SARC Report for Robert C. Fisler Elementary · 2017. 4. 12. · Last updated: 1/27/2017 Last updated: 1/30/2017 Note: High-poverty schools are defined as those schools with student

Robert C. Fisler Elementary

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.

Julienne Lee, PrincipalPrincipal, Robert C. Fisler Elementary

Robert C. Fisler School is located in the Western sect ion of the City of Fullerton in the County of Orange. Robert C. FislerSchool serves students in kindergarten through eighth grade. The school populat ion of 916 students is composed ofdiverse backgrounds. Eighty-four percent of our students are Asian, six percent are Caucasian, five percent are Hispanic,four percent are of two or more races, and one percent are African American. Robert C. Fisler School offers a w ide rangeof unique educat ional opportunit ies. W ith the highest number of GATE ident ified students in the Fullerton School District ,instruct ion focuses on furthering depth and complexity of content to enhance students' learning opportunit ies. FislerSchool offers a 1:1 laptop program for grades third through eighth and a 1:1 iPad program for grades first and second.Students use technology to access curriculum, reinforce skills, and extend learning.

Robert C. Fisler Elementary1350 Starbuck St.Fullerton, CA 92833-5668

Phone: 714-447-2890E-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: 1/27/2017


About This School

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

District Contact Information (School Year 2016-17)

District Name Fullerton Elementary

Phone Number (714) 447-7400

Superintendent Bob Pletka

E-mail Address [email protected]

Web Site www.fullertonsd.org/

School Contact Information (School Year 2016-17)

School Name Robert C. Fisler Elementary

Street 1350 Starbuck St.

City, State, Zip Fullerton, Ca, 92833-5668

Phone Number 714-447-2890

Principal Julienne Lee, Principal

E-mail Address [email protected]

Web Site www.fullertonsd.org/fisler/

County-District-School (CDS) Code

30665060102582

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

As an Apple Dist inguished School for ten straight years, Robert C. Fisler School's vision for technology integrat ion as drawn internat ional attent ion through its 1:1laptop program. W ith a focus on 21st Century Learning, project-based learning is integrated throughout the curriculum. Students in grades three through eightuse individual laptops to master rigorous content and performance standards. Students in first and second grade have access to individual tablets. All classroomsare equipped w ith interact ive Promethean boards, Act ivSlates and Act ivVotes or Act ivExpressions and/or Smart TVs. Students use Apple Creat ivity andProduct ivity applicat ions to design, create, invent, and engineer ideas and products using technology through Project Based Learning and Design Thinking. Otherweb-based programs offered at Robert C. Fisler School include Rosetta Stone, Accelerated Reader, MobyMax, IXL, Front Row and BrainPop. Aided by AppleMacbooks, mobile devices, and other digital resources, technology becomes a crit ical and integrated part of learning and is used to solve problems; students usetechnology to become programmers, engineers, inventors and designers. Students create, communicate, collaborate and crit ically think in a technology-richenvironment.

There is a school-w ide focus on progressive coding skills across the grade levels. Kindergarteners learn about coding through Kibo and Beebots; first gradersprogram Ozobots, second graders program Dash robots; third graders build and program Lego Mindstorm EV3 robots; fourth graders learn advanced codingthrough Scratch and program circuitry, using Makey Makey and Litt le Bits, to create and build invent ions; fifth grade students learn language-based codingthrough Python and use Raspberry Pi to program Art ificial Intelligence (AI); and 6th graders learn about cyber security, how to protect assets and “break in” tosystems, and use language based coding to build and hack simple networks. Middle school students learn animation, html coding, photography, robot ics, and webdesign through technology class and/or elect ives. In addit ion to elect ives, middle school students explore their passions during Compass T ime. Rocketry,cinematography, digital arts, graphic design, and Vex Robotics are some of the choices students have during Compass. Addit ionally, 6th-8th grade students aregiven an opportunity to take AP Computer Science A Exam. Middle school students join clubs and teams such as Junior Honors Society, Science Olympiad,Mathena (math club), Math Field Day, and after school sports programs.

Rich hands-on science act ivit ies are infused through the use of scient ific probes, ProScopes, and science kits in every classroom. Addit ional highlights include a fullyequipped science lab and a state of the art mult i-purpose room w ith three stage product ion areas. Our goal, w ith the help of our parents, is to infuse our schooland students' homes w ith an unparalleled level of technology and science to enhance their children's educat ion. Fisler School cont inues to offer all children aworld-class educat ion in our high-tech facility. Students learn relevant, real world skills and how these skills impact the world today.

2015-16 SARC - Robert C. Fisler Elementary

Page 2 of 28


www.fullertonsd.org/


www.fullertonsd.org/fisler/



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

Grade Level Number of Students

Kindergarten 81

Grade 1 89

Grade 2 111

Grade 3 112

Grade 4 108

Grade 5 113

Grade 6 108

Grade 7 94

Grade 8 98

Total Enrollment 914

KindergartenGrade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 80

20

40

60

80

100

120

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 1.0 %

American Indian or Alaska Nat ive 0.0 %

Asian 76.7 %

Filipino 6.9 %

Hispanic or Lat ino 4.2 %

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0 %

White 6.6 %

Two or More Races 3.6 %

Other 1.0 %

Student Group (Other) Percent of Total Enrollment

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 5.6 %

English Learners 22.9 %

Students w ith Disabilit ies 2.6 %

Foster Youth 0.0 %


Page 3 of 28



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 32 33 33 545

Without Full Credent ial 0 0 0 1

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

0 0 0 0

2014-15 2015-16 2016-170

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Teachers 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

0 0 0

Total Teacher Misassignments* 0 0 0

Vacant Teacher Posit ions 0 0 0

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners

Total Teacher Misassignments

Vacant Teacher Positions


Page 4 of 28



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: September 2016

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 100.0% 0.0%

High-Poverty Schoolsin District

100.0% 0.0%

Low-Poverty Schoolsin District

100.0% 0.0%

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.

Subject Textbooks and Instructional Materials/year of AdoptionFrom Most Recent

Adoption?Percent Students Lacking Own

Assigned Copy

Reading/LanguageArts 2010-11 Houghton Mifflin MedallionsK-5

2001-02 Holt 6-82009-10 Steck-Vaughn California Gateways Intensive Intervent ion 4-8

Yes 0.0 %

Mathematics2014-15 Houghton Mifflin Go Math K-8

2014-15 McGraw Hill Geometry 8

Yes 0.0 %

Science2007-08 MacMillan/McGraw-Hill K-5

2007-08 Holt McDougal 6-8

Yes 0.0 %

History-Social Science2006-07 Houghton Mifflin K-52006-07 McDougal Lit tell 6-8

Yes 0.0 %

Foreign Language2001-02 En Español 7-8

Yes 0.0 %

HealthOn-line Health Curriculum

Dairy Council of California (grade appropriate materials)Too Good for Drugs (grades 4-6)

2004-05 Holt McDougal Decisions for Health 7

Yes 0.0 %

Visual and PerformingArts “All the Arts for all the Kids” lessons/curriculum in visual art, music, dance, and

theater Instrumental music (grades 5-6)Band and string instruments and musical scores (grades 7-8)

Yes 0.0 %

Science Lab Eqpmt(Grades 9-12)

N/A N/A 0.0 %


Page 5 of 28



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

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

School Facility Conditions and Planned ImprovementsSchool Facility Conditions and Planned Improvements

The District takes great efforts to ensure that all schools are clean, safe, and funct ional. Listed below is more specific information on the condit ion of the schooland the efforts made to ensure that students are provided w ith a clean, safe, and funct ional learning environment. Fisler School has 31 classrooms, a mult ipurposeroom, a media center and a science building. The campus was constructed in 2004. In 2007, one portable classroom and a childcare portable District maintenancestaff ensures that the repairs necessary to keep the school in good repair and working order are completed in a t imely manner. A work order process is used toensure efficient service and that emergency repairs are given the highest priority. The District has established cleaning standards for all schools in the district . Asummary of these standards is available at the district maintenance office. The Maintenance and Operat ions staff works w ith the custodial staff to developcleaning schedules to ensure a clean and safe school. The District part icipates in the State School Deferred Maintenance Program, which provides state matchingfunds on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to assist school districts w ith expenditures for major repair or replacement of exist ing school building components. Typically, thisincludes roofing, plumbing, heat ing, air condit ioning, electrical systems, interior and exterior paint ing, and floor systems. During 2015-16 the District spent$562,445 on Deferred Maintenance. For the 2016-17 school year the District budgeted $400,000 for Deferred Maintenance expenditures.

System Inspected Rating

Repair Needed andAction Taken or

Planned

Systems: Gas Leaks, Mechanical/HVAC,Sewer

Good

Interior: Interior Surfaces Good

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 28


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) 88.0% 86.0% 52.0% 56.0% 44.0% 48.0%

Mathematics (grades 3-8 and 11) 82.0% 83.0% 46.0% 50.0% 34.0% 36.0%


Page 7 of 28


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 113 111 98.2% 78.4%

Male 56 54 96.4% 74.1%

Female 57 57 100.0% 82.5%

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

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

Asian 90 88 97.8% 79.6%

Filipino -- -- -- --

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

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

White -- -- -- --

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

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged -- -- -- --

English Learners 32 30 93.8% 50.0%

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

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

Foster Youth -- -- -- --


Page 8 of 28







All Students 110 109 99.1% 85.3%

Male 42 41 97.6% 80.5%

Female 68 68 100.0% 88.2%



Asian 84 83 98.8% 86.8%




White -- -- -- --








Page 9 of 28







All Students 117 113 96.6% 77.9%

Male 59 58 98.3% 77.6%

Female 58 55 94.8% 78.2%



Asian 90 86 95.6% 81.4%




White 12 12 100.0% 50.0%








Page 10 of 28





ELA- ELA- Grade 6Grade 6


All Students 107 105 98.1% 94.3%

Male 67 67 100.0% 92.5%

Female 40 38 95.0% 97.4%



Asian 86 84 97.7% 95.2%




White -- -- -- --



English Learners -- -- -- --





Page 11 of 28







All Students 95 94 99.0% 89.4%

Male 51 51 100.0% 90.2%

Female 44 43 97.7% 88.4%



Asian 65 65 100.0% 87.7%




White -- -- -- --








Page 12 of 28







All Students 103 102 99.0% 90.2%

Male 58 57 98.3% 87.7%

Female 45 45 100.0% 93.3%



Asian 71 70 98.6% 91.4%

Filipino 14 14 100.0% 92.9%



White -- -- -- --








Page 13 of 28


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 112 111 99.1% 82.0%

Male 56 55 98.2% 83.6%

Female 56 56 100.0% 80.4%



Asian 89 88 98.9% 84.1%




White -- -- -- --








Page 14 of 28







All Students 110 110 100.0% 87.3%

Male 42 42 100.0% 78.6%

Female 68 68 100.0% 92.7%



Asian 84 84 100.0% 92.9%




White -- -- -- --








Page 15 of 28







All Students 118 116 98.3% 75.0%

Male 60 60 100.0% 80.0%

Female 58 56 96.6% 69.6%



Asian 90 88 97.8% 81.8%




White 12 12 100.0% 50.0%








Page 16 of 28







All Students 107 106 99.1% 88.7%

Male 67 67 100.0% 88.1%

Female 40 39 97.5% 89.7%



Asian 86 85 98.8% 90.6%




White -- -- -- --








Page 17 of 28







All Students 95 94 99.0% 81.9%

Male 51 51 100.0% 88.2%

Female 44 43 97.7% 74.4%



Asian 65 65 100.0% 86.2%




White -- -- -- --








Page 18 of 28







All Students 103 103 100.0% 81.6%

Male 58 58 100.0% 79.3%

Female 45 45 100.0% 84.4%



Asian 71 71 100.0% 88.7%

Filipino 14 14 100.0% 64.3%



White -- -- -- --








Page 19 of 28



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) 97.0% 96.0% 83.0% 76.0% 71.0% 68.0% 60.0% 56.0% 54.0%

Student GroupTotal

EnrollmentNumber of Students with Valid

ScoresPercent of Students with Valid

ScoresPercent Proficient or

Advanced

All Students 221 219 99.1% 83.1%

Male 118 118 100.0% 84.8%

Female 103 101 98.1% 81.2%


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

Asian 161 159 98.8% 87.4%

Filipino 24 24 100.0% 70.8%


Nat ive Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

White 19 19 100.0% 73.7%


Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 16 16 100.0% 56.3%



Students Receiving Migrant Educat ionServices

0 0 0.0% 0.0%



Page 20 of 28


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 22.4% 37.1% 29.3%

7 7.4% 20.2% 64.9%


Page 21 of 28

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

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

A number of advisory councils and community resources support the school program; including an involved PTSA, a devoted School Site Council, a committedFoundat ion (F2AST), a dedicated School Safety Committee, and a support ive English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) that contributes many hours oncampus to support student learning.

1. ELAC (English Language Advisory Committee)

Advocat ing for English Learners

Support ing w ith parent workshops and trainings

Providing language support (translat ions)

Assist in making school-w ide decisions.

Providing administrat ion w ith parent input via the ELAC meetings/Youth Truth Survey

Attending DELAC meetings in support of district init iat ives.

Input on School safety

2. PTSA

Helps build strong relat ionships w ith families, staff, and administrat ion based on student interest

Recruit ing and coordinat ing volunteers/support

Organizing parent training opportunit ies

Planning teacher appreciat ion act ivit ies

Support ing student learning through fundraising events

3. Safety Committee

Comprised of administrat ion, support staff, and parent representat ives

Meets regularly to debrief on drills

Discuss safety concerns

Develop act ion plans to improve safety protocol on campus

4. School Site Council

Developing, monitoring, implementing, and evaluat ing the School’s Single Plan for Student Achievement

Provides inputs and approval of the school’s safety plan.


Page 22 of 28

Last updated: 1/27/2017State 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

Provides inputs/suggest ions for improvement

Share LCAP information

The Fisler community part icipates in City of Fullerton and Fullerton District Events events such as Face of Fullerton, Fullerton Fit Families, All the Arts Pin Auct ion,Toast to Learning, Rotary Club Jog-a-thon, and Needlework Guild of America events.

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

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0Dropout Rate

Graduation Rate


Page 23 of 28




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 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 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 2015-160.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0School 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

A comprehensive school safety plan was developed and approved prior to March 1, 2000 in compliance w ith Educat ion Code Sect ions 33126, 35256, and 32286as well as applicable District policies and regulat ions. Each year, prior to March 1, the school's safety plan is reviewed, updated and discussed w ith staff and SchoolSite Council. Annually, the school's staff reports on the status of its safety plan w ith the school leadership team, PTA and School Site Council. Status reports andupdates are reviewed at the beginning of each school year and again in December before the finished School Safety Plan is approved by the members of theSchool Site Council on March 1. The key elements of the plan include: a) providing a safe teaching and learning environment for all students and staff members,b) ensuring that all students are safe and secure while at school sponsored act ivit ies, c) making district programs and community resources available to studentsand parents, and d) creat ing a school where students, programs, and community members interact in an atmosphere of mutual respect that enhances theenvironment for learning. Each year the school submits along w ith the safety plan a detailed "act ion plan" which addresses the ident ified areas the staff andSchool Site Council has brought forward as crit ical areas of concern or how they should improve. A copy of the plan is available at all t imes in the school office andwill provide a more detailed descript ion of each element of the plan including specific act ions, resources and t ime lines to be implemented by the school. Copiesare also available at the District Office in the office of Child Welfare and Attendance.

Updated and reviewed w ith staff: 12/07/2016


Page 24 of 28



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.

Note: Cells w ith NA values do not require data.

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).

Federal Intervention Program (School Year 2016-17)Federal Intervention Program (School Year 2016-17)

Indicator School District

Program Improvement Status In PI

First Year of Program Improvement 2010-2011

Year in Program Improvement Year 3

Number of Schools Current ly in Program Improvement N/A 8

Percent of Schools Current ly in Program Improvement N/A 88.9%

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 21.0 1 3 0 23.0 1 3 0 27.3 0 3 0

1 33.0 0 0 3 31.0 0 3 0 29.6 0 3 0

2 31.0 0 3 0 26.0 0 4 0 31.8 0 3 0

3 30.0 0 4 0 30.0 0 3 0 30.6 0 4 0

4 35.0 0 0 3 30.0 0 4 0 31.8 0 1 2

5 34.0 0 0 3 34.0 0 0 3 34.9 0 0 3

6 34.0 0 1 3 28.0 1 0 3 30.7 0 2 2

Other 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0


Page 25 of 28




* Number of classes indicates how many classrooms fall into each size category (a range of total students per classroom). At the secondary school level, this information isreported by subject area rather than grade level.

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


*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.


Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Secondary)Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Secondary)

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Subject Average Class Size

Number of Classes *

Average Class Size

Number of Classes *

Average Class Size

Number of Classes *

1-22 23-32 33+ 1-22 23-32 33+ 1-22 23-32 33+

English 31.0 1 10 6 32.0 1 4 8 33.0 0 4 8

Mathematics 27.0 2 7 1 33.0 0 0 1 28.4 2 2 3

Science 30.0 1 6 3 32.0 0 3 4 33.4 0 2 5

Social Science 31.0 0 5 3 33.0 0 3 3 33.2 0 3 3

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) 0.0 N/A

Library Media Teacher (librarian) 0.0 N/A

Library Media Services Staff (paraprofessional) 0.5 N/A

Psychologist 0.2 N/A

Social Worker 0.0 N/A

Nurse 0.2 N/A

Speech/Language/Hearing Specialist 0.4 N/A

Resource Specialist (non-teaching) 1.0 N/A

Other 1.4 N/A

Expenditures Per Pupil and School Site Teacher Salaries (Fiscal Year 2014-15)Expenditures Per Pupil and School Site Teacher Salaries (Fiscal Year 2014-15)

LevelTotal Expenditures Per

PupilExpenditures Per Pupil

(Supplemental/Restricted)

Expenditures PerPupil

(Basic/Unrestricted)Average Teacher

Salary

School Site $4802.0 $133.0 $4669.0 $83682.0

District N/A N/A $4800.0 $81850.0

Percent Difference – School Site andDistrict

-- -- -2.7% 2.2%

State N/A N/A $5677.0 $75137.0

Percent Difference – School Site and State -- -- -17.8% 11.4%


Page 26 of 28



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)

• Teacher Induct ion• Gifted and Talented Educat ion• Instruct ional Materials and support training• Instruct ional Technology• Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)• School Safety and Violence Prevent ion• Special Educat ion• T it le I, Economically Disadvantaged• T it le II, Teacher and Principal Quality• T it le III, Educat ion for English Learners

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 $50,285 $44,573

Mid-Range Teacher Salary $81,693 $72,868

Highest Teacher Salary $103,414 $92,972

Average Principal Salary (Elementary) $122,305 $116,229

Average Principal Salary (Middle) $126,535 $119,596

Average Principal Salary (High) $ $121,883

Superintendent Salary $250,000 $201,784

Percent of Budget for Teacher Salaries 43.0% 39.0%

Percent of Budget for Administrat ive Salaries 6.0% 5.0%

Teacher Salary Chart

Beginning Teacher Salary Mid-Range Teacher Salary Highest Teacher Salary0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Principal Salary Chart

Average Principal Salary

(Elementary)


(Middle)


(High)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000


Page 27 of 28

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


Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development

2013/2014Primary Focus• K-8 Intervent ion Programs• K-8 English Language Development• K-8 Writ ing Strategies• K-8 Language Arts Strategies• K-8 Mathematics StrategiesDelivery of Professional Development• Staff Development Day• Workshops• Conferences• After- school Workshops• In-class Coaching Other Related Professional Development Act ivit ies• Data-Driven instruct ion• Different iated Instruct ion• Technology Integrat ion• Marzano Instruct ional Strategies• Systematic ELD• Response to Intervent ion

2014/2015• K-8 Intervent ion Programs• K-8 English Language Development• K-8 Writ ing Strategies• K-8 Language Arts Strategies• K-8 Mathematics StrategiesDelivery of Professional Development• Staff Development Day• Workshops• Conferences• After- school Workshops• In-class CoachingOther Related Professional Development Act ivit ies• Data-Driven instruct ion• Different iated Instruct ion• Technology Integrat ion• Marzano Instruct ional Strategies• Systematic ELD• Response to Intervent ion

2015/2016• K-8 Intervent ion Programs• K-8 English Language Development• K-8 Writ ing Strategies• K-8 Language Arts Strategies• K-8 Mathematics StrategiesDelivery of Professional Development• Staff Development Day• Workshops• Conferences• After- school Workshops• In-class CoachingOther Related Professional Development Act ivit ies• Data-Driven instruct ion• Different iated Instruct ion• Technology Integrat ion• Marzano Instruct ional Strategies• Systematic ELD• Response to Intervent ion• Thinking Maps• Writer’s Workshop• Cognit ively Guided Instruct ion


Page 28 of 28

Documents

SARC Report for Robert C. Fisler Elementary · 2017. 4. 12. · Last updated: 1/27/2017 Last updated: 1/30/2017 Note: High-poverty schools are defined as those schools with student