1Call to Order
1.1Roll CallProcedural
20:15Welcome
2.1Welcome by the School Board PresidentProcedural
30:55Changes to the Agenda
3.1Changes to the AgendaDiscussion
40:55Approval of Agenda (Action Required)
4.1Approval of AgendaAction
51:32Oral 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 Regular Board Meeting or immediately upon the meeting opening.
Douglas Alsop (absent — addressed via prior communication) (1min) — Dennis McBride summarized that Douglas Alsop's concern about four portables being permanent was addressed; he was assured they could not remain longer than two years per DSA rules and were already there less than a year.
62:49School/Community Reports
6.1Child Nutrition Service ReportInformation
Item details
Rationale: It is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board accept a service report from the Child Nutrition Service Department. The Child Nutrition Service Department continues to provide students with nutritious meals during distance learning on a grab-and-go meal distribution model. Several United States Department of Agriculture waivers are in place which allow for flexibility in meal service this school year. Anna Lague, Sodexo Child Nutrition Consultant, will provide an update on RCSD's Child Nutrition Services (CNS) program. Financial Impact: None. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Anna Lague, Sodexo Child Nutrition Consultant and Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
729:54Discussion Items
Maureen McPeek (3min) — A second-grade teacher of 25 years argued that the current safety plan is inadequate, that behavior management would dominate in-person instruction, and asked the board to wait until January 2021 to reopen.
Jackie Moore (3min) — A special day class teacher described positive outcomes in distance learning for her students, warned that reopening could cause preventable COVID deaths, and urged the board to continue distance learning until a vaccine is available.
Nusheen Kavyani (1min) — A community member argued that the reopening plans presented show all the risks of COVID with no benefit of in-person learning, and requested the public chat be kept open to simulate a true public meeting.
Mercedes Kwiatkowski (6min) — A child psychiatrist described alarming mental health trends she is observing clinically—depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation—and proposed launching a voluntary pilot in-person cohort using the district's four pillars framework.
Sarah Henderson Martinez (0min) — A preschool teacher expressed concern about inadequate contact tracing in the district, the risk of bringing COVID home to elderly parents, and cautioned against attributing reduced learning outcomes solely to distance learning rather than the broader pandemic trauma.
Kathryn Stewart (-2min) — A parent argued that teachers should not have to choose between risking death from COVID and losing their income, and asked parents to be patient and support teachers by waiting for a vaccine before returning in person.
Eric Sutton (3min) — A parent from Orion reported that 65% of first-grade families preferred distance learning and 100% wanted to keep their current teachers, praised the school's two-teacher distance model, and argued that mental illness should be attributed to COVID and poor air quality rather than distance learning.
Christy Herrera (2min) — A kindergarten teacher of 20 years said true kindergarten teaching is impossible with COVID distancing protocols, argued five-year-olds cannot developmentally comply with masking and distancing requirements, and noted the stress of the past week had sent at least one teacher to the ER.
Indra Hernandez (2min) — A preschool teacher expressed gratitude for the data collection, noted her students are engaging well in distance learning, and asked that preschool safety protocols be equivalent to those at the elementary level rather than treated separately.
Ramin Kaivan (3min) — The husband of a preschool teacher and longtime Redwood City business owner said he has watched students flourish in distance learning in his own home and argued that sending young children who cannot comply with PPE back to school would be dangerous and irresponsible.
Laura Atherton (4min) — A special day class preschool teacher explained that her students wear diapers, require hand-over-hand feeding and support, cannot wear masks due to sensory needs, and warned the board that physical distancing is impossible with her population, describing a recent COVID exposure involving a child under five.
Mohammad Tabrizi (3min) — A parent argued it would be malpractice not to compare the district's reopening plan with neighboring districts like Menlo Park, which involved teachers and parents extensively, and said the district's lack of preparedness shakes trust in any eventual reopening.
Christina Kim (2min) — A parent of a Mandarin immersion student at Orion reported that an independent parent survey showed high flexibility about reopening but strong desire to keep the Mandarin program intact, and asked the board to allow site-specific collaborative solutions.
Christina Hsu (2min) — A Mandarin immersion parent said the district survey caused confusion and anxiety in her community, and asked the board to allow each site and program to work individually with administrators and teachers to create models that fit their specific community.
Devin/Michelle Mullaney (0min) — The speaker yielded their time without making substantive remarks.
Cameron Hoffman (3min) — A parent called for respectful, fact-based dialogue, noting the district must speak up for the most vulnerable students not attending remotely, shared that learning pods are working safely in their experience, and urged everyone to approach reopening as a dial rather than a switch.
Linda Elkins (2min) — A parent of three district students offered feedback that the survey conflated multiple variables making it hard to parse preferences, expressed support for a return to in-person learning in either AM/PM or hybrid format, and suggested leveraging parent expertise more meaningfully.
Melanie Haskell (2min) — A first-grade parent asked the board to preserve independent study as an ongoing option regardless of the in-person decision, and recommended the district engage parents as active contributors rather than just survey respondents, citing Menlo Park's model.
Kerry Schmidt (3min) — A bilingual kindergarten teacher of 25 years said she longs to be in the classroom but argued that without proper safety measures, returning does not provide a safe learning environment, and that constant safety monitoring would severely detract from instruction.
Kamli Nannini (3min) — A kindergarten parent who is also a physician with an epidemiology background argued that teachers are essential workers, that actual transmission risk from masked asymptomatic children is negligible, and urged the board to bring in medical experts to brief teachers before decisions are made.
Megan O'Reilly Green (2min) — An Orion parent participation program parent expressed that public comments about their program being at risk caused instability and hurt recruitment, asked the board to stop characterizing Orion families as well-resourced, and called for a genuine partnership and plan for program stability.
Michelle Smith (3min) — An Adelante Selby parent expressed disappointment at any threat to choice program continuity, supported teachers, and raised concerns about parents lying to contact tracers and about the district's buildings lacking adequate air filtration even for smoke, let alone COVID.
Michelle Butler (3min) — A bilingual teacher who uses a wheelchair explained that in-person she would be in constant safety-policing mode rather than teaching, described starting the interactive process with apprehension, and emphasized that teachers working hard in distance learning truly love their students.
Jeanette Serrano (3min) — A 37-year kindergarten teacher said classroom reconfiguration would restart the exhausting relationship-building process mid-year, that she cannot ensure her primarily Latinx families adhere to the four pillars outside school, and that she has photographic evidence of students in pods not wearing masks.
Maria Stockton (3min) — A speaker suggested that if mental health concerns warrant in-person learning, older grades (2–5) who can better comply with masking and distancing should return first rather than the youngest children, and asked the board to wait at least through the end of the first trimester.
Keely Vega (1min) — A kindergarten parent asked the board to respond to the suggestion of a voluntary pilot cohort for willing teachers and families, and asked how the district is leveraging the experiences of already-opened neighboring districts like Menlo Park.
7.1Discussion on COVID-19/Distance LearningDiscussion
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 §
8Consent Items (Action Required)
93:46:53Action Items (Action Required)
9.1Approval of the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan for 2020-21Action
Item details
Rationale: Senate Bill 98 (SB 98) established the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan (LCP), which is intended to balance the needs of all stakeholders, including educators, parents, students and community members, while streamlining meaningful stakeholder engagement and condensing several pre-existing plans. In particular, the state legislature felt it was important to combine (1) the intent behind Executive Order N-56-20, which required a written report and envisioned an off-cycle Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) due December 15, and (2) the ongoing need for local education agencies (LEAs) to formally plan for the 2020-21 school year in the midst of the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The LCP replaces the LCAP for the 2020-21 school year and supersedes the requirements in Executive Order N-56-20. This plan is intended to memorialize the planning process that is already underway for the 2020-21 school year. All LEAs are required to complete the Learning Continuity Plan, hold a public hearing and approve the LCP on or before September 30. At that time, the approved LCP will be submitted to the San Mateo County Office of Education for feedback (not approval). Items to be addressed in the 2020-21 LCP are: - General information (a description of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has has on the RCSD community; - An overview of the stakeholder engagement process, including outreach to specific stakeholder groups; - An explanation of any in-person instructional offerings, current or planned; - An explanation of numerous facets pertaining to the district's distance learning program; - Continuity of instruction; - Ensuring adequate devices and connectivity; - Assessment of student participation and progress; - Professional development that supports successful distance learning; - A description of changing roles and responsibilities of staff members due to COVID-19; - A description of the supports for pupils with unique needs (English Learners, pupils with exceptional needs, foster and homeless youth; - Actions that RCSD will take to address learning loss; - A description of how RCSD will monitor and support mental health and social and emotional well-being of pupils and staff during the school year; - An overview of the procedures for tiered reengagement strategies for students who are absent from distance learning and how RCSD will provide outreach to students and their parents or guardians; - A description of how RCSD will provide nutritionally adequate meals for all pupils. Several opportunities for input into the contents of these various elements of the 2020-21 LCP have been provided to district staff and community. In addition to subcommittee meetings, staff and parent webinars, and board meetings, a representative stakeholder team was brought together for two focused opportunities for specific inputs on August 31 and September 7. DELAC members reviewed the draft LCP and provided input on September 14. Financial Impact: The actions and services shown in the 2020-21 Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan (LCP) are already budgeted in the 2020-21 Adopted Budget from Unrestricted General Fund and LCFF Supplemental & Concentration Grant funds. New expenditure items that are not included in the 2020-21 Adopted Budget will be funded from the Learning Loss Mitigation Funds (LLM) allocated to RCSD through the federal CARES Act. LCP total expenditures - $76,323,622, funded as follows: General Fund (Fund 01) including LLM funds - $73,827,622 Cafeteria Fund (Fund 13) - $2,496,000 Submission for Approval Prepared by: Liz Wolfe, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
9.2Approval of 2019-20 Unaudited Actuals Financial StatementAction
Item details
Rationale: Education Code Section 42100(a) states that on or before September 15, the governing board of each school district shall approve, in a format prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, an annual statement of all receipts and expenditures of the district for the preceding fiscal year and shall file the statement, along with the statement received pursuant to subdivision (b), with the county superintendent of schools. On or before October 15, the county superintendent of schools shall verify the mathematical accuracy of the statements and shall transmit a copy to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Administration recognizes that this recommendation is beyond the timeframe in the Education Code due to unforseen circumstances. However, San Mateo County Office of Education has been notified of this delay. Financial Impact: Please see attached 2019-20 Unaudited Actuals Report. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
9.3Adoption of Resolution 10, Resolution to Adopt the Gann LimitAction
Item details
Rationale: In November of 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4, an initiative that added Article XIII B to the California Constitution . This constitutional amendment, known as the Gann Initiative, placed limits on the growth of expenditures for publicly funded programs. This limit on government spending, which became known as Gann Appropriation Limits or simply Gann Limits, applies not only to the State of California, but also to cities, counties, and special districts, as well as to school districts and county offices of education (ref. Article XII B of the State Constitution). By September 30 of each year , Education Code sections 1629 and 42132 specify that each year county office and district governing boards shall adopt a resolution identifying their estimated appropriations limits for the current year and their actual appropriations limit for the preceding year. The documentation supporting the adoption resolution shall be made available to the public. It is not necessary to submit a copy of the board resolution adopting your appropriations limit to the CDE. However if you find your District is in need of increasing its limitation, Section 7902.1 states that the school district shall notify the Director of Finance. The easiest way to understand this calculation is to envision the dollar amount of the district's Gann Limit as a box. For example, if your current year Gann Limit is $50 million, picture a box that can hold $50 million. First, put into this box local property taxes that count toward the revenue limit, as well as an appropriate portion of the district's interest income. Next, pour all of the district's unrestricted state aid into this box. Under state law, the amount of state aid that fills up the box counts toward the district's Gann Limit, while the amount that overflows the box counts toward the state's Gann Limit (ref. Government Code Section 7906). In addition, all state aid for categorical programs always counts toward the state's Gann Limit. Through this process, as much state aid as possible counts toward school agency Gann Limits. By reducing the amount of state aid that counts toward the state's Gann Limit in this manner, this process helped the state avoid being over its Gann Limit. It is important that school agencies do these calculations to identify how much state aid counts toward the agency's Gann Limit, so that the state of California knows how much state aid counts toward its own Gann Limit. Form GANN has been added to the SACS software to assist LEAs in meeting their constitutional and statutory Gann obligations to calculate appropriation limits and appropriations subject to limitation. Districts should submit their completed forms to the County Superintendent of Schools with their officially exported Unaudited Actuals submission. The attached calculations and documentation of the Gann limits for the 2019-20 fiscal year and the projected Gann Limit for the 2020-21 fiscal year show an increase to the 2019 Gann limit of $27,095,645 and are in accordance with applicable statutory laws. Financial Impact: There is no financial impact to the district relative to this recommendation. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
103:48:11Information
10.1San Mateo County Office of Education Review and Approval of RCSD Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and the COVID-19 Operations Written ReportInformation
Item details
Rationale: It is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board review the attached letter from the San Mateo County Office of Education ("SMCOE") regarding the Adopted Budget for fiscal year 2020-21 and the COVID-19 Operations Written Report. In accordance with Education Code Sections 42127 and 52070, the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) has completed its review of the Redwood City School District's Adopted Budget for fiscal year 2020-21 and the COVID-19 Operations Written Report. The SMCOE determined that the District's Adopted Budget for fiscal year 2020-21 met the criteria and standards adopted by the State Board of Education and allows the District to meet its multi-year financial commitments. The SMCOE also acknowledged that all requirements for the COVID-19 Operations Written Report have been met. Attached is the SMCOE approval letter. Financial Impact: None. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
113:48:40Adjournment (Action Required)