SARC Report for Aspire Richmond Technology Academy · 2019. 1. 11. · Two or More Races 1.2 % Other 0.7 % Student Group (Other) Percent of Total Enrollment Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

Aspire Richmond Technology Academy

By February 1 of each year, every school in California is required by state law to publish a School Accountability Report Card (SARC).The SARC contains information aboutthe condit ion and performance of each California public school. Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) all local educat ional agencies (LEAs) are required toprepare a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which describes how they intend to meet annual school-specific goals for all pupils, w ith specific act ivit ies to addressstate and local priorit ies. Addit ionally, data reported in an LCAP is to be consistent w ith data reported in the SARC.

For more information about SARC requirements, see the California Department of Educat ion (CDE) SARC Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/.

For more information about the LCFF or LCAP, see the CDE LCFF Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/.

For addit ional information about the school, parents/guardians, and community members should contact the school principal or the district office.

DataQuest

Internet Access

California Department of Education

School Accountability Report CardReported Using Data from the 2015-16 School Year

DataQuest is an online data tool located on the CDE DataQuest Web page that contains addit ional information about this school and comparisons of the school tothe district and the county. Specifically, DataQuest is a dynamic system that provides reports for accountability (e.g., test data, enrollment, high school graduates,dropouts, course enrollments, staffing, and data regarding English learners).

Internet access is available at public libraries and other locat ions that are publicly accessible (e.g., the California State Library). Access to the Internet at librariesand public locat ions is generally provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Other use restrict ions may include the hours of operat ion, the length of t ime that aworkstat ion may be used (depending on availability), the types of software programs available on a workstat ion, and the ability to print documents.

Arlena Ford, AdministratorPrincipal, Aspire Richmond Technology Academy

Aspire Richmond Technology Academy (RTA) is a tuit ion-free public charter elementary school located in Richmond, CA.We serve 250 students in grades Kindergarten through fifth. RTA enables students to become self-motivated,competent, life-long learners. We strive for every scholar to leave our school secondary ready and on the path to collegefor certain. We w ill lay a strong foundat ion so that our scholars feel empowered to find their own path to success andhave a posit ive and last ing impact on their community.

Aspire Richmond Technology Academy3040 Hilltop Mall Rd.Richmond, CA

Phone: 510-480-0660E-mail: [email protected]

About Our SchoolAbout Our School

ContactContact

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/mailto:[email protected]

Last updated: 1/23/2017


About This School

Contact Information (School Year 2016-17)Contact Information (School Year 2016-17)

District Contact Information (School Year 2016-17)

District Name West Contra Costa Unified

Phone Number (510) 231-1101

Superintendent Matthew Duffy

E-mail Address [email protected]

Web Site www.wccusd.net

School Contact Information (School Year 2016-17)

School Name Aspire Richmond Technology Academy

Street 3040 Hilltop Mall Rd.

City, State, Zip Richmond, Ca,

Phone Number 510-480-0660

Principal Arlena Ford, Administrator

E-mail Address [email protected]

Web Site www.aspirepublicschools.org

County-District-School (CDS) Code

07617960132118

School Description and Mission Statement (School Year 2016-17)School Description and Mission Statement (School Year 2016-17)

Aspire Richmond Technology Academy (RTA) is a K-5 grade school in Richmond that is part of the Aspire Public Schools network. Aspire RTA opened in 2015.Aspire Public Schools is a non-profit organizat ion that operates high performing charter schools that focus on one goal- preparing urban students for college.

Vision: Every student is prepared to earn a college degree.

Mission Statement: To open and operate small, high-quality charter schools in low -income neighborhoods, in order to:• Increase the academic performance of underserved students• Develop effect ive educators• Share successful pract ices w ith other forward-thinking educators, and• Catalyze change in public schools.

Core ValuesPurposefulness: Deliberate act ion, focused on the organizat ion’s goals and priorit iesCollaborat ion: Working collect ively to accomplish more than what is possible aloneOwnership: Individual and group accountability for results, act ions and decisionsQuality: Commitment to excellence and the discipline to cont inually improveCustomer Service: Responsiveness to the needs of external and internal customers

Since its creat ion, Aspire Richmond Technology Academy has been rethinking educat ion to make going to college the expectat ion, not the except ion, for all ourscholars. Through this work, we've learned that nothing is more important than teacher effect iveness, parent involvement, small group, and different iatedinstruct ion.At RTA, we cont inue to hone in on teacher effect iveness, parent involvement and small group instruct ion, Aspire's bread and butter. At the same t ime, we areimplementing new programs to better support our scholar's social needs and ensure that our curriculum makes sense in today's highly technical economy. Someof those programs include blended learning, coding, and addit ional support services.

2015-16 SARC - Aspire Richmond Technology Academy

Page 2 of 25

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]



Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2015-16)Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2015-16)

Grade Level Number of Students

Kindergarten 50

Grade 1 48

Grade 2 50

Grade 3 50

Grade 4 27

Grade 5 26

Total Enrollment 251

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2015-16)Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2015-16)

Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment

Black or African American 11.6 %

American Indian or Alaska Nat ive 0.0 %

Asian 2.0 %

Filipino 4.4 %

Hispanic or Lat ino 77.7 %

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.4 %

White 2.0 %

Two or More Races 1.2 %

Other 0.7 %

Student Group (Other) Percent of Total Enrollment

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 78.9 %

English Learners 54.2 %

Students w ith Disabilit ies 10.0 %

Foster Youth 0.0 %


Page 3 of 25



A. Conditions of Learning

State Priority: Basic

The SARC provides the follow ing information relevant to the State priority: Basic (Priority 1):

Degree to which teachers are appropriately assigned and fully credent ialed in the subject area and for the pupils they are teaching;Pupils have access to standards-aligned instruct ional materials; andSchool facilit ies are maintained in good repair

Note: “Misassignments” refers to the number of posit ions filled by teachers who lack legal authorizat ion to teach that grade level, subject area, student group, etc.

* Total Teacher Misassignments includes the number of Misassignments of Teachers of English learners.

Teacher CredentialsTeacher Credentials

Teachers School District

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2016-17

With Full Credent ial 13

W ithout Full Credent ial 1

Teachers Teaching Outside SubjectArea of Competence (w ith fullcredent ial)

0

2014-15 2015-16 2016-170.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0Teachers with Full Credential

Teachers without Full Credential

Teachers Teaching Outside Subject Area of Competence

Teacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher PositionsTeacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher Positions

Indicator2014-

152015-

162016-

17

Misassignments of Teachers of EnglishLearners

1

Total Teacher Misassignments* 1

Vacant Teacher Posit ions 0

2014-15 2015-16 2016-170.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners

Total Teacher Misassignments

Vacant Teacher Positions


Page 4 of 25



Note: High-poverty schools are defined as those schools w ith student eligibility of approximately 40 percent or more in the free and reduced price meals program. Low-poverty schools are those w ith student eligibility of approximately 39 percent or less in the free and reduced price meals program.

Year and month in which data were collected: August 2015

Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (School Year 2015-16)Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (School Year 2015-16)

Location of ClassesPercent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects Taught by

Highly Qualified TeachersPercent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects Not Taught by

Highly Qualified Teachers

This School 100.0% 0.0%

All Schools in District 94.0% 6.0%

High-Poverty Schoolsin District

94.0% 7.0%

Low-Poverty Schoolsin District

97.0% 3.0%

Quality, Currency, Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (School Year 2016-17)Quality, Currency, Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (School Year 2016-17)

Note: Cells w ith N/A values do not require data.

SubjectTextbooks and Instructional Materials/year of

AdoptionFrom Most Recent

Adoption?Percent Students Lacking Own Assigned

Copy

Reading/Language ArtsReading and Writ ing Workshop Units of Study

Yes 0.0 %

MathematicsEureka Math

Yes 0.0 %

ScienceCMO and/or teacher created materials

0.0 %

History-Social ScienceCMO and/or teacher created materials

Yes 0.0 %

Foreign LanguageCMO and/or teacher created materials

Yes 0.0 %

HealthCMO and/or teacher created materials

Yes 0.0 %

Visual and Performing ArtsCMO and/or teacher created materials

Yes 0.0 %

Science Lab Eqpmt (Grades9-12)

N/A N/A 0.0 %


Page 5 of 25



School Facility Good Repair StatusYear and month of the most recent FIT report: November 2016

Overall Facility RateYear and month of the most recent FIT report: November 2016

School Facility Conditions and Planned ImprovementsSchool Facility Conditions and Planned Improvements

Aspire Richmond Technology Academy occupies a beaut iful, brand new facility designed and built specifically for the school. The school has occupied the site sinceit opened in the Fall of 2015. The facility is safe, clean, and adequate and is in good repair.

System Inspected Rating

Repair Needed andAction Taken or

Planned

Systems: Gas Leaks, Mechanical/HVAC,Sewer

Good

Interior: Interior Surfaces

Cleanliness: Overall Cleanliness,Pest/Vermin Infestat ion

Good

Electrical: Electrical Good

Restrooms/Fountains: Restrooms,Sinks/Fountains

Good

Safety: Fire Safety, Hazardous Materials Good

Structural: Structural Damage, Roofs Good

External: Playground/School Grounds,W indows/Doors/Gates/Fences

Good

Overall Rat ing Exemplary


Page 6 of 25


B. Pupil Outcomes

State Priority: Pupil Achievement

The SARC provides the follow ing information relevant to the State priority: Pupil Achievement (Priority 4):

Statewide assessments (i.e., California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress [CAASPP] System, which includes the Smarter Balanced SummativeAssessments for students in the general educat ion populat ion and the California Alternate Assessments [CAAs] for English language arts/literacy [ELA] andmathematics given in grades three through eight and grade eleven. The CAAs have replaced the California Alternate Performance Assessment [CAPA] for ELA andmathematics, which were eliminated in 2015. Only eligible students may part icipate in the administrat ion of the CAAs. CAA items are aligned w ith alternateachievement standards, which are linked w ith the Common Core State Standards [CCSS] for students w ith significant cognit ive disabilit ies); and

The percentage of students who have successfully completed courses that sat isfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the CaliforniaState University, or career technical educat ion sequences or programs of study.

Note: Percentages are not calculated when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small forstat ist ical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

CAASPP Test Results in English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics for All StudentsCAASPP Test Results in English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics for All Students

Subject

Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding the State Standards

School District State

2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16

English Language Arts / Literacy (grades 3-8 and 11) -- 37.0% -- 35.0% -- 48.0%

Mathematics (grades 3-8 and 11) -- 33.0% -- 25.0% -- 36.0%


Page 7 of 25


Note: ELA test results include the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment and the CAA. The “Percent Met or Exceeded” is calculated by taking the total number ofstudents who met or exceeded the standard on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment plus the total number of students who met the standard on the CAAsdivided by the total number of students who part icipated in both assessments.

Double dashes (--) appear in the table when the number of students is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for stat ist icalaccuracy or to protect student privacy.

Note: The number of students tested includes all students who part icipated in the test whether they received a score or not; however, the number of students testedis not the number that was used to calculate the achievement level percentages. The achievement level percentages are calculated using only students who receivedscores.

CAASPP Test Results in ELA by Student Group CAASPP Test Results in ELA by Student Group

Grades Three through Eight and Grade Eleven (School Year 2015-16)Grades Three through Eight and Grade Eleven (School Year 2015-16)

ELA - Grade 3ELA - Grade 3

Student Group Total Enrollment Number Tested Percent Tested Percent Met or Exceeded

All Students 50 50 100.0% 40.0%

Male 20 20 100.0% 50.0%

Female 30 30 100.0% 33.3%

Black or African American -- -- -- --

American Indian or Alaska Nat ive -- -- -- --

Asian -- -- -- --

Filipino -- -- -- --

Hispanic or Lat ino 43 43 100.0% 39.5%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander -- -- -- --

White -- -- -- --

Two or More Races -- -- -- --

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 35 35 100.0% 40.0%

English Learners 17 17 100.0% 11.8%

Students w ith Disabilit ies -- -- -- --

Students Receiving Migrant Educat ion Services -- -- -- --

Foster Youth -- -- -- --


Page 8 of 25







All Students 26 26 100.0% 38.5%

Male 13 13 100.0% 46.2%

Female 13 13 100.0% 30.8%



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --



English Learners -- -- -- --





Page 9 of 25







All Students 26 26 100.0% 30.8%

Male 14 14 100.0% 28.6%

Female 12 12 100.0% 33.3%



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --








Page 10 of 25


Note: Mathematics test results include the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment and the CAA. The “Percent Met or Exceeded” is calculated by taking the totalnumber of students who met or exceeded the standard on the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment plus the total number of students who met the standard onthe CAAs divided by the total number of students who part icipated in both assessments.



CAASPP Test Results in Mathematics by Student GroupCAASPP Test Results in Mathematics by Student Group

Grades Three through Eight and Grade Eleven (School Year 2015-16)Grades Three through Eight and Grade Eleven (School Year 2015-16)

Mathematics - Grade 3Mathematics - Grade 3


All Students 50 50 100.0% 44.9%

Male 20 20 100.0% 52.6%

Female 30 30 100.0% 40.0%



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --



English Learners 17 17 100.0% 25.0%





Page 11 of 25







All Students 26 26 100.0% 30.8%

Male 13 13 100.0% 46.2%

Female 13 13 100.0% 15.4%



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --








Page 12 of 25







All Students 26 26 100.0% 11.5%

Male 14 14 100.0% 14.3%

Female 12 12 100.0% 8.3%



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --








Page 13 of 25







All Students -- -- -- --

Male -- -- -- --

Female -- -- -- --



Asian -- -- -- --


Hispanic or Lat ino -- -- -- --

Nat ive Hawaiian or Pacific Islander -- -- -- --

White -- -- -- --


Socioeconomically Disadvantaged -- -- -- --






Page 14 of 25








Male -- -- -- --

Female -- -- -- --



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --








Page 15 of 25








Male -- -- -- --

Female -- -- -- --



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --








Page 16 of 25








Male -- -- -- --

Female -- -- -- --



Asian -- -- -- --




White -- -- -- --








Page 17 of 25



Note: Science test results include California Standards Tests (CSTs), California Modified Assessment (CMA), and California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) ingrades five, eight, and ten.

Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for stat ist icalaccuracy or to protect student privacy.

CAASPP Tests Results in Science by Student GroupGrades Five, Eight and Grade Ten (School Year 2015-16)

Note: Science test results include CSTs, CMA, and CAPA in grades five, eight, and ten. The “Proficient or Advanced” is calculated by taking the total number of studentswho scored at Proficient or Advanced on the science assessment divided by the total number of students w ith valid scores.

Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small for stat ist icalaccuracy or to protect student privacy.

CAASPP Test Results in Science for All StudentsCAASPP Test Results in Science for All Students

Subject

Percentage of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced


2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Science (grades 5, 8, and 10) 0.0% 0.0% 38.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 56.0% 54.0%

Student GroupTotal

EnrollmentNumber of Students with Valid

ScoresPercent of Students with Valid

ScoresPercent Proficient or

Advanced

All Students 26 26 100.0% 38.5%

Male 14 14 100.0% 42.9%

Female 12 12 100.0% 33.3%


American Indian or Alaska Nat ive 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

Asian -- -- -- --



Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

White 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

Two or More Races 0 0 0.0% 0.0%




Students Receiving Migrant Educat ionServices

0 0 0.0% 0.0%


Courses for University of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) AdmissionCourses for University of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) Admission

UC/CSU Course Measure Percent

2015-16 Pupils Enrolled in Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission --

2014-15 Graduates Who Completed All Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission 0.0%


Page 18 of 25



State Priority: Other Pupil Outcomes

The SARC provides the follow ing information relevant to the State priority: Other Pupil Outcomes (Priority 8):

Pupil outcomes in the subject area of physical educat ion

Note: Percentages are not calculated when the number of students tested is ten or less, either because the number of students in this category is too small forstat ist ical accuracy or to protect student privacy.

California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2015-16)California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2015-16)

Grade Level

Percentage of Students Meeting Fitness Standards

Four of Six Standards Five of Six Standards Six of Six Standards

5 23.1% 3.8% 0.0%


Page 19 of 25


C. Engagement

State Priority: Parental Involvement

The SARC provides the follow ing information relevant to the State priority: Parental Involvement (Priority 3):

Efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each schoolsite

State Priority: Pupil Engagement

The SARC provides the follow ing information relevant to the State priority: Pupil Engagement (Priority 5):

High school dropout rates; andHigh school graduat ion rates

Opportunities for Parental Involvement (School Year 2016-17)Opportunities for Parental Involvement (School Year 2016-17)

This is Aspire’s Guarantee to Parents:At any Aspire campus, parents can expect:• A demonstrated improvement in their child’s academic performance;• An open invitat ion to attend their child’s classes;• Easy, open communicat ion w ith their child’s teacher• The opportunity to rate the performance of teachers and the school annually; and• Eligibility to serve on the school’s governing body, the Advisory School Council.

The School recognizes that children learn best when parents are engaged in their educat ion. To help parents and guardians become great coaches for theirchildren, and to invite parent part icipat ion in all aspects of school life, the School features:• Special Saturday classes: Scheduled at the beginning of the year, these three mandatory half-day sessions allow parents to attend school w ith their children.• Part icipat ion in school decision-making: Aspire includes parent representat ives on the Advisory School Council and parent part icipat ion on the school’s TeacherHiring Committee.• Opportunit ies to evaluate the School and its staff: Each spring, parents are asked to complete a survey evaluat ing the School, the principal, and their child’steachers. The survey results are reviewed by the School staff as w ell as Aspire’s Home Office and are a factor in personnel decisions such as merit raises.• Regular communicat ion about student learning and behavior: parents, students and teachers meet at least tw ice a year during Family Conferences to plan andassess the students’ learning progress and determine goals.

In addit ion, the School staff w ill call parents regularly, both to provide posit ive reinforcement for academic growth and to inform parents when students makechoices that do not match the School’s behavior and academic expectat ions. In addit ion, the School tries to create ways for families to invest some t ime involunteer service each year. The School provides a variety of opportunit ies to match w ith different skills and interests. Examples include helping in classrooms,leading extra-curricular act ivit ies, coaching sports teams, assist ing w ith event planning, attending field trips, attending ASC meetings, serving on parentcommittees, fundraising, and communicat ing w ith other parents. Advisory School Council Aspire encourages all groups to part icipate in and share responsibility forthe educat ional process and educat ional results. The School has a recent ly-formed Advisory School Council (“ASC”), which meets occasionally as needed, andconsists of teachers, parents, and the School Principal. The School’s ASC is intended to assist in developing School policies, engaging the community, and fulfillingcertain compliance requirements related to state and federal funding. The ASC may make recommendations about issues related to the School and part icipate inreview ing parental and community concerns. If necessary, the principal is responsible for communicat ing all ASC policy recommendations to the Aspire Board ofDirectors.

Dropout Rate and Graduation Rate (Four-Year Cohort Rate)Dropout Rate and Graduation Rate (Four-Year Cohort Rate)

Indicator


2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Dropout Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 11.5% 10.7%

Graduat ion Rate 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.44 80.95 82.27

Dropout/Graduation Rate (Four-Year Cohort Rate) Chart

1.0


Page 20 of 25

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0Dropout Rate

Graduation Rate


Page 21 of 25




State Priority: School Climate

The SARC provides the follow ing information relevant to the State priority: School Climate (Priority 6):

Pupil suspension rates;Pupil expulsion rates; andOther local measures on the sense of safety

School Safety Plan (School Year 2016-17)

Suspensions and ExpulsionsSuspensions and Expulsions


Rate 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Suspensions 0.0 0.0 1.2 6.6 6.2 6.3 4.4 3.8 3.7

Expulsions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Suspensions

2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

1

2

3

4

5

6

7School Suspensions

District Suspensions

State Suspensions

Expulsions

2013-14 2014-15 2015-160.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12School Expulsions

District Expulsions

State Expulsions

It is the policy of Aspire Public Schools (“Aspire”) to strive for the highest safety standards and to provide a safe workplace for all employees and a safe school forall students. Aspire has developed a comprehensive Injury and Illness Prevent ion Program (“IIP Program”) to achieve this end. The goal of this program is tominimize the frequency and severity of employee and student accidents and to comply w ith the law s and regulat ions that pertain to our operat ions. Theprogram has been designed to eliminate physical hazards from the work and school environment and train all employees in safe work pract ices.ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILIT YAspire Principals have the ult imate responsibility for the implementat ion and enforcement of the IIP Program at their school site. Aspire Office Managers areresponsible for the record keeping and coordinat ion of the safety training programs at their school site.Employees - It is the responsibility of all Aspire employees to bring any unsafe act ions, pract ices, or condit ions to the attent ion of his/her manager or supervisor.DISASTER PLANSDisaster plans are located in each classroom. Each plan is site and classroom specific and covers such disasters as fire safety, earthquake safety, flood, severeweather warnings, electrical failure, gas line problems, water main breaks, water contaminat ion, chemical spills, lockdown/shoot ing incidents, bomb threats,explosions, and intruders.The school safety plan was reviewed, updated and discussed w ith faculty in August 2016.


Page 22 of 25



D. Other SARC InformationThe information in this sect ion is required to be in the SARC but is not included in the state priorit ies for LCFF.

Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Elementary)

* Number of classes indicates how many classes fall into each size category (a range of total students per class).

Academic Counselors and Other Support Staff (School Year 2015-16)

Note: Cells w ith N/A values do not require data.

*One Full T ime Equivalent (FTE) equals one staff member working full t ime; one FTE could also represent two staff members who each work 50 percent of full t ime.

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Grade Level Average Class Size

Number of Classes *

Average Class Size

Number of Classes *

Average Class Size

Number of Classes *

1-20 21-32 33+ 1-20 21-32 33+ 1-20 21-32 33+

K 25.0 0 2 0

1 25.0 0 2 0

2 25.0 0 2 0

3 26.0 0 2 0

4 28 2 0

5 28 1 0

6 0 0 0

Other 0.0 0 0 0

Title Number of FTE* Assigned to School Average Number of Students per Academic Counselor

Academic Counselor 0.0 0.0

Counselor (Social/Behavioral or Career Development) 1.0 N/A

Library Media Teacher (librarian) 0.0 N/A

Library Media Services Staff (paraprofessional) 0.0 N/A

Psychologist 1.0 N/A

Social Worker 0.0 N/A

Nurse 0.0 N/A

Speech/Language/Hearing Specialist 1.0 N/A

Resource Specialist (non-teaching) 1.0 N/A

Other 0.0 N/A


Page 23 of 25



For detailed information on salaries, see the CDE Cert ificated Salaries & Benefits Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/ .

Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2015-16)Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2015-16)

RTA has office hours, reading intervent ion class, homework tutoring after school for students to work on basic skills.

Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2014-15)Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2014-15)

Category District Amount State Average For Districts In Same Category

Beginning Teacher Salary $38,699 $45,092

Mid-Range Teacher Salary $59,640 $71,627

Highest Teacher Salary $79,951 $93,288

Average Principal Salary (Elementary) $91,385 $115,631

Average Principal Salary (Middle) $96,869 $120,915

Average Principal Salary (High) $108,183 $132,029

Superintendent Salary $231,795 $249,537

Percent of Budget for Teacher Salaries 31.0% 37.0%

Percent of Budget for Administrat ive Salaries 5.0% 5.0%

Teacher Salary Chart

Beginning Teacher Salary Mid-Range Teacher Salary Highest Teacher Salary0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

Principal Salary Chart

Average Principal Salary

(Elementary)


(Middle)


(High)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000


Page 24 of 25

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/


Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development

Aspire is committed to the professional development of all of its team members. Once teachers are hired, Aspire invests in their cont inued professionaldevelopment. Teachers new to Aspire part icipate in 1-2 weeks of summer training to build classroom management skills, increase their capacity to plan meaningfuland engaging lessons, and pract ice specific Instruct ional Guidelines that are core to the Aspire educat ion program, and then receive on-going coaching supportfrom a variety of individuals to reinforce and deepen their training. The School Principal, in his capacity as instruct ional leader, provides on-site coaching to allteachers. Teachers are organized into teams, led by an experienced “lead teacher” who has the skills to mentor others. Teachers are given t ime during theregular school day to collaborate and support each other to reach the Schools’ and individual students’ learning goals, including common preparat ion t ime throughuse of integral subjects and early release days on Fridays. Aspire also has instruct ional coaches who travel between school sites to provide addit ional support, giveone on-one consultat ion, and conduct school-based professional development sessions. In addit ion, Aspire conducts one or two regional training sessions in areasident ified as system-w ide weaknesses.At RTA, teachers part icipate in cont inuous Professional Development Cycles throughout the year, w ith teachers collaborat ing on various foci, including, forexample: Instruct ional Rounds, college rounds, community culture, exhibit ions of student work, team planning and teacher planning, equity, teacher inquiry inProfessional Learning Communit ies etc. All leaders including the principal, dean of students, and instruct ional coach also receive professional development toimprove their skills in leading others.


Page 25 of 25

Aspire Richmond Technology AcademySchool Accountability Report CardReported Using Data from the 2015-16 School YearDataQuestInternet AccessArlena Ford, AdministratorAbout Our SchoolContact

About This SchoolContact Information (School Year 2016-17)School Description and Mission Statement (School Year 2016-17)Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2015-16)Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2015-16)

A. Conditions of LearningState Priority: BasicTeacher CredentialsTeacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher PositionsCore Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (School Year 2015-16)Quality, Currency, Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (School Year 2016-17)School Facility Conditions and Planned ImprovementsSchool Facility Good Repair StatusOverall Facility Rate

B. Pupil OutcomesState Priority: Pupil AchievementCAASPP Test Results in English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics for All StudentsCAASPP Test Results in ELA by Student Group Grades Three through Eight and Grade Eleven (School Year 2015-16) ELA - Grade 3ELA - Grade 4ELA - Grade 5CAASPP Test Results in Mathematics by Student Group Grades Three through Eight and Grade Eleven (School Year 2015-16) Mathematics - Grade 3Mathematics - Grade 4Mathematics - Grade 5Mathematics - Grade 6Mathematics - Grade 7Mathematics - Grade 8Mathematics - Grade 11CAASPP Test Results in Science for All StudentsCAASPP Tests Results in Science by Student Group Grades Five, Eight and Grade Ten (School Year 2015-16)Courses for University of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) AdmissionState Priority: Other Pupil Outcomes

California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2015-16)

C. EngagementState Priority: Parental InvolvementOpportunities for Parental Involvement (School Year 2016-17)State Priority: Pupil Engagement

Dropout Rate and Graduation Rate (Four-Year Cohort Rate)State Priority: School Climate

Suspensions and ExpulsionsSchool Safety Plan (School Year 2016-17)

D. Other SARC InformationAverage Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Elementary)Academic Counselors and Other Support Staff (School Year 2015-16)Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2015-16)Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2014-15)Professional Development

Documents

SARC Report for Aspire Richmond Technology Academy · 2019. 1. 11. · Two or More Races 1.2 % Other 0.7 % Student Group (Other) Percent of Total Enrollment Socioeconomically Disadvantaged