Math
31%Grades 3 & 5 · Proficient or Advanced
Charter elementary school
Citrus Springs Charter
No single number tells this school's story. Here's the honest picture.
55% of tested students are Proficient or Advanced in English and 31% in math. Explore the evidence alongside the opportunities your child would use.
SchoolScope archetype
Culture First
What this means for your family
Ask whether the low absenteeism and suspension numbers come from what the school does or from the community it serves — both can produce the same numbers, and only a visit tells you which.
How archetypes are assigned →Data sources · Methodology · State tests: 2025
Contact
English
55%Grades 3 & 5 · Proficient or Advanced
Students
—Total enrollment
Chronic absence
7%Students absent 10% or more of school days
What are you trying to decide?
The overall score is a starting point.
Look at subject results, trends and student groups, then consider the opportunities your child would use.
View school performance →Start with your child’s daily experience.
Explore teaching, coursework and student-group results. A schoolwide average cannot predict an individual experience.
Explore student experience →Confirm the enrollment route.
Check the address, grade and enrollment requirements directly with the district or school.
Check attendance and enrollment →Compare the options you can access.
Use comparable evidence alongside entry requirements, cost and location.
Compare nearby schools →Academic performance
What do the results tell us?
2025 results · Grades 3 & 5 · weighted by students tested within each subject.
Proficient or Advanced combines Levels 3 and 4, formerly Standard Met and Standard Exceeded. California changed the names for 2025–26; the cut scores did not. About the labels →
Share at Proficient or Advanced
● Math┄ English
Gaps in the lines mark years without annual results.
Exact annual results
| Year | Math | English |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 58% | 57% |
| 2022 | 37% | 51% |
| 2023 | 31% | 43% |
| 2024 | 26% | 37% |
| 2025 | 31% | 55% |
Each year describes that year’s tested students. Changes between years do not follow the same children over time. Cohort-growth evidence, when available, is labeled separately below.
How achievement is distributed
AdvancedStandard Exceeded
13%ProficientStandard Met
18%DevelopingStandard Nearly Met
36%MinimalStandard Not Met
33%AdvancedStandard Exceeded
28%ProficientStandard Met
27%DevelopingStandard Nearly Met
22%MinimalStandard Not Met
23%Achievement-level percentages are not percentiles. “Developing” here is a test achievement level, separate from the SchoolScope performance band with the same name.
Annual results and the full academic record
Is it getting better · CAASPP 2019 to 2025
Slipped from the 70th to the 59th percentile since 2019.
Most rating sites would stop at “40% proficient” and call it done. Citrus Springs Charter deserves a closer read. It sits at the 59th percentile of 5,721 California elementary schools — but the ranking is the least interesting thing on this page.
The headline number: 7.0% chronic absenteeism — versus 17.9% statewide. Attendance is the quietest strong signal a school can post.
As a charter, Citrus Springs Charter enrolls by application rather than address. That changes how you get in, but it doesn't change the score.
231 tested · 3 of 3 grades published · no cohort tracked
Citrus Springs Charter scores 39 of 100 on SchoolScope's Scope Score — the 59th percentile of 5,721 California elementary schools (CDE CAASPP 2025).
This school hasn't fully recovered from the pandemic: 40% meet the standard today, versus 56% in 2019 — a gap worth asking about on a visit.
Percentile among 5,721 elementary schools statewide
ELAGreen(Increased)MathOrange(Maintained)
ShowHide the by-grade tables, year by year
ELA — % met or exceeded, by grade
| Grade | 2019 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 39% | 49% | 44% | 32% | 51% |
| Grade 4 | 48% | 42% | 44% | 41% | 36% |
| Grade 5 | 74% | 53% | 42% | 47% | 62% |
| Grade 6 | 44% | 53% | 53% | 56% | 50% |
| Grade 7 | 30% | 44% | 46% | 50% | 47% |
| Grade 8 | 54% | 48% | 36% | 39% | 55% |
Math — % met or exceeded, by grade
| Grade | 2019 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 64% | 46% | 40% | 26% | 37% |
| Grade 4 | 60% | 33% | 36% | 28% | 36% |
| Grade 5 | 52% | 28% | 22% | 26% | 21% |
| Grade 6 | 48% | 33% | 33% | 24% | 29% |
| Grade 7 | 15% | 28% | 27% | 36% | 34% |
| Grade 8 | 33% | 29% | 23% | 23% | 37% |
Where students land · CAASPP 2024–25
Two in five of students here meet the standard. One in five clear it by a lot.
ELA49% met or exceeded
Exceeded 24%Met 25%Nearly Met 25%Not Met 26%
Math33% met or exceeded
Exceeded 17%Met 16%Nearly Met 28%Not Met 39%
Exceeded Met Nearly Met Not Met
California elementary schools · average21% exceeded · 43% met or exceeded
This school against the California average
2019–2025 trend · CDE CAASPP
| Scope | % Exceeded | % Met+ | Growth | Absence | Suspension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This school | 39 | 19% | 40% | — | 7.0% | 0.4% |
| CA average · Elementary School | 39 | 21% | 43% | — | 17.9% | 1.6% |
This schoolCA avg
Scope3939
% Exceeded19%21%
% Met+40%43%
Growth——
Absence7.0%17.9%
Suspension0.4%1.6%
California’s growth results and student groups
State growth model · CDE growth model 2024–25
California's own growth model splits here — the 82nd percentile in reading against the 45th in math, among elementary schools.
Context — never part of the Scope Score
California runs its own growth model — it follows individual children in grades 4 through 8 and compares each one against a prediction from their own prior scores. On that measure this school sits a little above the middle of California elementary schools in reading, and the 45th in math. We show it; we don't score it.
— pts vs expected is scale-score points above or below what California's model predicted for these same children from their own prior-year scores. It is not a percentage and not a percent of anything. A typical California elementary school lands at +2 in reading, and the middle half of them fall between −5 and +9 — the spread is wide, so read the rank, not the sign. CDE blends two consecutive years into each published figure, so adjacent years share input data and no year-over-year trend can honestly be drawn from them. It covers grades 4-8 only, and it is not part of the Scope Score — we assessed it and left it out: it tracks school demographics roughly three times as strongly as our own growth measure does, and one published year is not enough to test how stable it is.
California's growth model, ranked against the schools it scores
State model · readingmatched students, grades 4-8California growth model, reading: +11 scale-score points versus the state's expectation, 82nd percentile of 7,519 reported schools.82nd pctile · +11 pts
State model · mathmatched students, grades 4-8California growth model, math: −1 scale-score points versus the state's expectation, 45th percentile of 7,518 reported schools.45th pctile · −1 pts
this school| the tick is the middle of the California field
Students & opportunity
Who shares in the school’s results?
Who it works for · CAASPP 2024–25
Low-income students here meet the ELA standard about even with the same group statewide.
At Citrus Springs Charter in Temecula, 37.6% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 14.5% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Citrus Springs Charter outperforms its district average for low-income students by 23.1 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (24.6% Math proficient); Hispanic students (40.9% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 10.9 percentage points for low-income students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 141 students tested.
Met or exceeded · reading and math combined
All students at this school: 41% met or exceeded
All StudentsAll Students: this school 41%, district —, state 43%41%
Hispanic/LatinoHispanic/Latino: this school 32%, district 8%, state 32%32% · −9 vs school
Socioeconomically DisadvantagedSocioeconomically Disadvantaged: this school 31%, district 9%, state 32%31% · −10 vs school
FemaleFemale: this school 43%, district 15%, state 44%43% · +2 vs school
MaleMale: this school 39%, district 10%, state 42%39% · −2 vs school
Students with DisabilitiesStudents with Disabilities: this school 23%, district 7%, state 15%23% · −18 vs school
9 of 15 student groups here are too small to report — a privacy protection, not a gap.
this school district, same group California, same group
ShowHide Student-group results by grade
Student-group results by grade
Results compare different grade groups in the same year, relative to the lowest tested grade. They do not track the same children over time. Groups with fewer than 10 tested students per grade are not shown.
Low-income student ELA proficiency rises by 17.5pp from grade 3 to grade 5 at this school.
ShowHide California's growth model by student group
The state's growth model, by student group
California follows these children individually and predicts each one's score from their own prior year. Each row is read against the same group at a typical California elementary school — not against zero, and not against this school's all-students figure, because the state's expectation already differs by group.
Reading
English Only130 studentsEnglish Only, reading: +12 scale-score points versus expectation, against +3 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 130 students.+12 pts · +9 vs typical
Hispanic or Latino students101 studentsHispanic or Latino students, reading: +7 scale-score points versus expectation, against +1 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 101 students.+7 pts · +6 vs typical
Low-income students101 studentsLow-income students, reading: +6 scale-score points versus expectation, against 0 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 101 students.+6 pts · +6 vs typical
White30 studentsWhite, reading: +13 scale-score points versus expectation, against +5 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 30 students.+13 pts · +8 vs typical
Math
English Only131 studentsEnglish Only, math: +2 scale-score points versus expectation, against +1 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 131 students.+2 pts · +1 vs typical
Hispanic or Latino students102 studentsHispanic or Latino students, math: −5 scale-score points versus expectation, against −1 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 102 students.−5 pts · −4 vs typical
Low-income students102 studentsLow-income students, math: −5 scale-score points versus expectation, against −1 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 102 students.−5 pts · −4 vs typical
Students with disabilities30 studentsStudents with disabilities, math: +2 scale-score points versus expectation, against −5 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 30 students.+2 pts · +7 vs typical
White30 studentsWhite, math: +2 scale-score points versus expectation, against +5 for the same group at a typical California elementary school, 30 students.+2 pts · −3 vs typical
this school typical California elementary school, same group| the centre tick is 0 = as predicted
— 1 more group is reported here with between 11 and 29 students. We hold those back on purpose: at that size the figure swings about 17 points on its own, and a quarter of such groups land past the state's top or bottom cut point by chance alone. They are listed with their student counts in the data appendix. — A group not listed at all had fewer than 11 students with a growth score, so California published nothing for it here. That is a privacy protection, not a judgment about those students. — Context only. None of this enters the Scope Score.
The daily experience
What is it like to be a student here?
Students per teacher
Student–teacher ratio is a schoolwide staffing measure, not an average class size.
Teacher experience
Average teacher experience in the published staffing record. It does not measure individual teacher effectiveness.
Chronically absent
The share of students absent for at least 10% of their enrolled school days. Attendance reflects both school and out-of-school circumstances.
The people teaching · CDE staffing 2024–25
The people teaching here
Context — never part of the Scope Score
Teaching staff62 teachers
Avg. experience12.5 years
Fully credentialed88%
PrincipalKathleen Hermsmeyer
ShowHide what the district pays
Teacher salary schedule$52,803 – $136,867
Principal salary$176,650 – $176,650
Superintendent salary$336,600
Pay is set by the district, not the school.
Attendance & discipline · 2024–25
Showing up, and staying in class
Chronic absenteeismChronic absenteeism: this school 7.0%, district 14.6%, state 17.9%7.0% · −10.9pp vs state
Suspension rateSuspension rate: this school 0.4%, district —, state 1.6%0.4% · −1.3pp vs state
This schoolDistrictCalifornia
Resources & neighborhood
What sits behind the school experience?
Explore school spending and the district budget
What gets spent · FY 2019–20
Its district spends $70,768 per student, more than the California average.
Context — never part of the Scope Score
Per-pupil spendingPer-pupil spending: $70,768, CA average $14,491$70,768 · district average
District averageCalifornia
Where the district's dollars go · FY 2024–25 · CDE SACS
Instruction 26%Instruction support 46%Student services 8%Administration 14%Buildings & maintenance 5%
District-level, from the district's own SACS general-ledger filing — school-by-school breakdowns aren't published by the state.
ShowHide the district's spending year by year
district detail, 2016–2020 — the newest published
2020$70,768 per pupil
2019$67,286 per pupil
2018$61,708 per pupil
2017$32,576 per pupil
2016$30,374 per pupil
Source: NCES F-33 · Full district breakdown →
The neighborhood · ACS 2024
The neighborhood it serves
Context — never part of the Scope Score
Worth knowing
Transitional kindergarten is offered here — confirmed by actual Census Day enrollment, not just the listed grade span.
On the state's science test (CAST), 35% met or exceeded the standard — science is tested in grades 5 and 8 and once in high school, and it never enters the Scope Score.
Hispanic or Latino65.8% · district 48.6% · CA 56.1%
White18.7% · district 22.7% · CA 19.9%
Asian4.0% · district 16.0% · CA 10.2%
Black3.6% · district 2.7% · CA 4.8%
Other8.0% · district 10.0% · CA 9.0%
Median income$129K · CA $85K
Median home value$1.20M · CA $659K
Bachelor's degree+47% · CA 35%
ZIP population48,781
Median age40 years
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2024) · ZIP-level
Culture & philosophy
What is the school’s approach?
School-stated approach · questions for your visit
Look beyond the brochure
A source-reviewed culture summary is not available for this profile yet. Ask how teaching, student support and family communication work day to day.
Read the school’s own website ↗Family voices
What would you want another family to know about the daily experience here?
Ask a current family: “When your child needs help, how does the school respond?”
Educator voices
What should families understand about teaching, support and the school community?
Ask an educator: “How do you adapt a typical day for children with different needs?”
Compare nearby schools
What are the alternatives?
Compare schools serving the same grade stage. Private schools have no comparable state-test score.
2025 · elementary schools · combined reading and math measures. Percentiles compare schools within their enrollment group.
No nearby schools in this category are listed. The school being viewed stays visible for reference.
| School | Type | Performance band | Advanced | Proficient or Advanced | Distance | Select |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citrus Springs Charter | Charter | Solid | 19% | 40% | School being viewed | |
| Daniel N. Buchanan Elementary | Public | Strong | 26% | 54% | 2.6 mi | |
| Ysabel Barnett Elementary | Public | Strong | 33% | 62% | 2.1 mi | |
| Temecula International Academy | Charter | Solid | 29% | 59% | 3.0 mi |
More nearby public and private options
Your other options
Your other options
Nearby public schools across grade levels, plus private options within 10 miles.
Private schools do not receive a Scope Score or statewide ranking on SchoolScope.
14 private schools within 10 miles
Not scored
What should I check before applying?
- District public
- Confirm the attendance boundary and any permit options.
- Charter
- Check applications, priorities and deadlines with each school.
- Private
- Confirm admission requirements, tuition and financial aid.
Moving & enrollment
Which schools could serve my child?
Check enrollment with this charter school
Ask the school about applications, priorities and deadlines for your child’s grade.
School website →Schools across the K–12 journey
Elementary · K–5
Middle · 6–8
High school · 9–12
Schools are grouped by grade stage. Nearby schools are not confirmed feeder links or address assignments. Verify the current path and eligibility with the district.
Charter enrollment details
Plan your next step
What should I do next?
Worth a school visit
Ask what the school is working on next. Strong numbers tell you where a school is, not where it's going.
- Ask what changes between grade 3 and grade 5 here, and who teaches the older kids.
- Ask whether the tour can step into a working classroom — watch how the teacher handles a student who's stuck.
- Ask to tour while school's in session, and notice how hallways and transitions feel — culture shows up between classes, not just in them.
- Ask how the school communicates with families when a child starts to struggle.
- Ask what a typical day looks like for a new student in the first few weeks.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Is Citrus Springs Charter a good elementary school?
Citrus Springs Charter has a Scope Score of 39 out of 100, placing it in the 59th percentile of California elementary schools and ranked #2,348 statewide. 19.0% of students exceeded the state standard on the 2025 CAASPP assessment, which is 2.3 percentage points below the California average of 21.4%. The Scope Score weights 6 dimensions for elementary schools: exceeded standard (42%), met or exceeded (proficient) (23%), grade 3-to-5 growth (20%), chronic absenteeism (5%), suspension rate (5%), and ELPAC English Learner proficiency (5%). Data source: California Department of Education CAASPP 2025, analyzed by SchoolScope.
What are Citrus Springs Charter's CAASPP test scores?
On the 2025 CAASPP Smarter Balanced Assessment, 40.5% of students at Citrus Springs Charter met or exceeded the state standard in ELA and Math combined, and 19.0% exceeded it. The gap between those numbers matters: 21.4% of students are at the proficiency floor, while 19.0% went beyond it. Most rating sites report only the combined "proficient" number. SchoolScope surfaces the exceeded-vs-met split because it shows how many students go beyond the standard rather than only meeting it. 250 student-subject combinations were assessed.
How does Citrus Springs Charter rank in California?
Citrus Springs Charter ranks #2,348 among California elementary schools by Scope Score, placing it in the 59th percentile. This ranking is based on a weighted composite of 2025 CAASPP test performance (exceeded and met rates), grade-level growth (Grade 3 to grade 5 growth), chronic absenteeism, and suspension rate. Unlike single-number ratings, the Scope Score shows what drives the ranking so parents can decide what matters most to their family. See full methodology.
What is the attendance and school culture like at Citrus Springs Charter?
7.0% of students at Citrus Springs Charter are chronically absent (missing 10% or more of school days), which is better than the California average of 17.9%. The suspension rate is 0.4%, indicating a low-discipline-incident environment. SchoolScope includes these culture metrics in the Scope Score because they reflect day-to-day school experience in ways test scores alone cannot.
How does Citrus Springs Charter compare to other schools in Temecula?
Citrus Springs Charter scores 39/100 (59th percentile) among California elementary schools. To compare with nearby schools, SchoolScope shows the same metrics side by side: exceeded rate, proficiency, growth trajectory, and school culture indicators. Use the schools in Temecula page or the map view to compare all elementary schools nearby.
How does Citrus Springs Charter serve low-income and underrepresented students?
At Citrus Springs Charter in Temecula, 37.6% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 14.5% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Citrus Springs Charter outperforms its district average for low-income students by 23.1 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (24.6% Math proficient); Hispanic students (40.9% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 10.9 percentage points for low-income students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 141 students tested. SchoolScope shows disaggregated test scores by demographic subgroup so you can see how a school performs for your child's specific group — not just the school-wide average. Subgroup data is context, not part of the Scope Score: we don't penalize schools for who they serve. See our equity approach.
Use the published evidence to prepare questions, then verify fit and access with the school.
Behind the evidence
Inspect the full record
Public sources, visible methods and the underlying school record. Source years and limitations stay attached to the evidence.
How the Scope Score is calculated
On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways to see the state comparison and weights.
What the score weighs · CAASPP 2024–25
The 5 things our score weighs
| What we weigh | Here | State | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceeded standard | 19.0% | 21.4% | 42% |
| Met or exceeded | 40.5% | 42.7% | 23% |
| Chronic absenteeism | 7.0% | 17.9% | 5% |
| Suspension rate | 0.4% | 1.6% | 5% |
| Grade gap (G3→G5, different students) | -2.5pp | -2.9pp | — |
Source CAASPP 2025 · California Department of Education. Measures test performance, attendance, and climate — not arts, community, or your kid. How the score is built
A closer look at the evidence
Citrus Springs Charter: reading the evidence
Citrus Springs Charter posts 40% meeting the standard and 19.0% exceeding it, against 43% and 21.4% statewide. The gaps and the bright spots below are the real read.
Subject proficiency describes tested students, while graduation describes a graduating cohort. These figures are not successive stages followed by the same students.
Ask whether the low absenteeism and suspension numbers come from what the school does or from the community it serves — both can produce the same numbers, and only a visit tells you which.
Explore the underlying data →Every number: score factors, grades, student groups and downloads
Every number · For the data nerds
Every number on this page
Score factors, grade-level breakdowns, subgroup proficiency, and nearest schools.
Citrus Springs Charter is ranked #2,348 statewide · #7 of 13 in Orange County Department of Education.
01Score factorsWeighted composite · 2024–25
| Factor | School | State | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceeded standard | 19.0% | 21.4% | 42% |
| Met or exceeded | 40.5% | 42.7% | 23% |
| Chronic absenteeism | 7.0% | 17.9% | 5% |
| Suspension rate | 0.4% | 1.6% | 5% |
| Grade gap (G3→G5, different students) | -2.5pp | -2.9pp | not scored |
- Exceeded standard
- ↓ vs CA 21.4% · index 48 · 50 = CA elementary-school midpoint
- Met or exceeded
- ↓ vs CA 42.7% · index 48 · 50 = CA elementary-school midpoint
- Chronic absenteeism
- ↑ vs CA 17.9% · index 68 · 50 = CA elementary-school midpoint · ▼ 0.8pp lower vs 2024
- Suspension rate
- ↑ vs CA 1.6% · index 61 · 50 = CA elementary-school midpoint · → no change vs 2024
- Grade gap (G3→G5, different students)
- ↑ vs CA -2.9pp
02By grade & subgroupCAASPP 2024–25 · % of tested students
ShowHide table 02 — By grade & subgroup
| ELA | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT | MET+ | +/CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 49 | 31% | 20% | 22% | 27% | 51% | +8 |
| Grade 4 | 47 | 21% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 36% | −8 |
| Grade 5 | 29 | 24% | 38% | 21% | 17% | 62% | +14 |
| Grade 6 | 38 | 13% | 37% | 26% | 24% | 50% | +4 |
| Grade 7 | 32 | 19% | 28% | 28% | 25% | 47% | −1 |
| Grade 8 | 29 | 34% | 21% | 17% | 28% | 55% | +9 |
| Grade 11 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Math | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT | MET+ | +/CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 49 | 16% | 20% | 27% | 37% | 37% | −9 |
| Grade 4 | 47 | 15% | 21% | 26% | 38% | 36% | −5 |
| Grade 5 | 29 | 7% | 14% | 52% | 28% | 21% | −14 |
| Grade 6 | 38 | 16% | 13% | 21% | 50% | 29% | −6 |
| Grade 7 | 32 | 22% | 13% | 22% | 44% | 34% | +1 |
| Grade 8 | 30 | 27% | 10% | 23% | 40% | 37% | +5 |
| Grade 11 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
We show the grade rows CDE publishes for this school. A missing grade or dash can mean the school does not serve that grade, that we hold no valid result for it, or that the tested group was too small to report. It does not mean zero.
| Science (CAST) | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schoolwide | 66 | 17% | 18% | 52% | 14% |
CAST is tested in grades 5 and 8, then once in grade 10, 11, or 12. This row is the school's all-student aggregate. Not part of the Scope Score.
| Subgroup · ELA | Tested | MET+ | vs district | vs CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | 141 | 37.6% | +23 | −1 |
| Hispanic/Latino | 149 | 40.9% | +27 | +2 |
03Nearest elementary schoolssorted by Scope Score · Grade gap = grade 3 vs grade 5, this year, different students; Cohort growth = one school's returning cohort tracked across grades (mostly, not exactly, the same kids), in scale-score points — that's the measurement the Scope Score weights
| School | Dist | Scope | EXC | MET+ | Grade gap | Cohort growth | Susp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citrus Springs Charter ← | — | 39 | 19.0% | 40.5% | −2.5pp | — | 0.4% |
| Daniel N. Buchanan Elementary | 2.6 mi | 55 | 26.0% | 54.0% | +5.0pp | — | 2.2% |
| Ysabel Barnett Elementary | 2.1 mi | 53 | 33.0% | 61.7% | −3.0pp | — | 2.3% |
| Temecula International Academy | 3 mi | 49 | 28.6% | 59.2% | +22.3pp | — | 0.2% |
| California average | — | 39 | 21.4% | 42.7% | −2.9pp | — | 1.6% |
04More measurescontext · not all part of the Scope Score
ShowHide table 04 — More measures
| Year | Scope | Pctile | Rank | Exc | Met+ | Absent | Susp | Grade gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 48 | 70 | #1637 | 28.6% | 56.3% | 11.1% | 0.9% | +11.3pp |
| 2022 | 44 | 69 | #1750 | 24.4% | 41.8% | 11.0% | 1.0% | -6.4pp |
| 2023 | 37 | 59 | #2333 | 17.0% | 38.0% | 8.7% | 0.7% | -10.1pp |
| 2024 | 33 | 41 | #3347 | 13.3% | 33.5% | 7.8% | 0.4% | +7.8pp |
| 2025 | 39 | 59 | #2348 | 19.0% | 40.5% | 7.0% | 0.4% | -2.5pp |
Grade gap = this year's grade 3 vs grade 5 result, two different sets of students, not a trend for any one child — it is not the measurement the Scope Score's growth dimension uses. See §01 above and /methodology#verdicts for the school's actual scored (cohort) growth.
NO STATEWIDE TESTING 2020–21 (COVID) · SCORE AND PERCENTILE ARE RELATIVE TO EACH YEAR'S FIELD
What we can't show
- — Scored here as an elementary school — other grade spans appear in the data appendix.
05California growth model, by student group2025 · scale-score points vs the state's prediction · shown, never scored
ShowHide table 05 — California growth model, by student group
| Group | Reading | n | CDE band | Math | n | CDE band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Students | +11 | 157 | Accelerated | −1 | 158 | Average |
| English Only | +12 | 130 | not categorised | +2 | 131 | not categorised |
| Hispanic or Latino | +7 | 101 | Accelerated | −5 | 102 | Average |
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | +6 | 101 | Accelerated | −5 | 102 | Average |
| White | +13 | 30 | Accelerated | +2 | 30 | Average |
| Students with Disabilities | +13 | 29 | Accelerated | +2 | 30 | Average |
| English Learner | +7 | 19 | Accelerated | −3 | 19 | Average |
Whole scale-score points above or below what CDE's model predicted for these same children from their own prior-year scores — not a percentage, not a percentile. Statewide a typical school lands near +1 with a spread of about 13 points either side, so read a figure against its group's own typical value, not against zero. Muted rows have fewer than 30 students with a growth score — published by CDE, held back from the narrative sections above because at that size the figure swings about 17 points on its own. “Not categorised” is CDE assigning no band — English Only, Recently Reclassified, and English Learners Only receive a value and no band, for every school in the state. It is not a missing number. Most figures blend two consecutive years, so adjacent published years share input data and no trend line can honestly be drawn across them. A group absent from this table had fewer than 11 students with a growth score and was never published. Grades 4-8 only. None of this enters the Scope Score — it is more strongly correlated with school demographics than our own growth measure, and one published year is not enough to test its reliability.
Embed this scorecard
<iframe
src="https://schoolscope.co/embed/school/citrus-springs-charter-4940"
width="100%" height="210" loading="lazy"
style="border:0;border-radius:12px"
title="Citrus Springs Charter — SchoolScope scorecard">
</iframe>Free to embed with the credit link. Data updates automatically.
EXC = exceeded standard · MET+ = met or exceeded ("proficient") · Source: CA Dept. of Education · CAASPP 2024–25 · n=5,721 elementary schools · Vintages: climate subgroups 2019+2025 · district finance per its label · ACS 2022 · Data updated 2026-09-18
SchoolScope scores and verdicts are our interpretation of public California Department of Education data — independent analysis, not an official rating. How we analyze · Request a correction