School district · San Mateo County

Redwood City Elementary schools

Redwood City Elementary runs schools through 8th grade. Its 13 public elementary schools run from the 3rd to the 96th percentile among the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests). High school is run by another district; confirm the school for your address with the district.

Elementary · 13 schools

from 3rd to 96th · among 5,726 California elementary schools we score · spring 2026 tests

  • North Star Academy: 96th percentile, Strong
  • Orion Alternative: 86th percentile, Strong
  • Roy Cloud Elementary: 83rd percentile, Strong
  • Clifford Elementary: 71st percentile, Solid
  • Rocketship Redwood City: 65th percentile, Solid
  • Henry Ford Elementary: 65th percentile, Solid
  • Adelante Selby Spanish Immersion: 57th percentile, Solid
  • KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory: 37th percentile, Developing
  • Garfield Elementary: 34th percentile, Developing
  • Roosevelt Elementary: 28th percentile, Developing
  • Taft Elementary: 27th percentile, Developing
  • Hoover Elementary: 4th percentile, Needs Support
  • Connect Community Charter: 3rd percentile, Needs Support
2Needs Support
4Developing
4Solid
3Strong

Middle · 7 schools

from 6th to 86th · among 2,529 California middle schools we score · spring 2026 tests

  • Roy Cloud Elementary: 86th percentile, Strong
  • Clifford Elementary: 78th percentile, Strong
  • John F. Kennedy Middle: 78th percentile, Strong
  • KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory: 39th percentile, Developing
  • McKinley Institute of Technology: 32nd percentile, Developing
  • Hoover Elementary: 32nd percentile, Developing
  • Connect Community Charter: 6th percentile, Needs Support
1Needs Support
3Developing
0Solid
3Strong

One dot per school. Each stage is placed only among California schools at its own level. 5 of the 15 ranked schools teach two levels, so they appear in more than one picture.

  • 15 ranked schools

Schools around the Redwood City Elementary district

15 listed public schools with mapped locations.

Open full map →

Loading school locations…

Percentile among California schools at the same level

  • Strong75th+
  • Solid50–74th
  • Developing25–49th
  • Needs Supportbelow 25th
  • Not scored

The school lists on this page are also available without the map.

Elementary schools

Which elementary schools in the Redwood City Elementary district score highest?

North Star Academy is highest, at the 96th percentile.

That’s higher than 96 in 100 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests).

Highest in the Redwood City Elementary district

Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level. What patterns mean

Show the other 10 elementary schools
Context

The average elementary school in the Redwood City Elementary district had 14 in 100 students chronically absent (missed 10% or more of school days) in 2025–26; the average California elementary school we score had 17 in 100. Both are averages of school rates, each school counted once.

Middle schools

Which middle schools in the Redwood City Elementary district score highest?

Roy Cloud Elementary is highest, at the 86th percentile.

That’s higher than 86 in 100 California middle schools we score (spring 2026 tests).

Highest in the Redwood City Elementary district

Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level. What patterns mean

Show the other 4 middle schools
Context

The average middle school in the Redwood City Elementary district had 17 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California middle school we score had 18 in 100.

The district

Where does Redwood City Elementary’s money go, and what does it plan?

The Redwood City Elementary district spent $23,472 per student in the 2024–25 school year.

The typical California district spent $20,491. About 59 cents of every Redwood City Elementary dollar went to classroom instruction.

Spending by function

Day-to-day spending per student in average daily attendance, from the district’s annual financial report (SACS) to the California Department of Education. District-wide: it includes central administration and costs never assigned to one campus.

Share by function, 2024–25

  • Instruction59%
  • Instruction support13%
  • Student services11%
  • Administration7%
  • Buildings & maintenance10%

Shares of the same spending total, by the report’s spending categories, rounded so they add up to 100. Names are simplified from the report’s own categories.

What the district plans

$69.3 million

planned in its 2026–27 plan for 25 funded actions in 3 goals. That’s 46% of its $151.3 million general fund budget. These are planned amounts; the district reports what it spent in a later plan.

The plan in short

Source: the district’s yearly spending plan (Local Control and Accountability Plan, or LCAP, 140 pages), as posted to the California School Dashboard.

Where the money goes

Three actions take 85% of the money; their titles are below. The plan itself puts 96% of it toward staff.

Reading, math and catch-up help

1 of the plan’s 25 funded actions names reading, math, catch-up help or English learners in its title.

Actions whose titles name English learners
  • English learners $571,540

Largest of these

  • Tier II: Specialized support for recently arrived Newcomer students$571,540
For high-need students (English learners, low-income students and foster youth), what changed and what its goals measure
For high-need students

It plans $10.9 million in extra services for English learners, low-income students and foster youth. For 2025–26, it planned $11.0 million and estimates it spent $12.0 million, $1.0 million (10%) more than planned (our arithmetic).

What changed

The total is $1.5 million (2%) higher than in the 2025–26 plan. The biggest change in dollars is Tier I: Personnel: All teaching staff, classified staff, site administrators, which went from $51.3 million to $53.2 million.

Largest cuts

  • Tier I: Program−⁠$463,886
  • Tier I: Professional Development (PD) and coaching for all staff−⁠$420,690
  • Tier 1: Provide additional staff to support K-8s in providing a full curriculum, with an outreach to unduplicated pupils−⁠$250,175

Largest increases

  • Tier I: Personnel: All teaching staff, classified staff, site administrators+⁠$1.8 million
  • Tier II: Site-based Mental Health Supports. Full time counselors will continue at schools with high suspensions to support schools in CSI Roosevelt and Garfield) and ATSI ( Clifford, Taft and McKinley)+⁠$890,379
  • Tier 1: Support for the Transitional Kindergarten (TK) program+⁠$225,723

Ask: What did Tier I: Program pay for, and what changes now that the 2026–27 plan gives it $463,886 less?

What its goals measure

Read these state results for the district’s own schools as context for the goals they measure; results alone can’t show what the plan caused.

What its goals measure: state results, 2024–25 and 2025–26
Measure2024–252025–26Change
English, every tested grade: Proficient or Advanced in 2025–26, met or exceeded in 2024–25Goal 349%51%up 2 pts
Math, every tested grade: Proficient or Advanced in 2025–26, met or exceeded in 2024–25Goal 340%43%up 3 pts
Chronically absentCounted across all the district’s students, not averaged by schoolGoal 118 in 10014 in 1004 fewer in 100
Suspended at least onceGoal 11.1%1.6%up 0.5 pts

Goal 2 isn’t shown because it tracks other measures.

Figures from CDE’s state test, chronic absence and suspension files. Test figures cover every grade the district tests (California tests grades 3–8 and 11), so they differ from a profile’s rated grades. We combined the district’s schools ourselves, weighted by students and leaving out charter schools. Chronically absent means a student missed 10% or more of school days.

The plan’s own titles and amounts
  • Tier I: Personnel: All teaching staff, classified staff, site administrators · $53,160,852
  • Tier II: Site-based Mental Health Supports. Full time counselors will continue at schools with high suspensions to support schools in CSI Roosevelt and Garfield) and ATSI ( Clifford, Taft and McKinley) · $4,271,375
  • Tier 1: MTSS System Monitoring · $1,349,965
The full plan3 goals, 21 measures and where the money goes

We calculate each action’s share of the plan by dividing its planned amount by the total of the plan’s funded actions ($69.3 million).

Where does the money go?

85% to Goal 3. Each box is one action, sized by its planned dollars and coloured by its change since last year’s plan. Tap a box to open its goal.

G1
G2
G3

Change since the 2025–26 plan, same title

  • fell 25% or more
  • fell 10–25%
  • fell 2–10%
  • within 2%
  • grew 2–10%
  • grew 10–25%
  • grew 25% or more
  • new or renamed title
  • not compared: unconfirmed, or repeated across goals

Every goal, in the plan’s order

Goal 1By June of 2027, every student in the RCSD will receive appropriate social-emotional support designed to meet…$8.2 million12% of action budgets

“By June of 2027, every student in the RCSD will receive appropriate social-emotional support designed to meet their needs in an inclusive and supportive environment through the implementation of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework. By June of 2027, the LEA aims to reduce Chronic Absenteeism by 3% each year in all student groups across the LEA, specifically the African American Students and student groups at English learners at Clifford, Henry. Improve Attendance rate by 2% each year in all groups. Reduce suspensions by 0.5% for district and other sub groups: SED, ELs, Homeless each year and by 1% annually for African Americans, and Students with Disabilities, sub group of English Learners LTELs” p. 27 ↗

9 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $7.4 million (+⁠$755,188)

Largest funded actions

  1. Tier II: Site-based Mental Health Supports. Full time counselors will continue at schools with high suspensions to support schools in CSI Roosevelt and Garfield) and ATSI ( Clifford, Taft and McKinley)$4.3 millionaction 1.6 · p. 95 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  2. Tier 1: MTSS System Monitoring$1.3 millionaction 1.10 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  3. Tier II: Community School wrap-around service support for families CSI schools focus on wrap-around servi ces for Roosevelt and Garfield. ATSI schools MIT, Taft, and Clifford will also receive support for wrap-around services$1.3 millionaction 1.5 · p. 95 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  4. Tier 1: MTSS System Monitoring$0.4 millionaction 1.8 · p. 96 ↗
  5. Tier 1: Student Services and outreach to families experiencing chronic absenteeism specifically unduplicated pupils$0.4 millionaction 1.3 · p. 95 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services

4 more funded actions in this goal

  • Tier III: Behavior Specialists · action 1.9 · p. 96 ↗$0.3 million
  • Tier 1: Social-emotional (SEL) supports · action 1.1 · p. 95 ↗$0.1 million
  • Tier III: Homeless Students Thrive case managers-Grant · action 1.7 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $13,000 is state funding counted toward those servicesunder $0.1 million
  • Tier 1: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) · action 1.2 · p. 95 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need servicesunder $0.1 million

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Tier II: Site-based Mental Health Supports. Full time counselors will continue at schools with high suspensions to support schools in CSI Roosevelt and Garfield) and ATSI ( Clifford, Taft and McKinley)+⁠$0.9 million$3.4 million → $4.3 million · p. 95 ↗
  2. Tier 1: Student Services and outreach to families experiencing chronic absenteeism specifically unduplicated pupils−⁠$129,989$523,981 → $393,992 · p. 95 ↗
  3. Tier 1: MTSS System Monitoring+⁠$61,424$386,384 → $447,808 · p. 96 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • Tier 1: MTSS System Monitoring · $1.3 million → $1.3 million · p. 96 ↗+⁠$19,668
  • Tier II: Community School wrap-around service support for families CSI schools focus on wrap-around servi ces for Roosevelt and Garfield. ATSI schools MIT, Taft, and Clifford will also receive support for wrap-around services · $1.3 million → $1.3 million · p. 95 ↗−⁠$32,994
  • Tier III: Behavior Specialists · $300,000 → $300,000 · p. 96 ↗unchanged
  • Tier 1: Social-emotional (SEL) supports · $53,034 → $63,034 · p. 95 ↗+⁠$10,000
  • Tier III: Homeless Students Thrive case managers-Grant · $56,300 → $40,000 · p. 96 ↗−⁠$16,300
  • Tier 1: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) · $49,000 → $15,000 · p. 95 ↗−⁠$34,000

How the plan measures it · 7 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 27 ↗.

Goal 2 · Focus GoalBy June of 2027, 55% of 2nd- 8th grade English Learner (EL) students will progress by a minimum of one level…$2.6 million4% of action budgets

“By June of 2027, 55% of 2nd- 8th grade English Learner (EL) students will progress by a minimum of one level on the ELPAC each school year as measured by Summative ELPAC Assessment. Increase our reclassification rate to 20%. Decrease our Long Term English Learner to 10%” p. 43 ↗

6 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $3.2 million (−⁠$599,282)

Largest funded actions

  1. Tier I: Outreach to Spanish-speaking families: Former CSI schools, Roosevelt and Garfield$804,031action 2.4 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $759,031 is state funding counted toward those services
  2. Tier II: Specialized support for recently arrived Newcomer students$571,540action 2.6 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $155,111 is state funding counted toward those services
  3. Tier I: PD for staff$432,500action 2.2 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $5,000 is state funding counted toward those services
  4. Tier I: Program$367,114action 2.1 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $207,114 is state funding counted toward those services
  5. Program Monitoring$340,641action 2.8 · p. 97 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services

1 more funded action in this goal

  • Tier II: Providing for additional needs · action 2.5 · p. 96 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$70,000

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Tier I: Program−⁠$463,886$831,000 → $367,114 · p. 96 ↗
  2. Tier II: Specialized support for recently arrived Newcomer students−⁠$205,135$776,675 → $571,540 · p. 96 ↗
  3. Program Monitoring−⁠$169,112$509,753 → $340,641 · p. 97 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • Tier I: Outreach to Spanish-speaking families: Former CSI schools, Roosevelt and Garfield · $714,180 → $804,031 · p. 96 ↗+⁠$89,851
  • Tier I: PD for staff · $272,500 → $432,500 · p. 96 ↗+⁠$160,000
  • Tier II: Providing for additional needs · $81,000 → $70,000 · p. 96 ↗−⁠$11,000

How the plan measures it · 5 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 43 ↗.

Goal 3 · Focus GoalBy June of 2027, all RCSD students will increase at least 4% annually in ELA and Math on i-Ready, the…$58.6 million85% of action budgets

“By June of 2027, all RCSD students will increase at least 4% annually in ELA and Math on i-Ready, the district's local assessment program. (Adjusted until board adopts in June). By June 2027, RCSD goal is to increase the percentage of students meeting annual expected growth by at least 4% each year in ELA and Math as measured by i-Ready, the district’s local assessment program. English learner students in grades 3-8 will increase in meeting or exceeding the standard in ELA to 20% and in Math to 16% on the CAASPP, the state assessment program” p. 56 ↗

10 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $57.3 million (+⁠$1.3 million)

Largest funded actions

  1. Tier I: Personnel: All teaching staff, classified staff, site administrators$53.2 millionaction 3.1 · p. 97 ↗
  2. Tier I: Professional Development (PD) and coaching for all staff$1.3 millionaction 3.2 · p. 97 ↗
  3. Tier 1: Support for the Transitional Kindergarten (TK) program$1.1 millionaction 3.9 · p. 98 ↗
  4. Tier II: Extending learning time$0.8 millionaction 3.10 · p. 98 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $568,250 is state funding counted toward those services
  5. Tier 1: Provide additional staff to support K-8s in providing a full curriculum, with an outreach to unduplicated pupils$0.7 millionaction 3.11 · p. 98 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services

5 more funded actions in this goal

  • Tier 1: Standards-based materials: all subject areas · action 3.3 · p. 97 ↗$0.6 million
  • Tier 1: Provide coaches to high priority schools to support Tier 1 instruction or identified school in CSI and priority site · action 3.5 · p. 97 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.6 million
  • Tier 1: Provide lower class size in grades at high priority schools by providing instructional assistants for identified school in CSI and ATSI for academics · action 3.6 · p. 97 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.3 million
  • Tier I: Instruction · action 3.4 · p. 97 ↗$0.2 million
  • Tier 1: Provide additional staff to support K-8s in providing a full curriculum, with an outreach to unduplicated pupils · action 3.7 · p. 98 ↗$0.1 million

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Tier I: Personnel: All teaching staff, classified staff, site administrators+⁠$1.8 million$51.3 million → $53.2 million · p. 97 ↗
  2. Tier I: Professional Development (PD) and coaching for all staff−⁠$0.4 million$1.7 million → $1.3 million · p. 97 ↗
  3. Tier 1: Provide additional staff to support K-8s in providing a full curriculum, with an outreach to unduplicated pupils−⁠$250,175$954,294 → $704,119 · p. 98 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • Tier 1: Support for the Transitional Kindergarten (TK) program · $0.8 million → $1.1 million · p. 98 ↗+⁠$0.2 million
  • Tier II: Extending learning time · $858,000 → $760,812 · p. 98 ↗−⁠$97,188
  • Tier 1: Standards-based materials: all subject areas · $418,828 → $581,574 · p. 97 ↗+⁠$162,746
  • Tier 1: Provide coaches to high priority schools to support Tier 1 instruction or identified school in CSI and priority site · $704,912 → $571,092 · p. 97 ↗−⁠$133,820
  • Tier 1: Provide lower class size in grades at high priority schools by providing instructional assistants for identified school in CSI and ATSI for academics · $217,388 → $271,941 · p. 97 ↗+⁠$54,553
  • Tier I: Instruction · $216,096 → $163,182 · p. 97 ↗−⁠$52,914
  • Tier 1: Provide additional staff to support K-8s in providing a full curriculum, with an outreach to unduplicated pupils · $70,000 → $60,585 · p. 98 ↗−⁠$9,415

How the plan measures it · 9 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 56 ↗.

All amounts are planned. We read them from the PDF and added up each goal’s actions ourselves. Page links open the plan at that page.

Who goes to the district’s schools
Who attends

Student mix

2024–25 · October enrollment count, 7,523 students
1. Hispanic or Latino: 68%2. White: 19%3. Two or more races: 6%4. Asian: 5%5. Filipino: <1%6. Pacific Islander: <1%7. Black or African American: <1%8. American Indian or Alaska Native: <1%Student mix2024–25
  1. Hispanic or Latino68%
  2. White19%
  3. Two or more races6%
  4. Asian5%
  5. Filipino<1%
  6. Pacific Islander<1%
  7. Black or African American<1%
  8. American Indian or Alaska Native<1%
  9. Not reported0%
Shares use the district's own October enrollment counts from the CDE, including its charter schools. Rounded labels may not total 100%; segments use the original shares.

Free or reduced-price meals

64%

Across California, 63% of students qualify.

2024–25 · 4,790 of 7,507 students qualify, summed from the CDE’s meal counts for every school it lists under the district, charters included. It comes from a different CDE file than the student mix, so the two totals differ.

The district’s state records

Is the state giving the district extra help?

The state is giving Redwood City Elementary extra help in 2026, the second year after it qualified on the 2025 Dashboard.

How English learners moved up on the state’s English test

From spring 2025 to spring 2026, 48% of the district’s English learners moved up at least one level on the state’s English test (ELPAC), or stayed at the top (766 of 1,604 students). California: 47%. It counts students moving up the test’s levels, so a student can count here before becoming fluent.

Sources: District help (CDE) ↗ · English learner progress (CDE) ↗. State results from the 2026 California School Dashboard.

Which places nearby can you look at next?

Cities in the district

More places (6)

Districts nearby

Common questions

Which public schools in the Redwood City Elementary district rank highest?

Elementary: North Star Academy, 96th percentile (Strong). Middle: Roy Cloud Elementary, 86th percentile (Strong). Each percentile is among the California schools at the same level we score. A rank doesn’t decide fit or whether a child can enroll.

Does living in the Redwood City Elementary district decide which school my child attends?

Not by itself. Attendance boundaries, programs, transfers and space all matter. Confirm the school for your address, grade and program with the district.
More questions (5)

Are the public schools in the Redwood City Elementary district good?

Redwood City Elementary’s 13 public elementary schools run from the 3rd to the 96th percentile among the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests). By band: 3 Strong, 4 Solid, 4 Developing and 2 Needs Support. Redwood City Elementary’s 7 public middle schools run from the 6th to the 86th percentile among the 2,529 California middle schools we score (spring 2026 tests). By band: 3 Strong, 3 Developing and 1 Needs Support. A percentile compares a school with California public schools at the same level that we score. How we score schools.

How does chronic absence in the Redwood City Elementary district compare with California?

The average elementary school in the Redwood City Elementary district had 14 in 100 students chronically absent (missed 10% or more of school days) in 2025–26; the average California elementary school we score had 17 in 100. Both are averages of school rates, each school counted once. The average middle school in the Redwood City Elementary district had 17 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California middle school we score had 18 in 100. These are averages of school rates: each school counts once, whatever its size.

How much does the Redwood City Elementary district spend per student?

The Redwood City Elementary district spent $23,472 per student in the 2024–25 school year. The typical California district spent $20,491. About 59 cents of every Redwood City Elementary dollar went to classroom instruction. Day-to-day spending per student in average daily attendance, from its annual financial report to the California Department of Education. The district’s spending, by function.

What is in the Redwood City Elementary district’s 2026–27 spending plan?

The district’s 2026–27 spending plan puts $69.3 million into 25 funded actions in 3 goals, 46% of its $151.3 million general fund budget. Its largest goal holds $58.6 million, 85% of the action budgets. The 2026–27 plan, goal by goal.

Where do these results come from?

California’s state tests (CAASPP) from spring 2026 and chronic-absence rates for 2025–26, published by the California Department of Education. Percentiles, bands and Scope Scores are SchoolScope’s calculations. How we score schools.

Sources and methodology

This page lists the public schools governed and funded by the Redwood City Elementary district, with the district’s spending and state accountability records.

Data source: California Department of Education · CAASPP 2025–26

Percentiles, bands and Scope Scores are SchoolScope’s own calculations from these state files.

View CDE data ↗ (opens in a new tab)How Scope Scores work →

Download these schools (CSV)Free to use under CC BY 4.0 with attribution.