Fairfield-Suisun Unified’s 19 public elementary schools run from the bottom 1% to the 82nd percentile among the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests). They sit in all four bands, from Strong to Needs Support.
Elementary · 19 schools
from bottom 1% to 82nd · among 5,726 California elementary schools we score · spring 2026 tests
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
11Needs Support
3Developing
4Solid
1Strong
← lower percentilehigher →
Each column counts the schools in one five-percentile step; the number above it is that count.
Middle and high school pictures
Middle · 11 schools
from 5th to 94th · among 2,529 California middle schools we score · spring 2026 tests
Virtual Academy of Fairfield-Suisun: 94th percentile, Strong
Public Safety Academy: 85th percentile, Strong
Green Valley Middle: 85th percentile, Strong
Suisun Valley Elementary: 72nd percentile, Solid
Oakbrook Academy of the Arts: 42nd percentile, Developing
Weir Preparatory Academy: 23rd percentile, Needs Support
B. Gale Wilson Middle: 19th percentile, Needs Support
Matt Garcia Career and College Academy: 18th percentile, Needs Support
E. Ruth Sheldon Academy of Innovative Learning: 6th percentile, Needs Support
Crystal Middle: 5th percentile, Needs Support
Grange Middle: 5th percentile, Needs Support
6Needs Support
1Developing
1Solid
3Strong
High · 4 schools
from 6th to 95th · among 1,498 California high schools we score · spring 2025 tests
Public Safety Academy: 95th percentile, Strong
Angelo Rodriguez High: 74th percentile, Solid
Fairfield High: 9th percentile, Needs Support
Armijo High: 6th percentile, Needs Support
2Needs Support
0Developing
1Solid
1Strong
← lower percentilehigher →
Each column counts the schools in one five-percentile step; the number above it is that count. One dot per school. Each stage is placed only among California schools at its own level. 6 of the 28 ranked schools teach two levels, so they appear in more than one picture.
The average elementary school in Fairfield-Suisun Unified had 26 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.
1 elementary school not ranked statewide
H. Glenn RichardsonSpecial education center: students are placed here by an IEP team, not by address and not by lottery, so we don’t rank it
Middle schools
Which middle schools in Fairfield-Suisun Unified score highest?
Virtual Academy of Fairfield-Suisun is highest, at the 94th percentile.
That’s higher than 94 in 100 of the 2,529 California middle schools we score (spring 2026 tests).
Highest in Fairfield-Suisun Unified
Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level. What patterns mean
The average middle school in Fairfield-Suisun Unified had 23 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California middle school we score had 18 in 100.
High schools
Which high schools in Fairfield-Suisun Unified score highest?
Public Safety Academy is highest, at the 95th percentile.
That’s higher than 95 in 100 of the 1,498 California high schools we score (spring 2025 tests).
Highest in Fairfield-Suisun Unified
Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level. What patterns mean
The average high school in Fairfield-Suisun Unified had 21 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California high school we score had 22 in 100.
Where does Fairfield-Suisun Unified’s money go, and what does it plan?
Fairfield-Suisun Unified spent $15,888 per student in the 2024–25 school year.
The typical California district spent $20,491. About 56 cents of every Fairfield-Suisun Unified 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
Instruction56%
Instruction support11%
Student services13%
Administration8%
Buildings & maintenance11%
Other1%
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
$124.5 million
planned in its 2026–27 plan for 53 funded actions in 7 goals. That’s 34% of its $364.5 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, 206 pages), as posted to the California School Dashboard.
Where the money goes
Three actions take 49% of the money. The plan itself puts 61% of it toward staff.
Educational Options $21.4 million
Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools $19.9 million
Safe, Secure and Inviting Physical Environment $19.2 million
50 other actions
Reading, math and catch-up help
12 of the plan’s 53 funded actions name reading, math, catch-up help or English learners in their titles.
Actions whose titles name reading, math, catch-up help or English learners
Reading $3.1 million
Math $2.5 million
Catch-up help $3.8 million
English learners $2.1 million
An action naming two of these appears under both.
Largest of these
Literacy Across Content Areas (LREBG Funded)$2.0 million
Support for Learning Recovery (LREBG Funds)$1.9 million
English Learner Roadmap Implementation$1.7 million
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 $48.5 million in extra services for English learners, low-income students and foster youth. For 2025–26, it planned $41.8 million and estimates it spent $44.1 million, $2.3 million (5%) more than planned (our arithmetic).
$44.1 million spent (estimated)$41.8 million planned
What changed
The total is $4.0 million (3%) lower than in the 2025–26 plan. The biggest change in dollars is Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools, which went from $32.2 million to $19.9 million.
Largest cuts
Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools−$12.3 million
Curricular, Extra Curricular and Enrichment Opportunities−$4.1 million
English Learner Roadmap Implementation−$2.8 million
Largest increases
Systems of Data Analysis+$4.9 million
Educational Options+$4.6 million
College and Career Readiness Curriculum Integration+$2.8 million
New in the 2026–27 plan
Counselor-Driven 8th/9th Grade Scheduling process$2.0 million
English Language Arts and Mathematics Support and Intervention (Former Title: English Language Arts Intervention) (LREBG Funded)$1.1 million
Professional Development on Effective Instruction (LREBG Funded)$365,000
Ask: What did Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools pay for, and what changes now that the 2026–27 plan gives it $12.3 million 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
Measure
2024–25
2025–26
Change
English, every tested grade: Proficient or Advanced in 2025–26, met or exceeded in 2024–25Goal 1
41%
41%
no change
Math, every tested grade: Proficient or Advanced in 2025–26, met or exceeded in 2024–25Goal 1
29%
28%
down 1 pt
Chronically absentCounted across all the district’s students, not averaged by schoolGoal 4
25 in 100
26 in 100
1 more in 100
Suspended at least onceGoal 2
4.0%
4.0%
no change
Goals 6 and 7 track named schools and Goals 3 and 5 track other measures, so they aren’t shown here.
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
Educational Options · $21,374,678
Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools · $19,875,000
Safe, Secure and Inviting Physical Environment · $19,165,000
The full plan7 goals, 63 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 ($124.5 million).
Where does the money go?
48% to Goal 1. 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.
not compared: unconfirmed, or repeated across goals
small actions drawn together
Every goal, in the plan’s order
Goal 1Execute an equitable, high-quality educational program and provide educational options to ensure every…$60.3 million48% of action budgets
“Execute an equitable, high-quality educational program and provide educational options to ensure every student graduates high school college or career ready” p. 19 ↗
20 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $47.7 million (+$12.6 million)
Largest funded actions
Educational Options$21.4 millionaction 1.7 · p. 158 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $15.5 million is state funding counted toward those services
Systems of Data Analysis$18.0 millionaction 1.2 · p. 156 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $3.0 million is state funding counted toward those services
Rigorous and Meaningful Learning$5.0 millionaction 1.3 · p. 156 ↗
College and Career Readiness Curriculum Integration$4.3 millionaction 1.5 · p. 157 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $3.0 million is state funding counted toward those services
Literacy Across Content Areas (LREBG Funded) · action 1.4 · p. 157 ↗$2.0 million
English Learner Roadmap Implementation · action 1.6 · p. 158 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $1.2 million is state funding counted toward those services$1.7 million
Tier I and Tier II Mathematics Program (LREBG Funded) · action 1.8 · p. 158 ↗$1.2 million
Continuous Improvement Cycles · action 1.1 · p. 156 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $499,053 is state funding counted toward those services$1.1 million
English Language Arts and Mathematics Support and Intervention (Former Title: English Language Arts Intervention) (LREBG Funded) · action 1.10 · p. 158 ↗$1.1 million
Additional Academic Services (LREBG Funded) · action 1.14 · p. 159 ↗$0.5 million
Extended School Year (Summer School and Intersessions) (LREBG Funded) · action 1.12 · p. 159 ↗$0.4 million
Professional Development on Effective Instruction (LREBG Funded) · action 1.16 · p. 159 ↗$0.4 million
Small Group Instruction/Opportunity Culture (LREBG Funded) · action 1.11 · p. 158 ↗$0.3 million
English Language Development · action 1.9 · p. 158 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.3 million
Foster Youth Case Management · action 1.20 · p. 160 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.1 million
Small Group Instruction (LREBG Funded) · action 1.15 · p. 159 ↗$0.1 million
English Learner Counseling Services and Targeted Supports (LREBG Funded) · action 1.13 · p. 159 ↗$0.1 million
Accelerating the Identification and Implementation of Special Education Services (LREBG Funded) · action 1.17 · p. 159 ↗$0.1 million
English Language Classes to Engage Parents in Supporting Family Literacy (LREBG Funded) · action 1.18 · p. 159 ↗under $0.1 million
Changes from last year’s plan, same title
Systems of Data Analysis+$4.9 million$13.1 million → $18.0 million · p. 156 ↗
Educational Options+$4.6 million$16.8 million → $21.4 million · p. 158 ↗
College and Career Readiness Curriculum Integration+$2.8 million$1.4 million → $4.3 million · p. 157 ↗
Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan
Rigorous and Meaningful Learning · $4.7 million → $5.0 million · p. 156 ↗+$0.3 million
Counselor-Driven 8th/9th Grade Scheduling process · $2.0 million · p. 160 ↗new or renamed
Literacy Across Content Areas (LREBG Funded) · $1.7 million → $2.0 million · p. 157 ↗+$0.3 million
English Learner Roadmap Implementation · $4.5 million → $1.7 million · p. 158 ↗−$2.8 million
Tier I and Tier II Mathematics Program (LREBG Funded) · $1.1 million → $1.2 million · p. 158 ↗+$0.1 million
Continuous Improvement Cycles · $1.5 million → $1.1 million · p. 156 ↗−$0.4 million
English Language Arts and Mathematics Support and Intervention (Former Title: English Language Arts Intervention) (LREBG Funded) · $1.1 million · p. 158 ↗new or renamed
Extended School Year (Summer School and Intersessions) (LREBG Funded) · $570,000 → $400,000 · p. 159 ↗−$170,000
Professional Development on Effective Instruction (LREBG Funded) · $365,000 · p. 159 ↗new or renamed
Small Group Instruction/Opportunity Culture (LREBG Funded) · $325,000 → $314,088 · p. 158 ↗−$10,912
English Language Development · $741,604 → $300,000 · p. 158 ↗−$441,604
Foster Youth Case Management · $146,800 · p. 160 ↗new or renamed
Small Group Instruction (LREBG Funded) · $120,000 → $140,000 · p. 159 ↗+$20,000
English Learner Counseling Services and Targeted Supports (LREBG Funded) · $120,000 · p. 159 ↗new or renamed
Accelerating the Identification and Implementation of Special Education Services (LREBG Funded) · $60,000 · p. 159 ↗new or renamed
English Language Classes to Engage Parents in Supporting Family Literacy (LREBG Funded) · $10,000 · p. 159 ↗new or renamed
A reworded title counts as new.
How the plan measures it · 20 measures
None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 19 ↗.
Goal 2Implement a tiered integrated social-emotional program to support the well-being of all students and staff by…$3.4 million3% of action budgets
“Implement a tiered integrated social-emotional program to support the well-being of all students and staff by promoting prosocial behavior, teaching coping and decision-making skills, and modeling positive relationships” p. 63 ↗
5 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $3.1 million (+$239,703)
Largest funded actions
Restorative Practices$2.9 millionaction 2.5 · p. 160 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
De-Escalation Strategies (NCI)$0.2 millionaction 2.1 · p. 160 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
Anti-Bullying Climate$0.1 millionaction 2.4 · p. 160 ↗
SEL Curriculum Integration$0.1 millionaction 2.2 · p. 160 ↗
SEL Resources Outside of School$0.1 millionaction 2.3 · p. 160 ↗
Changes from last year’s plan, same title
Restorative Practices+$0.4 million$2.6 million → $2.9 million · p. 160 ↗
SEL Resources Outside of School−$122,225$173,623 → $51,398 · p. 160 ↗
SEL Curriculum Integration−$25,200$85,200 → $60,000 · p. 160 ↗
Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan
Anti-Bullying Climate · $140,000 → $140,000 · p. 160 ↗unchanged
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. 63 ↗.
Goal 3Implement and refine a staffing plan that includes competitive recruitment, as well as professional learning…$7.5 million6% of action budgets
“Implement and refine a staffing plan that includes competitive recruitment, as well as professional learning and support, in order to retain and develop staff” p. 72 ↗
6 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $7.1 million (+$398,638)
Staff Retention and Satisfaction$1.6 millionaction 3.3 · p. 160 ↗
High Quality Professional Development$1.6 millionaction 3.4 · p. 160 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $887,749 is state funding counted toward those services
Support for New Teachers$1.5 millionaction 3.5 · p. 160 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $654,935 is state funding counted toward those services
Developing Leaders$0.5 millionaction 3.6 · p. 161 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
1 more funded action in this goal
Recruitment Plan · action 3.1 · p. 160 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.5 million
Changes from last year’s plan, same title
Staff Onboarding+$0.2 million$1.6 million → $1.8 million · p. 160 ↗
Support for New Teachers+$0.1 million$1.4 million → $1.5 million · p. 160 ↗
Developing Leaders+$52,710$471,775 → $524,485 · p. 161 ↗
Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan
Staff Retention and Satisfaction · $1.6 million → $1.6 million · p. 160 ↗+$48,476
High Quality Professional Development · $1.6 million → $1.6 million · p. 160 ↗+$16,648
Recruitment Plan · $456,929 → $477,125 · p. 160 ↗+$20,196
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. 72 ↗.
Goal 4Create safe, inclusive, and welcoming environments where students and staff are connected and engaged in one…$47.8 million38% of action budgets
“Create safe, inclusive, and welcoming environments where students and staff are connected and engaged in one united culture focused on student success” p. 80 ↗
6 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $65.9 million (−$18.1 million)
Largest funded actions
Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools$19.9 millionaction 4.5 · p. 161 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $9.8 million is state funding counted toward those services
Safe, Secure and Inviting Physical Environment$19.2 millionaction 4.4 · p. 161 ↗
Positive Behavior Interventions and Disciplinary Measures$5.3 millionaction 4.2 · p. 161 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
Support for Learning Recovery (LREBG Funds)$1.9 millionaction 4.6 · p. 161 ↗
Inclusive Community Building and Development$0.9 millionaction 4.3 · p. 161 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $533,675 is state funding counted toward those services
1 more funded action in this goal
Curricular, Extra Curricular and Enrichment Opportunities · action 4.1 · p. 161 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $330,000 is state funding counted toward those services$0.6 million
Changes from last year’s plan, same title
Upgrade Facilities at High Need Schools−$12.3 million$32.2 million → $19.9 million · p. 161 ↗
Curricular, Extra Curricular and Enrichment Opportunities−$4.1 million$4.7 million → $0.6 million · p. 161 ↗
Safe, Secure and Inviting Physical Environment−$1.3 million$20.5 million → $19.2 million · p. 161 ↗
Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan
Positive Behavior Interventions and Disciplinary Measures · $5.3 million → $5.3 million · p. 161 ↗+$30,076
Support for Learning Recovery (LREBG Funds) · $1.8 million → $1.9 million · p. 161 ↗+$50,000
Inclusive Community Building and Development · $1.4 million → $0.9 million · p. 161 ↗−$0.4 million
How the plan measures it · 10 measures
None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 80 ↗.
Goal 5Engage families and community partners through communication, collaboration, and education to promote…$4.7 million4% of action budgets
“Engage families and community partners through communication, collaboration, and education to promote transformative relationships that lead to student success” p. 95 ↗
7 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $3.9 million (+$807,696)
Largest funded actions
Family Outreach$1.6 millionaction 5.4 · p. 162 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $1.1 million is state funding counted toward those services
Family Resources/Community Collaboration$1.3 millionaction 5.2 · p. 162 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $1.2 million is state funding counted toward those services
Communication with Families$0.7 millionaction 5.1 · p. 162 ↗
Communication - Translation Services$0.7 millionaction 5.5 · p. 162 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
Family Education$0.2 millionaction 5.3 · p. 162 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
2 more funded actions in this goal
Special Education Advocacy · action 5.6 · p. 162 ↗$0.2 million
Family Advocacy and Leadership · action 5.7 · p. 162 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need servicesunder $0.1 million
Changes from last year’s plan, same title
Family Outreach+$0.4 million$1.2 million → $1.6 million · p. 162 ↗
Family Resources/Community Collaboration+$0.3 million$1.0 million → $1.3 million · p. 162 ↗
Communication - Translation Services+$142,492$532,808 → $675,300 · p. 162 ↗
Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan
Communication with Families · $806,291 → $700,243 · p. 162 ↗−$106,048
Family Education · $202,700 → $195,700 · p. 162 ↗−$7,000
Special Education Advocacy · $125,591 → $154,500 · p. 162 ↗+$28,909
Family Advocacy and Leadership · $40,000 → $40,000 · p. 162 ↗unchanged
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. 95 ↗.
Goal 6 · Equity Multiplier Focus GoalImplement a system of support that ensures Sem Yeto High School students earn a high school diploma and that…$717,0571% of action budgets
“Implement a system of support that ensures Sem Yeto High School students earn a high school diploma and that the school achieves an 90% graduation rate by June 2027” p. 113 ↗
7 funded actions · reworded since the 2025–26 plan
Largest funded actions
Increase Course Offerings$245,000action 6.2 · p. 162 ↗
Career Planning and Exploration$122,000action 6.8 · p. 163 ↗
Student Engagement Activities$110,000action 6.6 · p. 163 ↗
Tier I Mathematics Instruction and Support for Students$95,057action 6.7 · p. 163 ↗
Writing Across the Curriculum$70,000action 6.9 · p. 163 ↗
2 more funded actions in this goal
Project Based Learning · action 6.10 · p. 163 ↗$70,000
Behavior Intervention Training and Support · action 6.5 · p. 163 ↗$5,000
Changes from last year’s plan, same title
Career Planning and Exploration−$128,000$250,000 → $122,000 · p. 163 ↗
Increase Course Offerings+$15,000$230,000 → $245,000 · p. 162 ↗
Tier I Mathematics Instruction and Support for Students+$10,057$85,000 → $95,057 · p. 163 ↗
Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan
Writing Across the Curriculum · $70,000 · p. 163 ↗new or renamed
Project Based Learning · $70,000 · p. 163 ↗new or renamed
Behavior Intervention Training and Support · $5,000 → $5,000 · p. 163 ↗unchanged
A reworded title counts as new.
How the plan measures it · 11 measures
None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 113 ↗.
Goal 7 · Equity Multiplier Focus GoalImplement a system of support that ensures H. Glenn Richardson reduces suspension rate to 3% or less by June 2027$51,697under 1% of action budgets
2 funded actions · no goal 7 in the 2025–26 plan · p. 129 ↗
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, 20,359 students
1Hispanic or Latino48%
2Black or African American13%
3White12%
4Two or more races10%
5Filipino9%
6Asian7%
7Pacific Islander<1%
8American Indian or Alaska Native<1%
9Not reported<1%
Shares use the district's own October enrollment counts from the CDE, including its charter schools.
Free or reduced-price meals
65%
Across California, 63% of students qualify.
2024–25 · 13,257 of 20,304 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified 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, 41% of the district’s English learners moved up at least one level on the state’s English test (ELPAC), or stayed at the top (1,043 of 2,516 students). California: 47%. It counts students moving up the test’s levels, so a student can count here before becoming fluent.
8 schools getting state support, 2025–26
6 in extra targeted support · 2 in targeted support
Anna Kyle ElementaryTargeted support: homeless students and students of two or more races
Armijo HighExtra targeted support: students with disabilities
Suisun ElementaryExtra targeted support: students of two or more races
Weir Preparatory AcademyExtra targeted support: students of two or more races and White students
This list covers the district’s own schools; each charter school’s page shows its record. Federal designation under the Every Student Succeeds Act, 2025–26.
Which public schools in Fairfield-Suisun Unified rank highest?
Elementary: Nelda Mundy Elementary, 82nd percentile (Strong). Middle: Virtual Academy of Fairfield-Suisun, 94th percentile (Strong). High: Public Safety Academy, 95th 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified good?
Fairfield-Suisun Unified’s 19 public elementary schools run from the bottom 1% to the 82nd percentile among the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests). By band: 1 Strong, 4 Solid, 3 Developing and 11 Needs Support. Fairfield-Suisun Unified’s 11 public middle schools run from the 5th to the 94th percentile among the 2,529 California middle schools we score (spring 2026 tests). By band: 3 Strong, 1 Solid, 1 Developing and 6 Needs Support. Fairfield-Suisun Unified’s 4 public high schools run from the 6th to the 95th percentile among the 1,498 California high schools we score (spring 2025 tests). By band: 1 Strong, 1 Solid and 2 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified compare with California?
The average elementary school in Fairfield-Suisun Unified had 26 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified had 23 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California middle school we score had 18 in 100. The average high school in Fairfield-Suisun Unified had 21 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California high school we score had 22 in 100. These are averages of school rates: each school counts once, whatever its size.
How much does Fairfield-Suisun Unified spend per student?
Fairfield-Suisun Unified spent $15,888 per student in the 2024–25 school year. The typical California district spent $20,491. About 56 cents of every Fairfield-Suisun Unified 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified’s 2026–27 spending plan?
The district’s 2026–27 spending plan puts $124.5 million into 53 funded actions in 7 goals, 34% of its $364.5 million general fund budget. Its largest goal holds $60.3 million, 48% of the action budgets. The 2026–27 plan, goal by goal.
Where do these results come from?
California’s state tests (CAASPP): spring 2026 for elementary and middle schools, spring 2025 for high schools, 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 Fairfield-Suisun Unified, with the district’s spending and state accountability records.
Data source: California Department of Education · CAASPP 2025–26 elementary and middle school; 2024–25 high school
Percentiles, bands and Scope Scores are SchoolScope’s own calculations from these state files.