Math
26%Grades 6 & 8 · Proficient or Advanced
Public middle school
Gold Trail
No single number tells this school's story. Here's the honest picture.
41% of tested students are Proficient or Advanced in English and 26% in math. Explore the evidence alongside the opportunities your child would use.
SchoolScope archetype
Building Momentum
What this means for your family
This label means the data doesn't clearly sort the school one way or the other — ask what the school is proud of, and what it's working on.
How archetypes are assigned →Data sources · Methodology · State tests: 2025
Contact
Phone(530) 626-2595
Websitegtusd.org (opens in new tab)
DistrictGold Trail Union Elementary
PrincipalRobin Smay
Grades4-8
Enrollment274 students
English
41%Grades 6 & 8 · Proficient or Advanced
Students
274Total enrollment
Chronic absence
16%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 6 & 8 · 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 | 46% | 53% |
| 2022 | 40% | 50% |
| 2023 | 43% | 49% |
| 2024 | 36% | 48% |
| 2025 | 26% | 41% |
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
12%DevelopingStandard Nearly Met
30%MinimalStandard Not Met
44%AdvancedStandard Exceeded
12%ProficientStandard Met
29%DevelopingStandard Nearly Met
34%MinimalStandard Not Met
25%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 67th to the 35th percentile since 2019.
Most rating sites would stop at “34% proficient” and call it done. Gold Trail deserves a closer read. One in three of its students qualify for free or reduced lunch (California: 64%) — and reading the numbers without that context misreads the school.
271 tested · 3 of 3 grades published · cohort of 46 tracked
Gold Trail scores 30 of 100 on SchoolScope's Scope Score — the 35th percentile of 2,177 California middle schools (CDE CAASPP 2025).
This school hasn't fully recovered from the pandemic: 34% meet the standard today, versus 46% in 2019 — a gap worth asking about on a visit.
Percentile among 2,177 middle 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 4 | 57% | 51% | 64% | 63% | 70% |
| Grade 5 | 60% | 42% | 39% | 51% | 54% |
| Grade 6 | 55% | 51% | 33% | 40% | 44% |
| Grade 7 | 45% | 63% | 48% | 41% | 40% |
| Grade 8 | 50% | 49% | 65% | 55% | 38% |
Math — % met or exceeded, by grade
| Grade | 2019 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 4 | 64% | 54% | 48% | 53% | 58% |
| Grade 5 | 25% | 20% | 25% | 15% | 42% |
| Grade 6 | 55% | 39% | 35% | 33% | 26% |
| Grade 7 | 34% | 48% | 45% | 39% | 31% |
| Grade 8 | 36% | 40% | 51% | 39% | 25% |
Where students land · CAASPP 2024–25
One in three of students here meet the standard. One in ten clear it by a lot.
ELA49% met or exceeded
Exceeded 22%Met 27%Nearly Met 26%Not Met 24%
Math37% met or exceeded
Exceeded 20%Met 17%Nearly Met 29%Not Met 34%
Exceeded Met Nearly Met Not Met
California middle schools · average17% exceeded · 40% met or exceeded
This school against the California average
2019–2025 trend · CDE CAASPP
| Scope | % Exceeded | % Met+ | Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8) | Absence | Suspension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This school | 30 | 15% | 34% | Below avg · p39 | 16.2% | 8.7% |
| CA average · Middle School | 39 | 17% | 40% | Average · p50 | 18.1% | 3.6% |
This schoolCA avg
Scope3039
% Exceeded15%17%
% Met+34%40%
Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8)Below avg · p39Average · p50
Absence16.2%18.1%
Suspension8.7%3.6%
California’s growth results and student groups
State growth model · CDE growth model 2024–25
Our growth read and California's own model agree — both land near the 50th percentile of middle schools.
Context — never part of the Scope Score
California runs its own growth model, following individual children in grades 4 through 8 rather than comparing school-wide averages the way we do. The two measures land in the same neighbourhood here — ours puts this school around the 39th percentile of California middle schools, the state's around the 50th in reading and math together. Two different methods agreeing is the most you can ask of one year of test data.
— 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 middle school lands at −1 in reading, and the middle half of them fall between −8 and +6 — 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.
The returning cohort, two years on
ELA · 2023 · Grade 6
7%
exceeded standard · 33% met or exceeded
ELA · 2025 · Grade 8
13%
exceeded standard · 38% met or exceeded
n = 46
returning cohort
returning cohort
Percent exceeded, ELA only. SchoolScope's scored growth measure uses a different metric — mean scale-score change across ELA and Math; California's own matched-student model is below.
Both measures, each ranked in its own field
Our growth measurereturning cohort, G6→G8SchoolScope growth measure: 39th percentile among California middle schools.39th pctile
State model · readingmatched students, grades 4-8California growth model, reading: +1 scale-score points versus the state's expectation, 49th percentile of 7,519 reported schools.49th pctile · +1 pts
State model · mathmatched students, grades 4-8California growth model, math: +1 scale-score points versus the state's expectation, 51st percentile of 7,518 reported schools.51st 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 Gold Trail in Placerville, 37.3% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 39.5% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Gold Trail trails its district average for low-income students by 2.3 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (28.3% Math proficient); White students (50.2% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 11.6 percentage points for low-income students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 102 students tested.
Met or exceeded · reading and math combined
All students at this school: 43% met or exceeded
All StudentsAll Students: this school 43%, district —, state 40%43%
WhiteWhite: this school 45%, district 46%, state 56%45% · +1 vs school
FemaleFemale: this school 40%, district 41%, state 44%40% · −3 vs school
MaleMale: this school 47%, district 47%, state 42%47% · +3 vs school
Socioeconomically DisadvantagedSocioeconomically Disadvantaged: this school 33%, district 35%, state 32%33% · −10 vs school
Hispanic/LatinoHispanic/Latino: this school 31%, district 31%, state 32%31% · −13 vs school
8 of 14 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 13.4pp from grade 6 to grade 8 at this school. District average: +13.4pp.
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 middle school — not against zero, and not against this school's all-students figure, because the state's expectation already differs by group.
Reading
English Only246 studentsEnglish Only, reading: +1 scale-score points versus expectation, against 0 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 246 students.+1 pts · +1 vs typical
White206 studentsWhite, reading: −2 scale-score points versus expectation, against 0 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 206 students.−2 pts · −2 vs typical
Low-income students96 studentsLow-income students, reading: −2 scale-score points versus expectation, against −3 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 96 students.−2 pts · +1 vs typical
Students with disabilities47 studentsStudents with disabilities, reading: −9 scale-score points versus expectation, against −13 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 47 students.−9 pts · +4 vs typical
Hispanic or Latino students43 studentsHispanic or Latino students, reading: +2 scale-score points versus expectation, against −2 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 43 students.+2 pts · +4 vs typical
Math
English Only247 studentsEnglish Only, math: 0 scale-score points versus expectation, against −3 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 247 students.0 pts · +3 vs typical
White207 studentsWhite, math: 0 scale-score points versus expectation, against +1 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 207 students.0 pts · −1 vs typical
Low-income students96 studentsLow-income students, math: 0 scale-score points versus expectation, against −5 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 96 students.0 pts · +5 vs typical
Students with disabilities47 studentsStudents with disabilities, math: −1 scale-score points versus expectation, against −8 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 47 students.−1 pts · +7 vs typical
Hispanic or Latino students43 studentsHispanic or Latino students, math: −3 scale-score points versus expectation, against −6 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 43 students.−3 pts · +3 vs typical
this school typical California middle school, same group| the centre tick is 0 = as predicted
— 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
About 21 students for every teacher here.
Context — never part of the Scope Score
Students per teacher21 · district 21
Teaching staff15 teachers
Avg. experience15.5 years
Fully credentialed91%
First-year teachers7%
PrincipalRobin Smay
Attendance & discipline · 2024–25
Kids here show up more, and get suspended more, than the state average.
8.7% of students were suspended, versus 3.6% statewide — a school visit will tell you more than this number.
Chronic absenteeismChronic absenteeism: this school 16.2%, district 16.2%, state 18.1%16.2% · −1.9pp vs state
Suspension rateSuspension rate: this school 8.7%, district —, state 3.6%8.7% · +5.1pp vs state
This schoolDistrictCalifornia
ShowHide attendance by student group and by grade
Chronic absenteeism by grade band
Grades 4–613.9%
Grades 7–819.1%
Resources & neighborhood
What sits behind the school experience?
Explore school spending and the district budget
What gets spent · FY 2024–25
It spends $16,344 per student, more than the California average.
Context — never part of the Scope Score
$640 per student arrives as federal Title funding — a measure of concentrated need, not school quality.
The district's current expense of education per student, from CDE's annual SACS filing — the freshest district spending figure the state publishes.
Per-pupil spendingPer-pupil spending: $16,344, CA average $14,491$16,344 · spent at this school
Federal share$640 per student
District current expense · FY 2024–25$16,881 per student
This schoolDistrictCalifornia
Where the district's dollars go · FY 2024–25 · CDE SACS
Instruction 63%Instruction support 10%Student services 7%Administration 8%Buildings & maintenance 11%Other 1%
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$11,661 per pupil
2019$10,683 per pupil
2018$10,796 per pupil
2017$9,385 per pupil
2016$9,733 per pupil
The neighborhood · ACS 2024
One in three of students here qualify for free or reduced lunch, versus three in five statewide.
Context — never part of the Scope Score
Worth knowing
At 274 students, this school is much smaller than the typical California middle school (≈860).
On the state's science test (CAST), 38% 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 Latino16.8% · district 18.9% · CA 56.1%
White80.3% · district 75.8% · CA 19.9%
Asian0.4% · district 0.6% · CA 10.2%
Other2.5% · district 4.6% · CA 9.0%
Free or reduced lunch34.7% · CA 64%
Median income$90K · CA $85K
Median home value$548K · CA $659K
Bachelor's degree+28% · CA 35%
ZIP population36,830
Median age49 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 · middle 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gold Trail | Public | Developing | 15% | 34% | School being viewed |
More nearby public and private options
Your other options
Your other options
Private school options within 10 miles.
Private schools do not receive a Scope Score or statewide ranking on SchoolScope.
1 private school 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 your address with the district
School location and nearby schools do not establish attendance eligibility. Confirm boundaries and permit requirements with Gold Trail Union Elementary.
District information →School website →Schools across the K–12 journey
Elementary · K–5
Middle · 6–8
High school · 9–12
No school established for this stage.
Source: sabs_2016. 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.
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 typically leads to a suspension, and what happens before it gets there.
- Ask what changes between grade 6 and grade 8 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 Gold Trail a good middle school?
Gold Trail has a Scope Score of 30 out of 100, placing it in the 35th percentile of California middle schools and ranked #1,407 statewide. 14.9% of students exceeded the state standard on the 2025 CAASPP assessment, which is 2.2 percentage points below the California average of 17.2%. The Scope Score weights 6 dimensions for middle schools: exceeded standard (42%), met or exceeded (proficient) (23%), grade 6-to-8 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 Gold Trail's CAASPP test scores?
On the 2025 CAASPP Smarter Balanced Assessment, 34.0% of students at Gold Trail met or exceeded the state standard in ELA and Math combined, and 14.9% exceeded it. The gap between those numbers matters: 19.1% of students are at the proficiency floor, while 14.9% 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. 318 student-subject combinations were assessed.
How does Gold Trail rank in California?
Gold Trail ranks #1,407 among California middle schools by Scope Score, placing it in the 35th percentile. This ranking is based on a weighted composite of 2025 CAASPP test performance (exceeded and met rates), same-cohort growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8), 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.
Is Gold Trail getting better or worse?
SchoolScope follows the same cohort of students across grades rather than comparing two different grades in the same year. At Gold Trail that cohort is 2023 G6 → 2025 G8, measured in SBAC scale-score points. Its gain ranks below avg among California middle schools — roughly the 39th percentile, behind the typical school at this level. Read the ranking, not the raw point gain: scale scores rise with age, so nearly every school posts a positive number and only the relative position tells you anything. Growth is weighted at 20% in the middle Scope Score because it is the least demographically confounded signal available — it tracks change over time rather than the level students arrived at. See full methodology.
What is the attendance and school culture like at Gold Trail?
16.2% of students at Gold Trail are chronically absent (missing 10% or more of school days), which is better than the California average of 18.1%. The suspension rate is 8.7%. 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 Gold Trail compare to other schools in Placerville?
Gold Trail scores 30/100 (35th percentile) among California middle schools. To compare with nearby schools, SchoolScope shows the same metrics side by side: exceeded rate, proficiency, growth trajectory, and school culture indicators. The school serves 274 students. Use the schools in Placerville page or the map view to compare all middle schools nearby.
How does Gold Trail serve low-income and underrepresented students?
At Gold Trail in Placerville, 37.3% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 39.5% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Gold Trail trails its district average for low-income students by 2.3 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (28.3% Math proficient); White students (50.2% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 11.6 percentage points for low-income students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 102 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.
A low score doesn't tell the whole story. Read: Your School Scored Low — Here's What That Actually Means
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 6 things our score weighs
The school's returning cohort — mostly, not exactly, the same kids two years on — gained 37 scale-score points across the span. Almost every school gains points, so we rank the gain against every other California school in this level.
| What we weigh | Here | State | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceeded standard | 14.9% | 17.2% | 42% |
| Met or exceeded | 34.0% | 40.0% | 23% |
| Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8) | Below avg | average | 20% |
| Chronic absenteeism | 16.2% | 18.1% | 5% |
| Suspension rate | 8.7% | 3.6% | 5% |
| EL proficiency (ELPAC) | 7.7% | 18.0% | 5% |
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
Gold Trail: reading the evidence
Gold Trail posts 34% meeting the standard and 14.9% exceeding it, against 40% and 17.2% 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.
This label means the data doesn't clearly sort the school one way or the other — ask what the school is proud of, and what it's working on.
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.
Gold Trail is ranked #1,407 statewide.
01Score factorsWeighted composite · 2024–25
| Factor | School | State | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exceeded standard | 14.9% | 17.2% | 42% |
| Met or exceeded | 34.0% | 40.0% | 23% |
| Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8) | Below avg | average | 20% |
| Chronic absenteeism | 16.2% | 18.1% | 5% |
| Suspension rate | 8.7% | 3.6% | 5% |
| EL proficiency (ELPAC) | 7.7% | 18.0% | 5% |
- Exceeded standard
- ↓ vs CA 17.2% · index 48 · 50 = CA middle-school midpoint
- Met or exceeded
- ↓ vs CA 40.0% · index 46 · 50 = CA middle-school midpoint
- Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8)
- ↓ vs CA average · 39th pctile
- Chronic absenteeism
- ↑ vs CA 18.1% · index 53 · 50 = CA middle-school midpoint · ▲ 2.7pp higher vs 2024
- Suspension rate
- ↓ vs CA 3.6% · index 30 · 50 = CA middle-school midpoint · ▲ 4.7pp higher vs 2024
- EL proficiency (ELPAC)
- ↓ vs CA 18.0% · index 33 · 50 = CA middle-school midpoint
02By grade & subgroupCAASPP 2024–25 · % of tested students
ShowHide table 02 — By grade & subgroup
| ELA | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT | MET+ | +/CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 4 | 57 | 35% | 35% | 21% | 9% | 70% | +26 |
| Grade 5 | 56 | 30% | 23% | 14% | 32% | 54% | +6 |
| Grade 6 | 50 | 10% | 34% | 36% | 20% | 44% | −2 |
| Grade 7 | 55 | 20% | 20% | 29% | 31% | 40% | −8 |
| Grade 8 | 53 | 13% | 25% | 32% | 30% | 38% | −8 |
| Math | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT | MET+ | +/CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 4 | 59 | 22% | 36% | 31% | 12% | 58% | +16 |
| Grade 5 | 57 | 28% | 14% | 26% | 32% | 42% | +7 |
| Grade 6 | 50 | 10% | 16% | 38% | 36% | 26% | −8 |
| Grade 7 | 55 | 20% | 11% | 29% | 40% | 31% | −3 |
| Grade 8 | 55 | 16% | 9% | 24% | 51% | 25% | −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 | 111 | 16% | 22% | 49% | 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 | 102 | 37.3% | −2 | −1 |
| White | 217 | 50.2% | −1 | −12 |
03Nearest middle 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gold Trail ← | — | 30 | 14.9% | 34.0% | −3.4pp | +37 pts | 8.7% |
| California average | — | 39 | 17.2% | 40.0% | +1.5pp | — | 3.6% |
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 | 44 | 67 | #638 | 20.9% | 46.0% | 10.2% | 1.4% | -12.4pp |
| 2022 | 42 | 69 | #654 | 18.0% | 48.4% | 27.4% | 7.2% | -0.2pp |
| 2023 | 41 | 70 | #644 | 19.1% | 46.0% | 24.3% | 7.1% | +24.2pp |
| 2024 | 42 | 65 | #755 | 15.8% | 41.3% | 13.6% | 4.0% | +10.6pp |
| 2025 | 30 | 35 | #1407 | 14.9% | 34.0% | 16.2% | 8.7% | -3.4pp |
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
05Climate by student groupchronic absenteeism · 2019 vs 2025 — the two years CDE publishes at subgroup level
ShowHide table 05 — Climate by student group
| Group | 2019 | 2025 | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 9.0% | 16.4% | +7.4pp |
| Male | 11.2% | 15.5% | +4.3pp |
| Hispanic/Latino | 9.1% | 17.0% | +7.9pp |
| Two or More Races | 0.0% | — | — |
| White | 9.9% | 15.6% | +5.7pp |
| Students with Disabilities | 14.3% | 24.6% | +10.3pp |
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | 15.8% | 19.8% | +4.0pp |
| All Students | 10.1% | 16.0% | +5.9pp |
| English Learners | — | 20.0% | — |
| Homeless | — | 17.6% | — |
06California growth model, by student group2025 · scale-score points vs the state's prediction · shown, never scored
ShowHide table 06 — California growth model, by student group
| Group | Reading | n | CDE band | Math | n | CDE band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Students | +1 | 256 | Average | +1 | 257 | Average |
| English Only | +1 | 246 | not categorised | 0 | 247 | not categorised |
| White | −2 | 206 | Average | 0 | 207 | Average |
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | −2 | 96 | Average | 0 | 96 | Average |
| Students with Disabilities | −9 | 47 | Moderate | −1 | 47 | Average |
| Hispanic or Latino | +2 | 43 | Average | −3 | 43 | 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. “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/gold-trail-5516"
width="100%" height="210" loading="lazy"
style="border:0;border-radius:12px"
title="Gold Trail — 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=2,177 middle 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