ExploreMapCompareBlogSign in

How we score schools

We score schools at three levels — elementary, middle, and high — each with a Scope Score formula tailored to the data that matters most at that stage.

Last updated: March 2026 · Data source: California Department of Education · About SchoolScope

SchoolScope uses only official California state data — the same data the state uses for accountability. We don't survey parents, students, or use self-reported data. Every number on this site can be verified at the source.

Three lenses, one score

The Scope Score draws from two of three lenses we use to understand a school. The third lens provides context you can see — but it never feeds the score.

Scored

Academic Performance

Does this school push kids past proficiency?

  • % Exceeded Standard
  • % Met + Exceeded
  • Growth Trajectory (elem + middle)
  • High school adds: Graduation Rate, College Readiness
Scored

School Climate

Do kids show up, stay engaged, and feel supported?

  • Chronic Absenteeism (inverted)
  • Suspension Rate (inverted)
  • ELPAC Proficiency (English Learner progress)
Context only — not scored

Community Profile

Who goes here, and what resources does it have?

  • Student demographics
  • Free/Reduced Lunch %
  • Per-Pupil Spending
  • Equity gaps by subgroup
  • Student-Teacher Ratio

Lenses 1 and 2 feed the Scope Score. Lens 3 is displayed on every school profile so you can see the full context — but it is never part of the score. Why? Read our full reasoning below.

The Scope Score formulas

Every scored school gets a single Scope Score from 0–100, built from weighted signals. The weights differ by school level because the available data — and what matters most — changes as students progress.

SignalLensElementaryMiddleHigh School
% Exceeded StandardAcademic43%43%22%
% Met + ExceededAcademic22%22%18%
Growth TrajectoryAcademic15% (G3→G5)15% (G6→G8)—
Graduation RateAcademic——25%
College Readiness (CCI)Academic——20%
Chronic Absenteeism (inv.)Climate10%10%5%
Suspension Rate (inv.)Climate5%5%5%
ELPAC ProficiencyClimate5%5%5%
Total100%100%100%

When a signal is unavailable for a school (e.g., no chronic absenteeism data), the weight is redistributed proportionally across available signals. Schools without sufficient data are not ranked.

How scores are computed

Each dimension is measured relative to the California state average for schools at the same level. The size of the gap matters — not just whether a school is above or below average.

A school with 70% of students exceeding the standard ranks meaningfully higher than one at 55% exceeded, even though both are well above average. The score reflects how far above average each school lands, not just its position in a sorted list.

The final Scope Score is centered around 50 — the state average school scores roughly 50. Most schools fall between 30 and 70. A score of 75 means the school is well above average across its weighted dimensions; a score of 35 means it consistently sits below average. The scale is consistent, so a 10-point difference at the top of the range means the same thing as a 10-point difference in the middle.

This approach is different from systems that rank schools by position (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and then compress everything to a 1–10 scale. With position-based ranking, the school ranked 1st and the school ranked 200th might be nearly identical in actual performance — the rank just doesn't tell you that. Our scoring preserves the real distance between schools.

What each metric means

% Exceeded Standard — the ceiling

Most rating sites report "% proficient" — students who met or exceeded the standard. This hides a crucial difference.

Consider two schools, both "70% proficient":

  • School A: 50% exceeded, 20% met — a school actively pushing students to excel
  • School B: 10% exceeded, 60% met — a school where most students barely clear the bar

The exceeded rate is one of the strongest signals we've found of a school that challenges students, which is why it gets the highest academic weight in our Scope Score formula. Read: Why the exceeded vs. met split changes everything →

% Met + Exceeded — the floor

This is baseline proficiency: what percentage of students clear the bar? It ensures we don't ignore schools that reliably get students to grade level, even if they aren't pushing many past it. The ceiling and floor together paint the full picture.

Growth Trajectory — two signals, not one

We measure growth two ways, using whichever is available:

Cohort tracking (preferred): We follow the same school's cohort across years — for example, tracking 2023's 3rd graders to see how they perform as 5th graders in 2025. This uses SBAC scale scores, which are designed for cross-year, cross-grade comparison. 98% of elementary schools and 93% of middle schools have cohort growth data.

Cross-sectional (fallback): When historical data isn't available, we compare this year's 5th graders to this year's 3rd graders using scale scores. This is less precise than cohort tracking because it compares different students, but it's still informative.

Both approaches are measured relative to the state average for schools at the same level — how far above or below average matters, not just rank order. A school whose cohort gained 60 scale score points when the state average is 50 gets meaningfully more credit than one that gained 52.

High schools don't have a growth component because California only tests at grade 11 — there's no earlier grade to compare against.

Chronic Absenteeism — a culture signal

Chronic absenteeism measures the percentage of students who miss 10% or more of school days. It's one of the strongest predictors of academic outcomes and reflects school culture, family engagement, and community stability.

It's inverted in our formula — lower absenteeism means a higher score. It carries more weight at elementary and middle (10%) than high school (5%) because engagement patterns are established early.

Suspension Rate — discipline philosophy

Suspension rate measures the percentage of students suspended at least once. High suspension rates often indicate a discipline-heavy culture rather than a supportive one, and disproportionately affect underserved communities. Also inverted — lower is better.

Graduation Rate — the biggest high school weight

Graduation rate carries 25% of the high school Scope Score — the single largest weight — because it's the most consequential outcome. A high school that doesn't graduate its students isn't delivering on its most basic promise, regardless of test scores. We use the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) published by the California Department of Education.

College Readiness (CCI) — what happens after graduation

California's College/Career Indicator (CCI) measures the percentage of graduates who completed the requirements for college or career readiness — things like completing A-G coursework, passing AP exams, earning career technical education certifications, or meeting other state-defined criteria. At 20% of the high school Scope Score, it rewards schools that prepare students for what comes next, not just for the diploma.

ELPAC Proficiency — English Learner progress as a school climate signal

ELPAC is California's English Language Proficiency Assessments for California. It measures the English proficiency of students identified as English Learners across four domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. We use the percentage of English Learner students at a school who reach Level 4, "Well Developed" — the highest proficiency tier.

We classify ELPAC in the School Climate lens rather than the Academic Performance lens. The reasoning: a school where English Learner students are progressing toward full proficiency is delivering on its instructional mission for every student it serves — that's a climate and culture signal, not just a test score.

ELPAC carries 5% of the Scope Score at all three levels. When a school has no English Learner students, this weight redistributes proportionally across the remaining dimensions. No school is penalized for not having an EL population — we simply work with the data that exists.

Data sources

All data is publicly available. No restrictions on commercial use. Our current test year is 2025.

The sources above are the nine inputs to the Scope Score formula. For our complete data source inventory across all 19+ government datasets — including sources used for school profiles, district pages, and community context — see our About page.

How we correct for biases

Raw data has built-in biases that make comparisons unfair. We apply four corrections before computing any ranking. We make judgment calls. Here's exactly what they are.

1

Grade-test normalization

The problem

5th grade tests are harder than 3rd grade tests. If we averaged a school's raw proficiency rates across grades, schools with strong 5th graders would look worse than they are — because the 5th grade bar is higher.

Our fix

We compare each school's 3rd-grade performance to all other schools' 3rd-grade performance, and their 5th-grade performance to all other 5th-grade performance — separately. Then we average those grade-level rankings. A school is never penalized for teaching harder grades.

Same principle as college admissions — your GPA is judged within your school's grading scale, not across all schools with different scales.

Technical details
For each (grade, subject) pair, we measure every school relative to the state average for that grade and subject: exceededScore[g,s] = scale(pct_exceeded[g,s], mean[g,s], sd[g,s]). The school's final exceeded input is the mean of those grade-subject scores. This replaces raw averaging across grades and ensures the size of the difference from average is preserved — a school 20 points above average gets proportionally more credit than one 5 points above.
2

Scale-score growth

The problem

Measuring growth by comparing 3rd-grade and 5th-grade pass rates is misleading — it conflates "did students learn more?" with "is the 5th-grade test harder?" A school could genuinely improve every student and still show flat or negative growth because the bar moved.

Our fix

California's CAASPP test publishes scale scores specifically designed to be comparable across grades — the same measurement framework the testing vendor built for exactly this comparison. We measure growth using those scale scores, not pass-rate differences.

We use the tool the way it was designed to be used.

Technical details
Growth = mean(mean_scale_score, G5 ELA+Math) − mean(mean_scale_score, G3 ELA+Math). Smarter Balanced scale scores are IRT-calibrated and vertically equated across grades. The expected population gain from G3 to G5 is approximately 35–70 scale score points. The growth score is then scaled relative to the state average — how far above or below average this school lands determines its contribution, the same way every other dimension is handled.
3

Small-school stability

The problem

A school with 12 students tested can swing wildly from year to year — not because the school changed, but because of natural variation in a small group. Raw scores from tiny cohorts create false precision.

Our fix

Schools with fewer tested students have their metrics adjusted slightly toward the statewide average. A school with 15 students tested gets more adjustment; a school with 300 gets almost none. This prevents small sample sizes from distorting rankings.

We're honest about uncertainty. Smaller samples get less confidence, not fake precision.

Technical details
Bayesian shrinkage: smoothed = (n / (n + k)) * raw + (1 − n / (n + k)) * statewide_mean, where k = 30 (calibration constant). With k=30: a school with 15 tested students is pulled 67% toward the mean; 100 students, 23% toward the mean; 300 students, only 9%. Applied to raw dimension values before the composite step.
4

Cohort tracking

The problem

Comparing this year's 5th graders to this year's 3rd graders tells you something, but those are different kids. Cohort differences, demographic shifts, or a strong incoming class can make growth look better or worse than it really is.

Our fix

When we have historical data, we track the same school's cohort across years — 2023's 3rd graders become 2025's 5th graders. This isolates what the school adds from who walks in the door.

Same kids, same school, two years later. That's a real growth signal.

Technical details
Cohort growth = mean(mean_scale_score, current year high grade) − mean(mean_scale_score, prior year low grade). For elementary: mean(G5 scale scores, 2025) − mean(G3 scale scores, 2023). Uses SBAC scale scores designed for cross-year, cross-grade comparison. 98% of elementary and 93% of middle schools have sufficient historical data for cohort tracking. Schools without prior-year data fall back to cross-sectional growth.

These four corrections mean our rankings are more stable year-over-year, fairer to schools with harder-to-test populations, and more honest about uncertainty than raw-average approaches.

How rankings work

The scoring pipeline runs in this order: grade-subject normalization → cohort or cross-sectional growth → Bayesian smoothing → weighted composite → Scope Score (centered at 50). Each step is described above.

  • Schools are ranked within their own level — elementary vs. elementary, middle vs. middle, high vs. high. Rankings are never mixed across levels.
  • Percentile tells you what percentage of same-level schools score below this one. A school at the 90th percentile outscores 90% of schools at its level statewide.
  • The maximum percentile displayed is 99th. We don't show 100th percentile.
  • Schools without sufficient data to compute a Scope Score are not ranked. No data means no score — we don't manufacture numbers.

School Archetypes

Every California public school receives one of seven archetypes based on its performance profile. Archetypes describe a school's character — what makes it distinctive — rather than reducing it to a single number. They are classified automatically from Scope Score data at render time.

ArchetypeLabelCriteria
⭐ FinisherHigh CeilingExceeded ≥50% AND Scope Score ≥70
🚀 AcceleratorGrowth EngineGrowth ≥+5.0pp AND Scope Score ≥50
💪 BalancedStrong All-AroundScope Score ≥65, no weak dimensions
📈 ClimberOn the RiseGrowth ≥+3.0pp AND Scope Score <60
🏫 FoundationSolid BaseMet+Exceeded ≥70% AND Scope Score 50-65
🤝 CommunityCulture FirstLow absenteeism + low suspension AND Score <65
🌱 EmergingBuilding MomentumDefault — every school has strengths data can't capture

Classification is evaluated in priority order — a school that qualifies as both a Finisher and a Balanced school will be labeled as a Finisher. Private schools do not receive archetypes because they lack CAASPP test data.

Performance Bands

Rather than asking parents to interpret a precise number, we group Scope Scores into four performance bands. The band tells you what matters: is this school in the right zone?

BandScore RangeWhat It Means
Strong70–100Outperforms most California schools on academics and climate
Solid50–69Above-average performance with room to grow
Developing30–49Near average — growth trajectory matters here
Needs Support0–29Below state averages — context and growth are especially important

Precise Scope Scores (0–100) are always shown alongside band labels for transparency. The band communicates the zone; the number provides the detail.

Contextual Signals (Not Scored)

Some data tells you important things about a school but shouldn't be reduced to a score. We display these as Community Profile context — visible on school profiles but never factored into the Scope Score.

Physical Fitness (FITNESSGRAM)

California mandates the Physical Fitness Test for grades 5, 7, and 9. School-level PFT results were publicly downloadable through 2018-19, but CDE discontinued research-file publication after a Title 5 regulation change. If CDE reinstates downloadable PFT data, we plan to show the percentage of students meeting all six fitness standards (Healthy Fitness Zone) as a whole-child indicator — context only, never scored, because fitness outcomes correlate with school resources and neighborhood wealth.

Teacher Stability

We show average years of teaching experience and the percentage of first-year and second-year teachers at each school. Veteran teachers are associated with better outcomes — but scoring teacher stability would penalize schools in hard-to-staff areas that serve the students who need the most support. Source: CDE Staff Experience data.

College/Career Readiness (High School)

For high schools, we show the number of students qualifying through AP exams and CTE pathway completion from the CDE College/Career Indicator (CCI). These indicate academic rigor and vocational options — but wealthier schools naturally have higher participation, so we show this as context rather than score it. Source: CDE Dashboard CCI data.

Why context instead of scoring? Every metric above correlates with school funding and neighborhood demographics. Scoring them would effectively penalize schools for being in lower-income areas — the opposite of what parents need. We show the data so you can factor it into your decision, but we don't pretend it measures school quality independent of resources.

Limitations

We believe in honesty about what our scores can and can't tell you.

  • Test scores are one lens, not the whole picture. They correlate with many things we care about but don't capture everything that makes a school great.
  • We can't measure teacher quality, school culture, or creative programs. The data doesn't exist in any public dataset. A school with an incredible arts program or a transformative principal won't show that in our score.
  • Our Scope Score is our best attempt, not objective truth. Reasonable people could weight these signals differently. We publish our weights so you can evaluate our choices.
  • High school Scope Scores lack growth data. California only tests at grade 11, so there's no earlier tested grade to measure progress against. This means the high school formula relies more heavily on outcomes (graduation, college readiness).
  • Cohort growth tracks school-level aggregates, not individual students. We follow the same school's cohort across years (e.g., 2023's 3rd graders as 2025's 5th graders), but kids transfer in and out. Demographic shifts or a particularly strong incoming class can still affect results. For the 2% of elementary and 7% of middle schools without prior-year data, we fall back to cross-sectional comparison (this year's 5th graders vs. this year's 3rd graders), which is less precise.
  • Feeder patterns are estimated. We use NCES boundary data to estimate which elementary schools feed into which middle and high schools. These are not official district assignments and may not reflect transfers, magnet programs, or recent rezoning.
  • Small schools may have volatile scores. Bayesian smoothing reduces this, but schools with very few tested students still carry more uncertainty than large schools. Our smoothing is honest about that uncertainty rather than hiding it.
  • We don't adjust for demographics or income. We show you the raw signal. Context (free/reduced lunch %, community demographics) is presented alongside scores, not baked into them.

Why we show diversity — but don’t score it

Every school rating system wrestles with the same question: should demographics affect the score? We thought carefully about this. Here’s where we landed and why.

What others tried

GreatSchools added equity metrics in 2018, attempting to surface how well schools serve different student populations. But in their public-facing scores, the ratings still correlate heavily with neighborhood income in ways that are hard to disentangle from school quality.

Some rating sites assign a diversity grade using a diversity index — a mathematical measure of how evenly students are distributed across racial and ethnic groups. The problem: diversity indices (Shannon entropy, Simpson’s index, and similar measures) are lowest in communities where one group is the majority. A school that’s 90% Hispanic in a 90% Hispanic neighborhood scores low on a diversity index — not because the school is failing, but because of who lives nearby. Scoring diversity this way penalizes the schools that serve majority-minority communities.

We haven’t found a diversity scoring approach in public ratings that avoids this trap. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible — but we weren’t willing to adopt one without being confident it works.

Our approach

What we show

Demographic composition on every public school profile — race/ethnicity breakdown, Free/Reduced Lunch %, and how the school’s enrollment compares to the surrounding neighborhood. We also surface equity gaps: disaggregated test scores, absenteeism, and suspension rates by student subgroup — so you can see how the school performs for low-income students, English learners, and every racial/ethnic group individually. Per-pupil spending and student-teacher ratio provide resource context.

What we don’t do

We don’t roll demographics into the Scope Score. A school’s racial composition, income mix, or neighborhood profile is never added to or subtracted from its rating. The score reflects what the school does — not who walks in the door.

The data that actually reveals equity

Demographic percentages tell you who a school serves. The equity gap data tells you whether it serves them equitably. Two schools can have identical demographics and wildly different absenteeism rates by subgroup — one where every group is engaged, one where specific populations are chronically disconnected. That gap is meaningful. We surface it.

ELPAC proficiency (English Learner progress toward full English fluency) is the one place where serving a specific population directly feeds the Scope Score — because it measures what the school does for those students, not who those students are.

The principle

We don’t penalize schools for serving disadvantaged communities. The Scope Score answers one question: how good is this school at its job? Subgroup data answers a different one: how good is this school for my kid specifically? Both matter — but they’re different lenses. Mixing them into one number collapses the nuance.

Growth trajectory, ELPAC proficiency, and school climate metrics measure what a school does. Demographics and subgroup outcomes measure who goes there and how the school serves them. We show both — but the score reflects the school’s work, not its zip code.

Reasonable people can disagree with this choice. Some will say we’re leaving important context out of the score. We’re open to that argument — but we think surfacing the context transparently, rather than baking it into a single number, gives you more information, not less.

What’s next

A future version of SchoolScope will let you adjust dimension weights to match your family’s priorities. If the schools serving your community are what you care most about, you’ll be able to weight that — that’s your judgment call to make, not ours.

Data confidence

Not all numbers on school profiles have the same certainty. We label data by its source so you know what you're looking at.

  • DirectOfficial data for this school, published by CDE or NCES. Test scores, absenteeism, suspension rates, graduation rates, enrollment. These are the most reliable inputs.
  • DerivedComputed by SchoolScope from official inputs — growth trajectory, Scope Score, percentile rank. We show our work on the methodology page and in school profile score factors.
  • DistrictDistrict-level data applied to a school when school-specific data isn't available. Less precise but still informative. Always labeled when shown.
Questions about our Scope Score methodology? We believe in radical transparency. If you think our weights are wrong, you'll soon be able to adjust them yourself (paid feature). Get in touch with questions or feedback.

Further reading