Belmont-Redwood Shores hearing draws pleas to preserve Nesbitt Middle School as district weighs consolidation

Belmont — Hundreds of parents, students, teachers and alumni urged the Belmont-Redwood Shores School District board to preserve Nesbitt Middle School on Jan. 17, saying the school’s International Baccalaureate program and small‑school supports play an outsized role in serving English learners, students with disabilities and low‑income families.

Superintendent Guevara opened the meeting with a presentation that framed the district’s central question as whether to change the district’s middle-school configuration. “Really, our central question tonight and over the next, month and a half is should PRSSD, considering transitioning from 2 TK–8 … to 1,” she said, citing staffing and facility costs and a projected decline in middle‑school enrollment. Guevara told the public that the district’s analysis shows smaller sites cost “approximately 3 or $400,000 additional to run,” and that board consideration of options could continue into February.

The session shifted quickly to public comment. Kyle Ting, a teacher and local PTA representative, urged the board to prioritize a deliberative process: “It’s not about the answer. It’s how you get there,” he said, calling for clarity in outreach and the data used to inform any decision. Teachers and staff described the ways small‑school size enables teachers to know students’ academic histories and tailor interventions, and several speakers warned that moving students to larger campuses could disrupt consistent services for those on IEPs or 504 plans.

Savannah Dewell, speaking for Nesbitt staff, called the school “a beloved learning community” and emphasized enrollment and demographic factors: she said Nesbitt serves a high share of English learners and students needing special services and that closing it would disproportionately affect those students. Parent Allison Morrison, a university professor, said the district’s survey data did not include inferential analyses or enough representation of marginalized families and urged the board to expand outreach and use multiple methods to collect community feedback.

Multiple speakers raised concerns about survey accessibility and representation. One speaker noted that the district’s outreach relied heavily on English‑only materials and recommended targeted focus groups for families who face barriers to participation. Other parents asked for a traffic impact analysis, detailed plans for maintaining IEP/504 continuity if campuses are consolidated, and clarification about how enrollment projections accounted for planned housing development.

District staff said the alignment survey had about 1,100 district‑wide responses but acknowledged respondents reported confusion about the survey’s purpose. Trustees and staff committed to updating the district website FAQs and accepting emailed stories at feedback@brssdt.org (transcribed) to ensure broader input. The superintendent noted several possible actions—including maintaining the status quo, pairing Lawson as a comprehensive site with one small K–8, reversing that pairing, or pursuing a longer-term plan to develop two equal‑size middle programs that would take more than a year to implement.

No formal motion or vote occurred during the listening session. Trustees closed by thanking speakers and reiterating that the board had not made a decision and would consider community input at upcoming public meetings; staff listed additional opportunities for public comment and said meeting materials and updated FAQs would be posted on the district website. The session concluded without a final decision; the district signaled further board consideration in coming weeks.