Scott M. Leaman: Most kids here clear the bar, year after year. The question is what happens after that.
Scott M. Leaman posts 61% meeting the standard, and 32.9% going well past it. Most kids here keep up. Fewer get pushed further. Ask the school what it does for a child who already finds the work easy.
| Scope | % Exceeded | % Met+ | Growth | Absence | Suspension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This school | 57 | 33% | 61% | -7.5 | 11.8% | 0.7% |
| CA average · Elementary School | 45 | 21% | 43% | -2.9 | 17.9% | 1.6% |
Scott M. Leaman scores 57 of 100 on SchoolScope's Scope Score — the 78th percentile of 5,744 California elementary schools (CDE CAASPP 2025).
Measures test performance, attendance, and climate — not arts, community, or your kid. How we score →
🤝 Culture First — 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.
Most rating sites would stop at “61% proficient” and call it done. Scott M. Leaman deserves a closer read. It sits at the 78th percentile of 5,744 California elementary schools — but the ranking is the least interesting thing on this page.
Scott M. Leaman's low-income kids hit 49.0% proficiency in ELA — a number the same group reaches at 38.2% statewide. If you're trying to read past zip-code-driven test scores, that's the signal worth weighing.
The seven-year arc
Has held the 78th-percentile line every tested year since 2022.
| Grade | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 53% | 55% | 63% | 59% |
| Grade 4 | 62% | 62% | 61% | 69% |
| Grade 5 | 68% | 70% | 61% | 56% |
| Grade | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 57% | 61% | 64% | 61% |
| Grade 4 | 49% | 60% | 63% | 70% |
| Grade 5 | 44% | 55% | 50% | 49% |
The story this school is actually telling
The school, grade by grade
ELA · CAASPP 2024–25Different students, same year — each bar is one grade's proficiency mix.
The honest read: the share exceeding falls 7.1pp across grades; the floor slips 3.0pp. The state average rises 4.5pp over the same span. A school visit and conversation with teachers will tell you more than this number.
Scott M. Leaman's most underrated number
49.0% of low-income students met the ELA standard — versus 38.2% for the same group statewide. That's the strongest kind of signal a school can post: it holds across income lines.
The 6 things our score weighs
Ask how the school challenges kids who clear the standard early. The gap between meeting and exceeding is where pacing shows.
- Ask what changes between grade 3 and grade 5 here, and who teaches the older kids.
- Ask whether extra support — tutoring, counseling, small groups — reaches kids across income lines, not just the students already ahead.
- 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.
How every group of students does here
At Scott M. Leaman in Lincoln, 49.0% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 40.3% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Scott M. Leaman outperforms its district average for low-income students by 8.7 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (40.4% Math proficient); White students (66.0% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 15.5 percentage points for hispanic students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 51 students tested.
6 of 14 student groups here are too small to report — a privacy protection, not a gap.
Change in proficiency from the lowest tested grade — which groups gain ground the longer they stay. Groups with fewer than 10 tested students per grade are not shown.
Low-income student ELA proficiency falls by 8.6pp from grade 3 to grade 5 at this school. District average: +3.5pp.
Showing up, and staying in class
Where the path goes
The path below follows attendance boundaries — scores shown for each next step.
Estimated path based on proximity within the same district. Contact your school district for official feeder information.
The people teaching here
Pay is set by the district, not the school.
What gets spent here
$1,421 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.
District-level, from the district's own SACS general-ledger filing — school-by-school breakdowns aren't published by the state.
Source: NCES F-33 · Full district breakdown →
The neighborhood it serves
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2024) · ZIP-level
Transitional kindergarten is offered here — confirmed by actual Census Day enrollment, not just the listed grade span.
On the state's science test (CAST), 43% met or exceeded the standard — science is tested in grades 5 and 8 but never enters the Scope Score.
Frequently asked questions
Is Scott M. Leaman a good elementary school?
What are Scott M. Leaman's CAASPP test scores?
How does Scott M. Leaman rank in California?
Is Scott M. Leaman getting better or worse?
What is the attendance and school culture like at Scott M. Leaman?
How does Scott M. Leaman compare to other schools in Lincoln?
How does Scott M. Leaman serve low-income and underrepresented students?
Your other options
Nearby Elementary Schools
3 within ~3 mi · avg 52
Nearby Middle Schools
2 within ~3 mi · avg 54
Nearby High Schools
3 within ~3 mi · avg 56
Private alternatives nearby
Private schools within ~10 miles. These schools do not participate in state testing and cannot be scored or ranked.
Every number on this page
Score factors, grade-level breakdowns, subgroup proficiency, and peer comparisons.
| ELA | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT | MET+ | +/CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 76 | 34% | 25% | 29% | 12% | 59% | +16 |
| Grade 4 | 91 | 42% | 27% | 19% | 12% | 69% | +24 |
| Grade 5 | 96 | 27% | 29% | 24% | 20% | 56% | +8 |
| Math | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT | MET+ | +/CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 3 | 77 | 26% | 35% | 32% | 6% | 61% | +15 |
| Grade 4 | 91 | 37% | 33% | 20% | 10% | 70% | +29 |
| Grade 5 | 96 | 31% | 18% | 27% | 24% | 49% | +14 |
| Science (CAST) | Tested | EXC | MET | NEAR | NOT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 5/8/11 | 96 | 17% | 26% | 41% | 17% |
CAST is tested in grades 5, 8, and once in high school — not annually. Not part of the Scope Score.
| Subgroup · ELA | Tested | MET+ | vs district | vs CA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | 51 | 49.0% | +9 | +11 |
| White | 144 | 66.0% | +3 | +4 |
| Hispanic/Latino | 62 | 50.0% | +6 | +11 |
| School | Dist | Scope | EXC | MET+ | Growth | Susp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scott M. Leaman ← | — | 57 | 32.9% | 60.8% | −7.5 | 0.7% |
| Sunset Ranch Elementary | 2.9 mi | 64 | 42.8% | 70.1% | −7.9 | 0.8% |
| Horizon Charter | 1.7 mi | 48 | 25.7% | 50.1% | −7.3 | 0.1% |
| First Street Elementary | 1.6 mi | 45 | 25.6% | 47.1% | +3.3 | 1.5% |
| California average | — | 45 | 21.3% | 42.7% | −2.9 | 1.6% |
| Year | Scope | Pctile | Rank | Exc | Met+ | Absent | Susp | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 54 | 82 | #1049 | 30.1% | 55.6% | 20.4% | 0.2% | +1.3pp |
| 2023 | 61 | 85 | #831 | 32.7% | 60.3% | 17.6% | 0.4% | +4.3pp |
| 2024 | 55 | 76 | #1380 | 30.4% | 60.3% | 15.9% | 1.2% | -7.6pp |
| 2025 | 57 | 78 | #1243 | 32.9% | 60.8% | 11.8% | 0.7% | -7.5pp |
| Group | 2019 | 2025 | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | — | 12.0% | — |
| Male | — | 10.9% | — |
| Asian | — | 16.7% | — |
| Filipino | — | 28.6% | — |
| White | — | 27.3% | — |
| Hispanic/Latino | — | 11.4% | — |
| Two or More Races | — | 15.0% | — |
| Students with Disabilities | — | 21.7% | — |
| English Learners | — | 19.4% | — |
| Socioeconomically Disadvantaged | — | 24.0% | — |
| All Students | — | 11.5% | — |
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