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
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) — 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.
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 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.
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)