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.
611:11Public Hearing
Kathryn Stewart (1min) — Proposed a radical statewide lottery system for school assignment with pooled funding, eliminating the worst schools and modeling them after the best.
Roberta Land (2min) — Expressed strong opposition to her Kentfield Commons neighborhood being assigned to Garfield, arguing it is not a neighborhood school and the route is dangerous for children.
Katherine Hagman (1min) — Voiced strong support for Scenario 2, arguing it keeps the Mount Carmel neighborhood together and that the route to Clifford is safer for children than other options.
Megan Maxwell Bay (1min) — Asked whether students currently attending a school of choice would be grandfathered in and allowed to remain at their existing school under boundary changes.
Michelle Smith (2min) — Expressed concern about the lack of demographic data in the presentation, urging the board to consider equity and avoid de facto segregation when drawing boundaries.
Meredith Park (4min) — Advocated strongly for walkable neighborhood schools and critiqued the school of choice model for fracturing neighborhood communities, noting her street's children attended 12 different schools despite all ending up together at Sequoia High.
Cameron Matthews (2min) — Asked about population trend methodology behind the 2026 projections, requested walkability analysis tools for boundary fringe areas, and inquired whether additional scenario options beyond Scenarios 1 and 2 would be presented before the board vote.
David Knox (2min) — Asked for clarification on whether students currently in the Roy Cloud boundary would be reassigned to another school under the proposed scenarios and whether grandfathering would apply.
Eurydia Aquino (3min) — Asked whether her children, who attend RCSD schools via inter-district transfer while she works in the district, would be displaced or need to reapply under boundary changes.
Annie and Andreas Hildebrandt (1min) — Expressed strong support for Scenario 2, sharing that their son moved from private school to Roy Cloud and found community, and that neighbors would also enroll in public school under that scenario.
Stephen Gay (4min) — Asked about the rationale for the small boundary cutout near Goodwin and Fernside in Scenario 2 that crosses Alameda, raising safety and contiguity concerns.
Denise Hannig (1min) — Argued that children in her neighborhood near Roy Cloud would not need to cross major roads to reach Roy Cloud, making it a safer neighborhood school option than Henry Ford.
Bill Brown (2min) — Asked whether there had been any analysis of the impact of boundary changes on PTO funding and potential equity implications, particularly regarding Roy Cloud benefiting at other schools' expense.
Matt Scott (1min) — Asked for clarification on whether Nimitz Avenue is a boundary line that would split his neighborhood, and confirmed that under Scenario 1 his side would go to Garfield and under Scenario 2 to Hoover.
George Lewis (1min) — Voiced support for Scenario 2, noting Woodside Hills lacks community cohesion and that more neighbors would enroll in RCSD public schools if Scenario 2 were adopted.
Steve (last name not given) (1min) — Voiced support for Scenario 2, noting his daughter previously attended Orion and the family is looking for continuity and community at Henry Ford.
6.1First of Two Public Hearings: School Attendance Boundary Change for Neighborhood SchoolsInformation
Item details
Rationale: Redwood City School District (RCSD) is currently studying its attendance zone to shift the current attendance boundary areas of our seven neighborhood schools. This school boundary change study comes after the moves and mergers of programs and consolidation of schools that you approved in late 2018. The Board action on November 28, 2018, took place due to an independent financial consultant's conclusion that with declining enrollment, RCSD could not sustain 16 schools with the then 7,500 student enrollment. Today, the school district operates 12 schools with an enrollment of close to 7,200 students as Bay Area families continue to move out of the region. The result from the process to restructure the organization means that families within four attendance areas within the school district are in need of a neighborhood school--the former Fair Oaks Neighborhood, the Former John Gill Neighborhood, the former Hawes Neighborhood, and the former Selby Lane Neighborhood. These four attendance areas will now need to be absorbed by the current seven attendance areas of Clifford, Roy Cloud, Henry Ford, Garfield, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Taft neighborhood schools. The district's demographer is using Board Policy 5116, the Board of Trustees' policy on school attendance boundaries, to guide the school district with creating new attendance areas for each neighborhood school. This item, originally scheduled for June 10, 2020, was pulled to allow enough time for additional data to be prepared for this evening--capacity at each site and full enrollment. The district just completed a room by room analysis of each site and we have submitted this new data to our demographer, which we do every time that our capacity numbers change. Why does the capacity change if it's the same building? Depending on each specific site, some rooms are used for purposes other than the regular classroom setting. Some classrooms are dedicated for students with special needs, others are used for resource teachers, and some classrooms are assigned for special programs. Since these rooms are not available for a regular classroom setting, which changes every so often, we need to subtract it from the total number of the physical capacity. We'll also take an opportunity to look at our intradistrict transfers or what we call the School of Choice program in addition to the data with the attendance by geographic area. Financial Impact: None at the moment. Submission for Approval Prepared by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
7Discussion Items
7.11:36:54Discussion on COVID-19Discussion
Sarah Yarder (1min) — Asked whether temperature checks are evidence-based given that many COVID patients don't show fever, and inquired whether the district had considered UVC lamps for classroom disinfection.
Lily O'Connor (2min) — Expressed concern about the lack of timely, clear communication from the district, and asked how families with children at different schools on different A/B schedules would coordinate childcare and social circles.
Abraham Fraley (0min) — Listed on speaker card but did not appear to speak.
Michelle Ortez (0min) — Asked whether teacher survey results would be shared with the board and the public, and when.
Michelle Smith (2min) — Recommended that childcare cohorts mirror classroom cohorts to avoid cross-mingling, and offered to connect the district with health literacy research resources to improve community communication.
Michelle Mulaney and Devin (3min) — Asked whether contingency plans for more open scenarios had been considered, whether unions had been approached for temporary MoUs to allow volunteers and flexible hours, and whether younger students could receive a greater percentage of in-person time given their greater need for immersion and language acquisition.
Becky Fouch (1min) — Asked whether any closed school campuses could be repurposed for childcare or general use to address capacity needs.
Linda Elkins (2min) — Expressed surprise that a five-days-per-week option was not included in the parent survey, asked about the district's ability to push back on county guidelines, and noted a survey design flaw that may have limited childcare response data.
Indra Hernandez (4min) — A preschool teacher expressed concerns about social distancing being unenforceable with young children, the inadequacy of a two-day in-person model for working parents, and the need for clarity on cleaning responsibilities and job description changes.
Dina Meyers (3min) — Praised the district's teachers and asked how they are being supported for the new hybrid model, questioned how to develop curriculum suitable for both in-person and distance-learning/childcare settings, and asked what meaningful social interaction would look like under distancing requirements.
Item details
Rationale: It is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board and Superintendent Baker discuss the procedures followed by the Redwood City School District during the shelter in place order related to COVID-19. The School Board and Superintendent Baker will discuss the procedures the Redwood City School District has followed related to Child Nutrition Services, Technology, Professional Development, and Distance Learning during the shelter in place order related to COVID-19. Financial Impact: None at the moment. Submission for Approval Prepared by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
7.22:31:48Discussion of School Plan for Student AchievementDiscussion
Item details
Rationale: It is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board review and discuss the attached 2020 School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSAs) for the twelve schools. The school sites, with their School Site Councils and English Language Advisory Committees must annually develop, review, update, and approve the SPSAs to ensure the outlined goals and activities are being met. The SPSA must meet the federal requirement that the local governing board annually review and approve the SPSA, and when needed recommend changes to the plan. The development of the SPSA includes the annual review of the actions and services. Each action and service is reviewed and data analyzed to determine whether the actions as planned have met Site and District Goals. Each site has reviewed the budget and has created actions and services for the 2020-21 school year that address the academic, physical, and social emotional needs of the students as per review of multiple data sets including local and state measures as outlined in the LEA's LCAP. The SPSAs include the plan for expenditures regarding Measure U, Title I and Site Improvement Funds. Due to the COVID-19 School Closures, the SPSAs may need to be adjusted once more information is known. Any significant adjustments will be shared with the Board Members. The adjustments will follow the required process with the School Site Council membership and ELAC members providing input and approval before any changes are realized. Financial Impact: See each site SPSA for financial impact. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Linda Montes, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent, Ed Services, PreK-5 Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
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
Item details
Rationale: An election is called to be held for the Redwood City School District on November 3, 2020 to elect 3 members of the Governing Board for a full term of 4 years. By adopting Resolution 32, the Redwood City School District requests that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo make available the services of the San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder as the County Elections Official for the purpose of rendering services in the conduct of the election to be held on November 3, 2020. Each governing board member shall reside in the trustee area where she or he seeks to represent and shall be elected by the registered voters of that particular trustee area (by district). Each candidate for the Governing Board to be voted in the election to be held on November 3, 2020 may prepare a candidate statement on the appropriate form provided by the Chief Elections Officer. Such statement shall be limited to 200 words. The prorated costs of printing, mailing and translating the statements shall be paid by the candidate. In the event of a tie vote, the candidate will be selected in by lot. Financial Impact: None at the the moment. Submission for Approval Prepared by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
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 the name Adelante Selby, arguing it has a clear rationale, has twice received a community mandate in votes, and allows the school community to move forward.
Araceli Tamayo (3min) — Urged the board to approve Adelante Selby, noting that the combined name honors the traditions and assets of both merged schools and allows alumni of both programs to remain connected.
Maurice Willis (1min) — Strongly supported naming the school Adelante Selby, stating that the community has come together around Spanish immersion and that the board should acknowledge this by approving the name.
Michelle Smith (3min) — Expressed ongoing frustration with the naming policy process and questioned whether keeping 'Selby' — the name of a wealthy white man — is appropriate for a school dedicated to Spanish immersion and multiculturalism, suggesting 'Unidos' as an alternative.
Item details
Rationale: As directed by you during the public School Board meeting on April 22, 2020, the Spanish Immersion School Naming Committee reconvened in late April to facilitate the school naming process for the school site at 170 Selby Lane in Atherton, which houses the district's Spanish Immersion Program. The committee -- made up of parents, community members, and school faculty and staff -- was formed as outlined in Board Policy 7310, the school district's policy for Naming of District Facilities. The committee first facilitated the process for the school district earlier this calendar year, between February and March, 2020, and provided the following names to me after engaging the Spanish Immersion community: Adelante Spanish Immersion School Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School Unidos Spanish Immersion School On March 11, we discussed my recommendation of Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School as a possible name knowing that the school community is now made up of the Adelante Spanish Immersion Program, formerly at 3150 Granger Way in Redwood City, merging with the Selby Lane Spanish Immersion Strand at this site. The merger is a result of the process from late 2018 that resulted in moves and mergers of programs and consolidation of schools due to an independent financial consultant's conclusion that with declining enrollment, our district can not sustain 16 schools with the then 7,500 student enrollment. While the Planning for our Future process to restructure the organization needed to take place for the above mentioned reason, it was important to you and our community for the school district to maintain its unique and award-winning programs intact such as the Spanish Immersion program. You accepted the recommendation to merge the program on the much bigger site in Atherton. A transition team was formed in the spring of 2019, which agreed to permanently call the school Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School until permanent Board approval. In accordance with Board Policy 7310, a name of a school site becomes permanent with a formal vote from the Board of Trustees. The recommendation came back to you for approval on April 22, which was denied with a unanimous vote. The rejection included a directive to regroup and come up with a recommendation that did not include Adelante or Selby Lane due to the conclusion that the site needed a new name in recognition of a united community. The recommendation that comes before you tonight for approval may mean that the Spanish Immersion community is already united. Here is a summary of the work by the Spanish Immersion School Naming Committee during this second round, from late April to late May, 2020: Immediately after the April 22 vote, the committee regrouped the next week on April 30. At this meeting, the committee discussed how to move forward and reached consensus to review the list of other names that were suggested during the first round while also giving the community the option to suggest any other new names for consideration. The first of two ballots went out listing the following possible names along with the write-in section as another option: Alcance Spanish Immersion School; Amistad Spanish Immersion School; Arboleda Spanish Immersion School; Felicitas Méndez Spanish Immersion School; Bello Horizonte Spanish Immersion School; Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School; Unidos Spanish Immersion School. A total of 354 responses were collected during this first round--316 in English and 38 in Spanish. Once the first ballot closed, the committee streamlined the names and voted to move to a second ballot any name that had at least 10 votes. In addition, in reviewing the names suggested in the write-in section, the committee voted that they could not ignore the high number of suggestions made for Adelante Spanish Immersion School and Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. Out of both names, the committee decided to move Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School to the ballot as it aligned with the directive that the name should represent the two schools becoming one community or a brand new name. The following five names were placed on a new ballot for a vote asking community members to select their top three choices. Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School; Alcance Spanish Immersion School; Amistad Spanish Immersion School; Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School; Unidos Spanish Immersion School. 495 responses were collected on this second ballot--466 in English and 29 in Spanish. On the ballot in English: 67% of the respondents were RCSD parents; 12% were students; 6% were faculty/staff; and 5% were community members. On the ballot in Spanish: 93% were parents; and 7% were students. The committee decided to turn in to me the names with the highest number of votes across all sections and both languages. Those results are listed as follows: Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School: - In the first choice section of the ballot in English, 72%, the majority, voted for Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. - In the second choice section of the ballot in English, 46%, the majority, voted for Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. - In the third choice section of the ballot in English, 39%, the majority, voted for Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. - In the first choice section of the ballot in Spanish, 66%, the majority, voted for Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. - In the second choice section of the ballot in Spanish, 35%, the majority, voted for Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. - In the third choice section of the ballot in Spanish, 35%, the majority, voted for Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion School. Unidos Spanish Immersion School: - In the first choice section of the ballot in English, Unidos Spanish Immersion School came in second place with 18% - In the second choice section of the ballot in English, Unidos Spanish Immersion School came in second place with 30% - In the third choice section of the ballot in English, Unidos Spanish Immersion School came in second place with 25% - In the first choice section of the ballot in Spanish, Unidos Spanish Immersion School came in second place with 25% *In the second choice section of the ballot in Spanish, Unidos Spanish Immersion School came in third place with 30% *In the third choice section of the ballot in Spanish, Unidos Spanish Immersion School came in fourth place with 25% Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School: *In the first choice section of the ballot in English, Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School came in fourth place with 4% In the second choice section of the ballot in English, Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School came in third place with 12% In the third choice section of the ballot in English, Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School came in third place place with 14% *In the first choice section of the ballot in Spanish, Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School came in third place with 7% *In the second choice section of the ballot in Spanish, Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School came in fourth place with 7% In the third choice section of the ballot in Spanish, Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School came in second place with 24% *Note: While Alcance Spanish Immersion School and Amistad Spanish Immersion School was the second choice in some areas, the committee agreed to move forward the three names with the most votes. Adelante Spanish Immersion School, Unidos Spanish Immersion School, and Mid Peninsula Spanish Immersion School were turned in to my office on May 29. Financial Impact: None. Submission for Approval Prepared by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
102:56:09Adjournment (Action Required)