation to the proposed boundary changes, expressing concern about unintended equity consequences, and thanked the superintendent and trustee for their capacity work.
Matt Scott (1min) — Asked for clarification on which school his Nimitz Avenue address falls under in each scenario, learning he would be assigned to Garfield in Scenario 1 and Hoover in Scenario 2.
George Lewis (1min) — Voiced support for Scenario 2 as a Woodside Hills resident, noting it would encourage more neighbors to move their children from private schools into Redwood City public schools and build community.
Steve (Axed) (1min) — Voiced support for Scenario 2 as a Selby Lane neighborhood resident seeking continuity and community for his daughter after transitioning through Henry Ford.
6.1First of Two Public Hearings: School Attendance Boundary Change for Neighborhood SchoolsInformation
7Discussion Items
7.11:36:54Discussion on COVID-19Discussion
Sarah Yarder (1min) — Questioned whether temperature checks are evidence-based given that many COVID-positive patients show no fever, and asked about UV-C lamp disinfection as used in hospitals.
Lily O'Connor (2min) — Expressed concern about lack of clear, timely communication from the district and raised specific logistical questions about coordinating siblings on different school schedules under a hybrid model.
Michelle Ortez (0min) — Asked whether the teacher survey results would be shared with the board and public, and if so, when.
Michelle Smith (2min) — Recommended keeping child care cohorts aligned with classroom cohorts to avoid cross-mingling, and offered to connect the district with her health literacy research team to improve communication.
Michelle and Devin Mulaney (3min) — Asked whether the district had explored contingency plans for greater openness, temporary union MoUs to allow volunteers, and a sliding scale giving younger students more in-person time to support language immersion.
Becky Fouch (1min) — Asked whether any closed school campuses could be used for child care or expanded student capacity.
Linda Elkins (2min) — Expressed surprise that a five-days-a-week option was not included in the survey, asked how quickly the district could pivot if county guidelines loosen, and noted a survey design issue that prevented selecting multiple child care options.
Indra Hernandez (4min) — As a CDC preschool teacher, raised concerns about social distancing with young children, cleaning burdens on staff, the impracticality of a two-day in-person model for working families, and uncertainty about changing job descriptions.
Dina Meyers (3min) — Asked what support was being provided to teachers developing distance-learning curriculum and questioned what meaningful social interaction could look like for students under strict social distancing requirements.
7.22:31:48Discussion of School Plan for Student AchievementDiscussion
8Consent Items (Action Required)
9Action Items (Action Required)
9.12:38:49Adoption of Resolution 32, a Resolution of the Redwood City School District Calling for an Election to be Held on November 3, 2020 for the Election of 3 Members of the Governing BoardAction
9.22:41:44Approval of Permanently Renaming the 170 Selby Lane in Atherton site, currently on file with the California Department of Education as Selby Lane Elementary School, as Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion SchoolAction
Anuj Gagar (2min) — Urged the board to approve Adelante Selby, arguing it has a clear rationale, no negative connotations, and a clear community mandate from two votes.
Araceli Tamayo (3min) — Urged approval of Adelante Selby, explaining that it honors both merged school communities and their combined traditions, and will help the community move forward and continue investing in the school.
Maurice Willis (1min) — Strongly supported the Adelante Selby name, stating that the community's unified desire for the name demonstrates healing and forward movement that should be acknowledged by the board.
Michelle Smith (3min) — Expressed frustration with the naming policy process and questioned whether, given the national reckoning with racial justice, the board was comfortable keeping a name referencing a wealthy white man on a Spanish immersion school, suggesting Unidos as a more representative alternative.
102:56:09Adjournment (Action Required)