11:19Call to Order
1.1Roll CallProcedural
2Oral Communication on Closed Session Items Only
2.1If you have public comment related to a Closed Session item, please post it on: (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSexN3rAtNYJrhCjKT0s9AG__Eq0-_iAUFPI6ID3Mo0Jn8yeGA/viewform?usp=sf_link) prior to the Closed Session Meeting or immediately upon the meeting opening.
3Closed Session – 5:00 p.m.
3.1Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Gov. Code, § 54956.8) Property: 750 Bradford St, Redwood City, CA 94063 Agency Negotiators: John Baker, Superintendent, Peter Ingram, Consultant and Clarissa Canady, Legal Counsel Negotiating parties: Redwood City School District and The Sobrato Organization Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment of Property Exchange Agreement
Item details
§
41:19Reconvene to Regular Session at Approximately 6:00 p.m.
4.1Roll Call
4.2Report Out on Closed Session from June 15, 2022
Item details
§
52:03Welcome
5.1Welcome by the School Board President, María Díaz-SlocumProcedural
62:37Changes to the Agenda
6.1Additions, Deletions or Modifications to the AgendaDiscussion
74:59Approval of Agenda
7.1Approval of AgendaAction
85:22Oral Communication
8.1If you have public comment related to a Regular Board Meeting item, please post it on the links available under Public Content prior to the Regular Board Meeting or immediately upon the meeting opening.Information
Item details
Public Comment Links: English: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSexN3rAtNYJrhCjKT0s9AG__Eq0-_iAUFPI6ID3Mo0Jn8yeGA/viewform?usp=sf_link Spanish: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScMO3Wo8kjGmJF7KNhihQqanOLfzfoyQ7IT904jU9QtFFF28Q/viewform?usp=sf_link
97:40School/Community Reports
9.17:53Presentation and Discussion on the General Obligation (GO) Bond Next StepsDiscussion
Jessica Shade (1min) — Voiced support for the new school bond, called for central kitchen language to be included, and praised the district's efforts.
Katerina Schoenbach (1min) — Speaker was called but unable to unmute and did not provide comment.
Item details
Rationale: Per the School Board direction, the Redwood City School District is progressing towards preparing a bond measure for the November 8, 2022 election. The School Board will receive a presentation by the School District staff and consultants regarding outstanding facility needs and the timeline and process to call the election for November. 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 §
9.21:06:18Recommended Options to the School Board Regarding North Star Academy (NSA)Discussion
Matt Schwal (2min) — Argued the NSA Forward Committee was negatively framed and urged the board to reframe the discussion positively, celebrating North Star's success rather than proposing changes.
Cameron Hoffman (5min) — Argued the proposals are being rushed and lack evidence, compared North Star favorably to U46 in Illinois, and proposed a district-wide talent development program called 'SHINE' to serve younger learners rather than restructuring North Star.
Tony Webel (2min) — Shared his experience as a committee member and parent of students at both Roosevelt and North Star, and argued that board bylaws require keeping student learning as the primary focus, finding no data justifying grade configuration or location changes.
Diana Fu (2min) — Drew on her experience helping start the MI program to argue the district should provide more choices and improve other schools rather than restricting a choice program like North Star.
Allie Gilmore (1min) — Speaker was called but did not respond or unmute.
Wenjing Sheng (1min) — Speaker was called but was unable to unmute and did not provide comment.
Lone Hin (1min) — Described her first-grader's unmet academic needs at their neighborhood school and argued that scaling back North Star would leave more students without appropriate challenge.
Megan O'Neill (2min) — Argued that options A through C would serve fewer students and contradict the stated goal of serving more students more effectively, and that neighborhood schools must first be ready to serve gifted learners before any North Star grades are cut.
Matt Collier (1min) — As a parent of young children and former magnet school student himself, urged the board to preserve K–8 North Star as a standalone school and to consider Ms. Hoffman's alternative proposal.
Anthony Low (1min) — Stated that three of the four options effectively close half of North Star, called all options deficient, and said his family would likely leave the district if a 6–8 option were chosen.
Andrew Hoffman (2min) — Argued the recommendations target North Star rather than addressing underperforming schools, warned the options would negatively impact North Star's mission, and urged the board not to adopt incomplete proposals.
Heidi Wall (2min) — Criticized the proposals as short-sighted and premature, cited district-wide problems like declining test scores and teacher retention, and called for using North Star's proven methods to improve other schools rather than dismantling it.
Susan Bouchard (2min) — Argued that capping the number of qualified students allowed to transfer to NSA from neighborhood schools would increase the perception of elitism and create more divisiveness, and asked the board to reject and rework all proposals.
Costas Dimitropoulos (2min) — Asked for empirical evidence supporting any proposed changes and questioned whether there is data proving that altering a high-achieving school like North Star would improve outcomes at lower-performing schools.
Kelly McCarthy (1min) — Questioned whether the community pulse had been taken since COVID, called the effort a waste of resources given widespread learning loss, and urged the board to instead use resources to improve neighborhood schools.
Casey Wright (2min) — Called several options 'casually cruel,' warned the board against falling for the sunk cost fallacy, and implored them to postpone a decision and demand better-researched options.
Catherine Stewart (2min) — Observed that virtually every prior speaker opposed changing or dismantling North Star and argued that the general sentiment—'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'—should guide the board.
Gautam Dutta (1min) — As a local attorney, Asian American civic leader, and North Star parent, echoed 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it,' and asked the board to reject all four options and instead improve support and resources for all schools.
Jing Zhu (1min) — Warned that the proposed changes would create many unhappy parents who become reliable voters against the board, and urged the board to think carefully about the disruption these options would cause to North Star families' daily lives.
Kirsten McMullen (2min) — Called the recommendations insufficient and lacking an evidence-based approach, noting they mainly solve the third-grade attrition issue while creating new problems, and urged deeper research and cost-benefit analysis.
Bara Altaba (1min) — As a parent of current NSA students who transferred from private school because of North Star, urged the board not to break a nationally recognized school and to instead bring other schools up to North Star's level.
Michelle Fogarty (2min) — Argued the proposals take direct aim at one successful school without solving district-wide shortcomings, criticized use of outdated data from 2018, and urged the board to conduct new research before implementing any changes.
Katie Goetz (1min) — As a North Star Forward Committee member, encouraged the board to consider and move forward with the proposal to make North Star a 6–8 school on the Bayside, stating it best addresses the committee's three charges.
Christopher Bouchard (2min) — Asked the board to reject all four proposals and pause major changes, citing a flawed and biased committee process built on four-year-old data, and called for a reset with current community input.
David Wright (1min) — Implored the board to defer the decision and request a revised set of options aligned to the committee's stated goals, warning against committing to a process not in students' best interests.
Mike Beebe (2min) — Summarized three broadly supported elements from Dr. Baker's plans (outreach, test prep access, logistics like transportation), suggested spreading entrance grades across third through fifth to reduce the third-grade attrition pinch, and emphasized district-wide learning loss as the true priority.
Meredith Park (2min) — Raised traffic concerns near North Star, warned against adding K–2 at the Duane location, and suggested exploring a neighborhood boundary middle school with an IB program on Duane as an alternative approach.
Nathan Schmidt (1min) — Using a 'ten boats' analogy, argued the board's duty is to save the underperforming schools rather than compromising the one that is succeeding.
Mohamed Tabrizi (1min) — Ceded time to Cameron Hoffman and added that spending district resources on this process instead of lower-income students' education is unacceptable, urging trustees to reject all options and use scientific data.
Lily Melton (1min) — As an Orion parent, urged the board to move forward with bold structural changes and noted that a large community of parents who want district-wide improvement supports significant change even if not loudly represented tonight.
Beatrice Chan (1min) — Called the options deeply flawed, asked the board to instead focus on introducing enrichment programs in community schools and helping current students meet grade-level expectations rather than dismantling North Star.
Maribel Ng (2min) — Shared her child's struggles before finding North Star, emphasized that students who go there have often struggled elsewhere and need an environment that understands them, and suggested spreading that philosophy across all Redwood City schools.
Item details
Rationale: Recommended Options to Board Regarding North Star Academy (NSA) ( A Spanish translation of this document is available upon request. Please contact Jorge Quintana, jquintana@rcsdk8.net , to receive a copy) Executive Summary: I want to begin by acknowledging that I am asking you to make a difficult choice by presenting four imperfect options for your consideration. In an ideal world, we would have a single solution that checks all the boxes and solves all the challenges. However, the work completed by this dedicated committee of parents, teachers, administrators, and former NSA students, and their willingness to study data and express their ideas and opinions honestly, has made it clear that there are no easy solutions, no solutions that will address every challenge, and no solutions on which the committee reached consensus. The challenges that we face today are unintended consequences of a decision made nearly 30 years ago, and subsequent changes in our community that could not have been anticipated. We now find ourselves facing several challenges connected with a school that has been a popular choice in our community and has served many students well over the past 25 years. These challenges include: As 3rd graders leave other schools for North Star, it causes a disruption that radiates throughout the system as spots open at other schools and 3rd graders shift from school to school across the district. Admissions testing causes distress to students who don't qualify and leads to a perception of elitism. Lack of access for students attending Bayside Schools who may not be aware of the benefits of North Star or be able to transport their students there. As they wrestled with these challenges, committee members discovered that solutions seem obvious when viewed in isolation, but complicated when viewed in a larger context. For example, solving the problem of disruption at 3rd grade may exacerbate problems around testing. Changing assessment methods may eliminate the perception of elitism, but make it harder to identify the students who would benefit from the North Star program. I am presenting you with four possible options that are inspired by ideas generated by the North Star Forward Committee that were presented to you during a study session on April 20. After that study session, we developed four options that reflect the committee's ideas, your ideas and the community's feedback. We then shared the four options with the committee on May 12, asked for their feedback via an optional input form (attached below), carefully reviewed the written feedback from the committee, and consulted with RCSD staff on implementation details. The recommendations below reflect these steps: North Star Academy becomes a K-5 school, feeding a 6-8 grade NSA strand at MIT North Star Academy becomes a 6-8 campus and remains on the Duane St. campus North Star Academy becomes a 6-8 campus on the Bayside North Star Academy becomes a K-8 School, with some gradel levels located on the Bayside *Options described in further detail below You received emails and heard public testimony in which community members have advocated for leaving North Star as is with no changes and others have advocated for closing North Star altogether. Similar to the options I am presenting, those community asks may seem like obvious solutions when viewed singularly, but are problematic when viewed in the larger context of the district. I did not want the committee's work to devolve into a "for" or "against" debate between the two most polarizing positions that were suggested during the 2018 Planning for Our Future process. Instead, I wanted the committee to help me think about all the possible solutions that could help us meet the needs of students who need extra academic challenges without negatively impacting other students in the district. Meeting the needs of all students raises the issue of equity, a word that is central to our discussion and your decision. You have adopted a mission that says: "RCSD creates a safe and supportive, inspirational and rigorous, joyful and inclusive environment for all learners." It is my job to see that we carry out that mission. Ensuring that students whose parents are immigrants or come from households with limited resources have the type of education described in our mission statement has been my driving passion as superintendent and throughout my career. My own grandparents were Mexican immigrants and before I became superintendent, I served as a teacher and principal in several of our Bayside schools. I saw first-hand the barriers many of our students living in our most impoverished neighborhoods face. In the past 25 years, North Star has provided an excellent education to thousands of students who benefit from the compacted curriculum combined with enrichment; it is incumbent upon us to make sure the opportunity to attend North Star is known and accessible to all families, is inclusive and welcoming for all students who would benefit, and that in offering a school dedicated to the needs of high-performing students we are not limiting the opportunities of students attending other schools. We are not the only district that has struggled with an equitable and inclusive way to provide learning for students who need extra academic challenge. Too often the demographics of schools serving academically gifted students don't match the demographics of the district, as has been reported about San Francisco, New York and other large districts. I would be proud if RCSD can create a model that is inclusive, represents our demographics, and serves the needs of students for whom North Star is a good fit without limiting opportunities for students at other schools. District U-46 in Elgin, Illinois, offers an example of a district that has managed to offer a racially-diverse gifted program, as described in a recent article in the Hechinger Report : " West of Chicago, it is Illinois' second-largest district, with about 40,000 students. In 2009, Hispanic students made up 46 percent of the student body but just 26 percent of gifted students, according to federal data , whereas white students were about 20 points in the opposite direction, comprising 38 percent of the district but 57 percent of gifted students. By 2017-18, the most recent data available , the district was 54 percent Hispanic - and its gifted classes were 48 percent Hispanic. The percentage of white gifted students, 25, was actually a hair lower than their representation in the district." We only recently learned about this district and plan to do further research to understand their program and learn from their progress. The status quo is not an option, nor is eliminating a program that provides an "inspirational, rigorous and joyful" environment for so many students benefiting from its philosophy. So we must try to implement a solution that moves us forward even as we recognize that we cannot solve all problems immediately. In the end, the responsibility rests with me to consider the overall impact of possible changes and present to you options built with the best ideas that grew out of the committee's work and it is your responsibility to decide what will best help us achieve our mission to create a safe and supportive, inspirational and rigorous, joyful and inclusive environment for all learners." Knowing that some will disagree with what I have recommended and what you have to decide is one of the difficult but unavoidable parts of serving in our leadership roles. I want to remind all of us to keep our focus on the students as we consider these options. I also want to keep the focus on the future, not the past. We are here because the current model is not perfect, and we are looking for solutions that will help North Star serve more students more effectively and more inclusively. Background:
105:31Bond Program Consent Items
10.1Approval of Consent ItemsAction
Item details
§
10.2Approval of Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Wall Adjustment Proposal for Orion Alternative School (Formerly John Gill) with BoegerAction (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: Boeger provided the construction services for the CMU (concrete masonry unit aka concrete brick) wall and veneer adjustments at Orion Alternative School (Formerly John Gill). Financial Impact: $56,057.27. Within budget. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Don Dias, Bond Program Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
10.3Approval of Measure T Bond Program Tracking List of Items Under $20kAction (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: This tracking sheet provides the School Board with all recent items $20k or under in a comprehensive list. This list will be sent to the School Board regularly as the POs are compiled. Financial Impact: Total - $101,023.16. Within budget. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Don Dias, Bond Program Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
10.4Approval of New Buildings, Modernization and Sitework Project Bid, Package A, Change Order #7 for Garfield Community School with Duran and Venables, and Adoption of Futility Resolution 37Action (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: Garfield Community School new buildings, modernization and sitework project, Bid Package A, Change Order 7 includes four potential change order (PCO), as follows: PCO-004 – Change in pavement section due to elimination of geotextile – $30,131.65 PCO-017 – RFI 383 Modifications: grade for added curbs around electrical equipment – $4,099.47 PCO-018 – Extended Builders Risk Insurance – $1,242.91 PCO-019 – Per request COR 029 dig stir footing at base of amphitheater – $2,416.84 This change order, if approved, will push this contract over the allowable 10% change order contingency, and we have therefore included a futility resolution to accompany this action. The futility resolution explains that it would have cost the District more money and created scheduling and coordination issues if they would have re-bid this additional scope to a new contractor rather than proceeding with the contractor that has already mobilized and is currently on site handling the construction. Financial Impact: $37,890.87. Within budget. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Don Dias, Bond Program Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
10.5Approval of New Buildings, Modernization and Sitework Project Bid, Package J, Change Order #4 for Taft Community School with PARC EnvironmentalAction (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: Taft Community School new buildings, modernization and sitework project bid, Package J Change Order #4 includes one potential change order (PCO), as follows: PCO-011 – Scope of work reduced, most of phase 2 abatement not needed for modernization to proceed – Credit of ($37,059.00). Financial Impact: Credit of ($37,059.00). Within budget. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Don Dias, Bond Program Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
116:20Bond Program Action Items
11.1Adoption of Resolution 39, Resolution of Intent to Convey a Public Utility Easement to PG&E and Calling a Public Hearing in Connection TherewithAction
Item details
Rationale: The District is the owner of the real property located at 501 James Avenue, Redwood City, APN 052-202-010 (the "Property"). The Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E"), has requested that the District grant an easement in, over, under and across the Property for public utility purposes, with the right-of-way thereon, to construct, maintain, repair, replace, remove and operate lines for public utilities ("Easement"). Pursuant to Education Code section 17556, et seq., a school district, by two-thirds (2/3) vote of its Governing Board, may convey land for a public right-of-way and/or to dedicate an easement to a public corporation, or private corporation engaged in the public utility business, to lay, construct, reconstruct, maintain, and operate electric or telephone lines and access roads used in connection therewith, either with or without consideration and without a vote of the electors of the District first being taken, by engaging in a multi-step statutory process. There are two steps involved in conveying the Easement. The first step of this process will occur at June 15 board meeting. The Governing Board may adopt, by two-thirds (2/3) vote, Resolution No. 37, which expresses the Board's intention to convey the Easement and schedule a public hearing on the Easement for the Board's June 29, 2022 meeting. The second step of this process will occur at the June 29, 2022 meeting. In accordance with Education Code section 17559, a public hearing will first be held as an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed Easement. After the noticed public hearing, and assuming there is no related legal protest from the public, the Board may proceed to approve the Easement, at that same June 29, 2022 meeting or at a meeting held within sixty (60) days thereafter. Financial Impact: Please refer to the resolution for the financial impact. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Don Dias, Bond Program Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
126:56Consent Items
12.1Approval of Consent ItemsAction
Item details
§
12.2Ratification of Warrant Register, May 1, 2022 - May 31, 2022Action (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: Education Code Section 42631 states that all payments from funds of a school district shall be made by written order of the governing board of the district. The attached report consists of expenditures from various funds in the amount of $8,012,319.24 for the period May 1, 2022 through May 31, 2022. Financial Impact: The total disbursement from the San Mateo County Treasurer’s Office amounts to $8,012,319.24 and represents actual expenditures for all funds. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
12.3Approval of Agreement between Redwood City School District and Dannis, Woliver & Kelley for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24Action (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: Since July 1, 2011, Dannis, Woliver & Kelley (DWK) has been the District's legal counsel representing the District and staff in labor negotiations and in all matters that pertains to labor relations. DWK is also the District's legal counsel for all matters related to the oversight of district-authorized charter schools and the bond modernization and construction programs. The proposed Agreement for Professional Services with DWK is for a 2-year period from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024, with the following rates: Shareholders and Of Counsel - $265-$375 per hour Special Counsel - $245-$300 per hour Associates - $195-$265 per hour Paralegals and Law Clerks - $130-$195 per hour Gregory J. Dannis and Shareholder Emeritus - $395-$450 per hour Rates for individual attorneys may vary within the above ranges depending on the level of experience and qualifications and the nature of the legal services provided. Financial Impact: Legal services related to labor negotiations, bond programs, & other labor related matters are charged to the General Fund (Fund 01) or Bond Fund (Fund 21), as appropriate. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
12.4Approval of Agreement to Provide Meal Services to Connect Community Charter School and KIPP Excelencia Community Prep Charter School for Fiscal Year 2022-23Action (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: RCSD has provided meal service to both Connect Community Charter School and KIPP Excelencia since their charters were granted. The California Department of Education (CDE) requires that agreements to provide meal services are reviewed each year and must be approved by the local school board prior to final CDE approval. Financial Impact: These agreements are estimated to provide approximately $533,280 or 10% of total revenue and are cost neutral. 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 Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
12.5Approval of Agreement between Redwood City School District and Maria Lucila Echeverria-Bustios for CDC Child, Family and Community Liaison Services for Fiscal Year 2022-23Action (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: It is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the agreement between RCSD Child Development Centers (CDC) and Child, Family and Community Liaison (aka Liaison) Maria Lucila Echeverria-Bustios for 2022-23. The service agreement will be funded through the State Preschool's Big Lift grant and is aimed at facilitating high-risk families' access to critical services for survival. Financial Impact: Not to exceed $93,636 from the Big Lift Grant. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Edna Margarita R. Carmona, CDC Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
12.6Approval of Agreement between Redwood City School District and Danielle Webb for CDC Education Specialist Services for Fiscal Year 2022-23Action (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: RCSD expects $1,003,952 from the San Mateo County Big Lift for the District State Preschools' ranking at Tiers 4 and 5 (out of 5) in the Quality Rating & Improvement System (QRIS) assessments led by WestEd and the San Mateo County Office of Education. $104,568 of this grant award is budgeted for a CDC Education Specialist credentialed in the State of California to provide the following specialized services: - Create a system for the screening, assessment, and referral of children with significant developmental delays and challenging behaviors. - Closely monitor timelines for children's assessment, referral, and individualized educational plans per California Department of Education regulations. - Maintain open communication with state preschool staff to monitor and gain feedback on implemented action plans and strategies for child success - Build rapport with families to promote understanding of children's needs for support within a multicultural, multilingual context. Financial Impact: Not to exceed $104,568 from the Big Lift Grant. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Edna Margarita R. Carmona, CDC Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
12.7Approval of Agreement between Redwood City School District and Effective School Solutions, LLC (ESS) Program for Mental Health Services for the 2022-23 School YearAction (Consent)
Item details
Rationale: RCSD is looking to strengthen its internal mental health and behavioral programming and has identified a partner, (ESS) who has specific expertise in this area. By implementing ESS in RCSD, we will be educating our students in the least restrictive environment, and continue collaborating to deliver the best care for every student. Additionally, we will meet the compliance requirements of our students IEPs. ESS will expand and serve students at Kennedy Middle School, Clifford School, McKinley Institute of Technology, Hoover, Roosevelt, North Star Academy and Henry Ford. Financial Impact: Non-Public School ("NPS") and Non-Public Agency ("NPA") Special Education Fund. Services for the 2022-2023 school year = $1,199,000. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Patricia Pelino, Special Education Director Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent Our adopted rules of Parliamentary Procedure, Robert’s Rules, provide for a consent agenda listing several items for approval of the Board by a single motion. Most of the items listed under the consent agenda have gone through Board subcommittee review and recommendation. Documentation concerning these items has been provided to all board members and the public in advance to assure an extensive and thorough review. Items may be removed from the consent agenda at the request of any board member. §
13Action items
13.1Second Reading and Approval of Board Policy 1230 - School-Connected OrganizationsAction
Item details
Rationale: This policy was discussed at the May 25, 2022 board meeting. Financial Impact: No financial impact to the School District at this time. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Wendy Kelly, Deputy Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
13.2Second Reading and Approval of Board Policy 4136/4236/4336 - Non-School EmploymentAction
Item details
Rationale: This policy was discussed at the May 25, 2022 board meeting . Financial Impact: No financial impact to the School District at this time. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Wendy Kelly, Deputy Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
13.3Second Reading and Approval of Board Policy 4141.6/4241.6 - Concerted Action/Work StoppageAction
Item details
Rationale: This policy was discussed at the May 25, 2022 board meeting. Financial Impact: No financial impact to the School District at this time. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Prepared by: Wendy Kelly, Deputy Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
13.4Second Reading and Approval of Board Policy 6173 - Education for Homeless ChildrenAction
Item details
Rationale: This policy was discussed at the May 25, 2022 board meeting. Financial Impact: No financial impact to the School District at this time. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Wendy Kelly, Deputy Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
13.5Second Reading and Approval of Board Bylaw 9322 - Agenda/Meeting MaterialsAction
Item details
Rationale: This bylaw was discussed at the May 25, 2022 board meeting. Financial Impact: No financial impact to the School District at this time. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Wendy Kelly, Deputy Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
13.6Approval of Personnel ReportAction
Item details
Rationale: The attached Personnel Report includes personnel recommended for hire; personnel requesting leave of absence; and personnel leaving employment. Financial Impact: All positions are approved in the 2021-2022 budget. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Erin Kekos, Director of Human Resources Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
13.73:19:42Adoption of Resolution 38, Approval of Education Code Options for Teaching AssignmentsAction
Item details
Rationale: EC 44256(b) expands the authorization for the holder of a Multiple Subject or a Standard Elementary Teaching Credential to teach in a departmentalized setting below grade 9. EC 44258.2 allows the holder of a Single Subject or Standard Secondary Teaching Credential to be assigned to teach classes in grades 5 through 8 in a middle school. Each teacher on the list below has met the requirement(s) for subject matter competence and possesses the required skills and preparation to teach the proposed assignment. Their flexibility to work outside of their credential authorization allows the district to staff middle schools appropriately as the number of students at a given site fluctuates each year changing the annual site based credential requirements necessary to deliver appropriate services to students. The Deputy Superintendent is satisfied that each of the teachers on the attached list has adequate knowledge of each subject to be taught. Ariana Baltay: Social Science EC 44258.2 Christian Baquero: Social Studies EC 44256(b) Diane Camara: English EC 44256(b) Rodric Hong: PE EC 44256(b) Jacqueline Le: Math EC 44256(b) Michael McAdams: Science EC 44256(b) Montana Miller: Science EC 44258.2 Michelle Territo: Science EC 44256(b) Stephanie Vance: Social Science EC 44258.2 Financial Impact: None Submission for Approval Prepared by: Erin Kekos, Director of Human Resources Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
143:21:08Board and Superintendent Reports
14.1Report from Board Members and SuperintendentReports
Item details
Rationale: The School Board and Superintendent Baker will report out on meetings, attended events, upcoming events, school site visits, etc. Financial Impact: None at this moment. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Eliana García, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent
153:27:03Information
15.1San Mateo County Office of Education Review of RCSD Second Interim Financial Report 2021-22Information
Item details
Rationale: In accordance with Education Codes 42127 and 52046.1, the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) has completed its review of the 2020-21 Second Interim Report of Redwood City School District including the district-authorized charter schools, Connect Community Charter School, KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Charter School and Rocketship Redwood City Preparatory Charter School. Upon review of the financial reports, the County Superintend of Schools concurred with the district's positive certification that it can meet its financial obligations for the current and subsequent two fiscal years. Attached is the SMCOE review letter along with the District's Financial Profile and General Fund Historical Summary which were updated based on the 2021-22 Second Interim data. Financial Impact: None Submission for Approval Prepared by: Priscilla Aquino-Dichoso, Chief Business Official Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
163:27:24Correspondence
16.1Correspondence
173:28:42Other Business/Suggested Items For Future Agenda
17.1Possible Other Business/Suggested Items for Future AgendaInformation
183:28:53Board Agenda Calendar
18.1Changes to the Board Agenda ScheduleInformation
Item details
Rationale: The following Schedule of Items for the 2021-22 School Board meetings (attached hereto) has been revised by administration. This schedule of board agenda items will be routinely updated, as needed. Changes: None. Financial Impact: None. Submission for Approval Prepared by: Eliana García, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Approved by: John R. Baker, Ed.D., Superintendent §
193:29:21Adjournment
19.1Adjourn the MeetingAction